Jump to content

Talk:Chittagong Hill Tracts conflict

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

Hi. I really think this article needs to contain statistics on the total number of casualties sustained by all sides in the conflict from 1977 to 1997. I'm aware that the casualty estimates probably vary widely, but in that case both the lowest AND highest estimates should be cited (with appropriate referencing of course). Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.13.245 (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]

The whole section with the headline "Aftermath" is highly subjective. A lot of should's... I suggest someone rewrites this part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.CE (talk • contribs) 11:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

[edit]

THe info box says rebels had 20,000 troops yet such low,only a couple hundred causality?How?Ovsek (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit protect

[edit]

Please restore the correct merger notice which has been edit warred[1] out, the merger proposal was for this article to Bangladesh Civil War. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I've edited the merge notice to make it more neutral as to which article should be merged to which. I can't help thinking, though, that the best solution might be to have a requested move discussion on this page. What would you say to that? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 19:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The merger notice is going in the correct direction that is a start, now all we need is policy be flowed and the other fucking article unredirected so the merger discussion can go according to policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About this "according to policy" thing - which particular policy were you thinking of? I don't remember that part off the top of my head. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 19:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RM/CM You do not redirect a page until a move discussion is done. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the redirection of Bangladesh Civil War, I just did it per this. The article is nothing but a mere duplicate of this one. If you think the title must be changed you should have started an RM here instead of creating a duplicate article.--Zayeem (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are full of shite and I am fucking done, have fun, enjoy the pushers, socks and assorted numbnuts who will not doubt follow in my stead. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good,STFU and leave if you can't contribute to discussion in healthy way. 59.177.15.248 (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, people, this move or merge brouhaha is all very unnecessary. It is all very simple. The issues to be settled boil down to four logically separate questions:

  1. Are the two articles about the same topic? If yes, they should obviously be merged. I assume the answer is a rather obvious yes, as agreed by all parties here.
  2. Which page will be technically the basis of the merger? In other words, which of the two existing pages will have its edit history preserved in the resulting page? Here, the answer is quite simple: the older one, always. Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict has been around since 2008, and has been a fairly substantial and well-developed page for a while. Bangladesh Civil War was created only yesterday, and is so far shorter than the other page. So, obviously, Bangladesh Civil War will be merged into Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict and not the other way round.
  3. Which article title will be the final location of the resulting page? The answer to this question is entirely open, and independent of the answer to question #2. First you merge Bangladesh Civil War into Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict; then, if necessary, you make a move request for Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict to be moved to whatever title you want.
  4. Which article does currently have the better content and should form the bulk of the new article as a basis for further editing? I have no opinion on that, but this is again entirely independent of the answers to questions #2 or #3.

For the moment, the procedurally correct course of action is this: Since the current Bangladesh Civil War article is technically a fork (I assume an accidental fork, and not a POV fork) of Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict, I will move it into a userspace subpage of User:Darkness Shines, who has so far been its sole author, and install a redirect to Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict in its stead. Anybody is then free to use the material of the new draft for merging here (this theoretically includes the possibility of replacing the contents of this page in its entirety, with proper attribution in an edit summary). After that, editors will be invited to discuss the future title of the page, if any such discussion is desired.

Unless there are objections from User:Mark Arsten, who made the most recent protections of these pages, I intend to implement this some time soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, go ahead. My intent in protecting was just to stop the revert war. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a sensible solution to me as well. Thanks for drawing it up. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict → Bangladesh Civil War‎ – Per WP:UCN Majority of sources call this a civil war, see herefor sources Darkness Shines (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose: A google search on Bangladesh Civil War mostly shows results for Bangladesh Liberation War, which is why the title is quite confusing and inaccurate as pointed out by User:Alex Shih here. Different sources term the event differently i.e conflict/insurgency/civil war, but Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict seems to be the most common.--Zayeem (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is original research, I haven't found a single credible source describing the CHT conflict as a civil war. You can focus on the real issues here- the denial of constitutional recognition for indigenous people and human rights abuses by Bangladeshi security forces. But calling the Shanti Bahini conflict a civil war, when it was actually a low-level insurgency in a frontier region, is just making shit up.--Bazaan (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to strike your comments that there are no "credible source describing the CHT conflict as a civil war" given the sources I have provided. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Bangladesh Civil War" claim is sensational original research and a misrepresentation of sources. My comments are regarding the proposed title.--Bazaan (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator needs to explain whether he intends "Bangladesh Civil War" to serve merely as a descriptive title, or whether he thinks it is an established, conventionalized proper name of this historical event. If the former, I don't see reasons to doubt that it is a feasible and legitimate description; however, the nominator would need to explain why it is superior to "C.H.T. conflict", which evidently is also a feasible and legitimate description ("C.H.T. conflict" is less specific than the former insofar as it doesn't say what kind of conflict, but it is also more specific insofar as it names the region rather than the whole country. When this event is mentioned in the literature, is the geographical descriptor "C.H.T." typically mentioned?) – If, on the other hand, the use "B.C.W" is claimed to be justified by virtue of being a proper name, we'd need a lot more evidence that this is really the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: editors should also decide whether "Bangladesh civil war" might not actually have to be a disambiguation page between this conflict and the 1971 war of secession, because, as Alex Shih rightly pointed out in the diff cited above, the phrase is evidently also often used in that sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well "CHT conflict" is actually COMMONNAME and is the most commonly used term in scholarly literature and reportage of the topic. Now, "Bangladesh Civil War" is a real trivialization and exaggeration, and will only invite questions of factual accuracy and neutrality. This was a low intensity insurgency confined to three frontier districts in south-east Bangladesh, and did not engage the rest of the country. There are conflicts of far greater magnitude in neighbouring countries with similar descriptive titles, e.g. Balochistan conflict, Assam conflict, Kachin conflict etc.--Bazaan (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, the political conflict for constitutional rights and autonomy still continues, since the peace accord hasn't been fully implemented and human rights abuses by security forces are still rampant. And a massively disproportionate military presence still remains in the region, despite the peace accord.--Bazaan (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you actually prove the current title is the common name? I am the only person here who has actually presented sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A publication of the PCJSS, the main indigenous political front, calls it the CHT Conflict. So do many other sources, such as this one, "the Chittagong Hill Tracts conflict in Bangladesh" and this Ethnic conflict in the CHT. If this article is going to be about the broader and continuing struggle for indigenous rights, the present title is appropriate. If it's going to be limited to the historical insurgency, then it should be renamed to something more stronger and accurate.--Bazaan (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For those saying this name os OR, did you not even look at the link to the sources I provided?
  1. Indigenous Nations and Modern States: The Political Emergence of Nations Challenging State Power "The war between the Jumma people and the government of Bangladesh"
  2. Civil Wars of the World Has an entire chapter on it, and says this "The ongoing civil war continued until the formal peace treaty was signed in 1997"
  3. Displacement by Development: Ethics, Rights and Responsibilities "A less well-known civil war of this kind was that in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh in the 1980s and 1990s"
  4. Bosnian Security after Dayton: New Perspectives "In 1997, the government agreed to settle its two-decade war against rebels of the Chittagong hill tribes" "Full blown civil war has yet to renew"
  5. The Indigenous World 2004 "In December 1997, a 25-year-long civil war ended with the government and the indigenous resistance movement, the Parbattya Chat- tagram Jana Samhati Samiti"
  6. From War to Democracy: Dilemmas of Peacebuilding "recent cases of peace building after civil war"
  7. Minorities, Peoples And Self-determination "Many of the indigenous peoples have lost their documents and records during the civil war"
  8. A Moral Critique of Development: In Search of Global Responsibilities "Apart from the civil war that this set off, it involved a loss of land and livelihood for the hill people"
  9. The Wars Within: Peoples and States in Conflict
  10. Gender and human rights violation in Chittagong Hill Tracts: the post accord situation "the regiment was disbanded following the civil war"
  11. Migration, Land Alienation, and Ethnic Conflict: Causes of Poverty in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh "Civil War and Violation of Human Rights It is evident that armed violence in the CHT did not remain confined to purely military targets"
  12. Does Peacekeeping Work?: Shaping Belligerents' Choices after Civil War "In the Chittagong Hill tracts there has been little concern of war resuming" There are loads in this sources abiut the war.
  13. Power, Interdependence, and Nonstate Actors in World Politics "Bangladesh, for example, was particularly unwilling to countenance peacekeepers in its civil war in the Chittagong Hill"
  14. The Indigenous World 2005"the government's settlement of large numbers of Bengalis from the plains, or the long years of civil war and the ongoing militarization"

All of these call it a civil war, as do plenty of others, to say the name is OR is plain ridiculous. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt any of these sources call it a Bangladesh Civil War, because that's not just accurate as I mentioned above. CHT conflict and CHT insurgency are the most commonly used terms in academia and media.--Bazaan (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they call it a civil war, one is Civil Wars of the World 2007 ABC-CLIO which has a chapter on it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not questioning that it's a civil conflict in nature. But please tell us exactly what that chapter calls this event. I know it's definitely not "Bangladesh civil war", which is crazy considering 90% of the country was completely unaffected by it.--Bazaan (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) First off, can you please format your refs list in a way that makes it readable? <ref>-footnotes don't make much sense on talkpages. Second, you may have intended to answer points raised by others with this list, but you didn't answer mine. Unlike other commenters here, I am not actually challenging the legitimacy of describing this thing as a civil war. But are all these authors using phrases involving "civil war" as the primary identifier of this event, when naming it? Are authors doing so with such a regularity as to overshadow other ways of referring to it? You'll have to provide more detailed quotations here, especially if your sources are offline print sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will type up some quotes later, and tidy up the refs above. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: I strongly oppose renaming it to Bangladesh Civil War or having any article of that name solely base on the conflict of C.H.T. because it is a gross misrepresentation of the fact. No local or foreign media term it as a civil war. According to Encarta dictionary, a civil war is a war between opposing groups within a country. Here are no such opposing groups. Rather, there is an armed insurgency (according to article) which is handled by the government. Even that conflict is on its somewhat receding state. Insurgency like the one in Bangladesh is prevalent in various countries, but that is not called a civil war in any way. Civil war is relatively a very broader phenomenon where the whole or a larger part of any nation becomes divided over issues that affect the whole nation, and then engaged in conflict. A good example is American Civil War.
User: Darkness Shines created that article without realizing its relative seriousness. I see there is no such article as Indian civil war despite widespread conflicts in its various states. You had better collect sources to write an article on that instead of wasting time on this false claim.
I even strongly oppose having any redirect page named Bangladesh Civil War as it will still be a distortion of truth.--AsceticRosé 14:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you one about? Civil Wars of the World 2007 ABC-CLIO have a chapter on it. Have you not even looked at the sources above? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about ELDIS This report looks at the trends and statistics of internal displacement in Bangladesh as a result of civil war and persecution of religious minorities. University of Notre Dame 70,000 indigenous people had fled to the Indian state of Tripura during the civil war in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Darkness Shines (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: For the reasons mentioned in the section above, content from the newer article should be blended into the older article (especially if the newer article has a limited number of contributors). Renaming this article is a separate issue and those who know more about the area's history should weigh in on this part of the proposal. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you opposing here? "You say Renaming this article is a separate issue" yet that is what this is about? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ DS, The answer is simple: any source may have its own word choice. It doesn't necessarily establish a fact. Bangladesh Civil War is not any established fact; it's your own creation. I'm not taking any side, but I should say the truth.--AsceticRosé 15:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments against the move have no basis in policy whatsoever, It is not "my creation" The academic sources I have presented call it a civil war. IDONOTLIKE it is not a reason to oppose a move. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I previously mentioned, I can see where your misunderstanding is coming from, Darkness Shines. Are you aware of the literal difference between A civil war in Bangladesh and Bangladesh Civil War? It looks like you are thinking of them as the same thing. Certain sources may refer this conflict as an example of "a civil war" because it is merely a descriptive term. It appears that there are numerous conflicts in Bangladesh, and it wouldn't be completely incorrect to refer to all of them as examples of "a civil war". But to refer this conflict as The Civil War would be a misrepresentation, because judging from the scope of coverage, it was certainly not "sustained, organized and large-scale" enough to qualify, in comparison to insurgency. I propose that even creating a new article on Internal conflict in Bangladesh and incorporate some information there would be a more sensible solution. Alex ShihTalk 16:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are quite precise in calling this a civil war, to say it was not sustained is a joke, it lasted 24 years. To say it was not organized is also wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the sources you have provided again and try to refrain from refusing to get the point. Other editors and myself have already stated your misunderstanding repeatedly. Let's forget about the term civil war for one second, and answer this one question: Do any of the sources identify this conflict/civil war by the exclusive name of Bangladesh Civil War‎? (Not just a civil war, as I mentioned previously). The answer is No, based on the sources you have provided. This is why the title is invalid. Alex ShihTalk 05:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of most ridiculous arguments I have seen yet used on Wiki. The sources call it a civil war, it is not OR to have an article about a civil war in Bangladesh titled Bangladesh civil war. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, even Bazaan says it was a civil war Darkness Shines (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Civil war in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, not Bangladesh.--Bazaan (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the tracts are were exactly? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bangladesh civil war would be hugely inaccurate, only the CHT was engulfed in civil conflict, which was primarily political because of the movement for constitutional rights. The insurgency was very significant in a political sense, but it was still a very low-intensity military conflict. The CHT is a distinctive historical, geographical and cultural region in South Asia located in Bangladesh, and titles such as Chittagong Hill Tracts insurgency, Civil war in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and Persecution of indigenous peoples in the Chittagong Hill Tracts are more stronger and credible (and I've been suggesting these to you all along).--Bazaan (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bangladesh civil war is not inaccurate as the sources call it a civil war, not all American states were engulfed by the civil war there, is that article mistitled also? You have yet to provide a single source to support you suggestions, a civil war in Bangladesh is what the sources call this, the article has to reflect what the sources say. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict is about a specific region of Bangladesh, not Bangladesh as a whole. The goals of the CHT insurgents were not to take over Bangladesh or secede from Bangladesh, but to achieve autonomy for the CHT region. The military conflict was confined to an insurgency within the CHT. So it's ridiculous of you to engulf the whole country into a civil war. In that case, all these conflicts- Islamic insurgency in the Philippines, South Thailand insurgency, Insurgency in North East India and Insurgency in the North Caucasus- should also be turned into Filipino, Thai, Indian and Russian civil wars.
And contrary to what you say, your own sources describe it as a conflict confined to the CHT. Even indigenous groups say the same thing, like here CHT White Paper, "when a civil war was raging in the Chittagong Hill Tracts". So enough with your shenanigans, the consensus here is clear. Close the discussion and move on.--Bazaan (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if it were confined to one region, and thank you for yet another source which says it was a civil war. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely does matter, a "Bangladesh Civil War" or a "Civil War in Bangladesh" never happened, and everyone knows it. And of course advocacy groups will use strong terms, but they speak of only one region. Besides Darkness, not a single major international human rights group or organization like the UN, AI or HRW have ever said that there was a civil war in Bangladesh.--Bazaan (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your first comments to this thread were no sources call this a civil war, and that the majority of academic sources do not call it such, I proved you wrong and you have yet to provide a single source to back your arguments, empty rhetoric does not cut it. And again you make completely false claims, the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs calls it a civil war. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission[2] Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.[3] Darkness Shines (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre.[4] Darkness Shines (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me I know a lot more than you about what the commission and UN workgroup says on persecution in the CHT. That's different from your sensational misrepresentation of sources to claim a "Bangladesh Civil War". No one says Bangladesh was engulfed in civil war. And in doing so your sensationalism and trivialization is harming the purpose of delivering the truth. You can go on with your hubris but I am done.--Bazaan (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)In god I trust, all others bring sources. It is great that you know stuff, but again you have no sources so, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After consideration, oppose. The original proposal, "Bangladesh Civil War", clearly fails because its capitalization implies proper name status, which is certainly wrong. (The nominator's refusal to accept the logical difference between a descriptive title and a proper name has crossed into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory by now.) As for alternative descriptive title versions: any version that would leave out "Chittagong Hill Tracts" in favour of plain "Bangladesh" would fail on being too unspecific, and as for the choice between "conflict" and "civil war", even under the premise that reliable sources do indeed describe the event as a civil war, the nominator has offered no tangible argument why this descriptor has to go into the page title when the more generic "conflict" makes for an equally appropriate and neutral description. As somebody else pointed out above, using "conflict" in page titles about issues like these is in line with multiple other pages, such as Balochistan conflict or Kurdish conflict in Turkey, many of which undoubtedly also have been rightly described as civil wars. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge discussion

[edit]

It has been suggested that Persecution of indigenous peoples in Bangladesh should be merged into Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict.

"The indigenous peoples of Bangladesh remain among the most persecuted of all minorities, facing discrimination not only on the basis of their religion and ethnicity but also because of their indigenous identity and their socio-economic status."[5] IWGIA. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG has nothing to do with the decision of whether two aspects of a topic can be most efficiently treated in a single page or in separate pages. In this case, the content overlap between the "conflict" article and the "persecution" article is so great that separate pages make little sense. You can't explain the war without explaining the human rights situation, and you can't explain the human rights situation without explaining the war, so both pages will by necessity end up duplicating each other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes it does, and the fact that not all indigenous peoples in Bangladesh live in the CHT, like the Garo who I just added to the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About Garo people, I do not see any persecution being done to them. By reading that section, it seems that no actual abuse is going there, rather someone is very much inclined to color it as abuse. It is important to note that only a detached source has been used in that section. It is a case study; and the title doesn't claim any such thing. It seems Darkness Shines is conducting a large-scale original research which should be checked in order not to misrepresent anything. -AsceticRosé 17:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forced evictions, killings, false criminal charges and rapes. These are all human rights abuses, which are also being perpetrated on the Khasi. Who are now added to the article. There are 45 indigenous tribes in Bangladesh, all of whom face persecution, and only 11 of these tribes live in the CHT. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How does an eco park and social forestry program amount to genocide and ethnic cleansing? And forced evictions, killings, false criminal charges and rapes aren't just faced by indigenous people, it's widespread across Bangladeshi society, including political opponents, dissidents, slum dwellers, Bengali religious minorities, women etc. These issues can well be covered in Human rights in Bangladesh. There will be serious questions now on the neutrality of DS's article. When people talk of indigenous persecution in BD, it usually refers to abuses perpetrated by Bangladeshi security forces in the CHT.--Bazaan (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources obviously disagree, and in an article on persecution against indigenous peoples it does bot actually matter what the majority population suffer. When people write about persecution of indigenous peoples in Bangladesh they also write about more than those living in the CHT, just because the CHT abuses have gotten more press does not mean we ignore the rest. I am adding to the article and the proof is in the sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As one editor pointed out above, your source on the Garo was a case study on forestry issues. Your source regarding the Khasi is a report on forced evictions. You're going over the top here by claiming non-CHT indigenous people face persecution bordering on ethnic cleansing and genocide. I've personally worked in Garo villages, and while there's economic hardship, I certainly wont compare the situation with the CHT. And none of your sources do that as well.--Bazaan (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not bother to read my oppose? :"The indigenous peoples of Bangladesh remain among the most persecuted of all minorities, facing discrimination not only on the basis of their religion and ethnicity but also because of their indigenous identity and their socio-economic status."[6] IWGIA. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably not correct to use claims like The state policy of Bangladesh is going to destroy their life totally or the one just quoted above solely based on any report or case study. Probably DS is having the same problems s/he had with Bangladesh Civil War‎ article.--AsceticRosé 18:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is correct, we have the source which says so. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the IWGIA report focuses solely on human rights abuses in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. I've been harping all along on the point about the denial of constitutional rights. I think we should opt for a more balanced title then, if we're going to cover indigenous people broadly, so something on the lines of Discrimination against indigenous peoples in Bangladesh. But of course human rights abuses in the CHT deserves separate mention, be it here within the CHT conflict article or a separate article itself.--Bazaan (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You suggest moving the article and then creating another one for the CHT? That is a bit pointless when we have an article which covers Persecution of indigenous peoples in Bangladesh Darkness Shines (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to lowercase title

[edit]

Now that the formal move proposal above has been closed, I propose moving this to the lower-case version of the title, Chittagong Hill Tracts conflict. Reason is simple: it's a description, not a proper name. I don't expect this to be controversial, so for the moment I'm not filing it as a formal move request; just let me know if there are objections. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think anyone would object.--Zayeem (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Right thinking. Lowercase in conflict should be preferred from grammatical viewpoint. -AsceticRosé 17:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, I've done that move now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chittagong Hill Tracts conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chittagong_Hill_Tracts_conflict&oldid=1224930818"