This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bangladesh Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list: Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengalis and related pages Take a look at the requested articles. Make a MRT line 3 article. Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton. Hinduism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Rather than anti-Hindu, can we remake the article to look at all post-resignation violence? Many Awami League leaders were attacked, and some of the Hindu people attacked were Awami League leaders. Limiting the article narrows down the scope of the article significantly.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 DisagreeThe protests resulted in anti-Hindu violence regardless of whether they were Awami leaders or not. Targeting of Hindu population is a reality in Bangladesh and one should not white-wash it. SpunkyGeek (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hell no. This is about anti-hindu violence, Hindus are having to protest (this wanton violence) in the streets of Bangladesh. Mohammad Yunus also had discussions with Hindu leaders about it. This is a communal riot against the Hindus. Any attempts to whitewash this is a complete manifestation of bias against Hindus. 103.52.220.222 (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever that is, if you want to use pictures or news, please do not use it from Indian media, at least make sure to verify them through Bangladeshi or other countries' media because there are so many pictures belong to muslims but claimed as hindus BlackRider90 (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to reports, all the Hindus who were involved in the violence were part of the Awami League. The Awami League ruled Bangladesh in a fascist manner which lead to these revenge attacks. It was debunked that Indian Media used videos of violence hat occured in India since no Indian journalists are on the ground in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Foreign Ministry reported that no Indian journalists requested the VISA to report from Bangladesh. Bangladeshischolar (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @Vinegarymass911. As much as the Hindus/minority groups were attacked most of them were AL leaders and members of fraction entities such as JL & BCL of the party. There's more than enough independent international source (other than Indian & Bangladeshi) to prove that it wasn’t necessarily a "communal violence". Source: German, UK/British, Turkish, Qatari. Bruno pnm ars (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree I am sure an other article could be created on that topic, remaking the article in that manner makes things way to general. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, with your logic this article shouldn’t exist in the first place. Wikipedias WP:NPOV policy clearly states we need reliable sources and neutral point of view. Which both is missing in this article. And IP's from South Asia (especially India) are vandalising this article and bringing false/unreliable sources aswell as making it more biased. I'll once again vouch for the changing of the title. Bruno pnm ars (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean multiple people seem to disagree with you on that, and i agree with you that IP's from South Asia are to present on this page but that includes both India and Bangladesh. Both seem to only want to present their point of view here and changing it would honestly only present the view of Bangladesh and also whitewash it which in itself isn't WP:NPOV, which is probably why editors from there are now bringing this up not only on this page, but pages with similar subjects which is kind of a Conflict of interest. Going to leave it at that. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @Vinegarymass911, because the observers are not sure about whether this violence is communal or politically motivated, while most of them are tilting towards the latter. The title "anti-Hindi violence" doesn't conform to the WP:NPOV standards. Za-ari-masen (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is supposed to be neutral. However, it almost resembles the propaganda that Indian media has been using on social media against Bangladesh with false information. Bangladeshischolar (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree: There are separate articles which go in detail about the violence that followed post resignation of Sheikh Hasina, this article goes into detail about the attack on minorites, in my opinion, both of them are valid and should be treated separately and equally by the wiki standards.

Xoocit (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in which attack on minorities is very manipulative as everything was based on political basis. Bangladeshischolar (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreewith @Vinegarymass911. As much as the Hindus/minority groups were attacked most of them were AL leaders and members of fraction entities such as JL & BCL of the party. There's more than enough independent international source (other than Indian & Bangladeshi) to prove that it wasn’t necessarily a "communal violence". Source: German, UK/British, Turkish, Qatari. AAShemul (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 27.123.253.78 (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @Vinegarymass911, because the incidents occurred amid widespread political unrest in Bangladesh, involving multiple motives beyond communal violence (for example- The deaths of the 9 Hindu individuals were politically motivated, as they were politicians, just like other Muslim victims.). This makes the title potentially misleading and inconsistent with Wikipedia’s guidelines for (WP:NEUTRALITY). Furthermore, existing article (2024 Bangladesh post-resignation violence) already cover this topic.

- Cerium4B • Talk? • 14:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cerium4B This discussion was held at a time when this article had many flaws and was very short. Editors gave their opinions based on the situation at that time. Why are you now foolishly starting a discussion that has already been completed? If you want to start a discussion on the current version of the article, create a new discussion. This is because, when this discussion was held, the article was one way, but now the article is different. 36.255.81.241 (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@36.255.81.241, Please keep your tone respectful. Discussions remain open until officially closed, and I have every right to participate. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines before continuing - Cerium4B • Talk? • 18:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@36.255.81.241 I’d like to remind you that Wikipedia’s core guidelines emphasize respectful and civil interactions among editors. Insulting or aggressively pushing another user, especially on a talk page, violates several important policies, including: WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:DR and WP:TPG. If this behavior continues, it may result in administrative action, including a block from editing. I encourage you to please focus on productive, respectful discussions in order to contribute positively to the project. Thank You — Bruno 🌹 (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree.

tack also happened in temple. Temple is not a political place. It is religious place. t Omi8893 (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)— Blocked sock. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omi8893 WP:OPINION contradictory to WP:NPOV, also we had this discussion way before in the talk page. Churches, Mosques were also vandalise which there's WP:RELY for. Can you please elaborate more on the matter? Thanks— Bruno 🌹 (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911 says "the Hindu people attacked were Awami League leaders."

I know many attack are politically motivated but most are religiously motivated. Temple are not political place. Temple is religious place. Many attack happened on temple. So it proved that attacks are religiously motivated. Omi8893 (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)— Blocked sock. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some, not most of them. I think it should be made a separate section, not a separate article, if you relate to the July revolution.If not, it can be separated. BlackRider90 (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omi8893 Again, It's your WP:OPINION, while @Vinegarymass911 and other people who agreed, provided several WP:RELY with further verification. So, i'm still not sure what message you are trying to convey?— Bruno 🌹 (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @Vinegarymass911,I think we should also include an infobox which gives brief details on how many people have been killed and properties damaged etc. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @Vinegarymass911, I think those article are same content. No difference fact facing those article. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 10:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Most of the individuals targeted in attacks were victims due to political reasons. However, to divert attention and draw global focus, political incidents were portrayed as religious ones. NahianTalk 16:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen so many international media such as DW & BBC Verify to refute the claims made by the Indian media outlets. Also, the Ground News posted most of the citation given in this articles, such as The Hindu, Hindustan Times etc. as biased which clearly violates WP:NPOV & WP:CS. Should we still use them as reliable source? Thoughts? @Wiki N Islam@Mehedi Abedin@ApurboWiki2024@Vinegarymass911@Ltbdl Bruno pnm ars (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N No, I will not support them to be used as a reliable source, at least for this article. Wiki N Islam (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N No, Most news identified as fake.

ApurboWiki2024 (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion South Asian sources in general shouldn't be used here there is to much Recency bias and WP:COI going on here. THe sources from India will obviously exaggerate while those from Bangladesh will do evertything to make it sound as good as possible. Not including religious sources that favour to either Hindus or Muslims would also help keeping it Neutral ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to WP:RSPS for the list of reliable sources which have been reliable for many years now, the list was created for instances such as these when is an expectation of bias of local or regional sources.

An example to cite here is Al Jazeera English is used as WP:RS even in articles which relate to the Middle East or Qatar conflicts because it is mentioned in the RSPS list. Xoocit (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N No, most of the news is identified as fake. News sources must be a Bangladeshi or an international portal (like DW, BBC, etc.). Indian news portals have no Bangladeshi correspondents for those news items. Also, a Bangladeshi fact-checker Rumor Scanner Bangladesh showed that most of the minority violence news is fake. AAShemul (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally Bangladesh Foreign Ministry never received any Journalist VISA Request from any Indian Media outlets Bangladeshischolar (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jesuspaul502, don't remove the maintenance templates if you are going to use Indian sources which are involved in a disinformation campaign against Bangladesh with factual inaccuracies in their reports. Za-ari-masen (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your input. However, the claim that all Indian sources are part of a disinformation campaign requires specific evidence and thorough evaluation according to Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. Wikipedia encourages a neutral approach, and dismissing entire categories of sources without proper discussion and context is not in line with Wikipedia's principles.

  If certain sources are problematic, we should discuss them individually on the talk page with specific evidence of their unreliability, rather than applying blanket dismissals. Maintenance templates should not be used as a way to block content that complies with verifiability and neutrality without clear justification.

  I encourage constructive discussion and a review of each source on its own merits, as this will help us ensure that the article remains balanced and well-sourced.

  Best regards, JESUS (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wiki N Islam@Mehedi Abedin@ApurboWiki2024@Ltbdl@Bruno pnm ars@Ahammed Saad@AAShemul@Nomian Can you guys please take a look at this article? This article uses a lot of Indian sources which are involved in the disinformation campaign against Bangladesh with misleading reports on the violence against Hindus. I have added maintenance templates but two users User:Jesuspaul502 and User:TheNeutrality are continuously removing them and continue to use dubious sources with exaggerated claims about violence against Hindus. This article quite visibly struggles with factual accuracy, POV and sourcing issues. Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @Za-ari-masen,

  Thank you for your input. I want to clarify that my edits, as well as those of User:TheNeutrality, are in line with Wikipedia's core policies on verifiability, neutrality, and reliable sourcing. We are not attempting to promote any particular narrative but are simply aiming to present the facts as supported by reliable sources.

  Regarding the claim that certain Indian sources are involved in a disinformation campaign, I would appreciate it if you could provide clear and verifiable evidence for this claim in line with Wikipedia's WP:RS standards. Broad dismissals of entire categories of sources without specific evidence create the risk of bias in the article, which goes against Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy.

  I have already opened a discussion to address these concerns, and I encourage all editors to contribute in good faith to achieve a consensus. If necessary, I would be open to bringing this matter to a Request for Comment (RfC) or a relevant noticeboard to ensure neutrality and sourcing accuracy.

  Best regards, JESUS (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuspaul502, TheNeutrality There is already a discussion ongoing here and multiple editors have raised concerns about the issues. Do not remove the maintenance templates without addressing the concerns. Za-ari-masen (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your continued engagement in this discussion. I understand the need to address concerns, and I agree that any issues related to sources or content should be discussed thoroughly. However, it’s important that we don’t preemptively tag the article with maintenance templates without reaching a consensus on specific issues.

As stated by myself and others, we are open to discussing the reliability of individual sources and addressing concerns point by point. I kindly ask that we keep the article free of such templates until we've properly examined the concerns raised and whether the sources meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliability and neutrality.

Let’s focus on constructive dialogue to improve the article collaboratively. I look forward to hearing more input on specific concerns so we can address them thoroughly.

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why did you ping me. i don't care about this article. ltbdl☃ (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pinging me in this discussion. I agree, to some extent, with the addition of maintenance tags. This also suggests that we should avoid using sources that may violate WP:NPOV and remove the existing ones from the article. Additionally, if any disruptive behavior or edit wars continue further by @Jesuspaul502 and @TheNeutrality , we should consider reporting the involved users to the administrators, as such actions are a violation of the guidelines. Bruno pnm ars (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. While I understand the concerns about maintaining neutrality and reliable sourcing, I believe that the sources in question do meet Wikipedia's standards for WP:RS and provide important context for the article. As for the maintenance tags, they should be used based on consensus, and thus we should discuss any specific concerns about the sources before tagging the article preemptively.

I also want to reiterate that it’s important to address this through proper discussions rather than resorting to edit wars or threats of administrative action. I encourage everyone to engage constructively so we can reach a consensus and improve the article. JESUS (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuspaul502 when there is a documented evidence of misinformation by the Indian media, it is very natural that people will object to using Indian sources. This page was in a better shape before you and few others began to edit and add content indiscriminately without paying heed to these concerns. From what I see, you have not only resisted others from improving the article but are also removing the maintenance tags. This is quite disruptive and I urge you to change your behavior as soon as you can. Nomian (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your perspective, @Nomian . I understand the concerns about misinformation, but I believe it’s important that we discuss each source on a case-by-case basis rather than dismissing entire categories, such as Indian media, without concrete evidence of bias or unreliability. Wikipedia’s policy on WP:RS (Reliable Sources) encourages nuanced discussions about individual sources, not blanket dismissals.

I would also like to clarify that my intention is to ensure the article remains balanced and that we include all significant viewpoints while adhering to Wikipedia's core principles like WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View). I believe removing valid content without thorough discussion risks skewing the article’s neutrality.

As for the maintenance tags, I understand their purpose, but they should not be used preemptively or without reaching consensus. I encourage us all to focus on improving the article through meaningful discussion rather than reverting changes without proper dialogue.

If there are specific sources you believe violate Wikipedia's guidelines, I welcome a detailed discussion on those so we can address them constructively.

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuspaul502, I'm now sensing competence issues here. You have failed to address the concerns raised by the editors here. Instead, you are just repeating the same thing that only indicates either you don't understand or you have not even read what others have commented here so far. This is not only disruptive but also making the discussion quite futile. Nomian (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomian, your repeated claims about my supposed incompetence seem more like a deflection than a constructive critique. It's evident that several other editors recognize the validity of my contributions, which suggests that your perspective is not the only one worth considering.

Rather than engaging in personal attacks and attempting to undermine my efforts, I encourage you to reflect on the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. Dismissing my edits as disruptive while ignoring the support I've garnered only highlights your unwillingness to foster genuine dialogue.

If you truly believe in improving this article, I urge you to focus on the content and the broader context rather than resorting to baseless characterizations. Let's prioritize a balanced discussion that includes all voices rather than perpetuating a narrow viewpoint. JESUS (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with Nomian, there is an obvious WP:CIR. I had asked Jesuspaul502 earlier to listen to what other editors are saying but he has simply continued to be disruptive. Za-ari-masen (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen @Wiki N Islam@Mehedi Abedin @ @Bruno pnm ars@ @AAShemul@Nomian

Some rumors were spread from some Indian social media accounts after the change of government in Bangladesh. BBC, The Indian Express "A fusion of real and fake narratives do the rounds on attack on minorities in Bangladesh". The Indian Express., and several fact-checking websites have identified those rumors. The Bangladeshi media outlets are controlled by fundamentalist Muslims and international media do not station enough journalists in Bangladesh. International media, therefore, cannot cover all the events. But India is a neighboring country to Bangladesh, and it can report the most news and its authenticity. India gives the most coverage to the issues affecting Hindus. Excluding Indian news would make the article lose neutrality. TheNeutrality (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen, it's concerning to see baseless accusations like WP:CIR thrown around without any real substance. I have listened to other editors and engaged in constructive discussion, but it seems like every time valid points are raised, they're dismissed without proper dialogue. Simply labeling my contributions as 'disruptive' without engaging in a meaningful discussion of the content itself does not help the situation.

If there are genuine content issues, let's address them based on facts and evidence, not assumptions or broad accusations. It’s critical that we focus on maintaining a neutral, well-sourced article rather than resorting to personal attacks." JESUS (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use the sources that are listed in WP:RS. One more thing that should be kept in mind is that Ground news is not some authoritative source which can tell bias of a news paper or media altogether. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheNeutrality It's not just social media accounts, Indian media as a whole are engaged in the disinformation campaign against Bangladesh according to the reports. ([1], [2]). A lot of Indian media outlets are in fact basing their reports on social media posts. Many non-communal events are being portrayed as "anti-Hindu". They are just not reliable for this topic. And can you provide a reliable source to support your claim that "Bangladeshi media outlets are controlled by fundamentalist Muslims"? I can see Bangladeshi media adequately covering the events, Prothom Alo even ran a comprehensive investigation on the violence against minorities which you have even cited in this article. Za-ari-masen (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen The website of Prothom Alo was hacked by Bangladeshis, and a warning was given not to publish such news anymore."Hacker breaches Prothom Alo website, offers to help fix security flaws". Dhaka Tribune. 9 September 2024. Retrieved 22 September 2024.

More than 1000 attacks have been carried out on Hindus. Are the descriptions of these attacks mentioned under the 'Attacks' heading? TheNeutrality (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheNeutrality That is irrelevant. North Korean hackers also hacked Sony Pictures Studios that doesn't make it a North Korean propaganda agency. You have to show a reliable source that points out your alleged bias in Prothom Alo or any other Bangladeshi media outlets before making such claims. We have enough sources detailing the anti-Bangladeshi and Islamophobic bias present in Indian media. Za-ari-masen (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen The discussion about the rumors published on X by DW includes topics like "Hindu cricketer's house 'set on fire'" and "Claims about rape, sexual harassment of Hindu women." ^[1] However, you have claimed that Indian news outlets (not just social media) have spread these rumors. In this case, your claim is false. TheNeutrality (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian media outlets are critical to maintaining balance in this article, especially given their proximity and focus on issues affecting Hindus in Bangladesh. While some may argue that disinformation exists, dismissing all Indian news sources is not a neutral approach. Indian outlets offer detailed reports that other international and local media might miss due to limited presence or restrictions. It’s important to evaluate sources individually for credibility rather than making blanket exclusions based on geography. By disregarding Indian media, we risk undermining the article’s neutrality and failing to present a comprehensive view of the events. JESUS (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheNeutrality, it looks like you have just read few selected lines from the two reports I shared. The report says, "These articles by Indian media and posts in social media contrast sharply with factual reports chronicling the events that led to the Hasina’s resignation."[3]. Both the mainstream Indian media and the Indian social media accounts are involved in the disinformation campaign. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why even bother? When someone is in denial that the attacks ever happened, why would they accept that they are ongoing? Everything is "peaceful." Anyway, the lack of attention from any proper senior editor or admin toward this article shows how messed up things are on this platform. Let them write whatever they want. It’s not like censoring or changing history is anything new. Move on. DangalOh (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheNeutrality, you are confusing Al Jazeera Arabic with Al Jazeera English. While the Arabic version may not be reliable in certain cases, Al Jazeera English is generally reliable, see WP:ALJAZEERA. The rest of your post is just your personal opinion so I'm not gonna comment on that. The teacher resignation issue is not anti-Hindu since there are more Muslim teachers who were forced to resign, and these resignations were caused by political motivations, not communal. This is already discussed in the 'Misinformation' thread below. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

You didn't show any false information by Al Jazeera, that was just your own opinion, the difference in numbers could be because of the difference in updates about the events, that is not false information. I showed you exact quotation of the report which said, "These articles by Indian media and posts in social media contrast sharply with factual reports chronicling the events that led to the Hasina’s resignation."[4] . I don't know why you are blatantly lying. The teacher resignation, as I said earlier, is a politically motivated act, here is a report on that which says, "Over the last 16 years, there was rampant politicisation of educational institutions." Most teachers who were forced to resign were Muslims. Za-ari-masen (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @SpunkyGeek@CosmLearner@TheNeutrality I have already shown quotations with sources that says Indian mainstream media is involved in the disinformation campaign. Let's keep the discussion in one thread instead of opening new threads. Za-ari-masen (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of this article reads, ".......alleged attacks began on some of the homes, businesses, and places of worship of the Hindu community in Bangladesh". I request you to remove the term, "alleged" as there is evidence that there is widespread violence against the homes, businesses, and places of worship of the Hindu community. 2406:7400:90:9B1A:593E:8550:8EC0:5C2E (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is completely biased. More editors need to get involved and make it more neutral. Facts about attacks have been presented as allegations.- UnprejudicedObserver1 (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The AP (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAstorPastor: Please change the lead sentence from, "Following the resignation of Sheikh Hasina on August 5, 2024, alleged attacks began on some of the homes, businesses, and places of worship of the Hindu community in Bangladesh. " to, "Following the resignation of Sheikh Hasina on August 5, 2024, attacks began on some of the homes, businesses, and places of worship of the Hindu community in Bangladesh.". The source doesn't use the word alleged. Please also remove the sentence, "Meanwhile, Indian media as well as India-based social media accounts began to disseminate disinformation and propaganda on the attacks" from the lead, it is POV pushing.-UnprejudicedObserver1 (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @UnprejudicedObserver1, the removal of term "alleged" would require consensus. Note that next sentence "[...] According to analysts, most of these attacks were not communal but a mix of political retributions or general criminal offences amid a law and order crisis in the country." cite reliable sources. The removal of the entire sentence regarding the Indian media and India-based social media would also require consensus, and I am quite against the removal and don't believe that it is POV pushing The AP (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hindus, Ahmadiyya Muslims and indigenous people from the Chittagong Hill Tracts were also subjected to human rights abuses 2402:8100:390B:6959:0:0:0:1 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 14:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Myrealnamm: I am unrelated to the person who made that request but I found that sentence mentioned online. You can paraphrase it to, "Hindus, Ahmadiyya Muslims and indigenous people from the Chittagong Hill Tracts were also subjected to human rights abuses".^[1]-UnprejudicedObserver1 (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to post the paraphrased sentence which is, "Human rights violations also affected Ahmadiyya Muslims, Hindus, and indigenous people from the Chittagong Hill Tracts.".-UnprejudicedObserver1 (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UnprejudicedObserver1 Okay, exactly where do you want me to put that in the article? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 15:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly know enough about wikipedia, so it is better if you decide that but if you insist on me suggesting this, I'd say that you can create a new section titled, "UN Human rights report" and add it there. You can also add it after the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead which reads, "According to analysts, most of these attacks were not communal but a mix of political retributions or general criminal offences amid a law and order crisis in the country".-UnprejudicedObserver1 (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done for now in Special:Diff/1276414259. Let me know if you think the sentence should be moved elsewhere. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 18:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, you have approved the above sentence's addition, originally suggested by the IP here. The lead now reads, ".....According to a UN Human Rights Office report, these abuses also affected Ahmadiyya Muslims, Hindus, and indigenous people from the Chittagong Hill Tracts.[8] Meanwhile, Indian media as well as India-based social media accounts began to disseminate disinformation and propaganda on the attacks." However, the latter sentence now seems to be a false allegation and should be removed. It at least doesn't belong in the lead which is supposed to be a summary of the article. Please suggest if that allegation about attacks on non-Muslims being termed false propaganda should be removed from every part of the article or only from the lead.-UnprejudicedObserver1 (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The two sentences are not mutually exclusive. Abuses can have happened and India-based media can have disseminated disinformation on the situation. Both are sourced; both should stay. Especially as most of the rest of the article is a mess where people have inserted incidents regardless of how important/trivial they are or how well-sourced they are. A lot of that information could be removed with no loss to the article. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this article suffers from too many unnecessary details and link overkill if anyone is willing to solve it then I'm willing to help. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since this page has been locked for a long time, new updates such as the OHCHR report on the Bangladesh violence couldn't be added. I would request the moderators who have the access to edit locked pages to add these new info into this page

The OHCHR report described the violence against Hindus to be motivated by "religious & ethnic discrimination, revenge against Awami League supporters, local communal disputes over land & interpersonal issues."^[1]

In October 2024, despite heavy security & deployment of armed personnel, scattered incidents of idol desecration & violent intimidation of Hindus occurred in various parts of the country during Durga Puja festivities in an attempt to jeopardize the observance of the most important Hindu festival in the country. The golden crown donated by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the shrine of Jessoreshwari during his state visit in 2021 was reported to have been stolen by unidentified miscreants.^[2]

After the visit of India's foreign secretary on 9 December 2024, the interim Bangladeshi government stated that it had arrested 77 people in connection to 88 cases registered for violence against Hindus. Indian Minister of External Affairs (MoS), Kirti Vardhan Singh stated in the Lok Sabha that between 26 November 2024 & 25 January 2025, 76 incidents of anti-Hindu violence have taken place. Since Hasina's resignation, 23 Hindus were killed & 152 Hindu temples had been desecrated.^[3]

On 20 February 2025, a passenger bus travelling from Dhaka to Rajshahi was attacked by highwaymen at the intersection of Gazipur district & Tangail district. Some reports stated that a 20 year old Hindu woman was raped by the goons on the spot,^[4] while others state that she was only sexually assaulted by the robbers attempting to snatch her jewellery.^[5]

I would also request that the link Bangladesh post-resignation violence (2024-present)#Minorities be added at the beginning of the page, in order to emphasise that not only Hindus, but other minorities too are being targeted, since most websites that mention the 2024 violence against minorities automatically redirect to violence agaiant Hindus only. 2409:4060:ECC:D764:0:0:AA89:7001 (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this article has too many issues. Most of these alleged incidents are not communal but political according to final investigation [5]. The incidents like robberies have happened not only with Hindus but also with people of other religions.

I’m collecting more sources to nominate this article for deletion or to merge it with Bangladesh post-resignation violence (2024-present).

Now, you have proposed to add

1. crown robbery: It’s not related to anti-Hindu violence.

2. vandalisms: The alleged vandalisms of hindu festivals are not verifiable. In some cases even it was found that hindus did vandalisms.[6]

3. Indian statement on Bangladesh: It is not neutral for this article.

4. The news of Rajshahi: This is clearly false news. You should check the latest updates about that Hindu woman.

5. Addition of other minorities: as the title directly indicates Hindus, I think we should not add this. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 14:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]