Tonkawa Massacre

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 Shih^Talk 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 Shih^Talk 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.