Talk:2013 Shahbag protests/Archive 1

The article needs to be neutral
The neutrality of this article is severely contestable, especially since international media has taken a stance against the protest, but the article claims that BBC got it wrong and later corrected it, without reference, in trying to prove that international media is in favor of Shahbag. Most local media has been accused of yellow journalism supporting a fascist government, so giving international reference is very important. The only international reference used in this article is that of Tahmina Alam, a Bangladeshi expatriate living in UK, and the article is controversial and not of an official sort. The article also does not contain information on the outcome of Shahbag protest, the mass killings of opposition supporters (90+) in a single day. Pro government editors of this article just want to prove that the protest is a popular one by posting photos of government activists from around the world. I am the son of a freedom fighter and I swear by the name of my father that i am an atheist. I had voted for AL last election. I was often told by my BNP friends that Mujib alone was responsible for the murder of 40000 bengalis by Rakkhi Bahini, that AL leaders were hiding during the war and supported liberation war just for personal power. I didn’t care. Whatever his motive was, by supporting him we got Bangladesh. I wanted a secular Bangladesh. But what AL did since 2009 made me realize that people were not so wrong after all. BDR, Shagar Runi, Felani, Railway scandal, Hallmark, destiny, stock loots, extrajudicial killings, the shaming of Yunus, murders and rapes by Chatra League with impunity, Padma bridge and nationalizing of Banks and the draining of national GDP made me realize that AL is the biggest danger for the country now. No r@zakar individually killed more than Mujib or Hasina did. Even then I support the trial of 1971 rajakars. But it should not make way for Awami League coming to power again because that will be more harmful for the country. But Shahbag is doing exactly that. They are trying to divert people from recent Awami crimes against the nation. Under the cover of justice for 1971, their main motive is to create public support for Awami League. Awami league has intentionally given a life sentence to Molla to create the protest for the hanging of Molla. This protest instead of protesting AL’s failure to prosecute properly, turned its angers towards the defendants, (motivated internally by AL through Imran who is an inside man of AL) and through nationwide yellow journalism. I believe AL will not hang the rajakars till next election by giving excuse that the appeals and court procedures are taking time, and then they will say that give us vote again and we will hang the rajakars. People will have no choice but to vote Awami League backed by popular Shahbag. Its all election drama. Playing with the sentiments of 1971 is as horrible as all other crimes by AL. And even if the trial of Rajakars of 1971 was so important at this moment, why AL did not create a fair tribunal? Why not demand punishment of all rajakars? If rajakars can say that the tribunal of war criminals for 1971 is not fair, then that would be an insult to the shaheeds of 1971. This is also the reason that Jamaat is getting the chance to protest, and by openly firing at those protesters (without using other means before), a nationwide mass killing and civil war is on the way. Why is Shahbag making a miserable country more miserable? I believe that AL thugs killed Rajib Haider to make the protest stronger, knowing that the blame will automatically fall on Jamaat since Rajib was an atheist. I think the same about the fire at book fair and the burning of hindu temples. Did they even think of bangladesh’s international reputation? What public can legally demand is actually the trial of a criminal. Don’t they know that public cannot demand a particular verdict from the court? Won’t the world think that Bangladesh is an illiterate nation run by illiterate thugs? Government is financing the protest like anything. Shahbag is threatening and the government is taking action against all anti-government, even neutral media and intellectuals. They are calling true freedom fighters such as Bongobir Kader Siddiqui as rajakars just for the fault of not supporting the government. There are reports of extortions, abductions and marijuana abuse by shahbag mob. All they are actually doing is killing democracy and supporting a dangerous and fascist AL. Language movement of 1952 and Liberation war of 1971 brought good to the country. What good is shahbag bringing today except destruction? I support the spirit of protest of some youth in Shahbag, but they are actually harming the country this time with their thoughtless new patriotism. After finding out the true face of Shahbag many people are now against shahbag (which the media will not let you know), and the only people who are now in shahbag are 1) paid traitors of AL 2) importance seekers who want to believe that they will become nesw heros 3) emotional but dumb people who can’t understand what is good for the country. The truly patriotic (and intelligent) people of Bangladesh will one day punish AL and Shahbag traitors (the leading ones) for their conspiracy against the country. They will also one by one punish all other criminals in AL, BNP and Jamaat. People want the true patritism of 1971 back, the politics of nations real success and development. They want new faces in politics. Long live Bangladesh! (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC))

Some people, mainly pro-governments are giving a slant to their protests through unregistered ips... Which of the neutral edits are contestable... show proof, lets discuss... what the pro-governments mainly provide is blog articles, non-reputed sources and photographs.. it doesn't establish a claim by wikipedia standards. In the neutral edits, all opposing views have been provided, which is what should be the case... a simple google search will also provide you with all the contesting views... the pro-governments are only providing their slant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reason.upholder (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't have any idea about editing wikipedia. You don't even know where to add comment on talk page. Please see Editing policy these pages then start editing. You dont provide any info in lede section, but remove all the sourced info. It is WP:Vandalism.--Freemesm (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for restricting the article. All evidence for the neutral edits will be established in this talk page. The pro-governments provide weak sourses, often not pointing exactly to the arguments they themselves offer. It is a hot topic, with different perspectives, and if the article was not restricted, unjustified mass editing would have contaminated and slanted the article, compromising wikipedia standards. It is better to reach settlements in the talk page. As for my lackings, i will improve them quickly. Due to concentrating on a rapidly progressing edit war, I could not concentrate much on what I already knew about editing wikipedia. Still thank you for pointing out my deficiencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reason.upholder (talk • contribs) 16:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Especially about the lead section, the info that I had provided is solid fact and would not be contested by the pro-governments as well, not much different from the previous lede section, but only omitted sentimental statements that are of the nature of opinion and not facts, and doesn't derive directly from references, but are slants introduced through the editing. I will even contest the references they provided with better references here in the talk page. (Reason.upholder (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC))


 * I am removing the page-wide neutrality tag. Neutrality applies to presenting viewpoints objectively, not in failing to argue for a specific viewpoint.  The discussion above is simply an assertion that the article is not neutral.  What we need are specific claims or edits to judge--which can be done on a continuing basis--not a vague complaint with no specifics to evaluate. μηδείς (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

About the photo gallery
Someone earlier mentioned Wikipedia isn't a photo album, and more written information is needed. I agree, however the photos also kind of show what it looks like, and especially the ones sent from abroad shows a global perspective. Nevertheless, in case of photos from outside Bangladesh, there should be only one photo per school/community. Not more than that - one is enough to get the point that "this school/community also showed support.

Editing International Reactions section
The focus of the article seems to be moving away from the main topic at Shahbag, towards what the reactions of the Bangladeshi communities living abroad, due to the amount of contents in that section compared to the rest of the article. Even the photo gallery has more photos from abroad than that from home. This needs to be monitored. Editors, please try to summarize the stories of demonstrations as much as you can. The best option would be to only mention the name of the city/province/state within one paragraph, and cite the source to a site where news article/photos/writings of the said sit-ins/demonstrations/protests are detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafi2252 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Gallery on Wikimedia Commons
I have created an album with free photos of shahbag protest on commons here (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/2013_Shahbag_Protest ). As wikipedia is not a photo album the huge number of photos at the bottom of the wikipage should be removed. It also creates problems on mobile phone browser. The Wikimedia gallery was added at bottom. Ctg4Rahat (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Arctic Kangaroo and Reason.upholder Stop Edit Warring
I am afraid, both of your activity is not according to wiki policy. You have removed a huge well referenced info without any discussion. If you have any point, please discuss here. Arctic Kangaroo, you have changed the info box title and place of the movement. Please be sure after editing. This article is about Shahbag protest.--Freemesm (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Protection
Note that I've just fully protected the article in response to the edit warring today. Please seek consensus for controversial changes here on the talk page, and keep our WP:NPOV guideline in mind. Also, you may want to consider WP:DR. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Mark, you have protected this article for User:‎Reason.upholder's vandalism. But he put a section called "Large Issue" just after lede, which don't have a single line of reference. He don't have basic wiki editing skill and even don't know where to comment. Would you please remove that section?--Freemesm (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark, I've got another point. on the lede see following lines--
 * ...in general, but due to confusion regarding leadership (even though the ruling party, Awami League, claims the protest as their own, many have joined the protest who don't support any particular political party and are unaware of the complicated legal and/or constitutional provisions and procedures involved), the specific demands of the protesters and how to achieve them are not yet clear and is a popular topic in the media, the talk shows and the academia...
 * this and this link are provided as reference, but no one of them support the the statement. Please remove that.--Freemesm (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any protection tag. --Sabih Omar 19:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Sabih Omar

Edit protect
Two non skilled vandals are put few biased info just before the article being protected. I am requesting to remove those sentences to make the article descent. Problematic parts are described bellow. 1. A section named "Large Issue" is added just after lede, which don't have a single line of reference. This section clearly defaming the judges and leaders of the government, it has no verifiable source and it violates NPOV, then off course it is BLP vio. Moreover it is copied from this blog! Would you please remove that section?


 * I protest the copyvio tag. And there has been no defamation but only a neutral perspective containing views of all sides. See the section at the beginning of the talk page. Our talk was not settled. Freeman is trying convince the admins that only two people are vandalizing in an effort to abort the discussion and support the slanted, biased, only one sided pro-governmental cause.

(Reason.upholder (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC))


 * I would also like to draw your attention to the section you are incorrectly calling "Large Issue". It was actually the "Legal Issue" section, which is a significant one and should be included. (Reason.upholder (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

2. Another point. on the lede see following lines-- ...in general, but due to confusion regarding leadership (even though the ruling party, Awami League, claims the protest as their own, many have joined the protest who don't support any particular political party and are unaware of the complicated legal and/or constitutional provisions and procedures involved), the specific demands of the protesters and how to achieve them are not yet clear and is a popular topic in the media, the talk shows and the academia... this and this links are provided as reference, but no one of them support the the statement. Please remove that. Because it is also copied from this blog!


 * I will add references for these from international as well as the local media... not some unreputed sources which are the current references... but i need the edit option back for it. There are many supporters of pro-government agenda trying to promote their slant of the article. (Reason.upholder (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

3. Historical Context and Development of the Protest, Views About the Protest, International coverage all these section are just copied from this blog!


 * Again, please don't misguide the admins. The material's copyright has been donated to wikipedia.

(Reason.upholder (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

All of these vandalism was done by this guy. Please revert all his edits. Thank you. --Freemesm (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Problem solved.--Freemesm (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2013
Hi, We are the students of university of Regina, Canada have protested for the justice of war criminals of 1971. can you add our photo under "Photos of Solidarity Protest All Over The World". the image link is provided below. Thanks, Adnan

Adnan192 (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Students_of_University_of_Regina,_Canada.jpg


 * Dear Adnan192, Actually Wikipedia is not a photo album type website. Already a huge number of photo is included here, I think no more photos are needed. Moreover it is needed to cleanup the photo gallery section. If you really want to contribute on this article, you can fiend proper reference for existing article, where no citation is given.--Freemesm (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 February 2013
Dear Sir,

This is Muhammad Masum Jujuly, student of Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada. We have protested and shown our solidarity with Shahbag protest. However, the image quality of the current picture provided is not very good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solidarity_with_Projonmo_Cottor_from_MUN_1.JPG)I have a better quality of this group picture and it would be great if you replace the current picture with this picture ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solidarity_with_Shahbag_Protest_2013_MUN_Canada.jpg ). Thanks in advance.

Regards, M Masum Jujuly

Nuvan (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Nuvan, Actually Wikipedia is not a photo album type website. Already a huge number of photo is included here, I think no more photos are needed. Moreover it is needed to cleanup the photo gallery section. If you really want to contribute on this article, you can fiend proper reference for existing article, where no citation is given.--Freemesm (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo gallery
Admin Mark Arsten remove the gallery at at he bottom of the page because it is creating problems with slow internet connection & also in mobile phone browser. Add only the Wikimedia commons gallery title.Ctg4Rahat (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 February 2013
please add the following file to show our support from Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, South Korea File:Yeungnam University.JPG | Students of Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, South Korea. I understand it is not a photo gallery but it shows the supports for the protest from different parts of the world.

The photo of Washington State University, Washington, USA appeared twice, please delete one if possible.

Eraesh (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Solidarity with Shahbag- From Singapore
Dear Admin,

We are from Singapore(BUET, BIT,NUS,NTU students and currently working in Singapore) and also shown our Solidarity with 'Projonmo Chottor'. Please find some photos at the below link.

Solidarity with Shahbag - from Singapore

thanks with regards

Subrata

Subrata Podder 00:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 February 2013 (Solidarity from Malaysia)
Dear Admin,

We are the professionals and students from Malaysia and have shown our Solidarity with 'Projonmo Chottor'. Please add the following photos to the gallery.

Pitcure 1: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8099/8474229894_777acf4ccb_h.jpg

Pitcure 2: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8512/8474159336_cbe679068f_h.jpg

Thanks with regards

Ahmed Arup Kamal

Arupkamal (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 February 2013
Bangladeshi Graduate Students of Concordia University arranged a demonstration in Montreal, Canada on February 12 and expressed solidarity with the Shahbag movement. Bangladeshi citizens residing in Montreal also joined the event.

Neelghuri (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Revisions/reverts
Hi, I just wanted to leave a message to explain the revert I just made back to the revisions I had previously worked on. There was a concern that I had removed sourced material in my revisions. In fact, I had not, but I did move some text around for a better flow. There were several redundant passages (repeated in separate sections), and I added the "Overview" section heading to separate the introduction from the background info. (This is fairly standard WP practice.) I didn't remove any of the info from that large Overview section; it just moved into the new section.

Also, I made several revisions to improve the writing style/flow, and to add Bengali transcriptions following the guidelines Wikipedians have put together for Bengali words.

If there are concerns about my revisions, please respond here. Thanks! --SameerKhan (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Sameer, just live a message on your talk page. You have removed a huge information from lead. All the info were with corresponding source. It is clear violation of WP:LEAD rule, as it says The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. You leave there just 2 sentences, which doesn't provide the summery and overview of the article as a whole. If you think some text were repeated, then you can summarize them. Another point is you have changed the name fundamentalist islammic party to Islamist party, why? I have provided sufficient info to support their fundamentalist character. I'm sure it is not WP:POV vio as it is fact. Please before reverting discuss on talk page. Thank you.--Freemesm (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I left a message on my talk page regarding the lead. In regards to "Islamist", I used that word because it is the most common term heard on English-language news now to refer to fundamentalist Islamic politics. It's shorter and more specifically talks about a political take on fundamentalist Islam. Of course, "fundamentalist Islamic" is fine too, so if other editors would prefer that, I'm fine with it. --SameerKhan (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. from your explanation you said that a large part of the lead was moved to overview section. But that doesn't seems good. WP:LEAD states that The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. Just 2 line in lead is not sufficient for showing the depth of the movement in Bangladesh's history. So if you thing the lead is too large, then summarize it with all the provided references and then transfer the descriptive part to overview section. Thank you.--Freemesm (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is terribly outdated.
1) Where is the full BNP Response? I had originally put that there but it was removed during subsequent edits. Since then, their views have changed. Sources need to be obtained and properly chronicled. They are the largest opposition, and thus their views should be represented.

2) Where is the information about the hartals Jamaat held? What were the responses for the Hartals (such and such groups/organizations kept their businesses open etc)

3) Anti-Shahbag protests calling for the death of bloggers? http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/latest_news.php?nid=44885

4)Why are some bangladeshis against the movement? Needs to have their views represented here as well. Some are calling them "anti-islam", some saying it's government sponsored. Do these claims have any legitimacy?

5) "Coverage by international media"

This section needs to be far more detailed. The media needs to be held accountable in their reporting. The international response has been severely lackluster and plenty of evidence of yellow journalism or biased or sometimes outright inaccurate reporting. These sources need to be seeked out and chronicled properly and explained why they are biased or inaccurate.

6) The timeline is outdated by 4 days. That's not appropriate for an event that is happening as I type.

7) All the deaths so far. Who died? How did they die? What side of the protests were they? (for or against?)

8) Maybe their should be a section called "Debate about the death penalty" and a small paragraph here as to the debate about it. (ie many ppl are against the DP but explain the historical context of bangladeshi politics such as once the next government comes into power, they would be freed due to the poor judicial structure in bangladesh. etc etc

Shyrsatr (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Tag: Criticizing by Commentators and International Organizations
Please comment on whether including criticism from commentators using op-ed as found here (second para on left, deleted by pratanu). Our previous discussion on this topic is below.Snackathon (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The references mentioned for the sentence - 'harshly criticised by some commentators' are biased, one of them is a letter to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh (Shahbag Square protest: A real travesty of Justice, by Mr. William Nicholas Gomes http://www.spyghana.com/shahbag-square-protest-a-real-travesty-of-justice/), as such not a neutral point of view. 'Some of these flaws have been pointed out by international organisations like Human Rights Watch and the United Nations' - this line can not be supported by the reference, we need to mention published reports by HRW and UN. Moreover, the criticizing by commentators and international organizations should be included in the 'Controversies' section, not in the heading section.

Pratanu.roy (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok. It's not NPOV to say so and so criticised it, as you're just stating a fact about someone's opinion. That's okay on wikipeida It shows absense of NPOV to say, "it is bad" if that is actually someone's opinion. The HRW and UN citation is from the two Open Democracy pieces you deleted. Please read them before you delete. Something doesn't become not NPOV because you disagree with it. It has to be based on a fair reading of WP:NPOV policy. I will reintroduce the citation. Please discuss it with me here before you remove it. Snackathon (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Snackathon, Thanks for your contribution. But I can't understand how a letter to PM could be cited as reference, which is published in a news paper that has no reputation in Ghana. Check [List of newspapers in Ghana| this] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Ghana this. It is not a reliable source, see this WP:NEWSORG. Please try to contribute with more reliable source.--Freemesm (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, please read this: to understand that saying another person has an opinion is NPOV.


 * "Dear Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina,... Your government did not washed her hand by forming a monkey tribunal and performing monkey trials, where real monkeys are the judges and the victim is justice."http://www.spyghana.com/shahbag-square-protest-a-real-travesty-of-justice/ - is this what you call a civilized way of criticizing? Before you add references, please read them carefully. And, then what kind of news media will publish this type of 'crude' article? I do not see it's name in the list of newspapers from Ghana too: http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/ghana.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Ghana

Pratanu.roy (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

How reliable a news source is spyghana? I could not find its name in the list of newspapers in Ghana from the following links. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Ghana Enamulhoque1 (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it is a news website, not a newspaper. It came up in the google search on Shahbag as a news website. Google says its a news source. Isn't this enough? I said in the addition that this are commentators, i.e. they are giving opinions. It's not news. So I don't state as fact as advised in WP:NEWSORG. If I was stating it as fact, i.e. saying "tribunal is a mockery of justice" that is not NPOV. But to say that commentators have that opinion is true and belongs in this article. You should not remove it. Same for opendemocracy website. This is a news website with commentary/editorial. So it can be cited as opinion, not as fact. I cite it as opinion, not as fact. WP:NEWSORG says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." I am attributing to the authors by saying "some commentators have...". Does anyone have objections to such a use based on WP policy? If not, please undo your deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snackathon (talk • contribs) 08:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to support your edits, please find reliable sources for them. Please do not use letters or opinions published in Spy Ghana, which is not even recognized in Ghana. Pratanu.roy (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll remove Spyghana, even though i disagree that it cannot be used. You are deleting Open Democracy source without right. Please use RFC and discuss before you delete this. Snackathon (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The article should discuss the Shahbag protest within its context, neutrally, from an international point of view. Basically the Shahbag protest demanded the death of all accused, which has been criticized by UN, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, David Bergman of New Age in Bangladesh, BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, The Economist, The UK House of Lords, UK Bar Council, etc, as a mockery of the due process of law and responsible for counter protests from opposition. These media have claimed that the trial was not fair in the first instance, on top of that Shahbag is forcing mob justice on a court. Shahbag protest has expressed solidarity with government in suppressing opposition, and the government is justifying the killing of 140+ opposition supporters in 2 days using Shahbag demands as a popular back up. Its highly deceptive to say Shahbag is a peaceful movement. They have called on the government to eradicate Jamaat-e-Islami by force. Everyone killed were opposition supporters. The police is shooting opposition supporters on sight, without using any other method to quell the protests first. On the other hand Shahbag protesters are being provided by food and security regularly. Only one of them died, and even though the government is blaming the opposition for murder, several media has reported that it might well be an inside job by the government to blame the opposition. Some students arrested in relation to the murder have reported that they did not know their actual instigator well. The government is not arresting the actual instigator, leading to suspicion. Only expatriate Bangladeshi journalists such as Tahmina Alam have written positively about the protest. The sources used in this article quote only Bangladeshi media sources such as BDNews, The Daily Star, and some Indian articles which have been accused of yellow journalism favoring a fascist movement in Bangladesh. Bangladeshi sources revealing the situation of the opposition, such as Amar Desh, has also been ommitted from this article. Amar Desh reported that Shahbag backed goons are setting fire to Hindu temples, but Shahbag is claiming that it was the opposition who did it and so the police is justified in killing them. Shahbag has also threatened politically neutral professors, journalists, real 1971 freedom fighters such as Kader Siddiqui who expressed opinions against the mass killings. Every international media has confirmed that those who died belong to the opposition, so stop making deceptive comments such as the opposition is responsible for the killings. The rise of fascism and killings in Bangladesh is a direct result of Shahbag demands. I guess there are many Shahbag backers here trying to destroy the neutrality of this article. This article should discuss the situation about Shahbag fully. What's the context, what its demands are, the legality of their demands, the fairness of the original trial, their patronizing by government, the fascistic outcome of Shahbag and the mass killings of opposition using internationally reputed references, not the unreputed Bangladeshi ones that are already under severe criticism of yellow journalism. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

The name of this article should be changed to something wider because: 1) The Shahbag protest and counter protests are part of the same political turmoil in Bangladesh and cannot be separated superficially just to satisfy one side or the other 2) The protest and counter protests hinge around the same issues and context and any separation of the article will be difficult and superficial 3) International entities and media such as UN, Human Rights Watch, Al Jazeera, The Economist, BBC, CNN are reporting on the both pro-government and counter-government protests as a part of the same political turmoil. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

I also seriously challenge the neutrality of the article. As I have said the article is promoting local pro-government/pro-Shahbag yellow journalism as references while major international reports and neutral local news are missing as references. I will demonstrate this point by point: 1) The protests center on a 9 month long genocide in 1971 which includes atrocities committed by both warring sides but major casualties having been from the Bangladeshi side. The present article claims the total number to be 3 million, but internationally the accepted figure that is officially used (established at a conference of the US Department of State) is +/- 3 lakhs (References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide#cite_note-USSD2005-06-31 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide#cite_note-dawn-32) 2) The article gives the impression that all war criminals are being tried where only a few top leaders of opposition parties have been actually accused (All Reports, Local/International, example http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2013/03/2013347575585654.html), and this needs to be made clear in order to convey why opposition is protesting against Shahbag. 3) A legal issues section discussing the legal issues about which the parties are fighting is crucial for this article: The article mentions that Shahbag is demanding outright conviction and capital punishment from a trial (can protesters demand conviction or a particular sentence from a court?) that has already been declared unfair by international media and organizations due to inequality between the number of witnesses that the prosecution and defense can present (unlimited for prosecution, max. 6 for defence), prosecution's use of hearsay evidence, leaked Skype conference revealing government manipulation of the trial process, the abduction of defense witnesses by law enforcers, and conviction without proof of direct participation (i.e. personally undertaking or ordering the acts of murder or rape. He was rather found guilty of “complicity” in or “abetting” an offence, “accompany[ing] the gang to the crime site having rifle in hand” or facilitating mass murder and rape by being “present” at the scene) (References: Wall Street Journal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-Wright-65 The Economist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-The_Economist-63 Human Rights Watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-HRW_Retrial-66 David Bergman http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/in-bangladesh-the-flawed-path-to-accountability/article4466192.ece Human Rights Watch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-Adams-9) 4) The article does not mention that "Mass killings" were suffered by the opposition to Shahbag due to indiscriminate firing by police (AL Jazeera, Human Rights Watch), where protests should have been countered in ways that are internationally acceptable (Human Rights Watch) (References: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/01/bangladesh-end-violence-over-war-crimes-trials & http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2013/03/2013334365986195.html) 5) The above list of references is not exhaustive. So what we get is that pro-government/pro-Shahbag editors are twisting facts either w/o references or at times using some local and unofficial Indian yellow journalism as references and reverting edits with significant international references to world's major media reports that would be considered by all. I urgently draw the attention of Wikipedia admins to consider this major and ongoing vandalism regarding a currently very sensitive issue. Empty comments such as we want peace and opposition is criminal, or photographs of government activists from around the world should not be used to establish a point in such a crucial article. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

Edit conflict
Sorry for the double save and the need for another user to resave changes at same time. It was a computer error. Crtew (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's okay. Thanks for your message. Pratanu.roy (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Assessment
Having read the article and then looked at the assessment, I think the article has been developed around a lower C level assesment. For the article to get to the B level, I think the editors should consider including other points of view, filling in the gaps, and as another user above points out updating article. The article seems too one-sided at this moment. The "to-do" list for raising the quality level, however, doesn't seem to reflect enough of the basics of a good Wikipedia article, which goes beyond just checking sources. Good luck in raising this article to a higher level, Crtew (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. The following was sentence was deleted:

"The ICT has been criticised for showing lack of due process by several international organisations including the UN and Human Rights Watch."

Since it's deleted, the reader won't get both sides of the issue for NPOV, and this has everything to do with the article's topic (as this was given for its deletion). See: Tahmima Anam & David Bergman

Removing this kind of material will not advance the article beyond its present status as a rather weak C article. Moreover, the edit warring at this page will also significantly slow down improvement efforts. What I am seeing here is a work process that is not conducive to improvement. I think a reasonable approach would be to look through history and see if the other sides of the topic are being deleted out and allowing for some type of talk page structure to come to a reasonable consensus. Good luck, Crtew (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's another good example of something deleted that is from another POV (and does have better sources than the weak ones used to support it, like the two journalists listed above): "The Shahbag protest movement has also been harshly criticised by some commentators as not taking into consideration the flaws of the International Crimes tribunal. (note: references deleted as weak)"

History looks full of many of these issues. Crtew (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Crtew, Thanks for your suggestion. Actually if you see the history log of this article, you will see that this article is developed by a lot of newbies. Most of them have no know how about wikipedia rules. Thats why some parts of this article is not according to wiki rule. I am trying to improve it with my little wiki knowledge.
 * Now I am explaining my points. First of all I am the person, who removed the HRW and UN links. My point is, this article is about a movement, not about ICT. Few organization has welcome it and few are blame it. So I think just putting the blaming part is not according to NPOV. I will divert the focus of the article. I think how this movement is criticized by others is more relevant to neutral it. Another wikipedian put a link of Open democracy.com link as reference. But it is a editorial type site and a Biased or opinionated sources, so according to this it should be stated in this way "Mr. Someone says, Blah blah blah (his statement)....", but he don't do it.
 * "The Shahbag protest movement has also been harshly criticised by some..." do you support this kind of strong criticism with a bullshit type source? There are much more reliable source are out there. I will gather them, but I think the harshly criticised should not be there. What is your opinion?
 * I'm not good in English, don't know can I make my points clear or not and thanks again gor your suggestion.--Freemesm (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the words "harshly criticised" is a POV phrase, and I wouldn't use that phrase, and I also agree those sources were awful, which is why I didn't use them (even in the example), but the criticism part of the ICT still stands. It seems critics are not going after what the ICT is mandated to do but rather how they are going about it. Both sides need to be covered for there not to be this fundamental problem about POV.
 * You also make a very good point about where to draw the line between the ICT article and the protest article, but as the arguments between the two journalists indicates, the matters are spilling over. The issues of the protest seem meaningless if you don't have some knowledge about the ICT (like the judgments).Crtew (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, Mr. Crtew for your critical comments on how to improve the article. I would like to state my points on why I have removed the lines by Snackathon - 'ICT was harshly criticized by ...'. First of all, as you already stated, the sources were very weak and not reliable. Secondly, the focus of the article is on the 'Shahbag Protest', but not on the acceptance level of ICT. I can understand your point on how the ICT has been criticized by HRW and UN. However, if you kindly look at the news of the protest in world media and how it spread among the common Bangladeshi people around the world (e.g. BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21383632, and The Guardian (by Nick Cohen): http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/17/bagladeshi-protests-reflected-londons-east-end), you will clearly realize that the Shahbag Protest is not against ICT, but against the war-criminals. It's objective is to ensure that all the war-criminals are punished according to their proven crimes. The initiation of the protest was due to the verdict of Abdul Kader Mullah aka the Butcher of Mirpur, who showed a victory sign to the media after getting a life sentence, which has to defeat anyone's common sense (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/13/shahbag-protest-bangladesh-quader-mollah). I understand your suggestions about mentioning the criticism about ICT. However, I think, if we really need to include the criticism about ICT, it should be included in a separate section of the article (e.g. under Criticism/Controversies), but not in the lead, otherwise the readers will get diverted from the main topic. Pratanu.roy (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If editors can point to enough criticism about the process from multiple sources and they relate to the protests, then it's pretty clear that it should be included in this article or else a "hole" in the topic is established and again that will not raise the assessment level higher. You make a valid point about how much though it too much and if it should be included in the lead or not. I'm not sure if there is ever going to be a definitive answer to that one. Very tricky. I don't know. I don't think there is an answer to that. Crtew (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The article should discuss the Shahbag protest within its context, neutrally, from an international point of view. Basically the Shahbag protest demanded the death of all accused, which has been criticized by UN, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, David Bergman of New Age in Bangladesh, BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, The Economist, The UK House of Lords, UK Bar Council, etc, as a mockery of the due process of law and responsible for counter protests from opposition. These media have claimed that the trial was not fair in the first instance, on top of that Shahbag is forcing mob justice on a court. Shahbag protest has expressed solidarity with government in suppressing opposition, and the government is justifying the killing of 140+ opposition supporters in 2 days using Shahbag demands as a popular back up. Its highly deceptive to say Shahbag is a peaceful movement. They have called on the government to eradicate Jamaat-e-Islami by force. Everyone killed were opposition supporters. The police is shooting opposition supporters on sight, without using any other method to quell the protests first. On the other hand Shahbag protesters are being provided by food and security regularly. Only one of them died, and even though the government is blaming the opposition for murder, several media has reported that it might well be an inside job by the government to blame the opposition. Some students arrested in relation to the murder have reported that they did not know their actual instigator well. The government is not arresting the actual instigator, leading to suspicion. Only expatriate Bangladeshi journalists such as Tahmina Alam have written positively about the protest. The sources used in this article quote only Bangladeshi media sources such as BDNews, The Daily Star, and some Indian articles which have been accused of yellow journalism favoring a fascist movement in Bangladesh. Bangladeshi sources revealing the situation of the opposition, such as Amar Desh, has also been ommitted from this article. Amar Desh reported that Shahbag backed goons are setting fire to Hindu temples, but Shahbag is claiming that it was the opposition who did it and so the police is justified in killing them. Shahbag has also threatened politically neutral professors, journalists, real 1971 freedom fighters such as Kader Siddiqui who expressed opinions against the mass killings. Every international media has confirmed that those who died belong to the opposition, so stop making deceptive comments such as the opposition is responsible for the killings. The rise of fascism and killings in Bangladesh is a direct result of Shahbag demands. I guess there are many Shahbag backers here trying to destroy the neutrality of this article. This article should discuss the situation about Shahbag fully. What's the context, what its demands are, the legality of their demands, the fairness of the original trial, their patronizing by government, the fascistic outcome of Shahbag and the mass killings of opposition using internationally reputed references, not the unreputed Bangladeshi ones that are already under severe criticism of yellow journalism. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

The name of this article should be changed to something wider because: 1) The Shahbag protest and counter protests are part of the same political turmoil in Bangladesh and cannot be separated superficially just to satisfy one side or the other 2) The protest and counter protests hinge around the same issues and context and any separation of the article will be difficult and superficial 3) International entities and media such as UN, Human Rights Watch, Al Jazeera, The Economist, BBC, CNN are reporting on the both pro-government and counter-government protests as a part of the same political turmoil. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

I also seriously challenge the neutrality of the article. As I have said the article is promoting local pro-government/pro-Shahbag yellow journalism as references while major international reports and neutral local news are missing as references. I will demonstrate this point by point: 1) The protests center on a 9 month long genocide in 1971 which includes atrocities committed by both warring sides but major casualties having been from the Bangladeshi side. The present article claims the total number to be 3 million, but internationally the accepted figure that is officially used (established at a conference of the US Department of State) is +/- 3 lakhs (References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide#cite_note-USSD2005-06-31 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide#cite_note-dawn-32) 2) The article gives the impression that all war criminals are being tried where only a few top leaders of opposition parties have been actually accused (All Reports, Local/International, example http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2013/03/2013347575585654.html), and this needs to be made clear in order to convey why opposition is protesting against Shahbag. 3) A legal issues section discussing the legal issues about which the parties are fighting is crucial for this article: The article mentions that Shahbag is demanding outright conviction and capital punishment from a trial (can protesters demand conviction or a particular sentence from a court?) that has already been declared unfair by international media and organizations due to inequality between the number of witnesses that the prosecution and defense can present (unlimited for prosecution, max. 6 for defence), prosecution's use of hearsay evidence, leaked Skype conference revealing government manipulation of the trial process, the abduction of defense witnesses by law enforcers, and conviction without proof of direct participation (i.e. personally undertaking or ordering the acts of murder or rape. He was rather found guilty of “complicity” in or “abetting” an offence, “accompany[ing] the gang to the crime site having rifle in hand” or facilitating mass murder and rape by being “present” at the scene) (References: Wall Street Journal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-Wright-65 The Economist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-The_Economist-63 Human Rights Watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-HRW_Retrial-66 David Bergman http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/in-bangladesh-the-flawed-path-to-accountability/article4466192.ece Human Rights Watch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-Adams-9) 4) The article does not mention that "Mass killings" were suffered by the opposition to Shahbag due to indiscriminate firing by police (AL Jazeera, Human Rights Watch), where protests should have been countered in ways that are internationally acceptable (Human Rights Watch) (References: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/01/bangladesh-end-violence-over-war-crimes-trials & http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2013/03/2013334365986195.html) 5) The above list of references is not exhaustive. So what we get is that pro-government/pro-Shahbag editors are twisting facts either w/o references or at times using some local and unofficial Indian yellow journalism as references and reverting edits with significant international references to world's major media reports that would be considered by all. I urgently draw the attention of Wikipedia admins to consider this major and ongoing vandalism regarding a currently very sensitive issue. Empty comments such as we want peace and opposition is criminal, or photographs of government activists from around the world should not be used to establish a point in such a crucial article. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

BLP
There are is a lot of writing that Mollah and his like are 'war criminals', this having been 'proven' by the ICT. However, Wikipedia has rather high standards with regards what can be written in biographies of living persons. In order to present these very serious (and potentially libellous if details are ever found untrue) allegations as fact, we need a very reliable source which proves them according to Wikipedia's standards. Many sources provided are from Bangladeshi newspapers biased one way or the other, such as The Daily Star, and as such are not really reliable enough. Being found guilty by the ICT, given the myriad of problems associated with it   also isn't enough.

Therefore, unless someone can find me a reliable source conclusively proving these serious allegations, I will be making sure that this article does not contain potential libel. This does not, of course, mean that the allegations will be glossed over, but they will remain simply allegations for now. Applesandapples (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Issue of open democracy explained above. You alleged that most of the sources are biased! Ha ha ha... then create new BBC of CNN for your own. :) The news sources above are most reputed in Bangladesh and outer world.--Freemesm (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Two points are being made above by Applesandapples. Here are my two cents worth:


 * First, once a legal body with jurisdiction has made a judgment, then that person is convicted. This is very clear, and the only standard would be to show a conviction. It is common, however, to allow for the intent of a convicted party to appeal if that is possible in a given process. By the high standards of Wikipedia, all an editor would have show is verification of a simple conviction.


 * Second, if the above situation occurs, then that person is convicted for a very specific charge. Whatever that would be should be clearly noted. It seems in this case that there is a reasonable dispute about this actual charge, and if he should be called a "war criminal". Where there is a reasonable dispute, both sides should be presented to the Wikipedia audience. If only one side is presented, then the article has a POV problem and it will remain a low C-status assessed article.Crtew (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Freemesm, I can only describe myself as bemused at your comment. 'new BBC of CNN for your own'? I don't really know what to make of that. And if The Daily Star is the 'most reputed news source' in Bangladesh, then that is no more than a damning assessment of journalism in Bangladesh. You would do well to read something like this.
 * Crtew, given that there is a reasonable dispute over the 'war criminal' tag, do you agree that it is much more appropriate to avoid calling him a war criminal outright in the article? I am all for a proper explanation of both sides of the argument to be presented to the Wikipedia audience. Also, I agree that there is a POV problem and I think that a POV tag should be put on the top of this article to warn readers. Applesandapples (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't understand why do you provide a link of Bargman's blog. I can give you thousand links, which are blaming BBC, CNN etc world renown news agencies. That doesn't make any difference. Wikipedia doesn't a place for Research, so judging the tribunal's validity should not be invented in this article. News sources presented him as war criminal, we should state that in here. If you think the verdict is not ko, then it is judicial mater, face it judicially. Do not use wikipedia to express your own opinion.--Freemesm (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can produce a link showing that BBC/CNN are producing terrible journalism with regards to the ICT, I would most certainly like to see it! And I do not judge for myself the tribunal's validity in the article - there are a large number of criticisms, of which I linked three at the beginning of this section. Did you look at them? Applesandapples (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Crtew, as a human rights journalist you may know every trial process is seems controversial in convicted's point of view. So, making a article with full of negative words just by putting convicted's point of view is not a good idea. Off course NPOV is needed, but that does not mean to make article in favor of convicted. That will bring it from C level to worse!--Freemesm (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the article should not be from the convicted person's POV and that this would definitely make the article biased. Bringing in the criticism of the process is a must for constructing a NPOV article because it is part of the discourse around the protests. If there were no criticism and if there were no organizations like the UN and Human Rights Watch stepping in, as well as others inside the country making these points in a vocal way, I would agree that it would be misplaced here. Crtew (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr. Crtew, on your first point, the person (Quader Mullah in this case) has been clearly convicted by a legal body of jurisdiction (i.e. ICT). The defendant here has the opportunity to appeal against the verdict, as well as the prosecution team can appeal if they are not satisfied with the verdict. All the major Bangladeshi media and newspapers as well as world media, , , covered this news and called him as a 'convicted war criminal'. Now, the people who went to Shahbag to protest against the verdict are clearly not satisfied with the level of punishment. That is why mentioning him as as a convicted criminal is of crucial importance for this article. On your second point, the person was indeed convicted for very specific charges - out of six charges, he was found guilty for five of them . It should be noted that, the news media will state the summary of the verdict by ICT as it was presented by ICT - there is no reason to tweak it. If you want a stronger proof, please read the whole verdict by ICT here: . All the charges naturally can not be mentioned in this article, they should be mentioned in the article of Abdul Quader Molla. And, if you look at the above mentioned references, both the world media and Bangladeshi media are referring the convicted or accused people as 'War cirminals'. If someone is proved guilty of war crimes, I don't think there is any other suitable word to describe him/her other than 'war criminal'. We need to understand that, this particular guy has done enough to get his name 'The Butcher of Mirpur'. Therefore, the BLP issue does not stand here as per the rule of Central aspects of BLP  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratanu.roy (talk • contribs) 07:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

About relevance of references
Applesandapples, I have reverted your edit. Let me explain myself. This topic is about the protest going on at Shahbag. But to understand what it is for we need some background information. Also we need to know what is the stand of the different political parties on this protest. That is why it is relevant what other political parties are doing in the country related to the cause of Shahbag. You were not entirely correct when you reasoned that, "sources do not mention Shahbag". Here is what I found in the references, "A clash between police and activists of Jamaat and Olama Mashayekh Parishad broke out at Motijheel at about 6:30am when they under the banner of Olama Ekram Pir Mashayekh Janata Mancha tried to hold an unscheduled rally at Paltan Maidan to counter the Shahbagh demonstration, said DMP Deputy Commissioner Anwar Hossain, referring to the statements of the detainees." and "Meanwhile, the clashes took place around couple of hours before Jamaat-e-Islami was scheduled to hold a protest rally at the city’s Paltan in the afternoon as part of its countrywide demonstration to protest what it termed the 'government-sponsored' rally at Shahbagh intersection" so on and so forth. All the other news of the violence demonstrated by the Jamaat/Shibir and they are all linked to this Shahbag protest. Thanks for understanding. Shubhrokallol (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I had said that nearly all the sources do not mention Shahbag, which is true. The two sources you mention there are relevant and it was a mistake on my part to take them off. However, it cannot be assumed that every JI protest in the other sources is somehow related to Shahbag - and if it isn't, then it shouldn't really be here. There is already quite a lot of background here. So how about a smaller section, which talks about JI/Shibir protests and crimes in specifically counter-Shahbag demonstrations? Applesandapples (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding. One thing I still don't understand, Shahbag Protest is demanding capital punishment for the persons charged with war crimes, whereas, JI/Shibir is demanding to set them free. So how can you write the Shahbag topic without talking about its opposition JI and their violence? I would say that this paragraph is relevant to the topic. But, as the time goes by, if there are more violence by JI/Shibir, we will need to think of another section dedicated for JI/Shibir protests and crimes in specifically counter-Shahbag demonstrations. Thanks for your suggestions. Shubhrokallol (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Shubhrokallol, you've mentioned good points. I agree with creating new section explaining JI/shibir's violation. Can you wright it please?--Freemesm (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * SK, my point is that many JI protests are simply not to do with Shahbag. There might be overlap between the subject that these protests and Shahbag cover (ie war crimes/the ICT) but we cannot write a section about everyone who has spoken for or against those charged with war crimes, can we? Because that belongs in a different article. That's why I suggest that the section on JI protests should only include the protests which are related to Shahbag.Applesandapples (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * AAA, I totally agree with you! We cannot write about everyone, but we have to write about JI/Shibir, because it is their leader that the Shahbag protester are asking the capital punishment for. So, I see it perfectly relevant. I think everyone will see my point. Thanks. Shubhrokallol (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You say we have to write about JI/Shibir, but what about JI/Shibir then? Why are you singling out violent protests by JI/Shibir, and not the entire history and workings of JI/Shibir, if writing about them is 'perfectly relevant'? I don't see how it is relevant at all. They are related topics, but you cannot simply write what you want about one thing in a different article just because they are related topics. There has to be direct relevance to the article at hand, which is 2013 Shahbag Protests. If you want to write about protests by Jamaat which are not in response to Shahbag, you should go to this article to edit. Applesandapples (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me put it very clearly. A=Shahbag, B=Kader Mollah, C=JI. A wants capital punishment for B, C wants B to be freed. You are writing an article about A wanting punishment for B. And you don't think C is related to A/B. Well, if you omit C, then this article will terribly suffer with WP:NPOV. I AM singling out violent protests by JI/Shibir, and not the entire history and workings of JI/Shibir because we are NOT writing this article. Shubhrokallol (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that everyone who has something to say about Kader Mollah should be written about in the Shahbag article? I think that protests to do with Kader Mollah should be in the Kader Mollah article. This protest covers Mollah, war crimes and the ICT. Do you really think all comment and protest on these things should be included? I would be satisfied if the article stuck to its topic in a balanced way, rather than straying off topic every time there is an opportunity to display crimes by JI. Applesandapples (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * AAA, have you read my replies? I am NOT asking to include reactions of everyone that you are always hinting at, I want to single out violent protests by JI/Shibir. Without that, this article will suffer from WP:NPOV and will not have directly related information. These words are in bold in my previous replies in case you missed that. This conversation is not going anywhere if you do not understand what I am saying and keep repeating yourself. Please take your time and carefully read my replies. If you do not have anything else to say then I guess this is the end of this conversation, as it has become stale at this point. Thanks. Shubhrokallol (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment on this section
"The day before the verdict Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, the Islamist political party of which Abdul Kader Mollah is a leader, had announced a countrywide dawn-to-dusk general strike for Tuesday February 5, in protest of their leader's trial and impending verdict.  At the same time, social media users and people in general were dissatisfied with the International Crimes Tribunal verdict, considering it a very lenient sentence.  Following the verdict, there have been numerous postings on Facebook and Twitter and in blogs denouncing the judgment and demanding capital punishment for Abdul Kader Mollah. 'One Facebook user wrote on his status: “Come to Shahbagh, even if you are scared of the troubles on the street. You’ll find so many people standing by you demanding trial of the anti-liberation hyenas and vultures. Just forget what might happen. Just say that you demand capital punishment (for the war criminals). You have the courage to raise your voice with others in this demand.”' "

This is just an anonymous Facebook user's status! It should not be in a Wikipedia article, as it is most certainly not encyclopedic content. Are there any editors who are genuinely after an NPOV article who can comment on whether what "One Facebook user wrote on his status" is remotely notable? Applesandapples (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't know how you are, as you don't sign your name. For your kind information, it is taken from a news, not directly from favebook. As this movement is significantly influenced by facebook and other social networking site, I think it should be here and off course it is notable.--Freemesm (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The comment is given by Applesandapples, as I can see from the History section of the talk page. Again, I am stating this: the whole Shahbag Protest started when the Bloggers, connected through the social networking media, went to Shahbag and started to protest against the verdict of Quader Mullah. The whole movement spread with this type of FB messages and even the people living outside Bangladesh expressed their solidarity through different FB status and activities. So, mentioning a sourced FB comment is very relevant to convey the whole idea of the protest. Now, after you removed this FB comment, you then removed the comparison of Shahbag with Tahrir Square from the lead - which again indicates that you are systematically trying to vandalize the article. Please do not raise POV issues here, because it is you who are trying to introduce your POVs in the contents. So, before you further edit anything in this article, raise the issue in the talk page and resolve it first. Pratanu.roy (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing Lines and Important Sources by User:Applesandapples
This editor is very systematically removing sources and lines from different parts of the article, to undermine the main content of the article and saying that 'they are not relevant or they belongs elsewhere'. In a recent edit he modified the lead by erasing some lines and sources, with the comment: "Intro is very long and repetitive - removed some information already mentioned in intro or mentioned further down, and moved tahrir square comparison down to relevant section". And right after this edit, he omitted this line : The many grievous atrocities alleged to have been committed by Abdul Quader Mollah during the liberation war earned him the nickname of "Butcher of Mirpur" (মিরপুরের কসাই Mirpurer Kôshai), saying that "unsourced and doesn't really belong in the intro anyway - the intro quite long". However, he just removed the source supporting this statement in his previous edits. This seems very intentional and a deliberate way to modify the article to support his/ her POV and an act of vandalism WP:VandalismPratanu.roy (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you show where I removed a source which was being used to include information about the nickname "Butcher of Mirpur", before you make these accusations? I don't think I removed any such source in my 'previous edits'. Also, AGF please. I am not a vandal, just someone who tries to maintain standards when editing. Applesandapples (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * When you removed this part:, there was a reference "guandian-tahmima" which mentioned Quader Molla as 'Butcher of Mirpur'. After that, when you removed this part: , you said: "unsourced and doesn't really belong in the intro anyway - the intro quite long". If you did it from NPOV, you should have included the reference "guandian-tahmima" right after the "Butcher of Mirpur" line. There are at least three to four references in the article to support this line, then why did you remove it saying it UNREFERENCED? If you argue that, intro is too long, then you can remove the reactions from other parties (BNP/Jamaat-e-Islami) from the lead (Although I think they should be there to maintain the neutrality). But, you can not remove the line "Butcher of Mirpur" in any case, since that is why the people are in the streets of Shahbag now, if this guy was really innocent, hundreds of thousands of people would have raised voices for his acquittal, not for his capital punishment. Pratanu.roy (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"Butcher of Mirpur" in lead
Hi have removed the sentence about Mollah nickname the "Butcher of Mirpur" in the lead. It got reversed because it is sourced. I have removed again. I have not removed that sentence from the lead because it is unreferenced, it is also in Mollah's article and at first glance it looks like referenced there. I have removed it in an attempt to improve the neutrality of the lead section. I think references to the crimes (mass murder, rape) are enough to establish the general idea. Details like the nickname are probably fine in the main body of the article. Anyway, revert if this makes no sense to you. I just wanted to be clear that my point is trying to improve neutrality (and keeping the lead lean) not lack of references. Cheers! - Nabla (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. Now it is clear enough. Thanks for your effort to make this article descent.--Freemesm (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to thank (but nice to read anyway). And I thank you. - Nabla (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

lead problems/cleanup tag
The lead has two problems, it is a written, and a logical jumble. As someone with little knowledge of the subject I find it impossible to follow. It should start with a short clear statement of what is going on, then be followed by two or three paragraphs expanding on various issues. As it stands now it is like a book cut up into pieces of paper and thrown into a hat. I suggest someone with a knowledge of the subject give (1) a clear short lead statement, (2) a second paragraph noting the viewpoints or issues and specific details (3) one or two paragraphs ghoing into details on the issues and opposing points of view, and (4) maybe a closing sentence mentioning the most recent developments. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I welcome the initiative. But we also need to include necessary details e.g. (1) few words on Shahbag as it has always been the hub of our language movement and other important political movement (2) solidarity of people all over the globe (3) a little more details on the type of protest after Sayeedi's verdict which led to death of Jamaat-Shibir followers, police and innocent countrymen.Shantonu.hossain (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Changing the title
I suggest the articles' name be changed to 2013 Bangladesh protests as the protest is going on at all 64 districts of Bangladesh. The article should mention about all the Gonojagoron Manchas set up throughout the country, but not just covering Shahbag Square.

Ahnaaf (talk) 05:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree! The protests are not limited to Shahbagh only! -- Zayeem (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite agree. The protest started at Shahbag and then it became the icon for all the people of Bangladesh throughout the world. Shahbag also became familiar in the international media. Bangladesh Protest doesn't reflect the true picture of the protest. Shantonu.hossain (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have made the move (Just before I saw Shantonu's objection). The protests are wider, and it makes sense to have a wider name.  Shahbag protests still links here.  This can be changed if there are a second separate set of notable protests in Bangladesh this year, or an admin can switch it back if there's consensus. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Bangladesh protest can mean anything. We should choose a title that refers to something unique. For example, we can refer to Occupy Wall Street. The protesters occupied banks, corporate headquarters, college and university campuses and it's still referred as Occupy Wall Street. Similarly Shahbag has became the icon for all the Bangladeshi people. We should honor that. Shantonu.hossain (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Title change of an article is a big thing to do. Apart from all of the debate, this is the single most important thing that reflects the total concept of the topic. This protest started at Shahbag, and then it spread all over Bangladesh. And so Shahbag became the key icon/name/flag of this protest. I have two issues here, 1. changing the title of the article without any discussion in the talk page, or without taking any kind of consensus. 2. people who have suggested a title change should do some research and should let themselves more acquainted of what is going on in Bangladesh. If anybody does a little research he will find that, this protest is centered about Shahbag, and that should be the title of the page. Please do not do this in future. Before changing the title you should ask for consensus. Thanks. Shubhrokallol (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I still think the change is correct, and that there is consensus for it. But I am not opposed to you either requesting a move, or asking an amin to move it immediately. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * μηδείς, with due respect, you didn't give me any counter-logic to my earlier response. Also, the title was changed within few hours of the suggestion of the change. I think we could have waited a bit longer and discuss more before the change. --Shantonu.hossain (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Shantonu Hossain. Bangladesh Protest is a meaningless title! The appropriate name should be 2013 Shahbag Mass Movement because it started with a few bloggers and activists expressing their disbelief and discontent over the verdict of Abdul Kader Mollah. It then spread all over Bangladesh when hundreds of thousands of people across Bangladesh joined the movement and set up Projonmo Chottors in their local towns and cities. Bangladeshis abroad also expressed solidarity with the movement. These protests are peaceful, non-violent protests and, apart from the killing of blogger Rajib, there have been no casualties or fatalities. It is only the protests of Jamat and Shibir that are violent and have resulted in deaths. Jamat and Shibir protests were not held in Shahbag or other Projonmo Chottors. They were held elsewhere. Liberty Pedia (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is not a good idea to change the title of this article without considering other editor's opinion. Please move this article under "2013 Shahbag Protests".--Freemesm (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * μηδείς, you should have waited for a few more responses before changing the title. Shahbag is the keyword for this mass movement and people recognize it as a symbol of protest now. So, please revert it to 2013 Shahbag Protests. Pratanu.roy (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Issues template deleted
It's truly amazing to me that the multiple issues template can be deleted over the course of a single day when the article doesn't show one iota of improvement. How can this be? The article will not improve if we don't have a starting point. A template should only be removed if it can be demonstrated that all problems with 1) Point of View 2) poor organization and 3) bad writing have been taken care of. Is that the case? Crtew (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Give specific criticisms! I am the one who added the tag for the lead yesterday.  That was taken care of brilliantly by another editor, I removed it.  The disputed neutrality tag discussion above makes not a single specific edit about any claim or edit--without that it basically means "me no like".  That just leaves the remaining cleanup tag.  But article level tags are meaningless without specific complaints in the body or talk.  Feel free to help clean up the article. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I continue to question the lead as it's a big mess, and yet you say it was "taken care of brilliantly". So we're starting with quite different standards. But ok, the template states simply, the neutrality of this article is in dispute. Suggestions:
 * POV violation #1 - The article is written to promote the Awami League party.
 * POV violation #2 - All other political parties are presented in the worst light and in ways to trivialize their legitimate points.
 * POV violation #3 - A global disregard of positions that advocate for rule of law and human rights or outside points of view that question the judicial process, the mob rule, etc.
 * POV violation #4 - The portrayal of violence in the article is presented in the narrowest sense but doesn't take into account the violence of mob action and rule.
 * POV violation #5 - The media coverage section is meaningless. No answers for the question, So what? The whole section doesn't say anything and is full of silly, banal, trivialities. A bunch of newspapers have covered the protests? A bunch of names are dropped? So and so took photos? Seriously? The section seems to want to wrap the people in global coverage and chatter to show they are "the good" but it's done in the most primitive way. From POV, the absence of other points of view is again obvious. No criticism or answer is provided against the prevailing anti-media sentiment, such as the sentiment seen for Amar Desh or The Economist.
 * POV violation #6 - The article is written in service of a Bangladeshi/domestic audience.
 * POV violation #7 - Peacocks all over the place for the protesters.
 * POV violation #8 - There is no larger perspective on what is happening.
 * I suggest you start to clean this article up by looking in the history for the useful material that has been deleted.Crtew (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * These are all abstract objections. They may be true.  I have no dog in this hunt.  But you need to object that certain claims are unreferenced (tag them) or certain edits are objectionable (when they are made), or add balancing (well referenced) material you think is lacking.  Until then please don't tag the article as a whole--just do the work. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As you can see my claims against the neutrality of this page are many and they are in no way too abstract for the average person to understand. This article has so many problems, as indicated above, and the editors are so very quick to remove a neutrality tag, that I suspect something else to be going on here. I think we need to bring in an outsider who will examine your refusal to understand that I have the right to tag this article for bias. It's neutrality is clearly disputed. Crtew (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article should discuss the Shahbag protest within its context, neutrally, from an international point of view. Basically the Shahbag protest demanded the death of all accused, which has been criticized by UN, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, David Bergman of New Age in Bangladesh, BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, The Economist, The UK House of Lords, UK Bar Council, etc, as a mockery of the due process of law and responsible for counter protests from opposition. These media have claimed that the trial was not fair in the first instance, on top of that Shahbag is forcing mob justice on a court. Shahbag protest has expressed solidarity with government in suppressing opposition, and the government is justifying the killing of 140+ opposition supporters in 2 days using Shahbag demands as a popular back up. Its highly deceptive to say Shahbag is a peaceful movement. They have called on the government to eradicate Jamaat-e-Islami by force. Everyone killed were opposition supporters. The police is shooting opposition supporters on sight, without using any other method to quell the protests first. On the other hand Shahbag protesters are being provided by food and security regularly. Only one of them died, and even though the government is blaming the opposition for murder, several media has reported that it might well be an inside job by the government to blame the opposition. Some students arrested in relation to the murder have reported that they did not know their actual instigator well. The government is not arresting the actual instigator, leading to suspicion. Only expatriate Bangladeshi journalists such as Tahmina Alam have written positively about the protest. The sources used in this article quote only Bangladeshi media sources such as BDNews, The Daily Star, and some Indian articles which have been accused of yellow journalism favoring a fascist movement in Bangladesh. Bangladeshi sources revealing the situation of the opposition, such as Amar Desh, has also been ommitted from this article. Amar Desh reported that Shahbag backed goons are setting fire to Hindu temples, but Shahbag is claiming that it was the opposition who did it and so the police is justified in killing them. Shahbag has also threatened politically neutral professors, journalists, real 1971 freedom fighters such as Kader Siddiqui who expressed opinions against the mass killings. Every international media has confirmed that those who died belong to the opposition, so stop making deceptive comments such as the opposition is responsible for the killings. The rise of fascism and killings in Bangladesh is a direct result of Shahbag demands. I guess there are many Shahbag backers here trying to destroy the neutrality of this article. This article should discuss the situation about Shahbag fully. What's the context, what its demands are, the legality of their demands, the fairness of the original trial, their patronizing by government, the fascistic outcome of Shahbag and the mass killings of opposition using internationally reputed references, not the unreputed Bangladeshi ones that are already under severe criticism of yellow journalism. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC))
 * (Shamelessshahbag Your user name actually shows that you already decided about Shahbag. However I would like to see some sources for your comments in the above claims you made. For example, 140+ opposition supporters killed in 2 days? Where did this number come from and how did you conclude that they were opposition supporters killed because of their political views? If we look at Bangladesh at the moment, we can see that Jamaat Shibir had been terrorizing people and instigating violence across the country. They are attacking pollice forces and already killed a number of them.Dmshafi (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The name of this article should be changed to something wider because: 1) The Shahbag protest and counter protests are part of the same political turmoil in Bangladesh and cannot be separated superficially just to satisfy one side or the other 2) The protest and counter protests hinge around the same issues and context and any separation of the article will be difficult and superficial 3) International entities and media such as UN, Human Rights Watch, Al Jazeera, The Economist, BBC, CNN are reporting on the both pro-government and counter-government protests as a part of the same political turmoil. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

I also seriously challenge the neutrality of the article. As I have said the article is promoting local pro-government/pro-Shahbag yellow journalism as references while major international reports and neutral local news are missing as references. I will demonstrate this point by point: 1) The protests center on a 9 month long genocide in 1971 which includes atrocities committed by both warring sides but major casualties having been from the Bangladeshi side. The present article claims the total number to be 3 million, but internationally the accepted figure that is officially used (established at a conference of the US Department of State) is +/- 3 lakhs (References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide#cite_note-USSD2005-06-31 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide#cite_note-dawn-32) 2) The article gives the impression that all war criminals are being tried where only a few top leaders of opposition parties have been actually accused (All Reports, Local/International, example http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2013/03/2013347575585654.html), and this needs to be made clear in order to convey why opposition is protesting against Shahbag. 3) A legal issues section discussing the legal issues about which the parties are fighting is crucial for this article: The article mentions that Shahbag is demanding outright conviction and capital punishment from a trial (can protesters demand conviction or a particular sentence from a court?) that has already been declared unfair by international media and organizations due to inequality between the number of witnesses that the prosecution and defense can present (unlimited for prosecution, max. 6 for defence), prosecution's use of hearsay evidence, leaked Skype conference revealing government manipulation of the trial process, the abduction of defense witnesses by law enforcers, and conviction without proof of direct participation (i.e. personally undertaking or ordering the acts of murder or rape. He was rather found guilty of “complicity” in or “abetting” an offence, “accompany[ing] the gang to the crime site having rifle in hand” or facilitating mass murder and rape by being “present” at the scene) (References: Wall Street Journal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-Wright-65 The Economist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-The_Economist-63 Human Rights Watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-HRW_Retrial-66 David Bergman http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/in-bangladesh-the-flawed-path-to-accountability/article4466192.ece Human Rights Watch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-Adams-9) 4) The article does not mention that "Mass killings" were suffered by the opposition to Shahbag due to indiscriminate firing by police (AL Jazeera, Human Rights Watch), where protests should have been countered in ways that are internationally acceptable (Human Rights Watch) (References: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/01/bangladesh-end-violence-over-war-crimes-trials & http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2013/03/2013334365986195.html) 5) The above list of references is not exhaustive. So what we get is that pro-government/pro-Shahbag editors are twisting facts either w/o references or at times using some local and unofficial Indian yellow journalism as references and reverting edits with significant international references to world's major media reports that would be considered by all. I urgently draw the attention of Wikipedia admins to consider this major and ongoing vandalism regarding a currently very sensitive issue. Empty comments such as we want peace and opposition is criminal, or photographs of government activists from around the world should not be used to establish a point in such a crucial article. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC))
 * This article is on the Shahbag protest by citizens (demanding death sentence of those accused, and also demanding ban of Jamaat-e-Islami), the achievements of the protest, and also the counter-protest led by Jamaat-e-Islami and its supporter organisations. Yes, the article gives an outline of the historical context, and in that, say, the number of people killed are mentioned. I understand the number of people killed in Bangladesh genocide is disputed, it may be 3,00,000 to 3 million. So, in this article, this may be mentioned (number is disputed).
 * However, whether it is 3,00,000 or 3 million, the accused person in these trials are not accused of all those murders (and other crimes), and they are being punished for some specific charges only. So, you can go ahead and add the number of total killed is disputed (with appropriate reference), but that does not really influence the crimes committed/punishments given to the accused.
 * If you have the specific charges as told in the official releases, that would be perhaps more pertinent. Again, the overall genocide number (and other crime numbers) are always disputed, and only provides some context to the readers.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * However, you may be true in some more coverage. For example, the article (unless I missed it) says about polics versus Jamaat-e-Islami skirmishes but does not detail that. Also, it does not detail the attacks of Jamaat-e-Islami on citizens during their religiously motivated fanatic counter-protest. The Shahbag protest, per se, remained calm and peaceful; while the Jamaat counterprotest became very bloody, leading to loss of lives of Jamaat supporters, policemen, and others, and loss of property particularly of Hindu minorities. The few photographs (that came out in the media) of the fanatic Islamic fundamentalists running and yelling on the roads, carrying out carnage once again showed the unfortunate face of fundamentalist politics.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Machine Translation (of the oath)
I have noticed the oath has been removed from the article tagging "machine-translation" or something so. Could someone put me in the picture? Doing a quick Google search, I have found few websites which contain the English text. Though I haven't checked for WP:Mirror. Newspaper like The Daily Star is reliable. Also, I do understand Bengali (the language in question, Hope more folks are out here who know the language. They/I can check the machine translation (if needed)! --Tito Dutta (contact) 22:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think, user Liberty Pedia has added the oath again with appropriate references. Thanks for your effort though. Pratanu.roy (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I too believe the reference there was inappropriate and "machine translation" there did not make proper sense. I am inclined to put it back in the article! --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Media coverage
User:ThaddeusB, thank you for your effort in improving the article. Could you please explain in details why you think facebook as trivial for this protest? Thanks Shubhrokallol (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Saying Facebook played an important role (if it did) is not trivial. Listing random newspaper articles, facebook groups, twitter posts, etc. about the movement is trivia unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise (such as reliable sources saying a specific article/post/etc. led to specific events).  Of course media covered the event and people talked about it on social media - that is true of every piece of news ever.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not use any facebook or twitter references. All of the references that I had used were from bdnews24 which is a recognized online newspaper in Bangladesh. Please go ahead an read the references that I have cited. You will get an idea of how this protest started at the very beginning. For every piece of news there are facebook and twitter posts, that is true, but what makes Shahbag special is that, it was initiated by these facebook, twitter, blog posts. That's why they are so important for this topic. If you are reluctant to do any research or do not want to read any newspaper for this matter, please read the first line on this wiki article of how the protest started in the development of protest section. May be then you will understand the importance of social media in this protest. Thanks -- Shubhrokallol (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood what I am saying. I have never said social media was unimportant, nor have I said anything was referenced to Facebook/twitter.  I am saying that the material as it was written did not in any way explain significance. Let's go through the removed material:


 * "Domestic media in Bangladesh covered Shahbag protest from the very beginning."
 * Duh, no need to state this.
 * "Local television channels covered Shahbag in their news"
 * Duh, no need to state this.
 * "The Aljazeera live stream covered Shahbag protest with a discussion panel consisting of three members, Lecturer from American University, editor of Independent Television and founder of one degree initiative foundation."
 * Why is Aljazeera's coverage so important as to warrant a description of it? (content of said coverage of course can be in body of article.)
 * "Many bloggers and writers have published articles on several international media such as The Guardian article by Tahmima Anam and The Huffington Post article by Anushay Hossain on how the protest started at Shahbag and eventually connected Bangladesh as well as Bangladeshi people from all over the world."
 * Why are these articles so important as to be covered as subjects? (content of said coverage of course can be in body of article.)
 * "International news media like Aljazeera was also following the hashtag during their broadcast of the live stream on Shahbag protest."
 * Uncited and irrelevant what hashtag Aljazeera mentioned in a broadcast
 * "Several facebook pages are created which are updated by numerous volunteers every minute."
 * Certainly not true literally and in any case conveys no more information than the material (which hasn't been deleted) saying Facebook was used to spread the word
 * "In fact, it was due to the recurrent sharing of posts from bloggers and different Facebook Pages that people started to attend events at Shahbag, and also inspired people everywhere else to show solidarity with equal motivation."
 * Uncited and pure conjecture. At best, it could be included as someone's opinion.
 * "A website is created using the name of the hashtag #Shahbag which is dedicated to the news update of Shahbag protest."
 * cited to the website itself, it read as an ad for said website. An external link (in the EL section) to the website is sufficient unless an RS decides that said website is important enough to warrant coverage.
 * The remaining material on Facebook+Twitter conveys that it was widely used to spread news. That should be sufficient IMO.  Hopefully that clears things up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing it up. Cheers! -- Shubhrokallol (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Title and article is misleading.
There are two different protests in Bangladesh. I believe, the article does a poor job distinguishing the two different protests for those who may not be familiar with Bangladesh news. One is the Shahbag protests: demanding Capital punishment for all those charged with war crimes during the Bangladesh Liberation War by the ICT. Another protest is done by supporters of Jamaat-e-Islami, who are angry that their leader Delwar Hossain Sayeedi is convicted of war crimes and sentenced to death. The casualty from Shahbag protests is zero death, whereas casualty from supporters of Jamaat-e-Islami protest is 81 deaths. For people who does not follow the Bangladeshi news will think Shahbag protests caused 81 deaths based on the summarization box at the right, which is misleading. I think, the title of the article should change to "2013 Protests in Bangladesh" and cover both protests in one article or remove everything about the Jamaat-e-Islami's protest from this article and start and a new article about that protest. Tarikur (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * At least according to the AFP reference used, that is not true. It says 65 post Sayeedi and 81 total. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When someone, who does not follow the Bangladesh news, looks at the summarization box at the right, they will think Shahbag protest lead to 81 death (which is false). Islamist protests have lead to 81 deaths in total (pre-Sayeedi and post-sayeedi). These are two different protests with two different goals and objectives. Tarikur (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The nature of two protests is totally different, since Shahbag protest is non-violent, whereas the protests by Jamaat-e-Islami is violent. The article talks particularly about 2013 Shahbag protest, and since it was initiated in Shahbag and then spread all over the country and even among the Bangladeshis living outside the country, the title is '2013 Shahbag protests'. Hence, removing the keyword 'Shahbag' will be absurd. Now, the reactions by Jamaat-e-Islami is an aftermath of the verdict and also it is against the Shahbag protest, since one of the protesters were killed by the student wing of Islami Chhatra Shibir (student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami) (See ). As most of the persons convicted of war crimes by ICT are leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami, and the Shahbag protest started against the verdict of Abdul Quader Molla (who is again a leader of Jamaat-e-Islami), everything about Jamaat-e-Islami can not be removed. Thanks. Pratanu.roy (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am fine with calling the protesting demaning capital punishment for razakars Shahbag protests. The article is confusing for people who are not following Bangladesh news. There are so much information on the Islamist protests, that a newcomer will confuse the Islamaits protest being Shahbag protest since the title is named Shahbag protest. For example, I know for fact that people do not follow Bangladesh news will think, Shahbag protest had lead to 81 deaths because summarization box at the right describe their movement on the top and at the bottom, it says casulties is 81. How can anyone new to this news not think that? I belive, the article and title needs to better distinguish between the two protests. Tarikur (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the present article lumps two different protest movements together. One of the editor tried correcting it by renaming the article as 2013 Bangladesh Protests, however it was reverted. The best solution out of this would be to have two different article one for the Shahbag Protests and the other for the violent anti-government protests. Or to have a single article on Bangladesh protest but to carefully distinguish the two ongoing different protests. Also from reading the newspapers I find that death in direct relation to Shahbag protest would be only one - that of the blogger. The rest of the death were because of the clashes between Jamat supporters and police etc. LegalEagle (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article should discuss the Shahbag protest within its context, neutrally, from an international point of view. Basically the Shahbag protest demanded the death of all accused, which has been criticized by UN, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, David Bergman of New Age in Bangladesh, BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, The Economist, The UK House of Lords, UK Bar Council, etc, as a mockery of the due process of law and responsible for counter protests from opposition. These media have claimed that the trial was not fair in the first instance, on top of that Shahbag is forcing mob justice on a court. Shahbag protest has expressed solidarity with government in suppressing opposition, and the government is justifying the killing of 140+ opposition supporters in 2 days using Shahbag demands as a popular back up. Its highly deceptive to say Shahbag is a peaceful movement. They have called on the government to eradicate Jamaat-e-Islami by force. Everyone killed were opposition supporters. The police is shooting opposition supporters on sight, without using any other method to quell the protests first. On the other hand Shahbag protesters are being provided by food and security regularly. Only one of them died, and even though the government is blaming the opposition for murder, several media has reported that it might well be an inside job by the government to blame the opposition. Some students arrested in relation to the murder have reported that they did not know their actual instigator well. The government is not arresting the actual instigator, leading to suspicion. Only expatriate Bangladeshi journalists such as Tahmina Alam have written positively about the protest. The sources used in this article quote only Bangladeshi media sources such as BDNews, The Daily Star, and some Indian articles which have been accused of yellow journalism favoring a fascist movement in Bangladesh. Bangladeshi sources revealing the situation of the opposition, such as Amar Desh, has also been ommitted from this article. Amar Desh reported that Shahbag backed goons are setting fire to Hindu temples, but Shahbag is claiming that it was the opposition who did it and so the police is justified in killing them. Shahbag has also threatened politically neutral professors, journalists, real 1971 freedom fighters such as Kader Siddiqui who expressed opinions against the mass killings. Every international media has confirmed that those who died belong to the opposition, so stop making deceptive comments such as the opposition is responsible for the killings. The rise of fascism and killings in Bangladesh is a direct result of Shahbag demands. I guess there are many Shahbag backers here trying to destroy the neutrality of this article. This article should discuss the situation about Shahbag fully. What's the context, what its demands are, the legality of their demands, the fairness of the original trial, their patronizing by government, the fascistic outcome of Shahbag and the mass killings of opposition using internationally reputed references, not the unreputed Bangladeshi ones that are already under severe criticism of yellow journalism. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC))
 * *Oppose Representing twisted information for the sake of neutrality is even worse than some false talk, which is exactly what this comment is trying to do. The original article covers the Shahbag movement, a movement supported by a huge number of commoners in Bangladesh. People went to Shahbag to initiate one of the most peaceful protests in the history of the country. Those who could not, expressed their support from all the nooks and crooks of the country and also from abroad. The aftermath of Shahbag movement comes largely in the fashion of protest of Jamaat-e-Islami, a fundamentalist political party of Bangladesh. They are against the war crimes tribunal and actively trying to save their leaders (some of them are proven war criminals. others are under trial). Jamaat and their student wing Shibir, created havoc in some parts of the country by killing cops, looting minority homes (as their politics is based mainly on religious faith, their hatred on Hindus and other minorities goes back a long time), threatening minority women with sexual abuse, and vandalizing a lot of public properties. Naturally, they also suffered some casualties. Most countries in the world has strong stance against attacking the law enforcing people, Bangladesh is no different. Naturally the cops had to react as Jamaat activists brutally killed them, vandalized police stations and what not. It is unfortunate that some people are calling this a 'movement', whereas this is nothing but some arrogant atrocities realizing that they don't have public support. Jamaat's activity is largely based on a very few districts of the country most of which are historically identified to be Jamaat-friendly territory. Thus the title of this article and content are perfect. The Jamaat atrocity should come as a subsection under the aftermath section of the Shahbag movement. Zuko10 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, the name should be changed to 2013 Bangladesh protests, there are now two sides to this event, the protests are not just happening in Shahbag but across Bangladesh. Those supporting the war tribunal cases are at Shahbag mostly while counter-protests against the trial and death sentence of Delwar Hossain Sayeedi are spread across the country. If anyone visits the page it will definetly create confusion because it may seem as if the protests are only situated in Shahbag. It also states the number of deaths, people may assume those deaths took place at Shahbag when that is not the case. So, I propose the name should be changed to 2013 Bangladesh protests, and should be explained the protests started at Shahbag in support of the trial, however Jamaat-e-Islami done counter protests. What it also shows is lack of neutrality, this article seems to be supporting these death sentences. 176.251.30.151 (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also there is no mention about the atheist bloggers who are leading Shahbag posting blasphemous statements online leading to counter-protests by 12 Islamist parties, against the Shahbag movement as being anti-Islamic. 176.251.30.151 (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Attack of the trolls!!! I am working on a separate article titled 2013 Bangladesh protests to have both the shahbag protests and counter protests as different sections and given equal weightage (in word count). This would allow for Shahbag Protest article to develop independent of the counter protests, and if the need arises i.e. if the counter protest section becomes too large, then the 2013 Bangladesh protests can be forked for a separate article on counter protests. LegalEagle (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I strongly disagree to change the name anything other than 2013 Shahbag protests. Shahbag is the symbol of the nonviolent movement and it should remain so. Getauvi (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think Shahbag started a never seen before kind of peaceful protest by general people in Bangladesh in 2013, so the name of this article should never be changed. There is no need to merge the violent protests of Jamaat Shibir with this article, may be we can have a different article to document the violent attacks of Jamaat shibir on people of other religion and their bloody clashes with Police. But the focus of this article should be how Shahbag united all pro-liberation forces and general people of Bangladesh and hence the current title is fully justified. Thanks. Enamulhoque1 (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think all the protests that is going on inside and outside of Bangladesh started from the Shahbag protest. Shahbag protest and the protests in solidarity with shahbag is peaceful and apolitical, whereas, the protests by Jamaat and Shibir is very violent, causing deaths of hundreds of people. Shahbag in an integral part of what is going on in Bangladesh demanding justice for what Jamaat shibir war criminals did in 1971 liberation war. Even there is a hashtag in twitter for #shahbag. Therefore, removing Shahbag from the title will be very unjustified, mis-leading and wrong. Thanks. Tanima.dey (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Tanima.dey


 * Oppose I was going through the set of photos that was collected where people showed their solidarity with Shahbag from all over the world. Not one of them mentioned it as Bangladesh movement or bangladesh protest and ALL of them mentioned them as Shahbag movement. Dmshafi (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Hi, I have created a new article 2013 Bangladesh protests to separate the shahbag protests from the counter protests. Please add more info at 2013 Bangladesh protests on the counter protests with neutral news sources as reference. Hope this can rest the present debate. LegalEagle (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Every protest has its pro-protesters and anti protesters. There is no exception to this. Because of the anti parties, the protest begins and finds its necessity. Please have a look into the Tienanmen Square Protests of 1989 - the incident is closely related to the place which was significant for the protest and that landmark or place became an icon which represents the protests till now. And note that the protest had violent oppositions as well - that's part of the protest. Again, the Arab revolutions are named after the country names but those were specifically for ousting the Governments which is not the case for Shahbag protests. However, you cannot remove the opposers from the article because they are intertwined. It depicts how some politically motivated miscreants are creating anarchy in the country where the non-partisan Shahbag protest is non-violent for over 20 days. Asking for removal of Jamaat-e-Islami connection to the violence is like asking to remove the Chinese Military from the Tienanmen Square article. However, if the pro-violent protesters feel that they would like to start new pages on their 'protests', then they could go for it. Please make sure in that case to justify the violence. Smgmamur (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Shahbag protest is a peaceful, apolitical and unique kind of protest that represents mass people of Bangladesh, irrespective of political orientation, demanding justice for the atrocities by war criminals in 1971. Shahbag epitomizes a peaceful protest that have been going on for a month now without a single violence. Jamaat-e-Islami and its student wing Shibir, on the other hand, have been violent in their unjust protest to save Delawar Hossain Sayeedi, a top Jamaat-e-Islami leader, who has been given a death sentence by the ICT due to his involvement in heinous crimes against humanity in 1971. Jamaat-e-Islami protest have resulted in mayhem across the country. Jamaat-e-Islami and Shibir supporters have been killing, looting and vandalizing in the name of protest. They have specifically been attacking minority communities and govt. properties. Hence, these two protests are completely different in nature and demand. This article should have Shahbag in its title and anything related to the violent unjust protest of Jamaat-e-Islami should be removed. Mixing these two different protests in a single article is totally unjust and misleading. Thanks. faisal_osu (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I would also like to point out that death toll for this topic in the infobox should be 1. Shahbag has been the key tag for all the international and domestic news media that was used for this protest. So there is no reason to change the title. -- Shubhrokallol (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose From an editor of 8 years' standing - NO FREAKING WAY! --Peripatetic (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The name of this article should be changed to something wider because: 1) The Shahbag protest and counter protests are part of the same political turmoil in Bangladesh and cannot be separated superficially just to satisfy one side or the other 2) The protest and counter protests hinge around the same issues and context and any separation of the article will be difficult and superficial 3) International entities and media such as UN, Human Rights Watch, Al Jazeera, The Economist, BBC, CNN are reporting on the both pro-government and counter-government protests as a part of the same political turmoil. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC))
 * Where did you find Shahbag counter protests? Jamaat called for strike in protest of Court ruling of Sayeedi. While Shahbag protest is about trial for the war criminal. The jamaat vandalism and killings are against court ruling, not against the shahbag movement. Your point 1,2,3 are same reasons but differently worded! More over, jamaat's attack and destruction this time started after more than two weeks of Shahbag protest. So there is no way it can be said that this atrocities by Jamaat are counter Shahbag protest.Dmshafi (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have provided the references below for my points. Jamaat or opposition called for strike against what? Opposition is protesting what they claim is Shahbag's obliging of a trial to come up with the death sentences. All the references below to major media such as Al Jazeera, Human Rights Watch etc. report the situation as consisting of pro-government (Shahbag) and anti-government protest. Don't try to hide or twist the context to prove the independence or superiority of one side only. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

I also seriously challenge the neutrality of the article. As I have said the article is promoting local pro-government/pro-Shahbag yellow journalism as references while major international reports and neutral local news are missing as references. I will demonstrate this point by point: 1) The protests center on a 9 month long genocide in 1971 which includes atrocities committed by both warring sides but major casualties having been from the Bangladeshi side. The present article claims the total number to be 3 million, but internationally the accepted figure that is officially used (established at a conference of the US Department of State) is +/- 3 lakhs (References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide#cite_note-USSD2005-06-31 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide#cite_note-dawn-32) 2) The article gives the impression that all war criminals are being tried where only a few top leaders of opposition parties have been actually accused (All Reports, Local/International, example http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2013/03/2013347575585654.html), and this needs to be made clear in order to convey why opposition is protesting against Shahbag. 3) A legal issues section discussing the legal issues about which the parties are fighting is crucial for this article: The article mentions that Shahbag is demanding outright conviction and capital punishment from a trial (can protesters demand conviction or a particular sentence from a court?) that has already been declared unfair by international media and organizations due to inequality between the number of witnesses that the prosecution and defense can present (unlimited for prosecution, max. 6 for defence), prosecution's use of hearsay evidence, leaked Skype conference revealing government manipulation of the trial process, the abduction of defense witnesses by law enforcers, and conviction without proof of direct participation (i.e. personally undertaking or ordering the acts of murder or rape. He was rather found guilty of “complicity” in or “abetting” an offence, “accompany[ing] the gang to the crime site having rifle in hand” or facilitating mass murder and rape by being “present” at the scene) (References: Wall Street Journal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-Wright-65 The Economist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-The_Economist-63 Human Rights Watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-HRW_Retrial-66 David Bergman http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/in-bangladesh-the-flawed-path-to-accountability/article4466192.ece Human Rights Watch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-Adams-9) 4) The article does not mention that "Mass killings" were suffered by the opposition to Shahbag due to indiscriminate firing by police (AL Jazeera, Human Rights Watch), where protests should have been countered in ways that are internationally acceptable (Human Rights Watch) (References: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/01/bangladesh-end-violence-over-war-crimes-trials & http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2013/03/2013334365986195.html) 5) The above list of references is not exhaustive. So what we get is that pro-government/pro-Shahbag editors are twisting facts either w/o references or at times using some local and unofficial Indian yellow journalism as references and reverting edits with significant international references to world's major media reports that would be considered by all. I urgently draw the attention of Wikipedia admins to consider this major and ongoing vandalism regarding a currently very sensitive issue. Empty comments such as we want peace and opposition is criminal, or photographs of government activists from around the world should not be used to establish a point in such a crucial article. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC))
 * Dear Shamelessshahbag!, your user name is WP:IU and a WP:SPA. Please beware about that.--Freemesm (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh really Freemesm? I thought I had known the rules. I also thought you were always trying to find out alternative ways to counter users who were giving valid international references about the Shahbag protest. See my talk. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC))


 * In the response to your point 4, there is a separate article on the on-going violence in Bangladesh by Jamaat, specially after ICT verdict of Sayeedi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Bangladesh_violence_after_ICT_verdict: In response to your point 5, I do not think your claim of local newspaper references not being valid and being yellow journalism is logical. I believe Local newspapers will carry the most information of a country. When the article was being written, there were not much coverage in the international media, still there is not much. Therefore, local newspaper references was used. About your reference, I am copying one line from http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/01/bangladesh-end-violence-over-war-crimes-trials: "Human Rights Watch said that most deaths appear to have been caused by the security forces using live ammunition against Jamaat protesters." There are many reports that says Jamaat and Shibir are initiating violence. Only to stop their atrocities and for self-protection, Police had to take charge. [ref: http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2013/03/03/jamaat-kills-cop-in-jhenidah] Tanima.dey (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC) tanima.dey
 * Tanima.dey, I don't know whether your unawareness is intentional or they are due to some other reason, let me point them out: 1) All 4 points were not about ICT trial. These 4 points cover all the primary issues about which international media such as Al Jazeera, Human Rights Watch, The Economist, Wall Street Journal etc differ from most domestic media 2) The two points about the ICT trial sets the context of protests (pro and anti), and the article must contain the legal issues section. Now if you want to omit the context to prove pro-government protesters to be heroes and the opposition to be villain, that would be your personal take on a supposedly Wikipedia article. 3) You quoted a particular line from one of my references (http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/01/bangladesh-end-violence-over-war-crimes-trials: "Human Rights Watch said that most deaths appear to have been caused by the security forces using live ammunition against Jamaat protesters"). I thought this quote rather illustrates police violence, doesn't it? Why would you interpret it in your own way add the opinion next to it that the quote illustrates opposition violence instead? In the same context the article makes it clear that the police should have followed international standards in pacifying opposition. Then why quote selectively out of context in a deceptive manner? 4) Most domestic media are differing about the 4 points with major international media such a Human Rights Watch, Al Jazeera, The Economist etc. If that is not yellow journalism then the international ones are right? What's your point? Why are you always quoting some selective domestic references or your personal opinion? (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

Why exactly do we need to change the title?
This article is about the Shahbag protest, and it can stay that way. There is no reason to change the title to accommodate other protests. If those articles are notable enough, they can have their own articles. Wikipedia is not paper and there is no limit to the number of articles. There already is an article titled 2013 Bangladesh riots which covers the ensuing violence. If needed, discuss the title of that article and the content of that article. This, on the other hand, looks like a pretty well contained subject and specific article. Having said that, I don't see how 81 causalities can be a part of this article. Somebody needs to remove that. Aditya (talk • contribs) 06:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The name of this article should be changed to something wider such as 2013 Bangladesh protests because:

1) The Shahbag protest (pro-government/pro-trial) and counter protests are part of the same political turmoil in Bangladesh and cannot be separated superficially just to satisfy one side or the other 2) The protest and counter protests hinge around the same issues and context and any separation of the article will be difficult and superficial 3) International entities and media such as UN, Human Rights Watch, Al Jazeera, The Economist, BBC, CNN are reporting on the both pro-government and counter-government protests as a part of the same political turmoil. 4) 2013 Bangladesh riots was created by you? Its very recent. Why open that article when it is being settled that this article should be renamed to accommodate the current political turmoil? Isn't it just to demean the counter government protest as part of the larger issue while the pro-government protest to be worthy enough to claim its own independent article? Also the larger issue you are trying to prove the counter government protest to be a part of is a "riot"? That proves your bias probably. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC))
 * Please, be rational. If it's notable, it stays. If it's mentioned as such by reliable independent media, the title stays. If you want to have another related protest included in Wikiepdia, start an article on it. Wikipedia has no limitation on the number of articles and 50 different protests can have 50 different articles. Remember Wikiepdia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats kind of being deceptive. No one says what's going on in Bangladesh is not notable. But the pro-government protest does not have an independent identity from the anti-government protest. I have already given my points above. No one is mentioning deleting the article. Rather it should be renamed and accommodated to include the whole view of the political turmoil in the light of all the international references that I have provided. Before you post a comment try not to make with it a misleading impression of a previous comment. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC))
 * The Shahbag protest is a distinctive and specific event that was mentioned by mainstream sources as the Shahbag protest. That alone is reason enough to keep the title as is. "There were other protests related to Shahbag protest" is not a valid reason, especially when it is entirely possible to start articles on those. Unless you can bring some rationality to your arguments, consider this debate closed. Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Any claim made should be supported by reputed references. The references I provided, from Al Jazeera, Human Rights Watch, The Economist, Wall Street Journal etc. see Shahbag, the pro-government protest as part of a single political turmoil centering around the ICT and having counter protests also. Why don't you provide some references as weighty as the ones I provided? If you have to provide domestic ones, why exclude Amar Desh and Shangram from the list? Stop making wild demands that would uphold the importance of one side and not the other. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC))
 * Dear Shameless, please don't try to spread Jamaati and Pro-BNP propaganda. We can clearly see which POV you belong to. Amar Desh and Shangram - both are widely known as Pro-BNP and Jamaat newspapers and people are well aware of that(see this link: Pro-BNP, Jamaat newspapers snatched ). Vortex Shedding (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Accusations about someone belonging to some side is not a valid way to counter points made using major international references. As you claim that I am pro Jamaat, so AL Jazeera, Human Rights Watch, The Economist, Wall Street journal are also pro Jamaat? Why only accuse Amar Desh and Shangram? Why keep silent about or avoid the international ones that I am continuously referring to also? Don't have the courage to face it? No need to mention why most of your references are like the one you gave from some BDNEWS24 (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

The neutrality of this article is seriously contested.
Someone removed the neutrality tag while a discussion was almost being settled:

The neutrality of this article is seriously contested. As I have said the article is asserting points w/o references or at best using domestic pro-government/pro-Shahbag yellow journalism as references to create a pro-government slant in the article, while major international reports and neutral local news are missing from references. I will demonstrate this point by point: 1) The protests center on a 9 month long genocide in 1971 which includes atrocities committed by both warring sides but major casualties having been from the Bangladeshi side. The present article claims the total number to be 3 million, but internationally the accepted figure that is officially used (established at a conference of the US Department of State) is +/- 3 lakhs (References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide#cite_note-USSD2005-06-31 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide#cite_note-dawn-32) 2) The article gives the impression that all war criminals are being tried where only a few top leaders of opposition parties have been actually accused (All Reports, Local/International, example http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2013/03/2013347575585654.html), and this needs to be made clear in order to convey why opposition is protesting against Shahbag. 3) A legal issues section discussing the legal issues about which the parties are fighting is crucial for this article: Shahbag is demanding outright conviction and capital punishment from a trial (can protesters demand conviction or a particular sentence from a court?) that has already been declared unfair by international media and organizations due to inequality between the number of witnesses that the prosecution and defense can present (unlimited for prosecution, max. 6 for defence), prosecution's use of hearsay evidence, leaked Skype conference revealing government manipulation of the trial process, the abduction of defense witnesses by law enforcers, and conviction without proof of direct participation (i.e. personally undertaking or ordering the acts of murder or rape. One was rather found guilty of “complicity” in or “abetting” an offence, “accompany[ing] the gang to the crime site having rifle in hand” or facilitating mass murder and rape by being “present” at the scene) (References: Wall Street Journal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-Wright-65 The Economist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-The_Economist-63 Human Rights Watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-HRW_Retrial-66 David Bergman http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/in-bangladesh-the-flawed-path-to-accountability/article4466192.ece Human Rights Watch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-Adams-9) 4) The article does not mention of "Mass killings" suffered by the opposition to pro-government Shahbag protest due to indiscriminate firing by police (AL Jazeera, Human Rights Watch), where opposition protests should have been countered in ways that are internationally acceptable (Human Rights Watch) (References: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/01/bangladesh-end-violence-over-war-crimes-trials & http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2013/03/2013334365986195.html) 5) The above list of references is not exhaustive. So what we get is that pro-government/pro-Shahbag editors are twisting facts either w/o references or at times using some domestic or non-reputable Indian yellow journalism as references and reverting edits with significant international references to world's major media reports that would be considered acceptable by all. Many domestic media differs from the international media on the above 4 points. I urgently draw the attention of Wikipedia admins to consider this major and ongoing vandalism regarding a very sensitive current issue. Empty comments such as we want peace and that the opposition is criminal, or photographs of government activists from around the world should not be used to establish an important article in Wikipedia. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC))
 * You have already posted the same post on another talk page. Looks like you are trying to apply the same political issues to two independent articles, both of which are here to conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Seriously, if you are looking for a battleground, please, take it outside Wikipedia. Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The other article you mentioned is a recently created article very similar to this page. I had tagged it for speedy deletion. It is already being decided in this talk page that this article should include the pro and anti government protest as is portrayed in international media as part of a single political turmoil in Bangladesh, and that article served no other substantial purpose. The only purpose of that article was to demean the anti-government protest by putting it as part of the bigger picture of political turmoil in Bangladesh that it termed riot in the title, while elevating the status of the pro government protest by making it worthy enough to have its own individual article here. I had given enough reasons and references in that article including what I have mentioned here. Your blatant way of asking me stop warring and leave Wikipedia is just one of your miserable attempts to highlight me negatively, because you are afraid that my using of reason and major international references is a threat to your pro-government vandalism. Wikipedia is open for everyone till they abide by its rules or don't insult other editors. Who are you to judge better? (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC))
 * And I am not going around opening new articles about the same issue one after another like you people. For eample 2013 Bangladesh riot, 2013 Bangladesh protests. I am trying to settle everything through the talk pages. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC))
 * I can see how you are trying to 'settle' everything - you are trying to change the title of this article - by removing the keyword 'Shahbag', which is the most important element of this article and the whole world knows it with this name. If you have specific issues with the ICT, go to the article named International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) and raise your issues there. Vortex Shedding (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Whats wrong in trying to do that within Wikipedia guidelines and using worldwide recognized references? The whole world knows that the pro-government protests are just one side to the current political conflict in Bangladesh, with the opposition also leading counter protests about the same ICT issues. I have given reference from Human Rights Watch, Al Jazeera, The Economist, Wall Street Journal and more. I can provide more if you want. Now about your argument about why not discuss ICT matters in the ICT article only. The ICT article contain details about the ICT trial. But the issues in ICT that are the context of these protests must be discussed here also, even if briefly. Otherwise the article doesn't make any sense. How can it make sense without context? What is this article supposed to convey? Just a statement of what the protesters want or their popularity? Not how those protests arose, the consequences, the international allegations that the trial was not fair, that its even more unfair to force such a court to come up with death sentences by pro-government protesters at Shahbag, and which is why the opposition is leading counter protests? I have provided the references, why don't you back your allegations against me with some logic and some major international references? If you are a Bangladeshi, as I can assume from your profile page, I would like to make you aware of the fact that you are obliged by Wikipedia not to work with articles that conflict with your personal interests. Take care.(Shamelessshahbag (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

You are not putting forward reasons anymore. Your discussion has degenerated into uncivil personal attacks. Until you learn to behave like a Wikipedian, consider this debate closed. Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Why was the neutrality tag removed?
I am not getting why someone would remove a neutrality tag while it was close to being decided that the article lacks neutrality in the light of references from all major media reports of the world. I had just provided all the references in the last few sections when the neutrality tag was removed. Some people here only want a one sided view of pro-government protesters in Bangladesh, tactically preventing any chance to introduce international references. At present most claims are either unreferenced or some pro-government domestic report accused of yellow journalism is being used. Unlike them I am putting all my evidences first in the talk section for a peaceful resolution of such a crucial and controversial issue. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC))
 * The neutrality tag was removed, since there was no thread for the 'Neutrality' in the talk page. You posted the neutrality dispute thread after it was removed, not before it. And there was no specific logic for the neutrality tag - it almost seems like 'I don't like it, so it is not neutral'. And, I can see that you are posting the same neutrality tag in other articles, which clearly indicates that you are on a mission to divert the contents of the article from the main topic. Vortex Shedding (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Well before you make a comment, you should make sure its not deceptive. Yes I started a section about neutrality, the one before this section, but just before that section, there were another two sections discussing why the name of this article should be changed in terms of convenience and neutrality. The discussion there was about to be decided when the neutrality tag was removed. 2) You are alleging that I make comments like I don't like it so its not neutral. That was basically just a blatant return of the allegations I first put forward about the editors here who are trying to give this article a pro government slant. I have justified all my arguments with points and references from Human Rights Watch, Al Jazeera, The Economist, Wall Street Journal, etc. everyone can see that. So what's the point of such a claim? Why don't you bring forward some major reference to prove your point? Freemsm and you are Bangladeshis. Is it because of that you are making such statements? Your identity should not effect your contribution to Wikipedia. Take care. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC))
 * 1) Is it really so 'deceptive', Shamelesshahbag? You have put the section about 'neutrality' after I have removed the neutrality tag (See my action: 5:14, 6 March and your action: 11:14, 6 March ). In the other section that you are talking about is for the 'Title change' - if you exclusively want to point about neutrality, you should have opened the neutrality section before that. So, please do not cry why the neutrality tag was removed and so on. 2) There are large number of references - both from international media and local media - to support the article. So, please point out which line you think specifically in the article is 'pro-government' and which is not. And, yes, I am Bangladeshi, and that's why I think I know a lot more than you about what's going on there. Vortex Shedding (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An editor above gave me a similar excuse even though there was a list and now the sections for NPOV violations are growing and we get the same story. I've made the nomination for outside assistance using the appropriate tag that they can't remove. It's now in an administrative category and will be evaluated by an outside source. Crtew (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone tried to remove the lines "..And, yes, I am Bangladeshi, and that's why I think I know a lot more than you about what's going on there." in the preceding message left by Vortex Shedding from an unknown ip. I have reverted them back, they may be necessary to illustrate that there are people here who are editing from personal POV. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC))
 * Please do not raise absurd and irrelevant point - if there is anyone who has a POV issue here, it is you. Your username is the first proof of that. And all the edits you have done in the talk pages since the creation of your Wikipedia account, are related to either 2013 Shahbag protests or 2013 Bangladesh riots or 2013 Bangladesh protests (See ). That's the second and obvious proof. The next time you try to harass me by raising my nationality issue, I will report you for harassment (See WP:Harassment). PERIOD. Vortex Shedding (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, anyone who removes the POV check template this time will be immediately reported without warning. We all know what is going on, and so we will wait for an outsider to intervene.Crtew (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How many times I have to explain why the POV (neutrality) tag was removed. There was no thread in the talk page that was discussing the neutrality issue when I have removed it (please see the diff records in my previous comment). Moreover, the tag was given by an unknown IP address (Please see ). That's why the POV tag was removed. I have no objection with the POV tag when the neutrality is discussed under a specific POV topic (as you have done now). And, I can see how you are instructing Shamelessshahbag in your and his talk pages to do work on behalf of you! (Please see, ). So, it was Shamelessshahbag who had put the neutrality tag without logging in, I guess? Vortex Shedding (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not quote something ill that we discussed? The neutrality tag was put by me? No I didn't. And there is no place for suspicion or creating other people's suspicion here until you have some solid fact before accusing anyone. It might just be one of your tactics to halt logical, well referenced discussion. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC))
 * Wait, wait, my friend. This was a message by Crtew in your talk page : "SS, please make an entry under that talk page to record the fact that you placed the neutrality template and it was removed. I'll contact an editor who can do something more than either you or I can. Crtew (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)". And, then you created this whole thread called 'Why was the neutrality tag removed?' at 16:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)). And, then this was your message in Crtew's talk page : "Yes sir, done. I have made an entry at the end of the talk page about the neutrality tag. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC))". And, now you are denying that you (from this IP: 176.251.30.151 ) have put a neutrality tag in this article. You have clearly justified the first part of your username! Vortex Shedding (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Waiting my friend: 1) To make a point honestly, you should produce the whole discussion. Why quote selectively, out of context? Where is the discussion prior to that? Why not check my messages in Crtew's talk page also? I asked him for help giving the same reasons that I am giving in this talk page. Where is the crime in all of it? He found that I have made valid points. When I reported that a neutrality template was removed he probably thought that I had put it, so he asked me to make an entry. 2) Why did you not quote my subsequent entry in the talk page about the neutrality tag? Since I didn't put the neutrality tag, I never mentioned in the entry that I had put the neutrality tag, I simply mentioned that it was removed while a discussion was not over. 3) I started the discussion in the title change section while the neutrality tag was already for quite a while. That IP is not mine, someone or other can obviously verify. Its not impossible by Wikipedia admins. Till then, stop making desperate, motivated, wild and unsupported allegations as usual to divert a sensible discussion of facts, points and references. Any rational person will understand whats going on, don't worry. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

Look we all know that this has been going on for some time and yes there are others than just me who are frustrated with the neutrality and any attempts to rein in its singular purpose to promote the protests. It shouldn't surprise anyone that we know who is frustrated here. I have nothing to hide or apologize for. Look through all my diffs if you want. But let's create a process here where an outside editor can judge the neutrality. There's no need to get personal. It's about the edits. Crtew (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)