Talk:Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League

Biased
This is a very opinioned article. There is an absolute absence of objectivity. I'm adding a POV tag.--202.191.127.5 (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * After removal of the last sentence, which of the other facts do you think is POV? I checked the article again, and don't see any information other than the establishment/dissolution dates of the organization. What, then, do you claim to be POV? Did you read WP:NPOV? Because, you seem to be confusing verifiability with NPOV. If something is unreferenced, then the tag to use is cn. I've removed the POV tag until you can clarify your claim. --Ragib (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I want more authentic & factual information on BAKSAL as the article is not elaborate enough (onek totho nei shekhane) 3gneoz (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)3gneoz

Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League or BAKSAL as main title/redirect
Should this article be moved to Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League and BAKSAL made a redirect to it or is it better known as BAKSAL and the spelled out name remain as a redirect to BAKSAL? RJFJR (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Aditya (talk • contribs) 21:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed stale POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
An old neutrality tag that appears to have no active discussion has been removed from this page per the instructions at Template:POV:


 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:


 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant

The article has been edited extensively in the two years since it was tagged, at this time there is no obvious overarching NPOV problem, and there is no evidence of ongoing discussion of neutrality, so I've removed the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! Worldbruce (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)