Template:Did you know nominations/Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh

 * ... that at least eight atheists were attacked and killed by fundamentalists assailants in Bangladesh for expressing their free thoughts in blogs and other media?



Created by Nafsadh (talk), Arr4 (talk) and Gatoclass (talk). Nominated by Arr4 (talk) at 10:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC).


 * ALT1: ... that at least eight atheists have been attacked and killed by fundamentalists in Bangladesh for expressing their views in blogs and other media?
 * tighter etc. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the AL1. - Arr4 (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

substituted. - Arr4 (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg article is new enough and long enough, and well-sourced and neutral. However, the hook, as a summary of the whole article, is ambiguous. The article lists eight individuals, some of whom survived their attacks. Thus, ambiguity can be resolved simply by substituting "and" for "or". &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT2: ... that at least 8 atheists have been attacked or killed by fundamentalists in Bangladesh for expressing their views in blogs and other media?

Having taken a closer look at the sources for this article today, it seems that few of the victims of these attacks appear to be identified as "atheists", specifically. At least one of them was a member of a minority religious group! Some of the other listed victims appear to have been attacked for their political rather than their religious views. The list of victims itself therefore appears to be an example of WP:SYNTH. Consequently, I am struggling to see how this article can be promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I have returned this one from the queue as it isn't clear to me that all the victims were "atheists" - at least a couple appear to have been attacked for their political views, others are only described in the article as "secularists" which is not the same as "atheist". This one needs a closer look and I intend to check the sources more thoroughly tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The article might still be salvageable - I might try to do so myself. Gatoclass (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * comment another blogger has been murdered today. I've moved the page to Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh - I was intending to do that a month ago but discussions here on the political angle have pushed me to finally do it. There is repetition in the background section currently. If someone wants to try to fix this up it would be good, there will probably be more news about the guy murdered today over the next 24 hours. -- Aronzak (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think "secularists" is a much more appropriate description. And the new attack reinforces my impression that this is a significant phenomenon. I just need to read up a bit more on it before adding to the article, as it seems to have a number of aspects that are confusing and even contradictory - especially the government's stance, which seems to have been reported very differently depending on source. Gatoclass (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting a new hook. Three persons killed in 2015 are confirmed to be atheists. -- Arr4 (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT3... that three atheists have been hacked to death by fundamentalists in Bangladesh for expressing their thoughts in blogs in 2015?
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Just to reiterate - this article doesn't simply need a new hook, the article itself needs some work. The article's name hasn't even been settled on yet. But I would probably oppose any hook that labels the victims "atheists" rather than "secularists" in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Arr4, Gatoclass, while there has been work on the article (notably by Gatoclass), unless a workable hook is provided (that doesn't use the apparently inappropriate "atheist") and all the needed work has indeed been done, I'm planning to mark this for closure within 48 hours, since Arr4 has not responded to the comments here or the talk-page ping last week. I hope that instead some progress is made here before then. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please don't close this nomination BM. I am still working on the article, but have been distracted with other things over the last few days. The latter half of the article could still use some cleanup, I can at least give it a few tweaks if I don't have time to rewrite the rest of it. The job isn't far from completion now, it should only take a few more days. Gatoclass (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to wait, Gatoclass, since the article is going to be worked on this week. Thanks for responding. A new hook is needed, however. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Anything going on with this nomination or shall we close it? It's backing up DYK and making us look baaaad (not really but it's been here for months and now has a merge tag for an incoming article). Belle (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have it ready by tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ping me if you want me to review it, as I'm going to be away for a week or so after tomorrow (or if you don't want me to review it just stall until I'm gone). Belle (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Age fine at the original nomination date; long enough, neutral enough, no copyvio or plagiarism; QPQ requirement is a bit complicated as it would only need one from Gatoclass which is a bit unfair as he's stepped in to help, so we'll waive that (or you can have one of my reviews; interest free!; act now to secure your Belle QPQ!; offer can't last!). ALT4 is supported by the article which is cited, but the hook is not cited to an individual sentence (that's fine as far as I'm concerned); I would prefer "since 2013" rather than "recently" in the hook, but since this isn't Bellepedia (yet) I can't insist; "hacked to death" might seem a bit strong on first reading but it isn't. I've added Gatoclass to the credits, but if he doesn't want it, he can remove it again (he, he, he; I'm assuming everybody but me is male again; where is the GGTF when you need them?). Good to go Belle (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you Belle, this one is ready for re-review now. Here is the new hook:
 * ALT4: ... that several secularist writers and bloggers have been hacked to death in Bangladesh since 2013 by Islamist extremists? Gatoclass (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Forgot: it still has a merge tag on it, but since the merge is proposed for a "child" article into this one and not in the other direction, I don't think that is a problem; it might even help to get some input on the merge by running it on DYK. It certainly won't be a problem on Bellepedia (not making my move yet; preparing the groundwork; accustoming people to the concept) Belle (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)