Talk:2013 Bangladesh protests

Aim of the article

Hi, thanks a lot for creating this article. I can clearly see you have put a lot of effort in building up the whole article. However, as you know, there is another article parallel to this one named 2013 Shahbag protests, which focuses on the ongoing Shahbag movement in Bangladesh. I was just curious what is the aim of this article - do you want to merge both articles or include the other article as a part of this one? Let me know, since I have been working on Shahbag protests article from the very beginning. Thanks. Pratanu.roy (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I know that there is a parallel article, this article was created so that the shahbag protests and the violent counter protests can be separately dealt. If we start to keep on adding stuff about the violence in the shahbag protest article then it would be difficult for an international audience to separate the issue. For example, shahbag protest has no fatality (if you exclude the case of the murdered blogger) however the wikipedia article on shahbag protests says in the infobox that 81 persons have been killed. Moreover if we have a seperate article on 2013 bangladesh protests, then we can keep updating both the shahbag article seperately and about the violent protest in the counter protest section of the 2013 bangladesh protests. I think one discussion is ongoing at the talk page of the wiki article on shahbagh protest as to why there should be two articles so that the title does not become misleading. Hope you would agree. LegalEagle (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree with you on these points. The actual number of fatality of 2013 Shahbag protests should be 1, since the core nature of the whole protest is non-violent. On the other hand, the protests by the right wing party and their allies (which intensified after the verdict of Sayeedi) have already got a death toll of around 80. So, is it possible to name the second kind of protest (by Jamaat-Shibir activists) with another 'term' and separate it from Shahbag protest? There is another article regarding the ongoing violence in Bangladesh named 2013 Bangladesh violence after ICT verdict and an article exclusively on the attacks on the minorities (Hindus) named 2013 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence. We need to merge couple of the articles, otherwise all will be talking about the same thing from different perspectives. Thanks. Pratanu.roy (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Very true and very important, I believe that an overarching article on 2013 Bangladesh Protest would better reflect the situation, and as we add more info we can fork out later. Will have a look at the articles you mentioned. LegalEagle (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This article should be speedily deleted

1) The Shahbag (pro-government) 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 them 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 both the pro-government and counter-government protests as a part of the same political turmoil

4) The issue was already settled in the TALK page of the existing article and it was decided that the original article would be renamed to "2013 Bangladesh Protests". The motive of creating this page is to belittle the counter government protests as part of the bigger scene while the pro-government protest centered at Shahbag to be worthy of having an independent article. (For evidence see how the creator of this page calls their protest peaceful while insulting the anti-government protests as violent). (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

The consensus at Talk:2013_Shahbag_protests#Title_and_article_is_misleading. has been to not name the 2013 Shahbag protests as the 2013 Bangladesh protests. So there is a need to reflect both shahbag protests and the violence in the counter protests, this can be done by having an umbrella article like the present article. I agree that the protests and counter protests are part of a political turmoil but there are significant differences in goals, methods and reactions, Shahbag protest article has developed quite independent to the recent violent counter protests, thus one cannot add the info on violent protests in the Shahbag article. Hope you would find this arrangement reasonable. LegalEagle (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Totally sorry to report that speedy deletion on the Wikiepdia has to meet specific reasons, which doesn't include any political bias or POVs maintained by the complaining editor. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article is seriously contested

The neutrality of this article is seriously contested. See the talk page of the existing article. 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. 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) 00:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

the present article has been written with keeping the WP:NPOV policies in mind. Please provide specific concerns pertaining to this article rather than pasting the same arguments across various talk pages. LegalEagle (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This person obviously has an issue. He has posted exactly the same post to Talk:2013 Shahbag protests and Talk:2013 Bangladesh riot. In his POV-pushing mind three independent articles are covered by the same logic down to the last fullstop, though all three are based on Wikipedia principles. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need this article?

While creating this article, the creator stated in the edit summary start an article which would deal with the seperate protests and counter protests rather than lump it in one article on protests ... we already have an article for the protests as 2013 Shahbag protests and for the counter protests as 2013 Bangladesh riot! I've gone through the thread on the talk page of 2013 Shahbagh protests, I guess the editor didn't know about the article 2013 Bangladesh riots, which is why he raised the issue! --Zayeem ^(talk) 13:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

very true indeed, I came to know of shahbag article few days ago at the ITN discussion, I decided to update/wikify the lead; while researching found that there were violent counter protests, however it seemed that shahbag protests had little to do with violence. So I thought it would be better to have a seperate article which would deal with all the protests. Did not come across the riot article. I would propose that we merge this article with the riot article, also I would propose that the name of the article be kept as 2013 Bangladesh protests to have an overarching view of all the protests. LegalEagle (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this article has no extra value while 3 other articles are there. Moreover this article is composed of taking similar elements from other articles. There are thousands of protests will be take place in Bangladesh, why should we only consider Shahbag and ICT related protests here? What does the "counter protest" section mean? I am proposing deletion of this article. A category may be created on this similar title.--Freemesm (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess the article should be a redirect to 2013 Shahbag protests, as the term 2013 Bangladesh protests mostly refers to that protest! --Zayeem ^(talk) 13:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Zayeem, I disagree. We don't know whether further protest will take place or not in the year 2013. Already another violent protest headed by Jamaat has started. So, I think this article should be deleted.--Freemesm (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I am really confused with this article here. Since we have two articles already talking about Shahbag and counter-shahbag protests. I don't think there is any need of an article named Bangladesh protests which is basically a brief of the other two articles. The relevant contents of this article should be merged with the relevant section of Shahbag and couter-shahbag protests. The other two articles should have links with each other, and there is no need of this third article just for linking up the other two. It is very confusing to a reader who doesn't know about the events taking place in Bangladesh. I hope you understand. Thanks for your effort though. -- Shubhrokallol (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

@Freemesm, think from a general reader's point of view, the protest in Shahbag has been referred to as Bangladesh protest by several international media agencies, hence if someone search for the protest as Bangladesh protest, it would be easier for him/her to get through the desired article if this article becomes a redirect to 2013 Shahbag protest rather than being deleted. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Kmzayeem, which media describe the protest as Bangladesh protest, that also insludes the name of Shahbag. If further protest take place in Bangladesh in future days, then your proposed redirection will be misleading.--FreemesM ^(talk) 15:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an example of using that term, and if further protest take place, we would delete the redirect then. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Already another protest is going on against ICT verdict lead by Jamaat and theit political allay BNP. So I think it is the time to delet this article. Already an IP start vandalizing this article by putting sourceless info. Your provided link also contain the word "Shahbag Square" in its body.--FreemesM ^(talk) 18:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The link contains "Shahbag square" as the place of the protest, while the protest is termed as "Bangladesh protests"! I can show you more sources using that term! Anyways, I've no issue with the deletion of this page, you can ask an admin to delete it showing this thread, for the time being, I'm reverting this article into its position as a redirect to eliminate the chances of vandalism, moreover this article is of no value as discussed! --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible vandalism by 176.251.30.151

I have reverted the edits by this USER:176.251.30.151 due to the possible act of vandalism (see WP:Vandal). He/ she is continuously trying to include unreferenced and biased contents in the article. Vortex Shedding (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

These are not vandalism! Go and review those edits of mine before you consider them as vandalism and before reverting them, I state my reason while I contribute to the article! Just because I am under an IP address does not mean that I cannot contribute constructively. Wikipedia allows all users to edit as long as they are constructive and referenced. 176.251.25.150 (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

In the revision of 542874029, I have highlighted the different causes of the protesters, the Shahbag protesters support the ICT trials while the Anti-Government do not. I have also added references for proof, please review before reverting. The infobox must reflect the current ongoing protests in order to show a neutral point of view. 176.251.25.150 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Your inclusion of two parties, their leaders in the info box and then putting Shahbag protest on one side with the government was not justified at all. You did not mention any valid reference or proof for that. Please refrain yourself from including unnecessary and biased contents. Thanks. Vortex Shedding (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)