Talk:2013 Shahbag protests/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Nominate for POV check

As Wikipedians in several sections above have noted, the NPOV has been put down with multiple challenges and that template is repeatedly deleted without any action whatsoever that takes care of disputes. I request that the party who conducts the POV check should look for whether there are valid claims above for the NPOV to remain on this article. That's an actionable request. I know there are all kinds of disputed facts in this article and the templates are removed anyway. To be specific, I'm relisting my complaints here. If others want to add to this list of complaints, please do for the checker to have an easier time evaluating the article.Crtew (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Relisted from above by Crtew:

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.

In addition, the editors are deleting the template for current unfolding events even while new developments occur. This tag does not even detract from the content but warns users that events are more current than on other content pages. Yet it's removed. There's a systematic effort here to remove valid templates.Crtew (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(inserted) No. It's not a "systematic effort". The removal can be called "compliance with Wikipedia". No matter what your information bias is, this is the Wikipedia and not Shahbag. According to Template:POV - "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort." Since, no attempt was made to clarify the tag, it could be removed with due grace. BTW, since the purpose of the tag is to start a discussion, and a discussion is happening anyways, you don't need to cry foul over its removal. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC);

Yes you have said correctly. This is Wikipedia, not Shahbag. What Wikipedia policy are you actually using to do the things you are doing on? Why did you archive the preceding discussions as soon as the NPOV nomination was made? Why would someone remove tags while discussions about NPOV was going on throughout the article's history? I was quite at the end of yet another discussion when the tag was removed. The section was about renaming the article, a point that was being argued for from the point of view of convenience and neutrality. I had provided all points and references about neutrality in that section. I am giving arguments for every step I am taking, using wikipedia policy and references. Why were you taking steps without even mentioning "why" at the time you were taking those steps? Why are you arguing for it now? (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

Please, don't be silly. If you continue to disrupt discussions like this we will be reported for tendentious editing by a single purpose account. Your very existence is against Wikipedia policies. And, for your information, the tag was removed before the discussion started, and it was a legitimate removal because there was no discussion to clarify the tag. Thank you. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Who is disrupting discussions by looking for alternative ways to do so from the beginning? What's wrong to stick to points, references and a constructive discussion? These are your recently formulated complaints none of which I am breaching. Don't you know "Many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest"? Each time you come up with brand new complaints and everyone can see that. Your previous complaint about my major international references from Al Jazeera, The Economist, Wall Street Journal, Human Rights Watch was "Stop venting repeatedly with the same piece of irrelevance". And I guess I am not alone complaining about your tendencies. Freeemsm and one or two other editors aiding you have been revealed to be Bangladeshis. Your name Aditya indicates you are probably one also. And we have now requested for third party intervention. Why are you getting so excited about it? Why not let a third party decide about what's going on? (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

POV violation #8 I believe could require the following (which I have also discussed in other sections above): The name of this article should be changed to something wider 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 both the pro-government and counter-government protests as a part of the same political turmoil. 4) 2013 Bangladesh riots and 2013 Bangladesh protests were recently created by some users here to prevent this change of name. Why open these articles when it was being settled in this talk page that this article should be renamed to accommodate the current political turmoil as portrayed by international media (I will add the references below)? Is it just to demean the counter government/trial protest as part of the larger issue while the pro government/trial protest to be worthy enough to claim its own independent article? I have seen that those articles use the same text of this article and are shorter, except adding a paragraph for the counter government protest giving the worst impressions that is possible. See how one of the article names even contain the word riot. I had nominated those two articles for speedy deletion a few times giving reasons in their respective talk pages but the pro government editors quikly removed those nominations each time.(Shamelessshahbag (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

(inserted) Please. Speedy deletions require that at least one of the following criteria is met. If adhering to Wikipedia policies make some one a pro-government something, then the entire Wikimedia project probably is Bangladesh government conspiracy. You are not making any sense. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I know the criteria for speedy deletion. I also mentioned the reasons on the talk page of those articles. But the speedy deletion tags were removed multiple times by random editors without giving reason. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

Really you seems too much educated about wikipedia in a short period of time!--Freemesm (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Freemesm, whats wrong with experience any ways? I may have had hundreds of previous accounts in Wikipedia over my long lifetime. Does that really matter? Why try to make a point with it? You are a Bangladeshi, and I could try an attempt at the suspicion strategy also, since you should be more prone to having some sentiment about your country's present issue. And by that I could as well try to divert the discussion from facts and references. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

Here is a repetition of some of the many points on why I think the article is not neutral (and the references): 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 with their POV, approach, and points 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 the "mass killings" suffered by the protesters opposing the verdicts demanded by pro-government/Shahbag protesters 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) 23:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

(inserted) Stop venting repeatedly with the same piece of irrelevance. This article is NOT about the War Crime Tribunal. It is about the Shahbag protest. If you want to discuss other articles, please, find that they have their own talk pages. Do not waste time here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the intentional indifference that I faced every time. I put my points forward 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? 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) 06:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

Also, your asking me to discuss my points in ITC article gives the impression that all the points that I have made and references I have given are about ICT. ICT certainly creates the context of this article and should be discussed here also, so I have provided a few international references about the ICT, but I have also provided references about other aspects of the protest from major international articles that contradict, but are far more acceptable to all than the present references. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

I would like to see which part of the article is promoting Awami league and which part are presenting other political parties in the worst light.Dmshafi (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

And there are quite a few relatively new editors involved in this discussion/dispute. So, the nomination for neutrality check by crtew, I think, is not inappropriate. However, do you know, crtew, when or possibly who will do this check? Is this tag listed on the talk page of WP:NPOV?--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Crtew, here is my explanation.

• POV violation #1 - Totally baseless allegation. I just tried to describe the protest, not presenting any party. Show me where specifically Awami League is promoted?
• POV violation #2 - BNP and Jamaat are expressing their views on this issue. They are listed on this article. Remember that Awami League does not start this protest. Protesters only want capital punishment of war criminals. Protesters are not presenting any political party. Why do you want to make this article to a political battleground?
• POV violation #3 - We should not put any thing from your mind here. You will say that, which is supported by all reliable news source. If you think there is a problem in judicial process, then go to the court, not in wikipedia.

• POV violation #4 - Don't act silly. Understand the difference between peaceful Shahbag protest (Only one blogger killed by Jamaat miscreants) and violent protest to thwart ICT (includes morethan 100 killing, burning minority hindu people's house, killing police and journalists).

• POV violation #5 - Hundreds of news sources are provided here. Do you think all of these are biased? Have you lost your mind? Amardesh is not a reliable source. Do you know, this news paper widely spreading heat speech against the peaceful protest? Even they are trying to justify the killing of Shahbag activist Rajib Ahmed by telling he is an atheist! As an human rights expert(!), what is your opinion?
• POV violation #6 - Does the truth changes with its audiences? Please be rational.
• POV violation #7 - Personal attack.
• POV violation #8 - Protest doesn't reach to it's finishing line. It is not time to conclude or give any overall perspective.
• I think collaborating ([1], [2], [3], [4]) with few anti Shahbag minded wikipedians mislead you. My request is, please follow the actual history of Bangladesh , rather than biasing by any Jamaat activist.--Freemesm (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You asked us not to put anything from mind here? Thats what we are accusing you of. I have provided points with major international references not from my "mind". Its you who has only put his POV. Why not support your refutations of the 8 POV violations and my points with major international references? You could put thousands of so called references, but they need to be judged for reputation. Your claim "Awami League is being promoted is baseless", your claim that Shahbag is not pro-government, your calling Shahbag as simply "the" protest, while calling the counter protests as violent, your asking us to take our major international references outside Wikipedia to some court (to give a misleading impression that they are mere opinions and only relevant to the ICT), your accusations against certain domestic media, your urging people not to collaborate with anti Shahbag minded Wikipedians, all these are statements of your POV, unsupported and intentionally misleading. Yes truth doesn't change with audience, but POV does, your unsupported POVs that are so popular in your country that you demonstrated with all the photos coming in for this article. Secondly, Crtew knows that the situation in Bangladesh is not over, that is why he mentioned that someone also removed the current event tag. What point are you trying to make by returning the same statement back to him? You are identifying neutral editors as opposition to a great cause without countering their points and references. And you are using every excuse to disrupt the discussions, remove templates without explanation, closing discussions in the talk page, modifying existing discussions (I have pointed out such an instance in the preceding section) etc. So, finally, there was no personal attack. Crtew is just giving an alert that there are many people here trying to promote particular POV without justifying them in accordance with Wikipedia standards.(Shamelessshahbag (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

As soon as the article was nominated for the NPOV check some previous discussions have been declared closed by Aditya with quick refutations (without valid points and references). (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

You seems too much experience, altho you account is new. Very suspicious! Anyway I don't need to provide few references with my every sentences, as the whole article is full of sources. I am supporting all of them.--Freemesm (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Again the same attempt to create suspicion instead of focusing on points and references. I could also do the same about you, since your profile says you are a Bangladeshi and you may well be having some sentiment about the article. And secondly, you say you don't need to prove anything because the article is full of references? Your article certainly doesn't contain the POV, approach and points that I have referred to from Human Rights Watch, Al Jazeera, Wall Street Journal, The economist, etc. And the references you have provided certainly don't hold the status of the major international ones that I have provided which the article doesn't use as references. So there should be something wrong with the present references, approach and point of your article right? This is actually the reason why the neutrality of the present article is being contested. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

I agree that more sources should be used from outside Bangladesh offering perspective on what is happening. Large crowds can be wrong, too, as in mob actions - who are they to be dictating what a sentence should be in a trial they did not attend? One can question this; NPOV should provide more than one side's self-representation. There have been international concerns about the process of the trials, as well as suppression of opposition press.Parkwells (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment You guys do know that that template is just for administration right? It is basically a category and that is it. If you are expecting an admin to come along and go over the article that will not happen. And as we still have 61 articles from 2007 still on the list, you may be waiting some time. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Edits by User:Underlying lk

Dear Underlying lk, I don't understand why do you trying to put POV materials. This article doesn't discuss about ICT. There is another article named International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) which deals with ICT. Moreover you are trying to put only blames about ICT, but in ICT article you can see there are many organizations, who welcome this tribunal. So putting only negative info both POV and irrelevant here.--FreemesM ^(talk) 14:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Another point is, you have delete the photo gallery, but WP:Galleries says "the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." Please explain your points.--FreemesM ^(talk) 14:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, I agree with Freemesm. That is why I reverted the edits by Underlying lk. The statements about ICT do not belong to this article, especially not in the lead. Thanks. ..... Onimesh (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This article will never be neutral if you remove any statement that doesn't support the protesters' point of view. The whole protest is about the trials and the fact that they're not considered fair by the ICJ is obviously relevant, which is why dozens of journalists saw it fitting to discuss them together. The same goes for removing the fact that the ICT Act does not comply with international norms according to the economist and that most deaths were caused by the police. Reverting by claiming it was POV is the ultimate irony. The current revision curiously fails to mention the many major international organisation who have taken issue with the proceedings of the tribunal or that members of Jamaat have been the single largest group of victims in the recent bouts of violence. So, to turn the question back to you, why do you keep only positive infos about it? Is that your idea of POV?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Every tribunal has criticism, even Nuremberg tribunal was criticized too. But that criticism is not present on lead of Nuremberg trial article. A genocide is occurred in Bangladesh, it is historically true, Jamaat-e-Islam took part to commit war crime, it is also true. Just a hacking incident doesn't diminish all the truths. There are many incidents linked with this protest, which are provided to balance it (i.e. Khaleda Zia oppose this protest). I think you will find more rather than blame of ICT.--FreemesM ^(talk) 19:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Underlying lk, you may don't know the history of Bangladesh. Jamaat is the party who officially took part to help Pak army in 1971 liberation war, like Nazi party in Germany. So it is obvious that their leader will bring under trial.--FreemesM ^(talk) 19:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Freemesm, being obviously guilty in your eyes doesn't deny Jamaat leaders the right to a fair trial. Which according to major human rights organisation did not take place. Any comparison with Nuremberg is irrelevant as obviously the amount and extent of criticism is not even comparable. Again, why does the current revision fails to mention the many major international organisation who have taken issue with the proceedings of the tribunal or that members of Jamaat have been the single largest group of victims in the recent bouts of violence? How does that improve the neutrality of the article in your opinion?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I will sum up my view on the issue below. I can find any number of reliable sources to support both claims.

POV statement	NPOV statement
Members of Jamaat are against the sentencing of convicted war criminals.	Members of Jamaat are against the sentencing of convicted war criminals because they think the trial wasn't fair, many international groups agree.
Members of Jamaat caused violence and deaths.	Members of Jamaat clashed with police, but the latter were responsible for most of the deaths.

Do you agree that, if demonstrably true, both are relevant and should be added?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

How about deciding that both the examples are irrelevant. This article is not about your Jamaat-e-Islami or the ICT. This is about the Shahbag protest, the role of the information on the ICT is to provide the background of the protest and the role of information on the Jamaat-e-Islami violence has very little space here, apart from where it directly confronted the Shahbag protest. How difficult is that to understand?

As for making demonstrably true NPOV statements, as per the examples above, it can very well be:

• Members of Jamaat, an organization accused of war crimes, Islamic extremism and terrorism, are against the sentencing of convicted war criminals because they think the trial that sentenced war criminals witnessed to have killed and raped hundreds was not fair. (While the "some international groups agree" part will have to be qualified like - which international group and how it agreed)
• There were clashes between the Jamaat members and supporters, who attacked and ransacked members of the Hindu community, burned down police, power and railways stations as well as killing a number of police officers by hacking them apart, and the police. A number of Jamaat members and supporters were killed by police firing in the ensuing riots.

All that can be amply cited with reliable sources. But, please, let us not push things into that irrelevant and unpleasant area. If you want to demonstrate that the trial was unfair, do it at the appropriate article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Aditya. Here Underlying lk trying to say as the ICT has criticizm, so all the alleged and convicted war criminals are angels! Very childish indeed! Comparing with Nuremberg trial is very relevant here. See [5].--FreemesM ^(talk) 06:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Aditya, you clearly have a most peculiar idea of a neutral point of view. If both examples are irrelevant, why are the first in the current revision of the article? ("…demanding capital punishment for Abdul Quader Mollah and others convicted of crimes against humanity…") When you talk of people supporting the execution of men "convicted of crimes against humanity" (or any other crime for that matter) it's obviously crucial to specify whether they were given a fair trial or not. Many international groups other than Jamaat (of which I assure you I'm neither a member or a sympathiser) disagree, and yet it's given no mention. The same goes for the second example: "Members of Jamaat and its student wing Islami Chatra Shibir (ICS) launched violent protests against the senetnecs [sic], attacking police and journalists, smashing public vehicles and setting off Molotov cocktails" without saying that the police was responsible for most deaths as (again) plenty of major international groups would testify. Given all the opposition to the slightest rebalancing of views it's no wonder that the article is tagged for neutrality.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't understand, why do you collapse violance by Jamaat with Shahbag protest? These are different from each other.--FreemesM ^(talk) 18:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty disingenuous to me to keep comparing this to Nuremberg, Freemesm. It's as if Nuremberg is being used to make out that the ICT is just another widely accepted war crimes tribunal for which there exists relatively minor criticism. The ICT is in fact a tribunal which has been accused by many organisations of lacking fairness, and has been the site of a judgement rigging scandal[6], harassment of defense lawyers and witnesses, including the abduction of a witness [7] [8], retroactive legislation [9] and plenty more. An NPOV sentence should not allow readers to walk away thinking that someone is guilty of war crimes simply because they were convicted by the ICT.

And I agree that Aditya's "NPOV" sentences are absurdly POV...and this is a problem. The first sentence there sounds like it is mocking Jamaat members' point of view, sounds like there is a huge body of incontestable proof that every person sentenced is guilty, and throws "accused of war crimes, Islamic extremism and terrorism" into the sentence in order to further skew the POV. Jamaat have certainly been accused of those things, but if we were to insert these kinds of clauses anytime a party (which all have 'accusations' about them) is mentioned makes for a fairly unreadable article. And if we only insert them for Jamaat, then it makes for badly written POV article. Applesandapples (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Editors of this article are biased

What I have realised and looking at posts from other users above is that this article does not give a neutral point of view, but is only supportive of the Shahbag protests as if it is seen as positive among all eyes of the world when in fact its only among a minority within Bangladesh itself. Those who edit this article need to get a strong message that YOU DO NOT OWN WIKIPEDIA OR THIS ARTICLE! Anyone who adds a contribution that contradicts the ideas of those who are pro-Shahbag are instantly reverted. The article itself needs to be improved most importantly presenting a neutral point of view, unfortunately this is impossible since it seems this article is 'owned' by selfish closed-minded editors. May I remind you Wikipedia is not biased to one opinion and that it is open to all editors to contribute not presenting only one point of view, some of these ediotrs have been on Wikipedia for a very long time yet have not learnt this clear rule. Abu Ayyub (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

By saying selfish closed-minded you are attacking other wikipedians personally. Please see WP:NPA and avoid this kind of attack in future. If you don't mind, can I know your previous wiki user name?--FreemesM ^(talk) 18:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid you are engaging a edit war. you are trying to say Rajib was blasphemous writer. But according to this news, the blog which was supposed to be written by Rajib, was not written by him.--FreemesM ^(talk) 19:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree that there are editors aggressively keeping this article one-sided. And Freemesm, the Australian article at least includes the claim that Rajib was a blasphemous writer, so I have included information to that effect. Applesandapples (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Apple, please be more smart! Which sentences of this source say hmed Rajib Haider, a blogger who wrote anti-Islamic posts? The source says

Tensions have risen in the Muslim-majority nation over allegedly anti-Islamic blog posts by Ahmed Rajib Haider, who was hacked to death last week near his home in Dhaka.

don't you see the word allegedly? Another statement of the source is

Since Haider's death, Bangladeshi social media has been flooded with his alleged blog posts and with those by other bloggers mocking Islam, triggering protests by a number of Islamic groups and clerics.

. See this news, where it says

Information of several international organisations monitoring websites worldwide confirmed that the personal blog claimed to be written by slain Shahbagh movement activist Ahmed Rajib Haider hurting Islam was not his .

Please don't put this info back again.--FreemesM ^(talk) 15:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I really hope this article isn't going to adopt the POV that it is somehow normal or reasonable to murder people for expressing religious opinions in blog posts. And opposing opinions do not "hurt" religions, BTW, unless their followers are extremely weak of faith.

And WTF has happened to the article headings? "Verdict from the Kangaroo Tribunal"? Seriously? Whoever did this, grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.16.35 (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahmed Rajib Haider was not writing blogs critical to Islam

We have discussed here about the Ahmed Rajib Haider was not writing blogs critical to Islam. See this this news and [10], the blog which was supposed to be written by Rajib, was not written by him. So don't revert it again.--FreemesM ^(talk) 18:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether he wrote it or not, this article [11] makes it clear that it was important that he was accused of writing it, especially given the riots that happened afterwards. Applesandapples (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Which is all fine and well, so long as it is made clear directly afterwards that he had not in fact written those blogs, I presume you have done this? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)