Talk:2013 Bangladesh violence

Contested deletion

• The mentioned pages 2013 Bangladesh protests and 2013 Bangladesh riot are not the same.

1. Protest and riot are not same things.

2. Protest in 2013 Bangladesh started from February 5, but the riot started from February 28.

3. 2013 Bangladesh protests is very much associated with Shahbag, but the 2013 Bangladesh riot is a countrywide matter.

4. The 2013 protest started for the death sentence of some public figures. But the riot started after announcing one's sentence. --Rossi101 (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Rossi101

5. Shahabag Protest and 2013 Bangladesh riot is totally different Occurrence. Msfz (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Msfz

and you are a new account who just happened by then? On a new article created a few hours ago? Read WP:MEAT Darkness Shines (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

6 I am from 25 June 2011 .Msfz (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Msfz

I know, again read WP:MEAT FYI Darkness Shines (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• The Shahbagh protest is a different matter from the riot. The riot has not been occurred in Shahbag. Still the Shahbag protest is running without any disturbance. The riot is a separate matter from Shahbag occurred in elsewhere throughout Bangladesh.180.234.227.120 (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Hasan

• This article is a completely falsified and biased story of the actual events. The Jamaat and Shibir activists are responsible for countrywide mayhem. Just look at these references: [1], [2], [3] and I can show plenty of others. Pratanu.roy (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

2013 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence

The article 2013 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence should be merged with this one, or at least be linked in some way. utcursch | talk 21:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with you. We can list all the violence by Jamaat-e-Islami acitvists here and what were the consequences after police tried to defend the government properties. Pratanu.roy (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Should be deleted. This one is totally biased crap.--Freemesm (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

I have added a neutrality tag in the article since the article is terribly biased. It is not the Police force of Bangladesh, but the Jamaat Shibir who are responsible for the mayhem and riots (Please see CNN report [4]). Hence, the article should be modified and the violence by Jamaat Shibir on the minorities, government offices, police posts, and common people should be included. Pratanu.roy (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Changing the title

I have changed the title since the current title is misleading and very general. Please raise your concern regarding the title in this section. Pratanu.roy (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we extend it with those violence occurred in the end of 2012?--Freemesm (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

What should be the best title for this situation? The title proposed merge 2013 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence is true in situation, because after and before ICT verdict only Hindu Community attacked by so- called Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami party supporters. [5] --- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 11:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Some more news continue....

• http://www.niticentral.com/2013/03/03/hindus-under-attack-in-bangladesh-51684.html
• http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2013/03/02/minorities-resent-jamaat-attacks
• http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=270925
• http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2013/03/03/234-Bangladesh-FM-condemns-Jamaat-e-Islami-attacks-on-minority-Hindus-in-Bangladesh.html
• http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/latest_news.php?nid=45165
• http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=271244
• http://dawn.com/2013/02/28/twenty-one-killed-in-bangladesh-after-jamaat-leader-ordered-hanged/
• http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/south-asia/six-killed-in-fresh-bangladeshi-riots/article4471543.ece
• http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/11-years-after-riots-a-cameo-from-gulberg-society/article4471703.ece
• http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10868607
• http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/28/world/asia/bangladesh-riots/
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/03/bangladesh-soldiers-death-toll
• http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5igO8eStVzdkrEb_5uMDpgiijDLIQ?docId=97935361c4fd4508a571780b03b5378b
  • Just watch the CNN report Deadly riots follow Bangladesh death sentence.

--- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 12:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I too support merging to 2013 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence, because Bangladeshi Hindu minority is the main target of the attacks described in the article and in reliable sources. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I guess, the current title 2013 Bangladesh riot would be fine having 2013 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence merged with this one, the attacks on the Hindu community was definitely part of the riots! --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Jayantanath, Thanks for your opinion. If you search Bangladeshi newspapers since november of last year, you will see only minority Hindu people, but also police, general people, blogger, journalists were killed by Jamaat. Here I provide some news links-

• http://www.thedailystar.net/beta/online/2013/03/04/24051.html
• http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=259962
• http://thenewnationbd.com/newsdetails.aspx?newsid=59383
• http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/latest_news.php?nid=43709
• http://newagebd.com/detail.php?date=2012-11-14&nid=30049#.UPkaYfKTJbw
• http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=257274
• http://www.daily-sun.com/details_yes_09-11-2012_Jamaat-desperately-on-the-offensive_314_1_1_1_7.html
• http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/latest_news.php?nid=44790

From these links you can see that all violence are started just around the verdict. So, I think it will be better if we create an article, which will contain all these violence committed by Jamaat, which will include a large section about attack on Hindu community.--Freemesm (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any comment here by User:Rossi101 regarding changing the title, yet he/she is persistently changing the title and reverting the contents to a previous biased version. Please discuss here and raise valid points about the title and the contents before blindly reverting the article. Pratanu.roy (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• The 'ICT' is not a clear term to be used in title. The term 'riot' has been widely used in media more than of 'violence' to explain the matter. And, there have been more than one verdicts, that's why using 'verdict' relates to indefiniteness. So, 2013 Bangladesh violence after ICT verdict: is not a proper title. Instead, 2013 Bangladesh riot is a easier to explain all of the conflicts and counter conflicts. Additionally, none of the wikipedia riot articles has been entitled in such way riot after.....'. So, I think 2013 Bangladesh riot is better title than 2013 Bangladesh violence after ICT verdict:.

I am redirecting the article to it's primary title 2013 Bangladesh riot till the discussion finished. --Rossi101 (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Rossi101

The title '2013 Bangladesh riot' is too general to infer anything at all. The riot or violence started right after the Sayeedi verdict given by ICT - and the term ICT is explained in the article. Even if you change the title, you should keep the current contents, since it is now well referenced and not biased - because Jamaat Shibir is the one who are creating violence, and the casualties are due to their clashes with the law enforcement forces. Pratanu.roy (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I am participating in the discussion lately, as Pratanu.roy didn't send me(article creator) any notice about the title discussion at start. And, Pratanu.roy redirected the article without any title discussion notice. --Rossi101 (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Rossi101

First of all, the article was considered for deletion since there are other articles in Wikipedia regarding the similar ongoing events in Bangladesh. Secondly, I am not the only editor who raised concern about the POV of your original article and the title of the article. I have put a title discussion topic in the talk page, where you did not talk at all until now. (I have put several warning messages in your talk page which you disregarded by the way) And there are other editors who thought that '2013 Bangladesh violence after ICT verdict' is a better choice than yours. Pratanu.roy (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Even after several warnings, reports you are still persistently changing the title and the contents. You can see that all the editors are trying their best to make it a better article, still you are stubborn on your cause. Please do not revert again until your case has been solved: [6] Pratanu.roy (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Title: Please suggest a new title for the article, since '2013 Bangladesh riots' is very general and it may indicate that a communal riot is going on, which in fact, is not true - the minorities (Hindus) have been attacked by the Jamaat Shibir activists which is one sided violence, not 'riots'. Pratanu.roy (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge

1. The riot has started after announcement of the death sentence of a public figure, not directly related to attacking minority.

2. Primarily, it was a protest against the death sentence; became riot at clash with police.

3. The riot resulted attacks on minority groups.

• So I think the article 2013 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence should be merged with 2013 Bangladesh riot. --Rossi101 (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Rossi101
• Oppose But will support a merger of 2013 Bangladesh riot to 2013 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence, which is already being discussed above. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The riot primarily was a protest against the government, not a religious conflict. When the police started civil killing, it raised religious conflict as a side effect. I think the the 2013 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence should be merged with the primary matter of article 2013 Bangladesh riot. --Rossi101 (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Rossi101

Rossi101, can you explain how does 'civil killing' by police raise a 'religious conflict' as a 'side effect'? 2013 Bangladesh riot is a violence due to the aftermath of the Sayeedi verdict. So, please do not change the title without the 'consensus' of the editors. Pratanu.roy (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Support The title 2013 Bangladesh violence after ICT verdict: covers both the attacks on minority and other violence committed by Jamaat-Shibir as well as the clashes between the Jamaat activists and Police which has received the highest media coverage. The article 2013 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence doesn't need a separate article, hence it should be merged with 2013 Bangladesh violence after ICT verdict:. --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Support I do agree that we need to merge both 2013 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence and 2013 Bangladesh violence after ICT verdict:. There is no point to keep both articles simultaneously. Let us request the creator/editors of 2013 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence for a merger, since this one covers a broader range of topics. Pratanu.roy (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my point! --Zayeem ^(talk) 13:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Expand the article should have more issues that were not covered in 2013. Suggested name: 2013 Bangladesh unrest. Messiaindarain (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Police Riot Concern

‎Rossi101 trying to present the whole circumstances as Police Riot, which is totally false. Police does not start any riot. I am requesting him/her not to bias this article by providing false information.--Freemesm (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree with Freemesm, since the government deployed police to save the common people from the riots/ violence by Jamaat-Shibir and their allies, not for starting riots. It does not make sense to term it as Police Riot, since the Bangaldeshi government or Police has nothing to gain by starting a 'riot'. It is obvious from the media coverage and news reports that who are the victims (the minorities, the government offices, police posts, mukti-juddho sangsads) and who are the attackers (the Jamaat-Shibir activists). So, Rossi101, please refrain yourself from diverting the article into a different direction by falsifying the contents. Pratanu.roy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not really as black and white as that...sources such as Al Jazeera [7] have reported that the police been firing on non-violent protesters since the ICT verdict. Applesandapples (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference

The local media houses publishing news have been highly monitored by the government. So, please provide reference links of unbiased news from international media sources. --Rossi101 (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Rossi101

The local media houses publishing news have been highly monitored by the government - Any reference supporting this ludicrous statement? --Ragib (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. Sure. Here is it OpenDemocracy. --Rossi101 (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Rossi101

Please stop claiming blogs and op-eds as "references". The writeup you link to is one Mahin Khan's opinion, not a fact. --Ragib (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Title and merge

There is nothing to merge. 2013 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence is part of articles on Persecution of Hindus (the category already has 51 articles). 2013 Bangladesh riots is about Political riots. And, 2013 Shahbag protests way too specific to be even considered.

For the title change proposal, we must consider the facts that not all of the riots, while interlinked and overlapping on top of being part of the general context, are about ICT or verdict of even a person. One party is instigating riots against government treatment of rioters, another against the verdict, while people from the masses are taking to arms because of rumors (Sayeedi's face on the moon) or religious intolerance (like violence against Hindu families). But, they still are part of the general time-frame and context and are interlinked and overlapping set of events, thus they need one article to capture the subject.

If needed, separate articles on separate parts of the whole is always possible. And, each of the three individual articles mentioned can be Wikilinked to each other for better access to related information. Let's remember, related information is not limited to these three articles alone. For example, persecution of Hindus and riots instigated by Islamic extremists are have other articles to be linked with this article and others.

All the change I see as needed is changing the title from "riot" to "riots". Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion this article can be merged with the broad article titled 2013 Bangladesh protests which is different from 2013 Shahbag protests. It would give perspective and depth to the info presented in this article. If you do agree I would execute the merge later today. 09:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legaleagle86 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 6 March 2013

It is being decided in the original article 2012 Shahbag protests that the title of that article will be changed to reflect the opposing protests that international media considers to be part of a single political turmoil in 2013. It is then pointless to open similar articles such as 2013 Bangladesh Protests or 2013 Bangladesh riot]. (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

Can you lead us to the discussion where it is being "decided"? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think they can be merged in that they were both in reaction to the trials and sentences of Delwar Hossain Sayeedi and Abdul Quader Molla and they occured at the same time. Furthermore, I would say the same about the 2013 Shahbag protests as they were also reaction to the sentences and they also occured at the same time. These are interconnected incidents that have the same roots and they sould all be merged. Charles Essie (talk) 20:16, 21 June 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 uses the word "riot" to describe the bigger issue of which the opposition protest would be the significant part).

5) The pro-government (pro-Shahbag) editors are opening one article after another to achieve the aforementioned purpose. See also 2013 Bangladesh protests (Shamelessshahbag (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

Please, be factual and rational. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox.

• There are no counter protests to the Shahbag protest. Name one protest that specifically is protests against the Shahbag protest.
• The inclusion of an independent article on Wikipedia is decided by its notability. If it has happened and if it was mentioned as such by independent and reliable sources, then there's no way it is going to get speedily deleted. And, if you want to get it deleted, please, use Wikipedia policies, not anyone's personal opinion.
• And, when really was it "settled"? Who settled it, and how? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The 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.wiki.x.io/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide#cite_note-USSD2005-06-31 & http://en.wiki.x.io/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.wiki.x.io/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-Wright-65 The Economist: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)#cite_note-The_Economist-63 Human Rights Watch http://en.wiki.x.io/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.wiki.x.io/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) 11:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

Decide what you want. A title change? A neutral article? Or a deletion? Looks like you are just venting here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Shamelessshahbag, when you talk about neutrality of an article, please be more specific. Where did you find these topics in the current article?? :'protests center on a 9 month long genocide in 1971', 'The article gives the impression that all war criminals are being tried', 'A legal issues section...'. When you perform a 'Ctrl+C' and 'Ctrl+V', please be careful whether it is relevant to an article or not. Where did you find 'opposition to pro-government Shahbag protest'? The violent protest by Jamaat-e-Islami activists were against the Sayeedi verdict - and they did a great deal of violence (especially attacking the minorities in Bangladesh) to be criticized by the media. You are talking about world media, even today there was a press release by Amnesty where they criticized Jamaat-e-Islami for their violent attacks on Hindu minority [8]. So, talk rationally and to the point. Don't complain like an adolescent boy. Vortex Shedding (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Until some real issue emerges, this discussion needs to stay closed. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding new sections

I have added some new sections in the article for better arrangements. Thanks. ..... Onimesh (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2013 Bangladesh violence

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2013 Bangladesh violence's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Islamists":

• From 2013 Shapla Square protests: "At least 32 dead as Bangladesh Islamists demand blasphemy law". DAWN. Agence France-Presse. 6 May 2013. Retrieved 19 May 2013.
• From Diganta Television: "At least 32 dead as Bangladesh Islamists demand blasphemy law". DAWN. Agence France-Presse. May 6, 2013. Retrieved 19 May 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)