Talk:2013 Shapla Square protests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POV and Poor/Blog source.[edit]

This article is written from the view point of a hefajat e islam activist. Sources used here like khichuri or banglaigangai.wordpress or deshirights are not authentic. 11 deadbodies were found in the place of the protest. And 1000 deadbody is just a unproven claim of hefajat e islam. But it is written in article like a truth here. রাহাত | ✉ 15:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


One does not have to be an activist of hefazat e islam to be dismayed at what looks like a massacre of unarmed protesters, and a cover up. Fear of recrimination hampers greater knowledge of this grave matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugstar (talk • contribs) 17:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources [1], [2] mention this as a "massacre". If Tiananmen Square massacre is not an "incident," than why does it matter, no matter what the casualty?Messiaindarain (talk) 10:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question of pov tag[edit]

The article has been tagged for POV but no reason specified, and has not been pointed out where the problem lies. A tag can't remain forever or without any policy-based reason. Either reasons should be specified so that they can be corrected, or the tag will be removed in default.--AsceticRosé 04:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • well, Hefajot, an extremist Islamist group carried out reckless strikes, arson, destruction of property etc. next day th e government attacks some of them to stall their destructive activities. In the process, unfortunately, many are killed. Is it a human rights abuse? Yes, because life is a human right, and killing is abuse of it. Is it a torture in the regular sense of the word? No, because it was a clash between two,groups - government and Hefajot. Is it a persecution of Muslim? Well, those dead were Muslims. But they die in the clash, not in a pogrom. The government side is also Muslim!
  • The article was written in such a way as if Hefajot was something like a group of angels who were brutally murdered. On the other hand, Hefajot unleashed the violence on the day, the religious fanaticism. I tried to write some parts of the article to provide some sanity. More stuff may remain. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with the torture point of your comment, but overall, I see your comment problematic on various grounds. First of all, your tone (in comment and in edit summaries) sounds like a little bit racist. I think you should correct it. Second, I don't see any group of angels-like description. Please try to speak to the point without making undue rhetoric. Third, it is not you who should say who unleashed what, rather it is the article which will say with reliable sources. Does unleashing mean a tag will be placed? I mean, your comment does not address and justify the issue for which this section was created.
Coming to the persecution of Muslim point, your argument that it was a clash is wrong. The article clearly mentions a crackdown by the security forces, and there is no mention that Hefajat also attacked the security force. This is even further substantiated by the fact no casualty is mentioned/invoked (not in the sources also I looked up) on part of the security forces. And for a category, it doesn’t matter who the persecutor is, rather it matters who the persecuted is.
I think I should look up sources to make the description better.--AsceticRosé 17:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extremists or extremism do not form a race. So, being against religious extremism is not being racist.
Now, you may ask how to know Hefajot is extremist? Their 13 point demands, and the destructive mode of operation re evidence enough. I am not digging up lots of articles as of now. http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2013/05/06/12-cases-against-hifazat-leaders and http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2013/05/06/hifazat-burns-quran-hadith-in-blind-rage are two small examples. Hefajot continued to stage protests and destruction, and government forces clashed with them to disperse them, chase them away. The killings are always unfortunate. But, they were killed in the altercation. It's similar to death of protesters in any other part of the world, only remarkable thing being these protesters were religious fanatics.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: The angel-like descriptor is not for the present version. That applies for a previous version, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Motijheel_shootings&diff=564366437&oldid=564159949 --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody has the right to clarify themselves, but your use of phrasings like religious fanaticism and LoL! the Islamist editors conveniently forgot to mention… put me in concern, and these could easily be avoided in favor of neutral language. About your explanation of extremism and its source, my observation is that the apparently strange story of burning Quran and one-sided description of vandalism come from a certain source (bdnews24). I have a feeling of discomfort with it, and I question its reliability. Its news presentation style seems to be slanted towards a certain POV, and it fails to present news in a neutral way.
I do not like to engage in forum-like discussion, but just to hit the point, a vandalism doesn't necessarily constitute an extremism unless there are other reasons to use the term. Well, students and workers often commit vandalism, but are not termed so. About the 13-point demand, everybody has the rights to press forward their demand in a democratic environment.
You said the previous versions contained some elements that were not neutral, and were removed. The pov tag should also have been removed with that but was not. It questions the neutrality of those editors who previously questioned the neutrality of the article.
Your comment still didn't justify your removal of the two categories. I've already said why persecution of Muslim category is appropriate. The category torture can also be justified given the nature of the crackdown: the persecutors were heavily armed, the persecuted were not.--AsceticRosé 17:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see there are several news reports on conflicting number of fatalities, and also regarding involvement of human rights organizations. So, those are ok in the article. I agree that neutrality tag may not be needed anymore.
Of curse any person or party has the right to convey their demand. And in this case, it is the fundamentalist nature of these demands that make them extremist. No, vandalism does not make one extremists, but ideology does. Those demands reflect this party's ideology, and reek of filthy fundamentalism and extremism. In any case, you have correctly said there is no need of forum-like talk. It suffices that news reports call that party extremist.
And yes, I apologize for the edit summary using "Islamist editors", since I do not know whether those editors concerned were Islamist at all.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this article to 'Operation Shapla'[edit]

The title of this article is clearly a POV. Actually this operation was done to evacuate 'Shapla Chattar' from extremest Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh. Someone has created this article to present Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh as victim, but they are not. This operation is popularly known as 'Operation at Shapla Chattar', any one can check it by googleing. I am going to move this article to '2013 Operation at Shapla Chattar'--FreemesM (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is always better to rename sensitive articles only after consensus, and not unilaterally.
Your writing of the lead in an unusual way has surprised me. It is not a lead at all. See WP:LEAD. It is not a summary of the article, rather a story in itself; its description contradicts that of the main text; it doesn’t have the title in the opening sentence to define the topic. All this shows either you have difficulty in understanding what a lead is, or you are deliberately doing this (you did this twice); none of which is acceptable. Worse, you stuffed it with pov source and pov tale. Earlier, I expressed my concern over this source (bdnews24). It fails to report events in a neutral way, and seems to accomplish a certain goal. It is a source indeed, but not a reliable source.
You should be able to explain your removal of the file in the external link section that was added previously. Please do not edit base on your whim, and do not make arbitrary steps in editing.
Your edit summary hardly corresponds to your edit; it is not clear which content you termed as pov, and which pov you removed as claimed in the edit summary. I see you removed the well-written lead that was using reliable source like Human Rights Watch. And yes, references have been checked as you suggested; they support the provided text.-AsceticRosé 17:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks for your reply. But I am totally disappointed after watching your disruptive editing on this article. You have presented this fundamentalist organization a victim of this incident. Hefazat mobs were vandalize the capital city of Bangladesh and law enforcement agency were drive them away from. A lots of reference you could find over googling to verify my statement, even two TV channel were live telecast the whole operation, see these-- [3][4][5][6] etc. Even HRW rebut Hefazat's genocide claim [7][8]! You are trying to spread Odhikar's controversial report, which is already proved false by few newspaper [9]! HRW and other HR organizations did nothing, but just echo Odhikar's controversial report!
It is true that this article is not well constructed, but your edit seriously violet the WP:POV rule. I am reverting your edits.--FreemesM (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another point, I have linked a video of Dhaka Metropolitan commissioner's interview, which was published in The Prothom Alo newspaper's official youtube channel. You have removed that with Odhikar's controversial report! This is really disappointing!--FreemesM (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is necessary to watch out your language when you comment, and to be careful when you term an edit disruptive. The use of words fundamentalist organization and Hefazat mobs underlie your POV. On Wikipedia, our task is to present events as reported by source, and not to decide who is fundamentalist and who is angel. When you edit articles with certain fixed ideas about something, it is natural that your course of description will flow in that direction, and you have displayed this earlier by writing your lead stuffing with POV sources. No part of my edit can be proven as POV. Yes, they can be seen as victims from description because they bore casualties, and that's why we have a section "casualty". You are wrong about Odhikar's report. I see it is a human rights organization. I also see the US expressed concern when its president was arrested. So it holds credibility. Yes, you can call its report controversial, but you can not pronounce judgment that it is false. A newspaper's own news-item declaring another report false is not a guarantee at all. If other views are available about anything in reliable sources, you are right to include them in a neutral way, but you can not term the original report false. If you think HRW and other HR organizations did nothing, but just echo Odhikar's controversial report!, then it triggers certain concern about your motive, because, in Wikipedia, HRW and other HR organizations will remain reliable sources.
The YouTube links were removed because we have a policy about external link. It says Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked. It also says It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English. But here we have no question of official site about YouTube. Thanks.-AsceticRosé 17:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain-
It is actually me who should term your edit disruptive. You malformed the lead and fashioned it in a most bizarre way. You stuffed it with pov. You placed a citation in the middle of a statement. I corrected and drew your attention to it. You bypassed the discussion on lead and abruptly reverted to that bizarre version until Parkwells copy-edited it and corrected the lead again. It is often not quite unusual that an editor will try to veil their disruption by calling another's so. -AsceticRosé 15:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hefajote islam are victim: [21][22][23] [24] Bigidilijak (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wordpress!!! Wordpress is your source! Read WP:SPS. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved article to "2013 Shapla Square protest". See Tiananmen Square protests for comaparison. A civil conflict infobox should remain as it is used to summarize information about a particular non-military conflict.Messiaindarain (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is too long[edit]

The lead was too long, so I tried to make a summary. It should not be the source of details but a summary and overview. This is one of the difficulties of using WP to write about current events. But, people still have to satisfy article requirements. Have to do more editing to move those details into the main body. The main body of the article can present the details but also has to provide the context. This appears to be part of a series of events and protests by a minority who do not comprise the majority of those elected to government in this society based on law and representation. They appear to want to impose their view outside the law.Parkwells (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Parkwells for your nice copy-edit. I will try to cooperate as soon as I have time. -AsceticRosé 17:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Parkwells for your c/e. This article seems decent now.--FreemesM (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration[edit]

AsceticRose has some good points, so I think people need to think about collaboration, and let's try to stick to the facts of the case. It seems to be one of many similar events. I'll try to help and am an outsider.Parkwells (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help dear Parkwells. Yes, collaboration will make this article balanced and will portray the real fact. I'll try my best to help providing relevant news sources on this issue.--FreemesM (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

User:LucrativeOffer engaged in edit war with me. He said using "fundamentalist", "extremest" is not ok according to WP policy. But he can't understand that WP:NPOV policy doesn't tell us to hide true identity of any extreamist group. He must know any statement with sufficient WP:RS source could be kept in wikipedia. I am providing few references about Hefazat's extremist activity. Here are those- [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. Moreover he is adding few sentences by blaming a prominent lawyer without providing any references. A edit warring report is submitted in Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring [34]--FreemesM (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I told you to read the policies carefully. One group may claim this organization to be extremest and fundamentalist while others won't. And please don't blank the properly sourced parts of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucrativeOffer (talk • contribs) 13:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

motijeel massacre[edit]

This article was created about the genocide against hefajote islam. Now this user freemesm has changed it quite the opposite. Bigidilijak (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. If you can turn this into an article about the "genocide", please do. But, remember you will need to conform to core Wikipedia policy, especially WP:V and WP:NOT. Otherwise, all your edits will be reverted or changed to conform to the policies. Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved article to "2013 Shapla Square protests" (See Tiananmen Square protests of 1989)any other designation however POV can redirected titles. Messiaindarain (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war alart[edit]

  • Lucrativeoffer again engage in edit war. See this diff [35], where he removed sourced content. The reference clearly says--

Hefajat-e-Islam relied heavily on children, who were students of Qaumi madrasas, in their "Dhaka siege" programme held on May 5. According to the video footages viewed in the electronic media and the pictorial reports in the print media, the presence of children was much more visible in the showdown staged by Hefajat-e-Islam and their clashes with police in the capital. Guardians of these students in a number of Qaumi madrasahs said the children who joined the Hefajat rally from different madrasas and ultimately left abandoned during the police drive were, in fact, unaware where they had been taken to and why.

--FreemesM (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not in the source. You have been removing vast amount of properly sourced parts of the article even after your block, see this edit where you blanked a large part of Later incidents section which was properly sourced. In this edit, you cleverly distorted a source by completely changing the title (original title is "Children in violent politics" and false title "Noted personalities express concern") as well as putting a fictional quote. LucrativeOffer (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dear LucrativeOffer, here I am listing my points-
  • Why didn't you ask me for the source? Here it is [36] and [37]. You didn't bring it to talk page, but removed the content. As now I provide you the source, bring it back. Check links which I provided, your title confusion will be solved. I mixed up those two links.
  • this editThis is clear violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. How Mr. Ziauddin's involvement in ICT is relevant here in this article? He is an expert lawyer , that is why his comment was quoted. Moreover in that diff you will see I removed repeated words and arrange them according to time line. Check this reference [38], this is a propaganda website and don't have minimum credibility.
  • In this diff [39] you merged two sections, to reduce due weight of using children in violence and here [40] you putted a statement blaming law enforcement agency in wp:npov way without any discussion. Why?
I am requesting to self revert all the disruptive edits of yours.--FreemesM (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Freemesm, here is my reply

  • You had first added the wrong source with a false quote, so anybody would have removed it. Now that you showed the actual source, even here I didn't find anything similar to what you have written when security force flash them out, leaders left those children alone.
  • I told you before in my edit summary, since you are quoting Mr. Ziauddin's comment, it's important to mention his allegiance to the government which makes his comment partial. Mr. Ziaudin's involvement in ICT controversy proves this partiality.
  • A section is only due when you have enough texts, we can't have a separate section for only two sentences, so I merged the section with Protest and events. Besides, having a separate section with only two sentences with negative aspects of an organization means you are trying to highlight those negative things, this makes the article biased. LucrativeOffer (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As we are not fiend any consensus, I am bringing it to WP:3O--FreemesM (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion request[edit]

Lets begin from last diff. I am writing down my points one by one against User: LucrativeOffer's edits on this article.

  1. It will be clear to anyone that the lead is unusually exaggerated to blame government side by hiding violence activities by Hefazat-e-islami.
  2. "Involving children in violence" section merged with "Protest and events" without any discussion and to diluting the negative activities done by the fundamentalist organization.
  3. In "Later incidents" section there are violations of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. How Mr. Ziauddin's involvement in ICT is relevant here in this article? He is an expert lawyer , that is why his comment was quoted.
  4. In "Later incidents" section a reference is used, which is propaganda website and doesn't have minimum credibility.

I have tried to bring these to User: LucrativeOffer, which is a SPA, but he didn't listen and deliberately engage in edit warring.--FreemesM (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Undid the revision. His only interest is editing this article. I agree with your no.1 point. Before him, there was Fugstar who also done the same think, now User: LucrativeOffer starting. --Aftab1995 (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now Freemesm has began to tag-team edit warring and invited his friend Aftab1995 to revert me. Freemesm, bringing the same argument repeatedly won't get you anywhere, I have already explained it in the previous thread.
  1. The lead looks a bit messy with some repetition, I will try to trim it now.
  2. A section is only due when you have enough texts, we can't have a separate section for only two sentences, so I merged the section with Protest and events. Besides, having a separate section with only two sentences with negative aspects of an organization means you are trying to highlight those negative things, this makes the article biased.
  3. I told you before in my edit summary, since you are quoting Mr. Ziauddin's comment, it is important to mention his allegiance to the government which makes his comment biased. Mr. Ziaudin's involvement in ICT controversy proves this partiality.
  4. The reference is fine and credible, it should stay.
And Aftab1995, leaving a troll edit summary like "নিজের মনের মত দিলেই হয় না।" will not justify your revert, they are not my opinions but facts supported by reliable sources, please make sure you at least check the sources before reverting someone. I also think it is a clear case of Conflict of Interest as User:Freemesm is working to push a political agenda here. LucrativeOffer (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:LucrativeOffer for not trying to push any political agenda here. That's why, you are editing only one article. --Aftab1995 (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LucrativeOffer why did you removed the pro-taliban leader's info from lead [41]?--FreemesM (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-taliban is your opinion, the sources call him a participant in the Soviet Afghan war. There were hundreds of Muslims from different corners of the world who sided with the Mujahideen in the war, all of them are not pro-Taliban or pro-Al Qaida. Why did you write "few leaders" when there was only one such leader? LucrativeOffer (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I now realize that this section is technically flawed, biased, and a very good example of user FreemesM's pov position and over-enthusiasm to somehow demonize an organization s/he doesn't like/support. First, a person may travel various places and organizations in his life, and may meet various personalities – both good and bad. If that certain person involves in any certain activity in his later life, it does not necessarily mean that those previous organization(s)/person(s) have a role in this very person's activity. Whether or not Habibur Rahman has traveled there is a distant and separate incident. His going there does not prove anyway Taliban's involvement here, because HE is NOT a Taliban. User LucrativeOffer correctly calls it your opinion.
Second, is user FreemesM freely distorting source information to obtain his end, some of which have been pointed out by user LucrativeOffer? This section barely mentions one person but the heading was saying “leaders” which gives the readers a totally different meaning. The allegation of changing original title "Children in violent politics" to false title "Noted personalities express concern", if true, is very severe. This is simply not accepted. -AsceticRosé 03:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2013 Shapla Square protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_Shapla_Square_protests&oldid=1196646342"