Talk:Bangladesh Chhatra League

vandalism

This article was Severely vandalized, Unsourced claims, doesn't have minimum quality of an encyclopedia.

I have have cleaned it up. Ctg4Rahat (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This given information is wrong. Anti-Bcl activatists edited this info. I want to edit this info. I will provide proper link. Tapu Mondol (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Political violence on campuses

I have removed portions of the Crime section that I believe violate Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Living persons accused of a crime are presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. None of the alleged perpetrators have been convicted (or at least no reliable sources have been cited that say they have been convicted). Furthermore, the alleged perpetrators are relatively unknown, low-profile individuals.

In addition to WP:BLP, bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper crime blotter. Long lists of alleged crimes are not encyclopedic content. Political violence on campuses is endemic in Bangladesh. It can be covered in this article, but editors should summarize the view from 10,000 ft, not from tree-top level. This problem applies to the entire Crime section, even those parts that don't violate WP:BLP.

Do not restore the removed content without reaching consensus here or taking the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree Bruno pnm ars (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Murder of Biswajit Das

There's a very large overlap between this article and the information on the BCL page. Instead of the duplication, I propose that content should be merged into the BCL article. Marianna251TALK 21:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support-Per nom.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose given that Bangladesh Chhatra League has a history back to '48 (and so is independently notable), but the murder itself is independently notable ("captured live on television" and "Eight sentenced to death" and extensive coverage from a range of source). Pages are already linked as summary/main. Klbrain (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. As Per nom.--Nahal^(T) 09:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the article itself notables sourced and still important for country politics and has many related links are missing there like peoples n political reaction, court cases n progress should be included there!!–2A0A:A541:CBC3:0:583B:8575:68CE:B6CE (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The Murder is an important & notable event. It should be in a separate page. Jubair Sayeed Linas (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Closing, given the consensus not to merge. Klbrain (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Murder of Abrar Fahad

reasonaable --Nahal^(T) 09:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The Murder is an important & notable event. It should be in a separate page. Jubair Sayeed Linas (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Closing, given the consensus not to merge. Klbrain (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2020

শাকিল আহমেদ জুয়েল বাবু (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverted Problem

I just edited some information of this page. But every time I get reverted message from authority. I will give proper information with reference. And I will add some headings which is appropriate.

There are also some partial or problematic information. I want to edit this. And I want to back my edit. Tapu Mondol (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Add more history

The 'Violation' part has been given more focus in the information. I would like to request that, the Chhatra League has a glorious history too. This Chhatra League has given birth to many struggling leaders. Add that history too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahatil Ashikin (talk • contribs) 07:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Biased Political Issues

The context with the leading student politics group, Bangladesh Chhatra League is shown as a brutal killing force which is not the actual way to present a constitutional political party's student group. There is always a good side and a bad side to each action. But writing on such a party by being biased for other parties is not good. According to me, This is not the place of politics, it is just a platform to spread unbiased knowledge.

There are also some partial or fully uncertain problematic wrong information. I have tried to edit this with proper information sources. Let me do whatever people need to know more about Bangladesh Chhara League. Sromei (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Extensive rewrite by REDOWAN SHAKIL

@REDOWAN SHAKIL: In this edit, you removed a long section critical of the Bangladesh Chhatra League, expanded the history section with material that is unsourced or sourced only to the organization (and includes patently absurd statements, such as "Chhatra League is the only organization leading the freedom movements and freedom struggle in Bangladesh"), and replaced anything critical in the lead with unsourced fawning adulatory opinion that doesn't summarize anything in the body ("The history of Bangladesh Student League was glorious", "played a vital role", "played a valiant role", "secured the fall of dictator", "kicked the caretaker government out from the power", "situation is improving day by day", etc.).

To take your edit summary point by point:

• "I've added the recent information about BSL there from prominet newspaper of Bangladesh" is largely true, you added information from Priyo.com, bdnews24.com, Jago News 24, The Business Standard, The Daily Star, and Daily Bangladesh. However, some of the added information cites no sources, and in one case cites Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source.
• "The previous article editor edited the page with fake information which are from unathorized news or propaganda news" is largely false. The information is cited to: BBC News, bdnews24.com, The Daily Star, Democracy News, Dhaka Tribune, The Financial Express, The Guardian, The Hindu, The Independent, LiveMint, Prothom Alo, Reporters Without Borders, Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium, and Voice of America. Most of these are among the most reliable journalistic sources on Bangladeshi subjects, there is even overlap with outlets you've used yourself. They are not in the habit of printing fake news or propaganda.
• "Probably the previous editor of this page was an activist of Exremist organzization called Bangladesh Islami Chatra SHibir which activist fought against the independece of Bangladesh during 1971." Focus on content rather than speculating about contributors.
• "I've corrected false info added by the bias shibir editor" needs elaboration. There is likely to be both positive and negative information about any organization, so the overriding negative tone of the article before your edits suggests that it may have been biased in some ways, that it may not have neutrally reflected all the significant views of the organization published in reliable sources. Replacing everything negative with material that sounds like it came from a simpering lickspittle lapdog of the ruling party is not a solution.

I've reverted your unsourced/poorly sourced additions to the history section, your removal of the violence section, and your unsourced and non-neutral summation in the lead. If you wish to remove content from the violence section, first establish consensus here, preferably on a subsection-by-subsection basis, for why the content doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@REDOWAN SHAKIL: Please do not fragment discussions across multiple talk pages, it makes reaching consensus more difficult. In reply to your posting at my talk page, "Please show me where my sorces are worng?", I'll comment in detail on your changes in this edit to the history section:

• Do not use boldface within section headings. The Manual of Style should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance.
• It's okay to link the first occurrence of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
• The first new paragraph, "Chhatra League is the only organization leading the freedom movements and freedom struggle in Bangladesh ..." cites no sources. Your claim of "only" is ridiculous. To give but one counterexample, the Tamaddun Majlish was an organization prominent in the Bengali language movement.[1]
• The second new paragraph, "About 17,000 leaders and activists were martyred ...", cites a single source, the BCL's website, for the first sentence, and no sources for the remaining "In 1971, ... more than 50,000 BCL workers actively participated in the liberation war". The cited source actually says "তাই তো মুক্তিযুদ্ধে আমাদের প্রাণের সংগঠনের ১৭ হাজার বীর যোদ্ধা তাদের বুকের তাজা রক্তে এঁকেছেন লাল-সবুজের পতাকা, [That is why 17,000 heroic warriors of our organization have painted red-green flag in the fresh blood of their chests in the war of liberation]" That is oblique and elliptical language that cannot be paraphrased confidently as "were martyred". Exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources, not ones self-published by an organization with an interest in showing themselves in a favorable light. I added a list of nine reliable, scholarly sources above. Other suggested sources are welcome, particularly those that meet WP:HISTRS. You would do well to stick to summarizing such sources.
• Your changes to the final paragraph are difficult to follow. It's best if you explain here, one small step at a time, what you want to change. You replaced
  • "However, their exact involvement in the war is disputed, with Zafrullah Chowdhury stating, 'The Mujib Bahini did not fight the liberation war.'" with
  • "However, their involvement in the war was praised for guerilla activities, , 'The Mujib Bahini fought valiantly during the liberation war.'"

  For this one-sided about face, you continue to cite the existing source, but vandalize its title, changing it from 'Mujib Bahini didn’t fight liberation war' to Mujib Bahini fought valiantly liberation war' (such behavior is totally unacceptable, and likely to get you blocked if you do it again), and added a second source. The added source is okay, but its five paragraphs about the Mujib Bahini don't support what you've written (if you dispute that, quote a sentence from the source that can be paraphrased as what you wrote). Most of the source is about different criticisms of the force, its divisiveness, its "bitter relationship" with the Mujibnagar Government and the Mukti Bahini. All it says about its fighting is, "on certain occasions, Mujib Bahini and Mukti Bahini had been seen to cooperate with each other. For example ... The Mukti Bahini, Hemayet Bahini and Mujib Bahini jointly launched an operation [on the last day of the war] on the Pakistani positions at Bhatia Para and forced them to surrender."

  The original source is not great, being a personal reflection by a non-historian. We should seek better sources. There is some information in Roy 2002 and Zaman 2004. The latter says, in part, "From the month of August 1971, the trained Mujib Bahini members started to move into Bangladesh ... On the other hand, the Moni-group of Mujib Bahini had a main goal to destroy the leftist. Not only the leftists sometimes to assure their leadership, they even fought battle with the regular freedom fighters, without any hesitation they even killed the other Mujib Bahini fighters." That somewhat contradicts the existing source's assertion that they didn't fight the war, but fighting against the Mukti Bahini and sometimes intentionally killing competing members of their own group makes it clear that it was a controversial organization.

  • Finally, you removed the text, "In 2014, A. K. Khandker was sued for accusing the Mujib Bahini of hooliganism and looting during the war in his book 1971: Bhetore Baire." You retained the cited source, but again vandalized its title, changing it from "AK Khandker sued for 'Mujib Bahini's looting' claim" to "AK Khandker" (DON'T DO THAT!). Possibly the sentence strays off topic, although since the Mujib Bahini was organized by prominent Chhatra League leaders, it may be relevant to note that the Mujib Bahini have been accused by a retired Air Vice Marshal of looting and hooliganism. I'll let other editors weigh in.

--Worldbruce (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2024

Need to correct many informations, many source (news) are rumour Cononsenses (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Update the number of people killed due to the violence inflicted jointly by pro-government forces and law enforcement

Please update the number of people killed due to the violence inflicted jointly by pro-government forces and law enforcement:

Bangladesh protests death toll nears 180, with more than 2,500 people arrested after days of unrest - CBS News. (2024, July 23). Www.cbsnews.com. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bangladesh-news-protests-deaths-mass-arrests-job-quotas/ ‌ 130.88.226.29 (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done see details here.
–– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 17:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Violence and terrorism section

Hey @DeloarAkram, It has come to my attention that the "Violence and Terrorism" section in this article is essentially a verbatim duplication of the entire Violence of Bangladesh Chhatra League article. This not only violates several Wikipedia guidelines but also undermines the quality and structure of the primary article. Per WP:CFORK, creating multiple versions of the same content across different pages should be avoided. The purpose of a separate article like Violence of Bangladesh Chhatra League is to provide detailed coverage of a specific topic. Meanwhile, the main article should only contain a summary, as outlined in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Also, WP:REDUNDANTFORK discourages content redundancy across articles, as it dilutes the effectiveness of both entries. Copying large sections of text also violates the principle of WP:NOTDIR, which emphasizes that articles should avoid serving as mere repositories of exhaustive, duplicated information. To bring these articles in line with Wikipedia's content policies, the "Violence and Terrorism" section must be replaced with a concise summary of the relevant events, linking readers to the Violence of Bangladesh Chhatra League article for full details. Failure to do so not only causes confusion but also bloats the primary article unnecessarily. This is not a request but a necessary change to ensure compliance with Wikipedia standards. I will proceed with the edits to align with these guidelines unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. Best regards, Bruno 🌹 (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for mentioning me, I read your message. But remove all section is not right way for representing Chatro league. This article contain many sub section, I think all sub sections should be in the main article. Yes, I believe that no need to detailed information in main article. But entire section should not be deleted. And You should wait for community comments. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 18:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mehedi Abedin@Ahammed Saad@Borgenland@Wrzedn@Worldbruce pinged Bruno 🌹 (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The mother article is essentially an extension of the Violence article, which lends undue weight given that half the article is dedicated to nothing but that but leaves little to nothing else to know. There is no malice to @Bruno pnm ars's decision to provide a concise summary and to insist on restoring a wholesale duplication bordering on copyvio even though a separate article exists to adequately discuss the subject is not only a waste of time and energy, not to mention raise questions as to the tendency of some editors to resort to undisclosed hyperpartisan POV and even WP:BLUDGEON, as my unenviable experience having to revert some nasty edits that were left unchecked over the summer has led me to suspect. Borgenland (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Bruno. Just had a look at the section you're referring to. It seems very detailed and may need to be summarised like in 400-500 words. Hope to give it a try soon. Wrzedn (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2024

“remove torture, extortion, violence, forced prostitution, killings to instill fear”

“change ‘terrorist’to ‘students’ Mindof71 (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)