![]() | Faisal Abedin Deepan was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 10 November 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | Washiqur Rahman Babu was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 April 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | A fact from Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 June 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh was copied or moved into History of Bangladesh after independence with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | The contents of the Kunio Hoshi page were merged into Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh on 03 August 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
---|
The following is an archived debatedebate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Almost totality of contents in this article is about attack and discrimination on the Subject; which can very well be covered in the target page. nafSadh did say 17:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article Washiqur Rahman Babu is only about death of the subject -- which can very well be covered in the target article. nafSadh did say 17:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Let us keep them alphabetically sorted, rather than chronological; as people may be victimized more than once. ~ nafSadh did say 21:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
There has been some disagreement over whether this article should be named "Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh" or "Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh".
What I have learned from a thorough reading of the sources for both this article and the Asif Mohiuddin article is that this is a complicated issue with many different aspects. Certainly, it appears that most of the writers or bloggers murdered so far in this campaign have been self-declared atheists - though not, apparently, all, which alone would be sufficient reason to choose "secularists" over "atheists". But I think the bottom line with regard to this issue comes from the "free thinking" mukto-mona website itself - whose bloggers have been the target of some of these attacks - which has summarized the situation as follows:
Similarly, USA Today reported:
The chief goals of the secularist bloggers in Bangladesh are to encourage strict separation between religion and state in Bangladesh, and to see that the leaders of the Muslim fundamentalist party Jamaat-e-Islami implicated in war crimes are appropriately punished - some want the party outlawed altogether. For their part, the Islamists are seeking to discredit the secularists by labelling them "atheists" and "defamers of Islam" - charges which are bound to stir up popular sentiment against them in Muslim-majority Bangladesh. By employing the term "atheists" in the title then, it appears that Wikipedia would in effect be adopting the terminology of the fundamentalists and thus furthering their "disinformation campaign". Gatoclass ( talk) 10:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders have no declared interest in criticism of religion or atheism - only that government restrictions on free speech should not create a chilling effect for journalists. Wikipedia is written from an international perspective - and the article criticism of religion does not focus on people in Bangladesh - and Bangladeshi atheists are not mentioned on Criticism of Islam unlike, say, Ehsan Jami, Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, meaning that Bangladeshi atheists do not have a high profile internationally - but what is internationally significant is how human rights groups have expressed concern at stifling political speech.International organisations, including Human Rights Watch, [1] Amnesty International, [2] Reporters without Borders [3] and the Committee to Protect Journalists [4] condemned the imprisonment of bloggers and the climate of fear for journalists.
Blogger Asif Mohiudeen, arrested on 3 April for allegedly posting blasphemous comments online, remains in detention and at risk of torture
Reporters Without Borders condemns the baseless judicial proceedings brought against the detained blogger Asif Mohiuddin, who could be tried and convicted on a charge of blasphemy and "hurting religious sentiments" at his next hearing
The result of the move request was: Moved. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh → Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh – Discussion is ongoing at Talk:Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh#Name and focus of article and WP:DYKT#Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh. Many secular writers do not publicly identify themselves as irreligious - and international NGOs have mainly focussed on the issue of press freedom. Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists have condemned the chilling effect that violence has on the press in general - who will be made afraid to broach issues that involve criticism of religious political parties, irrespective of the religious beliefs of journalists. -- Aronzak ( talk) 09:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I have done a rewrite and expansion of the intro and background sections of the article to help clarify the political context in which these attacks have occurred. This is the first step in preparing the article for presentation at DYK. I intend to be making some more additions to other sections over the next few days before requesting a new review at DYK. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I have requested a new review at DYK now, so hopefully this article will be promoted soon. I would encourage other users to try and avoid making major changes until the article has been featured as this may hold up promotion again. Gatoclass ( talk) 12:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Article can entirely be covered with this page. ~ Moheen (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Many of the attacks are not only targeting seculars, but non-muslims as well. Actually, the attacks aren't only targeting non-muslims, but people who do not follow the ideals that ISIS's members follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beejsterb ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Some time ago, I delinked the word "grisly", giving a clear reason: WP:OVERLINK. Another editor saw fit to revert me and relink the word. The reason given was, "restored link for a word unlikely to be known to non-native readers of English who might try to read this page". I suppose it is true that non-native readers of English might not know what the word "grisly" means. However, with respect, so what? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and it does not form any part of its purpose to explain the meanings of common English words. There are many English words that non-native readers of English might not understand or know the definitions of, and they cannot all be linked. What precisely is so significant about the word "grisly" that it alone, of all the English words that non-native readers of English might not know the meanings of, must be linked? Also, per WP:EL, it is not appropriate to have a link to an external link to an outside website in that location; external links generally belong in the "external links" section. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 21:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
A wiktionary link for the word grisly was removed with a statement that common English words should not have such links, and subsequent discussion on the user's page suggested that this approach has something to do with policies about External Links. I believe it is good practice to link such words, which (one hopes) are not part of everyday English, from a page such as this one, about a country whose official language is not English. I have restored the link. The mention of WP:EL comes, I believe, from a mis-reading. That page says "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article.", but the page is about a different kind of external link. Pages relevant to inline wiktionary links are Help:Interwikimedia links and WP:MOSSIS. The latter states "Sister project links should generally appear in the "External links" section, not under See also. Two exceptions are Wiktionary and Wikisource links that may even be linked inline (e.g. to an unusual word or the text of a document being discussed).". Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 20:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, I disagree with the linking of the word to Wiktionary, because, if the word isn't obvious, it is better to use more easily understood words than to provide a dictionary definition. Remove the link and use other words. That is my third opinion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved as clear consensus has been established/uncontested. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 04:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh →
Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh – Although the article previously had contained only list of attacks on the secular activists, nowadays a good number of non secular persons like monks, priests or religious people are being attacked by Islamic militants in Bangladesh. The article at present does not focus only to the attacks on secular activists, but also the attacks on general people from the militant Islamist. Or we can create two separate articles, one named
Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh and another
Islamic extremism in Bangladesh
Mar11 (
talk)
02:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Sminthopsis84, as I have pointed out to you before, it is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article to help non-English speakers learn to understand English. If someone does not understand English, then they are not going to understand the article. There is no reason editors should try to alter that, and indeed no way they can. Linking one isolated word, such as "grisly", certainly does nothing to help non-English speakers. That "Learning one word at a time is how people get to the point of understanding a text" is not a meaningful reply. You might as well link every word in the article, to help non-English speakers, if you thought that linking "grisly" was helpful. Please read the third opinion above. Incidentally, I believe that there is no reason the lead should use the word "grisly" at all. It's sensational, unencyclopedic language and ought to be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( non-admin closure) Adumbrativus ( talk) 19:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh → Attacks by Islamist extremists in Bangladesh – The use of the term "Islamic" is inappropriate as the extremists who are behind these attacks are not Islamic in any sense, they violate the basic tenets of Islam. It is more accurate to state that these extremists use perversions of Islam to justify their violence. Therefore, it is more accurate in my opinion to describe them as being "Islamist extremists" as opposed to "Islamic extremists". AMomen88 ( talk) 16:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Faisal Abedin Deepan was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 10 November 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | Washiqur Rahman Babu was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 April 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | A fact from Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 June 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh was copied or moved into History of Bangladesh after independence with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | The contents of the Kunio Hoshi page were merged into Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh on 03 August 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
---|
The following is an archived debatedebate of the move review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Almost totality of contents in this article is about attack and discrimination on the Subject; which can very well be covered in the target page. nafSadh did say 17:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article Washiqur Rahman Babu is only about death of the subject -- which can very well be covered in the target article. nafSadh did say 17:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Let us keep them alphabetically sorted, rather than chronological; as people may be victimized more than once. ~ nafSadh did say 21:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
There has been some disagreement over whether this article should be named "Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh" or "Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh".
What I have learned from a thorough reading of the sources for both this article and the Asif Mohiuddin article is that this is a complicated issue with many different aspects. Certainly, it appears that most of the writers or bloggers murdered so far in this campaign have been self-declared atheists - though not, apparently, all, which alone would be sufficient reason to choose "secularists" over "atheists". But I think the bottom line with regard to this issue comes from the "free thinking" mukto-mona website itself - whose bloggers have been the target of some of these attacks - which has summarized the situation as follows:
Similarly, USA Today reported:
The chief goals of the secularist bloggers in Bangladesh are to encourage strict separation between religion and state in Bangladesh, and to see that the leaders of the Muslim fundamentalist party Jamaat-e-Islami implicated in war crimes are appropriately punished - some want the party outlawed altogether. For their part, the Islamists are seeking to discredit the secularists by labelling them "atheists" and "defamers of Islam" - charges which are bound to stir up popular sentiment against them in Muslim-majority Bangladesh. By employing the term "atheists" in the title then, it appears that Wikipedia would in effect be adopting the terminology of the fundamentalists and thus furthering their "disinformation campaign". Gatoclass ( talk) 10:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders have no declared interest in criticism of religion or atheism - only that government restrictions on free speech should not create a chilling effect for journalists. Wikipedia is written from an international perspective - and the article criticism of religion does not focus on people in Bangladesh - and Bangladeshi atheists are not mentioned on Criticism of Islam unlike, say, Ehsan Jami, Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, meaning that Bangladeshi atheists do not have a high profile internationally - but what is internationally significant is how human rights groups have expressed concern at stifling political speech.International organisations, including Human Rights Watch, [1] Amnesty International, [2] Reporters without Borders [3] and the Committee to Protect Journalists [4] condemned the imprisonment of bloggers and the climate of fear for journalists.
Blogger Asif Mohiudeen, arrested on 3 April for allegedly posting blasphemous comments online, remains in detention and at risk of torture
Reporters Without Borders condemns the baseless judicial proceedings brought against the detained blogger Asif Mohiuddin, who could be tried and convicted on a charge of blasphemy and "hurting religious sentiments" at his next hearing
The result of the move request was: Moved. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh → Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh – Discussion is ongoing at Talk:Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh#Name and focus of article and WP:DYKT#Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh. Many secular writers do not publicly identify themselves as irreligious - and international NGOs have mainly focussed on the issue of press freedom. Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists have condemned the chilling effect that violence has on the press in general - who will be made afraid to broach issues that involve criticism of religious political parties, irrespective of the religious beliefs of journalists. -- Aronzak ( talk) 09:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I have done a rewrite and expansion of the intro and background sections of the article to help clarify the political context in which these attacks have occurred. This is the first step in preparing the article for presentation at DYK. I intend to be making some more additions to other sections over the next few days before requesting a new review at DYK. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I have requested a new review at DYK now, so hopefully this article will be promoted soon. I would encourage other users to try and avoid making major changes until the article has been featured as this may hold up promotion again. Gatoclass ( talk) 12:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Article can entirely be covered with this page. ~ Moheen (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Many of the attacks are not only targeting seculars, but non-muslims as well. Actually, the attacks aren't only targeting non-muslims, but people who do not follow the ideals that ISIS's members follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beejsterb ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Some time ago, I delinked the word "grisly", giving a clear reason: WP:OVERLINK. Another editor saw fit to revert me and relink the word. The reason given was, "restored link for a word unlikely to be known to non-native readers of English who might try to read this page". I suppose it is true that non-native readers of English might not know what the word "grisly" means. However, with respect, so what? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and it does not form any part of its purpose to explain the meanings of common English words. There are many English words that non-native readers of English might not understand or know the definitions of, and they cannot all be linked. What precisely is so significant about the word "grisly" that it alone, of all the English words that non-native readers of English might not know the meanings of, must be linked? Also, per WP:EL, it is not appropriate to have a link to an external link to an outside website in that location; external links generally belong in the "external links" section. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 21:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
A wiktionary link for the word grisly was removed with a statement that common English words should not have such links, and subsequent discussion on the user's page suggested that this approach has something to do with policies about External Links. I believe it is good practice to link such words, which (one hopes) are not part of everyday English, from a page such as this one, about a country whose official language is not English. I have restored the link. The mention of WP:EL comes, I believe, from a mis-reading. That page says "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article.", but the page is about a different kind of external link. Pages relevant to inline wiktionary links are Help:Interwikimedia links and WP:MOSSIS. The latter states "Sister project links should generally appear in the "External links" section, not under See also. Two exceptions are Wiktionary and Wikisource links that may even be linked inline (e.g. to an unusual word or the text of a document being discussed).". Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 20:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, I disagree with the linking of the word to Wiktionary, because, if the word isn't obvious, it is better to use more easily understood words than to provide a dictionary definition. Remove the link and use other words. That is my third opinion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved as clear consensus has been established/uncontested. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 04:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh →
Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh – Although the article previously had contained only list of attacks on the secular activists, nowadays a good number of non secular persons like monks, priests or religious people are being attacked by Islamic militants in Bangladesh. The article at present does not focus only to the attacks on secular activists, but also the attacks on general people from the militant Islamist. Or we can create two separate articles, one named
Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh and another
Islamic extremism in Bangladesh
Mar11 (
talk)
02:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Sminthopsis84, as I have pointed out to you before, it is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article to help non-English speakers learn to understand English. If someone does not understand English, then they are not going to understand the article. There is no reason editors should try to alter that, and indeed no way they can. Linking one isolated word, such as "grisly", certainly does nothing to help non-English speakers. That "Learning one word at a time is how people get to the point of understanding a text" is not a meaningful reply. You might as well link every word in the article, to help non-English speakers, if you thought that linking "grisly" was helpful. Please read the third opinion above. Incidentally, I believe that there is no reason the lead should use the word "grisly" at all. It's sensational, unencyclopedic language and ought to be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( non-admin closure) Adumbrativus ( talk) 19:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh → Attacks by Islamist extremists in Bangladesh – The use of the term "Islamic" is inappropriate as the extremists who are behind these attacks are not Islamic in any sense, they violate the basic tenets of Islam. It is more accurate to state that these extremists use perversions of Islam to justify their violence. Therefore, it is more accurate in my opinion to describe them as being "Islamist extremists" as opposed to "Islamic extremists". AMomen88 ( talk) 16:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)