![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I suggest that this page be moved to "War crimes trial in Bangladesh", all the information about ICT can be arranged within this article. -- Khan Muhammad ( talk) 10:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems, this article has been written by someone who supports the accused war criminals. Because almost all the references mentioned here are for the accused. I have started adding some neutral references. Please understand that, Steven Kay, Toby Cadman and John Cammegh are all defense layers of some of the accused war criminals. Most of the references are from them, and from this the previous editor came to the decision that the tribunal is widely condemned which is unacceptable. Only the references to Human Rights Watch, Lord Avebury can be regarded neutral. But they did not use the word condemnation, they just criticized some of the points. So please edit with a more open mind. -- Khan Muhammad ( talk) 11:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 07:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) → International Crimes Tribunal – Per WP:COMMONNAME This article does not need the (Bangladesh) in it, there are only one ICT that I know of. There are no need for a redirect. Darkness Shines ( talk) 13:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Unhelpful and mechanical application of a principle. In this case, loss of the qualifier "(Bangladesh)" is counterproductive and helps no one. "International Crimes Tribunal" by itself is misleading. It appears to be some international body, possibly under the United Nations. It can easily be mixed up with such articles as International Criminal Court, Unit of International Crime Investigations, International Centre for the Prevention of Crime, International Commission for the Evaluation of the Crimes of the Nazi and Soviet Occupation Regimes in Lithuania, Women's International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan's Military Sexual Slavery, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and so on. Let's consider the various situations of Wikipedia's readership, rather than demanding the shortest title regardless of consequences. Noetica Tea? 20:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The user Darkness Shines (henceforth DS) has recently been editing this article in a way that does not exhibit a NPOV. I will explain what these problems are, and which s/he should discuss here before s/he continues in his/her present mode of behaviour, justifying him/herself in greater detail than the specious manner in which s/he has been justifying himself in the edit summaries. Given the unhealthy misrepresentation of the Tribunal his/her edits reflect, in the light of the reliable reports concerning it, and given this is an issue that is of immediate topical importance, I will immediately proceed to undo all edits that are not in keeping with Wikipedia policy. S/he should discuss here any modifications of this nature s/he would like to reinstate before proceeding to do so once again.
Firstly, s/he has removed important references to David Bergman on the specious claim that his respectable and authoritative blog on ICT is a self-published source that does qualify it to be used here. I refer him to the wikipedia article on the criteria for using self-published blogs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_self-published_blogs, in which it is abundantly clear that his blog qualifies. On all three counts of "verifiability", "relevance" and "scope" the blog qualifies as a particularly significant source for this article, since David Bergman is a reputable and seasoned journalist with years of experience internationally, and in Bangladesh, and is probably, by virtue of his activity relating to Bangladesh War Crimes of 1971, the most relevant expert commentator on the ICT in independent investigative journalism. Thus is reports are to be deemed probative, and his commentary highly relevant. His years-long enthusiasm for a fair tribunal is also a proof of his neutrality when he criticises the tribunal.
DS has also labelled the peer-reviewed academic journal Criminal Law Forum ( http://www.springer.com/law/criminal/journal/10609), and the article written by Professor Suzannah Linton of Hong Kong University ( http://www0.hku.hk/law/faculty/staff/linton_suzannah.html) to be an unverifiable source. It happens to be quite verifiable, and particularly reputable. On the specious basis of this journal's unverifiability, s/he has seen fit to remove the reference entirely, without discussion, hence depriving users of wikipedia of a particularly reputable and reliable source on the subject.
DS has also removed a reference to a lecture conducted at the prestigious American Society of International Law, an internationally-recognised forum for matters concerned with international law which was attended by senior US politicians, the Bangladesh Ambassador to the US, and widely respected academics as falling foul of wikipedia's guidelines regarding reliable sources ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS) on the specious argument that it was on Youtube. Youtube is a repository both reliable and unreliable sources, and this clearly falls under the rubric of "reliable" given the nature of ASIL.
DS has also deleted important sources for verifying claims of casualty figures in the Liberation War of 1971, deeming them self-published, although they include the work of the authoritative and scholarly analysis of Bergman cited above, and that of Necrometrics ( http://necrometrics.com/author.htm) of Matthew White whose work has been referenced in 92 scholarly journals, and hence qualifies as an important and reliable source on all three counts of "verifiability", "relevance" and "scope". Having deleted these two more scholarly sources, s/he added a doubled figure of rapes to 400,000 without any source material to justify the inflated claim, which seems to undermine any claims to a NPOV s/he may make.
All of the above are grounds to call to question the neutrality of Darkness Shines, and hence I would ask DS to justify any such future changes you wish to make here in the talk page before proceeding to make them. Aminul802 ( talk) 03:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
{out)I posted it on your talk page but will cross post to here [1] Please explain were in the source used does it say the figures are the subject of considerable dispute or even 58,000, and number of women raped at 25,000, both of which are themselves objectively high numbers.? This is a blatant misrepresentation of the source. You also removed Up to 10 million refuges fled to India and a further 30 million were displaced which was sourced to the academic press and a leading author in the field, please self revert. Darkness Shines ( talk) 12:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
'It is claimed that around three million people were killed and between 200,000 and 400,000 women were raped, although these figures are the subject of considerable dispute, and some estimates place casualty figures as low as 58,000, and number of women raped at 25,000, both of which are themselves objectively high numbers.'
for the following reasons: (1) it's not clear why this data is directly relevant to the article. The ICT is not set up to prosecute persons alleged to have committed crimes against humanity (which are incidentally not mentioned in the first sentence of the article, definining the intended scope of the ICT) only; for example, crimes against peace are explicitly mentioned in the 1973 act. (2) At least two other Wikipedia articles discuss the numbers of deaths during the 1971 war, 1971_Bangladesh_atrocities and List_of_massacres_in_Bangladesh. Perhaps a reference to the first one will do? Alternatively, it may be stated that the ICT itself accepts the 3,000,000 figure for the number of deaths, with an appropriate reference? (3) I find the phrase 'objectively a high number' nonsensical - there's no such thing as an 'objectively high number' (here's a semi-serious argument, if you like: 1 is certainly not; if n is not, neither is n+1). Abbasfirnas887 ( talk) 09:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to highlight that some of the sources that are being referenced in this article, and related articles, are particularly hostile towards Jamaat and/or particularly pro-Awami League, thus very much in favour of what the UN has characterised as the Tribunal's arbitrary detention. I am beginning to pay attention to this in my edits, but I would like everyone working on this page, and related pages, to highlight what the veteran British War Crimes journalist based in Bangladesh, David Bergman, has noted about the woeful lack of independent journalism in the Bangladeshi media on the tribunal. http://bangladeshwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2012/02/govt-pr-debacle-on-un-detention-ruling.html (see the last section of his post)
In particular, he notes that the following Bangladeshi papers: the Daily Star, Prothom Alo, Bdnews24.com, the Independent and the Sun, among others, have all "either taken an explicitly supportive position either of the government or at least of the tribunal". Hence, just as Khan Muhammad has noted in the Ghulam Azam article's talk page in his edits that Sangram is pro-Jamaat, we need to make clear that the papers named above are anti-Jamaat, and so their statements regarding the ICT should be understood in that light, and the editors of the article should point this out. Aminul802 ( talk) 18:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Linking to hacked private conversations on you tube a a linkvio. As was explained in this edit summary [5] The content also has a BLP vio in that none of the sources say Mohammed Nizamul Huq being associated with Ghatak-Dalal Nirmul Committee caused a lack of impartiality. It is also a BLP vio as there is no way that secularvoiceofbangladesh.org is a reliable source for BLP issues. Stop reinserting this junk please. Darkness Shines ( talk) 06:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Introduction should contain overview of the article, not the detail explanations. But here I see, all the information are gathered in intro section. I'll start cleanup as same information are explained below the intro section. -- Freemesm ( talk) 17:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Undue weight has been put on the arrest of Jamaat leaders and criticism of ICT in the introduction. There are 8 detainess so far and one should not mention specifically Azam's news in the intro. What defense lawyers of certain detainess are saying should not be mentioned in the intro explicitly. There are also some reference issues that I have pointed out. -- Khan Muhammad ( talk) 02:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hullo, I have removed the long summary of The Economist article from the introduction. It is already mentioned in the criticism bit. And if anyone wishes to elaborate on this piece of information, please do it in the criticism section. It is great to see so much enthusiasm in adding impartial information in this article, I hope you remember to keep the article reader friendly too. Repeating is not very helpful. Please discuss here first, if anyone decides to add back what was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9livesleft2kicksorrybottoms ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Raghib, You've removed a what you consider a POV concern from the intro at: 16:21, 12 December 2012. I would like to undo this on similar grounds to what I've mentioned to Freemesm above. It appears to me that the Associated Press articles on the controversial nature of the tribunal have gone around the world: [8], [9] both articles have been seen to be fit for reprinting by over a hundred different news outlets--google's results with these particular AP article go on for pages and pages. With so many outlets considering this newsworthy, and publishing it as news rather than opinion, I think the world now sees this issue as indisputably controversial. In addition, both AP articles, which have been reproduced in over a hundred different news outlets worldwide, state as a fact that "the tribunal is trying 10 opposition politicians". If they've seen it as fair to place this in the first few sentences of a brief news report, I think it would be unfair for us to omit its mention. Hence I will be reinstating what you've deleted at the aforementioned date and time. Aminul802 ( talk) 18:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Freemesm, I think you're being very unreasonable. Global news coverage for the last week shows just how controversial the tribunal has become. The fact that we're disagreeing so much about it shows that its controversial. If you read Aminul's last post with an open mind, it'll make sense. I'm going to revert your edits accordingly. Umayma1 ( talk) 08:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Freemesm,the fact that it is an ongoing tribunal is irrelevant to the point that i'm trying to make, namely that it is a) controversial and b) trying ten opposition leaders. the fact that it is controversial is obvious given all the latest news coverage, and that we're arguing about it. and it is a fact that the ICT is trying ten opposition leaders. i'm not making any conclusions about their innocence or guilt. Umayma1 ( talk) 23:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Umayma1, always you are trying to highlight "Tribunal has arrested 10 opposition party leaders". That doesn't make any sense. If anyone say 'why most of the war criminals in WW2 was a part from Nazi Party?' what should you answer him? Jamaat collaborate with pak army as a party. If tribunal arrested them, you cant blame them. This not the right time to say that the tribunal is controversial or not. You and Aminul just trying to bias this article. You don't act collegial. I'm reverting all of your edits. -- Freemesm ( talk) 05:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Raghib, You've removed a what you consider a POV concern from the intro at: 16:21, 12 December 2012. I would like to undo this on similar grounds to what I've mentioned to Freemesm above. It appears to me that the Associated Press articles on the controversial nature of the tribunal have gone around the world: [10], [11] both articles have been seen to be fit for reprinting by over a hundred different news outlets--google's results with these particular AP article go on for pages and pages. With so many outlets considering this newsworthy, and publishing it as news rather than opinion, I think the world now sees this issue as indisputably controversial. In addition, both AP articles, which have been reproduced in over a hundred different news outlets worldwide, state as a fact that "the tribunal is trying 10 opposition politicians". If they've seen it as fair to place this in the first few sentences of a brief news report, I think it would be unfair for us to omit its mention. Hence I will be reinstating what you've deleted at the aforementioned date and time. Aminul802 ( talk) 18:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Freemesm, I think you're being very unreasonable. Global news coverage for the last week shows just how controversial the tribunal has become. The fact that we're disagreeing so much about it shows that its controversial. If you read Aminul's last post with an open mind, it'll make sense. I'm going to revert your edits accordingly. Umayma1 ( talk) 08:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Freemesm,the fact that it is an ongoing tribunal is irrelevant to the point that i'm trying to make, namely that it is a) controversial and b) trying ten opposition leaders. the fact that it is controversial is obvious given all the latest news coverage, and that we're arguing about it. and it is a fact that the ICT is trying ten opposition leaders. i'm not making any conclusions about their innocence or guilt. Umayma1 ( talk) 23:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Umayma1, always you are trying to highlight "Tribunal has arrested 10 opposition party leaders". That doesn't make any sense. If anyone say 'why most of the war criminals in WW2 was a part from Nazi Party?' what should you answer him? Jamaat collaborate with pak army as a party. If tribunal arrested them, you cant blame them. This not the right time to say that the tribunal is controversial or not. You and Aminul just trying to bias this article. You don't act collegial. I'm reverting all of your edits. -- Freemesm ( talk) 05:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Darkness Shines asserts that no source states that 25,000 women were raped in the 1971 War of Liberation. He does so without consulting either of the two academic works I have cited, one in a critically acclaimed classic by Susan Brownmiller [12], and the other in a text published in a work on International Relations by Cambridge University Press [13]. It would be nice if DS would read citations before deleting them. Additionally, he has removed large amounts of material from the entry on the pretext of it's contradicting WP:LEDE. If that was the actual reason, he would not delete large amounts of cited material, but rather have relocated them to the body of the article. Hence this is WP:Vandalism, and I will undo it. Aminul802 ( talk) 22:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I have rewritten the article, some sections still require expansion such as the hacking and reception ones. Do not worry if you get ref errors, I will fix them. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I've removed an old POV template that lacked a discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:
It doesn't appear that there was ever an explanation here of why these tags are in place. If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Based on the recent (and past) edit-warring over the content of the article, I have locked the article for five days. Hopefully, this will allow editors to continue the discussion that was started earlier regarding the two different versions (the old version and Darkness Shines's rewrite), as well as any other content issues. Remember, the goal is to achieve a consensus on the content. If that cannot be obtained, there are other dispute resolution mechanisms available besides the RfC that began the most recent discussion. Further battles in the article after the lock expires will not be tolerated.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The section titled Criticism of the Tribunal has a BLP violation in it. The sentence starting The "International Criminal Law Bureau" is sourced to a personal blog and as such cannot be used for the BLP information in that paragraph. Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Claims he is Delwar Hossain Sayedee's lawyer. If so then why is he being used as a source in this article for criticism? Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I edited the lede to comply with NPOV and WP:LEDE, would Aminul802 please explain what his objections are. I also removed a great many BLP violations, do not restore them. Darkness Shines ( talk) 05:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The article is fully protected again, this time for 10 days. Please come to a consensus on here instead of constantly reverting each other. KTC ( talk) 10:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I recently rewrote this article, however an editor objected to it so I am seeking community input as to which version of the article to have and expand upon. Either the current one (as can be seen by looking at the article) or this [14] as can be viewed in my userspace. Darkness Shines ( talk) 01:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
As I rewrite this article in user space I have discovered a disturbing trend by user Aminul802. A great many of the sources he has used for criticism have the opposing view in them also, this is prime example [17] The source used (Ref Condemn) here has a rebuttal from Richard Rogers, who was head of the ECCC. This should have been added at the same time. I have now found a great many such violations of NPOV. I should like Aminul802 to explain why he is only adding criticism to the article and none of the rebuttals. He also used this which has Mizanur Rahman supporting the ICT yet he failed to add it. Darkness Shines ( talk) 10:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are currently two sections titled Formation of the Tribunal please replace the first one with the background section in the subsection below this. Thank you. Darkness Shines ( talk) 10:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The events of the nine-month conflict are widely viewed as genocide. [2] and during the conflict it is estimated that between two hundred thousand [3] and four hundred thousand. [4] women and children [5] were raped and estimates of those killed ranging from 269 000 [6] to one million [7] and a high of 3 million people killed and an estimated 10 million refuges entering India with a further 30 million being displaced. [8] Susan Brownmiller, in her report on the atrocities, said that girls from the age of eight to grandmothers of seventy-five suffered attacks. [9]
In 2009 it was announced by Shafique Ahmed that the trials would be held under the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973. [10] This act only allows those within Bangladesh to be prosecuted and did not allow for those who were not a part of the armed forces to be tried. The act was amended in 2009 and the International Crimes Tribunal Rules of Procedure and Evidence were put in place by 2010. Two clauses and an amendment were also made to the 1973 act. Critics maintain that further amendments are needed to bring the act up to the standards of international law. [11]
References
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
This is, by now, something of an old chestnut. I have tried to introduce this term into the opening sentence saying: "The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) is a controversial ongoing tribunal...". This has not gone down well with two fellow editors: User:Darkness Shines and User:Freemesm. Their objections were, I believe, often verbalized in this talk page, but I cannot seem to see where these past discussions have been archived. If someone can direct me to them, I'd be grateful. In any case, I think that it is obvious by now that the trial has become quite controversial. Evidence to that effect may be found in the following: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43].
Can I get a second opinion on whether I'm fair to characterize the tribunal as "controversial"? Aminul802 ( talk) 09:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami leader has employing US lobbyist firm 'Cassidy and Associates' to prevent this trial process. Due to this kind of global lobbing activity, world media present this tribunal questionably. This point must be added to this article. reference could be found here--> At first go to http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=chooseFields . Then select 'Clients Country' in Client section and press submit. After that, select Bangladesh from the list and press submit. you will get first 4 entries on Mir Quasem Ali, a leaded of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. or you can download it from here- http://www.mediafire.com/?5447m7pq2mc76jl
I think addition of this point should be a good effort to neutralize this article. - Freemesm ( talk) 14:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As the current version was restored by a sockpuppeter please restore to 05:53, 8 January 2013 per WP:DENY Darkness Shines ( talk) 13:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey all, I wanted to see if we can agree on what the sections should be before moving forward. To start, would it makes sense to have a background and a formation section? Or maybe just a formation section? It looks like there are two now and they need to be combined. Dreambeaver (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I suggest that this page be moved to "War crimes trial in Bangladesh", all the information about ICT can be arranged within this article. -- Khan Muhammad ( talk) 10:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems, this article has been written by someone who supports the accused war criminals. Because almost all the references mentioned here are for the accused. I have started adding some neutral references. Please understand that, Steven Kay, Toby Cadman and John Cammegh are all defense layers of some of the accused war criminals. Most of the references are from them, and from this the previous editor came to the decision that the tribunal is widely condemned which is unacceptable. Only the references to Human Rights Watch, Lord Avebury can be regarded neutral. But they did not use the word condemnation, they just criticized some of the points. So please edit with a more open mind. -- Khan Muhammad ( talk) 11:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 07:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) → International Crimes Tribunal – Per WP:COMMONNAME This article does not need the (Bangladesh) in it, there are only one ICT that I know of. There are no need for a redirect. Darkness Shines ( talk) 13:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Unhelpful and mechanical application of a principle. In this case, loss of the qualifier "(Bangladesh)" is counterproductive and helps no one. "International Crimes Tribunal" by itself is misleading. It appears to be some international body, possibly under the United Nations. It can easily be mixed up with such articles as International Criminal Court, Unit of International Crime Investigations, International Centre for the Prevention of Crime, International Commission for the Evaluation of the Crimes of the Nazi and Soviet Occupation Regimes in Lithuania, Women's International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan's Military Sexual Slavery, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and so on. Let's consider the various situations of Wikipedia's readership, rather than demanding the shortest title regardless of consequences. Noetica Tea? 20:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The user Darkness Shines (henceforth DS) has recently been editing this article in a way that does not exhibit a NPOV. I will explain what these problems are, and which s/he should discuss here before s/he continues in his/her present mode of behaviour, justifying him/herself in greater detail than the specious manner in which s/he has been justifying himself in the edit summaries. Given the unhealthy misrepresentation of the Tribunal his/her edits reflect, in the light of the reliable reports concerning it, and given this is an issue that is of immediate topical importance, I will immediately proceed to undo all edits that are not in keeping with Wikipedia policy. S/he should discuss here any modifications of this nature s/he would like to reinstate before proceeding to do so once again.
Firstly, s/he has removed important references to David Bergman on the specious claim that his respectable and authoritative blog on ICT is a self-published source that does qualify it to be used here. I refer him to the wikipedia article on the criteria for using self-published blogs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_self-published_blogs, in which it is abundantly clear that his blog qualifies. On all three counts of "verifiability", "relevance" and "scope" the blog qualifies as a particularly significant source for this article, since David Bergman is a reputable and seasoned journalist with years of experience internationally, and in Bangladesh, and is probably, by virtue of his activity relating to Bangladesh War Crimes of 1971, the most relevant expert commentator on the ICT in independent investigative journalism. Thus is reports are to be deemed probative, and his commentary highly relevant. His years-long enthusiasm for a fair tribunal is also a proof of his neutrality when he criticises the tribunal.
DS has also labelled the peer-reviewed academic journal Criminal Law Forum ( http://www.springer.com/law/criminal/journal/10609), and the article written by Professor Suzannah Linton of Hong Kong University ( http://www0.hku.hk/law/faculty/staff/linton_suzannah.html) to be an unverifiable source. It happens to be quite verifiable, and particularly reputable. On the specious basis of this journal's unverifiability, s/he has seen fit to remove the reference entirely, without discussion, hence depriving users of wikipedia of a particularly reputable and reliable source on the subject.
DS has also removed a reference to a lecture conducted at the prestigious American Society of International Law, an internationally-recognised forum for matters concerned with international law which was attended by senior US politicians, the Bangladesh Ambassador to the US, and widely respected academics as falling foul of wikipedia's guidelines regarding reliable sources ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS) on the specious argument that it was on Youtube. Youtube is a repository both reliable and unreliable sources, and this clearly falls under the rubric of "reliable" given the nature of ASIL.
DS has also deleted important sources for verifying claims of casualty figures in the Liberation War of 1971, deeming them self-published, although they include the work of the authoritative and scholarly analysis of Bergman cited above, and that of Necrometrics ( http://necrometrics.com/author.htm) of Matthew White whose work has been referenced in 92 scholarly journals, and hence qualifies as an important and reliable source on all three counts of "verifiability", "relevance" and "scope". Having deleted these two more scholarly sources, s/he added a doubled figure of rapes to 400,000 without any source material to justify the inflated claim, which seems to undermine any claims to a NPOV s/he may make.
All of the above are grounds to call to question the neutrality of Darkness Shines, and hence I would ask DS to justify any such future changes you wish to make here in the talk page before proceeding to make them. Aminul802 ( talk) 03:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
{out)I posted it on your talk page but will cross post to here [1] Please explain were in the source used does it say the figures are the subject of considerable dispute or even 58,000, and number of women raped at 25,000, both of which are themselves objectively high numbers.? This is a blatant misrepresentation of the source. You also removed Up to 10 million refuges fled to India and a further 30 million were displaced which was sourced to the academic press and a leading author in the field, please self revert. Darkness Shines ( talk) 12:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
'It is claimed that around three million people were killed and between 200,000 and 400,000 women were raped, although these figures are the subject of considerable dispute, and some estimates place casualty figures as low as 58,000, and number of women raped at 25,000, both of which are themselves objectively high numbers.'
for the following reasons: (1) it's not clear why this data is directly relevant to the article. The ICT is not set up to prosecute persons alleged to have committed crimes against humanity (which are incidentally not mentioned in the first sentence of the article, definining the intended scope of the ICT) only; for example, crimes against peace are explicitly mentioned in the 1973 act. (2) At least two other Wikipedia articles discuss the numbers of deaths during the 1971 war, 1971_Bangladesh_atrocities and List_of_massacres_in_Bangladesh. Perhaps a reference to the first one will do? Alternatively, it may be stated that the ICT itself accepts the 3,000,000 figure for the number of deaths, with an appropriate reference? (3) I find the phrase 'objectively a high number' nonsensical - there's no such thing as an 'objectively high number' (here's a semi-serious argument, if you like: 1 is certainly not; if n is not, neither is n+1). Abbasfirnas887 ( talk) 09:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to highlight that some of the sources that are being referenced in this article, and related articles, are particularly hostile towards Jamaat and/or particularly pro-Awami League, thus very much in favour of what the UN has characterised as the Tribunal's arbitrary detention. I am beginning to pay attention to this in my edits, but I would like everyone working on this page, and related pages, to highlight what the veteran British War Crimes journalist based in Bangladesh, David Bergman, has noted about the woeful lack of independent journalism in the Bangladeshi media on the tribunal. http://bangladeshwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2012/02/govt-pr-debacle-on-un-detention-ruling.html (see the last section of his post)
In particular, he notes that the following Bangladeshi papers: the Daily Star, Prothom Alo, Bdnews24.com, the Independent and the Sun, among others, have all "either taken an explicitly supportive position either of the government or at least of the tribunal". Hence, just as Khan Muhammad has noted in the Ghulam Azam article's talk page in his edits that Sangram is pro-Jamaat, we need to make clear that the papers named above are anti-Jamaat, and so their statements regarding the ICT should be understood in that light, and the editors of the article should point this out. Aminul802 ( talk) 18:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Linking to hacked private conversations on you tube a a linkvio. As was explained in this edit summary [5] The content also has a BLP vio in that none of the sources say Mohammed Nizamul Huq being associated with Ghatak-Dalal Nirmul Committee caused a lack of impartiality. It is also a BLP vio as there is no way that secularvoiceofbangladesh.org is a reliable source for BLP issues. Stop reinserting this junk please. Darkness Shines ( talk) 06:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Introduction should contain overview of the article, not the detail explanations. But here I see, all the information are gathered in intro section. I'll start cleanup as same information are explained below the intro section. -- Freemesm ( talk) 17:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Undue weight has been put on the arrest of Jamaat leaders and criticism of ICT in the introduction. There are 8 detainess so far and one should not mention specifically Azam's news in the intro. What defense lawyers of certain detainess are saying should not be mentioned in the intro explicitly. There are also some reference issues that I have pointed out. -- Khan Muhammad ( talk) 02:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hullo, I have removed the long summary of The Economist article from the introduction. It is already mentioned in the criticism bit. And if anyone wishes to elaborate on this piece of information, please do it in the criticism section. It is great to see so much enthusiasm in adding impartial information in this article, I hope you remember to keep the article reader friendly too. Repeating is not very helpful. Please discuss here first, if anyone decides to add back what was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9livesleft2kicksorrybottoms ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Raghib, You've removed a what you consider a POV concern from the intro at: 16:21, 12 December 2012. I would like to undo this on similar grounds to what I've mentioned to Freemesm above. It appears to me that the Associated Press articles on the controversial nature of the tribunal have gone around the world: [8], [9] both articles have been seen to be fit for reprinting by over a hundred different news outlets--google's results with these particular AP article go on for pages and pages. With so many outlets considering this newsworthy, and publishing it as news rather than opinion, I think the world now sees this issue as indisputably controversial. In addition, both AP articles, which have been reproduced in over a hundred different news outlets worldwide, state as a fact that "the tribunal is trying 10 opposition politicians". If they've seen it as fair to place this in the first few sentences of a brief news report, I think it would be unfair for us to omit its mention. Hence I will be reinstating what you've deleted at the aforementioned date and time. Aminul802 ( talk) 18:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Freemesm, I think you're being very unreasonable. Global news coverage for the last week shows just how controversial the tribunal has become. The fact that we're disagreeing so much about it shows that its controversial. If you read Aminul's last post with an open mind, it'll make sense. I'm going to revert your edits accordingly. Umayma1 ( talk) 08:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Freemesm,the fact that it is an ongoing tribunal is irrelevant to the point that i'm trying to make, namely that it is a) controversial and b) trying ten opposition leaders. the fact that it is controversial is obvious given all the latest news coverage, and that we're arguing about it. and it is a fact that the ICT is trying ten opposition leaders. i'm not making any conclusions about their innocence or guilt. Umayma1 ( talk) 23:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Umayma1, always you are trying to highlight "Tribunal has arrested 10 opposition party leaders". That doesn't make any sense. If anyone say 'why most of the war criminals in WW2 was a part from Nazi Party?' what should you answer him? Jamaat collaborate with pak army as a party. If tribunal arrested them, you cant blame them. This not the right time to say that the tribunal is controversial or not. You and Aminul just trying to bias this article. You don't act collegial. I'm reverting all of your edits. -- Freemesm ( talk) 05:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Raghib, You've removed a what you consider a POV concern from the intro at: 16:21, 12 December 2012. I would like to undo this on similar grounds to what I've mentioned to Freemesm above. It appears to me that the Associated Press articles on the controversial nature of the tribunal have gone around the world: [10], [11] both articles have been seen to be fit for reprinting by over a hundred different news outlets--google's results with these particular AP article go on for pages and pages. With so many outlets considering this newsworthy, and publishing it as news rather than opinion, I think the world now sees this issue as indisputably controversial. In addition, both AP articles, which have been reproduced in over a hundred different news outlets worldwide, state as a fact that "the tribunal is trying 10 opposition politicians". If they've seen it as fair to place this in the first few sentences of a brief news report, I think it would be unfair for us to omit its mention. Hence I will be reinstating what you've deleted at the aforementioned date and time. Aminul802 ( talk) 18:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Freemesm, I think you're being very unreasonable. Global news coverage for the last week shows just how controversial the tribunal has become. The fact that we're disagreeing so much about it shows that its controversial. If you read Aminul's last post with an open mind, it'll make sense. I'm going to revert your edits accordingly. Umayma1 ( talk) 08:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Freemesm,the fact that it is an ongoing tribunal is irrelevant to the point that i'm trying to make, namely that it is a) controversial and b) trying ten opposition leaders. the fact that it is controversial is obvious given all the latest news coverage, and that we're arguing about it. and it is a fact that the ICT is trying ten opposition leaders. i'm not making any conclusions about their innocence or guilt. Umayma1 ( talk) 23:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Umayma1, always you are trying to highlight "Tribunal has arrested 10 opposition party leaders". That doesn't make any sense. If anyone say 'why most of the war criminals in WW2 was a part from Nazi Party?' what should you answer him? Jamaat collaborate with pak army as a party. If tribunal arrested them, you cant blame them. This not the right time to say that the tribunal is controversial or not. You and Aminul just trying to bias this article. You don't act collegial. I'm reverting all of your edits. -- Freemesm ( talk) 05:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Darkness Shines asserts that no source states that 25,000 women were raped in the 1971 War of Liberation. He does so without consulting either of the two academic works I have cited, one in a critically acclaimed classic by Susan Brownmiller [12], and the other in a text published in a work on International Relations by Cambridge University Press [13]. It would be nice if DS would read citations before deleting them. Additionally, he has removed large amounts of material from the entry on the pretext of it's contradicting WP:LEDE. If that was the actual reason, he would not delete large amounts of cited material, but rather have relocated them to the body of the article. Hence this is WP:Vandalism, and I will undo it. Aminul802 ( talk) 22:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I have rewritten the article, some sections still require expansion such as the hacking and reception ones. Do not worry if you get ref errors, I will fix them. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I've removed an old POV template that lacked a discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:
It doesn't appear that there was ever an explanation here of why these tags are in place. If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Based on the recent (and past) edit-warring over the content of the article, I have locked the article for five days. Hopefully, this will allow editors to continue the discussion that was started earlier regarding the two different versions (the old version and Darkness Shines's rewrite), as well as any other content issues. Remember, the goal is to achieve a consensus on the content. If that cannot be obtained, there are other dispute resolution mechanisms available besides the RfC that began the most recent discussion. Further battles in the article after the lock expires will not be tolerated.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The section titled Criticism of the Tribunal has a BLP violation in it. The sentence starting The "International Criminal Law Bureau" is sourced to a personal blog and as such cannot be used for the BLP information in that paragraph. Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Claims he is Delwar Hossain Sayedee's lawyer. If so then why is he being used as a source in this article for criticism? Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I edited the lede to comply with NPOV and WP:LEDE, would Aminul802 please explain what his objections are. I also removed a great many BLP violations, do not restore them. Darkness Shines ( talk) 05:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The article is fully protected again, this time for 10 days. Please come to a consensus on here instead of constantly reverting each other. KTC ( talk) 10:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I recently rewrote this article, however an editor objected to it so I am seeking community input as to which version of the article to have and expand upon. Either the current one (as can be seen by looking at the article) or this [14] as can be viewed in my userspace. Darkness Shines ( talk) 01:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
As I rewrite this article in user space I have discovered a disturbing trend by user Aminul802. A great many of the sources he has used for criticism have the opposing view in them also, this is prime example [17] The source used (Ref Condemn) here has a rebuttal from Richard Rogers, who was head of the ECCC. This should have been added at the same time. I have now found a great many such violations of NPOV. I should like Aminul802 to explain why he is only adding criticism to the article and none of the rebuttals. He also used this which has Mizanur Rahman supporting the ICT yet he failed to add it. Darkness Shines ( talk) 10:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are currently two sections titled Formation of the Tribunal please replace the first one with the background section in the subsection below this. Thank you. Darkness Shines ( talk) 10:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The events of the nine-month conflict are widely viewed as genocide. [2] and during the conflict it is estimated that between two hundred thousand [3] and four hundred thousand. [4] women and children [5] were raped and estimates of those killed ranging from 269 000 [6] to one million [7] and a high of 3 million people killed and an estimated 10 million refuges entering India with a further 30 million being displaced. [8] Susan Brownmiller, in her report on the atrocities, said that girls from the age of eight to grandmothers of seventy-five suffered attacks. [9]
In 2009 it was announced by Shafique Ahmed that the trials would be held under the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973. [10] This act only allows those within Bangladesh to be prosecuted and did not allow for those who were not a part of the armed forces to be tried. The act was amended in 2009 and the International Crimes Tribunal Rules of Procedure and Evidence were put in place by 2010. Two clauses and an amendment were also made to the 1973 act. Critics maintain that further amendments are needed to bring the act up to the standards of international law. [11]
References
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
This is, by now, something of an old chestnut. I have tried to introduce this term into the opening sentence saying: "The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) is a controversial ongoing tribunal...". This has not gone down well with two fellow editors: User:Darkness Shines and User:Freemesm. Their objections were, I believe, often verbalized in this talk page, but I cannot seem to see where these past discussions have been archived. If someone can direct me to them, I'd be grateful. In any case, I think that it is obvious by now that the trial has become quite controversial. Evidence to that effect may be found in the following: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43].
Can I get a second opinion on whether I'm fair to characterize the tribunal as "controversial"? Aminul802 ( talk) 09:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami leader has employing US lobbyist firm 'Cassidy and Associates' to prevent this trial process. Due to this kind of global lobbing activity, world media present this tribunal questionably. This point must be added to this article. reference could be found here--> At first go to http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=chooseFields . Then select 'Clients Country' in Client section and press submit. After that, select Bangladesh from the list and press submit. you will get first 4 entries on Mir Quasem Ali, a leaded of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. or you can download it from here- http://www.mediafire.com/?5447m7pq2mc76jl
I think addition of this point should be a good effort to neutralize this article. - Freemesm ( talk) 14:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As the current version was restored by a sockpuppeter please restore to 05:53, 8 January 2013 per WP:DENY Darkness Shines ( talk) 13:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey all, I wanted to see if we can agree on what the sections should be before moving forward. To start, would it makes sense to have a background and a formation section? Or maybe just a formation section? It looks like there are two now and they need to be combined. Dreambeaver (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)