Talk:Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh

Proposed merge with Asif Mohiuddin (closed)

Proposed merge with Asif Mohiuddin – Consensus was: not to merge Arr4 (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
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) Oppose Mohiuddin has asylum in Germany and has made his own comments to the media about Avijit Roy etc from Germany (DW.de), he deserves a separate article. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Is he notable for his actions or for he being attacked and oppressed as an atheist? Does him commenting make him more special than many others making comments on Avijit's death? He has potential to deserve his own article, but looking into his article it appears WP:TOOSOON. All his article content can very well be covered here. nafSadh did say 16:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Yes - there is a difference between religion and politics, Mohiuddin wrote both on religion and politics - his imprisonment and the aftermath meets WP:DEPTH (see DW, RSF) and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE (RSF 2013 2013, 2015 and Page 7 of RSF's report). The imprisonment saga was written about for a much longer time, and how his political activism - as well as religious critiques - were important in the 2013 protest movements, which are political disputes, not just religious. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Can you update the article covering more substance. That might eliminate the question of merger. nafSadh did say 19:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC) I've added two refs, can do more later.-- Aronzak (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Great. nafSadh did say 00:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Support with no prejudice against spin-off to independent article in future when notability demands. nafSadh did say 16:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC) No He is notable not only for the attack on him, but for his arrest and imprisonment. His article has now expanded enough that it stands on its own. The attack should also be described fully in the Attacks article, but his bio stands on its own. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Oppose merger - his imprisonment is very notable and would not belong on the page to which the merger is proposed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the move review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Proposed merge with Washiqur Rahman Babu

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)

• Support Washiqur Rahman had no notability before his death.-- Aronzak (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support- Per Aronzak. - Arr4 (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Affected people

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)

Name and focus of article

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:

In the aftermath of a popular protest in February and March 2013 known as Shahbag Movement, which was organized by bloggers and cyber writers, a section of Islamists have waged a disinformation campaign to label the bloggers ‘atheists’. The government is now trying to appease these Islamists.[1] (my emphasis).

Similarly, USA Today reported:

The massive rally in Dhaka took place amid heightened security in the capital and elsewhere in Bangladesh after Hifazat-e-Islam members targeted bloggers who they say are atheists. It also took place despite a daylong shutdown across the Muslim-majority country that was enforced by about 25 liberal and secular groups to denounce the rally. The bloggers, who deny they are atheists, are seeking capital punishment for those found guilty of war crimes during the nation's 1971 independence war against Pakistan.[2] (my emphasis).

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)

• Support move I had my changes reverted. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support move per the arguments listed above by Gatoclass.  --Lambiam 21:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment By definition atheist is non-neutral since it implies positive discrimination against a deity of some description. Secularist implies nothing beyond the absence of a religious dimension to an individual's viewpoint. I recommend that somebody turns this into a requested move in order to formalise the discussion.  Philg88 ^♦talk 21:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The focus of this article, at inception, as intended, and so far as it is, is to discuss about attacks on atheists in Bangladesh. This is different from Secularism in Bangladesh. The argument given in the start of this discussion fails to provide a rationale for the move. It is very clear that these attacks are on atheists, either self-declared or labeled. Indeed, these attacks on atheists is a threat for secularism. But these are not attacks on secularists. Secularists include people from many beliefs. This subject would be more analogous to attacks of Jews or attacks on Hindus, than to attacks on Secularists. Secularism is a policy (to not discriminate) while atheism is about religion (to not believe). Anyway, do an proper RM if you want to move. --nafSadh did say 22:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Your position is part of why this article is not on the front page on ITN or DYK - see WP:DYKT#Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh. From Avijit Roy

International organisations, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Reporters without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists condemned the imprisonment of bloggers and the climate of fear for journalists.

- 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.

I'll propose it for RM. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

refs

Requested move 15 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

• Support. Per my comment above.  Philg88 ^♦talk 10:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support – see also above.  --Lambiam 22:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - see my post above. Also, I summarized the sources at my sandbox page, here. Although there is some support in the sources for the claim that these are attacks on atheists, specifically, I think taking them collectively, it appears that this is a battle being waged between secularists on the one hand, who want a secular state and punishment for Jamaat-e-Islaami leaders, and Islamists on the other, who want an Islamic state and who are labelling their opponents as "atheists" in order to delegitimize the secularist cause. Gatoclass (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rewrite and expansion of opening sections

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)

Proposed merge with Asif Mohiuddin

Article can entirely be covered with this page. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 06:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Title change

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)

Link to Wiktionary

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)

Respectfully, Sminthopsis84, I believe it is very bad practice to link such words, per WP:OVERLINK. Trying to explain the meanings of common English words to people who are not native English speakers is not part of Wikipedia's purpose. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, written for people who already understand basic English. There is no reason why someone from Bangladesh would be more likely to fail to understand the meaning of the word "grisly" than they would be to fail to understand most other English words, considering that most people from Bangladesh probably do not speak English at all. Linking "grisly" alone would be appropriate only if there were a reason why understanding the word "grisly" was more important than understanding the meaning of any other word. There is no such reason. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

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)

Other words such as? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Common sense might help in this situation, Sminthopsis84. You have given no sensible reason why the word "grisly" ought to be linked (there is no reason to suppose that that one word is going to be more of a problem for non-English speakers than any other English word), and of course no valid reason at all why the lead should use that kind of sensational language, which isn't appropriate to an encyclopedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

I favor the first option, renaming this page. With the second option, I think that Islamic extremism in Bangladesh could grow to be unmanageable. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Support this proposal, rename to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. Considering the new victims it should be done soon.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Support: I would advocate two separate articles overall. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Grisly

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)

Thank you for finally moving away from personal insults and removing the word entirely. That edit brings the page somewhat closer to being understandable by likely readers, namely non-native English speakers and students. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

• Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT. Islamic Extremism is much more recognizable than Islamist Extremism as shown by this google Ngram. This name also complies with WP:CONSISTENT considering the page Islamic Extremism also follows this naming. Extorc (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Islamist" is a noun, not an adjective. "Islamists" are "Islamic extremists". Rreagan007 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sounds like a No true Scotsman argument. Islamic is the correct grammatical wording.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.