Jump to content

Talk:Ghulam Azam

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

Obvious strong POV in article

[edit]

The article on Azam wikipedia is quite missleading on the aspect of his his nationality which should be corrected to Bangladeshi nationality which was won by him by the court of justice in Bangladesh. He was released after being no charges against him remained in 1991. Wining of his nationality proved that Sheikh Muzibur Rahaman commited wrong by cancelling Golam Azam's Bangladeshi nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.138.11 (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are editors whose only contribution to this article has been continually reverting me when I remove unencyclopedic/biased content and add good quality, new biographical content. This was my edit this time [1] These editors' only objective is to make sure this article shows its subject in the very worst light possible.

  • "alleged war criminal" in the very first line is very unprofessional sounding, as well as unnecessary given this is gone into in detail very soon after.
  • Sultana Kamal is someone of little/no notability, and Azam's prosecutor is very obviously partisan, but given that they have made statements comparing Azam to Hitler, some ridiculous editors have been inserting and reinserting these statements into the introduction and further down into the article. They are inserted in a way that disrupts the article's flow and coherence.
  • "Azam is also alleged to be the chief protagonist and to present the blueprint of the killing of the intellectuals in a meeting with Rao Forman Ali in Early September 1971. "I Made No Mistake in 1971: Gholam Azam and the Jamaat Polilics". Bichitra. 17. - does anyone have any information about this source? It appears to be an unknown source, definitely a questionable one, which seems to rely heavily on personal opinion. It is a poor source making a very contentious claim about a living person, and should be removed immediately.
  • The writings of Anisuzzaman, alleging that Azam lobbied against Bangladesh after 1971, have been quoted in toto! These are the writings of one man and his allegations should be contained to a one line mention if mentioned at all! Instead, entire paragraphs from his article are also inserted and reinserted.
  • I ordered the introduction and the entire article's chronological haphazardness, and wrote large sourced sections on Azam's political career. This was reverted too.


I am very unhappy with the article in its present state, but every attempt I make to change it results in me being immediately reverted by these lazy editors who do not care about the article's quality. Applesandapples (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about you add this content you mention without the removal of 3000kbs odd of information being removed? Now while you complain that some editors only contributions are to revert you, one can argue that you only contributions are an exercise in whitewashing. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I edit an article, I try to improve it. This involves getting rid of dross as well as reorganising and adding content. This is hardly whitewashing, have a look at my points again.Applesandapples (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you edit an article it is for a single purpose, so you actually have no points at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for someone to comment intelligently here. Applesandapples (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam azam is no more an alleaged war criminal. He is now a convicted war criminal. The lead should be rewritten. References: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23310518

http://www.theindependentbd.com/index.php?Itemid=223&catid=187:online-edition&id=177957:ghulam-azam-verdict-fulfils-peoples-expectations-shafique&option=com_content&view=article

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130715/ghulam-azam-islamist-mastermind-bangladesh-war-crimes

news about violence of Jamaat and Shibir after the verdict of Azam: http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticle/eed49dfee2f7bfcab740beff3b9f6b5c/ex-party-chief-jailed-for-90-years-in-bangladesh

রাহাত | ✉ 15:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've cleaned up the article well and sourced, etc. As for the alleged war criminal. Its not a conviction that has been issued so that should take care of that POV. "Convicted as a war criminal"
Darkness shines' discussion here is nothing but NPA ramblings instead of discussing any specific issues he has with the edit. If he wars like that then we take it further as he is refusing to be constructive but attacking you. Interestingly his user page says he is retired an dhe is still editing. He is not allowed to do that.(Lihaas (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
Lihaas, if I wish to login and see what the SPAS and POV warriors have been up to I can, where do you get the idea that I cannot? And A&a is a SPA. Stating the obvious is not a PA. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Applesandapples:This man is seen is the ultimate Class A war criminal in Bangladesh (like General Tojo and Slobodan Milosovich). He was the chief architect of paramilitary militias which allied with the Pakistani army, and his speeches preaching jihad against the pro-independence population, were widely recorded by international media in 1971.

The article must note the popular perception of him. Sultana Kamal is Bangladesh's most outspoken human rights activist and her testimony at the trial surely carries a lot of weight. Many international reports yesterday have called him "Bangladesh's Hitler".--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're speaking very subjectively, which is a large part of the problem. "is seen as the ultimate..." "like Slobodan Milosovich" "most outspoken" are all your perceptions, which you are projecting on the information. The cold, hard facts are that Azam has been convicted of war crimes in 1971. However, the tribunal convicting him has had many problems and criticisms about its fairness. The judge himself also admitted large failings in the prosecutions's evidence.[2]. Therefore, Azam's conviction cannot be used as proof of his guilt; only of his conviction.
As for Kamal, I would very much like to see some references which say that when Kamal is so important that when she makes a disparaging comments about someone, the comments deserves be inserted into that person's article.Applesandapples (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added several references to that sentence from various news reports around the world (the daily beast, hong kong standard and middle east gulf news are certainly reliable sources), describing him as the Islamist Hitler or Bangladesh's Hitler. You're right, Kamal need not be quoted. After all, this is his popular reputation in Bangladesh.
I agree the trials have flaws. But the popular perception against Azam and Jamaat strongly deserves to be noted. Jamaat has always been the most reviled organization in the country, and its ideology is seen as Islamofascism as opposed to moderate, progressive or liberal Islam. And Ghulam Azam, as its spiritual head waging a war against his own people, a war which witnessed mass genocide and rape, is seen as no different from the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge. So yes, the fact that the person has the reputation of being the Islamofascist Hitler strongly deserves to be mentioned in the person's article.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And also, with regards to your calling of my earlier comments as subjective, I gave the comparison to Tojo and Milosovich since Azam was the paramount leader of Pakistani militia forces, which were responsible for the most gruesome atrocities of '71, and hence him being tried is comparable to that of Class A war criminals.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supported by the EU?

[edit]

I noticed the following line:

"The judicial process under which Azam is on trial has been criticised by international organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as well as supported by European Union."

When I checked the four given sources for that sentence, three of them relate to the first half (about criticism of the trials). Only one related to European Union comments, specifically this Daily Star article dating from 2009, back when the judicial process first started up. Considering that the subject of this article wasn't arrested until 2012, it doesn't seem factually accurate to use that source to support the claim that the EU supports the judicial process used. Criticism of the tribunal occurred later on, and the article itself only mentions support for the establishment of such a tribunal - not the process which was later carried out. Perhaps the EU did contradict the mentioned human rights organizations later down the road - I haven't followed the case that closely - but what I do know is that the given, dated source I mentioned above does not support the comment which I bolded. I will remove it for now as it simply doesn't seem to verify the text, nor does the text appear to be factually accurate. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of ICT

[edit]

I appreciate the tremendous work in making this scholary article a neutral toned and well sourced article, but noticed that Ctg4Rahat has labelled reverting the edit of a previous user ( see my revert:Revert ) as being due to the issue of neutrality. So the revert is about basically contending that calling it controversial is going against neutrality, which doesn't make sense at all. I'm sorry, but I'd expect better reasons for carrying out revert of a well sourced and much welcome addition to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Husain007 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's uncontroversial that the ICT is very controversial. The evidence speaks for itself. It has been noted as problematic by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the UN, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, and various other independent observers. Others defend it, hence it is subject to dispute and disagreement, i.e. it's controversial. This is a neutral description.Woodensticks (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ghulam Azam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghulam_Azam&oldid=1256561055"