Talk:International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Naming

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)

May I ask why you wish to move this page to one entitled as such? The tribunal has called itself the "International Crimes Tribunal" and thus it belongs on a page that shares this title: http://bdnews24.com/nimage/2011-11-23-14-42-44-tribunal_tm.jpg Aminul802 (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerns over NPOV and writing style

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)

Khan Muhammad, I commend your calls to edit with a "more open mind", but I am concerned that your POV is far from neutral since you are repeatedly describe the accused as "war criminals" rather than stating the obvious fact that they currently stand accused of war crimes but are cannot yet considered war criminals by the courts as their trial has not yet come to a conclusion, and in a number of cases, not yet even meaningfully begun. Thank you for clarifying the status of Kay, Cadman and Cammegh as counsel to the defense. This helps put their stance in perspective. I would like to note, however, that condemnation and criticism are considered by many of us who use the English language to be synonymous, and that the castigation of the court has been widespread is noted by completely unrelated observers such as this one: www.rnw.nl/international-justice/article/banged-bangladesh, so I would like to suggest that your reaction needs to better reflect a NPOV for your edits to conform to Wikipedia policy. I say this in a collegial spirit, and I would appreciate similar reminders if ever I cross into the arena of bias. With regards, Aminul802 (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Khan Muhammad, I have added information regarding Steven Kay that clarifies that he is an international criminal lawyer whose counsel has been sought by the Jamaat defence; and the missing reference to Amnesty International has now been supplied. I have also added information from a British journalist who has been calling for a tribunal that will bring justice to those who committed crimes in 1971 for nearly two decades, but who has been dismayed by aspects of the tribunal that undermine its international standing. As such, the section on "International Criticism of the Tribunal" may no longer be characterised by disputed neutrality, and this note should be removed. If you feel there are other respects in which the section needs to be adjusted for neutrality, please point them out. Regards, Aminul802 (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits

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)

Read WP:TLDR. The you tube clip is not reliable as it was uploaded by users unknown to the site. There are no way of knowing if it has been altered in any way. Hence unreliable. I have asked for clarification at theRSN board. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the self published blog and necrometrics site. WP:SPS is quite clear on this, Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. And WP:SELFPUB Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities Darkness Shines (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back, and I apologise for the length, but this is relatively concise given the number of your edits I needed to discuss. It will reward reading. With respect to the necrometrics site and the self-published blog, they don't concern biographies of living people but rather historical facts in the first case, and an coverage of an ongoing tribunal in the other. Hence they are perfectly justified according to WP:SPS as explained in my initial post.Aminul802 (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The tribunal would appear to have living people in it, and I can only assume that those being charged are also alive. Hence the blog fails on that. Has the blog author also been published in any journal regarding genocide studies? If not then it cannot be used for sourcing on anything pertaining to the genocide question. The author of necrometrics, in which peer reviewed journals has his work on genocide studies been published? The link you gave shows he is a Librarian, not an expert in the field, hence he fails as a source. I will address your other concerns once you have agreed to these points. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, you need to do more due diligence. The above link on the librarian Matthew White contains a link that displays the 92+ scholarly journals in which he is cited. Any unbiased party will recognise that this is a reliable source. Can one of the Administrators be called in to arbitrate on this point? As for Bergman, he is a reputable international investigative journalist who has been researching the war crimes of 1971 for nearly two decades. Here is a list of his online articles: http://journalisted.com/david-bergman?allarticles=yes. As you can see, he is widely published, including in prestigous journals like Foreign Policy. The quality of his analysis of the figures of casualties and rape victimes shows his scholarly ability on this issue. Again, I feel a non-partisan arbitrator from among the Administrators could help with this point. Aminul802 (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please self revert your last edits in which you have blatantly misrepresented as source and remove another. A link to a SPS in which the author of said SPS claims his work is used fails. He is not an established expert in the field. If you do not believe me feel free to post at the WP:RSN board. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, when I'm available again in a few hours time, I will refer it to the WP:RSN board. Please restate your first sentence above on misrepresentation. The diction is not clear, and I'm not sure what I'm accused of. Also, please specify the edit, source, and nature of the misrepresentation. If I agree with your assessment of misrepresentation, I will revert the edit. I look forward to the discussion. Aminul802 (talk) 12:41, 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)

I have posted a detailed response here: [2]. I feel the characterisation of the edit as "blatant misrepresentation" is completely unjustified, and rather meanspirited. Please let's maintain fairminded sense of decorum in our discussions. Aminul802 (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read it, let us keep the discussion in one place. I have already explained to you why necrometrics is of no use here. See Here fpr confirmation. Nor is the youtube clip being used. The reporters blog may not be used for statements of fact either. None of those sources are of any use. You need to self revert and correct your error. If you do not I will do it soon enough. I have found an academic source for the low end death toll estimate, You can copy and paste this into the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have replied to your noticeboard comment, and am awaiting the response from the noticeboard. For the interest of arbitrators and other participants, his discussion has also branched out onto my talk page [3]. Aminul802 (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to jump into this discussion, but I'd propose to remove this sentence:

'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)

Concern of Bias in Bangladeshi News Sources

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)

Could you please explain why we should take this reference seriously? It is just another blog and does not cite any significant affiliation. -- Khan Muhammad (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This reference should be taken seriously for the following reasons: David Bergman [4] 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 his 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. It may be argued that his blog is self-published, but it is clear that his blog qualifies as an acceptable source according to the wikipedia article on the criteria for using self-published blogs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_self-published_blogs. On all three counts of "verifiability", "relevance" and "scope" the blog qualifies as a particularly significant source for this article. Aminul802 (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

BLP + Linkvios

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)

Cleanup Needed in Introduction

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)

No one response on this topics. So I start cleanup. Description of Golam Azam's political career should not be there. he is not the only person who was arrested for crime against humanity allegation. All of arrested persons list are given under "Arrested accused in war crimes trial" title. So I remove it from introduction.

The third paragraph of introduction contains criticisms on this tribunal. There is another paragraph titled "Criticism of the Tribunal". which contains similar volume of information. Why we should repeat similar lines twice? So I remove this part also. Same incident happens in last paragraph, which tells about one of tribunal Justice's email & conversation hacking. I'm removing that part also. --Freemesm (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It's fine to cut down the size of the introduction, but not at the expense of balance: the Economist's analysis of the recent leaks disappeared, but a link to the law minister's statement that criticism of the ICT is 'mere propaganda' remained. That is not balanced. I'm putting back the Economist analysis for the time being - if you want to summarise it (fairly) in the introduction and move the bulk of it to a separate section lower down in the article, be my guest. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Abbasfirnas887. I tried to balance this article. For this reason keep the message of allegation of some organizations and also put their say about this allegation. If you think it is not balanced, you must discuss here. But you don't writing anything here and put back the hacking news there. When you add the hacking incident on introduction, it seems that this article is about Mr. Nizamul's email hacking, not about ICT. It doesn't seems a process of balancing. Wiki article shouldn't express Economists analysis. I think both allegation and hacking incident should not be in introduction. So I remove them both. Please discuss here before changing anything in this article. --Freemesm (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Freemesm, I'm afraid that your attempt at shortening the introduction is again unsatisfactory. First of all, on the technical side, some of the references/links at the bottom of the page are now broken. Secondly, if you look at Wikipedia guidelines for writing introductions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section, you will find that it explicitly states that the introduction '...should define the topic, ..., and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies'. It is clear that the Economist affair is an important controversy surrounding the ICT which must therefore be mentioned in the introduction. In addition, the current summary of the controversy lower down in the article is not satisfactory, since it does not actually mention the most recent revelations by the Economist regarding the contents of the leaked communications. In view of all this, I think it's best if I revert to the previous version which had all the information in and start editing the introduction anew. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Abbasfirnas887, I was just hovering over all Bangladesh related articles in wikipedia and suddenly stopped in this article. anyone could get negative impression from this article about the trial process. It is a on going process, which has started in 25 March, 2010. many incidences are occurred here. But some politically biased persons are gather negative information here. It doesn't follow the rule of NPOV. I want to say that, it is a on going process. You can't conclude about is it dubious or not. It leads me to edit this article. If you go to Nuremberg Trials article, you will see there is a large volume of criticism is listed there. But that is described under "criticism" titled portion on that article, not at the beginning of the article. Moreover every trial may seem to someone as dubious, but that doesn't conclude anything. So, I think introduction of this article should explain the background, structure and aim of this tribunal. Beside that Mr. Nazmul's email hacking part is just a clear violation of BLP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP . There are more justices in this tribunal. Why you should highlight him? Who insert this part in this article, he manipulates all the reference links. He is trying to use this article as a part of propaganda. Please check the whole editing history. You said that some links were broken after cleanup of intro part. Yesterday I had no time to repair them. I can do that now. I think, I can explain my points. Thank you. --Freemesm (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Freemesm, the fact that the information about the tribunal presented in the article is 'negative' does not a priori mean that it is also false. You're welcome to add 'positive' information about the tribunal as long as it is properly referenced. I still insist on retaining at least a summary of the contents of the leaks in the introduction: they are of central importance to the proceedings of the tribunal and therefore satisfy the wikipedia guidelines on writing article introductions. They also do not violate the BLP rules: the source (The Economist) is sound, and the controversy relates to the ICT as institution. There is no discussion of the judge's person here, and no direct link to any leaked conversations. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Abbasfirnas887, I just count all the sentences of intro and get amazing result. There are 16 sentences. Only 5 of them says the background of ICT, Others are blaming it!! Still now you will say that this article is neutral? --Freemesm (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, I reverted your edit in which you removed the latest from the Economist from the lead. As I said to Freemesm above, I have nothing against attempts to shorten the introduction, but leaving out any mention of this central part of the controversy is not acceptable (and inconsistent, as the earlier stages of the controversy are discussed). Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Freemesm, it appears to me that the Associated Press articles on the controversial nature of the tribunal have gone around the world [6], [7] both articles have been reprinted in over a hundred different news outlets--google's results with this particular AP article go on for pages and pages. The world now considers the tribunal to be a highly dubious affair, and this should be reflected in the introductory paragraph.Aminul802 (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Aminul802, wikipedia is not a place for sharing breaking news. But hacking of justice's pc is just an incident. It doesn't explain everything about the tribunal. Every people in Bangladesh are very hopeful about the tribunal. It is an on going process. You can't conclude anything just now. If you go to Nuremberg Trials article, you will see there is a large volume of criticism is listed there. But that is described under "criticism" titled portion on that article, not at the beginning of the article. Moreover every trial may seem to someone as dubious, but that doesn't conclude anything. Aftr checking this articles editing history, I found that you've manipulated useless links as reference. as example the first reference is Bangladesh crimes tribunal accuses The Economist magazine of hacking judge’s computer Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/bangladesh-crimes-tribunal-accuses-the-economist-magazine-of-hacking-judges-computer/2012/12/09/8f248da2-421e-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story.html. It tells about the hacking incident, not about relevant sentences on the article. Why you are trying to spread propaganda? Please, don't do this again. It is a clear violation of wikipedia referencing rule. If you think that your reference is sufficient to sate that the tribunal is dubious, then enlist them under "Criticism" title. Please don't change anything without discussion. Thank you. -- Freemesm (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Concern over the introduction

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)

That blog reference is no more, I removed it quite some time ago. I agree with the rest of your worries, time to trim the lot. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has to be edited a lot. The term "widespread" and "not adhering to international legal standard" are from the news of Dutch radio. But I can give to very reliable references where widespread criticism or condemnation have not been mentioned. The references are from BBC and Guardian. In BBC the widespread domestic support for the tribunal has been mentioned first and only then international response. They say, "Human rights groups said some of the rules were not consistent with international standards, as followed by war crimes tribunals in Rwanda or Cambodia", and then they mentioned opinions of the defence counsels. But in wiki intro we see that defence counsels' opinions mentioned in the intro explicitly. In Guardian: "International groups, including the New York-based Human Rights Watch, have urged the Bangladesh to ensure war crimes defendants receive fair trials by clarifying the definition of charges and allowing the accused to question the tribunal's impartiality — currently not allowed under Bangldeshi law."- that's all, rest of the article actually describes the tribunal more than criticising it. Overall it has to be more balanced. More opinions coming up later... -- Khan Muhammad (talk) 14:29, 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)

Hi 9livesleft2kicksorrybottoms, I'm afraid I must revert your changes. Aside from the fact that there is something a little suspicious about your contribution history--this change is the only thing you've ever done, perhaps starting with something less controversial would be good practice--you've simply deleted a large chunk of this article on the pretext of its being treated in the body, thereby leaving errors in the reference section. The truth is that the material is not treated in the body of the article, and so your edit could constitute vandalism. Please familiarize yourself with the editing guidelines on wiki before you try further edits. I'm sorry if this is a bit of a rough welcome for a first attempt at editing. I had similar experiences starting off, and I assure you, once you get the hang of it, things will run smoothly. All the best! Aminul802 (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

POV concerns in intro

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)

Dear Aminul802, google search doesn't mean anything. NPOV doesn't mean that making any article intentionally negative. 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. Hacking of justice's pc is just an incident. It doesn't explain everything about the tribunal. Every people in Bangladesh are very hopeful about the tribunal. It is an on going process. You can't conclude anything just now. If you go to Nuremberg Trials article, you will see there is a large volume of criticism is listed there. But that is described under "criticism" titled portion on that article, not at the beginning of the article. Moreover every trial may seem to someone as dubious, but that doesn't conclude anything. After checking this articles editing history, I found that you've manipulated useless links as reference. as example the first reference is Bangladesh crimes tribunal accuses The Economist magazine of hacking judge’s computer Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/bangladesh-crimes-tribunal-accuses-the-economist-magazine-of-hacking-judges-computer/2012/12/09/8f248da2-421e-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story.html. It tells about the hacking incident, not about relevant sentences on the article. Why you are trying to spread propaganda? Please, don't do this again. It is a clear violation of wikipedia referencing rule. If you think that your reference is sufficient to sate that the tribunal is dubious, then enlist them under "Criticism" title. Please don't change anything without discussion. Thank you. -- Freemesm (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Freemesm. To cite from wiki's NPOV guidelines: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I try and maintain this when I cite reliable sources. Recently, most reliable news sources have been critical of the tribunal, hence NPOV dictates that the article reflect this. If there most reliable sources were favorable towards the tribunal, and a small number critical, NPOV would dictate that we edit the article to reflect this norm. At the end of the day, what matters is reliable sources. Even if all the reliable sources are calling for something that I disagree with, I would not edit them out. I'm not making claims about whether the tribunal is wrong to arrest opposition Jamaat leaders. That is not for me to make according to NPOV policy. I shouldn't introduce opinion. I'm simply presenting what reliable sources are telling us. If you can present the contrary using reliable sources including your opinion that it makes sense that Jamaat leaders are almost exclusively being tried by the tribunal for historical reasons, please add that information without undertaking Original Research as per wiki OR policy. The tribunal is currently defined in the 'collective conscience of reliable sources around the world' by the upshot of the hacking incident. It was a momentous incident according to the world press, and deserves highlighting. I encourage you to read The Economist's analysis on the topic on 15th Dec. Much of what you have to say reflects your POV and should be backed up by sources before you edit the article in a way that reflects that POV. With respect to your unfortunate accusation that I've been "manipulating useless links as references", I feel you may need to examine what is going on more closely. I had rewritten the first sentence of the article according to information in the Washington Post article you cite. Then Raghib came and undid my introductory sentence at 16:21, 12 December 2012, but left my WP reference, and so it appeared that the first reference had nothing to do with the first sentence. I think you should direct this complaint at Raghib rather than to myself, as it is his editing that has led to confusing my original citation. ::Finally, may I request that you maintain a collegial spirit in the editing/talking process as per WP:Civility guidelines. I am not trying to spread propaganda. I try to use only reliable sources. If I fall short on this count, please correct me with a NPOV. Thanks!Aminul802 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Aminul802, I'm afraid about your article biasing works. You don't act collegial. Again you put back the words controversial ongoing tribunal.. at the beginning of the article. How do you conclude an on going process as wholly controversial? Please don't revert this again. It is serious violation of NPOV. --Freemesm (talk) 07:32, 15 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 Umayma1, your claim is very irrational. You can't revert that change without any notice. It is an on going tribunal. It has long way to go. You cant conclude anything right now. Please stay rational and read my previous comments carefully.--Freemesm (talk) 08:39, 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)

POV concerns in intro

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)

Dear Aminul802, google search doesn't mean anything. NPOV doesn't mean that making any article intentionally negative. 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. Hacking of justice's pc is just an incident. It doesn't explain everything about the tribunal. Every people in Bangladesh are very hopeful about the tribunal. It is an on going process. You can't conclude anything just now. If you go to Nuremberg Trials article, you will see there is a large volume of criticism is listed there. But that is described under "criticism" titled portion on that article, not at the beginning of the article. Moreover every trial may seem to someone as dubious, but that doesn't conclude anything. After checking this articles editing history, I found that you've manipulated useless links as reference. as example the first reference is Bangladesh crimes tribunal accuses The Economist magazine of hacking judge’s computer Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/bangladesh-crimes-tribunal-accuses-the-economist-magazine-of-hacking-judges-computer/2012/12/09/8f248da2-421e-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story.html. It tells about the hacking incident, not about relevant sentences on the article. Why you are trying to spread propaganda? Please, don't do this again. It is a clear violation of wikipedia referencing rule. If you think that your reference is sufficient to sate that the tribunal is dubious, then enlist them under "Criticism" title. Please don't change anything without discussion. Thank you. -- Freemesm (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Freemesm. To cite from wiki's NPOV guidelines: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I try and maintain this when I cite reliable sources. Recently, most reliable news sources have been critical of the tribunal, hence NPOV dictates that the article reflect this. If there most reliable sources were favorable towards the tribunal, and a small number critical, NPOV would dictate that we edit the article to reflect this norm. At the end of the day, what matters is reliable sources. Even if all the reliable sources are calling for something that I disagree with, I would not edit them out. I'm not making claims about whether the tribunal is wrong to arrest opposition Jamaat leaders. That is not for me to make according to NPOV policy. I shouldn't introduce opinion. I'm simply presenting what reliable sources are telling us. If you can present the contrary using reliable sources including your opinion that it makes sense that Jamaat leaders are almost exclusively being tried by the tribunal for historical reasons, please add that information without undertaking Original Research as per wiki OR policy. The tribunal is currently defined in the 'collective conscience of reliable sources around the world' by the upshot of the hacking incident. It was a momentous incident according to the world press, and deserves highlighting. I encourage you to read The Economist's analysis on the topic on 15th Dec. Much of what you have to say reflects your POV and should be backed up by sources before you edit the article in a way that reflects that POV. With respect to your unfortunate accusation that I've been "manipulating useless links as references", I feel you may need to examine what is going on more closely. I had rewritten the first sentence of the article according to information in the Washington Post article you cite. Then Raghib came and undid my introductory sentence at 16:21, 12 December 2012, but left my WP reference, and so it appeared that the first reference had nothing to do with the first sentence. I think you should direct this complaint at Raghib rather than to myself, as it is his editing that has led to confusing my original citation. ::Finally, may I request that you maintain a collegial spirit in the editing/talking process as per WP:Civility guidelines. I am not trying to spread propaganda. I try to use only reliable sources. If I fall short on this count, please correct me with a NPOV. Thanks!Aminul802 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Aminul802, I'm afraid about your article biasing works. You don't act collegial. Again you put back the words controversial ongoing tribunal.. at the beginning of the article. How do you conclude an on going process as wholly controversial? Please don't revert this again. It is serious violation of NPOV. --Freemesm (talk) 07:32, 15 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 Umayma1, your claim is very irrational. You can't revert that change without any notice. It is an on going tribunal. It has long way to go. You cant conclude anything right now. Please stay rational and read my previous comments carefully.--Freemesm (talk) 08:39, 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)

Vandalism by Darkness Shines on 18th Dec 2012

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)

Brownmiller has never said there were only 25000 rapes, that was her estimate of forced pregnancys. Call me a vandal again will see you reported. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Your language is threatening. Your due diligence is wanting. Here is the quote from Susan Brownmiller (p. 84): "Accurate statistics on the number of raped women who found themselves with child were difficult to determine but 25,000 is the generally accepted figure." You have no right to undo the 25,000 figure simply because you disagree with it. Please try and see things with an NPOV, otherwise your threatening behavior will be reported. Aminul802 (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In addition, why have you deleted large swathes of the article that use extended cited material without adding them elsewhere. If you are citing WP:LEDE, you need to reinsert this material elsewhere to avoid accusations of WP:Vandalism. You're simply deleting and not replacing. Why all the indignation at being called a vandal then? Aminul802 (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Aminul, I think Darkness Shines is right. Have you seen his profile? He got some badges for preventing vandalism. But you bring allegation against him as a vandal!! It doesn't make any sense.--Freemesm (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I just summarised the large section in the introduction on the Economist controversy (which I originally wrote) and moved it lower down in the article. The introduction is reasonably short now. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Aminul, read what you wrote "Accurate statistics on the number of raped women who found themselves with child were difficult to determine but 25,000 is the generally accepted figure." Does it say rape victims or forced pregnancy's? Please do not question my knowledge on this subject Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War may give you a clue about due diligence. I have written about this subject for quite some time. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Rewritten, still requires expansion

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)

Dear Darkness Shines, Thanks for take the effort to re-write this article neutrally. But I detect some problems in your new version. at the introduction Jamaat-i-islami leaders get priority. You may know that another alleged person Abul Kalam Azad's trial is also going on this tribunal. He is a non political figure. Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury is another alleged person, who's trial is going on this tribunal. He is leader of BNP. Then why we should highlight Jamaat-i-islami? Jamaat-i-islami collaborate with Pak army as a party . So most of the war criminal should bring out from that party(for the same reason Nazi party was convicted for committing war crime in WW2). We shouldn't describe it as political suppression.

another point is convicted war criminals are conducting heavy lobbing through out the world. You should add this info on the article. Here are the references 1 2--Freemesm (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old POV template that lacked a discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

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)

My apologies; I didn't realize that this page was being archived without a link on this page. It appears that the specific thread about the POV tag died in February, though work clearly continues on the article. I'll leave it to other editors whether these tags should be restored. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Khazar, you can't remove those tag without discussion. POV issue was not resolved. I can't figure it out why MiszaBot archived only POV part of discussion page? It seems very suspicious. It is a totally biased article. It should be re written again. --Freemesm (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Lock

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)

Edit protect

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)

Done - Removed. Thanks for your vigilance in upholding WP:BLP. If anyone has any questions about this edit, you are welcome to ask me at my talk page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Steven Kay QC

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)

As he is a highly respected international criminal lawyer, if his criticism adds substance to the article, it makes sense to include it with the explicit mention that he is acting as defense counsel, hence clarifying COI. If you disagree, please RfC. Aminul802 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

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)

Fully protected

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)

Dear KTC,

I think protection is not a solution. This article is already in biased condition. Making protected will make the condition worse. It will bring wrong message to the world. Would you please hover over the article and make a comment, whether it is biased or not. One of previous editor make this article fully junk. Every where you will get negative tone. If you think protection is best for this article, then please remove NPOV information or rename it by "Criticism of International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)". Thank you.--Freemesm (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As there is clearly edit warring going on, protection is used so that all participants here can discuss potential changes to the article and come to a consensus. As the huge banner on the article states, "this protection is not an endorsement of the current version". If you believe the current article is biased, then please take part in a discussion on this talk page to come to a consensus on what to do about that, if anything. -- KTC (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

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)

Darkness Shines, I just looked at your new revision and I felt it was not any better than the previous one. It has numerous spelling, grammar and style errors and valuable information and references that were there in the last, larger, revision are now gone. The other issue I have is the point of view taken - there is (yet again) too little information on what the contents of the leaked conversations as disclosed by the Economist actually are; the article now states that 'The Human Rights Watch has supported the tribunal' which does not adequately convey the clearly evolving position of HRW vis-a-vis the ICT (the recent call by HRW for a retrial is no longer explicitly mentioned but rather moved to a footnote); lastly, some of the references seem out of place and a result of robotic google searches rather than genuine research into the subject (e.g. the book on Humanitarian Interventions). I think we're better off starting with the previous version and modifying that. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Darkness Shines, thanks for re-writing the article. I think it is much better than the previous one. Previous one doesn't have encyclopedic value. It was seem like pile of news releases, which are arranged for biasing the article. Moreover this article deals with BLP. It is handled carefully in new version. Abbasfirnas887 reverted your version to previous version. Again I'm reverting it to your version.--Freemesm (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Freemesm, neither you or DS may reinstate this rewrite as per the comment of the recent discussion to be found on the admin noticeboard. You may see the comment by Admin Bbb23 here: [15] and the discussion links to the ANEW discussion. If you edit war on this point, I will have to report you. Please proceed by discussion and building consensus. DS, I'm afraid I will mention your disregard for Bbb23's advice on his talk page. Perhaps you can take it up with him, if you feel it necessary. Thank you. Aminul802 (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

DS, I've discussed your latest contribution on Bbb23's talk page here.[16] Aminul802 (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Both pages have some serious problems and it's tough to judge. I'd suggest starting with the current pages and dealing with specific changes you want to make here on the talk page. If that's been decided, I'd be happy to help out with some of the format and encyclopedic writing. Dreambeaver(talk) 18:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with Dreambeaver here. Darkness Shine's re-write simply removes too much information in exchange for a misleading emphasis (esp. over the HRW position). Nevertheless, the current article is not without numerous faults. Begin with what's here, and come to consensus about changes per section, rather than the entire re-write. --Cooper⁴²(Talk)(Contr) 04:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Terrible violations of NPOV

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)

There's nothing unusual about using the article to say that the UN is criticizing the tribunal. The fact that I don't mention Roger's rebuttal of the UN is immaterial. I'm using the source to say: "The International Crimes Tribunal has brought widespread international condemnation including from the United Nations", which is a virtual paraphrase of the first line of the article which says: "The ICT has drawn widespread criticism for failing to meet international legal standards. The UN...". What on earth is wrong with that? At the time of writing, I was correcting a skewed perspective in the this wikipedia ICT article, as you can see from the previous edit. So the positive coverage is there, and needs this sort of addition in context. That allows the article to have the relevant due weighting. I have since become more cognizant of such matters--the contribution you cite was about a month into my wiki editing--20th Feb 2012--so I was still getting used to the system. I would appreciate if this wasn't used to attack me after a year's experience will have given me far more knowledge about wiki policies, etc. I'd welcome comments from fair-minded users. Aminul802 (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit protect II

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)

Background

The events of the nine-month conflict are widely viewed as genocide. and during the conflict it is estimated that between two hundred thousand and four hundred thousand. women and children were raped and estimates of those killed ranging from 269 000 to one million and a high of 3 million people killed and an estimated 10 million refuges entering India with a further 30 million being displaced. Susan Brownmiller, in her report on the atrocities, said that girls from the age of eight to grandmothers of seventy-five suffered attacks.

In 2009 it was announced by Shafique Ahmed that the trials would be held under the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973. 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.

References

• Oppose - I can't support this content , "The events of the nine-month conflict are widely viewed as genocide" supported by a single book citation -Youreallycan 10:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

But it is viewed as genocide by the majority of sources, here are a few. Forcible Displacement Throughout the Ages: Towards an International Convention for the Preventation and Punishment of the Crime of Forcible Displacement Martinus Nijhoff p37. Bonded Labor: Tackling the System of Slavery in South Asia Columbia University Press p130. Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts Wiley p98. Genocide of Indigenous Peoples: Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic Review Transaction p128. South Asian Partition Fiction in English: From Khushwant Singh to Amitav Ghosh Amsterdam University Press p101. Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World Cambridge University Press p368. All these are academic sources, still objecting? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes - I still object - not really object, just oppose your desired addition, others may support it , but as presented it appears a bit opinionated to me - without clear verification - have you got any online sources? Youreallycan 11:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully you can see this "genocide had occurred – a claim that scholars today back up" Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia p76[18] Darkness Shines (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And another "what is widely regarded as genocide against the people of what is now Bangladesh" The Changing Character of War p159[19] Darkness Shines (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Almost half a million women and children were raped you claim, wow - no I don't support your desired addition at all - half a million women and children raped ? Youreallycan 11:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't know much about this conflict do you? Those are the estimates for rape victims during the war, or do you think the academic sources used just make stuff up?. Just Google it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I will look for more sources - If you have any online support - independent sources that support your desired addition please add it here - Youreallycan 11:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

How many were children and how many were women? Youreallycan 11:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Help your self to sources. And that is a stupid question as nobody knows exact figures. That is why there are estimates.[20] Darkness Shines (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyways, yes, I am going on - as said - I do not at all support this desired addition, I have commented a bit to explain - if multiple users support it then please send me a note - regards - So if one man was raping one woman and some of them were raping children there were half a million male adult rapists, out of what population numbers? Youreallycan 11:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Here is an online source which discusses figures, only a newspaper[21] Here is an academic book[22] another[23] [24] another. [25] another. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In response to your question. Pakistan had 95000 troops rampaging through the country. They were supported by militias and collaborators who also went rampaging through the country. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - All child rapers - ? The numbers are in dispute - as in - there are no facts at all - attempting to present anything as fact in such a case is clearly undue - all claims would need attribution and strong sourcing to support their notability - As per your desired addition, how many child rapers were there? Youreallycan 11:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody knows, because nobody knows the exact numbers of those raped. We use what the RS say, and the RS say there were between 200k & 500K rapes of women and children. I am not aware of any policy which says we need exact fucking numbers for rapists or for victims, that is why we use estimates. You are obviously being obtuse and this line of questioning is fucking sick. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

@User:Darkness Shines, Your comment has moved to personal attack - I stand down as I am unwilling to join in such attacks - 12:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack. Forgive me being disgusted at being asked to go looking for sources on how many children were raped during a war. You asked for sources and got them in spades, try reading them. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Youreallycan, Pakistan army didn't get the idea to rape our women and child in front of any professional counter! How do you expect the actual raped number? That was a war period, not a cricket match. You must relay on specialist's opinion to measure the actual number of rape victim. Please verify those sources, which are provided by DS. WP:Cite don't say anything about mandatory web reference.--Freemesm (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• AS YRC has not given any reasons within policy to oppose this edit other that hedon'tlikeitverymuch and the fact that I have given a great many academic sources to support the content as he requested I believe his only policy based objections are now covered. Any other objections? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I would object to some of what you have up in this. Leaving aside the genocide aspect--i haven't researched it, and grant that it may be plausible. Still, genocide seems to suggest that it has to be targeted specifically at a race/genus of some kind. Not sure if it counts if Razakars were Bengali themselves. And Bengali doesn't really count as a race. South Asians tend to be quite similar ethnically. So the term seems inappropriate. Anyway, main objection is the cherry-picking of only the high end estimates of deaths. If you consult necrometrics [26] of Matthew White, who has received scholarly affirmation from Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker [27]. His research shows that estimates of deaths vary considerably, 3 million being the highest estimate, and the governments official figure, as it lends the tribunal greater support if the figures are higher. As wikipedians, we should remain as neutral as possible, and mention the entire range. As noted in the website, some estimates are as low as 58,000. Why only choose to report the 3 million figure? Aminul802 (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's another study of the number of fatalities [28] Aminul802 (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Necromentics is not s reliable source. We do not use newspapers for historical or academic information. And it was a genocide per the RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added the low end estimates from the BMJ article which I just read. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not done: Though, in my opinion, Youreallycan's objection isn't on strong grounds with respect to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT, given Aminul802's further objection I don't think there is a consensus to implement this edit request as it stands. This should probably be opened up for comment among a wider section of the community so that a consensus can be found. Also, I think it may be easier for other editors to support this if the numbers are explicitly attributed to their sources in the article text. The tricky part of this, of course, will be to find a way to attribute the main estimates while still keeping the length of the section down. Once you have found a wording that has consensus, please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 19:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The low-end estimate from the BMJ article is actually their citation of the Uppsala/PRIO figure of 58,000, which they consider an underestimate, but it still stands as an estimate from a recognised data center for such matters. I think it should only be cited with a reference to its being considered an underestimate by most other sources, however. Aminul802 (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen that figure before, and they do not say were it came from. I prefer to not have an unreferenced estimate in the content. Other than that are your objections satisfied? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I trust the BMJ, one of the world's premiere peer-reviewed medical journals, to be as good a secondary scholarly reference for such a figure as one could find. They cite that figure as well as their own. I see no reason why we shouldn't cite both. If one takes them seriously, one should mention that this is a scholarly study specifically on this issue, while the 3 million figure is never cited as a part of a study that has gone and done research on this particular issue. If I'm wrong, I'd like to be shown where it has been the result of a specific scholarly assessment. If you still disagree about including this reference, I recommend you RfC. Incidentally, you have seen this figure before--on the necrometrics website, which you've disregarded in the past. Given Matthew White has now been approved by a number of scholars, fair-minded people should reassess its merit. You can RfC on its reliability/admissibility as a source if you like. Personally, I feel that it's admissible at this stage. As you see, in all this discussion, I have tried to maintain WP:Civility, and not accused you of lacking knowledge because you lack one figure I know. I would appreciate it if you reciprocate such a Wikipedia policy. Aminul802 (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Necrometics is not RS per consensus at the RSN board. It never will be, will you agree to this edit if the unsourced low figure is cited? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the tribunal "controversial"?

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)

I would oppose such a characterization in the lede - - I would prefer a small section using the strongest of those citations summarizing the main points of the controversy .. a coupe of sentences, or one only - focusing on the issue - Youreallycan 09:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No, as such information belongs in a reception section, such as the one I wrote which you edit warred out. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the edit warring was reciprocal, there's no need to try to highlight only one of us as the edit warrer is there, now? Aminul802 (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Could someone let me know what the wiki policy grounds are for not keeping such a characterization in the lead? Thanks. Aminul802 (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I think wiki policy is very simple, just don't try to bias any article to fulfill any specific agenda. Wiki is not a battle ground or place of spreading criticism. :) --Freemesm (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Employing US lobbyist issue should be added

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)

I already have newspaper sources for that, no need to use a primary source. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing that Newspaper source, as this is important and should be added though it's questionable whether it needs a section of its own. I've heard rumors of this too, but a while back. I hadn't been able to find anything about it. It seems that Freemesm's document is old news, expired in March 2011, and was made up of the sum of 100,000 dollars. Has there been anything since? These should be in the public record. $100,000 turns out to be a relatively paltry sum for large [44] US firms like Cassidy and Assocs. given the scale of the biggest spenders tends to be at the scale of hundreds of millions rather than hundreds of thousands [45]. So let's situate this in its context: it's an extraordinarily large amount of money for Bangladesh, but the prospects of getting very much done seem on the slim side. Aminul802 (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Figure of money is not the point. The point is, a effort is taken from alleged war criminals' side to make this tribunal questionable to the world. Surely they are spending more money in other lobbyist firms. But those are not came to media.--Freemesm (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Erm, they spent 25 million, not 100k. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked to see your newpaper sources, DS, and all you do is try to mock my lack of knowledge on the matter, because you decide not to show me the newspaper source you claim to have? Very WP:Civil of you. I await the newspaper references. Aminul802 (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Your lack of knowledge on a lot of these issues is lacking, but I have not mocked you at all. Perhaps you ought to look at the draft in userspace.[46] Can you also comment on the editprotect issue above, I believe I have covered your concerns sufficently. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Using "Erm" in the way that you do may be considered mocking. In any case, I thank you and Freemesm for some very useful information. Freemesm, first, for instructions on how to get Mir Quasem Ali's info from the govt database. This is a useful official unpartisan source. It is my understanding that any foreigner hiring a lobbying firm in the US has to have their record publicly available in government records. Hence it would appear that Ali has spent a total of $280,000 from 2010-2011. The BD Law Minister, who is basically a member of the prosecution, states 25m as his figure. That stands as an accusation with no proof given, and it's nice to see DS mention it as such in his article, although the link he uses seems to be dead. Still, it's a bit disappointing to see you assert what appears to be a wildly exaggerated figure in your latest response, as though it's a fact. True, this is a talk page, and not an article, but on first reading, it seemed that you had strong grounds to state it as a fact, which, on closer inspection, you do not. Aminul802 (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, DS, I'd recommend putting your entire rewrite through this talk page and getting comments on it from all of us. Here's another news source you could use for the 25m accusation [47], [48] although it may undermine the figure, as it says that the 25m was paid to Cassidy & Associates. Aminul802 (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

How does any source undermine the figure? I already know who the cash went to. The government database is a primary source and should not be used. The rewrite has a talk page, feel free to use it, or add to the controversy & reception sections if you wish, perhaps we may get a decent article yet. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

[49] Another source for the claim. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR is understood. I mean, as a momentary exercise of WP:OR on a talk page, that if the govt is saying 25m has been paid to Cassidy, that clearly seems to be baseless, as the records contradict it. But you're in your rights to say the govt has accused them of that. As for using that talk page. I'm interested in editing this article, and edits to this article are to be discussed on this talk page. If you'd like to introduce portions of your rewrite to this article, I suggest you discuss them here rather than ask editors to go to your userspace. Building consensus needs to be undertaken before any edits are made that are controversial to the community, and this is the place to build that consensus. Best, Aminul802 (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Just as I expected, you have no interest in creating a decent article, just a shitty hit piece. I will restore the article upon unlock to a decent state. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit protect 3

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)

I don't know whether the current version was restored by a sockpuppeter or not, but I also reverted to it on one or two occasions, so I would object to this request (which may well lead to another edit war not involving Aminul802). Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It was editwarred in by Aminul802 who is a confirmed sockpuppeter. You have not reverted either the previous socking version nor the current one. I also do not think you should threaten to edit war a sockpuppeters edits into an article. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm referring to the revert I made at 22:44, 31 December 2012‎, which, I remind you, was prompted by your rewriting the entire article (which includes many of my own edits) without any consultation from other editors. I therefore strongly object to you insisting to revert to what is essentially your rewrite. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Tough, sockpuppeters do not get to edit war their preferred version of an article and then get away with it, you may revert and claim that as your own once protection expires. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There does not appear to be consensus here on which version to revert to. While sockpuppetry is not appreciated, WP:DENY applies to vandalism not socking, and as the sock puppetry did appear to involve block evasion, there is no G5 argument for a revert in the absence of consensus. Unless you can find a mutually agreeable version to revert to, I don't think your going to succeed with a an edit protected request. Monty₈₄₅ 18:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sections

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)

Hi there! Yes, I think the two sections need to be combined. A background section could potentially precede a formation section if DS can prepare a consensus-based background section. His contribution above needs adjustment as I've commented already. Besides that, I think it would be very helpful if we could tabulate or otherwise list of judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, and/or accused. The current format of simply listing them in a single paragraph is not terribly reader friendly. I'm not an expert of making wiki tables, and would be grateful if someone else could help with that. This [50] very useful tribunal monitoring website has recently been created, and could serve as an important source for improving the article. I think the "Cases at a Glance" sections [51] and [52] provide very useful information in an accessible format that we could try to emulate. Again, as I say, tabulating isn't my strong suit, so I'd appreciate help. I also think there should be a new section on recent tensions with Turkey given: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58],[59],[60],[61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66] Aminul802 (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A new section to replace the duplicate is already proposed, the lede needs to be replaced before anything as it violates both WP:LEDE & NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Aminul802 all those sources speak of two thing only, a letter for clemency and an unauthorised visit. The letter for clemency belongs in the reception section which will be restored upon the article being unlocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't unilaterally 'restore' anything, but rather do so by undergoing consensus building processes. You should make a new section here pointing out where you think the current lead fails WP:LEDE and NPOV before you change anything. That way we can discuss things rather than edit war--which we've both been warned about in the past.Aminul802 (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If the body of the article starts to form, then the lead should fall together after. If we can get some of the sections set up (and neutral) then it will be easy to compile the lead section. I'm not saying that it doesn't need to be replaced; rather, lets do it the right way. Judging by the article size, I think we should shoot for three paragraphs: basic info and formation, actions of the tribunal, and criticism with controversy. Dreambeaver(talk) 18:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)