Talk:2018 Bangladesh road-safety protests

Rape news

@A.Musketeer: Before re-adding the news of rape again, please explain where does this source say anything about the rape of 4 students???? - Editor General of Wiki (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

According to protesters, 4 female students of Bir Shreshtha Noor Mohammad Public College were taken to Bangladesh Awami League office and raped brutally by BCL cadres.

References

You didn't even bother to look at my edit summaries. I have already explained the news about rape is there in the videos shared by Dhaka Tribune in the link provided. A.Musketeer (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@A.Musketeer: Clearly, you don't have any idea about what an WP:RS is. A facebook video where a person tells something, we can not add that to Wikipedia. We need sources which have editorial integrity. These links are just embedding of facebook videos, not secondary or WP:RS. Better find a quality source for this sensitive issue. - Editor General of Wiki (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The video was shared by Dhaka Tribune and the microphones also belonged to different media outlets. I think you are not competent about WP:CITEVIDEO, please take a look. The appropriateness depends on the context. A.Musketeer (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps walk back the antagonism a bit with regard to the assumed competence of other editors. I'd suggest that WP:CITEVIDEO isn't entirely clear about an embed of a social media video, on a probably reliable news site, when said site is running a live-stream of stuff they grabbed up on an evolving crisis. It's not uncommon with these pseudo-social-pseudo-news type pages for unconfirmed information and information that wouldn't meet normal editorial standards to be included just because nobody really knows yet. I mean it's a step up from a tweet from a journalist on the scene. But it's questionable whether WP:RS applies. The BBC in this case probably does constitute a WP:RS but all it is reliable of is a single allegation and as such, that line could probably use some finessing for clarity. And the Daily Star article is pretty clear that the claims of sexual assault were "speculative" and that they were formally denied by one of the parties. All in all I think the para needs to be tweaked a bit, but subtly, to more accurately reflect what the reliable sources can confirm. I can have a go. I don't really have a horse in this race, but I'd suggest the situation is more ambiguous than either of the parties above is presenting it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Clearly, you don't have any idea about..." (Editor of General of Wiki)
• "I think you are not competent about..." (A.Musketeer)

The antagonism is going both ways, just worded a little differently. Perhaps both editors should just focus more on content and less on each other. - ^theWOLFchild 15:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Reddit Live thread

There is a Reddit Live thread, if needed, for more sources: https://old.reddit.com/live/11e4mknpbhjqr/ Sherenk1 (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

International Coverage

Please add anything you wanna write in the actual wiki page here.

Remarked lightheartedly with a smiling face

For a response to the incident, Shajahan Khan did remark lightheartedly with a smiling face. There is video evidence for this. Please discuss it in this page before removing this phrase. --Kaisernahid (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH applies here. If a source remarks on Shajahan Khan's demeanor it might warrant mention, with a cite to the source. But for Wikipedia to comment on the assumed mood of a face on a video seems a stretch. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Eminent/Respected photographer

About these edits: [1][2]. IMO, they look like WP:PEACOCK words, that's why I removed them. He is wikilinked to his own article, that is enough. Opinions, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

• "forcibly abducted"
• "came under attack by the government's labor union wing"
• "Police attacked students of private universities in Dhaka and used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the protesters"

Folks there are neutral ways to post these sorts of things. "Police used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the protesters" without claiming they were "attacked". Please do better, this article is featured on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of issues with WP:NPOV throughout the article. I've tried to adjust some of the most egregious examples but in general it'd be great if editors would refrain from inserting statements of personal opinion, synthesized comments and weasel words into the article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Fix the lede

There's some pretty serious WP:SYNTH in the lede. The two cited sources for "the student wing of the governing Bangladesh Awami League" attacking journalists are an AP article which does not mention BAL at all, only referring to pro-government protestors as members of a political group's youth wing, and an article from Dhaka Today which doesn't mention the identity of any attackers. I'm going to tweak it for now to something more balanced but I think it needs a more expert editor to make some further fixes which reflect the situation on the ground and reflect a neutral stance. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

There are numerous sources which identifiesthe attackers as BCL activists (Bangladesh Chhatraleague).

[3], [4], [5] - Editor General of Wiki (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

One of the sources you provided I have questions on reliability - Prothomalo. The others use the same purported-to-be and alledged-to-be language that seems common with articles about this situation. Which is what we should reflect here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Upon doing some research it appears Prothomalo is in fact a major media outlet; the grammar of the article you linked just threw me. Still, I think at this time, considering how fluid the situation is, it'd be inappropriate for us to unambiguously state "this group which denies responsibility for the violence is definitely who did it." Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Corroborating Daily Star material

I've been reading up on the Daily Star and I have concerns about the reliability of it as a sole source. Specifically, the paper has a long history of antagonism and hostility toward BAL and Sheikh Hasnia, including publishing uncorroborated claims of corruption which they later had to walk back. This source is being consistently used as a sole source for claims of BAL participation in counter-protests, which is somewhat alarming considering this history. I would suggest, where possible, that claims which seem exclusive to anonymous staff correspondents at the Daily Star should be corroborated by another reliable source before we treat them as fact. Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC).

Other newspapers like prothom alo, bdnews24, iinternational media reports it too. There are also reports of press censorship as with Ekattur TV. The Daily Staris the leading English daily news paper in our country, and why should your POV analysis and research matter, also you clearly show biassedness towards Awami League, and made your statemen—ts based on personal perception. Daily star is a neutral newspaper and has always made positive and negative posts about Awami League and its rival political parties depending on what actually goes on. Your individual politically motivated opinion does not matter, nor are you an admin as you are acting like! 43.245.123.236 (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)