Talk:Bangladesh–Jordan relations

Sources and "misrepresentation"

My edits reflected (down to the actual language) what the sources said about the matter. The Jordanians reimposed the ban suggesting the assault allegations and strikes were related. They were only marginally related and it was an excuse the draw attention away from allegations of sexual assault. The broken English of your new version is terrible. But I don't understand, my version was probably more sympathetic to the Bangladeshi nationalist POV you have expressed elsewhere. You reverted it because you can't stand the suggestion your original language was terrible also. St★lwart¹¹¹ 20:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Jordanians didn't ban but just tightened the recruitment process and continued to recruit Bangladeshis albeit in a smaller scale. Most importantly, you wrote in a way to suggest that the allegations were against the workers but, according to the source, they were rather against the employers. It is a blatant source misrepresentation on your part. Nomian (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your poor grasp of English is getting the better of you. That's not at all what was written by me or in the source. The very first line of the source says, "Only after one year of lifting the ban, Jordan has tightened recruitment of Bangladeshi workers following a number of reports of sexual abuse of female workers and labour strike." There was most certainly a "ban". My edits reflected the source, yours are full of broken English. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Jordan, which is now has around 30,000 Bangladeshi workers, had banned recruiting workers from Bangladesh in 2006. Last year, it relaxed the ban allowing recruitment of only female workers in garment factories, but now that also appears to have come to a halt.

Granted, the English is almost as confusing as yours but the timeline is clear: ban imposed - ban relaxed - relaxation of ban reversed. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is what you wrote: In 2011, Jordan lifted a ban on the importation of labour from Bangladesh but reimposed it soon after as a result of a number of sexual assault allegations and unrelated worker strikes. - it suggests that the ban was "reimposed" because of sexual assault allegations "against the workers". But according to the source, the allegations were against the employers not the workers, read the full article. Besides, "reimposing the ban" and "tightening the recruitment" are far different things. You did misrepresent the source, whether it was intentional or not is a different matter. Nomian (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your quotation of my edit speaks for itself - nowhere did I say the allegations were "against the workers". You've invented that. A ban was imposed and then relaxed and then the relaxation "came to a halt" meaning the ban (never formally removed after being imposed - just relaxed) was in force once again - reinforced. There's no misrepresentation there - you seem to be struggling with the language (again). St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)