Talk:International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Our "newest" editor

Had better use the talk page and get consensus for his changes, he is now on 3RR. You are breaking the references, so stop. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, I made a couple of quite small edits and you have reverted them twice, for no reason other than that you have decided that I am a sockpuppet. I am not, so please refrain from continuing this aggressive editing. Applesandapples (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Get consensus, you are breaking the references, your source is unverifiable, please provide a link to the book. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If the source is unverifiable, then I don't want it in the article either (I'm not sure it is though). The break of references happened in my attempt to reinstate a source you yourself put in. I made a few other small grammar and style change. Also, it looks to me like you are on 4RR...why are you doing this? If it is because you don't like the source, we can discuss it. If it is because you think I am a sockpuppet, you can relax, I'm not. Applesandapples (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

We are both on 3RR. You say you do not think the source unverifiable, I assume you have access to it as you used it so [lease quote full extracts to support your edit. You may not be a sock or meatpuppet, but you are yet another SPA in what is becoming a long list of SPA's. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, we can forget the source. Now that we've discussed it, I'm not very bothered about it. What I am concerned with was the repeated reversion of all my changes without discussion, some of which are just grammar or style fixes. With regards to SPA, all I can say is AGF. Applesandapples (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not think we shall forget the source, either post the extracts as requested or self revert your 4th revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Here you go:

“ On 30 July 2009, at the Second International Conference on Genocide, Truth and Justice in Dhaka, the Hon. Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs categorically stated that there would be no Pakistanis tried under this law. It would only be applied to Bangladeshi nationals. ” — Suzannah Linton,

“ To focus simply on those whom one can get one’s hands on, who were in the scale of things in 1971 merely foot soldiers and followers (the term ‘small fish’ is often used to describe this type of low-ranking perpetrator), while the planners, commanders and those with control over them remain out of reach creates a dangerously warped process from the start. ” — Suzannah Linton,

Applesandapples (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And that supports the edit how exactly? First paragraph I know, but not the rest. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, do not cut off bits from the authors opinions, "With all due respect, the text of the law says that it applies ‘‘irrespective’’ of nationality, and the Minister’s understandable concern with placating Pakistan obviously cannot override it. But taking jurisdiction over Pakistanis is a very tricky issue that goes to the heart of this accountability exercise." Should have been mentioned. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what does Applesandapples want to say. Law minister's speech doesn't mean anything. Tribunal functions under its rules and resolution, which is known as THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES (TRIBUNALS) ACT, 1973. Moreover criticism shouldn't be placed under 'formation of tribunal' title. Applesandapples, please don't start a edit war again.--Freemesm (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand where the confusion is. All that was said was that the minister said no Pakistanis would be tried, and this has drawn criticism for not targeting the main perpetrators. I think that the wording of the second sentence should be better, but the content is all there in the sources. Darkness Shines, if you want to add in the next sentence, go ahead. Freemesm, I don't know why anyone would think that the law minister's statement has no relevance to a trial in his own country. Applesandapples (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Your source does not support the content you are trying to add. At all. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

??? It seems very obvious to me that it does! Applesandapples (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"This decision has drawn criticism from international jurists, as it effectively gives immunity to the army commanders of the Pakistan Army who are generally considered to be ultimately responsible for the majority of crimes of 1971" How does the quotes above even remotly support that text? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

- Hi, if you guys are unable to agree about desired content additions - rather than tossing it back and forwards between yourselves, ask for a WP:3O - or use some form of WP:Dispute resolution or WP:RFC or the WP:NPOVN or the WP:BLPN - if content is related to living people - Youreallycan 14:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

edit warring

Applesandapples, I can't understand why you start editwarring here? Please review the previous history of this article. Previously it was protected 3 times for a sock's editwarring. So, don't start it again. Try to build a decent article.--Freemesm (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't me who started edit warring. I added in two sentences, and then I made a few grammar/style changes. Darkness Shines then reverted everything I did, saying that I was a sockpuppet. I'm not, so I reverted it back. If there is a problem with the some of the content, then that can be fixed without undoing everything. What I don't understand is why I was greeted by Darkness Shines in such an aggressive way. Applesandapples (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Please all back off, start afresh and focus on content not contributors and you will all get along better - Youreallycan 13:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

1-rr

As a result of this ANEW thread, I have decided to impose a restriction on all users editing this article, under WP:ARBIPA. From now on, no editor may make more than one (1) revert on this article per twenty-four (24) hour period, excluding blatant vandalism and BLP violations. Editors who breach the restriction may be warned or blocked at the discretion of the enforcing admin. I have also semi-protected the article for a year, to prevent the gaming of this restriction. I'd finally like to add that this restriction is not license for a slow-moving revert-war (e.g., making the same revert once a day, every day); editors who engage in a slow-moving edit war are subject to blocking by an uninvolved administrator, after a warning. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The lede

Any objections over replace the current mess with this one[1] Darkness Shines (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have an objection (which I made before): I don't agree with the summary of the skype controversy. The fact that communications were leaked is the less relevant part of it, what matters is the contents which were summarised neatly in the previous version of the lede (by myself). Can you reinstate that please? Secondly, I disagree with the following wording: "While human rights groups[7] and various political entities[8][9] have welcomed the trials there has been criticism over the progress, transparency and reported harassment of lawyers representing the accused." I propose to replace this by: "While ... *initially supported the establishment of the tribunal, " This is more consistent with the text in the body of the article, stating: "Initially Non-governmental organization's(NGO)'s and governmental agencies welcomed the trial." There are (a good number of) other issues with the article which I'll come back to address later. One quick one: the previous summary of the UN detention ruling was better - the new version doesn't actually mention the fact that the detention of the suspects was deemed arbitrary. In other words, the UN ruling wasn't just about bail. I suggest you reinstate the previous version. This is why I was in favour of starting with the previous version and modifying that - now we'll need to put back in a number of things from that version. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Not agreed with "Initially Non-governmental organization's(NGO)'s and governmental agencies welcomed the trial." It violets WP:OR. And again I have objection with details skype conversation leaking part. Why a criminal incident (hacking) should be described with great importance?--Freemesm (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Expanded the lede a little, let me know if it suits. Added your suggested wording. The previous UN ruling was sourced to a primary document which violates BLP, it was also hosted on a personal blog. It was also not a ruling, the top of that says quite clearly it is an opinion. We cannot give undue weight to opinions. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not happy with the lede - you borrow the "The material suggests the government tried to put pressure on Mr Nizamul, albeit he seems to have resisted it." from the Economist article (which is fair enough) but fail to summarise the few sentences immediately after that, the first one of which is "It seems to show he worked improperly with a lawyer based in Brussels, and that the lawyer co-operated with the prosecution—raising questions about conflicts of interest." This is clearly not a representative summary. What is your objection to reinstating my summary from the old version? I also seem to recall pointing out that the UN opinion is found on UN's own site, [2] There are plenty of opinions cited in the article as it is, and UN's one certainly carries more weight than the majority of them. Would you mind reinstating the text as it was before, making sure the words 'arbitrary detention' are there? Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Abbasfirnas887, how do you say that "...he worked improperly with a lawyer based in Brussels, and that the lawyer co-operated with the prosecution—raising questions about conflicts of interest." Have you ever seen the 'THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES (TRIBUNALS) ACT, 1973'? It's 11(1) (d) says-- 11. (1) A Tribunal shall have power- (d) to appoint persons for carrying out any task designated by the Tribunal. Again Act 11 (6) says- (6) The Chairman of a Tribunal may make such administrative arrangements as he considers necessary for the performance of the functions of the Tribunal under this Act. Corresponding link is here Then how do you say that it is 'Improper'? Dear DS, I think we should focus, how this kind of illegal hacking is done there and who are main suspects. --Freemesm (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary detention done. You do realize the economist article also says they may have been extenuating circumstances, and that Huq broke no laws, for NPOV all that would also have to be added which again would make the lede cumbersome. Is it not already in the body? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

To add to this, I don't think the following sentence is accurate: "Human Rights Watch has supported the tribunal,[7] and they have also been critical of reported harassment of lawyers representing the accused." I think inserting 'initially' in the first part of the sentence is necessary here too, given the latest views expressed by HRW http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/12/13/bangladesh-retrial-needed-sayedee-case In fact, all this information should be in one place rather than having this in one section and the call for retrial later on in the article. As it is, it's rather difficult to form a picture of the evolution of the HRW position towards the tribunal. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The Economist article mentions the possibility of extenuating circumstances before stating that the judge and Ziauddin lied to the Economist about the existence of any relation between them. The Economist article talks about Ziauddin (not Huq) not having broken laws, but no such accusation is made anywhere in the old version of this as far as I recall. If it is, it should be removed. Therefore, I really don't think NPOV issues can be raised here. Can you reinstate the previous version and, if you like, add the reference to this: http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/12/13/bangladesh-retrial-needed-sayedee-case for the summary of the affair as a 'a collusion between the judge, the prosecutors, and the executive.'. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think it's generally better to make the article bulky and palatable to everyone rather than short and lacking in important information. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You cannot put another 'initially' in as HRW and in fact nobody has withdrawn support. All they have done is critique the process. Should we add what you suggest it would make it appear that these groups had withdrawn support for the trials, which they have not. I will not restore the old version as it gives undue weight to one part of the trials, I am trying to meet you half way here but you seem intent on not giving at inch. And yes, NPOV issues can be raised here. From WP:LEDE "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" The lede currently does. From NPOV "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic" So using the current text on the hacking and eventual fallout, what do you think needs to be added? Suggest an addition, but no more that a few lines please. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I propose the following: "In December 2012 the Economist published contents of leaked communications between chief justice Mohammed Nizamul Huq and a lawyer of Bangladeshi origin based in Brussels. The communications indicated a collusion between the judiciary, the prosecution and the Bangladeshi government. The resulting controversy resulted in Huq's resignation from his position." It's short and to the point. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I can agree to that with a minor change this line "The communications indicated a collusion between the judiciary, the prosecution and the Bangladeshi government" needs to read "According to the economist" at the beginning, as it is their opinion and not really a fact as you have written. Should we also mention that the other guy was an expert in international law? Or would that be better in the body? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I have no particular preference on whether to mention Ziauddin's expertise in international law here or in the body. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Done, I have asked the guild of copyeditors to go over the article and then shall be nominating it for GA status. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the HRW issue, I still don't like the current wording. It looks contradictory to the casual reader: HRW supports the tribunal, but objects to harassing defence lawyers. Although it's true that HRW hasn't 'withdrawn' support for the tribunal, their statements in http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/12/13/bangladesh-retrial-needed-sayedee-case are very strong, and imply that the tribunal will in fact not be fair if the Sayedee case is not retried. I would like a quote to be included to reflect this strong statement. I propose quoting Brad Adams once again: "A new trial is the only way for the court to preserve its integrity." as well as the fact that the ICT has now decided that a retrial will not take place ([e.g. http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/war-crimes-trials/2013/01/14/ict-snubs-six-pleas-of-sayedee]). Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to add the following, based on the latest from HRW ([3]): "Human Rights Watch expressed concern regarding the wellbeing of a defence witness who was allegedly kidnapped outside the ICT courtroom and taken away in a police van. HRW criticised the tribunal and the Bangladeshi government for not taking any steps to find him." Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that is wrong, it was a prosecution witness who went missing[4] Can you wrap links in [] please. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's clear from the HRW article that the witness was originally a prosecution witness but was going to testify for defence instead. The article refers to him as a "hostile witness" at the end: "...asking an interested party in a case, namely the prosecution, to inquire into the abduction of a hostile witness and then simply accepting its answer, is not a serious response" The newage article you refer to seems to refer to the prosecution not producing the witness prior to the alleged kidnapping, something confirmed by the HRW article: "Human Rights Watch noted that Bali’s disappearance followed prosecution claims that they were unable to produce certain prosecution witnesses, including Bali." I think leaving 'defence witness' is fine. If you prefer, we can add a few quotes from the HRW article to clarify the situation. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear DS, why we are too much concern about HRW's statement? If we look at 'THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES (TRIBUNALS) ACT, 1973'. It's 11(1) (d) says-- 11. (1) A Tribunal shall have power- (d) to appoint persons for carrying out any task designated by the Tribunal. Again Act 11 (6) says- (6) The Chairman of a Tribunal may make such administrative arrangements as he considers necessary for the performance of the functions of the Tribunal under this Act. Then how do HWS say that it is 'Improper'? It is a domestic tribunal aimed to punish those, who commit international crime. If it do everything under its act, then whats the problem? Another chairman was also resigned from the tribunal. Anyone dont say anything about that. Why they are focusing on Mr. Haq and Ziauddin? I think we should focus, how this kind of illegal hacking is done there and who are main suspects. --Freemesm (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not what it says at all, interesting spin though. It say the prosecution claimed he was going to be a witness for the defence, but then of course he went missing. Freemesm we are currently discussing the missing witness for the prosecution .Darkness Shines (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

newage itself refers to him as a defence witness here [5]. We can say that he was originally a witness for the prosecution, as I said - the HRW does state that. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"Bali, originally a prosecution witness, had agreed to testify for the defense, the defense had said" HRW That new age article is so poorly written as to be useless. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, so how about: "Human Rights Watch expressed concern regarding the wellbeing of a man who was originally a witness for the prosecution, and who the defence alleges was due to give evidence in their favour. The witness was allegedly kidnapped outside the ICT courtroom and taken away in a police van. HRW criticised the tribunal and the Bangladeshi government for not taking any steps to find him." Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is just like what our sockpuppeter does, put in the spin, and leave out the rebuttal, are you taking lessons from him? Where is the rebuttal? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, let's add the following just following my proposal above: "The attorney general rejected the abduction claim as a fabrication by the defense to bring the tribunal into disrepute". In fact, I support adding more statements representing the government's point of view. I would like the following added in the Controversies section, after the mention of HRW's criticism regarding the harassment of lawyers: "In response to criticism of the tribunal, Shafique Ahmad stated that "There is no scope for questioning the fairness and standard of the ongoing trial for war crimes during the Liberation War in 1971" and that "The International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973, under which the trial is running, is the best law in the world"." [6] I now notice that there is no longer any mention of HRW's concerns regarding the tribunal not meeting international standards [7]. This should be added just before my proposed rebuttal by Shafique Ahmad, and the final sentence of the 'Background' section should be moved there so all the criticism of the legal provisions is in one place. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear DS, this link may be helpful for this discussion.--Freemesm (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Freemesm, interesting reference. I'd propose to include this quote, or a summary of it, after the criticisms by HRW, to give some counterbalance to those: "They are continuing to mislead donor groups, human right organization and world public support by appointing lobbyist giving them huge amount of money." However, I'm not convinced that icsforum.org passes as a citeable source. Perhaps you can find a better source for the citation, Freemesm? Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Abbasfirnas887, no, I don't suggest this link for citing. I didn't get the full text of that press release anywhere in net, so I provide that link here. I fiend another link, which delivers some info on this press release. Moreover I've something more to say on this topics. Wait please.--Freemesm (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Long time no see :)

I'm not completely happy with the ending of the sentence, "According to the Economist the communications indicated a collusion between the judiciary, the prosecution and the Bangladeshi government and that there was significant political pressure put on the judiciary to reach a quick verdict, although Huq resisted it.". I can't find anywhere in the article which says that Huq resisted pressure - only that he was "worried that ministers were pushing too hard". From reading the Economist article carefully, the impression I have is that Huq was in fact doing his best to placate the government, but was not able to speed proceedings up as much as the government wanted. ("He asked me to pass this verdict fast. I told him ‘how can I do that?’... He said, ‘Try as quick as you can.’") Applesandapples (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Abbasfirnas887 you have added this over the allegations of kidnapping "HRW criticised the tribunal" However I do not see in the source were the ICT is criticised over this, only the government, can you please clarify. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

From the article "A defense challenge to this motion, which included evidence from government safe-house logbooks showing that witnesses were available to testify, was rejected by the court without a serious investigation."; “Asking an interested party in a case, namely the prosecution, to inquire into the abduction of a hostile witness and then simply accepting its answer, is not a serious response,” Adams said. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not criticising the ICT, but their reaction to the allegations, the sentence will require tweaking. Cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Broken link

The link [8] used to back up " and who was accused by the ICT of violating the British bar's code of conduct" appears to be broken. If an alternative cannot be found, I propose to remove the relevant part of the sentence. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It worked when I added it, read WP:SOURCEACCESS Darkness Shines (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You can see it here Darkness Shines (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, I put in a in the old ref. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Found a working link on BD News so problem solved. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Issues may be included on lede

I think few more thing should be added on lede. I'm just listing them here. It is not necessary start discussion right now. We will discuss this issue step by step.

1. Jamaat-Shibir activists' nation wide attack on police to prevent the trial. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

2. Jamaat's US lobbyist employment.--Freemesm (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with this being added to the lede, perhaps a line about the attacks would suffice. The lobbyist issue is mentioned in the body but to mention in the lede would be undue IMO. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear DS, could we add atlist a line for the attack on lede? I'm requesting because it is important for understanding that, under which condition the tribunal conducts its regular schedule. If you look at the provided news links, they states that Jamaat-Shibir activists conduct this kind of attack in the name of preventing the tribunal and in this way they want to make their leaders free.--Freemesm (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Freemesm, I don't think the lede of the ICT article is the right place for this - perhaps it should instead be discussed in an article on contemporary Bangladeshi politics/Jamaat Islami? I'd also add this reference to your list [21]. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Abbasfirnas887, off course these attacks are relevant with this article. Because Jamaat-Shibir activists conduct this kind of attack in the name of preventing the tribunal and in this way they want to make their leaders free. The link you provided, is actually for articles like Bangladeshi politics/Jamaat Islami.--Freemesm (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Added on lede.--Freemesm (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

BLP violation

Adams never said what is being attributed to him, that is a BLP vio. Abbasfirnas887 restore that again and I will have to report you. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Eh? Have you read [[22]]? Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Adams does not say what you are attributing to him, as you refused to self revert I have had no choice but to revert you. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"“The trials against the alleged mutineers and the alleged war criminals are deeply problematic, riddled with questions about the independence and impartiality of the judges and fairness of the process,” Adams said. From [[23]]. Revert please. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, why have you remove the original quote? And why have you moved the quote by Irene Khan to the bottom? Hers was one of the first statements on the ICT and needs to be were it was. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Next time, to avoid this, can we discuss on talk page first please? I'm not into making up my sources. As for the Irene Khan quote: although it's relevant, I think that the more recent evaluations of the proceedings of the ICT should come first. The quote is from 2010 when none of the proceedings had begun yet, so it'd be good to find something more recent on the same topic, i.e. how people like Khan feel about what the ICT has done thus far regarding sexual violence. As it is, I don't think it deserves a high level of promimence in the section. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to address the original Adams quote. We can keep it in too, but the new one is obviously more recent and therefore more reflective of the (evolving) HRW position on the ICT. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course it does, it is called continuity. I will have to tidy it up later. RE Adams, that new stuff needs to be added near the end, again for continuity, as you say yourself (evolving) Darkness Shines (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't really mind how the section is ordered, but I do think the Khan quote being first is somewhat random - it's a personal statement by an activist on only one aspect of proceedings which had not even begun. Hardly deserves coming on top of the section. Anyway, I'm not too bothered, it just seems out of place. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Dead link in expanded "Formation of the tribunal" Section

I have added more info at "Formation of the tribunal" section. But just check that some of reference links are dead. Please don't remove them. I will replace them. I'm too much tired today, that's why can't do it now.--Freemesm (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Passive voice

While passive voice isn't always bad, when the agent is hidden, it becomes problematic. In the sentence (below), I am assuming criticism came from agents mentioned in the first part of the sentence, but this doesn't have to be the case. In this case, whoever wrote this, should make it clear who the "there has been" actually is! Crtew (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

"... there has been criticism over the fairness and transparency of the trials ...

Are you in the guild of copy editors? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to say that "widely viewed" close to the word genocide is bad passive voice and screams out for a "Who?". Please fill in the blanks ... Crtew (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you in the guild of copy editors? And some of your templates are pointless. What is the point of "The events of the nine-month conflict[which?]" that one? The lede already explains what the conflict was. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahmed Ziauddin

I just noticed that I wasn't actually experiencing deja vu and I had actually added a wikilink to Ahmed Ziauddin previously. Please don't remove this wikilink! It is a basic Wikipedia policy that relevant links should be established by Wikipedian editors between articles. Crtew (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting spin

Put on the latest edits I see, "Other critics say the ruling Awami League party is using the trial for political gain by using the ICT to weaken, or using it to eliminate the Jamaat-e-Islami party" This source shows those "other critics" to be those being tried. As for "The tribunal, however, is a Bangladesh-created court with only domestic jurisdiction -- despite the use of international in its title" The source does not put it like that at all, if the content is to stay it needs to be rewritten. The edit which added that also duplicated content already in the lede, so that has to be removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not spin -- it's a fact. The fact that this body is a domestic court despite the "international" in its name is established and well sourced. More media are pointing this out for clarity for audiences as the name gives the impression that the tribunal is something that it is not. The wording looks fine. If you're going to suggest duplication, please be more specific. Crtew (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fact, but the way you have written it is spin. I am not suggesting duplicating content, I wrote that you had duplicated content. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This edit

Not sure why you made this edit [24], Freemesm. The Shahbag protest started in reaction to Mollah's life sentence, so surely it makes much more sense to the narrative to mention them in conjunction with each other?

The other thing you did was switch back every instance of the word 'summary' in the reference name to 'summery'. Not that it really makes any difference, as only editors will see it, but the misspelling irritated me and I corrected it. The correct spelling of this word is 'summary'. Why did you put the wrong spelling in again? Applesandapples (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edited part is emphasizing on his political identity. That seems very misleading to me. Main reason of this uprising is to demand the capital punishment for all war criminals. I repeat, for all war criminals. Not only Jamaati leaders.--Freemesm (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

First, I don't know where you get 'emphasizing' from. Mentioning that he is a Jamaat leader is really very standard, because that is simply who he is.

And with regards to war criminals, I don't think you're right about that. If you look at the history after all, it was the Pakistani army who were doing the vast majority of the massacring of Bengali civilians, and the Shahbag protest isn't concerned with them at all. Also, there were war criminals on the freedom fighter side, and the Shahbag protest isn't concerned with them either. Only those on trial at the ICT.

And you haven't mentioned the spelling mistakes either. I think, as I had suspected, this edit was on the whole quite senseless. Applesandapples (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You can't suggest people for whose punishment they will come to road. Focusing on Pak army instead of Jamaat and repeated editing on jamaat leaders article indicates that you are politically motivated to bias these articles, rather than make these articles more descent. You are modifying these articles from fan point of view. That is not compatible with wiki policy Mr. apple lover! I was reverted all of your last edit, that's why your spelling correction was undone.--Freemesm (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you address the content we are discussing, rather than making absurd accusations. Why is it POV to mention that Mollah is a Jamaat leader? That's who he is. And there was a need to make clear that the Shahbag protest happened in reaction to his life sentence. Applesandapples (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree that political positions of indicted and convicted persons should be noted, as they are prominent leaders. I added the names of all the indicted suspects I could find, but am missing one or two of the Jamaat leaders.Parkwells (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nuremberg model

The ICT law was drafted in 1973 by two German professors, and was modeled on the Nuremberg trials. This deserves to be mentioned in this article, in the face of all the controversy over international standards. Here's a reference, comments of the German ambassador in Bangladesh [25]--ArmanJ (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be useful to be more specific about what critics think is at odds with "international standards", as the 1973 law was amended, and some changes were made last June to the process (but I'm not sure what). It's all vague, but, if worth noting, should be made more clear.Parkwells (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Reaction - after events

It does not make sense to have comments from late 2012 and 2013 put as "Reception" before the trials and convictions. These were not done to satisfy outside polls anyway; am not sure why comments of state leaders were included. More to the point would be analysis as provided in some media, such as The Guardian and Independent, about possible outcomes, political risks, etc. to the process. Also, if criticism is to be included (as originally under "Reception", it needs to have specific details so that readers know the complaint - a vague comment about "fairness and transparency" doesn't say much - needing to "protect defense lawyers and witnesses from harassment" does.Parkwells (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

External links

It would be useful to have links to copies of the 1973 Act for the ICT, as well as the 2009 amendments, so readers could see what changes were made.Parkwells (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Revert, why

This edit is done in such a way as to make it appear that human rights groups and various political entities have "questions of conflict of interest and and goverment pressure to produce a guilty verdict" Which is not the case, only the economist has raised these questions. They also said Huq did not bow to this pressure. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've put in the WSJ reference [26] in too now. What you were looking for is in the first paragraph. Applesandapples (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That only covers NGO's, so no. Self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

How one earth can you say things like that? The very first sentence: "Bangladesh's government is facing mounting pressure from opposition parties and human-rights groups over alleged political interference at a war-crimes tribunal intended to heal four-decade-old rifts." Applesandapples (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Opposition parties do not count as international governments. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Whole article is biased again!

The whole article is biased again! Now the only objective of this article is defaming "International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)"! Which is clearly violation of WP:NPOV--FreemesM ^(talk) 18:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I do think that the criticisms of the ICT are spread over too many sections. Will try to make the article better organised and more to the point. Applesandapples (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Closing RFC from a while ago

I came here from WP:AN to close the RFC at [27]. I do not know if the article has been completely rewritten since January. What I do know is that consensus was against implementing the suggested complete rewrite at that time. Chutznik (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of rollback, sorry

Twinkle seems to have died, and even though I have turned off VE it has come back like a zombie? Anyhoo, I reverted as the edits were not very good, at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> Bangladesh Islamist leader sentenced to death(Lihaas (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)).

Source misrepresentation

By IPs. This edit misrepresents the source, the Daily Star source, does not say "alleged". What the source say is "Yusuf, known as the founder of infamous Peace Committees and Razakar force in the greater Khulna region". That is stated as fact. The other source BD News, does not say "there were no charges of capital crimes against him". nor does it say he was granted amnesty, he got out after a general amnesty was declared. As such I intend to revert this source misrepresentation. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Format

Keeping in line with Wikipedia format, I am repositioning the "Controversies" section below. Messiaindarain (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)