Talk:Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini

Non English must have alternatives

Please find all English sources as alternatives to improve this article. Messiaindarain (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419012024/http://www.amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2012/03/17/136542 to http://www.amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2012/03/17/136542
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402145814/http://www.amardeshonline.com/pages/weekly_news/2012/08/04/8386 to http://www.amardeshonline.com/pages/weekly_news/2012/08/04/8386

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Extensive removals by Promo Academic

@Promo Academic: In these edits, you removed three paragraphs critical of the Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini, and in doing so broke several references. You also added, with malformed referencing, a paragraph of background information that is poorly integrated but may prove beneficial, and helpfully removed vandalism to the mascot.

To take your edit summaries point by point:

• "After reading this article, it was clear that it held some biases against the first government of the country and its revolutionary leaders including the father of the country."

Wikipedia is not written to celebrate Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, or to glorify Bangladesh, its governments, or its revolutionary leaders. Its content is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means reflecting fairly, proportionately, and without bias of the editor, all signficant views of a subject that have been published by reliable sources. The way to achieve NPOV is seldom to remove sourced information. Instead, rewrite it to attribute opinions clearly, and balance it with other viewpoints, in proportion to their relative prominence, by adding material citing other reliable sources.

• "Many dubious statements with weak references were removed for being partisan toward anti-Bangladesh independence movements including invoking of Pro Pakistani journalist Anthony Mascarenhas."

I would be surprised if any reliable source characterized Anthony Mascarenhas as "pro-Pakistani". If anything, he more likely would be described as "pro-Bangladeshi". Whatever his biases, he is widely cited by numerous academics in the field: M. Rafique Afzal, Crispin Bates, Mahfuzul H. Chowdhury, Christian Gerlach, David Lewis (academic), and Lawrence Ziring, to name a few. So it is hardly surprising that Wikipedia also quotes and cites him. You also removed content cited to academic works by Emajuddin Ahamed, Moudud Ahmed, C. Christine Fair, Ghulam Murshid, Francis Pike, Ali Riaz, and Human Rights Watch, among others. Those are not "weak references".

I've reverted your removal of the three sourced paragraphs. If you wish to remove them, first establish consensus here, preferably on a paragraph-by-paragraph or source-by-source basis, for why the material doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I've left in your one paragraph addition, and will try to fix its broken referencing. If you can clarify what sources you used, that would be helpful. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Worldbruce

Hello user:Worldbruce

The articles that I removed had been already mentioned in the section "Human Rights Abuse". To avoid the same articles appearing twice I decided to remove them. There has been a whole separate section the "Human Rights abuses" detailing extensively in more than twenty paragraphs with the same sentences that I have removed appearing there as well. In wikipedia, detailed descriptions of critical views usually come up in separate labelled sections not in the introductory parts. Introductory parts should always be neutral not a given point of view by any specific group or person but a description as there are other sections for the same details and they should not appear twice. My goal was to remove what I perceived as an attempt with prejudices against a specific person where as to make him paint the way they want rather than put on a description, the mascot article and the appearance of a critical point of view on the introductory part where it is supposed to be a description with short paragraph with neutral point of view not sentences copied from another section called "Human Rights Abuse" to be put on front.

I appreciate your efforts to keep the articles in Wikipedia a safe place from targets of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promo Academic (talk • contribs) 00:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Promo Academic (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Promo Academic: Your arguments here and in the edit summary of this edit are wrong.

• The lead should summarize the article's most important points. To do so, it must recap material covered in greater depth later in the article. In this case the lead has two well-sourced paragraphs that sum up about 2500 words of generally negative views in the body. If anything, the lead is a bit too short to adequately summarize the key points of the article, although it's difficult to correct that without first fixing the body's rampant sourcing and organization problems.
• Furthermore, the lead is supposed to summarize important controversies. Your assertions that, "Introductory parts should always be neutral not a given point of view by any specific group or person" and "The descriptive introduction is not supposed to have critical points in the first place as they are always reserved for detailed articles that follow next" are nonsense. Wikipedia policies and guidelines say the opposite. Neutral point of view does not mean no point of view, it means not promoting our own points of view. The lead should summarize prominent viewpoints, be they positive or negative.

--Worldbruce (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)