Talk:Mahmudur Rahman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Authenticity

On June 2, 2010, he was arrested by the government for publishing a report on the alleged corruption of Sheikh Hasina’s son Shajib Wajed Joy.

Does this statement have any reference?--FreemesM ^(talk) 19:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Dead links

F., Please see the following policy at WP:LINKROT. Undo your edits. Thanks, Crtew (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:LINKROT: "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online."

Chad, though I've removed that source by mentioning "dead link", although it it is WP:SPS and WP:SELFSOURCE. By the name of this site "freemahmudurrahman.com" it indicates that, it is created by his fan or himself. So i think it is not reliable. Moreover from WP:LINKROT policy it may indicate those references, which has both web and non-web version. But this link, which I've deleted is wholly a web source. So if the link is dead, then no one have the ability to verify it. If you think I'm wrong, then clarify your points.--FreemesM ^(talk) 21:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that now, but you'll redo the the Daily Sun? I fully agree with the other (bad source). Crtew (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah. That could be restored.--FreemesM ^(talk) 22:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Will you do it? Thank you, Crtew (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Done! :) --FreemesM ^(talk) 22:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Source

These were stray sources and I've put them here for safekeeping until someone can use inline citation to restore them properly. Crtew (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Liberal Democracy without Illusions: Crisis in Media Ownership, Ode to Odyssey

NPOV concern

This article fails to meet WP:NPOV. This is written totally in fan points of view. It omits all the statements about Mahmudur Rahman's hate speech against Shahbag protesters and publishing false news (i.e. publishing a news about Immams in Madina bring out a rally against ICT, publishing a person's picture as an atheist blogger, presemting the shahbag movement as atheist movement[1] [2], publishing false news against ICT judges [3] etc.) Another big point which is missing in this article is, Mahmudur Rahman's Newspaper Daily AmarDesh is Pro BNP/Jamaat news paper [4]--FreemesM ^(talk) 13:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The information in the article is verified and from good sources. You are more than welcome to add other points of information if you feel that would bring the article into POV from your perspective. We may want to create subsections under the main section Amar Desh. I've already considered that but your new information might help! Thank you, Crtew (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

None of those sources say the AD is Jamaat. Those sources that you added even say he is supportive of the BNP. The third cite merely says that other papers supportive of J. were also taken. Crtew (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Opposition is a relative term. So I propose to replace "owner of an opposition Bengali daily newspaper" with "owner of an pro BNP-Jamaat Bengali daily newspaper'. His newspaper publishes hundreds of news every day to save Jamaati leaders.--FreemesM ^(talk) 14:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the problem with that.

1) Nowhere, in articles that I've read, has M.R. ever stated that A.D. is pro-BNP. In all of his statements about the purpose of A.D., he stands against corruption, for the people and makes statements negative of the A.L. Therefore, opposition is a good fit, especially in a BLP lead.

2) Other sources are the ones that call A.D. pro-BNP, and so I don't think the references actually support this being up top.

3) The Jamaat may speak approvingly of some A.D. content but I've never seen anyone yet say the A.D. was a Jamaat mouthpiece and if they do are they reliable? (Detractors are not reliable). Crtew (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please, do not engage in edit war. No matter M. R. says or not, I have provided valid reference, which says M.R. and A.D. is pro BNP-Jamaat. I think your Bangladeshi friends may mislead you. It is not BLP vio and it doesn't fall under WP:BLPREMOVE. So your removal is not legal.--FreemesM ^(talk) 15:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not an edit war. This is a BLP and your source does not verify your point. Crtew (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It fits BLP because what you're saying is "contentious material" and you're not meeting WP:Verify standards.Crtew (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how your sources verify that this is a Jamaat paper or show me where M.R. has ever said his newspaper is a BNP paper. Or let's bring in an outsider to help. Crtew (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to add that the last you added was an editorial. That's not a reliable source. If what you're saying is true, then it should be said in many places that the Amar Desh is Jamaat. That's not the case. It is said frequently that it is a BNP leaning paper, but AR has never said that, as I far as I've seen. Can you show me sources that state this otherwise? Crtew (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

[5] and [6] these sources clearly says that AD is Pro BNP-Jamaat newspaper. If you think my references show AD as Pro BNP newspaper, then do you remove both BNP-Jamaat from the lead and keep allegation against Awami League? Doesn't your move seems biased? Please stop edit warring.--FreemesM ^(talk) 15:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Again this is not an edit war, but you can't put out material that is not verified, that is contentious and disputed and is in a BLP. Please read the source from bdnews24 because it doeesn't say that at all. The headline says that but the content shows other newpapers in the plural. Nowhere does it say that AD is Jamaat! The other source is not valid as it's an editorial and unreliable.Crtew (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Show me one article that MR says what he is doing is publishing a newspaper that is supportive of the BNP. Crtew (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice that I'm not deleting BNP below as others call it a BNP leaning newspaper. People do not call this a Jamaat leaning newspaper, although he has published content that is probably welcomed by them. That doesn't make it a Jamaat newspaper. Crtew (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

How do you think M.R. will say that he is Pro BNP-Jamaat? You are acting totally irrational. According to which policy [7] is not reliable source?

(Off topic: can you explain, in Nizamul Haque'a article you were presenting him as Pro Awami League. Did he ever said that he is Pro Awami League? Then why do you taking double stander?)

I'll give you more reference about M.R.'s Jamaat involvement. Before that please restore his BNP identity in lead.--FreemesM ^(talk) 15:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The article that you show clearly says that Sangram and Naya Diganta are pro-Jamaat. You may be confused as the sentence is in the compound form and says X wants M.R. arrested and X wants Sangram and Naya Diganta banned followed by ", which are known to be pro-Jamaat". Grammatically the last parenthetical is restrictive and intended only for the latter part of the statement in the compound form. In this form just because the B part of the sentence is "pro-Jamaat" doesn't mean the A part of the sentence is. Please read that closely.Crtew (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason editorials are not used is that they are not intended to be neutral sources (WP:Neutral). News stories are checked for accuracy while editorials allow for greater freedom on the part of the author as a principle of Fair Comment.Crtew (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What about this source?

The protesters had submitted a memorandum to the Bangladesh Home Minister Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir on Tuesday, demanding immediate arrest of Mahmudur Rahman, acting editor of the pro-Jamaat and pro-BNP newspaper Amar Desh for disseminating “malicious propaganda” disparaging their movement. Following the killing of blogger Ahmed Rajib Haider on February 15, allegedly by Islamist militants, the Bangla newspaper ran a series of reports that the Shahbag protesters were conducting an anti-Islamic campaign, provoking a section of the Islamist parties to create violence and anarchy across Bangladesh. The war crimes tribunal being set to deliver the third verdict on Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, a major suspect, Jamaat-e-Islami has called for a nationwide dawn to dusk shutdown on Thursday.

I think it is fair enough to state him as pro BNP_Jamaat editor. He is covering himself just as an editor, but all the news sources said that he is Pro BNP-Jamaat. Please restore his bnp-janaat identity.--FreemesM ^(talk) 16:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it's weak because the paragraph is mostly giving the point of view of the protesters that they see it as pro-BNP and pro-Jamaat. What about a neutral statement to that effect? I doubt if you could find such a statement before the ICT and the Shahbag protests when the trouble between Awami League and AD was heated in 2010. We both agree that AD is BNP leaning. We only disagree on the strength of that statement. But if you're going to base pro-Jamaat on one newspaper story or on quotes from the newspaper's detractors, then I disagree. It should be found all over the place like BNP has been and it should be found before the ICT and Shabagh and by neutral sources. It's not in anything that I looked at.Crtew (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems no reference is enough to you as you have pre-mindset. Why does your google gather only partial news about M.R.? Why don't you get any negative statement about M.R., when it is available in web? from previous discussion it is clear that AD is pro BNP-Jamaat newspaper and M.R. is also pro BNP-Jamaat. So, I am restoring my edit.--FreemesM ^(talk) 17:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please assume Good Faith. I've explained my reasoning to you and given you relevant policy. For you to make a statement like you want in the lead, then it better be very good. You have not explained why your point is verified and reliable when there is nothing in a statement from M.R. or when there are other long term sources making only a connection with the BNP. Please do not make tendentious edits. Use your reasoning. As a suggestion why don't you add some of the points you want to in the main body of the section Amar Desh? Crtew (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I am now bring in someone form outside to negotiate this. Until then, since it is a BLP issue, this will be reverted.Crtew (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to keep this article in biased condition as far you can. Who is requested to solve this issue?--FreemesM ^(talk) 18:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This is now listed at WP:3O. Until then, I would request you please refrain from making statements that could be interpreted as bad faith and directly about other users.Crtew (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The term "opposition" has been used by various NGOs and foundations that have served as independent, neutral, and outside observers.

Article 19 quote: "Acting-editor Rahman worked as an energy advisor to the previous Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and the Bangladesh National Party, who were in government from 2001 to 2006. Since the Awami League came to power in 2006, Amar Desh has aligned with the opposition, and staff have been charged with more than 20 counts of criminal defamation."

Ok, Sir Tew! my bad. Lets see some news about this angel M.R. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. If you can read Bengali script, you can read www.amardeshonline.com and you will see how bullshit it is. It spreads hate speech against shahbag protesters and label them as atheist as, fundamentalist group can hunt them down. It justifies the killing of Rajib hayder and and make people angry [13] [14] [15]. these news is enough to insight his real identity.--FreemesM ^(talk) 19:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you create a section called controversies! You've got some good material here. Crtew (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that besides the article from The Hindu where Shahbag protesters call AD a Jamaat newspaper, none of the others say this. If they do say political affliation, then it's BNP leaning.Crtew (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to quote from what I said above: We both agree that AD is BNP leaning. We only disagree on the strength of that statement. Do you agree? My problem with the Jamaat label is that it's recent and always comes from or is paraphrased or quoted from non-neutral sources. The neutral newspapers you use above like the bdnews24 or CNN don't make this Jamaat claim.Crtew (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

See how AD spread false news [16]. This news does not mention the name of AD to avoid any legal action. But I know the truth. This whole article is needed to be rewritten. The whole article is written in fan points of view and blaming Awami league. Dear Sir Tue, I think you are misleaded by few Jamaati activists, who are trying to bias wiki articles. If you want, I can provide you true info from Bengali news papers. Please don't make used yourself by few supporters of war criminals.

You may know that BNP and Jamaat are political ally. I can provide you more info about it's Jamaat involvement. Before that you recognize that AD is Pro BNP news paper, then why don't you add it on lead?--FreemesM ^(talk) 19:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've already read that story earlier. The reason the Daily Star doesn't mention names is so that whoever is targeted in publication would sue them for libel quite easily in Bangladesh. The Star's piece could have been better if press laws allowed for more free expression and truth was a defense, which it is not in Bangladesh. But my real point here is that since the Daily Star doesn't mention names, you can't fill in the blanks by Wikipedia's policy. I know exactly what paper is being mentioned there and so do you (I know)! But it's not in black and white and so it is absolutely unusable here.Crtew (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting you to use it on wikipedia. I'm trying to expose the reale AD and MR to you. Whatever, why don't you put Pro BNP on lead? Both of we are agreed on this issue.--FreemesM ^(talk) 20:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

How about this wording: "is the editor and owner of a leading opposition, and BNP-leaning Bengali, daily newspaper"?

Opposition means being against government doesn't applicable here. If you can read Bengali script, then read AD on their web site. You will be clear why I am saying it is a Pro BNP-Jamaat news paper. I have already provided sufficient references which describe AD as pro BNP and few of them present it as Pro-Jamaati. I don't agree with the word "Opposition". If you are agree to replace the whole with Pro BNP, then it is ok.--FreemesM ^(talk) 20:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hay Crtew, you seems very sensitive about Jamaat, why?--FreemesM ^(talk) 20:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Even sources within Bangladesh like Bdnews24 say that AD is opposition. I'm not sensitive about Jamaat but I don't see it as a fact that is verified and by reliable sources. Crtew (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That opposition doesn't mean your version. It mean BNP is in opposition now, so as pro BNP news paper it is also opposition.--FreemesM ^(talk) 20:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but "Pro BNP" is not a neutral term where as "BNP leaning" means the AD content is generally aligned. Again M.R. has never said, as I far as I know, that AD is there to support the BNP. Since there is no direct statement that AD is synonymous with the BNP, and so it's not called the "mouthpiece" as is more typical for the Sangram with Jamaat, I would like to keep BNP leaning.

Bin Laden never recognize himself as terrorist, as far I know.--FreemesM ^(talk) 21:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone called AD the mouthpiece for the BNP?Crtew (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you use google?--FreemesM ^(talk) 12:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Freemesm asked me on my talk page for to look at this. I am not going to get involved in the content dispute. My comments are relevant only to policies and guidelines. Looking at the article history, it looks like an edit war between Freemesm and Chad. From glancing at the above comments (I didn't read them thoroughly), it appears that Chad is claiming a BLP exemption. Without deciding whether the exemption applies, I would just remind Chad that many admins may not agree with you, i.e., it's a risk. Second, the lead doesn't comply with guidelines. A lead is supposed to summarize the highlights of the article. It should contain no information that is not already covered in the article, and it shouldn't need any references. This lead violates both of those mandates. You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with several points above that were said in a well meaning way but are not accurate.

• The lead "shouldn't need any references": Please explain why in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the point about citations is at the very top as point 2 right after format? I quote:

  The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.

• The issue here is that User:Freemesm wants a fact to be true but he cannot find many good reliable sources to meet verification standards. The only people who call Mahmudur Rahman a Jamaat are his enemies. All neutral observers call Amar Desh either an oppositional or BNP-leaning newspaper. If you write zebras are pink and not striped in the lead, then I bet you most editors at WP will delete that no matter how many times an editor wants to include it. Freemsm has yet to show me the sources, although he did find one where his enemies were calling him Jamaat and the journalist was paraphrasing them and he found an editorial, hardly neutral, that was obviously anti-Amar Desh.

• Reading the text above, I would warn Freemesm about Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox#Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

  Ok, Sir Tew! my bad. Lets see some news about this angel M.R. .... If you can read Bengali script, you can read www.amardeshonline.com and you will see how bullshit it is. It spreads hate speech against shahbag protesters and label them as atheist as, fundamentalist group can hunt them down. It justifies the killing of Rajib hayder and and make people angry ....these news is enough to insight his real identity.

He seems to think I'm pro BNP, which I am not. I could care less who is in power in Bangladesh. But the article is about a person who is "anti Awami League" and so it will naturally have in points to back this up. In fact, I would say, MR is more anti-Awami League than pro-BNP, but "opposition" is more neutral.

• WP:BLP challenged material that is unsourced: He is a living person and the policy is to "adhere strictly" to core policies like NP:V and NP:NPOV. The fact that cannot be verified and is hardly neutral and would likely, more than likely, be challenged when it enters mainspace.

  All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

• I agree that the lead could definitely be improved!Crtew (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Chad, WP:CITELEAD is not contrary to my point. The best leads have no citations because they don't need any.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've cleared all my points on Third opinion section.--FreemesM ^(talk) 12:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi. I saw a notice at WP:Third opinion that editors here wanted some input from a 3rd person. I'd be happy to help. Can both editors briefly summarize what their position is on this issue? Just post your brief comments below. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Noleander, Thanks for showing interest in this article. First of all, this article is arranged in fan's point of view. I went here to neutralize it by providing few info and reference. You can fiend Mahmudur Rahman and his Bengali daily's Pro BNP identity easily by searching over google by few key words (i.e. "BNP mouthpiece Amar Desh", "Pro BNP newspaper", "Pro BNP Jamaat Amar desh" etc.). I'm providing few of them.

• Earlier today, the Bangladesh police arrested the editor, Mahmudur Rahman of BNP mouthpiece Amar Desh.[17]
• Mahmudur Rahman, Acting Editor of pro-BNP “Amar Desh” has been implicated in five cases, accused of whipping up religious passions and incitement to cause public disorder.[18]
• Some BNP supporters, policymakers and its intellectual backers are showing strong reservation aboutKhaleda-Manmohan negotiations, which is exposed in a report of Amar Desh, aBNP-backed Bangla newspaper. The newspaper, which is believedto be BNP's mouthpiece, sharply criticized Khaleda Zia's foreign affairsadviser Sabihuddin Ahmed for his comment... [19]
• In the aftermath, the pro-BNP newspaper the Amar Desh published the content of those emails and private Skype conversation.[20]
• The former energy adviser to ex-prime minister Khaleda Zia rushed a news conference at the pro-BNP daily's office and said he had...[21]
• ...and the pro-BNP daily began publishing the transcripts two days later. [22]
• ...demanding immediate arrest of Mahmudur Rahman, acting editor of the pro-Jamaat and pro-BNP newspaper Amar Desh for disseminating “malicious propaganda” disparaging their movement.[23]
• A Bangladesh court on Wednesday jailed the editor of the mouthpiece of the Opposition BNP of ex-Premier Khaleda Zia...[24]

As he is the acting editor of daily Amar Desh, it also reflects his political position.

Now come to his Pro-Jamaati identity. You may know Jamaat is political allay of BNP. A trial for judging Bangladesh liberation war criminal is going on in Bangladesh. Jamaat is the party, who intentionally collaborated with Pakistan army and commit crimes against humanity at the time of war. Those war criminals are now leader of Jamaat. So it is obvious that they should brought under this tribunal. But BNP-Jamaat ally try to save those war criminals and also Mahmudur Rahman folly them.

• His news paper publishes unauthorized hacked Skype conversation in his paper. Which is a crime according to Bangladeshi privacy law. [25]
• It publishes false news to save war criminals. [26]
• the Bangla newspaper ran a series of reports that the Shahbag protesters were conducting an anti-Islamic campaign, provoking a section of the Islamist parties to create violence and anarchy across Bangladesh. [27]
• It publish newa by terming the spontaneous Shahbag protests as Fascism and say he will fight against it. Which is clearly Jamaati agenda. [28] [29]

I think it is enough to pottery him as Pro BNP-Jamaat editor. But my dear friend Crtew is not agree with me. Moreover his google can't fiend any negative info against MR! He is continuasly trying to bias this article by blaming Awami league and presenting MR as angel. You may check his recent edit to understand his motive. He don't even put a single sentence against MR and trying to replace Pro BNP-Jamaat with a light weight word BNP leaning, which is clearly lack of WP:Good faith. User:Bbb23 already express his concern about the crap lead of this article. As a experienced wikipedian he must know that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. He is very concern about putting blame words to Awami League and removing all negative words against MR, rather than make this article descent. I think I can clear my points. Thanks your time.--FreemesM ^(talk) 08:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Noleander, Thank you also for helping us. The issue is this, how do we characterize the newspaper Amar Desh on the political spectrum?

Crtew: I am for the term opposition, and the newspaper is slanted toward the Bangladesh National Party but it is not a puppet of the BNP party.

Freemesm: I hope to characterize him fairly -- he wants to get rid of the term opposition newspaper and wants Amar Desh to be called Pro-BNP and Pro-Jamaat.

1) Neutral, international human rights organizations call Amar Desh an opposition newspaper. Those are cited in article's lead.

2) If anything, Amar Desh is anti-Awami League in Mahmudur Rahman's own words. See his last quote in the Amar Desh section for an example. I'm not advocating that this term be used.

3) The majority of sources call Amar Desh a BNP-leaning newspaper, and a number of those are cited in the article in the Amar Desh section. Moreover, they have done this over time, which is important when I write about the more divisive label below.

4) To call Amar Desh a Pro-BNP party is to come as close as possible to calling it a "mouthpiece" of the party, which delegitimates the newspaper's independent editorial decisions and is a term frequently used in Bangladesh for this purpose. One cite given by Freemesm above shows that Amar Desh was critical of the party leader's India strategy.New Nation There are news sources that do call the newspaper Pro-BNP.

5) To date Freemesm has not produced a single, neutral source to show that Amar Desh is Pro-Jamaat. All the cites he gives are from political opponents or from journalists who paraphrase opponents (like The Hindu quote). Notice too that these are all recent from the war crimes trial period as it is tied to events of the last 2 years. Unlike the Pro-BNP label above, Pro-Jamaat has a different meaning in Bangladesh. Jamaat is one of partners in the BNP's opposition coalition. The Jamaat party is at the center of the nation's controversy about the war crimes trials from acts committed in 1971 and the target of the Shahbag protests that started in early February. The protesters want those former Jamaat who have been convicted to be executed, a ban on the political party, and now the arrest of Mahmudur Rahman because he and The Economist (UK) published leaked Skype calls that caused the lead justice in the trials to resign, which the protesters call a seditious act on Rahman's part. To call Amar Desh Pro-Jamaat is to link the newspaper to the protesters' demand for the party's ban and to advocate the newspaper be shut down, which Wikipedia should not be doing.

6) For the record, I am not a fan, I am not anti-Awami League, I am not pro-BNP or pro-Jamaat, and I do not care who is in power in Bangladesh. I'm interested in journalism, period. The article is about an anti-Awami League newspaper owner and editor, and the Awami League has used both the legal system and its power to close the newspaper down -- unsuccessfully so far. The content reflects this. There are other journalists who have been targeted by the Awami League or by Bangladesh's International Crimes Tribunal, and I have been writing about those journalists. This says nothing except that I'm interested in journalism.

7) The best thing for a person to do in Wikipedia to make an article NPOV is to contribute content to show the other side. Why doesn't he just write a section about the criticism of Rahman from his opponents? He's got the research from excellent sources and he just summarize it in a brief form.

Finally, I apologize to both of you for the delay in responding but it couldn't be helped, Crtew (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay ... thanks for posting all that good information. Thanks especially for the sources. Let me read through them, and I'll post some questions. I'm pretty busy in real life, so it may take a day or two for me to get back to you. --Noleander (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being a third opinion. We both really appreciate your effort and I think we both want to come up with some solution to this. Crtew (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Freemesm made an error and mistook the date of the article announcing Rahman's arrest today. Actually that article is from the earlier June 2010 arrest. But honestly, I think everybody, even Rahman, is expecting that he's going to arrested yet again.Crtew (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok Noleander, take your time. But one more thing I want to add, I've added few news links above, just as sample. If you want, I can provide more. You may find them yourself by searching on google. You may find there a few news source, presenting Amardesh as anopposition. But that doesn't mean neutral and anti-government newspaper. It described as opposition as now BNP is the opposition party of current AL government. At last few words for Crtew, I want to believe that you are not "anti-Awami League, I am not pro-BNP or pro-Jamaat"(!). But prove it on your work. Thanks.--FreemesM ^(talk) 09:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Another important news link. Here in BBC, the clearly said "Mr Rahman is an ally of opposition leader Khaleda Zia". Khaleda Zia is prime leader of BNP and also leads the BNP-Jamaat allay.--FreemesM ^(talk) 10:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1. There are quite a few sources about MR, so we should limit ourselves to good quality newspapers, magazines & books. We should avoid blogs. See WP:Reliable sources.
2. It is best to use words and phrases that are directly from the sources. Editors should not choose new words that are not in the sources. So if the sources say "MR is fuzzy" the article cannot say "MR is furry". That applies to terms like "opposition" or "pro-BNP" or "anti-Awami League". Just say what the sources say. If there is no source that directly says that MR is "pro Jamaat" then the article cannot say that either. See WP:Original research for details.
3. If a source makes a statement, but an editor believes the source is wrong or misleading, the article should identify the source when it repeats the statement. For example: "Politician Joe Smith said that MR is anti-Awami League" is often better than "MR is anti-Awami League". See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for details. Also, if there are any sources which present an opposing view, they should also be included immediately following the first source. See WP:BALANCE.
4. The wording in the article must be very professional, very unbiased; write like they do in a great encylopedia like Encyclopedia Britannica. The names of the sections should be very neutral and should not include words like "Controversy", "Criticism", "Pro-xxxxx" or "Anti-xxxx". See WP:CRITICISM. The section names should identify an event or topic, such as "2010 arrest", "Political views", "Editorial stance" etc. The article looks like it is doing that already.

I'm looking at the edits made to the article in the past few days, and it looks like the article is getting fuller and more detailed. The article is starting to paint a good portrait of MR, and readers are benefiting from recent improvements to the article. It appears that both editors are following WP policies well. Maybe the next step here is to pick a specific sentence or paragraph of the article that I can help with. Can one of you suggest a specific issue/sentence that is still a concern? --Noleander (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

1. I think links I've provided are "good quality" and no blog was cited.

2. All the sources I've provided say that AD and MD both are Pro-BNP and Mouthpiece of BNP.

3. As shahbag protester says MR is Pro-Jamaati, then it should also be included.

4. Agree with this point.

Dear Noleander, if you see the history of this article before 13th March of 2013, you may see that was totally biased. After I that and start discussion on talk page, Crtew start changing the whole article. I don't know, why he didn't do it before. Still now there are many scope to improve this article. First of all the lead should be modified. Till now I don't participate much on this article, as I was waiting for your opinion. I think I can start editing now with full effort. It will be better If you keep this article on your watch list, if do anything wrong, please leave me a message. Thanks.--FreemesM ^(talk) 07:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it sounds like editors are making good progress here. Regarding the Lead: I suggest that you wait on that. The WP:LEAD guideline says that the lead is supposed to summarize the whole article. It is always best to write the article body first (everything except the lead). Then write the lead when the body is finished. Please post a note on my Talk page if there are any questions I can help with. --Noleander (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead and BLP issues?

The lead is NO longer neutral. It also places a relatively minor event into some grand important happening by moving it to the lead. I'm not really sure where this article is heading anymore.Crtew (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. The "private party" quotation doesn't appear in either of the given sources. One of the two sources doesn't even mention the meeting being discussed here. The second source mentions Rahman in only two sentences of a much longer article. Freemesm, I'd suggest seriously slowing down here. Edits on Wikipedia require reliable sources, and it's important to give information it's due weight per the policy WP:UNDUE. Blowing these two sentences from an online newspaper into a paragraph of the lead is seriously disproportionate; I'm not sure they even belong in the body of the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

To put this in perspective, the news database Highbeam has 722 articles discussing Rahman. (Some of these may be other "Mahmudur Rahman"s, I suppose, but in a random sample I checked, all seemed to be about him.) Highbeam does not have a single article about the November 2006 meeting that I can find. Freemesm, I also don't know why you immediately ignored Noelander's advice to not use "controversy" in a section title. For now I've removed this whole section as undue. Maybe a passing mention of this can be restored when the rest of Rahman's life is fleshed out, but as Crtew says, it seems like an extremely trivial incident in the sources about him. It definitely doesn't need a full section with a level-2 header. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I also removed an addition to the infobox list of "criminal charges". This appears to have been a complaint filed against him by protesters in which there has been no conviction.

• Instigating the religious sentiments of the people to create chaos.
  

This article seems to me to have developed serious BLP problems very quickly. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I also removed the sedition charge for which there seems to have been no conviction. While significant enough for the article, I'm not sure the charge belongs in the infobox without context, especially in the same section as a conviction. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Khazar2, thanks for joining in this discussion. I've something to say about your recent edit on this article. Past few days me and Crtew were discussing to come to consensus to edit this article. Until Nolander's 3rd opinion I never actively edit anything here. Both me and Crtew are trying to make this article balanced. After Nolander's 3rd opinion, I've started editing. It takes my whole day to find and adding reference. But it is very unpleasant to see that all my edits are vanished without any notice from an wikipedian, who was not involved here earlier. Please answer few of my questions.

• 1. Sufficient references were provided for so called "private party", why do you remove it both from lead and body? You may ask me for more references.
• 2. Which policy on WP says Highbeam is the only source to verify any statement?
• 3. Which policy on WP says only charges with conviction should be enlisted in infobox?

I'm going for a day vacation and will join with you tomorrow. Now I'm reverting your edits as you can't remove sourced material. According to WP:NPOV's Achieving neutrality section you can't just remove sourced material by saying biased. If you understand my points, I think we will reconstruct this article to a good article. Another point is WP:UNDUE doesn't contradict with my edit, as it says "...all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources...". All the sources I've provided are reliable according to WP:RELY. Please don't engage in edit war without discussion. Have you seen that in lead you have removed negative info about MR, but overlook the unusually large description of Human Rights Defenders, is not it very interesting? --FreemesM ^(talk) 05:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Khazar2 about removing accusations/arrests from the InfoBox. The WP:BLP policy suggests that criminal accusations (without conviction) are best presented in an article, if at all, in the body, where context & balancing material can be included. The InfoBox should only include notable convictions.

As for the Lead, it is best if the lead remain brief and neutral. The lead should only contain information that is also in the body. Details like "the UK human rights group Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders has reported that the editor has faced ongoing judicial harassment" are probably better in the body. After getting the body in great shape: if harassment is a major issue in the sources, then the lead can mention it ... but even then the lead should mention it in a more generic way, as in "Human rights groups have stated that MR has been harassed by representatives of the ruling political party".

Regarding the material "Rahman was accused for hosting a secret meeting for the purpose of ensuring the BNP's victory in the election..." ... that seems like good material for the body of the article if it is supported by reliable sources. It does not look like a BLP violation, since readers would not interpret as a slight on MR's character, but instead as an instance of harassment. Freemesm: Can you check the external link for source: "'Secret' meet of admin big wigs at ex-energy adviser's office". The Daily Star (Bangladesh). 2006/11/25." ... that link is not working for me. We need to be able to look at the sources. Khazar2: What do you think of the source "Secret Talks Deepen Bangladesh Crisis". Arab News. 2006-11-27."? --Noleander (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the Arab News source is fine. And FreemesM, nobody's saying that Highbeam is the only source in the world. But it's notable that a database with hundreds of articles on Rahman from different newspapers doesn't appear to mention this incident once, while you've positioned it in the article as the biggest incident of his life--the only one to get a full section, and the only one discussed in detail in the lead. This suggests to me that you had to scrape a bit to find coverage of this, which is why we're relying on an online news source and a Saudi Arabian newspaper I'm encountering for the first time instead of well-respected media like Al Jazeera, the Associated Press, the BBC, the Times of India, etc. All of which have covered Rahman, it appears, but not this incident you're interest in.

What I'd suggest would be less a top-down approach to this article than a bottom-up one. Instead of deciding what should be emphasized in the article and then hunting out sources to support it--criminal charges, a secret BNP meeting--look at a range of major sources and see what those sources emphasize about Rahman. His time as energy advisor is clearly notable broadly--including being burned in effigy by protestors [30]--as is his arrest for sedition for involvement with an Islamist party after publishing a story about government corruption.[31]

As for the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, I don't care if that specific quotation stays in the lead, but I think something should stay in the lead about how human rights groups have accused the govt. of harassing him; there's hardly a human rights group in the world that hasn't weighed in on his behalf at this point--Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, RSF, OMCT, FIDH, etc.

For now I've removed the criminal charge section, which the outside editor Noelander agrees is a BLP issue. Noelander, can you weigh in on the undue issue so the lead can be cleaned up? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Also went ahead and changed the specific reference to the Observatory to "human rights groups" generally per Noelander's suggestion. Feel free to continue to tweak. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

@Khazar2: You asked about whether WP:UNDUE policy was being violated: I really don't have enough information yet to assess that. I agree with your "bottom up" suggestion: editors need to continue finding sources, and collating them. Discard the poor sources. Of the remaining good sources: how many emphasize the harassment? How many discuss his anti-ruling-party views? How many discuss his arrests? Only when all that is known, can UNDUE issues be assessed. For instance, if more that half of all sources that discuss MR in the context of "he is opposed to the ruling party, and the ruling party is harassing him in retaliation" ... then that should definitely be in the lead. What is he most known for? His early political career? His newspaper editing? Just glancing at the atricle: it sounds like he's been trapped in his workplace for awhile (?) if so, that seems like a pretty big deal. In any case: follow the sources. --Noleander (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the reason I listed the results of that Highbeam search (which includes some specifically Bangladeshi sources), and searched a few other major media about Rahman (Al Jazeera, the Associated Press, the BBC, the Times of India) was to prove this point; I'm not sure what more I can say. It wasn't discussed at all that I could find, though I turned up hundreds of results. Even searching Google specifically for "Mahmudur Rahman" and "secret" and "meeting" got me few results from reliable sources. In short, I already did a lot of resaerch on this and it seemed like evidence enough to me that this is not the central incident of Rahman's life, as its prominence in the lead currently suggests. If you have search methods you prefer, though, I'm game to try those, too.

What's really needed here is for someone to write large parts of this article almost from scratch, unfortunately, tracing the energy debates Rahman was involved in in 2005-06 and the protests against him, noting the "secret meeting" in passing, and moving through the many charges against Rahman and his paper in the 2008-2013 period (which do appear to be the focus of most of the sources)--defamation, hate speech, sedition, association with an Islamist party, etc.--and his becoming a cause for Western human rights groups. Non-Bangladeshi media does appear to have focused on the judicial harassment angle (E.g., CNN, BBC) from what I've found so far. Bangladeshi media is harder for me to generalize about, as the coverage appears more partisan on both sides; the one paper I'm familiar with, The Daily Star (Bangladesh), appears to be all dead links this week. The online newspaper FreemesM quotes above could be good for a more critical view, though I think it would be wise to run it by WP:RS/N to verify it's a reliable source first. (I have no specific reason to distrust it, but I like to double-check with online sources.)

Anyway, since two editors (myself and Crtew) have objected to this being the central point of the lead, I'm removing it again for now until told otherwise. If it's later determined that this is, in fact, the defining moment of Rahman's life that FreemesM wants it to be, we can restore it to that level of prominence in the article.

Maybe on Monday I'll be able to give this a top-to-bottom expansion drawing on more sources, but I also have some work on Nelson Mandela I've been putting off, so I can't make any promises for when I can get to it. In any case, thanks for agreeing to help with the discussion, your efforts are much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Doing another search just now, I did find a copy of that Arab News article that attributes it to Reuters.[32] I'm more persuaded that the secret meeting is worth including in the body if an international news agency covered it. (Not that national news is never worth covering, but the stuff that's "heard round the world" obviously takes precedence.) I may substitute this citation later so that Reuters gets proper credit. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Star was hacked last week and the newspaper's open access archive is down. It is a major newspaper in Bangladesh and it is available through other sources.

Several points I couldn't respond to in the last few days

• The career section is really taking off!!! Great work Khazar2
• The same source Bdnews24 calls Amar Desh BNP-leaning and Pro-BNP on the same day. Why don't we just go with something like BNP-aligned?
• There's no reason to put the political connection of the newspaper in the Infobox with a reference, especially when his politics are clearly spelled out in the party category. The conviction, political party, religion, ethnicity, are part of a group of items that need citations in the infobox if they are included per instructions. See "template:infobox person"
• I wouldn't call bdnews24 unreliable. Like most papers in Bangladesh, it has its own angle.
• A title without the word "Controversy" in a Mahmudar Rahman article -- :) -- That could be a real challenge!
• About the political charges against Rahman. It is important to bring up the charges against him and the sedition charge that was already brought up in December, even if he's not convicted, because he is currently holed up in his office to force the system to enter his newspaper's offices to arrest him.Crtew (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! I'm hoping to just work my way through various news databases in chronological order to flesh this one out. Once we've got all the major events in the article it'll be a lot easier to bring this into balance. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it relevant to have large discription about Amardesh here

There is another article named Amar Desh. Why should we keep a lard description about Amar desh here? when it is more than the description of Mahmudur Rahman. Moreover Amar Desh has very little content.--FreemesM ^(talk) 20:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. We could change the title of the section. What do you suggest? Newspapers and magazines normally have a separate article about them. I liked your idea of starting a controversies section as something separate for the types of issues you mention above.Crtew (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this part will be summarized, I'm not concern about section title. A large blaming part to AL is BLP vio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freemesm (talk • contribs) 20:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you add the negative information about him from the AL's and Shahbag protesters view under the tentative title controversies? Then let's see if we can organize it in a reasonable way. It looks like we can come to a reasonable compromise. Crtew (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking from AL's point of view. I'm just trying to make this article descent.--FreemesM ^(talk) 12:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Bangladesh election controversy

Some scope and context was lost between the current edit and this diff.[33] Crtew (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted Khazar2's edit. He raise the question about "bdnews24.com"'s reliability. I can remember earlier you recognize this source as more acceptable. Can you tell him that? Thanks.--FreemesM ^(talk) 05:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The diff Crtew provides seems to me like a much more reasonable version, though I would suggest merging it into the section "Career". The incident doesn't appear major enough to require an individual subsection. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

At the time of the meeting, I do not believe Rahman was part of government as the interim government had taken over. So I'm not sure if it would fit so neatly in career. I'm still trying to piece together the ownership of Amar Desh in 2008 and afterward. Rahman apparently bought it, listed another person as publisher and named himself "acting editor". It's confusing and gets even more confusing when the government used all of that information to pull his right to publish on technicalities. I think it might fit into this part of his chronology but I'm not sure.Crtew (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Rahman appears to have been involved in other controversies from the 2008 elections, which I've added a bare-bones synopsis of here and changed the header for all to a more concrete "2008 elections". -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Expansion of article

I've done a lot of work on this article in the last 24 hours, and I thought it might be helpful if I summarized my changes here in a broad way.

• significantly expanded "career" section to include announced accomplishments as well as controversies during tenure in government posts
• renamed and expanded 2008 elections section to cover some other accusations/controversies flying back and forth
• added a 2009 defamation suit
• added more detail on the sedition charges
• removed subsection header "Energy contracts controversy" to avoid slightly POV implication that his sedition charge was clearly linked to his anti-corruption reporting
• revised lead to give a fuller picture of career

I hope these changes will be acceptable to everyone. As I mentioned above, my approach here was simply to check databases and write about what was in the databases, and the result is what appears to be a roughly neutral account of what could be considered positive and could be considered negative about Rahman's career. It's not complete--I mostly worked up to 2010 and haven't checked more recent news as well, but will hopefully give a more stable skeleton for the article, to avoid either the press freedom incidents or election accusations to seem radically unbalanced in the overall picture. Let me know your thoughts! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Khazar, I just got in and took a look at your progress on adding pre-2010 material. Your work is excellent and has raised the quality of the article. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Khazar2, Great job! But you missed few points. In the lead you overlook his

• Extrimst Islamist group connection allegation.
• Publishing illegally hacked conversation of ICT justice.
• Publishing false news about bloger activists in 2013 Shahbag protests

Moreover I think his current position in Amardesh is more important than introducing him as former national energy adviser. I don't know why Crtew is too much sensitive about the word Pro-BNP, I have provided sufficient reference to support this word.--FreemesM ^(talk) 15:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I do mention that he was charged with sedition and terrorism in 2010 and 2012, so those aren't being left out. I'm not sure that it's practical to add the details of each, which would be difficult to write concisely.

As for "publishing false news", is that agreed on by all sides so that we can simply state it as fact, as you do here? In any case, since that's not even in the article yet, it's too soon to talk about adding it to the lead. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I added what I think is a balanced look at the charge--the protesters' accusation, the home minister's pledge to pursue it, Rahman's response. This is still very rough so feel free to tweak as needed. I added a phrase referring to the incident to the long list of charges against Rahman. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyedits

I don't want to do any more work on this article today for fear of approaching 3RR (after all the edits I've made in the last 24 hrs, I'm surely approaching), but I'm surprised by some of the re-arranging that's happening in the article. For example, the two sources for Energy Adviser Mosharraf Hossain's resignation have now been moved to a separate paragraph that doesn't mention Hossain, which seems a bit random. It was also deleted without explanation that Rahman condemned the AL strikers as well as the violence against them in 2004, which is a fairly important point. (That I did restore for fear that I wouldn't remember it later [34]). I think we also need a source for the new claim "Due to his business expertise, the government appointed Rahman as chair of the National Investment Board."

I'll take a more detailed look later and try to do another clean-up tomorrow, but if anyone else wants to look at it in the meantime, your eyes would be appreciated. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested fixes of the copyedit

Well, I have to say, I'm pretty frustrated. At this point, virtually every sentence has been rewritten and rearranged without any more explanation than "c/e", new unsourced information is getting tossed in, and the citations and prose of the article are getting seriously garbled. Hopefully this editor intends to do more work to clean this up before being done, but here's a list of some of the obvious fixes needed following this copyedit. I'm taking this off my watchlist for now to get a breather, but I'll probably check in again tomorrow to start the clean-up. In the meantime, here are the issues I see so I don't forget 'em while waiting for 3RR to pass.

• "The editor said that the Shahbag movement "nothing but fascism"" --not a complete sentence, should have a "was"
• "Following a June 2005 explosion at Niko Resources' Tengratila Gas Field in Sunamganj District, and accusations that Niko had bribed the Energy Adviser Mosharraf Hossain with an automobile, Hossain resigned."-- needs to be rejoined with its citations, which got added to the wrong paragraph
• "Rahman denied the charge, saying he was holding a "private party" for friends." -- needs to be rejoined with its citation
• "It replaced most of the top political appointees in government, as is customary." -- should probably be cited
• "Rahman was acquitted of the other charges, a verdict that was upheld by the Appeals Court." -- needs to be rejoined with its citation
• "On February 24, a spokesman for the protesters demanded Mahmudur Rahman's arrest on 24 February" -- duplication of date needs to be fixed--not sure why this was added a second time
• " had bribed the Energy Adviser Mosharraf Hossain" -- "the" needs to be deleted, or commas need to be put around the name
• "In a landmark action" -- no need to reword this so it's vaguer than the previous version; why not specify why it's a landmark (it's the first such sentence) and skip the judgement "landmark" entirely?
• The lead has gotten much longer than WP:LEAD recommends; for an article of this length, it should be summarizable in 2-3 paragraphs at most. I'll trim this back to a reasonable size tomorrow.
• while so much material is being added to the lead, why delete that negotiations from Cairn energy were successful?
• "Due to his business expertise, the government appointed Rahman as chair of the National Investment Board." -- needs citation
• "saying that such political violence threatened much-needed foreign investment" -- "and unrest" was deleted from this, making it unclear that Rahman was condemning the strikers as well as the grenade attack (or falsely suggesting that Rahman was calling the strike political violence). This seems to me a rather important point.

Okay, breather beginning now. Thanks all. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

All right; per WP:BRD, I've worked to preserve what seemed best to me out of the new draft while making the above corrections and a few others. Here's a diff. The biggest change was to the lead, where I reverted to a more compact version per the policy WP:LEAD. This version also seems more accurate to me, incidentally; it avoids the assertion that the contempt charge was a "landmark moment" for the court and avoids phrasing that implies that Rahman was the lead negotiator or decision -maker for the various energy events listed there. (The news, unfortunately, tends to just say that he "announced" changes, deals, etc., so I feel it's best to stick close to this phrasing.) I should add that some great changes were made with this last draft, too, and some embarrassing errors of my own were cleaned up. So I don't mean to seem all negative; I was just surprised by some of the changes being made. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I also changed back from "claimed" to "stated" per WP:WTA, which strongly discourages use of "claimed" [35]: "To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." Again, not sure why that change was made (unless for that very reason), but I think it's inarguably neutral to say that Rahman "said" or "stated" this. Those who are inclined to believe him, can; those inclined to disbelieve him, can. Hope these changes make sense. Glad to discuss further if anyone disagrees. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I also restored a source for the torture statement; this originally had three sources, all three of which were replaced by a dead link for some reason. I'll try to take another break from editing this one for a while but will keep an eye on talk if anyone wants to discuss. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Khazar, MR's statement in Bangladesh's International Crimes Tribunal section seems slightly BLP vio. As a Bangladesh I don't ever heard the name of "Daily Prime News". It is not a notable reference. This statement bias this section to blaming AL, rather than explaining his involvement with ICT conversation hacking incident.--FreemesM ^(talk) 12:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that may be an addition by Crtew; I'm not familiar with the source either and can't immediately speak to its value. As a broad point, I do think it's worth including some of Rahman's views and responses in detail, though, as the main subject of the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be summarized in 1 or 2 sentences. Could you please help to do that?--FreemesM ^(talk) 12:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

My preference would be to leave it, assuming this is found to be a sufficient source. (You might post at WP:RS/N to ask if this is a usable source for this purpose.) I do think it would be appropriate to add a response/denial/etc. from Awami League if a good one can be found. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

...and reverted again without explanation. I suppose I could run this down, but this article's already taken more time off of my other projects than I intended; I'm going to de-watch for a while but might check back in a few weeks to see how it came out. Good luck with continued work on it! Though we've all disagreed a bit here, it's been a pleasure working with everybody, and I'm glad the article's improving. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"Newspaper Carer" Section written in fan's point of view

The whole "Newspaper career" just worshiping Mahmudur Rahman.--FreemesM ^(talk) 17:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Specifics? -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

See below.--FreemesM ^(talk) 18:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Some questionable deletions

For some reason, FreemesM has been deleting more sourced information under policies that don't appear to apply--for example, I fail to see how this entire paragraph is original research per WP:OR, since it has obvious secondary sources for its information.[36] I'm also unclear why an interview with Rahman is an unacceptable addition to the external links section. Since the policy explicitly says these are sometimes permitted, simply linking to the policy is not an adequate explanation for your deletion. Can you clarify these points? -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As an experienced wikipedian you know this "Newspaper career" section is full of peacock terms and unusually large. And then according to these policy [37] and WP:VIDEOREF you cant add the youtube video on external link section. That youtube channel is not official channel of BDINN. So that is a copyright violated content and should not be linked on wikipedia.--FreemesM ^(talk) 18:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Well,WP:OR has nothing to do with "peacock terms" or being unusually large in size--can you clarify how see you the original research policy as allowing you to delete this sourced content?

Good call on the copyright concern, though; I appreciate your taking a moment to explain. Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Just take a look on that section, Chad trying to gather all evidence to show that MR was angel! Specially look at first 2 sentences--

"...From a list of about 1600 names, nine people were charged for war crimes, and one of those -- Mubarak Hossain -- was a current member of the Awami League party who had earlier switched parties.[64][65] Less than one month after Rahman was released from prison in 2011, a judge issued an arrest order for him and two other journalists on 28 March 2011 over a defamation case for the story, "Top Awami League leaders of Kotalipara and their relatives are on the war criminals’ list" (published 25 April 2010).."

clearly he did research on it. No one of the sources link these sentences and lots of blaming word to govt. make the article npov.--FreemesM ^(talk) 19:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence may be debatable (though at least some context is surely needed here to introduce the situation), but I'm not clear why you also deleted the next five sentences as "original research". Even the second sentence you give here appears clearly sourced to secondary sources clearly related to Rahman. Can you be more specific about what "blaming words" you see here? It would be more constructive, if possible, to point to phrases and sentences you don't like and propose alternative phrasings, rather than attacking Crtew's motives. Alternatively, are there statements from major figures/organizations about the case that you feel are being omitted, and could be added for balance?

The bottom-line point that I'm trying to make is that in what's obviously a controversial article, it would be helpful to clarify your thinking and seek middle ground on this page. Doing things like deleting a whole paragraph while noting a policy that only arguably applies to one sentence is just going to drag this out. Surely a mutually acceptable draft can be found. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Freemesm, You are wrong on so many counts:

1. Your subheads don't even pretend to be neutral. (POV violations.)

2. Where are these peacock terms? You deleted whole paragraphs to dispute terms? That's not even a believable reason. (These changes are undocumented and the material will be restored.)

3. There is nothing in the policy that you linked to about YouTube videos that says you can't link to them. Videos from the creators' channel and external links are alright. Go back and read policies. (Again poorly reasoned deletions and the link will be restored.)

The next several points are about how you lowered the quality of the article.

4. Find and show the policy on the length of a section. (Another poorly given reason.)

5. You provide so little context that an outsider is not going to understand what is going on. An encyclopedia needs to be written from the assumption that the average reader will bring little or no prior knowledge.

6. Do you know what flow is in writing?

7. You are accusing people of POV whereas your misuse of policy (POV, Peacock, Youtube) and your deletion of material does just that. Please tell us how your work here is NPOV?

Please explain how an article about a person who dislikes the Awami League is supposed to be written without presenting his views and actions about that party?

Your changes will be reverted for the above reasons.Crtew (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I triple checked and the link on the BDINN site points to the YouTube video in the external link. BDINN Crtew (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the arguable sentence(s) that were included for context.Crtew (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the copy that Freesms left us with after making multiple arguments that are not following policy, he was reverting most of the changes back to his version, including the POV violations in the non-neutral subheads. If you want to dispute the present copy that is fine with me, but let's talk about it here first and in a reasonable way. Crtew (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The quote from Rahman is from Prime Khobor, which also calls itself Prime News. The link to it is in Wikipedia if someone wants more than a name. If you want to add the name to the title in the source that would be fine, especially if it's causing confusion.Crtew (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Will reply you at night.--FreemesM ^(talk) 04:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• The next person to restore that linkvio will be reported for breaking WP:LINKVIO Darkness Shines (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, You do not know what you're talking about and you haven't been paying attention to the above: Ok, WP:LINKVIO is about copyright. READ the policy LINKVIO and tell us where it says a YouTube video cannot be used and for what reason. You have done this on other article, too, and never have given any proof of what you're talking about. Policy clearly says, "Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to CC-BY-SA or open-source content." Moreover, WP:YT says, "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page." I've already supplied (above) and before you deleted the link on the page, a link from Bdinn's own website to this YouTube link. If you check the other videos BDINN has on its site, they also point there. This is BDINN-created content, posted and linked to by BDINN and there is no copyright violation. Furthermore, the link does not violate a single point of either "Restrictions on linking" or "Links normally to be avoided." Therefore, your pointer to policy is empty of meaning and doesn't show that you have paid attention to detail. Since I have an ACTUAL argument and evidence, then onus is not on me, but it is on you, and your threat to report is EMPTY and BANAL given the context of this discussion above. Therefore, the link WILL BE restored until you can actually verbalize a real argument. Crtew (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Crtew's reasoning appears sound to me, and certainly seems to fulfill the low standard of "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work"; if BDINN themselves are linking to the YouTube copy, it's hard to believe they consider the copy to be copyright infringement.

That said, perhaps DarknessShines is half-right that a reasonable next step is to ask for an outside opinion at a relevant noticeboard as to whether this is WP:LINKVIO. Tempers are running high here, so it seems sensible to get an expert opinion rather than debate further with the same involved parties. But it would help reduce the drama quotient here if you think of that step as "getting another opinion about an obviously good faith edit" instead of "reporting" Crtew. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Crtew, sorry for late, I was too much busy and can't manage time to reply your essay!

See this diff it clearly potray why protesters at Shahbag are arguing arrest of MR. titling every section should make his position clear. But you bury all the criticisms of Mahmudur Rahman with other contents, including his interview, whis is not a notable newspaper in Bangladesh.

Again you put a YouTube video link on external link section. For your information, BDINN also not a well-known news agency in Bangladesh, moreover that video hosted on a persons channel, named "IbnMasud Ali". It is not clear whether it is official channel of "BDINN" or not. So it is clear violation of this policy, which says-

"...The creator of the video must be verifiable as an official channel for the source..."--FreemesM ^(talk) 16:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I already explained how you can verify it.Crtew (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

COPY FORK and POV FORK violations

Several long passages and an entire section of Mahmudur Rahman were copied to Amar Desh by User:Freemesm, which violates either type of copy fork and edit fork. Moreover, it's merging without proposing a merge. Furthermore, some of the copying was off focus for articles about publications and could still be BLP violations. These are described by Wikpedia as unacceptable forms of copying. Policy suggest that it is appropriate to discuss these types of issues here and reach consensus. Crtew (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Give me the corresponding policy link.--FreemesM ^(talk) 14:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A Mouthpiece

Freemesm keeps wanting to use the expression "mouthpeice". This is derogatory and POV. It doesn't matter if he can find it in a Google search used by newspapers that stand against it ideologically. It's blatant POV name calling. Crtew (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• WP:IMPARTIAL clearly says that the project doesn't take sides.

Calling it "mouthpeice" of Jamaat doesnot take any side, it is fact, which could be verified by hundreds of sources. [38] [39] [40][41][42][43] [44] [45] [46] [47].--FreemesM ^(talk) 16:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Mouthpiece is word that suggests name calling; it is a put down, and it is normally used as a dismissive phrase. Whatever you call it and no matter how many citations you find from sources from the other sides which want to put the newspaper in a box, it still requires the project to take sides. Instead of trying to pigeonhole a newspaper into a certain mold, why can't we just suggest a general direction in neutral language and let people make up their own minds? That's what neutrality is about. Crtew (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree that mouthpiece is certainly not a neutral word to describe a newspaper, regardless of affiliation. Applesandapples (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Why you are sensitive about explaining Sangram as Jamaat mouthpiece, whether hundreds of news source support it? Beside that you are very interested about explaining MR as victim of AL govt. Doesn't it seems a double standard?--FreemesM ^(talk) 08:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of the last comment. As for hundreds of news sources, a) I think that number is an exaggeration and b) it simply does not seem encyclopedic to use the word 'mouthpiece' when there are less partisan words available. Applesandapples (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The Third Night of Disruptive POV editing

Freemesm has once again struck with further POV edits. He deleted material that was properly sourced. Per WP:UNDUE, he moved lesser known facts into the lead. And he added language that violates WP:Impartial. He has been warned that any further disruptive editing to this article will result in an immediate report before administrators.Crtew (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Crtew, let me know from this diff

1. Whats wrong with 2006 secret meeting controversy section on lead? It is already in article body, why it's summery should not be in lead?
2. Why torture on Aminul Islam is relevant on this article?
3. Why Secular groups allegation against Mahmudur Rahman was removed from lead? It was properly [http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2013/04/11/mahmudur-rahman-arrested sourced}.
4. Why the allegation of his fundamentalist group Hizbut-tahrir connection was removed from lead? which was sourced with BBC news.

Why "In 2010 Rahman became the only person ever to be sentenced for contempt by the Bangladesh Supreme Court" should not be removed from lead? It is clearly POV word.

I think it will be better if we invite 3rd person for 3O. I have listed it on 3o notice board.--FreemesM ^(talk) 01:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Crtew, I have done nothing, which will disrupt development of this article. I just want to balance this article with allegation against MR, which was totally disappeared on lead! I removed the "In 2010 Rahman became the only person ever to be sentenced for contempt by the Bangladesh Supreme Court" word, as they are POV vio. The whole article needed to be rewritten by 3rd person as it's tone is very aggressive on Bangladesh govt. and court. I'm adding back the 2006 secret meeting controversy and Secular groups allegation. If you think the tone is not undue, the rewrite this, but don't remove the whole.--FreemesM ^(talk) 02:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Crtew just remove source material from lead by saying "WP:UNDUE", but WP:UNDUE says "..fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.". I don't know why he did it. I'm requesting again not to engage in edit war and wait for 3o.--FreemesM ^(talk) 06:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You are clearly edit warring on a BLP as this has gone on for three days. Moreover, you've been warned and you keep making the exact same edits after they have been pointed out as problematic. This is war like attitude. First, the material you want to remove about him being the only person ever to have been sentenced for contempt by the Supreme Court is verified, it is a major incident (requiring him to go to prison), and it is lead worthy. Note that other editors have gone over this and they didn't remove it as it has been there from early on. Next, the material you included about the Shahbag was too closely paraphrased and under WP:CloseParaphrase should be reverted immediately. Do not copy wording directly from news articles. And then also Rahman played only a minor role in the 2008 elections and while that incident is negative, that's not the reason for it to be in the lead or not be in the lead, but it is putting undue emphasis on some thing that is less important. On to the next point, the way you are simply moving material from below to above, makes it difficult for readers to understand what they are reading when they would get to that point lower in the article and there would be a logical break -- as if something were missing. Why is this happening? You're making edits based on POV decisions and not for the flow and betterment of the article. You've been repeatedly warned. The article is being reverted. I'm leaning more towards reporting you for edit warring. Crtew (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You have an axe to grind and as policy says, you can leave that at home. The material you published on reliable sources with this diff is quoted below [48]. Your post doesn't so much reflect on the source but on your agenda. Note how you've confused the responder.:

Quote from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (section):

Is this a reliable source to use a BLP article to defame the court?--FreemesM ^(talk) 17:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be a reliable source - a real magazine, and not just a blog. The statement from Rahman's attorney printed in that source is sufficient for the purpose it is being used for in the article - that Rahman claims that he was tortured by police. I am at a loss to understand why you think that is defaming the court. Fladrif (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Fladrif, this part seems odd to me In Bangladesh it is very common practice to claim torture by police at custody, specially for political persons. More over the whole article seems biased to me. As there are few good reason to capture MR, as he was spreading religious instability by publishing fabricated news. But most of the article is engaged in blaming government! That's why I want to check the authenticity of the sources. Thanks again.--FreemesM ^(talk) 19:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

End quote from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (section)

Crtew (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Crtew, first of all you are trying to take control on this article. It is not according to wiki policy. I have requested for 3o, but you are moving very fast! Seems you are thinking that you are the only expert who know everything about MR! 2008 election conspiracy is a notable incident in MR's life, which clarifies his involvement to manipulate 2008 election by engaging senior govt. official. It has sufficient source, even it has a separate section in article body.

A quick search for MR's defemation campaign produce these links [49] [50], which says--

...Several news reports cited one February 22 article published in Amar Desh as an example of the pro-opposition paper's inflammatory coverage of the secular or self-described atheist bloggers, who have been instrumental in amplifying support for the Shahbagh movement, reports said. The article, headlined "Bloggers committing contempt of religion and court," criticized the bloggers and called them "enemies of Islam" and their work "vulgar, objectionable propaganda." The Amar Desh stories come amid a time of heightened political and religious tension in the country. Leaders of the Shahbagh movement said Rahman had "whipped up religious passion against bloggers and online activists" and should be arrested, according to news reports. Islamists then vowed further violence if the editor, who they called a "soldier of Islam," was taken into custody, the reports said.

Besides questioning the neutrality of the tribunals, the newspapers published a series of reports criticising the Shahbagh movement, which began on February 5 to demand capital punishment to war criminals. To defame the movement, the newspaper reproduced derogatory contents about Islam and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), which different groups seemingly linked to the war crimes accused blamed the Shahbagh organisers for.

These clearly show how he defame Shahbag protesters by using religion. Then whats the problem with
"Secular groups alleged Mahmudur Rahman as the moving force behind the disinformation campaign against bloggers and online activists leading 2013 Shahbag protests." but the source states
"Secular groups have alleged that Mahmudur Rahman has been the driving force in the campaign against the Shahbagh’s Ganajagaran Mancha that seeks capital punishment for convicted war criminals. They allege he whipped up religious passions, portraying the Mancha as a ‘bunch of atheist bloggers’ and demanded his arrest."
They are not similar in word by word. If you think they are similar, then why don't you rephrase them? Why you are continuously remove them?--FreemesM ^(talk) 07:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me but when I did try to correct your too close paraphrasing earlier, you reverted my changes. Maybe you didn't notice. Crtew (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't see that the above lines you posted are too close paraphrasing? Crtew (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Really? I saw you just remove that part! Whatever, I've changed the phrasing. Check it.--FreemesM ^(talk) 08:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Both items that you seem to think are so noteworthy are based on "this person said-that person said" disputes, while all the other information in the lead are facts. 1) In 2013 Shahbag leaders says MR was creating hysteria by publishing stories about their bloggers, while Amar Desh reporters say they were just publishing what bloggers had written. 2) The Awami League says MR was having a "secret meeting", while he says he was holding a "private party." (That and it was a one day news item in a troubled election cycle that saw more problems over who was the proper caretaker.) For the latter this indicates WP:Undue, inserting items "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." There is a way to save your 2013 Shahbag remark and make it a fact and not present it as a "this person said-that person said" approach, but that's not how you have approached it. Of course, it would mean presenting it in more neutral fashion. Based on your continual disruptive editing, I'm not sure that's what you want.Crtew (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't agree with you. bdnews24.com is one of the oldest and considered neutral online newspaper. See this article, name -- "Always in headlines". It portrays actual MR and his life history. This is actual MR, not the angle, which you created on this article. Don't know why you are providing more emphasis on blaming government rather than portraying MR. May be your friend mislead you. Beside that according to WP:Undue you must put all the opinions about the subject. So what is the problem with "this person said-that person said"?

You are relating following sentence on this article-

"Another Bangladeshi torture victim, Aminul Islam, later recalled how he had been threatened around that time by the Bangladesh's National Security Intelligence while also in custody: "They showed me a bloodied carpet and said that they would injure me like Mahmudur Rahman."[69]"

It is clearly a WP:OR. It was added to just defame government. I can't get any media coverage stating same thing. I think it is not sufficient to add it on this article. Please self revert it with WP:Good faith.--FreemesM ^(talk) 12:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Lead rewrite

A major contributing factor to the problems we're seeing over this article has to do with the bloated lead that has developed over time. Based on my conflict with Freemesm, I would suggest that we ask Khazar2 or Parkwells to rewrite a reduced, sharper version that sums up the important points.Crtew (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason I nominated these two is that both of them have made significant contributions to the article. See contributions.Crtew (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

After long time I'm agreeing with you. But I want the whole article should be re-written. My preference is User:Parkwells.--FreemesM ^(talk) 12:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your endorsements; I will try to help this weekend. Am not sure if I can take on the whole article at this point, as am deep in other projects, but will do what is possible.Parkwells (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks dear Parkwells.--FreemesM ^(talk) 12:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The Lead is supposed to be an overview. Recommend deleting this sentence from the Lead - not necessary and not accurate, according to the source, which notes the issue in Britain, but does not call this case "Bangladesh's version". That's an overstatement and a conclusion not in the source. Have deleted: "The case has been called Bangladesh's version of the British News International phone hacking scandal.". Also, recommend deleting from the Lead: Paragraph about the 2006 secret meeting - it may have been considered important at the time, but is part of political maneuvering, and too hard to make sense of for the general reader without more detail, which is inappropriate in the Lead. Belongs in the body.Parkwells (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I want to say something about "2006 secret meeting" issue. Actually it indicates why AL government goes critical to MR. Moreover a section is in the article, explaining the incidence. As lead explains the summary of the article, so that is issue should be in lead as summary.--FreemesM ^(talk) 13:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

As a secondary note, the lead is far too long for a mid-size article; WP:LEAD calls for leads of no more than four paragraphs even for the longest articles, which this isn't. Can we get this down to three paragraphs? It also needs someone to proofread it. I'll make a few of these tweaks now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I edit conflicted as I was trying to restore the torture sentence that Freemesm deleted before the drafting gets started. I hadn't noticed its absence since he deleted it last. My further suggestion (see below for process) is that a template be placed on so we know that an editor is working on it. That would prevent edit conflicts if new info arises.Crtew (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree that three paragraphs at most should be the goal, which means not a lot of detail and summary is needed. Crtew (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Moved paragraph ( I wrote this before in a section before I noticed the conversation was up here.):

Can we break this into steps? Rewriting the whole article from lead to bottom in one fell swoop would be excessive and hard to manage (not to mention the pressure on the person who has to do it). For sure, such an effort would take much longer than predicted. My fear also is that it would possibly end in much wasted effort and frustration. At this point, I think the lead should be rewritten. Then we should discuss the lead. I would suggest we follow a similar model in chronological order if more change is needed.Crtew (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

My opinion, as lead represent the summary of whole article, then we should rearrange the whole article rather than lead at first. After rewriting the article, we should take a look on lead. Then it will be reasonable to decide how long the lead should be.--FreemesM ^(talk) 16:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Rewriting the whole before the lead could be counterproductive. The basic facts are already out there. We're not going to discover too much that is new. The advantage to the current plan is that rewriting the lead allows us to better manage the rest of the content afterwards and stay focused.

I suggest that once Parkwells rewrites and Khazar2 reviews, then we discuss it. Nothing new should be added to the lead section by anyone else until they say they are finished. Also let's not comment on the process until it is completed and the discussion is opened. Crtew (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't agree with you. From the beginning I said about rewriting this article, as too much emphasis was given here on defaming BD govt and to present MR as angle! I think you are trying to keep your biased edits untouched! If we focus only on rewriting lead, the article should be remain disputed and biased.--FreemesM ^(talk) 16:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Am only taking on the Lead right now, and agree it is too long. It can't cover everything. I think the 2006 meetings paragraph should be deleted, for reasons already noted bove.Parkwells (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please manage time to c/e "April 2013 Arrest" and "Reaction to arrest" section? I am not agree with you in 2006 controversy. Without that the lead actually present him as angel. But that is not true, he has some controversy too.--FreemesM ^(talk) 18:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)