Template:Did you know nominations/Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn (X icon used) by nominator

Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh

(

)

~~... that the Persecution of Biharis stranded in Bangladesh started after the Fall of Dhaka?~~

Reviewed: Anti-Muslim pogroms in India

Created by Faizan (talk). Self nominated at 07:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC).

No problem... Should go ahead.—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 09:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Not eligible - First, the image shown is of protests against the war criminals and Razakars, not against the Biharis. Second, the article is still going through POV issues (See talk page). Also, it focuses unduly on negative aspects of living individuals and promote one side of an ongoing dispute. The article is not eligible to be promoted. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

WHY? The article of Razakars says: "They largely constituted the East Pakistani paramilitary groups like Al-Shams, Razakars, and Al-Badr, becoming a major cause for the discontent among the Bengalis.[Siddiqui 1990, p. 153.], [A. R. Siddiqui, East Pakistan - the Endgame: An Onlooker's Journal 1969-1971, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 171.]" Therefore the image is absolutely against Biharis.

The protests (shown in the image) are against Razakars, not Biharis in general. The term Razakar has a specific meaning in Bangladesh. The term is used to refer to the local collaborators (or war criminals) who sided with the Pakistan Army in the violence against Bengalis. There were some Biharis who joined the Razakar force, however all the Biharis, who were living in Bangladesh during the war, were not part of Razakars (i.e. Bihari women and children). Hence the image is totally irrelevant here. --Zayeem ^(talk) 13:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The caption has been adjusted. Fai zan 13:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

not fixed yet, I was actually asking to remove the image as it is misleading here, the protests were against Razakars, not Biharis in general. --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Done Disputed image removed. Fai zan 07:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, now the hook, as said the hook focuses unduly on negative aspects of living individuals and promote one side of an ongoing dispute. You need to change the hook.--Zayeem ^(talk) 07:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No error The hook will remain the same. Already fixed below. Fai zan 16:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, its not fixed. The user didn't even said that it is fixed, it's only you who is assuming to be fixed. The hook focuses unduly on negative aspects of living individuals and promote one side of an ongoing dispute. This is not eligible.--Zayeem ^(talk) 16:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

These are facts. No error The hook will remain the same. Fai zan 16:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The hook needs to be changed according to the policies as it focuses unduly on negative aspects of living individuals and promote one side of an ongoing dispute, see this. Also, you are continuously removing the POV tags from the article without reaching consensus ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), the POV issues also needs to be resolved. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The hook has been parsed. Fai zan 10:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"killed by Bengalis"? You mean by both Indian Bengalis and Bangladeshi Bengalis? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Cannot you read "stranded in Bangladesh"? Indian bengalis were in Bangladesh? Now if you got your answer, I expect a positive review. Fai zan 12:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

But your hook doesn't clarify it. This hook is using ambiguous term and blaming some wrong people too. Cant you simply clarify it? And given the nature of the article don't expect a quick signal on this hook. Here i am finding problems in this one sentence. Haven't even started reading the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed issues addressed. Fai zan 12:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The hook doesn't quite parse, I think it should have a few more words to make sense.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Faizan, please do not use the "fixed" template here in DYK. The symbol it uses is the same as the one used for a DYK AGF approval, and it looks like you're approving the nomination, which as it's your own nomination would be an inappropriate thing to do. The phrase "issues addressed" is all that's needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have removed all "fixed" templates here. Regrets. And I have broadened the hook too. Fai zan 10:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The hook is still not parsed, firstly, putting the number 150,000 is a blatant POV as the neutral sources like Minorities at risk estimates the number as 1,000. Secondly, the hook promote only one side of the matter, the Biharis were killed for sure, but why? Because of their involvement in killing 3 million Bengalis. Both the points should be mentioned.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok so what is your proposed one? Fai zan 14:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

ALT1:... that the Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh began after the Bangladesh Liberation War, where the Biharis collaborated with the Pakistan Army in the atrocities against the Bengalis? --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a pov one. If you improve it, then I may think of replacing it. Casualties must be cited, and the Fall of Dhaka should be referred to. Otherwise the hook is fine. Fai zan 14:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Addition: Moreover, the proposed hook is not interesting enough and does not grab attention as soon as is seen. The thing is too trivial: If Biharis were against the War, the Bengalis will surely pesecute them after winning.—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 15:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not POV as both the sides are shown. There is no obligation on adding the number of casualties on the hook, they could be seen in the article itself. The term Fall of Dhaka is a POV one as it is mostly cited by Pakistani sources and also sounds like a literary one. Why not include the actual term Surrender of Pakistan?--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This one ok? ... that the Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh began after the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971? Fai zan 15:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it is still promoting one side of the matter, the hook which I posted is absolutely fine, as it shows both sides.--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No way, just national concerns are there. Fai zan 15:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Get a DYK for 1971 Bangladesh genocide, this is for the Biharis' persecution only. Were Biharis cited, or was the DYK balanced for Bengalis? Fai zan 15:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not eligible - That article and estimated figures of victims are disputed. Information of that article are collected from several partial and exaggerated sources! Samudrakula (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Note - I've already expressed the concerns about the hook, while the nominator is just putting in some pointless arguments without actually addressing the issue.--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made a last change to the hook as per User:Samudrakula's suggestion. Now let it go. No more compromise.Fai zan 14:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your change has done nothing, you are still showing just one side of the issue, I've stated it before, what was the reason behind the persecution? Their collaboration with Pakistan army in the genocide against the Bengalis. Both the sides should be included in the hook.--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Now it does not target the Bengalis. Fai zan 15:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your proposed one is very long. Fai zan 15:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope, only 186 characters, well within the limit.--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Please consider revisiting it? Can use soft words? For both sides? Fai zan 15:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What you mean by soft words? You can give an alternative hook, but as I pointed, you need to show both sides of the matter, not a single one.--Zayeem ^(talk) 16:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have asked you to revisit it, that's not acceptable to me. Fai zan 10:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

And why it's not acceptable to you?--Zayeem ^(talk) 17:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Already told. Fai zan 17:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

AfD The article is under an AfD, and as soon as the AfD ends, the DYK be promoted. Fai zan 07:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

According to your wish? The article needs to be kept in the AfD, besides, the article is still tagged with POV issues, they need to be resolved. And, not to mention the hook, I've already explained it. The nomination won't be promoted unless these things are resolved.--Zayeem ^(talk) 07:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait for the discussions to end. Issues cited by only one editor are not only revered. Fai zan 08:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No matter if you revere or not but all the issues needs to be resolved if this nomination is to get promoted.--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Please propose an alternate hook, using good english. Propose it by using ALT1 - ...hook. Fai zan 12:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Already proposed earlier. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Another one please. Already told. Fai zan 09:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't provide any valid reason against that proposed hook, first give a valid reason.--Zayeem ^(talk) 11:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Article still is not stable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

@Crisco Why it's not? An RfC is under progress for neutrality issues. Other discussion is also taking place. I have tried my best to bring it on the main page, but awfully other editors want the opposite. Anyway, Reject this nomination, if that it's. Fai zan 16:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

We have an awful culture at DYKs. One "Cross" by an editor, even if all other agree, will not allow the nomination to be promoted. Fai zan 07:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

All other agree? I don't see anyone accept Wamiq who agree with you here. Also It's quite funny to see you commenting on DYK process just after somehow getting a nomination or two promoted. It's rather a fault on your part to expect no POV disputes in a controversial topic like this.--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to get this promoted, User:Faizan is just edit warring and removing the tags without reaching a consensus or replying in the talk page.--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This is now good to go, all disputes finally over. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I have expressed a concern over the hook which is not solved yet. Take a look at ALT1. Should be fine to go if this is sorted out. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Article remains unstable, with many edits already today. I strongly suggest waiting at least 48 hours to see whether article stabilizes; any approval before then is inappropriate. Zayeem, under the circumstances, I think a new ALT needs to be proposed. We give a certain amount of deference to the article's creator in terms of what hooks are unacceptable, and ALT1 continues to be objected to by Faizan, while you are the only person supporting it. There must be another interesting hook that can come from this article that is neither the original one nor ALT1. Faizan, feel free to suggest new hook(s) as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Faizan just said it's a POV one without explaining why it is. If he clearly expresses his concerns regarding the ALT1 then I can propose a new one.--Zayeem ^(talk) 16:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

@Zayeem You don't own this nomination, so this authority posing behavior will yield nothing. Your hook: ALT1:... that the Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh began after the Bangladesh Liberation War, where the Biharis collaborated with the Pakistan Army in the atrocities against the Bengalis?.... is simply more nationalistic than being neutral. I told you to use good words and grammar repeatedly. Now this term of "atrocities against the Bengalis", it is for "atrocities against the Biharis". Now, if we get the article Persecution of Hindus on DYK nominations, will it so obligatory to include "Hindus committed atrocities on other communities too"? NO, simply because the article is about only their persecution. This article of "Persecution of Hindus" is simply about the "Persecution of Hindus", not about Persecution of Hindus as response to their atrocities(Whatever, whether they exist or not". The same case applies in the case of Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. Anyway, now the DYK is alive again, and I have requested alternate hooks from experienced editors below. Better concentrate there. Fai zan 10:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I am grateful, the nomination is getting live again. I would request experienced editors like Shines, BlueMoonset and Crisco 1492 to propose alternate hooks. I will make a compromise, and I will not propose any other hook. Zayeem should also discuss the hooks proposed by such neutral editors. Fai zan 10:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The same arguments. I won't comment on your personal attacks leaving it to neutral observers. About the hook, what is nationalistic there? please explain. My concern is that the hook must show both sides of the dispute. If you are talking about the persecution, you also need to highlight the cause behind it, which is why I proposed that hook. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I am waiting for alt hooks from the editors. Let them decide it. Fai zan 11:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternative hooks mates! Fai zan 02:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Secondly the article is also stable now. Fai zan 02:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

ALT2 ... that the Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh was primarily due to their opposition to the independence of Bangladesh? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Like A great hook. This can go ahead easily. Secondly it's also supported by references there in the "Causes" section. Fai zan 12:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Replace "is" with "was", as discussed before, there is no source which states that the persecution is still continuing. Also, I guess the wikilink of Bangladesh liberation war should be there under the phrase "independence of Bangladesh". --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The proposer can reconsider it as per your suggestions, but I have no problem and it can go like that too. Fai zan 15:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Replaced the word of "is" with "has been" as it's supported by the article. Fai zan 15:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Now what's the difference between is and has? If you didn't get my point let me repeat, there is no source which states that the "persecution" is still continuing so stating the fact in present tense is a blatant POV.--Zayeem ^(talk) 16:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The dispute has been solved on the talk page, and Fut.Perf.'s proposal has been accepted with an amendment. So the term "was" would be used. I have replaced it in the ALT2 hook. Fai zan 13:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I just added the wikilink of Bangladesh Liberation War in the ALT2, looks fine now! --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, the hook is final now. Good to go now? Can I expect a tick? Fai zan 14:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer needed to check revised ALT2 hook; have struck earlier hooks as problematic. A full review is probably in order; neither of the earlier reviews mentioned checking basic DYK criteria such as length, timeliness, sourcing, close paraphrasing, etc., which needs to be done (and mentioned in the review!). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I have referred the ALT2 hook proposer here to review other things too. Besides, I see no copvio. Fai zan 06:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Other things like sourcing, copyediting, close paraphrasing were activley discussed and solved at the article's talk. The reviewer participated there too. Fai zan 06:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hook still checks out, @BlueMoonset: not seeing any close paraphrasing and the article has been rewritten extensively since creation. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You as the proposer of the hook can not verify it. Its called conflict of interest. Let some new user evaluate it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The rule is about not reviewing your own hook is at WP:DYKSG#H2. Faizan, discussion on the Talk page is fine for solving issues there, but a DYK review needs to take place here, not there, and an independent reviewer needs to do that reviewing. I'm reluctant for that reviewer to be Darkness Shines, since at the time the tick was given above the article had both a "citation needed" and a "by whom" template, both of which should have been addressed (and still need to be); I think it would be best for someone new to do a review once those template issues are taken care of. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Waiting: For a new reviewer to review the issues cited by Moonset. Fai zan 04:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Rather than wait, you would be far better advised to take care of the "citation needed" and "by whom" templates, issues I noted that day by providing the appropriate data in both cases. Otherwise, when a reviewer does arrive, the article will again not be approved until these are finally taken care of. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops yeah. It had a tag about the economic condition, I have added some refs. Can you please review the other issues you cited too? Viz, the copyvio and length-related, etc? I have no problem with your review, and no one else will have too. So better review it, and if it's ok, let it go. Fai zan 14:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say no to this one. First of all, given that this has been up here for a month and a half, it's still not a very well-written article; note the edits I made. This is clear from the references also, where I find bare URLs (note 6); incorrect titles (note 2); missing name of co-editor, missing names of authors of essay (title and page numbers missing too) in edited collection (notes 1 and 7); missing date of publication (note 4); completely incorrect and incomplete citation (note 10); a dead link with missing bibliographical information (note 13)--I could go on, but it is in no way acceptable, and this alone is enough to turn it down.

Second, the hook is simply not unequivocally verified. There are various terms thrown about in the article (such as West-Pakistani) that could be said to mean "disagree with the independence of Bangladesh") but it's not that simple, and that the "events" were mostly caused by that position is not made clear either--the article seems to verify that atrocities were followed by atrocities, but that's been turned down before as too POV, and I agree. (One could easily make a hook that says that the events and its surrounding politics have led to an ongoing refugee problem, but that seems to have been out of reach in this all-too partisan discussion.)

Third, it's really not a decent article at all, given that (ahem) the "events" aren't even described. We get the wild estimates on the number of victims, but the actual events get little more than "Bengali mobs were often armed, sometimes with machetes and bamboo staffs" and a statement on an atrocity where bodies were thrown in the river. In other words, the actual persecution isn't described. For all those reasons I'm turning this down. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, there were more conflicts there, as compared to improvements. I will try to get the references, bare urls, etc fixed. The Events section could be expanded, but I fear that we have not got any significant coverage for the events related to Biharis. The "West-Pakistani" terms could be fixed. There is adequate coverage on the developments in 1971 there, we get a good Background section, Aftermath, but again, the events involving persecution of Biharis did not get enough coverage. I will try to get it fixed. Fai zan 06:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The article is also on a GA review. So I am trying my best to get the errors fixed. I expect cooperation. Fai zan 16:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Doing... For both GA status and getting it to the main page. Fai zan 15:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Almost finished at GA review. It will be a good article shortly. Fai zan 01:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: GA review has been closed, and the article was not listed as a Good Article at the present time. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It got stuck at 1a. I will be glad if get it copy-editied. Fai zan 07:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That was all. Fai zan 07:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)