Talk:2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

The Timeline Section Needs Cleanup

[edit]

The section contains too much intricate details and needs Cleanup. Sharpnife (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can create a new article from it named Timeline of 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement and replace the section with a new section "Movement" (which will summarize the timeline section) if it gets longer in future. But its not the time yet, but I think we have to do it in near future. Need other user's comment on this proposal. Mehedi Abedin 12:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why there is nothing about 4th and 5th august in Timeline? UwU.Raihanur (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because then the movement turns into Non-cooperation Movement, so writers created a separate page for the timeline. Zkabirkhan (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

[edit]

Replace the timeline section with "Movement" which will summarize the timeline and make another article named Timeline of 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement from the section.

Questions to consider

  • Is this proposal justified?
  • If yes, then how many days after the proposal we can execute it?

Comments

[edit]

Possible new article (2)

[edit]

@Mehedi Abedin, @Bruno pnm ars, @মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন, @ApurboWiki2024, @Lahsim Niasoh, @BangladeshiEditorInSylhet @Addo Adwin, @Borgenland, @Wrzedn should we make a seperate article titled "July Revolution" covering both the quota movement & the non-cooperation movement? Because most of the sources mention both movements together, not seperately, death tolls & other datas appear include both. Seperate article covering both has been created in Bangla Wikipedia too. "July Revolution (Bangladesh)" currently redirects here, this name is being used to describe both of the movements. Ahammed Saad (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ahammed, for pinging me. From what I understand, the July Revolution is essentially the result of the 2024 Bangladesh Quota Reform Movement, which served as the precursor to the Non-Cooperation Movement. Simply put, the July Revolution is the collective term for these two movements. I’m happy to have a separate article titled the July Revolution. If we can stitch both the Bangladesh Quota Reform Movement and the Non-Cooperation Movement articles properly, I believe it could become a “Good Article” on Wikipedia. Cheers! Wrzedn (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but why not using common name? I thought "Student–People's uprising" was the common name. Also "2024 Bangladesh Mass Uprising" is known in reliable sources. Also I propose to rename Category:2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement to make it the proposed article's home category. Mehedi Abedin 09:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mehedi has a good point. I've seen "student-people's uprising" being used by Dhaka Tribune and Prothom Alo English. That's the common name used by local media outlets, I guess. International media, including the Time, Washington Post, BBC, ABC called it a mass uprising. Yah, either of these terms sound appropriate. We can always have also known as "July Revolution" in the lead. Wrzedn (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested the name for the similarity with July massacre. But I have no doubt about Student–People's uprising or 2024 Bangladesh mass uprising. Ahammed Saad (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as per @Mehedi Abedin. Bruno pnm ars (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Concerned though about overlap. Had it not been for the dedication displayed by users in Bangladesh to massively expand both events, I would have leaned toward a merge of both articles. Definitely not opposing this though. Borgenland (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahammed Saad @Borgenland @Bruno pnm ars @Wrzedn DeloarAkram created the article, but it needs heavy copyediting, we need help, the name is Student–People's uprising. Mehedi Abedin 11:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mehedi. Will copyedit the article once all the sections are complete. Thanks! Wrzedn (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Indian involvement

[edit]

I found mirrorasia.net which seems to be a Bangladeshi news website published from Germany but it is not a Germany based magazine. Now coming to the claims made in the section the source of the claim is https://bangla.themirrorasia.net/news/2024/07/30/2577 this claim of this source is also shared on an instagram page https://www.instagram.com/amarbanglaremati/p/C-Ey3VbO8yy/ the official facebook page of the mirror asia has also shared the news https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php/?story_fbid=122121157700343289&id=61560298676368 this same news is then reproduced by two other outlets with few minor changes here and there 1. https://dailyinqilab.com/national/news/683378 2. Another one there's also a piece here https://bangladeshcentre.org.uk/2024/08/09/how-delhi-and-hasinas-ploy-was-ultimately-foiled/ this also uses same mirrorasia.


A guy named Uttam Guha wrote the article but I couldn't find any more of his works. In the article on mirrorasia it says that Uttam is from Delhi but I couldn't find his name on accredited journalist list https://accreditation.pib.gov.in/acridexsrch.aspx and he is not on Foreign Correspondent Club (FCC) from what I could find.


It seems that this whole story is just a fake news since no source on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources even Talks about R&AW sending people in Bangladesh. This happens in India a lot that's how i recognized it in India a wire agency called ANI also used fake news and websites to propagate false claims If you want to read more about ANI. https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/02/23/ani-played-key-role-based-reports-on-fake-sources-new-eu-group-report-on-indian-influence-networks

Since the whole section seems to rely on this one source which isn't even reliable. I propose that the whole section regarding R&AW ought to be removed unless better sources are there which substantiate these claims. These sources ought to be on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There's enough written about India on this page no need to include fringe theories which aren't even reported by any of the sources on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

And before someone says anything I'll say it that since I'm from India I can only intervene on claims regarding India cause I understand India better. That is why I have limited myself to India in this article and other regarding the protests.


DataCrusade1999 (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you had removed the name of R&AW without any consensus. I appreciate your patience & analysis regarding this, but I think you should wait a few time to discuss the topic then change, as it's a very sensitive info. Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I waited 11 days before making the change. since No response was given I made the changes myself as there are discussion going on about making this a Good Article. and sources need to be reliable the citation that was referred here is questionable. If any source which is listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources or considered reliable generally then R&AW should be included otherwise it should not be included which is the case now. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you are removing this by your own opinion. I'd previously told you to wait for a time to come to a consensus about this issue. Infos in Wikipedia change rapidly. Look the Alleged Indian involvement section, some new infos regarding this were added by me. Perhaps, a better & more reliable source may come for this. I better add the reliable source template on this regard than removing it. Ahammed Saad (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you know this article better than me except the on cases involving India I suggest that you should ping the most active contributors on this page so we can have a discussion otherwise we're looking at edit war. And like I said I waited 11 days before making the necessary changes.
The section that you're referring to regarding India is a work of one guy with shady characteristics. And the ATN source that you have added is inaccessible and even ATN is not on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and I'm not aware if ATN is considered reliable in Bangladesh. If you think ATN is reliable then add it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources after discussing on the relevant page.
There's also logical inconsistency in what your contribution alleges. why India would send Hindi speaking people to Bangladesh when it can send Bengali speaking people from West Bengal I'm aware that there are differences in the language but those differences can be bridged easily by training someone who knows Bengali. why send someone from North India.
This Indian involvement claim should be fact-checked I don't know if guys have something like Alt-News in Bangladesh but these claims should be verified first a lot of times what you hear in a video gets distorted and audio can't be made out there are tools to check video/audio/image/metadata tampering I'll check those claims when I get free time but put all the resources here so that I can verify and post the result here for everyone to see. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahammed Saad do get back to me so we can build consensus. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahammed Saad You also seem to not read anything that I have written on this talk page in this section. Whatever you have added is a REPRODUCTION OF THE MIRROR ASIA story no one else like The Economist, New York Times or for that matter anyone except the mirror asia is reporting this alleged involvement of R&AW. Bangladesh doesn't like India is not something that is hidden you can write more about it on India-Bangladesh Relations Wikipedia page. But don't include anything in the section without talking first. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahammed Saad don't make changes to that section without talking first. you're starting an edit war. talk first build consensus then make the change. you lectured me on it now you're doing it. NOT COOL DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DataCrusade1999 it's not an edit war. The info I added was an interview of the prosecutor of ICT, not a report on Indian involvement. There is no alteration of informations of the interview in the video. Since it's actually a event, I thought it can be added without any discussion. Ahammed Saad (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you removed better source needed tag DataCrusade1999 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
because, as I said, it was an interview, not a report or editorial, that's y I removed better source citation. Ahammed Saad (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a week. Except the two of us no one here seems to be interested in this discussion. since you're familiar with this article's most active editors you should ping them, otherwise I will move ahead with my edit. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DataCrusade1999 It’s seems like you and Ahammed Saad in disagreement.
Those claims are allegedly and rumors. it’s might real or false. That's why section name is "allegedly Indian involvement ". Gaplow43286 (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaplow43286 Should Wikipedia mention rumors in the infobox? Does Wikipedia has any guidelines regarding that? All I'm saying is that no one from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources even mentions R&AW. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DataCrusade1999 No. I am personally think Raw is not should in Infobox. But the section should be not removed, this section is important. So let's remove Raw from Infobox for now. And if information in section later comes to be false, we should remove the section. Gaplow43286 (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaplow43286 Yes R&AW should not be in the infobox. But as you say "And if information in section later comes to be false, we should remove the section." My question to this statement would be Why would anyone refute the assertions made by some of these sources regarding R&AW? The sources included aren't prominent so no media agency is paying attention to these article so the need to refute this would never arise. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DataCrusade1999 I am Bangladeshi and I don’t' even know about The Mirror Asia. Some news agencies copy and paste the information but they are not considered reliable. So this source might be fake.
I live in Thakurgaon, but I was in Dhaka during July-August. At that time, the movement was started. I don’t' hear any allegedly Indian Involvement. Those rumors started after the movement. Gaplow43286 (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not from Bangladesh So I only know of The Daily Star, Business Standard, Prothom Alo and few others and as far as I know none of them have reported on R&AW involvement. So yeah I agree at the very least R&AW should be removed from infobox. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaplow43286 The indian involvement section should also be looked at. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article should be created or not

[edit]

I see there is already two discussions about a separate article covering two movement . But I also wants to make discussion. I hope everyone post comment here.

We need title of the separate article, then we can start creating a draft. Here is possible title :

  • July Revolution (Bangladesh)
  • Student—People's uprising
  • 2024 Bangladesh mass uprising
  • Other names

Which title you like? Gaplow43286 (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehedi Abedin 11:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go for 2024 Bangladesh mass uprising. ApurboWiki2024 (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ApurboWiki2024 @Gaplow43286 DeloarAkram created it under Student–People's uprising but it needs copyediting. We need hands. Mehedi Abedin 11:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mehedi Abedin Then we should working on new article. You will get my support. Gaplow43286 (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]