This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Ahmed Rajib Haider was not writing blogs critical to Islam
We have discussed here about the Ahmed Rajib Haider was not writing blogs critical to Islam. See this this news and , the blog which was supposed to be written by Rajib, was not written by him. So don't revert it again.--FreemesM(talk) 18:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Whether he wrote it or not, this article  makes it clear that it was important that he was accused of writing it, especially given the riots that happened afterwards. Applesandapples (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Which is all fine and well, so long as it is made clear directly afterwards that he had not in fact written those blogs, I presume you have done this? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
This article has a long way to go to get out of its POV hole and needs drastic editing. Some editors have used sly tricks like saying that a vote was unanimous but failing to mention that all other parties had boycotted the vote. Some facts make it in and the facts that don't present the "party line" in the just the right way are not present. Some article editors do not identify the subject, use passive voice, or use general subject to make it seem as if the entire society supports the Shahbag protests. Several sections are questionable. I've deleted the media section, per my notes above, where it merely presents a list of newspaper covering it or where the protests have been mentioned; the entire section was not encyclopedic as written. Furthermore, other sections should go in the dustbin. The context sections pad the article and are both off topic of protests, and they both point to other articles, which means the sections are merely duplicating other articles. The gallery section needs to go unless it can balanced. What should happen? The article should be redeveloped focusing on both the protesters who support the death penalty and the counter protests. The lead should be an umbrella lead. Crtew (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
PER WP:BOLD this diff  makes a good faith effort to eliminate as much of the bias as possible, although more is needed. Please discuss this in a civil manner. I will revert all my edits until the discussion is completed. Crtew (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Well obviously I support your edit, I have no idea why you self reverted or reverted me? I think some of the images should remain, but the rest of the edits were solid. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Historical context up through to verdicts (text to begin at "On 5 February 2013 ..."
Passive voice that does not identify a precise agent
I disagree with the renaming - the protests are well known under the name of Shahbag, and are easily differentiated from other protests this year by their purpose, timing and their connection to Shahbag square. Applesandapples (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)