Talk:International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)

Naming

I suggest that this page be moved to "War crimes trial in Bangladesh", all the information about ICT can be arranged within this article. -- Khan Muhammad (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

May I ask why you wish to move this page to one entitled as such? The tribunal has called itself the "International Crimes Tribunal" and thus it belongs on a page that shares this title: http://bdnews24.com/nimage/2011-11-23-14-42-44-tribunal_tm.jpg Aminul802 (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerns over NPOV and writing style

It seems, this article has been written by someone who supports the accused war criminals. Because almost all the references mentioned here are for the accused. I have started adding some neutral references. Please understand that, Steven Kay, Toby Cadman and John Cammegh are all defense layers of some of the accused war criminals. Most of the references are from them, and from this the previous editor came to the decision that the tribunal is widely condemned which is unacceptable. Only the references to Human Rights Watch, Lord Avebury can be regarded neutral. But they did not use the word condemnation, they just criticized some of the points. So please edit with a more open mind. -- Khan Muhammad (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Khan Muhammad, I commend your calls to edit with a "more open mind", but I am concerned that your POV is far from neutral since you are repeatedly describe the accused as "war criminals" rather than stating the obvious fact that they currently stand accused of war crimes but are cannot yet considered war criminals by the courts as their trial has not yet come to a conclusion, and in a number of cases, not yet even meaningfully begun. Thank you for clarifying the status of Kay, Cadman and Cammegh as counsel to the defense. This helps put their stance in perspective. I would like to note, however, that condemnation and criticism are considered by many of us who use the English language to be synonymous, and that the castigation of the court has been widespread is noted by completely unrelated observers such as this one: www.rnw.nl/international-justice/article/banged-bangladesh, so I would like to suggest that your reaction needs to better reflect a NPOV for your edits to conform to Wikipedia policy. I say this in a collegial spirit, and I would appreciate similar reminders if ever I cross into the arena of bias. With regards, Aminul802 (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Khan Muhammad, I have added information regarding Steven Kay that clarifies that he is an international criminal lawyer whose counsel has been sought by the Jamaat defence; and the missing reference to Amnesty International has now been supplied. I have also added information from a British journalist who has been calling for a tribunal that will bring justice to those who committed crimes in 1971 for nearly two decades, but who has been dismayed by aspects of the tribunal that undermine its international standing. As such, the section on "International Criticism of the Tribunal" may no longer be characterised by disputed neutrality, and this note should be removed. If you feel there are other respects in which the section needs to be adjusted for neutrality, please point them out. Regards, Aminul802 (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Concern of Bias in Bangladeshi News Sources

I think we need to highlight that some of the sources that are being referenced in this article, and related articles, are particularly hostile towards Jamaat and/or particularly pro-Awami League, thus very much in favour of what the UN has characterised as the Tribunal's arbitrary detention. I am beginning to pay attention to this in my edits, but I would like everyone working on this page, and related pages, to highlight what the veteran British War Crimes journalist based in Bangladesh, David Bergman, has noted about the woeful lack of independent journalism in the Bangladeshi media on the tribunal. http://bangladeshwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2012/02/govt-pr-debacle-on-un-detention-ruling.html (see the last section of his post)

In particular, he notes that the following Bangladeshi papers: the Daily Star, Prothom Alo, Bdnews24.com, the Independent and the Sun, among others, have all "either taken an explicitly supportive position either of the government or at least of the tribunal". Hence, just as Khan Muhammad has noted in the Ghulam Azam article's talk page in his edits that Sangram is pro-Jamaat, we need to make clear that the papers named above are anti-Jamaat, and so their statements regarding the ICT should be understood in that light, and the editors of the article should point this out.Aminul802 (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain why we should take this reference seriously? It is just another blog and does not cite any significant affiliation. -- Khan Muhammad (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This reference should be taken seriously for the following reasons: David Bergman [1] is a reputable and seasoned journalist with years of experience internationally, and in Bangladesh, and is probably, by virtue of his activity relating to Bangladesh War Crimes of 1971, the most relevant expert commentator on the ICT in independent investigative journalism. Thus his reports are to be deemed probative, and his commentary highly relevant. His years-long enthusiasm for a fair tribunal is also a proof of his neutrality when he criticises the tribunal. It may be argued that his blog is self-published, but it is clear that his blog qualifies as an acceptable source according to the wikipedia article on the criteria for using self-published blogs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_self-published_blogs. On all three counts of "verifiability", "relevance" and "scope" the blog qualifies as a particularly significant source for this article. Aminul802 (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 07:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

---

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) → International Crimes Tribunal – Per WP:COMMONNAME This article does not need the (Bangladesh) in it, there are only one ICT that I know of. There are no need for a redirect. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Unhelpful and mechanical application of a principle. In this case, loss of the qualifier "(Bangladesh)" is counterproductive and helps no one. "International Crimes Tribunal" by itself is misleading. It appears to be some international body, possibly under the United Nations. It can easily be mixed up with such articles as International Criminal Court, Unit of International Crime Investigations, International Centre for the Prevention of Crime, International Commission for the Evaluation of the Crimes of the Nazi and Soviet Occupation Regimes in Lithuania, Women's International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan's Military Sexual Slavery, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and so on. Let's consider the various situations of Wikipedia's readership, rather than demanding the shortest title regardless of consequences. Noetica^Tea? 20:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits

The user Darkness Shines (henceforth DS) has recently been editing this article in a way that does not exhibit a NPOV. I will explain what these problems are, and which s/he should discuss here before s/he continues in his/her present mode of behaviour, justifying him/herself in greater detail than the specious manner in which s/he has been justifying himself in the edit summaries. Given the unhealthy misrepresentation of the Tribunal his/her edits reflect, in the light of the reliable reports concerning it, and given this is an issue that is of immediate topical importance, I will immediately proceed to undo all edits that are not in keeping with Wikipedia policy. S/he should discuss here any modifications of this nature s/he would like to reinstate before proceeding to do so once again.

Firstly, s/he has removed important references to David Bergman on the specious claim that his respectable and authoritative blog on ICT is a self-published source that does qualify it to be used here. I refer him to the wikipedia article on the criteria for using self-published blogs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_self-published_blogs, in which it is abundantly clear that his blog qualifies. On all three counts of "verifiability", "relevance" and "scope" the blog qualifies as a particularly significant source for this article, since David Bergman is a reputable and seasoned journalist with years of experience internationally, and in Bangladesh, and is probably, by virtue of his activity relating to Bangladesh War Crimes of 1971, the most relevant expert commentator on the ICT in independent investigative journalism. Thus is reports are to be deemed probative, and his commentary highly relevant. His years-long enthusiasm for a fair tribunal is also a proof of his neutrality when he criticises the tribunal.

DS has also labelled the peer-reviewed academic journal Criminal Law Forum (http://www.springer.com/law/criminal/journal/10609), and the article written by Professor Suzannah Linton of Hong Kong University (http://www0.hku.hk/law/faculty/staff/linton_suzannah.html) to be an unverifiable source. It happens to be quite verifiable, and particularly reputable. On the specious basis of this journal's unverifiability, s/he has seen fit to remove the reference entirely, without discussion, hence depriving users of wikipedia of a particularly reputable and reliable source on the subject.

DS has also removed a reference to a lecture conducted at the prestigious American Society of International Law, an internationally-recognised forum for matters concerned with international law which was attended by senior US politicians, the Bangladesh Ambassador to the US, and widely respected academics as falling foul of wikipedia's guidelines regarding reliable sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS) on the specious argument that it was on Youtube. Youtube is a repository both reliable and unreliable sources, and this clearly falls under the rubric of "reliable" given the nature of ASIL.

DS has also deleted important sources for verifying claims of casualty figures in the Liberation War of 1971, deeming them self-published, although they include the work of the authoritative and scholarly analysis of Bergman cited above, and that of Necrometrics (http://necrometrics.com/author.htm) of Matthew White whose work has been referenced in 92 scholarly journals, and hence qualifies as an important and reliable source on all three counts of "verifiability", "relevance" and "scope". Having deleted these two more scholarly sources, s/he added a doubled figure of rapes to 400,000 without any source material to justify the inflated claim, which seems to undermine any claims to a NPOV s/he may make.

All of the above are grounds to call to question the neutrality of Darkness Shines, and hence I would ask DS to justify any such future changes you wish to make here in the talk page before proceeding to make them.Aminul802 (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:TLDR. The you tube clip is not reliable as it was uploaded by users unknown to the site. There are no way of knowing if it has been altered in any way. Hence unreliable. I have asked for clarification at theRSN board. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the self published blog and necrometrics site. WP:SPS is quite clear on this, Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. And WP:SELFPUB Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities Darkness Shines (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back, and I apologise for the length, but this is relatively concise given the number of your edits I needed to discuss. It will reward reading. With respect to the necrometrics site and the self-published blog, they don't concern biographies of living people but rather historical facts in the first case, and an coverage of an ongoing tribunal in the other. Hence they are perfectly justified according to WP:SPS as explained in my initial post.Aminul802 (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The tribunal would appear to have living people in it, and I can only assume that those being charged are also alive. Hence the blog fails on that. Has the blog author also been published in any journal regarding genocide studies? If not then it cannot be used for sourcing on anything pertaining to the genocide question. The author of necrometrics, in which peer reviewed journals has his work on genocide studies been published? The link you gave shows he is a Librarian, not an expert in the field, hence he fails as a source. I will address your other concerns once you have agreed to these points. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, you need to do more due diligence. The above link on the librarian Matthew White contains a link that displays the 92+ scholarly journals in which he is cited. Any unbiased party will recognise that this is a reliable source. Can one of the Administrators be called in to arbitrate on this point? As for Bergman, he is a reputable international investigative journalist who has been researching the war crimes of 1971 for nearly two decades. Here is a list of his online articles: http://journalisted.com/david-bergman?allarticles=yes. As you can see, he is widely published, including in prestigous journals like Foreign Policy. The quality of his analysis of the figures of casualties and rape victimes shows his scholarly ability on this issue. Again, I feel a non-partisan arbitrator from among the Administrators could help with this point. Aminul802 (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please self revert your last edits in which you have blatantly misrepresented as source and remove another. A link to a SPS in which the author of said SPS claims his work is used fails. He is not an established expert in the field. If you do not believe me feel free to post at the WP:RSN board. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, when I'm available again in a few hours time, I will refer it to the WP:RSN board. Please restate your first sentence above on misrepresentation. The diction is not clear, and I'm not sure what I'm accused of. Also, please specify the edit, source, and nature of the misrepresentation. If I agree with your assessment of misrepresentation, I will revert the edit. I look forward to the discussion. Aminul802 (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

{out)I posted it on your talk page but will cross post to here [2] Please explain were in the source used does it say the figures are the subject of considerable dispute or even 58,000, and number of women raped at 25,000, both of which are themselves objectively high numbers.? This is a blatant misrepresentation of the source. You also removed Up to 10 million refuges fled to India and a further 30 million were displaced which was sourced to the academic press and a leading author in the field, please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have posted a detailed response here: [3]. I feel the characterisation of the edit as "blatant misrepresentation" is completely unjustified, and rather meanspirited. Please let's maintain fairminded sense of decorum in our discussions. Aminul802 (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read it, let us keep the discussion in one place. I have already explained to you why necrometrics is of no use here. See Here fpr confirmation. Nor is the youtube clip being used. The reporters blog may not be used for statements of fact either. None of those sources are of any use. You need to self revert and correct your error. If you do not I will do it soon enough. I have found an academic source for the low end death toll estimate, You can copy and paste this into the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have replied to your noticeboard comment, and am awaiting the response from the noticeboard. For the interest of arbitrators and other participants, his discussion has also branched out onto my talk page [4]. Aminul802 (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to jump into this discussion, but I'd propose to remove this sentence:

'It is claimed that around three million people were killed and between 200,000 and 400,000 women were raped, although these figures are the subject of considerable dispute, and some estimates place casualty figures as low as 58,000, and number of women raped at 25,000, both of which are themselves objectively high numbers.'

for the following reasons: (1) it's not clear why this data is directly relevant to the article. The ICT is not set up to prosecute persons alleged to have committed crimes against humanity (which are incidentally not mentioned in the first sentence of the article, definining the intended scope of the ICT) only; for example, crimes against peace are explicitly mentioned in the 1973 act. (2) At least two other Wikipedia articles discuss the numbers of deaths during the 1971 war, 1971_Bangladesh_atrocities and List_of_massacres_in_Bangladesh. Perhaps a reference to the first one will do? Alternatively, it may be stated that the ICT itself accepts the 3,000,000 figure for the number of deaths, with an appropriate reference? (3) I find the phrase 'objectively a high number' nonsensical - there's no such thing as an 'objectively high number' (here's a semi-serious argument, if you like: 1 is certainly not; if n is not, neither is n+1). Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Concern over the introduction

Undue weight has been put on the arrest of Jamaat leaders and criticism of ICT in the introduction. There are 8 detainess so far and one should not mention specifically Azam's news in the intro. What defense lawyers of certain detainess are saying should not be mentioned in the intro explicitly. There are also some reference issues that I have pointed out. -- Khan Muhammad (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That blog reference is no more, I removed it quite some time ago. I agree with the rest of your worries, time to trim the lot. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has to be edited a lot. The term "widespread" and "not adhering to international legal standard" are from the news of Dutch radio. But I can give to very reliable references where widespread criticism or condemnation have not been mentioned. The references are from BBC and Guardian. In BBC the widespread domestic support for the tribunal has been mentioned first and only then international response. They say, "Human rights groups said some of the rules were not consistent with international standards, as followed by war crimes tribunals in Rwanda or Cambodia", and then they mentioned opinions of the defence counsels. But in wiki intro we see that defence counsels' opinions mentioned in the intro explicitly. In Guardian: "International groups, including the New York-based Human Rights Watch, have urged the Bangladesh to ensure war crimes defendants receive fair trials by clarifying the definition of charges and allowing the accused to question the tribunal's impartiality — currently not allowed under Bangldeshi law."- that's all, rest of the article actually describes the tribunal more than criticising it. Overall it has to be more balanced. More opinions coming up later... -- Khan Muhammad (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hullo, I have removed the long summary of The Economist article from the introduction. It is already mentioned in the criticism bit. And if anyone wishes to elaborate on this piece of information, please do it in the criticism section. It is great to see so much enthusiasm in adding impartial information in this article, I hope you remember to keep the article reader friendly too. Repeating is not very helpful. Please discuss here first, if anyone decides to add back what was removed.

BLP + Linkvios

Linking to hacked private conversations on you tube a a linkvio. As was explained in this edit summary[5] The content also has a BLP vio in that none of the sources say Mohammed Nizamul Huq being associated with Ghatak-Dalal Nirmul Committee caused a lack of impartiality. It is also a BLP vio as there is no way that secularvoiceofbangladesh.org is a reliable source for BLP issues. Stop reinserting this junk please. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup Needed in Introduction

Introduction should contain overview of the article, not the detail explanations. But here I see, all the information are gathered in intro section. I'll start cleanup as same information are explained below the intro section. --Freemesm (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No one response on this topics. So I start cleanup. Description of Golam Azam's political career should not be there. he is not the only person who was arrested for crime against humanity allegation. All of arrested persons list are given under "Arrested accused in war crimes trial" title. So I remove it from introduction.

The third paragraph of introduction contains criticisms on this tribunal. There is another paragraph titled "Criticism of the Tribunal". which contains similar volume of information. Why we should repeat similar lines twice? So I remove this part also. Same incident happens in last paragraph, which tells about one of tribunal Justice's email & conversation hacking. I'm removing that part also. --Freemesm (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It's fine to cut down the size of the introduction, but not at the expense of balance: the Economist's analysis of the recent leaks disappeared, but a link to the law minister's statement that criticism of the ICT is 'mere propaganda' remained. That is not balanced. I'm putting back the Economist analysis for the time being - if you want to summarise it (fairly) in the introduction and move the bulk of it to a separate section lower down in the article, be my guest. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Abbasfirnas887. I tried to balance this article. For this reason keep the message of allegation of some organizations and also put their say about this allegation. If you think it is not balanced, you must discuss here. But you don't writing anything here and put back the hacking news there. When you add the hacking incident on introduction, it seems that this article is about Mr. Nizamul's email hacking, not about ICT. It doesn't seems a process of balancing. Wiki article shouldn't express Economists analysis. I think both allegation and hacking incident should not be in introduction. So I remove them both. Please discuss here before changing anything in this article. --Freemesm (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Freemesm, I'm afraid that your attempt at shortening the introduction is again unsatisfactory. First of all, on the technical side, some of the references/links at the bottom of the page are now broken. Secondly, if you look at Wikipedia guidelines for writing introductions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section, you will find that it explicitly states that the introduction '...should define the topic, ..., and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies'. It is clear that the Economist affair is an important controversy surrounding the ICT which must therefore be mentioned in the introduction. In addition, the current summary of the controversy lower down in the article is not satisfactory, since it does not actually mention the most recent revelations by the Economist regarding the contents of the leaked communications. In view of all this, I think it's best if I revert to the previous version which had all the information in and start editing the introduction anew. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Abbasfirnas887, I was just hovering over all Bangladesh related articles in wikipedia and suddenly stopped in this article. anyone could get negative impression from this article about the trial process. It is a on going process, which has started in 25 March, 2010. many incidences are occurred here. But some politically biased persons are gather negative information here. It doesn't follow the rule of NPOV. I want to say that, it is a on going process. You can't conclude about is it dubious or not. It leads me to edit this article. If you go to Nuremberg Trials article, you will see there is a large volume of criticism is listed there. But that is described under "criticism" titled portion on that article, not at the beginning of the article. Moreover every trial may seem to someone as dubious, but that doesn't conclude anything. So, I think introduction of this article should explain the background, structure and aim of this tribunal. Beside that Mr. Nazmul's email hacking part is just a clear violation of BLP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP . There are more justices in this tribunal. Why you should highlight him? Who insert this part in this article, he manipulates all the reference links. He is trying to use this article as a part of propaganda. Please check the whole editing history. You said that some links were broken after cleanup of intro part. Yesterday I had no time to repair them. I can do that now. I think, I can explain my points. Thank you. --Freemesm (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Freemesm, the fact that the information about the tribunal presented in the article is 'negative' does not a priori mean that it is also false. You're welcome to add 'positive' information about the tribunal as long as it is properly referenced. I still insist on retaining at least a summary of the contents of the leaks in the introduction: they are of central importance to the proceedings of the tribunal and therefore satisfy the wikipedia guidelines on writing article introductions. They also do not violate the BLP rules: the source (The Economist) is sound, and the controversy relates to the ICT as institution. There is no discussion of the judge's person here, and no direct link to any leaked conversations. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Abbasfirnas887, I just count all the sentences of intro and get amazing result. There are 16 sentences. Only 5 of them says the background of ICT, Others are blaming it!! Still now you will say that this article is neutral? --Freemesm (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, I reverted your edit in which you removed the latest from the Economist from the lead. As I said to Freemesm above, I have nothing against attempts to shorten the introduction, but leaving out any mention of this central part of the controversy is not acceptable (and inconsistent, as the earlier stages of the controversy are discussed). Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Freemesm, it appears to me that the Associated Press articles on the controversial nature of the tribunal have gone around the world [6], [7] both articles have been reprinted in over a hundred different news outlets--google's results with this particular AP article go on for pages and pages. The world now considers the tribunal to be a highly dubious affair, and this should be reflected in the introductory paragraph.Aminul802 (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Aminul802, wikipedia is not a place for sharing breaking news. But hacking of justice's pc is just an incident. It doesn't explain everything about the tribunal. Every people in Bangladesh are very hopeful about the tribunal. It is an on going process. You can't conclude anything just now. If you go to Nuremberg Trials article, you will see there is a large volume of criticism is listed there. But that is described under "criticism" titled portion on that article, not at the beginning of the article. Moreover every trial may seem to someone as dubious, but that doesn't conclude anything. Aftr checking this articles editing history, I found that you've manipulated useless links as reference. as example the first reference is Bangladesh crimes tribunal accuses The Economist magazine of hacking judge’s computer Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/bangladesh-crimes-tribunal-accuses-the-economist-magazine-of-hacking-judges-computer/2012/12/09/8f248da2-421e-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story.html. It tells about the hacking incident, not about relevant sentences on the article. Why you are trying to spread propaganda? Please, don't do this again. It is a clear violation of wikipedia referencing rule. If you think that your reference is sufficient to sate that the tribunal is dubious, then enlist them under "Criticism" title. Please don't change anything without discussion. Thank you. -- Freemesm (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

POV concerns in intro

Dear Raghib, You've removed a what you consider a POV concern from the intro at: 16:21, 12 December 2012. I would like to undo this on similar grounds to what I've mentioned to Freemesm above. It appears to me that the Associated Press articles on the controversial nature of the tribunal have gone around the world: [8], [9] both articles have been seen to be fit for reprinting by over a hundred different news outlets--google's results with these particular AP article go on for pages and pages. With so many outlets considering this newsworthy, and publishing it as news rather than opinion, I think the world now sees this issue as indisputably controversial. In addition, both AP articles, which have been reproduced in over a hundred different news outlets worldwide, state as a fact that "the tribunal is trying 10 opposition politicians". If they've seen it as fair to place this in the first few sentences of a brief news report, I think it would be unfair for us to omit its mention. Hence I will be reinstating what you've deleted at the aforementioned date and time.Aminul802 (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Aminul802, google search doesn't mean anything. NPOV doesn't mean that making any article intentionally negative. Always you are trying to highlight "Tribunal has arrested 10 opposition party leaders". That doesn't make any sense. If anyone say 'why most of the war criminals in WW2 was a part from Nazi Party?' what should you answer him? Jamaat collaborate with pak army as a party. If tribunal arrested them, you cant blame them. Hacking of justice's pc is just an incident. It doesn't explain everything about the tribunal. Every people in Bangladesh are very hopeful about the tribunal. It is an on going process. You can't conclude anything just now. If you go to Nuremberg Trials article, you will see there is a large volume of criticism is listed there. But that is described under "criticism" titled portion on that article, not at the beginning of the article. Moreover every trial may seem to someone as dubious, but that doesn't conclude anything. After checking this articles editing history, I found that you've manipulated useless links as reference. as example the first reference is Bangladesh crimes tribunal accuses The Economist magazine of hacking judge’s computer Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/bangladesh-crimes-tribunal-accuses-the-economist-magazine-of-hacking-judges-computer/2012/12/09/8f248da2-421e-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story.html. It tells about the hacking incident, not about relevant sentences on the article. Why you are trying to spread propaganda? Please, don't do this again. It is a clear violation of wikipedia referencing rule. If you think that your reference is sufficient to sate that the tribunal is dubious, then enlist them under "Criticism" title. Please don't change anything without discussion. Thank you. -- Freemesm (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Freemesm. To cite from wiki's NPOV guidelines: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I try and maintain this when I cite reliable sources. Recently, most reliable news sources have been critical of the tribunal, hence NPOV dictates that the article reflect this. If there most reliable sources were favorable towards the tribunal, and a small number critical, NPOV would dictate that we edit the article to reflect this norm. At the end of the day, what matters is reliable sources. Even if all the reliable sources are calling for something that I disagree with, I would not edit them out. I'm not making claims about whether the tribunal is wrong to arrest opposition Jamaat leaders. That is not for me to make according to NPOV policy. I shouldn't introduce opinion. I'm simply presenting what reliable sources are telling us. If you can present the contrary using reliable sources including your opinion that it makes sense that Jamaat leaders are almost exclusively being tried by the tribunal for historical reasons, please add that information without undertaking Original Research as per wiki OR policy. The tribunal is currently defined in the 'collective conscience of reliable sources around the world' by the upshot of the hacking incident. It was a momentous incident according to the world press, and deserves highlighting. I encourage you to read The Economist's analysis on the topic on 15th Dec. Much of what you have to say reflects your POV and should be backed up by sources before you edit the article in a way that reflects that POV. With respect to your unfortunate accusation that I've been "manipulating useless links as references", I feel you may need to examine what is going on more closely. I had rewritten the first sentence of the article according to information in the Washington Post article you cite. Then Raghib came and undid my introductory sentence at 16:21, 12 December 2012, but left my WP reference, and so it appeared that the first reference had nothing to do with the first sentence. I think you should direct this complaint at Raghib rather than to myself, as it is his editing that has led to confusing my original citation. ::Finally, may I request that you maintain a collegial spirit in the editing/talking process as per WP:Civility guidelines. I am not trying to spread propaganda. I try to use only reliable sources. If I fall short on this count, please correct me with a NPOV. Thanks!Aminul802 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)