Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 3

< November 2	November 4 >

November 3

Template:Online source

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2013 November 11 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Online source (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Press (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

LUL platform layout templates

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LUL Platform Layout Metropolitan/island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LUL Platform Layout Metropolitan/side (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LUL Platform Layout Metropolitan/side/Watford (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LUL Platform Layout Metropolitan/side/Amersham and Chesham (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As discussed at WT:TRAINS#Platform layouts on less complex systems there is consensus against including these diagrams in articles for several reasons, directly or by use of templates, because of accuracy concerns, undue weight for the tiny amount of information they provide and poor formatting. These particular templates may meet the T3 speedy deletion criteria (unused, and usable on only a very small number of articles - sometimes just 1), but given the course of the discussion so far I think that an explicit consensus to delete may be what is required for one or two users to get the point. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not really needed right now. Also repeats what is said in the article. Also, who cares where the trains are headed? Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 12:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not needed or wanted, now or in the foreseeable future. The information intentionally communicated (trains in one direction leave from one platform, trains in the other direction leave from the other platform, doors open on one side) is too trivial for inclusion in an encyclopedia or a guidebook in any form, let alone using so much space and with a weight that could quite perplex the reader. The trivial information unintentionally communicated (there is a single entrance/exit and it is adjacent to the platform for trains into London) is as wrong as a stopped clock. NebY (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these add little to no information that cannot be communicated easily and simplify in prose or in the infobox. Stations complex enough to need a visual aid should have either an official as-built diagram if one is available - File:Boylston plan.png is a good example - or a new custom-made SVG diagram that can accurately show platforms at different angles and levels. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and we should not be giving information of station layouts. None of the London Underground (LU) station layouts added by Epicgenius are adequately sourced - all I have been able to discover is that they come from something called cartometro.com which shows only tracks, platforms and railway tunnels - no lifts, escalators, ticket halls, or anything else depicted on these diagrams. What if somebody was to read our article, arrive at the station with some bulky luggage (perhaps a pram) and follow the wrong passageway, hoping to find a non-existent lift? The LU staff member might say "you can't go in here - it's an exit and you're blocking the people coming out". The passenger says "Oh, but Wikipedia says that this is the entrance for the lifts, so I've got to go this way". Not good for us, not good for LU. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Templates and layouts on complex stations like Wembley Park tube station might be needed in the foreseeable future. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 22:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't the place to discuss this, but what encyclopaedic information would such layouts provide? And why do you describe Wembley Park as "complex"? Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Do people know which services stop on each of the six platforms? Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 15:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LU do an excellent job (somewhat better than National Rail) of putting up signs at strategic points, such as at the ticket barriers, at the top of the stairs leading to each platform, and also on the platforms themselves - in fact, pretty much anywhere that an intending passenger could take two different paths. These signs show the line and stations served by trains from that platform; in cases where there are two or more platforms for a given destination, they also provide electronic signs showing that e.g. the next train to Baker Street goes from platform 6 (or 5, as the case may be). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if LU didn't do that, why should we? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a travel guide and few travel guides go into detail about platforms. Less frequently on LU that on the mainline, but platform allocation can vary. I was at London Bridge this evening and about half of the trains were flagged as platform alternations - at least 3 trains were departing from platform 2 having been scheduled for platorm 1 until moments before, several trains that normally leave from platform 4 were leaving from platform 1, at least one train was diverted from platform 3 to platform 6, etc.Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. And almost none of these diagrams are appropriate per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Maybe for some major stations where the unusual track and platform configuration is itself part of the uniqueness of the station, but for the vast majority, not needed at all. Remove them with extreme prejudice. oknazevad (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:1971 Bengali Hindu genocide

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was rename Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1971 Bengali Hindu genocide (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

POV template, the common name for the events in 71 are Bangladesh genocide, and there is already a template for that Darkness Shines (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, I can't find the template you are talking about. I found Template:Campaignbox Bangladesh Liberation War, Template:Liberation of Bangladesh and Template:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, none of which for the genocide. In reply to your first point I would like to point out that journalists like Anthony Mascarenhas and Sydeny Schanberg, diplomats like Archer Blood and Kenneth Keating, academics like Sharmila Bose and Gary J. Bass and the International Crimes Tribunal have called the killing of Hindus as genocide. There is nothing POV. BengaliHindu (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its not POV. It's the only template on the topic/subject. No other template, as you mentioned, exists. AkhilKumarPal (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell both of you right now that none of the names given above by BengaliHindu call the 1971 genocide a "Hindu genocide", and to claim they do is a BLP vio for those still alive, and Bose denies there was a genocide at all. The events in 71 are known only as the Bangladesh genocide, not the "1971 Bengali Hindu genocide", quite simply it has been made up so it looks like the Hindu population were the only ones killed in the genocide, as that is patently false the template is obviously POV. I am fine with a rename per GG below, however there are the BLP implications as well, the template currently has a bunch of living people down as perpetrators of genocide, while some have been found guilty by the ICT I am unsure if we can state as fact that these people carried out genocide, not all have been convicted for such. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In page 182 of Dead Reckoning, Bose writes, "Hence the available evidence indicates that the Pakistan Army committed political killings, where the victims were suspected to be secessionists in cahoots with the arch-enemy India and thus 'traitorous'. Extra-judicial political killings in non-combat situations, however brutal and deserving of condemnation, do not fit the UN definition of 'genocide', whether in East Pakistan in 1971 or in other instances of large-scale political killings elsewhere in the world. However, to identify the targets - secessionist rebels - in situations other than straight combat, the Pakistan Army used proxies, or 'profiling' as it is called in current usage: sometimes the proxy might have been political affiliation (membership of Awami League, for instance), but at other times the proxies appear to have been age (adult), gender (male) and religion (Hindu). It is the latter proxies, in particular the disproportionate probability of being presumed to be an insurgent on the basis of religion - Hinduism -that led the army into killings that may have been political in motivation, but could be termed 'genocidal' by their nature." So Bose clearly states that killing of Hindus was genocide, even if the motivation may have been political. None of them may have used the term "Hindu genocide", but all of them stated that the killing of Hindus constituted a genocide. If there are other groups that were killed in the genocide as well, we should prepare separate templates and articles for that. For example we have Armenian genocide, Greek genocide and Assyrian genocide all in Ottoman Turkey during World War I. BengaliHindu (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit there are no "Hindu genocide" in 1971? The only genocide was of the Bengali population, not just Hindus, that is why the template is POV. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, you must be kidding! All I'm try to explain is that the diplomats, journalists, academics and the honorable court of law that I had mentioned above, all mention that the killing of Bengali Hindus by the Pakistan Army and/or collaborators (Bengali & non-Bengali Muslims) constitute a genocide as per Genocide Convention because they were targeted as a group, while the killing of Bengali Muslims by the Pakistan Army and/or collaborators (non-Bengali Muslims) do not constitute a genocide as per Genocide Convention because they were not targeted as a group. Please take some time to read pages 80 to 84 of Gary J. Bass' book The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what Bass writes, "But at first, Blood used the dread term more for shock value than precision...At first in his hasty cable about "selective genocide," Blood had meant a genocidal campaign against the Bengalis overall, both the Muslim majority and the Hindu minority. (This was the same way that the Indian government used the word.)". Bass continues, "In the countryside, Bengali nationalists were forming an armed resistance to the Pakistan Army. This brought with it some atrocities carried out by Bengalis, in vicious revenge against people thought to be loyal to West Pakistan. So Blood and his staff began to reframe the fighting more as a two-sided ugly civil war than a purely one-sided genocide...Still he thought, genocide was the right description for what was happening to the Hindus..."'Genocide' applies fully to naked, calculated and widespread selection of Hindus for special treatment," he [Blood] wrote.". In an interview with Tehelka.com, Bass was asked, "In the subtitle to the American edition of your book, the disproportionate killing of Bengali Hindus is described as a 'forgotten genocide'. Is the term 'genocide' appropriate? Bass re-affirmed, "In the book, the case for using the word genocide is made by Archer Blood, the US consul general in Dhaka in 1971. He's not a lawyer, and I have some issues with how he does it. At first, he used the term loosely, more for shock value than legal precision. But later, he points to the specific targeting of the Hindu minority among the Bengalis. There's substantial evidence of this, and even some references to it in the testimony before Pakistan's post-war Hamoodur Rahman Commission." Bose had concluded that the killings of Bengali Muslims were political and killings of Hindus were 'genocidal'. Bass has affirmed that only the killings of Bengali Hindus constitute a 'genocide'. There is absolutely no ambiguity regarding their standpoints. Hence there is no question of POV. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looking at the template in more detail, it does indeed appear to violate BLP guidelines, because the nine people listed in the "Executors" section have indeed been accused but they have not all been found guilty; even those found guilty have not been found guilty of atrocities against just Hindus but also against pro-independence Bengalis. Equally, some of these people have alleged that the trials are politically-biased and given that all nine are/were politicians it is not something to take lightly. Until this discussion closes, I think we should hide these names from the template. Green Giant (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Green Giant, out of the nine names mentioned, six of them namely Abdul Quader Molla, Abul Kalam Azad, Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mojaheed, Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, Muhammad Kamruzzaman and Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury have been sentenced on death by the International Crimes Tribunal. Ghulam Azam was given 90 years imprisonment on health grounds, otherwise he would also have been given death sentence. Seven have been found guilty. Please read the verdicts available. They have been proven guilty of genocide of the Hindu population. For example refer to Mojaheed's verdict available here. Motiur Rahman Nizami's verdict is awaited. Fazlul Quader Chowdhury died in prison in 1973. So the names of the latter may be removed till there is any verdict. I'm not sure which particular BLP guideline is violated here and how, could you please elaborate? BengaliHindu (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have been found guilty of crimes against the Bengali population, not just Hindus, you are showing your POV again. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, listen, I'm not pushing any POV here. I never say that they have not been found guilty of crimes against the Bengali population. However, the crimes (killings) against the Hindus has been considered as genocide while the same against the Muslims have not by the ICT. For example, please check the verdict of SQC. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Template:1971 Bangladesh genocide to focus on the full topic of the 1971 genocide rather than just part of it. The genocide was a lot more complex and involved crimes committed by more parties than the template currently alludes, which is why it could be accused of being POV. Green Giant (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note that not all war crimes are genocide. Article 2 of the Genocide Convention defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Important criteria is the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, which is not present in ordinary war crimes, while was applicable to the Bengali Hindus as a ethnic and religious group. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are trying to say is that the genocide was only against Bengali Hindus but that there was no genocide against others because there was no other ethnic groups in East Pakistan at the time? Green Giant (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Template:1971 Bangladesh genocide - Hindus and Muslims both were victims of the genocide. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Template:1971 Bangladesh genocide as suggested. Frietjes (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.