Talk:Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini

message: Please find all English sources as alternatives to improve this article. Messiaindarain (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Non English must have alternatives

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419012024/http://www.amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2012/03/17/136542 to http://www.amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2012/03/17/136542
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402145814/http://www.amardeshonline.com/pages/weekly_news/2012/08/04/8386 to http://www.amardeshonline.com/pages/weekly_news/2012/08/04/8386
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In these edits, you removed three paragraphs critical of the Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini, and in doing so broke several references. You also added, with malformed referencing, a paragraph of background information that is poorly integrated but may prove beneficial, and helpfully removed vandalism to the mascot.
To take your edit summaries point by point: 
* "After reading this article, it was clear that it held some biases against the first government of the country and its revolutionary leaders including the father of the country."
:Wikipedia is not written to celebrate Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, or to glorify Bangladesh, its governments, or its revolutionary leaders. Its content is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means reflecting fairly, proportionately, and without bias of the editor, all signficant views of a subject that have been published by reliable sources. The way to achieve NPOV is seldom to remove sourced information. Instead, rewrite it to attribute opinions clearly, and balance it with other viewpoints, in proportion to their relative prominence, by adding material citing other reliable sources.
* "Many dubious statements with weak references were removed for being partisan toward anti-Bangladesh independence movements including invoking of Pro Pakistani journalist Anthony Mascarenhas."
:I would be surprised if any reliable source characterized Anthony Mascarenhas as "pro-Pakistani". If anything, he more likely would be described as "pro-Bangladeshi". Whatever his biases, he is widely cited by numerous academics in the field: M. Rafique Afzal, Crispin Bates, Mahfuzul H. Chowdhury, Christian Gerlach,  David Lewis (academic), and Lawrence Ziring, to name a few. So it is hardly surprising that Wikipedia also quotes and cites him. You also removed content cited to academic works by Emajuddin Ahamed, Moudud Ahmed, C. Christine Fair, Ghulam Murshid, Francis Pike, Ali Riaz, and Human Rights Watch, among others. Those are not "weak references".
I've reverted your removal of the three sourced paragraphs. If you wish to remove them, first establish consensus here, preferably on a paragraph-by-paragraph or source-by-source basis, for why the material doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I've left in your one paragraph addition, and will try to fix its broken referencing. If you can clarify what sources you used, that would be helpful. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive removals by Promo Academic