Talk:Shahbagi

NPOV and other concerns

Violation of NPOV

The article presents the term "Shahbagi" as inherently derogatory and equates it with atheism, anti-Islamic views, or traitorous behavior without a properly balanced counter-narrative. The tone reads more like a collection of political attacks and rhetorical condemnation than a neutral encyclopedia article. No voices from secular, liberal, or progressive circles are included to balance the narrative or respond to the allegations made by Jamaat, Hefazat, or Shibir leaders.

Primary or Non-Reliable Sources

Many citations are from opinion pieces, unverified quotes on news portals, or Facebook posts, which do not meet the reliability standard set by Wikipedia.

The description in the article is primarily centered on anti-Shahbagh statements, especially from Islamist or conservative perspectives. While such views are notable, the full spectrum of political and social reactions regarding the term “"Shahbagi" and the broader context of the movement is not adequately presented here.

Synthesis

The article seems to synthesize incidents (such as protests, Facebook statements, and attacks) to support a thesis that "Shahbagi" is a stigmatized identity or derogatory slur used against secularists or liberals. However, this synthesis appears to lack secondary analysis, making it a form of original research, which Wikipedia discourages. — Derived Constant (Talk) 07:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV

Add information regarding liberal, secular viewpoint on the term "Shahbagi" and back it with sources.

“derogatory and equates it with atheism, anti-Islamic views, or traitorous behavior without a properly balanced counter-narrative.”

— the term is used by people whom they regard as atheist, anti-islamic, so their usage of the term is added with proper citations. Don't reconstruct the meaning. WP:NOR. Moreover The term Shahbagi has been used as a slur. It's a term. Not a set of entity or group. It has no specific meaning in dictionary. Only usages.

“No voices from secular, liberal, or progressive circles are included to balance the narrative or respond to the allegations made by Jamaat, Hefazat, or Shibir leaders.”

— secular parties like NCP, BNP leaders used it too. And if you have any sources where Secularists, liberals, or progressives covers any usage of the term then add it.

The actual concern that is visible is conflict of interest (WP:COI) not (WP:NPOV).

Primary or Unreliable sources

If media reports analyses the quotes then it's not a primary source. But if the media report only quotes the social media post without additional analysis (e.g., "Politician X tweeted [quote]"), it’s closer to a primary source. The appropriate way to cite the news is to avoid doing original research on the media report.

Acceptable: "On July 1, 2025, Politician X tweeted support for a new policy, which was reported by The Guardian as sparking public debate. [Cite The Guardian]" (The Guardian is a secondary source providing context.)

Problematic: "Politician X tweeted [quote], which caused controversy. [Cite Tweet]" (This uses a primary source and implies controversy without a secondary source, violating WP:NOR)

The article follows the way of citing their quotes in Usage section. It doesn't establish their opinions as facts rather treats their opinions as opinions.

Synthesis

The article does have citations on every sentences. And due to lack of secondary sources covering the term the article couldn't elaborate who and what are Shahbagi, quality, ideology, activities etc. The article has cited proper secondary sources. If any sentence doesn't have proper secondary sources and contains original research then mention that part only. Not the entire article. Beylarbey (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Beylarbey: Wiktionary, being user-generated, is not a reliable source and has been removed. The three sentences of the lead "have citations", but are nonetheless seriously flawed.

1. Where does the Jugantor article say something that can be paraphrased as it "is a pejorative term used to refer [to the] left wing"?
2. In the second sentence of the lead the Shahbag protests are characterized as "where leftists and Communists protested for hanging of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami politicians." That is a partisan description. There were leftists and Communists among the protestors, but labeling the group that way is only one point of view, and lacks balance. Similarly, saying they advocated the hanging of Jamaat politicians is not a neutral portrayal of their demands. They advocated hanging convicted war criminals, yes?
3. Where does the Samakal article support the statement that it is generally synonymous [with] individuals with anti-Islam attitude?

Barring evidence that the citations support the language of the lead, the lead should be scrapped.

A source that could be used to develop the article is: Zaman, Fahmida (May 2018). "Agencies of Social Movements: Experiences of Bangladesh's Shahbag Movement and Hefazat-e-Islam". Journal of Asian and African Studies. 53 (3): 339–349. doi:10.1177/0021909616666870. On page 344 it says: "Hefazat-e-Islam, an umbrella organization of Islamic scholars associated with privately operated traditional Qawmi madrassa, launched a verbal assault on the Shahbag movement ... They chanted slogans such as 'Hang the atheist bloggers,' 'Slaughter the atheist bloggers,' and 'destroy the Shahbagis.' They also criticized the government for not taking actions against the 'atheist bloggers.' Other key terms that were used to define participants of the Shahbag movement are 'atheists', 'evil', 'anti-Islam', 'anti-Bangladesh;' 'they drink and dance at Shahbag and have sex at night;' and 'conspirators against Islam'." --Worldbruce (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)