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

The result was delete‎. I see a strong consensus to Delete this article. There might be an article possible on this subject but this one isn't it, according to most participants here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia in Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mainly an AI generated article that makes no sense, and is written in violation of WP:OR and WP:RGW.

"concerns extend to scientific and social subjects. The new science curriculum presents the theory of evolution in a way that some Islamic scholars claim contradicts Islamic teachings, particularly regarding human origins. The presence of cultural themes perceived as promoting liberal Western values, such as music and dance, has also been a source of contention. Some conservative groups argued that these elements indirectly promote secularism over Islamic principles"

What does this mean? Is the support for scientific research Islamophobic? That's how this article is entirely full of WP:OR. Koshuri ^(グ) 04:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Koshuri ^(グ) 04:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any specific evidence that the article is AI-generated? It throws up a few red flags in general tone to me, but that doesn't always mean something came out of an AI. And if the citations aren't made up, it is relatively well-cited. Although I agree that paragraph should maybe be removed. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any valid concern that violates Wikipedia policies, the paragraph can be rewritten. However, the deletion of the entire article is harsh in this case. RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 07:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I cannot find any sources that can be used for certifying the title itself. It sounds nothing more than a blatant hoax to claim there exists Islamophobia in Bangladesh. Dympies (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Islamophobia in Bangladesh is a well-documented topic covered by multiple independent, reliable sources, all of which are cited in the article. Dismissing a properly sourced subject as a ‘hoax’ without engaging with the sources is a clear bias. Personal disbelief is not a valid reason for deletion. RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 07:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Every paragraph in this article cites multiple independent, relevant, and reliable sources. Almost every sentence of the article is directly or indirectly mentioned in sources. In the part of the article you mentioned, it's clearly written that "Islamic scholars claim" and "Some conservative groups argued," which is also mentioned in the sources and does not contain my opinion. This article meets WP:V and does not violate WP:OR.

RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 07:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reply anymore in this discussion due to personal reasons. I appreciate all the feedback and perspectives shared here. Thank you... RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 13:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Stong Delete - "Beyond historical content, concerns extend to scientific and social subjects. The new science curriculum presents the theory of evolution in a way that some Islamic scholars claim contradicts Islamic teachings, particularly regarding human origins. The presence of cultural themes perceived as promoting liberal Western values, such as music and dance, has also been a source of contention. Some conservative groups argued that these elements indirectly promote secularism over Islamic principles" Apparently, science is Islamophobic, lol. While he talks about music and dance allegedly promoting Western values, he forgets to mention that Bangladesh itself is a secular state. This article does nothing but promote the views of extremists. FNH004 (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In this paragraph, it's clearly mentioned that "conservative groups argued". This means this is not my opinion but what is mentioned in the sources there was a concern regarding this. Also, you said "This article does nothing but promote the views of extremists" which is just your personal opinion and Bias.

  RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 07:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The contents provided are better suited for a "religious extremisim in Bangladesh" article tbh. Almost none of the problems (science, dancing, music, textbooks promoting other religions) mentioned have anything to do with oppression and everything to do with the radical beliefs of these so called "conservative groups", and you are showing a clear bias by defending them. FNH004 (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are already multiple articles about this (extremism in Bangladesh) btw. If there is any specific concern about this paragraph, the paragraph can be removed or rewritten. However, deleting an entire article for one paragraph does not make sense. And I am not defending them but saying that the paragraph does not promote extremism. It is what extremists thought or said at that time. Also, there are other sections and subsections in this article other than the new curriculum topic.

  RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 08:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The other section states that the 2013 Shahbag protests were "framed as a call for justice, the movement displayed Islamophobic tendencies through its rhetoric and actions against Islamic groups". The sources you provided this and this say nothing of that sort. So what you're basically saying is that protests against war criminals is somehow Islamophobic?

  How is this: In 2013, protests erupted over the demand for the death penalty for Islamist leaders accused of war crimes..... Islamophobic?

  It seems to me that you term anything challenging the beliefs of these Islamic groups to be "Islamophobia". FNH004 (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Definitely not. But in this case, many political organizations as well as Amar Desh marked it as an Anti-Islamic protest.1 2 3 Directly it was a protest demanding death penalties of 1971 war criminals. But indirectly a part of the movement was anti-Islamic. Also, the movement is being criticized after the resignation of the ex-cabinet.

  Moreover, the protest was the cause of the Shapla Square protest and what happened in Shapla Square was definitely anti-Islamic.

  RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 09:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That first source says that Jamaat is calling the protest anti-Islamic but does not make the claim itself. It even puts "anti-Islamic atheists" in quotes. The second one labels the protests anti-Jamaat, not anti-Islam. Both of those concerns apply to the third source. "Indirectly a part of the movement was anti-Islamic" is original research if you do not have a reliable secondary source saying that the movement was anti-Islamic; being "indirect" demonstrates that the reading does not directly appear in RS. "The movement is being criticized after the resignation of the ex-cabinet" is not a reason to keep the article. "What happened in Shapla Square was definitely anti-Islamic" is also OR; it's only reason to keep the article if you have an RS supporting that view. See also WP:NPOV - a Wikipedian's personal analysis of what is and isn't Islamophobic does not constitute an RS. Anerdw (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: Islamophobia in Bangladesh is a genuine issue. The article in question has systematically proven this using reliable sources. The nominator has argued that certain portions of the article were created using ChatGPT. Therefore, my humble request to them is that if an article has shortcomings, such as needing copyediting or containing AI-generated sections, it should be corrected. That is the role of editors and their work. The entire article should not be deleted outright (as per WP:ATD). Best! Baqi:) (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article contains significant WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, as multiple editors have noted. Its sources fail to clearly connect events like the Shahbag protests or curriculum disputes to "Islamophobia" in Bangladesh, instead relying on complaints from minor, extremist groups, which distorts WP:NPOV. Attempting to fix it through edits or removing AI-generated sections isn’t feasible—it’s too fundamentally flawed to preserve WP:TNT. Koshuri ^(グ) 04:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not because of AI or lack of sourcing, but because of WP:OR. Every source I could access talked about either Islamophobia in general, or violence/controversies in Bangladesh, but did not link the two (I did not check the Bengali sources, so I can't be sure about those). The author seems to be making these connections in their own mind, a classic WP:SYNTH. For example, Refs. 6-9 discuss the Shapla Chattar massacre, but not one of them describes anyone at all calling it Islamophobic (not even the lengthy Human Rights Watch report, which never once uses that term, "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Islam"); Ref. 8 comes close, but only by describing the positions of the protestors, not any reaction to the attack. I don't see any reason we couldn't have an article on this topic, but not this article.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So you mean, violence against Muslims doesn't have any connection with islamophobia? Petition to remove Islam as a state religion isn't islamophobia? Killing 1000-3000 Muslims in a day isn't islamophobia? The sources must have mentioned the term "islamophobiaaaa"?? And if you want sources about calling Shahbag Movement anti-Islamic, - 1 2 3... ~ RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 11:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Petition to remove Islam as a state religion isn't islamophobia? Yes, it isn't. OF COURSE it isn't. The fact that you're asking this question raises some big bright red flags. VdSV9•♫ 12:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain, what kind of big bright red flags? RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 13:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't let others put your behavior for a review at WP:ANI. You can start by reading WP:BLUD. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. I can explain. The fact that you asked that question shows that you can't tell the difference between people not wanting the Country they live in to have an official religion (i.e. petition to remove the state religion) and some sort of prejudice or hatred against the followers that religion (which is what islamophobia means). It's sort of like if I called you a homophobe because you refused to have sex with me (assuming you are also a man) - not really analogous, but similar. The difference should be obvious, and the most likely cause for this sort of ideological blindness is extreme bias, which usually is a bad thing when you're trying to contribute to an encyclopedia that has as one of its core policies, a neutral point of view. VdSV9•♫ 18:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Regardless of outright WP:SYNTH throughout the article, I still see no reason to believe that Islamophobia exists in Bangladesh. Just like there is no reason to believe that science is Islamophobic. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean by "I still see no reason to believe that Islamophobia exists in Bangladesh." ??

  And who said science is Islamophobic?? Have you read the discussion above?

  RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 12:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article you created suggests that there is Islamophobia in Bangladesh since "The new science curriculum presents the theory of evolution in a way that some Islamic scholars claim contradicts Islamic teachings, particularly regarding human origins." which apparently created a "Controversy Over the New Curriculum". How is that Islamophobia and not radical Islamists being angry over the government not aligning with their beliefs? FNH004 (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So, that can be edited. Wikipedia is not like it can't be edited. Removal of the article is the removal of the topic. This is my objection. RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 12:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above discussion. WP:OR & WP:SYNTH

  Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 12:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find any RS describing notable presence of Islamophobia in Bangladesh. Sources that directly connect Islamophobia with Bangladesh either do so as a strawman ("X group is saying that X action was Islamophobic" as opposed to "X action was Islamophobic") or are about people in Bangladesh speaking against Islamophobia abroad. Regardless of the existence of RS, WP:TNT seems relevant; this particular article contains far too much analysis to be salvageable even if an article about Islamophobia in Bangladesh is feasible. Anerdw (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not the right place for promoting what "Islamist groups have often criticized". Many of the sources don't even make mention of "Bangladesh"[1] or "Islamophobia"[2] but have been used here. CharlesWain (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Islamophobia in a 92 percent Muslim country? This is a hilarious laundry list of things Muslim extremists do not like so they are "Islamophobic". Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a big mess of OR and POV. The article treats as “Islamophobia” anything that is incongruent with Islam as the singular dominant religion of Bangladesh - eg secularism.OsFish (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Cerium4B—Talk? • 17:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article is in a woeful state and looks AI generated in some parts, is helping no one by staying. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in several parts with very vague connections to Islamophobia. Like in subheading 2013 Shahbag vs Shapla, calling for capital punishment for those convicted for war crimes is on this list as an instance of Islamophobia?? The Guardian source does not mention islamophobia, and the daily star source explicitly states that the allegations of islamophobia were fictitious - both do not support the statements made in the paragraph. Any anti-muslim instances (because I'm sure it happens, even if the country is officially 92% muslim) should just be in Islam in Bangladesh since I don't think any of the vaguely legitimate reasons (like the petition challenging the recognition of islam as the country's religion) are that wide scale or reported on for a separate page. jolielover♥talk 19:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. Subjectively, some Moslem people might feel oppressed even though they're 92% of the population. This has the same feel as the people here in the United States who feel science is harming Christianity, or the toddler afraid of the monster under their bed. It might be a feeling, but it's irrational and, not sourced to any secondary source, much less a primary source such as a poll about beliefs. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR. RealStanger43286 (Let's talk!) 04:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Please check out this [3] Ahammed Saad (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Being opposed to extreme, violent islamist groups like Jamaat-e-Islamis is not islamophobia. Supporting the teaching of science is not islamophobia. Disagreeing with authoritarian conservatives who want to impose a blasphemy law is not islamophobia. This article doesn't cite any actual instances of islamophobia at all, and has no very obvious reason to exist. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note A user had attempted to disrupt the ongoing AfD discussion by adding a move request to the page. Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 22:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article relies heavily on WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, connecting unrelated events and criticisms to the concept of Islamophobia without clear support from reliable sources explicitly framing them as such. For instance, opposition to extremist groups or the inclusion of scientific curricula does not inherently constitute Islamophobia, yet the article presents these as evidence without sufficient backing. No doubt, the topic could theoretically be notable, but these specific iteration fails WP:NPOV and lacks the depth of sourcing needed to establish it as a distinct phenomenon in Bangladesh. Content, if verifiable, could be better addressed in Islam in Bangladesh. NXcrypto Message 03:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete Ridiculous article, nonsensical title. WP:NPOV violations galore. The article's author's User page shows their own anti-India and anti-Israel bias with tasteless infoboxes, and saying that he "hates" a country is unacceptable.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I think that since there are other islamophobia articles for other countires, it may be worth keeping at least in principle. But certainly would need improvemet of sources and claims. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2025 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.