Talk:2012 ICT Skype controversy

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Bangladesh Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list:

Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages
Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work
Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV
Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion)
Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion)
Improve Bengalis and related pages
Take a look at the requested articles.
Make a MRT line 3 article.
Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton.

Move to 2012 ICT Skype scandal

I think calling it a "controversy" is more POV than "scandal". There are articles from different sources which describe it as a scandal, such as The Daily Star [1], BBC [2] and The Independent (BD) [3]. Calling this a "controversy" is euphemistic language which skews the POV towards seeing the affair especially mildly. Applesandapples (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:POVTITLE & WP:NPOV controversy controversy controversy controversy Note the BBC has scandal in scare quotes.Darkness Shines (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy is a less strong word than scandal. The presence of the word "controversy" does not exclude it from being a scandal. Indeed, one of the articles you link is from the Daily Star, which I have already shown to describe the incident as a "scandal". I think, if newspapers say it is both a "controversy" and a "scandal", then the stronger word takes precedence. To be honest, I just think that it is common sense to call this a scandal. The judge, prosecution and government were all discovered to be colluding and several newspapers describe it as a scandal. It feels a bit disparate and Orwellian to read the article and see it described as a "controversy". Applesandapples (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Economist is of the opinion they were colluding, there is no proof that this is a fact. You have the right to request a move, follow the instructions here Darkness Shines (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

2012 ICT Skype controversy → 2012 ICT Skype scandal – I think calling it a "controversy" is POV. There are articles from different sources which describe it as a scandal, such as The Daily Star [4], BBC [5], Bangla News 24 [6] and The Independent (BD) [7]. Calling this a "controversy" is euphemistic language which skews the POV towards seeing the affair especially mildly. Applesandapples (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:POVTITLE & WP:NPOV controversy controversy controversy controversy Note the BBC has scandal in scare quotes. copied from discussion above Darkness Shines (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy is a less strong word than scandal. The presence of the word "controversy" does not exclude it from being a scandal. Indeed, one of the articles you link is from the Daily Star, which I have already shown to describe the incident as a "scandal". I think, if newspapers say it is both a "controversy" and a "scandal", then the stronger word takes precedence. To be honest, I just think that it is common sense to call this a scandal. The judge, prosecution and government were all discovered to be colluding by The Economist, one of the most reliable sources it is possible to have on this topic, and several other newspapers describe it as a scandal. It feels a bit disparate and Orwellian to read the article and see it described as a "controversy".Applesandapples (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The economist has suggested there may have been collusion from what I have read, do they actually outright say that? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Support

Personally, I prefer "2013 Skypegate scandal" as a title, but I agree with A&A and can live with "2013 ICT scandal" as a title. This is not a "controversy". A "controversy" is when two sides hold strong opinions about an issue and can't agree. A "scandal" is when someone got caught doing something he shouldn't and had to resign as a result. People don't resign over "controversy" (accept in a few cultures); In most countries, politicians use controversies to turn out their hard core supporters and get donotions (which is also scandalous but so ordinary). The "ICT" for me is jargon. Most people don't even know what an ICT is or could care less.Crtew (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the term, but I just checked on my database and pulled up 81 articles with the term "skypegate" and "bangladesh". That's amazing that so many articles would use skypegate - a meme.Crtew (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some newspapers use the term "skypegate" some of the time, but I'm not sure it's quite established enough a term for it to be the article name. And I don't really understand your jargon point...if someone is interested in the Skype scandal, surely they do care about what the ICT is? Applesandapples (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could not use the -gate suffix at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something for somebody to edit war on then: Watergate_scandal. If you type "watergate", then you get a redirect to the Scandal. Peace, Crtew (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show a notable source, which termed it as Skypeget?--FreemesM ^(talk) 17:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skypegate examples of use: "War crimes tribunal judge calls for probe into skypegate" in the Gulf Times, "Skypegate triggers retrial pleas by G Azam, others" in The Independent (Bangladesh), and many articles by bdinn.com Crtew (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just 3 sources!--FreemesM ^(talk) 14:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's unnecessary to list them all. Perhaps you might search it.14:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose according to WP:POVTITLE policy. No doubt both "Scandal" and "controversy" has media coverage. So this article should not titled with extreme one.--FreemesM ^(talk) 17:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I disagree with Applesandapples. To me, calling it a "scandal" is a POV and violates WP:POVTITLE policy. I think the title should also include "skype" keyword. Based only on one incident, it is very misleading and wrong to characterize the whole ICT as controversial. Timtim.hoque (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think "scandal" is the appropriate word for this as it's too strong. There are arguments about the Skype incident whether the discussion was legal or illegal. Calling it "scandal" would be inappropriate and biased. Shantonu.hossain (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012 ICT Skype controversy. 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/20141213012741/http://www.newstoday.com.bd/?option=details&news_id=39782&date=2011-09-25 to http://www.newstoday.com.bd/?option=details&news_id=39782&date=2011-09-25

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]