Talk:Mahmudur Rahman/Archive 2

Bias to current events
I think the article is getting very tilted and detailed in terms of current events and those of the last two years. People care a lot about these issues, but perhaps this is not the place. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a running blog. For instance, it may be useful not to include so many quotes about his arrest; this is getting very deep into political chatter. Again, we do not need six or nine sources and cites simply to confirm he was arrested in 2013. The fact is not controversial or contested. One RS, or surely two, would be enough. We don't need several cites just to show the news was carried in media around the world. It's not a counting game. Parkwells (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing the fact. Let me know if I can help you by providing balancing references, as different part of this article is unusually emphasized, specially Skype controversy and arrest incidences.-- FreemesM  (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not against adding a recentism tag to this article. I don't find that particularly problematic as some other people do. With the 2nd torture claim made, the hunger strike creating health issues, and the High Court hearing set for Sunday, there will be more breaking news on his case.Crtew (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I deleted the following paragraph, as there is too much current detail. This is just not so important.<> Every criticism and back and forth should not be included; the article is drowning in it.Parkwells (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Reactions to arrest
Listing so many quotes from organizations and politicians is just deadening to the article and way too much space is devoted to this; I have mostly put them in footnotes but recommend deleting them altogether. They can be paraphrased. This is chatter; primary sources talking; it is part of the daily battle of politics, and not everyone who speaks should be quoted. As noted in the discussion above, more actions and events will be taking place; editors can't include all such quotes each time something happens. In the meantime, context is being lost - have additional riots taken place, or is everyone talking about how offended each person is? I'm exaggerating for effect but it is not useful to have a long list of he said, he said. This is not supposed to be journalism.Parkwells (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As an outsider, I have questions - if Rahman stayed at the paper, how was he finally arrested? Are police prohibited from entering places for arrest? That part is confusing. What were Parliament's legislative changes in Feb. 2011 related to arrest of journalists for defamation (which the article said the government did not pay attention to)? I think these would be more important substantively for readers than the many quotes of opinions of politicians about their reaction to his arrest. There have to be other accounts of press issues; how did the BNP-coalition government deal with the press? I seem to recall reading that according to international opinion, press freedom in Bangladesh has been a historic problem, not just a recent one. While this article is Rahman's bio, some perspective and context about press freedom of lack of it under the BNP coalition might be useful.Parkwells (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In 2010, between 100 and 200 police were used to raid the building. In this 2013 arrest, the numbers were not as large but they entered the building to arrest him there. In Bangladesh, he could face an obstruction charge for making it difficult for the police to arrest him. The press reports all seem to indicate that he has been hiding out in the office since December 2012 and left once to petition the court. Crtew (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments
Wow! You got it down to three. That's great Parkwells. I also liked how you took out the details in many cases, with some exceptions. The following comments are just looking at the text as is now. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * POV expression (Let the readers make up their minds but point them in the right direction.) = "pro-Bangladesh National Party"
 * Vague/confusing/awkward: "After establishing his own company"
 * Awkward: TWO LONG SENTENCES IN A ROW WILL BOG DOWN READERS AND STOP THEM IN THEIR TRACKS. You want to get them all the way through the lead and more! (The problem here is with form, not content) = "After establishing his own company, Rahman was appointed chair of the National Investment Board in the early 2000s; his goal was to attract US$1 billion in foreign investment. In June 2005, he was appointed national energy adviser; during his tenure, Britain's Cairn Energy participated in offshore oil and gas exploration, but he was unable to gain Bangladesh participation in a natural gas pipeline between Burma and India."
 * Vague/confusing/awkward: "Following a change in government,"
 * Huge understatement: "He has published articles critical of the Awami League-ruled government." (MR is more like the lead opposition attack dog! He calls the Awami League fascists, and he stands up to them knowing he's going to get law suits slapped on him. He's their worst nightmare personified. His audience is increasing with every attack. The Awami League just wants to get rid of him. "Publishing critical articles" makes him sound either innocent or intellectual. He's most likely neither of these.)
 * Vague: "numerous times"
 * Buried lead: "the only person ever sentenced for contempt" (This is a problem with following a chronological approach, not with your writing!)
 * Buried lead: "Mahmudur Rahman has accused the police of torture while in custody in 2010 and 2013." (Same!)
 * Vague: "many legal actions"
 * Buried lead: "judicial harassment"


 * Thanks for your comments - just trying to pack it in. Will try again in the morning. Parkwells (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This is looking much better and now you're down to two paragraphs! Fantastic. I would say the second paragraph is still problematic in that it is still fact based and needs the big picture. A key missing point there is that his political affiliation after entering politics was clearly BNP. In both of his political appointments, investments and energy, he managed to set high, admirable goals for the country but he took steps that were controversial. I also liked the summary of international reactions, although I think it needs to be tweaked a bit to represent the range.Crtew (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This huge factual error should be fixed immediately: He's only been charged with sedition twice in 2010 and 2012. You're mixing up his defamation charges with the two sedition cases. By the way, he was charged with defamation in 2011, too. Earlier, we didn't have any examples of that, but an example was put in after that had been written. Crtew (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, it was late and I was tired. It is hard to follow the actual sedition charges, and I didn't feel like counting again. Also, on his career as a government appointee, it is hard for someone outside to see the big picture from the content of the article. You made that more clear. You're welcome to make changes on the "International reactions" section; I was just trying to get beyond the numerous quotes.Parkwells (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Mouthpiece of Jamaat-e-Islami
The source says this, why is it being removed? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * IMPARTIAL says that Wikipedia doesn't take sides. "Mouthpiece" is name calling POV. It's derogatory. The purpose of WP:Neutral is to let the readers make up their own minds. Crtew (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Erm, no. WP:POV "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" Excluding the view that Sangram is seen as a mouthpiece of Jamaat-e-Islami would be the exact opposite to that. You need to add an opposing view if you feel it is not neutral. WP:IMPARTIAL is about describing disputes, not what a newspaper has been called, which is an opinion not a dispute, so all is needed here is WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and that will be the end of the issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Erm, you seem to need a quote: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Crtew (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Shit, how did I miss that? Tell me, what is the nature of the heated dispute between the Daily Sangram and Bdnews24.com? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Marriage and family
Do we really need a whole section for this? What other info is going to go there? Crtew (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a standard header; he likely had children, but have not seen any reference to them. It was just a placeholder.Parkwells (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LAYOUT, it's better not to have a lot of one-sentence or one-paragraph sections. Is it possible to combine this information in a way that won't need as many headers? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

POV Concern
Dear Parkwells, could you please consider these POV contents pleas?

POV at Lead
See this -"He has been charged with defamation more than 50 times, charged with sedition in 2009, 2010, and 2012;[5][6][7] and is the only person to be sentenced for contempt by the Bangladesh Supreme Court.[1][2][8][3] Rahman has accused the police of torture while in custody in 2010 and 2013." I think it is too much details description and emphasized to defame government. Government's statement should be added to balance it.


 * What seems most notable about his time with the paper are those facts; it is not defamation of the government to report its actions. Summarizing it that way quickly gives an impression of the heightened state of affairs, including Rahman's unique status of having been sentenced for contempt by the Supreme Court. That is newsworthy. It is international organizations that have characterized the government's actions as "judicial harassment". They are third parties; I don't want to get into gov't statements about Rahman in the Lead. Did include comments by Shahbag protesters. It seems that both sides yell defamation when they don't like criticism; when in office, Rahman also accused critics of defamation - who were experts with a private think tank. It seems to be a popular pastime in Bangladesh. I would be willing to drop the accusation of torture from the Lead - what do other editors think? Apparently such accusations are also common in the country, from what people have said here. Parkwells (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would think the accusations of torture could be dropped from the lead. They're important but not a dominant fact of coverage about him, especially since they have so little substantiation. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

POV at body
-- FreemesM  (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On 1 June 2010, the government sent more than 100 police to arrest Rahman and close down the paper's printing press.
 * Aminul Islam, a torture victim, later recalled how he had been threatened at the time while being held by the Bangladesh's National Security Intelligence: "They showed me a bloodied carpet and said that they would injure me like Mahmudur Rahman."
 * The whole Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal section.


 * The fact that you keep using as your main excuse that MR has somehow defamed the government of Bangladesh shows that you have a POV axe to grind, and policy clearly says to leave your axe at home. Furthermore, he was NOT charged with sedition 3 times. That's a factual error.Crtew (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It was Reporters without Borders that gave the account of the arrest and shutdown in June 2006- they are a third party RS representing freedom of the press. I don't think it is POV to give their account. National media also reported Rahman's arrest and shutdown of the paper, so it seems noteworthy. I don't mind taking out Islam's account - ok. The whole International Crimes Tribunal section can't be POV - it is factual and it is context for Rahman's criticism and, perhaps, gov't actions. You can't ask for coverage of complaints against him by protest leaders without having some context for what the protests are about and what preceded them, namely, the Tribunal and convictions and sentencing. Parkwells (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hi. I see there is a request for assistance at WP:Third opinion; I'd be happy to help out. The article looks much improved since the last 3O in March. Can the two parties please do the following: After both parties have done the above, I'll ask more questions, or provide some thoughts. PS: I will be out of town for 3 days starting tomorrow, so I will not be able to reply until 22 April. --Noleander (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Identify the concern/issue
 * 2) Explain how the material in the article should be presented to address the concern
 * 3) Provide quotes from sources (if available) to support the material


 * Hi Noleander, nice to see you again here. :) Crtew and me come to a consensus to rewrite the article. We have invited Parkwells to we write the article. He agreed with the proposal and say he will do it on next weekend. That means 22 April! Meanwhile I will list my issues here. Thanks again.-- FreemesM  (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We have already agreed, it seems, to let two other active editors in the article perform a rewrite on the lead. I think if Parkwells has a go at it and Khazar2 reviews it, all should be good. The lead was too long. And this created a problem when we started to add to it.Crtew (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, glad you all found a path forward. --Noleander (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we discuss changes to this article as we go?
Parkwells, would it be possible for you to open a thread here on this page to list significant material you're adding, deleting, or rewriting? I think a lot of the changes are good ones, but because of the number of minor changes made along with the major and the material that's being rearranged, the edit summaries and history are becoming difficult to follow. I realize that's an inconvenience, but doing this slowly, transparently, and with consensus will save a lot of time on edit-warring later.

Some of the changes I see at a glance that I'd like to discuss further:
 * I don't understand why it's "no longer relevant" that at one point Rahman's relationship with the government was so tense that he offered his resignation. This seems like a moment worth mentioning in the history of any minister, and hardly bogs down the article in detail.
 * Why delete that protesters burned Rahman in effigy? Can you help me find the edit(s) where this change was made so I can better understand?
 * Can the new unsourced statement about Rahman's 2006 resignation be sourced?


 * Hi, sorry, thought I was commenting on edits in the edit summaries. It is hard to write it all on the Talk page; was trying to clear my participation over the weekend. Maybe I'll just bow out after answering your questions. I don't think I've added anything substantive; do not have separate sources.


 * 1) Without an explanation of what the substance of the tensions with the gov't were when he offered his resignation, why note it? Then it's an event without an explanation or meaning. Maybe you or other editors know or can find out what the issues were. I think something needs to be added about why he wanted to resign, if it stays in.
 * 2) Which protesters burned Rahman in effigy? How often do protesters burn ministers in effigy? There seem to be many violent protests. But, I don't recall that fact being in the version I was working from this weekend. You're certainly free to put it back in; it depends on how much detail editors want. It seems to me more significant that 30,000 people protested and people were killed, and then 70,000 people protested across the country, as that indicates scale. I had done some reading on the mine plan and demonstrations trying to understand more about the mine issue. Added the cited information a while ago (not this go round) that development had still not proceeded as of 2010. Apparently the gov't and Asia Energy (and its predecessor) had been talking about mine development in that area for a long time, long before Rahman was in office.
 * 3) Since Rahman was described as an ex-official in November 2006 when the scandal about the midnight meeting with administration officials in Uttara took place, he must have resigned that year. In August 2006, he was in office during the protests/riots over the mine. Meant to pick up one of the cites for the meeting to use to substantiate that.Parkwells (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

As a side issue, without a Highbeam account, I can't read enough about that midnight meeting to understand why it was such a problem. It should be better explained for other readers. Is there some prohibition against former ministers/advisers meeting with current government officials? They all belonged to the same party. Or was it because they were meeting secretly at midnight, so acted as if they had something to hide? What were they hiding? Did people think the BNP was going to influence directly how the gov't people did their jobs before the election? How did it relate to the campaign for re-election? How could the Awami League gov't charge those 13 people with sedition four years later - for what, exactly? That's a big charge, four years after the fact. (But those are just side questions.)Parkwells (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to be honest that the idea that one editor do a major rewrite while others hold off is odd and un-Wikipedia-like to me, but I'll respect that consensus for now and let the changes stand. Still, it's clear we're going to have to start this whole process again when the article is opened back up to the community, and that's pretty frustrating. I think the only long-term solution here is to work out a consensus on the major points of dispute through talk page discussion, probably with some outside opinions through WP:3O or RfCs; taking turns doing top-to-bottom rewrites the article is unlikely to ever get us there. (That doesn't mean I'm not looking forward to my turn next, though! ) -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My understanding was that all sides were trying to find a way to control the chaos of all of us rewriting at once. However, I like your plan to document the changes. My point, above, was we should go one section at a time and from top to bottom, which was not what happened. The most positive aspect of this is that we want an orderly process and not a free for all. Crtew (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, I do apologize for not leaving a better trail. Was not sure I could take on the rest of the article. Crtew's comments helped me rethink the Lead. Then I tried to stand back to look at the rest, and just kept going. When people are adding many details and cites, based only on current press coverage, sometimes the bigger issues seem to get lost. Since this is not my country, maybe I have more questions. Recommend against the tendency to add so many quotes in terms of "reactions" - he said, she said, he said; these are essentially primary source comments - what do people/groups outside the political parties say? Hardly any political party representative says anything you wouldn't expect, so why quote them all? (as was done before re: Rahman's 2013 arrest. Is this arrest more important than his earlier arrests, or was so much coverage given to it in this article because it just happened? The article is weighing very heavily toward the last five years of his life as editor, and even more to the last two years; of course the high volatility of the current political situation attracts attention, but this is WP, not journalism, supposedly.) I strongly advise against the over-citing of non-controversial facts - it doesn't matter that seven papers reported his arrest; they don't disagree that it happened, no differences in perspective were offered in the content in this article, so seven cites are not needed to substantiate it. Well, have fun. Will answer any questions to help.Parkwells (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, in the case of his resignation, are we sure he resigned? I agree that this seems like the most likely inference, but other possibilities include his being dismissed or impeached, for example. Given how contentious this article has been, I'd rather stick close to our reliable sources. I'll remove this for now until someone's been able to verify this.
 * As for the effigy-burning, I'm not sure when that came out at this point and I'll simply re-add it. I don't have stats for frequency of effigies, but it's surely worth a sentence or half-sentence. Will re-add later. (Followup--it looks like you took this out in your last round of deletions. )
 * Similarly, in the case of his resignation, even if we don't know the exact cause of his quarrel with the PM's office, the fact that there was one that escalated to his resignation seems news-worthy in and of itself. I'll re-add this for now, but if there's a consensus for any reason that we don't need this, I won't add it a third time.
 * Later today I'll do a check for what else has been added and deleted and try to write more then. Thanks all, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I edit-conflicted you, PW, didn't realize you were still going. Will hold off with the above until you're done. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're really going to re-add this five minutes after I took it out, without providing a source or discussing any further here? Let's not turn this into an edit war. I think my objection above that some source is needed is a pretty reasonable one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

BLP and going forward
I have no idea what's going on with Parkwells any more, but it looks like after reverting me once to re-insert the false claim that Rahman resigned under pressure from the protesters, they then corrected the statement.
 * [Note: I never said he resigned because of protesters.]Parkwells (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

(Per the source that's there now, it looks like Rahman just left because his government's term expired, not because he resigned.)
 * Officials resign when they leave the government, even if their administration is ending. That's my understanding; perhaps it is different in BD. Resignation does not only cover a prominent gesture of resigning over principles. Parkwells (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with some of the changes and improvements Parkwells has made, these kinds of BLP issues are much more serious than any problems the article previously had: a nonexistent criminal charge stood for half a day, and a nonexistent resignation, with the obvious implication that it had been due to protests, stood for two days. This is the kind of stuff we shouldn't screw around with. It's also hard to see how major, discussion-free reshufflings like this are getting us closer to a consensus version. Anyway, it's clearly time that other editors got reinvolved. I don't want to mass revert, but I'll print out the March version and this version and put them side-by-side tomorrow so I can start to reconstruct the old version. Once we're sure that all of the false insertions have been corrected and removed, we can start to work on individual sections that have proved to be points of contention. Does that sound like a plan? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, some moderation, please. Sorry, really did not remember deleting the burning in effigy. I was invited to work on this and tried to accommodate editors by spending a lot of time on it this weekend; sorry if it was not perfect and if I found some of the content confusing. I wrote that Rahman resigned in 2006, not that he resigned because of protests. That's your interpretation. One of the articles about the Nov. 2006 Uttara conspiracy headlined Rahman as an "ex-energy adviser"; that was how I knew he had resigned by Nov. 2006; it was not a "non-existent resignation." There was no other content in this article following the protests for his time in gov't in 2006; is that my fault? If he resigned within three months, is it still considered to be because of the protests? Parkwells (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Why didn't anyone else note that Zia's gov't had ended in Oct. 2006? I just added that content today, with a cite, as well as adding cited content about the extreme unrest, 40 deaths and violence that had already preceded the Nov. 2006 meeting that Rahman held. This was apparently the context for all the excitement about his meeting. The most complete article about the Nov. 2006 meeting among the existing sources, by the way, was by Arab News, not one of the Bangladesh papers. Also, other editors could have immediately corrected my mistakenly listing one more sedition charge than there was; I had been working on the article for hours, finished at midnight and had gotten confused. Did not return to the article for some time because of other commitments. So please don't accuse me of "false insertions." Parkwells (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I added the resignation with a cite because of trying to find that cite based on the first comment on the TAlk page that it did not have a cite. Had not gone back looking for more comments. Typically political appointees resign and leave terminating governments before the very end of an administration; in the US, they generally have average appointments of only 18 months to two years. If you really think he was impeached or dismissed, then take it out, but he was definitely the ex-energy adviser by Nov. 2006 and the Uttara incident, which is what I was trying to say. So find some other way to say it - but he left the government. With all the attention paid to him, it would seem an impeachment or dismissal would have been covered by the press. Parkwells (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Have answered one of my own questions: added content for the Feb. 2, 2011 legislation referred to in the article, in terms of journalists organizations' reactions to Rahman's 2011 arrest. The legislation nullified issuing arrest warrants for newsmen accused of defamation, but the gov't arrested Rahman anyway for that cause. Parkwells (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, you added this assumed resignation to both the lead and the body into a paragraph about the protests, immediately following a sentence about protesters demanding his resignation. The unavoidable implication was that he resigned because his resignation was demanded.
 * Anyway, I agree that that gap needed to be filled in, and I'm glad you did. My point is that you can't just make stuff up because you want a better transition, even if it's your best guess to what probably happened. I agree that your current version is fine, and I appreciate your sorting through the sources to find an accurate description of what happened. At the same time, I'm sure you can understand why I was frustrated that you first reverted me to re-insert the incorrect version, without looking at the talk page or the article history before you did or commenting there after you did. (I have to add that, for what you knew was a disputed edit reverting another editor, "c/e" was a flatly dishonest edit summary.) This is a BLP, and obviously a very controversial one. Let's look at sources instead of guessing and talk to each other instead of edit warring.
 * Yes, edit conflicts are one of the problems that occur with this form of work. Was not trying to edit war.Parkwells (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's really hard to start building a consensus version when you're making so many changes a day, some of them substantial; I had literally only been working on it for four minutes tonight, the first time I did real work on it today, before you started reverting me. And it's frustrating to know that if I come back to work on this tomorrow, the odds are you'll be reverting me without discussion or edit summary within hours, just as you did when you were here in March and just as you did today. I'm running out of ideas for how to approach this situation. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And re-reading what I wrote above, I think I'm going to tap out for a while again. I've wasted hours looking at this one and arguing about this one today without having enough of an opening to be able to make even basic edits; even if I did, I have a hunch I'd simply be reverted again. It's not that this article isn't worthwhile, but those hours could be more productively spent in other corners of the 'pedia. Cheers to all, and thanks for your efforts on this one! Good luck getting to that consensus version. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not to worry - I won't work on it any more. I only came back briefly because of being asked; also have other projects to work on. Parkwells (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to bother to undo all this, but please stop redacting your comments, inter-threading them with mine, and re-formatting mine. This discussion was confusing enough. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Restart the discussion please
Ok, every step back and take a deep breath (I have)! Let's put this into perspective: The article is actually very good alread, and we all developed it almost fully even before his arrest, which we did not know was going to happen. This article couldn't have gotten this far without everybody's help (even the constructive criticism)!

The bloated lead created a situation where the article itself was difficult to manage. We did something unusual by holding back and letting a few editors take the lead on rewriting the lead. I think what happened here is we had a communication breakdown in the hand off. Nobody's perfect. I'm sure everybody meant well. But the progress we've made so far has been good. Parkwells has done an excellent job!!! He's chopped away the fluff from the lead and left the important points. When I saw the breakdown (see above), I tried to finish the job. It's now down to a three-paragraph summary, which was our goal. Let's discuss this, like we agreed, before we make changes and edit war over any details.

We have come this far, let's not quit when the job's almost done. Crtew (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Khazar2's plan to re-insert any problematic deletions, sounds fair. Perhaps those could be listed by brief/summary bullet points. Crtew (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Restored "effigy"
Covered it also in the edit summary - restored "burning in effigy" in relation to protests about the mines while Rahman was energy adviser, which was part of cited content.Parkwells (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead
Your change to characterization of the "opposition paper" is one I support. I had followed some of the extensive discussion about that, and thought it had been settled at "pro-BNP" when I started working on the Lead, which is why I did not change it. Your version is better. Parkwells (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

State of emergency
The military-backed caretaker gov't imposed a state of emergency in Jan. 2007, and during that year pursued corruption charges against Zia and two sons, as well as some of her ministers, AND against Hasina. At one point, relatives were trying to negotiate Zia's exile to Saudi Arabia, but she was arrested after that. Rahman's role was less than minor, given this larger context for postponement of elections, and significant charges against the leaders of the two major parties. How do editors want to handle this? I've added brief content and will be adding more RS from the Zia article, which includes sources from outside Bangladesh.Parkwells (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggest section name change
"2007/2008 elections" might better be called "Caretaker government". There was more happening than Rahman's midnight meeting or how it affected the timing of the election. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia described Zia's tenure as characterized since 2003 by strikes, protests and violence. After her government resigned, the caretaker government (CTG) was backed by the military (which I added and cited in this section). The fall of 2006 after her resignation was also marked by protests and 40 deaths, which preceded Rahman's Nov. midnight meeting, which I previously added with cites. Also, the CTG in 2007 charged Khaleda Zia with murder and corruption, and jailed her for nearly a year - that was why the election was postponed for so long, not Rahman. I added this, as well as that the reassignment of 13 gov't officials from the Nov. 2006 meeting was done during the CTG. If editors want to keep the section more focused on Rahman, perhaps it should be called "Uttara conspiracy", as the Nov. event came to be called. It sort of begins and ends with that. But I think the other content has to stay in, as it is newsworthy and related to background of his event- the election wasn't postponed because of Rahman's meeting, and surely the jailing of his former boss in this period is worth noting.Parkwells (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The strikes and violence occurs as early as 2004 in M.R's article here but they continue throughout until the election. The Aug 2004 deaths from a series of grenade in an attack on an Awami League gathering is a significant event during Rahman's tenure as BoI. He was afraid the continual strikes would decrease the amount of foreign investments. The Awami League early on wanted to force a CTG and advocated for fairer election conditions. (Note: Looking at it from today, it seems as if the same issues are in play but the roles of the coalitions are reversed.) Crtew (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that struck me, too.Parkwells (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)