Talk:Sheikh Hasina

Formally addressing the subject with a different naming conventions.
Should the article formally refer to the subject


 * by her family name, Sheikh
 * or her by her given name, Hasina? Appu (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Info- The Chinese (at least the politicians I know) have similar naming order and are referred to by their family names in the Wikipedia articles. Appu (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see any standard conventions for Bangladeshi names, as there are for many other nationalities (and if her name is currently "Sheikh Hasina Waked", it is also possible that the correct way would be "Waked", which is omitted here and should also be presented as an option). But this should probably be asked at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people), perhaps with the aim of developing general guidance and standardization for Bangladeshi names, rather than as a one-off on a particular article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarification - Wajed is out of question since it is not a part of her common name. Zendaya, Shakira, Rihanna have family names by which they are not referred to as, since there common name is strictly their given names. In Tom Cruise, Mapother is his family name, Cruise is his middle name yet Wikipedia refers to him as Cruise for the same reason. Here too, the subject is unanimously known without Wajed.
 * Appu (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is up to the respondents of the RfC, not the filer of it, what is or is not "out of the question". Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm an uninvolved editor brought here by the RfC bot. Generally, in western English, we refer to figures by their "family name" in articles and other impersonal documents. I scarequote that because as the proposer of this RfC mentioned, there are numerous exceptions. Practically all of them are as they stated, when the common name is mononymous or the person's common name as a different "last name" than their actual one.
 * That being said, there are cases where I've seen prominent figures commonly referred by their given name. I believe in cases when reliable sources consistently refer to someone by their given name, we should follow those sources in the intent of WP:COMMONNAME, and not try to impose our own rules of consistency when RSes disagree.
 * For Sheikh Hasina, a quick Google News search shows reliable sources abbreviating her name as "Hasina" far more than "Sheikh". For instance, here are the past 7 New Indian Express articles on the topic "Sheikh Hasina":       Each one abbreviates Sheikh Hasina's name at some point during the article, and every article abbreviates her as "Hasina" or some variation of "Prime Minister Hasina". None of these articles abbreviates her name as "Sheikh" or "Prime Minister Sheikh". Going into Google News, just picking through the top articles (excluding the ones about the "Sheikh Hasina" chess tournament which don't abbreviate her name), almost of them refer to her as "Hasina" and none use the term "Sheikh". NDTV calls her "Ms Hasina" , Al Jazeera calls her "Hasina" in the headline , Al-Jazeera again calls her "Hasina" , an article from the Dhaka Tribune doesn't call her "Hasina" but links to another article that does , an article from the AP published in the Independent calls her "Hasina", , and another article from NDTV doesn't abbreviate her name . I have not been able to find a single article so far in the past 20 minutes of searching that abbreviates "Sheikh Hasina" as just "Sheikh" or "PM Sheikh".
 * I've also read through the "Sheikh Hasina" topic on The Daily Star. The first seven articles       do not abbreviate Sheikh Hasina's name as either "Sheikh" or "Hasina". From the eighth to eleventh article her name is abbreviated as "Hasina"    . At this point, given that every source I could find refers to Sheikh Hasina as "Hasina" when the need for abbreviation arises and none of them use "Sheikh" (or Waked, for that matter), I think we should follow the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME and abbreviate "Sheikh Hasina" as Hasina in the article if necessary. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 05:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Tentatively Hasina - Mostly on the basis of the evidence brought forth by(talk)above. But I would like to have a "theoretical justification" for the decision, such as an explanation from someone who is familiar with Bangladeshi naming customs. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hasina - Regardless of societal convention, the wikipedia way is to follow the conventions of the reliable sources that we use. From Chess's efforts above, it seems pretty clear that English language reliable sources unanimously use Hasina as the convention, so regardless of a general rule for how any random Bangladeshi person's name should be conveyed, Sheikh Hasina's name specifically should be shortened to Hasina.  I do think it would be useful to establish a general convention, but that convention would be ignored in this situation (50/50 that the convention would make it moot, but either way it simply wouldn't be a factor here). Fieari (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Request to change IPA pronunciation
I suggest changing [ɦɐsina] to [ɦasina]. As per the Wikipedia articles on Help:IPA/Bengali and on Bengali language, ɐ as a phoneme is not found in Bengali. However, the letters অ and আ are commonly denoted as /a/. Therefore denoting হাসিনা as [ɦasina] would be more appropriate. Thank You. SomePacifisticGuy (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

NPV and worth to mention
The article must be edited from WP:NPV. Also avoid WP:PUFFERY.

Below are some of the information not mentioned. Can be added and cited with reliable sources.

The Biden administration has raised questions over the legitimacy of the Sheikh Hasina government over three years after the general elections. ''It said disappearances have become a “hallmark” of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s rule since 2009, a tool for curtailing free speech and criticism. In the 2013 Universal Periodic Review, the Bangladesh government agreed to “thoroughly and impartially investigate and … prosecute all allegations of human rights violations, in particular enforced disappearances, custodial torture and extra-judicial killings,” including violations by members of the security forces. However, except for a few isolated incidents, the government has failed to honor this commitment.

''In Bangladesh, people who question the government’s increasingly authoritarian rule fear they may be next in line to be killed or forcibly disappeared by security forces. When Human Rights Watch raises this with the Bangladeshi authorities, they are quick to dismiss the reports as lies made up by the political opposition...... Yet extrajudicial killings have become so established in Bangladesh...''

People have been systematically and judicially punished for challenging the Sheikh Hasina's views.

''An August 2021 report by Human Rights Watch documented widespread enforced disappearances by Bangladesh security forces under Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League-led government from 2009 to 2020. Foreign Minister AK Abdul Momen rejected the findings, telling the media that the allegations were “fabricated.” The Bangladesh government has long denied compelling evidence of government involvement in disappearances, which is particularly damaging and painful to victims’ families. Human rights groups have accused current prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, of stifling dissent by wielding draconian laws to curb free speech.'' --Knitslentsd (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.jpg


 * @Community Tech bot Defensive 103.67.157.66 (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @103.67.157.66 বুবু আসসালামু আলাইকুম, আল্লাহ আশা করি আল্লাহ পাকের অশেষ রহমতে ভালই আছেন। পর সংবাদ স্বরাষ্ট্র প্রতিমন্ত্রী ফেরদৌসী আরা আমার অস্ত্র এবং এন এস আই এর আইডি কার্ড জমা নিয়ে আর ফেরত দেয় নাই। তারপরে রেপিড অ্যাকশন ব্যাটেল এ কিছুদিন জয়েন করে কাজ করি। কিন্তু মেনন সাহেবের কাছ থেকে এক কোটি টাকা নেওয়ার পর ওখান থেকেও আমার চাকরি চলে যায়। প্রতিরক্ষা মন্ত্রণালয়ে এখন আর যায় না। ওখান থেকে ৬৫ লক্ষ টাকা অস্ত্র রিনিউয়াল এর সব কাজ আমি সমাধান করে দিয়েছি। আমাকে আরেকটিবার সুযোগ দিয়ে গঠিত করবেন সেই আশাবাদ ব্যক্ত করি। 103.67.157.66 (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

NPOV
AMomen88, please do not add POV and promotional content to the lead. The economic achievements you are trying to add cannot be credited to Sheikh Hasina unless you can establish these have been achieved because of specific government policies under her term. Bangladesh's socio-economic progress has been an ongoing phenomenon at least since 2004. Experts rather credit the economic growth to the private sector. LucrativeOffer (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, , The cited content I inserted is my no means POV or promotional, the sources are neutral and are not biased opinion pieces like the “sources” you added. One of the sources you cited is tagged “opinion” and “views”, OpEds aren’t reliable sources and are only useful to the extent of highlighting the views of the author. The content isn’t “promotional”, stating a fact does not make information promotional. You have yet to substantiate any of your claims such as that as a direct result of the governments policies there has been a “worsening security situation” which is what you accused me of.  As I made clear in edit summaries, as the head of government Hasina takes responsibility for the “positives” and “negatives”, I want to include information which is both “positive” and “negative” so the article is balanced and neutral. That is why it’s fair to have one “positive” and one “negative” paragraph. You seem to be hellbent on inserting information which is solely negative I presume in order to skew the article in favour of your personal opinions. Some of the points you added are really quite absurd, are you suggesting Hasina is responsible for the July Dhaka terror attack?  You are perfectly entitled to your opinions but Wikipedia isn’t your personal blog, facts you don’t like aren’t “promotional”, they are facts. Please end your disruptive and unproductive edits which are jeopardising the neutrality and denigrating the overall quality of the article. —AMomen88 (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are very wrong about your interpretation of WP:RS. Opinion Pieces are reliable sources when it's written by someone credible, in this case it is the assistant editor of The Daily Star. Besides, I am not inserting the opinion of the author rather citing a statistical information from the piece. A compromise can be made that we attribute the information in the article to the source which is South Asian Network on Economic Modelling (Sanem). Notable incidents during a statesperson's tenure are mentioned in the lead, you can check George W Bush where the lead includes mention about 9/11. I have no problem to include any achievements of Sheikh Hasina in the lead, but it has to be Hasina's. Feel free to include any policies or initiatives undertaken by Hasina's government. Again, the George Bush article could be your model to follow.


 * Also I am very concerned about your behavior, you are repeatedly attacking me, first in the edit summaries and now in the talk page. Tagging uninvolved editors in the discussion with an impolite note is canvassing. Please fix your behavior to keep the discussion civil. LucrativeOffer (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You clearly do not comprehend the principle of NPOV, the source you attached was an opinion piece written by someone who was a member of the publications editorial team, by no stretch of the imagination can such an article be classed as neutral so it is unfit to be a source on Wikipedia. It is odd you defend the use of opinion pieces but then in the very next sentence you try to justify the use of biased sources. I have in no way at all attacked you personally, I have criticised the nature of the edits you made. You shouldn't take legitimate criticism I levelled against your edits personally. I tagged the editors because I know they are experienced and reputed on Bangladeshi Wikipedia, it is my sincere hope they can help resolve the impasse since it is unlikely we will do it ourselves. I am concerned by your habit of reinserting contentious biased material without attaining consensus on the talk page, despite a clear warning by a user. Please refrain from such activities until consensus is attained here.—AMomen88 (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do not make false interpretation of the policies to force your revert. Read WP:RS, editorials are reliable sources. If you think editorial team of a newspaper like The Daily Star is not neutral then who is neutral? I'm sure you have cited The Daily Star yourself in many articles. I am not even including opinions rather a statistical information. And you have raised concern against one source, why are you removing other contents? Please do not make these disruptive edits. LucrativeOffer (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is clear you are labouring from a significant deficit of understanding in regards to what the role of an editorial team is, it is there role to produce material which represents the opinion and views of the publication regarding the matter, not to be neutral. Even if OpEds were neutral sources, your edits skew the article so there is no place for them. As I mentioned, it is fair and appropriate to have one "positive and one "negative" paragraph, the paragraph you inserted skews the article resulting int he lead becoming inaccurate and skewed.—AMomen88 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Editorials and opinion pieces are reliable sources as per WP:RS. An information being negative is not a valid reason to remove it from the article when it's supported by reliable sources. LucrativeOffer (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , you are against using opinion pieces but you have used opinion pieces from the same source in edit, that is very self-contradictory. While I do not see you have adequately addressed LucrativeOffer's objections. As I see, your objection is mainly based on using this opinion piece, so I am restoring LucrativeOffer's rest of the edit, that must be agreeable to both of you. You have just returned from a block, please do not engage in edit wars. A.Musketeer (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My objections primarily arise from the fact that the lead with LucrativeOffer’s edits is entirely negative, there is no positive material. As a result the lead is skewed and lacks neutrality. Prior to the users edits, there was already a well structured paragraph which discussed the rising authoritarianism and deteriorating human rights, why add another one? In order to form a balanced lead there should be positive and negative information which is why the users edits are unwarranted. I was blocked for violating the three revert rule, a rule which LucrativeOffer violated also but no such action was taken against them.—AMomen88 (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please talk with reference to the policies. Being negative does not mean they should not be included, that is a very flawed argument. I told you can add any of Hasina's achievements but you are adding stuff which cannot be credited to her. You cannot add just any other thing to balance. Can you point out any specific policies undertaken by her government? And I didn't violate 3RR, you only did. Plus I have reverted your edit because I have now support from another editor. LucrativeOffer (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you read my edit summaries I have said on numerous occasions there should be negative information, but this should be balanced with positive information to make the article neutral. Hasina is the head of government so she takes responsibility for the positives and negatives under her premiership, none of the sources you've attached clearly state that Hasina was directly responsible for the Bangladesh Rifles revolt nor that as a result of her polices there has been an increase in Islamist attacks so why is the same rule being ascribed to me? You have the support from a sole editor who has made less than 250 edits in almost a decade on Wikipedia, having support from a single inexperienced editor is not authoritative, I would much rather the more experienced editors I tagged render their opinions.—AMomen88 (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I have been editing for almost 8 years now and it's the quality counts not quantity. I would suggest you first gather support for your highly problematic edit before reverting again. It's now 2 against 1, so you should start listening to others, especially when you have just been blocked for edit warring. As it seems, you have failed to answer LucrativeOffer's question as to how they should be counted as Sheikh Hasina's positives. A.Musketeer (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * LucrativeOffer has failed to answer my questions as to how events such as the 2016 Dhaka terror attack or the Bangladesh Rifles revolt can be counted as Sheikh Hasina's negatives. Nor has he explained how Hasina is directly responsible for an increase in Islamist extremism or the Bangladesh Bank heist. They also failed to explain why there should be two negative paragraphs when the existing paragraph was perfectly fine.—AMomen88 (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Reading this thread, I can see that your questions were already answered here. The consensus here is clearly against your edit as you have no support, now do not revert or you are risking a larger block. A.Musketeer (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies but you are severely mistaken if you think any of my concerns or questions were addressed. I would much rather prefer the neutral input of more experienced editors in regards to the edits in question, the fact that two editors who have made less than 600 edits in more than 18 years on Wikipedia support a particular view does not satisfy consensus.--AMomen88 (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but you have no support for your highly problematic edits, as you have been told, these achievements are irrelevant in this article while you are removing well-sourced facts about the activities of Hasina administration. The consensus is clearly against you so please stop your problematic edits. A.Musketeer (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Folks, I think we need to strike a better balance. There are obvious economic achievements under her tenure and that can easily be balanced with her authoritarian record on human rights. Currently, the lead comes off as if Hasina is the worst leader in Bangladesh's history. No reliable source supports this horribly biased stereotype. There is no mention of the fact that she lost her entire family and faced several assassination attempts. Bangladesh is more complicated than what the current introduction sets out.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Solomon The Magnifico: There is no objection to include any achievements of Sheikh Hasina in the lead but what is being suggested here is that the achievements have to be Sheikh Hasina's. The experts credit the economic growth to the private sector as noted in this source and this growth has been an ongoing phenomenon in Bangladesh for at least two decades so nothing specific to Hasina. Anybody can feel free to include any economic or social policies undertaken by Hasina's government if there is any. About the assassination attempt, it is already mentioned under the "Early Life" section. LucrativeOffer (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The assassination of her family is a defining aspect of her life. It's what brought her into politics, and she suffered several attempts on her life too. On the economy, the private sector actually credits the government for investing in infrastructure, macroeconomic stability, digital economy, and poverty reduction. See this from the World Economic Forum on official economic policies since 2009 when Hasina returned to power. See this from the Brookings Institution on the important role of Bangladesh's government. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The WEF piece is written by Sheikh Hasina herself, a primary source. The Brookings blog mainly reiterated what I mentioned before that Bangladesh's socio-economic progress has been an ongoing phenomenon for decades and not specific to this government. And the blog is more of a personal opinion of the author, not a fact, the author himself mentions that the prevailing narrative in Bangladesh's development is that "government is the villain—the impressive performance of Bangladesh is said to have happened “despite the government.”" LucrativeOffer (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't dismiss an authoritative piece as merely a personal opinion. The author of the Brookings piece lays out plain facts, including regulatory reforms, the expansion of the road network, enhanced letters of credit, and opening up sectors to foreign investment. The BBC is a reliable source which explains the problematic human rights situation but also touches on the prevailing economic narrative well: "Ms Hasina's Awami League has been in power continuously since 2008. She is credited with bringing stability to politically volatile Bangladesh, boosting economic growth and also for clamping down on religious extremism. Under her leadership, the country's economy has grown at an average of 6-7% a year in the last 10 years." Even her opponents at Netra News concede that she has presided over a period of relative economic development. Unfortunately, the article is currently excessively biased against her. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless you can prove, with sources, that there has not been social and economic progress under Hasina's premiership, you have no right to revert my edits. It's odd that you criticise another user for citing an opinion piece when you yourself cited an opinion piece. I have enacted a compromise which is balanced and neutral, it includes both positives and negatives of Hasina's administration and includes key events that you raised, as opposed to your content which was more of a personal invective. —AMomen88 (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, LucrativeOffer has replaced his opinion pieces with other reliable sources while AMomen88 still relies on opinion pieces. Also you conveniently removed all the information about banking irregularities, external debt and replaced them with "debt-GDP ratio has remained below 40%.". You mentioned GDP per capita is higher than India and Pakistan, ignoring countries like Maldives or Sri Lanka who still have higher GDP per capita than Bangladesh. In a nutshell, you are just juxtaposing the statistics with worse performers or lower benchmarks to show the government in a positive light, that is called POV. A.Musketeer (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Only one of the sources I have cited is an opinion piece. In regards to the use of opinion pieces I refer you to LucrativeOffer's definition earlier in this discussion which you raised no objections about. The sources cited made no mention of "banking irregularities" so it was inappropriate to use this phrase, it was merely conjecture. It is a fact that Bangladesh's debt-GDP ratio is below 40%, I am sorry if that fact disappoints you. I mentioned that GDP per capita was now higher than India and Pakistan's because prior to Hasina's premiership, these two nations had a higher GDP per capita than Bangladesh, a clear measure of improvement worth mentioning. I have at least attempted to create a compromise, you on the other hand have wholesale reverted edits and reinserted contentious one-sided information.-AMomen88 (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Bangladesh's economic data has been questioned by multiple organizations for its faulty measurement methods and discrepancies including World Bank, and CPD, PRI, SANEM. You cannot put something in the lead that is disputed by reputed experts. The concerns raised by A.Musketeer are also valid, your content is full of personal opinions and reads like a fan page. Besides, you continuously removing sourced content cited by reliable sources. Please stop this POV pushing. LucrativeOffer (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if the economic data may be questionable (which in itself is highly dubious claim) the sources you attached state that Bangladesh's economy still grew by an impressive margin, the question is by what margin the economy grew by. You have ignored the social development which has occurred under Hasina's premiership. The content you inserted to the lead made an array of sweeping assumptions unsupported by sources such as a "worsening security situation in Bangladesh". My edits have attempted to foster a compromise, I have even added one of your sources and have followed the format you set out in regards to the Rifles revolt and the Dhaka terror attack. The content you inserted turns the lead into a diatribe, as Solomon The Magnifico points out your edits make it seem as if Hasina has only inflicted untold horror on Bangladesh and has no achievements to her premiership. If you want to propose a better compromise than please do, but if not please refrain from wholesale reverting my edits and inserting your solely negative edits which turn the lead into your personal political blog.--AMomen88 (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can label anything you want but those are not my words but words from reliable sources. The point you have repeatedly failed to understand is that the social development or economic growth have been going on for decades since before Hasina came to power, so that is not an achievement of this government but of Bangladesh overall. There is hardly anything to salvage from your edit which is full of personal commentary. I have told you numerous times, if you can point out specific policies or reforms undertaken by this government, feel free to add them and I will have no objection. But your naked POV pushing by removing anything that goes against you and inserting undue personal opinions will surely be resisted. LucrativeOffer (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are saying that Hasina gets no credit for economic growth. But under no other government has Bangladesh's GDP growth rate touched the record of 7%. It happened for the first time during Hasina's regime. That it in itself is very notable and deserves mention in the lede. The World Bank, IMF and ADB testify to record growth rates. The margin of difference between the government's estimate and the estimate given by institutions like the World Bank and IMF is not very large. If the government says the economy grew at 7.8%, then World Bank puts a conservative figure of 7.1%. All credible sources testify that Bangladesh's economy reached record growth rates under the Hasina period since 2009. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, the World Bank records 7.9% GDP growth in 2019, which was the highest in Bangladesh history since 1974. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Bangladesh has consistently performed poorly in all of the governance indicators throughout this period, Worldwide Governance Indicators. Giving credit to the government for this economic growth is like saying Argentina won the World Cup because of Qatar's climate. Your own source said that the prevailing narrative is "government is the villain". The experts have rightly suggested that the economic growth in Bangladesh is led by the private sector while others give credit to the NGO programs. LucrativeOffer (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My own source disproves the "villain" theory. You're just filibustering. This conversation will go nowhere with you. You are using one source from The Daily Star which focuses on the private sector but does not in any way discredit the government's role in promoting growth. The Daily Star's reportage will never agree with your assessments. You have a single a source as opposed to so many other reliable sources, including from the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Asian Development Bank, etc. etc. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When you can't counter the argument, you are calling it filibustering. World Bank, IMF, ADB all of them have suggested that Bangladesh's governance is one of the poorest in the world. Giving credit to poor governance for economic growth is illogical and absurd. LucrativeOffer (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When you can't back up your claims with reliable sources, you're just beating around the bush. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot do anything if you choose to look away from the reliable sources already shown to you. Look at these,, , . LucrativeOffer (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Reading the deliberations, LucrativeOffer has failed miserably in their attempts to produce any sources to support his wrong belief that Bangladesh’s socio-economic indicators have worsened under Hasina’s premiership. Their attempts to try and decouple the social and economic advancements from the government have also been futile. They have now deduced themselves to bringing up miscellaneous moot points to try and support their deeply flawed content.--AMomen88 (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

AMomen88, instead of making false assumptions about the discussions, you should better read the wikipedia guidelines at least once and try to understand where you are wrong and where you need to improve your behavior. A.Musketeer (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I reported you for violating the 3RR as you reverted my edits on more than three occasions within a 24 hour period. This is nothing personal, the rules apply to all of us including you, I am sorry if you were unhappy with the report but I was obliged to do so in light of the Wikipedia policies in regards to edit warring which stipulate you must not revert on more than three occasions within a 24 hour period or risk disciplinary action including a block.--AMomen88 (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are the only user who have violated 3RR on this article and have been rightfully blocked twice. I am glad that you have glanced upon the edit-warring policy and I hope you won't edit war anymore. LucrativeOffer (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t require any lectures on edit warring policy from someone who has been blocked on a number of occasions. The only reason you haven’t been blocked for your biased POV content on this article is because of your artful chicanery. Please get off your high horse and refrain from being so condescending, especially considering how much of an idle user you are.-AMomen88 (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Lede Section of Sheikh Hasina
Which of the following sections should be the lede section of Sheikh Hasina? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Please specify A or B in the Survey. Please do not engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Survey, but save that for the Discussion section.

Version A
Sheikh Hasina Wazed (née Sheikh Hasina ; ; শেখ হাসিনা ওয়াজেদ,, born 28 September 1947) is a Bangladeshi politician and stateswoman who has served as the Prime Minister of Bangladesh since January 2009. Hasina is the daughter of the founding father and first President of Bangladesh, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. She previously served as prime minister from June 1996 to July 2001. She is the longest serving prime minister in the history of Bangladesh, having served for a combined total of over 19 years. As of, she is the world's longest-serving female Head of Government in history. Hasina's first premiership is noted for the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty and the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord. Since returning to office in 2009, Bangladesh has experienced rapid social and economic development. The country's GDP grew by over 6% for a decade until the pandemic while overall GDP and GDP per capita has more than trebled, now higher than that of India and Pakistan. Exports grew by over 80% largely fuelled by the ready made garment industry. Women have been empowered with an increased share in the workforce while the debt-GDP ratio has remained below 40%. Poverty and infant mortality has reduced while literacy, life expectancy and food production has increased. Girls enrolment in primary education and electricity coverage has attained 100%, while more than 1.1 million Rohingya refugees have been provided sanctuary since 2017. Hasina's administration self-financed the construction of the Padma Bridge mega project which was inaugurated in June 2022. In December 2022, Hasina opened the first phase of Dhaka Metro Rail, Bangladesh's first mass rapid transit service. In 2021, the UNGA approved Bangladesh's graduation from a LDC to a lower-middle income developing country. However, under her tenure as Prime Minister Bangladesh has experienced democratic backsliding. Human Rights Watch documented widespread enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings under her government. Many politicians and journalists have been systematically and judicially punished for challenging her views. Her premiership has overseen the Bangladesh Rifles revolt, a mutiny by paramilitary officers over pay and the July 2016 Dhaka attack which was the deadliest single Islamist terror attack in Bangladesh's history. Reporters Without Borders in 2021 characterized Sheikh Hasina as a predator for curbing press freedom in Bangladesh since 2014. Her government was criticised for lax safety regulations following the 2013 Rana Plaza factory collapse. Systemic corruption remains prevalent, with Bangladesh being ranked amongst the most corrupt countries in the world. In 2014, she was re-elected for a third term in an election that was boycotted by the BNP and criticised by international observers. She won her fourth term in 2018, following an election marred with violence and criticised by the opposition as being rigged. Sheikh Hasina has been ranked as one of the most powerful women in the world in several rankings, including Forbes Magazine.
 * A.

Version B
Sheikh Hasina Wazed (née Sheikh Hasina ; ; শেখ হাসিনা ওয়াজেদ,, born 28 September 1947) is a Bangladeshi politician who has served as the Prime Minister of Bangladesh since January 2009. Hasina is the daughter of the founding father and first President of Bangladesh, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. She previously served as prime minister from June 1996 to July 2001. She is the longest serving prime minister in the history of Bangladesh, having served for a combined total of over 19 years. As of, she is the world's longest-serving female Head of Government in history. Hasina's term as the Prime Minister witnessed worsening security situation that includes the Bangladesh Rifles revolt in 2009 which killed 56 officers of Bangladesh Army for which she was blamed by the army officers due to her refusal to intervene against the revolt. The period also saw increasing attacks by Islamic extremists in the country, including the July 2016 Dhaka attack which has been described as "deadliest Islamist attack in Bangladeshi history" by BBC. On the economic front, Bangladesh's external debt has more than tripled under Hasina's term, reaching $95.86 billion by the end of fiscal year 2021-22, leading the government to seek IMF loan twice in this period, first in 2012 and again in 2022. The period is also marked by massive irregularities in the banking sector of the country where the amount of default loans went from less than to more than  in 2019 according to IMF and includes the notable Bangladesh Bank robbery in 2016. Under her tenure as Prime Minister, Bangladesh has experienced democratic backsliding. Human Rights Watch documented widespread enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings under her government. Many politicians and journalists have been systematically and judicially punished for challenging her views. Reporters Without Borders in 2021 characterized Sheikh Hasina as a predator for curbing press freedom in Bangladesh since 2014. According to experts, the Hasina-led government's repression of political opposition as well as shrinking democratic and civic space has created "the space for extremist groups to flourish" and "has generated a violent backlash from Islamist groups." In 2014, she was re-elected for a third term in an election that was boycotted by the BNP and criticised by international observers. She won her fourth term in 2018, following an election marred with violence and criticised by the opposition as being rigged. Sheikh Hasina has been ranked as the 42nd most powerful women in the world by Forbes Magazine.
 * B.

Survey
Please enter A or B with a brief explanation. Please do not respond to other editors here, but use the Discussion section for that purpose.
 * It looks like the primary difference between the versions is the second paragraph in version A, which is omitted in version B. So, critical to the decision here are the references used to support that paragraph. To wit:
 * The Taylor & Francis source is reliable and independent. Its only mentions of Hasina specifically are in terms of her role in repression and corruption. This source clearly favors version B.
 * The Business Standard is published in Bangladesh. Given the issues with freedom of press there, its reporting on Bangladesh and its leader should be taken with a correspondingly healthy dose of salt. But it doesn't even mention Hasina at all, so it is nonetheless irrelevant.
 * The next source is also The Business Standard, so the above caveats apply. It is also clearly an editorial, so should not be used to source facts.
 * The next source is BBC News, which we have long held to be reliable. It does speak briefly about Hasina's role in the economy, though I note that it uses qualifiers such as Ms Hasina's supporters say... while doing so. It focuses much more on the "B" content (repression, "disappearances", lack of due process and free press) than "A", so I would say this source generally favors "B".
 * The next piece is by Al Jazeera, which has been held to be generally reliable. It does devote some time to economic growth (though, as with the BBC, often attributed rather than stated as fact, and tempered with further caveats about unequal benefit and continuing problems), and heavily focuses on questionable election practices, disappearances, and general repression. This source favors "B".
 * The next source is the Brookings Institute. While it doesn't have a specific RSN entry, I think it could be considered reasonably reliable on economic matters. However, the specific source is an op-ed and so cannot be used as a source for factual statements.
 * Given that even the sources used in "A" actually seem to favor version "B", I would say that "A" gives undue weight to the issues presented, and also credits things directly to Hasina that the sources confirm happened, but do not directly credit to her. As such, version B is the superior version. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * A – version A is a more balanced (wp:npov) description of Hasina's political career and time in office. The second paragraph describes a few of her government's accomplishments, while the third paragraph describes the failings of her government. In contrast, version B paragraphs 2 and 3 are completely negative of her government and fail to mention any of the positive accomplishments that were noted in version A. Version A like version B still needs a lot of rewriting. Also it should be noted that the lead should follow the body of the article. Both version A and B's paragraphs 2 and 3 are not well represented in the body of the article. The main text in the body of the article is a nonstop discussion of elections and more elections. There should be more in depth discussion of actual government action during her time in office. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Version B - The biggest issue with Version A is that it manipulates the facts and intentionally compares certain indicators with worse performers or lower benchmarks to make the politician look good, rather than stating the facts as they are, which is a classic POV. For example, instead of stating the actual debt figures, it says "debt-GDP ratio has remained below 40%". Then, it mentions GDP per capita is higher than lowly countries like India and Pakistan, ignoring countries like Maldives, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and numerous others who still have higher GDP per capita than Bangladesh. The citations also don't seem to be added properly and, are jumbled up at the end of the paragraph. In comparison, Version B is fairly well-cited, states the facts as they are and includes more or less all the important features of Hasina's tenure. Version B is definitely the better one between the two. A.Musketeer (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Version A The lead is not the whole article. It is a summary of what is in the rest of the article. It should not be a one-sided attack paragraph or two. It should be supported by the article and should highlight some important moments in her premiership.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Version A – The lede I composed is balanced and neutral as it includes both achievements and failings of the Hasina government. It mentions several major events of both of her stints as prime minister, I have also added events which are mentioned in version B. Version B reads more like an invective, it neglects to mention Hasina's first stint as prime minister, it also fails to mention any of the major achievements of Hasina. Furthermore, version B is the exact same as the current lede, it does not even attempt to try and foster a compromise, something I have done by adding content and a source from the author of version B. Version B is one-sided and heavily skewed, a clear violation of WP:NPOV.—AMomen88 (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Version B – Seraphimblade sums it up perfectly. Version A gives undue weight to certain issues while ignoring many important characteristics of the premiership. Besides, many of those reports/op-eds in Version A in favor of the government may well be a result of Digital Security Act and overall intimidation of the press in Bangladesh. Additionally, Version A falsely credits some of those things to Hasina which is also undue. As such, including undue stuff in the name of "balancing" is actually creating a false balance and portraying an inaccurate picture of the subject. Version B looks better in this regard. LucrativeOffer (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment: Anyone wishing to contribute should consider reading the deliberations at Dispute Resolution.—AMomen88 (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In regards to the points you raised, many of them can also be equally ascribed to version B. For example, version B states that Hasina's premiership experienced a worsening security situation, however the sources used do not directly attribute Hasina for the worsening security situation, in fact this is a point of view. The source does not state that there was a worsening security situation in Bangladesh during the period. You questioned the validity of the use of sources from The Business Standard for version A but did not do so for version B. It is a matter of fact that the Hasina administration has become increasingly authoritarian, however, the Bangladeshi media remains relatively free and vibrant, they regularly publish material which is critical of the government without facing reprieve, I must say your comment comes across at best disparaging and at worst Orientalist.—AMomen88 (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree my proposed lede requires work, but I do believe it is superior to lede B and is a good starting point as it includes both failings and achievements of the government while version B only includes failings. Version A was a compromise, I included content from other editors and sources used by the composer of version B, they did not reciprocate. I am open to any suggestions for content or sources for my proposed lede.—AMomen88 (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood the comparison. I compared Bangladesh with India and Pakistan since these are two neighbouring states which have similar socio-economic situations to Bangladesh therefore the comparison is justified and proper. It is worth pointing out that prior to Hasina's premiership these nations outperformed Bangladesh, so the comparison is worth mentioning and is a clear sign of improvement. You have not mentioned that version B is unbalanced and omits significant achievements of the Hasina premiership, only including negative information. You stated that the first paragraph was positive (which has remained virtually unchanged in both proposed lede's) this is an incorrect assertion, the first paragraph merely states facts which are not in dispute, Hasina is the world's longest-serving female Head of Government in history, that cannot be construed as positive it is a numerical fact.—AMomen88 (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: So far Lede A has the support of three editors who are very active on Bangladeshi Wikipedia, whereas lede B has the support of two editors who are inactive on Wikipedia in general and one editor who is not active on Bangladeshi Wikipedia. A user expressed their support for my lede but following a threat from LucrativeOffer has so far decided not to contribute to this discussion. This is now the longest running RfC, I believe I have enough support to insert my lede.—AMomen88 (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would object to that, as both general activity level and activity on any other language Wikipedia are totally irrelevant to the validity of any given editor's opinion. I think the discussion shows a "no consensus" result (which in practice means the status quo ante stands), so I would ask that if you disagree with that, to request a formal close from someone uninvolved at WP:ANRFC rather than trying to determine consensus yourself as an involved party. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is the current "status quo" is lede B. Lede B and the "status quo" are identical, this by default suggest we favour lede B. If the discussion has yielded no agreement why does lede B continued to be used? I suggest for discussion to continue we revert to the last original version of the lede prior to the addition of any contentious edits from both me and LucrativeOffer. The status quo ante bellum is the lede of 28 October, this addition does not have any contentious material from both editors. I tried to insert this lede during discussion at DR but this was repeatedly reverted.-AMomen88 (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The status quo would generally be what it was at the start of the RfC, but that is not necessarily a foregone conclusion. So, again, since we are both involved, I would encourage you to request a formal close from someone who is not already involved in the discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So far I have attempted to stimulate a discussion regarding the contents of both lede's but the discussion has been unilateral. I was originally given permission by the DR moderator to insert my lede two months ago. However, as a result of 11th hour objections I was barred from doing so. This lede RfC has been ongoing for more than 30 days and has become stale.-AMomen88 (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not certain why you did not yet request a close, but seeing as that's the case, I did so myself. Once the close has been done, that will inform how we proceed from there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Status quo
In my opinion, the status quo version is the version from before the conflict started, not whatever version happened to be in place during the RFC. It appears to be that the lead from late October is the actual status quo. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. There was no stable lead in October last year, there were edit wars and the lead went through several changes throughout the month,, , . In fact, the current version, which has been there since November, looks more stable than the version you are proposing as status quo. A.Musketeer (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with A.Musketeer. The usual approach is to keep the version at the start of the RfC as the status quo. I don't see why this article shoulld be an exception. LucrativeOffer (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur with ScottishFinnishRadish, the lede from late October is the status quo prior to any disputes. It includes no contentious material from both me and the author of lede B, so it should be restored. The current lede contains highly contentious material, it is identical to lede B, for which there is no consensus so it cannot be characterised as the status quo. LucrativeOffer should recognise this and self-revert in good faith.—AMomen88 (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Since LucrativeOffer has decided not to act in good faith and the only other person who supports the viewpoint that the current lede is the status quo supported Lede B, it would be fair to insert the actual status quo prior to the conflict which has been identified by a neutral third party.—AMomen88 (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop interpreting ridiculous conclusions. There is enough evidence that the lead you are suggesting is not the status quo. Please do not change the lead without a consensus. LucrativeOffer (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , sorry to bring you back here, but now there's a disagreement on the status quo. As a completely disinterested party, I see this lead from October 27 as the status quo, pre-dispute lead. As the RFC had no consensus, the lead should be reverted back to where it was before the initial dispute stated, not wherever it sat at the beginning of the RFC. Any input before this escalates due to the edit warring? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I said above that I would trust the closer's judgment in regards to what the status quo ante for a no-consensus RfC was, and is an experienced closer whose judgment I would most certainly defer to. So, I would strongly encourage everyone here to respect that conclusion as a starting point, though of course discussion can still proceed from there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with about seeing this lead from October 27 as the status quo. I would urge some editors to read WP:SOAPBOX.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How could an unstable version of 27th October be referred to as status quo? There was no mention about keeping 27th October revision as the status quo in the official closure of the RfC. ScottishFinnishRaddish started this thread when AMomen88 lobbied for that revision to be restored in his user talk page after the closure. I have no doubt about ScottishFinnishRaddish's credibility as an experienced and reputed editor but I don't see this suggestion of status quo as a part of closer's judgement rather an opinion influenced by an involved party. We need fresh discussion about which revision could be considered the status quo. LucrativeOffer (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a clear consensus in this section that the October 27 version is the status quo, and you're now editing against that consensus. I suggest you self-revert and begin a discussion about the changes you'd like to make to the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @ScottishFinnishRadish: Are you sure? Unless you think wikipedia is a democracy, I don't see any consensus here. You also didn't reply to my assertion that there was no stable lead in October. The fact that your status quo version contains the disputed term "Stateswoman" inserted by AMomen88 clearly negates your suggestion that it's a pre-disputed version. A.Musketeer (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say that multiple uninvolved editors, as well as an involved editor agreeing against the objection of two involved editors is a pretty clear consensus. A single term that some disagreed with over a month after it was added is a definitely a better status quo than a version that never held consensus and did not gain consensus during an RFC. I'll reiterate, at this point re-inserting this lead is definitely editing against consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The version of 27 October is the last stable lead, it contains no contentious content from anyone. This is a fact which has been recognised by the majority involved in this discussion, including those who originally supported lede A and lede B, as well as uninvolved neutral third party observers. We have been through DR and RfC which yielded no consensus so we should revert to the status quo ante bellum, which is that of 27 October. The current lede is Lede B for which there is no consensus, by no stretch of the imagination can it be characterised as the status quo.-AMomen88 (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure which uninvolved editor are we talking about here. I am sorry, but it is hard to consider ScottishFinnishRadish an uninvolved editor ever since he gave a suggestion by just listening to one party on a user talkpage and he just seems to be too invested in the suggestion that he is ignoring all the counter arguments. The proposed status quo is not even a non-dispute version. Vinegarymass911 has tried to restore AMomen88's POV version so he is not uninvolved either. A no consensus RfC would usually mean keeping the version at the start of the RfC until a consensus is reached to change. A.Musketeer (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Undue stuff in body
I removed some undue stuff from different sections in the body. Banglapedia is a government source and cannot be cited to make exceptional claims. There are too much content on the Padma Bridge. All the contents have been merged and placed in the controversy section. Some repetitions were removed and new sourced contents were added. LucrativeOffer (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As I understand, LucrativeOffer has tried to add the content from the earlier lead to the body and AMomen88 is still reverting it without any reason. That is clearly disruptive. A.Musketeer (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Banglapedia is not a government source and is published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sheikh Hasina with David Cameron.jpg

What is wrong with the sources
@Imamul Ifaz Please explain what is wrong with these and these sources.—Alalch E. 19:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * you are writing the article from your biased point of view with unreliable sources which is against our policies. Please discuss your proposed changes in the talk page to achieve a consensus before changing the status quo. Since several other editors have pointed out your disruptive behavior, I think it would be best for you to listen to the cautions before engaging in another edit war. Imamul Ifaz (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (to any reader of this talk page) To understand how it came to pass that my question was responded to with the above nonsensical accusation, please see this archived ANI thread.—Alalch E. 16:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Why is there a need to change this person's image everyday?
Looking though the history, the image of this person changed everyday or nearly everyday for at least several months. Why? Does she double as a model? Can we just stick to one picture? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Longest-serving current female head of state
Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_state_leaders_by_date_of_assumption_of_office and the pending resign of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margrethe_II will Sheik Hasina then be the longest-serving current female head of state? 2A01:C23:6C1E:3C00:C0EB:AB16:E015:4942 (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Typo in first sentence
First sentence currently reads: '[Subject] is a Bangladeshi the tenth prime minister of Bangladesh from June 1996 to July 2001 and again serving since January 2009.'

Suggested edit: '[Subject] is a Bangladeshi politician who has served as the tenth prime minister of Bangladesh from June 1996 to July 2001 and again since 2009.'

I can't edit as I am a new user. Thanks! Freya.whitworth (talk) 09:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)