Template:Did you know nominations/Bangladesh–Israel relations


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh–Israel relations

 * ... that recognition of Bangladesh from Israel as a sovereign state was "categorically rejected" by Bangladesh?
 * ALT1:... that Israel recognized Bangladesh on 4 February 1972 as a sovereign state which Bangladesh "categorically rejected"?


 * ALT2:... that Bangladesh is the only nation to have a complete ban on all kinds of trade and diplomatic relations with Israel, even though both are members of the WTO?

Created by Ctg4Rahat (talk). Self nominated at 11:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC).


 * Greetings, @Ctg4Rahat, thank you for this contribution.
 * Article was created from scratch on January 29 and nominated on February 1.
 * It's got 2112 characters of readable prose.
 * The gist of the hook is supported by sources and by this here, for example. However I'm having a little trouble finding specific reference to "categorically rejected". It may be spelled out in the book link but I can't seem to read the page which is cited here. Ctg4Rahat, can you help me find a better source for this? I am reluctant to use quotation marks for "categorically rejected" unless this comes from an official source in Bangladesh; I think it would not be best to foreground this quotation if the words are only those of the secondary source, Bangladesh: Government and Politics.
 * Other, perhaps surprising, statements made in the article are also supported by evidence. (And here's another article which may be useful to the author.
 * I believe the article is sufficiently neutral for DYK, though it could contain more material on Israel's policy towards Bangladesh—i.e., right now it is more focused on Bangladesh's policy towards Israel. This coverage may reflect what's in the available sources.
 * Might suggest a slight variation on the first two hooks? (Could be changed based on what the sources will support regarding "categorical rejection".) Something along the lines of: Alt3 ... that Bangladesh rejected Israel's recognition of sovereignty in 1972?


 * Thanks, for the review. Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes. I have added a new reliable reference (ref 6) in the article for the DYK hook and added some points of Israeli government to make the article more neutral. I have changed the sentence in the article from "Categorically rejected" to officially rejected (without quotations) because I failed to find reliable source for the claim. Some sources found are possibly Eco of this wiki article. I am also proposing a new hook for the DYK and have stricken the previous hooks. - Rahat (Message) 19:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Alt3a ... that Bangladesh officially rejected Israel's recognition of sovereignty in 1972?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg New changes and hook are good and sufficiently neutral on a presumably contentious topic. While I cannot find any direct translations or news reports from 1972 regarding the letter issued by foreign minister Khondaker Mostaq Ahmad (whose name, admittedly, has many different transliterations), there are sufficient news reports indicating Bangladesh's national intent, as expressed by various officials, not to reciprocate Israel's offer of diplomatic relations. (And none to the contrary.) For me this is enough to back up the claim made in the cited Jerusalem Post op-ed: "The foreign minister at the time, Khandker Mushtaque Ahmed, was a conservative who issued a letter on behalf of the government saying this recognition was not acceptable." Therefore, Alt3a is good to go . groupuscule (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks groupuscule, for the review. - Rahat (Message) 05:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)