Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
Hi all - I request your support in making this article featured. I'd just like to clarify a few points for ya - (1) The Awami League is a major political party, and data from its site have been used with extreme care to avoid importing POV, and has been cross-verified. Alternate sources include Banglapedia and JSTOR research papers, all of which are directly accessible. Special thanks to Ragib. This Fire Burns.....Always  17:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong support as nominator. This Fire Burns.....Always   16:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong support: Mujib was the leader of Bangladesh, the founding father. The article is well-written in a summary form. I do have one comment: Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is invariably known as Mujib, but the article refers to him using his last name. It is true that western culture uses the last name, but this person is referred in short using "Mujib" or "Sheikh Mujib" only. I'm not sure what to do in this case, but last names are not necessarily used to identify/refer to a person in Bangladesh. (Same goes for Ziaur Rahman, and Sheikh Hasina Wajed). Other than that, the article is a well-written bio. --Ragib 17:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I too was conscious of that factor, although I don't think its an error to refer to him as Rahman, so I won't do anything unless someone elese thinks I should. This Fire Burns.....Always   17:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment – use dashes (&amp;ndash;) instead of hypens. "15 August" needs to be wikified, remove instances of bold text from the body. Use "" or italics instead. Expand on "serestadar" within the sentence so as not to click on it to gain the meaning. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed your points. This Fire Burns.....Always   20:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not sure the picture of the stamp (Image:MRahmanstamp.jpg) qualifies as fair use in this article. No explicit rationale is given for this article, and according to the template - "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)" - the picture seems to be used to because of the stamp's design, as opposed to the stamp itself. Pepsidrinka 22:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe it qualifies as Fair use because we are illustrating the stamp in question, not Mujib. There are so many better pictures of Mujib, that we don't need the stamp except to demonstrate how he is commemorated through the stamp. I'll add this to the FU rationale. Please lemme know if you think a problem still exists. This Fire Burns.....Always   22:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. --Spasage 06:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object -- Marvelous work done by the editors. If this seems contradictory, it is because the topic is controvertial and sprawling. There are numerous small problems, some of which I mention below, But first to my broad concerns. Much of the article was written very recently, and hence hasn't really stabilized. For a controversial topic like this, it does not have that war-worn conviction of having gone through enough debates. A certain sense of historical continuity is missing, though the historical facts are aptly represented. A previous peer review elicidated precise little (I take full blame of not have given my input then). Though there are lot of references, more are needed, and there is a over reliance on Awami League website. Here are a few more details/questions/comments:
 * Lead: Bangabandhu -- is it not Friend of Bengal?
 * Early life: Sheikh Mujib was not central in Language movement -- or atleast this is a debated issue. Wikilink to language movement needed. The sentences are repatitive. And this issue is repeated again later. Also, Wasn't it Jinnah who declared "Urdu and only urdu...." etc?
 * Early political career: What was his initial take on Pakistan? this point is not clear. Transition from Awami Muslim to Awami is crucial as a step towards secularism, not mentioned
 * Leader of East Pakistan: Is the way "11-point plan," represented correct? I see no referece, memory tells me that it was a student thing not necessarily associated with Awami League/Mujib. Good description about Mujib's bengali nationalism as seen as separatist. But there is a more profound point here -- his comments were declaring 2 nation theory defunct.
 * 1970 elections: Race Course Stadium -- i don't think it is/was a "stadium", its a ground. "The struggle now is the struggle for our emancipation" -- the date 7th march should be mentioned. Why is there not a single link to Bangladesh Liberation War article? Status of his family important - Kamal in war, others under house arrest.
 * Tajuddin not mentioned at all, absolutely crucial.
 * When was a given the sobriqet Bangabandhu? When did Joy Bangla become the solgan of the Benaglis?

--ppm 15:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Hi - please study my response, because some of your points are incorrect. Of course, I'll address the rest.


 * 1) Bangabandhu: OK, I'll make the correction; also reference to its origin.
 * 2) Language Movement: Jinnah declared in 1947 on his first trip to Dhaka. The Language Movement was sparked when Khwaja Nazimuddin affirmed that intention in 1948 and again in 1951.
 * 3) Pakistan Mujib worked for Pakistan movement; he was a student leader of the Bengal Muslim League. Will make that clearer. Although I don't think the party's name change was really a symbol for secularism, I'll also add that point.
 * 4) 11 Point Plan it was during his incarceration from 1966-69 that other parties added 5 more points to his 6. It was a major platform during the talks in Islamabad. I'll add the ref to 2-nation theory.
 * 5) 1970 election - all valid points.
 * 6) Tajuddin - valid.

This Fire Burns.....Always  18:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see this - I've addressed most of your points. This Fire Burns.....Always   18:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. With just a brief overview, I've noticed a certain lack of references for such a controversial topic. Apart from that, I'll look over it more minutely. If I forget, please remind me :) -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)  19:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Comment I've done some copyediting, but:
 * In 1951, Rahman began organising protests and rallies in response to the killing, by the police, of students who were protesting against the declaration of Urdu as the sole national language, in a period of turmoil which later became to be known as the Language movement, for which he was briefly arrested. - grammatically doesn't seem right, maybe a split into 2 sentences.
 * The party had dropped the word "Muslim" from its name, in a move seen as a shift towards secularism. --- He was arrested two weeks before the election in a move believed to thwart him from mobilising voters. --- the move was seen as a betrayal of the causes of civil rights and freedom upon which Bangladesh was founded. There are other uses of weasel terms. Please either state who believed/saw, or remove.
 * In doing so, he dismissed Tajuddin Ahmed following a controversial political dispute that had occurred during Rahman's incarceration. - what dispute?
 * The "Criticism and legacy" section has serious OR, and subsequently POV, problems
 * There were many instances of would form, would remain instead of formed, remained, and other such grammatical instances. I may have missed a few of them, despite using a fine-toothed comb, so you should look it over
 * The all too-obvious problem of references.
 * I don't think this article can become FA till Ragib gets the book back and uses it for citing the article. -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)  15:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply We've had to do the best we could from web references - don't have a good book about Mujib or the subject for precise citations. Ragib used a book he had for inputting a lot of the data, but he doesn't have it now for citations. I checked in Amazon, and only 1-2 titles popped up. I obtained many research papers from Google Scholar, so we've done all that we could in making the references thorough. This Fire Burns.....Always   19:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I didn't manage to find the book in my univ's library or others nearby. So, I guess we'd have to do with the web references, and other stuff. There are other sources, for example, documentation from library of congress country studies which may also be useful here. I truly regret I don't have Mascarenhaas' book now ... it is a very detailed study of 1972-1975 period up to Mujib's assassination. Perhaps when I visit home this winter, I can grab the book from my father's collection and add to the article, but until then, the facts can be referred/cited from other sources, something Rama's arrow has been doing very well. --Ragib 20:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While reading through the article, I was met with a dozen instances where a fact was unreferenced, and even though I won't oppose on the basis of this, neither will I support faced with this lack.-- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)  15:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: The info on 11 points on suggests that something between what I said and is in the article is true. It WAS a student thing, but the Awami student league was involved as well as other parties--ppm 22:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll make the correction. This Fire Burns.....Always   22:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment : Wonderful article on an important subject. But, it needs some copyedit before I give a strong support.
 * Use Commonwealth English. I've fixed many deviations in the first few sections.
 * I somewhat felt a paucity of wikilinks and/or insufficient context when it came to his political career. For example, "Despite Suhrawardy's inclination to build a larger coalition of East Pakistani and socialist parties, Rahman succeeded in expanding the organization of the League." There's not enough substantiation for the use of "despite." How does the expansion of the League contradict with Suhrawardy's inclination?
 * I've done some copyedit, will try to find some time going through the remaining sections. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support after Nirav's copyedit. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support have you considered a side note on his failed negotiations with other West Pakistani Opposition parties like the National Awami Party(Wali). I think he should also be included as a Pakistani politician at least category wise. If you look at it he was a Pakistani politician for longer than he was a Bengali one. Otherwise quite a comprehensive article. Also Bhutto later on said he meant he'd break his opponents political legs. --Zak 19:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a brief sentence which describes how he worked with other parties in opposition to Ayub Khan. Yes I agree that he should also be described as a Pakistani politician. This Fire Burns.....Always   19:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 *  Object Support Not nearly enough citations. I'm not going to list all of the statements that need backup, but the Criticism and Legacy segment is a good example. It has four citations, out of order, for a segment that quite clearly requires at least 10-15. Users corrected lack of citations, seems good to me now. Tdslappy
 * Hi - first off, citations aren't a requirement. Secondly, citations are included for every fact that is in this article - there are more than 50 overall citations. Everything is verifiable. There need not be a citation at the end of every sentence or two, to have a credible article. This Fire Burns.....Always   17:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * First, the citations need to be in order. Second, a statement such as the following must be sourced:
 * "Some historians and scholars, especially in Pakistan theorize that Rahman maximized the sectional gulf to consolidate his support, through a continual refusal to compromise over his 6-point plan and power-sharing with Bhutto."
 * It would be the same as a statement "Some people theorize that George W. Bush is a space monkey." The general rule is if it is not unequivocally known (i.e. Italy won the 2006 World Cup), it must be cited. Criticisms must fall into that role, because otherwise it falls into the weasel phrase problem.


 * Hi - I've just added a bunch of refs from an online book source for the "Criticism" section. Please take a look. Also, the "order" of citations is correct - the "a,b,c" notation system is used for multiple citations from one source. This Fire Burns.....Always   18:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object as above. Plus I am uneasy about the title. Sheikh is certainly a honorary prefix, not his real name. Please redirect the article to Mujibur Rahman. Anwar 14:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Anwar Saadat, just to clarify this, "Sheikh" is NOT a prefix, rather a part of his name. His daughter's name is "Sheikh Hasina". May be "Sheikh" is a prefix in some other persons, but in this case, this is a part of the name. Thank you. --Ragib 15:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * support--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support well-crafted page. Baka man  00:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)