Talk:Sheikh Hasina

Indian interference lead

A recent addition to the lead about alleged Indian intereference in Bangladesh strikes as odd, an editorialized assertion based on news op-eds and opposition claims (WP:OPINION). I moved this to the body where the recent protests are dealt with as that is what the sources and these assertions appear in consonance with (WP:NOTNEWS).

Such assertions should only find space in the lead if other neautral sources substantiate and if WP:3PARTY sources also give them due weightage (WP:UNDUE). From what I can see this is not the case, while biographical sources note her autocratic rule, Indian interference is generally not substantiated (e.g. Britannica).

And most importantly the lead is the summary of the body, and the body does no indepth analysis of these statements. Gotitbro (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nomian: Please establish WP:CONSENSUS here, WP:LEADFIXATION can be contentious and resorting to WP:EDITWARRING is not going to help. Not everything belongs in the WP:LEAD (read the above reasons and the cited policies), as for grievances Wikipedia does not exist to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Gotitbro (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I reverted your edit. India's interference to support her government was a critical feature of her premiership and one of the major reasons for the grievances that led to the anti-government protests. Although I agree with your argument on WP:OPINION, a slight googling shows it's no more just an opinion but an established fact, [1], [2]. Nomian (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nomian: They are still analysis (falls within opinion) not an "established fact" and the wording is clearly not WP:NPOV to highlight this. The WP:LEAD is also supposed to be the summary of the body, either flesh this out there first (where it is barely goes in detail) or do not add it in the lead. And per WP:BRD, you should've gained WP:CONSENSUS here first especially when a discussion had already been initiated, but your edits constitute a furtherance of EDITWARRING. Please also read WP:UNDUE.

"Hasina has been criticised as being too close to India, often at the cost of Bangladesh's sovereignty. She is seen as a manifestation of India's interference in Bangladeshi politics, which the critics described as the main source of Hasina's power", does not adhere to NPOV or WP:WEIGHT.

Though I do not think this should be in the lead at all [till a corollary expansion in the main body occurs], if you want to keep this in the lead tone the POV down in these sentences. Or if you want a broader outcome we can start an RfC. Gotitbro (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that those new sources "falls within opinion". Unlike opinion pieces, the content there are attributed to the media outlets (Al Jazeera and The Guardian), not just to the authors.

It must be mentioned that the addition you are talking about was added to the lead (along with other contents) to provide context about the Non-cooperation movement (2024) and the subsequent resignation of Sheikh Hasina, to make the article qualify for ITN. I don't find it WP:UNDUE. I tried my best to make the wording neutral and also to represent the facts as it is. It would be better if you can tell specifically which words you find to be POV.

On WP:CONSENSUS, the content you are opposing is part of the stable lead which has been there for at least a month, shouldn't the onus to gain consensus be on the other way around? Nomian (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

A month is barely what would be considered STABLE, the onus is on you as the sole editor who has repeatedly tried to maintain this in the lead, despite removals by different editors and no corollary WEIGHT in the body. You haven't made it neutral, if anything your latest edit further increases the POV by by implying broad consensus among sources which simply isn't the case regardless of the attribution to a specific publisher that is still their POV. You could make the wording neutral by first expanding the body to the claims made in that line and specifying that this is only side of the POV, but even then I don't really see a jsutification for this in the lead.

Since I don't see a consensus forming here in this limited interaction for a core BD article, I will be starting an RfC. Gotitbro (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC about Indian interference in the lead

Should the lead include claims of Indian interference in the lead? Gotitbro (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Remove The sentence "She is seen as a manifestation of India's interference in Bangladeshi politics, which the critics described as the main source of Hasina's power." The lead already has "Hasina has been criticised as being too close to India, often at the cost of Bangladesh's sovereignty." That needs to be properly attributed to her critics though. This is a serious BLP issue and should be fixed immediately.Ratnahastin (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support removal as the current wording violates WP:BLP. Nxcrypto Message 15:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• No Sorry for the late reply especially as the RfC opener. This RfC is a continuation of the discussion just above, summarizing my rationale from there. The recent addition about alleged Indian intereference in Bangladesh to the lead reads thus "Hasina has been criticised as being too close to India, often at the cost of Bangladesh's sovereignty." This is UNDUE wikivoiced POV based on statements by opposition politicians ([3], [4]) [people accusing national leaders of selling their country to foreign powers is a tale as old as time]. The addition continues "She is seen as a manifestation of India's interference in Bangladeshi politics, which the critics described as the main source of Hasina's power." This is cited to very recent news analysis (South China Morning Post, Al Jazeera, The Guardian [and all of these specifically denote these as allegations]) of one aspect of the current events in Bangladesh (2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement, Non-cooperation movement (2024)) and also fails UNDUE and WEIGHT as the body does not contain enough material for this to be summarized as such in the lead (the sentences are repreated in toto in the body without any expansion of these claims).

A reason for my later reply here is that I was also going through WP:3PARTY bios to see if any of them contain anything about Indian intereferece. They don't. E.g. Britannica [5], Brockhaus Enzyklopädie [6], Den Store Danske Encyklopædi [7], Catt Hall [8], GlobalSecurity.org [9], Great Russian Encyclopedia [10], Munzinger-Archiv [11], Nationalencyklopedin [12], Great Norwegian Encyclopedia [13], A Dictionary of Political Biography [14]. To then insert the bit about claimed Indian interference in the lead falls well under UNDUE and WEIGHT. The effort should be spent on expanding the body first about this allegation rather than fixating on the lead. Gotitbro (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see any WP:BLP violation while the citations from reliable sources adequately verify the claim. There was even a India Out movement in Bangladesh solely because of India's support to Sheikh Hasina's government, so it's not a fringe claim but a widely held perception. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep It is clearly a prominent controversy. It should be stated that politicians from the oppositions are moving it. Sources can be POV, and very often will be in such a challenging situation. The two sentences should be reunited into one though, and wording should be changed.

Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Remove, at least based on the sources that currently support this claim. If this is the opposition's criticism it should be attributed as such, and a proper source should be found. Alaexis_¿question? 20:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep The two sentences can be combined into one and the name/s of some main sources making these allegations be included. Rigorousmortal (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

exactly. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep I have already explained in an earlier thread. There are several reports talking about the Indian backing for Sheikh Hasina's government, therefore, this is not a mere opinion or a POV but an established fact. Media and journalists in Bangladesh were intimidated under Sheikh Hasina regime which is why reports and articles about this Indian interference are only emerging after her resignation. The particular statement in the lead about that interference is also very clearly attributed to critics, therefore I fail to see a POV here. Nomian (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources can have a point of view, be biased or whatever. They just have to be reliable enough. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hasina Coming back to Bangladesh

Her son Sajeeb Wazed Joy has said that she will return to Bangladesh once the next elections are held.

There is a lesson to be learned from the history of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Philippines, India, Thailand etc. The deposed ruler, or a kin, may return to rule again, with popular approval. Malaiya (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

People of Bangladesh are not good. Murder, robbery, theft, corruption, oppression and all kinds of atrocities have increased in this country since the Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina left her country. Foyez Talukder (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism issue

This page now become unprotected. Now many vandals doing edits and not following NPOV. Please resolve the issue. Gaplow43286 (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Killer Hasina

Shaikh Hasina killed more than 1500 unarmed people using police & party workers on 15th july to 5th August 2024. 2404:1C40:70:2D3F:7831:4572:7E58:E1F8 (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2024

I have some important stuff to put here 27.147.190.160 (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Add new section

Please add "and the female dictator of Bangladesh" after "Sheikh Hasina[a] (born 28 September 1947) is a Bangladeshi politician" Wikiwaki6969 (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

New draft

I created an draft named Draft:Premiership of Sheikh Hasina. This draft is small.

@Mehedi Abedin @Ahammed Saad @Bruno pnm ars @BangladeshiEditorInSylhet please improve the draft. RealStranger43286 (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Dictator

Please add "and dictator" after "Is a Bangladeshi politician" line in the begging which tells her introduction. Wikiwaki6969 (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Political Issues

People of Bangladesh are not good. Murder, robbery, theft, corruption, oppression and all kinds of atrocities have increased in this country since the Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina left her country. Foyez Talukder (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

All these already happened in the Hasina's autocratic regime in the past 15 years.[15][16][17] 2400:C600:3380:5C4E:A0DF:AEAC:70A3:F754 (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

https://www.tbsnews.net/bangladesh/rab-will-no-longer-be-involved-enforced-disappearances-murders-says-dg-1016751 Look Deeper Foyez Talukder (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Fascist Hasina

She (Hasina) is definitely a Fascist leader of Bangladesh.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] 2400:C600:3380:5C4E:A0DF:AEAC:70A3:F754 (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2024

Before The name the qord Dictator must add Amiralways (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)