Talk:A. K. Faezul Huq

Misc

This section seems to carry original research. It provides no reference whatsoever. Some credible sources should be provided otherwise this section should be removed. Hikingdom 02:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how this section can be rated anywhere near 'Low' as A. K. Faezul Huq was the only son of Sher-e-Bangla A. K. Fazlul Huq. Moreoever, with a bit of research, it will be obvious that A. K. Faezul Huq has made considerable contributions, towards his country, throughout his lifetime.

That said, I do agree that this section needs considerable attention and equal amount of references. I am already working on it, and hope the members around here will help me for the betterment of wikipedia. The Minister 11:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The only son is not notability enough to even warrant a separate article, let alone a high importance. A mention on the article on the father would suffice. This article is full of weasel words and peacock terms, and seems to contain much orgiginal research.

It seems that this article's talk page is devolving into unnecessarily heated exchanges which is really unfortunate and against the spirit of Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what the political or personal feelings of an editor and/or writer happen to be, any writings should be calm and cool. Thank you all. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Assessment rationale

The notability of the subject comes from the fact that he held several public positions in the Government of Bangladesh (including member of parliament and minister). That he was the only son of Sher-e-Bangla is a trivial information and does not carry any additional weight on notability. Judging the current coverage of WikiProject Bangladesh, this article has to be assessed as one giving details on a very specific area of the broader topic of political history of Bangladesh. Hence this article should be assessed as low-importance. Arman ^(Talk) 09:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If late A. K. Faezul Huq was in fact a man deserving 'low importance' on the assessment scale, reputed institutions like St. Gregory's High School would not have a scholarship named after him to honor his contributions to the same institution. I request all the administrators on wikipedia to reassess the page on A. K. Faezul Huq. I am confident there will be ample research in the future to substantiate that A. K. Faezul Huq deserves 'high importance' grading on the assessment scale of friendly Wikipedia. The Minister 09:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

St. Gregory's High School itself is assessed as a low importance article as this is just a school. There are numerous scholarships at different institutions in name of numerous people, and very small fraction of them have article on wikipedia - that is not such a big deal. You are also totally mistaken when you say A. K. Faezul Huq was in fact a man deserving 'low importance' etc. because the assessment of WP:BND is by no way an assessment of the importance of the subject - it is only indicative of the importance of the article for the project. The reason of assessing this article as low importance is not to disrespect Late Faezul Huq in anyway, it is simply to help the WikiProject Bangladesh members get a quick view that "relatively" more important articles (like A.K. Fazlul Huq, Maulana Bhasani, Khaleda Zia, Sheikh Hasina etc.) clearly need priority attention. I personally have assessed 1,000+ articles for WP:BND and I can confidently say that this assessement is in line with the way other articles have been assessed. Even Banglapedia does not have any entry on late Faezul Huq while it is much broader in coverage for Bangladesh related topics than wikipedia. If this article is assessed as mid important, hundreds of other articles need to be reassessed for consistency and that will eventually end up diluting the prioritization scheme of the project. Arman ^(Talk) 09:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Bangladesh always had one of the largest cabinets in the world, running up to 50 ministers at a time, some changing at a week's notice. By now there should a be a complete list of 1,000+ ministers from Bangladesh. The 330 member parliament has gone through 5 elections, which should again make for a 1,000+ MPs. It is possible that all these people deserve to be assessed mid-importance for the Bangladesh Wikiproject. But, with almost all the upazilas and district articles in rudimentary shape, basic articles on the law, government, literature, geology, environment, education, health and more either in a rudimentary shape or non-existent - it is very difficult to see why 2,000 people suddenly should become mid-important. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying Arman. As for Banglapedia, it's a shame they did not register A. K. Faezul Huq's name in their search list, and now it's their responsibility to do so.

Aditya, A. K. Faezul Huq was one of the few politicians that did not make the ACC 'corrupt list' ever since State Emergency was declared in Bangladesh. I do not know how much weight you attach to this fact, but ya, this alone still does not make him more important on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, this fact alone does distinguish Faezul Huq from the other "1000+" honest/corrupted or so Ministers who served in Bangladesh since post '71. Therefore, Faezul Huq should not be equated with the corrupted Ministers who are serving prison right now in Bangladesh. Hence, not all but a handful deserve reassessment. That said, I am confident that A. K. Faezul Huq's article holds significant potential to be reassessed in better light of knowledge and better research in the future. Indeed, this article is still in its preliminary stage.The Minister 06:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal honesty, even while sourced, cited and verified is not a measurement of article importance. Hitler and Genghis Khan are two of the most important articles for the entire project of Wikipedia. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Double-checking some details re the photos of A. K. Faezul Huq on Wikipedia/Commons

So, I've noticed a few photos which presumably depict A. K. Faezul Huq which have been uploaded by @Minist3r and @Faizaan.huh (I'm guessing that the two of you have a personal connection to him or something). I've also noticed that they are a little bit disorganized, but I'd like to help with getting them migrated and properly categorized on WP:COMMONS (which will help people editing other articles about him on the other language versions of Wikipedia) - however, there are a few details about those images I'd like to double-check with the two of you first.

So, @Minist3r - I've noticed these photos of him you've uploaded here (File:Faezul and Rukshana.JPG, File:Faezul and Rukshana I.jpg, File:FR1966.jpg, and File:RMFaezulHuq1980.jpg). I'm interested in migrating them to Commons (see WP:TOCOMMONS), however, there's no information about the sources of those photos. Mind adding some information about the sources of them (like you did for File:Rukhsana, Faezul and Nadira.jpg)? Can't really migrate them over to Commons without that info.

Also, @Faizaan.huh - regarding c:File:A.K. Faezul Huq’s Children in Their Early Years.jpg. I noticed a bit of back-and-forth in the edit history of this page between yourself and @Minist3r about the use of this photo on Wikipedia; did you all agree on keeping the image on the net or did you still want it taken down? If it's the latter, you might want to file a deletion request for that image on Wikimedia Commons (seeing as the photo is still up on there). However, remaining on the topic of c:File:A.K. Faezul Huq’s Children in Their Early Years.jpg - is that definitely A. K. Faezul Huq sitting in the middle of that photo? (I'm assuming it is, but, y'know, no harm in double-checking, seeing as the caption only mentions his kids).

(figured it would be best to mention this here rather than splitting this up into multiple discussion threads on the files in question, seeing as all of this is tangentally related to improving Faezul's article). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 17:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Yes I want that picture deleted as I mistakenly uploaded with the wrong title can you guide me on how do I delete it? Faizaan.huh (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

see c:Help:DELETE for instructions on how to delete pictures from Commons. (Alternatively, if you just wanted to rename that file, see c:Commons:File renaming for instructions on how to do that). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks alot 😊 Faizaan.huh (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If you need any help with actually doing the thing (getting it deleted/renamed), let me know, and I can go do the thing on your behalf. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 11:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Would be great if you could help me get it deleted 😄 Faizaan.huh (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

welp, I've nominated it for deletion, just need to wait for the admins on Commons to actually hit the delete button on it. I guess that replying to the deletion request thread with something along the lines of 'Hi, uploader here, confirming that I do want to delete it' might help speed up the process I guess. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Alr Tysm, and do I need to write “hi” there? my bad I didn’t understand really Faizaan.huh (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

you don't need to tbh 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

alr tysm, really appreciated it 😊 Faizaan.huh (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Removal Of Grandchildren Section

@HotMess As you’ve requested to continue on the topic on the talk page here.

Thank you for including the mention of the 7 grandchildren—I appreciate the effort to reach a mutual agreement.

However, I’d like to reiterate that my suggestion to include the names of A. K. Faezul Huq’s children is not about genealogy or an attempt to contravene any Wikipedia guidelines. My intent is solely to preserve the accuracy and integrity of the historical record. Unfortunately, there have been cases of individuals falsely claiming to be descendants, and providing the correct names can help prevent such misrepresentations and ensure clarity for readers.

I understand and respect the need to adhere to Wikipedia’s standards, and I’m grateful for the discussion so far. I hope this aspect can be reconsidered in the interest of preserving the authenticity of the article.

Faizaan.huh (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing this conversation here, and I'm glad to see that you appreciate my concerns on the matter; and I also appreciate your concerns re wanting to keep this information. Granted, I don't know anything about the specifics of the disputed family situation, but, at the same time, remember that there wouldn't be much stopping that sort of person from just persistently editing this article to keep adding themselves to the list of his descendants. And, of course, there is still the underlying issue of it violating WP:NOTGENEALOGY (as this still doesn't support the reader's understanding of the topic) and WP:NAMECHECK (as you're just adding the names of people who aren't notable themselves); furthermore, there's also the whole WP:COISELF can of worms in the background as well.

If I'm understanding you correctly, it seems that your reasoning for listing the names of your family is to right great wrongs. No matter how noble your intentions are, you need to bear in mind that such information presented on Wikipedia must be verifiable. However, I've noticed something that casts doubt on the verifiability of the whole situation. Whilst, yes, the 'three daughters and two sons' fact is backed up by an independent source, I just found a second independent source which states that he had two wives, four daughters, and three sons. As it stands, seeing as two independent sources are providing completely different information about his number of wives and total number of children, further verifiable information would probably be needed to resolve this discrepancy.

Anywho, on the topic of verifiable information - was he born in 1945 or 1943? I noticed that the article previously stated he was born in March 1945 - however, this is contradicted by this independent source, which stated he was born in 1943 (albeit doesn't say when in 1943), so I've updated that tidbit of information in this article, as it has a verifiable source to back it up. But, going back to the question of wives/children/grandchildren, are there any additional independent sources which can be cited stating how many wives/children/grandchildren he had, and who exactly they are? I appreciate that you want to make sure the historical record's accuracy and integrity is preserved - however, without evidence, how can one be sure that the accuracy and the integrity is being upheld?

Ultimately, there is as much verifiable evidence out there stating that he had 1 wife, 3 daughters, and 2 sons as there is stating that he had 2 wives, 4 daughters, and 3 sons; yet there is no verifiable information out there stating that he only has 7 grandchildren - and no verifiable evidence stating who exactly these family members were. Unless further verifiable information can be found on what the source of this discrepancy is, we would collectively be doing a disservice to the historical record by claiming one way or the other.

Think about it like this - it's easier to disprove a claim (like someone claiming to be a descendant of a certain individual) if you have evidence which actively disproves said claim. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply and for identifying the discrepancies between the sources. However, I must strongly point out that the additional source you referenced, which claims A. K. Faezul Huq had two wives, four daughters, and three sons, is inaccurate. A. K. Faezul Huq was married to one wife, Rukhsana Huq, and they had three daughters—Flora (the eldest), Fahsina Huq Lira (his second daughter), and Shyama (the youngest)—and two sons, Faisal and Pikku.

The claims in that source align with individuals who have falsely asserted a connection to our family. This misinformation has been a recurring issue, and it appears that their baseless claims are now being presented as fact in some outlets, leading to confusion and misrepresentation. I can assure you that this source does not reflect the truth and is likely based on these individuals’ fabricated assertions.

Wikipedia’s content policies emphasize the importance of verifiability and the use of reliable sources. According to the Verifiability policy, “readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up.” This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, the Reliable sources guideline states that “the policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.”

In this case, the source in question does not meet these standards, as it propagates false information from individuals with no legitimate connection to our family. To ensure the integrity of the article, it is crucial to rely on accurate and verifiable information from reputable sources.

If you require verification, I am more than happy to assist. I am the eldest son of Fahsina Huq Lira, the second daughter of A. K. Faezul Huq, and I am committed to preserving the accuracy of our family’s history. I can provide evidence or additional context as needed to resolve these inaccuracies and uphold the article’s integrity.

I appreciate your diligence in ensuring that Wikipedia’s content is accurate and verifiable. While I understand that verifiable sources are key, I hope we can also ensure that the sources used are reliable and not based on false claims. Please let me know how I can assist further as we work together to address this issue effectively. Faizaan.huh (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so, both of the sources in question were both obituaries posted by different outlets on the same day as each other. According to the obituary published by The Financial Express, he had an extra wife, son, and daughter. However, according to the obituary published by New Age, it was just two sons and three daughters.

Anywho, looking at the edit history of this page, there are a couple of edits by @Minist3r (whom I'm assuming is a relative of yours) which are of note. In the edit summary of this edit, pretty clearly states that Faezul Huq had previously married (and then divorced) Mariam Begum Mary, before then marrying Rukhsana Huq. Furthermore, it appears that we even have proof of his divorce (at least according to this edit by Minist3r), right here: c:File:Talaknama.jpg - and it's a bit difficult for one to get divorced from someone whom one never married.

So, from all this evidence, we can see that, over the course of his life, your grandfather had a total of two wives; divorcing the first one before marrying his second wife. The discrepancy in wife count and child count in the two verifiable independent published sources (from established publications) mentioning his family indicates that the first wife (the one he divorced) presumably had one son and one daughter, but he had two sons and three daughters with his second wife (your grandmother). The evidence backs up this hypothesis.

However, I genuinely don't know how (or why) the second obituary could have been likely based on these individuals’ fabricated assertions. Both obituaries were published on the same day (the 20th of July 2007), announcing his very sudden death mere hours after it happened; was there much opportunity for any supposed impostors to have contacted The Financial Express and pressure them into changing the numbers on their obituary for Faezul Huq shortly before publishing said obituary? A more rational explanation would be that whoever was writing the obituary for The Financial Express figured that saying 'two wives' would be easier than writing 'one wife and one ex-wife'. And, let's be honest - if the evidence actually does align with individuals who have falsely asserted a connection to our family, and no evidence can be found to debunk those potentially-debunkable claims, things are gonna get tricky.

Also, whilst I'm thinking about it, what sort of connection to our family are these people claiming to have? Are they claiming to be related to him via your grandmother, Rukhsana Huq, or are they claiming to be related to him via his ex-wife, Mariam Begum Mary? Is there any evidence that can be provided to outright disprove their claims, or is there any way of providing evidence to point out that their relation to him is completely tangental to your relation to him? And if he did actually have kids from his first marriage (and said descendants from the first marriage point out that they're descended from him), would that not qualify as a legitimate connection to A. K. Faezul Huq himself (albeit not to the family he established with your grandmother)?

Anywho, if needed, we could try to get a third opinion to resolve this issue according the policies of Wikipedia (see WP:THIRD), but, from the published evidence on the matter (and the informally-provided divorce certificate), it seems that he ultimately was married twice and may have had offspring from the wife he subsequently divorced. (also this is unrelated to the rest of this but nice userpage 👍) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response and for your kind words about my user page—it truly means a lot! I actually took inspiration from your user page, which I found creative and very well-crafted.

On the Obituaries and Claims

While the obituaries from The Financial Express and New Age differ in their accounts, the claim that A. K. Faezul Huq had two wives is incorrect. He was married solely to Rukhsana Huq, with whom he had three daughters (Flora, Fahsina, and Shyama) and two sons (Faisal and Pikku).

Unfortunately, the claims in The Financial Express obituary align with individuals who have long been falsely asserting a connection to our family. These misrepresentations began years before my grandfather’s passing. To address this issue, my grandfather prepared a Sharia declaration during his lifetime, explicitly stating that his only wife was Rukhsana Huq and that they had three daughters and two sons. This declaration was intended to preserve the integrity of his family and counter these baseless claims.

On Mariam Begum Mary

While there is evidence of a divorce, the relationship with Mariam Begum Mary was legally and socially dissolved before his marriage to Rukhsana Huq. Any claims of children from this prior relationship, if they exist, are not supported by verifiable evidence and were not acknowledged in the Sharia declaration. As such, these claims should not be considered part of his recognized family.

Wikipedia Policies in Support of Accuracy

Several Wikipedia guidelines support maintaining the article’s accuracy and rejecting unverified or misleading information:

1.WP:V (Verifiability): Wikipedia content must be based on reliable, published sources. The discrepancies in the two obituaries demonstrate the need for careful evaluation, especially when one aligns with unverified claims. The Sharia declaration serves as direct evidence of A. K. Faezul Huq’s recognized family structure.

2.WP:BLP (Biographies of Living Persons): This policy applies to deceased persons as well, emphasizing the importance of accuracy and care when presenting potentially contentious information. Including unverified claims could harm the integrity of the article and the individual’s legacy.

3.WP:UNDUE (Undue Weight): Giving equal weight to claims from unreliable sources (e.g., The Financial Express obituary) risks misrepresenting the consensus on his family structure. The focus should remain on well-documented and verifiable facts.

4.WP:NOR (No Original Research): Speculation about a previous marriage and potential offspring not supported by credible evidence would constitute original research, which is prohibited.

5.WP:RS (Reliable Sources): The Sharia declaration, a legal document prepared by A. K. Faezul Huq himself, provides a primary source confirming his family structure. This outweighs conflicting claims in less reliable secondary sources.

Resolution and Moving Forward

This issue has been examined in detail, and I appreciate your diligence in addressing it. At this point, I hope we can conclude this discussion by focusing on verifiable, accurate details about A. K. Faezul Huq’s life and legacy. I am happy to provide further clarification or assistance if needed.

Thank you again for your thoughtful engagement and for working towards preserving the integrity of the content. Faizaan.huh (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I see, that explains things. Thanks for explaining the full situation 🙂

I've updated the article to reflect this info (labelling the first one as a 'relationship' instead of a marriage, removing Mariam from the 'spouses' section in the infobox, and stating that no children were born as a result of this relationship). I'm not sure what the legal specifics are with the Sharia Declaration you've mentioned (like idk if it's the sort of thing which would have been archived/published somewhere (or otherwise on the public record) and could possibly be cited), but, if there is a means of citing it, I would suggest adding it as a citation in the article. Also, feel free to re-clarify the info in the article if needed.

Again, thanks for explaining the full situation, thanks for remaining civil throughout, and if anyone else kicks up a fuss about it, I suppose you can just go point out that there's been discussion about it already which has since been resolved.

I wish you all the best with everything, both on Wikipedia and outside of it. You certainly have great potential 🙂

(anywho, if you want a little bit of constructive feedback on your userpage, you might want to look at Wikipedia:Userboxes#Grouping_userboxes to help with the layout of your userboxes :p) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 14:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response and for updating the article to reflect the situation accurately—I really appreciate the effort!

Regarding the Sharia declaration, it’s more of a personal family document rather than something publicly archived or officially published, so I don’t think it’s suitable as a citation at this time. However, I’ll keep it in mind if future clarification becomes necessary.

Thanks again for your constructive feedback and for handling this matter so professionally. I’ll definitely check out the userbox layout tips you shared and make some improvements! Wishing you all the best as well, both on Wikipedia and beyond. Faizaan.huh (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)