Talk:Sheikh Hasina

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request to change IPA pronunciation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPV and worth to mention 

message: 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)
replies: text: @Community Tech bot Defensive 103.67.157.66 (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: 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  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)
thread_title: Survey

message: *Comment: Anyone wishing to contribute should consider reading the  deliberations at Dispute Resolution.—AMomen88 (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Status quo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Banglapedia is not a government source and is published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue stuff in body 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why is there a need to change this person's image everyday? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Longest-serving current female head of state