Talk:Sheikh Hasina

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 September 2024

শেষ হাসিনা 2603:7000:A100:1803:CC:50B3:E3D4:2F11 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 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. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Why should a commission be formed in the British Parliament regarding Tulip Siddiq's (Daughter of Sheikh Rehana, the sister of former fled Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina ) corruption?

After ruling Bangladesh for about 15-16 years, the oppressive, autocratic, corrupt, and iron-fisted leader of the Awami League government, Sheikh Hasina, was forced to flee to India on August 5th amid massive public outrage to save her life. Coming to power through elections held under the caretaker government in 2008, the Awami League initially governed the country relatively democratically. However, in 2014, citing constitutional processes and manipulating the constitution through their puppet judges, the party began a process to destroy democracy, starting with a farcical election in which 150 candidates were selected without votes, despite strong opposition from major opposition parties and the general public.

To continue this sham electoral process, Sheikh Hasina resorted to vote-rigging in 2018, infamously known as "nighttime voting for daytime elections," and through the so-called dummy elections of 2024, seized power. Alongside establishing her illegal autocratic rule, she built a vast mafia network across Bangladesh, comprising members of the Awami League, Chhatra League, Jubo League, the 14-party alliance, Police League, Sramik League, and various loyalists from other state organizations. Looting, bribery, corruption, extortion, business syndicates, bank usurpation, violence against women, land grabbing, drug trafficking, river grabbing, illegal sand mining, hill cutting—there was hardly any crime that Sheikh Hasina and her mafia syndicate did not commit. Under her leadership, Bangladesh was elevated to one of the most corrupt countries in the world. As a result, the common people of Bangladesh grew poorer, while Sheikh Hasina and her mafia clique amassed great wealth.

Sheikh Hasina repeatedly exploited the spirit of the Liberation War for political gain. The Awami League effectively divided the nation in two: those who showed allegiance to the party were deemed supporters of the Liberation War, while those who opposed it were branded as enemies of the war. The notorious "Gang of Four" played a pivotal role in crafting the roadmap for her autocratic rule: her cunning son, Sajeeb Wazed Joy; the womanizing and deceitful Awami League General Secretary, Obaidul Quader; the notorious gangster and Home Minister, Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal; and another womanizer, bank robber, and economy-destroying tycoon, Salman F. Rahman of the Beximco Group. Furthermore, to turn Bangladesh into a bottomless pit, Sheikh Hasina placed thousands of uneducated Awami League thugs in all chairman, member, councilor, city mayor, district council chairman, and upazila council chairman positions without elections.

Sheikh Hasina’s sister, another notorious figure and a source of terror among the people of Bangladesh, Sheikh Rehana, along with her daughter, British Labour Party MP Tulip Siddiq, actively aided in Hasina’s corruption and illegal money laundering from abroad. Tulip Siddiq has been implicated in various media reports as being directly involved in these corrupt activities. She is alleged to be the main intermediary in the $5 billion bribery scandal related to the Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant. Reports from U.S.-based Global Defense Corp suggest that Tulip Siddiq pocketed 30% of this bribe money for herself and her family. The fact that Tulip Siddiq, a relative of a corrupt Prime Minister, became an MP in a democratic country like Britain has caused widespread resentment among the people of Bangladesh.

We, the people of Bangladesh, believe that our beloved country is a very good friend of the United Kingdom. We urge the UK government to establish a commission under British law to investigate the crimes of Tulip Siddiq (the daughter of Sheikh Rehana, the notorious sister of the fugitive Sheikh Hasina, who has been implicated in numerous murder cases). Due to her association with the fugitive and disgraced former Prime Minister and her involvement in money laundering, it is highly inappropriate for Tulip Siddiq to hold a position as a Member of Parliament in a great nation like the United Kingdom. Tulip Siddiq has been aiding her aunt, former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, in laundering money from Bangladesh for many years. Therefore, we believe that the United Kingdom will take swift action on this matter. 103.166.186.20 (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

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)