Wikipedia

Talk:Hussain Muhammad Ershad

(Redirected from Talk:Hossain Mohammad Ershad)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Dead.rabbit in topic Birth date and year
Learn more about this page

Edits

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed the paraphrased info "referenced" from Daily star. This is a "Letter to editor" ... and has exactly zero value as reference for any info.

Also, please refrain from speculation such as what Ahmed might have felt about the verdict of a single case, or whether he was disgraced or not. The same applies to using peacock terms such as "landmark" etc. --Ragib (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image File:Pic5.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply


Reply to imagecopyright problem with File:Pic5.jpg

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Rationale has been placed.

Rationale for the use of image Sheikh_mujibur_rahman.jpg‎ also provided. Incognito1980 05:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incognito1980 (talk • contribs)

The images are not essential for this article, and stretching fair use is not a very good idea. --Ragib (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

As explained these images are there to signify and refer to their significance in history as well as the article itself.

Not a good idea? What is a good idea or a bad idea can't be determined by an individual? Incognito1980 06:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incognito1980 (talk • contribs)

These images are not really useful because the article is NOT about the persons, rather this is a biography of Ershad. I will refer you to fair use criteria, which, among other things states that, "As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?"". Ershad's biography can definitely be depicted without resorting to the use of fair use images of other persons, who are mentioned only a few times in the article. --Ragib (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Powerful adminstratorship which was not necessary, nevertheless will not compete.Incognito1980 07:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incognito1980 (talk • contribs)

I do not understand the first part of your comment on "powerful administratorship". I have not exercised any admin actions here, rather reminded you of wikipedia content policy, as a regular editor of this article. --Ragib (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply


With all due respect sir I just stated that I will refrain from this. Let us not make it personal and proceed any further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incognito1980 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

On POV commentary by incognito

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed the wording added by incongnito1980 because of the following reason - these are subjective POV commentary:

  • "placing the neutrality to be questioned later on; " neutrality questioned by who? This is a very subjective POV comment.
  • Finally, claiming that Ershad was bigamist "as per Sharia practiced among Muslim men" is so wrong on several counts -- that sentence implies that Bigamy is practiced by Muslim men, and Ershad had to do so to follow the custom!! Isn't that awfully racist stereotyping? Ershad was simultaneously married to Bidisha, whether he received permission of his first wife Roushan Ershad (as required by the 1961 Family ordinance) is not known, so that marriage may or may not be legal either. But claiming that to be a common practice is very wrong.

I would recommend that Incognito1980 should focus on adding referenced facts to the subject's biography, and refrain from inserting his own commentary about the neutrality of different other people. -- (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply


Reply to Ragib's Accusation

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • "placing the neutrality to be questioned later on; - the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (Supreme Court is the highest court of the nation) declared Shahabuddin's action Illegal and as such the neutrality of the man is not in effect. You have deleted the cited ref.
  • "e then Army Chief of Staff Lt General Nuruddin Khan - The fact that he joined politics and did get the ministership is also a fact. Shows the political agenda by him. You have deleted the cited ref.
  • Finally, claiming that Ershad was bigamist "as per Sharia practiced among Muslim men" -

I did not suggest he is a bigamist. If you have any idea about muslim men that includes the Middle-East and not just South-East Asia, Sharia Law allows second marraige with consent of the first wife and it is in practice. NO RACISM was intended.

Raushan Ershad never stated to the press she never gave permission, you may ask to show or cite that she did. Raushan Ershad never filed for divorce or sued him either.

The immature habit to delete cited materials and change or modify words to bring a negative impact and claiming neutrality is not a good practice my young friend.

I stand by my point.

Incognito1980 09:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

For the first issue, the only fact there is that, the Supreme Court declared the action illegal. That is supported by the reference, and I have had no problems with the statement. But when you go on with your personal commentary that it "proves" Shahabuddin's non-neutrality, THAT becomes a POV commentary.
As for Nuruddin, when you start connecting the dots *here* in this page, that becomes Original research. Not appropriate for Wikipedia. Keep your conjectures to yourself, or provide a reliable source that states this. Don't start synthesizing several disconnected facts into forming your own conclusion.
As for the final point, Ershad was in fact a bigamist in this case, and you also state this here. No problem. But when you claim that Ershad was a bigamist following "Sharia law", that becomes a racist pov comment. Either you couldn't express yourself in forming the sentence, or you are implying Muslims are supposed to be following Sharia law and become bigamists .... I hope you didn't imply that there, and that this was an unintended wording in your part. Also, Bangladesh does not have any "Sharia law", rather Ershad married his second wife under the 1961 Muslim Family Ordinance, which requires the permission from the first wife. It is not really clear if Roushan Ershad provided that. Given the apparent clash between Ershad and Roushan during the 2nd marriage of Ershad, I find it hard to believe that she'll readily agree to that. However, you might be able to provide some reliable source about Roushan providing permission to Ershad's bigamy ... I'll be very interested to see that :).
As I said earlier, just state the facts, and refrain from connecting the dots to sneak in your own commentary. State that Ershad married his secon wife without divorcing the first one. State that Ershad was not supported by Nuruddin. State that Ershad's arrest was declared illegal later. That's fine. Don't start speculating or reaching a conclusion yourself here. --Ragib (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I believe you are doing the same my friend. Practice what you preach.

Incognito1980 10:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incognito1980 (talk • contribs)


My Opinion

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

With all respect to both the user Raib & Incognito

It is way clear that the user - Incognito is a very active supporter of Jatiya Party and have used words and sentences to be pro Ershad. At the same time most of his/her work do carry proper ref and citations. However a biasness can be derived.

At the same time the user Ragib do modify and in fact I have seen deletion of cited materails contradicting the neutrality that should be maintained by an admin.user to my opinion. By changing simple words like simultaneously you are in fact provoking the user that is not necessary at all.

Ragib & Incognito are equally guilty of sneaking in their own commentry, or establish their own belief which is more of an essay. Very very IMMATURE indid.

GetItRight82 (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply


Rather than improperly lecturing on other user's immaturity, I would recommend you to look into several key policies, namely verifiability, neutrality, biographies of living persons etc. Then you are welcome to actually look into user contributions and provide a lecture on what you think of them.
Sarcasm aside, please feel free to replace the word "Simultaneously" with some other wording that denotes the same meaning (i.e. that Ershad was married to 2 wives at the same time.) No justification as to whether this is good or bad is needed ... just reword the info to state the same thing (unlike Incognito1980 who tried to claim this is usual among Muslim men per Sharia law!!).
And please, read before you comment. Citations are just fine, but as I stated in the previous thread, connecting the dots to add your pov commentary is not ok. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Mr. Ragib, firstly I was not having the problem with the word simultaneous, I was only stating that it was as per Islamic law and I have clearly stated there was no outcry by Raushan Ershad over the matter. The break up of the party on later years was for other reasons. Now I see that not only that your words are provoking but your behavior can only be described by words that my manners prohibits me to do so.

You have deleted cited materials sir and that is a fact. Not only you have shown immature behavior but it seems you are somebody who just have to reply for the sake of it. I believe there was a strong rumor that Ershad was married three times too, but that was back in the days of your dad perhaps, my young friend.

A repeat - Practice what you preach! --Incognito1980 21:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please stop using patronizing and condescending language such as "immature", "young friend" etc. I don't really care what age you are, and any Wikipedian's age is not really your concern. Now, my " behavior can only be described by words that my manners prohibits me to do so.", what exactly is it? I am simply reminding you of Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP. If you cannot comply with these policies, you can always express your own opinions in your personal blog. Your repeatedly mention "cited information", but fail to state that you had inserted your own opinion to connect the dots there. Please refer to the advice I have given above. I am not at all concerned with whatever political affiliations you have, but please do not start editing Wikipedia along party lines. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply


Let it go incognito. He will not stop till you do so, I am sure there is a better way to spend the weekend then have a debate over a ludicrous act. "Don't write something unless you are willing to have it mercilessly re-written........." Be the better man. BTW is 80 your birth year? In that case does that make you really that old to use "young friend"? Just a thought. --GetItRight82 (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

1980 is the year I started my career. --Incognito1980 20:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incognito1980 (talk • contribs)

Re-write of the Marraige and Arrest issue

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I hope ths is acceptable to both the users Incognito & Ragib and we shake hands? --GetItRight82 (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hussain Muhammad Ershad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Link rot had already set in before url was archived.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Fictitious and baseless

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Are not the [citation needed] sentences baseless, fabricated and fictitious? Babu bogra (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Hussain Muhammad Ershad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
12 OK, 1 failed. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hussain Muhammad Ershad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hussain Muhammad Ershad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Protection Issue

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Due to recent vandalism, the article should be fully protected. Even semi-protection would lead to abrupt editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emonkhan (talk • contribs) 19:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2018

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Rabby Imam (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
  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. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Birth date and year

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Banglapedia article says it is 1 February 1930. Recent news stories have mentioned about him becoming a 90-year old - which makes his birthday sometime in March 1929. References:

Anyone got any credible source on his birth date and year ? Dead.rabbit (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hussain_Muhammad_Ershad&oldid=1194826425"