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)

Protection of page

This page needs to be blocked and protected from any change of information without documentary evidence by users attempting to distort the facts and mislead public in general. -MINISTER- 15:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minist3r (talk • contribs)