Talk:Mohammed Nizamul Huq

BLP Concern

All the sources used to represent this person as a member of "Ghatak-Dalal Nirmul Committee" doesn't state anything about the statement. --Freemesm (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This source which you deleted does: Ghulam Azam's counsels prefer ICT-2. Have you given thought to the idea of reading sources before you delete them as not stating what they do? The other sources talk about what the committee was doing. I will undo the deletes of yours that demonstrate a lack of due diligence on your part, and may therefore constitute WP:Vandalism. Aminul802 (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Aminul, the link you provided states that Defence counsels of former Jamaat-e-Islam chief Ghulam Azam alleged Mr. Nazmul as a member of Ghatak-Dalal Nirmul Committee. It doesn't mean that Mr. Nazmul is actually a member of Ghatak-Dalal Nirmul Committee. Defence counsels bring further baseless arguments in front of tribunal. That does not mean that they r right. Please read carefully the WP:Vandalism article. Then make sure, you are not vandalizing this article. Thank you. --Freemesm (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Linkvio Concern

Linking to hacked private conversations on you tube a a linkvio. --Freemesm (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please point out how there is any copyright violation involved in posting what is now in the public domain? The linkvio page doesn't say anything about the kind of youtube links posted, namely those that have been posted of Nizamul Huq and Ahmed Ziauddin's conversations. If they entailed any copyright violation, they would have been removed from YouTube. Until I see some evidence presented that wiki disallows the use of hacked material now in the public domain, like wikileaks material which is extensively discussed and documented in the relevant wikipedia pages, I will consider this vandalism and undo it. For wikileaks pages, see this [1]wiki article and those linked within it. Aminul802 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Aminul, are continuously trying to vandalize this article. Please check this link. I think you should get clear conception why this liked conversation's link should be removed.--Freemesm (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Aminul802's edit has reverted as discussion still going on BLPN page

I've undid the version, as this discussion has not finished yet on BLPN. Moreover Mr. Aminul cited there news blog's reference without mentioning that. It is WP:NEWSBLOG vio. I'm trying to make this article neutral. Please provide input according to wiki rules. If I did anything wrong, please notice me here.--Freemesm (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment on BLPN Discussion

This [2]discussion is currently taking place on the BLPN. It seems that it's not attracting that much by way of outside comments. It's a dispute between 'old friends' and recently I had support from a wiki newbie. Can I request some outside comments please. Many thanks! Aminul802 (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Newbie my ass. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come on, DS, tell us what you really think.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It is obviously a meatpuppet. And should be blocked for coordinating edits with another editor. Who is currently blocked for sockpuppetry I will add. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the SPI report, DS.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the RfC as requested in bad faith.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The results on the BLP page show that the discussion had NO CONSENSUS. After the requesting editor above was blocked (by another party who was actively involved in this discussion), changes were made that did not accurately reflect those BLP discussions and in favor of the remaining editors (see history) who were involved in contentious editing with the initiator of the discussion.Crtew (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No consensus for inclusion either Darkness Shines (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Political party

He was backed by the Awami League in the election for the executive committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association. This does not mean he is a member of the party. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

BLP Concern

Mr. Crtew, represent Mr. Nizam as a member of Awami League! I think it is not a good idea. It is serious BLP vio.--Freemesm (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Crtew has made a mistake, Mohammed Nizamul Huq is not even in the source, Nizamul Haque Nizam is. He must have gotten them mixed up. I have removed it pending discussion. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Starting from Shahabuddin Ahmed is a representative of Awami League So Nizamul Huq supports Awami League!!

Again Awami League govt's president Zillur Rahman' appointed him as judg, so Nizamul Huq supports Awami League!!

Nice twist, but don't you think it is very childish? Where do you get Mr. Shahabuddin Ahmed as a representative of Awami League? If he is AL representative, then how he was chosen as chief neutral caretaker government? Another point is, as president Zillur Rahman appoint lot more justices, do you think all of them are AL supporter? I think you are more smarter. Please don't do anything from your personal matters. Take a break rather than chase someone. Use your potential to do something constructive. Thank you.--Freemesm (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

First, if you're going to claim a BLP violation, then you better explain why? Just saying that doesn't persuade me. This is weak argumentation, and I don't take this remark seriously.

Second, Bangla has a different script and latin script transliteration varies. There are many examples of this, especially in non-latin script languages. I have provided references to make a connection. I'm not sure how to take the above "argument" (quotes intended) because it doesn't have any basis/evidence.

Third, read the sources before you revert people. Those revert edits were so quick, nobody could have read, evaluated and judged. Crtew (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've called on an independent third party to intervene and evaluate. We'll wait. Until then, we will keep your "temporary" reverts in place. Crtew (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like the independent third party to focus on this particular editing comment: "I have read the entire article, his name is not there." Crtew (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying I have not read it? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Just saying that I would also request the independent third party to note the times of the reverts, especially after the addition of a second source, which was never commented on. I'm focused on the edits.Crtew (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

... that in addition to the spot check for the presence of the name.Crtew (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You did not add a second source, all you did was give this ref a name And that ref does not mention Huq's political affiliation either. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to double check the source with the name variation I just added? I'm more than glad to give you the benefit of the doubt as I don't know what your technique is for searching the document and this could be an honest overlook as I added the s and z name change late. I'm more than willing to let you restore the edit. Either way you can answer here.Crtew (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I read it on highbeam. Were is your source for "(Anglicized sometimes as: Nizamul Haque Nasim or Nizamul Haque Nizam?" I added a cn tag for the bit I am curious about. Also were in that source does in mention the political affiliation of Huq? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm guess I'm the "independent third party." Chad made two changes to the article. First, he gave a name to the source in the paragraph above. Then, he added a new paragraph of two sentences. He cited the now-named source, and he added a source, The Indpendent in Bangladesh (which, btw, is available by Highbeam, so I was able to read it). The named source talks about the reappointment of Nizamul Huq. It has no details about Nizamul Huq. It's not clear to me in what way it was necessary to support the new paragraph. The new source does not mention Nizamul Huq at all. As for the times of the reverts by DS, I believe Chad is now moving, somewhat obliquely, into editor conduct, which I'm reluctant to delve into. I will say I think there was some confusion as to what Chad was doing and what he was citing, but unless both Chad and DS want me to give my opinion on that confusion, I decline to do so. My conclusion: I see no support for the added paragraph.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure which is your first or second source. So let me go by title. "Five out of nine HC judges confirmed", says "Justice Md. Nizamul Huq" was not confirmed in 2003. "AL-backed panel sweeps SC Bar poll" says "Nizamul Haque Nizam" was elected part of the executive committee. Do you see that in your source? (Notice the spelling differences, which I've noted on the page)Crtew (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not using Highbeam. Are you getting the entire copy? Crtew (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Were in the source (any of them) does it mention his political affiliation? You also need a source for your Anglicized addition as I already mentioned above. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The dispute seems to be over the name and the assertions. Chad, you'd need to reliably connect Nizamul Haque Nizam to Nizmul Huq. For example, if you can show that this is an alternate name and can source that, it could then be in the beginning with the source. Your latest change to the article isn't sufficient. Even if you could do that, you'd still have a problem. All the article says is that these judges were backed by the Awami League. Your assertions aren't supported by that article. You have to make leaps to get there.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

We keep edit conflicting (I just lost my response to the above point of DS). How am I doing this any differently than from the other subjects of WP articles who have multiple transliteration variations? I would need further guidance here. I've dealt with Arabic sources before and need to dig into Bangla. Once this is established we can come back and look at this and any additional sources about the 2003 SBCA election and why he wasn't confirmed then (which was a controversial issue back then between the lawyers and the parties). Ok, I can't do any more today. I'll leave this matter rest and come back to it later. I understand the issue to not be resolved but some good points were raised.Crtew (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Crtew, after the discussion it is clear enough that you are trying to present Mr. Nizamul as a member of Awami League. That is clearly a POV and should be removed as per BLP policy. Could you please explain which one of your 3 reference states that Mr. Shahabuddin appoint Nizamul as a representative of Awami League?--Freemesm (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Transliteration

Justice Md. Nizamul Huq (I assume we can agree that Md. is the abbreviation for Mohammed)

• This form is used on his official Supreme Court of Bangladesh page and I would assume that we would all agree it should be the preferred instance and therefore the standard form adopted in the article.
• Moreover, this form appears in the following articles:
  • "Five out of nine HC judges confirmed" (The Independent)
  • "10 HC judges sworn in" (The Daily Star)
  • "2 journalists have to reply to ICT notice by March 4" (The Daily Star)
  • "Justice Kabir made ICT-1 chief" (The Daily Star)
  • "Justice Nizamul back to HC" (The Daily Star)

Nizamul Huq

• The shortened form of his standard name. The BBC News calls him Mr. Huq afer the first instance and I believe we should (keep with style and drop salutation and) use "Huq" after the first use. Editor discretion would tend to favor the use of the full form at the beginning of a section.
  • "Bangladesh war crimes judge Nizamul Huq resigns" (BBC News)
  • "Justice Nizamul quits International Crimes Tribunal" (The Daily Star)
  • "Sedition case filed against Amar Desh editor, publisher" (The Daily Star)

Advocate M Nizamul Huq of Odhikar

• This was used before he was appointed to the High Court in the following story. See below the variation Nizamul Haque Nasim
  • "Kidney removal at DMCH: Health Secy, five others asked to show cause" (The Independent)

Nizamul Haque Nasim

• This form was also used early in his career and connects to the the form Advocate M Nizamul Huq' of Adhikar. I assume it is is clear that these two are the same because the name and the organizations both match. See also the connection with his judicial role in Justice Nizamul Haque Nasim
  • "Sri Lankans in country to visit CHT" (The Independent)
  • "President likely to appoint 12 HC judges by January 7” (The Independent)

Justice Nizamul Haque Nasim

• The story below is about how the school is celebrating and is proud of its graduates. I assume we can agree this mention is our judge. But see below the useage Tribunal Chairman Nizamul Haque Nasim for confirmation
  • "Justice Nizamul Haque Nasim ”125th founding day of a Patuakhali school” (The Daily Star)
  • "The Economist sued by Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal" (The Telegraph, UK), not currently listed in article yet but it clearly links this form to the ICT [3]

Tribunal Chairman Nizamul Haque Nasim

• This is a very recent article and seen with the last two forms should end any doubt,
  • "Is the wait over?" (The Star, published by The Daily Star)

Nizamul Haque Nizam

• This is a rare use. The Independent manages to use many different forms of his name.
  • "AL-backed panel sweeps SC Bar poll" (The Independent)

It is not necessary for me to show you an article that says this is how his name is translated (as I thought was suggested yesterday). Wikepdia's policy is to show alternative forms of a name, such as in the case of transliterations, in parentheses inside the lead (as was done yesterday). You can see the following policies: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Foreign_names_and_anglicization and Treatment of alternative names in the same article (lower) and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Alternative_names. See Tawakkol Karman for an example from Arabic. Notice how the forms are backed up by a few example references. Crtew (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment below:

• Going through the sources, The Telegraph, UK is not RS Looking at the others Darkness Shines (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This one does the job[4] Good find, I still want to know however which source gives his political affiliation. As that is actually what started all this off to begin with. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Non relevant AL linking

‎Crtew, you are trying to represent Nizamul Huq as Awami League leaning person. Appointing by Awami league government does not mean he is Awami League leaning person. Moreover how do you explain Shahabuddin Ahmed as a representative of AL? Do you know, he was head of neutral Caretaker government (1990—1991)? These information about Zillur Rahman and Shahabuddin Ahmed is irrelivient here and will mislead readers. If you think Nizamul Huq is Awami League leaning person, then put strong source, which will describe him as AL leaning and do not put any WP:OR. You are trying to bias this article and has lack of WP:Good faith.--FreemesM ^(talk) 08:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

WP Link Vio

For those who keep deleting the link to the video of the controversial Skype conversation: Please enlighten us on who might possibly hold the copyright to this! Also the Bangladesh courts are trying to figure this out too. So if you have some special information, please do tell. Crtew (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC) The undo was reversed yet neither editor has identified the copyright holder of the hacked video. Curious??? Crtew (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The people who made the calls are the copyright holders. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this is starting to get interesting. This issue should be put to "Request for comment" as there are a number of issues, such as copyright and also privacy, and perhaps even domestic laws about national security (Bangladesh prohibits their publication, but Wikipedia's servers are not in Bangladesh). On the other hand, there are principles about Fair Use, public interest, and prior publication among others that would suggest public access to the materials. Darkness Shines makes a valid point that I'm sure others will hold, and if this is the case, then it should be up to YouTube to delete them. For now at least, secondary sources, such as The Economist can deal with this adequately and tell people how to get access to them. Crtew (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't buy the argument that DS makes that the copyright belongs to the callers. He should produce evidence that is true and not make assertions. The judge was conducting official business for the government of Bangladesh at the time and so this takes it out of the hands of private ownership/personal property. As I was looking into past RFCs, I came across Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Use_of_classified_documents, which is about Wikileaks that has some lessons. The Courts of Bangladesh have forbidden its publication, which doesn't make it classified as we normally think about it, but still illegal to publish in one country. I'll submit a question to RFC about the relevance of this case to the Skype calls. Most editors agreed that it is proper to make an external leak to the Wikileak documents. Secondary sources have verified the material and The Economist has explained why it used the materials as evidence for a story. Amar Desh went further and published it.Crtew (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been through this once with Animul802, you cannot link directly to leaked documents. An RFC will make no difference as consensus does not override policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are external links to Wikleaks documents used and allowed after that whole issue has already gone through numerous RFCs? See "External links":Afghan_War_Diaries. It matters little what you and Animul802 talked about. Do you have policy that you can show me? After that what matters is the consensus of the community and that's what RFCs are for. Your reasoning above is not backed up.Crtew (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, local consensus does not override policy. See [5] for an explanation. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Serious WP:BLP, WP:OR And WP:RS vio

1. This is not a RS. All the news of this so-called newspaper copied from another renowned online newspaper. By this reference Crtew shrewdly explains how readers could view the hacked conversations and transcripts on sites such as YouTube! Which is serious WP:LINKVIO Sorry Crtew, your friends provide you a crap reference. Try something smarter.

1. Crtew puts the conversation of hacked content by citing a news paper. It is also WP:LINKVIO and no one recognize that the conversation available in youtube is exactly that content, which is captured by Economist.

1. Crtew almost done a pure research on "The Skype controversy" section and try to justify the hacking incidence by Economist.--FreemesM ^(talk) 07:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Including text from secondary sources is not a linkvio and one can quote and write about that material. This has already been advised by a WP expert on copyright issues and these kind of security issues. You don't like it that it is included, but that's another issue. All the material has secondary sources and so you really need to get a better grasp of the differences between OR and encyclopedic references.Crtew (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, what about crap secondary source, which is copying news from other online news sites? What about too much exaggeration on a single issue?--FreemesM ^(talk) 08:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Freemesm, Your banners that are placed on the article do not have valid arguments. You're citing policy but not with valid support for them. Putting a template asking for more third party sources? Tell me which one of the almost 30 sources here are not a secondary source? The news outlets that write about the Skype videos you want to suppress are not primary sources. You need to learn this.Crtew (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

What about this news source?--FreemesM ^(talk) 16:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree with this delete

I'll ask about whether the following can go in based on the source, who is a recognized expert and journalist, and that this is a transcript. If the court were transparent, it would be publicly accessible.Crtew (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We think those conversations will obstruct smooth functioning of the Tribunal and hamper the dignity of the Tribunal. So for protecting the dignity of Tribunal and its smooth functioning, all Newspapers specially including Daily Amardesh and Sangram, electronic medias and online newspaper are required, not to publish skype conversation between ex-chairman of ICT BD-1 Justice Nizamul Haque and Ahmed Ziauddin and any transcript, report and article about this conversation, from right now.Bergman, David (2012-12-13). "Tribunal bans 'any report' on hacked conversations" (blog). Bangladesh War Crimes Tribunal. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |acccessdate= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

How a blog could be Reliable source? Moreover Bargman is not a notable person in journalism in Bangladesh.--FreemesM ^(talk) 08:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No, per WP:SPS & WP:BLP Darkness Shines (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources removed

Per this discussion and this is not RS for a BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mohammed Nizamul Huq. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140117010258/http://www.newagebd.com/detail.php?date=2013-03-23&nid=43889 to http://www.newagebd.com/detail.php?date=2013-03-23&nid=43889
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004142537/http://www.newagebd.com/detail.php?date=2012-12-14&nid=33362 to http://newagebd.com/detail.php?date=2012-12-14&nid=33362

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) 19:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)