Archive 1

Some of the material in the article is just simply given as a matter of fact, when those facts are controvertial or not substantially proven. This includes whether Ziaur Rahman made an earlier declaration that he withdrew and re-broadcast with Mujibur Rahman's name in it. Jamaat's role in the War, while right, needs to be re-worded to make it sound less biased.

The fact that the declaration of Independence was made by Ziaur Rahman on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was universally accepted by all Bangladeshis right up until the AL came to power in 2008. Go read books written after 1971, all of them, including those by AL people (eg. Gen Shafiullah's Bangaldesh at War, just for one example). And if you have any relatives in BD during that time, ask them. They'll tell you the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.24.99 (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Can one simply call Tarek Zia a thief and Begum Zia a despot?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitde (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing out the pov commentry. Somehow these sentences eluded me. I have removed the unsubstantiated pov commentry. --Ragib 01:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It is is advised that the article be re written properly, take care of the grammer as well as edit the article the way wikipedia requires one to do.Remember this article should be as neutral as possible.--Awais141 11:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know Raqib in particular has put in a bit of work here, but perhaps its changed again - Rahman is showered with praise in places. Needs fixing. Hornplease 07:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is becoming a quagmire ... at places it throws showers of praise on Zia, at other places it villifies him. It is desirable to have both sides in a bio, but the article makes broad statements without backing them up with citations. Unless someone provides them pretty soon, I'm going to remove all (both praise and and villification) uncited statements from the page. Thanks. --Ragib 21:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"Islamiyat" was introduced as a compulsory subject in all Bangladeshi schools from classes I to VIII.

This is simply NOT entire true, and also dubious in tone. Religious studies, not "Islamiyat" is mandatory. No non-muslim is supposed to be taking Islam is a topic. Rather, every school has Hinduism (Sanatan dharma) or Buddhism for Hindus and Buddhist respectively. I don't recall going through religious studies during the primary (1-5) school, though it was taught in 6-8 as a mandatory subject. Raman, the author of the reference from SAAG is plainly wrong in this context. I suggest removing this. Thanks. --Ragib 02:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Raman does mention that non-Muslims were permitted to take courses in their own religion. Maybe "Islamiyat" is the name of that policy in reference to Bangladeshi Muslims having to study religion - could you please verify this with some source? Rama's arrow 02:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Permitted to take an optional course - this gives the impression that the "Islamiyat" (=Islamic religious studies) is the mandatory subject, and people of other religion have the "option" to take other religious studies, but are usually supposed to study Islamic religious studies. That's not true. It is religious studies which is mandatory, not Islamic religious studies, and that too between classes 6-8. During the school finals, religion only was made mandatory in the 1990s, and again, it is "religion", not only "islamic studies". Please refer to This UNESCO document on that (Classes VI to VIII will be gradually incorporated under primary education. At these levels, the subjects to be studied will be Bangla, mathematics, general science, social studies (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity)). Raman is clearly wrong or misinformed in this matter. --Ragib 02:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Two points - (a) the policy may have been modified after Zia's fall. (b) we can remove erroneous claims to "Islamiyat," saying that Zia introduced compulsory religious education. Rama's arrow 02:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

(b) Sounds fine and reasonable, please go ahead. About (a), I can't say for sure ... . Thanks --Ragib 03:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What I do remember on this topic is that a school is allowed to not have teachers in religions other than Islam, and in such a case, students will simply take another topic (say accounting). Should be verified though--ppm 20:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Special:Allpages/Ziaur_Rahman shows two other people by the name. Is there any reason why there's no disambiguation, or did just nobody ever do it? –Unint 00:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It says he enrolled in a D. J. College. What's that? --AW 18:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he can spin. --Bobak 21:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Seriously though, anyone? It says he went to one, but it's not explained --AW 15:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

D. J. College (Full name: D.J. Science College) is in Karachi, Pakistan. Rahman attended it for brief period before joining military college in Kakul.

Why is he called "Zia?" Doesn't he ever get confused with this guy? Brutannica 18:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Shortened version of his name. Similarly, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is often referred to as "Sheikh Mujib" only. The concept of family name/surname is blurry in Bangladesh, as most families often do not maintain a family name.

Zia ul-Huq doesn't appear much in the Bangladeshi media/mindset, so the confusion isn't an issue. --Ragib 18:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Bengalis don't have much of a relationship with Pakistan anymore? Also, the two Zias were contemporaries. Brutannica 21:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, during the 80s, when Zia ul Huq was in power and alive, perhaps people in Bangladesh was familiar with the name. But that too just as the leader of Pakistan appearing sporadically in news media. --Ragib 21:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sources have been provided
• Fair use rationale provided
• Not a living person

I request PDH (talk · contribs) to discuss any removal of images here before going on a revert-spree. Thank you. --Ragib 02:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I conquer. The last few times you reverted a bit faster than me... but I also noticed that the removal of images doesn't follow the guide. MrMacMan ^Talk 02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Four images showing what this man looks like, despite him being dead - is not fair. Especially since the actual copyright holder (a requirement for fair use) - is not known/specified. It's best to limit the use of fair use media in all situations. --Peta 02:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you show us where that is stated in the image guidelines? MrMacMan ^Talk 02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:FUC - FUC 10 states that - The image or media description page must contain - Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different). None of these images have information on the copyright holder; they have just been lifted from a museum website. It's not good enough. I'd suggest that they also fail FUC 8 since they do not "contribute significantly to the article". --Peta 02:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The photos are from www.bnpbd.com, the official website of Bangladesh Nationalist Party, (i.e. Zia's party), which asserts copyright. The attribution and sources for the images have been provided. That the images violate FUC 8 is entirely your personal opinion, which I don't agree with. --Ragib 02:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah as the image says the source provided is [1]. Which if you check the mainpage will be his party. MrMacMan ^Talk 02:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed in my referrer logs that my mirror of desertofthereal was used to vandalize this WP page. As a WP user and contributor, I apologize, and I'd like to make it clear that it wasn't my edit. (I'm not sure if it was the actual DOTR image that was displayed, or the one that gets RewriteRuled when things don't seem kosher, but still.) --76.212.172.181 06:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Article has been subjected to repeated vandalism, keeping under watchlist.

Messiaindarain (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This article does not address the fact Zia was fanatically opposed to financial corruption. He led by personal example and perhaps, died for this reason too. This is the core reason for his immense popularity even today. Visionary leaders like him don't come often in third world countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.89.41 (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In the first paragraph, the last sentence was:

" He was the first Head of the Republic of Bangladesh between March 26, 1971 to April 17, 1971."

Just because he proclaimed himself during the independence declaration as the "Head of the Republic" never gave him any legal or constitutional validity that he is the actual Head of the Republic and moreover there has been no constitutional or any kind of legal recognition of such a position as "Head of the Republic" in Bangladesh's history. Bangladesh had no "Head of the Republic" or President for that matter from the 26th of March, 1971 till 17th April, 1971, let alone any government. Constitutionally and legally, the mujibnagar government which took oath in April is the first government of Bangladesh, and its head, Sheikh Mujib, is therefore the 1st President of Bangladesh with syed nazrul islam as acting president (see wikipedia article: List of Presidents of Bangladesh). So its completely wrong to say Ziaur Rahman is the "Head of the Republic".--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ziaur Rahman retired as a Lieutenant General, not Major General. He was made a Major General by Mujib, but was later promoted to a Lt Gen during the first martial law when he became army chief. Here, the official site for bangladeshi presidents says hes a Lt General http://www.bangabhaban.gov.bd/ziaur.html.- --ChaudhryAzan (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WHY does Ziaur Rahman have Hilal e Jurat title as his suffix? Ziaur Rahman is a FORMER Pakistani Army officer, and attained the Pakistani gallantry award during his service. However, he REBELLED against the Pakistan Army, and fought AGAINST the Pakistan Army to establish an independent Bangladesh. He then because the Chief of Army Staff and President of Bangladesh.

Since he changed allegiance, he cannot have a Pakistani gallantry award on his suffix. At best, it can be mentioned in his Military Career section or something.

Aren't I correct? Ratibgreat (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you are not correct. Unless he renounced the award/title, the Hilal e Jurat will still be there. However, I don't think there is no need to mention it in the first sentence. It can be included in the infobox. --Ragib (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not automatically renounced?Ratibgreat (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please cite the award links, also create a separate award section. Messiaindarain (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Is he the good guy or the bad guy? rockRandysalman (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be both, like most.Parkwells (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There is too much unsourced, essay-like material (which is also poorly written) about Zia's experiences in school and influences while there. Will delete these.Parkwells (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It sounded unsourced because it lacked paragraphs and had an essay tone. It was worse, a COPY VIO, copyright violation, copied verbatim from World Encyclopedia of Biography at encyclopedia.com. Posted notice here and at the editor's IP address, as the person has not registered. The editor had reverted, noting the source - when I looked at it, I saw everything was copied. Am working (see below) to reduce content and paraphrase.Parkwells (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I am editing this at length to improve the style in English, as well as make more neutral and encyclopedic in tone. Please bring any issues to the Talk page.Parkwells (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

A minor newspaper, a non-English source, is cited for an assertion that Zia had warned Sheikh Mujibir of a military conspiracy. This is too controversial to stand without support from other, more reliable sources. Doubtless there are academic works in English that treat this period and these should be used.Parkwells (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The essay-like section on Rahman's early life, schooling, and influences has been copied verbatim from World Encyclopedia of Biography, as published at Encyclopedia.com, without quotes. (See below and compare to article.) It is too lengthy to be quoted in total, as that is also a COPY VIO. This is a serious violation of Wikipedia's guidelines that can get an editor banned from participation. The material needs to be paraphrased. Also, in the context of this article, it needs to be shortened, as it is given UNDUE WEIGHT in the overall article. Parkwells (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Notified the editor at an IP address on editor's TAlk page of COPY VIO problem. Have proceeded to edit and paraphrase the material to avoid the copyright violation, and will be checking other sources and content of article, to ensure copyrights are respected.Parkwells (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Editors have also made COPY VIO of material from other sources. Each cite is being checked and material paraphrased and edited to avoid this.Parkwells (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Editors here and in other articles need to use the given titles of articles and books in references, not ones they make up on the topic. Thanks.Parkwells (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It was found that the article was fully purposive, contradictory and full of lies, in particular with the declaration and the date of that as well as all the supreme authorities and political movements before, on and after the liberation war. Not to forget Major Zia was simply a junior army officer during the time. It is therefore, highly requested to the Wikipedia authority to verify all the information with prominent historians, researchers, media then worked and concerned departments of Bangladesh. Once again, please do not let people of convenience violate the history of a nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.83.209 (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It was vandalized by an editor on 25 November 2014. No one noticed this vandalism. I have reverted that edit after I have seen it. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 15:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"Role model for aspiring Bengali army officers"? "Zia's character and style as one of the most effective leaders in the colonised world was largely shaped by the issues, attitudes, and events during his years at the Academy School"? ... and these are the tip of the iceberg. Pretty appalling POV. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ziaur Rahman. 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/20130509082218/http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/biography/zia.html to http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/biography/zia.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)