Talk:Mahfuz Anam

Merger proposal

I do not agree with merging Mahfuz Anam into The Daily Star (Bangladesh). Mahfuz Anam is the current Chairperson for Asia News Network, he is a media expert for UNESCO and runs an NGO (Freedom Foundation). He is definitely a notable personality on his own right and deserves a stand alone article. I agree the current article is not rich enough, but there is definitely a scope to improve it to a complete article. Arman ^(Talk) 01:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed--NAHID 10:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Daughters

His twin daughters are also quite active. Lutfurrahman (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

The controversy section needs to be edited because it is biased and written in way that serve the sycophancy of the ruling government of Bangladesh. The reference of bdnews24 is also problematic as they are a party to the ongoing hatred campaign against Mahfuz Anam. That's why I want to refer to bbc's report which has given a balanced view of the event. To quote BBC:

" He Mahfuz Anam conceded that reports published in the Daily Star in 2007 alleging corruption by the woman who is now prime minister were based on uncorroborated leaks from the then military government. He said he was wrong to have published them."It was a big mistake," he said during the interview. "It was a bad editorial judgement, I admit it without any doubt."

The prime minister's son claims that the articles were an attempt by Mr Anam and the Daily Star to "support a military dictatorship in an attempt to remove my mother from politics".That is something Mr Anam vigorously denies, with justification.He points to 203 editorials published during the period of military rule demanding that democracy be restored. That amounts to one every three days of the so-called "emergency government".He also points out his newspaper was very critical when Sheikh Hasina was arrested in connection with the corruption charges."To us Sheikh Hasina's arrest is totally misconceived and smacks of arrogant use of power without due process of law," his editorial thundered, the day after the arrest was made.

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that so far 79 cases have been filed against him by the ruling party loyals. It smacks of a hate campaign against a reputed editor who has admitted his fault responding to the call of conscience, which is quite unusual in the country. It is also important to note that during the military-backed caretaker government most of the newspapers were forced to publish news by intelligence agencies, particularly DGFI. Shamsuddoza (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a war of words going on, and wikipedia needs to follow its own guidelines for covering such material. It is, of course, difficult to write this sort of material. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of all content

@Vinegarymass911: The BBC, Banglapedia and The Daily Star are all reliable sources. The Daily Star is referenced on views expressed by Anam himself. The article is now balanced between different views. The version you are restoring has a lack of citations.--Phantom of Soho (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on additions by Phantom of Soho

User:Phantom of Soho has made significant changes to the article. This includes lines such as "Anam is also a staunch defender of the ideals of secular democracy which inspired Bangladesh's independence movement." with no citations. They created a section titled "Political ambition" and then added "Anam's political ambitions surfaced when he supported Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus in efforts to form a political party called Nagorik Shakti (Citizen Power)." again no source. They wrote "One of Anam's most influential articles was "This is no way to strengthen democracy"," and then excerpted large content from the article; might possibly be a copyright violation. There is no source for the claim the article is one of Anam's most influential and I am left to conclude it is the users own opinion. Most of their edits contain personal comments and large excerpts from copyright work that might be pushing the boundaries of fair usage. I reverted their edits and they have reverted mine. Rather than risk an edit war I bring the issue up for further discussion. I am of the opinion that the entire content, added by Phantom of Soho, should be removed.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

If you have a problem with citations, then add citation tags. But most of my content is well referenced, with sources like the BBC and PEN America. The Daily Star is also a reliable source for Anam's own views. You are insisting on restoring the previous content which had a serious lack of citations and focuses on the DGFI. What POV are you trying to promote here? The man deserves thorough scrutiny.

Any observer of Bangladesh politics knows how influential Anam's editorials are. In particular, his editorials on the role of the army in politics have been some of the most consequential editorials in the country's political history. Why are you trying to block the addition of such relevant content? Wikipedia is no place to suppress freedom of information.--Phantom of Soho (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

And what do you mean by "They"? I am a single person here with only an interest to record information. I want the article to be more balanced. You also remove criticism about Anam.--Phantom of Soho (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure this rises to RFC level yet. Reading through the current version I do note some point of red flags. We say in Wikivoice that It emerged as a symbol of Bangladesh's outspoken, diverse and privately-owned press which flourished between 1990 and the late 2000s and follow it up with a long quote from the BBC. This seems overkill to me and probably better at the newspaper page if at all. Other red flags include His was quite a clever ploy and very original., Anam blasted General Ahmed and Anam is also a staunch defender. Could do with some toning down and maybe reducing the use of quotes. It actually gets hard to see what is quoted and what isn't. Also some of the sources are not good enough (youtube etc). I am not in favour of outright reversion, but a case could be made to do some wholesale removal of some of the editsAircorn (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)