This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is a former WikiProject Biography Collaboration (26 June-2 July 2005). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations. Bangladesh Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list: Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengalis and related pages Take a look at the requested articles. Make a MRT line 3 article. Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton. Women's History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

What exactly does this represent? It just seems to be a picture of some pencils, fingertips, and some writing. Nothing to do with the caption.

— Iadmc♫^talk  02:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New information has emerged regarding the July mass uprising and the death sentence issued on 17 November 2025 by the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnwarLamim (talk • contribs) 09:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• July Revolution Citizens Seize Sheikh Hasina’s Palace and Uncover Illegal Call Monitoring Files.pdf

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"characterized by dictatorship", not "characterized with dictatorship". ~2025-34095-61 (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can’t fix currently due to lock Krishnannp (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

point them out here and confirmed users will fix it for you ~2025-32599-64 (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2nd paragraph after the box with her information it should say lose instead of loose Irishriot9 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It Should say loss actually Irishriot9 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done , looks like. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two requests: - Add current events banner to the top of the page, as this is featured on the front page. - Change "Bangladeshi politician" to "Bangladeshi politician convicted of Crimes against Humanity". ~2025-31135-21 (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: First, it's not clear what "current events banner" you're referring to. If you mean Template:current, it isn't necessary to add this to every article that's featured in the "In the news" section of the main page. Second, Hasina's conviction is already mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead section. Day Creature (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Narrow loose" should clearly be "narrow loss". Encelix (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

she was recently sentenced to death, I wish to research and write exact details about the news. ~2025-34061-13 (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Even if you weren't requesting rights, it would still be an ambiguous edit request. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 21:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: saw you were here editing and thought I would ping you. I wanted to add this text to the lead. I just came across the article yesterday when the subject was in the news relating to her death sentence. It seems to me that the subject's position on her death sentence should be given due weight in the lead, but various editors keep removing it. I dont feel comfortable to keep re-adding it due to BLP policies. It seems this article is not NPOV due to the overwhelming negative attitude towards this former head of state. Maybe the editors Ahammed Saad (talk · contribs) that are removing it want to comment as well? Seems there is too much detail in general in the lead and too much negative content. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two thoughts from me: 1), the lede is rediculously too long for a BLP article. I tagged that, and someone subsequently removed the tag, without the problem being addressed. It needs a good copyedit to leave a good summary of her life, and her political career, without the excessive detail of her political career that in the lede as it currently stands. The details should be simply placed in career subsection of the article. 2) I would have no problem with your sentence being added, simply because both sides in anything politics is involved in should be represented to avoid NPOV. Cheers. l N2e (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @N2e: @Jtbobwaysf: that lead section of the article is not at all NPOV. I am proposing the following text as lead. If you have any suggestion please fell free to do so. Rht bd (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Hasina Wazed (born 28 September 1947) is a Bangladeshi politician who served as the Prime Minister of Bangladesh from 1996 to 2001 and again from 2009 until 2024. She is the daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh’s founding leader, and has long been the head of the Awami League. During her tenure, she became the country’s longest-serving prime minister and one of the longest-serving female heads of government globally.

Her second premiership was marked by significant economic development, but also increasing international concern over democratic backsliding, human rights abuses, and restrictions on political opposition and press freedom. Critics accused her administration of consolidating power, corruption, embezzlement of foreign reserve and observers raised allegations of electoral irregularities in the 2014, 2018, and 2024 general elections.

In July–August 2024, widespread student-led protests erupted, demanding reforms and accountability. Security forces undertook a harsh crackdown, with international bodies estimating that hundreds to over a thousand protesters may have died.  The protests culminated in her resignation and flight to India in August 2024.

In November 2025, Hasina was convicted in absentia by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal on charges of crimes against humanity, including ordering lethal force against protesters.  She was sentenced to death on multiple counts.  Human rights groups—including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International—have raised fair-trial concerns, noting that she was tried without legal representation of her choosing. Hasina has rejected the tribunal’s legitimacy and described the verdict as politically motivated.

Hasina was among Time magazine's 100 most influential people in the world in 2018, and was listed as being one of the 100 most powerful women in the world by Forbes in 2015, 2018 and 2022.

• I think this is more balanced and I support a change. Maybe N2e can comment as well. This seems to be a highly politicized article that is suffering from WP:RGW issues. I dont know how to solve it, and if even a lead re-write will help. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The previous lead suffered from WP:LEADFOLLOWS issues; the article body doesn't mention "dictatorship" or "oligarchy". ~2025-35560-31 (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change "UN OHCHR" to "OHCHR"

As far as i can tell, the organization always uses simply OHCHR. KingGramulaOfTheSouthernIsles (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Rht bd (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

  −

  She resigned and fled to India following the [[July Revolution (Bangladesh)|July Revolution]] in 2024, and was found guilty of crimes against humanity by the Bangladeshi [[International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)|International Crimes Tribunal]] and [[Trial of Sheikh Hasina|sentenced]] to death [[In absentia (law)|in absentia]].

  +

  She resigned and fled to India following the [[July Revolution (Bangladesh)|July Revolution]] in 2024, and was found guilty of crimes against humanity by the Bangladeshi [[International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)|International Crimes Tribunal]] in 2025 and [[Trial of Sheikh Hasina|sentenced]] to death [[In absentia (law)|in absentia]].

• Why it should be changed: The text implies that her fleeing and her being found guilty happened in the same year, which is not true. This is not a point of massive importance, but nevertheless it is more accurate to specify that her sentencing happened in 2025 and not 2024.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): The references in this sentence/section already support this change.

RocksInMyDryer (talk, contribs) 07:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @RocksInMyDryer: Rht bd (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that she fled to India. How is this even possible? She is not an Indian citizen and India would have turned her in. Is there a source? ~2025-35210-60 (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous sources which mention her fleeing to india. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3 Rht bd (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think labeling Hasina as a fugitive is an issue. Should her current state of fleeing be a defining attribute and so prominent despite WP:NOTNEWS? Vladimir Putin is not so prominently labeled as a fugitive. His country is not in the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court but Hasina is not in the jurisdiction of Bangladesh. Whether or not it is her country anymore or whether a request for her extradition is legitimate doesn't matter — they are political questions. I can't imagine she personally agrees that she should be extradited and killed and even if she supported the general concept during her tenure, I reckon she's changed her mind! Besides, Bashar al-Assad is not labeled this way (though the argument that he does not recognise the legitimacy of the actions of the current government is much stronger).

The most relevant writing on this I could find is the essay Wikipedia:Crime labels that would argue that the description that we already have in the lead about her conviction is the only useful way to describe it accurately and fairly. To broadly interpret that essay's stance on reliable "breaking news" sources that explicitly labels her as a fugitive, it would be acceptable for me to be able to interpret current news headlines that use the phrase only as what is essentially headlinese adverb describing her current situation rather than as a lasting label. After all, we only change the how we define a living person after they have died, not when there are only serious concerns that they might not survive. We cannot know for sure whether this will truly define her future or her legacy. – Mullafacation『talk』 02:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Did it myself: I hadn't looked back far enough at the revision history. This was already removed but that was reverted without any explanation in the edit summary so I feel happy to restore the status quo until we have a consensus otherwise. – Mullafacation『talk』 02:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mullafacation: I agree with you. Fugitive is not her identity. I request you to comment on my proposed lead section Rht bd (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you've made wise decisions on what you've trimmed back on and it seems to give due weight to all relevant perspectives but I have no experience in making well-structured articles and I was completely unaware of anything to do with Bangladesh until the trial got on the Main Page plus I had barely read past the first sentence until you invited me to review your lead. I've looked into it a bit but there's nothing in particular I can see that I am able to comment on, sorry. – Mullafacation『talk』 05:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article suffers from quite a bad NPOV issue. Editors are above seeking to add that the subject is a fugitive, removing her own statements relating to her politicized trial, and in general the WP:LEAD is absurd in its lack of NPOV. I will tag the article. Do not remove this tag without discussion and consensus. This article should probably be also added to the list of contentious topics if it is not already, as the subject seems to be of a particular controversial nature and great interest from WP:RGW type edits. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem of the addition of of her statement, but whatever is added, should be summarized. Avoid lengthy sentence or broad overview, unless it would violate WP:UNDUE. Ahammed Saad (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What general issues with the lead are you referring too in terms of NPOV? GothicGolem29 (Talk) 04:06, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking the lead (prior to its recent re-write) tended to be overly negative toward the subject. I think it is neutral now. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rht bd where is info about her background & political career between 1975 & 2009?? Serious due weight issues in the intro. Ahammed Saad (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf isn't it undue weight to include her sentence in the first paragraph of the lead without mentioning the crime for which she was sentenced for?? If it is, then I favour either it's removal or inclusion of her "alleged" crimes against humanity (or authoritarianism) to the first paragraph. I don't want that any new edit war might start by me!! Ahammed Saad (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware of WP:OWN and WP:BLUDGEON. Again, everything doesn't go in the lead, see MOS:LEAD. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The present lead of the article as of November 22, 2025 looks extremely biased in favor of Sheikh Hasina. The lead makes unsubstantiated claims that "Her second premiership was marked by significant economic development". It makes no sense when we know for the fact that the quota protests against the government was triggered primarily because of the rising unemployment, especially among the youth. Several reports after the fall of Hasina government highlighted how her government manipulated the statistical figures to show false economic growth like this by The Economist. I also find it very surprising that there is no mention about the UN OHCHR report on 2024 protests in Bangladesh which found Sheikh Hasina to be directly involved in the July Massacre. There is also no mention about Sheikh Hasina's pro-India stance which is one of her biggest criticisms in Bangladesh. Avidanalyst (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support your view, should be added to the lede for npov Ahammed Saad (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't edit the article myself because of the user restriction, someone who's eligible should add these issues in the lead. It looked far better previously but someone must have changed it during the verdict of Sheikh Hasina. Avidanalyst (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not an opportunity to WP:RGW. The subject has had quite good media coverage for decades and once was even a Time top 100 of something. We dont just change an article because of WP:RECENT. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I support adding criticism her pro-India stance & OHCHR report to the intro. These are notable, and adding this would be more npov. Ahammed Saad (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We dont need criticism in the lead per WP:CRIT. Who really cares about her pro-India stance (if she has one, she does live in India after all), sounds like some sort of regional politics dispute. This article is the subject of a huge amount of attention, much of it recently negative. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NPOV, we are supposed to present all the views of the subject, including the crticisms. Her pro-India stance being one of her biggest criticisms deserves to be in the lead. The current lead looks like written by a fanboy of Sheikh Hasina and doesn't look neutral at all. And for heaven's sake, someone please remove the unsubstantiated claim on significant economic development. It is just hilarious to see significant development results in high unemployment rate. Avidanalyst (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think lead is inspired from an Al Jazeera & an Associated Press article published after the verdict which summarized her premireship in a similar way, but also focused on her pro-India stance which is missing here. Ahammed Saad (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current lead does not like it was written by a fanboy it mentions the crackdown on protests it mentions some criticisms and notes that some by international observers noted there were some irregularities in the election. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the lead doesnt include everything that is said, the MOS:LEAD summarizes and weight is generally given (roughly) according to the weight given the article.

You are wrong. Her pro-India stance had been a key source of criticism in Bangladesh from all over the political spectrum, at least at some extent. And criticism has already been added about democratic backsliding, corruption, money laundering & human rights abuses in the intro, so what's the problem about pro-India criticism?? And OHCHR report is a reliable source for highlighting July massacre related crimes. Ahammed Saad (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead summarizes the article it doesnt summarize 'a key source of criticism in Bangladesh from all over the political spectrum.' Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jtbobwaysf is contradicting himself while talking in favor of the current lead. "the MOS:LEAD summarizes and weight is generally given (roughly) according to the weight given the article" - Which part of the article talks about significant economic development under Sheikh Hasina that the lead claims? Rather the article says the opposite. And where is the summary of the 'Reception' section in the lead, which describes her pro-India stance? The current lead definitely violates both MOS:LEAD and WP:NPOV. Avidanalyst (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then propose a neutral edit. The article subject is controversial so probably weight somewhat on both sides, 'some say she is great, others say she is bad.' Key point is we are not going to cover all the criticisms in the lead, nor are we going to cover all the praise. Time magazine top 100 is a pretty routine type of thing we include across all BLPs, criticisms from some local organizations probably not with the same weight (of maybe dont even make the cut at all). Here we have WEF praising her economic policies, its not like it is a controversial topic clearly, and it is probably sourced (I guess there are a hundred or more sources that followed this news)... BLP policies are express setup to protect from this sort of negative press against a subject, and probably no more important relevant than a subject who is sentenced to death in absentia). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Key point is we are not going to cover all the criticisms in the lead, nor are we going to cover all the praise... – So which criteria prohibits the addition of her government's pro-India stance & OHCHR report in the lead under your "key point"?? I'm not asserting for detailed explanation of all her criticism & praises, I'm just asserting on the addition of one single criticism, which is important & mentioned in the reception section. And OHCHR report is neutral & reliable source to maintain pov here. It will absolutely be a neutral edit to add this infos, and will contribute to solve the article's pov issues. You are just pushing a bunch of selective contents to the lead without any clear explanation. And the intro paragraph has seriously violated WP:UNDUE & MOS:LEAD, adding The Times classification just give overweight to a selective info that's even absent in the whole article. I don't support it's removal, but moving it to the end of the lead as it was. Ahammed Saad (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the lead today and it is a great improvement. Thank you to everyone who has helped. The so-called pro India criticism is both WP:CRIT and WP:TRIVIA as it relates to the lead. MOS:LEAD summarizes and is not an opportunity to promote key talking points about how this is/was a bad leader. An article of this size and a subject of this type of massive coverage over multiple decades is going to have a large amount of content and then the content that gets a lot of coverage over time gets summarized in the lead in due weight. I have told you this above as well as you are not listening. I think that her so called pro India stance might also be praised by the other side of the political spectrum, or maybe India. So it really isn't a criticism to even a majority. Maybe if she was pro-india and the sources support it (I do see a few) then add a section to the article and then summarize it in the lead stating 'she was considered to be pro-India during her rule' rather than seeking to add undue criticism to the lead, which is going to result in pushback from largely uninvolved editors like myself. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf your neutrality arguments constantly downplay WP:UNDUE. I don't see any reason to add HRW report and so much emphasis on a single paragraph that has become larger any other paragraph in the lead. It can be added later, but not in the lead. Ahammed Saad (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted you again have moved 'positive light' content to the main body out the lead, which I think is important for WP:NPOV. This content relates to this HRW report. It appears to me that this content should be the MOS:LEAD. I'll ping for a third opinion. I have previously advised you about WP:SOAP on this talk page and on your talk page, this article is not a place to WP:RGW above a former leader. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is supposed to summarize the main body of the article. Does the body actually cover this report? Dimadick (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the report was directly added to the lead. There was no prior mention of it in the article. Ahammed Saad (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivosifat (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CardboardLamp (^T_C) 08:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

" removal of Urdu name"

Urdu was never the native language of East Pakistan (Bangladesh) during Pakistan Era. Bangla is one and only native language. Mmmbari (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have reverted the recent edit by @Mahmudul Hasan Alvi that added the Urdu version of the name, per WP:BRD. Please discuss on the talk page first before adding Hasina's name in Urdu to the infobox. I myself don't see how that is at all relevant to add. Day Creature (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]