Talk:Bangladesh/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

have been the driving forces behind much of the recent growth."

I really can't see how that 4th para sentence covers for the removed sentences. And, I don't understand how that removed sentence represents a "Dhaka-centric POV". Bazaan, can you explain yourself? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine, have it the way you want. In any case, the lead is far from perfect and the recent edits only serve to make it more convoluted. Dhaka-centricity points to the over emphasis of Dhaka as the sole major urban hub of the nation, which is a fallacy, considering we are a country of 160 million people with several major emerging cities with regional and potential global importance. Dhaka does not need to be in the very first paragraph, this sentence of yours could very well be placed in successive paras, alongside mentioning other upcoming cities. --Bazaan (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There already is a VERY prominent and excellent table for that. You can't cram all those cities in the lead. Dhaka has serious notability for its size, and is highly eligible for its place, even if we ignore that its the ONLY capital of country. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol, I did not mean to say that you add all the cities. But it's disingenuous here to keep to keep our urban identity restricted to Dhaka, because everyone in the world knows we have two big cities, the other being of course, Chittagong. Dhaka may have outgrown everyone else in size, as capital cities across developing countries are (Delhi and Beijing are also overtaking Mumbai and Shanghai), but in terms of actual economic and social influence, the two principal cities of the country should be noted, as they are at par with each other in trade and industry. I'm a Dhaka person myself, but overrating it as eighth largest city in the world is rather unnecessary, hell we're still the poorest in that lot, with an exploding, slum-dwelling demographic time bomb. I would rather stick to substance. The sentence I kept was "Dhaka, Chittagong and other major urban centres have been driving forces behind the recent growth", which well illustrates the point that Bangladesh is emerging as diversified urban nation.--Bazaan (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Do other country-articles list several major cities in the lead/lede? I don't think so. To me, your sentence (just above), precisely because it mentions two cities by name and adds the vague "and other major urban centres", that is, because it says too much, ends up saying nothing. The sentence loses its impact. If any city is mentioned in the lead/lede, I think it should be Dhaka, because it is the capital and a very large urban center. Of course, other cities can be discussed later in the article.

talk

) 01:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I am yet to see a country-article which professes the global population ranking of their principal cities. And "other major urban centres" are not my words, they were in that sentence for years. I don't care about that part. But both Dhaka and Chittagong deserve mention in the lead.--Bazaan (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see

) 23:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Rural schools vs. private university?

User:Mohd. Toukir Hamid, please, explain why do you think an image of rural school children of a country that achieved 100% school enrollment is less appropriate than an an image of a private university without any specific claim to fame? Please do not keep adding back the image without a discussion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

BUET and East West University but few days after you changed it without any reason. Lastly, What do you mean by specific claim to fame? If you wanna know the ranking you should see university ranking of Bangladesh. Do you think public universities pictures are fame or these universities are fame? 100% school enrollment picture is not the problem but the problem is removing. So,do not change anything without perfect reason.(Mohd. Toukir Hamid (talk

) 18:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC))

You are somewhat mistaken there. One of the core policies of Wikipedia specifically calls for a

not a gallery. Therefore, images are to be used justifiably, and not gratuitously. Aditya^{(talk • contribs}

) 19:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I know nothing about which universities are more famous than others, but just looking at the photos in the education section, it seems to me that the photo at the left of East-West University is not a particularly interesting photo. The building could be any building anywhere in the world. In contrast, the photo of Dhaka University is, for those readers not very familiar with Bangladesh, much more interesting. The building is beautiful, and I think the photo should be a little larger. I would remove the photo of East-West University because it is not interesting. It could be replaced with a photo of another university or college that is more interesting visually or with a photo of an elementary school or high school. That's just my opinion.

talk

) 00:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Now, I really don't understand that: removing the photo of the beautiful University of Dhaka Curzon Hall, while enlarging the photo of East-West University.

talk

) 15:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Dhaka

I've just corrected the syntax of a sentence in the lead/lede. It now reads, "Dhaka is the capital of Bangladesh and the world's twentieth largest metropolitan city", with a link at "world's twentieth largest metropolitan city". However, I have a question about that phrase. I believe that normally, the word "metropolitan" is not needed in ranking the size of cities. It is either the twentieth largest city or it is not. I don't believe "metropolitan cities" have their own separate ranking. Is there any way to hide the word "metropolitan" in the link? If not, I would recommend leaving out "metropolitan". If it is important to keep the word "metropolitan", perhaps it could be worded (somewhere), that "Dhaka is a large metropolitan city". In this type of sentence, "metropolitan" sounds right.

talk

) 21:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The phrase should have been "

metro area" rather than "metropolitan city". Demographers do count populations of cities in at least two major ways, oddly enough.  :-)   Close paraphrasing from EB: Dhaka (aka Dacca), capital of Bangladesh. It is located.... most populous city and is one of the largest metropolises in South Asia. Pop. (2001) 5.3M city, metro 9.7M; (2011) city 7.0M, metro 14.5M.[1] .... Chittagong, chief Indian Ocean port of Bangladesh. It lies.... second largest city in Bangladesh, after Dhaka. Pop. (2001) city 2.0M, metro 3.3M; (2011) city 2.6M, metro 4.0M.[2]

    Therefore, because the metro-area, which is the population "economically resident" in the city, and the people actually living inside "city limits" can vary tremendously, there is a city-limit-population-ranking as well as a metro-area-population-ranking. The latter tends to be seen as more prestigious, because the numbers are larger, and the borders are less subject to municipal politics.

  Anyhoo, getting to brass tacks, assuming Dhaka is ranked 20th by metropolitan-area-figures, it will almost certainly be ranked something else by city-limit-figures. The question is, how best to convey that to the readership: first, that the ranking is specifically about metropolitan-area-figures, and second, giving them a way to find what that means. Rather than "world's twentieth largest metropolitan city" I suggest something like "world's

twentieth largest metropolis." 74.192.84.101 (talk

) 13:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

correct metro-area-ranking of Dhaka

Of course, we should also strive for correctness; is 20th even right? This blog, prolly not

The CIA suggests ninth place.[4] Beware! Figures for China/Brazil/Bangladesh/Argentina from 2011, but USA/India/Japan/Mexico/Pakistan from 2009. Rankings shown here (which aren't from the CIA but are from my own sorting) are thus

, and cannot be used. That said, my WP:OR strongly suggests Dhaka is now top-ten, not twentieth place.

rank	pop(M)	metroArea
1	36.507	Tokyo, Japan #1   (( followed by a yaaaawning gap )) 
2	21.72	New Delhi, India #1 (capital)
3_A	19.96	
Sao Paulo
, Brazil #1
3_B	19.695	Mumbai, India #2
5_A	19.319	Mexico City, Mexico (capital)
5_B	19.3	
NYC
+Newark, United States #1
7	16.575	Shanghai, China #1
8	15.594	Beijing, China #2 (capital)
9_A	15.391	 Dhaka, Bangladesh (capital) 
9_B	15.294	Kolkata, India #3
11	13.528	Buenos Aires, Argentina (capital)
12_A	13.125	Karachi, Pakistan
12_B	12.675	 LA+LongBeach+SantaAna, United States #2
14	11.836	Rio de Janeiro, Brazil #2
15_A	11.449	Manila, Philippines (capital)
15_B	11.325	Osaka+Kobe, Japan #2
15_C	11.169	Cairo, Egypt (capital)
15_D	10.523	Moscow, Russia (capital)
19_A	10.41	Paris, France (capital)
19_B	10.378	Istanbul, Turkey
19_C	10.203	Lagos, Nigeria
19_D	 9.778	Seoul, South Korea (capital)

The is the "top 20" list, but as I pointed out earlier, the figures are from different years, and a bit outdated in any case. There were also at least 9 other cities in the 9M-metro-area-population-a-few-years-ago category, including

) 13:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You've done a lot of careful work compiling this list. It's too bad the information can't be used. Are there no other population figures more recent than 2009 for some of these countries, or at least for Bangladesh?

talk

) 15:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

BD's GDP per capita (real)

BD editors should use the "standardized quotation" for GDP per capita, following the standard of other wikipedia entries on many other countries. There are variations regarding this data (GDP per capita); however as your reference, you have to follow the IMF figures (which is a 'standard reference' in Wikipedia for all countries around the world). Stevejaw (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am not a regular contributor to this article, but I did notice there are a ton of images crammed into every section, and there are far too many double and triple images used in this article, creating an overwhelming sense of disorganization and clutter. I'm not sure how recently those images were added, but

per Wiki policy needs to be selective so it retains as much educational value as possible (not everything needs to be showcased), and it needs to be arranged in an aesthetically pleasing and organized manner. I suggest someone with experience contributing here select for removal the images which have the least significance to the article. Horizontal double images should be used sparingly, and horizontal triple images rarely. I suggest all triple-images be shrunk to double or single for the sake of overcrowding.

Addition: If people are just going to ignore this post I will eventually take it upon myself to remove some random images I think are less valuable, but it would be better if an editor with more knowledge of Bangladesh could do it. Thank you. Cadiomals (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the triple montage of the three leaders, it is a triple montage because all three were the preeminent statesmen of the region during the first half of the twentieth century. The pre-partition and early-dominion history of Bangladesh is grossly undermined in this article. At the very least, the image of the three premiers of undivided Bengal, who later became the chief three figures of East Pakistan politics, should remain. They laid the foundation for modern politics in Bangladesh.--Bazaan (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The images in the history section could be organized much better if the box about Bengali text could be moved some where else, like say on top of the infobox. Without that box, the images actually look well placed and suited for educational value as you say, rather than how it is now.--Bazaan (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with Cadiomals that there are far too many images in this article. I think there are just one or two too many. I think the photos add a lot to the article and that they do not overwhelm the text. The one photo that I think could be left out without losing much information is the one of the hospital in the "Health" section. It is not a particularly interesting photo. I do agree with Cadiomals that there are too many double and triple photos. I can understand why the three political leaders are grouped together. That makes sense. But I don't think any of the other photos should be grouped. I think they should all be separate photos, placed in a pleasing manner throughout the sections. The only other photos I have a question about are the three in the section on "Architecture". The one on the left, the modern building designed by Kahn, is a little hazy (from fog or mist, I suppose). Isn't there a photo of that building where it is not wrapped in mist? The other two photos seem quite dark. If one more photo is to be deleted, I think it should be one of those two dark images of buildings. So that would mean deletion of a total of two pictures, which I think is just about right. However, I am not good at formatting and placing pictures, so someone else will have to do that.

talk

) 14:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The new photo of the residence is quite interesting.

talk

) 21:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I know, right?

regional modernism, pioneered by Muzharul Islam, who also brought Louis Kahn to Dhaka.--Bazaan (talk

) 22:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting. On another note, do you think two pictures of food dishes are necessary in the Cuisine section, or would one do?

talk

) 22:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, I was going to touch on that right now.--Bazaan (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Again re the Architecture section. Why don't you include some of the information you just provided in your reply (just above) in that section?

) 23:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Bazaan, can you separate the paired photos in the article? I think, even if you keep both photos in the article, it would look better if they were separated. Also, I have a question about a photo in the "Languages" section): I do not understand why the photo of Altab Ali Park in London (England, presumably) is in the article. It is a replica of a building in Bangladesh. Why not include a photo of the original building?

) 23:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I also have a question about the other photo in the "Languages" section. Even though there is a mention of indigenous languages in the Languages section, I think the photo of the Marmas might be more appropriate for the "Demographics" section. It's not that important, but what do you think? Also, I wonder why the Marmas are not mentioned in the Demographics section, even though it is one of the largest non-Bengali group in Bangladesh.

) 23:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that's enough for today.--Bazaan (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A proposal

• The sections most in need of image clean-up and de-cluttering are History, followed by Economy and Religion, and still more in the others but to a lesser extent. Overall the use of double images needs to not be abused so much in this article. It verges on violation of the
  manual of style
  which calls for selective use of only the most valuable images.
  • As an example, right now there are 12 separate images in the History section alone; this should be cut down by four to five. It's up to you guys as regular editors here to pick, but I would suggest getting rid of Ptolemy's map, Mughal Emperor image, and Lord Cornwallis, all made too small to observe any detail, and finally either Clinton, Sheikh Mujibur, or the Nationalist flag.
  • In Political system, I suggest dismantling the double images, spreading them through the section, and leaving one out.
  • In Economy, dismantle the double images, spread them out and choose one to get rid of.
  • Religion is far too small of a section to accommodate a triple image and represent the houses of worship of every single religion in the country, so I suggest leaving two or choosing the place of worship of the majority religion in the country.

You don't have to do it exactly this way but I think this would help make it easier. I could make far more suggestions but I don't want to force drastic changes on you. Cadiomals (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree to the principles. To decide on the number of images along with their placement, we may have to go image by image. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

My two bits

Bangladesh has 60 images. I checked the featured articles under WikiProject Countries. Australia has 31, Belarus 24, Cameroon 20, Canada 23, Chad 16, India 23, Indonesia 17, Japan 32, Madagascar has 29, and Peru 15. Does the Bangladesh articles have too many images?

Also note that many of these featured articles use multiple image templates to cluster two, even three or four images together.

on a layout reduces clutter, improves readers access, and generally makes a cleaner appearance. What are your reasons?

Image relevance policy

of Wikipedia says - "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." In the article images of Bill Clinton, John Kerry, a Gurdwara, an Armenian Church, a landscape painted by a British painter, and picture of a building have been used. None of this images have any relevance to the text. I believe it is entirely possible to align the images with the body of the content of the article. Two images to represent the times of the Pala Dynasty, two images of international leaders coming together with Bangladesh, or the Jatiyo Sangshad also serves very little purpose.

"

) 08:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I just have to quickly comment, that chart on the right is really interesting. Where can I get specific statistical information on articles like that? Cadiomals (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This one was manually generated. But, I believe there's quite a few of them floating around. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. In the history section, we can remove one of the Pala Dynasty as well as Cornwallis and the paddle steamer. The Akbar image should be separated, enlarged and placed on the left. For international leaders, there are 4 images not 2. I do not see the point of the OIC Summit, because to have Sheikh Mujib and Gaddafi (who sheltered Mujib's assassins) together is strange, and the John Kerry-Dipu Moni picture is outdated since Moni is no longer the foreign minister. And yes one image of the Jatiyo Sangshad is fine, there is no need for the Assembly Hall. We should reduce further images in Economy, Health, Education and Demographics. In Foreign relations, I think one or two is enough. But Modern History and Culture is all right to me.--Bazaan (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Aditya, you asked what my objection to double images was. When I said that, I was agreeing with Cadiomals who made the original post in this section. He/She wrote, "there are far too many double and triple images used in this article, creating an overwhelming sense of disorganization and clutter". I also agree with Cadiomals that double images should be used sparingly and triple images rarely. I think single images just look more professional and can be placed in such a way that they balance and complement the text. I think images should be paired (that is, made into double images) only if they really belong together. I think it's great that you all are discussing specific pictures now and weighing which ones the article could do without. Yesterday, I suggested the removal of just three specific photos (for different reasons) because I thought most of you did not want to remove too many photos; now I see you are willing to remove even more, and that's fine. It would have been nice to read a specific response to my suggestions, but that's all right. I'll leave the deletions to you.

talk

) 14:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(inserted) There's a lot of "

I think" there. And, I thought we were driving the discussion on separating images, not Cadiomals. What he mentioned briefly, you detailed in a rather longer comments (8 April) and re-asserted the issue (9 April) with call for action. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Please understand that my comment was on the general state of the images, where, I said, "we may have to go image by image". Can you comment on what Cadiomals, I or Bazaan has proposed? Or what changes have been made? Aditya^{(talk • contribs}

) 04:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I had already brought changes to demographics in line with your suggestions. In spite of this I am being told of the possibility of "drastic action". So what I am I supposed to do, reformatting photos takes a hell lot of my time.--Bazaan (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bazaan: If you don't feel like doing it I can. Just look at my suggestions above and list exactly what images in each section you think would be best to remove. It's best to get this into tip-top shape as soon as possible. Cadiomals (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree to the fact that the images must be "directly" related to Bangladesh, accordingly the Ptolemy map of whole Asia seems superfluous here. Two images of Jatiyo Sangsad is unnecessary. I guess, one of the two images from BD silver jubilee and OIC summit could be cut off, not sure which one. Dipu Moni's image as Minister of foreign affairs is quite absurd since she is no longer a member of the cabinet. The image of London Shahid Minar, ignoring the original one, looks insane. The religion section looks to be in complete mess, I don't see any justification in keeping the image of a Gurdwara ignoring the image of a Hindu or Buddhist temple. The section is also a sensitive one, I've seen some edit wars here when one group tried to put the image of Baitul Mukarram and remove other images while another group used to replace it with an image of Dhakeshwari Temple or Durga Puja in Dhaka. I would suggest to keep a single image of a Buddhist temple or a Catholic Church that would prevent those edit wars. The image of East West University is simply unsolicited since the university is only 18 years old and doesn't have any major contribution in Bangladesh's education sector. One would argue that there should be a representation from private universities but is it really needed? I don't think so. In the architecture section, I guess we have better landmarks to use than the Meghna residence. --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Meghna residence or whatever its called is definitely not a landmark. But it is Bangladeshi modern architecture which is highly notable and deserves to be included. Award-winning designs definitely count.--Bazaan (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Merely being award-winning may not be enough. There are many architectural awards, how many of them are we going to put into the article? What would be the criteria for inclusion? Very dicey, and not very encyclopedic. Images pf major landmarks which are aligned to the text are the only acceptable images. I believe the biggest architectural landmark in Bangladesh is the Sangshad Bhaban. What other building can "represent" architecture in Bangladesh in an encyclopedia article that can afford only seven sentences about it? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sangshad Bhaban is already in a very prominent position in the one of the top sections of this article. Now, have you seen the sources I've added to the architecture section? They discuss the modernist movement in Bangladesh. We need to highlight works by Bangladeshi architects. How about Smrity Soudho in Savar? --Bazaan (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely going with Smrity Soudho in Savar. Why didn't I or anyone think of that earlier! --Bazaan (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Not all man made monuments are architectural landmarks. The monument in Savar, its patriotic value notwithstanding, is exceptionally non-notable as a piece of architecture (has any crdible source ever praised its architectural values anywhere on earth at any time?). The Sangshad Bhaban is one of the most reputed architectural landmarks on earth. Why can't we have that to represent architecture in Bangladesh? Any particular reason? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Haha you're trying to teach me about architecture? Is parliament the only building in Bangladesh? It's already placed in the Politics section, which is its rightful and dignified place in the article. On the other hand, the National Memorial is one of Bangladesh's most iconic monuments. So when award-winning private designs are not good enough for you, I figured a major public landmark should do. You can't seem to suggest anything else. Please don't bring in Rose Garden Palace like you did before, that is one exceptionally non-notable building. --Bazaan (talk)

Not trying to teach anything. Only raising the issues of relevance and notability. I can substantiate the claim of Jatiyo Shangshad Bhaban with a hundred citations. Can you substantiate the architectural values of the National Monument with any? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My point here is to highlight the notable modern architectural traditions of Bangladesh. The prophets of these traditions were Muzharul Islam and Louis Kahn. It is an incredible history we have. I've attested this in sources from the Architectural League of New York- [5] [6]; and theculturetrip.com. Please, step outside of the box for a change, and improve Bangladesh coverage on Wikipedia.--Bazaan (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Overall I think some good improvements have been made by choosing to de-clutter the article and remove a few of the less necessary images. I still think one or two images can be sacrificed from History, it remains the most crowded of all sections. It's up to any of you, but I'm wondering how necessary either the microcredit image or nationalist flag image is. Cadiomals (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: I

went ahead and removed the nationalist flag image. Overall it is of least educational value in that subsection as it basically looks similar to the current Bangladesh flag except without the outline of the country, so it doesn't teach much. Along with some other tweaks the History section now looks a lot less crowded. Cadiomals (talk

) 05:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sub-headers in history section

Aditya Kabir, The text is not suited for the Ancient-Classical-Medieval-Colonial sub-header classification. Just Antiquity covers it very well. May be when you can develop that section further, we could consider those sub-headers.--Bazaan (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If the text doesn't conform to common scholarly classification, the text needs to be changed, not the classification. I can volunteer to do improve the text. It is not of high quality anyways. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well isn't this section meant to be a brief overview? Many featured country articles do not even have classifications (Indonesia, Peru). I think we should begin with fixing History of Bangladesh first. Quality there is unbelievably terrible and nothing akin to scholarly standards.--Bazaan (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Totally agreed. History of Bangladesh of Bangladesh is in a bad shape. It can't wait. But, the history section of this article is pretty bad also. This needs to improve to elevate this article back to its featured article status. For classifications there are two ways to deal with the text - (1) no classification; (2) proper classification. There should not be any half-ways compromise without solid reason. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we go for this- Antiquity, Middle Ages/Medieval Era, British Raj, East Pakistan, Bangladesh? --Bazaan (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

While the colonial age is a distinct period, 24 years of Pakistani rule is not. The periods are simple:

• Ancient age/ancient period/antiquity: Up to 1204 (pagan, Buddhist and Hindu periods)
• Medieval age/medieval period/middle period: 1204-1757 (Pathan, Mughal and Nawabi periods)
• Modern era/modern age/colonial era: 1757-1971 (British and Pakistani periods)
• Post independence

Even if we don't put in the sub-headers, this should be structure of the section. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think its proper scholarly standard to group the Raj and Pakistan under one roof.--Bazaan (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It's okay to use your brain. While grouping the Raj and the Pakistani period isn't the academic standard, it also is pretty use less to have a separate sub-section with only three-four sentences to cover. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we have a third opinion here? The Pakistani period is obviously a distinct phase of history and should be treated as such. But above all, I say again, the text is not suited for classification unless you expand it. The quality will be deplorable if you take it in that direction.--Bazaan (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The medieval period is an even more, much more, important period. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say that any one period in any country's history is more important than another period.

talk

) 15:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Very simple. Because of the scholastic work on the period, a distinct period which has been obliterated. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The map does not include South Sudan, it needs to be updated. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a clear guideline on dividing country articles into sections (I don't think the current article is aligned), and that tells that the section needs to be "An outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history), including some detail on current events." A section should be written in WP:Summary style, containing just the important facts. If it is too large, information should be transferred to the sub-article. The link should be shown as below:

== Politics ==
{{main|History of Bangladesh}}

When the article was promoted to the status of a featured article the history section looked like this. Now it looks like this - three times in size, way beyond a summary, and quite full of

.

Editing this down to size and an encyclopedic nature will be a daunting task. A much better way is to reinstate the best version (the recognized best version, as in the featured version), and tweak it from there. Added citations and improvement of images are the biggest things that can be done, and only a wee bit of update. That version ended with:

Not much has changed since. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop making a fuss. You either improve and expand it, or just don't. It's still a high quality written section. The article introduction on the other hand is embarrassing, you should consider addressing that first.--Bazaan (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Update I tagged the history section with a {{Recentism}} tag, which was reverted by Bazaan with the edit summary saying "wrong template. if anything this section is outdated". I reverted the revert with a summary that said "unfortunately, history is ALWAYS outdated, history is not a "news of the day" thing". Bazaan reverted again saying "if it's so recent, why is there no mention of the BDR mutiny or the war trials? the section ends off at 2009....dosen't look recent to me".

Looks like a budding

Balance

is serious Wikipedia policy. While the article misses every ruler from the first century till mid 19th century, it has at least a couple of lines for seven rulers since 1970. And, it has some details for every election since 1990. Bazaan quoted a limited flash mutiny as a potential information to be included. I believe the evidences that there were people living permanently in middle and south east areas of the country in the Neolithic times is a more important piece of information. Tilting the whole history into the last few decades is recentism indeed. We are talking about four thousand years of well documented and rich history.

Looking forward to the reverting party's argument. (And, please be polite.

five pillars) Aditya^{(talk • contribs}

) 19:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I was the first person to add the piece on Neolithic excavations to Wikipedia in the Chittagong article. Not sure if you had any idea about it before that, Ms Kabir. But the idea that one period is "more important" than others is absurd. Bangladesh's modern history is equally crucial and interests people around the world. The overall content covering pre-modern and modern times should definitely be improved. You've been on Wikipedia long enough, why have you been complacent all these years? Since you know it is well documented, then for god's sake, add content instead of "recentism" tags and making the Bangladesh article look even more embarrassing. --Bazaan (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please, do not revert your comments from a talk page that's not your own (check:

Editing comments:Own comments), like you did here

.

Before getting into other stuff, let me correct a little misinformation. You were not "the first person to add the piece on Neolithic excavations". Chittagong article, yes. Wikipedia, no. May be I had it much earlier, in the Sitakunda Upazila. Check this edit from 2 March 2008, as opposed to your edit, this edit to Chittagong made on 13 April 2014.

Nevertheless, please accept my respect to the great work you have done Chittagong article. Truly wonderful. The time, effort, quality and attentions you have showered this article with is also wonderful. Please, believe that I have the same objective as yours - making this article batter, getting it back to a featured article status.

Now for the misunderstanding that I believe needs to be cleared. An Wikipedia is not about "then for god's sake, add[ing] content" only. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and hence it has several guidelines, principles and traditions about article size, sections size, and balance of information. Wikipedia is also about "reducing" and "editing". The section in discussion had a much more encyclopedic this in the featured version].

All I am proposing is reinstating that particular version and refitting it with improved refs (more online refs are now available, and community is now stricter about inline citations), images (many more images are now the commons, we don't have to upload new ones, especially those in conflict with

WP:SUMMARY

).

I can definitely go ahead and make the change, but perhaps some

South Asia Project

.

Finally, please, remember that

anger. Aditya^{(talk • contribs}

) 06:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You're probably the finest editor from Bangladesh in Wikipedia. But while I may have lost myself on many occasions, and a lot of that boils from frustration at the incredible under-coverage and distortion of Bangladesh history, it didn't help matters when you attempted to push your views with arrogance. Coming back to the discussion, you earlier said that there was a lack of research on the medieval era. If you look at some of the books referenced in

Principality of Bengal, it seems obvious that there are a good amount of sources already available. There is significant regional and international scholarship on Bengal history, and we should utilize them. May I also add, that I find it troubling when some of us fail to appreciate that Bangladesh is heir to a vast historical legacy. We cannot solely look within our borders. I am afraid that hacks from our neighbors have already usurped and ruined much of our vital history pages, like Nawabs of Bengal and East Pakistan.--Bazaan (talk

) 10:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding reinstating the previous version, I don't support it. We can use the last paragraph of that version, but the present one is much better as a whole.--Bazaan (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

All you need to assume is that while we may have differing viewpoints, we are still on the same side.

If you are willing we can collaborate, along with other editors, on a sandbox (for example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh/Sandbox). And, once we are satisfied we can copy the material to this article to replace the current history section. Say what? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Long since this article lost its glory; let alone can we not claim Bangladesh to be a featured article, it is not even nearly "good". Indeed the history section is not good anymore. If Aditya attempts to improve this section based on what was there in "featured" article it shall be a good idea. Remember, with a long sequence of bad vehement edits, this article is now overly cluttered with images and tediously long. Also please note that, we have dedicated History article, which shall serve as full length coverage of history and this section here shall be simply a very good summary. A good writeup always balances between coverage and length. @Bazaan, please try to honor others' opinion, because often they might have a better idea. I understand, both Aditya and Bazaan have good intention and same goal of improving this article. At this point, between opinions of two, I concur with Aditya's. --» nafSadh did say 13:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It would help if one could explain a bit further when they have a better idea. A featured article version is not necessarily better than this one. I think the current History current section does a fairly good job dedicating each paragraph to a particular period of history. The liberation war paragraph is also better in this version than the one in the featured article. Only the para on the Maratha empire is highly absurd, since it should have been about the Nawabs of Bengal. The History of Bangladesh page is a sham, honestly Nafee. We can't summarize anything from there. In any case, Aditya Kabir, if we are considering an entirely new text, why not wait until its finished? Can't we strike the right balance here? I agree with you that there is too much weight to the modern period, but it is the pre-modern period I am concerned about. A lot of it should stay. That's all.--Bazaan (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure but the length seems to be ok to me (on par with Canada, Madagascar) and the weightage on the post 19th century events also looks legit in my opinion (even the FA version also had the weightage on this period). I guess it's the significance of the events which took place during the post 19th century era that validates the weightage. Some details about the post-Ershad era and the 2006-2008 political crisis could be omitted from the "Modern Era" subsection though. However, there is enough scope to expand the section on pre-1900 events that could reduce the weightage on Modern Era, for example there is only half sentences about the Pala and Sena dynasty and only one sentence about the ancient Jonopod era. The information on Bengal Sultanate could also be expanded. Also, as pointed out earlier, the para on Maratha Empire is really nugatory. And yes, the section needs major efforts to improve the referencing and remove the puffery.--Zayeem ^(talk) 20:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

One thing can be done. Start working on History article itself - give that a good shape and them rewrite the summary here. @Bazaan, I like to be called as nafSadh or Sadh rather than my middle name ;) --» nafSadh did say 16:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Can someone submit the article for a

) 08:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What would be the goal for PR? Is it for preparing it for GA (and eventual FA), or just to seek wider opinion for improvement/resolution of disagreement?--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Preparing for a GA should be it. Everything else can come and go as part of that review. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not really read the article recently, so cannot comment on its quality. Are you sure it is good enough to think about GA? What are the major changes since it passed FAC (besides statistical updates or changes through consensus)? Anything of major concern?--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason to select the 4 largest, instead of 3 or 5? At a cursory glance, Islam and Hinduism together make up 98%+. 68.166.166.18 (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

They don't. The four major religions make for 77% of world population. The smallest of them - Buddhism - has 488 million followers; the fifth largest - Shintoism - has 100 million; and the sixth - Shikhism - has 28. Check Major religious groups for more information. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think he meant 98% of Bangladesh.

talk

) 19:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The constitution accords special recognition to these four religions. The Buddhist and Christian communities may form a tiny fraction of the population today, but they are historically prominent communities with a distinct and rich cultural heritage of their own. One of the main slogans of the Bangladesh Liberation War was "Bengal's Hindu, Bengal's Buddhist, Bengal's Christian and Bengal's Mussalman, We Are All Bengali". The notion of reducing it to just Islam and Hinduism is outrageously ignorant and discriminatory. The Bengali Buddhist and Christian minorities are also among the most educated sections of Bangladeshi society. Buddhism is also the dominant faith of the CHT region, like Ladakh and Sikkim, and the area makes up 10% of Bangladesh.--Uck22 (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

While I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment you stated, defending Christian and Buddhist mention by saying "they're among the most educated" instead of "they're an inalienable part of the Bangladesh society" is kinda discriminatory as well.

talk

) 19:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ratibgreat, I was directed to this discussion by a conversation with User Samudrakula. A country is judged by how its treats its minorities. Nothing wrong with overstating a particular fact which highlights the social position of a minority, which is often under a lot of stress, sometimes even attacks. Positive discrimination does happen.--Rainmaker23 (talk

) 21:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Reorder

I've restored the picture of Ptolemy's map. It clearly highlights the the delta region, with the purported five mouths of the Ganges. The map is one of the earliest references to the region. It is also an important piece of evidence on the suggested lands of Gangaridai. Any thoughts or objections?--Uck22 (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just rearranged a whole set of images in the article. If anyone feels these edits need to be improved, ie the captions for example may be a bit over the top? Then I plead you all to BE BOLD and improve them.--Uck22 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I did. I removed the BRAC logo. It violated

WP:NFCC (see also: WP:Logos. One point: the article says nothing about the early map. It could very well. Aditya^{(talk • contribs}

) 22:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean the ICDDRB logo, not BRAC. There was a picture of two BRAC ginny dolls, it's nice to have images of goods produced by a notable organization in the country, this is common in many Wikipedia articles. Regarding the map, there's a reference to it. I think the Sundarbans must be added somewhere, preferably the Geography section. And also perhaps pictures of different landscapes- the three largest rivers, wetlands, hill tracts, coastal areas and tea country.--Uck22 (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Check geography sections in other good country articles, then you'll know what I mean.--Uck22 (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead. But, it's more prudent to be inspired by featured country articles. 158 country articles have been assessed as C-class. There already was a discussion about over imaging. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, let's not forget who was responsible for over imaging in the first place.--Uck22 (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If you are trying to imply that I was "responsible for over-imaging in the first place", then you may want to go through this talk page. Say what? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Well you did put up all those albums. --Uck22 (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If you mean using {{Multiple image}} template. Then yes. Very much. A vain attempt to consolidate a rather large number of images strewn haphazardly all over the article. An effort to reduce the number of visual elements, all ascreamingfor attention, by clustering them together. Do you have a problem with that? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

) 15:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(added) FYI, This is how

Encyclopedia Britannica treats history of Bangladesh. Banglapedia gives this narrative. Aditya^{(talk • contribs}

) 15:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Antiquity can also be a general term for the past. The section is not very "scholarly", neither will you ever make it so.--Uck22 (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think two sub-sections are better or more proper than five sub-sections or none? Both are in practice. Your division is highly unorthodox. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The text isn't great in any case. Visually, it looks like a complete mess.--Uck22 (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What argument are we using now? It's bad text, therefore it cannot have a good sub-section structure? And, even if I agree to the "vsual mess" it can't be a reason to revert sub-headers. Anyways, the discussion can happen alright even with this version instated. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel the sub-headers should be removed. It does not look good and does not a have smooth flow in reading.(Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC))

Yes. The copy is terrible. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I was just reviewing the article once again tonight. A few comments:

• Images in history seems pretty good now, especially I appreciate the Ptolemic map
• Akbar's prayer could be left aligned like other photos on the same section
• Sheikh Mujib's photo could better be some from the event of 7th March 1971 - I think that one would suit better
• I do not think Sundarban's photo was chosen appropriately, it is more focused on river. Something that captures some "mangrove" aspects will suit better
• All photos on geography section could be placed in a right aligned multiple image group
• National symbols photos can rather be right aligned, not centered
• 100% enrolled with a photo of near empty class with a shot of a single student? A little disconcerting!
• "Festivals": New years festival, centered at Dhaka Univ - Ramna area should be considered as most iconic festival of Bangladesh, not Biju.

• Music sections fails to capture contemporary taste. Specially, genres like rock, metal are very popular unlike other regions of Asia. More recent mainstream is certainly folk inspired pop, which developed in last decade.
• Literature section requires a strong rewrite. A better summary of its history and a highlight on genres, may be.
• Education: Universities - it is just a list in prose now. Could be better.

--» nafSadh did say 04:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Just one suggestion. Sixty Dome Mosque is already covering the middle ages/Muslim period. The Akbar image not be too necessary. And and addition. The history section must have information on stone age Bangladesh, since plenty sources are available. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The stone age needs to be included, but a Mughal era picture deserves to be there since it is an influential period of history. I agree it's much better to have a contemporary Bengali rock/indie icon in the music section. --Uck22 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• For a music section that's only a little part of the article (and it will remain a little part in an overview of Bangladesh) multiple images look like a serious overkill. If we want to choose one image to represnt Bangladeshi music it should, I think, represent music that's unique to Bangladesh. I definitely can propose Baul music for that. HIdnustani Classical music belongs to India and Rock/Pop belongs to West. In the world of either Bangladesh doesn't feature at all.
• FR Khan is not an architect, and he doesn't represent Bangladeshi architecture. It is rather prudent to use an architectural work that has made Bangladesh architecturally known around the world. Even better if it's regarded as one of finest piece of modern architecture on earth.
  I can definitely propose the Sangshad Bhaban. It is not imperative that image of parliament building goes in the governance/politics/law section. Probably an image of the parliament in session or the interior of the session hall may be a better choice there. Even better would be just one image of Shangshad Bhaban, and that in the architecture section.
• There is already one image representing the Muslim period/Mughal era/medieval age - that of the Sixty Dome Mosque. It is a World Heritage Site too. Do we really need a second image? If it is not indispensable, I propose that the article uses one image to represent that period of history.

Regards. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Parliament looks perfect in the Politics & Law section. It's bold, big and beautiful. Wish we had better pictures of Bauls. Not sure about removing Akbar, he initiated a lot of reforms.--Uck22 (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I have made some more changes though. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The history section looks terrible, sorry. I haven't seen any country article with such an overcrowded History section.--Uck22 (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

And you should know better. Classical music is far more diverse than Hindustani ragas, including non-Hindustani and Bengali ragas. For your information, it does not "belong to India", or for that matter Bangladesh (which produced some of the greatest musicians in history). It also belongs to Pakistan, Nepal and Afghanistan. Outside the subcontinent, it is increasingly referred to as South Asian classical music. Removing Arnob was also unnecessary), perhaps one of your three-image albums would have been better.--Uck22 (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are wrong. Among the featured country articles Germany is messier, and India is the cleanest. The clean effect is easily achievable by following the same principle - much less images. BTW, one thing is clearly noticeable that none of the featured country articles give a blow by blow account of every election and every military ruler. And, none misses the bigger news about their history. The history section in this article is textually as far away from the featured articles as it is possible.

Three images for a section that's about 82 words long? Wikipedia is not a picture gallery, it's an encyclopedia. There are lessons available on article development - Wikipedia:Writing better articles, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images and more. And all talks a lot about the less is more principle, as well as being relevant and comprehensive. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

<Excuse me, but whose the one turning it into a picture gallery? That would be you. Relevance and comprehensiveness is exactly what I am talking about. You're being way too ethnocentric. Bangladesh is supposed to be eclectic. Anyways. I tried. Peace out.--Uck22 (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Architecture

The desperation to illustrate the architecture sub-section continues. Now it has an image of a national monument. The monument, while extremely significant as an patriotic device, has hardly any significance as a piece of architecture, and hence is irrelevant to that section. Either someone establishes its significance as a piece of architecture, or I remove the image. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Why was that picture removed? I am restoring it. Please don't pretend that you're all wanabe folk music fans. His music an integral part of Bangladeshi heritage. --Rainmaker23 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Bangladesh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

117.241.201.93 (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite

reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk

) 12:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Uncited material

Uncited material that is removed per wp:v (and thereby challenged) may be restored. But, in accordance with

) 20:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You should have at least search for the sources before removing them. I have restored the contents with citations. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Bangladesh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

119.30.39.227 (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite

reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk

) 13:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Unless we come to an agreement, we've to go to

WP:3

, which is always a better way. Conflicts (in section Foreign relations and military) with User_talk:Rainmaker23

• Minister of Foreign Affairs Morshed Khan and American Secretary of State vs US Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2003
• Dipu Moni and Hillary Clinton at the State Department in 2011 - State dept of which country?

My position: 1. America is not a country, US is. America is the name of two continents 2. Wikipedia is not written from just US perspective. The namespace shall be specified. Edit: the diff is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangladesh&diff=619757932&oldid=619756031 --» nafSadh did say 04:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know who you are having the above conversation with. But America is both a country, and also the Americas are two continents. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

As

America is ambiguous, isn't it better to use the term 'US'. --» nafSadh did say

05:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who you were arguing with. Or what the diff was that you were arguing over. You just left a comment on this talk page without any of that information. So I can't say. I simply saw that you made an untrue assertion. So I corrected it. Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Added link to diff. --» nafSadh did say 07:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sheikh Hasina's Awami League ..., whereas Khaleda Zia's BNP ... - while true, this sentence gives a feeling that, AL is owned by Hasina and BNP is owned by Khaleda. Any idea about rephrasing? --» nafSadh did say 21:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

At heading "Modern Bangladesh" line 10 the word "Satem" I think should be "Sayem" 119.30.45.247 (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate. Sorry.

Thanks dear for pointing it out. --» nafSadh did say 06:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Bangladesh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to write a paragraph about Bangladeshis ancestry. Like where is White Bangladeshis and Dark skinned Bangladeshis ancestors from. I know the answer. It will be really nice to put one I suggest. Rajabin (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajabin (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

NOT DONE. Two Bengali siblings can have very different complexion. -- nafSadh did say 23:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Under 'Islamic Bengal', the statement "of Bengal in the 12th century lead to the rooting of Islam across the region" should read - "of Bengal in the 12th century LED to the rooting of Islam across the region."

Also, under 'Modern Bangladesh', "The Awami League the first general elections in 1973 with a massive mandate" should read "The Awami League WON the first general elections in 1973 with a massive mandate"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aamilsyed (talk • contribs) 09:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a fact or not, but sound like a big deal if it's true. I posted it, just in case it might be useful as a reference for anyone that is editing this article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/25/solar-energy-revolution-everyones-ignoring-bangladesh/

This edit request to Bangladesh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

166.48.92.200 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC) I found that our stake is at end so i need to put exact numbers of money we got from exports.

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite

reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk

) 21:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2014

This edit request to Bangladesh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The wiki page says that Bangladesh drives on the left. This is incorrect. Please change it to right. SudoHack (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done How that is incorrect? Bangladesh drives

on the left. Faizan

09:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015

This edit request to Bangladesh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please provide latest GDP (nominal), GDP (PPP) etc. because here the provided data is backdated Raf1061 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested specific changes.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite

reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk

) 18:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2015

AKON DIALLO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.83.12.91 (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen an addition of "Environment" section and details of fauna and flora. I think an addition would be nice, so readers would know more about how wildlife in Bangladesh is. --George Ho (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up. I started the section today. Would be great if anyone would add to it, especially on issues like conservation and research.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The history section is an absolute mess. Too many pictures and sections. But surprisingly, not even a single image of Bangladesh's archaeological sites. I think it would be better to divide the text into two parts- Early history and 20th & 21st century. It should include pictures of the country's two world heritage sites in archaeology, and perhaps a template on Bangladeshi history, giving access to pages of successive historical periods and kingdoms. The text eventually needs to be improved. But I think we should first bring it a more organized look in order to keep sync with the rest of the article. --Rainmaker23 (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The history section was an absolute mess. It was turned into present better position with much care from several members of the community. If you feel there are improvements to make, feel free to do it. The section already has 5 subsections. Once it was just divided into two section (as you suggested), that did not work very well. Keep the five sections. I am not sure if we can fit some photos of archaeological sites, but at least one should be somewhere in the article. – nafSadh did say 17:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Every history section in a country article includes pictures of archaeology. And I haven't seen a single country with such little subsections, and that again with convulted See also lists. It is a complete mess and others have said so as well. Another Bangladeshi editor also mentioned that images should have the country's background. The text also needs to be changed. The five sections will go.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have a suggested rewrite, post it here :) – nafSadh did say 00:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll have it in my sandbox when I do it. You need to quit your attitude and learn to engage. You don't know who I am.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to see that. BTW, I may have to learn a lot of thing, but you are probably the one who also need to learn a lot more things. I do not need to know your identity. I reveal mine, and you have your right to hide. I do and will watch the pages I have interest in. – nafSadh did say 06:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't need any lessons from you. I was nice to you for a long time. But you have an awful vendetta against me for. Sometimes I made foolish edits. But that does not give you the right to stalk me and block my every turn. You don't respect me, I won't respect you. Simple as that.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

As you noted in your comment that you removed and later thankfully re-added, "I don't need any lessons from you. I was nice to you for a long time. But you have an awful vendetta against me for. Sometimes I made foolish edits. But that does not give you the right to stalk me and block my every turn. You don't respect me, I won't respect you. Simple as that." I do not have vendetta; probably you have. And on following edit, you blanked the entire discussion, which is not polite, furthermore a violation of Wikipedia community policy. Every time, when I appreciate your efforts, and try to put my feedback you take those feedback as barriers. Did I ever tell you to not edit? In any talk people would put forward their opinions. From that a consensus might come. That is how other editors collaborate. – nafSadh did say 18:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You manipulative user. I removed the entire section per Wikipedia:Civility which allows personal attacks to be erased. Interestingly when you reverted me, you left out my last comment. And about "Did I ever tell you not to edit?" You just threantened to block me. You're a hater. For Dhaka#History, where my edits were legitimate, you unnecessarily harangued me. Stop hiding behind the veil of consensus. You have to contest something in order to have a consensus.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Rainmaker has triple reverted (diff, diff diff) an edit by Ctg4Rahat, which was double restored by me Nafsadh and LibStar indicating Rainmaker23 is warring against consensus. Rainmakers23 is strongly requested to present his reason about why not to include the paragraph about Bangladesh-Israel relation. I am undoing last revert of Rainmaker23 to restore Ctg4Rahat's paragraph. Removal of the very paragraph without any consensus made through this discussion may be a violation of community's norm. – nafSadh did say 05:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nafsadh this is not fair. You need to stop this. I don't think I've broken any rule by reducing a paragraph into one sentence.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ctg4Rahat inserted a paragraph on Bangladesh-Israel relations, which I removed at first, considering these sections usually include the most crucial bilateral relationships. Bangladesh does not have any formal relations with Israel. Nafsadh reverted me, saying its an important part of foreign policy. Since the Palestinian issue was already mentioned in the section, I reverted Nafsadh again since an entire paragraph seemed to give undue weight to the topic. It's also factually inaccurate. Bangladesh is not the only country in the world which bans trade with Israel, as claimed by a particular newspaper (well known for its theatrics). A dozen more countries maintain a boycott. LibStar then reverted me asking me to discuss on the talk page. I didn't revert him exactly, I reduced the paragraph to one sentence. What POV push can you possibly make here? --Rainmaker23 (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the reduced version of the sentence is ok for the article. We can also add the info about Bangladeshi passport and the prohibition of entry to Israel by Bangladesh goverment. - Rahat (Message) 15:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Rahat. Nafsadh has serious

WP:OWN issues.--Rainmaker23 (talk

) 14:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not

WP:OWN. I ask to TALK; and see talking results in resolution. – nafSadh did say

20:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

3RR

This series of edits shows an evidence of 3RR violation and edit war between Rainmaker23 (pursuant) and Samudrakula. Please talk and avoid edit war. – nafSadh did say 20:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not the pursuant Nafsadh. Your friend began reverting me. I asked Samudrakula several times to discuss, including on his talk page. Instead he's making personal attacks.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Samudrakula is not my friend. We have much differences. – nafSadh did say 21:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Samudrakula Why are you against the pictures? I see six in India, twelve in Peru, thirteen in Germany, seven in Turkey. --Rainmaker23 (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

see Previous Discussions[7]. I am not against any picture, but those pictures are not so relevant here, it is appears rather crowded. Tell me how a terracotta wall, Peacock Barge and Mohammad bogra ARE SO IMPORTENT FOR THE history of bangladesh or what did they do for bangladesh! we may find thousands of pictures, should we push and pull all of those in the history section?-so don't waste your time and mine---Samudrakula (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

all of above-mentioned articles are well organised and not crowded with pictures.---Samudrakula (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Right now, Bangladesh is not crowded either. Peru also has twelve images in its history section. That discussion was about the article as a whole. The history section is one which deserves more pictures. All of them have historical significance.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This talk should be on

WP:NOTGALLERY. Though, I think after his versions, we may have place to add one or two other photos, There are many things to take in consideration while talking about images: (1) not a gallery (2) undue weight (3) represent. So we have to balance. There was a point when for this article, we reached to point of mutual understanding that we won't add any more images to this article. But that broke when some editors started to rapidly change the article. – nafSadh did say

21:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

An understanding that anyone cannot add images to an article pretty much seems like

WP:OWN. While Wikipedia is definitely not a gallery, it is an encyclopedia. Each of these images have historical relevance. All your three factors were taken into consideration in adding them.--Rainmaker23 (talk

) 22:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Text to image ratio is an important thing. And no one is owning this article (or possibly you?). Photos do have historical relevance. Bangladesh is a top level article, we can add those photos in sub articles (viz History of Bangladesh) where we have room for more text and photos. I concur with Samudrakula's edit and I posit we can reduce a few photos form some sections while we need photos in some sections. – nafSadh did say 22:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The images in the history section are even more relevant because its a top level article.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

my main concern is better summarization. and of course better representation. if we can summarize our 4 Millennial glorious history in less than 40 lines, then why are you not able to choose 6-8 images for this section? FOR PERU N CO- We don't have to blindly follow anyone!→Samudrakula (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following Peru or Germany, I pointed them out because you said "one picture for one section". I do think these 12 images represent the history section's text very fairly.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course they represent. But we can be more succinct. We need to reduce the number of photos. – nafSadh did say 06:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted one map from the history section. I think the images in antiquity and Islamic Bengal should be kept. User:Samudrakula obviously has a very poor view of history and most other things. He should refrain from personal attacks, like when he first did while reverting me. He dosen't know who I am so he dosen't need to reach conclusions.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You have no idea about me and not allowed to comment like this way! we all have to go through references and Wikipedia:Consensus. Stop Playing the Blame Game-Samudrakula (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Bride photo

I think the bride photo by Joy prokash roy is not a very good photo and shall not be here. Though it is added as a bride photo, it is not really a bridal setup. – nafSadh did say 22:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

So feel free to change, but please don't add the old (folded saree ) one. That was really boring—Samudrakula (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That was. I am looking for something better. – nafSadh did say 06:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)