Misplaced Pages

Talk:Bangladesh: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:13, 18 June 2014 editAditya Kabir (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,908 edits →A few comments (mostly about images): again← Previous edit Revision as of 21:23, 27 June 2014 edit undoRainmaker23 (talk | contribs)1,160 edits →Ali Akbar KhanNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 322: Line 322:
::I feel the sub-headers should be removed. It does not look good and does not a have smooth flow in reading.(] (]) 22:19, 12 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.(] (]) 22:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC))
::::Yes. The copy is terrible. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font></span><sup>(] • ])</sup> 04:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC) ::::Yes. The copy is terrible. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font></span><sup>(] • ])</sup> 04:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

== Ali Akbar Khan ==

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. --] (]) 21:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:23, 27 June 2014

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bangladesh article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bangladesh article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Former featured articleBangladesh is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 14, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 12, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 16, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
September 27, 2010Featured article reviewDemoted
June 17, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBangladesh Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Misplaced Pages. 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
The article falls into the work area of the History workgroup of WikiProject Bangladesh
Note icon
The article falls into the work area of the Geography workgroup of WikiProject Bangladesh
WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Template:WP1.0

Template:Vital article
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on 19 dates. March 26, 2004, November 13, 2004, December 16, 2004, March 26, 2005, December 16, 2005, March 26, 2006, December 16, 2006, March 26, 2007, December 16, 2007, March 26, 2008, December 16, 2008, March 26, 2009, December 16, 2009, March 26, 2010, December 16, 2010, March 26, 2011, March 26, 2012, March 26, 2013, and March 26, 2014

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 Misplaced Pages for all countries around the world). Stevejaw (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Far too many images

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 Image use 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. CorinneSD (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The new photo of the residence is quite interesting. CorinneSD (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I know, right? Rafiq Azam has a brilliant way of bringing in features of the Ganges delta into his work. They say its the Bangladeshi style of green living. It's also an important evolution in the country's long tradition of 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? CorinneSD (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? CorinneSD (talk) 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? CorinneSD (talk) 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. CorinneSD (talk) 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 image-use policy and 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 08:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

My two bits

Article Images
Australia   31
Belarus   24
Cameroon   20
Canada   23
Chad   16
India   23
Indonesia   17
Japan   32
Madagascar   29
Peru   15
Bangladesh   60

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. CorinneSD, what is your complaint against using multiple image templates? Clustering dispersed elements on a layout reduces clutter, improves readers access, and generally makes a cleaner appearance. What are your reasons?

Image relevance policy of Misplaced Pages 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.

"Misplaced Pages is not an image repository" part of policy says - " If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context". Balancing aspects policy says - "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Neither of the policies are conformed in the use of the images of East West University or biriyani. Aditya 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 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. CorinneSD (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 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 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 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 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 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- ; and theculturetrip.com. Please, step outside of the box for a change, and improve Bangladesh coverage on Misplaced Pages.--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 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 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 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 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 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. CorinneSD (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 07:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The history section

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 puffery.

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:

Since then, Bangladesh has reverted to parliamentary democracy. Zia's widow Khaleda Zia, led the BNP to parliamentary victories in 1991 and 2001 and was Prime Minister from 1991 to 1996 and again from 2001. She maintains a bitter rivalry with one of Mujib's surviving daughters Sheikh Hasina, who heads the Awami League and was in power from 1996 to 2001. In spite of widespread poverty and corruption, Bangladesh remains a democracy to date.

Not much has changed since. Aditya 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)
History section
Article Weightage by word count Difference in percentage points
Japan Before 1900 68.5% -30%
Since 1900 31.5%
Peru Before 1900 77% -26%
Since 1900 23%
India Before 1900 86% -68%
Since 1900 14%
Canada Before 1900 57% -14%
Since 1900 43%
Australia Before 1900 61.5% -24%
Since 1900 38.5%
Bangladesh Before 1900 46% +8%
Since 1900 54%
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 war. Not needed. Therefore, I checked a few random featured articles of the Countries Project. On the right is what I found. Balance is serious Misplaced Pages 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. WP:CIVIL is one of Misplaced Pages's five pillars) Aditya 19:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I was the first person to add the piece on Neolithic excavations to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages is not about "then for god's sake, add content" only. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and hence it has several guidelines, principles and traditions about article size, sections size, and balance of information. Misplaced Pages 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 Wikimedia's free content policy and probably include a summary of the neolithic and chalcolithic times (check: Wari-Bateshwar ruins). "Expand" is not the only way to "improve". Culling an overly expanded and clearly off-balance part is one important improvement (see: WP:SUMMARY).
I can definitely go ahead and make the change, but perhaps some consensus would be safe before I make the changes. I am inviting two active members of the Bangladesh Project who has shown an interest in the article in the past and has wide experience – Kmzayeem and Nafsadh along with Ragib, the Bangladeshi editor with the longest, deepest and widest experience both as a regular editor and an admin. If this doesn't work then we can seek participation from the History Project, Countries Project and the South Asia Project.
Finally, please, remember that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Three of you successive posts were not very helpful, and may seen harshly by the community – to my talk page, to this talk page and to my talk page on commons. See "identifying incivility" to find that all three were seriously against Misplaced Pages behavioral policies. Please, focus on the content of the discussion and not the anger. Aditya 06:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
You're probably the finest editor from Bangladesh in Misplaced Pages. 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 Bengal Sultanate and 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: Misplaced Pages: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 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 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)

Map Update

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

WP:PR

Can someone submit the article for a peer review? Aditya 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 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)

"The four largest religions in the country are Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity."

Size of major religious groups, 2012
Religion Percent
Christianity   31.5%
Islam   23.2%
Unaffiliated   16.3%
Hinduism   15.0%
Buddhism   7.1%
Folk religions   5.9%
Other   0.8%
Pew Research Center, 2012

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 16:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I think he meant 98% of Bangladesh. Ratibgreat (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. Ratibgreat (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2014 (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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 15:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

A few comments (mostly about images)

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 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 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 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? Misplaced Pages is not a picture gallery, it's an encyclopedia. There are lessons available on article development - Misplaced Pages:Writing better articles, Misplaced Pages: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 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 04:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The history section

Uck22, what is your reasoning behind dividing the section into two sections - "antiquity" and "modern age"? Is there any scholarly work that does the same? I am sure it's not WP:ILIKEIT. Let's settle this on the talk page and not turn this into WP:WAR. Before the discussion I am reverting the article back to the contested version. If you don't mind I would like to invite a few involved and experienced editors of repute to this discussion. Aditya 15:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(added) FYI, This is how Encyclopedia Britannica treats history of Bangladesh. Banglapedia gives this narrative. Aditya 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 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 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 04:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ali Akbar Khan

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)

  1. "The Global Religious Landscape". The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Pew Research center. 18 December 2012. Retrieved 18 March 2013.
Categories: