Misplaced Pages

Talk:Bangladesh

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bazaan (talk | contribs) at 10:24, 1 May 2014 (Undid revision 606601987 by Bazaan (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:24, 1 May 2014 by Bazaan (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 606601987 by Bazaan (talk))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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

Bangladesh and the delta

To Bazaan, regarding your recent edit: I only reverted your edit because you had deleted content with no explanation. Now, in the edit summary that accompanies your revert of my edit, I see your reasoning. I will leave it to others to judge the content, but I want to mention that I think the precise place you put the information on geography is not the best place. The sentence before it is about ethnic groups, and the information that follows it is about cultural matters. You now have a piece of information about geography interrupting a description of the culture of Bangladesh. You might look through the article (or section) to find a better place.CorinneSD (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I get your point. But to have it on the very first line is rather flawed, because to begin with, the whole country is not a delta. I understand your point on geography and I am restoring an old sentence on delta and the monsoon.--Bazaan (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the sentence about monsoon floods and cyclones is a good one, but I still think the organization of the paragraph needs improving.
The Bengalis form the country's predominant ethnic group, whereas the indigenous peoples in northern and southeastern districts form a significant and diverse ethnic minority. Bangladesh is dominated by the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta and is subject to annual monsoon floods and cyclones. The delta has a rich and diverse cultural heritage. The four largest religions in the country are Islam (89%), Hinduism (9%), Buddhism (1%) and Christianity (0.5%).
It goes from the country's ethnic groups to Bangladesh is dominated by a delta, then the delta has a rich...cultural heritage, and finally the whole country again.
Let me ask you, when you read this sentence, "The delta has a rich and diverse cultural heritage," doesn't that kind of indirectly say that the rest of the country does not? This sentence, and the sentence before it, belong in a section or paragraph devoted solely to the delta.
I really don't know how best to improve things. I just thought I'd point some things out. Then you can work on the organization.CorinneSD (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, that whole paragraph needs to be rephrased. The very point of it is to shed light on the culture of Bangladesh- its landscape, traditions, pluralism and religions, as is common to so many other Asian country pages. Bangladesh of all countries, being so vibrant, needs its culture to be highlighted.--Bazaan (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

British Age

I just finished editing "British Age" to make it clearer and more concise, but the second paragraph still needs work. The second paragraph is:

"After the foundation of the British Indian Empire, Bengal was still under the heavy influence of British culture including architecture and art. The Indian Independence Movement was still underway in effort to overthrow the British Empire, and many Bengali people contributed to that effort. At the same time as the Islamic and Hindu conflicts occurred, Bengal would be split into two states."

This paragraph is not cohesive and lacks sufficient detail. The first sentence mentions culture but gives no details. The second and third sentences relate to the Indian Independence Movement but do not seem related to each other. I believe the third sentence needs to be a little more specific with regard to the time when Bengal was split into two states, and why this happened. If this is covered in detail elsewhere in the article, then I don't think this sentence needs to be here.

Overall, I think this section is rather short. Isn't there more that can be said regarding the "British Age"? CorinneSD (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Willis Tower photo

The caption for the Willis Tower photo in the section "Post independence" contains the following statement:

"He has been called the "Einstein of structural engineering" and the greatest structural engineer of the 20th century for his innovative use of structural systems that remain fundamental to modern skyscraper construction."

Besides the consideration that it is awfully long, there are three claims in this caption for which citations ought to be provided:

  • He has been called the "Einstein of structural engineering";
  • the greatest structural engineer of the 20th century
  • ...for his innovative use of the structural systems that remain fundamental to modern skyscraper construction".CorinneSD (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
This seems a lot of weight to be giving an architect who isn't mentioned in the article text - there's an equal-size picture of Muhammad Yunus above it, but he is described in the article as being a "significant contributor to the development of the economy". Regardless, a picture of an abstract wall sculpture hanging in a US office building doesn't seem - per WP:PERTINENCE - a great fit for an article about Bangladesh. --McGeddon (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree.CorinneSD (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
He was a great influential person. He also helped Bangladesh during the liberation war so he should be mentioned.--Aalaan (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that he should not be mentioned or that he wasn't influential, just that he does not merit the largest picture and most praise-laden caption on the entire page for the whole country of Bangladesh, particularly when that picture is just a middle-distance shot of a sculpture in an American office lobby. Is there a section in the article that could include a sentence about him instead (and his role in the liberation war if it was significant)? --McGeddon (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Photos

It seems to me that the proportion of the photographs in this article needs adjusting. Some photos are quite large relative to both the text and other photos in the article, while a number of photos, I think particularly the ones of architectural masterpieces and landscapes, are quite small and deserve to be a bit larger. Also, in the Education section, the photo of the university has the following caption:

"East West University, one of the renowned private university in Bangladesh."

This is ungrammatical. It needs to be either

  • "East West University, one of the renowned private universities in Bangladesh", or
  • "East West University, a renowned private university in Bangladesh".

I think the second one sounds better but that someone who knows more about Bangladesh than I do should choose which is better.CorinneSD (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Images

After seeing CorinneSD and McGeddon's posts above I checked thourhg the images on the article. They were in a bad shape. I tried to correct that. I have used free images only, and not those with a dispute over its free status. I also tried to keep the images as relevant as I could manage, though I intend to work some more in that regard. I also have used a lot of {{multiple image}} template, which may not be very friendly for print or pdf of the articles. Please, check and let me know. This also is a request to active members of WikiProject Bangladesh, though I understand that there's not a lot many of them available. Aditya 04:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the images and their size and arrangement are much improved.CorinneSD (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Some of the multi-images look a little wide, where you've got two landscape-format pictures next to each other, and it looks a bit non-standard to double everything up, but I can't see any manual of style guidance on this particular template. The article is definitely better than it was before, though.
Bengali people could use similar cleanup, having problems with large and/or floating images. --McGeddon (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014

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

"biggest exporting idustry" should be corrected to "biggest exporting industry" Dguzzo (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} 18:05, 5 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 03:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Aditya Kabir, How did you think that your added pictures would be perfect rather than mine. There was 3 universities pictures once. University of Dhaka, 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 Misplaced Pages specifically calls for a claim to fame. And, Misplaced Pages is not a gallery. Therefore, images are to be used justifiably, and not gratuitously. Aditya 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. CorinneSD (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. CorinneSD (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. CorinneSD (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. .... 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.     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 city (by metro area population)" for maximum clarity. If we'd rather be terse, we can say "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 WP:RS, says 19th.

The CIA suggests ninth place. 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 WP:OR, rather than WP:CALC, 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 Jakarta Indonesia, Kinshasa DRCongo, Lima Peru, Bogota Colombia, London UK, and some more cities in China (plus Chicago in the USA). Dhaka is highly-ranked internationally, these statistics tell us. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 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? CorinneSD (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Dhaka in the lead

Bazaan has removed the sentence - "Dhaka is the capital of Bangladesh and also the world's twentieth largest metropolitan city" - by saying - "but it's already there in the lead. can we please not promote an overly dhaka-centric POV. i say this as a dhakaiya myself" (check). He has removed it earlier by saying - "dhaka is already mentioned in the 4th para. and it's the world's seventh largest city, not freaking twentieth" (check). The "4th para" has this - "Major cities such as Dhaka and Chittagong 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 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 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. CorinneSD (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)

Copyright problem removed

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 "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:18, 13 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 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)
Categories: