Talk:American International University-Bangladesh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American International University-Bangladesh article.
Article policies
Flag
Bangladesh Portal
American International University-Bangladesh is part of WikiProject Bangladesh, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bangladesh and Bangladesh-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not subsitute this template.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Collaborations: Sundarbans & Cox's Bazar
It is requested that an image or images of be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Bangladesh may be able to help!
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Bangladeshi Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges in Bangladesh. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Please, stop

Please, stop rating an university that is fairly low on notability as as "mid" on the importance parameter. There are plenty more important subjects in the Bangladesh category, and hardly notable universities are not one of them. What makes you think this universities importance for the Wikiproject on Bangladesh is not low? Aditya Kabir 15:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It had pre-assesment as "mid". But Aditya Kabir put his own thoughts in this assesment.But, We should avoid wrong judgement. Please stop rating.--NAHID 19:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


Per The assessment scale, this article isn't mid, rather of low importance. Thank you. --Ragib 21:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hostel

Can anyone provide a reference (even a primary one) supporting hostel facilities? Niaz bd 03:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

Lots of references added. I am managing pictures of AIUB. AIUB is no more low on notability, 5000+ students are there. --Farsad (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

References should contain reliable third party sources, not the university's own website, newsletters and pamphlets. 5,000 students don't necessarily make it mid or high importance. Any village in Bangladesh has more than 5,000 people. Aditya(talk • contribs) 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Aditya vai, lots of third party references will be added shortly. If Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology article, BRAC University article (add a tag there/ only one reference is there), East West University article, Bangladeshi kabaddi team article, City University, Bangladesh article (no reference!), etc. are categorized as a "mid" one than why not American International University-Bangladesh? --Farsad (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
All these unis are assessed wrong, I guess. You may change all that back to low. Bangladesh has little coverage of its geography and history on the English Wikipedia. It is sad to see people caring more for their schools, while the nation remains largely ignored. Very much an expression of schoolcruft. By the way, importance to the relevant wikiproject has got nothing to do with notability, and notability has nothing to do with adding loads of citations. All three are mutually independent (though, by way of verifiability and reliability of information, notability may depend upon providing a few reliable sources). And, yes, if you find articles without reference, or very little reference or just first-party references (using the subject or publications of the subject as a source) you're most welcome to tag them appropriately. And, oh, try not to use that <br/> markup everywhere. It's against the manual of style. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok Aditya Vaia, now this is clear to me. I will never do it again. Thanks. --Farsad (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with Aditya Bhaia. Most of the university assessments are wrong. In fact, I personally doesn't like assessment since it actually doesn't put extra value. And getting low importance doesn't make some institution defamed. It is just a primary tag that indicates which article requires immediate attentions. But, a person may not be interested to work on a core article related to Bangladesh or even a user may not be concerned about even the Bangladesh article while he may find AIUB article very important. So, it depends on point of view, people and place. Moreover, AIUB is scaled as low on importance level with in Bangladesh wiki-project but in Bangladeshi Universities wiki-project it will get a mid or high importance. Thus, when I created template for Bangladeshi Universities, I avoided this scaling on importance instead I concentrated on quality scale only. Anyway, as I always say this is a Wikipedia family, Farsad, welcome to our small but loving family. You have already met Aditya Bhaia, we have Arman Bhaia, Nahid, Tarif and most significant contributor from Bangladesh, Ragib Bhaia. Wishing you all the best with your Wiki-editing. And, Aditya Bhaia, welcome back. (oh god, I am making a talk page like forum!). Cheers. - Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 17:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have planned to work with all the Bangladeshi Universities articles. Naturally I started with my one. But it is unfortunate that it seems like I am biased by my own university! But actually I am not. I will edit all the universities articles with a neutral view. + I am especially grateful to Arman vaia and Aditya vaia as they both played a vital role to save my first work in Wikipedia, the Eastern Housing Limited article from deletion. I also respect Ragib vai (boss), Nahid vai, Belayet vai, you. I like Tarif a lot. Yes, from last 2 month’s experience it is very clear to me that this Bangladeshi Wikipedian Family is small but very loving, strong, and helpful. Best wishes to all. --Farsad (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's ok ... I myself sometimes think I'm biased about BUET and shouldn't be vigorously editing the article lest I add my POV there :). However, if you can overcome your sense of association and adhere to WP:V, WP:N, you will be fine. For example, we all are somewhat POV'd towards BD related topics ... but if we follow the core principles such as WP:V and WP:N, we can turn that into positive enthusiasm and enrich BD-related topics. --Ragib (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yes! My first major work here was taking Shahbag to FA status (of course with plenty help from other editors, including Ragib and Ramma's Arrow, who left the project sometime back), and it is the place where I grew up. WP:COI apart, it is highly appreciated that we work on subjects that we know best. Why do you think, we all are editing mostly Bangladesh related articles? I believe, when you're through we'll have much better looking Bangladesh uni articles on the Wikipedia (my schoolcruft comment was never directed at you, but looking back it seems that could be read that way). Keep the good work going (and, oh, I loved your spirit when I met that Eastern Housing article). Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References, again

I see a lot of addition/removal of "primarysources" template to this article. I noticed that most of this article's are from AIUB's website (except one ref to PVT univ act, one to support "best business school" - from a biography of Carmen Z. Lamagna, and one link to a student website). Other than these, all the references are from aiub.edu. So, it seems to me that the template "primary sources" is perfectly applicable iin absence of any third party sources.

So, I'd like to request NAHID and other involved editors to clarify this, and also to add more third party sources, in order to enhance the quality of this article.

Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I disagree. Primary source tag is not perfectly applicable here (since 3rd party sources are exist). Aside Aiub sources, article already contained three 3rd party references (except newly added 3rd party references). The template does not mention specific number of 3rd party references that should be added to the article. Thanks.--NAHID 17:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


    • The "references" you mention here are not supporting almost 90% of the article ... rather are supporting only a single sentence of text. For the rest of the article, there were no third party sources. If you just add one or two single 3rd party reference to a non-referenced/primary-source-referenced article, that doesn't make it properly sourced. --Ragib (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that, the comment (dated 14 March) applies to the previous state of the article, when it had only 2 or 3 third party sources. --Ragib (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • An article should be tagged with this template if there's 0 third party references. But this article already has some 3rd party references (along with additional new 3rd party references) to support those statements and they are not ignorable. The template asked to provide 3rd party references and that's been already provided. Even the template does not mention the article has to be perfectly 3rd party sourced.--NAHID 19:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
A little attempt to read before making answer would have been highly useful here. The template says - "This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page." And, that never implies that the article has 0 third party references, unless someone interprets it that way with disruption in mind. 3rd party sources are highly appreciated over first party sources because of simple reasons. What many of our editors fail to notice is that Wikipedia is in the real world, and in that real world their is increasing tension about credibility and authenticity of the project. Avoiding self-published sources (a.k.a. first party sources) is one big step towards earning credibility. While this silly kind of edit war and bickering can serve an intention of agenda-pushing, it harms the Wikipedia very much. Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendations

Since this article is on my watchlist, I also noticed constant removal and replacement of third party reference tag by Nahid and Aditya Bhaia. What I understood staying at a neutral platform is:

  • Aditya Bhaia tried to indicate that this article is lacking in third party citations as there are very few references from reliable third party sources.
  • Nahid indicated that there is no third party reference is not justified since three or such already exist.

I believe both of them are correct from their perspective. But, for the shake of quality I will go with Aditya Bhaia and to keep the spirit of working on a narrow but important sector from Bangladesh up, I will support Nahid. So, I am going to propose a solution and a further guideline here.
Proposing solution for this problem:

  1. As AIUB is one of the best performing private universities (saying just from my experience being a private university student) in Bangladesh, it wont be difficult to get reliable third party references. I strongly prefer Star Campus articles to get up-to-date news and coverages of extra curricular activities (probably one has already been added). Moreover, AIUB is the only five universities from Bangladesh who have participated in ACM ICPC World Final which is really a prestigious achievement and can be added on extracurricular and/or a suitable place and official references are available from many third parties.
  2. Different newspapers regularly publish news on AIUB, specially on Prothom Alo as it is said that Prothom Alo IT section is AIUB dominated. Interested editor may also take an initiative to collect some references from their alumni.
  3. It will be extremely rich and reliable if you can add some references from UGC. Note that it is not necessary to have those information available online.
  4. Once you add those references, just remove the template but until it should be there.

Now I am going to put some comments regarding its tone and structure. It would be really nice if you (interested editors) take an initiative to improve at those sectors.

  1. Lead of this article claims that AIUB belongs to top three private universities. But in later sections, this claim was neither supported by references nor explained according to WP guidelines (which eventually force editors to bring references).
  2. Computer Science and Electrical & Electronic Engineering is best among private universities, another unreferenced claim.
  3. It looks like an advertisement specially in the middle of the article where all of its supports and services are described.
  4. This article contains too many lists which is extremely discouraged. Try to convert them in text.
  5. On an earlier discussion, proposed by Ragib Bhaia, we decided that we will remove foreign university affiliation, membership list etc. from all the university articles. As per our discussion this section should be removed.

Hope to see a nice and happy editing environment once again! Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 12:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally Agreed. For last 2 days I am surfing the net for more third party reference. I have made a list of those references. Soon I will attach it :). --Farsad (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep this sprite up and feel free to buzz me anytime either on WP or by email. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 20:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added two third party citations and fixed references with access date. Could you please add your references as well so that we can conclude this debate soon. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 11:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Good work--NAHID 17:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some proposals

In this section I am tying to propose some plan which may be useful for Farsad. It doesn't mean that I am imposing my ideas rather just take it as a guideline. In addition, whenever I can manage free time, I will get back to this article and try to improve it by extending/converting lists into text, adding references and including extra sections.

Basically my proposal will cover three core issues, merger of some sections, completely removal of two/three areas and proposal for some new sections.

  • I strongly suggest that initial few sections upto (before) research and innovation should be merged into one section in the name of Academic or such. In this section, we can incorporate Academic body, Structure etc. But, academic programs should not be listed here (even nowhere) since this is not an advertising site. We can arrange a section (within Academic) called degree to discuss its degrees and their acceptance, i.e. formal recognition for engineering or such etc. Evaluation system (Class and/or CGPA), special award ranging etc. can also be included there. Farshad, if you have an immediate convocation publication, please use it for reference. At least for award range, class equivalence and such information primary sources are more reliable than third party.
  • A separate section in the form of TEXT should be arranged for library. It will be extremely nice if we can add a picture. (Farsad, can you provide a picture for this section?)
  • List of facilities should be modified with an encyclopaedic tone. If requires, we should remove some stuff here. Information regarding auditorium and hostel can be included at an appropriate place, may be hostel in Student Life or such section and auditorium in a merged section for Laboratory, auditorium, mosque etc.
  • Logistic and Services has to be deleted. Membership area should be removed. Some information can be included in degree section (such as recognition and transferability).
  • Include a history section containing some core information such as university status granting year, first course commence date, first convocation etc. List of convocation can be incorporated (as text of course) in this section.

I believe, if we can modify at least mentioned issues, this article will look much better and will be more appropriate for Wikipedia. Cheers! -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 22:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)