Talk:Bangladesh/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Featured article initiative

I've started to standardize, shorten/expand the article to achieve Featured Article status. For this, sections on different areas need to be short, crisp, and in most cases, overviews for the detailed subject pages. Thanks. --Ragib 23:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


I moved the pictures around a bit, as it seems common practice to pics on both left and rigth. --ppm 01:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


Issues as I see them: "Culture" section right now seems like the arts. That's not all there is to culture ... should include food, clothing, ceremonies etc, in adition some art forms like fine arts and dance are absent.

History portion is much better than it used to be (the horror!!), but needs crisper writing.

It seems we are copying India rather strictly, why? --ppm 00:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's true, the history section has improved, but needs to be more summarized. I think we have good articles at Bengali cuisine, which can be added in the culture section. As for following precedents, I modeled this article after India because India has long been a featured article. We could have used other featured articles like Australia too, that's fine as well. --Ragib 03:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


what is a "muslim democracy"?--ppm 17:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No idea. Looks like POV. --Ragib 19:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


So, are we ready for peer review stage? I feel so. --Ragib 19:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Well, I though so, but looking at Kerala, I am a bit apprehensive. They have loads of references and really nice pics --ppm 06:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Whats lacking : 1. There's some POV is the history section. 2. Pics. 3. More references 4. General cleanup

Wishlist for pictures

1. A view of motijheel, for economics. 2. A view of a rice field, with farmers. 3. A view of a major river, maybe Padma. 4. A cultural scene, perhaps a dance performance. 5. A "gaye holud" scene, again for culture. --ppm 21:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we do have number 3. As for number 4, I can sure dig up one. I'd like to add to the wish list another item: a view of some sports, possibly cricket. Thanks.--Ragib 22:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I dropped Shat gombuj in the article, somewhat out of frustration. It really doesn;t fit where it is now, perhaps a paragraph on art and architecture in culture can be added (culture in other good articles are long, so I have no problem with extending it). Also, Kerala continues to fascinate me, I found out that there beautiful layout of pictures in due to using table constructs and such. --ppm 04:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Done with refs

I think I'm done with references, we now have enough. Peer review anyone?--ppm 04:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is very good - you guys could go for FAC with a good chance of success, but I guess it will be prudent to do some last minute nit-picking. Rama's Arrow 05:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


New peer review

Ok, I've started a new peer review for Bangladesh. Please express your comments there. Thanks. --Ragib 05:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, if we are to give up the times cover, what instead? maybe Image:Muktiyddher.jpg? There needs to be a liberation war related pic. If we are to remove education, I think the female stipend program should be incorporated somewhere, maybe demographics. I think it was the single most important event in recent Bangladesh barring large political ones. --ppm 13:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


"most densely populated country larger than 700 km² in t"...hong kong seems to be larger than that.--70.30.183.145 06:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

except that hong kong isn't a country. --SameerKhan 07:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


"Most of the Awami League leaders fled and set up a government-in-exile in Calcutta, declaring Bangladesh an independent state" -- the declaration of independence was made earlier, and from within Bangladesh (either by Mujib or Zia, but doesn't matter in this case). --ppm 23:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I also thought that Muzib declared independence from within the then East Pakistan. However, we should write here what the Britannica is telling. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 12:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
If the point of that sentence is the exiled government in Kolkata, lets just keep that part and remove "declaring ....". And maybe we can do without the britannica reference, as 1. The exile is super well-known and probably doesn't need reference 2. As clear from the error we discussed, that article is awful!!--ppm 17:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I tentatively made the correction I suggested. --ppm 17:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, you said "exile is super well-known" - I beg to differ. What is "super well known"? Perhaps you are suggesting that those who know Bangladesh know the fact. But we should not forget that this article will be read by thousands who know almost nothing about Bangladesh or Kolkata, especially when the article will appear in the main page as FA. In fact, I doubt whether a sizable portion of population of Kolkata or Bangladesh, especially the younger population, know the fact. From my experience, I came to know the fact quite late, may be just 5 to 6 years back, and that also while reading the fiction Purbo-Paschim by Sunil Gangopadhyay. I do not disagree that the "declared" part can be removed if you find it unable to digest. I myself knew otherwise, i.e. independence was declared from inside East Pakistan. And that is why the reference from Britannica was given (that Britannica is dependable is super well-known). I am sorry if I sounded too harsh in this message, I could not help as I was quite astonished to see modification of a substantiated fact by such a nice and veteran Wikipedian like you.--Dwaipayanc 06:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Just for clarification of the whole issue, The Awami League leaders declared a government in exile in Boiddonath_tola of Meherpur district (now called Mujibnogor) on april 17. They had some sort of declaration of formation of the govt in exile or so. The declaration of independence, on the other hand, was from either Sheikh Mujib (over a EPR radio transmitter, transmitted and monitored near Dhaka on the night of 25th march (ref: Pakistan army major Siddique Salik, "Witness to surrender"), or by M A Hannan, an awami league leader in Chittagong, using the chittagong radio station transmitter (transmitted on 26th march, but not publicized, listeners from chittagong, my parents and others from that time, told me that they never heard this transmission), or by Major Zia on 27th march, transmitted using the Kalurghat transmitter on March 27. This xmission was relayed by Indian and other transmitter, and became the most famous and publicized declaration.
But in any case, this is a very minute point, I apperciate the great work by both ppm and Dwaipayanc in advancing Bangladesh and Bengal related articles, and hope that, with your continued efforts, the Bangladesh page will soon become a Featured article. Thanks to all. --Ragib 07:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Yes Ragib it is a relatively minute point and that's why I did not revert the present info. Anyway, thanks for the nice info you gave on the declaration. I read about Muzibnagar, it was an interesting account. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 07:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
My point was, the "substantiated" claim you are making is debated. Is this is a issue that we want a huge paragraph on? Zia claims this (5 references), Mujib claims this (7 references), and brittanica says this (1, maybe more reference)? If you insist on keeping britannica for "that" statement (otherwise its fine as a general reference or other non debated issues), I will insist of having other claims proportionately represented. Also, as you can see from Ragib's discussion, both Mujib's and Zia's claims are much more detailed, whereas britannica is making a airy claim without reference, dates, peoples involved, nothing! "super well known" is perhaps the wrong word, obviously the information is important (which is why it is there), but it is clearly in a different class from "Income of Bangladeshis is usd 440" or something. I don't mean we can't have a reference, just that we don't need one for a totally non debated statement (the exile part).--ppm 20:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Of course it is unnecessary to debate on such a minute issue, given the size of the article is still increasing. The present form is quite ok. Basically, your apparent innuendo- "If the point of that sentence is the exiled government in Kolkata, lets just keep that part " was what prompted me to write again ! In any case, the government in exile is siginificant enough to retain, while this debated "declaration" (which most probably Britannica got wrong !) can be done without. BTW, when are you people planning to pit it for FAC? It's a very nice article! --Dwaipayanc 09:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What abt merging Govt and politics? Politics needs some cleanup, too.--ppm 22:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


Dear user 192.246.225.205, you edits are not technically wrong at all, but we already have a size problem. IUT (not IIT anymore) and SUST was already covered under the blanket "newer university" statement (I by no means think they are not worthy of mention in general)--ppm 03:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

anonyms

There seems to be a proliferation of recent anonym editors who want to do good, but with suspect outcomes. Dear 15.235.153.106, would you explain why you changed the placing of "e-kar" in the Bangla spelling of Bangladesh? It was correct and would render as it should in a properly configured browser. You are probably using opera or something else without indic script support enabled. --ppm 20:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm

I believe most peer review issues have been handled. The only fuzzy area, imho, due to its subjectiveness, is the language in Culture and Subdivisions, which neverthless have changed in the mean time, hopefully for the better. Right now, I can't think of anything specific that remains to be done. --ppm 02:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

First pic

Given the precarious copyright status of the Surrender picture, I propose we use Image:Shaheed minar Roehl.jpg instead. Thanks --ppm 17:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, either that, or the one from Jatiyo Smriti Soudho. --Ragib 17:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The smriti shoudha pic is of lower quality, unfortunately.--ppm 20:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

FAC?

Looks like we are ready for a candidacy.--ppm 00:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to be sure, have we covered everything in the peer review? Nichalp had some suggestions, and so did others ... I'd like to check back again before FAC. Thanks. --Ragib 00:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe the main concerns were : Niazi pic, language of culture and subdivisons, merger of govt and politics, copyedit and possible deletion of education. I think all of these have been addressed, except Education, for which there wasn't a consensus, and probably should stay.--ppm 03:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A minor POV concern in the sports section. The article reads that the victory over Australia was one of the biggest upsets in cricket history. The sentence needs to be cited or nuetralized. Pepsidrinka 04:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I rewrote the sentence to "defeated Australia in an upset victory". This should be ok and npov. Thanks for noticing this, and making the other corrections. --Ragib 04:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Literacy figures

"Literacy rates are 54% among men and 32% among women." This needs a citation and also, I would suggest that you add something like (as per 2001 data) at end of the sentence. This things change a lot (hopefully for the better) and so it is appropriate to give the reader a sense of how old the data is and also serving as a reminder to update the figures few years down the road. --Blacksun 08:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I added a 2004 reference from UNICEF's statistics on Bangladesh. --Ragib 17:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

highest point

About this whole "mowdowk range" being the highest point etc, is there a reference. CIA, which we were making use to prevent change in area, still says keokaradong.--ppm 04:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[Here is the reference as to why Keokradong is NOT the tallest point. Check out the Keokradong page and talk page too where one editor gave a lot of passionate talk on why the commonly cited CIA factbook info is not correct. --Ragib 06:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

About the map location picture

The picture used to show where Bangladesh is located in the world map isn't very accurate (or too 'zoomed out'). It doesn't clearly show the exact 'shape' of the borders of the country - comparing it with the actual map makes it obvious. Sheehan (Talk) 06:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you or someone else, please edit the first one, and correct it according to the actual shape? I don't have the image editing software with me now. --Ragib 06:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Since it's inaccurate anyway, the best solution would be to upload a good one over the existing image. I'll see if I can do anything about this. Sheehan (Talk) 06:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

But this is the world map ubiqutously used in wikipedia. If it's wrong then this must be a fundamental change. We must make sure the deformation is not due to some cartographic conventions before taking a decision.--ppm 17:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the deformed shape of the borders were pretty much expected, given the fact that Bangladesh is so small compared to the neighboring countries. I traced the origin of these country location pics and the original world map picture used to make them has this problem too. If the map was made just a little larger this deformation wouldn't affect the borders so drastically.
It'd be nice if I could find the program used to generate these pics, but I couldn't (the user who made them is currently inactive too). Sheehan (Talk) 04:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Whew, I think I fixed it. I guess this is what they call pixel-by-pixel editing. One thing I'm particularly happy about is the size reduction.. it went from 6,311 bytes to 4,656 bytes - a 26.2% reduction (same image dimensions by the way). Smaller is always better :)
Please check if this picture is 'correct' and reply on this page if it's necessary. Sheehan (Talk) 08:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Immigration and trafficking

I think exactly one issue in peer review has not been handled, the immigration thing. IMO, we should have exactly 1 line in demographics mentioning human trafficking, illegal immigration issue with Myanmar and India (infact, the issue with Myanmar is more crucial from BD's pov). Something in the line of, "Human traficking has been a continual problem and Bangldesh has some illegal immigration related issues with Myanmar and India." (references).

Waiting for input.--ppm 18:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and there are ample references in my knowledge on Rohingya refugees, but I don't have any references on migration to India. Perhaps you could ask User:Rama's Arrow, who raised the question, for a reference. Thanks. --Ragib 19:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I looked for them myself, but came up with nothing. --ppm 19:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


okay we seem to be in good shape--ppm 04:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see [1], [2], [3]. I would like to emphasize that this is not a light issue, albeit for 1 sentence - its not entirely India's POV, as there are a lot of facts to support the claims. Please give it due respect. Rama's Arrow 13:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Rama's Arrow, have you studied the Rohingya issue carefully enough to decide that the issue with India is more important (to Bangladesh)? If not, how can we escape the conclusion that there is POV going on here? Also, as I mentioned before, if it has not been important enough for mention in India so far, its hard to avoid the conclusion that this article is then a place for less important issues involving India. I think the attention given to it is enough.--ppm 15:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hahahahhaha....the importance you give to the "Rohingya" issue is your own POV, and possibly the POV of Bangladeshi society - neither of which should be a factor on Wikipedia. As I previously said, the number of 'Bangladeshis (not Indians, as you wish you keep asking why Indians don't give it sufficient mention) illegally in India is speculated by sources in India and elsewhere to be close to 15 million. How do you make the conclusion that I ever claimed that the India issue was "more important" than Rohingya, when I didn't even mention the latter. Try to avoid "dear" and other forms of sarcasm in the future - I might not laugh the next time. Rama's Arrow 20:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally

It's great that you have started the FAC, finally. Have you thought about adding some images in the space beside the list of "Notes" , a la Kerala?--Dwaipayanc 16:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the photo of the farmer in the field is not well placed! The text has come within 2 images, which is rather bad. Please try to place it in a better position. I think, the coxbazar photo should be replaced with this one. You can place the Coxbazar photo beside the "notes", as I mentioned above. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 16:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Done, thanks. --Ragib 16:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor point

The word "ill-governed" in "Economy" is probably not appropriate. First, the word itself is quite South Asia-ish—is it in regular usage in British English? Second, the placement of the word is potentially debatable, especially from the government side of view, as it is not a referenced word! I think it would be better to replace it! What do you think?--Dwaipayanc 17:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


done--ppm 19:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)