![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
The Government & Politics section starts off by saying BD is a "secular parliamentary democracy". While this may be realistiaclly true, it is not a legal requirement that parliamnet be secular; indeed secularism as a founding pillar of BD was removed from the constitution under Gen. Zia's rule. Therefore, the secular wording should be removed as its implications are misguided.-- Oracularorigin 21:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The Government section is unclear who is head of government. The first paragraph states "The President.. is largely ceremonial.. real power held by Prime Minister."" The second paragraph states "prime minister is ceremonially appointed by the president." Which is it? -- Ralph
Thanks for the explanation. May I suggest updating the article instead of this discussion. I'm familiar with parliamentary systems but found the government section unclear. I'll be glad to try myself buy others I'm sure are more qualified. -- Ralphyoung 03:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
with 2 pics gone, are we a bit too low on pic count? Maybe its fine, I don't know.-- ppm 02:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
There are some cosmetic changes that I think will make the article a little bit nicer:
What do you think about them? Are they worth implementing? I could make these changes myself but I think there has to be some general agreement in favour of this (moving pics left goes against the MOS AFAIK). Also, we could move one or two pics to the notes section. There is no difficulty involved in that, it just needs some more opinion before being done. Sheehan ( Talk) 03:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
This article states that Bangladesh is ranked 3rd according to highest muslim population. It also sates that Bangladesh has a lower Muslim population than India, which is right. But it gives a wrong information. According to this article, India is 2nd and Bangladesh is 3rd according to highest muslim population. But actually India is 3rd and Bangladesh is 4th. Pakistan is ranked 2nd. Can someone please change this? Zarif
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.109.24.246 ( talk) 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC). Hi, that ranking was among muslim-majority nations, which India is not-- ppm 21:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Bangladesh has fewer muslim population than India. According to India's 2001 census, they had 13.4% Muslims [1], and considering India's current population of 1.1 bil [2], thats puts the Muslim population in India to 150 million, which is far larger than Bangladesh. I am editing the page. -- alif.
Congratulations to the editors of this article for making it featured, and thus, one of the best on Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2006). Pepsidrinka 05:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
A request for this article to appear as the featured article on the main page has been made. See Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. Pepsidrinka 03:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
CONGRATULATIONS to the editors and everyone who contributed to make the article one of the best on Wikipedia! Eendrani 4:11, 11 July 2006 (EST)
Congrats to all who made this page featured.
andrew
08:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure why BBC and Voice of America gets mentioned and linked in the article and yet none from Bangladesh at all. We are talking about Bangladesh here aren't we ? Although bangla services of BBC & VOA are popular here, but the audience of Bangladesh Betar would comfotably outnumber BBC & VOA combined. Bangladesh Betar broadcasts almost 24 hours (except for a few hours I think), while the other 2 broadcasts only a few hours in total. As for TV, very few Bangladeshis watch BBC or CNN or VOA. Almost all of them, the overwhelming majority, watch local TV channels -- either the state-owned BTV (which also broadcasts terrestrially apart from being available from cable operators and thereby reaches anybody with a TV set even without a cable connection)or other private channels. Some people may watch some Indian Hindi channels for entertainment programmes, but surely not BBC or VOA [who don't have a Bengali Service for TV] , since a tiny minority here understands English. BBC or VOA don't deserve a mention here, unless actual BD media outlets are also mentioned and linked substantially. If that's not possible, please delete BBC & VOA. -- 69.71.132.241 05:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Very few politicians have "friendly rivalries", what the point then?-- ppm 19:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Desi politicians are unfriendly to the point of throwing grenades at each other. 69.116.150.174 19:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe the difference between friendly and unfriendly rivalry is important. Although if they're tossing grenades, we could say "violent rivalry".
Dear Contributors
I have a suggestion. Why not list the world records of Bangladesh. But, I need suggestion about it. Would be listed in the page of Bangladesh or would it be listed in a separate page titled " World Records of Bangladesh"? e.g.
These things can be discusses too.
Asif Anwar ( Pathik)
What's with the map?-- ppm 01:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no discussion on what happened to the Paki army personnel that had surrenedered? Why is there no mention of why there was no war crimes tribunal? Why is there nothing on the stance that other countries had taken during the War of Liberation; indeed the stance taken by the "Muslim" Arabs? Why is there nothing on Jinnah's declaration that the west and (the then) east Pakistan's sole official language should be Urdu? Seems like a wholly biased piece of editing to me!-- Oracularorigin 21:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the Genocide in 1971? I would really be curious to hear from the editors. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.128.73.2 ( talk • contribs).
You have carefully avoided numbers? According to National Geographic the number is 3 million. Official count of around the cities and towns only exceeded a million. Nobody counted the bodies in the villages and no count is there for the bodies that were washed down river. (NOVO)
My father had mentioned that the 3 million number came from a speech of Bangabandhu in which there was some discrepancy as to whether it was 300,000 or 3,000,000. Anyway, according to calculations, if it was 3 million, the Pak army would have to have massacred around 11,111 civilians per day for the 9-month period. It was a genocide, no question, but I think the number is inflated to emphasize the brutality of the Pak army 67.133.81.135 22:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Maruf
I have replaced the sentence ".. exact origin of the word "bangla" is not known " The first references of the word Banga or Vanga can be seen in ancient Sanskrit epics like Mahabharata and Kautilya 's Arthasastra". Reference is History of Bangladesh Bharatveer 11:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
How in the world is that related to the "origin"?? Is Arthasastra or Mahabharata the origin of names of places?-- ppm 15:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. it is a proof that that place name "banga" or vanga existed from ancient names.It also shows that the sentence which said the exact origin is not known is misleading. Bharatveer 03:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you implying that a reference to something in Mahabharata is a proof that Mahabharata is the "origin" of that name? You seem to be under the impression that Vyas named everything.-- ppm 03:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The sentence "The exact origin of the word Bangla or Bengal is unknown" is misleading and erroneous .The word "Bengal" is derived from the root Sanskrit word "Banga" or Vanga . This being the case how can you say that the origin of the word " bengal" is unknown. I am not under any impression that Vyas named everything. But it is very much clear that the place name "Vanga" existed from the times of Vyasa. - Bharatveer 04:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
"Vanga", another way to pronounce "Banga". Fine... Aurthoshastra mentions it. So? Does that imply "origin"? That wikipedia mentions "India", does it make it the "origin" of the word? -- Ragib 04:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Its not just another way of pronouncing "Banga" . The origin of the word is of ancient antiquity.You cannot just have a sentence saying that the exact origins are unknown .Your example of India and wikipedia looks quite childish . It would have been true if Wikipedia was older than the word India.I feel that the mention of the Sankrit epics is causing "inflammatory" feelings in my 'south asian' friends. So I will add a "citation needed" tag for that sentence for time being. Bharatveer 04:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we have any info that this is from Bangladesh. The Pala dynasty controlled half of North India at some point. Some info would be nice, or a picture from a existing Temple.-- ppm 15:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Repeat: this article is going on the main page. Changes at this point shouldn't be merely okay, but crucial and mistakes have to be avoided.-- ppm 15:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
In the first demographics paragraph the population is said to be ranked 7th but earlier in the article it is said to be ranked 8th.
They appear to be seventh according to the CIA: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html but 8th according to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population I'll update to 8th for consisteny's sake, but perhaps the list of countries by population needs some correcting?
Estimated population of Russia dropped almost another million to 142 400 000. Estimated Bangladesh population raised to more then 147 million. Difference huge enough and not likely to be a mistake. So I'll try to update Wiki articles. TestPilot 16:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The last census was in 2001 which suggests the population to be 130.03 million. I am changing the link (previous link doesnot work) and putting the Bangladeshi Census as source. Source: Bangladesh 2001 census site
[4] -- alif
Is the the flag REALLY a swatsika? I beleive that the page has been vandalized.
No, the flag isn't really a swastika. It's just sick vandalism. The real flag is on the link that says "Flag of Bangladesh." FrankNiddy 01:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, good. Someone changed it to the real flag. Whoever changed it, thank you. FrankNiddy 01:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
But whoever changed it didn't catch the first line: "Bangladesh is full of pakis that smell of curry." I assume that's part of the same vandalism. --July 14, 2006; 9:11 am
Do we have to spell out the names of the people who put in such comments like: "Bangladesh is full of pakis that smell of curry"? These are our Indian friends who are so "passionate" about us that they change Bangladesh's flag into a Swastika, I don't know why! In fact they hate everything that is even faintly Islamic! Kazimostak 18:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone hates hippies apparently... can we remove that? It's like graffiti. 141.106.187.150 16:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, i tried to get that off of there and ended up messing something up... help! I won't try to edit again :( 141.106.187.150 16:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of this article contains the following sentence: "Together with the Indian state of West Bengal, it comprises the ethno-linguistic region of Bengal."
Comprise is synonymous with "include" or " encompass", therefore the sentence, as written, makes no sense at all and needs to be re-written. I'm not sure how to do this without changing the meaning--perhaps it's best that the original author do this.
If you have any doubts as to the correct usage of comprise, consult The Elements of Style" (Strunk and White) on the subject.
Note that this misusage of comprise is a fairly common mistake in all sorts of publications--its not the first I've seen the mistake in Wikipedia, either.-- Cbrodersen 12:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I made that mistake way back when, before I bought my copy of The Elements of Style. The correct word should be 'constitutes', but the present 'makes up' works also. Is there any preference? Does 'constitutes' make it sound more encyclopaedic? Taajikhan 23:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Really great work! We require many more such articles. -- Bhadani 15:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I have seen the articles on Dhaka and Bangladesh. Why do people call this country impoverished? Its the 31st highest GDP in the world! And look at the article on Dhaka, look at the pics- Bashondhara City is great! This country is not poor!
First of all, Bangladesh's GDP is more like 56th in the world. There's more to countries than just the one or two areas, and even in those one or two areas you have massive disparity between the rich and the poor. Poor health care, high infant mortality death rate, low life expectency. Around 40 - 50% of people below the poverty line. It most certainly is poor. As the article states, efforts have been made to improve literacy and the GDP real growth rate is over 5% (I think) but it still as a LONG way to go. hedpeguyuk 16 July 2006, 14:05 (UTC)
Yes, it's a poor country indeed, but there is a very strong tendency among some people to portray Bangladesh as "one of the poorest countries" in the world, which is absolutely untrue. Bangladeshis enjoy a much better health, transport and educational status than at least 50/60 countries in the world. And despite widespread corruption, the country has achieved a commendable growth rate in the last 15 years. Please stop using this cliche: "Bangladesh is one of the poorest...", we are indeed one of the emerging tigers and all we need to do is start believing in ourselves... Kazimostak 03 February 2007.
Troll Alert! -- ppm 17:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this comment really necessary? It seems to assume that other countries have physically homogeneous people. -- SameerKhan 09:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have any information on the bangladeshi diaspora, i know that there are over 280,000 in Britain
Can the part on Magadhan and Gupta empire focus on Bengal/Bangladesh? Do we know how this part was ruled, what culture/language florished? Whether or not Persia was part of the empire is uninteresting.-- ppm 21:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I added a few headings to history section to break it up and make it easier to read. They may not be good ones or in the best places. You might have better ideas of where they should go or what they should say. GBYork 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"Bangladesh is ethnically homogeneous, with Bengalis comprising 98% of the population, though they are a heterogeneous ethnic group." -- ppm 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This sentence, I feel, is problematic because of its imprecision. The definition of "ethnicity" is far from uniform: some may try to delineate ethnicity based on racial or genetic groupings, others based on commonly accepted culture of a group of people, or others still ground their classification solely upon the language spoken.
There is an argument in Arab nationalist discourse, for example, that the Arab ethnicity should encompass all who speak Arabic (including second language speakers), thus laying some groundwork for a monolithic, pan-Arab nation-state. One can argue that a similar philosophy is applied in the South Asian context, i.e. the ethnic groups of the subcontinent are divided along linguistic lines.
I don't have the expertise to get into a full discussion on the topic, and others probably have neither the time nor the interest, but my point is that I don't think the intended meaning of the sentence in question is necessarily incorrect. What the author meant, perhaps, is that what is commonly known as the Bengali ethnicity (based on linguistic categorization) makes up 98% of the Bangladeshi population (though a citation is required). Further, I think the author mentioned heterogeneity to highlight the fact that the Bengali ethnicity is not based on racial or physical classifications, since several distinct racial lines can be identified among the population that is considered "Bengali". I think the sentence should be changed so that it reads "The population of Bangladesh is highly linguistically homogeneous", and a fuller discussion of what is considered the Bengali ethnicity (perhaps including the rejection of racial lines, at least in this context) should be included in the Bengali people article. Taajikhan 00:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
i dont see any reason to merge Magadha in the history of bangladesh and the unnecessary glorifying of Magadha empire and Chandragupta Maurya.Rather we should mention the Gangaridai empire and the kingdom of Vanga that existed in this region innit.We should give importance to the kingdoms that existed in this land rather than unnecessary glorifying foreign kingdoms.Bengal was never a part of Magadha .So i dont find any reason to mention magadha here.I see in every article concerning Bengal or Bangladesh there is a tendancy to mention Magadha and the Mauryas.Besides we should mesntion the achievements of the early Bengaly ppl i.e. their colonization of Sri Lanka and Indonasia.---Nawab_of_dhaka
Put up Wikipedia:Peer review/Rajshahi University/archive1 for a peer review. pls take a look.-- ppm 00:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This article makes Pakistan look like some kind of colonialist power, Pakistan itself was a victim of colonialism, yet by reading this article you would think otherwise. If you read this and the Bangladesh liberation war article it mentions 3 million bengalis killed, thats laughable, Even Germany with Gas Chambers, SS, Concentration camps, and the Gestapo killed 6 million Jews over 6 years, Yet according to this Pakistan acomplished this feat of 3 million in just 9 months. This would mean Pakistan killed 333333.333 Bengalis a month, or rather 84000 people a week, or 12000 people a day!!!
From what I know Bangladesh at the time of independence had a larger population than west Pakistan, Pakistan went from being the second largest country in south asia after India, to the third largest after India and Bangladesh, Similarly it went from being the second largest economy in south asia after India to the third largest in South Asia.Today, Pakistan is again the second largest in population and economy, one must give credit to pakistan for its resilience.
Here is more online nonsense from gendercide with this 3 million figure
If the rate of killing for all of Pakistan is annualized over the years the Yahya martial law regime was in power (March 1969 to December 1971), then this one regime was more lethal than that of the Soviet Union, China under the communists, or Japan under the military (even through World War II). (Rummel, Death By Government, p. 331.)
http://www.gendercide.org/case_bangladesh.html
According to this piece of nonsense, Pakistan was more deadly an 'occupying power' than the Imperial Japanese Empire. The fact that East Pakistan chose to be a part of Pakistan on its own free will can be conviently forgotten,
I have no problems with Bengalis trying to justify thier independence, but to make hollow claims of 3 million dead, that too a figure that the corrupt government of Bangladesh uses, and please dont quote Yayha Khan, he was persian royalty and a relative of the Aga Khan who only knew about cakes, biscuits, and polo, not much else.
S Seagal 03:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
Is it a crime in Bangladesh to question the Bengali holocaust?
As for textbooks in Pakistan there have been complaints from some quarters about 'historic revisionism'. I do not deny for one instance that some Bengalis were killed, But I certainly do not think the 3 million figure is accurate or anywhere near that number of fatalities. The Yahya Khan comment 'kill three million' made for good propaganda nothing else.
I think your mis-interpreted my comment earlier, There is an unbelievable ammount of propaganda against Pakistan since its very inception, Some include the following:
and the list goes on,..
All of these points and others along these lines are just propaganda, outright falsifications, and gross exaggerations. Thank You S Seagal 06:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
I was trying to emphasize that there is alot of propaganda against Pakistan for over half a century, even in the recent Test Match in the UK, Pakistan was falsely accused of ball-tampering.
That aside I do not wish to start anykind of flame war here, but R.J Rummels work has already been refuted, I cite the works of Sarmila Bose, Thus there is no need for me to refute R.J Rummel for that little Indian woman Sarmila Bose has already done so. S Seagal 07:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
I'm not sure I see it that way Ragib, Nayanika Mookherjee is the mouthpiece of the Indian and Bangali government, his work was commissioned by a government therefore one can question its partiality.
Besides R.J. Rummel's work is much more heavily criticized than that of Sarmila Bose, not just from Pakistanis but the world over. Please refer to his article: [ Rummel exposed]
S Seagal 07:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
User S Seagal should at least get his facts right - the article says "several hundred thousand to three million", does not claim 3 million as a firm figure. Actually the sources say three hundred thousand, and I will change the article to that. As for quoting genecides, about 1 million were killed in Rwunda in 100 days, mostly with machetes and knives. --
Michael Johnson
08:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Just clarifying a few points. I don't have any problem with Pakistan's right to exist, I think the idea of a reunited India as fairly impossible. When Seagal disputed that Pakistan was built for religious regions. He says Its time that Pakistan's neighobours accept that Pakistan is the country in which millions and millions of Indian muslims and Afghan muslims have chosen to live and settle and they should respect that. Certainly there has been some demographic movement of Muslims into Pakistan and non-Muslims from Pakistan during the partition but needless to say the influx of muslims into Pakistan was greater than the outflow of non-Muslims from Pakistan. The key word here is chosen, whether the influx of Muslims into Pakistan was greater than the outflor of non-Muslims from Pakistan, the Muslims moving into Pakistan chose to do so and the Non-Muslims moving out of Pakistan either did it or died. I know that many lives (Muslim and Non-Muslim) were lost and I wish it weren't so, I wish everyone continued following Gandhi's ideals into independence, anyway my point is one cannot compare the effects of the partition on Hindus in Pakistan to the effects of the partition on Muslims out of India. In an individual sense, there was no difference, in a broader sense one community was presented with choice and one community was presented with none. Anyway, I'm happy with the decision of some Muslims to remain in India. If Irfan Pathan performs tonight India's pretty much won. By the way, your claims of propaganda in the ball tampering issue are quite baseless. Now, people who are reading this would notice that I have gone way off topic and have not mentioned Bangladesh once in this comment, so I hope this comment is the closure of the broader propaganda discussion. Regards. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Seagal, who cares what you accept of not? If u want the 3 million figure removed, prove why its not a point of view significant enough to be represented. This is not a discussion page for your beliefs, its an encyclopedia-- ppm 17:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'm getting bored.
As long as the claims are sourced from reasonably neutral websites fine,
You can wake up one who is asleep, but not one pretending to be asleep.
end of disussion. S Seagal 16:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
: I followed this sometimes interesting sometimes irritating chain of discussion with much interest. Mr. S Seagal, although was quite right to doubt the 3 million figure (of martyrs), he frequently crossed the limit. One of his frequent comments was: Yes, I agree that some Bangladeshis died..." this comment is outragious, because even one life of Bangladeshi (or anybody) is valuable, you cannot kill 10 people and say: it's only 10, it could have been 100! The single unalterable fact remains is that: pakistani junta carried out a brutal genocide in Bangladesh and more significantly, they have not yet apologised for that. We demand an apology, not lame excuses. He also routinely rejected facts like socio-economic oppression to the Bengali people by the pakistani junta. But I also defy some other people like Idleguy (an Indian, naturally!) who tried to use this opportunity to bash Pakistan. We are talking Bangladesh here! We are not a playground for either pakistan or india to level their old scoresheet! Thanks everybody, long live Bangladesh! Kazimostak
'I'd argue that he already blasted both his legs off with a swan off shotgun when he mentioned Sarmila Bose - the fact that pretty much most of the world media identified the genocide, the fact that there were witnesses to it, yet she denies the entire thing??? Christ, I already feel ashamed to be in the same country as the university she's been appointed to.
Before I start,I'd like the people here to know that Im Pakistani. My father is a Muhajir and my mother is native Pakistani(Sindhi)
I'd like to start,that as a Pakistani Im ashamed of the crimes my people committed(or more specifically,the cowardly "soldiers" who slaughtered thousands of innocents)
I know Musharraf publicly apologised for the war in 2002(?) in Dhaka,but the history is not much mentioned in public/private Pakistani schools. Not all Pakistanis should be held accountable for,but similar to how Germany accepted the killing of thousands of innocent minorities,Pakistan should officially accept our darkest history and not commit furthur atrocities that we are against othe rprovinces like SIndh and Balouchistan.
I also beleive that as result of the 1971,we must allow Bangladeshi immigrants to stay as it would be fair.
Ragib,I hope you like what i said and thanx again for letting me post on a Bengali page
Nadirali
02:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali
People it's all in the past and Pakistan has changed for the better. Bangladesh and Pakistan are allies now and the people who caused the crimes are detained. -- Saad64 12:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
These links:
Were added by an editor whose only contributions have been to promote the World Bank Group (doingbusiness.org is a World Bank Group project). We have recently uncovered significant edits promoting this organization (see this WikiProject Spam discussion). In the interest of our neutral point of view policy and conflict of interest guideline I've moved the links here for other editors to consider. If you decide that one or more of these is a useful addition, Wikipedia has articles on the Ease of Doing Business Index and the World Bank Group which may be more appropriate than an external link. Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 14:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.
Thanks
Atulsnischal 00:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed this sentence: Bangladesh enjoys the distinction of having two female politicians leading national politics, however, the country continues to suffer from extensive corruption,[17] disorder and political violence. To these two sentences: Bangladesh enjoys the distinction of having two female politicians leading national politics. The country continues to suffer from extensive corruption,[17] disorder and political violence.
I felt that the first version suggests that having women as leading national politicians would suggest a lack of corruption, but we really don't have any evidence for that. So, I just broke the sentence into to seperate sentences. Not a big change, really, but I felt that this makes things a bit better. Feel free to disagree... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WhitePlains12345 ( talk • contribs) 01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
I've just skimmed this piece, but I see no mention of the severe environmental problems facing Bangladesh -- tainted groundwater and air pollution. I understand Dhaka is often simply unbearable, and seemingly naturally occurring arsenic in the ground and the consequent lack of access to potable water poses a serious public health threat. User: deeceevoice 22 April 2007
I would like to question the inclusion of the claim "World's Longest ... Beach" for Cox's Bazaar in the article. At 75miles, it is behind Australia's Ninety Mile Beach and even that is not the longest [7] Is a correction warranted? Andmark 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)The section on administrative divisions should be called either "Divisions" or expanded as it is for "Divisions, districts, and upazilas" per WikiProject Countries:
(Subdivisions) - Quick overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (e.g. provinces, states, departments, etc.) and give the English name. Also include overseas possessions. Link to "(subdivisions) of X". This section could also include an overview map of the country.
The naming of "Divisions, districts, and upazilas" follows many other articles, and is more distinct and acceptable, as is the map I provided of more detail with all three levels of administrative division. Rarelibra 19:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Lot of nuanced pov creeping in here and there. -- ppm 23:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This page as well as Politics of Bangladesh need to be updated in relation to the military rule/elections etc. I know very little of the situation and am having trouble getting a clear picture of what exactly has happened. But the article doesn't even mention General Moeen U Ahmed. The recent reports of murder and torture as a means of law enforcement should also be mentioned somewhere. Cheers, Rothery 08:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC).
Ragib wrote the above in reverting my edit. I completely agree (see Lead section), which is why I made the edit in the first place. Let me explain.
The intro contains more detail on the population than exists in the body. It lists the population rank, the land area and rank, the Muslim population rank, and some info about India's Muslim population. This detail needs to be moved into the body in favor of a clearer summary: "Bangladesh is among the most highly and densely populated countries in the world. The population is generally poor, rural and Muslim."
In addition, I have added summary information on the government which is a "secular parliamentary democracy" and is currently under "emergency law". This meets the standards for a Lead section which require a balance of emphasis.
Finally, I think the "founding member" of SAARC does not need to be mentioned here (it is already described in the body). Just a short list of major organization memberships would better meet the emphasis criterion just mentioned.
Change one or two things if you like, but please do not revert my edit wholesale again. I am trying to improve the article and I have given good reasons for it. In my latest edit, I have removed no information from the article. Dejo 18:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The article we had worked so hard to elevate to an FA has now degenerated to a random collection of unreferenced information. The editors eager to introduce new material often neglect to provide any citation for newly added information, but that is essential per WP:V. I have tagged many sentences sneaked into the article that provide no references at all. Unless any references are provided, I will start removing the crud. The huge population figures in the administrative divisions section is also unnecessary. So are some of the images. -- Ragib 06:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Is the" Geological Location of Bangladesh [26] (file info) " video necessary? I watched the video, and basically it shows a spinning globe, and then the location of Bangladesh (already showed at the top of this page), and then the topographic map (already showed in this section). So, I think we should remove this template, as it is occupying a lot of space, being visually disruptive to the flow of text, and providing very little information other than what is already present in the page. -- Ragib 19:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Under the section heading "Geography and climate", the second last paragraph contains the following statement: "A major part of the coastline comprises a marshy jungle, the Sundarbans, the largest mangrove forest in the world and home to diverse flora and fauna, including the Royal Bengal Tiger." An uninformed reader may wonder:
In a context such as this, apposition can be clarified by the use of expressions such as "namely", "that is", "that is to say", and, depending on the context, "which is/are/was/were". Please see also semicolon#English usage, list 2, point 3. -- Wavelength 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Please see also bracket#Parentheses ( ). -- Wavelength 15:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The article needs another section, ( Education).-- NAH ID 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not want to enter into an edit war with Rarelibra; may I request a quick poll among the editors on which map should be used on this page - a map showing upazila boundary with no labels ( here), or a map showing up to districts but with proper labels ( here)?
Also, if someone knows the exact page of "WikiProject Countries" that discuss criteria of maps to be added on country article, please let me know. - Arman Aziz 04:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
“ | (Subdivisions) - ... This section could also include an overview map of the country. The CIA World Factbook Maps could be used here, but other sources are available. | ” |
Bangladesh history is surely not solely written by history of partition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.57.120 ( talk) 13:49, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
You are like the pakistan section and also kashmir. Nobody mentions the names of important artistes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idontwantaccount2 ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"Meanwhile the Bangladesh Military has expressed their interest in controlling the country with statements like "own brand of Democracy" and making changes in the constitution to allow military participation in politics. [25] They have started a witch hunt for the most corrupt people in Bangladesh which conveniently does not include any army staff or their infamous relatives such as Syed Iskander.
The military has also imposed censorship of the national media and closing down/hampering private TV stations. The remaining TV stations were termed "Boot TV" by the general population in reference to the incessant one sided views presented and the army's preferred footwear." [The last paragraph of the 'Government and Politics' section of the article]
The last paragraph of the 'Government and Politics' section is fully and completely unsubstantiated POV (or BPOV - Biased POV !!). It features absolutely unsubstantiated POV phrases like "controlling the country", "military participation in politics", "witch hunt", "conveniently", "infamous", "Boot TV", "incessant one sided views" etc., which are all biased subjective personal interpretation or representation of facts/events and fiction. The 2 citations provided do not support the author's interpretations or representations.
For example, the statement "own brand of democracy" does not necessarily lead to the conclusion the author of this paragraph has drawn, i.e. the military wants to 'control the country'. This conclusion or claim rather, is completely unsubstantiable. In fact this quote from the Army Chief says nothing of that sort, especially when he has repeatedly said elsewhere that the Army has NO intention of meddling in Politics. Ultimately this description of the military's intention boils down to the author's (and perhaps many others of the country)own bias, perception, suspicion etc. Whether or not his suspicion is correct, it's merely a suspicion nevertheless, nothing more.
2ndly, the Anti-Corruption Drive is characterized as a 'Witch Hunt'. This description of the anticorruption drive is evidently and blatantly an unsubstantiated Bpov Value Judgement. The anti-corruption drive has not been proven as a deliberate mass persecution on false pretexts or accusations, nor is it perceieved or claimed as such by most people other than being a perfectly legitimate legal campaign, except perhaps for 1 or 2 hiccups.
3. The words 'conveniently' and 'infamous' used here are again evidently pov value judgements.
4. "...such as Syed Iskander" : again another pov. The alleged infamy of the said person is totally a matter of public perception, especially among certain quarters. Whether these perception are true or not is another matter.
5. "Military has expressed interest...to allow military participation in politics" -- misinformation. The citations do not support this statement. Moreover, the military has repeatedly stated otherwise.
5. "military has also imposed censorship of the national media": Misinformation. Censorship was imposed by the Caretaker Government, not the military.
6. The statement that all uncensored/unhampered TV stations are termed "Boot TV" by the "general population" for their "incessant one sided views" is completely POV, unsubstantiable, subjective, politically biased. The term "Boot TV" has certainly not become widespread yet or even known to most people. Perhaps some individuals or certain group of people use it, but some individuals or certain groups do not mean 'general population'. Again, the phrase "one sided view" is evidently pov, subjective personal opinion and politically biased unsubstantiable debatable personal interpretation, perception, representation of supposed facts/events.
Finally, I must say the paragraph as a whole sounds very propagandist, partisan, politically and/or ideologically motivated (whether or not his claims regarding intentions and value judgements are correct in a deeper, non-visible, intutive manner is another matter and irrelevant here) and must not be accomodated in a wikipedia articles because it seriously devalues, degenerates, and cheapens the article apart from going against wiki rules and norms. It also exposes the dangers of Recentism. - Monmajhi
The recent controversy over the vote by the U.S. Congressional committee to condemn the Armenian Genocide has raised awareness in the U.S. about these terrible events of 1915-23. The 1971 Bangladesh Atrocities were on the scale of the Armenian Genocide. The Pakistani allies in the U.S. "war on terror" were involved in the tragic events of 1971 and many of the perpetrators of the atrocities are still alive.
The following questions should be raised.
1- Are efforts being made to bring the Pakistani perpetrators to justice?
2- There are many Bengalis here in the U.S. What efforts have they made to bring the issue of the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities before Congress?
3- How many Pakistani officials involved in the “war on terror” have the blood of Bengalis on their hands?--
Woogie10w
16:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I reverted here to remove the comparison with the US state Iowa. I find it redundant ... the anon inserting that edit assumes that Iowa is a common frame of reference to which the readers can relate to. Well, this article is NOT written solely for US readers, and in general, Wikipedia is not limited to US readers only. Therefore, a comparison with an US state just to give an idea of the size reeks of Systemic bias, and a US-centric view, which Wikipedia must not limit itself to. So, I removed the redundant comparison. -- Ragib 07:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Also note that this is a featured article, so please don't keep adding such irrelevant information/comparison without gaining a consensus here. -- Ragib 07:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
In this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JF-17_Thunder I found that Bangladesh may also be known as Bangalistan, but I dont know from when Bangladesh is known as Bangalistan? I searched in google and found only 9 results out of which 5 are from wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahat5810 ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Even that the tropical storms (cyclones) are regularly striking the coastal areas, the Bangledeshi government did not forbid the settlement of the ecologically fragile coastal areas. Abb. 40.000 square kilometers, along the coast of Bangladesh are fragile areas, threatened by floods and infested by insects and other animals. More than this, the reverting of these areas to the Wild life would improve the coastal defence against tropical storms, will resurect biodiversity, will protect the natural environment as a whole. It's strange that the Bangladeshi government are not acting to evacuate the population of these fragile areas. Anyway, the life there is hard and people should fight hard to resist in such an dangerous and uneasy environment ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transsylvanian ( talk • contribs) 12:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Ragib has inserted the claim that bangladesh is secular, and has deleted the mention of the fact that the numbber of the minority Hindus has dropped by more than 50%!
Bangladesh is NOT a secular nation.
The claim that it is secular is quite cynical. A nation should be described as it is.
--
Vikramsingh (
talk)
18:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the importance from HIGH to TOP - Arman Aziz 10:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Ragib has changed the number on Hindu population in Bangladesh to a higher number.
The claim that "The two major religions practiced in Bangladesh are Islam (83%) and Hinduism (16%)" is false. It overstates the population of Hindus by more than 50%.
There is some variation in the number reported, but the official [6] number is: 9.2%. [7] [8]
Bangladesh government apparently avoids mentioning the number as much as possible, the the correct numbers are very hard to obtain. The numbers are not there on the BD census web-site.
-- Vikramsingh ( talk) 19:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Apparently Bangladesh government has a hand in misleading the world. Unlike most other government they will avoid putting the current census data on the web, and sometime they will deliberately place the old data. see for example Country Profile. Where they say that:
Thus they have access to 2001 data. But then they use the old data:
I wonder what the Hindu population is there in 2007?
-- Bandyopadhyay ( talk) 23:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Though I can't comment on Bangladesh government bias, I think it is unfair to point to the use of old census data as evidence of deceit. It may be that the 2001 census actually is the latest data that is available, not that the establishment is intentionally concealing the truth. The U.S. conducts a door-to-door census once every ten years, because of the expense and extent of endeavor. I don't think Bangladesh could be expected to do any better. And judging by the census dates you mention, BD probably DOES conduct a decennial census. Questions of how the census is conducted, what questions are asked, what is ommited is, I'm sure, a different a much longer conversation. -- Taajikhan ( talk) 16:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
And just look at what Virtual Bangladesh has been promoting http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/bd_religion.html:
-- Bandyopadhyay ( talk) 23:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
The Government & Politics section starts off by saying BD is a "secular parliamentary democracy". While this may be realistiaclly true, it is not a legal requirement that parliamnet be secular; indeed secularism as a founding pillar of BD was removed from the constitution under Gen. Zia's rule. Therefore, the secular wording should be removed as its implications are misguided.-- Oracularorigin 21:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The Government section is unclear who is head of government. The first paragraph states "The President.. is largely ceremonial.. real power held by Prime Minister."" The second paragraph states "prime minister is ceremonially appointed by the president." Which is it? -- Ralph
Thanks for the explanation. May I suggest updating the article instead of this discussion. I'm familiar with parliamentary systems but found the government section unclear. I'll be glad to try myself buy others I'm sure are more qualified. -- Ralphyoung 03:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
with 2 pics gone, are we a bit too low on pic count? Maybe its fine, I don't know.-- ppm 02:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
There are some cosmetic changes that I think will make the article a little bit nicer:
What do you think about them? Are they worth implementing? I could make these changes myself but I think there has to be some general agreement in favour of this (moving pics left goes against the MOS AFAIK). Also, we could move one or two pics to the notes section. There is no difficulty involved in that, it just needs some more opinion before being done. Sheehan ( Talk) 03:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
This article states that Bangladesh is ranked 3rd according to highest muslim population. It also sates that Bangladesh has a lower Muslim population than India, which is right. But it gives a wrong information. According to this article, India is 2nd and Bangladesh is 3rd according to highest muslim population. But actually India is 3rd and Bangladesh is 4th. Pakistan is ranked 2nd. Can someone please change this? Zarif
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.109.24.246 ( talk) 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC). Hi, that ranking was among muslim-majority nations, which India is not-- ppm 21:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Bangladesh has fewer muslim population than India. According to India's 2001 census, they had 13.4% Muslims [1], and considering India's current population of 1.1 bil [2], thats puts the Muslim population in India to 150 million, which is far larger than Bangladesh. I am editing the page. -- alif.
Congratulations to the editors of this article for making it featured, and thus, one of the best on Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2006). Pepsidrinka 05:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
A request for this article to appear as the featured article on the main page has been made. See Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. Pepsidrinka 03:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
CONGRATULATIONS to the editors and everyone who contributed to make the article one of the best on Wikipedia! Eendrani 4:11, 11 July 2006 (EST)
Congrats to all who made this page featured.
andrew
08:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure why BBC and Voice of America gets mentioned and linked in the article and yet none from Bangladesh at all. We are talking about Bangladesh here aren't we ? Although bangla services of BBC & VOA are popular here, but the audience of Bangladesh Betar would comfotably outnumber BBC & VOA combined. Bangladesh Betar broadcasts almost 24 hours (except for a few hours I think), while the other 2 broadcasts only a few hours in total. As for TV, very few Bangladeshis watch BBC or CNN or VOA. Almost all of them, the overwhelming majority, watch local TV channels -- either the state-owned BTV (which also broadcasts terrestrially apart from being available from cable operators and thereby reaches anybody with a TV set even without a cable connection)or other private channels. Some people may watch some Indian Hindi channels for entertainment programmes, but surely not BBC or VOA [who don't have a Bengali Service for TV] , since a tiny minority here understands English. BBC or VOA don't deserve a mention here, unless actual BD media outlets are also mentioned and linked substantially. If that's not possible, please delete BBC & VOA. -- 69.71.132.241 05:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Very few politicians have "friendly rivalries", what the point then?-- ppm 19:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Desi politicians are unfriendly to the point of throwing grenades at each other. 69.116.150.174 19:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe the difference between friendly and unfriendly rivalry is important. Although if they're tossing grenades, we could say "violent rivalry".
Dear Contributors
I have a suggestion. Why not list the world records of Bangladesh. But, I need suggestion about it. Would be listed in the page of Bangladesh or would it be listed in a separate page titled " World Records of Bangladesh"? e.g.
These things can be discusses too.
Asif Anwar ( Pathik)
What's with the map?-- ppm 01:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no discussion on what happened to the Paki army personnel that had surrenedered? Why is there no mention of why there was no war crimes tribunal? Why is there nothing on the stance that other countries had taken during the War of Liberation; indeed the stance taken by the "Muslim" Arabs? Why is there nothing on Jinnah's declaration that the west and (the then) east Pakistan's sole official language should be Urdu? Seems like a wholly biased piece of editing to me!-- Oracularorigin 21:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the Genocide in 1971? I would really be curious to hear from the editors. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.128.73.2 ( talk • contribs).
You have carefully avoided numbers? According to National Geographic the number is 3 million. Official count of around the cities and towns only exceeded a million. Nobody counted the bodies in the villages and no count is there for the bodies that were washed down river. (NOVO)
My father had mentioned that the 3 million number came from a speech of Bangabandhu in which there was some discrepancy as to whether it was 300,000 or 3,000,000. Anyway, according to calculations, if it was 3 million, the Pak army would have to have massacred around 11,111 civilians per day for the 9-month period. It was a genocide, no question, but I think the number is inflated to emphasize the brutality of the Pak army 67.133.81.135 22:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Maruf
I have replaced the sentence ".. exact origin of the word "bangla" is not known " The first references of the word Banga or Vanga can be seen in ancient Sanskrit epics like Mahabharata and Kautilya 's Arthasastra". Reference is History of Bangladesh Bharatveer 11:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
How in the world is that related to the "origin"?? Is Arthasastra or Mahabharata the origin of names of places?-- ppm 15:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. it is a proof that that place name "banga" or vanga existed from ancient names.It also shows that the sentence which said the exact origin is not known is misleading. Bharatveer 03:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you implying that a reference to something in Mahabharata is a proof that Mahabharata is the "origin" of that name? You seem to be under the impression that Vyas named everything.-- ppm 03:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The sentence "The exact origin of the word Bangla or Bengal is unknown" is misleading and erroneous .The word "Bengal" is derived from the root Sanskrit word "Banga" or Vanga . This being the case how can you say that the origin of the word " bengal" is unknown. I am not under any impression that Vyas named everything. But it is very much clear that the place name "Vanga" existed from the times of Vyasa. - Bharatveer 04:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
"Vanga", another way to pronounce "Banga". Fine... Aurthoshastra mentions it. So? Does that imply "origin"? That wikipedia mentions "India", does it make it the "origin" of the word? -- Ragib 04:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Its not just another way of pronouncing "Banga" . The origin of the word is of ancient antiquity.You cannot just have a sentence saying that the exact origins are unknown .Your example of India and wikipedia looks quite childish . It would have been true if Wikipedia was older than the word India.I feel that the mention of the Sankrit epics is causing "inflammatory" feelings in my 'south asian' friends. So I will add a "citation needed" tag for that sentence for time being. Bharatveer 04:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we have any info that this is from Bangladesh. The Pala dynasty controlled half of North India at some point. Some info would be nice, or a picture from a existing Temple.-- ppm 15:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Repeat: this article is going on the main page. Changes at this point shouldn't be merely okay, but crucial and mistakes have to be avoided.-- ppm 15:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
In the first demographics paragraph the population is said to be ranked 7th but earlier in the article it is said to be ranked 8th.
They appear to be seventh according to the CIA: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html but 8th according to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population I'll update to 8th for consisteny's sake, but perhaps the list of countries by population needs some correcting?
Estimated population of Russia dropped almost another million to 142 400 000. Estimated Bangladesh population raised to more then 147 million. Difference huge enough and not likely to be a mistake. So I'll try to update Wiki articles. TestPilot 16:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The last census was in 2001 which suggests the population to be 130.03 million. I am changing the link (previous link doesnot work) and putting the Bangladeshi Census as source. Source: Bangladesh 2001 census site
[4] -- alif
Is the the flag REALLY a swatsika? I beleive that the page has been vandalized.
No, the flag isn't really a swastika. It's just sick vandalism. The real flag is on the link that says "Flag of Bangladesh." FrankNiddy 01:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, good. Someone changed it to the real flag. Whoever changed it, thank you. FrankNiddy 01:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
But whoever changed it didn't catch the first line: "Bangladesh is full of pakis that smell of curry." I assume that's part of the same vandalism. --July 14, 2006; 9:11 am
Do we have to spell out the names of the people who put in such comments like: "Bangladesh is full of pakis that smell of curry"? These are our Indian friends who are so "passionate" about us that they change Bangladesh's flag into a Swastika, I don't know why! In fact they hate everything that is even faintly Islamic! Kazimostak 18:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone hates hippies apparently... can we remove that? It's like graffiti. 141.106.187.150 16:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, i tried to get that off of there and ended up messing something up... help! I won't try to edit again :( 141.106.187.150 16:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of this article contains the following sentence: "Together with the Indian state of West Bengal, it comprises the ethno-linguistic region of Bengal."
Comprise is synonymous with "include" or " encompass", therefore the sentence, as written, makes no sense at all and needs to be re-written. I'm not sure how to do this without changing the meaning--perhaps it's best that the original author do this.
If you have any doubts as to the correct usage of comprise, consult The Elements of Style" (Strunk and White) on the subject.
Note that this misusage of comprise is a fairly common mistake in all sorts of publications--its not the first I've seen the mistake in Wikipedia, either.-- Cbrodersen 12:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I made that mistake way back when, before I bought my copy of The Elements of Style. The correct word should be 'constitutes', but the present 'makes up' works also. Is there any preference? Does 'constitutes' make it sound more encyclopaedic? Taajikhan 23:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Really great work! We require many more such articles. -- Bhadani 15:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I have seen the articles on Dhaka and Bangladesh. Why do people call this country impoverished? Its the 31st highest GDP in the world! And look at the article on Dhaka, look at the pics- Bashondhara City is great! This country is not poor!
First of all, Bangladesh's GDP is more like 56th in the world. There's more to countries than just the one or two areas, and even in those one or two areas you have massive disparity between the rich and the poor. Poor health care, high infant mortality death rate, low life expectency. Around 40 - 50% of people below the poverty line. It most certainly is poor. As the article states, efforts have been made to improve literacy and the GDP real growth rate is over 5% (I think) but it still as a LONG way to go. hedpeguyuk 16 July 2006, 14:05 (UTC)
Yes, it's a poor country indeed, but there is a very strong tendency among some people to portray Bangladesh as "one of the poorest countries" in the world, which is absolutely untrue. Bangladeshis enjoy a much better health, transport and educational status than at least 50/60 countries in the world. And despite widespread corruption, the country has achieved a commendable growth rate in the last 15 years. Please stop using this cliche: "Bangladesh is one of the poorest...", we are indeed one of the emerging tigers and all we need to do is start believing in ourselves... Kazimostak 03 February 2007.
Troll Alert! -- ppm 17:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this comment really necessary? It seems to assume that other countries have physically homogeneous people. -- SameerKhan 09:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have any information on the bangladeshi diaspora, i know that there are over 280,000 in Britain
Can the part on Magadhan and Gupta empire focus on Bengal/Bangladesh? Do we know how this part was ruled, what culture/language florished? Whether or not Persia was part of the empire is uninteresting.-- ppm 21:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I added a few headings to history section to break it up and make it easier to read. They may not be good ones or in the best places. You might have better ideas of where they should go or what they should say. GBYork 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"Bangladesh is ethnically homogeneous, with Bengalis comprising 98% of the population, though they are a heterogeneous ethnic group." -- ppm 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This sentence, I feel, is problematic because of its imprecision. The definition of "ethnicity" is far from uniform: some may try to delineate ethnicity based on racial or genetic groupings, others based on commonly accepted culture of a group of people, or others still ground their classification solely upon the language spoken.
There is an argument in Arab nationalist discourse, for example, that the Arab ethnicity should encompass all who speak Arabic (including second language speakers), thus laying some groundwork for a monolithic, pan-Arab nation-state. One can argue that a similar philosophy is applied in the South Asian context, i.e. the ethnic groups of the subcontinent are divided along linguistic lines.
I don't have the expertise to get into a full discussion on the topic, and others probably have neither the time nor the interest, but my point is that I don't think the intended meaning of the sentence in question is necessarily incorrect. What the author meant, perhaps, is that what is commonly known as the Bengali ethnicity (based on linguistic categorization) makes up 98% of the Bangladeshi population (though a citation is required). Further, I think the author mentioned heterogeneity to highlight the fact that the Bengali ethnicity is not based on racial or physical classifications, since several distinct racial lines can be identified among the population that is considered "Bengali". I think the sentence should be changed so that it reads "The population of Bangladesh is highly linguistically homogeneous", and a fuller discussion of what is considered the Bengali ethnicity (perhaps including the rejection of racial lines, at least in this context) should be included in the Bengali people article. Taajikhan 00:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
i dont see any reason to merge Magadha in the history of bangladesh and the unnecessary glorifying of Magadha empire and Chandragupta Maurya.Rather we should mention the Gangaridai empire and the kingdom of Vanga that existed in this region innit.We should give importance to the kingdoms that existed in this land rather than unnecessary glorifying foreign kingdoms.Bengal was never a part of Magadha .So i dont find any reason to mention magadha here.I see in every article concerning Bengal or Bangladesh there is a tendancy to mention Magadha and the Mauryas.Besides we should mesntion the achievements of the early Bengaly ppl i.e. their colonization of Sri Lanka and Indonasia.---Nawab_of_dhaka
Put up Wikipedia:Peer review/Rajshahi University/archive1 for a peer review. pls take a look.-- ppm 00:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This article makes Pakistan look like some kind of colonialist power, Pakistan itself was a victim of colonialism, yet by reading this article you would think otherwise. If you read this and the Bangladesh liberation war article it mentions 3 million bengalis killed, thats laughable, Even Germany with Gas Chambers, SS, Concentration camps, and the Gestapo killed 6 million Jews over 6 years, Yet according to this Pakistan acomplished this feat of 3 million in just 9 months. This would mean Pakistan killed 333333.333 Bengalis a month, or rather 84000 people a week, or 12000 people a day!!!
From what I know Bangladesh at the time of independence had a larger population than west Pakistan, Pakistan went from being the second largest country in south asia after India, to the third largest after India and Bangladesh, Similarly it went from being the second largest economy in south asia after India to the third largest in South Asia.Today, Pakistan is again the second largest in population and economy, one must give credit to pakistan for its resilience.
Here is more online nonsense from gendercide with this 3 million figure
If the rate of killing for all of Pakistan is annualized over the years the Yahya martial law regime was in power (March 1969 to December 1971), then this one regime was more lethal than that of the Soviet Union, China under the communists, or Japan under the military (even through World War II). (Rummel, Death By Government, p. 331.)
http://www.gendercide.org/case_bangladesh.html
According to this piece of nonsense, Pakistan was more deadly an 'occupying power' than the Imperial Japanese Empire. The fact that East Pakistan chose to be a part of Pakistan on its own free will can be conviently forgotten,
I have no problems with Bengalis trying to justify thier independence, but to make hollow claims of 3 million dead, that too a figure that the corrupt government of Bangladesh uses, and please dont quote Yayha Khan, he was persian royalty and a relative of the Aga Khan who only knew about cakes, biscuits, and polo, not much else.
S Seagal 03:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
Is it a crime in Bangladesh to question the Bengali holocaust?
As for textbooks in Pakistan there have been complaints from some quarters about 'historic revisionism'. I do not deny for one instance that some Bengalis were killed, But I certainly do not think the 3 million figure is accurate or anywhere near that number of fatalities. The Yahya Khan comment 'kill three million' made for good propaganda nothing else.
I think your mis-interpreted my comment earlier, There is an unbelievable ammount of propaganda against Pakistan since its very inception, Some include the following:
and the list goes on,..
All of these points and others along these lines are just propaganda, outright falsifications, and gross exaggerations. Thank You S Seagal 06:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
I was trying to emphasize that there is alot of propaganda against Pakistan for over half a century, even in the recent Test Match in the UK, Pakistan was falsely accused of ball-tampering.
That aside I do not wish to start anykind of flame war here, but R.J Rummels work has already been refuted, I cite the works of Sarmila Bose, Thus there is no need for me to refute R.J Rummel for that little Indian woman Sarmila Bose has already done so. S Seagal 07:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
I'm not sure I see it that way Ragib, Nayanika Mookherjee is the mouthpiece of the Indian and Bangali government, his work was commissioned by a government therefore one can question its partiality.
Besides R.J. Rummel's work is much more heavily criticized than that of Sarmila Bose, not just from Pakistanis but the world over. Please refer to his article: [ Rummel exposed]
S Seagal 07:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
User S Seagal should at least get his facts right - the article says "several hundred thousand to three million", does not claim 3 million as a firm figure. Actually the sources say three hundred thousand, and I will change the article to that. As for quoting genecides, about 1 million were killed in Rwunda in 100 days, mostly with machetes and knives. --
Michael Johnson
08:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Just clarifying a few points. I don't have any problem with Pakistan's right to exist, I think the idea of a reunited India as fairly impossible. When Seagal disputed that Pakistan was built for religious regions. He says Its time that Pakistan's neighobours accept that Pakistan is the country in which millions and millions of Indian muslims and Afghan muslims have chosen to live and settle and they should respect that. Certainly there has been some demographic movement of Muslims into Pakistan and non-Muslims from Pakistan during the partition but needless to say the influx of muslims into Pakistan was greater than the outflow of non-Muslims from Pakistan. The key word here is chosen, whether the influx of Muslims into Pakistan was greater than the outflor of non-Muslims from Pakistan, the Muslims moving into Pakistan chose to do so and the Non-Muslims moving out of Pakistan either did it or died. I know that many lives (Muslim and Non-Muslim) were lost and I wish it weren't so, I wish everyone continued following Gandhi's ideals into independence, anyway my point is one cannot compare the effects of the partition on Hindus in Pakistan to the effects of the partition on Muslims out of India. In an individual sense, there was no difference, in a broader sense one community was presented with choice and one community was presented with none. Anyway, I'm happy with the decision of some Muslims to remain in India. If Irfan Pathan performs tonight India's pretty much won. By the way, your claims of propaganda in the ball tampering issue are quite baseless. Now, people who are reading this would notice that I have gone way off topic and have not mentioned Bangladesh once in this comment, so I hope this comment is the closure of the broader propaganda discussion. Regards. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Seagal, who cares what you accept of not? If u want the 3 million figure removed, prove why its not a point of view significant enough to be represented. This is not a discussion page for your beliefs, its an encyclopedia-- ppm 17:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'm getting bored.
As long as the claims are sourced from reasonably neutral websites fine,
You can wake up one who is asleep, but not one pretending to be asleep.
end of disussion. S Seagal 16:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
: I followed this sometimes interesting sometimes irritating chain of discussion with much interest. Mr. S Seagal, although was quite right to doubt the 3 million figure (of martyrs), he frequently crossed the limit. One of his frequent comments was: Yes, I agree that some Bangladeshis died..." this comment is outragious, because even one life of Bangladeshi (or anybody) is valuable, you cannot kill 10 people and say: it's only 10, it could have been 100! The single unalterable fact remains is that: pakistani junta carried out a brutal genocide in Bangladesh and more significantly, they have not yet apologised for that. We demand an apology, not lame excuses. He also routinely rejected facts like socio-economic oppression to the Bengali people by the pakistani junta. But I also defy some other people like Idleguy (an Indian, naturally!) who tried to use this opportunity to bash Pakistan. We are talking Bangladesh here! We are not a playground for either pakistan or india to level their old scoresheet! Thanks everybody, long live Bangladesh! Kazimostak
'I'd argue that he already blasted both his legs off with a swan off shotgun when he mentioned Sarmila Bose - the fact that pretty much most of the world media identified the genocide, the fact that there were witnesses to it, yet she denies the entire thing??? Christ, I already feel ashamed to be in the same country as the university she's been appointed to.
Before I start,I'd like the people here to know that Im Pakistani. My father is a Muhajir and my mother is native Pakistani(Sindhi)
I'd like to start,that as a Pakistani Im ashamed of the crimes my people committed(or more specifically,the cowardly "soldiers" who slaughtered thousands of innocents)
I know Musharraf publicly apologised for the war in 2002(?) in Dhaka,but the history is not much mentioned in public/private Pakistani schools. Not all Pakistanis should be held accountable for,but similar to how Germany accepted the killing of thousands of innocent minorities,Pakistan should officially accept our darkest history and not commit furthur atrocities that we are against othe rprovinces like SIndh and Balouchistan.
I also beleive that as result of the 1971,we must allow Bangladeshi immigrants to stay as it would be fair.
Ragib,I hope you like what i said and thanx again for letting me post on a Bengali page
Nadirali
02:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali
People it's all in the past and Pakistan has changed for the better. Bangladesh and Pakistan are allies now and the people who caused the crimes are detained. -- Saad64 12:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
These links:
Were added by an editor whose only contributions have been to promote the World Bank Group (doingbusiness.org is a World Bank Group project). We have recently uncovered significant edits promoting this organization (see this WikiProject Spam discussion). In the interest of our neutral point of view policy and conflict of interest guideline I've moved the links here for other editors to consider. If you decide that one or more of these is a useful addition, Wikipedia has articles on the Ease of Doing Business Index and the World Bank Group which may be more appropriate than an external link. Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 14:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.
Thanks
Atulsnischal 00:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed this sentence: Bangladesh enjoys the distinction of having two female politicians leading national politics, however, the country continues to suffer from extensive corruption,[17] disorder and political violence. To these two sentences: Bangladesh enjoys the distinction of having two female politicians leading national politics. The country continues to suffer from extensive corruption,[17] disorder and political violence.
I felt that the first version suggests that having women as leading national politicians would suggest a lack of corruption, but we really don't have any evidence for that. So, I just broke the sentence into to seperate sentences. Not a big change, really, but I felt that this makes things a bit better. Feel free to disagree... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WhitePlains12345 ( talk • contribs) 01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
I've just skimmed this piece, but I see no mention of the severe environmental problems facing Bangladesh -- tainted groundwater and air pollution. I understand Dhaka is often simply unbearable, and seemingly naturally occurring arsenic in the ground and the consequent lack of access to potable water poses a serious public health threat. User: deeceevoice 22 April 2007
I would like to question the inclusion of the claim "World's Longest ... Beach" for Cox's Bazaar in the article. At 75miles, it is behind Australia's Ninety Mile Beach and even that is not the longest [7] Is a correction warranted? Andmark 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)The section on administrative divisions should be called either "Divisions" or expanded as it is for "Divisions, districts, and upazilas" per WikiProject Countries:
(Subdivisions) - Quick overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (e.g. provinces, states, departments, etc.) and give the English name. Also include overseas possessions. Link to "(subdivisions) of X". This section could also include an overview map of the country.
The naming of "Divisions, districts, and upazilas" follows many other articles, and is more distinct and acceptable, as is the map I provided of more detail with all three levels of administrative division. Rarelibra 19:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Lot of nuanced pov creeping in here and there. -- ppm 23:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This page as well as Politics of Bangladesh need to be updated in relation to the military rule/elections etc. I know very little of the situation and am having trouble getting a clear picture of what exactly has happened. But the article doesn't even mention General Moeen U Ahmed. The recent reports of murder and torture as a means of law enforcement should also be mentioned somewhere. Cheers, Rothery 08:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC).
Ragib wrote the above in reverting my edit. I completely agree (see Lead section), which is why I made the edit in the first place. Let me explain.
The intro contains more detail on the population than exists in the body. It lists the population rank, the land area and rank, the Muslim population rank, and some info about India's Muslim population. This detail needs to be moved into the body in favor of a clearer summary: "Bangladesh is among the most highly and densely populated countries in the world. The population is generally poor, rural and Muslim."
In addition, I have added summary information on the government which is a "secular parliamentary democracy" and is currently under "emergency law". This meets the standards for a Lead section which require a balance of emphasis.
Finally, I think the "founding member" of SAARC does not need to be mentioned here (it is already described in the body). Just a short list of major organization memberships would better meet the emphasis criterion just mentioned.
Change one or two things if you like, but please do not revert my edit wholesale again. I am trying to improve the article and I have given good reasons for it. In my latest edit, I have removed no information from the article. Dejo 18:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The article we had worked so hard to elevate to an FA has now degenerated to a random collection of unreferenced information. The editors eager to introduce new material often neglect to provide any citation for newly added information, but that is essential per WP:V. I have tagged many sentences sneaked into the article that provide no references at all. Unless any references are provided, I will start removing the crud. The huge population figures in the administrative divisions section is also unnecessary. So are some of the images. -- Ragib 06:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Is the" Geological Location of Bangladesh [26] (file info) " video necessary? I watched the video, and basically it shows a spinning globe, and then the location of Bangladesh (already showed at the top of this page), and then the topographic map (already showed in this section). So, I think we should remove this template, as it is occupying a lot of space, being visually disruptive to the flow of text, and providing very little information other than what is already present in the page. -- Ragib 19:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Under the section heading "Geography and climate", the second last paragraph contains the following statement: "A major part of the coastline comprises a marshy jungle, the Sundarbans, the largest mangrove forest in the world and home to diverse flora and fauna, including the Royal Bengal Tiger." An uninformed reader may wonder:
In a context such as this, apposition can be clarified by the use of expressions such as "namely", "that is", "that is to say", and, depending on the context, "which is/are/was/were". Please see also semicolon#English usage, list 2, point 3. -- Wavelength 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Please see also bracket#Parentheses ( ). -- Wavelength 15:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The article needs another section, ( Education).-- NAH ID 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not want to enter into an edit war with Rarelibra; may I request a quick poll among the editors on which map should be used on this page - a map showing upazila boundary with no labels ( here), or a map showing up to districts but with proper labels ( here)?
Also, if someone knows the exact page of "WikiProject Countries" that discuss criteria of maps to be added on country article, please let me know. - Arman Aziz 04:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
“ | (Subdivisions) - ... This section could also include an overview map of the country. The CIA World Factbook Maps could be used here, but other sources are available. | ” |
Bangladesh history is surely not solely written by history of partition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.57.120 ( talk) 13:49, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
You are like the pakistan section and also kashmir. Nobody mentions the names of important artistes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idontwantaccount2 ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"Meanwhile the Bangladesh Military has expressed their interest in controlling the country with statements like "own brand of Democracy" and making changes in the constitution to allow military participation in politics. [25] They have started a witch hunt for the most corrupt people in Bangladesh which conveniently does not include any army staff or their infamous relatives such as Syed Iskander.
The military has also imposed censorship of the national media and closing down/hampering private TV stations. The remaining TV stations were termed "Boot TV" by the general population in reference to the incessant one sided views presented and the army's preferred footwear." [The last paragraph of the 'Government and Politics' section of the article]
The last paragraph of the 'Government and Politics' section is fully and completely unsubstantiated POV (or BPOV - Biased POV !!). It features absolutely unsubstantiated POV phrases like "controlling the country", "military participation in politics", "witch hunt", "conveniently", "infamous", "Boot TV", "incessant one sided views" etc., which are all biased subjective personal interpretation or representation of facts/events and fiction. The 2 citations provided do not support the author's interpretations or representations.
For example, the statement "own brand of democracy" does not necessarily lead to the conclusion the author of this paragraph has drawn, i.e. the military wants to 'control the country'. This conclusion or claim rather, is completely unsubstantiable. In fact this quote from the Army Chief says nothing of that sort, especially when he has repeatedly said elsewhere that the Army has NO intention of meddling in Politics. Ultimately this description of the military's intention boils down to the author's (and perhaps many others of the country)own bias, perception, suspicion etc. Whether or not his suspicion is correct, it's merely a suspicion nevertheless, nothing more.
2ndly, the Anti-Corruption Drive is characterized as a 'Witch Hunt'. This description of the anticorruption drive is evidently and blatantly an unsubstantiated Bpov Value Judgement. The anti-corruption drive has not been proven as a deliberate mass persecution on false pretexts or accusations, nor is it perceieved or claimed as such by most people other than being a perfectly legitimate legal campaign, except perhaps for 1 or 2 hiccups.
3. The words 'conveniently' and 'infamous' used here are again evidently pov value judgements.
4. "...such as Syed Iskander" : again another pov. The alleged infamy of the said person is totally a matter of public perception, especially among certain quarters. Whether these perception are true or not is another matter.
5. "Military has expressed interest...to allow military participation in politics" -- misinformation. The citations do not support this statement. Moreover, the military has repeatedly stated otherwise.
5. "military has also imposed censorship of the national media": Misinformation. Censorship was imposed by the Caretaker Government, not the military.
6. The statement that all uncensored/unhampered TV stations are termed "Boot TV" by the "general population" for their "incessant one sided views" is completely POV, unsubstantiable, subjective, politically biased. The term "Boot TV" has certainly not become widespread yet or even known to most people. Perhaps some individuals or certain group of people use it, but some individuals or certain groups do not mean 'general population'. Again, the phrase "one sided view" is evidently pov, subjective personal opinion and politically biased unsubstantiable debatable personal interpretation, perception, representation of supposed facts/events.
Finally, I must say the paragraph as a whole sounds very propagandist, partisan, politically and/or ideologically motivated (whether or not his claims regarding intentions and value judgements are correct in a deeper, non-visible, intutive manner is another matter and irrelevant here) and must not be accomodated in a wikipedia articles because it seriously devalues, degenerates, and cheapens the article apart from going against wiki rules and norms. It also exposes the dangers of Recentism. - Monmajhi
The recent controversy over the vote by the U.S. Congressional committee to condemn the Armenian Genocide has raised awareness in the U.S. about these terrible events of 1915-23. The 1971 Bangladesh Atrocities were on the scale of the Armenian Genocide. The Pakistani allies in the U.S. "war on terror" were involved in the tragic events of 1971 and many of the perpetrators of the atrocities are still alive.
The following questions should be raised.
1- Are efforts being made to bring the Pakistani perpetrators to justice?
2- There are many Bengalis here in the U.S. What efforts have they made to bring the issue of the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities before Congress?
3- How many Pakistani officials involved in the “war on terror” have the blood of Bengalis on their hands?--
Woogie10w
16:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I reverted here to remove the comparison with the US state Iowa. I find it redundant ... the anon inserting that edit assumes that Iowa is a common frame of reference to which the readers can relate to. Well, this article is NOT written solely for US readers, and in general, Wikipedia is not limited to US readers only. Therefore, a comparison with an US state just to give an idea of the size reeks of Systemic bias, and a US-centric view, which Wikipedia must not limit itself to. So, I removed the redundant comparison. -- Ragib 07:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Also note that this is a featured article, so please don't keep adding such irrelevant information/comparison without gaining a consensus here. -- Ragib 07:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
In this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JF-17_Thunder I found that Bangladesh may also be known as Bangalistan, but I dont know from when Bangladesh is known as Bangalistan? I searched in google and found only 9 results out of which 5 are from wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahat5810 ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Even that the tropical storms (cyclones) are regularly striking the coastal areas, the Bangledeshi government did not forbid the settlement of the ecologically fragile coastal areas. Abb. 40.000 square kilometers, along the coast of Bangladesh are fragile areas, threatened by floods and infested by insects and other animals. More than this, the reverting of these areas to the Wild life would improve the coastal defence against tropical storms, will resurect biodiversity, will protect the natural environment as a whole. It's strange that the Bangladeshi government are not acting to evacuate the population of these fragile areas. Anyway, the life there is hard and people should fight hard to resist in such an dangerous and uneasy environment ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transsylvanian ( talk • contribs) 12:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Ragib has inserted the claim that bangladesh is secular, and has deleted the mention of the fact that the numbber of the minority Hindus has dropped by more than 50%!
Bangladesh is NOT a secular nation.
The claim that it is secular is quite cynical. A nation should be described as it is.
--
Vikramsingh (
talk)
18:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the importance from HIGH to TOP - Arman Aziz 10:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Ragib has changed the number on Hindu population in Bangladesh to a higher number.
The claim that "The two major religions practiced in Bangladesh are Islam (83%) and Hinduism (16%)" is false. It overstates the population of Hindus by more than 50%.
There is some variation in the number reported, but the official [6] number is: 9.2%. [7] [8]
Bangladesh government apparently avoids mentioning the number as much as possible, the the correct numbers are very hard to obtain. The numbers are not there on the BD census web-site.
-- Vikramsingh ( talk) 19:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Apparently Bangladesh government has a hand in misleading the world. Unlike most other government they will avoid putting the current census data on the web, and sometime they will deliberately place the old data. see for example Country Profile. Where they say that:
Thus they have access to 2001 data. But then they use the old data:
I wonder what the Hindu population is there in 2007?
-- Bandyopadhyay ( talk) 23:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Though I can't comment on Bangladesh government bias, I think it is unfair to point to the use of old census data as evidence of deceit. It may be that the 2001 census actually is the latest data that is available, not that the establishment is intentionally concealing the truth. The U.S. conducts a door-to-door census once every ten years, because of the expense and extent of endeavor. I don't think Bangladesh could be expected to do any better. And judging by the census dates you mention, BD probably DOES conduct a decennial census. Questions of how the census is conducted, what questions are asked, what is ommited is, I'm sure, a different a much longer conversation. -- Taajikhan ( talk) 16:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
And just look at what Virtual Bangladesh has been promoting http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/bd_religion.html:
-- Bandyopadhyay ( talk) 23:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)