Talk:Bangladesh/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Edit request on 11 April, 2015

Hello,

I suggest a subsection on corruption. Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015

180.211.187.13 (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, we are not going to add promotional links to this article. Altamel (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Seal deletion request on Commons

File with the Government Seal that is used in the infobox was proposed for deletion on Commons based on copyright. Please share your view over there - [1]--Twofortnights (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2015

Sbrz00099 (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC) spelling mistake: "9.2 Refernces" should be "9.2 References"

 Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2015

198.200.95.7 (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC) I need to put soemthing new that i got corrected.........

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2015

M.M. Rizwanul Islam (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)there are many back dated information in the article....so I like to edit & make them right

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2015

https://www.facebook.com/groups/198941026952530/?ref=bookmarks--180.234.116.169 (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)--180.234.116.169 (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)https://www.facebook.com/groups/198941026952530/?ref=bookmarks

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2015

Pajagonde (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Hey i need to put something in this page can I?

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Bangladesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2015

Please change the word "higly" to "highly" in this sentence: Bangladesh history can go back to 100,000 years as Bangladesh has higly rich history

Change it to: Bangladesh history can go back to 100,000 years as Bangladesh has highly rich history

108.27.215.44 (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015

Please change "with President Vladimir Putin" to "with the president of Russian Federation Vladimir Putin", or it looks like Bangladesh got a new president.

118.21.168.18 (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Demonym

According to the Constitution of the people's Republic of Bangladesh the people of Bangladesh are known as Bangalee/ Bengali. The nationalism of the country is Bengali and the citizenship is known as Bangladeshi. For instance, an English with the citizenship of Bangladesh can be a Bangladeshi but not a Bangalee/ Bengali.

Please let me know your argument & reference for Bangladeshi demonym. Shoshanko (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I got off at the wrong station! Do you have any idea about Nation(জাতি), Demonym(জাতীয়তাসূচক বিশেষণ) OR Citizenship(নাগরিকত্ব)?
  • According to the Constitution: The people of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangalees as a nation and the citizens of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangladeshies
  • According to you: The people of Bangladesh are known as Bangalee/ Bengali!.............(as a nation!?)
  • LET'S SEE: As nouns the difference between demonym and nation is that Demonym is a name for an inhabitant or native of a specific place (i.e. Bangladesh) that is derived from the name of the place while Nation is an historically constituted (i.e. Bengal) , stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, ethnicity and/or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture or nation can be (rare) damnation.

I HOPE IT MAKES SENSE AND THAT IT'S CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU!—Samudrakula (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you got the Demonym translation spot on (জাতীয়তাসূচক বিশেষণ)- this is how Demonym is being perceived by many if not all. And this is what exactly I was trying to explain- According to the Constitution the Nationality of people of Bangladesh is not Bangladeshi, it's Bangalee/ Bengali. 

Shoshanko (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced/nor have understood the above discussion. A quick search reveals CIA factbook and about.com both saying "Bangladeshi".
I'm against making such a change without references to something which has been there all these years. If you say the constitution says so, then get me a reliable secondary source saying that. Citing the constitution (WP:PRIMARY) which is a primary source, is not our job. What you have here is original research.
I would restore the WP:STATUSQUO version till this discussion ends. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
It goes without saying that citizen of Bangladesh (Bengali or non-Bengali) are known as Bangladeshi. see [2][3][4][5][6][7]

Demonym of Bangladesh → Bangladeshi and Demonym of Bengal → Bengali. —Samudrakula (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Nafsadh, User:kmzayeem, User:Aditya Kabir, User:Ibrahim Husain Meraj: Cheers! All of you are Bengalis, but not Bangladeshi Nationals! at least someone think so haha. please act! –Samudrakula (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
De jure and de facto, citizen of Bangladesh is known as Bangladeshi. The reference to the constitution reads such too. -nafSadh did say 22:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ananya Mukherjee and Amena Mohsin for instance critically explained how bengali nationality was adopted in Bangladesh constitution. The writers have been unimpressed by the adoption of Bengali Nationality since not 100% people in Bangladesh are Bengali (98.2%). However their book and articles confirm about the Bengali Nationality adoption by the constitution that was written in 1972.

Reference:

1.Mukherjee, Ananya, 2008, Human Development and Social Power: Perspectives from South Asia, Routledge, New York, page: 111

2. Mohsin, Amena, 2005, "Gendered Nation, Gendered Peace: A Study of Bangladesh" in Peace Process and Peace Accords, Sage Publication, London, page: 226 Shoshanko (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I do agree that anyone who has the citizenship of Banhladesh is a Bangladeshi- this is also recognized by the constitution. However the same constitution recognizes the difference between Nationality and the Citizenship. Whist the Nationality is Bengali the Citizenship is Bangladeshi. As far as I know Bangladesh is a Nation State. This is why it's name is Bangladesh which literally means the Land of Bengal or the Land of Bengali. Shoshanko (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh is a secular state

The part that says "Religion of Bangladesh is Islam" needs to be changed in the Wikipedia article. Bangladesh is a secular state.

Here is the evidence:

Secularism is back in Bangladesh, rules High Court

Secularism in Bangladesh's constitution

Constitution of Bangladesh

--Yezmarasen (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is an important point. However, I do not find the exact sentence "Religion of Bangladesh is Islam" in the article. Please be more precise. I think the footnote [c] should be extended to include the fact that the country is still secular, even though there is a declared "State religion." - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead

How exactly is this edit amounting to destruction and vandalism? User:বব২৬ is just making personal attacks.--Akbar the Great (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your content: It is the 93rd largest country by land area and is dominated by the fertile Bengal delta, with a tropical monsoon climate. Bangladesh’s 580 km-long coastline includes numerous deltas, beaches and islands, including Cox’s Bazar and St. Martin's Island. The Chittagong Hill Tracts hosts the country’s tallest mountains. = it goes in geography not lead. What do you mean by 93rd largest?
The Bengali people form the majority of Bangladesh’s population. Minorities include various hill and plainland tribes. Islam is the largest religion in Bangladesh, with 90% of Bangladeshis being Muslims. Hinduism is the second largest religion, at 8.5%. Buddhism and Christianity are the third and fourth largest religions respectively. = goes in demographics.
Civilization in Bangladesh has a recorded history of 2,500 years. During the Iron Age, the region was home to seafaring city states. It was known to Ancient Greece and the Romans as the Gangaridai Empire.[13] Indo-Aryans, Dravidians, Austronesians and Tibeto-Burmans dominated ancient civilization in Bengal, which saw a power struggle between Hinduism and Buddhism. Islam was rooted across the delta in the second millennium. The Persianate Sultans of Bengal, the Mughal Empire and Nawabs of Bengal ruled the territory until the advent of British colonialism in 1757.[14] = there is a lot of history section to add this, not lead.
Do not populate the lead, it's confusing to a reader, Wikipedia is not one's personal diary. Also you must not change the basic structure of the lead without discussion. বব২৬/BB26t@lk 21:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Why are you taking ownership for something you didn't write? The basic structure was written when the article had FA status, it has since lost that status and the basic structure has greatly eradicated. Regarding my additions on history, they are referenced and accurate statements. Why do you do object to adding content on Bangladesh's pre-partiton history? Every other South Asian country's lede mentions their ancient past.--Akbar the Great (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
And 93rd largest is an accurate fact. So is that of the country being the world's 8th most-populous country. Both are mentioned.--Akbar the Great (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I will look into this, I am not claiming that I am neutral editor or something like that, but as I saw this case at DRN and I am aware of this topic so decided to comment here. You should have not done so many reverts. I think Akber's version seems to be more informative but we have to look into it more carefully. It will take some time to examine this. --Human3015TALK  22:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Why can't we add bits about Bangladesh's pre partition history? It helps readers gain a much broader insight of the country. Or do you all go by the sense that all history starts from 1947 and 1971? I don't see the same case with any other South Asian country page, be it Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal or Afghanistan.--Akbar the Great (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

(uninvolved editor) বব২৬ mislabelled your edit as vandalism, but he probably thought that it was WP:UNDUE. The fact is that major edits to the lead always need considerable discussion. It is a good idea to discuss the issues point-by-point instead of a wholesale revision. Personally, I think the lead was already too long before your edit, and your edit made it longer. So you would need to discuss and decide what are the important points to be kept and what should be omitted. As for the history, since this is an article on Bangladesh, not the History of Bangladesh, the lead only needs to mention those highlights of history to understanding the present day Bangladesh. To my mind, those highlights would seem to be (1) the development of the Bengali language, (2) growth of Islam, (3) Colonial rule, (4) Partition of Bengal (5) Partition of India and (6) Liberation of Bangladesh. That is already a pretty long list, and all of it needs to fit into one paragraph. That is a tall order! - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made a bold edit. The lead is now 3 paragraphs with 71 words lesser than the previous version. I myself was also of the opinion for a smaller length, but my experience with some users in Bangladesh-related pages was the preference for a lengthy one. Anyways. The first paragraph is on geography, population and the environment. The second paragraph concerns the country's history. Language is not necessarily a starting point (does Italian history start with the development of Italian?) I chose several notable historical facets of Bangladesh identified by historians 1) earliest settlements and written records 2) trading center heritage 3) mention of distinct cultural aspects that evolved in the region, including language, literature, script, music and art 4) growth of Islam 5) the period of colonial rule and6) rise of nationalism in East Pakistan that led to the 1971 war. And the third paragraph relates to current affairs and post independence issues.--Akbar the Great (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Level of activity

The level of activity on this page is unprecedented. What is changing so quickly in Bangladesh that we have to update the page so much? It seems the text is being shifted around just aimlessly and I don't think it's constructive. It's hard for other editors to keep track of changes once one editor is just making changes without a good reason. Can we give this page some rest?

At the minimum, I will suggest that people should at least give a reason for the change in the summary line. Sheriff | report | 02:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about continual improvement, and the level of activity is not unprecedented at all. I'll be done with my work once I request a copy edit, which I had in any case planned to do today. Regarding your latest contributions, again you present an inappropriate point of view. It would be obvious to anyone that 14 August is not considered an actual day of independence in Bangladesh. There has never been any public commemoration of the date since 1971. So 14 August should be not be termed as "Independence of Pakistan" in the Formation corner of the Infobox. It should rather be termed as "British Indian Partition and Dominion". The date of 23 March 1956 should also be mentioned.--Akbar the Great (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
My initial edit was "Partition of Bengal" but you keep changing the text ten times a day and it got replaced with "Partition of India" which had no significance in Independence of Bangladesh but "Independence of Pakistan" had the significance because East Bengal was part of it, anything other than that to describe that event won't be a neutral point of view. Sheriff | report | 03:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The division of Bengal was a part of the Partition of British India, so obviously it has significance.--Akbar the Great (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
When I suggested "Partition of Bengal" I meant Partition of Bengal (1905). That was the first time the present day Bangladesh was recognized as a political unit. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2015https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=228775037453433&set=gm.1650096698592744&type=3&theater

202.22.195.161 (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutral grounds

This article at its present state is filled with accusations and allegations against Pakistan and Pakistani leadership. There are also allegations of rape of Bengali women by Pakistani forces in the article. An opposite point of view would be that Mujeeb was a traitor and was cohorting with Pakistan's enemies since 1962 and Mukti Bahni was committing atrocities against West Pakistani people in East Pakistan including rape of women and it should not be hard to find sources to support that extreme point of view either. As the popular saying goes in sub-continent that you cannot clap with one hand, you need two hands to clap.

I will suggest removing extreme anti-Pakistan POV version from the article and replace it with something neutral. Sheriff | report | 03:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Read this, rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War.--Akbar the Great (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that article needs to be looked into and neutralized. As the popular saying goes in sub-continent that you cannot clap with one hand, you need two hands to clap. Sheriff | report | 14:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh for heaven's sake this is Wikipedia, where you dont need the damn clapping hands of the subcontinent. The rape campaign is widely documented academically, and you don't have consensus to support your claims.--Akbar the Great (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and WP:NPOV is one of the basic pillars of Wikipedia, you cannot just tell one-sided story about a topic. Also the saying was just an example to stress that it's not always true that only one party is to be blamed in an event. Sheriff | report | 12:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
You seem to suggest that the Bengalis and the Pakistan Army were equals during the war, which is again strongly refuted academically. Again you don't have a consensus to back up your claims. --Akbar the Great (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Once you have a reply to one of your comments and you want to change that comment then you need to strike out what you want to omit!
First of all, you need to work on the upsetting tone of your comments, secondly you need to put other's comments into proper context, if the rape campaign is documented academically then you need to include those sources here in this article, you cannot attribute your claims to another Wikipedia article. I am not suggesting what you think i am suggesting but this is also a fact that activists of Mukti Bahini were in their home and most of Pakistan Army soldiers were away from their homes in West Pakistan thus Mukti Bahini was strategically stronger while they had support of India as well. That aside, if you can attribute the rape claim to a source then you can add it. Sheriff | report | 13:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
People can be in a rush sometimes, I'm having to defend my work against such trivial odds, in spite of having a family emergency. The Pakstan Army was certainly more stronger both strategically and armaments wise. They proved to be a effective occupation, with the help of their vast militia forces. They were also backed up by the Pakistan Air Force and Navy.--Akbar the Great (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Here again, you are calling it "defend my work", you are accepting that you think that you own this article. Sheriff | report | 20:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
What happened to the clapping hands of the subcontinent? It feels like you own this article for your heavily Pakistani nationalist POV and obstruct others from improving it. I just go by sources and consensus. And I will certainly defend my edits against your POV pushing.--Akbar the Great (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure, you identified the planes right? Look, I can answer each one of your POV pushing arguments with my arguments but I think we should not be discussing non-issues here and instead adhere to Wikipedia policies, more importantly WP:NPOV when writing an article! Sheriff | report | 11:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2016

Hey may I add something in this text. I want to add something to make it more correct!!!!!!!!! 166.48.141.173 (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Not done: This is not how edit semi-protected requests work. If you want to tell us exactly what you want to change and back up all claims with reliable sources someone can put those changes in for you. --Majora (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2016

Hey i want to add something correct in one of the context on this country page!!!!!Can someone let me do that!!!!!!! Kil579 (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. --Majora (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2016

45.123.109.16 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest removals

SheriffsInTown has removed a lot of notable referenced content without discussion and distorted the Bangladesh Liberation War section, suggesting the 1971 genocide only targeted Hindus. Im currently traveling and will get back to this later. An administrtor or someone from WP Bangladesh should take note.--Akbar the Great (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss. Everything removed was unsourced or not neutraly sourced. I checked every source one by one in those sections. Stop accusing and point me to sources if you want to add that back, that information is not neutral but I will still allow it if you present neutral reliable sources which can attribute the information you want to add. Sources like virtualbangladesh.com and bangladeshgenocide.com cannot be neutral to attribute the POV accusations. You have third party source, add it by all means. Sheriff | report | 10:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Note that there is no concept of a "neutral source" on Wikipedia. There is only reliable source. Web sites are never reliable sources, unless they are backed by reputable organisations or cited by other reliable sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:RS begins like this:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).

Sheriff | report | 13:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:NPOV never says we should assess whether a source is "neutral." It is a common mistake to assume that it does. We shouldn't fall into that trap. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Even then, how can a source be called a WP:RS when it's completely leaning towards one point of view and built with single purpose such as website virtualbangladesh.com (which is to promote Bangladesh and Bangladeshi POV) and bangladeshgenocide.com (which just by looking at it's name, you cannot assume that it would highlight the opposite point of view).
And WP:RS#Overview section begins with the following text:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

It clearly says third-party, i don't think virtualbangladesh.com and bangladeshgenocide.com can be described as third-party sources in anyway. Sheriff | report | 14:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Akbar the Great: You need to discuss your changes here instead of reverting me. Your last revert reverted 27 edits which included edits by 7 editors including myself. You cannot act like you own this article. The material i removed was unsourced, poorly sourced or lacked third-party sources. I have spent last three hours of my precious time to correct this mess. Please show some respect to work of other editors. Sheriff | report | 14:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, it's as if you're owning the article. Explain to why you removed the following.

  • Maulana Bhashani advocated East Pakistan's desire for independence in a famous Salaam Pakistan speech in 1957, as did A K Fazlul Huq before his provincial government was dimissed in 1955 after he suggested East Bengal's independence during a visit to Calcutta. Why have you removed this?
  • Genocide issues, it's widely known that chief targets of Pakistan's Army were Bengalis of different faiths and professions, why are you limiting it to only the Hindus?
  • Homecoming of Mujib, it was a notable event. Why was this removed?
  • Independence, why are you harping on the point of separation, when Bangladesh considers itself independent only from 1971, not 1947.

--Akbar the Great (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Akbar the Great: You display an ownership attitude when you indiscriminately revert 27 edits by 7 editors to last revision by yourself and then do not attempt to correct even the dab links with which no one could have a disagreement. Then, you display an ownership attitude when you keep shifting whole sections of text around without describing your changes in the summary line even when you are requested by another editor to do so, then you display an ownership attitude when you are solely working on an article for days but someone like me comes from nowhere and challenges your edits and you get upset in return instead of adhering to policies of Wikipedia about neutrality and reliable third-party sources. Reply to points in order they were received:
  • The source included in the article only verifies the demand of autonomy by Maulana Bhashani, it does not verify the demands of independence by neither him or A. K. Fazlul Huq, you cannot just say that you were sitting in front of Maulana when he delivered his speech and demanded independence, that is WP:OR, if you think the source says otherwise, please quote the text here at talk page.
  • Again, the source claims systematic targeting of Hindus, quote the text here which you think says otherwise or supports your claim.
  • Again, homecoming of Mujib is irrelevant to this article and is WP:UNDUE, it might be WP:DUE to Mujib article, i stress it might be, you might get challenged there as well. Also the source does not confirm "a million homecoming" and "flown by royal air force", both of these claims even if they can be sourced are unnecessary and irrelevant to this article.
  • You should not be discussing non-issues here. I think that matter was resolved, the section heading was not "Independence" when i changed to "Separation" but once you changed it to "Independence", i accepted it and thanked you for that edit, you should be able to track that "Thank" somehow. It was changed to "The new nation" by me again after a day or so once i read the article and understood that that section talks more about what happened after "Independence" and not the "Independence" itself. If you don't like it then i am willing to change it to "After independence". I was thanked by Filpro for that edit so at least one another editor agrees with that section heading change by me. Sheriff | report | 13:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Where on earth does the Bhashani and Huq sources talk about autonomy? Don't push original research which fall flat on their faces. Mujib's release from prison and homecoming is notable whether you like it or not. It was a major internationally covered episode of the period. Finally, plenty of history sections in country articles use the term Independence, Croatia for example. I don't think any use "the new nation", which in Bangladesh's case is also the name of a local English newspaper, so it actually feels like a promotion.--Akbar the Great (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
How about you including the exact quote from sources about Bhashani and A. K.? I am not pushing original research, you are pushing otherwise you would have quoted it already. Mujib's homecoming and how he was flown back is undue and unnecessary for this article and Croatia's section named "Independence" discusses independence, it does not discuss complete political history until today as your Bangladesh article does. Do you want to change the heading to "After independence"? I am open to that. Sheriff | report | 20:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Akbar the Great: I see you put back most of the contested material. I didn't get a chance to analyze it yet to see if you added any new sources to support your claims or restored it with same old sources which did not support your claim. I will suggest that you revert yourself if you restored the content with same sources as before. Sheriff | report | 11:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey what exactly are you contesting in removing so much content? That Sheikh Mujib wasn't the Prime Minister elect of Pakistan? Even Pervez Musharraf attests to that. That Operation Searchlight wasn't a sustained military assault on East Pakistan? Then what was it, some relief and disaster management drive? That the Awami League wasn't the main Bengali party? Which was it then, Jamaat? And you keep reverting Bhashani's 1957 remarks as one for autonomy. A direct quote from him translates into: "you (West Pakistan) go in your own way, and we (East Pakistan) will go in our own". Now it's about time you understand that it is only your revisions which result in the article losing its neutrality and may lead to a topic ban.--Akbar the Great (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to answer your POV with my POV. I am asking you to provide sources if you want to include that information in the article and you keep adding that without providing sources. For some of the information, you did add the sources and sources attest to that information and in my latest revert before this comment, you would see that i did not remove that information. If you do not have sources to attribute the content that you are putting in then it's better to leave it out instead of keep fighting so i will suggest again to you that you revert yourself and yes, Maulana's quote does not confirm that he suggested towards independence rather the source confirms that he demanded autonomoy. Sheriff | report | 13:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Stop beating around the bush man. My contributions are based on the consensus-based history of Bangladesh, backed up by reliable international and domestic references.--Akbar the Great (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, for the uptienth time, the information i removed was not supported by the sources and i see you added some sources after reverting me, i need time to review them, rest assured that you will be reverted if the new sources added do not attest to the information so better revert yourself. You need to adhere to the policies. Neither your POV nor my POV should prevail, what should prevail is whatever is supported by the sources. For example statements like "The Awami League emerged the political voice of the Bengali-speaking population" are blanket statements and considered POV. Instead of furnishing it like this, you can just simply say that "Awami League was elected as representative of majority of people in East-Pakistan" or something like that, the name of "Operation Searchlight" cannot be confirmed by sources, the statement that East-Pakistan "had far less investment, industry, economic spending and state funding than the western wing" cannot be confirmed by the source next to that statement rather East-Pakistan "was generating 70% of Pakistan's export earnings with jute and tea as its main exports but that percentage was dwindled to 50% by 1971." can be confirmed. "Field Marshal Ayub Khan stifled the democratic process in Pakistan and jailed prominent Bengali nationalists." cannot be supported by sources. You do not have to put (Mujib) next to the full name of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, it's like repeating yourself and is not needed. The names of the militias "Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams" are not in the sources thus we should leave the word "militia" without adding the names. Mujib was flown by Royal Air Force, no source say that. "Post independence" is okay if you do not like "The new nation". Sheriff | report | 14:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The sentence on the Awami League and the "(Mujib)" thing were there long before I edited this article. I find the wording to be reasonable, the League was the leading political party in East Pakistan and the Sheikh was known globally as Mujib. The name Operation Searchlight is found in a plethora of sources. I don't understand how you can claim that it's not a confirmed operation. East Pakistan having far less economic funding than West Pakistan is a well documented fact. If a military usurper like Ayub Khan jails prominent elected lawmakers, then that would be construed as a stifling of the democratic process. Maybe the names of militias aren't necessary here, but the three were notable distinct groups. Mujib being flown to Dhaka via London and New Delhi by the Royal Air Force was a notable aspect of his homecoming. He was accorded state receptions in two capitals before he took up office in his country.
Finally, Bangladesh is not a new nation anymore. There have been dozens of countries born after 1971, the most newest one being South Sudan. --Akbar the Great (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Akbar the Great: I am going to try to discuss the revert with you one more time, point by point:

  1. Area rank: Simple math rule, it's 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, so 92 here would be 92nd and not 92th
  2. "The Awami League emerged as the political voice of the Bengali-speaking population": This is not according to the source.
  3. "Bengali nationalist leaders, including A. K. Fazlul Huq and Maulana Bhashani, advocated the independence": No Akbar, source does not describe them as "Bengali nationalists", this is your POV, source only attests a demand of autonomy by Bhashani, your claim that Bhashani's saying "you go your way and we go our way" can be interpreted in many ways, it can also mean that "we will pull out our support from the government", unless the source says the word "independence", you should not interpret it as "independence".
  4. "it received far less government investments compared to West Pakistan": Source does not say that.
  5. "Most of Pakistan's foreign aid was spent on the West, even though theoretically, the East deserved more because of its larger population.": Source does not say that.
  6. Mujib in parantheses: Full name is good enough, people can click on Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and know more about him.
  7. You need to source that "the benefit concert was for refugees fleeing the Bangladesh genocide", unless a source specifically say that, please do not add that.
  8. "Mujib was flown by Royal Air Force: Not in the source and unnecessary to include.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Please respond to the questions raised above instead of just reverting. As to my understanding WP:CONSENSUS does not take precedence over WP:RS, if content is not supported by sources, it can be removed and you cannot restore it claiming that there was no consensus. I will wait for your response before reverting you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Um, yes, but nobody's disputing that.
2. I can't see all the pages in the source as some pages are missing. But this isn't really controversial and page 680, which I can see, says something pretty much like that.
3. We can remove the adjective "nationalist", but otherwise the source is fine.
4. Again, I don't see how you know that unless you actually have a source. Anyway this source says the same thing
5. Ditto
6. Ok.
7. This is an image caption. And again, it's not really controversial [8], [9], [10]. I can see the possibility of rewording it so it's more precise but there's no reason to remove the word "geocide".
8. I guess if you think this is so crucial (though the statement is probably true) we could remove it.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding point 1, it is 92nd, 21st not 21th, so th is not the rule. Here, read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/92_(number) Support 2, number 3 ask Akbar to find source or remove it. No 4 sounds OR, add source or remove. Regarding the other points add source or remove. If not in source than should not be in the article. 7 should stand Bangladesh Genocide is a historical fact,but the question is do sources say they fled because of conflict or genocide.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No 4 isn't OR it's probably in the source given (I'm AGFing the source) and it's also in other sources, like the one I provided above. Same for 3. 7 just needs rewording.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Re 7, you're misquoting the caption. It says the concert "raised funds for refugees fleeing the Bangladesh genocide" and not "benefit concert for refugees fleeing the Bangladesh genocide". Are you disputing the actual statement? Because as VM notes, it's not really controversial. @Vinegarymass911: Its a bit perplexing that you doubt that refugees fled because of war and genocide, what else could have possibly driven them away? Regarding the rest I'll be adding more sources by tomorrow. Every sentence is verifiable by reliable sources.--Akbar the Great (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Queen's picture

Queen Elizabeth II has been monarch of many countries during their early years when they transitioned as dominions from fully occupied to fully independent but that does not mean that all those country articles would have her picture in them specially when it comes to the context of Bangladesh, her picture looks out of place and irrelevant. She is merely mentioned in one sentence in that specific section where the picture is. She surely looked very beautiful in her younger years and I would wish for that picture to be in every article on Wikipedia but we cannot do that. Yahya Khan or Muhammad Ayub Khan would be more relevant for that section if you want to include a picture of a Pakistani leader of that time in that section.

As for the pictures in Bangladesh#British Eastern Bengal, they should be rearranged as per my earlier edit. Back to back four pictures crammed up at the top of the section make the page look cluttered and they would look better spread out. I hope and wish that the owner agrees with above suggestions so we can move forward on the road to improve this article.

Also, guys (Volunteer Marek, Kautilya3 and Vinegarymass911), I did not forget about the discussion in Talk:Bangladesh#Latest removals. Akbar promised in his last message that he will be adding more sources and i see he made a lot of changes, I am just not getting enough time to review them thus I am unable to reply. He might have addressed all of the issues or he might not have but please do not assume them resolved. I will surely review the changes in due course and see where those issues stand. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, I have a more constitutionalist view. I'm sure you want everyone to appreciate the history of the union between Bangladesh and Pakistan. Inserting a picture of Yahya Khan won't do much good in the Bangladesh country page, given how he was viewed in the posters of 1971. Queen Elizabeth on the other hand was indeed head of state during the more politically vibrant parliamentary period of the union. Whether you like it or not, she was Queen of the two wings. You also keep forgetting that British Bengal played an important role in the creation of Pakistan.--Akbar the Great (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Mughal and Ottoman

please change ((Mughal)) and ((Ottoman)) to ((Mughal Empire|Mughal)) and ((Ottoman Empire|Ottoman))

Done --allthefoxes (Talk) 20:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Edits by User:বব২৬

User:বব২৬ is claiming that Urdu/Hindustani is not a minority language in Bangladesh, whereas evidence points to the contrary. He also keeps coming back after every few days to restore his preferred version of the old lede. In his edit wars, he also removes a large amount of content from other sections like human rights and contributions by several other editors. This needs to be stopped. Apparently there's a ghostly consensus backing him up, but consensus cannot overwrite established facts.--Akbar the Great (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2016

There is an outdated part in this and I would like to fix it. Suttonces (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Demonym for the People of Bangladesh

I opened this discussion but someone deleted the whole discussion. Well I guess my argument was not so popular. But may I please request you to think deeply about this before coming to any conclusion. So my argument is the nationality or the demonym of people of bangladesh should be Bangalee/ Bengali since this is how it has been prescribed in the Constitution of Bangladesh.

Article 6 on Citizenship says:


"The people of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangalees as a nation and the citizens of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangladeshies". Here is the link for this:

http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/sections_detail.php?id=367&sections_id=24554


Then Article 9 on Nationalism says:

"The unity and solidarity of the Bangalee nation, which, deriving its identity from its language and culture, attained sovereign and independent Bangladesh through a united and determined struggle in the war of independence, shall be the basis of Bangalee nationalism."

I have also scholary references supporting the claim that according to the Bangladesh constitution the nationality of people of Bangladesh is Bengali/ Bangalee.


Ananya Mukherjee and Amena Mohsin for instance critically explained how bengali nationality was adopted in Bangladesh constitution:

Reference:

1.Mukherjee, Ananya, 2008, Human Development and Social Power: Perspectives from South Asia, Routledge, New York, page: 111

2. Mohsin, Amena, 2005, "Gendered Nation, Gendered Peace: A Study of Bangladesh" in Peace Process and Peace Accords, Sage Publication, London, page: 226 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoshanko (talk • contribs) 02:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we add overpopulation to the mentioned problems?

Can we list overpopulation as a major problem affecting Bangladesh and India? There are multiple sources for this but apparently on the India page it was previously debated and there was no consensus. I wanna ask what is the current suggestion here? I think we should add them as there are a number of reliable sources supporting it.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Whether a population is "over" or not is a judgement issue. I think it will be controversial, and it is best to avoid it. Whether overpopulation is a "problem" or not would be even worse. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Number of reliable sources judge the population as over-population, then i will support it, as editors, its not our call. Anything encyclopedic should be included for benefit of readers. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
And, who exactly is supposed to be a "reliable source" for that? - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: there's too many but here's a start [11]. I am also currently too preoccupied to deal with Wikipedia matters. We lost a pet yesterday we have emotional issues going too. I hope in the meantime other editors could also pool in their sources and ideas.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can't access the paper. So, going by the title Overpopulation as Crisis: Redirecting Health Care Services in Rural Bangladesh, how exactly does the paper establish that overpopulation is the crisis, rather than the underdevelopment of health care services? Is it clear that the Rural Bangladesh has adequate health care services? - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Official religion

Where is the official religion Of Bangladesh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajibkhq (talk • contribs) 10:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2016

Bangladesh is now Islamic republic of bangladesh 92.24.177.91 (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2016

GDP (nominal) per capita should be 1466 USD, ranking 141 (According to IMF, 2015) To verify please visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita GDP (PPP) per capita should be 3391 USD, ranking 142 (According to IMF, 2014) To verify please visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita Thank you. Mosharraf96 (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: I updated the GDP values per the IMF, but am leaving the rankings alone since those wiki lists are still from 2014 EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marma Language Inclusion

Marma being the second largest ethnic community in Bangladesh their language has not been included in the right handside summary page. Marma people live in Bandarban District. They speak in Arakanese dialect and their language is written in Burmese characters. Marma language belongs to the Burma-Arakan group within the broad classifications of Tibet-Burma languages. In recent times, Marmas in urban areas and nearby settlements speak the corrupt local language of Chittagong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baprumarma (talk • contribs) 10:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2016

Baprumarma (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Marma, The second largest ethnic group in Bangladesh, the Marmas live in the three hill districts of Rangamati, Bandarban and Khagrachhari. In the right handside summary under "Other Language" only Chakma, Kokborok, Tanchangya, Bishnupriya Manipuri and other indigenous languages are included. But Marma being the second largest community their language has not been included. Please include "Marma Language" in the right handside summary pane under "Other Language".


For reference http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Marma,_The Baprumarma (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Done — Music1201 talk 00:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bangladesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

"de facto national language"

This statement has been repeatedly added and removed from the page: "Bangla is also the de facto national language of Bangladesh." In my opinion it does no credit to the article to include that statement, and thus undermines the dignity of the country being discussed. The statement is neither comprehensible to the reader, nor is it accurate.

It is already stated that Bangla is the official language of the country. The national language page does not provide a definition, but rather explains that the term is used in several ways. One way is as a synonym of "official language", in which case the addition is meaningless. Another is as the language of a stateless nation, which does not apply here, and to allow that possible meaning to remain undermines the dignity of Bangladesh. Another meaning is as a language that does not have official status, which is also not the case here. Furthermore, the statement that Bangla is a national language of Bangladesh implies that it is not the native language of people native to other regions, and that is simply not the case; Bangla is important to all of Bengal, and to some other regions as well, such as Assam.

I hope that someone else will remove the statement, yet again, because the person who keeps adding it has been edit-warring against me, ignoring my edit summaries. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Bangla is native to the people of Bangladesh. The word de facto means "in fact, in reality, in actual existence, force, or possession, as a matter of fact" (literally "of fact")." According to the constitution where state language (language of the state/country) is Bangla, which de facto means Bangla is the national language. The nation of the language of Bangla, gave the creation of independent Bengal nation of Bangladesh.
Similarly the constitution of United Kingdom says the kingdom language is English which de facto means English is the national language of United Kingdom.
official language comes in pratice. Bangla is the de jure sole official language of the state as the constution states. Bangladesh does not recorgnize other indegineous languages as well. Neither is English recorgnized officially. But English is used in law, business and higher education alongside Bangla.
Furthermore, the statement that Bangla is a national language of Bangladesh, DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT MEAN that it is not the native language of people native to other regions, like Bengal and Assam. The statement Bangla is a national language of Bangladesh does not effect it's status in the WEst Bengal or Assam. Since West Bengal and Assam are a part of India, Bangla holdes a sate regional language status in the West Bengal and Assam, as India has no language mentioned as state language in it's constitution.
I hope it was understood by you. The page Bangla will always tell Bangla as a language native to Bangladesh, West Bengal and Assam. But the page Bangladesh would state Bangla as sole official and national language. Where as West Bengal and Assam page would as regional/state language and the page India with NO state/national language, instead 2 central official language and other regional official languages. I hope you confusion is clear, thank you. :) বব২৬/BB26t@lk 23:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the offending passage. Your argument is incomprehensible (WP:COMPETENCE) and the cited source simply does not support the statement. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2016

Please change " BUET, CUET, BUTex, DUET are among the six public engineering universities in the country. There are some science and technology universities including SUST, MIST, PUST, etc." located at Education section 6th paragraph, 2nd last line to " BUET, RUET, KUET, CUET, BUTex, DUET are among the six public engineering universities in the country. There are some science and technology universities including SUST, MIST, PUST, etc."

This will complete the article as two of the public engineering university of this country were not in the list. Reliable sources: RUET: http://www.ruet.ac.bd/ KUET: http://kuet.ac.bd/

কিশোর পাশা ইমন (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Kishor Pasha Imon, An editor of Bangla Wikipedia

 Done, and thank you!  Rules of engagement Paine  07:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2016

37.231.121.99 (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2016

Please change the population of Bangladesh,it should be 160,985,000

Hasanur Rahman (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Language

Why is there no mention of dialects such as Sylheti and Chittagonian as minority languages?

Because this language is use only this areas other area or total Bangladesh can't understand. Star electrical engineering 1971 (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bangladesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
URL has been replaced with one for more recent figures (2013) from same organization. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Bangladesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
One rescued source (gainhealth) was OK. One (prothom alo) failed verification. One (yahoo) is no longer used. The remaining two were replaced with current URLs. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2016

82.18.253.116 (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 BANGLADESH IS AWESOME AND IT IS A VERY INTELLIGENT COUNTRY!
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC).

Addition of a subsection on corruption

Hello,

the section on politics has a subsection human rights and corruption. It has less than four lines on corruption.

I would like to expand this content and make it a separate subsection.

Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2017

Bayezid Alam (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Bengali text

বাংলাদেশ ( বঙ্গ থেকে)বাংলাদেশ উচ্চারিত: [bangladesh] (শুনতে), শয়নকামরা "বাংলার দেশ"), আনুষ্ঠানিকভাবে বাংলাদেশ (গণপ্রজাতন্ত্রী বাংলাদেশ) গণপ্রজাতন্ত্রী, একটি সার্বভৌম রাষ্ট্র দক্ষিণ এশিয়া. এটা বৃহত্তম এবং পূর্ব অংশ বঙ্গ ভাষাগত অঞ্চল গঠন করে. বঙ্গোপসাগরের চূড়া এ অবস্থিত, দেশ ভারত ও মিয়ানমারের সীমানায় হয় এবং সংকীর্ণ শিলিগুড়ি করিডোর দ্বারা নেপাল ও ভুটান থেকে পৃথক করা হয়. [8] 170 মিলিয়ন জনসংখ্যার সঙ্গে, এটি বিশ্বের অষ্টম জনবহুল দেশ, পঞ্চম সবচেয়ে এশিয়ার জনবহুল এবং তৃতীয় সবচেয়ে জনবহুল মুসলিম সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠ দেশ. সরকারি বাংলা ভাষা বিশ্বের সপ্তম সবচেয়ে কথ্য ভাষা, পশ্চিমবঙ্গ, ত্রিপুরা ও আসামের (বরাক উপত্যকার) ভারতীয় রাজ্যে প্রতিবেশী সঙ্গে বাংলাদেশের শেয়ার.

এশিয়ার সর্ববৃহৎ নদী তিনটি, গঙ্গা (স্থানীয়ভাবে পদ্মা নামে পরিচিত), ব্রহ্মপুত্র (স্থানীয়ভাবে যমুনা নামে পরিচিত) এবং মেঘনা, বাংলাদেশের মধ্য দিয়ে প্রবাহিত হয় এবং উর্বর বঙ্গীয় বদ্বীপের বৃহত্তম বিশ্বের বদ্বীপ গঠন করে. [9] সমৃদ্ধ জীববৈচিত্র্য বাংলাদেশ 700 নদী বাড়িতে; সুন্দরবন, বিশ্বের সর্ববৃহৎ ম্যানগ্রোভ বন বিবেচিত অধিকাংশ; বৃষ্টিঅরণ্য প্রভাবিত এবং চা বর্ধমান উচ্চভূমিতে; বিশ্বের দীর্ঘতম সমুদ্র সৈকত এক সঙ্গে 600 কিলোমিটার (370 মাইল) তটরেখা; এবং প্রবাল প্রাচীর সহ বিভিন্ন দ্বীপ. বাংলাদেশ বিশ্বের সবচেয়ে ঘনবসতিপূর্ণ দেশগুলোর একটি দক্ষিণ কোরিয়া এবং মোনাকো পাশাপাশি র্যাংকিং. রাজধানী ঢাকা ও বন্দর নগরী চট্টগ্রামে সবচেয়ে বিশিষ্ট শহুরে কেন্দ্র আছে. উদীয়মান জাতিগোষ্ঠীর বাঙালি, একটি রাজনৈতিক প্রভাবশালী বাংলা মুসলিম সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠ, বাঙালি হিন্দুদের চাকমা, বাংলা খ্রিস্টান, মারমা, কষা বায়ুমণ্ডলীয় এস, বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরীরা, বাংলা বৌদ্ধ, গারো, সাঁওতাল, বিহারী, ওরাওঁরা, ত্রিপুরি, মুন্ডা, রাখাইনদের দ্বারা অনুসৃত হয় রোহিঙ্গা ইসলামী এবং বাহাই. [10]

বৃহত্তর বাংলার প্রাচীন গ্রীক ও রোমানরা গঙ্গারিডাই হিসাবে পরিচিত ছিল. [11] বদ্বীপের মানুষ তাদের নিজস্ব ভাষা, স্ক্রিপ্ট, সাহিত্য, সঙ্গীত, শিল্প ও স্থাপত্যশিল্পের বিকাশ. প্রারম্ভিক এশীয় সাহিত্যের একটি সমুদ্রে ভ্রমণ শক্তি হিসেবে অঞ্চলের বর্ণনা. [12] এটা ঐতিহাসিক সিল্ক রোডের একটি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ আড়ত ছিল. [13] বাংলার মুসলিম জগতে চার শতাব্দী ধরে শোষিত হয় এবং শাসিত সুলতানদের দ্বারা, দিল্লি সুলতানাত ও বাংলার সুলতানি অধীনে সহ. এই মুঘল সাম্রাজ্যের প্রশাসন দ্বারা অনুসরণ করা হয়েছে. ইসলামী বাংলায় একটি গলে পাত্র, একটি আঞ্চলিক শক্তি এবং মধ্যযুগীয় বিশ্বের বাণিজ্যে মূল খেলোয়াড় ছিল. ব্রিটিশ ঔপনিবেশিক বিজয়ের দেরী 18th শতাব্দীর মধ্যে স্থান গ্রহণ. জাতীয়তাবাদ, সামাজিক সংস্কার ও শিল্পকলা, দেরী 19th এবং 20th শতাব্দীর মধ্যে ব্রিটিশ রাজের অধীনে উন্নত যখন অঞ্চলে উপমহাদেশে উপনিবেশ-বিরোধী আন্দোলনের একটি কারণ ছিল.

1905 সালে বাংলার প্রথম ব্রিটিশ পার্টিশন, যে পূর্ববঙ্গ ও আসাম প্রদেশের সৃষ্টি করেছেন, 1947 সালে ব্রিটিশ ভারত বিভাগের জন্য নজীর স্থাপন, যখন পূর্ববাংলা পাকিস্তানের ডোমিনিয়ন যোগদান করেন এবং 1955 সালে পূর্ব পাকিস্তান হিসেবে নামকরণ করা হয় এটা ছিল 1,400 কিলোমিটার (870 মাইল) ভারতীয় ভূখন্ড দ্বারা পশ্চিম পাকিস্তান থেকে আলাদা. পূর্ব পাকিস্তান দেশটির ডেমোগ্রাফিক সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠ এবং তার বিধানিক রাজধানী বাসভবনে ছিলেন. [14] [15] 1971 সালে বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধে একটি ধর্মনিরপেক্ষ বহুদলীয় সংসদীয় গণতন্ত্রের সঙ্গে একটি নতুন প্রজাতন্ত্র হিসেবে পূর্ব পাকিস্তানের বিচ্ছিন্নতার ফলে. [16] [17] [18] 1975 সালে একটি আকালিক একদলীয় রাষ্ট্র এবং বিভিন্ন সামরিক অভ্যুত্থান প্রেসিডেন্ট সরকার প্রতিষ্ঠিত. 1991 সালে সংসদীয় প্রজাতন্ত্র পুনঃপ্রতিষ্ঠার উন্নত অর্থনৈতিক প্রবৃদ্ধি ও আপেক্ষিক স্থায়িত্ব নেতৃত্বে. বাংলাদেশ নিরাপত্তা বাহিনীর অতিরিক্ত জনসংখ্যা এবং গ্লোবাল ওয়ার্মিং দ্বারা দারিদ্র্য, দুর্নীতি, মেরুকরণ রাজনীতির চ্যালেঞ্জ, মানবাধিকার লংঘনের মুখোমুখি চলতে. অবশ্য দেশের উল্লেখযোগ্য মানব উন্নয়ন অগ্রগতি অর্জন করেছে, স্বাস্থ্য, শিক্ষা, লিঙ্গ সমতা, জনসংখ্যা নিয়ন্ত্রণ ও খাদ্য উৎপাদনে সহ. [19] [20] [21] দারিদ্র্যের হার 2014 সালে 25.6% থেকে 1990 সালে 57% থেকে কমে গেছে [22]

আন্তর্জাতিক বিষয়াবলি এবং একটি প্রধান উন্নয়নশীল দেশের মধ্যে একটি মধ্যম শক্তি হিসেবে বিবেচনা করা, বাংলাদেশ নেক্সট ইলেভেন এক হিসাবে তালিকাভুক্ত করা হয়. এটা জাতীয় সংসদ নামক একটি নির্বাচিত সংসদ সঙ্গে একটি এককেন্দ্রিক রাষ্ট্র হয়. বাংলাদেশ, ভারত ও পাকিস্তানের পর তৃতীয় বৃহত্তম অর্থনীতি এবং দক্ষিণ এশিয়ায় সামরিক হয়েছে. এটা সার্কের একটি প্রতিষ্ঠাতা সদস্য এবং বিমসটেক স্থায়ী সচিবালয় হোস্ট. [23] জাতিসংঘ শান্তিরক্ষা অভিযানে বিশ্বের বৃহত্তম অবদানকারী হল. [24] এটা একজন সদস্য ডেভেলপিং 8 দেশ সমূহ, ওআইসি, কমনওয়েলথ অফ নেশনস, ওয়ার্ল্ড ট্রেড অর্গানাইজেশন, গ্রুপ -77, জোটনিরপেক্ষ আন্দোলন, বিসিআইএম এবং ভারত মহাসাগরের রিম অ্যাসোসিয়েশন. দেশের প্রাকৃতিক গ্যাস ও চুনাপাথর সহ উল্লেখযোগ্য প্রাকৃতিক সম্পদ রয়েছে. কৃষি প্রধানত চাল, পাট এবং চা উৎপাদন করে. ঐতিহাসিকভাবে মসলিন ও সিল্ক জন্য বিখ্যাত, আধুনিক বাংলাদেশ বিশ্বের নেতৃস্থানীয় টেক্সটাইল প্রযোজক এক. তার প্রধান ব্যবসায়িক অংশীদার ইউরোপীয় ইউনিয়ন, মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র, জাপান এবং অন্যান্য কাছাকাছি এন অন্তর্ভুক্ত

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2017

In the lyrics that is shown when the national anthem (multimedia) is played, it shows 'ভরা খেতে', it will be 'ভরা ক্ষেতে'. Thanks. 132.170.208.49 (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: It is an audio file [12] with inbuilt subtitles uploaded by User:Keith Lehwald. There is nothing to do with the request. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The state language of Bangladesh is Bangla, not Bengali.

In the eight amendment to the constitution of Bangladesh in 1988, "Bengali" was replaced with "Bangla"[1]. Government documents write Bangla, not Bengali. That's why the state language will be, in this article, Bangla, not and never Bengali because Bangla, and only Bangla is the constitutional and official language, and I repeat "government documents write Bangla, not Bengali." If they can write the article on India in Indian English, and Calcutta, Kolkata, why can't we write Bangla as our constitution decrees. All racists, Bangladesh haters or Bangladeshis with national-cultural inferiority complex, please stay away from this article. Thanks. - পেতনীপিসি (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@পেতনীপিসি: I agree in principle, but Wikipedia prefers WP:COMMONNAME, that is, what other people use for the language, not what the law says is official. For now I won't change it back. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 02:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@BurritoBazooka: No, you are wrong because the constitution of Bangladesh says the state language is Bangla, not Bengali; so if you say it's Bengali, you are misrepresenting its state language. You are so fussy about a common name, put it in bracket or add another sentence to explain, but you can't say it's Bengali because no government documents write Bengali. Hope it's clearer now? And what about Kolkata or Indian English? Why don't you replace them with common names? - পেতনীপিসি (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@পেতনীপিসি: I don't really care, which is why I'm not changing it back. I'm just saying, if it is changed back by someone else, you know why (Wikipedia policy, which can be changed by consensus). --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 03:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@BurritoBazooka: You don't need to care; it's OK, but you can't forget that common names never eliminates the official names. They always stay, and, in fact, all articles begin with official names, look at the examples given at WP:COMMONNAME, maybe, they are titled by common names but everyone of them begins with the official names wether it's FIFA, or Bill Clinton or any thing else. - পেতনীপিসি (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, it should stay how it is now, with Bengali(Bangla). It would be better if it's like Bengali(Bangla officially). Anyway, the one which is present currently is best. It is like saying that Persian should be written as Farsi.31.215.192.248 (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks

An editor is making personal attacks in edit summaries over this issue. Please deal with this person. Government documents are often disputed.

Additionally, can there please be a decisive consensus on what form of spelling should be used. It's quite like changing Persian to Farsi.--ArmanJ (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@ArmanJ: I have very recently reminded them about composing civil edit summaries, and since then they haven't yet made any new summaries which could be construed as attacks. In this article I agree with changing it to "Bangla", since it is defined as the official language of the state of Bangladesh. There are Bangla-speaking communities all over the world as well, though, and I'm not sure how to handle other articles where "Bengali" is mentioned. I know in UK government documentation, the language is still referred to as "Bengali" and also referred to as such in common speech. For example, here, the largest minority language in Tower Hamlets is "Bengali (with Sylheti and Chatgaya)". Other articles should be discussed on other pages, perhaps. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 10:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@ArmanJ: For your kind consideration, both the name of the capital city, "Dacca" and the name of state language, "Bengali" were changed into respectively Dhaka and Bangla in the eight amendment to the constitution of Bangladesh (check the reference to be sure)[2]. BTW, I have necessary academic expertise, and I know by firsthand experience that government documents write Bangla, not Bengali. PS If I offend you, please accept my apology. Thanks. - পেতনীপিসি (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Instead of edit warring and making crude remarks in your edit summaries, you should try moving the title of Bengali language to Bangla language. Otherwise there is bound to be confusion and interchangeable use of Bengali on the site. If both the Bangladeshi and Indian government use the term Bangla, then it makes a strong case to change the title.--ArmanJ (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@ArmanJ: As far as I know India writes Bengali; is it still possible to move? Please help by moving or make comments. Thanks. পেতনীপিসি (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Unreal7:, @Shyamsunder: @Aditya Kabir:, Please help guys it seems two guys are completely confused about the Bengali/Bangla language issue.--Anandmoorti (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
No. I want no part in this. I've said it before. Unreal7 (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup. It is the same language. Bengali is what it is called in English; Bangla in Bengali. This is after all the English Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The name should be changed to Bangla. People of Bengal region (both Bangladesh and West Bengal) calls this language Bangla (in both Bangla and English texts). I fail to see why the Wikipedia article should call it Bengali.Shopnochura (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Article 3. The state language". The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Ministry of Law, The People's Republic of Bangladesh. Retrieved 1 February 2017. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Emajuddin Ahamed (2013). "Constitutional Amendments". In Islam, Sirajul (ed.). Banglapedia, The National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh (2nd edition ed.). Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. Retrieved 3 February 2017. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |website= ignored (help)

Population authenticity

The country's 2015 estimate population that is written in this article is 168,957,745. The controversy lies within the reference. The World Factbook is used as the source of this information. But if you go to the actual page here, Bangladesh's population is 156,186,882 as of July 2016. One may argue that the number isn't updated to the source. But according to my knowledge of the country, I can assuredly say that there could not be any significant amount of population decrease over the course of a year. I would like this to be solved as soon as possible, and of course, if I am misperceiving, please do let me know. After all, there should not be any mistakes regarding sourcing information in Wikipedia since it is considered reliable for student researching. This same issue can also bee seen in the article, Demographics of Bangladesh. Thanks. Ikhtiar H (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The two statements:
  • The World Factbook estimated Bangladesh's population as 168,957,745 in 2015.[1]
  • The World Factbook estimated Bangaldesh's population as 156,186,882 in July 2016.[2]
are both true. You could, if you wish, update the number in the infobox and the date of estimate to match the latest version of the source, in the hope that the latest number is the most accurate.
What the discrepancy highlights is that these are only estimates, and estimates can vary widely. The World Factbook says it is "an estimate from the US Bureau of the Census based on statistics from population censuses, vital statistics registration systems, or sample surveys pertaining to the recent past and on assumptions about future trends."[3] Most likely the true population didn't changed by 12 million from year to year, but The World Factbook started using newer input data or changed their population growth model.
Wikipedia attempts to be written from a neutral point of view, so if there are other accepted points of view, Wikipedia should present them. The United Nations estimates population at five year intervals. Its 2015 estimate of Bangladesh's population is 160,996,000.[4] So the article might express the 2015 estimate of population as 160,996,000 - 168,958,000 and cite both sources. The demographics section of the article should certainly discuss the range of estimates. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Bangladesh: People and Society". The World Factbook. 2015. Archived from the original on 14 April 2016.
  2. ^ "Bangladesh: People and Society". The World Factbook. 2016.
  3. ^ "References: Definitions and Notes". The World Factbook. 2016.
  4. ^ "World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision". United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2017

119.30.32.252 (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


web Maker:ATIK

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK Discuss 21:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2017

In Demographic section please change mentions of Burma to Myanmar, it is the commonly used name now. 86.97.129.13 (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Muhammed Dayem Miajee

Biodata Ebsline (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bangladesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Not British English

Having just concluded a comprehensive copy-edit of the article, I wish to remark that the article (or most of it) is written in American, and not British, English. – BroVic (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

such a mess!!!

The country article is always important but this article is a mess! Unnecessary amature pics are here and there, strange economic sectors format, primary secondary? How on earth Bangladesh got it's own martial arts. Being myself as a Bangladeshi athlet, um 100% sure all of those writing are nonsense. Boats and rickshaw are also there!? what come next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.239.155 (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bangladesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Typo fix request Suggestion

In the genocide section, the relief concert is described as "The Concert for Bangla Desh". Considering that the linking article never describes it with that spelling, I think this could be a typo and should be fixed. Did I miss something? Myoglobin (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Bangladesh was spelled as "Bangla Desh" before the independence in 1971. Lonely Explorer (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangladesh/Archive_6&oldid=1136296355"