Talk:History of Bangladesh

What is the "Mughul priesthood" mentioned in the article?

Independence declaration

Whether Major Ziaur Rahman's announcement was a declaration or announcement is a controversial issue. Seems like a POV to me; any ideas on this? Could be rephrased and made clear?

How about stating simply the facts, even excerpts from the declaration itself (It was in Bangla). That is, Major Zia declared the independence from Kalurghat Radio Transmitter at Chittagong on March 27th. The declaration was "This is Major Zia speaking... I, on Behalf of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman ......"

This is because there would always be a lot of controversy about this thing, so better stick to stating the facts only without going into any POV.

To be 100% factual, the faint Radio message attributed to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (REference: Witness to Surrender by Major Siddique Salique who was a Pakistani Army PR officer, aide to Gen Niaji), can be mentioned too. However, most of the people heard only Zia's announcement (it was relayed by India's powerful transmitters), so Zia can definitely be acknowledged as the person who declared independence.

That sounds awesome. The current author quotes Banglapedia. I have checked some other sources too. Apparently, the radio broadcast was only picked up by a Chinese ship in Chittagong port, and the first major radio station to broadcast this was in Australia! BBC and Indian Radio then redistribute it. I am yet to meet a person who didn't get the declaration on 27th from BBC!

Someone recently removed the "on behalf of SM Rahman" part in the declaration of independence. The text of this declaration is at Bangladesh Liberation War article and seems to indicate that "on behalf of" part was present. Without getting involved in BNP-AL tug of war, isn't it justified to restore that article to the previous state since no reason has been presented for why the "on behalf.." part should be removed? -- urnonav 00:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Merger of East Pakistan into History of Bangladesh

Could someone explain why this is necessary? As I see it the two are different entitities and East Pakistan is not just historical. Information on its economics policy and administration should be included but those should not be in history of Bangladesh, but if anyone sees why the merger is necessary could you please explain before putting a tag up? Thanks. -- Urnonav 00:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also don't see any reason for the merger. I think the tag put there is due to the extensive sorting/tagging activity in recent days. My opinion would be to remove the unncessary tag. --Ragib 02:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ancient History

There is almost no reference to Ancient Bangladesh in this article. Perhaps another article should be created for that.

No, this article should be massively restructured, rewritten. --Ragib 21:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, this has certainly changed. But unfortunately, there's no such thing a "Ancient Bangladesh." That's like talking about "ancient Slovakia," or "ancient Namibia". This article has way too much material about ancient and medieval history, and not enough about the history of the modern state. Most pre-1947 material ought to be in History of Bengal. This article should give a brief overview of earlier history, focusing on a) the conversion of eastern Bengal to Islam; and b) the politics leading to East Bengal becoming part of Pakistan. It should focus on the history since 1947. john k 12:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I completely agree with User:John K. History before 1947 belongs to Bengali people. Bengalis are in both sides of India and modern Bangladesh. So to be neutral medieval and ancient history should be in the history of Bengal. User Talk:Dewan357

Ist para confusion

"with Hadrath Shajalal Sha Sylhet, " -- I am failing to undestand this phrase in the first paragraph. --ppm

Improvement drive

Grameen Bank has been nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Vote for the article there if you are interested in this topic. --Fenice 13:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

POV

This article is full of POV statements. Has to be rewritten. --ppm 19:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

stop vandalism about Bangladesh

How come Garment workers strike is relavant in several thousand years history of bangladesh. plz stop this nonsense activities.

Relation with History of Bengal

Why should the ancient and medieval history not be merged with History of Bengal? deeptrivia (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Article split

This article was getting very long, and heavily weighted toward post-independence history. I have summarized the post-independence material, and moved the detail to a new article, History of Bangladesh after independence so that this article will be more balanced. Ground Zero | t 21:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oughtn't an article on the history of a country whose existence as a distinct region is a result of partition focus on its history since 1947? john k (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:1971 surrender.jpg

The image File:1971 surrender.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Mujib7March.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)