Talk:Bangladesh

Hyphenation

BangladeshItalic text is one of the most beautiful countries in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.23.176 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

In English, words like these are not hyphenated, and this needs to be corrected in the article: northeast, southeast, southwest, northwest, northeastern, southeastern, southwestern, and northwestern.
See these: Southeast Asia; Northwest Territories in Canada; the former Northwest Territory in the United States; Northwestern University; Northeastern University; Southeast Missouri State University; the Southwestern United States; the Southeastern United States; the Murray–Darling basin of southeastern Australia; southeastern New Zealand.98.67.163.247 (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

State Religion

Dear user:MunnaHabibi, Bangladesh doesn't have any state religion at present. Its a secular country although the majority of the population are Muslims. Please watch Secularism in Bangladesh and also the declaration of the Supreme court. - Rahat | Message 06:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear User:Ctg4Rahat, please read your source more carefully. In paragraph 10 of the article, it states that:

• "the parliamentary committee recommended retention of Islam as the state religion"
• "the state would be neutral on the question of religion"
• "the Cabinet, chaired by Sheikh Hasina, approved a Constitution bill seeking the retention of "Islam as the state religion"."

In paragraph 16, it states that:

• "Islam, however, shall remain state religion as it was not covered by the judgment."

Additionally, you might want to read the Constitution of Bangladesh in which section 2A states that:

• "The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but the State shall ensure equal status and equal right in the practice of the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and other religions."

The moral of the story is that you should always check your sources. Green Giant (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...I see...Totally contradictory declaration by the court. A secular country with a state religion!!! - Rahat | Message 19:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Human Rights and Minorities

Human Rights Of Minority religions like Hindu, Christians, Sikh etc. should also be included as a part of wiki impartiality and neutral point. Kindly provide complete picture of Bangladesh without fear. There should be no hiding of the truth. Dr Prashanna Jain Gotani (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC) References ;

1). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Notifications

2). http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/bangladesh-wave-violent-attacks-against-hindu-minority-2013-03-06

3). https://www.google.co.in/search?q=wiki+bangladesh&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari

4) http://interfaithstrength.blogspot.in/

5). http://hinduexistence.org/2013/12/11/islamic-violation-of-human-rights-and-attack-upon-minority-hindus-in-bangladesh-severely-opposed-in-hr-day/

6). http://www.hinduhumanrights.info/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi

7) http://www.hafsite.org/resources/human_rights_report

8). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

9). http://interfaithstrength.blogspot.in/

10). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_American_Foundation

11). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Bangladesh

12). http://www.hrcbm.org/

Now I ask every genuine person to debate on this issue of truth!

Foreign relations and military

In the second paragraph in the section "Foreign relations and military", the sixth sentence reads as follows:

Recognising the importance of good relations, regional security and South Asian economic integration, the two countries have sought to revive relations in recent years, and have formed strategic partnerships to develop regional connectivity, infrastructure, greater trade, mutual access to markets, hydropower, energy, environmental protection and cultural projects.

I had just made a few small edits to this sentence to improve clarity, but there is still something not quite right, and that is the juxtaposition of "hydropower" and "energy". Hydropower is one way of generating energy. Should this read, "to develop........mutual access to markets, energy, including hydropower, environmental protection, and cultural projects", or shall we leave out hydropower and just keep "energy", or leave out "energy" and just keep "hydropower"? – CorinneSD (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Government seal in the Infobox

Why is it instrumental to have the Seal of Govt in the infobox? It wasn't here before and if it is not common in other similar articles, isn't it obnoxious to put them here now? --» nafSadh did say 05:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

edit request 6 dec 2013

5th paragraph, 3rd sentence, "...and a member of the Commonwealth..." : Commonwealth should be Commonwealth of Nations. The former, while it may be a common shortening of the latter, links to the wrong article. I originally fixed this 30 April but someone has reverted it in the meantime. 108.206.152.174 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Rahat | Message 03:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Just letting you guys know

This edit appears to be vandalism (if the user's other contributions are anything to go by). I cannot revert because the page is semi-protected. 166.137.248.125 (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Vandalism reverted. - Rahat | Message 08:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

History - 20th century

In the third paragraph of the section "20th century" in the larger section "History", is the following sentence:

"The Bangladesh Forces, formed within 11 sectors and led by General M.A.G. Osmani, consisting of Bengali Regular forces, conducted a massive guerilla war against the Pakistan Forces with support from the Mukti Bahinis consisting of Kader Bahini and Hemayet Bahini."

I just added links to WP articles for "Kader Bahini" and "Hemayet Bahini" (after correcting the spelling of the former). However, I noticed in the article Mukti Bahini, that "Mukti Bahini" is defined as the Bangladesh Armed Forces, paramilitary groups, and civilian groups, together. The sentence that I quoted above makes it seem as if the Bangladesh Forces were not included in the term "Mukti Bahini". (Also, it is not completely clear what the difference is between "The Bangladesh Forces" and "Bengali Regular forces", and why both need to be mentioned in this sentence.) Shouldn't the definition of Mukti Bahini be consistent between the two articles? Any ideas or suggestions?CorinneSD (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Mukti Bahini was a resistance force against the Pakistan Forces during the Bangladesh Liberation War and comprised of the Bangladesh forces as well as the civillians, so Bangladesh forces were actually included in the term Mukti Bahini. Though since Bangladesh as a country was yet to be established during the war, they used the term Bengali Regular forces referring to the Bengali officers and soldiers who were earlier working in the Pakistan forces but joined the Mukti Bahini when the war broke out. I second you, there's no need to mention both "The Bangladesh Forces" and "Bengali Regular forces" in the same sentence and the definition of Mukti Bahini must be consistent between the two articles. --Zayeem ^(talk) 13:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'm sorry it took me a while to get back to this. I am afraid it is all a bit confusing for me, in spite of the information you provided, and I hesitate to make changes to the sentence since I'm not sure what ought to be left out and what, if anything, ought to be added. Do you want to work on it?CorinneSD (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

CorinneSD, I just made this edit to fix it. Also, I just saw your earlier post regarding the Foreign relations and military section and made this edit. Hope they are okay with the prose. --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Both edits are fine. Upon reading the first one through, it seemed to me that the phrase "formed within 11 sectors" is a bit vague, especially for someone who knows little about the history or geography of Bangladesh. I'm wondering, (a) why it is important to mention this, and (b) if it is important, what, exactly, are those "sectors" and why the number (11) is significant. If you think the phrase is important to retain, perhaps you could add just a few words to make it clear what those sectors are and why it is important to mention the number of sectors.CorinneSD (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD, Bangladesh was geographically divided into 11 zones or sectors during the war as part of the warfare strategies of Mukti Bahini. I'm not sure if it deserves an inclusion. Also, it seems an editor has expressed his concerns regarding this sentence, I've left a note in his talk page seeking his suggestions.--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your note on my talk page, Zayeem. As I mentioned in the edit summary, my concern was with the express notation in the "sections" list that reads, "During Bangladesh War of Independence the Bangladesh Forces (not to be confused with Mukti Bahini) were divided in the geographical area of Bangladesh into eleven sectors." (my bold italics) If there is such a difference as to warrant that statement, then using "The Mukti Bahini..." in place of "The Bangladesh Forces..." (which is linked to Bangladesh Armed Forces) is rendered incorrect because it violates that sentence in the sectors list, doesn't it? Frankly, you may very well be far more expert on this subject than I, but it seems to me that if your previous change stands, then the sectors-list sentence must be altered to reflect what is on the Mukti Bahini page, as well. ("The Mukti Bahini (Bengali: মুক্তি বাহিনী meaning Liberation Army) is term which refers to all Bengali resistance forces which fought against the Pakistan Army during the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971.") (again, my emphasis on "all") – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I got you. I actually tried to fix the confusion expressed by CorinneSD through wrongly replacing the two terms, I guess I should have added a few more words to that sentence. If we go with the Banglapedia article on Mukti Bahini, it seems Bangladesh Forces were actually part of Mukti Bahini. However, the decision to form the 11 sectors came from Bangladesh forces prior to the formation of Mukti Bahini. I just made this edit to fix both the concerns, please take a look. If it's okay then we could include it in other related articles as well to keep it consistent?--Zayeem ^(talk) 21:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds much better. I hope you don't mind that I tweaked it just a little. Just to keep it out in the open for discussion, I don't think that "Mukti Bahini" should be in italics. Am I unaware of any special reason that italics should be used? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Perfectly alright! I was also a bit worried for the prose. And also no problem with the italics being taken off. I guess we should include it in the sectors list article as well? --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think the "not to be confused with" could definitely be improved with clarification. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Name in Bengali

The Bengali name must be there in both the infobox and the intro per the convention, see Germany for example. --Zayeem ^(talk) 13:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This is really a petty issue. But here I think with the original Bengali and the transliteration both there with the long English, the place gets too crowded. And regarding your example of Germany, I think that with the pronunciation there, it gets the same length as it is here. There should be a solution to all this... English speakers may not want so many scripts, alphabets and pronunciations crowding the first sentence, when such reference things are there in the infobox. What do you say? I've tried this at Pakistan, too and there hasn't been objection. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 14:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess we should go with the convention, more appropriately with the featured country articles i.e Germany. I would recommend to change it in the Pakistan article as well.--Zayeem ^(talk) 10:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok... I've got it back to what it was; there, too. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 06:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Zia picture

This should not be a big issue, but the opposition to labelling Zia as a war hero is quite ill-informed and misplaced. Despite the fact that he was the country's first military dictator, Zia was also a decorated war figure, the proclaimer of the nation's independence and a leader of the Mukti Bahini. If you go through most history books on early Bangladesh, especially Anthony Mascarenhas's Legacy of Blood, it is clearly stated that, after the volatile period following the Mujib assassination, the rise of Zia as leader was welcomed by most Bangladeshis due to his role in the war. This is an important element in understanding the country's history and politics. Zia remains somewhat of a revered figure, with an image of a rather benevolent autocrat, and his party today stems whatever legitimacy it has from his role in the 1971 war.--Bazaan (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Bazaan, we can't label someone both positively or negatively even if it's supported by reliable sources per WP:W2W. But we can include something like Zia played an influential role during the Bangladesh Liberation War. --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Zaeem —ШαмıQ✍ @ 20:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

History - Middle age

Aren't things a bit out of chronological order toward the end of the second paragraph and in the third paragraph? Even ignoring the date of 1943, an example of famines, the date given for the beginning of British rule appears before the dates for the Maratha Empire in the third paragraph.

Also, what does the heading "Middle age" mean? I've never seen that in a history book. Perhaps "Middle period" would be better.CorinneSD (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The chronological order is pretty dodgy at moment. Please, lend a hand. But, the middle age is a common enough phrase for history books. Take a look at this google book search (middle age: 2,130,000 results) as opposed to this google book search (middle period: 327,000 results). Also see that the middle age is a political historical term, while the middle period is more of a art history term (the term doesn't exist on the Wikipedia though). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If you follow that link to middle age, you get a disambiguation page where the historical links are to the middle ages. Shouldn't the heading be changed to that? Rothorpe (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the titles in the first google book search link you provided, you will see that most of them refer to the period in a person's life called middle age. Only a few refer to a historical period. Either "Middle Ages" or "The middle period" would work. "The middle period" is not used only to describe the middle period in the work of an artist; it is also used to describe a middle period in history.CorinneSD (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The debate on Middle Age/Period, I think is unnecessary. On historical context, the term "Middle Age" has been used on many numbers of occasions and had been recognized by other established encyclopedic sources (i.e. Enc. Britannica, British Library's Article on Medieval Realms). About, your quote "never seen that in a History book", I think that can be a little exaggeration. I am not a history student, but, with a great deal of interest, I have found many books containing the term, even some with the title containing "Middle ages". However, I must say, there are more books referring to the incidents/realms around this timescale as "Medieval". Your argument on the use of "age" in human health topics, is understandable. However, in Geological context also, there are significant difference between Period and Ages. Since history is closer to anthropology and geology, than it is to modern biological science, converting "Middle Ages" to "Middle Period" in this article would rather be more confusing for avid readers. Our readers and participants in this debate, may wish to consult Wikipedia articles Middle ages, Periodization#Notable_periods,Early_Middle_Ages,Late_Middle_Ages,High_Middle_Ages. However, considering your point on possible miss-lead, I would propose to converting "Middle Ages" to "Medieval time" or "Medieval History" on this article only. Mehedi (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, but you have missed the point that, in English, "Middle Age" is not normally used to discuss history while the phrase "Middle Ages" is used to discuss history, usually European history. I recommend caution before using "Middle Ages" to label a period in Bangladesh history because the phrases "the Middle Ages" and "the Medieval Period" are used to refer to specific years in European (and sometimes Japanese) history. If the years being discussed in Bangladesh history do not correspond to those years (or are not already in use by historians of Bangladesh), then it would be misleading to use those phrases. I believe that, if a label is needed at all, "the Middle Period" is more appropriate than any of the other phrases. Also, it really does not matter what phrases are used in other fields. What matters is what is used to name periods in history in Standard English, that is, the English spoken and written by university-educated speakers of English, and by historians.CorinneSD (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in English spoken and written by university-educated speakers of English, and by historians, the term Middle Age much more preferred to signify a time in history than the Middle Period. If you think Middle Period is preferred, please, provide a proof. Mehedi and I have provided enough of that. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2014

MunnaHabibi (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2014

MunnaHabibi (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Map of Bangladesh

Has anyone noticed that the map of Bangladesh is quite useless? It may be useful to locate its general proximity in a broad brushstroke on a globe but as far as an actual map, it is as of now, quite useless. I will unfortunately because of the failure of Wikipedia have to use resources outside of Wikipedia to get a general idea of its whereabouts. Hopefully, someone can bring this article into the 20th Century (we'll worry about the 21st Century later) sometime soon... Isn't it a standard on Wikipedia to not only provide a contextual map but also a physical map for an article on a nation? Shouldn't it be a basic standard, if it is not already? Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide an example or two from Wikipedia articles? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)