Talk:North South University

The question arises because I have seen claims by Darul Ihsan Univ, and some other Universities that those are the first pvt univs..... Can anyone cite a definitive reference on this? Until then, I guess we can omit the fact. --Ragib 07:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NSU isn't the first private univ in Bangladesh. The following univs were established before NSU:

• University of Science & Technology Chittagong
• International University of Business Agriculture and Technology

And this link (Darul Ihsan University (DIU)) shows DIU was established in 1989.--NAHID 17:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

NSU is the first granted private university.

I agree that many other Universities claim that theirs are the first, But the thing is that they might have started operating without the approval of the UGC of Bangladesh. North South University is the First one to get the approval as a Private university. So, officially North South University is the First Private University of Bangladesh and also holds the first position in the UGC ranking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bakedcaked (talk • contribs) 07:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

UGC does NOT have a ranking of universities. Also, a reference will be helpful to support the former claim. --Ragib 08:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed--NAHID 20:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Banglapedia site suggests NSU as the first private University. Source: [1]. Here's another site suggesting same. Source: [2]

References are provided :)--NAHID 08:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposing separate section for Accreditation and Collaboration

Lamea and Nahid, I think a separate section for Accreditation and Collaboration will be more appropriate than just putting all the names (affiliated universities) in the info box. Please think about it. Niaz bd 10:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I think so.--NAHID 07:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• But adding Accreditation and Collaboration with foreign universities isn't encyclopedic at all--NAHID 08:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I do agree. I'll also remove this section from East West University page. But, affiliation with any research organization or group is quite fine. Ivy League, Russel Group, Coimbra Group, Group of Eight, IDEA League, Universitas 21 etc are some famous research led university groups and respective universities have the template added at their articles. Niaz bd 10:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

About tag flooding!

Nahid, I do agree that I was too harsh on this article but there was a reason. Some of the NSU guy created NSUSS page and uploaded their pictures without any text. They are using WP as a self-promoting site. Moreover, it became a common trend that people associated with NSU are including their website links as an External Link where there is no direct connection with the main article. Simply self-promotion, nothing else. By adding those tag I tried to draw their attention and convey a message that Stop self-promotion and try to improve your university article. Anyway, soon after I felt that I was too rude on that article and tried to remove few of the tags but due to internet connection shutdown I couldn't. Thanks for removing extra tags. Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 02:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

NSUSS article has been deleted. It would be a lesson for them.

For NSU-ers: You are always free to create any article but do it in a proper way and don't use it for self-promotion. WP is not a self-promoting site. Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 02:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it a university page or a club page ?

Whenever I visit this page, I wonder, is it a university page or a club page? I guess it became a duty for all the NSU club excom to create a separate section on their club and write anything with extravagant citationless (not even primary) claims. I would like to draw attention of the members from WikiProject Bangladesh and Bangladeshi Universities to have a look at this article. Waiting for your replu...! Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Actually this article needs cleanup. Those clubs should be explained under one section. There's no need to keep club flooding. Clubs are not as notable as University unless it meets notability criteria.--NAHID 10:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with both of you - this aricle needs a lot of clean-up. Arman ^(Talk) 03:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the section, but halfway through fixing the "cut-pasted" club-cruft, I gave up. Removal of all such club advertisement (some of it seems to be pasted from club websites) is the only solution I can think of now. --Ragib (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks much better now. I'll try to organize its other sections gradually. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected page & the controversy section

Due to recent vandalism and edit war among several anon IPs and new users, I have semi-protected the article. It also needs massive cleanup, references, and wikification. --Ragib (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

n muid:

you have "semi protected" the page that's ok but it contains some severe false accusations made against the administration and specially the proctor. what about that ?

As an insider of nsu, i can give some idea why the proctor is the target of the vandals. He has dismissed several students on account of plagiarism, cheating, giving proxy in exam, indecent behavior and physical aggression. And the notice of dismissal/punishment were posted in every notice board with those students' name and id ! That's probably angered them. Now they are trying to give a spin to the story to extract some revenge on the authority.

On the matter of rape, i would like to remind you that this sort of things happened in several universities (DU,JU etc and in foreign unis) but those are not mentioned in their pages. Then why nsu page should have it ? by the way, it is the only truth written in the "controversy" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmuid (talk • contribs) 10:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nmuid.... I think the page should remain semi-protected, but the stupid controversial section should be deleted. Come'on guys, we are bangladeshis, we know each others' secrets... don't just act like we are deaf when it comes to NSU.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsuuser (talk • contribs) 13:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi protection. As for the controversy section, the issue regarding the proctor, had it been just for some few students who have been dismissed, all major national dailies, including New Age would not have reported massive controversy regarding issues such as the proctor's collaboration with the rapists, unfair dismissal of students trying to protest, eve teasing by staff, the discovery of hidden cams in female washrooms etc. You want insider opinion? I am an insider... as well as all the people who are still trying to protest... look at the facebook groups and blogs to see other insider reactions. Now my point is, wikipedia is a free to edit, neutral encyclopedia... where you can only appeal with proper references such as the New Age article cited under the controversy section deleted by some unknown IP, and not emotional appeals such as rape happens everywhere, why not such section in other articles. Well, why not, if you can provide the proper references. And by the way, the issue in North South University is having a comparatively high nationwide attention taking into account the role of the authority in such severe situations, typically reflecting the violation of human rights in a third world country, no matter who you are. Its natural that North South University, being a private university, will want to hide such issues as much a possible, but they couldn't at-least achieve success with the national dailies. For freedom, justice and transparency, I believe controversy section, deleted by an unknown IP with all the references, should be reverted back. {{editsemiprotected}}

The incident of rape came in New age but all the other allegetions never came as they are utter lies. And about the facebook group, well, all sort of propaganda happens there. The fake profiles tell the "story" and some unsuspecting students/alumni believed that story. If anybody doubts or try to tell the truth, admins of that groups delete those posts. So a facebook group cannot be taken as a credible source.

If the objective of the "vandals" is to protest human rights violation and ensure justice, then they should do it in the real world not by spreading false information in Wikipedia.

Just imagine that, the page of Jahangir Nagar University has a section with the title "rape centurion manik"

or, page of Rajshahi University Italic textdetailing how students (shibir activist)killed a professor and recently killed other students (chatro league)

or what if Dhaka University page has sections about "sexual harrassment by teacher","capturing hall", "professors detained for creating unrest" during caretaker govt.",

Pages of these unversities should not include these unfortunate incidents. then why should nsu page must have a section on the "rape" incident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmuid (talk • contribs) 18:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if one does not have a biased agenda, one should not object to the existence of the controversy section. Nmuid, its not just New Age, but all prominent national dailies like Ittefaq, Prothom Alo, Daily Star, Janakantha, Bangladesh Observer, etc. that covered one or more of the issues that occured in North South University. Please have a look at those articles if you haven't done so yet.

Now for your kind information, facebook or blogs don't usually serve as reference points for Wikipedia. Wikipedia has strict policies regarding references and those policies are almost always strictly enforced. Please check the section under consideration if you are still not sure whether or not the policies are being followed. You are probably having a wrong conception here.

As for the facebook groups or blogs you are talking about, what I found was that some of those groups are having far too many members (one of them is having 1500+ members, mostly students and alumni of North South University) to allow you to make such abrupt statements as fake profiles and fooled students and alumni, until or unless you are serving a particular agenda.

Last of all, you have mentioned, that if the object of the section is to protest human rights violation, it should be done in real life and Wikipedia should not cover it. First of all, I think that there is no such general rule as "real life protests against violation of human rights cannot be covered by the media", and secondly violation of human rights is, I think, a very important topic for Wikipedia to cover, more so if the issue under consideration is a major one in accordance to Wikipedia's content standards. Covering important issues is what Wikipedia is there for.

I have noticed that emotional appeals are being put forward again and again such as rapes, murders and other incidents in other universities that have not been covered by those universities' articles, so why North South University. The answer again is, first of all, there shouldn't be a problem if those articles contained any such relevant information, provided the content met the the quality of content standards required by Wikipedia and proper referencing. You can put them up in those articles by yourself if necessary, and it does not justify that one article can't contain an important piece of information by analogy to other similar articles not having them. Secondly, all the severe multiple issues at North South University, most of them having been reported within a short span of a semester or two, and some of them highlighting important issues regarding human rights and academic standards in Bangladesh to the people in media and the academia, created significant nationwide reactions among different classes of people, accounting for its significance compared to some of the other issues that you have put forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Templeofsolomon (talk • contribs) 17:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Provide links of prothom alo, daily star, janakantha, Bangladesh observer and etc. New Age report is on the rape incident, what about the other allegations ?

"Now for your kind information, facebook or blogs don't usually serve as reference points for Wikipedia."---- exactly! that's my poin,t Templeofsolomon. Previously, facebook was used as a reference in this page on the controversy topic. you can check edit history to confirm that.

Does the number of group members of a facebook group signify anything ? i have shared my view about that group in the earlier entry, so i'm not repeating them here again.

"to make such abrupt statements as fake profiles and fooled students and alumni, until or unless you are serving a particular agenda."

---

now you are making accusations against me. wikipedia does not allow this kind of statements in the discussion.

The point i'm trying to make is, whether it will be a correct decision to highlight scandals of renowned institutions out of proportion or not. There is nothing emotional here.

Violation of human rights is definitely an important topic for wikipedia to cover. Wikipedia has several pages dedicated to this cause. But its main objective is to provide encyclopedic information. Promoting peace is another important topic for wikipedia, but it does not mean it will describe wars and battles with that perspective and denounce historic characters like napoleon and Alexander. It should have more pages on the issues of rape in general but it should not focus its efforts to associate "rape" with nsu in the minds of general public. Wikipedia should not be a place for propaganda.

What makes you think that the JU and DU incidents are comparatively less significant to general public than the nsu one? Are you trying to say 1 is greater than 100 !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmuid (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Just want to remind everyone of the following:

• Wikipedia is not censored
• All information must be verifiable
• Article tone must be neutral
• An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

Now, given the above discussion and the newspaper reports, I think the following may be a compromise to both the parties here:

• Remove the section on "Controversy" or "2009 rape controversy", and move the content to "History" of the section.
• Remove any text not supported by the New Age or other newspaper references.

It is incorrect that we need to "censor" information about a rape happening at NSU if that has gained widespread media coverage. As mentioned above, wikipedia is not censored. Barring undue weight, any such significant incident can and should be included in the article. Wikipedia is NOT a student recruitment brochure for NSU. --Ragib (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

But how can that incident become a part of nsu's organizational history ?

By saying that "wikipedia is not censored and it's not student recruitment brochure", are you giving a green signal to add all the incidents i talked about to include in their wikipage ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmuid (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Right now, the "History" section in this article is written purely as a brochure. There is little information about the history of the institution, and incidents throughout the institution's history are what you need to include here. As an example, see Little_Rock_High_School#History. You'll see that the racial bias and related incidents of 1957 are prominently discussed here.

Now, the question is, is the incident related to NSU significant enough. That, I can't answer ... you guys need to discuss media coverage of the incident here to determine how notable it is. --Ragib (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The current "history" section is written in a monotonous way and only includes the establishment date of different departments. i have no idea whether brochures are written so unattractively or not but you are absolutely right that it should be written in a different way.

Coming to the media coverage,it came in only a side-magazine of the daily New age along with a case of DU. No other dailies or tv-channels had covered it. And we should also remember that it didn't come in the main pages of New age ,containing national and international news. it came in one of its magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmuid (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

i would also like to know, will it be appropriate if we mention nsu's successes over the years, in prestigious competitions like battle of minds, brandwitz, promologic and finance quiz competition and inter-university debate in history or some other section ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmuid (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nmuid, in your very first post under this section of discussion, you claimed that the controversy section is only highlighting lies by disgruntled students in their efforts to exact revenge on the authority. Then you deny the student protest groups, now when media coverage came under discussion, your theme turned into proving whether its a strong or weak newspaper. Doesn't it hint towards some sort of continued bias from your side? Now, since you've been challenging references provided by other people, did you yourself provide a single proper reference for the statements that you have made? Among the national dailies the New Age link was found online so it was used as a reference in Wikipedia. Maybe you could try searching for some of the other ones, which I will try as well, but don't you think that the way you quickly concluded that no other dailies or tv-channels covered the NSU issues would easily be identifiable for its deceptive nature? Are you trying to assert that only one media in the whole country discussed such an important issue while the other media kept their eyes closed? Or is it like that if an Ittefaq article was used as a reference here owing its availablity online instead of the New Age article you would have said that only Ittefaq had covered the issue and no other media of the country? I would also like to bring to your attention the link to the notice issued by NSU authority right after the rape regarding the dressup of students, indirectly blaming the rape on the dressup of the victim!!

As for a past successes of North South University section, I don't think it would be a problem, if you can abide by the standards of Wikipedia's policies on proper content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Templeofsolomon (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone again deleted the whole controversy section all of a sudden while discussion is still going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Templeofsolomon (talk • contribs) 07:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

i would like to bring raghib and other senior editors attention to the unacceptable and insulting remarks made by Templeofsolomon about me. He is continuously alleging me of having an "agenda" and making "deceptive statements". This is not a way to discuss !

If anyone know of any other media covering this incident, i request them to provide links here. The allegations made against the proctor, authority and the G4 security company are completely baseless. They require referencing as well.

--Nmuid (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nmuid, what makes u so desperate to hide the facts? If you are a NSU student, as you claim, don't you have any solidarity with the rest of the students? Isn't the New Age article big enough? New Age is a top newspaper of the country am I ryt? Or is it that its necessary to hide the facts for your university's image among employers and friends, or maybe your own image to the university authority itself? Please, believe me, justice would help only people like you in the long run. Its also about freedom of expression. Don't take my words otherwise. Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asadnsu (talk • contribs) 14:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is very weird but not new in wikipedia. Yes I'm talking about vandalism war. And this is not the very first time for this particular article. I have seen it before the unexpected incident(Rape) happened. I don't want to say about the guys who are behind this. I don't know if you are ex/current NSUers or not, but you must be Bangladeshi.

Before doing the vandalism again please remember that users/viewers/visitors of wikipedia is not limited to Bangladeshi. It creates a very bad reputation of your beloved motherland to international users more than what you are trying to do with the reputation of NSU.

If you dont able to improve a article please don't destroy that.

Nahid bd (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nahid bd, which one is vandalism? A section in an article that is relevant, properly referenced, and upholds freedom of expression and transparency, or an emotional plea to hide information for the sake of university or country? Is it not vandalism to delete an established section without showing proper cause, and just only a very vague comment?

05:24, 1 March 2010 Nahid bd (talk | contribs) (11,961 bytes) (→2009 student rape controversy: removing controversial things)

Which one would fall into vandalism according to Wikipedia?

Let me tell you again, if you are a NSU student, or atleast a Bangladeshi, and if you can't accept freedom of expression or proper justice, it wont be of any help to anyone in the long run. Just giving a temporary eyewash to the world won't solve any problem, the root ethics of a country needs to be cured. This includes guaranteeing freedom of expression and justice. Else Bangladesh would remain the way it is. On top of that here in Wikipedia we have to take care of Wikipedia's concern about freedom of expression, transparency, and proper references, not the emotional concerns you are showing. --Asadnsu (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Celestra (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think by putting the "controversy" section you are overemphasizing one issue ? We cannot include every affairs or incidents that take place in a university on its wikipage. so the insignificant issues must be excluded. for example: previously editors have removed club information from this page.

Every university has some dark chapters and those considered as "exceptional incidents". We should not define something with an "exception".

Previously, i had given examples of Dhaka University, Rajshahi University, Jahangir Nagar University. Now, search for rape in Harvard University, you will find a lot of similar incidents.

Harvard's page doesn't include anything about this. The same issue which people and wikipedia consider insignificant and exceptional incident,should not become a major issue in case of NSU.

There is logic behind removing the "controversy" section, as it is an exception and insignificant. It is not mere emotional issue.

And where are those references ?

Nmuid (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Asadnsu

For your kind information, please be clarified yourself what is vandalism, information and controversy. 'Vandalism' is serving the wrong information to take revenge or can be said personal attack by putting wrong information.

Information is the true things served with properly referenced documents and also confirmed from the original source.

Controversy is the information from the different 'reference-able' sources but not from the original source.

05:24, 1 March 2010 Nahid bd (talk | contribs) (11,961 bytes) (→2009 student rape controversy: removing controversial things)

It is not for the vandalism but controversial thing. The main source NSU didn't confirmed it. How it can be relevant?

In my last post 'vandalism' indicates the portion of the article against proctor and g4s guards referenced from facebook groups and blogs. They can't be used as reference.

It is good to be transparent. Do you want to be so? Why don't you start a article titled 'Rape in Universities of Bangladesh'? Start it, I will supply proper reference about centurion Manik and lot of other rapist.

I'm not showing any emotion but the direct way. Why controversial/source-not-confirmed things? If you put things like that wikipedia will be doubled in volume soon but contents will not be that appropriate as it is today.

Nahid bd (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

First, it is my reply to Nmuid:

You said that the NSU rape issue is insignificant?

Well let the media answer it then:

"When contacted by Xtra, Professor Nazrul Islam, chief of the University Grants Commission, said, I am not aware of the incident at DU although I have heard about the incident at NSU and I have directed them to form an investigation committee verbally. The vice chancellor of NSU has informed us that they have formed an investigation committee under the proctor of the university."

"Gour Gobinda Goswami, associate professor of the economics department of NSU and also the proctor of the university, denied any such incident taking place in the campus and said, all these are rumours. We are not allowing boys and girls to sit closely in the campus, he further adds while affirming that students must be decently dressed when attending classes with immediate effect."

"It seems that the offenders are being rescued by the university's authority through their hide and seek games. They can easily find out who the culprits are and punish them appropriately, says a student of NSU, seeking anonymity."

"...Fawzia Karim Firoze, advocate, Supreme Court of Bangladesh and president of Bangladesh National Woman Lawyers Association (BNWLA)."

"Fauzia also believes that in the case of NSU, they must also abide by the directives set out by the Court since they are under the University Grants Commission (UGC)."

"...Rahnuma Ahmed, anthropologist and columnist, who played an active role during the infamous sexual harassment episode at the Jahangirnagar University, regarding the incident."

"I think the board of governors should have the basic intelligence expected of any law-abiding citizen, in that they should immediately take steps to bring this to the attention of the law enforcing authorities, extend all possible support and cooperation to them as well as extend all possible support to the victim who is after all a student of their university. They must take all possible steps to ensure that this never ever happens again on their campus, Rahnuma adds. If they cannot, then they are joining the ranks of common criminals..."

"Like Rahnuma, many rights activists of the country have condemned the issue. Advocate Elina Khan, executive director of Bangladesh Manabadhikar Bastobayan Sangstha also believes that these are punishable crimes."

"Earlier this year, the education ministry held that it will proceed with the UGC guidelines. In this context, the High Court's Guidelines on Sexual Harassment pronounced in the case of BNWLA v Bangladesh, portrayed how the guidelines can be immediately utilised to open up new possibilities for legal protection and also to hold authorities responsible for creating a harassment-free educational environment."

"All the universities have been asked to form investigative cells regarding sexual harassment and UGC is monitoring the improvement of the works. Whatever happens, this has to be stopped because it is creating a bad environment for education, Nazrul concludes."

These are just a few extracts from the New Age Article available online. Just imagine what it would be like when all the other media coverage regarding the recent issues were put together here like this.

Now that you said that such issues in NSU are exceptions just as they are in Harvard University, Harvard university never had a nationwide accusation of the authority having collaborated with a rape case. It didn't open up new dimensions in law and have ministries and regulating bodies set up new policies on preventing sexual harassment in the academia. I don't know how you can even pull an analogy.

Then you concluded that issues like rape are insignificant to Wikipedia. Are you really sure that all of them are? Maybe you forgot that Ragib already told you once that Wikipedia is not here to censor information provided its appropriate and properly served. Its rather that Wikipedia would consider those who would try to prevent her from getting what she deserves to be vandals. Am I right?

Now if you want even more content for the controversy section, I found a Daily Star article accidentally while recently searching for some of the other newspaper articles online regarding the sexual harassment related issues. This article on the other hand covers the recent protest of the students of North South University against the unjustified increase of tuition fees by the authority, and the brutal treatment of the protesters by the university authority where even female students were thrown to the ground and trampled over at the authority's instructions by policemen and security guards, which was also covered by almost all the major newspapers of the country. Such behavior from the authority was also seen during the demolition of BTA tower in 2007. But the Summer 2009 protest about tuition fees and Fall 2009 rape are just too big issues to be simply overlooked. I am not asking to include each and every issue in the university's wikipage, but only those which have become appropriate and necessary for wikipedia to consider. It could be that the section could be renamed or merged as Ragib suggested.

Another important point Nmuid, you said that some club information were removed due to insignificance, so why not the controversy section. Maybe you already know your answer. The club related information that were removed were advertisements. Not major facts like those in the controversy section.

Now for my answers to Nahid bd:

I guess you are close to the definition of vandalism but its not really the way you have put it. Or may be you couldn't convince me due to a flawed sentence structure.

If you are still charging me of providing wrong information, I can't do anything about it because I have provided enough references. Where are your references till now? If the issues under discussion are all lies, then the newspapers are also lying right? How would you back your statements?

You invented a difference between information and controversy (in that case, in which category does controversial information fall?), where information is cofirmed by references (in that case, the controversy section contains information), but controversy will have dual directions for references, with the original source or reference, such as NSU Authority as is the case here (or maybe the rapists themselves) denying the controversy (in that case, I believe its no a more controversy, it actually becomes an allegation on the so called original source). In that case maybe the controversy section could be renamed into allegations section?

05:24, 1 March 2010 Nahid bd (talk | contribs) (11,961 bytes) (→2009 student rape controversy: removing controversial things)

could be better presented as:

05:24, 1 March 2010 Nahid bd (talk | contribs) (11,961 bytes) (→2009 student rape allegation: removing allegatory things) :)

Isn't this vandalism? The controversy section used newspaper articles as refrences, not facebook or blogs, if I need to make it clear once again. But you could atleast use some facebook or blog reference for the modification that you made if you did not have a proper media reference.. :)

You are encouraging me to open a separate article on rape in universities in Bangladesh? Is it to keep the wikipage of North South University free from relevant and required allegations? I have another idea, why not put the 1971 Liberation War in Bangladesh section away from the Bangladesh wikipage and create a separate article for Liberation wars in South Asia and shift the section there? Will it be OK? Or would it be more rational if that section is kept in all the relevant and necessary articles?

The problems in North South University are too many to list. The controversy and allegations section would only discuss issues that moved the nation. You said that if we include so many information in Wikipedia, Wikipedia would be doubled. My question is what if Wikipedia want's to be doubles, by proper facts and information?

I have nothing more to say, I would just leave it up to the senior admins to look after the matter. --Templeofsolomon (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

NSU Authority has already heard about the Wikipedia coverage, and I've heard that they have hired two or three agents to deal with the Wikipedia article. LoL. Best of luck to them. --Asadnsu (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)