Talk:Bangladesh/Archive 3

message: The Government & Politics section starts off by saying BD is a "secular parliamentary democracy".  While this may be realistiaclly true, it is not a legal requirement that parliamnet be secular; indeed secularism as a founding pillar of BD was removed from the constitution under Gen. Zia's rule.  Therefore, the secular wording should be removed as its implications are misguided.--Oracularorigin 21:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are aware of how parliamentary democracies work, you'd know the answer already. In such systems, the president has a ceremonial post, with no real executive power. However, the president appoints the prime minister. This is actually a formality, as the president merely approves the person nominated by the majority party. Hope this helps. --Ragib 18:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government 

message: with 2 pics gone, are we a bit too low on pic count? Maybe its fine, I don't know.--ppm 02:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: related...boat or shat gombuj mosque (if we must chose)? I would say boat, just because its so quintessential. and we already have 2 other pics on structures--ppm 02:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have to make a choice, the boat image, I think, should be there. You can replace the shat gombuj mosque, though in that case, the boat image would be placed in a rather inappropriate location. The satelite image is so nice, but still, can it be removed from the economy section? Another point, what is the difficulty in adding one or 2 pics beside the "notes", a la Kerala? --Dwaipayanc 05:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm fine with the idea.--ppm 06:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: satellite back in geo--ppm 06:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe we should wait till FAC comes to a conclusion? I am not against the ideas per se, though.--ppm 04:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that this is a FA, we could implement those changes. I've experimented with moving some pics left (only if a section has more than one pic, obviously) and it looks pretty nice to me. Sheehan (Talk) 08:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SOMEONE FIX THE FLAGS!!! THE PICTURES ARE PICS OF ASSES. Blah0401 02:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pics 

message: Congratulations to the editors of this article for making it featured, and thus, one of the best on Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2006). Pepsidrinka 05:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, congratulations to everyone who worked on it, or reviewed it to make it a featured article. Thanks. --Ragib 05:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Same here. congrats to all editors and all meticulous readers pointing out errors--ppm 06:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CONGRATS. --Dwaipayanc 06:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job — I didn't even notice this had become featured so quickly until I checked just now. Beautiful and informative. Saravask 00:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratualtions to all the editors whose hard work brought about this excellent featured article. Green Giant 00:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations. Truthfully, my opinions do carry a slight bias since I'm from this country, but this really, really is one of the best articles in Wikipedia. It's far better than most other featured articles. A prime example of how many people working together can produce something amazing. Thanks to everyone who worked hard to improve this! Sheehan (Talk) 08:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Great job! Congratulations.--Monmajhi 05:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't notice the FA status until now! Good work all. Idleguy 09:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations 

message: Very few politicians have "friendly rivalries", what the point then?--ppm 19:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unfreindly? 

message: Dear Contributors
I have a suggestion. Why not list the world records of Bangladesh. But, I need suggestion about it. Would be listed in the page of Bangladesh or would it be listed in a separate page titled "World Records of Bangladesh"? e.g.
*The longest sea beach (Cox's Bazar)
*The largest river delta
*Most corrupted country (Transparency International Survey)
*The Happiest country (2005 World Happiness Survey), etc.
These things can be discusses too.
Asif Anwar (Pathik)
:We can't really use the "world records" in this article. First of all, Bangladesh is now a featured article, with standard sections as specified for country articles. we shouldn't add needless sections which would only demote this article from featured article status. Next, some of the things you mentioned are not correct. Cox's Bazaar is not the longest sea beach, according to the Talk:Cox's Bazar District . The largest river delta is not only in Bangladesh, it includes parts of west bengal too. Most corrupt country nomination is quite disputed (though referenced a lot). Finally, this type of lists are not really encyclopedic, and are more suitable for newspapers rather than encyclopedias. Thanks. --Ragib 06:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should mention the Transparency International studies. Bangladesh has topped it 5 or 6 times. It is a reputable study. If you have credentialed rebuttals, you can add those too. That is what NPOV is all about. For example in the government or economy section we could add: "According to Transparency International Bangladesh has been one of the most corrupt countries in the world for the last 5 years."--Dejo 00:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anybody's against adding it. However, the point is that there are surely many studies that say this and that and we can only ensure that a representative collection of them are in the article. I believe the ecomony and demographics sections have enough information and references that suitably represent the problems Bangladesh face, if not that particular study.--ppm 01:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Records of Bangladesh 

message: What's with the map?--ppm 01:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map? 

message: I have replaced the sentence ".. exact origin of the word "bangla" is not known "  The first references of the word Banga or Vanga can be seen in ancient Sanskrit epics like Mahabharata and Kautilya 's Arthasastra".
Reference is History of BangladeshBharatveer 11:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no information about it, or not specific info, the citation needed tag is a redundancy. Your feeling is irrelevant, and so is your sneaky comments on editors rather than content. By the way this refers the origin to aborigines of the region, and not sanskrit, as the origin of the word. --Ragib 04:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And aha!, the library of congress mentions the origin of the word from the local dravidian tribes: "Historians believe that Bengal, the area comprising present-day Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal, was settled in about 1000 B.C. by Dravidian-speaking peoples who were later known as the Bang. Their homeland bore various titles that reflected earlier tribal names, such as Vanga, Banga, Bangala, Bangal, and Bengal." . Thank you. --Ragib 04:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are most welcome.Its good to know that good old AIT proved helpful for my south asian friends , but for how long .Bharatveer 04:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha ha, this is hilarious :D--ppm 00:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the word "Bengal" 

message: Do we have any info that this is from Bangladesh. The Pala dynasty controlled half of North India at some point. Some info would be nice, or a picture from a existing Temple.--ppm 15:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not about which region it came from .This is about including budhist icon which was an important part of the History of bengal from which bangladesh was formed. The exclusion would have been justified if History of bangladesh started from 1947.But since the article claims ancient origins, this budha icon should be prefectly OK.Bharatveer 04:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny argument, indeed. No body is raising any question about the significance of the Buddhist culture. However, there are perfectly relevant images of Buddha statues from the region, and therefore a statue not related to the Buddhist culture of Bangladesh is irrelevant here. You are missing the whole point about the statue. sure why you are so obsessed with particular statue. I'm perfectly ok with adding images of the ruins of Mahasthangarh, Sompur Bihar or Mainamati, which are quite relevant. I'm replacing the image with the Mahastangarh ruins pic. Thanks. --Ragib 04:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What is so funny with that argument?? First of all why should anybody question the significance of the budhist culture.Why should two particular editors get agitated by a "statue"? THis budhist image is clearly justified here , but i guess you want to include "ruins" image . So i will add that image there,since there is no fast rule about the number of pictures.Bharatveer 04:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you are being unreasonable. There is definitely a limit to number of images stuffed into an article ... let alone a featured article. I strongly disagree your particular obsession with this image, which is NOT related to the region now known as Bangladesh. Also, stop saying the falsehood that anyone is questioning the importance of Buddhist Culture (which is actually an integral part of Bangladeshi history). What Shmitra and I protested was about the image, which is misleading and confusing as it is not from the region. Show me why an image from an unrelated region should be added here while a perfectly relevant image is there. Thank you. --Ragib 04:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am even qeasy about the Mahasthangar picture, though I see no way out with people who have binary logic ingrained in their heads. I feel that we are putting up with a worst form of blackmail, as we removed a Buddhapratima, we HAVE to put in a Buddhist picture to prove who knows what, maybe that we are not interesting in destroying them! Is a picture of Santhals dancing less pertinenet to the culture of Bangladesh, or a small girl selling a garland of Bakul, or or a gathering in Lalon's tomb or the celebration of the Nobobarsha in Dhaka? This is ridiculous.--ppm 18:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The BuddhaIdol 

message: Is the the flag REALLY a swatsika? I beleive that the page has been vandalized.
No, the flag isn't really a swastika. It's just sick vandalism. The real flag is on the link that says "Flag of Bangladesh." FrankNiddy 01:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VANDALISM 7/13/06 8:35 PM 

message: The opening paragraph of this article contains the following sentence: "Together with the Indian state of West Bengal, it comprises the ethno-linguistic region of Bengal."
Comprise is synonymous with "include" or " encompass", therefore the sentence, as written, makes no sense at all and needs to be re-written. I'm not sure how to do this without changing the meaning--perhaps it's best that the original author do this.
If you have any doubts as to the correct usage of comprise, consult The Elements of Style" (Strunk and White) on the subject.
Note that this misusage of comprise is a fairly common mistake in all sorts of publications--its not the first I've seen the mistake in Wikipedia, either.--Cbrodersen 12:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word "comprise" 

message: Really great work! We require many more such articles. --Bhadani 15:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great work 

message: Troll Alert! --ppm 17:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troll 

message: Is this comment really necessary? It seems to assume that other countries have physically homogeneous people. --SameerKhan 09:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah that is a wierd statement.--ppm 22:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, so I've removed the statement. --Ragib 23:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Physically diverse" 

message: Can the part on Magadhan and Gupta empire focus on Bengal/Bangladesh? Do we know how this part was ruled, what culture/language florished? Whether or not Persia was part of the empire is uninteresting.--ppm 21:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magadhan empire etc 

message: I added a few headings to history section to break it up and make it easier to read. They may not be good ones or in the best places. You might have better ideas of where they should go or what they should say.  GBYork 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The headings are not according to the structure of country pages. We had those headings in the past, but those were removed during the Featured Article Candidacy of the article according to the suggestion of others. The history section is a summary; see India for another example of a featured country page. So, I've removed them from the article. --Ragib 19:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K. GBYork 21:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a few headings 

message: "Bangladesh is ethnically homogeneous, with Bengalis comprising 98% of the population, though they are a heterogeneous ethnic group." --ppm 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also dislike this sentence. --SameerKhan 04:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: (The sentence) sounds totally illogical to me. --Ragib 04:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is Bengali an ethnicity? I truly have no idea abt these things--ppm 05:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the sentence sounds odd. Delete/modify.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: deleting the heterogenous part. Assuming Bengali is an ethnicity--128.36.229.95 16:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this sentence mean? 

message: i dont see any reason to merge Magadha  in the history of bangladesh and the unnecessary glorifying of Magadha empire and Chandragupta Maurya.Rather we should mention the Gangaridai empire and the kingdom of Vanga that existed in this region innit.We should give importance to the kingdoms that existed in this land rather than unnecessary glorifying foreign kingdoms.Bengal was never a part of Magadha .So i dont find any reason to mention magadha here.I see in every article concerning Bengal or Bangladesh there is a tendancy to mention Magadha and the Mauryas.Besides we should mesntion the achievements of the early Bengaly ppl i.e. their colonization of Sri Lanka and Indonasia.---Nawab_of_dhaka
:I'm confused. I didn't want the extraneous information about Magadha in this article either, so are you agreeing with me? --SameerKhan 05:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello Sameer Khan 

message: Put up Wikipedia:Peer review/Rajshahi University/archive1 for a peer review. pls take a look.--ppm 00:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  peer review 

message: Before I start,I'd like the people here to know that Im Pakistani.
My father is a Muhajir and my mother is native Pakistani(Sindhi)
I'd like to start,that as a Pakistani Im ashamed of the crimes my people committed(or more specifically,the cowardly "soldiers" who slaughtered thousands of innocents)
I know Musharraf publicly apologised for the war in 2002(?) in Dhaka,but the history is not much mentioned in public/private Pakistani schools.
Not all Pakistanis should be held accountable for,but similar to how Germany accepted the killing of thousands of innocent minorities,Pakistan should officially accept our darkest history and not commit furthur atrocities that we are against othe rprovinces like SIndh and Balouchistan.
I also beleive that as result of the 1971,we must allow Bangladeshi immigrants to stay as it would be fair.
Ragib,I hope you like what i said and thanx again for letting me post on a Bengali pageNadirali 02:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in Wiki, there are no "Bengali" or "Pakistani" pages, rather there are Articles and Wikipedia pages. So, anyone is free to comment in any talk page, provided that the comment is relevant and useful to the page. Thanks. --Ragib 05:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan's darkest history 

message: These links:
* 
* 
* 
Were added by an editor whose only contributions have been to promote the World Bank Group (doingbusiness.org is a World Bank Group project). We have recently uncovered significant edits promoting this organization (see this WikiProject Spam discussion). In the interest of our neutral point of view policy and conflict of interest guideline I've moved the links here for other editors to consider. If you decide that one or more of these is a useful addition, Wikipedia has articles on the Ease of Doing Business Index and the World Bank Group which may be more appropriate than an external link. Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 14:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links 

message: Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.
Thanks
Atulsnischal 00:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wildlife of Bangladesh]] 

message: I changed this sentence:
Bangladesh enjoys the distinction of having two female politicians leading national politics, however, the country continues to suffer from extensive corruption,[17] disorder and political violence.
To these two sentences:
Bangladesh enjoys the distinction of having two female politicians leading national politics. The country continues to suffer from extensive corruption,[17] disorder and political violence.
I felt that the first version suggests that having women as leading national politicians would suggest a lack of corruption, but we really don't have any evidence for that. So, I just broke the sentence into to seperate sentences. Not a big change, really, but I felt that this makes things a bit better. Feel free to disagree... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WhitePlains12345 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rephrased the paragraph so that it flows logically and added another on the activities of the caretaker government.→ Aktar (talk • contribs) — 21:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bangladesh enjoys the distinction of having two female politicians leading national politics... 

message: The section on administrative divisions should be called either "Divisions" or expanded as it is for "Divisions, districts, and upazilas" per WikiProject Countries:
(Subdivisions) - Quick overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (e.g. provinces, states, departments, etc.) and give the English name. Also include overseas possessions. Link to "(subdivisions) of X". This section could also include an overview map of the country. 
The naming of "Divisions, districts, and upazilas" follows many other articles, and is more distinct and acceptable, as is the map I provided of more detail with all three levels of administrative division. Rarelibra 19:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section name 

message: Lot of nuanced pov creeping in here and there. --ppm 23:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pov 

message: This page as well as Politics of Bangladesh need to be updated in relation to the military rule/elections etc. I know very little of the situation and am having trouble getting a clear picture of what exactly has happened. But the article doesn't even mention General Moeen U Ahmed. The recent reports of murder and torture as a means of law enforcement should also be mentioned somewhere. Cheers, Rothery 08:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but this article is just spinning out of control at this point, with all kind of things creeping in that are less than crucial.--ppm 00:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Updating 

message: Ragib wrote the above in reverting my edit. I completely agree (see Lead section), which is why I made the edit in the first place. Let me explain. 
The intro contains more detail on the population than exists in the body. It lists the population rank, the land area and rank, the Muslim population rank, and some info about India's Muslim population. This detail needs to be moved into the body in favor of a clearer summary: "Bangladesh is among the most highly and densely populated countries in the world. The population is generally poor, rural and Muslim." 
In addition, I have added summary information on the government which is a "secular parliamentary democracy" and is currently under "emergency law". This meets the standards for a Lead section which require a balance of emphasis.
Finally, I think the "founding member" of SAARC does not need to be mentioned here (it is already described in the body). Just a short list of major organization memberships would better meet the emphasis criterion just mentioned.
Change one or two things if you like, but please do not revert my edit wholesale again. I am trying to improve the article and I have given good reasons for it. In my latest edit, I have removed no information from the article.
Dejo 18:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The population is generally poor, rural and Muslim" might be the worse sentence in the article...why "generalize"?--ppm 00:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "intro para needs to summarize the different sections" 

message: Is the" Geological Location of Bangladesh [26] (file info) " video necessary? I watched the video, and basically it shows a spinning globe, and then the location of Bangladesh (already showed at the top of this page), and then the topographic map (already showed in this section). So, I think we should remove this template, as it is occupying a lot of space, being visually disruptive to the flow of text, and providing very little information other than what is already present in the page. --Ragib 19:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally believe the video adds value. The other map (at the top of the page) shows location of Bangladesh in the context of South Asia, but many people in the world may not recognize a South Asia map in the first glance. Besides the video shows location of Bangladesh in relation to the Bay of Bengal and the Himalayas in 3D - which gives additional perspective than the satellite map does. It is certainly occupying a lot fo space - but is that creating any problem, like the article taking more time to load, etc.? I am not having any such problems.-Arman Aziz 01:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geography and climate

message: Under the section heading "Geography and climate", the second last paragraph contains the following statement: "A major part of the coastline comprises a marshy jungle, the Sundarbans, the largest mangrove forest in the world and home to diverse flora and fauna, including the Royal Bengal Tiger."
An uninformed reader may wonder:
*Is the phrase "marshy jungle" in apposition with "the Sundarbans"?
*Is the phrase "the Sundarbans" in apposition with "the largest mangrove forest in the world"?
*Is the phrase "the Sundarbans" in apposition with "the largest mangrove forest in the world and home to diverse flora and fauna"?
**Are the expressions "the largest mangrove forest in the world" and "home to diverse flora and fauna" referring to two different entities, or do they refer to one and the same entity?
In a context such as this, apposition can be clarified by the use of expressions such as "namely", "that is", "that is to say", and, depending on the context, "which is/are/was/were".
Please see also semicolon#English usage, list 2, point 3. -- Wavelength 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity about the coastline 

message: The article needs another section, (Education).--NAHID 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries#Structure guidelines, no need for such a section. The article is already 54KB, and at least 8KB more than the recommended size for FAs. The material is sufficiently handled in the Education in Bangladesh article, and linked from the nav template. We need to keep in mind that this is a featured article, and that it is supposed to be in summary style providing overview, while details can go to individual articles. Thanks. --Ragib 17:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point, Ragib. Rarelibra 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate section 

message: Bangladesh history is surely not solely written by history of partition?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.57.120 (talk) 13:49, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
You are like the pakistan section and also kashmir. Nobody mentions the names of important artistes!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idontwantaccount2 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bangladeesh 'product' of partition? 

message: I reverted here to remove the comparison with the US state Iowa. I find it redundant ... the anon inserting that edit assumes that Iowa is a common frame of reference to which the readers can relate to. Well, this article is NOT written solely for US readers, and in general, Wikipedia is not limited to US readers only. Therefore, a comparison with an US state just to give an idea of the size reeks of Systemic bias, and a US-centric view, which Wikipedia must not limit itself to. So, I removed the redundant comparison. --Ragib 07:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Iowa won't mean anything to some substantial fraction of the readers, but I don't think that's enough to say it is irrelevant or biased.  I actually find the comparison of 150 million versus 3 million to be the more enlightening part.  Choosing a more well-known location than Iowa might be a good idea, but on the face of it I see nothing wrong with such comparisons.  Dragons flight 07:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, if a comparison were made with another (well known) country, there is no problem. But I take offense in the view that comparisons need to be made with US states *because* the readers are from the US, and they must be able to relate to the yardstick. (As the anon commented in my talk page). Does it give any non-US reader any info when the area of Bangladesh is compared to Iowa? Does the avg non-US reader care about Iowa or know about its size so that they can have an idea? I don't think "Iowa" (or for that matter, any US state) is a convenient yardstick in an article written for readers from the entire world. --Ragib 07:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I state in my edit history and at your talk page, making comparisons to U.S. States in reference to population density and land mass is frequently used around the world, including in Xinhua or BBC (or even Bangladeshi) press reports. And I link directly to the Wikipedia article about Iowa instead of assuming that any reader already knows all about it. There was nothing US-centric in my including reference to the "U.S. state of Iowa," although you obviously believe there was. If you believe there is a more "convenient yardstick" then how about inserting it into the article? As 'Dragons flight' says "Choosing a more well-known location than Iowa might be a good idea."  70.243.231.144 07:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, choose something NOT directed just for the US audience. The facts are all there, readers can make their own comparison based on List of countries by population density or other such lists. Making a comparison just makes it equally confusing for a reader who is not familiar with owa or other obscure US states. --Ragib 07:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Thanks...glancing at the List of countries by population density you provided, I see for example that Nicaragua approaches the size of Bangladesh. 70.243.231.144 08:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, per WP:SUMMARY, such comparisons are not really appropriate in the lead paragraph of a featured article. --Ragib 07:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the debated comparison is not in the lead paragraph, it is in the third paragraph of the article. 70.243.231.144 07:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I referred to the intro part before the subsections. Pleas read the guidelines. --Ragib 07:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Okay, I see...you meant Wikipedia:Lead_section when you wrote "lead paragraph," and so your point is taken, I agree that the mention of Iowa would be more appropriate further down the article, such as in a subsection (or citation) about population density. I won't try and re-insert it again. 70.243.231.144 08:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bangladesh#Demographics section may be appropriate for any such comparisons. Again, comparing with a well known country is more relevant than a sub-division/state. Thanks. --Ragib 08:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a comparison is essential that can be made against Greece which is a well known sovereign country and has a land-area comparable to that of Bangladesh. I remember seeing Bangladesh-Greece comparison in international media, but can't recall where. Arman (Talk) 01:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Greece and Nicaragua have the same land mass, but neither are almost exactly the same as Bangladesh. In fact, no other nation is as similar in size to Bangladesh as the "U.S. State of Iowa."  If a useful comparison is inserted in the article--as it should be--then it should be the U.S. State of Iowa to which Bangladesh's area is compared. Ragib's insinuation that doing so is "U.S.-centric" is incorrect, nor is referring to a state in the well-known "United States of America" less relevant than referring to a nation-state. Rather than continue an edit war though, I'm content to express my opinion here, leaving the article deficient. 70.243.231.144 16:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. I just found an interesting article  based on comparisons between Bangladesh and Iowa....it points out that the land mass of each is "about 56,000 square miles." But again, this information can be left out of the article in the interest of comity.70.243.231.144 16:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with US states 

message: In this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JF-17_Thunder I found that Bangladesh may also be known as Bangalistan, but I dont know from when Bangladesh is known as Bangalistan? I searched in google and found only 9 results out of which 5 are from wiki.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahat5810 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was leftover vandalism from the British IP , which also edited a lot of India-related articles. --Ragib 18:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bangalistan?? 

message: Even that the tropical storms (cyclones) are regularly striking the coastal areas, the Bangledeshi government did not forbid the settlement of the ecologically fragile coastal areas. Abb. 40.000 square kilometers, along the coast of Bangladesh are fragile areas, threatened by floods and infested by insects and other animals. More than this, the reverting of these areas to the Wild life would  improve the coastal defence against tropical storms, will resurect biodiversity, will protect the natural environment as a whole. It's strange that the Bangladeshi government are not acting to evacuate the population of these fragile areas. Anyway, the life there is hard and people should fight hard to resist in such an dangerous and uneasy environment !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transsylvanian (talk • contribs) 12:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal governamental "innocence" !! 

message: I've changed the importance from HIGH to TOP - Arman Aziz 10:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arman's comment 

message: User:Ragib has changed the number on Hindu population in Bangladesh to a higher number.
The claim that "The two major religions practiced in Bangladesh are Islam (83%) and Hinduism (16%)" is false. It overstates the population of Hindus by more than 50%.
There is some variation in the number reported, but the official http://www.banbeis.gov.bd/bd_pro.htm number is: 9.2%.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/050714/139/5zc7r.html Bangaldesh's Hindu population has declined by 50 per cent since 1971http://www.ciaonet.org/atlas/asia/bd/index.html 
:"The Hindu population, the second largest religious group, has experienced a 50 percent decrease since Bangladesh came into being in 1971 after a-nine month armed struggle. The percentage of Hindu population has become half to 9.2 per cent from 18.5, according to the Bangladesh government's latest population census conducted in 2001." 
Bangladesh government apparently avoids mentioning the number as much as possible, the the correct numbers are very hard to obtain. The numbers are not there on the BD census web-site.
--Vikramsingh (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not mislead as you have done in your first sentence. The numbers (83%, 16%) were in the article for quite some time and were supported by the reference from CIA world fact book. *YOU* changed it without providing the reference to the new numbers. You had inserted the new numbers and added this as reference to your numbers "http://www.bbs.gov.bd]- CIA World Factbook". However, the CIA world fact book does not support the numbers you changed. Now that you have added a correct reference to the population numbers, there is no problem. But please do not make a fake assertion that I changed the number to a higher number ... that statistics was there for quite some time and backed by solid references. Finally, in case of demographic information, the official census report is the most authentic and reliable source. Thanks.  --Ragib (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: <sarcasm>Yeah, apparently, CIA itself has gotten involved in this conspiracy ... that's why the US Govt. managed organization is trying to mislead the world by having the Hindu population listed at 16%  in the CIA World Factbook. And not to be outdone, Encyclopedia Britannica is also in the employ of the notorious Bangladeshis ... and thereby counting the population numbers at 12% !!! </sarcasm> --Ragib (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is surprising that the govt actually has religious stats. If I am not mistaken, during the National Census, people are not asked about their religious affiliations. So, how do these stats of religious affiliations show up? In either case, if you have an issue with governance in a certain country, I'm sure you'll find millions of rant forums on the Internet; WP is NOT the right place for that. You cited your source and your info is in the article: be happy with that. =)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.126.181 (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindus in Bangladesh now