Talk:University of Dhaka

message: The article lacks WP:NPOV great time. There are No references, sources available in the article.And the article is full of Peacock words, Weasel words. Some historical informataion not relevant to the article.Please improve this article by providing references, sources and removing Peacock,Weasel stuffs from the page. NAHID 12:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  NAHID is absolutely correct.This article lacks clarity and focus.Sometimes it sounds like a history related article.But actually it should sound like an article portraying the university from total perspective.I found no list of institutes/notable alumni/academic programmes/teaching and evaluation methodology/ etc.It indeed needs a thorough copy editing.Hossain Akhtar Chowdhury (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I have done some shortening (mainly the history area) and modifications (mainly in the dormitories).Murad67 (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortening & modifications

message: Dear editors, check out the DU Prospectus on Dhaka University website. It has lots of reliable and authentic information about DU.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.110.87 (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Info Available

message: Dhaka University Management Club (DUMC) is a students' organization of Dept. of Management Studies, University of Dhaka.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.196.85 (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dhaka University Management Club (DUMC) 

message: I came upon this article while addressing copyright problems in a related article. Poor sourcing and promotional language undermine the apparent neutrality of this article. As a few examples, "the oldest, largest and the best university in Bangladesh", "worked hard to build up an outstanding record of academic achievement, earning for itself the reputation for being the 'Oxford of the East'. The university contributed to the emergence of a generation of leaders" and "the University of Dhaka has been a place for many great scholars and scientists." It also has unsourced negative text: "Although the university has a proud history today it has lost most of its glory." It could really use a thorough scouring if anybody has time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the "Oxford of the East" claim, it was previously sourced to Banglapedia (which is hardly neutral for this statement) and after that sourced to Gyan Books, which plagiarises from wikipedia articles (see User:Sitush/Common#Gyan for details)). Solomon7968 11:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: POV check

message: "Criticism and controversy"  section was like this:
	
Criticism and controversy
Dhaka University has gained negative attention of the media and public due to incidents of dirty politics inside the campus.
Yet, DU student politics remains diametrically opposite of what is practiced at Cambridge. Since independence, only DU has seen an average of two students murdered every year, prompting suggestions to de-link "student politics" from national politics. However, "banning" or "de-linking" student politics may not solve this problem and instead, may create confusion and chaos, frustrating all good intentions. Instead, the student community's power and potential should be unleashed through "real" student politics. When students are engaged and given space, party-politics among them will eventually weaken and disperse.http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=126143
This section was removed by IP user saying  removed section without reference while it had one ref. I reverted and Esha795 undid my revert back claiming "... no references made here. This section was put in here without any reference to source article. Moreover, it is in between the not". 
So I demand that, discussion is needed on the matter. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 04:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then. Yes, I agree Criticism and controversy is poorly written and uses POV language and I might not have included this in the article. But I felt it necessary to have discussion about this before blanking as it was kept in the section for long. As you mentioned, the blanking is alright for this instance. -নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 06:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  In verge of edit war on "Criticism and controversy" section 

message: The article has a very few information with the names of some other sub-articles. A viewer will never be pleased about the article. It should contain the obvious brief. --Rossi101 (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Skin and bones

message: Prior content (the entire "History" section) in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.du.ac.bd/theuniversity.php and introduced with this edit. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Voceditenore (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: There used to be a good history section in this article. Why can't it be more like other university articles like the University of Delhi or University of Punjab?--ArmanJ (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The history section is on the page History of University of Dhaka, which should perhaps not just be linked from the "see also" section. A short history on this page that lists the other page as the main article would seem to be a better approach. I agree that the article looks very light-weight. It has such detailed lists of departments taking up all the space, and that is surely information that would be better obtained from the university's web site, where it is more likely to be up-to-date. This page needs trimming to a much shorter article of higher quality. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with both of you. I have removed the subsections on the library hours and the banal list of "services offered". The whole cafeteria section is pretty dodgy too. This is an encyclopedia article, not the university's web site. I also agree with you re the excessively detailed list of every sub-department in each faculty and the excessively detailed list of every Vice Chancellor complete with external links on most of the names. This is contrary to the guidelines on external links in articles at WP:EL. They belong as footnotes, but only if they verify that the person had actually been a Vice Chancellor. Voceditenore (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for restructuring  

message: I propose that Faculty of Business Studies, University of Dhaka be merged into University of Dhaka. As noted in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, subdivisions (such as faculties) of universities are generally not independently notable. Merge was the outcome of the earlier deletion discussion on the topic. The details of the text and references may be have changed since 2010, but the fundamentals have not.
The content in the faculty article that is suitable for an encyclopedia (dates, name changes, size) can easily be explained in the context of the university, and the university article is small enough that the merging of faculty material will not cause any problems with article size. Merging might temporarily lend undue weight to this faculty, but that could be rectified by expanding each faculty in the list into a few sentences to clarify their relative significance within the university. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion