Talk:Aga Khan School, Dhaka

Blatant Non-neutral POV
"The school upholds its name as a well established school, only because of the hard work, and effort of the students.The Aga Khan School is a strong place, with a lot of life, many battles between teachers and students, in order to make the school a cool one, or a quality one."

That is NOT the way to write an encyclopaedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.188.253.116 (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have removed the list of "prominent teachers", where "prominence" is decided simply by the writer's own opinion of the teachers at the school. Please don't re-introduce the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.188.253.116 (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha I guess someone just copied it from the official website. Ratibgreat (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

PROVE IT. PLUS THE ARTICLE NEEDS PICTURES.
"Great care on the part of the administration has led to higher quality teaching and academic standards, and the infrastructure is well developed" - What does "Great Care" mean in this context. Plus, who decides that the "infrastructure is well developed". There is no accreditation of the school by an independent body, only approval by the British Council regarding the availability of a Physics/Chemistry lab and Computing facilities for O level candidates.

The article badly needs pictures, otherwise, it can't even be proven that the school actually exists (as no other sources/citations are given). Someone also needs to put the school logo in, who cares that the AKES holds its copyright, they should be only to gland to allow its use for Wikipedia.203.188.253.115 (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've had some experience working with the AKES,B, and from my experience, they just might have a problem with it. And what you need is an attitude makeover. What kind of a contributor are you, suggesting infringement of copyright laws? Your comments about AKES,B being "glad" to let Wiki use it makes Wiki sound like a knight in shining armour trying to rescue them out of something. Learn the rules. Don't break them. Ratibgreat (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Logo
I am no expert on Wikipedia's policies on copyright images, but I do not see how using the AKS logo for an AKS school violates any copyright rules. If the image is used freely on the List of AKS schools page, then it should be available for use on another AKS school page. I doubt Aga Khan Education Service has a problem with that. Please do not remove the image.Avman89 (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Avman Bhaia, if there's a confusion about copyright infringement, the logo shouldn't be used unless all confusions are cleared. The logo IS copyrighted, although I don't know exactly to what extent (you get the point). It's definitely no freeware. Ratibgreat (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Ratib. I am pretty sure use of the image meets Wikipedia's Non-free Content Criteria.. All that is needed for use of a non-free image is a copyright tag indicating the source and some other particulars . While the image's page may not yet have complete copyright info, it definitely does have a good description of non-free use rationale for the logo . An official logo, where available, is always helpful for proper identification of an educational institute. Unlike the Aga Khan Academy(-ies) in Kenya or the Aga Khan University, which have their own logos, AKS,D has always used the "green open book/stylized Iqrah" logo of the parent organization, AKES. AKES,B "just might have a problem with it", but probably only if they suspect someone of using the brand for commercial interests. I don't think Wikipedia represents a commercial exploitation of the image, and thus there is no real grounds for objecting to its use. The legalities may not have been entirely worked out yet, but the licensing and fair-use rationale on the image page is definitely a start, and to remove/revoke usage of the image now would be a step back.
 * I don't really care about AKS,D's public profile; I just thought that the addition of the logo would make it a better Wikipedia article.Avman89 (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)