Talk:University of Dhaka

NPOV
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)
 * 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)

I think every conscious person who has studied at DU during the Bangladesh era knows that the university is not what it is used to be in the past. The completion of an undergraduate programme can take upto twice as much as scheduled time. This has happended to me and to most of my contemporary batches. It is universally accepted that timely completion of any academic programme is the fundamental requirement for any academic institution. So, in my view DU nor any general public university in Bangladesh can be considered to be ranked at the international level. This is regardless of various other serious limitations of the university such as poor academic and research facilities, acute dearth of world class research not to mention about total lack of research funding. So, the article is nothing but what DU used to be (like a history chapter of a book) in the past and does not reflect the present situation of the institution. The writer of the article has only attempted to promote the history of the university. User: conscious citizen 11 July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.15.221 (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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

New Info Available
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)

Dear editors there is a club named "Dhaka University Management Club (DUMC)" which is authorised by Dept. of Managemnent Studies & web address is www.dumc.biz.... Wish you will mention it under Faculty of Business Studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.196.85 (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dhaka University Management Club (DUMC)
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)

POV check
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)
 * 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 for details)). Solomon7968 11:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In verge of edit war on "Criticism and controversy" section
"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. 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  nafSadh talk 04:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the section is poorly written and uses POV language. While a referenced section is definitely useful, the references need to be objective facts. The Daily Star article cited here is actually an op-ed piece, which hardly counts as a reference to support these claims. Individual events shouldn't be generalized to a criticism of the university unless it is an institutional norm. But once again, everything needs to be sourced to reliable references, which the DStar Op-ed piece is NOT. --Ragib (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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  nafSadh talk 06:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Skin and bones
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) Rossi101

Copyright problem removed
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)

Need for restructuring
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Merger proposal
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)
 * Support merge per Worldbruce W 42  21:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge per nominator Altaf  ( talk )  00:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge per nominator. ABCDE22 (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe having articles on Faculties is not completely against the norms as there are standalone articles of different graduate schools of universities (like Stanford Graduate School of Business for example) which is equivalent to a Faculty of Bangladeshi universities. However, articles on specific departments must be deleted or merged as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I'm in general not in favor of a merge here because as you said it will give an undue wait to the faculty and the academic disciplines section as a whole. --Zayeem  (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator Rafi (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * DaccaUniversity1928.jpg