Talk:North South University

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Claim of first private university[edit]

As per the information provided in the website of UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION OF BANGLADESH, few Universities started their journey following the inception of the Private University Act 1992. The website says, University of Science & Technology Chittagong also got established in 1992, however IUBAT did not start its journey in 1992. It started its journey in 1993, here is the link:

USTC: http://www.ugc.gov.bd/en/home/universityDetails/123 IUBAT: http://www.ugc.gov.bd/en/home/universityDetails/101

Any information given in any website other than the website of UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION must be considered INVALID. Therefore the claim of IUBAT being the first private university of Bangladesh is invalid.

Few University started its journey in 1992, whoever started its journey before the inception of PRIVATE UNIVERSITY ACT 1992 should not be counted as valid one as they did not have any recognition from government.

Therefore, it can be said that NSU is one of the few universities those started its journey just after the ACT got passed in parliament.


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

NSU is the first granted private university.[edit]

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).[reply]

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

Proposing separate section for Accreditation and Collaboration[edit]

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)[reply]

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

About tag flooding![edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is it a university page or a club page?[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Semi-protected page & the controversy section[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Just want to remind everyone of the following:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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." [3]
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.[4]
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 both but very important issues, follwed by many of the other issues, within a short span of a semester, 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 relevant, appropriate or 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)[reply]
NSU authority is aware of their wikipage covering some of the major recent controversies related to themselves and I've heard that they have commissioned some two or three agents to manipulate the page as best as possible with a view to the benefit of the university. Lets now hope that they try to achieve this objective of theirs in a proper way, without vandalism. --Asadnsu (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All, I have been asked to try and help you folks come to a reasonable common ground on this topic as currently it is going nowhere and the article is not improving. Firstly, can I ask you all to follow the guidelines for talk pages as I have found it near impossible to follow this thread. Each new comment should be indented by using required number of colons (:) so that one can follow the replies easily. I will nevertheless try and analyse the main issues and summarise in a new section below. So far, comments have been quite civil and I hope we can keep it that way and come to a consensus on what should and should not be included in the article. For the record, I have no strong opinions either way and have never set foot inside a Bangladeshi University. → AA (talk) — 00:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rape controversy[edit]

Include or not Include 1[edit]

The first thing we need to agree on is whether this should be included in the article and then we can worry about how to include it.

The main policies and guidelines that apply to this are:

I have read comments stating other articles do not contain similar incidents, therefore this article should not do so either. This is not a valid argument as whatever is or is not included in other articles doesn't matter (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and Wikipedia:I just don't like it). If this incident is notable then there is no reason why it should not be included in the article but it has to be covered in a neutral manner providing all viewpoints. We can only use valid sources and things like facebook and blogs are not reliable sources and should be avoided. I would like to hear opinions particularly from those who suggest this incident should not be included, citing Wikipedia policies in their arguments and remembering that Wikipedia is not censored. → AA (talk) — 01:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other side, can all who advocate including this topic in the article list all the sources to be used as reference. → AA (talk) — 01:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about valid sources, then it was covered by only New Age Xtra, a supplementary magazine of the daily New Age. That article discussed two cases, one in nsu and another in du. The thing to be noted here is that, it never came in the actual daily New Age as a news. And there is also a significant time gap between occurrence of the incident and the coverage in New Age Xtra.
If only one supplementary magazine covers the incident and no tv channels, radio stations, and newspapers(including new age)and magazines do not cover the incidents, then can we say it is "notable" ?
AA, i would like to take your attention to this statement:
"I've heard that they have commissioned some two or three agents to manipulate the page as best as possible with a view to the benefit of the university."
Dont you think this kind of remarks are insulting for those, who are suggesting "controversy" section should not be included ?
--Nmuid (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nmuid, thanks for your comments. Firstly, can I ask you to format your talk page edits according to the guidelines in WP:TALK. It will make it easier to read and see where your comments start and end. Secondly, you make two points.
  • Only New Age Xtra, a supplement, covered this incident and therefore it is not notable. This is a valid point and hits on both notability and undue weight but when I skimmed everyone's comments above, there was indication that the incident was carried by most national dailies. So, I await links to all the relevant news items to be presented here.
  • "Agents" of the university are manipulating this article. What I would say is anyone, including associates of the institution are permitted to edit this article. However, there are guidelines that deal with conflict of interests and it is best if those are declared. However, conversely, we should not accuse people on hearsay and unless there is clear evidence that the COI policy is being violated, let us not make such accusations.
→ AA (talk) — 10:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AA, first of all i'm very sorry that, i do not understand what type of formatting your were asking me to do.
I will advise you on this on your talk page. → AA (talk) — 20:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However,you have misunderstood me about the second point. i'm not saying that, 'agents' of NSU are manipulating this page. What i meant is, when people make this kind of statements they indirectly indicate that people ,who are against having a "controversy" section, are some agents with wrong intentions. And i fully agree with you on not accusing anybody to be an "agent".
--Nmuid (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've been reading through the long discussion whether to include a controversy section for NSU or not. Considering student protests for rights and tuition fees hikes and their media coverages, sexual scandal and harassment related media coverages, corruption related media coverages for the academia, NSU is now at the top for sure. But in Bangladesh most national dailies are not yet properly represented online. And most major national dailies are Bengali except a few such as the Daily Star. Only newspaper cuttings scanned and uploaded can provide a way to cite their coverages as references. Luckily, I have had the Daily star coverage of the rape at NSU in my collection of cuttings, and I scanned and uploaded it here:
http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/496/nsurapedstar.jpg
It includes why the proctor is the focus of many of the recent controversies. I don't think after getting this link any anti-controversy section person would be able to create any further confusion regarding the seriousness of the recent incidents at NSU, since Daily Star is the prime English newspaper of the country.
I have noticed that someone was saying that the new age article is weak... no, only very important national issues are discussed in the new age extra magazine, not all issues discussed in the New Age daily newspaper reach the New Age Extra coverage. And please stop making such untrue remarks as no other media, etc. etc. covered recent issues of NSU. When you make a statement please remember that untrue statements can easily be proved wrong since this wide world has people who are not all that illiterate or just kids. --Saikhrahmed (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nmuid, you didn't properly understand what AA said. Please go through his full post again. Now there has been an overwhelming majority supporting a controversy section. Its you, and another random ID, Nahid bd, who've been asking not to include the controversy section, each time coming up with a new reason. Not only that, the people who have been supporting the controversy section have not made a single edit since the discussion started. But look what Nahid bd did while discussion was still going on.
05:24, 1 March 2010 Nahid bd (talk | contribs) (11,961 bytes) (→2009 student rape controversy: removing controversial things)
It was not okay to remove it like this while discussion was still going on, was it? We were supposed to demonstrate by discussion that we were making valid points.--Templeofsolomon (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily star do have presence in the internet and have online version of their paper.Therefore, it is difficult to accept that, "Only newspaper cuttings scanned and uploaded can provide a way to cite their coverages as references."
Moreover, images/photos are easy to manipulate and thus have major reliability concern. So can't be accepted because we are not 'kids' or 'illiterate' in Shikherahmed's words. I've searched "rape in north south university" in daily star's website but could not find anything. Please, provide the link or give the date of the daily star issue, so that it can be verified.
Previously, Templeofsolomon wrote it was covered by "Ittefaq, Prothom Alo, Daily Star, Janakantha". All of these dailies have online versions. Then why dont they reference from them ?
And i dont understand how a supplement can be more important than the newspaper itself. I can't accept that Xtra is more important than the actual newspaper New age!!! The daily didn't cover it as a news, which it does to every significant national and international news.
--Nmuid (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nmuid, you failed to properly indent your message again. As with your deceptive comment, "The Daily star do have presence in the internet and have online version of their paper", its not the online version of their daily newspaper, but an online edition/representation and works like a daily star online supplement. That's what Saikhrahmed meant when he said most of the dailies are not yet properly represented online. As for the images of newspaper cuttings in case online links are not available, they can be properly used as reference, provided the date and issue number of the paper supporting the piece of cutting is provided along with the cutting.
Now you have been shouting against the New Age Extra coverage for quite a long time. Most people outside NSU who came to know about the rape came to know it from a variety of media coverages. The New Age Extra is just another piece of coverage, but its still more important than you claim it to be. First, you have to be able to differentiate between a magazine in its own right, and a supplement. Contact New Age if you have any confusion, and I guess you already know, and you are still shouting its a supplement just to confuse up the people here. Secondly, even if it was a supplement, there is no such thing as a supplement cannot cover an important news, and if it does it does not remain an important news.
As for the other coverages like Ittefaq, Prothom Alo, Janakantha, it works the same, we are trying to collect the cuttings with references to the issues, but till now we have provided enough resources from our side. You had previously made a lot of accusations against us, but you still didn't back yourself up with a single proper reference except the many of your already refuted deceptive statements.--Asadnsu (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AA, some editors are continuously writing that, i'm making "deceptive comments", i'm creating "confusion" and etc. Is it acceptable according to wikipedia's guideline to accuse someone like that? i'm feeling discouraged to discuss here as they are continuously making personal attacks and accusations.
Anyway, i have just two thing to say:
  • 1. Prothom alo, daily star, jonokontha, ittefaq do have online version. you can check it yourself whether its a proper version or not.
  • 2. Images of paper cuttings of news article are not reliable source as fake image files can easily be created using photoshop.
--Nmuid (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section is highly exaggerated. I think students should immediately inform NSU authority to work with Wikipedia. The content is written in a way that amplifies the one incident into something very big. It also refers to rape "incidents" - plural, there are no such evidences of multiple events either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saquib h (talk • contribs) 18:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Include or not Include 2[edit]

Firstly, I've been a bit busy lately so haven't been able to help you folks out following the various comments above until now.

Secondly, remember no personal attacks. I will block anyone who makes any personal attacks directed towards another editor.

Before we continue, everyone should read up on what a reliable source is. Being online or in english is not a fundamental requirement so newspapers in Bangla can be equally reliable as online versions provided they can be verified. We will assume good faith on the part of those who provide references and if scans can be provided then it will certainly add an extra level of comfort for acceptance.

We are discussing here whether to include this topic in the article or not. Until there is consensus, do not add the information. There is no rush.

Now onto the issue, Nmuid has made a good case for the topic not to be included in the article. I have asked those of you who think this warrants inclusion for a list of references. Saikhrahmed has provided a scan of The Daily Star. I am unable to see the date/volume of the issue. Can you cite the date, volume, page no. please so that it can be verified on their site (since they have an online presence). I am still waiting for a list of other reliable sources. Please list them here so that we can discuss their acceptance. → AA (talk) — 20:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The scan I have provided above is the Daily Star 29th November 2009 issue. I've previously tried to get archives of important news coverages of Bangladeshi dailies from the net but failed many times, because none of the Bangladeshi national dailies have succeeded in properly upgrading their dailies into complete online versions. What they have rather done is a partial mirroring of their dailies online, containing minimal news and info, just to serve as an official presence of the organization on the net, not as a reference point or for retrieving archives. Many of the sites only contain partial archives, or may be no archives at all. In Bangladesh, retrieving news from archives is officially done only through libraries containing bundled hard copies of past ten to twenty years of newspaper archives. Most Bangladeshis know about this, and in spite of knowing it if someone still asks for it on the net, I can say only one thing. I have already given the issue details and anyone can check a proper archive of daily star newspapers in a library, and he/she will definitely find the news that I have scanned on the front page.--Saikhrahmed (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saikhrahmed, thanks for the expanded citation. Citations where the item is not available on the Internet needs to be more detailed and should be done as a matter of routine. → AA (talk) — 00:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

29 November, 2009 was a government holiday. I am not pointing fingers here when I say that may be there have been some misunderstanding. Moreover, I have never seen any newspaper to publish headline without capitalizing each word. 119.30.39.34 (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to bring a point to AA's attention. Nmuid has been claiming that the New Age Extra is a supplement and hence news covered by it is unimportant. I have some points for you to consider:
  • 1) New Age Extra is an important side magazine of New Age, and the news was featured in their cover page.
  • 2) New Age Daily covered the incident as an immediate follow up, and New Age Extra covered it a bit later as a feature story. New Age Extra doesn't generally report original news.
  • 3) Above, on this discussion page, I have had copy pasted some extracts from the New Age Extra article itself which would give you some hint on how important the issue became, the level of people who reacted and the consequences that followed.
And about the Bengali newspaper coverages, its hard searching for English terms in their sites added to their not containing many resources. But I will still look out for the issue details, and post them here as soon as I find them.--Templeofsolomon (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted the concerns regarding the New Age Extra and when we come to discuss the merits of the sources we will cover this and can discuss it on other noticeboards if needed for additional viewpoints. In the meantime, we need more sources to show that there was sufficient coverage of the topic so that we can be sure it meets the NPOV policy. → AA (talk) — 00:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I did it since the section was already there until someone called Nahid bd removed it while discussion was still going on. It won't happen again. And I was not attacking Nmuid, I was just pointing him out that such and such statement would be of a deceptive nature, since he has been shifting from one statement to another for not including the controversy section, made a lot of statements without citing any reference, and has been making some sweeping statements and impractical demands. If my way of forming the sentences have been improper, wrong or abusive I would like to apologize for it. But I think Nmuid should also turn his attention towards a more conclusion oriented discussion instead of creating argument for its own sake and making occasional emotional appeals.
I found that a Criticism and controversy section is there in Rajshahi University article. Since for North South University we already have stronger references for multiple incidents, I would support having such a section in this article as well.--Asadnsu (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your understanding. Do you have any sources (other than the New Age and Daily Star links) that talk specifically about the rape incident? → AA (talk) — 08:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Criticism and Controversy Section is Back. No explanations necessary unless similar section is removed from Rajshahi University. The Daily Star and The New Age are the highest circulating English newspaper in Bangladesh. If they are not valid as source, I don't know what is. ====Esha Karim==== 15:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esha795 (talk • contribs)

It was decided in our previous discussions that, whether the section will be added or not will be decided only after there is a consensus. Now, it is not acceptable that, you will add it back saying "No explanation necessary". Explanations and Discussions are very much necessary as we are trying to reach a consensus. Moreover, according to wikipedia This is not a valid argument as whatever is or is not included in other articles doesn't matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . Therefore, we have to consider RU and NSU issues separately. Nmuid (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Academics[edit]

This section is overly complex listing all the courses that are on offer. The section needs to be trimmed in accordance with the guidelines on college and university articles (see Duke University, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur). → AA (talk) — 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For trimming the academic listing without removing necessary information, I prefer the model used in Chittagong University of Engineering & Technology. All the schools and department names should be listed under "Schools and Departments" section and a separate section "Academic Programs" should include very short description like this... "NSU offers a number of Undergraduate and Masters degrees in the fields of Business Administration, Computer Science,........" What do u think?--Nsuuser (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CUET is not a good example either. That article is not formatted well, and have unnecessary information presented in haphazard manner. A better example is Rajshahi_University, which used to be a featured article, but is still in very good shape, and shows what a university page should look like. --Ragib (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to write a brief but informative description for the academic section. Given that these schools of NSU does not have a 50 years' history and the university's website is not that much informative, the description might not be as good as RU, but it will not contain any unnecessary information. I will also try to collect the catalogs and publications of each individual school to find new information. It might take some time. In the meantime, if anyone has any suggestions or anyone rewrites this section, please post it here first before posting it to the main page. Discussing would make the work much better. --Nsuuser (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Masud nsu, 16 April 2010[edit]

I would like to add some more information about nsu library.if u give me permission it will be helpful for me Masud nsu (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want permission to edit this page, you can either for 4 days and edits after which you will automatically be able to edit these pages or you can ask for confirmed status here. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 210° 34' 0" NET 14:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major Edit to Make it Sound More Like Wikipedia[edit]

Deleted portions which seem to be copy-paste from university websites. Now the departments section only list the departments and courses offered, nothing superficial like "follows American curriculum" or "offers skills and knowledge" Esha795 (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to the club activities[edit]

If Club Activities are so much highlighted. Then I would request you to add IIUPE (International Inter University Photography Exhibition) under NSU Photography Club's activities. After all this is a huge platform provided to the student photographs internationally, since 2000.

For details you can log into North South University Photography Club's website: http://www.nsupc.org/iiupe.html

Thank You.

Alumni Association of North South University (AANSU)[edit]

Dear all,

There is a network of NSU Graduates that should be mentioned in the North South University page in Wikipedia. There is a link from North South University's official page to AANSU website. AANSU official website is http://www.aansu.org/

Regards, Tashfin Delwar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tashfin.delwar (talk • contribs) 08:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Academics[edit]

Academics was edited to be more precise. Somebody reverted it and now it sounds like advertisement. Reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.170.96 (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on North South University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of First Private University[edit]

As per the information provided in the website of UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION OF BANGLADESH, few University started its journey following the inception of the Private University Act 1992. The website says, University of Science & Technology Chittagong also got established in 1992, however IUBAT did not start its journey in 1992. It started its journey in 1993, here is the link:

USTC: http://www.ugc.gov.bd/en/home/universityDetails/123 IUBAT: http://www.ugc.gov.bd/en/home/universityDetails/101

Any information given in a website other than the website of UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION must be considered INVALID. Therefore the claim of IUBAT being the first private university of Bangladesh is invalid.

Few University started its journey in 1992, whoever started its journey before the inception of PRIVATE UNIVERSITY ACT 1992 should not be counted as valid one as they did not have any recognition from government.

Therefore, it can be said that NSU is one of the few universities those started its journey just after the ACT got passed in parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emonkhan (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to inform that if you want to take admission in private university like NSU, then you must have good SSC result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoforAli (talk • contribs) 16:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://ieeensu.org/ieee-nsu-sb/. 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, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their 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. Worldbruce (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_South_University&oldid=1209422344"