Template:Did you know nominations/Military history of Bangladesh
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator, but article would not have been eligible in any event since it appeared on the main page as a DYK shortly after the article was created in 2008.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Military history of Bangladesh
edit
... that the military history of Bangladesh once featured regional supremacy because of good artillery?Source: [1]ALT1: ... that the military history of Bangladesh saw supremacy over neighbors because of good artillery?Source: [2]
5x expanded by Fez Cap 12 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC).
- Not a review as such, but I'd say it is quite far-fetched to say that Bangladesh (a state founded in 1971) was a regional superpower in the 17th century. --Soman (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Soman: Equating regional supremacy with the status of a superpower is far fetched. Banglapedia, a publication of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, is the source of the given hook. Bangladesh is certainly a modern state founded in 1971, but that cannot be a reason to brush off history within its territory prior to 1971.-Fez Cap 12 (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Soman: If we go by your logic, then the content in History of Bangladesh should be greatly reduced. Some of you Bangladesh-related editors should go ahead and do that then, so other editors would not bother to develop other articles on similar lines.-Fez Cap 12 (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- This mirrors the discussion on ancient Pakistan. It is obviously true that the land today known as Bangladesh have a long and rich history. But to say that Bangladesh would have been a regional artillery power in 17th century (as is alluded in the DYK nom) is bordering historical revisionism. --Soman (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Soman: Many countries were established only in the 19th and 20th centuries, like Azerbaijan, Canada, Mexico etc. Their recent establishment does not dilute their earlier history. The history of the region in question (Bengal) belongs to both Bangladesh and India (India and Pakistan were both legal successors of the British Raj in 1947). Some aspects of this history, such as the Bengal-Arakan conflicts and local warlord Isa Khan, apply specifically to Bangladesh and are not mentioned in the Military history of India. It can't be historical revisionism to document the history of Bengal within modern Bangladesh. Having said that, I understand to an extent where you are coming from. But there is no country called Bengal anymore. The successors are both Bangladesh and India and the history belongs to both.
- This mirrors the discussion on ancient Pakistan. It is obviously true that the land today known as Bangladesh have a long and rich history. But to say that Bangladesh would have been a regional artillery power in 17th century (as is alluded in the DYK nom) is bordering historical revisionism. --Soman (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- It is not historical revisionism for Wikipedia to document the precolonial and colonial histories of countries. If that was the case, other military history articles should be rewritten.-Fez Cap 12 (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- ...
that the military history of Bangladesh has a heritage of strong artillery and gunpowder exports to Europe?
I would like withdraw the nomination since the article expansion seems insufficient at this point.-Fez Cap 12 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
