Talk:East West University

East West University Page

I have started working on East West University page at wikipedia. I hope, I will get constructive help form others.Niaz bd 04:00 am, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to improve this article based on proper citations. In case I put any data or comment by mistake or by being emotional (as I am a graduate and postgraduate of this university, there is a strong chance for me to become emotional), please bring me on the right track by your comments and advices. (Niaz bd 09:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

I replaced the term "Second Best" by "one of the best". Thanks to Ragib Bhaia. Though I have some logic regarding my last edit but I do not get into a debate. I think it's better and safer to use one of the best instead of second best as UGC didn't mention this list as a ranking though they didn't mention it as a random list also. This report is available on the net on different newspaper's archive. (Niaz bd 07:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

I am trying my best to make it a neutral article. But, it's a difficult task and still way to go. I am working section by section, I mean starting from the top I am removing Advertisement phrases from different sections and hopefully with in a month or so, it will be a perfect article. Niaz bd 14:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed unreferenced material

I have removed the following unreferenced material from the article:

In view of a controversial mongering by most of the country's private universities in the name of education, the government constituted a nine-member committee headed by University Grants Commission (UGC) chairman M Assaduzzaman on July 17, 2003 to look into the fact. The committee conducted one-year-and-three-month-long extensive scrutiny over 52 private universities out of total 53 universities and submitted its report to Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia on October 17,2004. The principal recommendations of the committee are: "Eight private universities -- BGC Trust University, Comilla University, Pundra University of Science and Technology, Green University, Queens University, American Bangladesh University, Central Women's University and Southern University -- should be closed down, 10 other such universities should be provided one-year ultimatum and another six ones should be served six-month deadline for ensuring quality education." The committee found the standard of education of only nine private universities – North South University (NSU), East West University (EWU), Independent University of Bangladesh (IUB), American International University of Bangladesh (AIUB), BRAC University, Daffodil University, Stamford University, University of Development Alternative (UODA) and International Islamic University of Chittagong (IIUC) as satisfactory.

If someone finds an authentic source for this information, please, put it back into the article. Well keep three things in mind when putting it back:

• Cite the source
• Remove POV tone from the text above
• Put it in an appropriate section

Cheers. Aditya Kabir 15:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Aditya Bhaia, I added those information from different Daily Newspapers published on October 18, 2004. If you have a look on that day's newspapers, then for sure you will find this article as one of the most important one. It was also published on the web in The Daily Observer's web edition but they removed the whole edition later. Besides, '27 universities are running without a VC' is not perfectly true for EWU (Its source link is also missing. May be web newspapers do not archive newses for more than one year). Bhaia, main fact is that, Dr. Mohammed Farashuddin was nominated thrice as the VC of EWU by the board but BNP Government did not give the approval. I guess I need not to mention the reason :-) !. Besides, I noticed some of the Wikipedians (non-logged in users) tried to pull down the reputation of EWU by adding some 'irrelevant' comments without maintaining even any writing structure on this article. This is really unfortunate. I believe that in future we will be respectful to the private universities as the real difference between Public and Private university students are getting closer and in some cases private universities are doing better compare to some so called 'Public' universities. Regards -

(Niaz bd 03:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

• in some cases private universities are doing better compare to some so called 'Public' universities.--Concured. Yeah, Bro you're right :) Regards--NAHID 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Structure Completed

I have done with the initial structure of this article. Now we should work on it to improve its quality. Regards, (Niaz bd 20:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)).

This article still sounds like a brochure, rather than an encyclopedic one. For example, "library increasing intellectual capital day by day" - type comments are not really encyclopedic. The intro has serious reference issues ... (a huge note is added inline, without mentioning the source). In other words, the article needs a LOT of work. --Ragib 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Niaz. It was a wonderful job you did with the article. You definitely can put back the mayerial I removed, but, please, meet the three criterion I mentioned. Otherwise some other editor will surely remove it again. And, don't worry about some negative facts remaining in the article. For an article to be comprehensive the negative as well as the positive needs to be on it. In fact, I am trying to question the article on Rajshahi University to have some not-so-nice facts on it. And, that article is vying for a status as a featured article. Finally, please, ignore all the zealots trying to push a particular agenda to Wikipedia. Aditya Kabir 15:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ragib Bhaia and Aditya Bhaia. I am trying my best to give it a look like an encyclopedia though I believe I succeeded not more than 1% in my task. You Bhaiaz are like our (junior wikipedians) guardians at Wikipedia. So, please suggest me 'what to do' and 'what not to do' regarding any article or any type of wiki-behavior. I will always take them positively. As I was a student of EWU for the last 5 years, it's quite natural that I will be biased at some points. So, please do warn me if I do such things. Ragib Bhaia, I read that article (regarding UGC comment) from Prothom Alo though they do not have that particular edition right now on their online archive. I will visit Prothom Alo office personally and buy a copy of that day's edition and try to add a proper reference. Aditya Bhaia, I actually didn't want to put back the whole article that you edited. I tried to put back the first para as I wrote it in the fashion which is called 'Inverted Pyramid Structure' or INTRO in journalism (I know you people are experienced and know better than me). In KCL or UCL or other university pages wikipedians try to follow this structure. But, when I tried to bring back that intro, I failed and had to bring back the whole article. I will follow those three points that you mentioned and try to fulfill their demands by providing proper references. Finally, still this article looks like a brochure because I copied most of the part of this article from either from newsletters or prospectus! But, I am trying my best to give it an encyclopedia look and I promise hopefully with in 3 more months you will find a real encyclopedia article regarding EWU at wikipedia! Please do visit this article at least once a month and keep me on the right track. Thanks and Regards, Niaz bd 07:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You don't need to buy the copy ... just mentioning the date and newspaper article title would be ok. Prothom Alo's old editions are available online. As for article structure, the intro para needs to summarize the whole article (see WP:SUMMARY). You can get a good idea about a university article at Rajshahi University. --Ragib 07:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments for improvement

A lot of effort has gone into the article. But, some radical copyedit and citation work may still be required. Some comments:

• Keep out words like - "leading", "elite" or "best", "huge" or "user friendly" - unless a verifiable and acceptable source is given. These are peacock words.
• The leader reads very much like an advertisement. It could be made into a neutral piece of writing, like - "East West University (EWU) is a private university in Bangladesh established in 1996. In 2004, it is one of the nine private universities, out of 45, to have a satisfactory academic standard. Built around a centralized campus, the university features a range of academic and extra-curricular facilities - from a growing library visited by 2,200 users a day to 16 students clubs. Headed by eminent academic personality Dr. Mohammed Farashuddin, EWU offers a number of scholarship schemes, regular seminars that include discussions on subjects significant to national development, and a limited but diverse range of curriculum."
• There is no need to repeat the university motto from the infobox.
• There is no verifiable source cited on the "elite 5". Please, keep this out of the article. Wikipedia is not about the truth, it is about verifiable facts.
• "...since then it is maintaining its reputation and quality of education" - is that a fact or an opinion? If it is a fact then a source must be provided, if an opinion, please, remove it.
• "...a group of prominent academics, business leaders, professionals and education enthusiasts..." - prominent by what measures? Who were part of this prominent set of people?
• "...established in 1996...", "It was established in 1996" and "...was launched in 1996" - does the establishment date need to be repeated three times? Once would definitely suffice.
• The history section tells only the story of establishment. What about the August 2004 report that complaints about EWU having no VC, and the October 2004 report that says EWU is one of 9 private universities with a satisfactory? What about results of inter-university competitions? If there is little to write on the history of a 10 year old university, the whole section may be removed with the information on establishment shifted to the leader section.
• Shorter descriptions are more appreciated than longer ones. Therefore, instead of - "EWU is organized into three faculties: faculty of Sciences and Engineering, faculty of Business and Economics and faculty of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences. Each of the faculty is again divided into different departments. A Dean is the head of each faculty while departments are headed by the respective department Chairpersons." - it is possible to write - "EWU is organized into three faculties - Sciences and Engineering, Business and Economics, and Liberal Arts and Social Sciences - each headed by a dean and divided into different departments headed by respective chairmen."
• Turn the latter sections - Structure, Campus and Scholarships and financial support, and Student activities - from lists to prose form. If necessary, check the history of Rajshahi University to find out how to do that.
• Large, unreferenced paragraphs are not substitutes for reference citation. The large paragraph from the reference section must be removed.
• Providing qualitative information from the official site may not be enough, it must be backed by verifiable third party citation. Wikipedia community is currently pondering a policy against single-source information.

Keep the good work going. Aditya Kabir 11:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments for improvement, again

A lot of improvement there. Congratulations. There may be a few things that still require some improvement.

The leader

• "...by the Private University Act, 1992" - is it a necessary piece of fact? I see that most private university articles beginning with that fact - a result of acquiring all information from a single source, i.e. the official website. Consider that - (1) all private universities are created under the act and therefore is not unique to EWU unless may be an earlier attempt to run the university circumventing the act, (2) an act should ideally be impactful enough for a general reader, including everyone not studying at EWU, to be cited as encyclopedic material; (3) the act is already quoted in the mother article for Bangladesh universities - List of universities in Bangladesh - and is a bit of redundancy in the entry for each university article.
  • And, of course, repeating it in the history section serves no purpose at all.
• "...a range of academic and extra-curricular facilities" and "...a limited but diverse range of curriculum" - aren't these things considered as basic pre-requisites for a University? Does EWU need to prove that it fills the criterion? If not, then these comments may be regarded as unnecessary.
• "eminent academic personality" - POV, unless referenced from an independent source (i.e. outside the sources provided by EWU). The founder, as described in the article, seems to be a rich and well connected professional, not an academic personality.
• "subjects significant to national development" - POV, unless referenced from an independent source (i.e. outside the sources provided by EWU).
• "a growing library" - a peacock phrase. Only library that doesn't grow is exceptional, and therefore needs to be stated as such, not growing libraries.

History

• The August 2004 report that complaints about EWU having no VC, and the October 2004 report that says EWU is one of 9 private universities with a satisfactory will not vanish from reality even if they don't feature on this article. But, deleting these facts will make the article incomplete. Check on the featured article Rajshahi University that doesn't hide the ugly facts.
• Is there anything about any success in things like sports? Did it arrange, organize or host any significant international events like seminars, conferences etc.? If yes then put'em in. Newspapers would be a good place to begin searching for such stuff.
• The section still contains nothing but the establishment of the university. If a 10-year-old university has nothing to say on its history, why not remove it altogether and integrate the section in the leader?

Other issues

• Is it possible to cite some third party sources? I am sure there are sources beyond the university's own promotional material (see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources)?
• Is it possible to turn the Campus and Student activities sections from list to prose? Lists are usually big deterrents to an article's integrity.
• "the floors have specialty in terms of...", "well configured computer laboratories", "other leading private universities" - all POV unless referenced (from third party sources) and explained.
• "is declared abandon", "one of the busiest commercial spot" - isn't the English a bit odd? Can you improve upon grammar and usage?

Keep the good work going. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 05:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Bhaia again for your advices. Some prestigious events was held at EWU which includes 4th (or 3rd) International Conference for Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT) 2002, 1st EWU Inter University Computer Programming Contest 2006 and some international seminars through different departments. This year EWU is going to arrange and host ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest (Asia Final, Dhaka Site) which is also a world wide recognized prestigious event. I will add those information with necessary citation and ask for your guidance. Besides, EWU has few success in sports and other events also, such as becoming 4th (1st from BD) at Coimbatore and 12th (1st from BD) at Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, in ACM ICPC Asia Final held in India, Champion in Bangla Debate and Runner's up in English in Notre Dame college arranged National Debate tournaments, 12 (1st from BD) in Business Case Presentation in Indian Institutes of Management, Runner's up in BAT etc. It's my pleaser and privilege to mention that I am personally involved in some of those achievements and I have prover documents(hard and soft link) to provide necessary references. Regarding ugly facts: I think I will be a biased person to do this stuff and you or a person who is not involved with EWU should add those points. Regarding weak and odd English structure: Those lines have been added in hurry and later on I didn't rearrange them. In fact, still there are lot more things to do and I will be really pleased if you edit some of the parts that you feel necessary. I really liked your intro (an awesome one) and expecting a closing structure for this article from you. There is a good news, I have been accepted by King's College London as a PhD student in Telecommunications Engineering which will be started in September 2007. Now I am preparing my scholarship applications and PhD research proposal. That is way little bit busy, but still I will try my best to arrange my time for wikipedia as I am already addicted by this cool stuff :-) Niaz bd 06:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The "primary source" tag

Dear User:NAHID, it is wonderful to see your contributions enriching the Wikipedia. It is also wonderful to see your dilligence in persuing what you think is right, as well as your wholehearted acceptance of the need to be bold. I may not have been quite appreciative of your efforts, and was apprehensive of your good faith, but you made an example of steadfast workmanship. Great.

But, it should be noted with great sadness that almost all the misunderstanding you have created sprung from one single source - your continued refusal to discuss anything. It is compounded by the fact that you are using the edit summary as the platform to state your viewpoints. Both are not deemed as proper behavior as far as Wikipedia goes. So, please, discuss your points here and help the project to achieve one more consensus.

Let me first recount the infamous edit-summaries generated for this article lately:

• Removed template.Valuable sources are available - you
• all of these "valuable" sources are, unfortunately, "primary" (please, stop this useless edit-war and explain on the talk page) - me
• the source of "Private University Act 1992" isn't promotional - you
• please, discuss in the talk page about your reasons for removing the "primary source" tag) - me

Now, let's take a look at this closely:

• The valuable sources you mention do come from the website of the university, and that makes it a primary source
• There was no mention of a promotional anywhere, and that reason is at the best confusing
• The source for one tiny bit of information in the whole article (the Act) can not and should not be extended to the whole article
  • The Act is anyways a part of the promotional campaign for the private universities of Bangladesh, where most of them are facing charges of irregularities about authorization, and is present in most of the articles in this category as a result of picking all information from those single sources
  • The information about the Act is incorporated in the List of universities in Bangladesh and Education in Bangladesh articles, and therefore ideally should be removed from these individual universities unless there is gross violation of the Act
  • On the other hand if we remove all information derived from the primary sources and keep that one bit of third-party sourced information the article would face a speedy deletion for complete worthlessness

Would you state your argument, please? Cheers. Aditya Kabir 19:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User Box

This user studies or studied at East West University.

All the Wikipedians from East West University may add this user box at their user page. Niaz bd 02:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

On the Academic Terms section

there are some typos please correct it. 1. Summer:May-August (starting on the second Sunday of January May) 2. Fall: September-December (starting on the second Sunday of January September) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akehaque (talk • contribs) 13:09, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

It is really nice to see a faculty working on a university article. Thank you very much for your interest and initiative at Wikipedia and this article in particular. Please feel free to make necessary correction. Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Page move

There is an East-West University in Chicago, and the hyphen is not sufficient to visually disambiguate them from each other, causing confusion for the reader. I will be moving the article back to where it was. BMK (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Refimprove and primary sources

Large sections of the article (eg History) are unsourced, and most of the sources are primary. This article still needs some work. Flat Out (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://ccc.ewubd.edu/index.php/web/about. 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. /wiae /tlk 13:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)