Jump to content

Talk:Bangabandhu Memorial Museum attack (2024)

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


Very small article. Not enough information to be a standalone article. Also the main article Bangabandhu Memorial Museum is not so big that we need to separate it. Merge this article to Bangabandhu Memorial Museum#Vandalism and arson. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @আফতাবুজ্জামান: I support the merger. While this article is a content fork of a different type, having all the information about the museum in the one place make sense. Editors can always spin off a sub-article about the vandalism and arson to the museum at a later date, should this content grow too large. There are additional issues with the title of this article. Normally events are named using when, where and what titles, so the title of this article should have been 2024 Bangabandhu Memorial Museum attack, or similar. Also, the year is not needed if there is only one event and the remainder of the title is sufficiently precise to know what the title is referring to. Also, we can debate whether this was an deliberate attack that targeted the museum, specifically, or merely a consequence of the general rioting and disorder in Bangladesh at the time, where protestors targeted any institution related to the governing party, and attacked people who appeared to be government supporters. Additionally, the article describes two separate events, the museum arson and vandalism of 5 August and the mob assaults on visitors and journalists on the 15 August. So I wonder if this article's name is too narrow in any case. I would suggest you be bold and merge the articles sooner, rather than later, then debate if anything need to become a sub-article, later. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I have merged relevant information to Bangabandhu_Memorial_Museum#Vandalism_and_arson. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in theory. In principle, the article on the attack can include more detail than would be suitable for the main article: circumstances, detail of the events, and impact (ie: what was destroyed). For the main article this could be summarised so two separate pages can work. Perhaps the key consideration should be how much information is available now, but I would err on the side of keeping them separate. If the articles are merged that would not prejudice having separate articles in the future. Richard Nevell (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i support as per @Cameron Dewe Bruno pnm ars (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]