Talk:Icddr,b
Add topic | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capitalization
[edit]Their website and materials use "icddr,b" not "ICDDR,B" (even when starting a sentence). Should we change the article text? --Bequw (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Lowercase is standard. I'll change it. 182.160.106.74 (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Mvolz (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
It appears to have changed in a collection of other revisions. I left a note on the users talk page, but haven't heard further discussion. I will switch back, but if there's a reason this should be in all caps, feel free to revert and explain. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Why have the B/Bangladesh?
[edit]Is there another "International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research" that ICDDRB needs to be distinguished from? There's no such parent organization at least. --Bequw (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's the only one, but no one ever drops the B. I don't know the history to tell why. 182.160.106.74 (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Criticism
[edit]@Raihanur please can you explain why you think the criticism isn't relevant? Why do you think this isn't relevant? It seems like a fairly big deal to me, that this organisation was linked to Epstein...?
It looks very much like you're trying to cover something up about this org when you blank a section like this. Timtjtim (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- First of all, no source says "it is criticized" or anything similar. The second source (this one), which was already included, says,
"This is primarily a personal or third-party proposal and communication, which has no proven direct connection with the institution's official position or activities."
Wikipedia cannot give due weight to information that lacks a proven direct link. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - While there are proven connections between Epstein and institutions such Harvard (link), ykw? Even Epstein's name is absent from the article. + Framing this as criticism itself isn't neutral, (though an editor has changed it to Controversies, which is somewhat better, but it remains debatable.)
- At most, this could be briefly mentioned within another section, but a standalone criticism or controversy section is not justified.
- And an editorial disagreement about encyclopedic weight is not uncommon on Wikipedia; WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and maybe WP:AGF are the only things you need to know. — Raihanur (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)