Talk:Bengal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Bengal
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Bengal, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Bengal. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 
* Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions
WikiProject India / West Bengal / Geography (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject West Bengal (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.
Note icon
This article was last assessed in March 2012.
WikiProject Bangladesh / Bengal  (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Bengal.
 
Note icon
The article falls into the work area of the Geography workgroup of WikiProject Bangladesh

Reign of Mahipala I[edit]

According to the article text, he reigned from 1977 - 1027. At the bottom, it's c. 988 - c. 1038. I wonder which it is? Demi T/C 06:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Really inadequate article--ppm 15:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Bengal has been and is the intellectual capital of India. It is also a very spritual place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.163.149 (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Earliest Mention[edit]

I believe that the earliest mention of Bengal as a definable group/kingdom/culture/ethnicity-whatever was actually made in the Mahabharata. They were known as the 'Vanga' kings. Unfortunately, from what little I know, they were spanked by the kings of more westerly regions, but whatever. May wanna do some research. I haven't the time. --LordSuryaofShropshire 04:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are references to the indigenous people / tribes dating back to 1000 BC. --Ragib 04:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of anything relating to Bengal from 1000 BC - the Vedas don't mention any regions so far to the east. But there's certainly room in the article to mention the origin of the name Bengal - related to Vang and Vanga, and also to Vangala/Bangala. (The change from Vangala to Bengala/Bengal came in Moghul times). PiCo 09:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Subjects not treated[edit]

I find it a little strange that this article doesn't treat matters like the geography of Bengal, the language and culture of the people (Bengal has one of the great literatures of the world), economy, etc. All history. There is more to Bengal! PiCo

This article needs to be expanded vastly[edit]

This article needs to be expanded. Currently talks about history and ignores other aspects of Bengal. Even the history is too short. This article need to address

1) Culture of Bengal 2) Geograpghy of Bengal 3) Bengali people and Bengali Demographics Tarikur 03:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You can help by summarizing each of the above articles ... i.e. Bengali cuisine, Bengali people etc. See Summary style. --Ragib 03:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

tripura?[edit]

Isnt Tripura part of traditional Bengal?

--WoodElf 15:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Partition[edit]

I think Partition of Bengal (1947) deserves a separate section (or subsection under "History"). What do others suggest? At least a whole paragraph in History, rather than just a fleeting mention? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need a section. A paragraph is ok. Even then, a small one. This is because the other 2000 years of history are also significant, and spending too much time on the 1947 partition will just make it look unbalanced. --Ragib 06:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ragib. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a separate section was a foolish idea (it does not go with ideal structure of a region related article). But adding a few more line than the present state is needed, I guess. The socio-cultural (and, may be, religious) impact of the partition should be mentioned in as compact way as possible, with good reference.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Culture section[edit]

It looks a bit too long. Perhaps the content can be moved to Culture of Bengal and a shortened version of it given here. --Ragib 15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's better. Because I was thinking to incorporate even more stuffs like electronic media etc but could not decide. In the daughter article, everything can be discussed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

FA drive[edit]

How is the drive to FA doing? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it needs some more time. Geography has not been completed. In fact, all the sections need some more works. A rudimentary daughter article Culture of Bengal has been started. This needs more stuffs from Culture of Bangladesh. We need your (and others') opinion on the style of each section. Demographics, Economics deal with WB and BD separately. Should the geography be same? I do not think Geography should be written absolutely in the same way. Also, the article needs an excellent lead. The lead should describe perfectly what is Bengal, the historical reason for it being considered as a region, and also geographical and cultural reasons for it being still considered as a region, though divided. However, that can come later, after each section gets up-to-the-mark. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Relgious accounts?[edit]

The "muslim account" thing in the etymology section requires closer inspection. Why is it a "muslim" account, just because the person was Muslim? Another thing, the reference points to a medieval book, which quite possibly is mythology, not an account accepted by all adherents of a particular religion. Is there is modern historical work supporting anything along these lines?--ppm 07:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the Mahabharata account now as well. Same goes for that, focus should be on at least plausible historical accounts, and not on balancing act on behalf of religions. --ppm 07:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


A better unified view[edit]

We need to get beyond pasting info for BD and WB. Some mash-up of data will give a better view.--ppm 07:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Some sections are difficult for such merging. For example, Economy. Any proposal how to proceed? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in some sections should be separated. But we can give things like rate of literacy by simply combining the two pieces of information. Otherwise its just too fragmented--ppm 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


History again[edit]

I think the post-partition history on both sides should be greatly compressed. On the other hand, as the last shared political event, partition should perhaps be a bit more prominent--ppm 06:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Have reservations about Anga, Vanga kingdom in the intro. Link takes us to essentially mythology, with some history sprinkled in. In what way are these more relevant than Bongal, Shomotat, Horikel or Gaur?--ppm 03:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Scope[edit]

Does Bengal also include Tripura and Meghalaya? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a tough question. Bengal once included parts of Orissa and Bihar as well. See this map, and this one, and this one. However, this larger Bengal Presidency has been discussed in the history section. This section throws a light on Bengal of 1905. Do you think these things need to be described in detail? May be a new section on "Historical extents of Bengal"? Sounds funny though!--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it can be handled on the lines of Manchuria and Scandinavia? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


The Bengal also includes the Barak Valley of Assam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahtapa (talkcontribs) 13:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Combining statistics[edit]

I've noticed a lot of places having X% in West Bengal and Y% in Bangladesh. This makes it look very choppy and unprofessional. Combine the two figures to get an exact value for Bengal. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Should this be done everywhere? For example, the diff in religious affiliation seems important to be mentioned--ppm 02:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes in general. You have a point on religion, her we need to also expand on the reason why the demographics are so skewed, with a majority Hindu concentration in West Bengal, and majority Muslim population in Bangladesh. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Flora / Fauna?[edit]

Is there a need to include text on flora / fauna of Bengal? To give an example, the Black Bengal goat is native to this area ... and so are some other fish and bird species. --Ragib 10:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes this can be included. IMO lets include it, and community reaction/suggestion can be assessed in peer review. Regarding flora and fauna of West Bengal, we already have "Flora and fauna" section in West Bengal, and also Protected areas of West Bengal. So information is readily available. Wildlife of Bangladesh is in miserable state. Can somebody improve it? or, provide references otherwise? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see Category:Fauna of Bangladesh is not bad. And of course there is Sundarbans.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Curb last section[edit]

Full of POV--ppm 00:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to go through the last section (relationship) and add references. IMO, the section itself should be there, but needs references, copyedit, and, further information.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Bengal vs. Bengal Province[edit]

I see that Bengal Province has recently been redirected to Bengal. I personally don't think the redirect was appropriate, because of the following reason. Bengal is a geographic and cultural region, which still exists. It's history extends from pre-historic time to present day. The focus of this article should be on the unique and common attributes of this region - its language, culture, people, climate, topography and to some extent very broad based coverage of its history. On the other hand Bengal Province refers to a province of British India whose history ranges between 1858 and 1947. Several other provinces of British India have their separate articles, e.g. Punjab (British India), Panth-Piploda, Madras Presidency etc. The coverage of the Bengal Province article should focus on historical events and the administration (Governors, sub-divisions etc.) of the region during that specific part of history. The life of the people during that period may also be discussed. Please share your thoughts on this. Arman (Talk) 02:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So, Bengal Province should be redirected to Bengal Presidency.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed and done. Arman (Talk) 10:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request from Taufiqbd, 26 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change the largest city to Dhaka, Bangladesh from Calcutta, India (especially in the top right box). Otherwise this article contradicts itself! Taufiq Husain 22:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Article says, "in terms of population." —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Tripura[edit]

Tripura, although inhabited mainly by Bengalis was never a part of Bengal in any time in history. -Trinanjon Basu (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the word 'Benga'[edit]

Like Indas or Lanka, Banga is Lithuanian word meaning 'a surf or a wave'. Indas is Lithuanian (Lithuanian and is old Sanskritian) word meaning 'a vessel or a dish', and Lanka in Lithuanian language means 'a meadow or a plain for catle'

reunion of Bengali[edit]

why this country is still divided? half in India and half as Bangladesh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.188.126 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this is a matter of discussion here. This discourse should be left outside of Wikipedia and this section of Talk page should be eliminated. A reviewer or admin may consider deleting this section. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk 08:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Major cities: What order?[edit]

Major cities section lists some major cities in term of population. But Kolkata is kept on top, which do not comply with a sort order based on population. Population of Kolkata is 5,138,208 while Dhaka has a population of 12,797,394 (metro, and 7,000,940 in capital). Also in term of importance, Dhaka precedes Kolkata; but I'll prefer population only as the mean of sorting. Cooch Behar is included which has only 77thousand inhabitants, while some city not mentioned here far exceeds the limit. e.g. Mymensingh 330thousand. Neither Cooch Behar nor Mymensingh hold a status of city, but are mentioned as town.

Thorough check and rewrite of this section is mandatory. I think I might work on it, but need some response so to do it right. I'll prefer a table with major city names and some corresponding information. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk 08:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't Arakanese Rohingyas be considered as Bengalis?[edit]

Shouldn't Arakanese Rohingyas be considered as Bengalis? The spoken language as well as written script of Rohingyas of Arakan (Myanmar) is pretty close to Bengali. Even the Myanmar authority does not consider them Myanmarese and hence refusing citizenship push them to Bangladesh. Their language is almost indistinguishable from the Chittagonese dialect of Bengali. Moreover, Arakan Kings had a great influence and support for the Bengali literature in middle age. In that light, shouldn't Arakan be considered as a part of greater Bengal? Taufique — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taufiquejoarder (talkcontribs) 05:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any notable reliable source supporting your claim? if so why not. If there is none, then Arakanese Rohingyas SHALL NOT be considered as Bengali » nafSadh did say 17:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what sort of evidence should be 'reliable' for establishing the fact? DNA testing may be; which will definitely link them with Bengalis. First, you can meet with so called Rohingyas yourself and I am confident that you will find that there is no difference in their appearance, language and culture between them and the Chittagonians. Second, I can share a link where the history of Rohingyas has been mentioned briefly yet convincingly: http://www.rakhapura.com/articles/who-are-the-rohingyas.asp. There are several other weblinks which proves (if you are ready to accept it as a reliable evidence) the historical and ethno-linguistic linkage of Rohingyas with the Bengalis (Chittagonians) @Nafsadh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taufiquejoarder (talkcontribs) 06:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede sentence and translations[edit]

The lede sentence starts: Bengal (Bengali: বাংলা About this sound Bangla , Bengali: বঙ্গ Banga or Bôngo)

Bengali: বাংলা and its transliteration Bangla seem to translate into "Bengali", as in the name of the language or an adjective describing people and objects from Bengal. Since the article is about the place, not "Bengali", this should be removed, right?

It is followed by Bengali: বঙ্গ Banga or Bôngo, which does appear to be the correct Bengali word for "Bengal" and its transliteration (referring to the place itself). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

In Bengali, the term Bangla refers to both the language and the region. Same applies to the term Bongo. But Bangla is more commonly used.--Zayeem (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits by User:AfricaTanz[edit]

The user is removing well-known historical and cultural information on Bengal in spite of strong opposition from other editors. We can't understand what's his problem with a citation tag. But stuff like Vanga, the Pala Empire and Bhatiali are highly important subjects in the history of Bengal and frankly its ridiculous and outrageous for someone to remove them all together merely on the grounds of sourcing issues.--Bazaan (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agree. If there is any doubt, one can add citation needed tags to begin with.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
If you two don't like Wikipedia policy, you can do either of two things: get the policy changed or stop editing Wikipedia. Also, if this information is so "well-known", you should have no trouble providing reliable sources for it. Until you do that, the information will remain deleted per policy. Cheers. AfricaTanz (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Please show us the policy that says to delete material unless referenced, WP:V states to tag with citation needed tags. Any materials challenged or likely to be challenged needs citation. Please challenge the materials that you think needs verification with citation needed tags. Even many good articles do not have citation after each and every sentence. Indeed even after your deletions, Bengal article may not have citations after each and every sentence. So please tag the sentences, give some agreeable time, and citations will be provided. If no citations are provided within a certain time, I'd delete those myself ( or you are welcome to delete those). And bye the way, I absolutely agree with you that many articles on South Asia contains basically BS, without reference. --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Nope. There's no rush. You can take whatever time you need to add back the material with reliable sources. You can see everything in the history. Deleting unsourced material is a challenge, per Wikipedia policy and Jimbo himself. He says we should be aggressive in deleting unsourced material and not just tag it, even if the material is not in biographies. If there is remaining unsourced material in this article, by all means delete it or fix it. The only way any of us will know if articles "contain BS" is to see if the material is sourced and then look at those sources for confirmation. AfricaTanz (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:V and WP:PRESERVE. This is a collaborative process, not a destructive one, obviously you should delete vandalism or blatant hoax immediately. But, for usual material, one should first try to fix it rather than deleting straight-forward. Do not blanket delete. See if you can find readily accessible reference for what you are going to delete. If not, tag with citation needed. If that is not addressed or discussed within a reasonable time, you can go ahead and delete that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I already mentioned policies that say that first try to fix the problem, then tag appropriately, then delete. You did not show any policy that says to remove things straight-away (unless vandalism, blatant hoax or BLP issues). So, please refrain from your biased editing behavior. I absolutely agree with you that many of these things that you deleted needs citation. Indeed I started to tag many of those. So, please collaborate, do not destroy. --Dwaipayan (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
You're the one not being collaborative by continuing to violate one of the pillars of Wikipedia. "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. ... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. ... The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." Jimmy Wales: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information...." AfricaTanz (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
And it's clearly written there (the link you have provided) that it is not a policy statement. You are making error in the context. Learn to use common sense in some instances. Obviously you should remove something that is absurd to common sense. But, for other stuffs, WP:BRD is there, read WP:PRESERVE. Read WP:V which is a policy, unlike the link that you have provided.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The other point here is that all this information is already linked with various Wikipedia articles and can be easily verified.--Bazaan (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Warning to all participants in this edit war: sanctions including topic bans under WP:ARBIPA will soon be handed out here. Fut.Perf. 10:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Article protected[edit]

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Some sourcing[edit]

Hi! I am starting to provide specific sentences with sources. Please help in the process. After completion, we can move the sentences with sources to article space. The refs are in the process of being added, so may not be complete.

  • Some parts of the history sections are now referenced. Many sentences have been removed. Work is in progress. Thanks to editors for refraining from mass deletion/blanking of sections.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


References[edit]

Problematic sourcing[edit]

In the "etymology" section, the paragraph about the alleged etymology from Bongo ("Other accounts speculate that the name is derived...") is sourced to a single publication by an Indian author from 1977. Its text is not online for me but apparently searchable on Google Books. A search for "Bongo", "Bonggo" or "Bonga" in that Google Books entry turns up empty for me. What exactly is Amitabha Bhattacharyya saying on pp. 61–62 of his book? Is the book a reliable source? This is particularly important as the paragraph includes a claim about the etymology being "Austric". As this is not a commonly accepted linguistic family, the claim may fall in the category of "exceptional claims that require exceptional evidence", per WP:V.

In the same section, the paragraph about the alleged etymology from bhang ('cannabis') is sourced to Rowan Robinson, The Great Book of Hemp. Not a reliable source for claims of linguistics and etymology. There, it is in turn sourced to Chris Conrad, Hemp: Lifeline to the Future. Even less of a reliable source. The second source cited is a British government report about cannabis use from 1894, which as far as I can see doesn't even mention the issue of the ethnic name at all. Unless I'm missing something this is a blatant case of source misuse (and even if it says something, it's still not a reliable source either).

The passage talking about a "hybrid race", sourced through footnote 12, is also problematic. The footnote speaks in terms of "Caucasoids" and "Mongoloids", vaguely citing a book by Cavalli-Sforza et al. in support, but without page numbers. To the best of my knowledge, racial terms such as "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" are widely considered to be outdated concepts in present-day anthropology, so I wonder if Cavalli-Sforza is really using these concepts like this. What exactly, and where in the book, is he saying about the population of Bangladesh?

Independently of the sourcing, the whole passage about the "racial" makeup of the population is also blatantly off-topic for a section entitled "etymology". How did those sentences ever get included at that point?

In the same section, the first paragraph is unclear about the logical relationship between the hypothesized sources "Bang" and "Vanga". Are these two competing hypotheses, or are they different stages of the development of the same word, and hence compatible with each other?

Fut.Perf. 15:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not been able yet to look into the book source in detail for supporting evidences. I found the book is not using bongo, or banga in that spelling. It is using peculiar spellings such as vāńgāla or stuffs like that.
I completely agree that the racial make up sentences are totally off-topic, and needs to be deleted. No idea really how they got incorporated. Of course, lack of active watchers could be a reason.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)