Talk:Bengal

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Actually, there are references to the indigenous people / tribes dating back to 1000 BC. --Ragib 04:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Agree! Tathagata101 (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tripura?[edit]

Isnt Tripura part of traditional Bengal?

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

I would argue Tripura is a part of Bengal. 70% of its population is Bengalis and speak the Bengali language. Moreover, it was a part of the Bengal Sultanate. --HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I agree with Ragib. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FA drive[edit]

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Scope[edit]

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

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)[reply]
Maybe it can be handled on the lines of Manchuria and Scandinavia? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Bengal also includes the Barak Valley of Assam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahtapa (talk • contribs) 13:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how people in Tripura and Meghalaya feel being counted as part of Bengal. The map of Bengal proper (East and West) should suffice. Bengalis live outside Bengal proper as well, however that topic should be addressed in that respective article. Gryffindor (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Should this be done everywhere? For example, the diff in religious affiliation seems important to be mentioned--ppm 02:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Ok, I see Category:Fauna of Bangladesh is not bad. And of course there is Sundarbans.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curb last section[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lede sentence and translations[edit]

The lede sentence starts: Bengal (Bengali: বাংলা 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Strongly agree. If there is any doubt, one can add citation needed tags to begin with.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bengal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Link rot had already set in before url was archived.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd addition of maps[edit]

Vaza12 and their IP socks have been adding galleries of modern day territories to the maps based on reasoning that's clearly not WP:NPOV, including adding the Rohingya map with what appears to be a clearly incorrect or incomplete rationale at best. THis addition ought to be removed immediately. —SpacemanSpiff 11:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


There were two IPs which were active before I reverted you. One was from Cologne and another from Surrey. No where near to where I am. So please keep your personal attacks to yourself. You need to back up your claims on the Rohingya map with evidence.
What is absurd is why you want exclude maps of Bengali-majority areas like Tripura from the article.--Vaza12 (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to West Bengal?[edit]

I RVed an edit which changed this page into a redirect to the page for the Indian state of West Bengal. This is the article about the historical region of Bengal, which comprises both the current Indian state of West Bengal and the nation of Bangladesh. However, I thought I should see what the community thinks...

I've heard rumors about changing the English name of "West Bengal" into "Bangal". However, if this is done, it could be reflected in name changes to the individual articles, rather than the Redirect of one. I don't think that this is an official name change yet. OtterAM (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a redirect called Greater Bengal, which currently leads to this page. Perhaps, if the name change goes through, we can move the article to that title.--Vaza12 (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, The name "Bengal" should remain here as it is. This is the name we all know Bengal region...... and it should remain. If West Bengal government rename the state as just "Bengal". We can also rename the article West Bengal to Bengal, India, like Punjab, India and Mithila, India. I hope, the West Bengal government is clever enough to avoid the confusion and rename West Bengal to Bangla Pradesh or Bangla Rajya.−Gaurh (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But for the examples you cite, their counterparts are named Punjab, Pakistan and Mithila, Nepal. In this case, Bangladesh's name is not Republic of Bengal (like Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland), and hence there will be confusion. Of course, you still need a constitutional amendment for a state to change its name isn't it? That may be a long way off.--Vaza12 (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Arsenic[edit]

The paragraph on arsenic pollution in groundwater (in the Geography section) concludes by stating that arsenic is four times as poisonous as mercury. There's no reference for this, and I'm not sure what it means. Is it referring to the amount of the substance needed for a fatal dose? A comparison of the WHO-permitted maximum permissible limits in drinking water? Or something else that I can't think of? As a statement on its own it's more or less meaningless, and so needs clarification; I wonder whether it might be better simply to remove it however, as I'm not sure that it adds anything to the paragraph (we all know that arsenic is very very poisonous; comparing it to something else which is also very poisonous, but not quite as poisonous, doesn't really tell us anything new). Girth Summit (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bengal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bengal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Bengal[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bengal's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why I replaced a photograph of a tiger[edit]

A tigress having a bath in the Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve
A tiger jumping in the Sundarbans

The earlier image was of a Rajasthani tigress in Ranthambore National Park. The second picture is of a Bengal tiger (literally speaking) in the Sundarbans. Leo1pard (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

@Aziz Tarak.: As pointed by me and Rh7hd, your map is completely inaccurate. Please do not keep adding it back. "Bengal" is not same as Bengal Presidency, and your map is not even an accurate representation of the borders of the Bengal Presidency. utcursch | talk 20:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Utcursch: The previous map had some error but the recent map is corrected according to the presidency map. And the map you are putting in the display just doesn't have any valid historic resemblance and source. This made up the map you are declaring as Map of Bengal is biased.
Repeatedly you are saying Bengal is not Bengal presidency. Bengal is the mother of Bengal sultanate , Bengal Subah and later the Bengal Presidency today's Bangladesh or the part in India. The Ruler or name changed in years But The Bengal remain the same. In modern times The last known unified region of Bengal is Bengal Presidency, or perfectly can be the Bengal before Battle of Plassey. If this historic region has the map its must need valid source not some made up / manipulated maps.Aziz Tarak. (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aziz Tarak.: The current map may be wrong, but your map is wronger than wrong.
If you have a problem with the current map, feel free to remove it with a justification. But please do not replace it with a map that is worse. The borders depicted in your map do not match the borders of the Bengal Presidency at any time. And no, Bengal is not same as Bengal Presidency. If you disagree, feel free to cite sources and propose merger of these two articles. utcursch | talk 20:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Utcursch: Its good to know you accepted the map of yours Wrong. If you think my developed map is wronger than wrong than it's your personal belief. The orthographic projection
Geographically, it is made up by the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta system, also known as Bengal Delta
Map of the Bengal Presidency in 1858. Administrative map of British Raj Bengal Province in 1931.

The developed projection is based on The map of Bengal presidency - As you must know Bengal presidency was not in GPS era so the absolute accuracy of the orthographic projection of Bengal is impossible. As this map is not proclaiming to be the map of current states what need to be 100% right. But I must assure you This orthographic projection of Bengal is valid then the current imaginary boundary of Bengal .

biased and manipulated map of Bengal .imaginary boundary of Bengal - No Historical source -

.


The presidency and Bengal is not the same topic and term. The Bengal presidency is Based on Bengal or part of Bengal History. As in timeline, the presidency is a modern part of Bengal history what you can't deny. Its the last Unified Administrative division of Bengal. Before that, it was Bengal Subah before that 1300–1600 ad Independent Bengal sultanate or beyond. If you want me to believe that sultanate,Battle of Plassey and the later presidency is not part of my history or the history of Bengal than the burden is yours. The Bengal orthographic projection is purely for educational purpose and much better than the [and manipulated a map of Bengal]


Hope you understand the Historical reality what cannot be changed by fiction. Please change the wrong map you & Many people like to see as the Map of Bengal. Aziz Tarak. (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aziz Tarak. , I am sorry but I have to agree with utcursch here. Everyone can have different opinion but for me Bengal is a region were the primary language is Bengali, The current map is fairly accurate in this regard. The region of Bengal include Bangladesh , WB and maybe some part of tripura , nothing more.
You are confusing historic empires/presidencies with a geopolitical region. Yes at their peak various empires originating from Bengal may controlled vast territories and your map belongs to the Wikipedia pages of those particular empires and not in the article of Bengal as a geopolitical and cultural region.Razer(talk) 14:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Subcontinent or South Asia?[edit]

Highpeaks35 just changed the first sentence in the lead to say that Bengal is in the Indian Subcontinent, rather than in South Asia. Their edit summary says that this is per the discussion at a different article's talk page. To be clear, I have no view on whether which (South Asia or Indian Subcontinent) is the correct one for us to use, but I think that from a procedural point of view, we ought to reach a consensus at this talk page for changes to this article - not to reference a conversation at a different (but related) article. I have searched this talk page and can't find any discussion of the issue here.

@Highpeaks35 - would you be willing to outline the reasons for your preference, referencing any sources you would support it with, so that editors here can discuss? Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 13:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Bengal is a historical region of the Indian subcontinent; South Asia became a popular use after the Partition of India to mention the modern nation states. Rarely was Bengal mentioned as a region of "South Asia" before 1947, it was always recognized as a region within "India" or "Indian subcontinent" from the writing of the Greeks (Gangaridai (i.e. Bengal region)) c. 300 BCE to the British (Early Modern Period) being part of "Indian subcontinent", not South Asia. Further arguments can be noted on this article on The Diplomat. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
@Highpeaks35: Wikipedia does not give prevalence to terms on the basis being older; indeed, WP:RS AGE encourages us to use newer sources because vocabulary may change over time. We aim to reflect the terminology used in modern scholarship; so, if modern scholarship uses the phrase 'South Asia', that is the phrase we should prefer. I also note that the Diplomat article you linked to actually discusses a debate over whether to call the region 'India' or 'South Asia' in history textbooks: 'India' is not the same as 'the Indian subcontinent', and clearly we cannot say that Bengal is a part of India, so that source doesn't really help us. I'll reiterate that I don't have a particularly strong view on which one is more prevalent, but I do feel very strongly that we should be using the phrase that is the more prevalent in modern scholarship. If we are going to have a hidden note in the article asking editors not to change it, we need very strong, reliably sourced reasons to do so. Do you have any arguments based on Wikipedia policy that would support this, or can you point to any solid, reliable secondary sources that say that the Indian Subcontinent is the most prevalent use in modern parlance? ThanksGirthSummit (blether) 17:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addition - I feel that I should add that I have considered your point that Bengal is a historical region; however, the article makes clear that Bengal is still 'a thing' - all the assertions about it in the lede are in the present tense (contrast with, for example, the Roman Empire or Soviet Union). If Bengal still exists as a region, which the article says that it does, then we should be referring to it in terms of modern-day geographical parlance, not using the terminology of the past. GirthSummit (blether) 17:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood. Using "South Asia" for Bangladesh or West Bengal is appropriate. Using it for Bengal, a historical region is not, Indian subcontinent is more appropriate. Please look at The Diplomat article which explained the reason why "Indian subcontinent" is more appropriate than "South Asia" for a historical region that is linked with the Indian subcontinent. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
A simple good Google books result:
Indian subcontinent is still the most common usage by 15x. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Hi @Highpeaks35: As I already said, I have read the Diplomat article. It does not mention the phrase 'Indian subcontinent' even once. It does talk about whether US history books should refer to 'India' or 'South Asia', but that does not make it relevant to this discussion, unless you are arguing that we should say that Bengal is in India. As I also already said, Bengal is not presented in the article as a historical region - it is presented as an area that currently exists (albeit no longer an independent empire/country). We should therefore follow current usage, and use the language of modern scholarship to describe its location.
I am not convinced that a Google books search on its own is a particularly useful way of evaluating usage; nevertheless, I just did a search on "Bengal" + "Indian Subcontinent", and got about 58,200 hits - far fewer than "Bengal" + "South Asia" (288,000). I don't see why you would search for "Bengal" + "India" - we are not suggesting that Bengal is in India.
I ask again, as a genuinely impartial editor, do you have any arguments from Wikipedia policy that would support your position that 'the Indian subcontinent' is preferred usage in modern scholarship? GirthSummit (blether) 20:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "India" is used my many scholars, to represent the entire subcontinent as a geography. India (geography) is very different than India the nation state. "India" is used my most as to represent the entire subcontinent. The talk page on the Indian subcontinent point to it clearly. We are just going in circles. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
I'm sorry Highpeaks35, but you can't use a talk page at another article to support an argument here - you need to state the argument clearly on this page, where interested parties can read and comment on it. 'India' is clearly not used by most modern scholars to refer to the whole region of the Indian subcontinent/South Asia; nor can you assume that 'India' and 'the Indian subcontinent', when doing a Google Books or Google Scholar search, are synonymous. If an argument is not forthcoming as to why this form of words should be preferred, and the Google Books search (which clearly favoured South Asia) would seem to indicate that the article should return to referencing 'South Asia'. GirthSummit (blether) 21:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Google books for the historical significance of this article clearly sides with Indian subcontinent. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
I will let other readers comment. Then I will request an admin can move to RFC. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Google Scholar Bengal + "Indian Subcontinent":41,000
Google Scholar Bengal + "South Asia":105,000
Google Books Bengal + "Indian subcontinent":66,100
Google Books Bengal + "South Asia":441,000
South Asia is significantly more prevalent in both Google Scholar and Google Books, you can confirm that for yourself. We could set up an RfC, but you haven't put forward any arguments yet for your preferred version - do you have any policy-based reason to say why we should prefer 'Indian subcontinent' over 'South Asia'? GirthSummit (blether) 08:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I explained multiple times, Bengal is a historic region. "India" and "Indian subcontinent" is used by many scholars to describe a geographic region. Next step is for other users to comment. It seems like we will not be going anywhere. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
I'm sorry, you have not explained why we should use historical terms to describe a region that still exists. I discussed this above, but you did not respond. The article talks about Bengal in the present tense - therefore, we are saying that it still exists. I have no problem with the use of historically relevant terms in the discussion of the history of the region, but in the lede where were are simply telling the reader geographically where it is located, we should use the most commonly used modern term - that is policy. I am happy to wait to see whether anyone wants to comment and provide an argument to use 'the Indian subcontinent' rather than South Asia, but I am going to go ahead and remove the note inappropriate note asking editors not to change it.GirthSummit (blether) 11:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: South Asia is much broader term, involving Afghanistan or even Tibet and Iran. Indian subcontinent is the most concise geographic definition. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

You're right, the two terms do not encompass precisely the same areas, but I don't think that will affect the reader's understanding - either term would make it clear where Bengal is in the world without any ambiguity. This is a question of selecting which of two possible terms is the most commonly used in modern writing. You'll note from the references listed at the conversation you provided a link to argue that South Asia is the current standard, eg:

  • "'South Asia' as a cover term replaces the 'Indian subcontinent', a term closely linked to the area's colonial heritage and still widely used in typological studies, but no longer an accurate reflection of the area's contemporary political demarcations." (Raymond Hickey, Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World, page 256, Cambridge University Press, 2012)
  • "It is very common today in academic and official circles to speak of the Indian subcontinent as ‘South Asia’, thereby distinguishing it from an ‘East Asia’, consisting of China, Japan, and Korea." (Ronald B. Inden, Imagining India, page 51, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2000)

So far, all the indications I've seen are pointing towards South Asia being the most widely used term in modern writing. Perhaps there are other sources which I haven't seen which say differently. You'll hopefully have seen that I dropped a note on WikiProject South Asia asking for more views on that - hopefully some other editors with experience in the area will be able to help us arrive at a consensus here. GirthSummit (blether) 14:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are created to provide information to people around the world. There are far more people in the world who know where Asia is rather than knowing where India is. So for readers to get more clear view on Bengal's location, the tern South Asia is more appropriate than Indian subcontinent.
The current Japan or Koreas were once part of ancient Chinease civilisation. But still no one mention their location as "in Chinease subcontinent", but mentioned as " East Asia". Same is done to others regions of the world too. Then why Bengal should be mentioned by 'subcontinent', instead of continent. Rh7hd (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you stated is pure POV. There is ZERO academic research on "Chinese continent" (Highpeaks35 (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Exactly. No one 'officially' mentions any territory by one single country's identity. 'Indian subcontinent' happened to be unofficially used in previous days. Now this term has far lesser value than South Asia. Thats why, SAARC, SAF games and all other regional events are named by South Asia (SA), not by 'Indian subcontinent'. Rh7hd (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rh7hd, Highpeaks35, I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of indenting your comments to make it easier to keep track of this discussion. To help move this away from a disagreement about our personal preferences, I am going to ask a couple of questions:
  • Do you agree that Bengal is a place that exists today, or is it entirely an historical term?
If the answer to this is yes, then we can proceed to the next question. If the answer is no, then the implication is that the entire article needs to be comprehensively rewritten, because it is all written in the present tense as if Bengal still exists as a place.
  • Which term is most commonly used in modern day writing to refer to the region?
This is the crux of the matter. If we are writing about a place that exists today, we write in the present tense, and use modern parlance to describe its location. If we are writing about an historical entity (eg the Roman Empire), we might use historical terminology to describe its location and extents, but that does not apply if we are writing about a place that still exists.
If editors continue to change the article back and forth according to their preference, we will end up in a slow edit war situation that benefits nobody. We should aim to reach a consensus here, and the first step in that process is agreeing on the basis for which we should select the term that we use. You are obviously not obliged to answer either of the questions above, but I'd be really grateful for a detailed, thought-out response to them. If we can reach agreement on these points, we will have a sound basis to work towards consensus. Thanks in advance for your responses. GirthSummit (blether) 18:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bengal is a historical region foremost. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
That answer does not address any of the points I've raised above, Highpeaks35. If you are saying that Bengal no longer exists, then the article needs a serious rewrite. Is that your contention? GirthSummit (blether) 20:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indian subcontinent is definitely a better term since West Bengal and Bangladesh falls under the definition of "Indian subcontinent", though it becomes necessary to add "South Asia" only when things concern Afghanistan or even some parts of Iran, but that is not a case here. Razer(talk) 20:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input Razer2115. Please could you explain your position? Why do you think 'the Indian Subcontinent' is a better term to describe this region, as opposed to 'South Asia'? My impression is that 'South Asia' is used in situations beyond those where people are eager to ensure that Afghanistan is included, but I'd like to hear your take on it. GirthSummit (blether) 22:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lorstaking, Rao Ravindra, Shrikanthv, Pratyush, Accesscrawl, Satpal Dandiwal, and Capitals00: can you guys please provide your inputs. I know you guys were involved in similar debates. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

When people write their address on envalope, they mention the official house number, road name etc, not any unofficial 'only localy' speaking entity, no matter how many people of that specific area use that. Wikipedia is a official platform, here official entities are more acceptable than anything else. Check all the global news networks. They all mention this region as South Asia, not as indian subcontinent. Even inside South Asia itself, SAARC, SAF and all other regional events are named by SA, not by IS. That proves the term 'Indian subcontinent' has no 'official' value. Yes it has historical base. So you can put it in 'History' segment of Bengal's page, but not in the first para, where only current, official and 'understandable to all' facts has to be included. Rh7hd (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative wording[edit]

This is descending into an edit war - we shouldn't be changing it back and forth to our preferred version. What if we were to use a form of language that incorporates both phrases? For a long time, the stable version of the first sentence read as follows: Bengal (/bɛŋˈɡɔːl/;[3] Bengali: বাংলা/বঙ্গ, lit. 'Bānglā/Bôngô' [bɔŋgo]) is a geopolitical, cultural and historical region in Asia, which is located in the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent at the apex of the Bay of Bengal. I don't see why we couldn't modify that slightly, adding the word South and a couple of Wikilinks, to become the following:

  • Bengal (/bɛŋˈɡɔːl/;[3] Bengali: বাংলা/বঙ্গ, lit. 'Bānglā/Bôngô' [bɔŋgo]) is a geopolitical, cultural and historical region in South Asia, which is located in the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent at the apex of the Bay of Bengal.

That is very close to the long-standing consensus on this page; it includes both the terms we are disagreeing on; it is completely unambiguous; it provides links to the reader so that they can follow up to learn the differences between the terms; and it follows similar examples such as Portugal, which mentions both the Iberian Peninsula and South Western Europe in the lede. Would anyone object to this alternative form of wording? GirthSummit (blether) 09:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent compromise. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for that comment Highpeaks35. Rh7hd, Razer2115, please could you confirm whether or not you are content with this wording? It would be great to put this to bed and all agree on a consensus to move forward with. Thanks! GirthSummit (blether) 19:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, Cheers. Razer(talk) 19:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me as well. Regards. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Its South Asia Not Indian Subcontinent Bengal is a historical region in south Asia . The name Bengal belongs to the history of thousand's years where the name " India " is literally A colonial version . The Name India given by foreigners where Bengal or Bangla origin in the root of Gangs Delta from BC . South Asia Is a Geographical definition where the Indian subcontinent is surname or political term used by some colonial writers . The using of Indian Subcontinent is a Political motivation of many editors . So beyond any doubt Wikipedia is not a geopolitical ground of using surname rather than a established definition . --Aziz Tarak. (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word India comes from Sindu. In the earliest Indo-Aryan literature going back 3500 years. Look at the reference provided above in The Diplomat. Again, this version is agreed upon. If you disagree, please provide reference and get an Admin for RFC. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
FWIW, we don't need an admin to set up an RfC - any editor can do that. Instructions are here, if you choose to set up an RfC please ensure that the instructions are followed carefully, ensuring a neutrally composed question and putting the right tags in place etc. GirthSummit (blether) 11:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading map[edit]

This map of Bengal is including Tripura as well as Hailakandi district of Assam. It is also mentioned in the image details that this map of Bengal is inaccurate & misleading. Tizen03 (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Bengali Australians" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bengali Australians and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Bengali Australians until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing city[edit]

Durgapur a city in the Indian State of West Bengal with a population of 699,000 is missing here. I kindly request you to add this city to make the data more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:AC03:D5:208D:E1CC:FFE8:6CD9 (talk) 09:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Needs overhaul[edit]

This page is a mess. The major cities section looks like a disaster. Can anyone use a proper template containing city statistics and population figures like in other articles? The list of tourist attractions is very selective and frankly not attractive! I hope to work on this page in the future and fix it. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USA Date: 29/11/2022:- For,- All Bengal and it's governments in courts, police and in assembly.[edit]

International Criminal Court by Tsar:-- Constitution of India- Constitution of Bengal - Rule (a-b) of all- Rule (a): A Kolkata is a 1972 so a all in blue in write in wiki. Rule (b): A USA only a date always to be written if write from India. Annexury:- i/ The a name a Chitta only can be written in blue in wiki. ii/ A tripura is only a state in 1972 in war in rule and a name is a small tripura only in wiki also. iii/ A tripura is no in all a bengali so a bangal is only a name. iiii/ A bangal is a name a no name in to be in a write also so a newspaper is a far to reach a name is a Tsar in it. 180.149.224.162 (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Durgapur![edit]

Durgapur is missing from major UAs. Can I add it? Manideepa Banik (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can! And I see you have added it.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are other parts of Bengal?[edit]

Bengal consists of Bangladesh, West Bengal, Tripura, Barak Valley and parts of Lower Assam (parts of Former Goalpara District). This were part of Former Bengal Province and they are Bengali majority areas. Manideepa Banik (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The exact contents of "Bengal" may be subject of debate. The Bengal presidency included many areas which did not speak Bengali. Anyway, you have a valid point. You are welcome to add those, but ideally should be backed by some reliable sources.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Bengal[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bengal's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Eaton1996p64":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why there is nothing about the famous king pratapaditya?[edit]

Hello sir, If you want a source then please read the history king pratapaditya who ruled jessore empire and defeated shah jahan as the Mughal Empire as many times. Maharaja pratapaditya was the popular king of Hindu bengal. It is my request to add it back. Thanks Ishaan Nandi (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bengal&oldid=1212561117"