Talk:Bengal

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

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":

  • From Bengal Sultanate: Richard M. Eaton (1996). The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760. University of California Press. pp. 64–. ISBN 978-0-520-20507-9.
  • From Bengali Muslims: Richard M. Eaton (1996). The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760. University of California Press. pp. 64–. ISBN 978-0-520-20507-9..

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=1223993524"