AfricaTanz (talk | contribs) |
Dwaipayanc (talk | contribs) →Edits by User:AfricaTanz: request |
||
Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
::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. |
::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. |
||
[[User:AfricaTanz|AfricaTanz]] ([[User talk:AfricaTanz|talk]]) 02:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC) |
[[User:AfricaTanz|AfricaTanz]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Dwaipayanc|Dwaipayan]] ([[User_talk:Dwaipayanc|talk]]) 03:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:45, 12 August 2013
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reign of Mahipala I
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
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
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
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?
Isnt Tripura part of traditional Bengal?
--WoodElf 15:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Partition
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)
- I agree with Ragib. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Culture section
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
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?
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
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
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
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 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Combining statistics
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)
Flora / Fauna?
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
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
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)
Edit request from Taufiqbd, 26 May 2010
{{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)
Tripura
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'
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
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?
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?
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)
- 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 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Lede sentence and translations
The lede sentence starts: Bengal (Bengali: বাংলা , 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
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)