![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Isnt Tripura part of traditional Bengal?
-- WoodElf 15:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
How is the drive to FA doing? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Does Bengal also include Tripura and Meghalaya? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:42, 14 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)
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)
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)
Full of POV-- ppm 00:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
{{ 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, 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)
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'
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)
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 nafSadh talk 08:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
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. — Spaceman Spiff 11:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
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":
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Isnt Tripura part of traditional Bengal?
-- WoodElf 15:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
How is the drive to FA doing? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Does Bengal also include Tripura and Meghalaya? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:42, 14 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)
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)
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)
Full of POV-- ppm 00:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
{{ 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, 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)
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'
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)
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 nafSadh talk 08:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
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. — Spaceman Spiff 11:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
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":
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)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)
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)