Talk:Bengal

Reign of Mahipala I

According to the article text, he reigned from 977 - 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

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

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)[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?

Isnt Tripura part of traditional Bengal?

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

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)[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

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

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?

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

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

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

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]

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)[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?

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]