Talk:Bengalis/Archive 4

Recent Edits
I have recently reverted a number of edits by new editor(?) (Amfmaads talk); as I think such a large number of edits made should be first discussed on the talkpage. This is because of the class (c to b) and importance (up to high/top) of this article to a number of projects. None of the edits made included citations and although a lot of them were the inclusion of notable Bengalis and festivals, I am concerned that the balance of the article may have been compromised (ie. we have articles that list festivals and Bengalis but which should be in this article?). Any input on this issue most welcome. (From the previous collage excercise I am sure we will be able to come to an agreement). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Festival section
In the festival section, the article is mainly focused on the festivals of West Bengal. It also mentions Durga Puja(a Hindu Festival) to be the major festival of Bengalis which is wrong. Because as seen from the demographics, Muslims are the majority of the population of Bengal region(as well as Bangladesh with West Bengal having a significant minority). So obviously Eid-ul-Fitr is the festival which is the major one and 'Pahela Baishakh'(Bengali New Year festival) is observed in a widespread manner.

So the narrative is not correct as it only focuses on West Bengal(It is evident as the article starts mentioning the festivals of West Bengal, rather of the whole Bengal that is Bangladesh and West Bengal). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amfmaads (talk • contribs) 21:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Useless pages
Why keep these religious Bengali Hindus and Bengali Muslims  better create Indian Bengalis  and merge to Bangladeshis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.39.15 (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Archiving this Talk Page
This page has become huge over the active discussions in the last few months and I believe old discussions should be archived. The page's size is more than 300 KB, well over the 75 KB limit suggested in WP:ARCHIVE and it is undeniably very bulky. Unless anyone has any issues (which shouldn't be the case), let's have this page archived. Rihaz (Talk to me • Stuff I did) 08:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. A lot of this page concerns the collage, maybe we could have an archive page called collage, and have a new section at the top of this page called collage with some words asking that editors don't mess with the article's collage with a link to the collage archive page?Coolabahapple (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This page has a bot that should be doing the job of archiving automatically. I don't really know much about it, so I won't say much of it either but the old discussions here have to go. Z-small-VA-64x88.svg (Talk to me • Stuff I did) 17:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Archiving is automatically done by Lowercase Sigmabot III. If we think appropriate, we can set up a FAQ/People in collage or something similar and put a link in the top of this talk. -- nafSadh did say 20:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A sub-page for the collage discussion sounds just right. It will also be needed for references, as new consensus will surely be needed there are more images available. Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really know much about the bot, how does it work? Would it be a problem to archive manually? Z-small-VA-64x88.svg (Talk to me • Stuff I did) 11:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment
'''There is already a separate article dedicated to 'Bangladeshi People' but the 'Bengali People' article has been corrupted to an extent that the unique identity of the Hindu Bengali has been erased. There are motivated gangs of Islamist Bangladeshis here at Wikipedia who give the excuse of cultural similarity to deny and undermine the cultural uniqueness of Hindu Bengalis. The Bangladeshis and West Bengalis are very different people culturally, linguistically (different dialects) and even genetically. This is a sensitive topic and Wikipedia needs to handle it accordingly. I was surprised to note that Swami Vivekananda, one of the most revered icons of modern India and a Hindu Bengali was not included in the collage. Seems the page has been hijacked by politically motivated individuals.'''

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.11.50.115 (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Loss of collage
Hi, the collage picture has been deleted by a commons bot as there was a deletion discussion, closed as delete, because there were problems with individual picture licences. I have asked the administrator who closed the discussion for assistance about reinstating it, but also, could original involved editors ie. Aditya, nafSadh  help. Note, sorry but I have no experience with commons/pictures so can only provide moral support. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you ask nafsadh? I'll be out till monday. :( Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * oops, sorry this is a bit late but a thankyou to nafSadh  for getting the appropriate commons approvals and reinstating the collage.Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations - which countries to include
Hi everybody, i have just removed Germany and Brazil from the above table in the article as i don't think 5,000 and 1,000 out of their populations of 80 million and 53 million is significant. Also, unless we have some sort of criteria we may end up with a list of every country with Bengalis not just significant populations. I propose we have a cutoff of say 0.1% of the country's population which will mean some more countries may need to be removed but the majority that are presently listed will stay. We could also include any country which has a Bengali population of say over 50,000. What do people think? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. Murad67 (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Religious Demography
All data available shows the number of Muslims & Hindus in Bangladesh is around 89 per cent & 8/9 per cent respectively. Tendency to distort this data by increasing or decreasing any religious community is deplorable. By no means the numbers of Hindus in Bangladesh is 12 per cent. Thanks !Murad67 (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop edit fighting and start discussion in the talk page. I think Murad67 is right. Someone who says the numbers of Hindu is around 12 per cent is distorting facts. Naved77 (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I support discussion. Any dispute must be discussed in the talk forum. Unilateral edit fighting should not be encouraged here. Politeness is the epitome of education. Regards to all !Al-minar (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is so funny, lol! Check http://www.bangladesh.gov.bd/site/page/812d94a8-0376-4579-a8f1-a1f66fa5df5d/বাংলাদেশকে-জানুন official date from Gov of Bangladesh. And why are my edits being reverted? My edits have official data cites, and they are being reverted? please check my edits carefully before reverting them blindly! বব২৬ (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, having read the above reference you have provided (but sorry, not all the other ones you have added to the article), I can see your point. However, this article is very sensitive and although editors are meant to be WP:BOLD, and I applaud you for this, we also need to remember WP:STATUSQUO ie. "If you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor. If there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus, not to have one's own way. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns."  I note also that a part of your edits appear to include a bias against Pakistan in that since your various edits of 26 September 2015, Pakistan is either removed completely from the regional population table ,  "Removed Pakistan=no official data." is not valid reason as long as sources are deemed reliable, to being moved to the bottom of the table ,  and  which doesn't make sense as countries with much smaller populations are now above. Please note, in line with WP:STATUSQUO, I have reverted your latest edit. thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Coolabahapple ! Regards Murad67 (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups
Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2016
Can this please be added back in to the infobox, it was removed by another user without any explanation despite the fact that a source is present. The unexplained removal occurred during a period of time when the "Bengalis" page was being vandalised.


 * related         = Indo-Aryan peoples (especially Assamese people and Sinhalese people), Dravidians and Tibeto-Burman peoples

121.214.150.187 (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't see that in the cited source: . What is the page number? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I initially didn't add this information to the article, I had seen this information and the source in the infobox in the past. I noticed it was missing after the page was protected and saw someone had removed it without an explanation. I assumed the source presented corresponded with the information presented so I decided to open an edit request. I searched through the book and could only find this information that is available to view for free, there might be more information but some pages are restricted. The page I found that can apply to the information presented is on page 9. (121.214.60.149 (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC))
 * It seems likely that someone has removed it as unscientific. I'd support leaving it out. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Why emphasis on race on an article about a Linguistic group??
I don't think worn out phrases like "Melting pot of races" and "diverse origin" needs to be added in an Ethno-Linguistic article since it sounds racist and 19th century. Considering that the whole world and all modern ethnicities/regions are a 'melting pot', the only purpose this phrase serves is to appease Race Theorists or to Assimilate/Subjugate minorities of Bengal region and Rob them of their separate entity similar to what happened in Russian empire and USSR. Patches of Dravidian, Austro-asiatic and Tibeto-burman speaking tribes are found all over northern half of South Asia who can speak the majority language of their respective region but that obviously doesn't mean they belong to that very majority ethnicity. It should be noted that there have been numerous agitations for Separate Identity/State by tribal people in West Bengal and elsewhere in India.

Secondly, genetic studies on Dravidian, Tibeto-Burman and Austro-asiatic TRIBAL populations of Bengal region and rest of India show a very distinct gene pool for them than the general populations(Indo-Aryan, Dravidian castes, Muslims) of South Asia, Bengali Included. Bengalis like other Indians are part of the same typical South Asian gene pool while Tibeto-Burmese are very similar to East-Southeast Asian people. The Austroasiatic and Dravidian speaking tribes of Bengal are mostly Southeast Asian in their Y-DNA(male Lineage).

Historic Settlement
The links provided only mentions the existence of an old culture in 2 links while another link makes a passing comment about 1000 bc civilization being Dravidian which seems to be just a 'EuroCentrist view'. Anything which is old, is automatically Dravidian. Even nobody is sure of the linguistic affinities of Indus Valley Civilisation and can only hypothize, I wonder how these links prove them to be dravidians let alone Tibeto-Burmans and Austro-Asiatics. Unless some Scriptures are unearthed from that location the whole point seems to be Moot. Moreover genetic studies indicate a Male-mediated migration/invasion of Austro-asiatic people from South East Asia where the linguistic group might have originated. Similar case with Tibeto Burmese populations. Just because some populations are tribal doesn't necessarily mean they are oldest settlers. Ahom people of Assam enjoy tribal status but were recent invaders.

All in all what I'd suggest is rid the page of racist overtones and respect Bengalis as they are. Tribals of Bengal region already have/can have separate pages and need to be respected as such. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Magadha
Magadha was entirely in Southern Bihar, all mainstream sources agree with this. References to Ashoka and Buddha are not relevant to Bengal. Please don't steal other people's history.Damien2016 (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Mind your language and what's with the Selfishness with History?? Yeah.. Magadha never expanded and stayed entirely in Southern Bihar...that's a laugh. By that logic, Pala Empire originated in Bengal so why you people are putting in Bihar pages?? People might just say Khudiram Bose is Bihari because he Died there. Secondly Bengal was part of Anga as well as Magadha. Moreover people migrate and don't stay in a single place for hundreds of years so have some sense. It's evident when North West India got invaded a lot, people started moving east. As for the page, I just don't want people to suddenly change it without consent even in those pages whose contents I didn't write. The page seems to have been enriched a little only. Gautama Buddha and Ashoka were mentioned as a passing reference which says four kingdoms were their during his time and Buddhism flourished under Ashoka. Considering Buddha and Ashoka were Pan Indian characters, and many ethnicities have Buddhists including Bengalis even in those times of Ashoka and later as Pala Empire, the references were not wrong. As for the main thing Anga and Magadha which seems like have originated in Bengal can be changed as :-

Kingdoms of Pundra and Vanga were formed in Bengal and were first described in the Atharvaveda'' around 1000 BCE as well as in Hindu epic Mahabharata. From the 6th century BCE, Anga and later Magadha expanded to include most of the Bihar and Bengal regions. It was one of the four main kingdoms of India at the time of Buddha and was one of the sixteen Mahajanapadas. Under the Maurya Empire founded by Chandragupta Maurya, Magadha extended over nearly all of South Asia, including parts of Balochistan and Afghanistan, reaching its greatest extent under the Buddhist emperor Ashoka the Great in the 3rd century BCE''  Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Developemnt Bengalis article
Hi, , Will you please develop Bengalis article, this particular article is highly under developed and requires major editing. Please do something. Religion, Culture, Bengali cuisine, Festivals these sections are all under developed. Very few/poor sources have been provided. I don't know whether such article shall get GA nomination or not. I've also mentioned in WT:INB. Thanks--Anandmoorti (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Anandmoorti: Your interest in improving this article is duly noted and appreciated. I have neither edited nor read this article. Perhaps you can list a few reasons or specifics that make this article a "highly under developed" one in your review? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Religion, Culture, Bengali cuisine, Festivals these sections are all under developed no relevant sources have been provided.--Anandmoorti (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will take a look at it. Meanwhile, does anyone know Bengali, or knows of some other editor who knows Bengali?  If so, could they translated the caption of the picture File:BengalSpeaksLastPicture.jpg into English?  Thanks,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ,,      ,        Please help guys. . Fowler I hope some them shall able to help you develop this article. Thanks--Anandmoorti (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Respected,, The meaning of those two bengali lines 'অন্যায় যে করে আর অন্যায় যে সহে/ তব ঘৃণা যেন তারে তৃণসম দহে।' (By Rabindranath Tagore) is "He who commits wrong or condones the same, / May your contempt singe like a reed in flame." ref: https://jyotirjagat.wordpress.com/tag/poetry/page/2/ --P.Shiladitya The original bengali poem can be found here - https://bn.wikisource.org/s/1ry --P.Shiladitya —Preceding undated comment added 06:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Really sorry and tied up right now. If I wasn't, I really couldn't help much, I'm very unfamiliar with this topic. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problems.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear My All Seniors from Bengali Wikipedia, specifically, ,

Can you help me to search the english in বিচিত্রা: বৈদ্যুতিন রবীন্দ্র-রচনাসম্ভার (http://bichitra.jdvu.ac.in/index.php)? Then we can provide better answer, I hope. Thank you in advance. --P.Shiladitya (talk) 10.08, 21 April 2017 UTC
 * Thank you very much for all your efforts. A little background on the picture.  It is from a book called Bengal Speaks by a Kalyani Bhattacharjee, and dedicated to revolutionary Bina Das, and published in 1944.  (I found the book in our loft to which I had gone up a few days ago to look for old British magazines from the mid-19th century which have illustrations of various 19th century famines in India.  I have added those pictures, as well as three from Bengal Speaks, and maps to Timeline of major famines in India during British rule.)  Bengal Speaks is a very unusual book, part picture book, part witness account of the calamity.  As it is published before 1946, it qualifies for the public domain label not just in India, but also in the US.  This page is the only one with text in Bengali; the rest is in English.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bengalis. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-common/censusdataonline.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203202750/http://frontlineonnet.com/fl2124/stories/20041203003009100.htm to http://frontlineonnet.com/fl2124/stories/20041203003009100.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bengalis. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070510135113/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-03/12/content_4293312.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-03/12/content_4293312.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Religion
In Jharkhand, the Bengali population itself is 9.4% , how can it be 44%. Secondly add Odisha as Bengali population, Hindu bengali population is about 17.2 %. For more information, go to the demographic of both the state. Add Odisha in that box and reduce the number for Jharkhand. Odiathakur (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Jingoistic POV
How is this reference which was put back here a neutral and peer-reviewed claim? It claims Bengalis are a nation, clearly with India and Bengali diaspora in the mix, that claim seems like a jingoistic POV. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC))
 * The source is the official source of Government of Bangladesh where it states Bengalis ethnic group and nation particularly the East Bengalis (now Bangladesh) can claim as their own nation because 99% of the Bangladesh ethnic group is Bengalis with one official and national language that is Bengali, similarly like Japanese or French or Han Chinese for that matter. Moreover Bengalis who rule Bangladesh are not diaspora they belong to undivided Bengal later when they came under rule from Pakistan then ethnic civil war broke out and eventually bengalis established their own country. Which in South Asia no other ethic group has managed to do that. and  can you help on this matter.--Jagadaya (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To suitably address the issue, I have separated the sentence and marked the "nation" definition as an alternative use of the term "Bangalee".  Arman  ( Talk ) 07:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * please come address this issue. I am not sure how the language should be written but I am totally confident that Bengalis as nation does denote Bangladesh just like French people for France or Japanese people for Japan or Irish people for Ireland for that matter.--Jagadaya (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , What's this "Which in South Asia no other ethic group has managed to do that." suppose to mean? That's not the whole Bengali ethnic group but only the 'Eastern Muslim majority Bengalis' who got their own country to be precise. The Hindu majority Bengalis who natively live in India are not diaspora either. They chose to be part of India similar to how the Muslim majority chose to be part of Pakistan. And Indian intervention had a lot to do with the formation of Bangladesh. We should respect that. 117.201.112.239 (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * True no body can deny India's role. But the fact ethnic Bengalis have their own country yes they may bengali muslims by majority still ethnically they are bengali and by the way Pakistan is multi ethnic country no single ethnicity have full domination with their own language unlike Bangladesh.--Jagadaya (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia needs reliable sources and this Bangladeshi govt. source seems legit, That's that. The only reason I commented here is because some sentences in your posts seemed excessively nationalistic and not relevant to this discussion. Comments like "ethnic Bengalis have their own country" is hurtful towards Bengalis natively living in Indian part of Bengal. You can't infer that the native bengali from West Bengal, Tripura or Barak Valley is not residing in his/her OWN country which is India. If Pakistan was named Punjabistan and Punjabi their national language, would it make people from the Indian part any less Punjabi? Consider Switzerland for example. A native German Swiss is a Swiss national but also an ethnic German. Similarly, Afghans living in native historical afghan territories in NW Pakistan are Pakistanis. Every geopolitical region in the world is represented by the language of the dominant ethnic group residing there. In India we have states divided across ethno linguistic lines. In Punjab, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, we have the language of the majority as the official language of the state most of the time. Consider India similar to UK which has smaller nations with different ethnic majorities within it. Anyway nice chatting. Peace. 117.201.112.239 (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for Sports Section
Kabaddi is the national sport of Bangladesh. So I think can be added to the sports section under the culture section. -- Bang Bang50 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Population Figure Correction
Hi Please correct the total population figure as per Ethnologue source, the figure 261 million counts L1 + L2 speaker but L2 cannot be counted as they are second language speakers therefore only L1 (First Language) should be counted which comes around 228.3 million (it includes 2011 Indian census figure) too. Also correct the figure in List of contemporary ethnic groups where wrong entry has been made in Bengalis ethnic group.--2405:204:410C:EB42:C8C8:7ACB:300E:91F8 (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi as per the IP their is a serious flaw with 261 million bengalis population first 228.3 million L1 speaker are mentioned as per Ethnologue 2019 which is a scholarly source, another 4-6 million can taken for Bengali diaspora. L2 speaker cannot be counted because they are Non-bengalis whose second language is bengali. Another good source where rough 235 million bengali population counted. I guess 261 million figure came by combing L1+L2 speakers which shouldn't be the case. Also bengalis are fourth largest ethnic group because Spaniards are far greater in number. Awaiting an early reply. Thanks--Caseasauria (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The 261 million figure is sourced from the 21st edition link which is referenced in the infobox. The number is L1+L2 and taken from 2011 census. The L1 number of speakers is 242,659,750 in the source. I wonder how a 2019 Ethnologue article provided by you has lesser number of L1 speakers (228 million) than the 21st edition one (242 million). If you want to change it to L1 speakers only, then use the 21st edition (242 million) one since it uses 2011 census, and India had a census in 2011. It will adjust well with the other 2011 census article linked in the infobox. But it would be better if we wait for others to provide their inputs. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi  guys would you please help us on this issue. By the @Fylindfotberserk I have update the Bengali language article with the current 2019 Ethnologue source.--Caseasauria (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * the source 2018 Ethnologue u provided has some notable error look carefully the total population of Bangladesh it mentions 178.2 million but as per UN the 2019 estimated of Bangladesh population is 163 million Check here, but the 2019 Ethnologue source mentions the total population of Bangladesh is 159 million which is more or less similar what UN 2018 estimates. Now if total population of Bangladesh increases surely L1 speaker will increase. We have no confusion as per India 2011 Census both Ethnologue 2018 and 2019 does include that 97 million Indian Bengalis figure. May be Ethnologue corrected their figures in 2019 data. Also Check List of languages by number of native speakers.--Caseasauria (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be possible that the ethnologue link currently sourced (21st edition) includes "some dialects", which were removed in the 2019 version. In light of the above, I'm beginning to doubt Ethnologue's reliability, atleast in this case. Can't we get figures from some other official reliable source? Pinging, - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think either ethnologue or the census can be used here as they only give the number of speakers of the language, not the ethnic population, and generally, the two sets of figures don't coincide. Of course, my assumption is that Bengalis are delineated as an ethnicity, and not solely as a linguistic group; if this is wrong please correct me. (and on the general question of the reliability of enthologue: kwami was asked about that just yesterday and I largely concur with his opinion, adding however that for the bigger Indo-Aryan languages ethnologue is preferable to census data as the latter reflect self-identification rather than actual command of the language, and that can be fluid). – Uanfala (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Guys if ethnologue or census can't be used here then there is another source here the estimated Bengali ethnic group is 235 million. Can we use this as a source for ethnic group article ??    Just for your kind information I updated some Indian languages articles "population figure" in the infobox with Ethnologue source.--Caseasauria (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Minahan is not considered reliable. We had a discussion about that in Talk:Kalash people. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * well if Minahan is not a reliable source as per discussion then either we have to stick with ethnologue or else better remove the population figure, clearly 260 million is an absurd number. The problem is that we are not getting a reliable source for ethnic population number. Also I suggest better give range like 200 - 250 million since it is very difficult to get exact number, but then source is required. Until we get good source better remove the numbers or you can give range like I suggest. One thing I noticed all Indian ethnic groups like Punjabis, Tamils, or Marathi people have all used ethnologue source L1 speakers have taken into account. Pinging . Thanks--Caseasauria (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe a range can be used. The lower and upper limits can be sourced form the above two Ethnologue sources if nothing is available. FYI, the Punjabis article uses the 21st edition (2018) source, not the recent, but both show same numbers. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * well if range is used then how about using either c. 228 million or c. 228–243 million L1 Speakers only and ethnologue 2018 and 2019 source taken.--Caseasauria (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what I was saying. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the CIA world factbook page (which is currently one of the sources in the infobox) give ethnic population figures? Whatever the source, I don't think we should be giving overly precise numbers (as they give the impression of a certainty which we don't have). I'd say use at most two significant figures, and ideally one: a population figure like over two hundred million is going to be indubitably true for some time. – Uanfala (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes the Bangladesh CIA world factbook page states ethnic groups (Bengali at least 98%, indigenous ethnic groups 1.1% (2011 est.)). Official Bangladesh Govt too states Ethnic Groups: Bengalis (98%) and other small groups 2%; Note Bangladesh current population as per official Govt source states close to 162 million. And in India we have Census 2011 states over 97.23 million Bengali speakers. Then there is Bengali diaspora 4-5 million approx. @Uanfala I have suggested for range figures taking Ethnologue sources, but, Bangladesh categorical states their ethnic groups population unlike India which states speakers (not ethnic groups).--Caseasauria (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , The Census 2011 figure added from this source in the article states a number of 9,72,37,669 which is specified as the Bengali Language. Below that you can see entries termed as Mother tongue. There is an entry for "Bengali" under "mother tongue" with a population of 9,61,77,835, which is likely the ethnic number. The other "mother tongues" in the "Bengali Language" group like Hajong, Chakma and Rajbanshi are separate ethno-linguistic groups. Same with "Hindi Language" in the Census source which mentions a total speaker of 52,83,47,193, but the actual "mother-tongue" population is only 32,22,30,097. Rest are Awadhi, Bhojpuri, Garwali, Haryanvi, etc, all different ethnic groups. As for Bangladesh, things might be overly simplistic since according to the government itself, "A citizen of Bangladesh is a Bangalee". It is likely that there are large number so L2 speakers in Bangladesh. For example Rangpuri language is a dialect of Bangla in Bangladesh but in India, although grouped with Bengali, it is considered a separate "mother tongue", Rajbanshi, with 4,75,861 speakers and is related to a specific community different from Bengalis. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright now this discussion is getting dragged too long. We have get into conclusion what should be the ideal stats I vote for range figures now you guys tell me what should be the ideal range number from mini to max number, also what source we should use. One thing is clear we cannot put exact number since we don't have source. @Uanfala you mentioned "over 200 million" to put, I think that would be too simplistic. I'm also very sure Bangladesh has huge L2 speakers which Bangladesh does not report and club them as into as Bengali speakers. But Ethnologue does state those numbers.--Caseasauria (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , The ideal range would be 228–243 million but I believe "L1 speakers" need to be mentioned, why because, if you add all those country specific numbers, we get to 261 million, a number which includes L2 speakers as per Ethnologue. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * alright I'm making changes as per discussion.--Caseasauria (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2020
I wish to add a source to the Arts and Sciences Category in this page as there are a lack of cited sources, here is an article from 1918 by Jagadish Chandra Bose : https://www.nature.com/articles/104172c0 Ouchmynips (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * . Add a source for what statement? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2020
The main sport in Bangladesh in cricket Vanilla12718 (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 20:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Bengali ethnicity
Bengali people are not ethnically indo-aryan rather it is a linguistic characteristic. So saying "Bengalis (Bengali: বাঙালি [baŋali]), also rendered as the Bengali people,[33] are an Indo-Aryan ethnic group native to the Bengal region in Eastern South Asia." is factually incorrect. Firstly, Bengali's are a mixed ethnic group and consists a large non-aryan admixture, hence cannot be termed as indo-aryan ethnic group. Secondly, "indo-aryan" is a linguistic classification only, hence it can only be said that Bengalis are an ethnic group who speaks indo-aryan language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.235.55 (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The largest chunk of DNA of all south Asian groups is "non-aryan" ie only a minority of the genepool of south Asians is derived from Yamnaya related ancestry (steppe Indo-European). Even people like Pashtuns have that in only high 20s percent. The largest chunk is Indus Civilisation derived (Indus Periphery from eastern Iran), the people who likely spoke Dravidian. Check Nararsimhan 2018 and 2019 for more information. Ethnicity is determined by linguistics. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox purpose
Infoboxes are intended to quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format. Data in infoboxes should be:
 * Concise. Infobox templates are "at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts.
 * Comparable. Where possible, material should be presented in a standard format across different articles about similar subjects.
 * Already cited in the body. Infoboxes summarize material that is covered in detail and supported by citations in the main text.

Best practices
Featured articles about countries present information about religion in a simple, streamlined way. India, Australia, and Canada, for example, organize religion as a two column list. Canada hides it by default. Hiding information is frequently done when the information is not highly relevant to the topic. Information is frequently omitted from the infobox when it is too complex or nuanced to summarize clearly in a concise way. Another way to handle complexity is to include a link to a more detailed article, or a link to a more detailed section within the current article.

There are few featured or good articles about ethnic groups. Those that exist have not been as heavily edited as featured country articles, and are not as widely read. Torajan people presents information about religion compactly, but the multiple parentheticals and arbitrary line breaks make it difficult to read and understand. The approach in Canadians is more like featured country articles, with each religion on a separate line.

Edit warring
Until 10 March 2021, Bengalis presented religion in three "bullet" points for Islam, Hinduism, and everything else. That general format had been stable for over 5 years, although the exact content of the points varied from time to time. Since 10 March 2021, IP editor 92.40.*.* and UserNumber have been repeatedly reverting each other's edits to preserve their preferred versions of the religion section of the infobox.

Setting aside for the moment what sources should be used, and what those sources say, in what format should the information be presented? Which format is most consistent with the purpose of an infobox and the best practices among featured articles about similar topics? --Worldbruce (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it's quite plain that my version is more aesthetically pleasing as it is a lot neater. On my edits regarding this, I moved all the extra information to the appropriate Religion section of the page and did not delete the information. I reiterated that in my edit summaries numerous times to no avail it seems. My format is almost identical to the example shown of the Republic of India, with the only difference being the latter uses only percentages instead of both percentages and exact figures. UserNumber (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bengalis
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 Bengalis'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 "star": From Bengal:  From Bengali Muslims:  

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 ⚡ 14:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Barak Valley
Why do you consider the Bengalis of Barak Valley as non-native? SalamAlayka (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * How are the British colonial era migrants in Barak Valley "native" ? Colonial era immigrants aren't considered as natives. Moreover majority of the Bengalis or Sylhetis migrated after 1947 from Sylhet after the event of Sylhet referendum - East Bengali refugees.
 * But Bengalis or Sylhetis are native to Karimganj district of Barak Valley as it was originally a part of Sylhet, but that stayed in Assam even after 1947. But the rest of Barak Valley (plains of undivided Cachar district)- NO. Tizen03 (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

They may be migrants, but they migrated before British colonisation. There is evidence of both Bengali Muslim and Hindus living in Barak Valley from long before.
 * Not denying the British-era migration but read this: "There is, however, a large class, especially among the Mussulmans, of small proprietor who have held their lands since the time of the Cachari Bajahs, and who assume titles which they assert were then conferred upon them." - Principal Heads of the History and Statistics of the Dacca Division, 1868. SalamAlayka (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I cannot find any other source for that piece of information. Neither in the official website of Cachar district nor of Hailakhandi.
 * And even if we assume its true, it is from the year 1868 by which the mass migration was already in process. And the fact that it mentioned "Mussulmans" were in Kachari kingdom is highly unlikely, unless you're talking about Karimganj. The reason why Gopinath Bordoloi wanted Sylhet gone from Assam province was to give away an ethnically Bengali region back to Bengal. He never mentioned anything about Cachar either. Tizen03 (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a colonial-era book and talks about Mussulmans holding lands in Cachar since precolonial times. When this book was written, Karimganj was not a part of the Cachar district. This section is specifically talking about Cachar (inc. Hailakandi). The book also mentions how majority of the people in Cachar are Bengali. So I have no idea why Bordoloi didn't want to give Cachar away. SalamAlayka (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Then why is there a single source if its true ? It doesn't even exist in the official websites of the district, let alone other sources. Also how can a colonial era book talk about them living since the Kachari kingdom without any physical evidence. The reason why Bordoloi didn't give it away was because it was historically always a part of Assam based kingdoms. And majority of the people there were settlers anyway, and fortunately most left for East Pakistan when it was formed. And everything was going well until the Sylheti refugees arrived. Tizen03 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I just cited one source, doesn't mean there's only one source. You should be careful with the language that you're using, it's not needed. Let's have a civil discussion please. Before you said that the Bengalis became majority after 1947, now you're saying majority of the people before 1947 were "[Bengali] settlers anyway". This doesn't make sense. What do you think about this issue? SalamAlayka (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The term "native" is problematic in many cases, for various reasons including geo-political issues. This is not restricted to Bengal and Assam, for example Mahaashtra-Karnataka has issues with Belgaum district, which is claimed by Maharashtra. Similar situations can be seen in border regions of states/countries throughout the world. As for 'nativity' in Assam, it was settled by various groups starting with Austroasiatics, which would make every other group migrants/non-native. Another point to be noted is that one of the definitions of the term "native" is Jus soli → citizenship by right of birth, which would include pre-British/British and later migrations. And user Tizen03 should be wary of WP:CIVIL since they were blocked for their strong anti-Bengali POV and personal attacks before.


 * I'd say remove the term 'native' and re-add "Barak Valley". That would be least contentious and more inline with official census. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

"Fact check" Gopinath Bordoloi didn't want to gave Cachar to East Pakistan despite the fact that it has a bengali majority during partition times because the region of Cachar hold a significance history in the landmark of Assam state most particularly Kachari Kingdom which are being located at Khaspur of Cachar plain. So, he didn't gave up Cachar to East Pakistan. Another reason is Cachar during the partition times was a Hindu majority district and partition was done on the basis of religion. So he can't gave up even if he wants unlike Sylhet which have a Muslim majority.

Indigenousity/native

If Bengalis (80% of the valley's population) are not native in Barak then who are the native ? Of course, Cacharis are native as they have their historical kingdom in the Valley but this doesn't change the fact that other communities who were living in that region since centuries are not native.

I agreed that there were immigration of both Hindu and Muslim Bengalis from neighbouring Sylhet region during 1971 and 1947 but it didn't change the fact that there were no Bengalis living in Barak prior back to 1947 or even 1800s.

Infact, The British Indian census in 1851 have found that Cachar valley have a population of 85,522 where Hindus and Muslims are in equal number, & Bengali speakers constitute 70% of the valley's population. So the mass immigration theory of 1868 is debunked.

Cachar Hills were always a Cachari tribal majority region within the Cachar Valley and it was curved out as a separate district in 1950 by Assam government from Cachar plains for that reason only. Bengalis were always a dominant ethnic group in the plains of Cachar Valley.

Barbhuiya, Atiqur Rahman (27 January 2020). Indigenous People of Barak Valley. Notion Press. ISBN 978-1-64678-800-2 Pitush Puttar (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)