Talk:Partition of India/Archive 3

Is it too much to ask for a clear, prominent map of the partition?
As the lede states, this is an article about "the division of British India into two independent dominion states, India and Pakistan." Wouldn't it make sense for there to be a prominent, clear image showing how British India was divided into the two states? Instead, all the maps at the beginning of the article are from 1909, 38 years before the title event. There is one image that basically shows the partition, but a) it's buried far below the main content in the "Perspectives" section for some reason; b) as the caption indicates, it's about "four nations that gained independence in 1947 and 1948" and not "this is what the partition looked like, the subject of this article"; and c) it looks like something from a 1990s CD-ROM. (Apparently, from looking at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Partition_of_India.PNG, almost every other language version of Wikipedia gets a good map.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

British India
Partition of India or British India? As per my knowledge; there was British Indian empire prior to 1947, also including parts of Arabian peninsula as Aden protectorate, not country named India. And it's official name was British India; not only India.

The title of the article seems to suggest like that modern republic of India was divided to carve out Pakistan, totally misleading in my opinion.

Should it be moved to "Partition of British India"?

Your opinion would be welcomed. Regards. Indusstar (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * According to WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). There are various ways of assessing what name is most frequently used. Google Ngram Viewer suggests "Partition of India" is by far the most common. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Content added in July by socks of Khaliwarriors
This article showed up on my list of pages with suspicious uses of the term "...-occupied Kashmir". I glanced at the recent history, expecting to quickly spot – as usually happens – a recent IP edit flipping "administered" to "occupied", but no. It turns out this was added back in July, as part of a series of substantial text additions by the users and, who have later turned out to be socks of Khaliwarriors. So, the edits in question are these:. Guess they could do with some scrutiny? – Uanfala (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts about this, ? – Uanfala (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced material
The following passages, found in the Bengal/Chittagong Hill Tracts sections were without reference and hence I move them here:

The Chittagong Hill Tracts had not been part of Bengal since 1900 and had no representative at the Bengal Legislative Assembly in Calcutta.

East Pakistan viewed the indigenous Buddhist people as pro-India and systematically discriminated against them in jobs, education, trades and economic opportunities. The situation of indigenous people became worse after the emergence of Bangladesh in 1971. Bangladesh government sponsored hundreds of thousands of Muslim settlers to migrate to Chittagong Hill Tracts with the purpose changing the demographic profile of the region. Bangladesh government sent tens of thousands of armed forces personnel to protect the Muslim settlers and suppress the indigenous Buddhist resistance. Bangladeshi armed forces and Muslim settlers committed more than 20 massacres, numerous rapes, extrajudicial killings, tortures, forcible conversions, land grabs.

Regarding the second passage, it is also questionable whether the worsening after 1971 is on topic in this article which covers the Partition of India in 1947.

Str1977 (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)