Talk:Bengalis/Archive 1

Infobox change

If Indian Bengal is 88% Hindu it cannot be 21% Moslem. I don't know the correct figures, but they can't add up to more than 100%.Jackdresser (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC) I'm changing the infobox back to include File:Bengali collage.png. I see no need for a lengthy discussion of an all-inclusive solution to a relatively minor problem. If you have any objections, feel free to note them. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see the discussion titled Talk:Bengali_people#Infobox_images_removed below, you are inserting images of some unsolicited persons. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

These individuals are representative of the Bengali national character to the same extent that the French and German infoboxes are representative of theirs. The phrase 'unsolicited persons' has no real relevance to the situation, considering there was no consensus reached on the individuals worthy of being listed in the previous discussion, itself having started over an alleged POV issue; such issues have been resolved with the addition of the collage, which includes a widely representative group of Bengali people. This is needless obfuscation and bureaucratic meandering. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

By "unsolicited person" I meant you are inserting images of insignificant persons in that infobox. A knowledgeable person would never insert images of Kajol and the numerous others in that image along with the likes of Rabindranath Tagore, Muhammad Yunus etc. Again, don't change the infobox unilaterally, if you think a person need to be added in the infobox, discuss it here. --Zayeem ^(talk) 13:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

These persons meet the precedent set by the infoboxes on Germans (which includes the actress Heidi Klum and the football player Jürgen Klinsmann) and French people (which includes the football player Zinedine Zidane. There has never been any implication of equivalence in the infobox mosaic, and the opposite notion is a profound expression of ignorance with regard to Wikipedia's standards and a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the mosaic infobox convention, which has generally been to create a representative sample of the range of notable people of a certain group. Kajol fits this criteria. Furthermore, the revision of the article to which you have repeatedly reverted contains glaring errors in the infobox. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The image is now being considered for deletion for obvious copyright violations. The collage is hardly "widely representative", with 29 personalities from India and only 7 from Bangladesh. If there is to be proper collage, then it has to reflect both sides of Bengal. We could help you with potential Bangladeshi choices.--Bazaan (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be glad to do the work of replacing less notable Indians with Bangladeshis. What would you suggest that haven't been represented? Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Heidi Klum, Jürgen Klinsmann or Zidane, each of them are world renown personalities, does Kajol fit in this line up? Nope. Moreover, the collage carries images of not only some insignificant persons, but also some non-Bengalis like S. R. Srinivasa Varadhan (a Tamil), there is no doubt the collage is full of flaws. Above all, there is no room to use an image with copyright violations, hence I've reverted your edit.--Zayeem ^(talk) 10:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

By the 'world renown' standard, no Bangladeshi would be eligible for inclusion that has not been able to flee the country. There is no dispute amongst any group that even Kajol is more 'world-renowned' than any Bangladeshi that has ever lived, besides Yunus - who is a pale mirror of Amartya Sen. By the standard you propose, any Bangladeshi inclusions at all here have been provided solely as a form of affirmative action. I have provided full copyright information, replaced images under copyright and replaced Dr. Varadhan with Debendranath Tagore. Do you have any further objections to render? Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Who asked you for a comparison of Sen and Yunus? Wikipedia is not a place for your bigotry and racism. If you cannot contribute constructively, then you will be reported for your aggressive and abusive demeanor.--Bazaan (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised to hear that I've managed somehow to be bigoted against my own race. The inclusion of Bangladeshi personalities is a concession, but that it is a concession is not my fault. If you are unable to argue on rational and logical grounds and instead must resort to accusations of bigotry inflamed by nationalist pride, there is no doubt that your argument is the one here lacking intellectual substance. If you would somehow find a reason to attack me on extremely obscure 'racial' grounds because you believe I may be somehow advocating some kind of Aryan supremacy theory, my father himself is from Baraisal, which as you may recall is in Bangladesh. I have no bias in this argument beyond that which fact imbues me. With regard to Yunus, he is a banker with minimal theoretical contribution. Sen's work is both wider and deeper in every aspect. We might as well say that Elon Musk is comparable to Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. If you are ignorant on the topic beyond what blind nationalism has led you to believe, we have nothing worth discussing. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You're nobody even worth discussing with. Now get lost, would you.--Bazaan (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have chosen to opt out of this argument. Unless you have any credible sources indicating any sort of worthwhile achievement coming from a Bangladeshi that would qualify them to be on the level of any West Bengali or pre-partition Bengali, kindly adopt a posture more suited to your intellectual means. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The image is still a copyright violation as it carries some non-free images i.e this and this one with some files in the sources being missing. Moreover, you've been told before to discuss it here and reach a consensus before changing the image, instead, you are continuously edit warring. Make sure you are familiar with the Wikipedia policies of WP:EDITWARRING and WP:NONFREE, continuous violation of these policies can get you permanently blocked from editing in Wikipedia.--Zayeem ^(talk) 19:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The second is almost certainly in the public domain, as this likely contemporary painting would have been made over a hundred years ago. I have amended the record to fit this. I've also replaced Suchitra with the influential Bengali-American literary critic Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. I have shown my willingness quite thoroughly to adhere to the second; I suggest that you consider WP:ONLYREVERT before you attempt to use policy as a cudgel with regards to the first. The collage is undoubtedly a profound improvement both on an informative and aesthetic level; if you do not agree with the specific selections of the people within it, feel free to WP:FIXIT. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Still many copyrighted images in the collage, you have uploaded some images with missing info using wrong licenses falsely claiming that they are in public domain per FOP. The collage will be deleted anyway. I won't revert you now, let the admins decide here.--Zayeem ^(talk) 13:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Political Indian Nationalism

What is this and why the capitals? Poweroid 13:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Add people from other pages?

Should we add people mentioned in the pages on People from West Bengal and People from Bangladesh? --SameerKhan 09:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Physically diverse"

Is this comment really necessary? It seems to assume that other countries have physically homogeneous people. --SameerKhan 09:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

The image, a composite of Tagore, Amartya Sen, Mujib, and an actress is formed from 4 images. At least 3 of them (except the one of Tagore) are not under a free license, and under fair use. Even if someone created it himself, that doesn't fall under fair use of the images.

Next, choice of particular indivduals is also questionable, and subject to POV questions. Personally, I think grouping the actress with the other 3 is highly objectionable. But in any case, there is no need to have a particular subset of people chosen as representative of Bengalis. --Ragib 15:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Until the copyright issues are settled, and the copyvio removed, the image should be removed. I have edited it 3 times, so won't do it again today, but I urge the removal of the image pending copyright questions, and also POV. Thanks. --Ragib 16:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have cited the sources in the image page and am ready to change the licensing mode. Besides I do not understand what is wrong with having an actress of Bengali ancestry who is extremely famous in India. This will bring some diversity in the profession of people. Besides I did not realise that you were removing the pictures all the time. I thought i had made some mistake with the code, so sorry about it. I am from West Bengal and my Bangladeshi freind studying with me here looks happy with my choice of personalities. ---Chen007

I do not get it. What is wrong with the choice of these subset of people in representing Bengalis. Why is it different from this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans? And why is an actress a poor choice for representing a particular ethnic group? ---Chen007

• The problem of using a specific group of people is that personal choices often bring a POV. Why choose Mujib over Ziaur Rahman? Why choose Ria Sen over Suchitra Sen, or Shabana? Why choose Amartya Sen over Muhammad Yunus? See the point? It might often be better to have a nameless anonymous person being representative of an ethnic group, than having a particular set of people.
• About licensing, no, you can't take a few non-free licensed images, and merge them together to release it in public domain. The images of Sheikh Mujib, Amartya Sen, Ria Sen are all under copyrights (The Mujib image is under Fair use license). You cannot take these images to create a new image under public domain. --Ragib 16:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting pictures of people of one's own choice in this manner is quite a POV, no doubt. Now, discussion is the only way open, when disputed. I propose to start from the beginning. Here are my proposals.

• No compromise about copyright matters. There is absolutely no dispute about it (despite the admiration of many others) & it is a resolved case. So, 1st step should be on the basis of this by the admins & continued violation should be taken as an offense.
• We are now left with public domain & fair use licensed pictures. Among them, & other names that came forward are-

• Rabindranath
• Amartya Sen and/or why not Muhammad Yunus
• Sheikh Mujib and/or why not Ziaur Rahman
• The actress and/or why not (as I add) Bipasha, Rani, Bobita, Shuchitra, Kabari.

Keeping a picture of an actress is also disputed. So, without discussing about each individual, we can run a general discussion on -

• What should be the proper (and fairly NPOV) basis of choosing a symbol-personality of an ethnicity?

My comments-

• There was a BBC survey on the similar topic and Sheikh Mujib & Rabindranath got 1st & 2nd most votes. It can be taken as a major basis. Rabindranath seems to have zero dispute till now. 1st four of the list from different field can be given here.
• Or like a historian, we can keep our fingers crossed about a personality until 50 years have passed since eir death, despite eir popularity at present.

Picture of the actress gets no place under both considerations. Take it another way, as this being an encyclopedia, which is supposed to remain unchanged except factual additions, can one claim now that the actress in the picture or similar other recent media-performers have such great impact or contribution on its people that eir glory remain the same even after 50 or 100 years? Perhaps not, or too tough to tell now, so leave it.

Thanks.

--Amr 16:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see the POV point Ragib is pushing? In the case of the German page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans) , why put Mozart over Beethovan or Gothe over Schiller. It is because it is not possible to put all the famous people in that space. Besides it seems to be a bit of a Bengali Vs Bangladeshi problem here. I think many Bangladeshis do not like Amartya Sen's choice here as he is a Indian Bengali. He has been chosen by the author randomly I believe (I hope). It might as well have been Yunus but it is Sen. Just like it might have been Ludwig Van instead of Herr Amadeus. or in the case of the English page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people) why put Queen Elizabeth instead of King Charles I. or in the case of the Punjabis an actress has been shown as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabis). I am sure there are other Punjabi actresses but I believe she has been chosen by random. In the case of the Russians why not show Mendeleiev or Tchaikovsky(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians) instead of Tolstoy. In the case of the Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese) why not show Mao or Confucius instead of the selection they have there. They all have POV issues then but they look good without the interference of the likes of Ragib. ----A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.133.7.37 (talk • contribs)

Excuse me!! What POV did you find in my point above? Also, please don't try to introduce imaginary things here. I take a great exception to the comment "Bengali vs. Bangladeshi" ... it seems to imply Bangladeshis are not Bengalis??? Where above did I introduce anything about "Indian" vs "Bangaldeshi" Bengalis?

Also

I think many Bangladeshis do not like Amartya Sen's choice here as he is a Indian Bengali.

This is a very ignorant comment. Please don't put your imaginary words in people's mouths. There have been only two people who commented on this thread, including myself, so I infer that you are referring to me. Please DO NOT use your own imagination to extract "meanings" from comments. Where above have I referred to Amartya Sen's home region? And For your kind information, Amartya Sen is very much considered from "East Bengal" ... his ancestral home is in Dhaka. You are free to think about anything, but claiming such ridiculous things about other editors is a very very bad faith behavior.

My point is NOT that Amartya Sen is a bad choice, but that a choosing a particular person as representative of a people is POV of the person who chose it. Even if the creator of the image chose a photo of Yunus, my point would have been the same. So, please refrain from such backhanded comments.

Also, all but 1 of the images are NOT FREE in terms of copyrights. Only the tagore image is freely usable. "Fair use" doesn't apply here, so we can't really use the other 3 images in the composite.

Finally, please don't launch personal attacks ... reply on the issue rather than your imaginations on my "ulterior" motives. Please respond to my comments on copyright, and on the POV of choosing particular persons. To make things clear for your understanding, my point here is that choosing particular persons is a POV (no matter who the person is). --Ragib 09:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems like everyone is missing Ragib's actual points:

• We can't use the three copyrighted images currently posted
  
• We should stay away from using (only) famous people to represent a culture, since choosing one particular famous person over another would bring up the issue of the chooser's POV
  

Now, for my own opinion, I totally agree with Ragib on the first point for sure, but I'm not so sure of the second one - only because after I went through and checked out other articles on races/ethnicities/nationalities, it seems like all the faces chosen to represent the group were of famous people. Granted, I don't think that that's very representative of the group as a whole, but if that's the tradition on Wikipedia, I'm fine with that.

On another point, I absolutely don't see any hint of POV or of any sort of strange biases or prejudices in Ragib's text that some people seemed to find. The people mentioned by Ragib represent Bengalis of different nationalities, so it's really quite strange to think that anyone could interpret this as bias. And where did that Amartya Sen comment come from? That seems quite uncalled for. I honestly don't think we should be trying to find things to argue or make false accusations about. --SameerKhan 12:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Ragib. If you look at many of the pages on ethnicities in wikipedia, like Tamils, German, British, Pashtun, will see there are pictures like this. And I'm appauled by the question "why Mujib over Ziaur Rahman?" My god, its not Mujib, his full name is Sheikh Mujibur Rahman u idiot, hes the father of the nation. Ofcourse he is over Ziaur Rahman, and how can u even ask this question unless you are seriously biased towards the BNP? And where did you get 3 actresses, there are two. And those two are some of the leading figures of South Asia's film industry.

Given that you already tried to restrict my edits, by blocking my IP address simply because i put up an image of Sajeeb Wazed Joy on his profile, I seriously question whether you are at all neutral. Its better if wikipedia get rid of people like Ragib. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.191.127.4 (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear (user:Bazaan??), thanks for your wonderful compliments. I assume you are not reading sentences clearly in the above discussion, otherwise you would not have missed what I meant when I said "Why choose Mujib over Ziaur Rahman? Why choose Ria Sen over Suchitra Sen, or Shabana? Why choose Amartya Sen over Muhammad Yunus? See the point? It might often be better to have a nameless anonymous person being representative of an ethnic group, than having a particular set of people." Picking sentences at random and then issuing a huge rant over your limited understanding is disheartening. I suggest you read comments in their entirety before launching a tirade and giving others such "wonderful" compliments as above.

Sheikh Mujib is affectionately called as "Mujib" by Bengalis for a long time, in case you don't know ... As for the "3 actresses", I am amazed that you missed the date of our comments on the discussion, ha ha ha, we were talking about a different image. Of course, just like yours, that also violated copyright.

Now, back to your images, you have been stealing photos off various websites, and uploading here under fake licenses. Wikipedia will definitely be enriched if we get photos of Sajib Wazed or any other biographies included here. However, per Wikipedia's copyright policy, stolen images without proper copyright information will be removed from articles and deleted. You copied Sajib's photo from his blog without his permission, that sort of piracy is not allowed in Wikipedia. And the composite image of Bengali people you just re-added, is also a copyvio one ... you don't have the rights to the actress images or the Zia/Mujib image. Yet, you falsely claimed copyright. If you continue this behavior, you'll be blocked.

Finally, "get rid of me from Wikipedia", is that a threat? Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

After such a heated discussion, I'm sure everyone just wants to put the issue to rest, however I have a couple questions about the picture selection. First, why are all four featured (and deceased) individuals from Bengal's past? Did Bengalis produce notable people only in some bygone golden era? Though this is only an aesthetic issue: featuring all b&w photos only enhances the perception that remarkable people only arose in a past that may feel irrelevant, but definitely less immediate, to some readers now. Why not feature people who are alive and enjoy some recognition at present?

Second, I am curious as to who established a dichotomy b/w Yunus and Sen, Mujib and Rahman? There could have easily been an equally artificial discussion as to whether to include Rabindranath or Kazi Nazrul Islam, but such was avoided by including both. Why not include both Sen and Yunus (both of whom have had impressive impact on the world of economics). Clearly the discussion on POV and NPOV have come to little fruit, since Mujib is featured but Ziaurrahman was neglected. Rather, it seems this collection of photos reflects an a POV on the editors' part of putting the first half of the 20th century on a pedestal. This may not be the intent, but this is how it can easily be read.

Third, is there a regulation against having more than four pictures? The punjabi page has nine, english has 21, so does the french page. I'm not saying the bengali page needs to inflate the intro picture to an insane size, I'm just saying there is plenty of room to include more faces. As it stands, it seems there are several personalities that demand to be included: Satyajit Rai, Jhumpa Lahiri, Ravi Shankar, for starters. All three have global recognition, and I feel this page should openly claim them as exemplars of the best of Bengal. Now, if the counterargument to adding these people is they over represent "Indians", I say "serously?". I am Bangladeshi myself, and I have no problem in claiming these personalities as part of my Bengali heritage. After all, Rabindranath Tagore is equally if not more revered in Bangladesh. The trauma of partition is fading into the past, and to be perfectly blunt - the generation that suffered it is dying out. Dwelling on it in the context of academics may be useful, but dwelling on it when forming a personal and ethnic identity, is unhelpful. I believe Bengalis on both sides of the border should recognize their Bengaliness with equal or more fervor with which they recognize their own national identity. Okay, enough soap boxing.

Final question: I may be reading it wrong, but it seemed to me Ragib's point about including actresses was not only about NPOV but also that actresses did not deserve to share screen space with such formidable figures as RT, or Mohammed Yunus. Sorry if that's a misread, but I must respectfully disagree. The intro photos are not, in my opinion, a stage for a pantheon of illustrious figures, but a space to demonstrate a range of notable figures. If the Punjabis can feature a boxer and wrestler, if the French can feature Zinedine Zidane (who might even be considered non-french, ethnically), it seems to me the traditional criteria for inclusion in the intro picture is simply fame, recognizability, or impact on their culture or humanity in general. By this metric, there are number of actors and actresses that deserve to be on the intro pictures.

So, I guess my point, after all of that, is there's plenty of room to add a few more faces - some of them quite deserving. And I feel getting hung up on the balance b/w Bangladeshi and Indian faces is a disservice to this article which concerns the Bengali people as a whole. I'm not sure how the copyright and licensing business is supposed to work, perhaps someone is motivated enough to create an expanded (and legal) composition for the page?--Taajikhan (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I support Taajikhan's suggestion. Indeed, one cannot possibly add the tag of Bangladeshi or Indian to people who were active before 1947. Let us expand the image and include both Sen and Yunus and Rokeya and Vidyasagar and Ganguly and Shakib al Hasan. Let us also include Satyajit Ray, Ravi Shankar and at least one scientist (among Satyen Bose, J. C. Bose and Meghnad Saha). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odysseus Ithaca (talk • contribs) 14:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC) SineBot-->

Sub-ethnicities??

. As a result, Bengalis are a heterogeneous and considerably diverse ethnic group, with 198 sub-ethnicities.Bengali. Joshua Project.

Having taken a look into the data presented at that page, it looks ridiculous. It lists people with certain occupations as a "sub-ethnicity". I'd like to see more support from academic papers to back this statement. The data looks extremely ridiculous, as it lists people with certain last names as a sub-ethnicity!! --Ragib 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That page lists so many subethnicities in Bangladesh, yet the majority of Bengalis are apparently the same subethnicity as much of the entire subcontinent (Shaikh)! The link seems to be non-scientific and we shouldn't be citing it. --SameerKhan 18:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

True, on a closer look, I find that it has listed "Bishwas" as a "sub-ethnicity"!! For God's sake, that's a family name, and by that standard, the English should have thousands of sub-ethnicities. All the names listed in the page are family names, which has nothing to do with any "sub-ethnicities". One of them, "Munshi", is actually a (religious academic) title given to persons with certain religious education!! I therefore have to say that this so called project is simply pure crap, or the project people (the missionaries) have been pranked by someone. Otherwise, the data wouldn't have been so ridiculous. --Ragib 19:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left here. Ling.Nut 23:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Religion stats

The religion section is misleading as it terms Bengalis to have a huge majority of Muslims. It seems that User:Scythian1 is confusing (and so are his "references") between stats on Bangladesh and that on Bengalis as a whole.

To show the fallacy, we can look into the stats for Bangladesh and West Bengal -- the two Bengali majority areas of the world. Bangladesh has a 83-88% Muslim population. Hindus constitute about 11-13%. So, that means, out of 150 million, there are 132 million Muslims and 18 million Hindus. In West Bengal, Hinduism is the principal religion - 72.5% of the population are Hindus. Muslims comprise 25%. With a population of 80 million, this means 58 million Hindus and around 20 million Muslims. So the total is (150+80 = 230 million) population, among which (132+20 = 152 million) Muslims, and (18+58 = 76 million) Hindus. In other words, 66% Muslims, and 33% Hindus.

So, instead of adding dubious statistics and terming its removal as "vandalism", please get your facts right. Thanks. --Ragib 23:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So you basically conceded that Muslims are the majority. This should further clear your confusion. In 1996, Michael Sullivan wrote a book called, Comparing State Polities. In it, he stated, that "the 183 million Bengalis are divided into about 112 million Bengali Muslims in Bangladesh and about 71 million Bengali Hindus" in India. Thus, again, as consistently shown - Bengalis are predominately Muslim. "Predominately", Ragib, does not mean an absolute huge majority as you erroneously accused me of noting. So stop asserting that my stats are dubious when they clearly aren't. Moreoever, stop deleting the links that specify the same information. Scythian1 23:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have provided recent official census data. If anything contradicts this, it just shows those sources are mistaken. Two-third majority is not an "overwhelming" or "Predominant" majority. In any case, official census information triumphs any information Michael Sullivan or any other author has. If some link is shown to be mistaken (just look into the number of Bengalis cited by Sullivan!!), that ought to be removed per WP:RS. Thank you. --Ragib 23:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, okay, as per the theories of standard logic, I have now, instead of using "predominately" used the word "mostly" (most) which refers to a body of 51% or more. Scythian1 23:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What gives you that definition? According to this, mostly is "(in large part; mainly or chiefly)". According to Merriam Webster, "Most" means " to the greatest or highest degree -- often used with an adjective or adverb to form the superlative". I don't see how a two-third majority can be termed as "mostly Muslim". --Ragib 00:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

TheFreeDictionary, [1] specifies, "the greatest amount." Also look at the definition of Mostly. [2] Hence, Islam has the greatest amount of adherents amongst Bengalis. Scythian1 00:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

TheFreeDictionary, [3] specifies "greatest" as "Very large in size". 66% is not "very large" compared with 33%. --Ragib 00:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this: instead of applying various adjectives, just give the numbers. That's npov. --Ragib 00:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going to change the word from Mostly to Majority (which you used in this discussion) as it is NPOV. See the definition in thefreedictionary at [4] which specifies a number more than half the total. I am not going to quibble with you. Thank You. Scythian1 00:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion stats

In the stat box, it says that Buddhists and Christians make up 1% of the population. This does not seem reflective of the percentages among Bengali people and seems to be the breakdown in Bangladesh alone(http://www.banbeis.gov.bd/bd_pro.htm). In the demographics section of the West Bengal page mentions that Buddhists and Christians make up nearly 5%. Since the stats for other religions are broken down into percentages for Bangladesh and India, it should also reflect this statistic. Unfortunately, I could not find a source that says what the breakdown of that 5% really is. If anyone does have that information, it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reahad (talk • contribs) 12:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sylhetis are Bengali?

should the Sylheti people be listed as Bengali, because historically they are not, the region was part of Assam until 1947 it became part of Pakistan, can the people really change their ethnic background from Sylheti to Bengali like that after 1947, with a close referendum it changes a person's ethnic status?

yes, they are Bengali and Bangladeshi. Even some people whose are living in Assam State of India, they are bengali because they speak sylheti. Assamis language is different from Sylheti. It is true that sylheti dilact are bit different but there are lots of part of Bangladesh where dilact are different from Bangla but they are bengali; such as: chitagong, noakhali, moymenshingh, Barisal, etc. What you think they are not Bengali? Ofcourse they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.238.110.112 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sourav Ganguly

I think there should be an image of Sourav Ganguly on the top. None of the people in the pictures are alive today, however great they may be. Sourav is virtually the most prominent Bengali along with Mamta Banerjee. Their pictures should be present too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timofeyevich (talk • contribs) 03:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The ethnic background of Bengali people.

INDEPENDENT UNIVERSITY BANGLADESH

1. Physical and Anthropological Geography �

• The Main Focuses

- The Physical Features of Bangladesh - The Cultural Aspects of Bangladesh

              ###****  The Physical Features of Bangladesh

The present day Bangladesh and India collided against Asia and formed Himalaya and Arakanchin 200 m years ago. The size is not that small. It’s bigger than many important countries. The assets: Opening to the ocean, tropical climate, rain and water, crops throughout the year. Although in the Desert Belt of the Western Hemisphere, it has mild winter because of Himalaya. Physical Geography: Large delta, floodplain, uplands, hills and valleys. The three big rivers: Padma, Jamuna and Meghna. In 1772 an earthquake changed the course of the B. Puttra completed by 1830. Main divide between east and west of Bangladesh. No less than 12.5% is covered with hills and valleys of max. 3000 ft. high.

               ###***The Cultural Aspects of Bangladesh

Melting pot of ancient people coming from all sides, by all means. 50,000 years ago. Dravidians are the main and the language is also Dravidian. Latest arrivals are the Aryans in around 1200 BC and their languages belong to Indo-European family. Aryans originated from Northern Middle-east and the Eastern Europe settled in Haryana-land of Aryans. They mixed with Dravidians, settled in the Ganges Valleys and then further moved to Bengal basin after 600 BC. Till recently Bengal has been the focus of immigration because of – wet rice, abundant fish-stocks, which encouraged rapid growth but checked by malaria, cholera etc. Besides these there are distinctive groups mainly mongoloid who did not merge with the mainstreams and speak Tibeto-Burman family Languages (They are so called ‘Tribes’). All these groups contributed to the present day composition of the heterogeneous group known as Bengalis, united through a rich Bangla Language. Anthropological / Sociological Importance: tiny ‘tribal’ groups continue distinct cultural entities in the peripheral areas and also in the main land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.36.50 (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Norah Jones

In the 'Culture' section, her name was mentioned as one of the famous Bengali musicians although she was born and brought up in USA. How can we justify her inclusion in the 'Culture' section? Does she really represent Bengali culture? Pratanu.roy (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mmkhan.mmk, 19 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

I think there need to be some images uploaded like Ustad Allauddin Khan (His name is not even mentioned, Nawab Sir Khwaja Salimullah, Sher-E-Bangla, Dr. Muhammad Yunus and so on. Please un-lock the page for me to make the necessary changes including adding some famous names that have not been mentioned like painter Zainul Abedin, Ustad Niaz Mohammad Chowdhury, Runa Laila, Sabina Yasmin, Shahnaz Rahmatullah and so on.

Appreciate your co-operation.

Mohammad M Khan.

Mmkhan.mmk (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the article. I'm afraid that the edit request process works differently than you expect. To use this process, you need to provide the exact change you want made in a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail along with reliable sources to support any factual changes. Alternatively, since you have chosen to register, you can wait four days and make ten edits and you should become autoconfirmed and able to edit this article yourself. Regards, Celestra (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox images removed

Images of Saif Ali Khan and Pritam have been removed from the infobox for some obvious reasons. They are surely not that big personalities as others in the infobox.--Zayeem ^(talk) 17:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to talk about Saif being only partially Bengali! Shovon (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I believe that Amartya Sen and Muhammad Yunus may be worthy additions to the infobox image. Shovon (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad Yunus is there, Amartya Sen could be included, another person who deserves an inclusion is Lalon. Also, I guess we need to include some female personalities as well, like Begum Rokeya, Kadambini Ganguly etc. But then, you need to remove some, personally, I don't think political persons should be there, no matter how big personalities they are.--Zayeem ^(talk) 17:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Well someone has changed the montage again. We should have a more broader montage covering major intellectuals, independence leaders, scientists and engineers, the two present Nobel laureates and prominent members of the diaspora.--Bazaan (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just reverted it to the older version. I don't see any reason behind removing Yunus' image. Also there are already some images in the Bengal renaissance section, no need to have double images. Sure the montage may not show all the great personalities of Bengal, but modification should be done through discussions here. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I do believe that Amartya Sen more than deserves a place there! Shovon (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Can we replace Ravi Shankar with Amartya Sen? Ravi Shankar was born to Bengali parents but it seems he can't be referred to as a proper Bengali since he was born and raised in Varanasi and was more integrated with North Indian culture.--Zayeem ^(talk) 13:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

One option could be to reorganize the montage and add Amartya Sen instead of Atisa. But as I said before, we need a much bigger montage.--Bazaan (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

And the present montage is also gender biased. Begum Rokeya used to be there before.--Bazaan (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we enlarge the montage on the lines of examples such as this one.--Bazaan (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the montage can be expanded. On another front, to say that Ravi Shankar is NOT Bengali is totally incorrect! And, when it comes to international appeal, he probably ranks much higher than some of the people shown there. Shovon (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

An editor was trying to accommodate your insistence, so calm down. Ravi Shankar is as important and prominent in music, as Muhammad Yunus is in social development or F R Khan is in architecture. What matters is Shankar's contribution to Bengali culture, and along with Alauddin Khan and Ali Akbar Khan, he is one of the seminal masters of classical music in Bengal, and their importance in Bengali music is as important as Tagore, Nazrul and Lalon Shah. So they definitely need to be included a broader montage of Bengalis.--Bazaan (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, Ravi Shankar was born and raised in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh was even trained in Maihar gharana of North Indian classical music, these things prompted me to leave that comment. Anyway, I'm sorry if I've offended anyone with my observations. About expanding the montage, make sure it doesn't include too many persons since it would simply kill the grandeur of the infobox image.--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

North Indian and Bengali classical traditions are intertwined. Ravi Shankar was such a full-blooded Bengali that he preferred wearing Bangladeshi lungis over dhotis. Regarding the montage, apologies, I meant at least one person from the classical genre.--Bazaan (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Race?

as User:Shovon76 reverted my [edit] and asked me to discuss it on talk page, I am...~

The current text says They are a hybrid race which have primarily evolved by mixture of Indo-Aryan race and Tibeto-Burman races, and by Dravidian race in some content. but its is to be corrected to They are a hybrid race which have primarily evolved by mixture of Aryan race and Mongoloid race because it is not Tibeto-burmam it is Mongoloid as what part of mongoloid has influenced Bengali race is not yet researched clearly and deeply. The following note supports the new text: In 1994, geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza of Stanford University divided a principal coordinant map of 42 Asian populations into three groupings: Asian Caucasoids, Northeast and East Asian and Southeast Asian. Along Southeast Asia, Cavalli-Sforza said there is a separation between northern and southern Mongoloids. To the West, Cavalli-Sforza said there is an approximate boundary between Caucasoids and Mongoloids from the Urals to the eastern part of India.Along this boundary there has been hybridization, causing a Caucasoid-Mongoloid gradient. Bengali people and Assamese people in the East India are one of in whom visible mongoloid features like salient cheek-bones and a different Epicanthal fold as noticeable with white-wheatish Aryan skin tone. Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Menozzi, P. & Piazza, A. (1994). The History and Geography of Human Genes. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

I don't think it is a Fringe theory, it is just very noticeable and proved fact! Thank you. BijoyChakrabarty (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated change of Infobox images

An editor has been repeatedly changing the infobox image collage citing his own logic, which may not be in sync with the Wikipedia's policies. Khan's image was removed sometimes ago as it is a non-free image. And if Kajol is a Bengali, then I guess someone would come back and put Imran Khan's photo there too, as his father is also a Bengali! Shovon (talk) 09:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There was even an addition of Saif Ali Khan, reasoning that his mother is a Bengali, so he's a Bengali. :D Jokes apart, I guess we should report that user if he continues to disrupt.--Zayeem ^(talk) 19:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! It is now bordering tendentious editing. I can't make any head or tail of the inclusion criteria! Shovon (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• I would remove that whole collage. Collage of 36 people! Who is that crazy guy? Can't even see any of those properly. It should be of 9 ppl max, not more than that. And many people in it, like Kajol, Javed Karim, are half-non-bengali. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The German collage has thirty people, if I recall correctly. Are you asserting that the Bengalis are somehow an inferior people? It is also a fundamentally racist belief that ancestry can somehow be 'diluted', and even under this criteria I don't see how you can say that someone whose parents are both Bengali is 'half-non-Bengali', a term that has no logical or scientific currency. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I never said anything about inferiority or dilution or science money. These are all your prejudices coming forth on their own. The objective of infobox is to summarize and give some info in short. Adding 36 people, half of which are not really popular for being Bengali, some of whose Bengali descent is doubted, hardly makes sense. If at all you want to paint stuff red, go on and don't stop at 36. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I also agree with the collage of 8-9 persons with wide popularity. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 09:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

We should add an image of a Bengali scientist like Muhammad Qudrat-i-Khuda, Jagadish Chandra bose or Satyendra Nath Bose in the collage of 9 Bengalis as this version contains no image of Bengali scientist. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 10:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - date format

In order to remove this article from Category:CS1 errors: dates, could someone please change reference 23 from |date=2006-March to |date=2006-03-12 ? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the fix. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense comment!

agree that there are too many Bangladeshis, but I would suggest you WP:BEBOLD and distribute the spots fairly. I'm afraid I may have contributed to the merit imbalance by adding another Bangladeshi, but I trust you will resolve that excellently.

Amitabho Chattopadhyay! Do you think that people from Eastern Bengal are less intellectual? Read first the ancestral background of renaissance people! Most of them are from Eastern Bengal (Although i don't care)! They were concentrated in west because Kolkata served as the capital of British Indian Empire. A small number of People like you are enough to divide a nation eternally! —Samudrakula (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Accomplishment and intellectualism are not the same thing, and history is not the present. I am ancestrally descended from Barisal, myself. Kindly do not baselessly malign me further. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Fazlur Khan

It seems inappropriate to have a huge photo of a statue in an American office lobby (almost bigger than every other Renaissance portrait combined) to illustrate Fazlur Khan. The fact that the section claims that the Bengal Renaissance "ended with Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941)" suggests that Khan, best known for a 1973 skyscraper, should not be listed in this section anyway. What do other editors think? --McGeddon (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any response I've gone ahead and cut most of the portraits - the infobox in the top right (which already has photos of most of these people anyway) is throwing off the formatting and a lot of the portrait thumbnails were overlapping each other on my browser and obscuring other images. I've turned the captions into text in the article body, where appropriate. --McGeddon (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Booker and Pulitzer Prize winners

User:Samudrakula you are requested to kindly explain why have you removed without any reason the edit containing references of Jhumpa Lahiri, Siddhartha Mukherjee and Arundhati Roy. Man Booker Prize and Pulitzer Prize are regarded as one of highest awards for achievements in the field of Literature internationally. -- devx101 [TALK] 19:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Collage related issues

It has been seen that the collage section has become a place of national pride manifestation and not a place where encyclopedic temper takes priority. A collage should not have 25-30 odd names, the rightful place is a gallery instead. The collage section should only contain names of people who have made an mark globally and not nationally because its a multi-country article. This section by no means has a proportional population representation system of inclusion. It at best should be left on merit.--

devx101 [TALK] 18:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

people are requested to explain how Pritilata Waddedar, Kamini Roy, Roquia Sakhawat Hussain, Rani Mukerji , Brojen Das, Salman Khan (educator), Sufia Kamal , Kadambini Ganguly , Shakib Al Hasan are International figures. Also the list contains both Indian and bangladeshi names so one cant complain of any bias.-- devx101 [TALK] 19:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

True, the collage must contain persons with global stature. Shakib is definitely an international figure being one of the best all rounders in the world at present. Salman Khan is also quite influential being the founder of world renown Khan Academy. I have also added Fazle Hasan Abed, founder of BRAC, the largest NGO in the world. Moreover, Subhas Chandra Bose and Vidyasagar have been removed as they have no international recognition.--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your Vidyasagar logic, he cant be termed as a International figure hence he can be safely removed. But i don't agree with your removing of Netaji subhas chandra bose logic. He was one of the top three Freedom fighters of united India which included Bangladesh at the time. He is recognition is beyond reproach. By similar logic no one would know Sheikh Mujibur Rahman even but he was one the founding fathers of your country.

About your inclusion of Salman Khan,Fazle Hasan Abed and Shakib Al Hasan i have a simple logic, a person may be popular in your country, may have made a decent name for himself but here there is a relative comparison in the global arena not absolute. You are putting Shakib Al Hasan in same place as Sourav Ganguly just because he is there in some ICC ranking! He is not a world renowned player who has made a substantial mark or difference to the game of Cricket by any means. I have read about Salman Khan,Fazle Hasan Abed in wikipedia. The first person is by no means a world renowned person just because he runs an academy. The second also cant be termed a global figure and be kept in the same league as Md. Yunus As i said the comparison has to be relative not absolute. If we consider a similar yardstick Indian names would be bombarded due to the scale of population.-- devx101 [TALK] 08:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, Subhas Chandra Bose is only notable in India, not in Bangladesh and even in India he's not that popular. In your earlier post, you have quite explicitly said collage section should only contain names of people who have made an mark globally and not nationally, it's surprising how you are confronting your own suggestion to include Subhas Chandra Bose. Sheikh Mujib is definitely an international figure, in fact, BBC declared him as the greatest Bengali ever, where Rabindranath Tagore and Kazi Nazrul Islam stood 2nd and 3rd respectively. Shakib is surely an international figure, the "some ICC ranking" is followed throughout the cricketing world, not only in Bangladesh. And it's quite preposterous to remove Fazle Hasan Abed; Hilary Clinton termed him as a national treasure of Bangladesh along with Prof Yunus. However, I agree with you on Salman Khan, even I was unsure if he deserves to be there. I'm gonna replace him with Jawed Karim, one of the founders of YouTube.--Zayeem ^(talk) 09:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well i would like to argue on Subhas Chandra Bose. As i said his stature is above reproach, is name,following,weightage traverses International boundaries. You are requested to kindly study about him further.-- devx101 [TALK] 12:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

---

To sum up this sort of very things i was fearing of that's why i wanted bifurcation of article so that this place does not become aplace for pride manifestation. It is very great to see a veteran cricketing heavy weight like Ganguly been put in the same league as shakib al hasan who had held some ICC rankings continuously. A Fazle Hasan Abed and Jawed karim in the same league as other Scientists, Nobel laureates , Oscar awardees, Grammy awardees just because one had been termed as a National treasure of one country by some Hillary clinton while other is a co-founder of company (which was sold to Google before any one even new its name)!! Anyways i would not indulge in an edit war in this. I have replaced Jawed Karim with NSC Bose for the time being.-- devx101 [TALK] 13:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Democratic elections in the eight century?

The article states, that

After a period of anarchy, Gopala came to power in 750 by democratic election.,

refering to a somewhat ominous A. Shiefner, History of Buddhism in India.

Only possible source is Franz Anton Schiefner and his book Târanâtha's Geschichte des Buddhismus in Indien aus dem Tibetischen (--> . http://books.google.de/books?id=LR0AAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR12&dq=schiefner+geschichte+des+buddhismus+gopala&hl=de&sa=X&ei=IDVVVMrjHYKuPKHMgdAN&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=schiefner%20geschichte%20des%20buddhismus%20gopala&f=false), published in 1869 and itself a translation of an ancient tibetan book written by Taranatha. (see an english translation of Schiefners work right here ---> http://books.google.de/books/about/Taranatha_s_History_of_Buddhism_in_India.html?id=4yXn-lVdqGgC&redir_esc=y)

I did read the german text concerning Gopal ( p.202-208) and I did find there nothing what reflects the notion of a democratic election in the eight century.

I am sorry, but seemingly Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Original Research obviously were not observed at all.

Someone of the editors here should replace the source or erase the whole predication.

Best regards--87.147.12.124 (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Bifurcation of collage to have Images of Indian and Bangladeshi people separatly

To avoid edit wars the collage has been modified to have Indian Bengalis and Bangladeshi Bengalis as two separate constituents. This breakup i expect will give more freedom to edit the space. -- devx101 [TALK] 19:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a silly, unnecessary distinction in my opinion and entirely invalid due to the widoldid=588981482 this version] contains no image of Bengali scientist. - eness of the Bengali diaspora. I can't help but think this is going to end with a dick measuring contest with each high school teacher a centimetre, but I'll withhold editing it myself due to my history with the topic. অমিত talk 20:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the above opinion. What is more, there are numerous notable Bengalis neither of India nor of Bangladesh. GopalaRamir (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

devx101, as you can see here nobody is supporting your changes. Please first reach a consensus here before making those edits. --Zayeem ^(talk) 12:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the bifurcation. How did you identify them as "Bangladeshi bengali" and "Indian bengali"? Many of the bengalis included in the infobox was born and died in undivided Bengal. Many of them was born in later East Bengal and lated went to India , where many bengalis did the opposite.

• A. K. Fazlul Huq was born in Bengal province of British India. He was the first governor of undivided Bengal. He was also mayor of Kolkata. He died in British India before the formation of independent India and Pakistan or the formation of present Bangladesh. Where would you put him?

• Kazi Nazrul Islam was born in British India, lived here and later he was honored with the citizenship of Bangladesh and migrated there. He lived rest of his days in Bangladesh and the mausoleum is located at the University of Dhaka area in Bangladesh. He is also the national poet of Bangladesh. Doesn't he deserve to be kept at Bangladeshi bengalis too?

• Jagadish Chandra Bose, Suchitra Sen, and Michael Madhusudan Dutt and Amartya Sen were born in formar British India, which is now Bangladesh , they are well known and honored in Bangladesh as well as India. Don't they deserve to be kept at the Bangladeshi bengali too?

• Begum Rokeya, was born in British India, lived in Bhagalpur and died in Kolkata. She died before the formation of Bangladesh. Doesn't she deserve to be kept at the Indian Bengali section?

Most of the notable bengali actors, film directors of present India were either born in present Bangladesh or from Bangladeshi descent. This list includes, Ritwik Ghatak, Mithun Chakraborty, Utpal Dutta, Sunil Ganguly, Bhanu Banerjee, Mrinal Sen, Satyajit Ray, Nachiketa Chakraborty etc. Rwittik Ghatok himself called himself "Bengali" and so does Mithun Chakraborty. Sunil Ganguly expressed his sorrows remembering the partition of Bengal. He lost his country and became refugee. So did Rwitik Ghatok.

Infine, you can't just seperate bengalis by country. This article includes Bengali people by nationality not by citizenship of a country. There are many notable bengalis in other countries including the US. the UK etc. Do you want to create another boxes to keep them? I can show hundreds of reason not to bifurcation. This bifurcation makes no sense. I have reverted the edits made by devx101 and please don't make anymore bifurcation. No more edit war. Thank you. Happiest persoN (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

bifurcation of the article

I propose bifurcation of the article into two separate articles. i.) Bengali People(Indian) ii.) Bengali People(Bangladesh)

The only thing common is language but the culture due to different religions is completely diverse. Hence both sections can get adequate space for expansion and not crowd the space like at present. -- devx101 [TALK] 18:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No comments till now ?!!-- devx101 [TALK] 15:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This would not be a good idea at all. Bengalis are one people whether they live in India, Bangladesh, or elsewhere. Religion is only one part of "culture" and it is a part which is apt to change (e.g. at one point in history, there was a Buddhist Bengali kingdom, Islam has only been present since the 12th century, etc.) All Bengalis share a common history, common language, a common and rich literature, common folk traditions and foods, and most importantly, a common sense of Bengali-ness. There are plenty of sources for this such as History of Bengali-speaking People by Nitish Sengupta and others you can find in the reference section of articles such as Bengali renaissance. As for this article, it is by no means "crowded". On the contrary, considering the depth of history and the amount of sources available, it appears underdeveloped when compared to other "people" articles such as German people.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 23:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you perspective but what about the country bias associated with this type of articles. I just tried to do an edit of the collage section so as to reduce the number of pictures(its a collage) and only keep persons who in a true sense are of an International stature but as expected it got reverted by a particular user because he thinks its more appropriate. just to make ones country look more good one stuffs the content as per his or her wishes irrespective of the fact that whether it has appropriate weight-age or not for the section.-- devx101 [TALK] 18:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Devx101: I think you should look at the articles Bengali Hindus and Bengali Muslims respectively. BengaliHindu (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)