This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh articles
Bengal Presidency is within the scope of WikiProject Myanmar, a project to improve all Myanmar related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systemic bias group on Wikipedia aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Myanmar-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.MyanmarWikipedia:WikiProject MyanmarTemplate:WikiProject MyanmarMyanmar articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
Can anyone explain what is meant by "Sanskrit geography" and "Sanskrit times"? Sanskrit is a language -- actually it is a term encompassing several languages over a period of millennia, up until today, so it can't be tied to the language of any particular period. A more precise term is needed here.Acsenray18:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV in the section "Origin of the name and reasons for its use"
The whole section has no citation at all and the following parts are POV:
"The name "Bengal" is derived from Sanskrit "Vanga", and, strictly speaking, applies to the country stretching southwards from Bhagalpur to the sea. The ancient Bangla formed one of the five outlying kingdoms of Aryan India, and was practically coterminous with the delta of Bengal. It derived its name, according to the etymology of the Pundits, from a prince of the Mahabharata, to whose portion it fell on the partition of the country among the Lunar race of Delhi."
The phrase, "Aryan India" means nothing and name of the ancient janapada was "Vanga", not Bangla. Vanga was one of the adopted sons of Anava king Bali, not a Mahabharata prince and "the etymology of the Pundits" is a complete POV phrase. There is no such thing as the "Lunar race of Delhi".
"But a city called Bangala, near Dhaka, which, although now washed away, is supposed to have existed in the Muslim period, appears to have given the name to the European world. The word Bangala was first used by the Muslim rulers; and under their rule, like the Bangla pre-Muslim times, it applied specifically to the Gangetic delta, although the later conquests to the east of the Brahmaputra were eventually included within it."
The word Vangala was used by the Rashtrakuta king Govinda III much before the Turk-Afghan (Muslim?) rulers used it. Secondly, where was this imaginary city named Bangala?
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The terminology is perhaps confusing on account of the involvement of the HEIC, but the Presidency as a region survived until independence. Philg88 ♦talk14:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion: I think it will be interesting to include a list of major cities of undivided Bengal (Bengal Presidency), along with their populations and geographic area. Sahrudayan (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Worldbruce (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what you're trying to say by "duplicating sections", but it isn't just me, you also removed the long standing flag and emblem as well as the official name. (Though I agree with the flag change). I apologise for edit warring but the image provided in the infobox doesn't in any way represent the Bengal Presidency. The Presidency never included any princely states anytime and it never had such a great extent even if we only look at the British territory, (even if we talk about indirect control). Please have a look at the Indian Polity: A View o the System of Administration in India by George Tomkyns Chesney published in 1894 where he talks about it in greater length (pg. 79). PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the original upload of the emblem, where the uploader states "Plaques on the walls of the India High Commission. I don't know what they represent but they add some colour to the building". The uploader does not claim this to be a provincial emblem, hence you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Princely states were not sovereign, but under the suzerainty of the British Empire. It is common practice to cover them within maps of British India, such as here.
Finally, this edit exposes your real motive to remove information pertaining to the extent of Fort William's jurisdiction. Historical maps like this confirm the territorial reach of the Bengal Presidency, as do reliable sources like the historian Rosie Llewellyn-Jones, who states that "The Bengal Presidency, an administrative jurisdiction introduced by the East India Company, would later include not only the whole of northern India up to the Khyber Pass on the north-west frontier with Afghanistan, but would spread eastwards to Burma and Singapore as well." Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not suzerainty of the British Empire, it was suzerainty of the British Crown. Second, can you explain what do you mean by British India? The map provided by you shows "India" within the British Empire not British India whose borders haven't been demarcated in the map. The second map (of the supposed extent of Bengal Presidency) is a primary source not a secondary. Check Indian Polity: A View of the System of Administration in India by George Tomkyns Chesney published in 1894 where he talks about it in greater length (pg. 79 PadFoot2008 (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, you don't know that the British Empire represented the authority of the British crown? Are you saying the crown had nothing to do with the empire? British India is the common name for India under British rule, be it under company rule or under official British rule during the Raj. The map speaks for itself. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. British India was the name for that part of India under British rule (or specifically Company rule and the Crown rule). But the rest of India were not included in British India. Your map never mentioned "British India". Have a look at this map from from the Imperial Gazetteer of India", a work published under the authority and directed by the Secretary of State for India and the Government of India — I think you already know about it.
The territory in shades of pink is "British India" and in yellow is "native territory" composed of what are now called "princely states". The territory together was called "India" as per Interpretation Act 1889, sec. 18, of the British Parliament or the "Indian Empire" as in the cover of the British Indian Passport. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a specialist map showing internal political divisions within British India, as the description on the top right corner spells out. It is sort of like a map of the states and union territories of India, states of Germany and states of the United States etc. There are specialist maps of Bengal as well, showing native states and protectorates, which can be found on Wikimedia Commons. But the map in question here shows the full extent of all territory under Bengal's jurisdiction, including native states. It is based on historic maps, like this and this, as well as sources from Southeast Asia. Please remember that relations with princely states were managed by one of the provincial capitals, which in this case was Calcutta. For example, the British resident in a princely state would be appointed by the presidency government in Bengal. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My question was did you understand what British India is? And the description on top right says "Indian Empire" not British India. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian Empire and British India weren't same. Your irrational arguments and multi-faceted warring is making me weary now. And still I'm trying to patiently explain you. The territory in pink in British India and territory in both pink and yellow is the Indian Empire as the map's key says. I think you are getting confused because of terms like British Kenya and British Ceylon. Unlike those terms, British India only applies to the directly administered territory in India. British India, along with the native states, was called India. See this excerpt from the Interpretation Act 1889 pd the British Parliament:
(4.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinates to the Governor-General of India.
(5.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinates to the Governor-General of India.[1]
With regard to George Tomkyns Chesney, his work was published in 1894. This was after the Bengal Presidency's territory was significantly reduced. The reorganization of territory took place after 1867. By 1894, obviously the territory was not the same as in 1858. Please don't game the system. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is infuriating. Did you even bother read the source. It doesn't matter when it was published. He talks about the entire history, even before 1833. Please do read the chapter "Presidencies" at least once.
My motive isn't to create a big argument for any personal motives. I too had the same notion till I did some research, checked historical sources, British legislation and even Indian legislation dating that period. I, when I came to know about this, seeked to let other readers know about this too. I should've started a discussion; I hadn't realised it would've cause such an argument. We can discuss calmly too, right? I might be wrong about my allegation and will be happy to be corrected if I am. That's what the point of a discussion and talk page is after all. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also as this discussion is about the extent of the Presidency and not the official name, I think I can add back the official name. I wouldn't add the badge. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer WP:COMMONNAME. As a compromise, I suggest Bengal Presidency like the Bombay Presidency (instead of just "Bengal", which is also used in many sources). I do not think the infobox should have two names above and below each other, as you are demanding. That is very confusing for readers. I suggest we stick to one name, and that should be the common name, which is the Bengal Presidency. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I see you've added 3 names in the infobox. A bit too convoluted don't you think? What difference does it make if it was Presidency of Fort William or Presidency of Fort William in Bengal? Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think the article infobox should have a different name from the article title? In United Kingdom, the infobox obviously does not mention the historical name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. By your logic, the UK page infobox should include all the historical names of the UK. I can agree with some variation, like the "Presidency of Bengal". But "Presidency of Fort William in Bengal" sounds way too convoluted and unnecessary. "Bengal Presidency" or just "Bengal" is the most appropriate. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're wading into falsehood and potential propaganda. Please look at the Google Books results for Bengal Presidency. It is the most commonly accepted name. You have an agenda here. Please take your concerns to DRN. We will not reach consensus on false claims. Period. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you the difference between common name and official name? Bengal Presidency was the common name of the entity but not the official name. Please provide a source saying that it was the official name of the entity throughout its existence. I am not requesting the change of the article title. I'm talking about the official name in infobox. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it's isn't OR. It's a source. I provided source and that's why it isn't OR. Can you provide source"s" exactly stating years and specific laws to support your claim? The Chief Commissionerships were governed by the Government of India since it's establishment in 1833. Relations with Rajputana Agency, Central India AgencyKashmir State, Hyderabad State and Mysore State were with the Government of India as well between 1833 and 1900. Bengal might have managed them before 1833, but not after. Also the source provided you is a pretty unspecific one. How could you make such a detailed map knowing only two references points – Khyber Pass and Straits? Here are some more sources:
The British territory under the control of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, comprises Bengal Proper, Behar, Orissa including the Tributary Mehals, Assam, Chota Nagpore, and the native states of Hill Tipperah and Cooch Behar. It extends from the meridian 82° to 97 east of Greenwich, and lies within the parallels of 19° 40′ and 28° 10′ north latitude
from the Annual Report of the Administration of the Bengal Presidency published in 1868.
The great Presidency of Fort William, in Bengal, has, since 1833, been separated into two divisions. Of these, the lower or south-eastern portion, comprising the original conquest of Clive with subsequent additions in the same quarter, is under the administration of a func- tionary styled the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal...The one consists of the well-cultivated and thickly-populated districts of the basin of the Ganges, which constitute Behar and Bengal proper, with the mari- time districts of Orissa, all of which are subject to the general regulations and administrative system of the Indian Government. The other is made up of various outlying provinces, inhabited by primitive and less civilised races, and which are governed in a more or less informal and special manner. Of these non-regulation provinces, as they are termed, the principal are: 1. The great country of Assam, with the adjacent parts drained bythe Brahmapootra and its tributaries, altogether as large as England with Wales: 2. The hill tracts of Orissa: 3. The extensive territory south of Behar, which is still inappropriately termed the South-West Frontier. This tract, which has an area not far short of that of England, forms the eastern shoulder of the great table-land of Central India, and is for the most part a wild and mountainous country, clothed with forests, and inhabited chiefly by the aboriginal races of India. Many parts of it have been scarcely ever visited by Europeans, and are tenanted by little else than the tiger and its prey... II. The other division of the Presidency of Fort William, known as the North-West Provinces, is about two-thirds the extent of the regulation provinces of Bengal, and nearly equal in area to Great Britain. It has the largest population in proportion to its size of any of the great territorial divisions of India, there being an average of 361 persons to the square mile, which exceeds that of any country in Europe, except Belgium.
Yes and I am saying those divisions are wrong an unsourced. Provide a published source claiming that those were actual divisions of the Presidency. Provide a source citing that those divisions were by law part of the "Bengal Presidency"
You need to give a published source, not user created images or maps. Written, published material stating the different divisions of the Presidency at particular period. Maps are not considered published sources. Thus, this cannot be used as a source (not a written published source). Neither can this be used as it is a user generated content. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't trust widely accepted historical maps which support academic consensus, please refer to this source from Rosie Llewellyn-Jones and this source from Tariq Ahmed Karim. The maps are also supported by the information available on the website of the National Library of Singapore. In fact, there is no shortage of sources on the territorial extent of the Bengal Presidency. For example, this source talks about the Bengal Army; this talks about territory from Burma to the Khyber Pass; and this talks of peak territory stretching from Khyber-Pakthunkhwa to Singapore.
The burden of proof is on you and you have nothing. Unless you stop promoting falsehoods, there is reason to believe you are being intentionally disruptive to damage this article. This is an article of high level historical importance and you cannot be allowed to disrupt. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last two sources don't even work. The article from Daily Star and Google Books don't say when and which law. (I don't think Daily Star can even qualify as a reliable source). Bengal Army's jurisdiction obviously doesn't count. How's that even related. And as for my claim being unsourced, here you go —
Citing the Imperial Gazetteer of India, an officially commissioned work by the Government of India and the Secretary of State for India:
In 1836, when the Upper Provinces were formed into a separate administration, they were designated the North-Western Provinces, in contradistinction to the Lower Provinces; and although they, as well as Oudh, the Punjab, the Central Provinces, and Burma, were sometimes loosely regarded as forming the Bengal Presidency, the word was ordinarily used in this sense only for military purposes, to denote the sphere of the old army of Bengal, as distinguished from these of Bombay and Madras. In its ordinary acceptation, the term now covers only the jurisdiction of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal.
I think you are aware of the Imperial Gazetteer of India, no doubt, if you are familiar with the modern history of Bengal. This clearly says that term was used in that particular sense, only for military purposes. In its ordinary acceptance, it only refers to the territory under Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. And there's absolutely no need for your patronizing. Your claim that Bengal's extent is very well known and all doesn't help in this discussion at all. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said that Daily Star *might* be an unreliable source, not it *is* an unreliable source. I am not sure. Also it doesn't matter because the year or specific time isn't mentioned. Nineteenth century isn't very specific. Also newspaper articles are considered tertiary sources. So you should provide the newspaper's source too. Also *historical* sources should preferably be from Google Books not some other site that requires membership. Did you see the citation from Imperial Gazetteer of India? An official government source of India that too contemporary to the Presidency says that the Bengal Presidency isn't what you are saying. Also historical sources require scholarly sources per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), Daily Star might qualify as a reliable source but not necessarily a scholarly source. I do not intend to question to the reliability of Daily Star but it certainly isn't a scholarly source. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An editor Solomon The Magnifico has been editwarring and trying to insert a non-sourced usermade map into the infobox with providing any reliable historical sources. The Imperial Gazetteer of India and the Indian Polity both agree that the Bengal Presidency was limited to the areas under the governance of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal. Check the previous discussion too. Requesting for comments from @Johnbod, @Worldbruce, @Arimaboss. PadFoot2008 (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(invited by the bot) Could you explain / clarify what the issue and choices are? Explain how the Gazateer sentence relates to / conflicts the the map in question? Are there proposed possibilities besides just leaving it in and taking it out leaving no map? North8000 (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello editor @North8000, let me brief you. You can also look at the above discussion for more details. The map proposed by @Solomon The Magnifico is unsourced and is based on a sentence from a Daily Star article, which stated that the Presidency extended from Khyber Pass to Straits Settlements. Daily Star can not be considered a reliable historical source based on WP:identifying reliable sources (history). The Imperial Gazetteer of India states:
In 1836, when the Upper Provinces were formed into a separate administration, they were designated the North-Western Provinces, in contradistinction to the Lower Provinces; and although they, as well as Oudh, the Punjab, the Central Provinces, and Burma, were sometimes loosely regarded as forming the Bengal Presidency, the word was ordinarily used in this sense only for military purposes, to denote the sphere of the old army of Bengal, as distinguished from these of Bombay and Madras. In its ordinary acceptation, the term now covers only the jurisdiction of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal.
The end sentence states that the term only covers the jurisdiction of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, which from 1836 to 1874 looked something like this: [1] and never as Solomon The Magnifico's map shows it to look like between 1858 to 1867. PadFoot2008 (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, you are not telling us the year of this publication. When did the Imperial Gazetteer say this? Because you are contradicting your own sources. One of the sources you furnished is Annual Report of the Administration of the Bengal Presidency published in 1868, which clearly states that "The great Presidency of Fort William, in Bengal, has, since 1833, been separated into two divisions." Again, this means the Bengal Presidency was the larger nominal entity under which these divisions and provinces initially existed as British rule expanded. When academic, governmental and generally reliable sources confirm this historical accuracy, why are you pushing to remove an interesting piece of history from Wikipedia? Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "The great Presidency of Fort William, in Bengal, has, since 1833, been separated into two divisions." is from the Indian Polity by George Chesney, not the Annual Report. Don't make false claims. No governmental source makes that claim. The only governmental source, the Imperial Gazetteer states originally published in 1878, clearly says that the North Western Provinces were formed into a separate administration from the Bengal Presidency. In 1878, the North Western Provinces still existed, which you are claiming to be a part of Bengal Presidency, but the Gazzeteer still says that the Presidency only covered the territories governed by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. Your entire claim is based on a couple of non-official maps and a bunch of other user made maps based off of it. These maps classify as primary sources and thus cannot be applied here and do not classify as reliable sources and an article from Daily Star which doesn't mention a year either and also doesn't classify as reliable historical source.
These are your sources, not mine. You haven't properly referenced or footnoted them, hence the confusion. My point still stands. George Chesney's work supports what I said about the Bengal Presidency's nominal territorial extent. I did not just cite Daily Star, but a respected historian and the National Library of Singapore. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't blame me for your confusion. And you have cited no respected or any historians. The article from the National Library of Singapore has no maps that I can see or does it state that Bengal Presidency extended from Khyber Pass to wherever you are claiming it to. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am now being accused of making unsourced claims, despite showing exhaustive sources in the discussion before this RfC. I am exhausted with the falsifications being promoted here. I do not have the time to rehash everything. If an army of Indian nationalist editors are going to get their way on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia becomes an electoral autocracy. If merit-based editors and content are blocked, that is sad news. Very sadly, an army of Indian nationalist editors want to deride any information regarding any of India's neighbors, even if these are the closest neighbors with which India has the best of relations. This is overwhelming and exhausting. How unnecessary and counter-productive can you get? Please remember democracy and consensus are about how you treat minorities, not just brute majority rule. --Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Solomon The Magnifico is now trying to politicise this discussion and I accusing me and everyone else involved to be "Indian nationalist editors", George Chesney states two divisions only, not Punjab, Burma, or any other British territory. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never disagreed about the Straits Settlement. Yes, I do agree that it was a Residency of the Bengal Presidency for some time till it was made a Crown Colony in 1867. I'm talking about the Chief Commissionerships and the Lieutenant Governorships you are claiming to be a part of Bengal Presidency. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now, look at yourself. Doesn't your map show that Burma was a part of the Bengal Presidency from 1858 to 1867. Now you provided a source proving that it was detached from Bengal presidency in 1862, when it became a Chief Commissionership. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 1862 separation was like the transfer of a district. In this case, the transfer of a division. Arakan Division was transferred to Burma. But Burma overall continued to be under the jurisdiction of Calcutta until it became full fledged province. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source is talking about Cis-Sutlej states, which had been a part of British India since 1809, which again I don't dispute to have been a part of Bengal Presidency for at least some time. Punjab, on the other hand, was annexed and created into the Chief Commissionership in 1849. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PadFoot2008 is now editing his earlier comments to claim that I made "false" claims. I have produced sufficient sources in the discussion before this RfC. In addition to my sources, PadFoot2008's own sources support what I'm saying! Is it a language issue for PadFoot2008? The irony is that PadFoot2008's own sources support what I'm saying!--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of my sources support your claim. Do not try twist the sources. None of the sources talk about Punjab, Burma, etc. Only the lieutenant governorships of North Western Provinces and Bengal. And I just changed "unsourced" to "false" in my comment before anyone had replied to it, which is allowed by Wikipedia. If you can't prove your claim by historical sources, just withdraw your claim and accept the historical facts. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest not using the map that is in dispute (File:Bengal_Presidency_(1858-1867)_with_modern_borders.png) (invited by the bot). User drawn maps generally do not get the strictest interpretation of wp:OR applied applied. But this one goes really far in several respects. First, the key elements were editor-created from some text. In essence, many of the particulars (which implicitly include many claims of which areas were included) had to be editor-created to "fill in the blanks" from mere text. Second, those claims, which are claims implicitly made by the map are disputed at best (and possibly refuted.) North8000 (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with this map. It seems like there is an agenda here to never improve this page and show the real history of this period of time. I find that far more objectionable than a map which is supported by all the sources. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are doing the exact opposite of WP:AGF, you are inventing bad faith, and a pretty broad nasty and insulting variant of it. That is no way to convince anybody of anything. North8000 (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not. That's extreme. Why can't you just accept what the sources say? I am exasperated and tired by this conversation, which keeps going around in circles. I'm doing it all by myself without anyone here to back me up, for what is obviously a complex matter of historical research. And now you are joining PadFoot2008 in ganging up against me. I can easily accuse you of inventing bad faith! Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for the trouble I have been causing. As I do agree that user drawn maps aren't really the best made maps, the only reason I changed this is because, while seeing this file, I thought that this needed a little refreshment, and I made a better version of it. I am very sorry for the trouble I have been causing here, and I have no problem if the map gets changed. Best regards, TheGreaterAdenz (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have help to show territorial changes on the map? Basically, the area's territory increased and later decreased. It's done on other pages on Wikipedia; but it has not been applied here. What I find problematic is that PadFoot2008 has made a mountain out of a molehill. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see any dispute when all the sources are supporting the territorial extent shown on the maps, be it GreaterAdenz's map, the historical map, or the map which existed before the current one.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
????? This RFC is lacking a specific question but the defacto question seems to be "Shall the File:Bengal_Presidency_(1858-1867)_with_modern_borders.png map be used in the infobox?" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources given by PadFoot2008 support what I'm saying. That the Bengal Presidency stretched from the Khyber Pass to the Straits of Malacca for a certain period in the 19th century. All the sources given here, including by me and PadFoot, support this fact. That's why I'm saying there is no dispute. When the sources you provide to back up your claims actually end up backing my claims, I see no dispute! Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of your sources support your claim. Cis-Sutlej States were a part of Bengal Presidency, until 1849 when Punjab was annexed from the Sikh Empire and created into a Chief Commissionership of Punjab Province in 1849 and Cis-Sutlej states were incorporated into the province and separated from Bengal Presidency. After 1849, Punjab wasn't part of the Bengal Presidency. Lower Burma was part of Bengal Presidency till 1862 when it converted into a separate Chief Commissionership as shown by your own source [6]. Stairs Settlements had been a part of Bengal Presidency till 1867 when it was made into a Crown Colony. Northwestern Provinces were separated in 1836. [7]. The Central Provinces, then called "Nagpur Province andSaugor and Nerbudda Territories", were separated from Bengal Presidency in 1861 and made into a Chief Commissionership. So from 1842 to 1861, Bengal Presidency was still pretty large, probably it's largest extent, and included the Central Provinces, Lower Burma and Straits Settlements, Assam and Bengal proper. So your claim is partially correct, but not about the Northwestern provinces, Oudh and Punjab. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the historian Rosie Llewellyn-Jones, "The Bengal Presidency, an administrative jurisdiction introduced by the East India Company, would later include not only the whole of northern India up to the Khyber Pass on the north-west frontier with Afghanistan, but would spread eastwards to Burma and Singapore as well."[8] This means the maps are fully correct. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per reasons already stated above. Suggest not using File:Fort William Presidency Map.png, File:Bengal Presidency 1858.png and File:Bengal_Presidency_(1858-1867)_with_modern_borders.png, and a better sourced map be created or used from existing ones in Commons. PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know its easily possible to show an evolution of maps. The territory gradually increased and then decreased. But what I don't get is why you insist that the Bengal Presidency never extended into northern India, when it is well known that it did. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know it did, but not the entirety of Punjab (only the Cis Sutlej states) and the Northwestern Provinces were separated in 1836, but from 1805 to 1836, the Bengal Presidency did include the northern territories. The only problem is that the current map isn't a "territorial evolution" map but a geographical extent map at a particular point of time. I can make such a map as you want, as I do make maps. The map will be dating 1861, and territories like Assam, Lower Burma, Nagpur Province, Straits Settlements and Saugor and Nerbudda Territories would be in dark green indicating territories part of the Bengal Presidency in 1861, dependent native states would be in green, and the northern territories formerly part of the Presidency but not part at that time, in light green. That's how the map should be by convention. I'm ready to make the map if you agree. Then your map can stay until I've created the map I described. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Color variations on evolving maps are not possible. Evolving maps on Wikipedia do not have color variations. An evolving map will have to show all the territory in the same color. Please don't add a map like the First French Empire, because the Bengal Presidency was a nominal administrative unit, not an empire. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be completely unaware of map conventions. We can't do that. We can't show all territory in same color. That would be anachronistic. And it doesn't matter if it's a subdivision or an empire. Map conventions are same. That's the best we can do. PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside your borderline insulting comments; see below for colonial subdivisions:
The other option is not showing the northern territories at all. Or the map could be of an older year such as 1830 (when the northwestern provinces were a part of Bengal Presidency), which means it would include all territories you've shown in your map except Punjab, Kashmir and Assam.
Also, we would need at least two colors if the map is to be of a year before 1876, if you want to show the native states. The native states weren't a part of the Presidency itself at that time, but rather were dependencies or vassal states. We can't show dependencies as a same color as the Bengal Presidency. Also, I do plan to color rest of British India grey or something like that, it's a convention. Also, Ceylon was not a part of British India or the Indian Empire. It was a separate Crown Colony. PadFoot2008 (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant other British territories in Asia (not just British India). The Bengal Presidency covered north India, east India and southeast Asia. Remaining major territories are Bombay Presidency, Madras Presidency, Ceylon and Aden. Ceylon was of course a crown colony. There is no harm showing Ceylon on the map either.
Look I extended an olive branch for us to work together and reach a consensus. You clearly are not interested; and I will not agree to your suggestions because doing so would be deleting history. I rest my case. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is against including your maps. So I'm proposing to create a new map. We can't be showing Ceylon, it wasn't a subdivision, it was a colony. Colonies aren't subdivisions. "British territories" or even the British Empire wasn't a state or a country, it was a collection of various states including the UK itself. We can show subdivisions of British India not British Empire. I do wish to negotiate as well. I'm assuming you want a map of 1830 then? That's the time before the reorganization of Bengal Presidency began in 1834-36, starting with the separation of the Northwestern provinces from Bengal Presidency. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was an "association of equal states". It was collection of various states and territories controlled in by the United Kingdom. Also it wasn't entirely a colonial empire. Even though a majority of it was made of colonies, it also included Dominions (till 1931), Mandates, British India and various dependencies and protectorates such as the princely states (which together with British India was a part of the Indian Empire after 1876), which weren't designated colonies and weren't a part of any colonial empires. All of these, including the Indian Empire, was a part of the British Empire but were not colonies. The British Empire was a collection of states certainly not in equal status and controlled by the United Kingdom.
Also by "my maps", I mean the maps proposed by me to be in the infobox and by "your maps", I mean the maps you propose to be in the infobox. Also I've found an amazing map of the British India in 1858 which we could use . The blue parts are a part of the Bengal Presidency as mentioned in the top right corner. I suggest we use this map. It was really an amazing find. I still am seeking a negotiation that would take into account both parties, if you could just tell the year for which I could construct a map for 1830 as described before. PadFoot2008 (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a revenue map. Strangely, Penang is in blue but not Malacca and Singapore.
The Supreme Government of India was based in Calcutta but all territories administered by it were not a part of Bengal Presidency. The Bengal Presidency didn't extend till Khyber Pass though it was once under the control of the Supreme Government of India. The revenue map mentions that the Bengal Presidency is in blue. This map is the best we've got. It only extended at maximum till the Sutlej river. I suggest we not use user made maps and use the government map above. The consensus is not use the current map in the infobox. I strongly suggest using the revenue map. PadFoot2008 (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You see this is exactly the point. Most sources treat the Supreme Government as the same as the Bengal Presidency because Calcutta was the capital of India. Of late, a few claims are coming up around the Lt Governor's post to justify that we should stop treating the Supreme Government and Calcutta as one entity. But most academic and governmental sources I have come across (and I have come across a lot, including in my day to day work in real life in recent times) treat the Supreme Government and the Bengal Presidency as one, because Calcutta was the capital of India. It is also why the Governor General of India was concurrently the Governor of Bengal at the same time. When this separation occurred is still up for scrutiny; but most sources treat the Bengal Presidency and Supreme Government as one; notwithstanding the internal provincial divisions within Bengal itself, like the Lt Governor's post. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the revenue map's key does include the territories administered by the Supreme Government in the Bengal Presidency. That map's the best we've got. Your claim that it extended till Khyber Pass is based on one single source. Please stop this. I've agreed that it extended at most till the Sutlej river, but not any further. In 1836, Northwestern provinces was transferred from the Supreme Government's control to a Lieutenant governor and thus separated fom the Bengal Presidency. Punjab was not a part of the Bengal Presidency. We should use the revenue map. PadFoot2008 (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The map is of 1858 and you can see that it clearly labels the blue territories as Bengal presidency in the top right corner. Your proposed map is incorrect. The consensus is against inclusion of that map. Three editors including me have already attempted to remove the map only for you to add it back. That maps going to stay there no more. You are not going against the consensus. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your sole purpose here is to exclude Punjab from the map of the Bengal Presidency. I really don't see what the problem is with Punjab being covered on the map, when most sources and longstanding knowledge confirms this. Is it so problematic to you? Just pointing out: WP:No NazisSolomon The Magnifico (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Solomon The Magnifico, the consensus is against you. My sole purpose now is to stop your POV push. I see you have now resorted to commenting on my characteristics, which you'd know is a not a good thing to do on Wikipedia. See WP:dispute resolution#Discuss with other parties pyramid. Four editors are in support of removing the map. Two of whom have participated in this RFC with no one in your support. You don't understand how Wikipedia consensus works. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a Punjab-centric POV getting consensus in an article about Bengal over someone who is producing independent, reliable and longstanding sources? I do understand how consensus works; but in this case, the consensus is flat out wrong, if there ever was a consensus. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Solomon The Magnifico, I just realised that teh Bengal Presidency did extend till Khyber Pass temporarily from 1849 to 1853, please check my reply at the new section you created below. Apologies but the map is still incorrect and needs to be redrawn (and the year corrected). PadFoot2008 (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PadFoot2008 continues with disruptive behavior, removing a very reliably sourced sentence by claiming it is a scam. The sources being removed are from historians, universities and renowned institutes. If it is a scam, PadFoot2008 needs to provide secondary and tertiary sources that there is a scam. Otherwise it is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, for the hundredth time, Daily Star can't be included per WP: Identifying reliable sources (history), it isn't a scholarly source. You can't use that as a reference.
Second, this [9]can not be used because it literally says in the corner on page 62 where it talks about the Bengal Presidency that it is sourced from Wikipedia, where we are on right now. WP: Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Third, this source [10] by renowned historian, Rosie Llewellyn-Jones can't be ignored. And I just did a bit of research and I just had a look at this List of governors of Punjab (British India)#List of heads of the Punjab (1849–1947) and I realised that in fact Punjab indeed was a part of the Bengal Presidency from 1849 till 1853 until it was made into a province and thus the Bengal Presidency did extend till Khyber Pass. But the map by you is still incorrect and since for the lack of a better non-user made map, we need to redraw the map. A few changes need to be made – the year should be 1853 just before separation of Punjab, 2. the native states weren't a part of the Bengal Presidency and thus either shouldn't be shown or be colored a lighter shade as they were dependencies 3. Northwestern provinces wouldn't be included it would be mentioned in the map taht the territory had been a former part till 1836. I hope that would enable use to come up with a better map. Bengal Presidency did extend from the Khyber Pass till the Straits. PadFoot2008 (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) says "Articles which deal with events in the past, or the scholarly process of producing history." The Daily Star piece deals with the historical legacy of the Bengal Presidency, and hence easily qualifies as a reliable source. Please refer to longstanding convention on this. The Daily Star is a valuable source of articles on the history of Bengal.
Regarding 9, page 62 says nothing about Wikipedia. That being said, several maps and charts on the document are sourced from Wikipedia. But the document is not used as a reference for maps and charts in this Wikipedia article; it draws on the reference made to Khyber Pass to Singapore. This PDF was produced well before Wikipedia covered this matter. I can assure you, as someone based in the region, that this is a well known fact among academic, diplomatic and governmental circles.
And again, you're reverting to Punjab. I don't understand why you keep pushing a Punjab-centric POV in an article about the history of Bengal. Punjab was annexed in 1849 after the Anglo-Sikh War. It was initially kept under the jurisdiction of Calcutta before becoming a province on its own right. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Solomon The Magnifico, I gravely apologise; thanks a lot for your patience. My first comment got cut off, please check it now. Sorry again. Indeed Punjab was a part of the Presidency from 1849 to 1853 when it became a province. I hope we can come up with a better map now. PadFoot2008 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Solomon The Magnifico, what is the meaning of this edit, you put the literal same map back after just changing the year, color and contemporary states. Also British India did never look like that in its entire period of existence. See this from the Interpretation Act 1889
(4.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinates to the Governor-General of India.
(5.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinates to the Governor-General of India.[1]
The princely states were dependencies before 1876 and not part of British India, but were a part of the British Empire itself. Look at this map from 1909, in the Imperial Gazetteer The pink territory is British India, the yellow are princely states. Also, the 1874 map had been a placeholder till I had made the new map. It wasn't meant to be permanent. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also in the map, I've omitted some princely states as I'm unsure whether they were dependencies of Bengal then or not. Perhaps you could help find sources and I'll add them? Thank you. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you leave out Penang? Plus it seems you covered a region around Port Klang which was never part of the jurisdiction of Fort William. The map is inaccurate in covering the Straits Settlements. WP:ACCURACY is at play here.
Unless you come up with a better and improved map, let's stick to what I have placed. British India does not always have to show princely states. India as a whole can be shown here. For descriptive purposes, it would be fine.
What India? British India and princely states were seperate entities until 1876 though both part of the British Empire, when they became a part of the Indian Empire of which I presented a map. Even the borders are incorrect. Balochistan was incorporated into the Indian Empire in the late nineteenth century. Besides that thanks for the correction, I'll correct Penang in a sec. PadFoot2008 (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For descriptive purposes, its fine to show all of the Indian subcontinent under British rule after 1849. In Bengal, British rule is considered to have begun in 1757. Princely states were under effective British control well before 1876. In fact, the subcontinent was effectively under company rule before the start of British crown rule in 1857. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. I'll modify as per that (not same color as British India but will mark it as part of the British Empire in India) Thank You. PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Calcutta was the capital of India. The Bengal Presidency was synonymous with India itself. The Viceroy of India was based in Calcutta and in Bengal. For a long time, the Viceroy of India was the same person as the Governor of Bengal (even though he delegated some functions for provincial matters to Lt Governors and Chief Commissioners). I have to verify the point about Northwestern Provinces; because Khyber became North West Frontier. The map shows the rest of India in light red, as well as overseas settlements like Aden and the Straits. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bengal Presidency wasn't synonymous to India. After 1833, Bengal was just a presidency of British India much like the other two. After 1854, the office of the Governor of Bengal was replaced with that Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, who was a separate person from the Governor General (not Viceroy; that came after 1858). The position of the Governor of Bengal didn't exist between 1854 and 1912, read the Government of India Act 1954 which dissolved it. You can't show entire India in light, that became a unified part of British Empire after 1876, You need to show British India in light only. PadFoot2008 (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bengal was synonymous with India. Sources from the 1800s confirm this. Your dates are unverifiable. The Lt Governor was a junior official in the Supreme Government. The Governor of Bengal was the same as the Viceroy of India for a long time. This is longstanding knowledge. Trying to brush this aside looks like an effort to ignore facts. The Supreme Government was based in the Bengal Presidency, and for a long time, was itself the government of the Bengal Presidency. The Bengal Army was the largest army among the three presidency armies. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the Government of India Act 1854. The position of the Governor of the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal or in short the Governor of Bengal who was the ex officio Governor-General of India was abolished in 1854. Bengal was governed by the Lieutenant Governor from that till 1912 until the reformation of the office this time separate from the Governor-General. The Governor-General of India was the ex officio Governor of Bengal only till 1854. It was replaced with that of the Lieutenant Governor who was a separate holder. Quoting section 05 of the said Act:
All powers now or at any time vested in or exercised by the Governor in Council or Governor of the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal, or in or by the Governor General of India in Council in respect of such presidency, and which for the time being shall not have been transferred to the Governor in Council, Governor, or Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, or of Agra, or the North-West Provinces, shall be vested in and may be exercised by the Governor General of India in Council; and the Governor General of India shall no longer be the Governor of the said Presidency of Fort William in Bengal.
The title of Viceroy of India was given to the Governor-General of Inda in 1858. I think you meant that the Governor of Bengal was concurrently the Governor-General of India for many years which is correct. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 We are going around in circles again. Ceded and Conquered Provinces were not separated from Bengal in 1836 as you claim. It was merely renamed as North Western Provinces. In the 1850s, Oudh State was added to the North Western Provinces. I might remind you that the Bengal Army recruited many of its soldiers from Oudh. In fact, Oudh was an important and integral part of the Bengal Presidency. I am removing your sentence about separation from the lede. The map is fully correct.
Please remember that British India had provinces within provinces. This was a practice called 'double hatting'. The same also applies to Bengal and the Supreme Government of India. For example, Agra was a province within the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. This separation happened in 1902. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I researched some sources and found the phrase "North-Western Provinces of the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal", so I think you are correct. The map is still incorrect regarding the princely states which need to be shown seperately as they were not part but rather dependencies but still shown in the map like my map did. Please let me correct that in my map. It shall be done by tomorrow. Your map has many inaccuracies regarding the borders of the British Empire in India, which appears to be of a much later date. I am right with your lead change. Thanks for that. PadFoot2008 (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For descriptive purposes, princely states don't always have to be covered (see map of the British Empire above). There were thousands of princely states and it is not possible for any map to accurately portray all the princely states. I think its fair to cover all of the Indian subcontinent here. The whole subcontinent was under effective British rule. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its regarding the extent of Bengal Presidency. At that time, Bengal Presidency hadn't included any states, and thus can't be colored the same. Borders of British India need to be shown as it wasn't a part of a unified entity in 1853. Your map of the British Empire is of a much later date after 1876, when the princely states and British India were placed within a unified Indian Empire. And the map of the British Empire you provided earlier is of after 1876, by which British India and princely states had become the "Indian Empire" as I showed the map. Dependencies can't shown as part of the Presidency. Also, as I said before your map includes Balochistan which incorporated into the Indian Empire much later after 1880s, and also the Afghan frontier looked much different as well due to later wars. The map seems to be of 1947 pre-partition India not 1853. I know that the subcontinent under British rule should be depicted which Ive agreed to separate from British India. PadFoot2008 (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Anglo-Sikh War marked the last expansion of British rule on the subcontinent. Punjab and Khyber were among the last regions to fall. By 1849, nearly all of the subcontinent was under some form of British rule. This allowed the British to subsequently concentrate on the Anglo-Burmese Wars to expand in Burma. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do know that. What I am saying is that the states have to be shown separately from British India, but yes they should be colored in the map as dependencies of British India. PadFoot2008 (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 Not always, as you can see in these maps. These maps of British India and the British Empire do not show princely states at all. Locator maps in an infobox do not need to show princely states.
Because those maps show the Indian Empire which consisted British India and the states after 1876. Look at this map from 1840: .You can see that princely states are shown separately from British India. The above maps are from after 1858/1876. I have conceded to all your demands about the extent of the Presidency. I've corrected my initial map . PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You two seem to both have expertise in this area and also pretty close to having a nice collaborative discussion on how to cover this. Why not go all the way on this and just have some fun working together on how to best handle/cover this? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want the same too. I've conceded to all of Solomon The Magnifico's demands about the extent of Bengal Presidency in 1852. I'm only requesting subtle changes not to Bengal Presidency' extent in British India, but rather the map itself (princely states and border). Hopefully, he agrees now. PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I want the same too. Your map definitely has a place in the article. I believe the current map in the infobox is already perfect. We can add yours in the 'Geography' section, as an addition to this one. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current map is not perfect. It shows the borders of the British Empire in India incorrect. It shows dependencies as a part of the Presidency. The consensus was to remove this map [11], and you simply changed its color and year, (and ownership), and popped in an incorrect extent of the British Empire in India and considered it done. There's no consensus for your map. And there's none for mine either. Which simply means, that the infobox is going to remain empty or devoid of any maps until a consensus is reached. There is no consensus for either of our maps. Please remember this. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like any major edit to this page has to go through Worldbruce. If he doesn't like it, he will block you. Does Worldbruce WP:OWN this article? Solomon The Magnifico was blocked just because Worldbruce didn't like him. Solomon's edits made much more sense. 115.127.143.83 (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be split and we should create a new page Bengal Province. Why? Because the Bengal Province was created from Bengal Presidency in 1935. It should have its own page. Also, Bengal Presidency is a long article. It can be split and cut to two articles. And if we try then I believe we will find sources related to Bengal Province that would make the proposed new article rich and informative. We can also find new information about the province. But excluding all of these possibility, Bengal Province is eligible to have its own article. Mehedi Abedin10:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a redirect, all the British-era Indian Presidency articles already have redirects with Province, instead of Presidency. Re-naming them will just make the articles difficult to search and comprehend. Moreover, the British Empire called these administrative regions of British Raj originally as "Presidencies" only and not "Provinces". Hence the British terminology must be preserved in the article name and not manipulated with modern day inferences. Rourib Dutta (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Separation_of_the_Judiciary http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Separation_of_the_Judiciary http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/bd541c73-58ef-4bb1-9de7-173f00913286. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
.jpg)
.svg)
Disagree: The counterparts of this article, Bombay Presidency or even Madras Presidency remain as it is. Why should Bengal Presidency be renamed as Bengal Province? Both have the same meaning. Just like how Bombay Presidency is called Province of Bombay or Bombay Province and Madras Presidency is called Madras Province, Bengal Presidency is similarly called as Bengal Province or Province of Bengal.
_with_modern_borders.png){kind=link}
![[1]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Pope1880BengalPres2.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fort_William_Presidency_Map.png){kind=link}