Talk:Bengali–Assamese script/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sylheti

@Glennznl: @শরদিন্দু ভট্টাচার্য্য: this article need not take a position on whether Sylheti is a language or not. This article just gives out the different uses of this script. The rightful place to discuss the language/dialect issue is Sylheti language. Chaipau (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I have no opinion on the debate, I am only reverting unsourced changes and agenda pushing. For some reason no mod is paying attention after repeated requests to do so and this users edits still stand. Glennznl (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: Let us give them some time. I see this [1] which they have removed. I agree with you - this is not the place for that debate. Chaipau (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Article title

The article's title is disputed. The most common term for this topic is "Bengali script". A search on google scholar shows 2,050 results for Bengali script, 17 results for Bengali-Assamese script and 34 results for Eastern Nagari script. Even the globally recognized databases like Unicode or Ethnologue also describe it as Bengali script. Based on all the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the article should be renamed to Bengali script. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Is_an_"alphabet"_and_a_"script"_same? Chaipau (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is a continuation of that discussion as the editors there also seem to have supported the fact. I've started this discussion here as it's the relevant place. You can invite the editors here. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: The number of results doesn't matter. We have to consider the context also. The search results are not context-based and only looks for keywords in the documents. And all those results can't be treated as references because those are highly dependent upon other primary, secondary and tertiary sources like Ethnologue. And ofcourse Bengali is a bigger Language, so you'll get more results. And everyone is not a linguist, so they'll use a term that sounds right to them or that matches their views. Talking about "number of search results," I never expected this kind of ignorant statement from a Wikipedia editor with 1000+ edits. Mohsin274 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Mohsin274 see WP:COMMONNAME. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Considering you have been pushing for this since February 2019 and have moved the page without a consensus numerous times, I suspect your motive to be nationalism and not any genuine concerns for the page. The current name is a neutral one to avoid upsetting any users. I liked Eastern Nagari more myself, but it is what it is. Glennznl (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: I preferred the name "Eastern Nagari" as well. But after the consensus was created, I am OK with it. I don't think we need to change the status quo. Chaipau (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It was not only me but several editors who supported the fact that the title of this page should be Bengali script. The terms Eastern Nagari or Bengali-Assamese are just WP:NEOLOGISM where Wikipedia is being used as a medium to popularize them. Even the page Bengali (Unicode block) has been tried to be moved to Bengali-Assamese by multiple editors in that effort [2], [3] while the block name in the infobox was tried to be changed into Bengali and Assamese. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Eastern Nagari and Bengali-Assamese are both terms found in Google Scholar, so your claim there is a distortion of facts. It is quite logical that "Bengali script" gets more results when there is the entire country of Bangladesh with 160 million people. In any case, Wikipedia is not an academic medium and any decisions are done in a community fashion. The decision is that naming this page "Bengali script" offends a lot of people while also not being a very accurate name. If you want a page uniquely titled Bengali, here you have: Bengali alphabet. Glennznl (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Glennznl I also prefer that name. That's more neutral than "Assamese-Bengali" and much more neutral than "Bengali". Mohsin274 (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Glennznl I believe preventing people from getting offended is not a criteria yet to suggest an article title. It was also discussed earlier on this talk page and the page of Wikiproject Linguistics. Serbo-Croatian excludes Bosnian and Montenegrin from the title which surely offends the Bosnians and Montenegrins but that didn't prevent it from having the current title. WP:COMMONNAME suggests the most circulated term to be used for an article title. Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Look at Wikipedia:Article_titles#Explicit_conventions, a page can very well not be named the most common name. Glennznl (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Glennznl yes, in rare cases we can avoid the common name where the suggested title serves clear benefits over the common name. I don't see any such benefits here. Preventing people from getting offended is surely not the benefit the policy is referring to. Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen:, as per Glennznl WP:MOSAT applies here. Chaipau (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

What benefit does it serve over the common name here? Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It was decided in 2006 that "Bengali script" was unacceptable, by professional linguists and general editors, of many ethnic groups. We have now started using a name that was coined as early as 1998, or even earlier (Saloman 1998). I haven't seen any development since then in the academic world or popular works that demands us to revert. In fact the movement seems to go towards "Bengali-Assamese script" in Unicode and other places. And most of the editors, except you, accept this name. The only arguments you have made are (1) "Ethnologue" and (2) WP:COMMONNAME both of which have been already been objected to. (1) Ethnologue is a tertiary source, and we prefer WP:SECONDARY; and (2) WP:MOSAT nullifies WP:COMMONNAME. Chaipau (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Just like "Bengali-Assamese" doesn't include Tirhuta but that didn't prevent it from having the current title. You example supports the idea of using "Bengali-Assamese script" as the title. Isn't it? Mohsin274 (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, here are thousands of secondary sources that describe the script as "Bengali script" as the search on google scholar shows. My argument is not only based on Ethnologue. Even Unicode describe the script as Bengali. You haven't explained why WP:MOSAT applies here over WP:COMMONNAME. And it's not only me several editors have earlier stated that the title of this article should be "Bengali script", [4], [5]. I'm also asking UserNumber to express his opinion. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: you haven't said anything new here. You are repeating. Chaipau (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You haven't countered my argument so what new is there to say? You should look at the diffs of comments from other editors, they are suggesting these terms like "Eastern Nagari" or "Bengali-Assamese" are simply propagated on wikipedia for different interests. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Different interests like what, accuracy and neutrality, keeping both sides content, a different interest than your Bengali nationalism? That's the only interest I see with you. Glennznl (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Unicode is a tertiary source. And Unicode does not specify scripts but code blocks. "Bengali-Assamese" is cited and sourced. So stop it. I shall report you at ANI next if you keep disrupting. The community prefers "Bengali-Assamese" now even though many of us feel that "Eastern Nagari" is the appropriate name here. Chaipau (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Why are you only selectively quoting my statements? I also said there are thousands of secondary sources that describe Bengali script, Unicode or Ethnologue are not the only sources. If you keep misrepresenting statements and disruptively force your opinions over the policy-based comments of other editors, next time I will have to report you at ANI. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This was already pointed out. WP:MOSAT. Just to remind you, WP:IDHT is a form of WP:DE. Chaipau (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I already said WP:MOSAT doesn't apply here as Bengali-Assamese serves no policy-based benefits over the common name "Bengali script". You should look at wp:IDHT yourself since you have clearly failed to understand my points and are causing disruption here. If you don't agree, just stop replying. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I agree with Glennznl that it applies here. I understand your point and showed you that WP:MOSAT overrides WP:COMMONNAME. Chaipau (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Awesome

The title and subjects are awesome. It indeed is a shared script, a fact often ignored by Bengali speakers. This article deserves a lot more work. Let me see if I can lend a hand in improving this. Cheers to everyone who helped here. Good work people. You have my gratitude. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Tirhuta block

Can't see the the Tirhuta block of unicodes, only blank boxes. Something wrong with the browser? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: probably an issue with fonts. The same thing happens in the Sylheti language page for me. Chaipau (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Initially the same issue here. I downloaded NotoSansTirhuta-Regular.ttf, installed the font, and rebooted my Windows 10 laptop. I can now see the Tirhuta characters OK using Firefox but Microsoft Edge and Chrome still shows squares. DRMcCreedy (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Drmccreedy: thanks for the tips. Chaipau (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed

@Aditya Kabir: Could you please specify what failed verification here? [6]. Surely, the script as used for Sanskrit is cited and is well known as well. Only the claim that it is used for Sylheti seem to be not cited. Chaipau (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

"I tagged the information about Sylheti..." - like I already said. The Sankrit part is covered. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Avik Gangopadhyay

@Aditya Kabir: I made some changes to your edits. In addition, Avik Gangopadhyay is not RS. He seems to have copied Wikipedia articles with minor modifications. We discovered that in Sylheti language. Chaipau (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I googled Mr. Gangopadhyay, and found nothing in the regard yet. Any evidence that the book is no good, and we remove the citation altogether. Anywys the first line doesn't require a ciation as I see. It's just a summary of following lines.

I tagged the information about Sylheti being written in BAS for citation again, as the current citation doesn't really cover that. If we can't get a cite for that, meybe we need to remove that information.

Also, the whole paragraph about Ramayana and Mahabharata and Madhava Kandali looks like OR. Is there any citation available for that one? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Avik Gangopadhyay's book was published in 2020. Just read Avik Gangopadhyay's entry for Eastern Nagari. And read the version of this article from 2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bengali%E2%80%93Assamese_script&oldid=856594789. Chaipau (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Just checked Avik Gangopadhyay's book, but didn't see any resemblance with the article version you provided. A bit mystified, I am. Can you tell which part he copied from the Wikipedia? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: Just compare Avik Ganopadhyay's section on Eastern Nagari script with the lead to the article before the name changed from Eastern Nagari to Bengali-Assamese. Please look at his credentials as well. https://sites.google.com/site/authoravikgangopadhyay/home/avik-gangopadhyay. He does not look like an expert in this subject at all. His publisher is https://evincepub.com/, a self publishing company—so the usual WP:USESPS policies will apply here as well. And we have done not so badly without that source. Chaipau (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this useful?

@Chaipau: Found this book in a google book search. Might be helpful in developing the history part (it has description on Dharmapala's script too). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: Please look at the publisher (https://arihantbooks.com/#nav-books)—it is clearly a tertiary source. Look at the table in page 99—it is identical to the table in Kamarupa inscriptions. The table here has been adapted from Lahiri's book according to Wikipedia conventions and it has been taken over directly to the book. This might be a good book to track down secondary sources if available, but I don't think we should use this reference directly. Chaipau (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. Okay. I keep looking though. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: yes, please do. But simple google search will probably not give you good sources—you may have to search in dedicated journals and books. Chaipau (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Google scholar actually crawls the dedicated journals and Google books archived a lot including the dedicated books. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Image

I found these two images in commons - File:Eastern Nagari Manuscript.jpg and File:18th Century Eastern Nagari Text.svg. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: the first one looks more Devanagari to me. But the second one is definitely Bengali-Assamese-Tirhuta. Thanks Glennznl for using the second image instead without the picture of Siva Singha. Chaipau (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am trying out a series of images to demonstrate the evolution. My choice of images may not be optimum. But there are more images at the commons, inlcuding the Siva Singha image, as well as File:Manuscript-sml.JPG and File:Kanai Baraxiboa rock inscription.png. This might turn interesting. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: the Manuscript-sml.JPG has to be cropped. We already have the Kanai... I have added a copper-plate inscription. Chaipau (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Please

Let me remind everyone that the Wikipedia stands on three core principles: WP:V, WP:N and WP:NPOV. Looking at the discussion here I am appalled that almost everyone is discussing ways to violate those principles (I hope it's because they are not aware of them). While this is fine on a talk page, please, keep in mind that such violations are not appreciated on articles.

• WP:BALANCE: When reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. ("I agree with those sources that call it a variety of Siddham.")
• WP:V: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. (infer: "It is clear that there is a step between Siddham and modern day Eastern Nagari scripts, which is often called Proto-Bengali or Gaudi (or even East Indian script), even for Assamese and Odiya."; invent: "Gaudi existed in 10th century in some form but got matured by 13th century.")
• WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. ("I don't think we need to mention this script just because some authors mentioned it. It is controversial and also not relevant.")
• WP:YESPOV:
  • Avoid stating opinions as facts. ("If Brahmi, Gupta, Eastern Nagari etc can have early, middle and late forms, so can Siddham.")
  • Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. ("I propose that we accept "Proto-North-Eastern" is a synonym of "Gaudi".")
  • Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. ("Siddham already occupies the whole period from late 6th century to 13th century as mentioned in its article.")
• WP:POVNAMING: If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. ("We clearly need a wider discussion at some point to address some of these "partisan" names because they are often the source of edit warring.")

You are not supposed to fill in the gaps left by scholars. No interpretation, no inference, no common sense, no corelation, no mixing different opinions/facts, no acceptance of opinions as facts even if they are made by the supreme authority of a discipline – none of those are allowed. Discuss what you want, but try not to act upon those when editing an article.

I already have explained the policy situation, but no one seemed to care. That would not be my problem as soon someone starts making OR and POV edits to articles. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This started with the Bengali-Assamese/Eastern Nagari "inventions" as Bengali script sounded "too biased" to some, now people are thinking they are entitled to change any title they don't like. If such non-policy based arguments persists, I would rather open an RM on this page and bring this to the attention of the wider community. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

No one has made an contentious edit yet, not since the 3RR violation by Msasag. Have patience. And stick to policies, both in content and in behaviour. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: As I see it, this is a possible path to consensus. We are trying to find common grounds. The default name is Gaudi. But we agree that there are verifiable genuine concerns with this name. One proposal is that we use the name "proto-northeast" as coined by Pattanayak not to rename Gaudi but only in Infoboxes. This will address the genuine concerns at Odia as well as here. Now we have to decide whether this violates any Wikipedia policy. If we cannot agree whether this violates policies, we will ask for independent opinions and advice for how to go forward. Chaipau (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You can read the policies yourself. "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." (WP:UNDUE) You might also want to read WP:BALANCE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Entertaining such a proposal is entertaining multiple policy violations. No one should try to build consensus on such thin air. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: how are you defining minority views here? Chaipau (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

A name proposed by only one source. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Each and every name has been proposed by just one source! Chaipau (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I have to agree with Aditya Kabir here, Gaudi and Proto-Bengali are equally used for the meaning of "Proto-Eastern Nagari", Kamarupi is used much less, Proto-Northeastern script is merely a single suggestion. We could fill in the infoboxes as in Old Italic scripts, with the variety behind the main script. I still have strong doubts about the legitimacy of a seperate Kamarupi script page, but until we find a source clearly saying that Gaudi and Kamarupi are the same script, we should stick to the status quo. Glennznl (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: I think I am saying the same thing as you are. Where do you think is the difference? I am not proposing a name change for Gaudi script. That discussion has to happen in Talk:Gaudi script. I am strictly limiting myself to what goes into the Infobox in this article (and possibly Odia script). So I am surprised by your comment. Where do you think we differ? Chaipau (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Sorry I thought we were still talking about the title and not just the infobox. I think using Kamarupi (if it is merged), Proto-Odia etc in the infoboxes would work, according to MOS:NOPIPE, as the context matters greatly here. Glennznl (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: Proto-Odia (after Pattanayak) works at Odia script (Infox) and Proto-northeast (again, after Pattanayak) works in the Infobox here. That is all I am proposing (in principle). Now are we in agreement? Chaipau (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: In principle I agree but I think we should not use neologisms found in a single source, so Proto-Northeast can't be used until we find it in another source atleast. Glennznl (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed in principle. So there seems to not be a resolution for the issue in this page. Chaipau (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I did comment about that here already. Only if you cared to read it. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Roy et. al.

@Aditya Kabir: do you have another reference than the one you have used here [7]? The name of the journal sounds like it is a predatory journal. Also, the article confuses a Bengali language tree for the Bengali script tree (Figure 4). I don't think this is a good quality reference. Chaipau (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Not too sure of the credibility of the journal. I found this and this about it. It is based in Korea, but not much discussion about it in other journals. You may remove the whole line and the citation if you find it dubious. Meanwhile I will look for a better citation if there is any available online. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Leaving the link here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#International_Journal_of_Knowledge_Content_Development_&_Technology.

Also, Aditya Kabir, are you aiming to anoint this article RS and then use this quote: Here, it is to be remembered that Assamese alphabets were in use even before the Bengali script but there was no separate slot for the Assamese script in the Unicode Standard. on page 56? Chaipau (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It is good to check, since both you and I know not much about the source. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)