Talk:Bengali–Assamese script/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Paya-Tamreshwari

@Aditya Kabir: why is the Paya-Tamreshwari brick inscription significant in this article (last paragraph in the "history" section)? Chaipau (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

You have read more than I did on the subject. Would you attempt to write a history part for it? Or just try to reduce it? Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Isntead of trying to chip away one brick at a time, you could try "adding" some stuff to it.

Not just the Paya-Tamreshwari inscription, there are other inscriptions that needs to be mentioned at various levels. I am sure you are aware if that. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not think it is a brick (pun intended) that can be used for building. This is a small brick, in real life, and it has a short text. I was wondering if you have a reference pointing to its relevance in the development of the script. If you do not have it, I think it is just a brick adding to the clutter at this building site that caused this worker to trip. Chaipau (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Printing

@Aditya Kabir: I am restoring the "printing" subsection of the history section. Halhed's printing (and Wilkin's types) are a historical form of the Bengali-Assamese script and therefore they are not WP:IRRELEVANT. In fact they are the precursor of the Bengali alphabet that was standardized by Vidyasagar. Interestingly, it also has the Assamese 'ro', and the type creation also had an impact on the use of the type in Assam for Assamese. It is duly and extensively referenced. Please do not revert without a discussion here. Chaipau (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted it. I also think this is irrelevant in this article as it mainly talks about Bengali, not Bengali-Assamese. Please reach a consensus before adding it again. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The type is a historical development. The Bengali-Assamese script is the script that is used for both Bengali as well as Assamese. Chaipau (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, don't edit war, you have been reverted by Aditya Kabir earlier and now by me. You need to reach a consensus first before adding it again. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau, Za-ari-masen, and Aditya Kabir: I think we are mixing up terms and definitions here. On Wikipedia we use the term "script" for an independent writing system, like Latin, Greek, Brahmi etc. The term "alphabet" is used for minor orthographic varieties of that script, like the English alphabet, the Vietnamese alphabet (which adds tons of diacritics), the Icelandic alphabet (which adds a few letters). If you go to these pages you will see that they describe the letters used for that variant of the script, including the pronunciations used for the letters (a Dutch G and an English G are quite different) and usually a short history of the spelling. So, we should not be acting like Assamese and Bengali are two child scripts of Bengali-Assamese/Eastern Nagari, they are simply orthographic variants of the larger script, in fact the article mentions that they were standardized together in the 19th century.

So, knowing that "Bengali script" is an alternative term for the Bengali-Assamese/Eastern Nagari script (even Unicode used to call it Bengali script for Assamese), the material that describes the history of the "Bengali script" should belong on this page and not the page for the orthographic variety used for Bengali, the Bengali alphabet. Only material directly relating to the ortographic varieties (think of spelling reforms etc.) of Bengali and Assamese should go there, the rest of the history should be here. Glennznl (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I could not have said it better than Glennznl. Glennznl is not stating a point of view but a Wikipedia convention. As seen from the history, the language specific article moved from "Bengali script" to "Bengali alphabet" here: [1] on the basis of WP:NCWS. The script in this case is defined as A general segmental writing system independent of any particular language, as opposed to the alphabets based on it (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(writing_systems)#Scripts) whereas the alphabets are defined as 'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters. (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(writing_systems)#Alphabets). I am listing the conventions here because this is not a content dispute up for consensus making but an issue that involves Wikipedia conventions. Chaipau (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep.

But the bigger problem is inadequate academic research and/or publications on the script. Currently I am studying the stuff, and hoping to find things that we can use. And believe you me, this whole Bengali-Assamese-Tirhuta-Maithili script thing is a complete mess from an academic perspective. No two author can agree on anything, and all of them rely on personal speculations mixed with acute subjective judgements. I am familiar with disputes about history, and most are about verifiable facts (example: we found a dagger dated to 10th century from Norway with Arabic inscriptions) and correlation between those facts (example: it means there was a releation between the Viking world and the Islamic world). And often a rather large number of scholars agree to both the fact and the correlations.

This paradigm of wild guesses and undecided conjectures is something of a surprise to me (don't get me wrong, I am not talking about linguistics, just the part where the history of relevant scripts are discussed). I really hope to see more linguistically knowledgeable colleagues to find something useful enough to be used in an encyclopedia. Obviously I was dissapointed, more so because of strong a strong denial that this actually is a mess created by the sloppy work done by academics. It is not an encyclopedists job to do the academics' work for them.

By the way I request all of you here not to ping me (or another editor) every time you post something. I have this page on my watchlist and pings are not address lines. A ping is just a tool to draw attention. My attention is already drawn, though I may not always reply.

I would also request eveyone not to treat other editors as hicks, because they may not be so, and in that case you are being highly incivil. These perfectly useless posts about the difference between scripts and alphabets may get someone a boost in self-esteem, but it also doesn't do anything for the article.

Well, off to get a Y cup of tea. Anyone interested to join? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think posts clarifying confused terminology are more useful and contribute more to the article than random ramblings leading to tea. Glennznl (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Keywords: "confused" and "ramblings". I love your incivilities. I also love your way of helping the article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Glennzl, you are absolutely right in your description about script and alphabet. The problem here is that "Bengali script" is also used as a synonym for "Bengali alphabet" which is why Bengali script is a disambiguation page and not a redirect to this article. If we include everything we find on "Bengali script" in this article, it's possible that this article would turn into a WP:CONTENTFORK of Bengali alphabet (it already is to some extent). Again, the root cause of all these problems is the incorrect title we have for this article. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: I am very glad that the issue is now resolved.

@Za-ari-masen: "Bengali script" is in general a synonym of "Bengali-Assamese script", not "Bengali alphabet". The relationship is "Bengali-Assamese script"→"Bengali alphabet". If you are talking about the script in the context of the Bengali language, then "Bengali script" could be synonymous with "Bengali alphabet". But in the context of any other language, be it Assamese, Sylheti, Manipuri, Bishnupriya-Manipuri "Bengali script" is synonymous with "Bengali-Assamese script" not with "Bengali alphabet". Chaipau (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The "Printing" section we are discussing here actually talks in the context of Bengali language. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Za-ari, my friend, you are absolutely right in someway, with a few simple corrections. One is that Bengali-Assamese is a script, aka the way a set of alphabet is written, and that is a wider thing than alphabets, the set of letters that is written using the script, and are national or sub-national entities, like Tirhuta, Bengali, Meitei, Assamese and so on. At least three quite prominent alphabet systems (Bengali, Assamese and Tiruhat) use Bengali-Assamese script. The alphabets are not the same (some has more and some has less), but the script is the same. So, yes, it is fine to describe printing in Bengali alphabet and language here, because the typefaces were made using the script.

My problem is that the same impact of printing was also felt in the other big alphabet/language that uses the script. We need the Assamese story, otherwise this is very skewed. I think I am going use additive technics here, instead of achieving neautrality by removal I would rather add information on the Assamese side of the story. That's in the process. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bengali alphabet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Assamese alphabet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

March 2024

@ArunHz: It is not about the alphabetical order; it is about the term, and the term "Bengali-Assamese script" is the WP:COMMONNAME, besides, you maintain the article title as it is throughout Wikipedia. Do not edit war. You will be reported for edit warring and POV pushing. If necessary seek WP:CONSENSUS in the talk page, if it is valid then the article name will be changed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There has been much discussion around this, and it was determine that this was the name of the article. So I think it is settled. Chaipau (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

January 2025

Per WP:BRD: It is regarding these changes - [2] [3] (including an older diff which seems to be POV) to longstanding version by User:Tejoshkriyo. While the source (page 25) does say - ".....the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere", it also also explicitly (page 24) says "Bengalis will refer to the script of their language exclusively as the 'Bengali script'". Since the current version of that particular sentence has been longstanding, changes to it requires a new WP:CONSENSUS, hence pinging users involved in older consensus and people knowledgeable in this field @Chaipau, Glennznl, UserNumber, Austronesier, and Tejoshkriyo:. Also note previous discussions regarding it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The inter consciousness for a terminology does not hold significance when presented to a wider audience readers as it is not exclusively limited to the Bengalis to refer the Eastern Nagari -script as "Bengali", when as the article states: "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere". The notion that ONLY Bengalis refer the Eastern Nagari -script as "Bengali script" does not hold true. Tejoshkriyo (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tejoshkriyo, your claim is WP:OR. @Fylindfotberserk has quoted from a WP:RS. Chaipau (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

We can incorporate both the statements as quoted above by Fylindfotberserk to maintain NPOV. CharlesWain (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

May I ask, for what reason my statement is WP:OR?

If possible, can we publish the article statement as: "It is commonly referred to as the 'Bengali script' by the Bengalis & the global public sphere and the 'Assamese script' by the Assamese ", since that is quite literally what the study cited within the reference has stated. Maybe we can modify the structure of the sentence along the way, since what I have provided there is an incomplete word structuring. Tejoshkriyo (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Tejoshkriyo's edits were POV changes (including the removal of source instances) in a contentious topic in defiance of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD and WP:EW, not to mention an older diff [4] where the whole paragraph was removed apparently because "Dr. Brandt's paper came more from an emotional perspective"?! It wasn't about rewording and accommodating the "the global public sphere" part into the existing longstanding version. Anyway, this one would also require consensus here. I'd request @Austronesier and Glennznl:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

In my defense, that was over a year ago and I understood my mistake once I looked more into the academic research more thoroughly. I did not contest the changes afterwards as you can see thorough the edit history of the article.

However, for this time, I would like to change the sentence and word structure because it truly is a very narrow way of explaining on how the script is perceived worldwide from outsider perspective. Tejoshkriyo (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright. So, this is what you propose → "It is commonly referred to as the 'Bengali script' by the Bengalis & the global public sphere and the 'Assamese script' by the Assamese"? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed my proposal. Tejoshkriyo (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on the available source, it seems OK to me. Let's see what others have to say about it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I am glad that we came to an agreement. Tejoshkriyo (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The original wordings were fine, and acceptable according to the general WP:CONSENSUS. We only need to change it if we have other WP:RS throwing light on the subject. There are two other articles dedicated to the language specific use of this script - Bengali alphabet and Assamese alphabet. Chaipau (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tejoshkriyo and Fylindfotberserk: Having read all this, User:Tejoshkriyo original edits seemed like POV-editing, edit warring and vandalism by deleting sourced text. Nevertheless, the proposed solution seems fine to me, as it is already based on the original source. It would be good if User:Tejoshkriyo read WP:Etiquette to avoid a situation like this in the future. --Glennznl (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Understood. The erasure of the source was myt mistake, but I later readded it on my later edits, since the reference contained the source for the text I had provided. Tejoshkriyo (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• The list of "THE SCRIPTS USED FOR THE MAJOR MODERN IA LANGUAGES" given in page 82-94 of Routledge's language family series book on the Indo-Aryan languages is confirming Carmen Brandt's statement. Accordingly we should accommodate the proposed edit. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Here are some quotations - 1.In one sense, Magahi is written in four scripts, Devanagari, Kaithi, and also Bangla and Oriya.P 549; 2. Bangla script is used by Bengali, Axomia languages in India and Bangladesh.p244; 3. Another important member of Northern Indian derived from Nagari (not from Devanagari) is Proto-Bengali. Proto-Bengali generated the Bengali script (illus. 79) that has been used over more than five hundred years to convey a number of significant languages: Bengali, Assamese (which added four letters) (illus. 80), Manipuri (illus. 81), Maithili (illus. 82), some Tibeto-Burmese languages and the Santhali group of languages (West Bengal, Bihar and Orissa). Orissa's Oriya language elaborated its own script based on the Bengali script (illus. 83). The Gujarati (illus. 84) and Kaithi scripts (illus. 85), conveying Gujarati and Bihari, are closely related to the Bengali script; however, Devanagari is now used to write Bihari instead.p112.

  I hope it's clear that the phrase "Bengali script" isn't only used by Bengalis themselves, but it's a widely used name to refer this very script used by many Eastern Indian languages. Infact we can write the same article with only using the term "Bengali script" for the script. Eastern Nagari, Bengali-Assamese, Assamese script are just other names of this script. CharlesWain (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Agree with User:Chaipau, there is no need to change the original version. Carmen Brandt's statement the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere has to be seen its context, when Brandt speaks about the dominant role of the Bengali language in the eastern part of South Asia. The name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere, because public awareness is primarily about Bengali. So the statement the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere cannot be read in relation to the usage of the Eastern Nagari script by other ethnolinguistic groups, but only reinforces that Bengalis will refer to the script of their language exclusively as the 'Bengali script'—and not "Bengali–Assamese script".

In relation to Assamese, the name 'Bengali script' hardly "dominates the global public sphere". As a rule, introductory works will write something like "the Assamese script is largely identical to the Bengali script" or "Assamese uses a script that is largely identical to the Bengali script" (with Bengali as a globally familiar reference point), but rarely you will find "Assamese is written with the Bengali script".

The chapter in the Routledge handbook also supports the original text. It talks about the "Bangla script" in relation to Bengali, but uses "Bangla-Asamiya" for the script in general. And to no surprise, the chapter "Asamiya" in the same volume talks about the "Asamiya script". –Austronesier (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Austronesier, Bangala (Bengali) script, Bengali-Assamese script, Assamese script are different names of the same script. Routledge book only used the first name, that is, "Bangla script".

Using one statement of Brandt and censoring another from the same source is not neutral point of view. CharlesWain (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Routledge book says exactly what @Austronesier claimed. It says: "which prevailed until the 14th century, by which time it had begun to be differentiated into the modern eastern scripts, Bangla-Asamiya, Maithilī and Oriya (p109, 2003 edition)

Censorship is too strong a word. Unfortunately his article has progressively fallen to the whims of language groups - both Bengali and Assamese. This article started as "Eastern Nagari script" on 1 March 2007 and started by @SameerKhan who is a professional linguist originally from Bangladesh. The article name was changed to "Bengali-Assamese" in 2019. So the current name has been true only for the last 5 years of the 17 years of its existence. On this point though, I stand by the 2019 consensus.

Historically this script was a regional script used for Assamese, Bengali, Sanskrit, and even non-Indo-Aryan languages like Khasi and Boro which adopted other scripts in more recent times. There were hardly any Bengali manuscripts available when the British began to standardize the script (see: Khan62) But this script was used extensively in the Ahom kingdom where the court language was Assamese. Buranjis, court documents, and inscriptions, including religious manuscripts. The dearth of Bengali material was so acute that much later when R D Banerjee wrote his "The Origin of the Bengali Script" (1919), he had to source some letters to outside Bengal (Kamakhya Temple, in Assam). In his book, he lists the Kamakhya inscription of the Ahom king Sunenphaa (r. 1744–1751) at Kamakhya to trace the origins of the modern Bangali letters (Number X in his "List of Illustrations", 1919 edition).

Brendt and others who use "Eastern Nagari" are right. And we see the use in academic papers as well (e.g. [5]). The use of this by academics is appropriate because this script did not originate with either Bangali or Assamese languages, and this script is not used by only these two languages. Pretty much all this is covered in the article itself.

There is not need to add the additional POV statements, regurgitating references already available and creating new interpretations. We have already seen enough evidence on this issue and they have been correctly cited in the body of the article. There is no need to change the text with new interpretations. We should revisit the text only if new WP:RS emerges that specifically address these issues.

Chaipau (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Chaipau, This dispute isn't about history of the script. We have used many statements from Brandt, but why are we ignoring ".....the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere" part? Is Carmen Brandt wrong in saying so? Carmen Brandt herself discussed just few pages later that certain groups among Meitei and Chakma are labelling this script as Bengali (As far as I read, this labelling started in early 19th century by Christian missionaries, British administrators, and philologists) and returning to their old or original scripts. Incorporating one statement and omitting another from the same source is POV, not the other way.

I don't know why the original title of the article "Eastern Nagari script" was changed to this name. Both are just alternative names, but I believe former was more appropriate as many other languages used, or still uses this script. CharlesWain (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@CharlesWain, you cannot cherry pick quotes. Here is the full quote from Brandt:

"Whereas some of these languages had their own script or only an oral literary tradition until literacy was spread among its speakers, Assamese has, like Bengali, a long literary tradition in this script which Assamese speakers naturally refer to as the 'Assamese script'. In fact, the term 'Eastern Nagari' seems to be the only designation which does not favour one or the other language. However, it is only applied in academic discourses, whereas the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere. Still, when the International Organization for Standardization officially declared this writing system the 'Bengali script', the uproar among Assamese intellectuals came as no 2 surprise. Certainly, the common name of this script is not owed to any rightful entitlement based on historic developments. It is rather solely the result of the predominantly Bengali perception of this script caused by the high demographics of Bengalis and, above all, writings of Bengali linguists already during colonial times. While many Bengalis also tend to perceive other languages written in the same script (the Eastern Nagari) as inferior, since those languages are allegedly written only with 'borrowed' letters, in other parts of South Asia some languages are actually written in several scripts. Though one script for several languages is an issue different from several scripts for one language, the socio-political reasons and identity formation processes behind the choice for one particular writing system have led to similar hierarchical perceptions of the languages concerned. In some cases, the perceived hierarchy of a language actually depends on the uniqueness of a script." (emphasis and highlights are mine)

Brandt therefore points to a very controversial issue - which I have highlighted here. It is the demographic dominance of the Bengali that gives rise to this dominance of the use of "Bengali script" in the global public sphere. If you want to speak about this, then you will naturally bring in the rest of Brandt's comment and context. In fact Brandt has hardly scratched the surface of this phenomenon, whereas other writers have. That subject is wide and belongs elsewhere, not in this article. That is why we should avoid it in this article. If you want to address it here, the best we could do is write another section on the name of this script where we spill out all the details and not mention it in the lead - but the whole exercise will be a distracting and not worth it and the development of the rest of the article will suffer. I have seen this happen many times in Wikipedia.

Chaipau (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Chaipau, I just copy pasted that part from Fylindfotberserk's first comment. "It is commonly referred to as the Bengali script by Bengalis[11] and the Assamese script by the Assamese,[12]" - The line in the lede is put out of context. This is not accurate. We may write these lines with context in the article body by attributing the same to the author. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This is what I contested in the first place. The reference does not match with the article that was written. The term "Bengali script" is not solely referred by the Bengalis, but also outside of the Bengali ethnicity, which I am sure is affirmed by the contents of the reference: "...dominates the global public sphere". Tejoshkriyo (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@CharlesWain - let me repeat in a single sentence what I said just above. You have WP:CHERRYPICK-ed the statement from Brandt ignoring the context and the controversial/critical material that we will have to include does not belong in this article.

The text you will need to fully address the claim as well as the context is this NPOV version.

"In the global public sphere this script is called Bengali script, which is not supported either by history or entitlement, but which became prevalent because of the demographic dominance of the Bengali people and early writings by Bengali linguists that began in colonial times. As opposed to the popular sphere, the academic sphere prefers to use a name that is not associated with any language - such as Eastern Nagari script."

If you are OK, we could have this attributed to Brandt's text that I quoted above and come to a consensus. But I prefer not to stir this pot needlessly.

FYI, @Austronesier, @Fylindfotberserk, @Glennznl.

Chaipau (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC) (edited to justify text) 13:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

"...the academic sphere prefers to use a name that is not associated with any language - such as Eastern Nagari script."- I have given quotations from three different academic sources which clearly contradict this. Infact there are enough scholarly resources to write a article like Tamil script, or Odia script, for "Bangla script".

"It is commonly referred to as the Bengali script by Bengalis[11] and the Assamese script by the Assamese,[12]"- this part is out of context and inaccurate. We should remove it from the lead. We can add these names as alternative names of the script. CharlesWain (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

So, you do not agree to the text given above? Why? Please address this (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) Chaipau (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as your proposal goes:

• I am proposing to remove the quoted text in your first paragraph and replace it with the text that I have suggested. It covers the context better.
• Oppose the removal of quoted text in your second paragraph, since they are rightly attributed and evidence has been given from both Salomon and Brandt.
• We are not discussing the change of the article name. Given your proposal is historically incorrect and no supported by Salomon (an expert in this area), this will naturally be opposed.

Chaipau (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Chaipau, Glennznl, Austronesier, and CharlesWain: What if we frame something like "It is commonly known as Bengali script and Assamese script, while in academic discourse it is sometimes called the Eastern-Nāgarī.", taking out the ethnolinguistic part from the equation? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk, this is acceptable. Chaipau (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Chaipau, Salomon is an expert in this area. Richard Salomon is the author of the third chapter of this Routledge Language Family Series handbook - "Writing Systems of the Indo-Aryan languages". Salomon listed and discussed about 6 major scripts of Indo-Aryan languages- Nagari(Devanagari) script, Gujrati script, Bangla (Bengali) script, Oriya script, Gurumukhi script, Sinhala script.(Page 82-94) I have mentioned this long before, and this proves my point that "Bangla script" is a widely used term by scholarly authors. You have mentioned Saloman twice in your argument, but you are either deliberately misrepresenting Salomon or unintentionally arguing against his opinion.

Fylindfotberserk, I am willing to accept this compromised solution. In my last comment I proposed to remove the line with ethno-linguistic part, and add these names as alternative to article title in lede. Your proposal is kind of near it. Let's see what others say. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree to this. Tejoshkriyo (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Fyl, looks good, it keeps the ethnopuffery out. And it relieves us from engaging with the persistent misrepresentation of sources. –Austronesier (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Assamese script which is currently in use differs widely from its carlier specimen. The missionaries, who published several books in the nineteenth century from Bengal, used the same script for both Bengali and Assamese hooks. The present Assamese script has several letters such as 'ra' and 'wa' which are absent in Bengali script.- got these lines from 1999 Assam State gazetteer. Bengali script and Assamese script are essentially same. Check the quotations I have given here, the name is widely used by scholars also, not just by respective linguistic group. CharlesWain (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I have checked what you have provided there, and it certainly is very impressive! Bengalis and Assamese practically use the exact same script with few fluctuations within the phonetics as well as the additional differing letters; (ৰ),(ৱ) & (র). Tejoshkriyo (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The modern Bengali alphabet is not the pre-19th century manuscript Bengali either, just as the modern Assamese alphabet isn't. And you would have noticed it had you read the article fully (leave alone the wide range of references on which this article is based on). Look at Halhed's version from 1830 (given here) - many of these letters still retain their manuscript forms. And surprise! - Halhed's 1830 chart has the Assamese "ৰ" whereas the Bengali "র" is missing!.

So instead of figuring out the nuanced and complicated history of this script, why are we so fixated on the name of in the global public sphere?

Chaipau (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@CharlesWain: Do you actually have access to a full copy of Cardona & Jain's The Indo-Aryan Languages? Your last two comments make me wonder if you might not overly rely on Google Books search results... –Austronesier (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Austronesier, The three quotations I have given above from reliable sources are contradicting your first comment. We should stick to RS and avoid original remarks or synthesis of editors. As I already, mentioned Bangla script, Bengali-Assamese script, Assamese script, Eastern Nagari are different names of same script. Routledge handbook used the term "Bangla script" almost every time (with one or two exception(s)); Between page numbers (82-94) I mentioned in my one previous comment, he only used the term Bangla script while listing and discussing about major 6 scripts of NIA languages. Further He hasn't used the word "script" in subsection title while discussing about Assamese. So it's just confirming what Carmen Brandt wrote. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Again: do you actually have access to a full copy of Cardona & Jain's The Indo-Aryan Languages beyond the pages 82 to 94? We need to know if the statement Routledge book only used the first name, that is, "Bangla script" was deliberate gaslighting or just an overconfident claim in spite of on limited access to the source (The "Routledge book" has 1300+ pages). –Austronesier (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I have given quotations with page numbers from three different reliable sources, which squash your original research, and also make evident that I have access to other pages. Please remember that the discussion about why we are using many statements from Carmen Brandt, and omitting one, though it's WP:DUE. CharlesWain (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

"In fact, the term "Eastern Nagari' seems to be the only designation which does not favour one or the other language. However, it is only applied in academic discourses, whereas the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere." - We have incorporated the first statement only, though latter is also widely used as an aletrnative name of the same script by scholars. CharlesWain (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Austronesier, we will have to wait for the flurry of google searches to end, I guess. I am not sure what google will serve up next. We now have Assam Gazetteer to add to the mix. Chaipau (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chaipau, yeah sure, can't wait :) When people can't flip through the pages top-quality sources from cover to cover to assess their actual content in full, FUTON bias is the only option left for them, which leads to gems like a proceedings volume from an IT conference. It's pathetic. But then, even the Assam Gazetteer perfectly confirms that 'Assamese script' and 'Bengali script' (or 'Assamese alphabet' and 'Bengali alphabet', in Wikipedia terminology) are two different things: very similar, originating from the same source, yet not identical. –Austronesier (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Austronesier, You're wrong again. Romance Languages like French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Germanic languages like German, English, Dutch all have slightly different alphabets, but same script, i.e., Latin script. Don't confuse this simple thing! CharlesWain (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

You fail to understand the basics. The entire discussion is not about things, but about terminology. Indeed, no one in Europe would talk about a "French script" just because minor differences in its sign inventory. But in South Asia, this is exactly what happens. Scholars and laypeople alike speak of "Bengali script", "Assamese script" in relation to the respective language that's written, in spite of their almost identical inventories. That's a plain fact supported even by two of the sources that you repeatedly (mis-)cite. –Austronesier (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Austronesier, for some, "Bengali script" and "Assamese scripts" are political projects. Though I mention just two languages here it is a South Asian phenomenon - as you have rightly pointed out.

I just went over to Bengali alphabet and noticed that they are now treating that article as "Bengali script". It now claims that "Bengali alphabet" is also used to write Manipuri - in clear contravention to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(writing_systems). The claim is also inaccurate. Manipuri uses letters which are not used in Bengali (e.g. ৱ).

Chaipau (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

"Asamiya is written in essentially the same script as Bangla, with a few minor variations, mainly an alternative form of ra and a distinction between the stop consonant ba and the semivowel va." - The last sentence from Richard Salomon's third chapter, subsection -2.3 Bangla (Bengali) script, page 91 of Routledge handbook. I personally believe "Eastern Nagari" is better term to use, but even scholar like Richard Salomon didn't use it. Opinions among scholars vary. I checked a dozen of sources, Bengali-Assamese script and Bangla script is more widely used term. Some scholars didn't make distinction between alphabet and script, some did. I can't find separate alphabet article for other Indian languages like Tamil, Oriya or Gujarati, but in this case we have; so more details about specific script from RS can be added there.CharlesWain (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)