Bangladesh Stub‑class Mid‑importance

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 Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list: Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengalis and related pages Take a look at the requested articles. Make a MRT line 3 article. Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton.

Languages Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages 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.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Oppose: This page should be merged not with Goalpariya dialect but with Kamatapuri lects. Goalpariya dialect covers the eastern regional dialects of the Rangpuri language that are spoken within Assam. Chaipau (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opppose: I agree, all pages should be merged into the KRNB lects page. UserNumber (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chaipau, specifically where are these terms mentioned in the source? I have checked all the pdfs included in that link and found nothing. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: the divisions are given in tree shown in page 140 of Chatterji very clearly. The Kamarupa Dialects (Kamarupic here) is divided in Eastern and Western (Eastern and Western Kamarupic). Rangpur is placed under under Western. Toulmin 2006 reproduces this tree in his thesis and follows the same divisions. Chaipau (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamatapuri or Rajbongshi is the language and Rangpuria is only a dialect of Rajbongshi language. So the page name Rangpuri isn’t right.It should be Kamatapuri or Rajbongshi language. Manasakash (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Manasakash: could you please provide some sources? Chaipau (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The gov of West Bengal gave the language official status in the Name Rajbongshi/Kamatapuri. Rangpuri is just a dialectin Bangladesh.

http://rajbanshipride.blogspot.com/2015/04/proposal-for-constitutional-recognition_2.html?m=1

Go through the link. Manasakash (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This development is recorded in Wikipedia, but do you have some linguistic sources? Chaipau (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Manasakash: I have reverted your latest edits. You cannot unilaterally call this Rajbonshi. Please discuss the issues here first and come to a consensus. Chaipau (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are misleading people by naming this Rangpuri.The actual name is Rajbongshi or Kamatapur. Rangpuri has no gov recognition but Rajbongshi and Kamatapuri have.Just see those facts. Wikipedia is the source of Knowledge. So we should edit the wrong informations. Till now very few people researched about the dialects.Every where you research,you will get the name Rajbongshi or Kamatapuri.Just google it,Why only Wikipedia name is Rangpuri? And Why Goalparia is a different page?You should merge these two pages.Both are same.It was considered as dialect before but now It id considered as language by the Gov.See the official languages of West Bengal. Manasakash (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

‎Msasag don't be disruptive by repeatedly making unsourced changes, [1], [2]. The source from Ethnologue only shows Bengali script as the writing system. You have made similar disruptive edits on Bishnupriya Manipuri language and Hajong language. Please stop and discuss first. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: Sources continue to call the script "Bengali script" or "Assamese script", but in Wikipedia we have just one script "Bengali-Assamese script", and two different alphabets Bengali alphabet and Assamese alphabet. So Rangpuri language uses the Bengali alphabet of the Bengali-Assamese script. How difficult is that? Chaipau (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaipau, we only follow what the sources state per WP:OR. If the source says Rangpuri uses "Bengali script" we should include "Bengali script" as the writing system. You cannot use another Wikipedia article as a source for this article and certainly not Bengali-Assamese script which is plagued with numerous issues. Bring a source that says Assamese script/alphabet is used and I'll gladly change it to include both Bengali and Assamese as the writing system. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: I am not using the Bengali-Assamese script as a source (Wikipedia is not WP:RS), but using the convention of distinguishing between a script and a alphabet. The article Bengali-Assamese script has gone through a number of name changes and it has settled on the current name. Why not accept it and move forward, instead of resurrecting this issue again and again? "Rangpuri uses the Bengali alphabet of the Bengali-Assamese script" is all there is to it. Chaipau (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaipau "Script" and "alphabet" are usually used interchangeably and I don't see any community decision on such convention you are talking about. Bengali-Assamese script cannot be referenced in any way (even as a loose convention) as it has its own issues. We are discussing Rangpuri language here, so add a source that relates Rangpuri with Bengali-Assamese script or Assamese script/alphabet and only then your arguments can have some value, otherwise it's just unsourced POV pushing. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: Wikipedia does not use "script" and "alphabet" interchangeably. Also, can you specify the POV I am trying to push here? Chaipau (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaipau, your argument to use "Bengali-Assamese script" as the writing system without providing any source, instead of "Bengali script" which is stated by the sources is the POV I'm talking about. Tamil alphabet redirects to Tamil script, the two terms are used interchangeably both in Wikipedia and in WP:RS for Bengali. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Za-ari-masen, Obviously, Tamil alphabet will redirect to Tamil script because Tamil script contains letters for only a single Language (which may be used for some other languages/dialects). But Bengali-Assamese script contains letters for both Bengali and Assamese languages. So, there has to be a distinction. This script was renamed recently but the sources you are talking about are older than that. Mohsin274 (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion, can you show us a source that says Rangpuri uses "Bengali-Assamese script" or "Assamese script/alphabet"? Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: What user:Mohsin274 stated is not an opinion, but a fact. The Tamil script is named Tamil. But the name "Bengali script" is prevalent only in certain communities. Saloman uses "Bengali-Assamese" Bengali–Assamese_script#cite_note-1. No one is claiming that the Rangpuri language is using "Assamese script/alphabet", so please do not make a straw man argument. Chaipau (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: According to the source you are using (i.e. Ethnologue), the script used for Assamese language is "Bengali" and the reason they give is, "The Ethnologue follows the ISO Standard 15924 for identifying writing systems or scripts. There is no Assamese script listed in this standard." (As stated here) So, does it mean we should change that in Wikipedia too? Mohsin274 (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we should. Chaipau, now if someone says Rangpuri uses Arabic script and says it's "a fact", you would include Arabic too in the infobox? We are all wasting time here unless sources are provided to support the statements. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Za-ari-masen I guess you didn't get what I've said. ISO 15924 was introduced back in 2004. Unicode renamed Bengali Block to "Bengali-Assamese" in June, 2018. But, the name "Bengali" is still used instead of "Bengali-Assamese" in many sources. Just because these sources don't recognise Assamese script, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. If you want to please yourself by fulfilling your objectives and hurting the sentiments of other communities then please go ahead with your idea. And if you want to stay neutral then use "Bengali-Assamese" or more neutral term "Eastern Nagari" (as Msasag says here). Mohsin274 (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One should not bring sentiments when talking in Wikipedia talk pages. It is not a forum. As for this matter, one can ref the unicode source if it is newer and necessary. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: I agree there should be no sentiments here. The issue with Unicode has been discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Is_an_"alphabet"_and_a_"script"_same?. I hope you will have a look. To me, the issue is not so clean and we need to help create a consensus somehow. Chaipau (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Yes, I understand that we should not bring sentiments here but what I wanted to say is that instead of using a language-specific name for the script, we should use a unified name that is "Bengali-Assamese" which is also recognised by Unicode. Mohsin274 (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: I have added a source to my recent edit. Msasag (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fylindfotberserk, Unicode still calls it "Bengali script", there was just a proposal to rename the script to Bengali-Assamese and it remains a proposal. Msasag, I don't see any mention of Bengali-Assamese in the source, you need to verify it. And the source you added is an unpublished thesis, a source from Ethnologue is obviously more reliable. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: I have reverted your edits because you cannot call an alphabet a script. Chaipau (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaipau, In that case, I have kept "Bengali script" unlinked. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: Read the official Unicode consortium code chart for the Bengali block, 3rd page, it mentions, “The Bengali script is also known as Bangla. In Assam, the preferred name of the script is Asamiya or Assamese. The Assamese language has also been written historically using distinct regional scripts known as Kamrupi.” Msasag (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"In Assam" the preferred name is "Assamiya" or "Assamese" but commonly and officially the script is known as "Bengali script". Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: And you had been considering this article separately from the article Bengali-Assamese script, giving ethnologue source for this one. Now when I provided a source, you're asking to use the same name for both! Wow!. Also I'm telling this again that Unicode has another block for the same script, called Tirhuta. So no Unicode doesn't call this script Bengali only. Msasag (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: There's no mention that this script is officially known as Bengali script. Unicode has two blocks for the script and I think Unicode shouldn't determine the name. Unicode can make another block for traditional Assamese or Early Eastern Nagari based on technical matters. An unified name is needed and a controversial specific regional name cannot be its unified name just because it's most commonly used. If we do that then this topic will never end. People will keep objecting untill we select a neutral unified name. So we should keep the name Eastern Nagari or less neutral Bengali-Assamese in my opinion. Msasag (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Msasag, Unicode lists the script as "Bengali script", so it's official and by far most of the sources call it "Bengali script", so it's common too. Are you suggesting we should reject Unicode, Ethnologue and all the thousand of sources and name this script as "Bengali-Assamese" or "Eastern Nagari" because few editors in Wikipedia prefer these terms over "Bengali script"? That's not how Wikipedia works. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: Not "few editors in wikipedia", I didn't expect this so much ignorant statement from you in this discussion, seems like you're not interested in the discussion, you only want to push your views. I'm mentioning again that Unicode gives 2 blocks and 5 names (with two variations) for this script. The two blocks are Tirhuta and Bengali. Plus there are lots of sources that use "Bengali-Assamese", if you read the discussions I think you must know that. There are also lots of sources calling it Assamese script, Tirhuta script, Mithilakshar script and many sources also use the neutral unified term Eastern Nagari script. You wanted a source for the name Bengali-Assamese and I provided that. Now you're rejecting it. Msasag (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Msasag, you should read again what I said, by far most of the sources call it "Bengali script", including Unicode and Ethnologue. Tirhuta is considered a different script so that's why it has a different block. And, Msasag, I think you need to calm down and discuss dispassionately. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: Tirhuta isn't a different script, like 200 years ago they had almost no difference. Because of printing, many forms were dropped from Bengali that's why the difference. Look at fonts like figgins pica Bengali from early 19th century, a lot of Tirhuta forms are there. Many Tirhuta forms were also used in 20th century. We can't say that the age of "Bengali script" is just 100-200 years. Even if we consider their current standards as the only forms of the scripts, they are still the same script. Tirhuta was given a different block because of ligatures as in Indic scripts they usually don't have separate codes, they come from combinations of different letters. I'm trying to provide a neutral term so that conflicts doesn't happen here. You should try to understand that. It's not necessary to use the most common term especially when it's objected, then it must not be used. Msasag (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Msasag, It's your opinion, sources consider Tirhuta as a different script as it has completely different vowels from Bengali. You are now going off-topic. You have failed to verify your source which is an unpublished thesis. According to reliable sources like Ethnologue, Rangpuri uses Bengali script, don't change it unless you can show a verifiable reliable source. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: You failed to see the term in page 103 there. It's not my fault. Sources also consider that Tirhuta is a descendant of Bengali and vice versa. So let's not be logic less. There's no harm to be open minded and use a neutral term. Msasag (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Msasag, I don't see any mention of "Bengali-Assamese" anywhere in the source, let alone page 103. Rejecting a reliable source like Ethnologue and inserting an unpublished thesis that doesn't even verify the statement is a blatant POV pushing, please refrain from doing that. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: Give an email address, I'll send you a screenshot. Msasag (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Za-ari-masen It seems you are just averse to let "Assamese" somehow appear in association with Rangpuri. Historically, Rangpuri was called Rajbangshi (Grierson, Masica) and the current name for this is Kamatapuri. Masica writes: "Thus the Rajbangsi dialect of the Rangpur District (Bangladesh), and the adjacent Indian Districts of Jalpaiguri and Cooch Behar, has been classed with Bengali because its speakers identify with the Bengali culture and literary language, although it is linguistically closer to Assamese." Toulmin reports: "This language cluster was first treated as a whole in the LSI under the name Rajbanshi and classified as a dialect of Bengali." He further reports: "though Muslims in Rangpur and Hindus in Koch Behar speak highly similar Indo-Aryan lects, they are highly dissimilar in their understanding of their social identity and the sociolinguistic identity of their mother tongue. Muslims in Rangpur consistently identify themselves as Bangalis, and conceive of their mother tongue as included within the concept of ‘the Bangla language’. It is no doubt also relevant that these same speakers joined the rest of their nation in fighting the war of independence against Pakistan. Of central importance in that war was the status given to bangla bhasha ‘the Bangla language’ as an authorised language of administration, alongside Urdu. The KRNB-speaking Hindus, by and large, share no such feeling of commonality with the Bangali south. Most of these identify as “Rajbanshis”, which brings us to the second sociohistorical dynamic—autonomy (and its loss)."

So, the issue here is a larger socio-linguistic context at play here which we have to acknowledge. A narrow search for "Bengali-Assamese script" (which has been provided, BTW) will never address this.

Chaipau (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaipau, again, where does it say Rangpuri uses "Bengali-Assamese script"? If you want to explain these details you can include them in may be an article on Rangpuri culture. Msasag, tell me the chapter name and page number, or you can upload the screenshot here and post it on my talk page or on this page. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: Look at Toulmin thesis page 103 footnote. It calls it "Bangla-Asamiya script". Furthermore, I am confining myself to the linguistics aspect of it here (in the socio-linguistic context). Rangpuri is a variety of the "Rajbangsi" language. and Ranbanshi language redirects to this article. Ethnologue calls the Rajbanshi dialect a dialect of Nepal. Ethnologue obviously is mighty confused, and we should be careful using it as a source. Chaipau (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tz9OygFQzbFXxzWn8eoyPWpgFWOMeXsI/view?usp=drivesdk He uses two scripts (excluding Romanization) and calls this one "Bangla-Asamiya script" (or Bengali-Assamese script), the other one is Devanagari script used for the lects spoken Nepal and Bihar. BTW Rangpuri is one of the names for Kamtapuri language. Msasag (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: Yeah, actually ethnologue is not reliable. For example according to it, dialects of Assamese are: Jharwa (Pidgin), Mayang, Standard Assamese, Western Assamese (Kamrupi). That means it follows the study of Grierson (1898-1928). Modern studies show that Jharwa or Jharua isn't a pidgin but a dialect of Goalpariya. Mayang or Bishnupriya Manipuri isn't a dialect of Assamese but a separate language (plus there are more dialects of Assamese according to modern studies). And then it considers Bishnupriya Manipuri as a separate language as well. I think ethnologue isn't quite reliable, as it mixes up stuffs. Msasag (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the line In Late Middle Bengali texts (1500-1800 AD) there is always confusion between ণ (postalveolar nasal symbol) and ন (dental/alveolar nasal symbol);⁵⁰ Footnote no. 50 reads, There being no distinct symbol for post-alveolar lateral in the Bangla-Asamiya script....

• Firstly, the author mostly describe the script as "Bengali" and just have a passing mention of "Bangla-Asamiya" in a footnote.
• Secondly, there is no explicit mention that Rangpuri/Kamtapuri/Rajbangshi uses "Bengali-Assamese script"
• Thirdly, it's just an unpublished thesis and obviously has a lower value than a widely cited reliable source like Ethnologue. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: Middle Bengali is middle Bengali language, it is not modern Rangpuri. You probably know that Middle Bengali used the Assamese ৰ (the Krishna-Kirtan manuscript). So will you call Middle Bengali script Assamese script? Chaipau (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I'll call script used in both Middle Bengali and Assamese language as "Bengali script" per sources. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: "Late Middle Bengali" is a form of Middle Bengali which is a language. He was talking about texts or writings in Late Middle Bengali. Like we say English text, that means text or writing where the language is English. Text ≠ Script. Msasag (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: He called the script "Bangla-Asamiya script" and used it for those KRNB lects that use this script. And for those lects that use Devanagari, he used Devanagari for them. Look at page 371 for example. Msasag (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: Which sources? Ethnologue is not reliable. It calls Rangpuri a language of Bangladesh (rkt) (I doubt the people in Rangpuri consider it as anything other than a dialect of Bengali). It calls Rajbangsi a language of Nepal (rjs), a different language! It calls Kamtapuri another name for Rangpuri, whereas no one in Rangpur calls it Kamtapuri. Ethnologue is a big mess. In fact "Rangpuri language" as an article name has serious WP:NOTABILITY issue. Can you show me any source other than Ethnologue where Rangpuri (independent of its association with the Kamta group of lects) is asserted as an independent language? Chaipau (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tiring and I don't feel the urge of repeating the same thing continuously. The author just passingly mentions "Bangla-Asamiya", there is no explicit statement that Rangpuri uses Bangla-Asamiya script and it's just an unpublished thesis work. Ethnologue is considered a reliable source. Any rationale editor would favor the source from Ethnologue over this vague and unreliable source. Chaipau you can take it to AfD if you think this article lacks notability. I also don't find any significant coverage for Bengali-Assamese script in multiple reliable sources. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: Even after giving so many facts, points and sources, you keep asking for a source, then I don't think there is any point to discuss this things with you. All the sources given by us are "unreliable" to you but you are only talking about Ethnologue's report in the name of "thousand"/"most"/"many" sources. And you are also not considering the publication dates of those source. The sources you are using are too old and unreliable now. If that's the definition of "reliability" for you, then I don't have anything else to say. You say we are pushing POV. Think again who is actually doing that. And as Chaipau said, "It seems you are just averse to let "Assamese" somehow appear in association with Rangpuri." And you also want the article "Bengali-Assamese script" to be renamed to "Bengali script". I don't know what you are up to. I leave it to others to decide. Mohsin274 (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Za-ari-masen Yes, we tried to give you references but you rejected all of them. And you are the only one who have disagreed with the rest here. Chaipau (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaipau, where does it say that Rangpuri or Kamtapuri uses "Bengali-Assamese" script? And why should we give this undue wight to an unpublished thesis over a source from Ethnologue? If it's not a blatant POV-pushing I don't know what else is. Austronesier, Fylindfotberserk, UserNumber can you give your opinions here? Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: If it's not a blatant POV-pushing I don't know what else is. First of all, it is a just position that differs from yours, so relax. Learn to handle disagreement without fist-swinging. The thesis is cited in the Glottolog and is respectable enough to serve as base for the classification there. Ignoring this dteailed and important piece of scholarship is any page related to Bengali-Assamese languages gives undue weight to anything else . –Austronesier (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]