Talk:Bhawaiya

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bhawaiya also belongs to India and even Nepal.[edit]

@Kmzayeem:, @Nasif05: Bhawaiya music belongs to the Kamtapur region which includes parts of India, Bangladesh and Nepal. It doesn't belong to Bangladesh only. Hence the "music of Bangladesh" tag should be removed. Msasag (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to remove the template. Bhawaiya is a music native to Bangladesh and this template is aptly added here. Also, I see in this edit here, you removed a source and added some unsourced content. That's WP:OR. Zayeem (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kmzayeem: West Bengal and Assam aren't in Bangladesh, they are in India. Msasag (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say they are in Bangladesh? --Zayeem (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chaipau: can you please provide a quotation from the source, Bhāwāiyā: Ethnomusicological Study, you added? I tried searching it on Google Books and there is no claim about Bhawaia having origins in Goalpara, although it might be quite popular in that region. Even the abstract of the book calls it "The Folk Genre Of The Rajbanshis Of North Bengal". --Zayeem (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kmzayeem: I just added a quote. Chaipau (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I made changes to the lead to reflect the what the sources actually state. --Zayeem (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source actually says songs originate in Coochbehar and that Goalpara and Rangpur too have those forms. Please do not try to force your point of view here. Chaipau (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaipau: Now you're being disruptive. The source you added states "Bhawaiya-based dance are the main form of song and dance in Goalpara and Rangpur districts", it didn't originate in Goalpara. While the source from Banglapedia states Bhawaiya originated in Rangpur and Cooch Bihar. That's what's reflected in my edit here. Also, MOS:LEADLANG suggests to include foreign language equivalent name in the lead sentence. WP:MOSIS is not applicable here as the subject not just related to India. Now I'm restoring the changes. Discuss it here and reach a consensus before reverting again. --Zayeem (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow WP:MOSIS. The policy is very clear: "Avoid the use of Indic scripts in the lead sections or infoboxes." Chaipau (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaipau: You are again being disruptive. WP:MOSIS clearly states, "This avoidance of Indic scripts only applies to articles that are predominantly India-related and is excluded from, among others, articles about Hinduism, Buddhism, Pakistan or any of India's neighbouring countries.". Self-revert now, or this might require an admin intervention. --Zayeem (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are unaware that Bhawaiya is a form of music in India as well, and it is traditionally associated with the Koch kingdom, and Rangpur was a part of this kingdom. It is native to North Bengal and Western Assam, especially Undivided Goalpara district. You seem to be trying to make it into an exclusively Bangladeshi music. It is not. Chaipau (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaipau: The issue here is you are failing to properly comprehend both the WP:MOSIS and my points. I never said Bhawaia is exclusively related to Bangladesh, in fact, at ANI, I clearly referred to the topic as a 'trans-boundary' one. WP:MOSIS states, the policy of avoidance of indic script only applies to predominantly India-related articles and not to those related to its neighboring countries. As this is a trans-boundary topic, it doesn't fall into the category of "predominantly India-related articles" and hence, WP:MOSIS is inapplicable here. I hope I made it clear. --Zayeem (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts are here. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize Sitush's comments, WP:MOSIS is guidance, not policy, and should be interpreted wisely, in the context of its rationale. "So, unless there is a compelling reason to include a native script, there really isn't much point and there is the potential for unwanted and hard-to-discern vandalism." This definitely does apply here. I don't see any (inappropriate) nationalist claims that Bhawaiya originates or happens exclusively or even predominantly within the physical boundaries of the modern Indian state. Nor are such claims required to support the suggestion that Indic scripts are just not useful in this encyclopedia article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Keatinge: thank you. I agree to your formulation. Chaipau (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Vision Publishing[edit]

I removed a source published by Global Vision. We never use them because nowadays they copy stuff from us and, certainly in the past, they copied stuff from other publishers. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: I have added an alternative citation to support the claim. Chaipau (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Language of Bhawaiya[edit]

@Kmzayeem: there are a few issues for which your edits are not usable

  • The source specifically says Kamtapuri and not Rangpuri. Therefore, we should keep the name Kamtapuri in this article.
  • We don't want to get into the discussion or a position on whether Kamtapuri is a dialect of Bengali or not in this article. No qualification is required.

Chaipau (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaipau, the source actually calls it Rajbanshi and puts Kamtapuri as an alternative inside a parenthesis. If there is a confusion over the language name, we should go for the official title in Wikipedia. The source mentions it as a dialect of Bengali language and it's also considered a dialect in Bangladesh. The status of dialect is important as you were claiming Bhawaiya spans linguistic boundaries which now proves to be a weak claim. If you are concerned about the whole language issue then we should just remove the line to drop any chances of dispute. --Zayeem (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kmzayeem:
  • Here is a link on the political and linguistic issues regarding the Kamtapuri language [1] (2014). Operative part: The protagonists of statehood claim this is an original language that was widely spoken in the Kamtapur/ Kamrup region. But the intelligentsia of the community tends to dismiss this demand whenever raised. According to them, Kamtapuri is a mere dialect of standard Bengali. Several scholars have, however, affirmed that the Kamta language was not a dialect of Bengali but a thriving language from which both Bengali and Assamese originated. We may cite here what Dr T C Rastogir wrote in Maulana Azad Academy Journal (May 1-31) 1993. "The Kamata language should not be regarded as a mere dialect of Bengali or Assamese languages. It is the language in which the first vernacular writings of the region were attempted and may be called the root of the present Bengali and Assamese languages." The debate drags on with no possibility of a conclusion in sight.
  • Here is the link that announces the West Bengal government has accorded Kamtapuri an official language [2] (2018)
We should not take any position on whether it is a dialect of Bengali or not. Chaipau (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chaipau, I didn't deny the fact that it's recognized as an official language in West Bengal, but it's status as an independent language is still debatable and most importantly the source you added itself considers it a dialect. That's why I removed the line altogether to eliminate any chances of dispute over this issue. Also, Sahapedia doesn't look like a WP:RS. Can you show any book/article that has cited their content? --Zayeem (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chaipau, it seems like you are too impatient as an editor. You are still reverting without even waiting for a response. I say again, first reach a consensus here. --Zayeem (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kmzayeem I am not reverting but re-instating. There is no consensus on what you are trying to delete. I do not see any reason why the specific language should not be mentioned just because the language is deemed a dialect in Bangladesh. The language is important because there is a cultural tradition associated with it, and it gives Bhawaiya the intrinsic quality of what it is. Bhawaiya cannot be sung in other Bengali dialects, for instance. I do not agree that you should just delete the reference because from your point of view Kamtapuri is a dialect of Bengali. I see the same WP:OWN issues I saw earlier. Chaipau (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chaipau, you are just contradicting yourself. You said you don't want to take to any position regarding the language's status but when you call it "Kamtapuri language" instead of "Kamtapuri dialect", you are actually taking a position. Besides, it's also a source falsification since the source itself calls it a dialect. That's why I compromised and removed the line to clear the dispute. If you want to include the line, it should be exactly what the source says, otherwise it would be WP:OR. Also, when you "reinstate" the revision you edited, it IS considered a revert. --Zayeem (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kmzayeem The position we don't want to take is whether Kamtapuri is a dialect of the Bengali language or not. The position we need to take is the speech in which it is written. The dichotomy we are using here is Langue and parole. We need to emphasize here the parole part of it, not the system in which it exists—the langue. I think a compromise would be [[Kamtapuri language|Kamtapuri]] or [[Kamtapuri language|Rajvanshi]] to follow the source. What we want to avoid here is the language/dialect dichotomy but use the langue/parole dichotomy, where we point to the speech part of it because it is important for Bhawaiya. Or we could even use Rajvanshi speech. Chaipau (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: Would you have some comments here for a quick resolution, or point us in a direction for resolving it? Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaipau, what you are doing here is filtering the content based on what you like and what you don't, this is bad. Also, I don't see any reason why its status as a dialect shouldn't be added when the source itself deemed it necessary to be mentioned. And as I said, your edit suggests it to be a separate language which is a source falsification and WP:OR. Let's wait for Sitush's third opinion. --Zayeem (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kmzayeem not at all. I do not think the Sahapedia article is WP:RS to determine whether Kamtapuri is a dialect of Bengali or Assamese. As the Statesman article above states, it is a much contested issue. And as the PTI news mentions, it is now deemed an official language in West Bengal, at least. The point now is to sidestep this messy affair and not address it in this article. But deleting any reference to Kamtapuri is also not acceptable. Chaipau (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, the Sahapedia article is WP:RS as far as the topic is concerned, which here is Bhawaiya. Chaipau (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chaipau, again, you are suggesting Sahapedia is reliable for a particular part that you like and for others which you don't like, it isn't. I have expressed a similar concern above about it's reliability and if it's not a WP:RS, then it should be removed along with the claims referenced to it. --Zayeem (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kmzayeem no it is not because I like it or not. The source of the problem with the language/dialect dichotomy are well explained by the Statesman and PTI reports. As soon as this issue is resolved in real-life, there should be no problem in stating the resolved solution. Linguists too have faced this problem regarding Kamtapuri—one of the solutions they have devised is the use of lect instead of dialect. Linguists have mentioned specifically that there is a strong backlash among some who would assert Kamtapuri is a dialect (the position you are taking), even though there is no linguistic reason for this assertion (as stated in the Statesman article).
As stated in WP:NPOV, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. the topic of the Sahapedia article is Bhawaiya not Bengali language and its dialects. The fair and proportionate position regarding the parole, in this case, is to avoid saying anything about whether it is a dialect or not. I am asking you to maintain a neutral point of view (NPOV) on this issue by just not taking a side. Chaipau (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chaipau, this is WP:OR, see WP:SYNTH to be specific. A neutral point of view would be to present all sides, in this case, to add the mention of its status as a dialect as stated by the source. You are being biased when you try to filter the content on the dialect issue which you don't like. And Sahapedia claims to be a general encyclopedia on "the arts, cultures and histories of India", not a specialized one. Don't see any reason in considering it partially reliable. I'm still concerned if it's a WP:RS or not. --Zayeem (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let us wait for Sitush. Else we will go the WP:DR route which is lengthy. Chaipau (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Say what the source says. It is not within our remit to impose our own interpretation on the source, nor synthesise by using several sources to reach a conclusion. If the source is unclear, find a better one. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: yes that is the principle in general, but what if we find two sources - one which says it is a dialect of Bengali and the other which says it is a dialect of Assamese? The is a problem because many "speeches" fall in the dialectal continuum in India where all Indo-Aryan speeches fall in the continuum, from Assam to Agghanistan (Masica). Chaipau (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, if we have two reliable sources and they say different things then we show both, per WP:NPOV. Anyone who is summonsed here for dispute resolution is going to say the same thing so if you think that doesn't work as a solution, I think you will have to raise it with one of the central noticeboards. Several ways of doing that, depending on whether you are seeking a solution just for this article or you anticipate it being an issue for other articles also. If the former, perhaps leave a neutral note at the India and Bangladesh project noticeboards asking for comments about this thread. If the latter, it might be worth raising the whole issue at the India board (simply because I suspect it is more active) but please make sure that you notify other relevant projects, such as that for Bangaldesh. And leave a note here pointing to the central discussion also. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As always Sitush's words are wise. In this specific situation, would some formulation like "Kamtapuri, which is part of the linguistic continuum linking Bengali and Assamese and has been described as a dialect of both" be useful? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, the source only calls it a "Bengali dialect", not Assamese. If you bring another source that mentions Kamtapuri/Rajbanshi as an Assamese dialect and stitch it with Bhawaiya that will be WP:SYNTHESIS. I agree with Sitush's third opinion, we should add exactly what the source says without any misinterpretation. --Zayeem (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if sources do in fact describe Kamtapuri/Rajbanshi as a dialect of Assamese and also as a dialect of Bengali, it would be absolutely reasonable to say so and would not be WP:SYNTHESIS. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be synthesis if you add Assamese to describe the language of Bhawaiya by synthesizing several sources. We can add few more lines to explain the disputed status of the language and mention Assamese but that would be WP:UNDUE, since this article is about Bhawaiya, not Rajbanshi/Kamtapuri language. --Zayeem (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We could simply have a wikilink to the article on Kamtapuri/Rangpuri language, where its affinities are appropriately analyzed. If there is a consensus here to omit any mention of the Kamtapuri/Rangpuri language from this article, that's also fine, and the article already does this. But it isn't appropriate to give one sourced affinity and omit another. If we are to comment on the Kamtapuri/Rangpuri language here, we need to do it from a neutral point of view, and the sources for that comment do not have to mention Bhawaiya. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The additional comment on the language would bring enough undue content which needs to be avoided per WP:NPOV; remember there is also a third group that refers to it as an independent language and not a dialect. I'm okay with omitting the whole language issue as I have already suggested at the beginning, there is no point in initiating unnecessary disputes and waste all of our time. But if we are to include the mention about language, it should be exactly what the source states without any synthesis. --Zayeem (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, we seem to have agreement that we don't need to mention the language of Bhawaiya, but that, if we decide that we will mention it, we can write Rajvanshi per source, and leave it at that. Am I right? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to deliberately misrepresent the discussion. The source mentions Rajbanshi as a Bengali dialect and it should be added in the article as such if we are to mention the language. I though agree that we don't need to mention the language at all and leave the issue right there. --Zayeem (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source mentions Rajvanshi, which is correct and non-controversial; but that it is a Bengali dialect is not germane to the topic and is disputed (Independent language etc.). As Sitush pointed out below, we need not give equal weightage to the dialect claim since it is made in passing (WP:V)—so I agree with Richard Keatinge. But I am OK leaving out language from the lead to resolve this issue for now. Chaipau (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have been through this discussion before, when you write "Bhawaiya songs are written in Rajbanshi", you are suggesting Rajbanshi is an independent language which is a biased POV and also a source falsification. Sitush's prime opinion was to add what the source states without any synthesis. Anyway, there is no point in discussing further as we all now have reached a consensus to leave the language out. --Zayeem (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Bhawaiya is written in Rajvanshi." does not suggest anything beyond that sentence. Chaipau (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Chaipau 2409:4065:D89:69C0:7DCC:42E3:53AF:E93F (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is a general guideline needed?[edit]

@Sitush: I am wondering whether we need a general guideline taking the language issue here as an example.

  • Context: In many sources authors make a subsidiary comment that is not directly germane to the main topic. (e.g make a comment on linguistics/language politics in an article related to music or ethnomusic as in this case). If this comment is non-controversial, well and good. What if this comment is partisan in its own context and require clarifications?
  • Resolution: What could the resolution be? Should we address the controversy and give all sides to a minor point, or do we side-step the issue and address it in the right place?

Thanks for your comments. Chaipau (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be surprised if it is possible to come up with a general guideline for the situation you describe. It is true that passing mentions of something will carry less weight that a detailed explanation of it (WP:V) but determining partisanship etc can be much more tricky and probably isn't amenable to a "one size fits all" guideline that actually has any usefulness. But this is just my opinion and it would be worth asking for a wider consideration somewhere - I'm just not sure where! Perhaps RegentsPark or Bishonen might have a suggestion regarding a venue. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bhawaiya&oldid=1206443452"