Talk:Bengali–Assamese script

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bengali–Assamese script article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3: 3 months

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

India: Assam High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Assam (assessed as High-importance).

Bangladesh Low‑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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-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.

Writing systems High‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

January 2025

Per WP:BRD: It is regarding these changes - [1] [2] (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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 [3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]