This is the subpage for the discussion of the Kamrupi language issues. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
![]() | Closed. This discussion has been resolved after lengthy discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC) reply |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
First statement by moderatorSince this case is being referred to this noticeboard from WP:ANI, it is particularly important that the editors follow the rules, because otherwise this case will go back to WP:ANI, possibly with my recommendations for a block or a lock. Please follow the rules at my statement of the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. I am not familiar with the details, but I understand that the issue has to do with how old the language is; I expect the editors to be able to inform me of all of the details, just as the article should inform readers of everything that is written by reliable sources. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to my questions. Every editor is expected to reply to my questions within 48 hours. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they believe the issues are, and what the article should say? Be concise, because the article should be concise. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply First statements by editorsThank you Robert McClenon, the precise dispute is whether Kamrupi dialect/ Kamrupi Prakrit/Kamrupi language/Western Assamese/Western Asamiya/Western Assam dialect/Undivided Kamrup district speech is a modern speech which lacks history or a old language with literature. Until 2012, original article was saying later, which was subsequently divided into Kamrupi dialect and Kamrupi Prakrit by Chaipau and other uninvolved editors citing lack of sources. Since then, relevant sources from eminent local linguists with full quotes are added to support its original position. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply Kamrupi dialect currently states that Kamrupi is a dialect of Assamese, citing Goswami's (1970) A study on Kāmrūpī: a dialect of Assamese. I think this is correct. Kamarupi Prakrit, Assamese language#History, and KRNB lects identify the time that Assamese (which includes dialects like Kamrupi) began differentiating itself from its ancestral language and surrounding varieties as around 1250. We thus already reflect that Kamrupi has a history by indicating the mother language that Kamrupi comes from, and we also already identify the body of literature that reflects this history. What we don't (and shouldn't) do is refer to Kamarupi Prakrit as merely an earlier form of Kamrupi, since there are a number of varieties also descended from Kamarupi Prakrit. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 02:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply Second Statement by ModeratorI am not sure that I understand what the issue is. It is agreed that the Kamrupi dialect is a modern form of the Assamese language. It is agreed that there was an older form of the language which was Kamrupi Prakrit, which is not attested but is known to have existed. Does anyone claim that the older language and the modern language are the same, or is there agreement that there has been linguistic evolution? If there is agreement that there has been linguistic evolution, is the issue that different scholars express it differently, or that they have different theories? If different scholars have different theories, they should all be stated. Please clarify within 48 hours. Second Statements by EditorsTo be precise, Kamrupi dialect is a modern dialect of the Assamese language. It is established that Kamarupi Prakrit has evolved. It has evolved, after 1250, on the one hand into a group of lects (called Kamatapuri lects) that cluster together and on the other hand into Assamese language, which is also a cluster of lects or dialects. Thus, Kamarupi Prakrit → KRNB (Kamatapuri, Rangpuri, etc lects) + Assamese (Kamrupi, Goalparia, etc. dialects). Chaipau ( talk) 01:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Third statement by moderatorI am not sure that I understand what the issue is. It is agreed that the Kamrupi dialect is a modern form of the Assamese language. It is agreed that there was an older form of the language which was Kamrupi Prakrit, which is not attested but is known to have existed. If there is agreement that there has been linguistic evolution, is the issue that different scholars express it differently, or that they have different theories? If different scholars have different theories, they should all be stated. Please clarify within 48 hours in less than 300 words. Be clear, concise, and civil. If the issue is how to accommodate different statements that are not inconsistent, this can be worked out. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply Third statements by editorsI am rephrasing the statements of dispute for better clarity. The disputes are:
The relevant sources for any academic consensus, i.e. Upendranath Goswami (1970), A Study on Kamrupi: A dialect of Assamese, an work agreed on by both the parties and other relevant sources are included in "Second Statements by Editors" for reference of moderator. The other party has yet to produce sources which says opposite of "Kamrupi dialect is first Indo-Aryan language of Assam which is also the ancestral language of modern Assamese language", so there appears no contradiction between sources as of now. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Fourth statement by moderatorsIt appears that User:Richard Keatinge was not a previous party to this discussion and is trying to help resolve this. Unless he objects, I will add his name to the list of volunteers and will let the discussion continue under his moderation. I may chime in as a participant. I thank User:Richard Keatinge for assisting. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply Fourth statements by editorsRobert McClenon neutrality issue may be arise if Richard Keatinge made moderator of the current thread. He was an oppposite party in an recent dispute involving me (see: Talk:Assamese_people, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_259#Dravidian_ethno-linguistic_group_in_ancient_Assam,_India and others), and is next in line as party, as said dispute supposed to brought in here. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Fifth statement by moderatorOkay. I will continue as moderator, and have added User:Richard Keatinge as a party. We are in agreement that Kamrumpi Prakrit is a historic predecessor of modern Assamese, of which Kamrupi dialect is a form. What are the points of difference, then? Will each editor please state concisely what they see as the points of difference? Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply Fifth statements by editorsThanks to Robert McClenon and Bhaskarbhagawati; indeed it's much better if I don't try to moderate this discussion. As for the differences between ancient Kamarupi Prakrit and the modern Kamrupi dialect, I will leave any detailed description to the relevant articles and to the reliable sources, accurately represented by Chaipau and aeusoes1. It might indeed be helpful to have a comparison, possibly in the Kamarupi Prakrit article, between what is known of Kamarupi Prakrit and the modern dialects. But I am not equipped to provide anything of the sort. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Sixth statement by moderatorI think that we are in agreement on the major point. If there is disagreement, please so state. If so, the minor points will be worked out on the article talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply Sixth statements by editorsThere is disagreement regarding sources, reliable sources and viewpoints are excluded from the pages, other parties claim lacks sources. The major disagreements are:
Robert McClenon consider helping me with the above points, as we exhausted dispute resolution processess, i have no intention to carry the issue further, will accept once for all the recommendations provided here. A warm thank you to you. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Seventh statement by moderatorBhaskarbhagawati asks three questions. The answer to the first (all major viewpoints) is yes. Is there a viewpoint that is being excluded? The answer to the second (should exceptional claims be supported by sources) is that claims (whether or not exceptional) should be supported by sources. Are there unsourced claims? The third question has to do with whether to use common names. Is there an issue about the use of a less common name? Is there agreement that there are no published works on the older form of the language (which itself does not survive as a written langauge)? Chaipau makes a general statement, and so I will pose the above questions to both editors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply Seventh statements by editors@ Robert McClenon: there is no dispute on the three matters of principle: (1) Should we represent the majority view (yes); (2) Should we support exceptional claims by sources (yes); and whether we should use the common name (yes). All these principles are being followed in the articles. What is at dispute are Bhaskarbhagawati's interpretations of these principles. Here are some examples:
What is at dispute here is the use of these principles to disruptively insert language and references in the lead of these articles to somehow indicate that these two articles are equivalent. I call it disruptive because since 2012 there is WP:CONSENSUS (not unanimity) that they are not equivalent, and which is exactly what we discovered in this discussion as well. Chaipau ( talk) 11:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Eighth statement by moderatorOkay. Let's try a different approach. The current articles will serve as the baseline. Will each editor please list all of the points where they think either of the articles should be changed? We will then see if we can work out the issues or if we need to use RFC, but it appears that we need to use RFC. Be concise, but list all of the points whee you believe there are content issues. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Eighth statements by editors@ Robert McClenon: before I make the list, I would like to ask two questions.
Thanks! Chaipau ( talk) 10:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Ninth statement by moderator1. The first issue is the name of the article on the old language. Since there does not seem to be agreement, we will use a Move Request, which works like an RFC. This will take place while other discussion continues. Please list all proposed names. 2. We are in agreement that the two articles are not equivalent. One is about the older language and the other is about the modern dialect. Please identify any sections that imply an equivalence and we will fix them. 3. Please list all specific proposed changes. Be specific. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply Ninth statements by editorsRobert McClenon, thank you for creating subpage for the discussion of the Kamrupi language/dialect issues. I am listing my opinion below : 1.The most common names as per current sources [3] [4] are Old Kamarupi dialect (3), Kamrupi language (3), Kamrupi Apabhramsa (3), Kamrupi Prakrit (2), Kamarupi Prakrit (1), proto-Kamrupa (1). 2. For point number two i rather ask a question about how we can accommodate linguists who opines old language is older form of modern Kamrupi (Upendranath Goswami, Golokchandra Goswami, Kaliram Medhi, Sukumar Sen, Madhumita Sengupta and others). 3. The specific proposed changes in my view are:
Thus, to summarise i suggest titling of article according to common name, inclusion of all viewpoints on the subject and restriction in their deletion, exclusion of unsourced claims and more weightage to experts. Since the beginning of our discussion there are serious misrepresentations, which i believe need to be addressed for those newer to the subject. Some of them are:
Tenth statement by moderatorI will be starting a Request for Comments on the primary title of this article. I will repeat my request to identify any proposed specific changes to the article. What part of "be specific" wasn't specific enough? "Inclusion of all viewpoints" is not specific, but a restatement of a principle. If any specific viewpoint is omitted and should be added, specify it. "Inclusion of all works and sources" is not specific. What works and sources? Do you want me to close this discussion with a finding that there is a lot of vague complaining? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC) reply Tenth statements by editorsRobert McClenon sorry, actually i restated the principle of "inclusion of all viewpoints" because of other editors statement that viewpoints not in line of consensus should be excluded, although i supposed to be more specific. The most important viewpoints excluded are:
Changes to Kamrupi dialect
Chaipau ( talk) 12:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC) reply Changes to Kamarupi Prakrit
Chaipau ( talk) 17:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC) reply Eleventh statement by moderatorHere is a summary of the contested points. User: Bhaskarbhagawati has requested that Goswami, Medhi, and Sengupta be included. User:Chaipau has requested five changes to Kamrupi dialect, and six changes to the articles on the old language. We are in agreement that the first paragraph of each article is satisfactory. Do the other editors agree to the specified changes? Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply Eleventh statements by editorsThe first paragraphs (regional dialects, unattested etc.) are unsourced or sources not saying what it claimed, sources saying "first Indo-Aryan language of Assam". The contents of both the article are written reproducing what reliable sources saying, removing them as suggested by Chaipau lead to exclusion of scholarly viewpoints, unsourced content can be removed. Inclusion of all reliable sources will definitely depict Kamrupi dialect and Kamrupi language are indeed same. So to summarise, in my opinion no sourced content should removed, both article should reproduce exactly what reliable source are saying etc. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply Twelfth statement by moderatorOkay. Let's try to work through this, one paragraph at a time, for the two articles. We will start with the lede paragraph of each article. Will each editor please provide their proposed text for the first paragraph of each article? Then we will see whether we can work out differences in the first paragraphs by discussion or whether we have to take each of them to RFC. Proposed changes to other paragraphs are permitted but not required at this point. Non-specific complaints, such as that viewpoints are being excluded or that the article is biased, are forbidden, and are subject to zero tolerance. If an editor makes any non-specific complaints that I cannot deal with explicitly, I will go back to WP:ANI with a recommendation that that editor be topic-banned from Indian languages. Okay. Provide your drafts for the first paragraph of each article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply Twelfth statements by editorsLede of old language Kamrupi language was first Indo-Aryan language spoken in North Bengal, Western Assam and parts of central Assam. It was sole literary language of the region till nineteenth century, subsequently lost its prestige and now become a dialect, spoken in modern Kamrup. [1] [2] The eastern Magadhi Prakrit gave rise to four languages, Radhi, Varendari, Kamrupi and Vanga. [3] This Kamrupi language can be dated at least to first millennium, when deluge of literary activity occurred in North Bengal and Western Assam [4], and the ancestor of the North Bengal dialects (Kamta, Rajbanshi and Northern Deshi Bangla) began to develop. [5] [6] This sort of Sporadic Apabhramsa is a mixture of Sanskrit, Prakrit and colloquial dialects of Assam. [7] This apabhramsa gave rise to various modern eastern Indo-European languages like Assamese language [8] [9], and significantly different from it in terms of phonology, morphology and vocables. [10] [11]
References
Kamrupi dialect (formerly Kamrupi language) [1] was first Indo-Aryan language spoken in North Bengal, Western Assam and parts of central Assam, is also a modern dialect of Assamese language, that formerly enjoyed prestige status. [2] [3] [4] Kamrupi is heterogeneous with three subdialects— West (Barpeta), Central (Nalbari) and South Kamrupi (Palashbari). [5] In medieval times, Kamrupi was used in the Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas for literary purposes in parallel with Sanskrit, both for prose and poetry. This went against the practices of literary figures of mid India like Vidyapati who used Sanskrit for prose and Maithili for poetry. [6] In more recent times, the South Kamrupi dialect has been used in the works of author Indira Goswami. Poet and nationalist Ambikagiri Raichoudhury also used Kamrupi in his works to great extent. [7] In 2018, the Kamrupi film Village Rockstars became the first from the region to be selected for India's official entry to the 91st Academy Awards. [8] भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply First paragraph of Kamarupi Prakrit
First paragraph of Kamrupi dialect
I am not making any pointed refutation of Bhaskarbhagawati's proposed changes at this time. Chaipau ( talk) 19:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
References
Thirteenth RoundTwo RFCs are now running on the lede paragraphs to the two articles. They will run for 30 days, and will resolve the matter of the lede paragraphs. User:Chaipau has proposed a long list of changes to the two articles. Please read them over and indicate which you accept, which you want to compromise, and which you do not accept. Proposed Changes to Kamrupi dialect
Chaipau ( talk) 12:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC) reply Proposed Changes to Kamarupi Prakrit
Thirteenth Statements by EditorsI am addressing all the points one by one. The proposed changes and my views on it are:
In modern language, the proposed change will remove the viewpoint of Kaliram Medhi( Medhi, Kaliram (1988). Assamese grammar and origin of the Assamese language, p.84).
For modern language, 'Similarities with Eastern Assamese' section cannot changed to 'Differences with Eastern Assamese/Standard Assamese language' because as per our current sources Kamrupi language/dialect is significantly different from standard Assamese language based on eastern Assamese dialect in terms of phonology, morphology and vocables. Therefore, we need to see if there any similarities rather differences which is obvious.
For modern language, 'region' section required because the language was originally spoken in modern Kamrup, then North Bengal, Western Assam and central Assam, afterwards in North Bengal, entire Brahmaputra valley, parts of Bangladesh and Bhutan, addition of parts of Bihar and so on. Eventually now in modern Kamrup. Thus uncertainty of region requires region section.
For modern langauge, 'Scholarly views' section is about significant linguists viewpoints on the subject, removing them is removing important viewpoints, but there are scope of changes in its presentation.
For modern language, the picture of Charyapada included as per quote of Upendranath Goswami, it should not be removed. (Goswami Upendranath (1970), A study on Kamrupi: a dialect of Assamese, Dept. of Historical Antiquarian Studies, p.4.) The first and second paragraph is sourced to last citation, should be kept. The name of medieval writers need to be included either in history or literature section, definitely not in region section. The fourth paragraph about medieval writer 'Sankaradeva' cannot be removed because it will again remove views of Kaliram Medhi.
Thus to summarise, the proposed removal of content of the both articles lead to exclusion of important viewpoints. Although, i am open to inclusion of other sources which contradicts them. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply In defense of the proposed changesI shall be providing point-to-point defense of the edit suggestions I have made. I shall be done within a day...and when I am done, I shall indicate it. Kamarupa Anusandhan Samiti: The reference is not the official position of the organization, but an article in the journal, authored by Parikshit Hazarika (1968). It makes the same point as that made by M M Sharma (1978), that there exists irregularities in the Sanskrit text of Kamarupa inscriptions, but his central assertion—that this indicates an Kamarupa Apabhramsha parallel to Magadha Apabhramsha—is no longer accepted. Subsequent and recent authors have continued to accept that a dialect of the Magadhi Apabhramsha is the origin of the KRNB lects and the Assamese language. Therefore, on the basis of WP:RS_AGE, WP:RSCONTEXT, since Kamarupa Prakrit is a later coinage and more accurate, it should be retained. Chaipau ( talk) 11:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Round Fourteen: ModeratorI made a mistake somehow on the RFC on the old language, and the two versions were identical. That has been closed. I think that I have this time entered Version A and Version B correctly. I will be reviewing previous postings shortly and will provide an update. Until then, conduct all discussion in the Threaded Discussion sections. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply Round Fifteen: Statement by ModeratorIt appears that User:Chaipau has five or six proposed changes to each of the two articles, and that User:Bhaskarbhagawati is satisfied with the articles. Is that correct? Each user may identify one change to each article that they consider to have the highest priority. We will then start an RFC on each of those changes. If you are satisfied with the current content, you don't need to propose a change. Please list your proposed change in the section below. Do not reply to the other editor's changes. That discussion can be done in a No vote on the RFC or in the Threaded Discussion. Trying to discuss all of the changes at once gets nowhere. So each editor may propose one change to each article, in the space below. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply Fifteenth Statements by EditorsRobert McClenon, indeed i disagree with proposed deletion of content secured by sources suggested by Chaipau, as said in my last statement, and i don't want to propose any newer changes except which are already under RFC. Also the publications of Kamarupa Anusandhan Samiti are vetted. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 06:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Sixteenth Statement by ModeratorI had thought that maybe we could make some progress toward resolving this dispute, but it appears that the issue is being raised again of whether to combine the two articles. Some of us thought that there was agreement that we would have two articles, one on the older language and one on the modern language or dialect. User:Bhaskarbhagawati - I will give you one last choice. Do you want to discuss how to improve the two articles, or do you want to have a merge discussion to combine the two articles? If you choose to work to improve the two articles, you will not be allowed to complain about the decision seven years ago to split them, and if you do complain, I will go to Arbitration Enforcement and request that you be topic-banned from Indian languages for one year. If you choose to have a merge discussion, we will have a merge discussion, and if it keeps the two articles, you will be subject to being topic-banned from them. Now - Choose. User:Bhaskarbhagawati - You have 24 hours to decide which course we will take. If you do not decide within 24 hours, I will decide for you, and I will not permit you to go back. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply Both of you have been notified again of ArbCom discretionary sanctions. I have been patient, maybe too patient. I don't plan to be patient any longer, either with vague complaints about censorship, vague complaints that all viewpoints should be represented (which we already agree one), other vague complaints, or side complaining about the history of the articles. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply User:Chaipau - Within 48 hours, please identify one change to each article that has the highest priority. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply Sixteenth Statements by EditorsI would like to suggest the top items from Round Thirteen.
Chaipau ( talk) 03:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Seventeenth Statement by ModeratorI would like to get this dispute resolution wrapped up. I have started two RFCs, one on each subject. I would like to know whether the participants are willing to resume discussion on the article talk pages without moderation. Unless there is an objection, in 48 hours I will suspend moderation and allow discussion to resume while this case is on hold. We will see whether regular discussion is working. If it is working, good. If it doesn't work, I may resume moderated discussion, but will more likely either ask User:Abecedare to intervene or will file a request at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply Seventeenth Statements by Editors@ Robert McClenon: I would request a moderated discussion if it is possible. Otherwise the discussions over the last seven years have been circular and repetitive. This has happened for every singly minor point. I fear any un-moderated discussion will give us nothing. I believe that the 44 days of moderated discussion has yielded more resolution than the last seven years. Just my two cents. Chaipau ( talk) 16:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Eighteenth Statement by ModeratorOkay. If it is requested that moderated discussion continue, I will continue moderated discussion. I will be slowing down the pace of moderated discussion. I will be starting up to four more RFCs in about one week. Each editor may request one more RFC on each article. (If any additional editors want to be added as parties and request RFCs, I will add them, which might result in more than four RFCs.) My objective is to keep the number of RFCs open at a given time to a manageable number. A few reminders are in order. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Casting aspersions on the motives or good faith of editors is forbidden. Personal attacks are forbidden. When I say that casting aspersions and personal attacks are forbidden, there will be no warnings. If they happen, I will request immediate sanctions. I will be drawing up a revised set of rules for this moderation in the next few days. Do not edit the articles. You may and should discuss on the article talk pages. To that extent, the ANI restriction is modified. Discussion on the article talk pages must follow talk page guidelines and may not involve aspersions or personal attacks. Within five days, each editor should identify one more RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply Eighteenth Statements by EditorsRobert McClenon, thank you. Your conditions are nothing unusual, and in normal times that is what it should be. I would rather see this take six month to resolve than continue the situation for another seven years. Chaipau ( talk) 19:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Nineteenth Statement by ModeratorUser:Richard Keatinge - You already are a party to this case. What matter do you in particular want resolved? Each editor may submit one more RFC request now. User:Bhaskarbhagawati - I had also expected that this would be resolved by now. Other editors advise me that this controversy has been going on for seven years. If you don't want this discussion to continue for a few more months, I think that other editors would be willing to have you agree to a topic-ban. If you want this discussion put on hold, please explain why it needs to be put on hold. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply Be sure to !vote in favor of any RFCs that you have requested. Since I am the originator, and I am neutral, your request will not be counted as support. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply Nineteenth Statements by EditorsRobert McClenon good evening, i am currently very busy in some important things because of which i maybe not able to fully focus in our discussion. If you disagree, i will try to comeback here once a day. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Twentieth Statement by ModeratorI never said that participants should not vote in the RFCs. I did say, in response to a suggestion that participants not vote in the RFCs, that participants should vote in the RFCs. Each editor may propose one more RFC to each article. I determine what the rules are. I don't want any parties trying to tweak the rules to their advantage. I have no intention of putting this on hold unless there is agreement by all of the participants that it should be put on hold. If the participants want to conclude the moderated discussion, they may do so, in which case they will agree to be bound by everything that has been decided, or that will be decided by any ongoing RFCs, RMs, et cetera. I am not putting this on hold unless there is a very good reason. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply Twentieth Statements by Editors@ Robert McClenon: Thanks for the clarification—I just wanted to know what are rules are. I do not think we should put this on hold. We have had this issue in the past and the process(es) then stalled. I don't want that to happen here and look forward to a resolution. Chaipau ( talk) 01:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Twenty-First Statement by ModeratorUser:Bhaskarbhagawati - What exactly are you asking be changed? Exactly what change to one of the articles are you asking to have rolled back? Robert McClenon ( talk) 10:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply User:Richard Keatinge, User:Chaipau - Are either you or anyone else requesting that a change to one of the articles be rolled back? Exactly what is being requested? Robert McClenon ( talk) 10:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply It has already been established that all academic viewpoints should be included. Is there a question about the inclusion of an academic viewpoint? Please be specific. Vague complaints and vague comments are not useful. Robert McClenon ( talk) 10:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply Please reply here within 24 hours. If there is a question about changes to the article or about the inclusion or exclusion of viewpoints, we need to identify it and resolve it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 10:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply Twenty-First Statements by Editors@ Robert McClenon: I am not requesting any change. The issue, on a different subject, went through an RfC recently and it was settled ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AAssamese_people&type=revision&diff=893523107&oldid=891769625). But since it ended not to user:Bhaskarbhagawati's liking, he is trying to re-litigate. I would request you not to include that issue in this process. I apologize for bringing it here. Chaipau ( talk) 11:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Robert McClenon: The discussion that user:Bhaskarbhagawati started a couple of days ago has been closed as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AAssamese_people&type=revision&diff=900285200&oldid=900207257 FYI, user:Richard Keatinge. Chaipau ( talk) 17:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Twenty-Second Statement by ModeratorAre the editors, both of the principal editors, requesting that this DRN be closed, or that it continue? If closed, is there agreement to accept the results of the RFCs? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply Twenty-Second Statements by editorsAs said earlier i have no further request for change, and i will accept the RFCs, thank you. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Please consider completing this DRN process. I don't think this dispute can continue any further. We require a resolution, so we can improve these articles, beyond the listed change requests. Chaipau ( talk) 15:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Good. So, with my apologies to the moderator for this digression, let us proceed to resolve this matter.
Richard Keatinge (
talk)
20:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
reply
Twenty-Third Statement by ModeratorIt appears that the parties are saying that they are ready to conclude this moderated discussion. If anyone has any specific further changes, please identify them within 48 hours. If no further changes are requested within 48 hours, I will close this discussion, with a finding that consensus has been achieved, and that editing against consensus will be disruptive. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC) reply Twenty-Third Statements by EditorsIt is my impression, and hope, that we have reached a consensus on the major points. I hope that it will be helpful to list them here:
(And, I trust, we positively agree that the above system of nomenclature in no way denies the continuities between these two groups of lects, and other lects. Nor does it offer any disrespect to the literary achievements expressed in mediaeval and modern times, in related Kamrupi lects.)
Keep first paragraph as it is. No change. Second paragraph: "In medieval times, Kamrupi was used in the Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas for literary purposes in parallel with Sanskrit, both for prose and poetry." → "In late medieval times Kamrupi forms are found in prose, such as those compiled in the Kamrupar Buranji." "This went against the practices of literary figures of mid India like Vidyapati who used Sanskrit for prose and Maithili for poetry.[6]" → "The use of Kamrupi dialect in modern times has plummeted due to the prevalence of the standard variety though in recent times there has been a trend to use this in major media. Keep the section Kamrupi_dialect#Features as it is, except: Rename the section Kamrupi_dialect#Similarities_with_Eastern_Assamese to Difference with Eastern Assamese" because the section discusses the differences and not the similarities. Add section on similarities later when needed. Change the name of the section Kamrupi_dialect#Definition_of_the_region to "Kamrup region". Remove all the text from this section, since it is already covered in Kamrup region. In its stead, we should have a short paragraph to be extended later. This is a sample paragraph: "The group of Kamrupi dialects is spoken in the Kamrup region, which has had a consistent administrative delineation since the 17th century, first under the Mughals, then under the Ahoms and later under the British and then Indian district of Undivided Kamrup. There are primarily three major dialects spoken in this region: Barpetia dialect in the west; Nalbaria dialect in the east and Palasbaria dialect in the south. These dialects form a dialect continuum within themselves and with the adjoining dialects of Goalparia dialect to the west and the Pati-Darrangia dialect to its east." The section Kamrupi_dialect#Scholarly_views is largely a POV fork and should be deleted. In the section Kamrupi_dialect#Literature: Remove the picture of Charyapada, since it is closest to Kamarupi Prakrit; and the similarity is claimed by many languages. Remove the first and the second paragraphs Transfer the name of medieval writers from Kamrup region to the previous section (Kamrup region), after verifying the writers are indeed from Kamrup region. Remove fourth paragraph — Sankardev was not from Kamrup and he did not use Kamrupi dialect in his writings — he used old literary Assamese.
Keep the first paragraph as it is. No change. In the second paragraph, remove "This sort of Sporadic Apabhramsa is a mixture of Sanskrit, Prakrit and colloquial dialects of Assam.[7]". Remove "Linguists claim this apabhramsa gave rise to various eastern Indo-European languages like modern Assamese and felt its presence in the form of Kamrupi and Kamatapuri lects.[9][10]", because this is a repeat of "Though not substantially proven, the existence of the language that predated the Kamatapuri lects and Assamese is widely believed.[5]" with a confusing set of citations. In section "Etymology of names" remove "Sukumar Sen and others calls it as old Kamrupi dialect;[12][13][14] the speech used in old Kamrup[12]" This sentence is trying to equate Kamrupi dialect with Kamarupi Prakrit; it attributes it to Sukumar Sen, whereas the author is Upendranath Goswami etc. Remove the picture of Nidhanpur plates, because it makes no sense to just display the plates without pointing out the "prakritism"; OTOH, if the prakritisms are available, then they should be presented in the caption. Add the following caption in the Charyapada picture "Charyapada, written between the 8th and 12th century, contains evidence of Bengali language, Assamese language, Oriya language and Maithili language; and it most likely contains the most direct evidence of Kamarupi Prakrit." If this caption is not acceptable, then we should drop the picture entirely. Remove the two last sections: Kamarupi_Prakrit#Geographical_vicinity is a POV fork, that attempts to equate Kamrupi dialect with Kamarupi prakrit, and the paragraph is very convoluted. Kamarupi_Prakrit#Works is also another POV fork that attempts the same thing. The aphorisms of Dak are found in east Indo-Aryan languages, adapted for modern usage. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply
References
Twenty-Fourth Statement by ModeratorThere is back-and-forth discussion above. I had said that back-and-forth discussion is not permitted.
User:Bhaskarbhagawati has a complaint that proposed RFCs are in disagrement with WP:V and WP:NOR. Do they have a different suggestion? I can close this discussion or continue it. Generalized complaints are not useful. Are we ready to close this discussion, or is there a further matter to address? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Twenty-Fourth Statements by Editors@ Robert McClenon: the back and forth is regrettable. It should not happen again.
Chaipau ( talk) 10:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Twenty-Fifth Statement by ModeratorUser:Bhaskarbhagawati - I have said in the past that vague statements such as "All academic viewpoints on the subject need to be included" (which is already a matter of Wikipedia policies) and "Include contradicting academic views" are not helpful. Please clarify exactly what if any change you want made. Does each editor have any more comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC) reply Twenty-fifth Statements by EditorsNone from me. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC) reply
|
This is the subpage for the discussion of the Kamrupi language issues. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
![]() | Closed. This discussion has been resolved after lengthy discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC) reply |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
First statement by moderatorSince this case is being referred to this noticeboard from WP:ANI, it is particularly important that the editors follow the rules, because otherwise this case will go back to WP:ANI, possibly with my recommendations for a block or a lock. Please follow the rules at my statement of the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. I am not familiar with the details, but I understand that the issue has to do with how old the language is; I expect the editors to be able to inform me of all of the details, just as the article should inform readers of everything that is written by reliable sources. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to my questions. Every editor is expected to reply to my questions within 48 hours. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they believe the issues are, and what the article should say? Be concise, because the article should be concise. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply First statements by editorsThank you Robert McClenon, the precise dispute is whether Kamrupi dialect/ Kamrupi Prakrit/Kamrupi language/Western Assamese/Western Asamiya/Western Assam dialect/Undivided Kamrup district speech is a modern speech which lacks history or a old language with literature. Until 2012, original article was saying later, which was subsequently divided into Kamrupi dialect and Kamrupi Prakrit by Chaipau and other uninvolved editors citing lack of sources. Since then, relevant sources from eminent local linguists with full quotes are added to support its original position. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply Kamrupi dialect currently states that Kamrupi is a dialect of Assamese, citing Goswami's (1970) A study on Kāmrūpī: a dialect of Assamese. I think this is correct. Kamarupi Prakrit, Assamese language#History, and KRNB lects identify the time that Assamese (which includes dialects like Kamrupi) began differentiating itself from its ancestral language and surrounding varieties as around 1250. We thus already reflect that Kamrupi has a history by indicating the mother language that Kamrupi comes from, and we also already identify the body of literature that reflects this history. What we don't (and shouldn't) do is refer to Kamarupi Prakrit as merely an earlier form of Kamrupi, since there are a number of varieties also descended from Kamarupi Prakrit. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 02:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply Second Statement by ModeratorI am not sure that I understand what the issue is. It is agreed that the Kamrupi dialect is a modern form of the Assamese language. It is agreed that there was an older form of the language which was Kamrupi Prakrit, which is not attested but is known to have existed. Does anyone claim that the older language and the modern language are the same, or is there agreement that there has been linguistic evolution? If there is agreement that there has been linguistic evolution, is the issue that different scholars express it differently, or that they have different theories? If different scholars have different theories, they should all be stated. Please clarify within 48 hours. Second Statements by EditorsTo be precise, Kamrupi dialect is a modern dialect of the Assamese language. It is established that Kamarupi Prakrit has evolved. It has evolved, after 1250, on the one hand into a group of lects (called Kamatapuri lects) that cluster together and on the other hand into Assamese language, which is also a cluster of lects or dialects. Thus, Kamarupi Prakrit → KRNB (Kamatapuri, Rangpuri, etc lects) + Assamese (Kamrupi, Goalparia, etc. dialects). Chaipau ( talk) 01:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Third statement by moderatorI am not sure that I understand what the issue is. It is agreed that the Kamrupi dialect is a modern form of the Assamese language. It is agreed that there was an older form of the language which was Kamrupi Prakrit, which is not attested but is known to have existed. If there is agreement that there has been linguistic evolution, is the issue that different scholars express it differently, or that they have different theories? If different scholars have different theories, they should all be stated. Please clarify within 48 hours in less than 300 words. Be clear, concise, and civil. If the issue is how to accommodate different statements that are not inconsistent, this can be worked out. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply Third statements by editorsI am rephrasing the statements of dispute for better clarity. The disputes are:
The relevant sources for any academic consensus, i.e. Upendranath Goswami (1970), A Study on Kamrupi: A dialect of Assamese, an work agreed on by both the parties and other relevant sources are included in "Second Statements by Editors" for reference of moderator. The other party has yet to produce sources which says opposite of "Kamrupi dialect is first Indo-Aryan language of Assam which is also the ancestral language of modern Assamese language", so there appears no contradiction between sources as of now. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Fourth statement by moderatorsIt appears that User:Richard Keatinge was not a previous party to this discussion and is trying to help resolve this. Unless he objects, I will add his name to the list of volunteers and will let the discussion continue under his moderation. I may chime in as a participant. I thank User:Richard Keatinge for assisting. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply Fourth statements by editorsRobert McClenon neutrality issue may be arise if Richard Keatinge made moderator of the current thread. He was an oppposite party in an recent dispute involving me (see: Talk:Assamese_people, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_259#Dravidian_ethno-linguistic_group_in_ancient_Assam,_India and others), and is next in line as party, as said dispute supposed to brought in here. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Fifth statement by moderatorOkay. I will continue as moderator, and have added User:Richard Keatinge as a party. We are in agreement that Kamrumpi Prakrit is a historic predecessor of modern Assamese, of which Kamrupi dialect is a form. What are the points of difference, then? Will each editor please state concisely what they see as the points of difference? Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply Fifth statements by editorsThanks to Robert McClenon and Bhaskarbhagawati; indeed it's much better if I don't try to moderate this discussion. As for the differences between ancient Kamarupi Prakrit and the modern Kamrupi dialect, I will leave any detailed description to the relevant articles and to the reliable sources, accurately represented by Chaipau and aeusoes1. It might indeed be helpful to have a comparison, possibly in the Kamarupi Prakrit article, between what is known of Kamarupi Prakrit and the modern dialects. But I am not equipped to provide anything of the sort. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Sixth statement by moderatorI think that we are in agreement on the major point. If there is disagreement, please so state. If so, the minor points will be worked out on the article talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply Sixth statements by editorsThere is disagreement regarding sources, reliable sources and viewpoints are excluded from the pages, other parties claim lacks sources. The major disagreements are:
Robert McClenon consider helping me with the above points, as we exhausted dispute resolution processess, i have no intention to carry the issue further, will accept once for all the recommendations provided here. A warm thank you to you. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Seventh statement by moderatorBhaskarbhagawati asks three questions. The answer to the first (all major viewpoints) is yes. Is there a viewpoint that is being excluded? The answer to the second (should exceptional claims be supported by sources) is that claims (whether or not exceptional) should be supported by sources. Are there unsourced claims? The third question has to do with whether to use common names. Is there an issue about the use of a less common name? Is there agreement that there are no published works on the older form of the language (which itself does not survive as a written langauge)? Chaipau makes a general statement, and so I will pose the above questions to both editors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply Seventh statements by editors@ Robert McClenon: there is no dispute on the three matters of principle: (1) Should we represent the majority view (yes); (2) Should we support exceptional claims by sources (yes); and whether we should use the common name (yes). All these principles are being followed in the articles. What is at dispute are Bhaskarbhagawati's interpretations of these principles. Here are some examples:
What is at dispute here is the use of these principles to disruptively insert language and references in the lead of these articles to somehow indicate that these two articles are equivalent. I call it disruptive because since 2012 there is WP:CONSENSUS (not unanimity) that they are not equivalent, and which is exactly what we discovered in this discussion as well. Chaipau ( talk) 11:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Eighth statement by moderatorOkay. Let's try a different approach. The current articles will serve as the baseline. Will each editor please list all of the points where they think either of the articles should be changed? We will then see if we can work out the issues or if we need to use RFC, but it appears that we need to use RFC. Be concise, but list all of the points whee you believe there are content issues. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Eighth statements by editors@ Robert McClenon: before I make the list, I would like to ask two questions.
Thanks! Chaipau ( talk) 10:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Ninth statement by moderator1. The first issue is the name of the article on the old language. Since there does not seem to be agreement, we will use a Move Request, which works like an RFC. This will take place while other discussion continues. Please list all proposed names. 2. We are in agreement that the two articles are not equivalent. One is about the older language and the other is about the modern dialect. Please identify any sections that imply an equivalence and we will fix them. 3. Please list all specific proposed changes. Be specific. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply Ninth statements by editorsRobert McClenon, thank you for creating subpage for the discussion of the Kamrupi language/dialect issues. I am listing my opinion below : 1.The most common names as per current sources [3] [4] are Old Kamarupi dialect (3), Kamrupi language (3), Kamrupi Apabhramsa (3), Kamrupi Prakrit (2), Kamarupi Prakrit (1), proto-Kamrupa (1). 2. For point number two i rather ask a question about how we can accommodate linguists who opines old language is older form of modern Kamrupi (Upendranath Goswami, Golokchandra Goswami, Kaliram Medhi, Sukumar Sen, Madhumita Sengupta and others). 3. The specific proposed changes in my view are:
Thus, to summarise i suggest titling of article according to common name, inclusion of all viewpoints on the subject and restriction in their deletion, exclusion of unsourced claims and more weightage to experts. Since the beginning of our discussion there are serious misrepresentations, which i believe need to be addressed for those newer to the subject. Some of them are:
Tenth statement by moderatorI will be starting a Request for Comments on the primary title of this article. I will repeat my request to identify any proposed specific changes to the article. What part of "be specific" wasn't specific enough? "Inclusion of all viewpoints" is not specific, but a restatement of a principle. If any specific viewpoint is omitted and should be added, specify it. "Inclusion of all works and sources" is not specific. What works and sources? Do you want me to close this discussion with a finding that there is a lot of vague complaining? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC) reply Tenth statements by editorsRobert McClenon sorry, actually i restated the principle of "inclusion of all viewpoints" because of other editors statement that viewpoints not in line of consensus should be excluded, although i supposed to be more specific. The most important viewpoints excluded are:
Changes to Kamrupi dialect
Chaipau ( talk) 12:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC) reply Changes to Kamarupi Prakrit
Chaipau ( talk) 17:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC) reply Eleventh statement by moderatorHere is a summary of the contested points. User: Bhaskarbhagawati has requested that Goswami, Medhi, and Sengupta be included. User:Chaipau has requested five changes to Kamrupi dialect, and six changes to the articles on the old language. We are in agreement that the first paragraph of each article is satisfactory. Do the other editors agree to the specified changes? Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply Eleventh statements by editorsThe first paragraphs (regional dialects, unattested etc.) are unsourced or sources not saying what it claimed, sources saying "first Indo-Aryan language of Assam". The contents of both the article are written reproducing what reliable sources saying, removing them as suggested by Chaipau lead to exclusion of scholarly viewpoints, unsourced content can be removed. Inclusion of all reliable sources will definitely depict Kamrupi dialect and Kamrupi language are indeed same. So to summarise, in my opinion no sourced content should removed, both article should reproduce exactly what reliable source are saying etc. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply Twelfth statement by moderatorOkay. Let's try to work through this, one paragraph at a time, for the two articles. We will start with the lede paragraph of each article. Will each editor please provide their proposed text for the first paragraph of each article? Then we will see whether we can work out differences in the first paragraphs by discussion or whether we have to take each of them to RFC. Proposed changes to other paragraphs are permitted but not required at this point. Non-specific complaints, such as that viewpoints are being excluded or that the article is biased, are forbidden, and are subject to zero tolerance. If an editor makes any non-specific complaints that I cannot deal with explicitly, I will go back to WP:ANI with a recommendation that that editor be topic-banned from Indian languages. Okay. Provide your drafts for the first paragraph of each article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply Twelfth statements by editorsLede of old language Kamrupi language was first Indo-Aryan language spoken in North Bengal, Western Assam and parts of central Assam. It was sole literary language of the region till nineteenth century, subsequently lost its prestige and now become a dialect, spoken in modern Kamrup. [1] [2] The eastern Magadhi Prakrit gave rise to four languages, Radhi, Varendari, Kamrupi and Vanga. [3] This Kamrupi language can be dated at least to first millennium, when deluge of literary activity occurred in North Bengal and Western Assam [4], and the ancestor of the North Bengal dialects (Kamta, Rajbanshi and Northern Deshi Bangla) began to develop. [5] [6] This sort of Sporadic Apabhramsa is a mixture of Sanskrit, Prakrit and colloquial dialects of Assam. [7] This apabhramsa gave rise to various modern eastern Indo-European languages like Assamese language [8] [9], and significantly different from it in terms of phonology, morphology and vocables. [10] [11]
References
Kamrupi dialect (formerly Kamrupi language) [1] was first Indo-Aryan language spoken in North Bengal, Western Assam and parts of central Assam, is also a modern dialect of Assamese language, that formerly enjoyed prestige status. [2] [3] [4] Kamrupi is heterogeneous with three subdialects— West (Barpeta), Central (Nalbari) and South Kamrupi (Palashbari). [5] In medieval times, Kamrupi was used in the Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas for literary purposes in parallel with Sanskrit, both for prose and poetry. This went against the practices of literary figures of mid India like Vidyapati who used Sanskrit for prose and Maithili for poetry. [6] In more recent times, the South Kamrupi dialect has been used in the works of author Indira Goswami. Poet and nationalist Ambikagiri Raichoudhury also used Kamrupi in his works to great extent. [7] In 2018, the Kamrupi film Village Rockstars became the first from the region to be selected for India's official entry to the 91st Academy Awards. [8] भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply First paragraph of Kamarupi Prakrit
First paragraph of Kamrupi dialect
I am not making any pointed refutation of Bhaskarbhagawati's proposed changes at this time. Chaipau ( talk) 19:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply
References
Thirteenth RoundTwo RFCs are now running on the lede paragraphs to the two articles. They will run for 30 days, and will resolve the matter of the lede paragraphs. User:Chaipau has proposed a long list of changes to the two articles. Please read them over and indicate which you accept, which you want to compromise, and which you do not accept. Proposed Changes to Kamrupi dialect
Chaipau ( talk) 12:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC) reply Proposed Changes to Kamarupi Prakrit
Thirteenth Statements by EditorsI am addressing all the points one by one. The proposed changes and my views on it are:
In modern language, the proposed change will remove the viewpoint of Kaliram Medhi( Medhi, Kaliram (1988). Assamese grammar and origin of the Assamese language, p.84).
For modern language, 'Similarities with Eastern Assamese' section cannot changed to 'Differences with Eastern Assamese/Standard Assamese language' because as per our current sources Kamrupi language/dialect is significantly different from standard Assamese language based on eastern Assamese dialect in terms of phonology, morphology and vocables. Therefore, we need to see if there any similarities rather differences which is obvious.
For modern language, 'region' section required because the language was originally spoken in modern Kamrup, then North Bengal, Western Assam and central Assam, afterwards in North Bengal, entire Brahmaputra valley, parts of Bangladesh and Bhutan, addition of parts of Bihar and so on. Eventually now in modern Kamrup. Thus uncertainty of region requires region section.
For modern langauge, 'Scholarly views' section is about significant linguists viewpoints on the subject, removing them is removing important viewpoints, but there are scope of changes in its presentation.
For modern language, the picture of Charyapada included as per quote of Upendranath Goswami, it should not be removed. (Goswami Upendranath (1970), A study on Kamrupi: a dialect of Assamese, Dept. of Historical Antiquarian Studies, p.4.) The first and second paragraph is sourced to last citation, should be kept. The name of medieval writers need to be included either in history or literature section, definitely not in region section. The fourth paragraph about medieval writer 'Sankaradeva' cannot be removed because it will again remove views of Kaliram Medhi.
Thus to summarise, the proposed removal of content of the both articles lead to exclusion of important viewpoints. Although, i am open to inclusion of other sources which contradicts them. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply In defense of the proposed changesI shall be providing point-to-point defense of the edit suggestions I have made. I shall be done within a day...and when I am done, I shall indicate it. Kamarupa Anusandhan Samiti: The reference is not the official position of the organization, but an article in the journal, authored by Parikshit Hazarika (1968). It makes the same point as that made by M M Sharma (1978), that there exists irregularities in the Sanskrit text of Kamarupa inscriptions, but his central assertion—that this indicates an Kamarupa Apabhramsha parallel to Magadha Apabhramsha—is no longer accepted. Subsequent and recent authors have continued to accept that a dialect of the Magadhi Apabhramsha is the origin of the KRNB lects and the Assamese language. Therefore, on the basis of WP:RS_AGE, WP:RSCONTEXT, since Kamarupa Prakrit is a later coinage and more accurate, it should be retained. Chaipau ( talk) 11:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Round Fourteen: ModeratorI made a mistake somehow on the RFC on the old language, and the two versions were identical. That has been closed. I think that I have this time entered Version A and Version B correctly. I will be reviewing previous postings shortly and will provide an update. Until then, conduct all discussion in the Threaded Discussion sections. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply Round Fifteen: Statement by ModeratorIt appears that User:Chaipau has five or six proposed changes to each of the two articles, and that User:Bhaskarbhagawati is satisfied with the articles. Is that correct? Each user may identify one change to each article that they consider to have the highest priority. We will then start an RFC on each of those changes. If you are satisfied with the current content, you don't need to propose a change. Please list your proposed change in the section below. Do not reply to the other editor's changes. That discussion can be done in a No vote on the RFC or in the Threaded Discussion. Trying to discuss all of the changes at once gets nowhere. So each editor may propose one change to each article, in the space below. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply Fifteenth Statements by EditorsRobert McClenon, indeed i disagree with proposed deletion of content secured by sources suggested by Chaipau, as said in my last statement, and i don't want to propose any newer changes except which are already under RFC. Also the publications of Kamarupa Anusandhan Samiti are vetted. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 06:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Sixteenth Statement by ModeratorI had thought that maybe we could make some progress toward resolving this dispute, but it appears that the issue is being raised again of whether to combine the two articles. Some of us thought that there was agreement that we would have two articles, one on the older language and one on the modern language or dialect. User:Bhaskarbhagawati - I will give you one last choice. Do you want to discuss how to improve the two articles, or do you want to have a merge discussion to combine the two articles? If you choose to work to improve the two articles, you will not be allowed to complain about the decision seven years ago to split them, and if you do complain, I will go to Arbitration Enforcement and request that you be topic-banned from Indian languages for one year. If you choose to have a merge discussion, we will have a merge discussion, and if it keeps the two articles, you will be subject to being topic-banned from them. Now - Choose. User:Bhaskarbhagawati - You have 24 hours to decide which course we will take. If you do not decide within 24 hours, I will decide for you, and I will not permit you to go back. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply Both of you have been notified again of ArbCom discretionary sanctions. I have been patient, maybe too patient. I don't plan to be patient any longer, either with vague complaints about censorship, vague complaints that all viewpoints should be represented (which we already agree one), other vague complaints, or side complaining about the history of the articles. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply User:Chaipau - Within 48 hours, please identify one change to each article that has the highest priority. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply Sixteenth Statements by EditorsI would like to suggest the top items from Round Thirteen.
Chaipau ( talk) 03:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Seventeenth Statement by ModeratorI would like to get this dispute resolution wrapped up. I have started two RFCs, one on each subject. I would like to know whether the participants are willing to resume discussion on the article talk pages without moderation. Unless there is an objection, in 48 hours I will suspend moderation and allow discussion to resume while this case is on hold. We will see whether regular discussion is working. If it is working, good. If it doesn't work, I may resume moderated discussion, but will more likely either ask User:Abecedare to intervene or will file a request at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply Seventeenth Statements by Editors@ Robert McClenon: I would request a moderated discussion if it is possible. Otherwise the discussions over the last seven years have been circular and repetitive. This has happened for every singly minor point. I fear any un-moderated discussion will give us nothing. I believe that the 44 days of moderated discussion has yielded more resolution than the last seven years. Just my two cents. Chaipau ( talk) 16:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Eighteenth Statement by ModeratorOkay. If it is requested that moderated discussion continue, I will continue moderated discussion. I will be slowing down the pace of moderated discussion. I will be starting up to four more RFCs in about one week. Each editor may request one more RFC on each article. (If any additional editors want to be added as parties and request RFCs, I will add them, which might result in more than four RFCs.) My objective is to keep the number of RFCs open at a given time to a manageable number. A few reminders are in order. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Casting aspersions on the motives or good faith of editors is forbidden. Personal attacks are forbidden. When I say that casting aspersions and personal attacks are forbidden, there will be no warnings. If they happen, I will request immediate sanctions. I will be drawing up a revised set of rules for this moderation in the next few days. Do not edit the articles. You may and should discuss on the article talk pages. To that extent, the ANI restriction is modified. Discussion on the article talk pages must follow talk page guidelines and may not involve aspersions or personal attacks. Within five days, each editor should identify one more RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply Eighteenth Statements by EditorsRobert McClenon, thank you. Your conditions are nothing unusual, and in normal times that is what it should be. I would rather see this take six month to resolve than continue the situation for another seven years. Chaipau ( talk) 19:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Nineteenth Statement by ModeratorUser:Richard Keatinge - You already are a party to this case. What matter do you in particular want resolved? Each editor may submit one more RFC request now. User:Bhaskarbhagawati - I had also expected that this would be resolved by now. Other editors advise me that this controversy has been going on for seven years. If you don't want this discussion to continue for a few more months, I think that other editors would be willing to have you agree to a topic-ban. If you want this discussion put on hold, please explain why it needs to be put on hold. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply Be sure to !vote in favor of any RFCs that you have requested. Since I am the originator, and I am neutral, your request will not be counted as support. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply Nineteenth Statements by EditorsRobert McClenon good evening, i am currently very busy in some important things because of which i maybe not able to fully focus in our discussion. If you disagree, i will try to comeback here once a day. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Twentieth Statement by ModeratorI never said that participants should not vote in the RFCs. I did say, in response to a suggestion that participants not vote in the RFCs, that participants should vote in the RFCs. Each editor may propose one more RFC to each article. I determine what the rules are. I don't want any parties trying to tweak the rules to their advantage. I have no intention of putting this on hold unless there is agreement by all of the participants that it should be put on hold. If the participants want to conclude the moderated discussion, they may do so, in which case they will agree to be bound by everything that has been decided, or that will be decided by any ongoing RFCs, RMs, et cetera. I am not putting this on hold unless there is a very good reason. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply Twentieth Statements by Editors@ Robert McClenon: Thanks for the clarification—I just wanted to know what are rules are. I do not think we should put this on hold. We have had this issue in the past and the process(es) then stalled. I don't want that to happen here and look forward to a resolution. Chaipau ( talk) 01:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Twenty-First Statement by ModeratorUser:Bhaskarbhagawati - What exactly are you asking be changed? Exactly what change to one of the articles are you asking to have rolled back? Robert McClenon ( talk) 10:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply User:Richard Keatinge, User:Chaipau - Are either you or anyone else requesting that a change to one of the articles be rolled back? Exactly what is being requested? Robert McClenon ( talk) 10:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply It has already been established that all academic viewpoints should be included. Is there a question about the inclusion of an academic viewpoint? Please be specific. Vague complaints and vague comments are not useful. Robert McClenon ( talk) 10:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply Please reply here within 24 hours. If there is a question about changes to the article or about the inclusion or exclusion of viewpoints, we need to identify it and resolve it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 10:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply Twenty-First Statements by Editors@ Robert McClenon: I am not requesting any change. The issue, on a different subject, went through an RfC recently and it was settled ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AAssamese_people&type=revision&diff=893523107&oldid=891769625). But since it ended not to user:Bhaskarbhagawati's liking, he is trying to re-litigate. I would request you not to include that issue in this process. I apologize for bringing it here. Chaipau ( talk) 11:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Robert McClenon: The discussion that user:Bhaskarbhagawati started a couple of days ago has been closed as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AAssamese_people&type=revision&diff=900285200&oldid=900207257 FYI, user:Richard Keatinge. Chaipau ( talk) 17:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Twenty-Second Statement by ModeratorAre the editors, both of the principal editors, requesting that this DRN be closed, or that it continue? If closed, is there agreement to accept the results of the RFCs? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply Twenty-Second Statements by editorsAs said earlier i have no further request for change, and i will accept the RFCs, thank you. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Please consider completing this DRN process. I don't think this dispute can continue any further. We require a resolution, so we can improve these articles, beyond the listed change requests. Chaipau ( talk) 15:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Good. So, with my apologies to the moderator for this digression, let us proceed to resolve this matter.
Richard Keatinge (
talk)
20:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
reply
Twenty-Third Statement by ModeratorIt appears that the parties are saying that they are ready to conclude this moderated discussion. If anyone has any specific further changes, please identify them within 48 hours. If no further changes are requested within 48 hours, I will close this discussion, with a finding that consensus has been achieved, and that editing against consensus will be disruptive. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC) reply Twenty-Third Statements by EditorsIt is my impression, and hope, that we have reached a consensus on the major points. I hope that it will be helpful to list them here:
(And, I trust, we positively agree that the above system of nomenclature in no way denies the continuities between these two groups of lects, and other lects. Nor does it offer any disrespect to the literary achievements expressed in mediaeval and modern times, in related Kamrupi lects.)
Keep first paragraph as it is. No change. Second paragraph: "In medieval times, Kamrupi was used in the Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas for literary purposes in parallel with Sanskrit, both for prose and poetry." → "In late medieval times Kamrupi forms are found in prose, such as those compiled in the Kamrupar Buranji." "This went against the practices of literary figures of mid India like Vidyapati who used Sanskrit for prose and Maithili for poetry.[6]" → "The use of Kamrupi dialect in modern times has plummeted due to the prevalence of the standard variety though in recent times there has been a trend to use this in major media. Keep the section Kamrupi_dialect#Features as it is, except: Rename the section Kamrupi_dialect#Similarities_with_Eastern_Assamese to Difference with Eastern Assamese" because the section discusses the differences and not the similarities. Add section on similarities later when needed. Change the name of the section Kamrupi_dialect#Definition_of_the_region to "Kamrup region". Remove all the text from this section, since it is already covered in Kamrup region. In its stead, we should have a short paragraph to be extended later. This is a sample paragraph: "The group of Kamrupi dialects is spoken in the Kamrup region, which has had a consistent administrative delineation since the 17th century, first under the Mughals, then under the Ahoms and later under the British and then Indian district of Undivided Kamrup. There are primarily three major dialects spoken in this region: Barpetia dialect in the west; Nalbaria dialect in the east and Palasbaria dialect in the south. These dialects form a dialect continuum within themselves and with the adjoining dialects of Goalparia dialect to the west and the Pati-Darrangia dialect to its east." The section Kamrupi_dialect#Scholarly_views is largely a POV fork and should be deleted. In the section Kamrupi_dialect#Literature: Remove the picture of Charyapada, since it is closest to Kamarupi Prakrit; and the similarity is claimed by many languages. Remove the first and the second paragraphs Transfer the name of medieval writers from Kamrup region to the previous section (Kamrup region), after verifying the writers are indeed from Kamrup region. Remove fourth paragraph — Sankardev was not from Kamrup and he did not use Kamrupi dialect in his writings — he used old literary Assamese.
Keep the first paragraph as it is. No change. In the second paragraph, remove "This sort of Sporadic Apabhramsa is a mixture of Sanskrit, Prakrit and colloquial dialects of Assam.[7]". Remove "Linguists claim this apabhramsa gave rise to various eastern Indo-European languages like modern Assamese and felt its presence in the form of Kamrupi and Kamatapuri lects.[9][10]", because this is a repeat of "Though not substantially proven, the existence of the language that predated the Kamatapuri lects and Assamese is widely believed.[5]" with a confusing set of citations. In section "Etymology of names" remove "Sukumar Sen and others calls it as old Kamrupi dialect;[12][13][14] the speech used in old Kamrup[12]" This sentence is trying to equate Kamrupi dialect with Kamarupi Prakrit; it attributes it to Sukumar Sen, whereas the author is Upendranath Goswami etc. Remove the picture of Nidhanpur plates, because it makes no sense to just display the plates without pointing out the "prakritism"; OTOH, if the prakritisms are available, then they should be presented in the caption. Add the following caption in the Charyapada picture "Charyapada, written between the 8th and 12th century, contains evidence of Bengali language, Assamese language, Oriya language and Maithili language; and it most likely contains the most direct evidence of Kamarupi Prakrit." If this caption is not acceptable, then we should drop the picture entirely. Remove the two last sections: Kamarupi_Prakrit#Geographical_vicinity is a POV fork, that attempts to equate Kamrupi dialect with Kamarupi prakrit, and the paragraph is very convoluted. Kamarupi_Prakrit#Works is also another POV fork that attempts the same thing. The aphorisms of Dak are found in east Indo-Aryan languages, adapted for modern usage. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply
References
Twenty-Fourth Statement by ModeratorThere is back-and-forth discussion above. I had said that back-and-forth discussion is not permitted.
User:Bhaskarbhagawati has a complaint that proposed RFCs are in disagrement with WP:V and WP:NOR. Do they have a different suggestion? I can close this discussion or continue it. Generalized complaints are not useful. Are we ready to close this discussion, or is there a further matter to address? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Twenty-Fourth Statements by Editors@ Robert McClenon: the back and forth is regrettable. It should not happen again.
Chaipau ( talk) 10:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Twenty-Fifth Statement by ModeratorUser:Bhaskarbhagawati - I have said in the past that vague statements such as "All academic viewpoints on the subject need to be included" (which is already a matter of Wikipedia policies) and "Include contradicting academic views" are not helpful. Please clarify exactly what if any change you want made. Does each editor have any more comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC) reply Twenty-fifth Statements by EditorsNone from me. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC) reply
|