Talk:Goalpariya dialects

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, particularly following the creation of Goalpariya people. It may be worthwhile to open a discussion at a later date between using "dialect", "language" or some other disambiguator. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Goalpariya dialect → Goalpariya – Goalpariya is different from both Assamese and Bengali, both in vocabulary and grammar. It is not a dialect of these two language but a language itself and has its own dialects Abdul wa7eed (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Goalpariya is currently a disambiguation page that has articles listed. I have to contest this move due to that fact alone. Also, I think the article's name should stay "Goalpariya dialect" based on the list of articles found on Goalpariya. Steel1943 (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • That disambiguation page should probably be deleted per WP:TWODABS ("If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article.") —  AjaxSmack  16:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Nice find. With that information, it seems like this discussion might need to change to "Which article should be moved to Goalpariya: Goalpariya dialect or Goalpariya lokageet?" Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would contest the move. Goalpariya is not an independent language.Wahabdr (talk)10:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is an article about the dialects of the Goalpara region (undivided Goalpara district). It takes no position on whether it is a language itself or whether it is dialect of another language, as it is made clear in the lead itself. Chaipau (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Rename to Goalpariya language. The claim that some things are only "dialects" and not languages is inherently an assertion of power and preference for some groups over other groups, and should not be supported by wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Which is not the case here. This is an extreme position that Wikipedia is better off avoiding. It should rather follow standard practices of the linguistic community and not invent its own standards. Chaipau (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Frankly, I am bewildered by Chaipau's comment that "It takes no position on whether it is a language itself or whether it is dialect of another language, as it is made clear in the lead itself. ". Naming the article Goalpariya dialect seems a pretty bloody obvious way of taking a position. Linguists (and governments) change their position regularly on what constitutes a dialect and what constitutes a language, depending on prevailing political and social conditions. The article itself suggests that Assamese scholars consider Goalpariya to be a dialect of Assamese. Well, to paraphrase the immortal Mandy Rice-Davies, "They would, wouldn't they". They have a vested interest in supporting the claims of the Assamese language. Wikipedia, however, is required to be neutral in such disputes. For that reason, we also cannot take the opposing view that Goalpariya is a distinct language when that is contested by many of the sources. The article as written treads a fairly neutral path, avoiding giving the impression that Goalpariya is either a language or a dialect, and that is what the title should do as well. On that basis, I would support the original proposal to move to Goalpariya. With just two items, the disambiguation page serves no purpose, and could be scrapped. Hatnotes can handle any problems more than adequately. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Let me be bewildered in turn. There are two points here. First, calling a lect a dialect is in no way derogatory, contrary to what is being claimed here. Even the standard form of any language is also a dialect (Dialect#Standard_and_non-standard_dialect). Second, not only do Assamese scholars call Goalpariya a dialect group, but all others do too. Grierson and Chatterji too calls them dialects. Toulmin, who has examined the issue (read his thesis, it is online), covers a wide geographical area covering parts of Nepal, North Bengal, Bangladesh and Assam. Even he does not venture to call these groups of lects a language. The power play mentioned here, refers to the demand that Kamatapuri be called a language and not a dialect of Bengali and the corresponding push back. Because of the intricacies in this situation Toulmin desists from giving it a name, calling this group "KRNB lects" instead. Even if we were to follow the activist line on Wikipedia, as suggested in the proposal, and call the KRNB lects a language, Goalpariya would still be a "dialect" of this language. Chaipau (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: That is not what is proposed. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Let us be clear, then. It is claimed that Goalpariya is a language. No matter how you see it, it cannot be called a language (from the literature). Since it is not a language, the proposal is to call it "Goalpariya", to remove the "stigma" of being called a dialect! (ignoring the fact that it is not a sitgma). So in support of an unsubstantiated claim and a false assumption, you want to break the disambiguation page and create a bigger mess than there exists. Chaipau (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Let's be clear, then. There shouldn't even be a disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
      • As pointed out, why should we not move Goalpariya lokageet to Goalpariya? When we have Goalpariya people, Goalpariya folk arts etc, may we move back everything? Chaipau (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The language vs. dialect issue does not need to even be addressed here. Just move this article to "Goalpariya", delete the disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS, and add a hatnote directing readers to the folk songs article. —  AjaxSmack  16:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Support Goalpariya is always been a part of debate regarding its status as dialects of either Bengali and Assamese or a language in its own right. Associating it as dialects of said languages are more political than linguistics. It should be noted that most West Goalpariya speaking areas are now in West Bengal and East Goalpariya speakers found mostly in Assam. Please see this recent Work. For neutrality sack it should moved to Goalpariya as current disambiguation page serving no purpose except as justification of dialect suffix which may be considered by some as derogatory. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 05:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I wonder what User:Bhaskarbhagawati is trying to say. The author himself concludes: "Phonologically speaking, Goalpariya Language is a very simple dialect" (at the beginning of Chapter VI, "Conclusion"---the report has no page numbers). Chaipau (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Read through the whole of that conclusion and you will find that he makes no conclusion about whether Goalpariya is a language in its own right, or a dialect of either Assamese or Bengali. If you look at the rest of the document, he most certainly makes reference to arguments and controversy about whether Goalpariya is a language or a dialect. Wikipedia is required to take a neutral position, which the present title fails to do (it would be equally wrong to move the article to Goalpariya language). Chaipau clearly has his own views, and has reached a conclusion that Goalpariya is a dialect. He has no right to expect that Wikipedia should take such a partisan position. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • That Goalpariya is a dialect is not a partisan position. It is based on the works of Grierson, Chatterji, Dutta and Toulmin. The author in question, Prodhani, is not even aware of the works of Dutta and Toulmin, who have provided the most substantial accounts on these dialects ("Historians and linguists of different times have never been found to bother about or attempt at a thorough and scientific study of Goalpariya language", he says which is patently false). Goalpariya has two major dialects according to Dutta: western (say Gauripur) and eastern (say Bongaigaon). But Prodhani's study is based on the (natural) language around Dhubri ("a synchronic study of the language has been made in this book taking Dhubri, district (Assam) as the geographical boundary of the study"), which is what Grierson meant by "southwest" Goalpariya. So, please do not slip on his title "Goalpariya language", which should have been "The Southwest Goalpariya (natural) Language in Dhubri". When he uses the word "language", he uses it in the sense of a Natural language. Nevertheless, the value of Prodhani's work is on his report of the southwest dialect, which Dutta (and Chatterji) seems to have accepted as identical to the Gauripur dialect. Chaipau (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Stop: Where there is a dispute, Wikipedia does not take sides. It does not attempt to interpret the opinions in sources to suit our preferred version. It simply reports on the difference of opinion in an unbiased way. That is not guidance, nor is it a choice—it is one of our basic policies, which we are obliged to follow. Whether you think the arguments put forward by those who claim this is a language are right or not is not of the slightest interest, because that is purely your personal opinion of the dispute. If you wish to express your views on the subject you do it on the talk page of a newspaper website, or on your own personal blog, but you do not use Wikipedia articles or their titles to do so. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This is part of the dispute resolution process, where we show the basis of our claims. I have already stated what the linguists have said and no one is disputing them. I have also showed that the references put up to show Goalpariya is a language actually deals with the dialect of a region of Goalpara (Dhubri). Yes, if you insert a sentence that "some claim it is a language", then that is acceptable. But you cannot use a literal reading of a text and use it to push your personal opinion (quote mining). Chaipau (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Here is the dispute in words of the author which book i have given in the link above:-

(i)(a)Historians and linguists of different times have never been found to bother about or attempt at a thorough and scientific study of Goalpariya language. They remain satisfied in merely mentioning the language in their works. Here he mentioned about no dedicated book on Goalpariya language but just mention here and there in different works without any systematic approach. (i)(b)Consequently, there prevail ample doubts and confusions among people as to whether Goalpariya Language is a language proper or a dialect of Assamese Language or of Bengali Language and so on. Here is the dispute we talking about. (ii)(a)Goalpariya language, thus, is one of the dialects of Prakrit spoken He is referring it readily as dialect of mid Indo Aryan langauge,so dialect he referring is dialect of Prakrit. (ii)(b)The recognized form of the dialect of Sibasagar(Assam)has established itself as Assamese, that of Bengal as Bengali etc. they acquired their recognition as distinct languages with a geographical territory each. As a consequence of the dearth of strong political background and illiteracy, the speakers of Goalpariya language could not follow the footprints of the speakers of the sister dialects. As a result, it has to remain a dialect till date. Here is the controversy, it is clearly said that Bengali and Assamese and also Goalpariya are dialects of Magadhi Prakrit but except Goalpariya all others got language status now. (iii)It is an unpleasant truth that the local people of the district learn Assamese language in the primary level not as the first language but as the second language (the first being Goalpariya language). Here he clearly distinguished between Assamese language and Goalpariya language.

Last but not least he books title is language not dialect as compared to other works like A Study on Kamrupi, Dialect of Assamese and word language occurs frequently and usage of dialect as i mentioned above generally directs towards Prakrit not Assamese.

So subject is enough controversial and we have move this page to Goalpariya and corresponding disambiguation to Goalpariya (Disambiguation) otherwise delete the same, show them as see also in this language article itself. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 01:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(i)(b) has been addressed above. For example, Toulmin 2006.

(i)(b) refers to the 19th-20th centuries debate. The 20th-21th centuries debate is whether North Bengali (Kamatapuri) is a dialect of Bengali, which Prodhani seems to be not stating explicitly. See Toulmin for how this bears on the linguistic issue.

(ii)(a) Goalpariya cannot be a dialect of Magadhi Prakrit, because Toulmin 2006 has reconstructed at least one historical language from the 15th-16th century---proto-Kamata---from which all modern Kamatapuri lects have developed (including Goalpariya).

(ii)(b) The eastern dialect did become the standard dialect in the mid-19th century. But that is no longer the case. The standard Assamese dialect is no longer the eastern dialect.

(iii) Yes, it is unfortunate that students generally study a standard dialect in schools. But dialects and languages die not because they are not being taught in schools, but because people stop using them. They should be use at homes, in the arts and literature, and in the appropriate social contexts.

Chaipau (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Are even looking at what other people writing here, most recent (2010) and only dedicated work on subject disputes its dialect status and Wikipedia takes neutral stand on such issues. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 01:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move Chihin.chong (tea and biscuits) 19:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)(non-admin closure)

---

Goalpariya dialect → Goalpariya language – As per advice of closing administrator. Relisted. BDD (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC) भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: This has been settled below. Chaipau (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: This article examines the dialectal situation of the Goalpara region in Assam, and it examines two and possibly three dialects. Though there is a demand to establish the Kamatapuri lects as an independent language, this demand is controversial enough that Toulmin (2006 PhD thesis), who reconstructed the proto-Kamtapuri, desists from calling it a language preferring to call it KRNB lects. The 2(3) Goalparia dialects form the eastern most of the KRNB lects that spread over Nepal, North Bengal, Bangladesh and Assam. Chaipau (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Goalpariya dialect → Goalparia dialect – The spelling "Goalparia" is more common and is a standard (scholar.google.com - 11 results), whereas "Goalpariya" is less commonly used (scholar.google.com - 4 results) --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 17:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Chaipau (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Goalpariya people pronounces with that "Y" sound, in spite of scholar showing less results for Goalpariya, its good enough reason to keep this way. Even best known Goalpariya culture researcher Birendra Nath Datta uses this spelling. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reference to show that "Goalpariya" is preferred over "Goalparia"? The spelling "Goalparia" (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=goalparia) is more prevalent than "Goalpariya" (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=goalpariya). More recent works, published in reputed journals, have used "Goalparia". It is suggested that the spelling "Goalparia" should be used across all Goalparia related articles. Chaipau (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the recent work by Goalpariya author. Being with "Y" or not is not a big issue but its how natives uses, i am not sure about outsiders. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

As discussed in the other move requests, the text by Pradhani is not reliable especially because the author is sloppy in details. "Ninad Gosti", the publisher, elicits no results when searched, and "Gauhati University Campus" its address does not mean this work is endorsed by Gauhati University or that this work has been refereed. Until the credentials of Pradhani's work is established, this work should not be used for any purpose.

On the other hand, standard journals have used "Goalparia" (e.g. The Indian Economic and Social History Review)

Chaipau (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Arbitary break 1 - Move request 3

That book by local author is first of its kind to explore structure and background of Goalpariya language. Birendra Nath Datta stayed in Goalpara for sometime and felt it necessary to use that Y pronounciation or sound. Here question is that what is real pronounciation of Goalpariya and confusion of outsiders over Goalpariya or Goalparia, like the link user Chaipau provided. Wikipedia like native authors should support correct and native pronounciation rather expanding the dispute. I am in wikibreak and unable to comment anymore but hope Goalpariya people get a fair deal and representation in this matter. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not muddy the water needlessly. There is no evidence that the Goalparia people are sensitive to the -ia or -iya endings. Your objection is based on original research. Chaipau (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I live near Goalpariya cultural area and have close links with them. Their sensitivity can also tested by Goalpariya language page history when Goalpariya user moved it to spelling with Y which was changed midway by someone by removing the Y,and spelling used by native speakers in move request 1 here. But inspite you forcefully moved Goalpariya to Goalparia in lokgeet article even after my humble request to maintain status quo till Goalpariya or Goalparia dispute resolves here. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Living close to them is not an argument. We are trying to standardize the spelling we use in Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Using wrong spelling is not standardisation. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that your objection fails WP:VERIFY since it is based on your "beliefs and experiences". Chaipau (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

What about that latest book and BN Datta. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 06:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Pradhani's work, is unreliable, as already mentioned. So please do not keep repeating it over and over, without addressing its reliability issues. Further, it is a misnomer, because his work is a study of the language spoken only around Dhubri, and not the entire Goalpara region, which is the subject here.
• B Dutta's work is from the 1980s. That is about 30 years old. The recent works all spell it Goalparia.

Chaipau (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Then check recent works by BN Datta.Even 2013 work by other authors uses Y, so your claim is baseless. Dhubri is part of Goalpariya speaking area. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Usage by regional newspapers - http://www.assamtimes.org/node/3244 , http://www.sentinelassam.com/juniorsentinel/juniorsentinel1.php?sec=19&subsec=0&ppr=5&dtPs=2010-07-19 , http://www.assamtribune.com/jan0209/panorama1.html , http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110202/jsp/northeast/story_13521136.jsp , http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100709/jsp/northeast/story_12663424.jsp भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Social network communities - http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Community?cmm=50386796 , http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Community?cmm=57273101 , http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Community?cmm=93015294 , http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Community?cmm=98268994 , http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Community?cmm=104429390 . भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Abdul wa7eed seems to be a native Goalpariya. He may also be consulted. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to dialect

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goalpariya_Language&oldid=908170666 - User:Uanfala, can you explain? 77.13.11.241 (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 29 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus Moved – see #Post move below. See no general agreement below to rename this article. Other suggestions were made; however, there is no consensus to call Goalpariya a language, nor is there agreement to pluralize the title. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few months to garner consensus to rename this article. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  10:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Goalpariya dialect → Goalpariya dialect group – As stated in the first sentence of the article: "Goalpariya is a group of Indo-Aryan dialects spoken in the Goalpara region of Assam, India." 77.13.11.241 (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced the IP's nomination was entirely good-faith (given the context of this ANI thread), but it definitely has merit. I think the best title given the content of the article would be Goalpariya dialects (notice the plural: that's the usual way of naming articles about dialect groups). Pinging recent contributors: InspireTheWorld1 and Bhaskarbhagawati, who appear to have a different opinion. – Uanfala (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep it as it is, for now. If this changes, then Kamrupi dialect should also change. I support Goalpariya dialects and Kamrupi dialects. Chaipau (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• It is a language on its own and not a dialect. This Goalpariya language has more than four dialects of its own and hence it is a language. A language can have dialects and not the vice-versa.InspireTheWorld1 (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with InspireTheWorld1, move to "Goalpariya language". I checked different sources, none called it "group of dialects", lede of this article is uncited, can neutrally written as "Goalpariya is Indo-Aryan language spoken in Goalpara region of India". भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Since it is a "group of dialects" as per the lede, I believe it can be moved to "Goalpariya dialects". That would be similar to KRNB lects. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

References

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post move

• Paine Ellsworth, I agree with your close, that's definitely no consensus for any particular new title. But we need an acceptable default outcome, as there is definitely consensus against the current article name. – Uanfala (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Uanfala - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• To be honest, I thought that was pretty close, but not quite a consensus. Looking back over it, I see it's close enough to make it a closer's call, so I'll pick a title, which will be Goalpariya dialects for now. And in accord with closing instructions: "...while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. And if anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully leading the article to its final resting place." Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  11:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth I'm OK with this new title. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

To editor Fylindfotberserk: Y – Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  17:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, i am not oppossing the outcome but it will definitely increase issues, in addition to existing "language vs dialect".भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 13:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth I agree with this move. Thank you. Chaipau (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

To editor Chaipau: Y – Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  14:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Bhaskarbhagawati! Yes, these issues frequently arise as dialects grow in usage and become seen by linguistic experts as languages. Several involved editors on these pages have been debating the issues for several years. The key of course is what we find in independent reliable secondary sources about a particular dialect that is a potential language in terms of common usage. So it's imperative that editors continue to seek such sources to help resolve these issues. Thanks again for agreeing with the outcome for the present. There is no prejudice if strong arguments can be made for "dialects → language". Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  14:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)