Talk:Chandrabindoo (band)

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

Not very neutral[edit]

"But the recent flourishing of Bangla bands in West Bengal was heralded by Chandrabindu" - I think this sentence should be removed. Some other bands like Bhoomi and Krosswindz had a lot to do with popularising Bangla Bands at the beginnning. I think Bhoomi was the first popular Bangla Band.--DIGIwarez 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the sentence means is that the success of Chandrabindu predated the more general success; what are the relative dates? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bhoomi prformed for the first time in 1999. Chandrabindu was formed in 1989, but both of these bands gained a lot of reputation by the year 2002. Before that they were not very popular. I think someone from West Bengal, India would understand the situation better.--DIGIwarez 18:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, rereading the sentence, it's not to much their success that predated the flourishing, but their existence; if Chandrabindu had existed for ten years before Bhoomi, then I'd say that the sentence was true (though it might not tell the whole truth). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though later Bhumi became slightly more popular than Chandrabindu, Chandrabindu released their first album and got popular before Bhumi came into the scene. I'm looking for some publication, I will add a citation when I find it. Loom91 07:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

As the history will indicate, there is a dispute concerning the inclusion in the summary of this:

"Though the title of first Bangla Band in epar Bangla (West Bengal in India) is usually given to Mohiner Ghoraguli, they came long before the popularisation of Bangla Bands. The first bangla band to achieve mainstram popularity were Chandrabindu."

It's weasel-worded (who gives this title to Mohiner Ghoraguli?), and generally uncited. (In its earlier forms it wasn't clearly relevant and offly worded, so at least it has improved in those respects.) The main disagreement over style concerns the non-standard separation by blank lines of entries in the list of external links. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure why this post is tittle RfC, I'm not aware of any RfC's regarding this matter. Anyway, I'm happy the relevance question has been resolved. Remaining is the question of verifiability. This is the first time the question has been raised. Now, I don't currently have any citations, so if you challenge the sentence I can't keep it, but I don't see why you WOULD challenge it. Unless I'm wrong, people in general only challenge statements they disagree with or feel may be controversial.
The statement that Mohiner Ghorguli were the first Bangla Band is undisputed and universally recognised, as any other editor from Bengal will tell you. So why do you insist? I'm also not sure what you mean by non-standard separation by blank lines in the list of external links. As far as I can ascertain, the dispute is about whether to include a carriage return after the section header. I feel it should be for it improves the readability of the source code without affecting layout and I'm not aware of any MoS section insisting to the contrary. Loom91 06:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There's an RfC listed at WP:RFC.
  2. Please read WP:CITE.
  3. I misread the diff, somehow. Qute right — blank lines after headings don't matter either way. The stub is better with two lines, though, as otherwise it's cramped up by the last line of the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm quite aware of WP:CITE, and I'm also aware (as I stated before) that I can't defend the statement against removal. What I don't understand is why you insist on its removal. Why would you want to remove a statement that was true and uncontroversial even if it was not sourced? Isn't making "not sourced" your sole objection to a statement rather against the spirit of the encyclopaedia. Only a tiny fraction of the total number of statements in WP are directly sourced, surely it wouldn't be a good idea to remove all of them? Loom91 08:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's irelevant to this article; it belongs in the article on Bangla bands. And it's no use saying that any editor from Bengal would agree; if it's that established and unconroversial, then finding a citation should be a piece of cake. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • But what is your point of objection - relevance or source? Please do not remove a statement on technical grounds when your actual point of objection is different - it's highly unethical. I think the previous discussions show that you actually want to remove the statement on the grounds of it being irrelevant. But since that is a personal opinion that can be contested by me, you choose to invoke "unsourced" which you know I can not contest to stop me. This is not a good way to edit articles or resolve disputes. But in any case, I've now provided a source for it so that objection no longer stands. Loom91 06:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the line ("The recent flourishing of Bangla bands in West Bengal was heralded by Chandrabindu") needs to have a source or be removed. This line is definitely opinion, and should be credited to someone. Actually, what I found most bothersome was the first paragraph of "Criticisms." Who says their lyrics are shallow and/or hollow and the singing "very bad." And "all subsequent bands were created to cash in on the hype rather than from creative motivations." Whose opinions are these? There are a couple of articles linked in the references section, but little information seems to be taken from them. -DejahThoris 19:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That line is definitely not opinion. Everything SHOULD be credited to someone, but I think it's no use being unrelaistic, we have to set our priorities straight when it comes to citing sources. Stement of a fact is not opinion, opinion would be "Chandrabindu were the first quality Bangla Band". Loom91 06:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edit to the intro. I definitely like the sound of it better now. I may be biased against the word herald- it sends a Christmas carol shooting through my head. Man, is that ever annoying.
Loom91, since you speak Bangla, can you track down an article critical of Chandrabindu's lyrics and singing, and maybe something by those 'musical purists' who doubt the 'creative motivations' of recent Bangla bands? Thanks, DejahThoris 07:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously on the look-out, but it's not easy to track down sources in Bangla. Loom91 08:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has yet explained why a claim about a different band, which makes no reference to this band, is relevant or appropriate to this article, especially in the summary. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice to see we are back on the real issue again. Though I've repeatedly explained the relevance of the comment, I'll do so again. Any treatise on any subject is meaningless without appropriate context, and this is particularly true of an article in an encyclopaedia. The function of the statement is to provide highly relevant and important context that serves to unambiguously fix the exact place of the subject of the article in the culturescape.
It does not convey full information to simply say "Chandrabindu were the first band to gain popularity", the particular piece of fact is put in context and its importance highlighted by the addition of the companion fact that while they are not credited with being the first Bangla Band because Mojiner Ghoraguli came before them, they are credited with being the first to popularise bands in the cultural mainstream. The full meaning of the second part can not be brought out without the first one. That is why the sentence is completely relevant to this article. Loom91 11:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All that needs to be said is that, while they weren't the first Bangla band, they were the first band to popularise the music. Referring to a different band only to deny its importance is unnecessary, and when the reference has the problem of weasel words and no source, I don't see the point of insisting on it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mel Etitis (talk • contribs)

If we are to mention that they were not the first Bangla Band, it's only natural to refer to who the first band were when it takes only two words. It would be closer to a weasel wording to not mention why we are not calling Chandrabindu the first band. And the statement is now sourced as well. Loom91 10:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like

"While not the first Bangla band in epar Bangla (West Bengal in India), Chandrabindu was the first to achieve mainstram popularity. Their name refers both to the last character in the Bengali alphabet and to a dialogue (very famous among Bengalis) from the nonsense work HaJaBaRaLa by Sukumar Ray."

Kind of a compromise? -DejahThoris 03:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why delibarately avoid mentioning who the first band was? What does this accomplice? Loom91 07:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm coming at it from the opposite direction; why delibrately mention who the first band was? What does this accomplish?
What if we keep the mention out of the first paragraph, and add a Mohiner Ghoraguli link in the "See also" section? -DejahThoris 19:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But wouldn't it be confusing to find a link to a band in the See Also section without an explanation of how it is relevant? Loom91 06:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Loom91, the discussion is continuing, though so far no-one has agreed with you; please stop adding the controversial material. If consensus emerges in support of it, then it can be added.
  2. "See also" sections always contain links that haven't been mentioned in the text (if they'd been mentioned, they wouldn't be in "see also"). My own view is that the link to Bangla band is enough, and that the mention of Mojiner Ghoraguli belongs there — but if adding them to "see also" would end this dispute, I'd have no objection to that. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'm aware that the discussion is continuing, but I do not see the reason why I have to stop adding the material rather than you stopping removing it, considering that the comment had stood as staus quo long before you weighed in.
  2. Putting the link in See Also will remove it out of context and make it irrelevant. The reader wil have no way of knowing why he/she should see an article about another band, unlike a link to Bangla band whose relevance is immediately clear. The mention of Mohiner Ghoraguli is relevant in its current form. If we can agree that the fact that they were not the first bangla band but the first popular one deserves mention, it seems pointless to not mention which band robs them of the honour of being the first one. A reader may have the impression that Chandrabindu were the first bangla band because Mohiner Ghoraguli are not so well known. It seems common sense to make arrangements for rectifying any such possible mistake. Loom91 09:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to boil down to the position that, though so far no-one has agreed with your version, you're still determined to keep it. Note that putting a link in "see also" can't possibly make it irrelevant (you've also ignored my comment on this above). I've now edited the article in line with suggestions made above (as well as removing the link to the official site, as it's been unobtainable the last few times I've tried to access it). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for commment[edit]

This article was placed in RFC. I have edited it from a WP:NPOV. The following have been removed and placed on this page for the time being. If they are to be reinserted in the article, they need to be closely referenced with outside sources.

Though not the first Bangla band, Chandrabindu were responsible for the mainstream popularity of the style.
Criticisms
A common criticism of the band is that their lyrics are shallow or even hollow and the singing very bad. However, these are the criticisms applied by critics generally to the Bangla band movement and not unique to Chandrabindu. In fact, some musical purists who are opposed to Bangla bands have said that whatever quality (especially in lyrics) there was towards the beginning of the movement ended with Chandrabindu, and all subsequent bands were created to cash in on the hype rather than from creative motivations.[citation needed]
Another criticism is that, because of the numerous references to current culture, the songs tend to become dated very quickly. For example in the line "Miss Universe Sushmita Sen biggyapone hasen-tasen" ("Miss Universe Sushmita Sen smiles from the advertisements") from the song "Aar Jani Na", the reference is to the proliferation of Sushmita Sen in advertisements immediately after she became Miss Universe. The critics hold that current listeners will have difficulty connecting to the song because one hardly sees Sushmita Sen in advertisements today. Another such reference is "Ar Charls-er Diana nei" ("And there is no Charles with Diana") in the song "Mangal Grahe".

Tyrenius 02:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gadha (1998)[edit]

Why does Gadha (1998) link to Mace "This article is about the personal weapon. For its symbolical derivative, see ceremonial mace. For other uses, see Mace (disambiguation)." I would assume this is a mistake. --Sweety Rose 20:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Chandrabindoo.gif[edit]

Image:Chandrabindoo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected URL And Requesting Discussion On Using Bold Letters Unnecessary Bold Letters[edit]

I have corrected the band music URL in the infobox and I am suggesting a discussion on unnecessary bold letters for Bengali words specially in Discography section. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 07:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chandrabindoo (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chandrabindoo_(band)&oldid=1206616722"