Talk:Pohela Boishakh

When is Poila Baisakh ?

When is Poila Baisakh in the Gregorian calendar ? -- 199.71.174.100 00:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• In Bangladesh, the standard Bangla Calendar marks the day on April 14 each year. That's also when the national holiday celebrating it falls. --Ragib 15:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Transliteration

Should we mark this as Pohela Boishakh? Pahela Baishakh? --Ragib 15:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am doing minor rewording of the texts, for conformity's sake I shall be using the spelling "Pohela Baishak" as used in the title of the article. In case, another spelling is decided, it may be changed.--Bhadani 17:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bhadani, in original Bangla spelling, the last letter is "Kha", not "Ka", so the correct transliteration should be "Pohela Baishakh". Thanks --Ragib 17:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right now the title says Pohela Baishakh and the article describes Poila Boishakh. The transliteration in parentheses, following the Romanization of Bengali is Pôela Boishakh. Can we be consistent, at least between the title and each reference in the article? I know why it's difficult:

• Pôhela, Pohela, Pôela, Poela, Pahela, Paela, Poila, Paila...
  
• Boishakh, Baishakh, Baisakh, Vaisakh...
  

But still, we can come up with something, right? My vote is to not include the diacritics, but otherwise be as close to the standard Bengali pronunciation as possible, giving Poela Boishakh. (I'm assuming it's usually pronounced Pôela Boishakh.) --SameerKhan 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about this ... the day is called পহেলা বৈশাখ too in Bangla news media. I.e., Poela boishakh isn't an exclusive name for the day. --Ragib 19:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the Bengali calendar used in Bagladesh?

Besides Pohela Baishak, is the Bengali calendar really used in Bangladesh? Would the average person know what the current Bengali day/month is, or is the Islamic calendar the more common? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.174.10.252 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is. The islamic one is even more uncommon, not used other than religious programs. Many of the cultural programs in Bangladesh are defined in terms of the Bangla calendar. Examples include the Coming of Spring (Basanta utsab), Choitro songkranti, Maghi purnima, Poush mela etc. --Ragib 18:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Title

I decided to switch the title to Pohela Boishakh, based both on the Romanization of Bengali (minus the diacritic on pôhela) and on a Google search. Here are the results of that:

• 0 for poela baishakh
• 8 for pôela boishakh (which presumably includes "poela boishakh")
• 482 for pahela baisakh
• 749 for poila boisakh
• 835 for pohela baisakh
• 838 for pahela boishakh
• 1,050 for poila boishakh
• 2,350 for poila baisakh
• 2,630 for poila baishakh
• 4,010 for pohela boishakh
• 4,560 for pahela baishakh
• 5,000 for pôhela boishakh (which presumably includes "pohela boishakh")
• 5,080 for pohela baishakh

Even though the top hit was "Pohela Baishakh" (probably due to the fact that the Wikipedia article was called this at the time), I feel that "Pohela Boishakh" would be more appropriate. If we're using an "o" for the ô pôhela, we should definitely use an "o" for the o in boishakh, I feel. --SameerKhan (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved the page. --Ragib (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --SameerKhan (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hindu new year!

@Akib.H: Please stick to community agreed content guidelines such as verifiability in WP:RS, and do not edit war nor cherrypick. This is a Hindu new year for Bengalis in India, while a cultural new year in Bangladesh, per the sources. We need to reflect all sides, per WP:NPOV. If you have concerns, please explain. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It is based on Bengali calendar which was developed by Alauddin Shah, not Hindu Calendar. You cannot use encyclopedia to verify as they are tertiary sources (like wikipedia). You can insert the perspective of West Bengal in the West Bengal section, but not in the infoboox. Please don't edit war. Thanks Akib.H (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No WP:FORUM-y discussion about Bengali calendar here, as you are mistaken about the complex history of the numerous lunisolar Indian calendars. We need to stick to what is verifiable in reliable sources. You misunderstand WP:RS, please read it again. Secondary and tertiary sources are the preferred sources in wikipedia. Feel free to take it to DRN. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you are discarding my source which says it's based on the Bengali calendar. I'll add other sources as well. You can take it to DRN. Akib.H (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Check this line "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.". When dispute arises, wikipedia always prefer secondary sources over tertiary sources. Akib.H (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That does not mean "tertiary sources cannot be used". Plus, if you read the policy further, when dispute arises, tertiary sources are to be consulted. We don't prefer secondary sources in cases of dispute, we consult tertiary sources per WP:PSTS. Among tertiary sources, wikipedia or other wiki site articles cannot be used as sources. The article already mentions Bengali calendar. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

First, you need to understand the significance of the wording in the bold line I posted above. It makes it quite clear the wikipedia prefers secondary sources over tertiary sources. I'm not saying you cannot use tertiary source. But if a dispute arises, a secondary source will have more value than a tertiary source. In this case, I have already added two secondary sources to prove my claim. Akib.H (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually in your edit warring, you only added one:

Quote: Bengali new year, broadly celebrated by all Bengalis

I just checked the source, and the source does not verify this on pages 96-98. I see a discussion of Bengali calendar, Akbar and uncertainty of its origin, but not the claim that "Bengali new year, broadly celebrated by all Bengalis". Is it on another page, or can you provide a quote like the way I did? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

References

• What I tried to claim is that the primary significance of this festival is the Bengal New Year and the source does imply that. You can also look at other sources, The Bangladesh Reader: History, Culture, Politics By Meghna Guhathakurta, Willem van Schendel (page 17), Constructing Bangladesh: Religion, Ethnicity, and Language in an Islamic Nation By Sufia M. Uddin (page 134). Akib.H (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Akib.H: The Sengupta source does not imply anything about a "Bengali new year festival" on those pages, nor anything about who celebrates it. If it does, quote that sentence on this talk page. You were edit warring with this! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Ownership of article

I'm very much astonished to see the ownership of article being imposed by User:Ms Sarah Welch. She has provided counter argument for the Mughal Origins theory which is fine. But when I added the counter argument for the Hindu origins theory she simply reverted calling it unsourced when I actually added a source. The author is talking about Pahela Baishakh in that source, there is nothing OR or synthesize. Bangla san or Bangla sal means Bengali Calendar. I would urge Ms Welch to study the topic properly and refrain from edit warring and discuss it here. Akib.H (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Akib.H: I merely moved the text to appropriate section. No the source is not saying Bangla san or sal means "Pahela Baishakh". That is WP:OR. Neither you nor I own this article. Just avoid original research, nor edit war. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Akib.H: Please see the cited Salil Tripathi source published by Yale University Press. It clearly states Durga. Please do not be disruptive and add absurd tags, when the source clearly supports the content. Feel free to take it to DRN etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And you have reverted me again. This is getting quite disruptive. Bangla san or sal means Bengali calendar. Since these words have been derived from Arabic and Persian the author is implying that Pahela Baishakh must be started by a Muslim king. There is nothing OR here. You are clearly imposing ownership over the article. Akib.H (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No, he is not implying that. We can quote him exact, as a compromise, with an in-text attribution. Would that suffice? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

What's he implying then? You can quote it. But the text should be at the right place with right interpretation. Akib.H (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's still not fixed. You just read the page of the book. He was talking about the origin of Pahela Baishakh there. And in the process, he said that it must be a Muslim king who introduced the festival since the colloquial term of "Bengali calendar" is Bangla san or Bangla sal since the words come from Arabic and Persian. You can ask any Bengali about the Bengali translation of the term "Bengali Calendar" and he would say Bangla sal or Bangla san. You are simply not informed about the topic at hand. This is becoming pretty much frustrating. You wouldn't even let me to edit the article as I'll be reverted. Akib.H (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If the exact quote is misleading, then perhaps you have concerns with the source? Interpreting or drawing new conclusions that the source does not state is WP:OR. Adding exact quote, as I did, is the best we can do in the case of dispute on what it means. We just leave it to the reader. Your frustration, agenda or background is not the concern of this article, nor helpful. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are deliberately doing this disruption to keep others away from the article. The exact quote from The Bangladesh Reader: History, Culture, Politics: The history of Bengali New Year or Bengali calendar is somewhat unclear and it is difficult to say exactly when it came about, but some assumptions can be made based on circumstantial evidence. The fact that it is called Bangla san or saal which are Arabic and Parsee words respectively, suggests that it was introduced by a Muslim king or sultan. (Pg 17,18) Note that in the first line of page 17, it's written Bengali New Year (Pohela Baishakh) which implies that the author is saying Pahela Baishakh was introduced by a Muslim King or Sultan. I don't think this is any rocket science to comrehend this simple thing. Akib.H (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

We already acknowledge the first part "somewhat unclear" just before the exact quote. Saal (sal) means year, according to the sources. We can quote the entire bolded part if you wish, but the author is not saying anywhere what you allege, "Pahela Baishakh was introduced by a Muslim King or Sultan". That is WP:OR, see WP:SYNTHESIS section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

A calendar system is not synonymous to a festival. Neither is a festival synonymous to a date on a calendar (start of the year, start of spring, start of summer, sankranti/equinox, pay your tax date, etc). Because a festival is more; it is fairs, processions, dancing, dressing up, meeting friends and family, going to temples, taking river dips, etc. No cited source in this article is alleging that people celebrated with joy that "the Sultan's new year has started, now they can pay taxes again"! No cited source is stating that Pahela Baishakh was invented by a Sultan or a Muslim official. That is all OR. Yes, the sources are stating that while it is unclear who invented the Bangla calendar, here are some possibilities. Why not quote exact, without adding interpretation (= WP:Synthesis)? @Robert McClenon: your 3O will be helpful here. I am concerned with Akib.H's statement "You can quote it. But the text should be at the right place with right interpretation." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Synthesize is when you try to use two sources to imply one thing which is not the case here. In the source, it's clearly mentioned that Bengali New Year is also called Pahela Baishakh, at the starting of page 17. In that para that I quoted, the author is talking about the origins of Bengali New Year and Bengali calendar. So when he says "it is introduced", he's referring to the Bengali New year, in other words, Pahela Baishakh. This is really really a simple thing to comprehend. Just get aside of your agenda and try to read the source with an open mind. Akib.H (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:Synthesis states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." It is the latter which you are doing. Further, note that this Shamsuzzaman Khan source is an interview, where Khan is answering questions, expressing "I personally believe it was..." (p. 18, 2nd para), which makes this source WP:Primary. Wikipedia guideline for primary sources is, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself". Exact quote, or equivalent, is preferred for primary sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Vague sources, misleading information: This article is becoming a mess

Somebody added that Muslim women perform Durga puja on Pohela Baishakh. I'm a Bengali living in Bangladesh and I've never seen or heard any women, Muslim or Hindu, performing Durga Puja on Pohela Baishakh. There is indeed a source, added to verify the information but it's inaccessible for me. The source though seems to be focused on some other topic and I'm not sure if it could be applicable here.

This is just one example of enormous misleading information in this article based on vague sources. I would urge people well-informed about the topic to contribute in this article and save it from becoming a garbage. Akib.H (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Akib.H: Please read the article more carefully. It does not state that Muslim women perform Durga puja on Pohela Baishakh. It states something different. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm notifying users who might be well-informed about topic. This is simply beyond my capacity to handle this shit alone. Akib.H (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Reverted to a middle version and fully protected for a short period. Akib.H, violate WP:CANVASS again and you'll be blocked for a good long period. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you are simply playing a proxy for Ms Welch as you reverted all my edits without even realizing that those edits are not related to the dispute over the Hindu Origins Theory section. And seeking help from well-informed editors is canvassing? So you mean let this article becoming a garbage and I'm not even allowed to seek help from others to improve it? I've never seen this dirty side of wikipedia, really. It's similar to how a bunch of bandits take control of an area with the help of some corrupt bureaucrats in third world countries. Akib.H (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Akib.H: I will point you to WP:CANVASS once more. Do not leave blatantly non-neutral messages on talk pages of hand-picked editors. And note that discretionary sanctions covers standards of behavior, including talk page posts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Misleading tag

@Akib.H: Please explain the misleading tag. What is misleading and how is it misleading given what the source states? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

A section has been already opened above. Akib.H (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Which section? @Titodutta: Here is the version of the article when the tag was added. Here is the current version. Do you see anywhere on this talk page where "what is misleading" has been explained? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I've already said it in the above section. I've never seen anybody, both Hindus or Muslim, performing Durga Puja on Pohela Baishakh as it's mainly a secular festival. In this article, you have written Muslim Women perform Durga Puja to celebrate Bengali New Year. This is not only hilarious but also frustrating to see how this important Bengali festival is being showcased with misleading information in full swing. The source you added is mainly focused on the Bangladesh Liberation War and written by an Army personnel. I'm not sure whether the author is well-informed about Pahela Baishakh that his quote should be given such importance. There seem to be a number sources like this in the article. The authenticity of the sources should be determined. Akib.H (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Akib.H:The article does not state anywhere that anyone performs Durga Puja on Pahela Baishakh. The article just states, "Many Muslim Bengali women, states Tripathi, wear saris, bindi (a mark on their forehead, religious to Hindu women), perform pujo (prayers) to Hindu goddess Durga, and usher in Poyla Baisakh to celebrate Bengali new year." This means that Muslim Bengali women, over the year, cherish their non-Islamic heritage such as by wearing certain clothing, celebrating Durga puja, celebrating Poyla Baisakh, according to Tripathi. The Tripathi source has been published by Yale University Press, so it is RS. If you have an English handicap, please contact the help desk. Or, if you would prefer that wikipedia add clarifying language that Durga Puja is not celebrated on Pahela Baishakh, we can add some language as a compromise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: The publishing house used for a book does nothing to add to reliability of a source. This whole content is undue, the book is not about Pahela Baishakh. This article is not about Durga Puja. If you still want to add controversial and incendiary content, that accuse Muslims of committing Puja please have more than one reliable source. I am inclined to believe this is not even reliable source itself considering the book title is from a news article the author wrote in the 1980s. Performming Puja and celebrating puja is not the same thing. You are not improving this article or the content by adding controversial information with weak citation. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vinegarymass911: Yale University Press is a reputable publisher, this does matter. Some of the Bangladeshi news articles and sources that have been cited in this article are more WP:Questionable than the Yale source. Tripathi source is primary, so we need to quote is exact or equivalent. Sure we can add additional WP:RS. It is repeatedly mentioned in RS that some Muslim women continued some of their local Hindu or Buddhist traditions such as various types of puja and festivals, just like some non-Muslims visited Sufi shrines. See 1, 2, etc. This "Bangla calendar or new year date or Pahela baishakh estival was invented by Muslims" is one side of the story. The other side is that this has more ancient roots, and is a part of pre-Islamic Bengali heritage. For NPOV, we need to summarize all sides properly and fully, being careful "what we state and how we state it". Yes, I agree with you that "celebrate Durga puja" is better wording. Or we can just quote the Tripathi exact, as a compromise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)