Talk:Rangpuri language

Merger proposal

Oppose: This page should be merged not with Goalpariya dialect but with Kamatapuri lects. Goalpariya dialect covers the eastern regional dialects of the Rangpuri language that are spoken within Assam. Chaipau (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Opppose: I agree, all pages should be merged into the KRNB lects page. UserNumber (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Kamarupic/Western Kamarupic

Chaipau, specifically where are these terms mentioned in the source? I have checked all the pdfs included in that link and found nothing. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: the divisions are given in tree shown in page 140 of Chatterji very clearly. The Kamarupa Dialects (Kamarupic here) is divided in Eastern and Western (Eastern and Western Kamarupic). Rangpur is placed under under Western. Toulmin 2006 reproduces this tree in his thesis and follows the same divisions. Chaipau (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Change the page name.

Kamatapuri or Rajbongshi is the language and Rangpuria is only a dialect of Rajbongshi language. So the page name Rangpuri isn’t right.It should be Kamatapuri or Rajbongshi language. Manasakash (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Manasakash: could you please provide some sources? Chaipau (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The gov of West Bengal gave the language official status in the Name Rajbongshi/Kamatapuri. Rangpuri is just a dialectin Bangladesh.

http://rajbanshipride.blogspot.com/2015/04/proposal-for-constitutional-recognition_2.html?m=1

Go through the link. Manasakash (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

This development is recorded in Wikipedia, but do you have some linguistic sources? Chaipau (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Manasakash: I have reverted your latest edits. You cannot unilaterally call this Rajbonshi. Please discuss the issues here first and come to a consensus. Chaipau (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You are misleading people by naming this Rangpuri.The actual name is Rajbongshi or Kamatapur. Rangpuri has no gov recognition but Rajbongshi and Kamatapuri have.Just see those facts. Wikipedia is the source of Knowledge. So we should edit the wrong informations. Till now very few people researched about the dialects.Every where you research,you will get the name Rajbongshi or Kamatapuri.Just google it,Why only Wikipedia name is Rangpuri? And Why Goalparia is a different page?You should merge these two pages.Both are same.It was considered as dialect before but now It id considered as language by the Gov.See the official languages of West Bengal. Manasakash (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Writing system

‎Msasag don't be disruptive by repeatedly making unsourced changes, [1], [2]. The source from Ethnologue only shows Bengali script as the writing system. You have made similar disruptive edits on Bishnupriya Manipuri language and Hajong language. Please stop and discuss first. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Sources continue to call the script "Bengali script" or "Assamese script", but in Wikipedia we have just one script "Bengali-Assamese script", and two different alphabets Bengali alphabet and Assamese alphabet. So Rangpuri language uses the Bengali alphabet of the Bengali-Assamese script. How difficult is that? Chaipau (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, we only follow what the sources state per WP:OR. If the source says Rangpuri uses "Bengali script" we should include "Bengali script" as the writing system. You cannot use another Wikipedia article as a source for this article and certainly not Bengali-Assamese script which is plagued with numerous issues. Bring a source that says Assamese script/alphabet is used and I'll gladly change it to include both Bengali and Assamese as the writing system. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: I am not using the Bengali-Assamese script as a source (Wikipedia is not WP:RS), but using the convention of distinguishing between a script and a alphabet. The article Bengali-Assamese script has gone through a number of name changes and it has settled on the current name. Why not accept it and move forward, instead of resurrecting this issue again and again? "Rangpuri uses the Bengali alphabet of the Bengali-Assamese script" is all there is to it. Chaipau (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau "Script" and "alphabet" are usually used interchangeably and I don't see any community decision on such convention you are talking about. Bengali-Assamese script cannot be referenced in any way (even as a loose convention) as it has its own issues. We are discussing Rangpuri language here, so add a source that relates Rangpuri with Bengali-Assamese script or Assamese script/alphabet and only then your arguments can have some value, otherwise it's just unsourced POV pushing. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Wikipedia does not use "script" and "alphabet" interchangeably. Also, can you specify the POV I am trying to push here? Chaipau (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, your argument to use "Bengali-Assamese script" as the writing system without providing any source, instead of "Bengali script" which is stated by the sources is the POV I'm talking about. Tamil alphabet redirects to Tamil script, the two terms are used interchangeably both in Wikipedia and in WP:RS for Bengali. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Za-ari-masen, Obviously, Tamil alphabet will redirect to Tamil script because Tamil script contains letters for only a single Language (which may be used for some other languages/dialects). But Bengali-Assamese script contains letters for both Bengali and Assamese languages. So, there has to be a distinction. This script was renamed recently but the sources you are talking about are older than that. Mohsin274 (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, can you show us a source that says Rangpuri uses "Bengali-Assamese script" or "Assamese script/alphabet"? Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: What user:Mohsin274 stated is not an opinion, but a fact. The Tamil script is named Tamil. But the name "Bengali script" is prevalent only in certain communities. Saloman uses "Bengali-Assamese" Bengali–Assamese_script#cite_note-1. No one is claiming that the Rangpuri language is using "Assamese script/alphabet", so please do not make a straw man argument. Chaipau (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: According to the source you are using (i.e. Ethnologue), the script used for Assamese language is "Bengali" and the reason they give is, "The Ethnologue follows the ISO Standard 15924 for identifying writing systems or scripts. There is no Assamese script listed in this standard." (As stated here) So, does it mean we should change that in Wikipedia too? Mohsin274 (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes we should. Chaipau, now if someone says Rangpuri uses Arabic script and says it's "a fact", you would include Arabic too in the infobox? We are all wasting time here unless sources are provided to support the statements. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Za-ari-masen I guess you didn't get what I've said. ISO 15924 was introduced back in 2004. Unicode renamed Bengali Block to "Bengali-Assamese" in June, 2018. But, the name "Bengali" is still used instead of "Bengali-Assamese" in many sources. Just because these sources don't recognise Assamese script, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. If you want to please yourself by fulfilling your objectives and hurting the sentiments of other communities then please go ahead with your idea. And if you want to stay neutral then use "Bengali-Assamese" or more neutral term "Eastern Nagari" (as Msasag says here). Mohsin274 (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

One should not bring sentiments when talking in Wikipedia talk pages. It is not a forum. As for this matter, one can ref the unicode source if it is newer and necessary. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I agree there should be no sentiments here. The issue with Unicode has been discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Is_an_"alphabet"_and_a_"script"_same?. I hope you will have a look. To me, the issue is not so clean and we need to help create a consensus somehow. Chaipau (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Yes, I understand that we should not bring sentiments here but what I wanted to say is that instead of using a language-specific name for the script, we should use a unified name that is "Bengali-Assamese" which is also recognised by Unicode. Mohsin274 (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: I have added a source to my recent edit. Msasag (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, Unicode still calls it "Bengali script", there was just a proposal to rename the script to Bengali-Assamese and it remains a proposal. Msasag, I don't see any mention of Bengali-Assamese in the source, you need to verify it. And the source you added is an unpublished thesis, a source from Ethnologue is obviously more reliable. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: I have reverted your edits because you cannot call an alphabet a script. Chaipau (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, In that case, I have kept "Bengali script" unlinked. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Read the official Unicode consortium code chart for the Bengali block, 3rd page, it mentions, “The Bengali script is also known as Bangla. In Assam, the preferred name of the script is Asamiya or Assamese. The Assamese language has also been written historically using distinct regional scripts known as Kamrupi.” Msasag (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"In Assam" the preferred name is "Assamiya" or "Assamese" but commonly and officially the script is known as "Bengali script". Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: And you had been considering this article separately from the article Bengali-Assamese script, giving ethnologue source for this one. Now when I provided a source, you're asking to use the same name for both! Wow!. Also I'm telling this again that Unicode has another block for the same script, called Tirhuta. So no Unicode doesn't call this script Bengali only. Msasag (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: There's no mention that this script is officially known as Bengali script. Unicode has two blocks for the script and I think Unicode shouldn't determine the name. Unicode can make another block for traditional Assamese or Early Eastern Nagari based on technical matters. An unified name is needed and a controversial specific regional name cannot be its unified name just because it's most commonly used. If we do that then this topic will never end. People will keep objecting untill we select a neutral unified name. So we should keep the name Eastern Nagari or less neutral Bengali-Assamese in my opinion. Msasag (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Msasag, Unicode lists the script as "Bengali script", so it's official and by far most of the sources call it "Bengali script", so it's common too. Are you suggesting we should reject Unicode, Ethnologue and all the thousand of sources and name this script as "Bengali-Assamese" or "Eastern Nagari" because few editors in Wikipedia prefer these terms over "Bengali script"? That's not how Wikipedia works. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Not "few editors in wikipedia", I didn't expect this so much ignorant statement from you in this discussion, seems like you're not interested in the discussion, you only want to push your views. I'm mentioning again that Unicode gives 2 blocks and 5 names (with two variations) for this script. The two blocks are Tirhuta and Bengali. Plus there are lots of sources that use "Bengali-Assamese", if you read the discussions I think you must know that. There are also lots of sources calling it Assamese script, Tirhuta script, Mithilakshar script and many sources also use the neutral unified term Eastern Nagari script. You wanted a source for the name Bengali-Assamese and I provided that. Now you're rejecting it. Msasag (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Msasag, you should read again what I said, by far most of the sources call it "Bengali script", including Unicode and Ethnologue. Tirhuta is considered a different script so that's why it has a different block. And, Msasag, I think you need to calm down and discuss dispassionately. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Tirhuta isn't a different script, like 200 years ago they had almost no difference. Because of printing, many forms were dropped from Bengali that's why the difference. Look at fonts like figgins pica Bengali from early 19th century, a lot of Tirhuta forms are there. Many Tirhuta forms were also used in 20th century. We can't say that the age of "Bengali script" is just 100-200 years. Even if we consider their current standards as the only forms of the scripts, they are still the same script. Tirhuta was given a different block because of ligatures as in Indic scripts they usually don't have separate codes, they come from combinations of different letters. I'm trying to provide a neutral term so that conflicts doesn't happen here. You should try to understand that. It's not necessary to use the most common term especially when it's objected, then it must not be used. Msasag (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Msasag, It's your opinion, sources consider Tirhuta as a different script as it has completely different vowels from Bengali. You are now going off-topic. You have failed to verify your source which is an unpublished thesis. According to reliable sources like Ethnologue, Rangpuri uses Bengali script, don't change it unless you can show a verifiable reliable source. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: You failed to see the term in page 103 there. It's not my fault. Sources also consider that Tirhuta is a descendant of Bengali and vice versa. So let's not be logic less. There's no harm to be open minded and use a neutral term. Msasag (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Msasag, I don't see any mention of "Bengali-Assamese" anywhere in the source, let alone page 103. Rejecting a reliable source like Ethnologue and inserting an unpublished thesis that doesn't even verify the statement is a blatant POV pushing, please refrain from doing that. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Give an email address, I'll send you a screenshot. Msasag (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Za-ari-masen It seems you are just averse to let "Assamese" somehow appear in association with Rangpuri. Historically, Rangpuri was called Rajbangshi (Grierson, Masica) and the current name for this is Kamatapuri. Masica writes: "Thus the Rajbangsi dialect of the Rangpur District (Bangladesh), and the adjacent Indian Districts of Jalpaiguri and Cooch Behar, has been classed with Bengali because its speakers identify with the Bengali culture and literary language, although it is linguistically closer to Assamese." Toulmin reports: "This language cluster was first treated as a whole in the LSI under the name Rajbanshi and classified as a dialect of Bengali." He further reports: "though Muslims in Rangpur and Hindus in Koch Behar speak highly similar Indo-Aryan lects, they are highly dissimilar in their understanding of their social identity and the sociolinguistic identity of their mother tongue. Muslims in Rangpur consistently identify themselves as Bangalis, and conceive of their mother tongue as included within the concept of ‘the Bangla language’. It is no doubt also relevant that these same speakers joined the rest of their nation in fighting the war of independence against Pakistan. Of central importance in that war was the status given to bangla bhasha ‘the Bangla language’ as an authorised language of administration, alongside Urdu. The KRNB-speaking Hindus, by and large, share no such feeling of commonality with the Bangali south. Most of these identify as “Rajbanshis”, which brings us to the second sociohistorical dynamic—autonomy (and its loss)."

So, the issue here is a larger socio-linguistic context at play here which we have to acknowledge. A narrow search for "Bengali-Assamese script" (which has been provided, BTW) will never address this.

Chaipau (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, again, where does it say Rangpuri uses "Bengali-Assamese script"? If you want to explain these details you can include them in may be an article on Rangpuri culture. Msasag, tell me the chapter name and page number, or you can upload the screenshot here and post it on my talk page or on this page. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Look at Toulmin thesis page 103 footnote. It calls it "Bangla-Asamiya script". Furthermore, I am confining myself to the linguistics aspect of it here (in the socio-linguistic context). Rangpuri is a variety of the "Rajbangsi" language. and Ranbanshi language redirects to this article. Ethnologue calls the Rajbanshi dialect a dialect of Nepal. Ethnologue obviously is mighty confused, and we should be careful using it as a source. Chaipau (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tz9OygFQzbFXxzWn8eoyPWpgFWOMeXsI/view?usp=drivesdk He uses two scripts (excluding Romanization) and calls this one "Bangla-Asamiya script" (or Bengali-Assamese script), the other one is Devanagari script used for the lects spoken Nepal and Bihar. BTW Rangpuri is one of the names for Kamtapuri language. Msasag (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Yeah, actually ethnologue is not reliable. For example according to it, dialects of Assamese are: Jharwa (Pidgin), Mayang, Standard Assamese, Western Assamese (Kamrupi). That means it follows the study of Grierson (1898-1928). Modern studies show that Jharwa or Jharua isn't a pidgin but a dialect of Goalpariya. Mayang or Bishnupriya Manipuri isn't a dialect of Assamese but a separate language (plus there are more dialects of Assamese according to modern studies). And then it considers Bishnupriya Manipuri as a separate language as well. I think ethnologue isn't quite reliable, as it mixes up stuffs. Msasag (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the line In Late Middle Bengali texts (1500-1800 AD) there is always confusion between ণ (postalveolar nasal symbol) and ন (dental/alveolar nasal symbol);⁵⁰ Footnote no. 50 reads, There being no distinct symbol for post-alveolar lateral in the Bangla-Asamiya script....

• Firstly, the author mostly describe the script as "Bengali" and just have a passing mention of "Bangla-Asamiya" in a footnote.
• Secondly, there is no explicit mention that Rangpuri/Kamtapuri/Rajbangshi uses "Bengali-Assamese script"
• Thirdly, it's just an unpublished thesis and obviously has a lower value than a widely cited reliable source like Ethnologue. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Middle Bengali is middle Bengali language, it is not modern Rangpuri. You probably know that Middle Bengali used the Assamese ৰ (the Krishna-Kirtan manuscript). So will you call Middle Bengali script Assamese script? Chaipau (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No I'll call script used in both Middle Bengali and Assamese language as "Bengali script" per sources. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: "Late Middle Bengali" is a form of Middle Bengali which is a language. He was talking about texts or writings in Late Middle Bengali. Like we say English text, that means text or writing where the language is English. Text ≠ Script. Msasag (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: He called the script "Bangla-Asamiya script" and used it for those KRNB lects that use this script. And for those lects that use Devanagari, he used Devanagari for them. Look at page 371 for example. Msasag (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Which sources? Ethnologue is not reliable. It calls Rangpuri a language of Bangladesh (rkt) (I doubt the people in Rangpuri consider it as anything other than a dialect of Bengali). It calls Rajbangsi a language of Nepal (rjs), a different language! It calls Kamtapuri another name for Rangpuri, whereas no one in Rangpur calls it Kamtapuri. Ethnologue is a big mess. In fact "Rangpuri language" as an article name has serious WP:NOTABILITY issue. Can you show me any source other than Ethnologue where Rangpuri (independent of its association with the Kamta group of lects) is asserted as an independent language? Chaipau (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This is getting tiring and I don't feel the urge of repeating the same thing continuously. The author just passingly mentions "Bangla-Asamiya", there is no explicit statement that Rangpuri uses Bangla-Asamiya script and it's just an unpublished thesis work. Ethnologue is considered a reliable source. Any rationale editor would favor the source from Ethnologue over this vague and unreliable source. Chaipau you can take it to AfD if you think this article lacks notability. I also don't find any significant coverage for Bengali-Assamese script in multiple reliable sources. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Even after giving so many facts, points and sources, you keep asking for a source, then I don't think there is any point to discuss this things with you. All the sources given by us are "unreliable" to you but you are only talking about Ethnologue's report in the name of "thousand"/"most"/"many" sources. And you are also not considering the publication dates of those source. The sources you are using are too old and unreliable now. If that's the definition of "reliability" for you, then I don't have anything else to say. You say we are pushing POV. Think again who is actually doing that. And as Chaipau said, "It seems you are just averse to let "Assamese" somehow appear in association with Rangpuri." And you also want the article "Bengali-Assamese script" to be renamed to "Bengali script". I don't know what you are up to. I leave it to others to decide. Mohsin274 (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Za-ari-masen Yes, we tried to give you references but you rejected all of them. And you are the only one who have disagreed with the rest here. Chaipau (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, where does it say that Rangpuri or Kamtapuri uses "Bengali-Assamese" script? And why should we give this undue wight to an unpublished thesis over a source from Ethnologue? If it's not a blatant POV-pushing I don't know what else is. Austronesier, Fylindfotberserk, UserNumber can you give your opinions here? Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: If it's not a blatant POV-pushing I don't know what else is. First of all, it is a just position that differs from yours, so relax. Learn to handle disagreement without fist-swinging. The thesis is cited in the Glottolog and is respectable enough to serve as base for the classification there. It is further cited twice (!) in the The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Ignoring this detailed and important piece of scholarship in any page related to Bengali-Assamese languages gives undue weight to anything else . –Austronesier (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I've just skimmed through this long conversation and I think the problem lies with the article itself. It is titled the Rangpuri language and claims it is synonymous to Rajbangshi and Kamtapuri. This variety is quite broad, and those that speak it outside of Bangladesh do not refer to it as Rangpuri as far as I am aware. Rangpuri is the term used by ethnic Bengalis of Bangladesh (and possibly a few West Bengalis). This specific tongue is written with the Bengali script, whereas in Assam they use the Assamese script. The main priority here is probably an improvement to the article as a whole or possible separate articles for many of these terms (e.g. speakers outside of Bangladesh generally do not even refer to this as Rangpuri) UserNumber (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree 100% with UserNumber. –Austronesier (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Can you change the reference from the original dissertation to the published version? :) –Austronesier (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Austronesier, if you have read the source, there is no explicit statement that the language uses Bengali-Assamese script, the author just passingly mentions the term, while the source from Ethnologue quite clearly states that Rangpuri uses "Bengali script" as the writing system. Now, rationally speaking, which one should we follow from the two? Also notice that Msasag has added even Devanagari script to the infobox without any source. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Toulmin refers twice to the script in general as "Bangla-Asamiya script". Based on our experiences with Hajong, I wouldn't solely rely on Ethnologue. Cf. also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages#Interpreting_Ethnologue_and_Glottolog_data. –Austronesier (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I think the open-access version is the "published" version of the Toulmin thesis. Also, I have inserted a citation for the use of "Assamese script" for the Rajbangsi language, not just in Assam but in Bengal as well: Bengali–Assamese_languages#cite_note-13. Chaipau (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Toulmin (2009) is the published book in the peer-reviewed series Pacific Linguistics. We should give it preference over earlier versions. –Austronesier (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Aha, much thanks for pointing it out. It is prohibitively priced. I shall have to access it via some library for the page numbers and actual texts! Chaipau (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: It is yellow-locked (whatever that means) for my location, but I can open the PDF for free. You can tell me which paragraphs in the thesis you want to cite, and I can look for the corresponding page numbers in the print version. –Austronesier (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There are some interesting revelations on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics‎. The current datatbase for Rangpuri at Ethnologue was suggested by Toulmin himself, so that makes Ethnologue even more credible. The citation that Chaipau added on Bengali–Assamese_languages looks like a synthesis or misinterpretation of the source. The author herself says Rajbongshis are forced to use Bengal but some of them uses the Assamese "r", that doesn't mean they have adopted Assamese alphabet. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Toulmin said just the opposite in his thesis. The request for Rangpuri does not mention Toulmin https://iso639-3.sil.org/sites/iso639-3/files/change_requests/2007/2007-008_rkt.pdf (at variance with scholarship), though the request for Rajbangshi mentions Toulmin as supporting, which we know from his thesis is not true, where he says: "This term is favoured in south-east Nepal by Rajbanshis, and in West Bengal by Rajbanshis who favour linguistic autonomy but reject the political overtones of 'Kamtapuri'." (p15) Toulmin did not confine Rajbanshi to only Nepal, which the submission did. Rajbangshi is given as an alternative to Rangpuri, which is also not correct (in reality, Rangpuri is a probably a variety of Rajbangshi, spoken in Rangpur, which is self designated as "Bahe") Chaipau (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

A request was made by both Waugh and Toulmin in 2007/08 to split the Rajbongshi entry at Ethnologue into two: Rangpuri and Rajbongshi. The details for Rangpuri mentions Waugh and for Rajbongshi, mentions both Waugh and Toulmin as the requester. This is the combined request. It implies that Waugh and Toulmin considered Rangpuri and Rajbongshi as separate languages. This only means that Toulmin's thesis here is irrelevant as it doesn't mention Rangpuri. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

To be accurate, it was submitted by Waugh and supported by Toulmin (claim). The reference is Toulimn's thesis! As quoted above, Toulmin's thesis does not support the claim. Chaipau (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Look at the combined request, it was supported by both. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This only means that Toulmin's thesis here is irrelevant as it doesn't mention Rangpuri. – Allow me to most humbly correct this, it does. The speech of Rangpur is an essential part of the study and mentioned umpty times. –Austronesier (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Even more humbly asking, where exactly does the thesis mention "Rangpuri language"? People in Rangpur could speak both Rangpuri and Rajbongshi as well as other languages. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

CIR: Open the PDF file, search for "Bahe" or "Rangpuri" or "Rangpur" or "RP". –Austronesier (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Tell me the chapter and page no. "Rangpur" is the name of the place. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

hdl:1885/146752 p. 6, 7, 17, 23, 24, 69, 74, 80, 93, 99, 136, 137, 169, 177. And these are only the pages where "Rangpur" is spelled in full. Whenever Toulmin writes "Rangpur", he refers to the local vernacular called "Rangpuri" or "Bahe". That should be clear from a careful reading of pp. 6 and 7 (no, in anticipation of what to come, reading carefully is not OR or SYNTH!). Material from this lect is referred to on many other pages by the abbreviation "RP". –Austronesier (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Name of the language

@Austronesier: @UserNumber: I agree that the name is a problem. We should move it to either Rajbangsi language (from Masica, which I prefer and which redirects to this article) or Rajbangshi language. We could make a request or if we have a consensus, we could do it WP:BOLD and see what happens. Chaipau (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This article should stay as Rangpuri and be treated as a dialect of Bengali language used in northwestern Bangladesh. A separate article could be created on Rajbangshi language as the two seem to be different languages based on the discussion above. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Why? Ethnologue clearly says Rajbangshi and Rangpuri are alternative names :-) Chaipau (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ethnologue lists Rajbanshi as a separate language. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

But this citation, you have yourself inserted says otherwise: [3]. It says: Generally, the Rajbongshi language is known as Rangpuri in Bangladesh and Kamta or Rajbangshi in India. It seems your POV is going against your own citations! Picking and choosing references is a sure sign of POV pushing! Chaipau (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Rajbongshis, especially those of India, identify as Rongpuri speakers and vice versa. Sticking to one article will be problematic, so it is better that Rangpuri has its own article. Rajbongshi can be merged with KRNB lects, since the R in KRNB stands for Rajbongshi and is therefore representative of it in the first place. This issue is very similar to the Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian situation. UserNumber (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@UserNumber: The same actually also holds for Rangpuri, as it is also part of the KRNB lects even though it is not "represented" in the acronym. The main problem stems from the fact which you have mentioned above. Many lects are divided into speaker groups which identify with different ethnicities and standard languages. A lazy and shallow solution would be to imitate the ISO-demarcations, but this would a step back given that fact that Toulmin's book provides a much deeper insight into the linguistic network of the Bengali-Assamese languages. –Austronesier (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@UserNumber: I agree with user:Austronesier. Masica 1991 too says the same thing: "Thus the Rajbangsi dialect of the Rangpur District (Bangladesh), and the adjacent Indian Districts of Jalpaiguri and Cooch Behar..." Linguistically Rangpuri is a variety of Rajbangsi. Chaipau (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Picking and choosing references is a sure sign of POV pushing that's what you are doing Chaipau. I didn't propose to rename the page, you did. Earlier you said it yourself that people in Rangpur consider Rangpuri as a dialect of Bengali. My position has been clear, all these languages use "Bengali script" as the writing system per Ethnologue and other reliable sources. You can call the language whatever term you prefer. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

UserNumber, the problem arises with the article Bengali-Assamese script, as long as this page keeps having this erroneous title some users will keep trying to push this POV by adding unsourced material or misrepresenting the sources. The best solution is to rename the article to Bengali script. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: See page 17. Toulmin considers Rangpuri one of the names for the language and as one of its dialects. He mentioned the Rangpuri dialect throughout the study. Please read the book. We can't divide the language based on communities also. Ethnicity doesn't matter in linguistics. It's also not considered in this study and it's not supposed to be considered in linguistic studies. Scientists should be free from traditional or similar beliefs. Msasag (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, ethnicity doesn't matter in linguistics, that's why we should follow what most sources say, describing the writing system as "Bengali script". Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ethnicity is important so far as it determines diglossia. On p. 239ff. we can see that the language of formal communication did have an impact on each vernacular, to the extent that e.g. the Rangpuri lect adopted certain features from Standard Bengali, viz. features which are absent from other KRNB lects that do not have Bengali as Dachsprache. –Austronesier (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we have consensus (minus Za-ari-masen) that Rajbangsi is the name of the language, while "Rangpuri" or "Bahe" is the variety in Rangpur, Bangladesh. Chaipau (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Why are you so obsessed with imposing Bengali? Don't you understand that choosing this name is so chaotic and unfair? What's wrong with "Bengali-Assamese", it's used in this source and many other sources. It should not matter which term is the most common. We should use a neutral term. Msasag (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau is disruptively trying to ignore the opposing view suggested by me and UserNumber and he says I'm POV-pushing while Msasag is simply turning this talk page into forum chat Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This topic isn't about Rangpuri people but about Rangpuri or Kamtapuri language including the dialect spoken in Rangpur, Bangladesh. A lot of Koch Rajbongshis speak Assamese in Assam as they live in the whole Brahmaputra valley. Many Rajbanshis speak Nepali and many Surjapuris speak Hindi/Urdu. But this article isn't about Bengali, Assamese, Nepali or Hindi-Urdu languages. It's about Rangpuri or Kamtapuri language. Msasag (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: You have given many false statements. Don't know if you just didn't notice or you want to ignore. Msasag (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Msasag are you saying the statement that the script is commonly known as "Bengali script" is false? Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: No. That's not the only thing going on here. I'm tired of your ignorance. But let me tell you that you said Toulmin considered Rangpuri and Rajbanshi as separate languages and that he didn't mention Rangpuri and this is obviously false. You also accused me of breaking 3RR and it's false too. You said in page 103, "Bengali-Assamese script" isn't mentioned and it's false too etc. I'm tired of you. Msasag (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The only instance when I was mistaken was assuming Toulmin didn't mention Rangpuri because I was looking in chapter 3 which you earlier cited where there was no mention of Rangpuri language. I stood corrected when Austronesier explained about the earlier chapter. The source is not too explicit either and you have to connect a lot of dots to suggest Rangpuri language uses "Bengali-Assamese script". In contrast, Ethnologue is very clear and specific. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ethnologue is clear, specific and entirely wrong. Also it agrees with your POV, even though it is not WP:RS. Chaipau (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

for the record, since Chaipau is quoting Masica 1991, on page 423, the author states that Rajbangshi is essentially one of the dialects of Bengali language spoken in Rangpur, Cooch Behar, Jalpaiguri and Goalpara while Bahe is a subdialect of Rajbangshi, spoken in Darjeeling Terai. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Masica, as well as Suniti Kumar Chaterjee and some others including Toulmin states that Rajbongshi is closer to Assamese than Bengali and they grouped Assamese and Rajbangshi under Kamarupic group. While Bengali under a different one. My suggestion is to change this articles name from Rangpuri to Kamtapuri or Rajbangshi. Kamtapuri is what I prefer as it's an unified name and covers a large region and it also has official status in West Bengal. Rajbangshi is specifc to the Rajbanshi community but there are other communities too who speak this language. Rangpuri is a regional dialect of Kamtapuri. The language as a whole is called Kamtapuri, Rajbangshi, Rangpuri etc. Msasag (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Msasag, don't remove sourced content from the article. Since we have two sources that describes the script as Bengali and Bengali-Asamiya, I've kept both, although Ethnologue is more credible and specific between the two. And for the article title, start an RM if you have enough rationale. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Bengali alphabet is a part of Bengali-Assamese script, so there's no need to mention it separately. Just because there are sources you cannot add different types of datas. Calm down. Msasag (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

New name

I agree with UserNumber that the name needs to change for this article. And maybe merge it with KRNB lects. So here are some options:

• Ranbangsi: I prefer this spelling over the other Rajbanshi primarily because Masica (1991) has used this. Nevertheless, this is undesirable since it identifies the language too closely with a social sub-group among the speakers of this language.
• Kamta: I prefer this over Kamtapuri or Kamatapuri because it avoids the political connotations, but we may not have too many works that call it Kamta.
• Kamta-Rajbangsi: This might attract too many WP:OR objections. In an yet-to-be-published(??) book, Toulmin seems to use Rajbanshi/Kamta—with a slash.
• KRNB: We should not use this since Toulmin considered it temporary (he used KRDS in an article in 2012).

So what do you think? Are there other alternatives? I am tagging all those who participated in the previous thread: Austronesier, Fylindfotberserk, Mohsin274, Msasag, UserNumber, Za-ari-masen. This discussion is, of course, open for everyone.

Chaipau (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Merging with KRNB lects seems to be the most logical choice since it is an all encompassing term, not giving particular preference to any region. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Yes. But we cannot use "KRNB" because Toulim uses it only in his thesis. In a later paper, he uses "KRDS". He probably dumped "Northern Bengali" into "D" for "Desi" and inserted "S" for "Surjapuri" to represent the lects from Nepal. So "KRNB" is already defunct... Chaipau (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: No issues with that abbreviation either. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with merging all this into one page, but only if the sociolinguistic facts about each sub-variety are clearly kept apart. I want to avoid that e.g. some piece of information that is true for sub-variety A is generalized to sub-varieties B, C etc. Many speakers of this broad variety culturally identify as Bengali, e.g. Rangpuri speakers, and their sub-variety is generally considered a dialect of Bengali. Many others don't, and consequently their sub-variety cannot be called a Bengali dialect. And so on...

All this needs to sorted out well, including the script issue, which IMO is unduely blown up by distinguishing "script" and "alphabet"; factually, these two terms as they are used here boil down to "script as a set of characters" vs. "script as a tool of identity politics". –Austronesier (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I totally agree. (1) What do you suggest we pick for a name? I know you have been delving into Toulmin, especially section 1.6 of the thesis. I think we should point out the identity politics as a matter of fact and not indulge in it, just as Toulmin and others have done. You will find identity politics in the other two "dialect" pages as well Sylheti language and Chittagonian language as well—I discovered some references for Sylheti that speak about the language/dialect situation in linguistic/socio-linguistic terms, and that seems to work well. For this language, I believe Toulmin (and probably Wilde as well) is the key. Similarly, I was able to find neutral language to talk about the script issue in Boro_language_(India)#Writing_system_and_script_movement. (2) I suggest we deal with the Bengali/Assamese script/alphabet issue elsewhere.

So by way of sorting it out, I am thinking that we should start with a name according to Wikipedia policies, and then find neutral language to say all that is relevant about this language. But if sub-varieties require separate articles, we could have them as well, including Rangpuri itself. I intent to make Toulmin section 1.6 pretty much a part of this article, and maybe some of those listed could have their own pages as needed.

Chaipau (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be merged with KRNB lects as it encompasses all terms. And I hope there won't be any script issue this time. :) Mohsin274 (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Austronesier's suggestions. Should be clear about each sub variety, its associated ethnolinguistic group and region - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the name Kamta or Kamtapuri. Rajbangshi is community based, many Rajbangshis are traditionally native Assamese speakers since they have been living in whole Brahmaputra valley and speak different dialects of the Kamarupic dialect continuum. Also, this language is spoken by other communities who don't consider themselves as Rajbangshi: Deshis, Nashya-Sheikhs, Surjapuris, Rabhas. Other names like Deshi, Ujeni, Bahe, Goalpariya, Rangpuri etc are either region specific or community specific. Kamtapuri or shortly Kamta is the most accepted name by its speakers. Now there are other wiki articles related to this: Goalpariya dialects, Surjapuri language etc. I don't prefer to delete them because, for Goalpariya which is spoken in Assam, there are two dialects: Eastern Goalpariya and Western Goalpariya. The Western Goalpariya dialects (includes two sub dialects: Ghullia and Charua) are surely dialects of Western Kamarupic group. Though the Eastern dialect, aka Jharua, Bongaigaon dialect, Kochamese, Rabhamese is considered as of mixed origin of Western Kamarupic (Kamta) and Eastern Kamarupic (Assamese) as it shows mixed features and this is obvious because it's in a dialect continuum, means it is more similar to Kamrupi dialects of Assamese than the dialects of Northern West Bengal for example (similarly Eastern Goalpariya is dialectal to Western Goalpariya). Many earlier and other studies included it as Assamese dialect. And for Surjapuri, it's the Western most dialect of the Kamarupic dialect continuum and it's very different from Central Kamta dialects, with heavy influence from Hindi-Urdu. So I suggest not to delete these two pages, though these dialects should also be included under the article Kamta(puri) language. Msasag (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

On a second thought, I's say we can keep this page (just like Surjapuri). The divisions made by SIL and reflected in the ISO-codes are not perfect, but shouldn't be ignored. My suggestion now is to expand KRNB lects as much as possible based on information by Toulmin (2009), listing the individual regiolects and sociolects there, with hatnotes to those lects which already have page of their own. –Austronesier (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Yes, this is precisely the model I have in mind. What do we then call KRNB lects? I am OK leaving it as it is and then crossing the bridge when we come to it, as you seem to suggest. Chaipau (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have no opinions on merging the contents but if merged, I'd suggest this page be turned into a disambiguation page linking Bengali dialects and KRNB lects as "Rangpuri" is essentially known as a regional Bengali dialect in Bangladesh. Perhaps, separate articles on Kamtapuri and Rajbanshi can be created. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: I definitely see your point, but we cannot have a disambiguation page for one topic that happens to be the subtopic of two different pages, only for the sake to avoid a redirect bias. So the best way to avoid bias is to keep the Rangpuri page for Rangpuri proper (the lect described by Toumlin as "Rangpur" (RP)), and split out all the coatracking that created much of the dispute above. The Rangpuri page will then become a very short stub, but will not be the cause for further misunderstanding. The sociolinguistic aspects of the status of Rangpuri can be explained in the same way we handled it in Chittagonian language. –Austronesier (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: "Ethnologue is a big mess"

Quoting Chaipau above :) Well, not a big one, actually not even a small one (because "mess" is just too harsh), but here and there, Ethnologue has its inaccuracies. The Rangpuri [rkt] entry is definitely one of them. As a result of the change request of 2007, Rangpuri was split out from Rajbanshi, comprising all varieties of Rajbanshi (in the pre-split sense) spoken in India and Bangladesh. This was reflected in earlier Ethnologue editions which list 15M speaker "in all countries" and 10M in Bangladesh (thus implicitly 5M in India). In more recent editions, the non-Bangladeshi speakers were somehow left out, so now it only mentions 10M speakers in Bangladesh. So apparently, Ethnologue stopped including Indian "Kamta" speakers in the Rangpuri entry, but now they're totally unaccounted for!

Relics of the originally wider scope of the Rangpuri entry can be seen in "Language use", where it is said that Rangpuri is used as a second language by the Sauria Paharia people: this can hardly refer to Rangpuri in Bangladesh, but only to Kamta in India. Just wanted to share, no idea yet what to do. But yeah, probably separate articles on Kamtapuri and Rajbanshi can be created, as suggested by Za-ari-masen. –Austronesier (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier:, Ethnologue is a big mess in the context of the KRNB lects. I really tried to reconcile what it said with what is given in Toulmin 2006, and I could not. Even though Ethnologue quotes it. Chaipau (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: In a nutshell: Ethnologue essentially went halfway in splitting up KRNB, by only elevating the western lects Surjapuri (= "KS") and Nepal Rajbanshi (= "RL", "MH") to individual language status, but leaving the rest (central and eastern varieties) lumped together under the new and misleading label "Rangpuri". –Austronesier (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: that is one way of looking at it. But what intrigues me is this—there has been a sustained movement since the 1980s in North Bengal, centered in Cooch Behar, for a separate state and language (Rajbanshi/Kamatapuri), which has historically been opposed by the West Bengal govt (the current govt declared them as official languages for vote bank politics). Toulmin's thesis understood the official opposition and that is why he came up with "KRNB lects". Yet Ethnologue ignored this glaring fact, and declared two peripheral communities as independent and separate languages—Rajbanshi in Nepal and Rangpuri in Bangladesh, while ignoring the community that has been at the forefront of the language movement (they have been producing literature, movies etc. in the Rajbanshi language). I absolutely cannot imagine how Ethnologue ended up with this formulation. I am sorry, but I don't think Ethnologue can be trusted in this case. Big mess. Chaipau (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Kamatapuri is additional official only in blocks and subdivision where more than 10% of the population speaks that language. Same arrangement has been done for a lot of other languages in WB like Punjabi, Urdu, Hindi, Santali, Kurukh, Odia, etc. This is different from the situation of Nepali, which has been the additional official lang in hill sub-divisions of WB since decades and that 10% rule doesn't apply there. While there is a movement, many Rajbongshis, especially the ones in large urban regions, identify as Bengali speakers too. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: there is little or no demand in Rangpur for an independent language. So it seems someone in Ethnologue blanked out the North Bengal area where the demand is the strongest. Chaipau (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Ethnologue WP:UGC? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not so much about trusting or not trusting Ethnologue. It is quite obvious that its [rkt]-entry ("Rangpuri") is erroneous. But we need to understand what went wrong there, in order to justify why we trust Toumlin's book more—and most of us agree upon the latter.

In the ISO change request, Waugh clearly speaks of three languages: 1. Rajbanshi (read: Nepal Rajbanshi); 2. Kamta (India); 3. Rangpuri (Bangladesh). She then says, however, that based on mutual intellebility, two ISO-codes would suffice: one for the former, and one for the latter two. And this is where the misery starts. The new code request for [rkt] advocates for both "Kamta" and "Rangpuri" as name of this variety, and explains briefy, but quite accuarately the sociolinguistic and political background of both sub-varieties. Unfortunately ISO (and thus Ethnologue) ignored this important point of the change request, and turned [rkt] into "Rangpuri, a language of Bangladesh". Which is quite nonsense, because ISO adopted the name of the very subvariety that does not even claim language status, since its speakers self-identify as Bengali and their variety as a Bengali dialect, while the subvariety that actually has at least some recognition is totally ignored.

It is moot to brood over any hidden motives why SIL decided to create this "mess" (but sure, it looks though as if they shunned the political implications of giving "Kamta" visible prominence). The main point is, we can do a better job here, based on a good and widely acknowledged source (= Toumlin's dissertation/book), and on Waugh's ISO-request.

Btw, Glottolog also made a mess out of Toumlin's thesis/book. Its Kamrupa node conflates "eastern Kamrupa" with "eastern KRDS". So Glottolog is not accurate here, too. I will write have sent an email to Hammarström to fix this. –Austronesier (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages#Interpreting_Ethnologue_and_Glottolog_data. –Austronesier (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I could not have said any better what you have said in your second paragraph. Maybe a version of this belongs in the expanded section of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages#Interpreting_Ethnologue_and_Glottolog_data. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I wonder why I asked that specific question about UGC lol. Possibly distracted (Beer talk). Thanks for that link though. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Final suggestion

My final suggestion:

1. Retain this page, but remove information not relating to Rangpuri proper. Add sociolinguistic information in the same vein as in Chittagonian language. Mention that from a historical linguistic point of view, it is a subvariety of ISO [rkt] and Glottolog "rang1265". Create a corresponding redirect Rajbanshi language (Bangladesh).
2. Create a page Rajbanshi language (Nepal). Move material about this language (e.g. Wilde 2008) there. This corresponds to ISO [rjs] and Glottolog "rajb1243".
3. Create a page Kamta language + corresponding redirect Rajbanshi language (India). This would be the main entry for ISO [rkt] and Glottolog "rang1265". Mention here that Rangpuri is the subvariety in Bangladesh.
4. Turn Rajbanshi language into a dab for the above three.

–Austronesier (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: this is splendid! I know it required much thought and legwork. And the name and the solution could not be better. (Sorry for the WP:PEA). Chaipau (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: some additional thoughts: Merge KRNB lects into Kamta language? Chaipau (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I rather think that KRNB lects would be an enrichment for Bengali-Assamese languages, so I'd prefer to merge it there.

@Fylindfotberserk, Mohsin274, Msasag, UserNumber, and Za-ari-masen: Do you agree with the solution suggested in my four points above? Your point of view (in the best sense of it) is very welcome and needed here—impassionately, of course. If there is one lesson to draw from this discussion, it clearly shows that contentious topics like this one are best dealt with by referring to sources which explicitly cover the controversy without taking sides (here: Toumlin 2009 and Waugh 2007). We cannot solve real life disputes, and are not supposed to do so, but we can present an outline of them that enables readers to get a full picture. This is also what UserNumber implied at some stage of this discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Seems to be the most logical solution at this point. I agree. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Hmmm. So you plan Kamta language to encompass the Rajbanshi language (India) and Rajbanshi language (Bangladesh) but not Rajbanshi language (Nepal)? KRNB lects encompasses all these and more. If we had Kamta language to encompass the KRNB lects, then it would be an article in the same way we have Sylheti language and Chittagonian language Chaipau (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)—updated. Chaipau (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Basically, I want to have three pages for the three languages mentioned in Waugh (2007). And since KRNB lects indeed encompasses more (e.g. the eastern Kamta lects which have largely converged into Assamese, while Surjapuri and Nepal Rajbanshi are not mutually intelligible with the other KRNB lects) and essentially is a historical-comparative construct, I prefer to discuss the latter details in another comparative page, i.e. Bengali-Assamese languages. The fact that Kamta langauge (= Rajbanshi language (India), the partially recognized language of West Bengal) and Rangpuri language (= Rajbanshi language (Bangladesh), in Bangladesh considered a dialect of Bengali) are mutually intelligible and share an ISO-code is quite tricky, but certainly can be handled. –Austronesier (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The main difference with Sylheti language and Chittagonian language is, that these are quite sharply defined varieties, while KRNB lects is a much broader concept. –Austronesier (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: OK, let us get on with it and see. Nevertheless, I see points which we will have to reconcile in the future.

• Waugh's three-way split request (2008) was a proposal, which was only partially implemented (Kamta_India was ignored, which we are making the main article). Ethnologue accepted a two-way split instead (perhaps rightly) but mucked up the implementation/details. So with the three-way split and closer Kamta-Rangpuri connection that we are solutioning is neither here nor there.
• Toulmin (2006) did not have much to say about either Bengali (p-Gauda-Banga) or Assamese (p-e-Kamarupa) speech communities or the p-Gauda-Kamrupa community (Bengali-Assamese languages). He says so explicitly (Chapter 7). OTOH, he does identify the p-Kamta community both historically and linguistically (Chapter 1). So any discussion of details of Kamta happening in Bengali-Assamese and not in Kamta will seat uneasy.

The solution I had in mind was to base Kamta language solely on Toulmin's p-Kamta community and create/identify present-day sociolinguistic communities as needed (Ranjbanshi (India), Ranjbanshi (Nepal), Rangpuri, Goalpariya etc.) This means we will have would have had a standard source to work with and we will would not have to resort to WP:OR.

Chaipau (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Two points:

1. The division of [rkt] into Kamta and Rangpuri is explicitly here[4], and corroborated by Toulmin (2009). So it is not OR.
2. The descedant lects of p-Kamta do not define a single distinct Kamta language. This is the core of Toulmin's thesis. He has identified all layers of innovations that have affected the various KRNB lects, including several external innovations which have diffused into parts of the KRNB lects. This contributed to their current diversity.

I have made initial drafts here:

• User:Austronesier/sandbox/Rajbanshi language (Nepal)
• User:Austronesier/sandbox/Kamta language

I think the former is uncontroversial and straightforward, but the latter still needs a lot of fine-tuning, and additional information about the efforts for recognition.

–Austronesier (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Yes, as I said I agree with your splitting for our purpose; but two points:

• Toulmin indicates that not calling it an language explicitly is based on extra-linguistic reasons: "This long-winded attempt at political correctness is necessary at present given not only the climate of controversy, but also the social diversity represented by the speakers of the lects." (2006, p4). He discusses these issues fully and head-on in Chapter 8.[5] Toulmin established proto-Kamta historically and linguistically, and detailed the innovations and influences of the standard languages. In other words, he established in very concrete terms what was already known since Chatterji (2006, 278ff, and he reproduces Chatterji's division of Magadhan apabhramsa somewhere in his thesis).
• Given the splits, I think we should develop KRNB lects further and not merge it with Bengali-Assamese languages.

Chaipau (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, KRNB lects can stay and be expanded; I suggested to merge it to Bengali-Assamese languages out of a pure reflex because you mentioned to merge it; the article Bengali-Assamese languages is in bad need of solid historical linguistic information, but sure, that shouldn't lead to sacrifizing an existing article about a nested topic. –Austronesier (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Support Austronesier's suggestion addresses all the concerns. My suggestion of the disambiguation page was a bit lazy one as it required lesser work but if we can create full articles on all three topics then why not! Also note that the figure of 15 million speakers shown here is mainly the population of Rangpur Division who identify themselves as Bengalis and the actual speakers of Kamtapuri or Rajbanshi (in India or Nepal) would be far less, so it is all the more necessary to differentiate Rangpuri from the other two. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Rangpuri is a dialect of Kamtapuri, it's mentioned as such in every studies. So can't differentiate it based on how its speakers identify. Meanwhile Kamtapuri speakers have many identities as mentioned before. Koch, Rajbangshi, Deshi, Nashya-Sheikh, Surjapuri, Rangpuri Muslim (Bengali), Rangpuri Hindu (Rajbangshi), Tajpuriya, Rabha and few others, umbrella identities include Assamese, Nepalese and Bihari. The term Kamtapuri is based on region rather than any ethnicity. It's based on Kamata kingdom region. Msasag (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Msasag: How can you say that in "every" study, Rangpuri is a dialect of Kamtapuri? In many studies, Kamtapuri does not even exist, and its diverse varieties are considered divergent dialects of Bengali (this is certainly not the way I see things, but there is no simple WP:TRUTH in this matter). You have to strictly distinguish between: the historical Kamata kingdom; the linguistic construct "KRNB lects" as decendants of a hypothetical proto-language "p-Kamta"; and the aspiring Kamtapuri language, which is as much a social construct as KRNB lects are a scientific construct. If e.g. Rangpuri speakers (who btw speak a distinct local KRNB variety, with characteristic features of its own) "opt out" from the persepctive of getting language status, and happily accept Bengali as their language of education and formal discourse, that's perfectly fine and very significant for identifiying language varieties.

To give you an example from Europe: In Luxembourg, people speak Luxembourgish. This is a language in its own right, and no one in Europe doubts this. But at the same time, it is extremely close to the Moselle Franconian dialects of Germany, in fact Luxembourgish and the dialects across the border in Germany form a continuum without sharp linguistic borders. Now, all these Moselle Franconian speakers in Germany self-identify as German speakers, and are not included as speakers of Luxembourgish. Standard German is their natural medium of everyday communication in certain contexts.

Linguistic studies is apolitical. It is not blind at all to sociological realities, it can make the latter the object of its study, but does not interfere with it. There worst thing one can do is to politicize linguistic research. Such a thing may the daily business of certain academic linguists and all the more so of self-professing "linguists" (aka language activists) in specific part of the world, but certainly not here in WP. –Austronesier (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I totally agree. We absolutely must de-politicize the issue in Wikipedia. And our clearest source, right now, is Toulmin 2006. Look at Figure 7-6 (p308) here: [6]. If we are to go by the Iso-gloss map, then the lect in Cooch-Behar (India) and the lect in Rangpur (Bangladesh) are identical. (This is possibly why Rajbanshi/Kamta is another name for Rangpuri in Ethnologue!) Also, note that the iso-gloss line includes only Rangpur district, not the entire Rangpur Division. Chaipau (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: What I meant is that Rangpuri is considered dialectal to those dialects spoken in Northern West Bengal in every studies. It was my response to Za-ari-masen seeing how he separated Rangpuri speaking numbers from "Kamtapuri" or "Rajbangshi" speaking numbers, so I said that Rangpuri isn't different from them. And Kamata Kingdom had many other languages too. I just said that the term Kamta or Kamtapuri is based on Kamata kingdom. Msasag (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: You could probably publish User:Austronesier/sandbox/Rajbanshi language (Nepal). You could publish User:Austronesier/sandbox/Kamta language too so others may edit it. I suggest we have Proto-Kamta language as a purely linguistic article—what do you think? Chaipau (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Ok, I think "Rajbanshi language (Nepal)" is ready for main space, and I guess uncontroversial. I'll do it in the next few hours. But considering your last comments, I am still struggling how to phrase "Kamta language" so that the Kamta and Rangpuri pages won't look like POV-forks about the same thing. –Austronesier (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Yes, I can see that happening too. We could begin with Kamta language forming the extended central KRNB of section 7.5.3 [7] (BH and RP more specifically) and Rangpuri language representing RP alone. This will enable us to attribute language activities and movements to the right place. Furthermore, Toulmin seems to claim that standard language influences seem to be less in the central-KRNB area. Chaipau (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau and All: Rajbanshi language (Nepal) is blue. –Austronesier (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Nice... watchlisted. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Splendid! Chaipau (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Austronesier chaipau I hope none of you are native speakers of this rangpuri language , as a native speaker i would request you all editors to change the name from rangpuri to kamta language. We have already lot of identical issues and some people are trying to make it as a sub-dialect of bengali. Please understand the problem of ours. If one comes forward to know about Koch-Rajbonghis and what language do they speak, what will we show them , do u expect them that our language came from bangladesh,rangpur? Please do the needful , it's just nothing more than changing the name of the page. Change it to "Kamta Language" with bracket ( Kamtapuru) because kamtapuri will bring political power. In order to avoid politics , keep it as kamta language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayutthaprabal (talk • contribs) 09:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break "Standardizing languages"

@Austronesier: Finally got around to converting the Toulmin 2006 to Toulmin 2009. Also, came across this in Toulmin 2009: [[8]]. So the standardization (printing) seems to be happening at two different points. The Jhapa based effort is probably in the Devanagari script (Rajbanshi language (Nepal)) and the Cooch Behar effort seems to be in the Bengali-Assamese script. I am still trying to find a solid reference for the Cooch Behar based one. The best lead seems to be Toulmin in the Russian edition. Chaipau (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

To change the name of the mentioned page

I would request everyone to change it into "Kamta Language" Ayutthaprabal (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Check the discussion in above this section. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)