Talk:Bengali–Assamese script/Archive 2

Sylheti
this article need not take a position on whether Sylheti is a language or not. This article just gives out the different uses of this script. The rightful place to discuss the language/dialect issue is Sylheti language. Chaipau (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the debate, I am only reverting unsourced changes and agenda pushing. For some reason no mod is paying attention after repeated requests to do so and this users edits still stand. Glennznl (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Let us give them some time. I see this  which they have removed.  I agree with you - this is not the place for that debate.  Chaipau (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Article title
The article's title is disputed. The most common term for this topic is "Bengali script". A search on google scholar shows 2,050 results for Bengali script, 17 results for Bengali-Assamese script and 34 results for Eastern Nagari script. Even the globally recognized databases like Unicode or Ethnologue also describe it as Bengali script. Based on all the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the article should be renamed to Bengali script. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics Chaipau (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a continuation of that discussion as the editors there also seem to have supported the fact. I've started this discussion here as it's the relevant place. You can invite the editors here. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The number of results doesn't matter. We have to consider the context also. The search results are not context-based and only looks for keywords in the documents. And all those results can't be treated as references because those are highly dependent upon other primary, secondary and tertiary sources like Ethnologue. And ofcourse Bengali is a bigger Language, so you'll get more results. And everyone is not a linguist, so they'll use a term that sounds right to them or that matches their views. Talking about "number of search results," I never expected this kind of ignorant statement from a Wikipedia editor with 1000+ edits. Mohsin274 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * see WP:COMMONNAME. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Considering you have been pushing for this since February 2019 and have moved the page without a consensus numerous times, I suspect your motive to be nationalism and not any genuine concerns for the page. The current name is a neutral one to avoid upsetting any users. I liked Eastern Nagari more myself, but it is what it is. Glennznl (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I preferred the name "Eastern Nagari" as well. But after the consensus was created, I am OK with it.  I don't think we need to change the status quo.  Chaipau (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It was not only me but several editors who supported the fact that the title of this page should be Bengali script. The terms Eastern Nagari or Bengali-Assamese are just WP:NEOLOGISM where Wikipedia is being used as a medium to popularize them. Even the page Bengali (Unicode block) has been tried to be moved to Bengali-Assamese by multiple editors in that effort, while the block name in the infobox was tried to be changed into Bengali and Assamese. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Eastern Nagari and Bengali-Assamese are both terms found in Google Scholar, so your claim there is a distortion of facts. It is quite logical that "Bengali script" gets more results when there is the entire country of Bangladesh with 160 million people. In any case, Wikipedia is not an academic medium and any decisions are done in a community fashion. The decision is that naming this page "Bengali script" offends a lot of people while also not being a very accurate name. If you want a page uniquely titled Bengali, here you have: Bengali alphabet. Glennznl (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I also prefer that name. That's more neutral than "Assamese-Bengali" and much more neutral than "Bengali". Mohsin274 (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe preventing people from getting offended is not a criteria yet to suggest an article title. It was also discussed earlier on this talk page and the page of Wikiproject Linguistics. Serbo-Croatian excludes Bosnian and Montenegrin from the title which surely offends the Bosnians and Montenegrins but that didn't prevent it from having the current title. WP:COMMONNAME suggests the most circulated term to be used for an article title. Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at Article_titles, a page can very well not be named the most common name. Glennznl (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, in rare cases we can avoid the common name where the suggested title serves clear benefits over the common name. I don't see any such benefits here. Preventing people from getting offended is surely not the benefit the policy is referring to. Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , as per WP:MOSAT applies here. Chaipau (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What benefit does it serve over the common name here? Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It was decided in 2006 that "Bengali script" was unacceptable, by professional linguists and general editors, of many ethnic groups. We have now started using a name that was coined as early as 1998, or even earlier (Saloman 1998).  I haven't seen any development since then in the academic world or popular works that demands us to revert.  In fact the movement seems to go towards "Bengali-Assamese script" in Unicode and other places. And most of the editors, except you, accept this name. The only arguments you have made are (1) "Ethnologue" and (2) WP:COMMONNAME both of which have been already been objected to.  (1) Ethnologue is a tertiary source, and we prefer WP:SECONDARY; and (2) WP:MOSAT nullifies WP:COMMONNAME. Chaipau (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just like "Bengali-Assamese" doesn't include Tirhuta but that didn't prevent it from having the current title. You example supports the idea of using "Bengali-Assamese script" as the title. Isn't it? Mohsin274 (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, here are thousands of secondary sources that describe the script as "Bengali script" as the search on google scholar shows. My argument is not only based on Ethnologue. Even Unicode describe the script as Bengali. You haven't explained why WP:MOSAT applies here over WP:COMMONNAME. And it's not only me several editors have earlier stated that the title of this article should be "Bengali script",,. I'm also asking to express his opinion. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * you haven't said anything new here. You are repeating. Chaipau (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You haven't countered my argument so what new is there to say? You should look at the diffs of comments from other editors, they are suggesting these terms like "Eastern Nagari" or "Bengali-Assamese" are simply propagated on wikipedia for different interests. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Different interests like what, accuracy and neutrality, keeping both sides content, a different interest than your Bengali nationalism? That's the only interest I see with you. Glennznl (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Unicode is a tertiary source. And Unicode does not specify scripts but code blocks.  "Bengali-Assamese" is cited and sourced.  So stop it.  I shall report you at ANI next if you keep disrupting.  The community prefers "Bengali-Assamese" now even though many of us feel that "Eastern Nagari" is the appropriate name here.  Chaipau (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you only selectively quoting my statements? I also said there are thousands of secondary sources that describe Bengali script, Unicode or Ethnologue are not the only sources. If you keep misrepresenting statements and disruptively force your opinions over the policy-based comments of other editors, next time I will have to report you at ANI. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This was already pointed out. WP:MOSAT.  Just to remind you, WP:IDHT is a form of WP:DE.  Chaipau (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I already said WP:MOSAT doesn't apply here as Bengali-Assamese serves no policy-based benefits over the common name "Bengali script". You should look at wp:IDHT yourself since you have clearly failed to understand my points and are causing disruption here. If you don't agree, just stop replying. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I agree with that it applies here.  I understand your point and showed you that WP:MOSAT overrides WP:COMMONNAME.  Chaipau (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Awesome
The title and subjects are awesome. It indeed is a shared script, a fact often ignored by Bengali speakers. This article deserves a lot more work. Let me see if I can lend a hand in improving this. Cheers to everyone who helped here. Good work people. You have my gratitude. Aditya (talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Tirhuta block
Can't see the the Tirhuta block of unicodes, only blank boxes. Something wrong with the browser? Aditya (talk • contribs) 07:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * probably an issue with fonts. The same thing happens in the Sylheti language page for me. Chaipau (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Initially the same issue here. I downloaded NotoSansTirhuta-Regular.ttf, installed the font, and rebooted my Windows 10 laptop.  I can now see the Tirhuta characters OK using Firefox but Microsoft Edge and Chrome still shows squares. DRMcCreedy (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the tips. Chaipau (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed
Could you please specify what failed verification here? . Surely, the script as used for Sanskrit is cited and is well known as well. Only the claim that it is used for Sylheti seem to be not cited. Chaipau (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "I tagged the information about Sylheti..." - like I already said. The Sankrit part is covered. Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Avik Gangopadhyay
I made some changes to your edits. In addition, Avik Gangopadhyay is not RS. He seems to have copied Wikipedia articles with minor modifications. We discovered that in Sylheti language. Chaipau (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I googled Mr. Gangopadhyay, and found nothing in the regard yet. Any evidence that the book is no good, and we remove the citation altogether. Anywys the first line doesn't require a ciation as I see. It's just a summary of following lines.
 * I tagged the information about Sylheti being written in BAS for citation again, as the current citation doesn't really cover that. If we can't get a cite for that, meybe we need to remove that information.
 * Also, the whole paragraph about Ramayana and Mahabharata and Madhava Kandali looks like OR. Is there any citation available for that one? Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Avik Gangopadhyay's book was published in 2020. Just read Avik Gangopadhyay's entry for Eastern Nagari.  And read the version of this article from 2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bengali%E2%80%93Assamese_script&oldid=856594789.   Chaipau (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just checked Avik Gangopadhyay's book, but didn't see any resemblance with the article version you provided. A bit mystified, I am. Can you tell which part he copied from the Wikipedia? Aditya (talk • contribs) 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just compare Avik Ganopadhyay's section on Eastern Nagari script with the lead to the article before the name changed from Eastern Nagari to Bengali-Assamese. Please look at his credentials as well.  https://sites.google.com/site/authoravikgangopadhyay/home/avik-gangopadhyay. He does not look like an expert in this subject at all. His publisher is https://evincepub.com/, a self publishing company—so the usual WP:USESPS policies will apply here as well.  And we have done not so badly without that source. Chaipau (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks. Aditya (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this useful?
Found this book in a google book search. Might be helpful in developing the history part (it has description on Dharmapala's script too). Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please look at the publisher (https://arihantbooks.com/#nav-books)—it is clearly a tertiary source. Look at the table in page 99—it is identical to the table in Kamarupa inscriptions. The table here has been adapted from Lahiri's book according to Wikipedia conventions and it has been taken over directly to the book.  This might be a good book to track down secondary sources if available, but I don't think we should use this reference directly.  Chaipau (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Okay. I keep looking though. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, please do. But simple google search will probably not give you good sources—you may have to search in dedicated journals and books.  Chaipau (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Google scholar actually crawls the dedicated journals and Google books archived a lot including the dedicated books. Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Image
I found these two images in commons - File:Eastern Nagari Manuscript.jpg and File:18th Century Eastern Nagari Text.svg. Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * the first one looks more Devanagari to me. But the second one is definitely Bengali-Assamese-Tirhuta. Thanks for using the second image instead without the picture of Siva Singha.  Chaipau (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am trying out a series of images to demonstrate the evolution. My choice of images may not be optimum. But there are more images at the commons, inlcuding the Siva Singha image, as well as File:Manuscript-sml.JPG and File:Kanai Baraxiboa rock inscription.png. This might turn interesting. Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * the Manuscript-sml.JPG has to be cropped. We already have the Kanai... I have added a copper-plate inscription.  Chaipau (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Please
Let me remind everyone that the Wikipedia stands on three core principles: WP:V, WP:N and WP:NPOV. Looking at the discussion here I am appalled that almost everyone is discussing ways to violate those principles (I hope it's because they are not aware of them). While this is fine on a talk page, please, keep in mind that such violations are not appreciated on articles. You are not supposed to fill in the gaps left by scholars. No interpretation, no inference, no common sense, no corelation, no mixing different opinions/facts, no acceptance of opinions as facts even if they are made by the supreme authority of a discipline – none of those are allowed. Discuss what you want, but try not to act upon those when editing an article.
 * WP:BALANCE: When reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. ("I agree with those sources that call it a variety of Siddham.")
 * WP:V: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. (infer: "It is clear that there is a step between Siddham and modern day Eastern Nagari scripts, which is often called Proto-Bengali or Gaudi (or even East Indian script), even for Assamese and Odiya."; invent: "Gaudi existed in 10th century in some form but got matured by 13th century.")
 * WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. ("I don't think we need to mention this script just because some authors mentioned it. It is controversial and also not relevant.")
 * WP:YESPOV:
 * Avoid stating opinions as facts. ("If Brahmi, Gupta, Eastern Nagari etc can have early, middle and late forms, so can Siddham.")
 * Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. ("I propose that we accept "Proto-North-Eastern" is a synonym of "Gaudi".")
 * Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. ("Siddham already occupies the whole period from late 6th century to 13th century as mentioned in its article.")
 * WP:POVNAMING: If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. ("We clearly need a wider discussion at some point to address some of these "partisan" names because they are often the source of edit warring.")

I already have explained the policy situation, but no one seemed to care. That would not be my problem as soon someone starts making OR and POV edits to articles. Aditya (talk • contribs) 14:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This started with the Bengali-Assamese/Eastern Nagari "inventions" as Bengali script sounded "too biased" to some, now people are thinking they are entitled to change any title they don't like. If such non-policy based arguments persists, I would rather open an RM on this page and bring this to the attention of the wider community. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No one has made an contentious edit yet, not since the 3RR violation by . Have patience. And stick to policies, both in content and in behaviour. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I see it, this is a possible path to consensus. We are trying to find common grounds. The default name is Gaudi.  But we agree that there are verifiable genuine concerns with this name.  One proposal is that we use the name "proto-northeast" as coined by Pattanayak not to rename Gaudi but only in Infoboxes.  This will address the genuine concerns at Odia as well as here.  Now we have to decide whether this violates any Wikipedia policy.  If we cannot agree whether this violates policies, we will ask for independent opinions and advice for how to go forward. Chaipau (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You can read the policies yourself. "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." (WP:UNDUE) You might also want to read WP:BALANCE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Entertaining such a proposal is entertaining multiple policy violations. No one should try to build consensus on such thin air. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * how are you defining minority views here?  Chaipau (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A name proposed by only one source. Aditya (talk • contribs) 17:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Each and every name has been proposed by just one source! Chaipau (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Aditya Kabir here, Gaudi and Proto-Bengali are equally used for the meaning of "Proto-Eastern Nagari", Kamarupi is used much less, Proto-Northeastern script is merely a single suggestion. We could fill in the infoboxes as in Old Italic scripts, with the variety behind the main script. I still have strong doubts about the legitimacy of a seperate Kamarupi script page, but until we find a source clearly saying that Gaudi and Kamarupi are the same script, we should stick to the status quo. Glennznl (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I am saying the same thing as you are. Where do you think is the difference?  I am not proposing a name change for Gaudi script.  That discussion has to happen in Talk:Gaudi script.  I am strictly limiting myself to what goes into the Infobox in this article (and possibly Odia script).  So I am surprised by your comment.  Where do you think we differ?  Chaipau (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I thought we were still talking about the title and not just the infobox. I think using Kamarupi (if it is merged), Proto-Odia etc in the infoboxes would work, according to MOS:NOPIPE, as the context matters greatly here. Glennznl (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Proto-Odia (after Pattanayak) works at Odia script (Infox) and Proto-northeast (again, after Pattanayak) works in the Infobox here. That is all I am proposing (in principle).  Now are we in agreement? Chaipau (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In principle I agree but I think we should not use neologisms found in a single source, so Proto-Northeast can't be used until we find it in another source atleast. Glennznl (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed in principle. So there seems to not be a resolution for the issue in this page. Chaipau (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I did comment about that here already. Only if you cared to read it. Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Roy et. al.
do you have another reference than the one you have used here ? The name of the journal sounds like it is a predatory journal. Also, the article confuses a Bengali language tree for the Bengali script tree (Figure 4). I don't think this is a good quality reference. Chaipau (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not too sure of the credibility of the journal. I found this and this about it. It is based in Korea, but not much discussion about it in other journals. You may remove the whole line and the citation if you find it dubious. Meanwhile I will look for a better citation if there is any available online. Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaving the link here: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.
 * Also,, are you aiming to anoint this article RS and then use this quote: Here, it is to be remembered that Assamese alphabets were in use even before the Bengali script but there was no separate slot for the Assamese script in the Unicode Standard. on page 56? Chaipau (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is good to check, since both you and I know not much about the source. Aditya (talk • contribs) 00:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Is Gaudi script an ancestor?
We already discussed this here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/980237814 / https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bengali%E2%80%93Assamese_script/Archive_1. Msasag (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * None of that is showing a consensus. The result of discussion is consensus. You can't make edits on the basis of "there was a discussion, though no one agreed to my point". Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read the discussion to know that we came to a conclusion. The three users agreed not to use Gaudi for all of them. The source is also not reliable. It considers Devanagari and Nagari to be the same script. Msasag (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see two available language family trees: Glottolog and Ethnologue. I don't think either agrees to the current tree in the article. wrong tree. Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * We established that Gaudi, Kamarupi and Proto-Oriya are all names used to describe the same script. We still need a source to be able to merge Gaudi and Kamarupi into a single page for "Proto-Eastern Nagari". Also how is Indian Epigraphy unreliable? I have never seen your claim about Devanagari and Nagari being the same. Pinging into this discussion. Glennznl (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean we will just choose Gaudi. Gauda was a small region in Southwestern Bengal while this script was used in a large region of Odisha, Jharkhand, Bihar, Eastern Nepal, West Bengal, Bangladesh, Assam and Arakan (etc.). Moreover Siddham script appeared in late 8th century and it cannot just change into this script in 10th century, that's a very short period which I explained earlier. I don't think we need to mention this script just because some authors mentioned it. It is controversial and also not relevant, so keeping them for regional variations is better (Kamarupi/Proto-Assamese for Assamese, Gaudi/Proto-Bengali for Bengali, Proto-Odia for Odia etc). If Brahmi, Gupta, Eastern Nagari etc can have early, middle and late forms, so can Siddham. And regarding Nagari and Devanagari, Salomon mentioned (page: 40): “In northern India, the later forms of Siddhamātṛkā gradually shaded into early versions of the modern north indian scripts, the most important of which is the Nāgarī or Devanāgarī script.” Msasag (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have just started looking at Gaudi script, and apparently the script was used in Bihar and Nepal too, not a small region in Bengal. Kumar Suresh Singh of ‎Anthropological Survey of India seems to be particularly taken to the idea, along with his claim that Nagari eventually replaced Gaudi, which he identifies as proto-Bengali script. Aditya (talk • contribs) 08:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes this script was used in a large region as I mentioned. But read carefully what I said. Gauda region was a small region that is located in Bengal. So this name cannot be used for the script of the entire region when there are other names too. Msasag (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Which other names you would prefer to use? By the way, DC Sircar seems to be quite comfortable using that name in multiple books. Many Odiya scholars use the term too. And Gauda, at its height, was hardly a "small region". Aditya (talk • contribs) 11:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be better to have these regional variants on a combined page to avoid confusion, in my opinion. It is obvious that the source uses Gaudi to mean Proto-Eastern Nagari and not simply the script used in Gauda. Besides that, Nagari is an alternative name for Devanagari, so I wouldn't discard a highly regarded source because of 1 line. Glennznl (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments Chaipau (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * is right—the Gauda kingdom appeared transiently, known solely for a powerful king called Sasanka, till it was overran by Bhaskarvarman of Kamarupa in early 7th century. For the period in which the Gaudi script is said to be prevalent (up to 12th century or so), Bengal was ruled by the Pala dynasty whereas Assam continued to be ruled by the Kamarupa kings.  So Gaudi is clearly a misnomer.  The name "Gaudi script" was coined by D C Sircar, a doyen of Indian epigraphy, and used in Salomon as well.  So that is a problem.  But we know from Sircar's own paper that Gaudi script is also called "Early Nagari" and "proto-Bengali" (Chaoudhury&Sircar p145, last paragraph).  Though we could use this and rename Gaudi to "Early Nagari" to make it neutral and acceptable to all NIA languages concerned (Oriya, Bengali, Maithili, Assamese), I hesitate because Salomon uses Gaudi.  I think we should maintain status quo till there is a wide consensus for the use of "Early Nagari".
 * The same is true for the name of this article. I have seen many users comment that they preferred the name "Eastern Nagari" over "Bengali-Assamese".  I agree as well.  But "it is what it is", as  has said in this very page, and we should live with it for now.
 * We clearly need a wider discussion at some point to address some of these "partisan" names because they are often the source of edit warring. I just don't think we know enough at this point to have a well informed discussion.
 * Isn't that a bit partisan to find "Bengali-Assamese" more neutral than "Eastern Nagari" while holding "Early Nagari" to be more neutral over "Gaudi"? Is it that lingusitics doesn't require a common system of identification, and anyone can adhere to any literature of their own preference? Or may be Assamese is neutral, Bengali is partisan? Aditya (talk • contribs) 11:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * please re-read what I said. "Gaudi", "Bengali", "Assamese", "Bengali-Assamese" are all non-neutral whereas "Early Nagari" or "Eastern Nagari" are neutral.  But we should also know that "Bengali-Assamese" is more neutral than either "Bengali" or "Assamese" in this context.  Chaipau (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. But I would prefer not to use words like "partisan" to refer the works of top scholars in the area. I like "Bengali-Assamese", but also like "Gaudi" and "Kamrupi". There is nothing inherently wrong with the terms. In fact I can see authors describing inscriptions where "Gaudi" and "Nagari" has been used together. Aditya (talk • contribs) 11:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at the reverts on Odia script removing "Gaudi". We see the same issue here.  We may have our own opinions on what is partisan and what is not, but the evidence is clear. Chaipau (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Perhaps we need that wider discussion you mentioned, so that a large number of articles can be synergised. Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Early Nagari would be misleading and confusing, as that name would no longer be specific to the Eastern group and could easily include the ancestor of Devanagari/Modi/Gujarati as well. I would just keep it how it is for now. Glennznl (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, great point. Chaipau (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think any script between Eastern Nagari and Siddham is required. I think Siddham should be given a similar period like other scripts. Mid 8th-10th is too short period. The 9th, 10th, 11th and even 12th century scripts are very similar (see from page 52): https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.108208/page/n78/mode/1up Msasag (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Siddham's page says 12th century already. The Eastern Nagari scripts form a cluster together that is differentiable from (Western) Nagari scripts like Devanagari, Modhi and Gujarati. Showing Assamese, Bengali, Tirhuta etc. as independent developments from Siddham would be misleading in my opinion. Glennznl (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * For that, we have this article, which shows Assamese, Bengali and Tirhuta as different regional variations of the Bengali-Assamese script.
 * Gupta: 3rd/4th to 7th century
 * Siddham: 8th to 13th century
 * Eastern Nagari: 14th to present
 * I think it's fine this way. The Gaudi page says 10th to 14th century. Btw here's a late 7th century inscription (Udaypur inscription of Aparajita) for comparison (page: 31): https://archive.org/details/EpigraphiaIndicaVol4. It is still Gupta. Msasag (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * we could follow the time lines as given in Salomon. I added the citations in this article's Infobox recently. Chaipau (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I can see in the quotes with citations, Salomon didn't exactly gives that timeline. He describes a "late Brahmi" from fourth to sixth centuries, not "Gupta" or seventh century. He gives the starting time for Siddham around sixth century and doesn't provide an end date at all. He gives tenth to fourteenth centuries to Gaudi, which is ignored in the timeline (deliberately? I hope not). Surely we couldn't follow an unsourced timeline with obvious omissions.
 * P.S. By the way, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument. Anything can happen at the Odia article, as long as reliable sources support a place for Gaudi here, it doesn't matter. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * this is not OTHERSTUFF when we are discussing Gaudi which is an ancestor to both this and Odia script. As far as the timelines in Salomon goes, please read the text—it is freely available.  He specifically mentions Sircar who identifies "Late Brahmi" which corresponded to "Gupta".  This is the complete quote: D. C. Sircar broadly categorizes the stages of development into "Early," "Middle," and "Late Brahmi" periods, corresponding (in northern India) to the third through first centuries B.C., the first century B.C. through third century A.D., and the fourth through sixth centuries A.D., respectively (HEP 113), though others refer to his "Late Brahmi" as "Gupta script" (cf. Gai, HE, 34). A. H. Dani, however (in DIP), considers such dynastic terminology misleading and prefers to use only regional and geographical categories... This and a little extra is given in the citation, so readers may figure out what relationship "Gupta" has with "Brahmi".  This is not the right place to discuss this though—this should be discussed in the Gupta script.  Pinging .  Chaipau (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We still need to discuss this article here, and Odia or Rangpuri elsewhere. As for the timeline, please read my comment. Only a little part of the inconsistencies have been addressed by the "full quote". And, no, if we are trying to implement a timeline featuring Gupta here, then it needs to be discussed here, not at the Gupta article. The timeline is still invalid. Aditya (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a snippet I took out of The World's Writing Systems a few months ago, although I no longer have acces to it. It just used Salomon as a source though, but it's useful for visualization: https://imgur.com/8h2uPnC Glennznl (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not addressing the timeline here, just the sequence. Also, the imgur image is wrong. Modern Bengali starts with Halhed's 1778 book, not 17th century and it is nowhere near modern.  The first Assamese book came out in 1813, about 35 years later, which is more modern looking but not modern exactly. The image gives the impression that they are two hundred years apart.  Chaipau (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misunderstood. A sharp comment telling "we could follow the time lines as given in Salomon" following mutliple comments describing the timeline misled me. Perhaps I should have been able figure out that many of the comments here are unrelated to the discussion. Marking comments that are to be ignored as such would be helpful. By the way, I didn't post the imgur image. Aditya (talk • contribs) 18:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This image from imgur has some mistakes though. For example, it places some different scripts in the same lines. Considers Chakma as a descendant of Khmer even though it's much more closely related to Burmese script. Doesn't have timeline for Siddham (also considers Siddham and Kutila to be the same script, which many others do too). It mentions Assamese as a 19th century descendant of 17th century modern Bengali, which it is for many characters (like 5-6) with addition of two characters from traditional Assamese script (ৰ ra, ৱ va). Though it doesn't have any mention of the traditional Assamese / Kamrupi script which was used until mid or late 19th century. Msasag (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Should not be a big problem, as have already stated, "We are not addressing the timeline here, just the sequence." We can surely find a place for Gaudi script in the sequence if we follow Salomon: "In the northeast, the local derivative of Siddhamatrka was the script knownas Proto-Bengali or Gaudi, which was current from the tenth to the fourteenth centuries."  Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have to find a place for the Gaudi/Kamarupi/Proto Odia/Proto Bengali/Proto Assamese/Proto Tirhuta script. I mentioned the reasons already. Siddham already occupies the whole period from late 6th century to 13th century as mentioned in its article. Btw in my opinion Siddham actually starts from 8th century if we look at the characters of late 6th c and 7th c they are still Gupta. Msasag (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are right. But I can see two problems:
 * We are going by Salomon so far, and, from what I see from the cites, he says, "Around the late sixth century, the so-called Gupta script of northern India evolved into a distinct new script for which the preferred name is Siddhamatrka." No mention of eighth or thirteenth centuries.
 * There is no apparent reason to decide that since we have Siddham to cover for the period, we don't need Gaudi. By the same logic, we have Gaudi to cover for the period and don't need Siddham. Isn't it so?
 * Perhaps this is not as clear as you think. Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dismissing sources and favoring your own opinions and theories is not the Wikipedia way.
 * Btw, interesting are 1 (last paragraph of page 145) and 2 which Chaipau shared earlier at Talk:Kamarupi_script. It is clear that there is a step between Siddham and modern day Eastern Nagari scripts, which is often called Proto-Bengali or Gaudi (or even East Indian script), even for Assamese and Odiya. This ancestor is not necessarily a single linear ancestor which can be tracked down to 1 single inscription or scribe, but atleast a common identifiable stage for the cluster of eastern Siddham derivatives, which diverged into regional variants. If Gaudi is problematic because it is a small kingdom, why not pick Proto-Bengali or even East Indian script (although I haven't seen the latter elsewhere yet), Bengal is a big place. We shouldn't self-censor and dismiss sources because nationalist teens might get upset. --Glennznl (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Salomon mentioned the period of Gaudi from 10th to 14th century. Perhaps he meant Siddham ended in 10th century. What I said is that Kamrupi or Gaudi or any other name given to the 10th-14th century form isn't really necessary. We have sources that suggest the time period of Siddham and it covers the whole period of 10th-13th leaving just 14th c. There are also mentions for various names of Eastern Nagari that they started from 14th century or even earlier. Msasag (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Nationalist teens"? Stop being rude. A nationalist (removed "teen" because we should not underestimate people of certain age groups) will favour a term that is related to their nationality, they won't favour a neutral term. So learn how to behave, especially in a discussion on a wikipedia talk page. I am not going to believe that Newari and Meitei are the same or very closely related script(s) or Chakma is a descendant of Khmer just because your source says so. When I said that Salomon mentioned that Nāgarī and Devanagari as the same script you said you couldn't find it anywhere while it was in the same part. I don't know what's your motivation, but I'm not going to attack personally like you did. Msasag (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * [] considers the Gaudi/Early Nagari/Proto-Bengali as a variety of Siddham or Kutila. Msasag (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * [] (page: 130) is interesting. Related to the issue we are facing. Msasag (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Very interesting indeed. From the same links interpreted, "It is clear that there is a step between Siddham and modern day Eastern Nagari scripts, which is often called Proto-Bengali or Gaudi." You interpreted, "The Gaudi/Early Nagari/Proto-Bengali [is] a variety of Siddham or Kutila." Whereas I see that one source says Siddham, Kutila and Proto-Bengali are the same script, while the other says, Proto-Bengali and Gaudi are the same script.
 * Now we have Siddham = Gaudi from these two sources.  Aditya (talk • contribs) 10:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely Gaudi/Proto-Bengali is a derivative or "local variety" of Siddham, but according to Salomon it did not differentiate into recognizable varieties until 1300, while Siddham is said to have dropped out of use around 1000. We can not have both situations at the same time, so we can not say that the Eastern Nagari scripts are direct developments from Siddham after it dropped out of use around 1000, something must have come in between around 1000-1300. Well? Salomon nicely fills in this gap, explaining that Gaudi existed around 900-1300. --Glennznl (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * look at the tree below. Chaipau (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

A proposal
Here is a proposal:

Let us first look at the tree Salomon has created: (Found the source: 1 --Glennznl (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC))


 * Siddhamatrika
 * Nagari (in the north, )
 * Devanagari (Modern)
 * Gaudi/Proto-Bengali/Early Nagari (in the northeast, 10th-14th century)
 * Bengali-Assamese
 * Odia
 * Maithili

Everyone including Pattanayak agrees that the category Gaudi/Proto-Bengali/Early Nagari exists, but that the name is unfortunate. As Glennznl has said Early Nagari is a misnomer that will lead to confusion. Pattanayak (2016), more recent than Salomon (1998), calls Proto-Bengali/Gaudi "proto-Oriya" ("Proto-Oriya ('Proto-Bengali' of Buhler and 'Gaudi' of D C Sircar) p129), but in the next page mentions that "Proto-North-Eastern" (p130) is preferred. I propose that we accept "Proto-North-Eastern" is a synonym of "Gaudi" and use it in the Infobox of pages like this and Odia script, but link it to the Gaudi script and explain the situation with names there. , , , ,  and others, could you please comment and/or recommend other solutions to resolve this issue.

Let us recall what WP:CONSENSUS means on Wikipedia: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Chaipau (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see a couple of very big problems here:
 * The available literature is inadequate and in disagreement, sometimes even arbitrary (as is evident in naming the scripts, every author has her/his own interpretation of the names and their relationships). To bridge the gaps we are constantly resorting to WP:SYNTH and WP:OR (read the policy pages if you don't know what I mean). Choosing names for particular entities in the historical sequence of scripts we are constantly using WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT (though I am the only one using the word "like" to refer to two conflicting entities at the same time).
 * Whatever tree we follow here seems to be in conflict with trees presented at every other scipt linked in the tree. To remove conflict and confusion we probably would need to "create" a tree out of the existing literature to be used across those articles. Without an academic paradigm explicitly supporting one tree over other that needs to be a policy level discussion, as creating a tree would probably need to bypass SYNTH and OR, and fall back on WP:IAR. Sometimes Wikiprojects are allowed to have their own guidelines and policies for articles within their scope. WP:LING may be the project for this.
 * This discussion is too small to work on issues that were left unsolved by the top authors on the subject. We seriously need a much wider discussion to solve these issues, and, since this would bypass some of Wikipedia's core principles to resort to a much less used principle, that wider discussion also must include policy-experts along with linguistic experts.
 * Until then we can just keep a WP:STATUSQUO here, as per WP:NOCONSENSUS. While on Wikipedia, we do need to play by Wikipedia guidelines (by not bringing a knife to a gunfight). Here are four cups of virtual tea for us to sip while we ponder over the depth, width and scope of the problem.  Aditya (talk • contribs) 11:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Number 3 is precisely the solution I proposed above. There is no name change anywhere.  We are just using synonyms.  The other solutions are also very important but maybe we could address them in their own contexts? Chaipau (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just keep Gaudi script as it is, proto-North Eastern sounds too anomalous and I don't see any policy-based argument in favor of changing the current title. We are not supposed to start changing article titles just because some user doesn't like it. I proposed to change the title of Bengali-Assamese script but I later backed off, despite the fact that my argument was completely policy-based. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A 9th century (828 CE) Siddham/Gaudi manuscript from Nepal. They mentioned this script as "Late Gupta". On page 18, all the letters of the alphabet are given (which is really interesting indeed). If we look at those characters, they perfectly match with the Siddham we know, the one used in fonts and on unicode. There are of course few variations in the characters plus the East Asian Siddham we know is calligraphic that is a later development. We are counting Gaudi just few years later from it. Therefore I think maintaining Gaudi script as an ancestor of Eastern Nagari is not effort-worthy. I agree with those sources that call it a variety of Siddham. Msasag (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Choosing WP:ILIKEIT over WP:BALANCE is not a good proposal. Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * We are discussing on whether to keep Gaudi (which has a really short period and overlaps with its ancestor and descendants) as an ancestor of Eastern Nagari or not. So I gave my reasons showing that we should give Siddham a standard timeline like we give to other scripts and agreed with those sources that consider it as a variation of Siddham or synonymous to Siddham. I think I'm keeping balance. If we say Siddham ends in 9th century here and 13th century in some other places on wiki, that's chaotic. We have to consider that Gaudi is a newly added ancestral script and we are seeing so much disagreements. If we really have to keep it then my preference is just a neutral term, like Early Nagari or Proto Northeastern. Or Proto Eastern Nagari if possible. Msasag (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you have missed an earlier post of which explains your confusion. Neither Siddham ended in 9th century, nor Gaudi/Proto-Bengali started. Siddham began to "decline" in 10th century, giving room for Gaudi/Proto-Bengali to "emerge". By 13th century, the two differentiated too significantly to be considered distinct from each other. Glennznl, do correct me if I interpret it wrong. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not WP:IDL—Pattanayak in page 130 says clearly there is a problem with the naming. This is a genuine concern, as given in WP:CONSENSUS.  The concern has been stated by Pattanayak, not by you are I.  And we have seen the impact of it on Wikipedia.  We cannot sort this issue if you deny that this concern is genuine.  Chaipau (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * That gives just 13th and perhaps 14th century to Gaudi? Although the source we are using for Gaudi says it starts from 10th century. Msasag (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You still didn't get it. Origin of a language/script is a fluid phenomenon and you can't set a well-defined date. Overlaps between predecessors and successors are natural. Gaudi existed in 10th century in some form but got matured by 13th century. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This amazing amount of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR from everyone is tolerable on a talk page, just don't try to act upon it to edit an article.
 * BTW, You need to learn to indent your comments per WP:THREAD. It's not difficult to learn.  Aditya (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think there are far more concerns with the naming of Spanish Flu but the title remains intact. Just keep it as it is, there is no solid reason to change. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

the proposal is not to change the title, but to rename "Gaudi" to "Proto-NorthEast" in the Infobox tree. The solid reason here is the concern stated by Pattanayak. Chaipau (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * could you please state why what Pattanayak says is not a genuine concern? Chaipau (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The concern is real and verifiable. So are the scholarly disagreements and lack of academic consensus. Chosing one source over another arbitrarily is very IDL. It also is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (would someone care to read them, at least OR and WP:NPOV?) Choosing an obscure name over a widely used one is an example of such violations. Aditya (talk • contribs) 13:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Since the title is Gaudi script, keep it as it is in the infobox. We are keeping Bengali-Assamese in the infobox as an ancestor to Bengali alphabet/Assamese alphabet since that's the title of the article. Pattnaik's concern is valid and it can be explained in the article of Gaudi script, there is no need to change or use different titles. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Counting like this, from 10th century to 12th century, Gaudi was a variation of Siddham and vice versa. In 13th century it became "matured" and that lasted till 14th century, so its overlap period with its descendants should be 15th, 16th and 17th century (so Gaudi script's timeline is 10th-17th century). While it's true in evolution, I have a question, should we keep any natural scripts or languages or animal species like that on wikipedia? Msasag (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Another proposal

 * I will propose some solutions:
 * 1. Keep the name Gaudi. From my Google Scholar search the past hour, Proto-Bengali and Gaudi seem equally common and very often named simultaneously as synonyms. Using "Bengali" is misleading however, as if the "Bengali script" is the original one and older than Assamese, Odia etc. Using Gaudi is a more neutral solution. I have not seen Kamarupi used in any quantity, in reliable sources released since 2010. I would like "Proto-North-Eastern script" or even better "Proto-Eastern Nagari", but Wikipedia should follow academic material and not lead the way.
 * 2. Merge Kamarupi script to Gaudi script, as they are the same script essentialy. Explain in the article that the Gaudi/Proto-Bengali script has several varieties like Kamarupi and Proto-Odia, that developed into the Bengali, Assamese and Odia scripts.
 * 3. In the modern script articles, use the names of the local proto- variety, if such a name exists. These names can either be linked to Gaudi as redirects or written as Kamarupi script Glennznl (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1 and 2 are okay, no. 3 looks to be a violation of MOS:EASTEREGG. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Number 3 is precisely the solution I proposed above. There is no name change anywhere.  We are just using synonyms.  The other solutions are also very important but maybe we could address them in their own contexts? Chaipau (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree MOS:EASTEREGGs are obnoxious. . We should use redirects instead. Chaipau (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any reason to use different titles (not just different spellings) for the same article in different infoboxes, that would create unnecessary confusion. The issues with the name can be explained in the article and any reader can see this by clicking on the wikilink. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep the name as Proto-Northeast. Naming it as Gaudi script is also misleading as it's based on one region of Eastern South Asia. It's easy to have the misconception that the script originated in Gauda region. If possible, alternatively I'd prefer the name Pala script because the script was used during Pala empire and Pala empire included Bihar, Jharkhand and some parts of Odisha also. The dynasty of Kamarupa at that time was also called Pala dynasty. There are mentions of this name also. Msasag (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are discussing an article on Wikipedia, not your own monograph. Your repeated insistence on you own rsearch and opinions to be included is perfectly unacceptable.
 * Having said that, 1 and 2 are fine, if that's what reliable sources suggest. 3 is original research, and hence unacceptable. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your solutions are not based on literature, Proto-Northeast has never been used in any paper so far, it was only suggested by one author. Gaudi is the least undesirable solution. Also, the page is already called Gaudi, there is no "keeping" of Proto-Northeast. Glennznl (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My solution is not to have the form of 10th-13th century as a separate script because there are sources that consider it as a variety of Siddham. Then, if not Proto-Northeast, I propose the name Pala script which has several mentions in different published books. Msasag (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What "form of 10th-13th century"? Which source cosiders it "as a variety of Siddham"? I don't see anything but WP:SYNTH here. Please try to get some sources to back your claims up. Repeating the same original research over and over doesn't make it verifiable. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 4th paragraph. Even if you forgot that we were discussing about it few hours ago, you should try to check before claiming something. Msasag (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "The character employed belong to the East Indian variety of Siddhamatrika or Kutila script of the ninth century, sometimes called Early Nagari or Proto-Bengali. Indeed it is the Gaudi lipi or the East Indian script as known to Al-Biruni and was the source from which the Bengali alphabet and the allied Assamese, Oriya and Maithili scipts gradually developed."? May I quote WP:SYNTH, "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source" and WP:YESPOV, "Avoid stating opinions as facts"? Also check WP:FRINGELEVEL (one source writing something in a roundabout way, open to interpretations... seriously?). And finally, if anything is challenged you are not supposed to do a holier-than-thou or a tongue-in-cheek answer, the WP:BURDEN of supporting your claim is yours alone. Aditya (talk • contribs) 17:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * These are two sentences one next to another. Gaudi script is also called Proto Bengali as mentioned in its article. I don't know what's your definition of explicitly. It's clearly mentioned in the source that Proto-Bengali is the East Indian variety of Siddhamātṛkā. And that Proto Bengali is also known as Early Nagari, Gaudi lipi and East Indian script. Msasag (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, mention the user who you talk to. Msasag (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, two sentences next to each other, where one script name is segregated from the list of other script names explicitly claimed to be a "variety" of Siddham/Kutila, including Early Nagari, a sure misnomer, and put in a separate sentence with unqualified connections to Proto-Bengali/Early Nagari (or is it with Siddham/Kutila?). Such picking of A is B from source X, then B is C from sentence Y, followed by C is D from Source Z and so on would have been fine only if there were other sources to support them.
 * It is not necessary to ping an editor if she/he were watching a page and actively participating. Pinging is for drawing attention. Aditya (talk • contribs) 18:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You don't have to add the source Z here. The same source calls Gaudi as another name for Early Nagari or Proto Bengali. Plus there's no "so on". Msasag (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just make sure that whatever you are doing: (a) is supported by multiple sources (yes explicitly), (b) is accompanied by other theories that are equally valid, and (c) is highly accepted in academics. A small information like the content of one inscription perhaps doesn't require all these trouble. But a sequence in the tree of scripts is not a small matter. Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by (a), (b) and (c)? And the source is Epigraphia indica which includes a lot of inscriptions and has 42 volumes. Msasag (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope by now you have figured out that (a), (b) and (c) are not about Epigraphia Indica. If you have not then allow me an attempt to clarify: Is this easier to understand? Aditya (talk • contribs) 19:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (a) Whatever theory/hypothesis/conjecture/etc. you add to an article needs to be supported by more than one or two sources (i.e. more than one author and more than one journal).
 * (b) If there are other theories/hypotheses/concentures/etc. circulated in academics, then you need to mention them too.
 * (c) The information you add should be widely circulated, and not a minority view (i.e. the view of one author or one journal).
 * and (d) Finally, after all that, you need to quote the author whose explanation you are using, as an opinion should not be included in an encyclopedia as a fact, and opinions need to be attributed.

Bhattacharya Thesis 1969

 * Found an interesting (but old) source: 1
 * Interesting for us is page 55-57, explaining where the names Proto-Bengali and Gaudi came from (although the author himself uses Proto-Bengali-Assamese-Maithili (BAM) and sometimes adds -Oriya (BAMO)). Also interesting is chapter VI, page 365. Considering this source is 51 years old and the term "Gaudi" is still actively being used today (and the alternative of the author didn't catch on), this gives enough credibility in my opinion to be used as the name for "Proto-Eastern Nagari", and earlier comments here on Wikipedia saying that "Gaudi" was only meant for the ancestor of Bengali script are wrong.
 * Trying to find something for Kamarupi, I found "The Assamese Script" by Goswami attached here, which says:
 * 1) Assamese script dates from the 5th century and developed from Gupta 2) Old Assamese script = Kamarupi script 3) ... it may be said that the origin of the eastern India scripts, namely Assamese, Bengali, Oriya and Maitheli is the Kamrupi script
 * Sadly I don't have access to the only modern source on the Kamarupi Wikipedia page (Puraratna: Emerging Trends in Archaeology, Art, Anthropology, Conservation, and History : in Honour of Shri Jagat Pati Joshi, Volume 2), but I can see in the Google Books preview that it says that, paraphrased, "Kamarupi descends from Gupta and not Siddham as recent discoveries show that it is 150 years older than Siddham". I wonder if this source also says something about Bengali, Odia, Maithili etc. Very old but, Diringer also mentions "Proto-Bengali" deriving from the eastern variety of the North Indian script (Gupta) and not Siddham (the western variety of Gupta): 3. Salomon mentions an eastern form of Gupta which is "characterized mainly by cursivized forms of la and ha and looped sa."
 * Considering some Eastern Nagari glyphs can only be explained through Siddham (and not directly from Gupta), I wonder if the scripts started of as Kamarupi/a Gupta derivative but then were heavily influenced by Siddham. I still haven't found anything that makes "Kamarupi" "Kamarupi" (obviously the name is a modern invention), so it might just be a fancy way of saying "Gupta as found in Assam". Gupta was found in Bengal as well so these discoveries in Assam and Goswami's explanation don't have to mean anything, as in any case all of the modern eastern scripts only show differences since the 14th century. I think it would be best to follow Salomon and use "Gaudi" with Siddham as the ancestor for all of these scripts, until a new and trusted source says otherwise. This would conflict with the Kamarupi article however, I don't know what to do about that one, perhaps clearly state that it is a theory? Glennznl (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome find! I think we find some reflections of our suspicions here. His "(VI) BEGINNING OF THE FORMATIVE STAGE OF THE BENGALI-ASSAMESE-MAITHILI SCRIPT(S) - c.1100-1200 A.D." sounds like "Eastern Nagari".  His "(VII) Script in Assam 400-1200" sounds like the "Kamarupi script".  It is not a script, per se, but the script as used in Assam (rather Kamarupa). Surprisingly he says that the Kutila style did not quite grip the inscriptions in Kamarupa (p454).  Shall need to read this at leisure.  Awesome find, again. Chaipau (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * More speculations and filling in the gaps. More original research and opinions. More violation of Wikipedia principles. Aditya (talk • contribs) 00:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * this is research, not original research. In fact this is not even research—just search.  Technically literature search.  Wikipedia work is nothing but literature review.  Chaipau (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's stick to the spirit of "research" and "just search". Comments like "I wonder", "our suspicions", and "obviously"... are slightly suspiscious, you know.
 * By the way, have you thought of writing the history and nomenclauture as article content first (with NPOV)? Perhaps you can decide on the infobox after the content is satisfactory. Writing it down will help to see how much synthesis and hypothesis is needed. Boiling down a large debate down to one or two names to put into a single sequence may not be a stright forward process.
 * You can also create a sandbox for the article (to be deleted when the work is done). That way no one (especially uninvolved editors) will not have to wade through information strewn across a multitude of comments.
 * And you could try getting more editors to take a look into this (editors acclimatized to Wikipedia ways). You see, linguistic expertise do not make anyone immune from Wikipedia policies. Perhaps a formal RfC? I can assist.
 * Remember, no amount of linguistic knowledge is going to help if Wikipedia processes and policies are not entertained. Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * None of these speculations will end up on Wikipedia, I am just sharing my thoughts with my fellow editors as they might know more about something uncertain to me. --Glennznl (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with . The caveat in WP:OR says: This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Chaipau (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you think that with this older source backing up Salomon, that using Gaudi as "Proto-Eastern Nagari" is fine now? We could figure out what to do with Kamarupi in a sandbox, as suggested above. Glennznl (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Bhattacharya too lays explicit the "genuine concern" we have been discussing. Neither of the terms ’Proto-Bengali' and 'Gaudiya' has been found suitable to signify the formative stage in the development of the (modern) Bengali, Assamese and Maithili writings, and therefore, the abbreviation 'Proto-BAM.' has been used instead. Yet this Proto-Bengali-Assamese-Maithili too is inadequate, because Gaudi should be Proto-Bengali-Assamese-Maithili-Odia.  Therefore, we are back to using Pattanayak's Proto-Northeastern.  But following your (and others) concern that this is just one source, we have to weigh here and determine what we should use: (1) let Gaudi stand in InfoBoxes, (2) or we pipe Proto-Northeastern instead. Here are issues with (2):
 * WP:NEO: It might be a neologism. But does it apply if we are using it as a pipe?
 * WP:EASTEREGG: This might be an "easteregg" but do the examples given there make it like one?
 * My recommendation after WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT is option (2). It seems to be the only (un)happy solution we have for now.  Chaipau (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My point was that "Gaudi" has stood the test of time while (better) neologisms have not. Salomon does use Gaudi for BAMO, so in my opinion we should stick to Gaudi. Wikipedia should follow what is most commonly used, not lead the way. --Glennznl (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not recommending renaming Gaudi script, but using "Proto-Northeastern" as a synonym for "Gaudi" in different contexts—Odia script and Bengali-Assamese script. But if you see problems, we will maintain status quo.  My reading of Bhattacharya is the opposite of yours—instead of enthroning "Gaudi" Bhattacharya casts additional doubt on the name. Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, he casts doubt on it, but later scholars still use Gaudi and Proto-Bengali for proto-BAMO. I don't mind Proto-Northeastern as an alternative name if we can find it in atleast one other source. --Glennznl (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Somehow I have a feeling that the name "Gaudi" is the problem here. Probably because Gaudi is "partisan", a name drived from a "small kingdom". But all these are value judgements, and personal opinions. Arabic numerals for instance didn't need to be polically correct. Besides, Gaudi the name seems to be drived from Al-Biruni's list of eastern scripts. Why is this resistance aginst the name?
 * If proto-whatevers (BAM, BAMO, eastern nagari, northesatern etc.) are synonyms, then mention those synonyms in the article per WP:OTHERNAMES. But if Gaudi and proto-Bengali are the most common names to refer to the script in question, then by all means use one of them. If they have equally wide acceptance, then you may use the more politically correct name. If you use one name here, then use it across all related articles. And, do not use a WP:EASTEREGG by piping to a different name.
 * Can someone explain succinctly whay it can't be so? Aditya (talk • contribs) 11:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * why do you want someone to explain it to you when you can read the sources yourself? Both Pattanayak and Bhattacharya have stated it.  You could try Bhattacharya's thesis page 56 and 57—he explains it better. Chaipau (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Just move on, the resolution here is to stick with Gaudi script, both as the article title and in infoboxes as this is the term predominantly used by the sources (the other one being proto-Bengali). Bhattacharya or Pattnaik have expressed concern about the naming and that can be discussed in the article. Even proto-Northeastern sounds a misnomer, northeastern of where? There are also "northeast"s in other parts of the world. And Orissa surely doesn't fall even in the northeast of South Asia/India. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You certainly did not read my comment. If you had read it you would have known that it doesn't matter if some authors are uncomfortable about Gaudi. Their opinion needs to be added to the article, but that is not reason enough to rename the script by an obscure name that may not even be accurate. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are two points for you:
 * That the authors like Tripathi, Pattanayak and Bhattacharya did not agree to the name is just a validation of a genuine concern with it which has resulted in edit wars here as well as in Odia script. I agree with  that a single alternative to Gaudi does not exist yet.
 * The proposal was not to "rename the script", as you say, but to use a synonym in these pages that are seeing edit wars.
 * We have completed this exercise to resolve the issue with the name. There will not be any change till we discover something new and relevant.
 * Chaipau (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "We have completed this exercise to resolve the issue with the name. There will not be any change till we discover something new and relevant." - That's nice to hear. Perhaps we can now get to developing article content that addresses the history and the nomenclauture, instead of speculating over an infobox.  Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)