Talk:Gombhira

message: , please explain the credentials of the author of Daily Star. This is not just about Daily Star, but if the author has the credential for making history related claim. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , also, I read both articles, there is nothing about a definitive origin. The only thing we know is that it originated in Bengal. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

text: The Daily Star (Bangladesh) is the largest circulating English daily in Bangladesh. It is indeed about Daily Star since as a renowned media outlet they have well-established editorial policies that keeps them from making any refutable claims about history and culture of Bangladesh. Besides, you are just removing the sources and contents and pushing your own OR. You are not even providing any sources to challenge the claim. That is quite disruptive. Za-ari-masen (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter what you know. You need to provide sources. That's how wikipedia works. Za-ari-masen (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , no, where does the source say it originated in "Bangladesh"? You can't put the onus on me. You are clearly putting false information on the article. Which is not allowed. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , this source here clearly states "folk music of Bengal". That is what we know. It originated in Bengal, before modern Bangladesh or India came into existence. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , Nice try adding a dead URL as a source. Where does it say "originating and popular in the northwestern region of present-day Bangladesh". This is clear misinterpreted sourcing, which will result in AE action. I suggest you either show exact statement or return back to my version here. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

text: , you guys are active in Bengal related topics. If possible can you guys please look at this. This user  is adding jingoistic edits to this article without providing any reference. Za-ari-masen keeps "adding citation" without providing any URL for me to check. And refuses to engage. This is clear misinterpreting sources and jingoistic POV pushing. Someone, please help. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

text: @Highpeaks35, you have now been indulging in personal attacks against me without any provocation. This is purely against the wikipedia policy of assuming good faith. Please understand that offline sources are also usable on wikipedia. Fix your conducts, otherwise you would be reported. You have already been quite disruptive in a number of articles. Za-ari-masen (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , provide a URL, you can't add content without proper evidence. You added 4 "sources" without any of them having a URL. What am I suppose to do? I provide a source with a URL that works, with the exact page. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Also, talking about jingoism, User:Highpeaks35 has been replacing Bangladesh with Indian Subcontinent on a whole sale in a number of articles without any discussion. He has been removing all the Bangladeshi sources citing them unreliable which even includes publications like Banglapedia. It's not only me, User:UserNumber is also a witness to the disruptive edits of Highpeaks35. Za-ari-masen (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Don't lie Highpeaks35, you have been edit-warring and pushing your unsourced POV even till few hours ago, just a cursory look on your contributions could eliminate the doubts. You have been breaching almost every behavioral guidelines of wikipedia through your disruptive pattern of edits. Za-ari-masen (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , why don't you provide me the URL and exact passage/page? Which states origin in "Bangladesh"; and we can call it a day. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , to protect this project, can you guys please help. This  is misrepresenting sources to keep their jingoistic claim, provided no URL I requested or passage or page. I fully own my past editing mistakes and I am learning and improving as I move along. But, this  is just putting non-sense into this article. Putting so-called sources without providing any evidence of what the sources stated or backing it up with URL. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

text: , you have to be joking. This is not about the use, it is about "origin". On the link above, it also states, uses in West Bengal. But, this is not about the use, but origin. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

text: It looks like User:Highpeaks35 has been blatantly canvassing by pinging all his known editors in wikipedia, in his desperate attempt to push his POV. Not to mention he has been repeatedly making personal attacks against despite being warned earlier. Za-ari-masen (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Where did I claimed they use the word "origin"? I do believe User:Highpeaks35 is not only incompetent about the wikipedia policies, they seem to be also showing an unusual desperation in their efforts which is quite inconvenient and not really conducive in having a constructive discussion. Za-ari-masen (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , you changed your edit "originating and popular in the northwestern region of present-day Bangladesh" here to "from the northwestern region of present-day Bangladesh", which is almost the same thing. "From" is an example of origin. Now provide me the passage where it states it is "from" Bangladesh only. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't bludgeon the process and stop beating a dead horse. Za-ari-masen (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

text: , thank you so much. Yes, none of these sources say anything about origin or "from...Bangladesh". Instead, we should follow what the sources state. It is "popular" in the Bengal region, what is today Bangladesh and West Bengal. , is clearly and purposefully misinterpreting sources. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  , please note that all edits to Wikipedia are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. When challenged, you need to provide the sources as well as quotations from the sources that support your content. Please avoid making personal comments on the article talk pages, and try to work collaboratively. Both the sides of Bengal have a shared culture, which should be a cause for celebration, not conflict. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

text:  I don't think I should be involved in this since I don't know much about Gombhira but since I was tagged, I may give my opinion. I would say it is a North Bengali tradition and not a Bangladeshi tradition as it's practised across North Bengal and continues to. UserNumber (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  thank you all for your input. I have returned it to simply the Bengal region. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Kautilya3, I'm really disappointed to see such a comment from an established editor like you. It's only me here who has provided sources as well as quotations and you are accusing me of being unable to do that, while Highpeaks35 has failed to produce a single reliable source. Again, you are accusing me of making personal attacks when it's Highpeaks35 who has labeled my edits as jingoist not once but thrice in this very talk page. I'm requesting you to go through the whole scenario before forming a judgement on this issue. Za-ari-masen (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Highpeaks35, in your edit, you just removed all the sources and totally eliminated the word "Bangladesh" from the article while only keeping West Bengal and India throughout and you accuse me of jingoism? And as always, you didn't even provide any reliable source in your edit. You are not even improving the article rather just editing it to suit your own preferred content. Anyways, I have edited the intro to include both Bangladesh and West Bengal as a compromise while retaining the reliable sources and the sourced content. Hope this satisfies all. Za-ari-masen (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is more of a compromise. Those sources are not verifiable per the comment by  and comments from . As articulately mentioned by UserNumber: "I would say it is a North Bengali tradition and not a Bangladeshi tradition as it's practised across North Bengal and continues to." Keep it at that. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Highpeaks35, please refrain from removing the sources from the article based on your misinterpretation of comments by the editors here, you are definitely not helping improve the article. What Sitush said is, three of the sources don't verify that it "originates" in Bangladesh while the rest of the sources were inaccessible to him so he could not comment on them. Now where did the article stated that Gombhira "originated" in Bangladesh? Everything in the article is verifiable, it's rather you who is removing sources and making the article a WP:OR. Za-ari-masen (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Highpeaks35, you are being disruptive again. Don't remove the sources. Nobody said the sources are unreliable. You are making false interpretations of third opinions. This is again quite disruptive. Za-ari-masen (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

text: , stop making false accusations, I have never made any personal attacks, it's only you who has several time labelled my edits as "jingoism". Anyways, glad that we reached a consensus, if you followed the policies of wikipedia from the beginning, we could have reached it even earlier. As long as you abide by the policies, there wouldn't be any discord between us. Za-ari-masen (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

text: You should also make it a practice to quote text from the source that directly supports the content. If the text is in a "foreign" language (non-English), you can provide a reasonable translation and request some other editor to verify the translation. It is easier for third party editors to provide their input, if they can see everything here on the talk page, the citations, the source text and the proposed content. If that doesn't get the matter resolved, you will need to go to WP:DRN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Za-ari-masen is right, if Bangladesh is to be removed, then so should West Bengal. I don't understand why it still says Culture of West Bengal, there is a page for North Bengal. The districts of Rajshahi and Chapai Nawabganj should also still be there as they have contributed a lot towards Gombhira and are part of North Bengal, unlike India (which is much larger and spread-out than Bangladesh, but continues to be mentioned). :, Highpeaks35 has been very disruptive in other posts, however. UserNumber (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Daily Star