Talk:Bhawaiya

message: ,  Bhawaiya music belongs to the Kamtapur region which includes parts of India, Bangladesh and Nepal. It doesn't belong to Bangladesh only. Hence the "music of Bangladesh" tag should be removed. Msasag (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason to remove the template. Bhawaiya is a music native to Bangladesh and this template is aptly added here. Also, I see in this edit here, you removed a source and added some unsourced content. That's WP:OR. Zayeem  (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  West Bengal and Assam aren't in Bangladesh, they are in India.  Msasag (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: When did I say they are in Bangladesh? --Zayeem  (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

text:   I just added a quote.  Chaipau (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I made changes to the lead to reflect the what the sources actually state. --Zayeem  (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source actually says songs originate in Coochbehar and that Goalpara and Rangpur too have those forms.  Please do not try to force your point of view here. Chaipau (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Now you're being disruptive. The source you added states "Bhawaiya-based dance are the main form of song and dance in Goalpara and Rangpur districts", it didn't originate in Goalpara. While the source from Banglapedia states Bhawaiya originated in Rangpur and Cooch Bihar. That's what's reflected in my edit here. Also, MOS:LEADLANG suggests to include foreign language equivalent name in the lead sentence. WP:MOSIS is not applicable here as the subject not just related to India. Now I'm restoring the changes. Discuss it here and reach a consensus before reverting again. --Zayeem  (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please follow WP:MOSIS.  The policy is very clear: "Avoid the use of Indic scripts in the lead sections or infoboxes." Chaipau (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

text:   You are again being disruptive. WP:MOSIS clearly states, "This avoidance of Indic scripts only applies to articles that are predominantly India-related and is excluded from, among others, articles about Hinduism, Buddhism, Pakistan or any of India's neighbouring countries.". Self-revert now, or this might require an admin intervention. --Zayeem  (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems you are unaware that Bhawaiya is a form of music in India as well, and it is traditionally associated with the Koch kingdom, and Rangpur was a part of this kingdom.  It is native to North Bengal and Western Assam, especially Undivided Goalpara district.  You seem to be trying to make it into an exclusively Bangladeshi music.  It is not.  Chaipau (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue here is you are failing to properly comprehend both the WP:MOSIS and my points. I never said Bhawaia is exclusively related to Bangladesh, in fact, at ANI, I clearly referred to the topic as a 'trans-boundary' one. WP:MOSIS states, the policy of avoidance of indic script only applies to predominantly India-related articles and not to those related to its neighboring countries. As this is a trans-boundary topic, it doesn't fall into the category of "predominantly India-related articles" and hence, WP:MOSIS is inapplicable here. I hope I made it clear. --Zayeem  (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts are here. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

text: thank you.  I agree to your formulation.  Chaipau (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bhawaiya also belongs to India and even Nepal. 

message: I removed a source published by Global Vision. We never use them because nowadays they copy stuff from us and, certainly in the past, they copied stuff from other publishers. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added an alternative citation to support the claim.  Chaipau (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Vision Publishing 

message: I am wondering whether we need a general guideline taking the language issue here as an example.
* Context: In many sources authors make a subsidiary comment that is not directly germane to the main topic.  (e.g make a comment on linguistics/language politics in an article related to music or ethnomusic as in this case).  If this comment is non-controversial, well and good.  What if this comment is partisan in its own context and require clarifications?
* Resolution: What could the resolution be?  Should we address the controversy and give all sides to a minor point, or do we side-step the issue and address it in the right place?  
Thanks for your comments. Chaipau (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be surprised if it is possible to come up with a general guideline for the situation you describe. It is true that passing mentions of something will carry less weight that a detailed explanation of it (WP:V) but determining partisanship etc can be much more tricky and probably isn't amenable to a "one size fits all" guideline that actually has any usefulness. But this is just my opinion and it would be worth asking for a wider consideration somewhere - I'm just not sure where! Perhaps  or  might have a suggestion regarding a venue. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is a general guideline needed?