Talk:Pohela Boishakh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Pohela Baishakh)

When is Poila Baisakh ?[edit]

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

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

Transliteration[edit]

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

I am doing minor rewording of the texts, for conformity's sake I shall be using the spelling "Pohela Baishak" as used in the title of the article. In case, another spelling is decided, it may be changed.--Bhadani 17:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi Bhadani, in original Bangla spelling, the last letter is "Kha", not "Ka", so the correct transliteration should be "Pohela Baishakh". Thanks --Ragib 17:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Is the Bengali calendar used in Bagladesh?[edit]

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


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

Title[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Hindu new year![edit]

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

It is based on Bengali calendar which was developed by Alauddin Shah, not Hindu Calendar. You cannot use encyclopedia to verify as they are tertiary sources (like wikipedia). You can insert the perspective of West Bengal in the West Bengal section, but not in the infoboox. Please don't edit war. Thanks Akib.H (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:FORUM-y discussion about Bengali calendar here, as you are mistaken about the complex history of the numerous lunisolar Indian calendars. We need to stick to what is verifiable in reliable sources. You misunderstand WP:RS, please read it again. Secondary and tertiary sources are the preferred sources in wikipedia. Feel free to take it to DRN. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you are discarding my source which says it's based on the Bengali calendar. I'll add other sources as well. You can take it to DRN. Akib.H (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Check this line "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.". When dispute arises, wikipedia always prefer secondary sources over tertiary sources. Akib.H (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean "tertiary sources cannot be used". Plus, if you read the policy further, when dispute arises, tertiary sources are to be consulted. We don't prefer secondary sources in cases of dispute, we consult tertiary sources per WP:PSTS. Among tertiary sources, wikipedia or other wiki site articles cannot be used as sources. The article already mentions Bengali calendar. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, you need to understand the significance of the wording in the bold line I posted above. It makes it quite clear the wikipedia prefers secondary sources over tertiary sources. I'm not saying you cannot use tertiary source. But if a dispute arises, a secondary source will have more value than a tertiary source. In this case, I have already added two secondary sources to prove my claim. Akib.H (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in your edit warring, you only added one:

Quote: Bengali new year, broadly celebrated by all Bengalis[1]

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

References

  1. ^ Nitish K. Sengupta (2011). Land of Two Rivers: A History of Bengal from the Mahabharata to Mujib. Penguin Books India. pp. 96–98. ISBN 978-0-14-341678-4.
  • What I tried to claim is that the primary significance of this festival is the Bengal New Year and the source does imply that. You can also look at other sources, The Bangladesh Reader: History, Culture, Politics By Meghna Guhathakurta, Willem van Schendel (page 17), Constructing Bangladesh: Religion, Ethnicity, and Language in an Islamic Nation By Sufia M. Uddin (page 134). Akib.H (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Akib.H: The Sengupta source does not imply anything about a "Bengali new year festival" on those pages, nor anything about who celebrates it. If it does, quote that sentence on this talk page. You were edit warring with this! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of article[edit]

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

@Akib.H: I merely moved the text to appropriate section. No the source is not saying Bangla san or sal means "Pahela Baishakh". That is WP:OR. Neither you nor I own this article. Just avoid original research, nor edit war. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Akib.H: Please see the cited Salil Tripathi source published by Yale University Press. It clearly states Durga. Please do not be disruptive and add absurd tags, when the source clearly supports the content. Feel free to take it to DRN etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you have reverted me again. This is getting quite disruptive. Bangla san or sal means Bengali calendar. Since these words have been derived from Arabic and Persian the author is implying that Pahela Baishakh must be started by a Muslim king. There is nothing OR here. You are clearly imposing ownership over the article. Akib.H (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, he is not implying that. We can quote him exact, as a compromise, with an in-text attribution. Would that suffice? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's he implying then? You can quote it. But the text should be at the right place with right interpretation. Akib.H (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's still not fixed. You just read the page of the book. He was talking about the origin of Pahela Baishakh there. And in the process, he said that it must be a Muslim king who introduced the festival since the colloquial term of "Bengali calendar" is Bangla san or Bangla sal since the words come from Arabic and Persian. You can ask any Bengali about the Bengali translation of the term "Bengali Calendar" and he would say Bangla sal or Bangla san. You are simply not informed about the topic at hand. This is becoming pretty much frustrating. You wouldn't even let me to edit the article as I'll be reverted. Akib.H (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not sure if you are deliberately doing this disruption to keep others away from the article. The exact quote from The Bangladesh Reader: History, Culture, Politics: The history of Bengali New Year or Bengali calendar is somewhat unclear and it is difficult to say exactly when it came about, but some assumptions can be made based on circumstantial evidence. The fact that it is called Bangla san or saal which are Arabic and Parsee words respectively, suggests that it was introduced by a Muslim king or sultan. (Pg 17,18) Note that in the first line of page 17, it's written Bengali New Year (Pohela Baishakh) which implies that the author is saying Pahela Baishakh was introduced by a Muslim King or Sultan. I don't think this is any rocket science to comprehend this simple thing. Akib.H (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We already acknowledge the first part "somewhat unclear" just before the exact quote. Saal (sal) means year, according to the sources. We can quote the entire bolded part if you wish, but the author is not saying anywhere what you allege, "Pahela Baishakh was introduced by a Muslim King or Sultan". That is WP:OR, see WP:SYNTHESIS section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A calendar system is not synonymous to a festival. Neither is a festival synonymous to a date on a calendar (start of the year, start of spring, start of summer, sankranti/equinox, pay your tax date, etc). Because a festival is more; it is fairs, processions, dancing, dressing up, meeting friends and family, going to temples, taking river dips, etc. No cited source in this article is alleging that people celebrated with joy that "the Sultan's new year has started, now they can pay taxes again"! No cited source is stating that Pahela Baishakh was invented by a Sultan or a Muslim official. That is all OR. Yes, the sources are stating that while it is unclear who invented the Bangla calendar, here are some possibilities. Why not quote exact, without adding interpretation (= WP:Synthesis)? @Robert McClenon: your 3O will be helpful here. I am concerned with Akib.H's statement "You can quote it. But the text should be at the right place with right interpretation." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesize is when you try to use two sources to imply one thing which is not the case here. In the source, it's clearly mentioned that Bengali New Year is also called Pahela Baishakh, at the starting of page 17. In that para that I quoted, the author is talking about the origins of Bengali New Year and Bengali calendar. So when he says "it is introduced", he's referring to the Bengali New year, in other words, Pahela Baishakh. This is really really a simple thing to comprehend. Just get aside of your agenda and try to read the source with an open mind. Akib.H (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Synthesis states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." It is the latter which you are doing. Further, note that this Shamsuzzaman Khan source is an interview, where Khan is answering questions, expressing "I personally believe it was..." (p. 18, 2nd para), which makes this source WP:Primary. Wikipedia guideline for primary sources is, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself". Exact quote, or equivalent, is preferred for primary sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You just seem to be beating around the bush. A simple question: The author says, The fact that it is called Bangla san or saal... it was introduced by a Muslim king or sultan, now what is the "it" here referring to? Akib.H (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the calendar. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@Akib.H: Please read the article more carefully. It does not state that Muslim women perform Durga puja on Pohela Baishakh. It states something different. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm notifying users who might be well-informed about topic. This is simply beyond my capacity to handle this shit alone. Akib.H (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted to a middle version and fully protected for a short period. Akib.H, violate WP:CANVASS again and you'll be blocked for a good long period. --NeilN talk to me 03:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you are simply playing a proxy for Ms Welch as you reverted all my edits without even realizing that those edits are not related to the dispute over the Hindu Origins Theory section. And seeking help from well-informed editors is canvassing? So you mean let this article becoming a garbage and I'm not even allowed to seek help from others to improve it? I've never seen this dirty side of wikipedia, really. It's similar to how a bunch of bandits take control of an area with the help of some corrupt bureaucrats in third world countries. Akib.H (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Akib.H: I will point you to WP:CANVASS once more. Do not leave blatantly non-neutral messages on talk pages of hand-picked editors. And note that discretionary sanctions covers standards of behavior, including talk page posts. --NeilN talk to me 14:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading tag[edit]

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

A section has been already opened above. Akib.H (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which section? @Titodutta: Here is the version of the article when the tag was added. Here is the current version. Do you see anywhere on this talk page where "what is misleading" has been explained? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said it in the above section. I've never seen anybody, both Hindus or Muslim, performing Durga Puja on Pohela Baishakh as it's mainly a secular festival. In this article, you have written Muslim Women perform Durga Puja to celebrate Bengali New Year. This is not only hilarious but also frustrating to see how this important Bengali festival is being showcased with misleading information in full swing. The source you added is mainly focused on the Bangladesh Liberation War and written by an Army personnel. I'm not sure whether the author is well-informed about Pahela Baishakh that his quote should be given such importance. There seem to be a number sources like this in the article. The authenticity of the sources should be determined. Akib.H (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Vinegarymass911: Yale University Press is a reputable publisher, this does matter. Some of the Bangladeshi news articles and sources that have been cited in this article are more WP:Questionable than the Yale source. Tripathi source is primary, so we need to quote exact or equivalent. Sure we can add additional WP:RS. It is repeatedly mentioned in RS that some Muslim women continued some of their local Hindu or Buddhist traditions such as various types of puja and festivals, just like some non-Muslims visited Sufi shrines. See 1, 2, etc. This "Bangla calendar or new year date or Pahela baishakh festival was invented by Muslims" is one side of the story. The other side is that this has more ancient roots, and is a part of pre-Islamic Bengali heritage. For NPOV, we need to summarize all sides properly and fully, being careful "what we state and how we state it". Yes, I agree with you that "celebrate Durga puja" is better wording. Or we can just quote the Tripathi exact, as a compromise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: Yale press did not write the book it published it, why is his wording more prominent than others. Why is this quote even relevant. The book was first published in India by the Aleph Book Company. Now does that change the strength of the source considering the publishing hoouse is not that well known and could be argued not reputable. Really they are WP:Questionable? well that is just your opinion as an individual editor. I am not arguing against the Hindu origin story but against using an opinion of a writer to state something so controversial. Back up the claims with more reliable sources or remove it completely. No one has claimed "it" was "invented by the Muslims" but the claim is by Akbar and the Mughuls. That itself is another topic. I am against the "Tripathi content" added to this article to insinuate that this is Hindu festival in Bangladesh. While this may celebrated exclusively by Hindus in India, this festival is a secular cultural festival in Bangladesh celebrated by all religious communities.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ms Sarah Welch, you just said that Durga Puja is not related to Pahela Baishakh, then what's that doing in this article? And how women wearing bindi or sari (which are actually part of Bengali attire) confirm that Pahela Baishakh is originated from Hinduism? Did the author imply that in the source? If not, you are clearly doing original research by putting these things to substantiate your claim of the Hindu origin of this festival. Akib.H (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the whole Hindu origins theory section is stuffed with pretty much irrelevant information or WP:UNDUE and nothing on the actual history of the festival. In the first para, it talks about the Vaisakhi festival rather than anything on the history of Pahela Bishakh. In the second para, it talks about some Bengali customs and traditions which, again, is not even distantly related to the history of the festival.Akib.H (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Akib.H: Please read WP:OR again. If you don't understand it, ask WP:TEAHOUSE to clarify it for you. We are summarizing the source closely. All this is relevant here because it provides context, it is in the source that many Bengali Muslim women have continued their heritage such as wear Saris, bindi, celebrate Durga Pujo and usher in Poyla Baisakh. If you sense that the source is "substantiating their claim about the origin of Pahela Baishakh" festival by adding saris / bindi / Durga puja context, then it is indeed important. It is somewhat like the context such as "royal astronomer" or "Punyaho" or "tax collection" etc in the Mughal origins section. This article is not the place to bash Muslim women or bash Hinduism or bash Islam or etc. We need to summarize the sources as faithfully as we can, preserving its context. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vinegarymass911: Please see WP:RS guidelines on publishers and peer review aspects. Pahela Baishakh is not merely an exclusively Bangladeshi festival, it is a festival of Bengali people. The scholarly publications that present the Indian side are important. There are Muslim Bengali women in Bangladesh and in India. How would one sided Bangladeshi presentation not violate WP:NPOV guidelines? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: The entire book is about Bangladesh, if you do not want to present only the Bangladeshi side than dont quote a Book about Bangladesh. I am sure you could find this content in the context of India. Please assume I have read the policies, repeatedly asking me to read this or that does nothing but belittle the person with the opposing view. This is not a scholarly publication. How is this article one sided? I never said it was a Bangladeshi only festival, stop engaging in Straw Man arguments.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911: If you have understand the NPOV policy, then you know this article cannot take sides or present/emphasize just the Bangladeshi side or the Indian side or any particular author. The book by Salil Tripathi – a fellow at the Kennedy School (Harvard University) – published by Yale University Press qualifies as WP:RS. So our best compromise is to use the exact quote from Tripathi. I did a quick check. I am able to find many additional RS that support the part about Bengali Muslim women, saris, bindi, celebrating Buddhist or Hindu festivals, etc. If you find reliable sources that state Bengali/Bangladeshi Muslim women never wear saris, never wear bindi, never celebrate what Salil Tripathi states, etc.... per NPOV, we can summarize that too. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: another straw man argument. I never said any of those things. The only controversial content is regarding the point that they perform puja. Find a RS for that says that they perform Puja, otherwise use celebrate. You wrote they performed Puja instead of celebrate and that was OR on your part. regardless this discussion is not going anywhere, lets agree to disagree. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Ms Sarah Welch is getting the point of the discussion here. The point is in the Historical background section, you are supposed to add contents that talk about the history of the festival or the Bengali calendar. Under the Hindu Origins section, you have just inserted some random irrelevant information to fill up and create a separate section for whatever reasons I don't know. For example, the texts about Vaisakhi and the women wearing sari/bindi or celebrating Durga Puja are not related to the "history of Pahela Baishakh". Even the author Tripathi is not even talking about the history of the festival in that source. He's rather implying the general secular nature of Bangladeshis. These things are simply redundant in this section. Perhaps, creating a separate section on the secularist nature of the festival could be a better idea if you are so hellbent to add this content, but definitely not under the historical background section. Akib.H (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911: I already stated above I am okay with "celebrate", instead of "perform". Further, I am willing to consider re-organizing the "Historical background" section, if we can maintain NPOV. Let me reflect on it a bit. If you have proposals and suggestions, please share. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I finished reading through several additional sources on the Bengali calendar not yet cited in this article. These WP:RS suggest the Historical background section has POV issues. It has been overly one sided, presenting mostly the views of Bangladeshi/Muslim authors and sources. It ignores publications on Bengali calendar by Indian/non-South Asian/Buddhist/Hindu/other authors and sources. This section needs trimming / balancing for NPOV. We need to focus on the subject of this article, the festival. I expect to have a re-org proposal within the next 24 hours for discussion and comments. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the subsections like "Mughal origins theory" or "Hindu origins theory" should be merged into a single section like "Origins". I don't know why we have these subsections as they are just highlighting that the article is being used as some sort of propaganda campaign which further degrades the article's neutrality. Also, the "Historical background" section must contain only historical facts about Pahela Baisakh or Bengali Calender, not some random irrelevant information. Akib.H (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

Here is a draft. This is consistent with WP:CFORK and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE guidelines of wikipedia. The footnotes will contain more details.

Historical background
Main article: Bengali calendar

Pahela Baishakh is a festival that celebrates the first day of every year according to the Bengali calendar. The history of the Bengali calendar and its origins are unclear.[12][13] Some historians, particularly from Bangladesh, credit the origin of the Bengali calendar to the Islamic rule period of Bengal after 13th-century, attributing it to the tax collection policies of either Akbar or Nawab Murshid Quli Khan or others.[11][12][footnote 1] Some historians, particularly from India, credit its origin to the 7th-century king Shashanka and its shared roots to the ancient Hindu calendars found in India and Nepal.[12][13][footnote 2]

According to some historians, the Bengali festival of Pahela Baishakh is related to the traditional Hindu New Year festival called Vaisakhi, and other names, in the rest of India on or about the same dates.[3][15][16] Vaishakhi is an ancient harvest festival of India, particularly the Punjab region.[17][18][19] Vaisakhi, also spelled Baisakhi, is observed by both Hindus and Sikhs.[20]

Contemporary usage

The current Bengali calendar in use in the Indian states is based on the Sanskrit text Surya Siddhanta. It retains the historic Sanskrit names of the months, with the first month as Baishakh.[10] Their calendar remains tied to the Hindu calendar system and is used to set the various Bengali Hindu festivals. For Bengalis of West Bengal and other Indian states, the festival falls either on 14 or 15 April every year.[10]

In Bangladesh, however, the old Bengali calendar was modified in 1966 by a committee headed by Muhammad Shahidullah, making the first five months 31 days long, rest 30 days each, with the month of Falgun adjusted to 31 days in every leap year.[10] This was officially adopted by Bangladesh in 1987. Since then, the national calendar starts with and the new year festival always falls on 14 April in Bangladesh.[10]

Comments welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • A lot of basic information are missing. The actual Bengali calendar was developed by Fathullah Shirazi, the Mughal astronomer, he should surely get a mention. And some sources credit the origin of the calendar to Alauddin Husain Shah, so he should get a mention too. And most importantly, the main reason for developing the new lunisolar Bengali calendar was to combine the lunar Hijri calendar with the solar agricultural cycle locally used by the farmers, so this needs to be mentioned as well. These are basic information and directly related to the history of the festival and the calendar, so they need to be added to the main body. And the phrases, "particularly from Bangladesh" or "particularly from India" should be avoided because they don't make sense, there are many scholars from either groups who support the claim of the other group. These phrases also make room for future conflict over the article. And again, I can see the same redundancies. For example, the text "Vaishakhi is an ancient harvest festival of India, particularly the Punjab region.[17][18][19] Vaisakhi, also spelled Baisakhi, is observed by both Hindus and Sikhs." is WP:UNDUE. This article is about Pahela Baishakh, not Vaisakhi, and least, it doesn't show any reference to the historical background of the festival or the calendar. There is a wikilink to Vaisakhi, a reader could go to that link to know about that festival. Akib.H (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Akib.H: No source is stating that Shirazi invented the festival. Nor is this article about Hijri calendar. The proposal is that Shirazi, Hijri etc will go into the footnote 1. Similarly, footnote 2 will contain a similar summary from WP:RS information about the Buddhist/Hindu calendar before Islamic rule began in Bengal. If you want to keep Shirazi, Hijri etc in this article, here is a draft for the footnotes:

footnote 1: During the Mughal rule, land taxes were collected from Bengali people according to the Islamic Hijri calendar. This calendar was a lunar calendar, and its new year did not coincide with the solar agricultural cycles. According to some sources, the festival was a tradition introduced in Bengal during the rule of Mughal Emperor Akbar to time the tax year to the harvest, and the Bangla year was therewith called Bangabda. Akbar asked the royal astronomer Fathullah Shirazi to create a new calendar by combining the lunar Islamic calendar and solar Hindu calendar already in use, and this was known as Fasholi shan (harvest calendar). According to some historians, this started the Bengali calendar.[10][11] According to Amartya Sen, Akbar's official calendar "Tarikh-ilahi" with the zero year of 1556 CE was a blend of pre-existing Hindu and Islamic calendars. It was not used much in India outside of Akbar's Mughal court, and after his death the calendar he launched was abandoned. However, adds Sen, there are traces of the "Tarikh-ilahi" that survive in the Bengali calendar.[24] According to Shamsuzzaman Khan, it could be Nawab Murshid Quli Khan, a Mughal governor, who first used the tradition of Punyaho as "a day for ceremonial land tax collection", and used Akbar's fiscal policy to start the Bangla calendar.[12] "It is called Bangla san or saal, which are Arabic and Parsee words respectively", states Khan, suggests that "it was introduced by a Muslim king or sultan."[12] In contrast, according to Sengupta, its traditional name is Bangabda.[13][14] It is also unclear, whether it was adopted by Hussain Shah or Akbar. The tradition to use the Bengali calendar may have been started by Hussain Shah before Akbar.[13] Regardless of who adopted the Bengali calendar and the new year, states Sengupta, it helped collect land taxes after the spring harvest based on traditional Bengali calendar, because the Islamic Hijri calendar created administrative difficulties in setting the collection date.[13]
footnote 2: Some historians attribute the Bengali calendar to the 7th century Hindu king Shashanka.[6][2][3] The term Bangabda (Bangla year) is found too in two Shiva temples many centuries older than Akbar era, suggesting that Bengali calendar existed long before Akbar's time.[3] Time keeping was important to Vedic rituals, and Jyotisha was the Vedic era field of tracking and predicting the movements of astronomical bodies in order to keep time.[10][11][12] The ancient Indian culture developed a sophisticated time keeping methodology and calendars.[13] The Hindu Vikrami calendar is named after king Vikramaditya and starts in 57 BCE.[14] In rural Bengali communities of India, the Bengali calendar is credited to "Bikromaditto", like many other parts of India and Nepal. However, unlike these regions where the calendar has a zero year corresponding to 57 BCE, the Bengali calendar starts from 593 CE suggesting that the starting reference year was adjusted at some point.[15][16] Various dynasties whose territories extended into Bengal, prior to the 13th-century, used the Vikrami calendar. For example, Buddhist texts and inscriptions created in the Pala Empire era mention "Vikrama" and the months such as Ashvin, a system found in Sanskrit texts elsewhere in ancient and medieval Indian subcontinent.[17][18] Hindu scholars such as Aryabhata, Latadeva, Varahamihira, Lalla and others calculated and wrote Sanskrit astronomical texts, such as Surya Siddhanta by the 10th century, for time keeping.[19] The current Bengali calendar in use by Bengali people in the Indian states such as West Bengal, Tripura and Assam is based on the Sanskrit text Surya Siddhanta.[6] It retains the historic Sanskrit names of the months, with the first month as Baishakh.[6] Their calendar remains tied to the Hindu calendar system and is used to set the various Bengali Hindu festivals.[6] According to Salil Tripathi, many Hindu traditions and customs continue among Bengali people regardless of their current faith.[21] Many Muslim Bengali women, states Tripathi, wear saris, bindi (a mark on their forehead, religious to Hindu women), celebrate pujo (prayers) to Hindu goddess Durga, and usher in Poyla Baisakh to celebrate Bengali new year. This is a part of the tolerance and borrowing of mutual cultural traditions amongst Bengali, according to Tripathi.[21]

I would prefer both footnotes 1 and 2 to be shorter, but about the same size for NPOV. The authors' backgrounds need to be identified, per who-is guidelines of MOS. The info about Vaisakhi is WP:DUE because many reliable secondary and tertiary sources link and discuss Pahela Baishakh and Vaisakhi together (some of these are cited as [17][18][19]). This article should not present only the Bangladeshi side, or the Indian side, rather it needs to both and the views of non-South Asian scholars. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you are trying to do is WP:FALSEBALANCE, since you are not getting enough contents to support your claim on the Hindu origins of the festival, you are putting up irrelevant information and cutting down some basic information in the name of WP:NPOV. About the contribution of Fethullah Shirazee, there are already enough sources added into the article. The sources also say that the main reason to create the calendar was to ease the taxation process, combining the Hijri Calendar and the solar agricultural cylces. This is a basic info. On the other hand, you have already mentioned that the festival is related to Vaisakhi, that should be it, you don't need to give details "about Vaisakhi" since that's redundant. And nowhere I see such large footnotes and such small mainbody. You are definitely not improving the article. I'm obviously against this proposal, now don't impose this proposal when the protection is over, unless you reach a consensus. Akib.H (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Akib.H: Quit these strange accusations, allegations and OR! Your suggestions ignore / suppress the views published by numerous Indian and non-South Asian scholars. This is the article about Pahela Baishaikh festival, not an article on the controversies about the Bengali calendar. For more on why this is important, see my explanation above. You have not offered one source yet that states that one or more Muslims invented this festival, please do not try to imply that. Nor are sources stating that Hindus or Buddhists or someone else invented this festival. We shouldn't imply either, with a one sided discussion of the calendar's origin. Its origins are unclear, is the most neutral version, and is supported by the sources. I too prefer a short footnote, but if the article contains an undue long discussion about "Muslim history related to Bengali calendar", then we need an equally balancing presentation of "non-Muslim history related to Bengali calendar" that properly reflect scholarly secondary and tertiary sources. For reasons, please see WP:NPOV guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter footnote proposal[edit]

Here is the short form:

footnote 1: During the Mughal rule, land taxes were collected from Bengali people according to the Islamic Hijri calendar. This calendar was a lunar calendar, and its new year did not coincide with the solar agricultural cycles. According to some sources, a new calendar was introduced in Bengal during the rule of Mughal Emperor Akbar to time the tax year to the harvest, with the help of the royal astronomer Fathullah Shirazi who combined the lunar Islamic calendar and solar Hindu calendar already in use, and this was known as Fasholi shan (harvest calendar). According to some historians, this started the Bengali calendar.[10][11] According to Shamsuzzaman Khan, the Bengali calendar's origins are unclear, but the Parsee and persian words "saal" or "san", suggest that it was introduced by a Muslim king or sultan.[12] In contrast, according to Sengupta, its traditional name is Bangabda.[13][14]
footnote 2: Some historians attribute the Bengali calendar to the 7th century Hindu king Shashanka.[2][3][6] The term Bangabda (Bangla year) is found too in two Shiva temples many centuries older than Akbar era, suggesting that Bengali calendar existed long before Akbar's time.[3] The Bengali calendar nomenclature such as the name of first as Baishakh, and overall system is similar to the Hindu Vikrami calendar named after king Vikramaditya (Bengali: "Bikromaditto") and starts in 57 BCE.[6][14] However, unlike these regions where the calendar has a zero year corresponding to 57 BCE, the Bengali calendar starts from 593 CE suggesting that the starting reference year was adjusted at some point.[15][16] The current Bengali calendar in use by Bengali people in the Indian states such as West Bengal, Tripura and Assam is based on the Sanskrit text Surya Siddhanta.[6]
footnote 3: The Bengali calendar in use in India remains tied to the Hindu calendar system and is used to set the various Bengali Hindu festivals.[6] According to Salil Tripathi, many Hindu traditions and customs continue among Bengali people regardless of their current faith.[21] Many Muslim Bengali women continue their cultural heritage, states Tripathi, by wearing saris, bindi (a mark on their forehead, religious to Hindu women), celebrate pujo (prayers) to Hindu goddess Durga, and usher in Poyla Baisakh to celebrate Bengali new year.[21]

I am open to avoiding the use of footnotes, and placing all of the above in the main article. Comments and revised drafts welcome, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada[edit]

Copied from my talk page, so others can comment and participate...

I would like to add the following part of my editing at Pohela Boishakh article of Wikipedia.
Pahela Baishakh (Bengali New Year) has been introduced in the Alberta Parliament of Canada on April 4, 2017. In response to a petition from the Bangladesh PressClub Centre of Alberta ND Caucus has initiated the introduction of the Bengali New Year. Minister of Community and Social Services Honourable Irfan Sabir's (MLA, Calgary - McCall)[[[1]]]announced it in a luncheon meeting at the Legislative Assembly of Alberta.The Alberta New Democrat Caucus of parliament, in collaboration with the Provincial Assembly,the bill was raised.[[[2]]]
It was tabled in Parliament by Honourable Denise K. Woollard, MLA [[[3]]] and welcomed by a huge applause of the respected legislators.
Honorable Speaker of the House Robert E. Warner expressed deep interest to the Bengali New Year celebration in the province.
The Session at the Bangladesh Press Center of Alberta President, Bangladesh PressClub and Muktijuddah Sangshad of Canada Unit Executive Delwar Jahid, Bangladesh Canada Association of Edmonton, Advocate Arif Khan, Bangladesh Heritage and Ethnic Society of Alberta President Mashod Bhuiyan, VP MJMF Bangladesh sports Club of Alberta, Bangladesh Heritage Museum, Anamur Rahman, Asian News and Views publisher Syfur Hasan, Zulfiqar Ahmed, Calgary NDP leader Vinay Dey, and Tapas HOWLADER among others were introduced and honored. Guest Gallery of Albertan parliament session was almost full.[[[4]]]
After, Alberta's historic recognition of the Bengali New Year a Cheerful celebrations were held in the Edmonton Public Library premises at 12:00AM by the Bangladesh PressClub and allied organizations.[এডমন্টনে চৈত্রের শেষ প্রহরে বাংলা নববর্ষকে স্বাগত(Welcome to Bengali New Year at the end of Choyetra)][5]
On the other hand BCAE organised two day long Baishakhi Mela at Bonidon Community Centre on April 14th and 15th. Recognised Mr. Taher for his life time achievement in the community.(Historic recognition of Bengali New Year: [[[6]]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayhanazaman (talk • contribs) 05:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.alberta.ca/premier-cabinet-irfan-sabir-bio.asp
  2. ^ http://www.hollywoodbanglanews.com/news/43713.html
  3. ^ https://www.assembly.ab.ca/net/index.aspx?p=mla_bio&rnumber=40&leg=29
  4. ^ http://asiannewsandviews.com/index.php/bn/bn-editorial
  5. ^ http://asiannewsandviews.com/index.php/bn/bn-country-news/bn-local-news-alberta
  6. ^ http://asiannewsandviews.com/index.php/en/en-country-news/en-local-news-alberta
  • @Rayhanazaman: Most of this is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and per wikipedia content guidelines. Please see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WWIN. Further, many of these source links are dead/don't verify. This long list of names raise notability, WP:BLP and WP:PLUG issues. The article already mentions Pahela Baishakh is celebrated in Alberta, Canada. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Diverse Edmonton [Alberta's historic recognition of the Bengali New Year][1][reply]

Synthesis in Hindu Origin theory[edit]

I'm adding a synthesis tag to the section. I've gone through the previous sections in this talk page and understand that this article has been a field of some edit wars and disputes, so refraining from removing/adding any contents. However, certain concerns remain to be addressed,

  • The first and the biggest issue is the synthesis that the Bengali festival of Pahela Baishakh is related to the traditional Hindu New Year festival called Vaisakhi, and other names, in the rest of India on or about the same dates. Three sources have been cited but two of them are tertiary and the third one doesn't really have anything to verify the claim.
    • These two sources are confirmed to be tertiary,
William D. Crump (2014). Encyclopedia of New Year's Holidays Worldwide. McFarland.
Roshen Dalal (2010). Hinduism: An Alphabetical Guide. Penguin Books.
  • The festival Vaisakhi appears to be a Sikh festival and has it's origin in the formation of the Sikh warrior group called Khalsa in 1699. While the Bengali calendar dates back to at least 1556 CE during the reign of Akbar. It's quite absurd to claim the so called 'Hindu origin' of Pahela Baishakh based on Vaisakhi which is not even a Hindu festival and in fact has its inception much later than the Bengali calendar. There seem to be a great amount of emphasize on Vaisakhi in this section, which looks quite irrelevant.
  • The quotation from Salil Tripathi, though quite interesting, doesn't really contribute anything to the study of origin of the festival. That leaves a question on its relevance to the section.
  • Some of the sources cited here actually contradicts what's being claimed.
    • Karen Pechilis and Selva J. Raj in South Asian Religions: Tradition and Today in page 48 state,
"People from many parts of South and Southeast Asia... celebrate the beginning of the new year between April 13 and 15. ...The celebration of the new year has more to do with community, language and region than with religious affiliation."

The section seems to be a synthesis of different loosely-related sources and texts being stitched together to demonstrate the so called 'Hindu origin' of Pahela Baishakh. That's a classic example of original research. --Zayeem (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost 6 months since the above issues were raised and the relevant tags were added to the article. The tags got removed without being addressed through some IP edits. I've reinstated them, tried to fix them and later removed them. Feel free to ping me if anybody has any questions. --Zayeem (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NEW EDIT PROBLEMS[edit]

One spelling is wrong, 'Vikramaditya'. In origins section, The king Shasanka section has been completely deleted by someone Soumya Sekhar Biswas (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Page Needs Review[edit]

This page needs a thorough look by an academic and a neutral outsider. It is full of tenuous information, that while backed with citations, can also be contested with reference to other academic citations.

The Bengali New Year falls on the same day or thereabouts as the traditional new year in diverse places such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Punjab, Orissa, North Bihar, Tulunaad in Karnataka and Assam. To attribute the holiday solely to Akbar’s alleged tax and calendar reforms is simplistic. While it may accord with political undercurrents in Bangladesh, one can not ignore textual evidence that goes back several centuries before Akbar. I refer to the Surya Siddhanta.

I also note that the information is skewed where alternate views on the Vikramaditya calendar are sparse. Previous information on that topic was either deleted or relegated to the footnotes.

On a related subject but untied to Akbar’s alleged calendar reforms, I had tried to include cursory reference to other countries and regions where the holiday was celebrated on the very same day. I provided the citations. My edits were promptly reverted by Tithi Sarkar who claimed that they were irrelevant.

For reasons of full disclosure, I am not Indian. This is not about the Hindu or Muslim origins of a calendar. Its about providing space for different academic interpretations in equal measure as long as they are supported by robust citations. Dipendra2007 (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is Pahela Baishakh. Why are you writing about Vikrami Calendar here? There is no Pahela Baishakh celebration in Vikrami Calendar. Please understand that Bengali Calendar and Vikrami Calendar are two different things. There were different calendars used in Bengal at different times, but celebration of Pahela Baishakh began when the new Bengali calendar was adopted during the Mughal rule. This is the only fact, you don't need create new absurd "theories".

To the anonymous commentator above, I hear you on the term "Vikrami". I therefore replaced that with the term "Indic" even though April 14 is the start of the solar Vikrami calendar. Earlier versions of the page had the term "Hindu origins theory". That's one other term one can use.

Regardless, the Bengali New Year coincides with the New Year in Sri Lanka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Nepal, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Punjab, Orissa, North Bihar, Tulunaad in Karnataka and Assam. It is derived from the solar calendar and existed long before Akbar. The citations have been included.

I did not delete nor touch any reference to the Mughal origins theory. I merely reinstated earlier text on the Hindu origins theory aka Vikramaditya or Bikramaditto. The page should include reference to different points of view. Dipendra2007 (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just changing the term and proposing absurd theories is ludicrous. Hindu time keeping is a fascinating topic but this article is about Pahela Baishakh. Can you point me any source which argue that Pahela Baishakh celebration existed in those ancient times before Mughal Empire? Please keep the article on Pahela Baishakh celebration not on irrelevant analysis on calendars and time keeping, I'm sure there are other relevant articles on Wikipedia where you can write those analysis but not here.

Hello anonymous IP number Do check the citations provided in the material that I had restored. I repeat that I did not insert that material. I only restored material what other editors had incorporated and backed up evidence and citations. Please read the citations. There's lots of evidence that the new year in mid-April was celebrated in Bengal in pre-Mughal times. I refer to Bengal under Shashanka and to the Pala Empire. Dipendra2007 (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dipendra2007 (talk) , the source you provided is showing error from my location. However, since you're adament on having Vikrami calendar to this article, you can see "South and South East Asian Solar New Year" is already added on the "related to" section on the info box. Hence no need to go on a long paragraph about other "Indic" festivals.Citations doesn't change the fact that Vikrami calendar and other Indic festivals are irrelevant to this article. I read all the citations, and it says regardless of Bengali calendar origin, the celebration and traditional of Haal Khata (account book) of new year was started during mughal era for tax collection purposes. Even to this day, this is celebrated widely in Bangladesh for tax collection purposes whereas it's celebrated only at home in Indian States of West Bengal. 

Please don't add irrelevant junk, respect other users, give preference to the majoritarian view and abide by wikipedia  guidelines.  Okaymishti (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dipendra, please do not lie. Your sources don't mention anything about Pahela Baishakh, they only talk about the ancient calendars that existed before Mughal era. This article is about Pahela Baishakh and I repeat, please do not include these irrelevant analysis of calendars here.

This page earlier had material supported by robust citations on the Bengali calendar being linked to King Shashanka, the inscriptions in two Siva temples, the reference to the Pala dynasty and to Buddhist sources, all of which point to a pre-Mughal origin of the first day of the year. Further, the New Year is celebrated on the same day or one day apart in several other regions in South and South East Asia. This points to common origins of the calendar and the holiday linked to the Surya Siddhanta and to pre-Mughal tradition.

I did not delete any reference to the school of thought that posits a Mughal origin to the holiday. I only reinstated material previously in the page since 2017 on the Hindu or Indic origins also referred to as Bikramaditto in Bengali or Vikramaditya in Sanskrit. There are two schools of thought of the origins of the holiday - Mughal and Hindu. You have chosen to exclusively delete material pertaining to the latter. Let's not call it junk or a lie or irrelevant. Look at the conversation on this Talk Page since April 2017. The issue needs to be addressed. The controversy continues and needs resolution. This page needs independent review Dipendra2007 (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Dipendra, you are still confusing history of calendar with history of Pahela Baishakh celebration. What you are saying is the history of calendar before the Mughal era in Bengal, there is no denying that some calendar existed before the Mughals came, but the celebration of Pahela Baishakh began only during the Mughal era. Your sources only talk about that history of calendar, not about the history of Pahela Baishakh celebration, so they are irrelevant here. If the earlier users added irrelevant content to the article it doesn't mean you need to restore them, a mistake is a mistake.

Yes, IP Address: 2600:8806:2708:D400:B1E5:CE1B:AF70:25D3, I agree with you. There were some type of calendar which existed prior to Mughal era. But the officialization of Bengali calendar and celebration on it's New Year started during Mughal Era only(it's correct according to the sources too). Plus this is a page about Pahela Baishakh, not Bengali calendar. Tithi.sarkar (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dipendra2007 (talk) 00:32, I actually agree with you on keeping the Shashanka and Bikromaditto theory and sources related to itself. But adding descriptions about other Indic festivals and Vaishakhi is truly a stretch. Plus some sources you added only talks about the pre existing calendar in Bengal and not the celebration of Pahela Baishakh itself. A user reading this page would want to know about Pahela Baishakh, otherwise they could've chosen to read the article about Bengali calendar on Wikipedia.To make Wikipedia user friendly we need to be clean and straight to the point rather than having irrelevant stuff. If you think the festivals you mentioned are related to Pahela Baishakh, then check "Related to" section on the info box which clearly mentions and added to a Wikipedia page about south and southeast asian new years. Hence it's completely unnecessary to add about other Indic festivals in the middle of Pahela Baishakh Tithi.sarkar (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tithi

I will restore the references to Shashank to begin with then for now and let's take it from there. Dipendra2007 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tithi

I saw your edits. I have one question. Are we 100% sure that the celebration of Pahela Baishakh started with Akbar? That it was not celebrated before? Is there consensus amongst scholars on that? Nitish Sengupta does not appear to think so. This is relevant to the second paragraph of the Pahela Baishakh page. Best regards, Dipendra2007 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.getbengal.com/details/haalkhata-the-intrinsic-poila-baisakh-tradition. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 12:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

There are lots of different spelling variants, pohela, pahela, poyla, poila, foyla but the article should be consistent with its spelling. It is also incorrect to say that in India only the spelling Poila is used. There are many indian sources which use Pohela in their reports.

https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/life-style/pohela-boishakh-2023-bengali-new-year-date-history-importance-significance-8538092/

https://www.news18.com/lifestyle/pohela-boishakh-2023-history-significance-rituals-and-celebrations-of-bengali-new-year-7552003.html 2600:4040:4766:4800:85A3:CEDE:37B0:4030 (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fylindfotberserk look at it

"Poila Boishak" in quotes seems to be the second most common iteration in English after "Pohela Boishakh". You are right that "Pohela Boishakh" is also used in Indian sources. But couldn't find much on the other iterations "pahela, poyla, foyla", hence removed the "Indian" part from lead, restored "Poila Boishak" as an widely sourced alternative spelling (Redirect to this article) in the lead; within the nickname parameter in the infobox; and maintained "Pohela Boishakh" throughout the article, conforming to WP:STABLE version. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second most common name is Pahela Boishakh, see "Pahela boishakh"

Please do not edit war here. Lets build a consensus. "Poila Boishak" has similar number of hits as "Pahela Boishak" ie around 300. We have to see whether they are WP:RS. and you have also removed the parameter. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added one Cambridge source as well. Also do not edit in between the discussion. I'll be back after 20-30 minutes. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find quality book sources for Pahela Baishak [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and Pahela Boishak [6] [7], apart from news sources. Not enough quality sources for the current name Pohela Boishakh and Poila Boishakh, and not much for Foyla and Poyla. I'm beginning to think that we might need a move request in favour of the good source one (Pahela Baishak). I'm going to remove 'Poila Baishak' from the lead since there are other well sourced versions, but keep in the infobox. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have don't have consensus then how come you came to a conclusion that Poila is the second most common name? Your sources also don't confirm that, as you can see there are also lots of sources using Pahela. If you don't have any confirmation then don't come to a conclusion that Poila is the second most common name. I hope you understand.

I told you not to edit war, but you did. Why the hurry? Can't you work in a civil manner. The WP:STABLE version is always thought to be the consensus version. You are the one who's changing and per WP:BRD, you should build a WP:CONSENSUS in the talk page first instead of pushing your POV. I've added quality sources above and in the article, according to which I've edited it now. The sources that I added yesterday supported 'Poila Baishak'. Today, I checked and found many quality sources that supports "Pahela Baishak/Boishak" more than the current name. I'm not in favour of any particular phrase, but I'll restore the stable version until a new consensus is build, which is exactly what Wikipedia suggests. And yes, the 'India' part was in the stable version, not added by me though. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the current version. Thank you.

Read comments thoroughly before editing next time. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.diverseedmonton.ca/community/32-columns/community/171-albertas-historic-recognition-of-the-bengali-new-year-cheerful-celebrations-in-north-america
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pohela_Boishakh&oldid=1195051048"