Talk:Bengali language movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

References

I'm collecting scholarly references to the movement, and here are some:

• The Medium of Instruction Controversy in Pakistan - T Rahman - Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1997 [1]

• The first opposition to Urdu came from the Bengali Language Movement between 1948 to 1954. Despite Jinnah’s condemnation of the Movement in March 1948, it grew, and the police killed some of its supporters in Dhaka on 21 February 1952 (Alam, 1991; Kabir, 1987; Umar, 1970). This caused a lingering resentment which eventually led to the demand for Bangladesh, which emerged in 1971 (Zaheer, 1994). Although Bengali was recognised as a national language in 1956, it had once been used as a symbol of the growing alienation of East Bengal from West Pakistan. The language movement made Bengali a symbol of the resistance to West Pakistani domination

• Women, culture and nation-building: contemporary Sinhalese and Bengali theatre, N SILVA - Contemporary South Asia, 2000 - Taylor & Francis. [2]

• Bangladesh: Why It Happened, G. W. Choudhury International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 48, No. 2 (Apr., 1972), pp. 242-249 doi:10.2307/261344 [3]

• Federalism and Pakistan. Khalid Bin Sayeed, Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 23, No. 9 (Sep., 1954), pp. 139-143 (airness that the de- mand of the East Pakistanis for ... Jinnah declared on March 21,

1948, in a public meet ... But in February 1952 when riots broke out over this ... )

There are some ... there can be more found via google scholar. Thanks. --Ragib 01:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles could be found for at least 25 people who contributed politically and culturally during the language movement. There is also other political leaders and organizations who influenced the movement. Would it be better to include all of them within a template at the end of the article?Tarif from Bangladesh 10:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

question

The main section, or introduction seems way too long.Bakaman 01:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

construction date of first shaheed minar

there is a few confusions about the construction date of first shaheed minar. Banglapedia probably said about February 22. But in the Bashir Al Helal's book Bhasha Andoloner Itihas it is proved that it was constructed on February 23. One of the main planner of the first shaheed minar Sayed Haider also confirmed the date. So we should take February 23 as a solution.Tarif from Bangladesh 19:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Banglapedia may not be 100% correct. If other independent sources, and original sources say the date is feb 23, it is more likely to be correct. --Ragib 19:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

the construction work finished at midnight of February 23. So it was not possible to publish the news on 24th. And the news published on february 25 for that reason. So it will be correct if we take february 23.Tarif from Bangladesh 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Shohid Dibôsh should be linked to Language Movement Day.Tarif from Bangladesh 18:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Related Images

I have uploaded some images which are related to language movement. They are Image:Jinnah in Dhaka.JPG, Image:Urdu department students.JPG,Image:Probhat Feri of 1953.JPG. Please include them in suitable places of the article if necessarry.--- Tarif from Bangladesh 11:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Feb 22

There are some cut paste (specially about the event at 11am) that makes the order of the events a bit confused. Please clean up. --Dr.saptarshi 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

I am removing this article from the list of Good Article nominees for the following reasons:

• I don't think it's well enough sourced. There is an enormous amount of very detailed information in this article, and considering how politically charged these events were, it would need much more thorough sourcing to comply with the GA requirement that it "cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged".
• This sounds pretty POV to me: "After the incidents of February 21 and 22 the government spread a lot of propaganda about the movement and the incidents. They tried to make the people believe that the communists and anti-pakistanies intrigued the students to attack the police. The propagandas spread through many ways." This is unsourced, awkwardly worded, and appears to be written from a biased standpoint.
• Much of this article is poorly worded. It could benefit from copyediting from users who can contribute with a professional level of English - maybe Peer Review can help.

Chubbles 05:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

dates of newspapers were taken from Bashir Al Helal's book "Bhasha Andoloner Itihas". Informations about 'propaganda' could be found from page 500 to 530 of the book. Some leaflets which were spread against the movement would be found there. Talented editors like User:Rama's Arrow are helping with the english.Tarif from Bangladesh 17:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Death tole

according to Daily Azad and press release ofthe government, three people have died on February 21, while Weekly Shoinik says it was 7. Azad also reported about 4 deaths on February 22. According to Weekly Shoinik, 8 people have died on February 22. There should be another press note from the government where agreed for a higher number of deaths on February 22. Bashir Al Helal's book confirmed about 8 deaths over two days and also suggested that it might be more on page 479. By the way, the press release from the government on february 21 incident was printed on February 22 edition of Azad Tarif from Bangladesh 19:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Scholary arguments

In the candidate page Aditya Kabir asked for some scholary arguments. So here's what I have got along with sources of information:

• Regarding the fact of Indians making Hindi their state language, Vice Chancellor of Aligarh University, Ziauddin Ahmed asked pakistanis to follow the idea by giving the same status to Urdu in Pakistan.

source:Bodruddin Umar's Purbo-Banglar Bhasha Andolon O Totkalin Rajniti.

• In reply, Dr. Muhammad Shahidullah said, imitating the act of the congress (of India) by giving only Urdu the status of state language would be a setback. He also said, Bengali holds an special position in world literature. Bengali is one of the highest spoken language and ranked 7th in the world. He quoted, If English is left for being a foreign language, their is no reason not to select Bengali as state language. He also pointed out that Urdu is not the native language of any part of Pakistan but said, if we have to choose a second state language, we should consider Urdu.

source:The Daily Azad, July 29, 1947

• Abdul Haq, the editor of Showgat said, If Urdu is announced as the only state language then Urdu would take the position of English... As a result 50 million people of Pakistan would become disable for government postings...despite being the majority, Bengali people would remain second... Despite linguistic freedom, the upcoming freedom would become partial and restrained.

Source:Bashir Al Helal's book, pp.192

• Abul Mansur Ahmed said, If Urdu becomes the state language, the educated society of East Pakistan would become 'illiterate' and 'ineligible' for government post.

source:source:Bodruddin Umar's Purbo-Banglar Bhasha Andolon O Totkalin Rajniti. pp.30-32

Check this Genesis of the Language Movement. Aditya Kabir 03:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ohiullah's Death

Ohiullah died on February 22 near a restaurant at Nawabpur. Banglapedia is wrong about him. Thanks. Tarif from Bangladesh 19:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Amongst others who support equal status of Bengali along with Urdu are Dr. Enamul Haq and Motahar Hossain Chowdhury.

Source:Bashir Al Helal's book, pp.201-207

if necessary please include this in the main article. Thanks--- Tarif from Bangladesh 08:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is one:

Bangladesh: Why It Happened, by G. W. Choudhury (page 6)

Journal: International Affairs Publisher: (Royal Institute of International Affairs month: April year: 1972

Link from JSTOR: http://www.jstor.org/view/00205850/di012413/01p0200j/0

--Ragib 09:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A mistake

a mistake has happened. The proceedings at the parliament on February 21 are placed under heading of February 22. Not to be confused with that proceedings did take place both of the days. But the particular one which is mentioned in the article actually occured on February 21. Source:page: 377-393 of Al Helal's book. Someone please fix that inside the article. thanksTarif from Bangladesh 23:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

More ref

Here is a good reference:

"A Place Insufficiently Imagined": Language, Belief, and the Pakistan Crisis of 1971

Philip Oldenburg

The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 44, No. 4 (Aug., 1985), pp. 711-733

doi:10.2307/2056443

--Ragib 09:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Title

I think this article should be titled either "The language movement", "The Language Movement", or "The Language movement"; lack of "the" in the title seems to indicate the article is about language movements or the general idea of a language movement, rather than a particular movement at a specific point in time. This is one movement titled "The Language movement", and it stands alone in history; just as the article civil war addresses the general idea, rather than the specific American civil war (which Americans call simply "the Civil War"). -- Editor at Large • talk 13:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this - frankly, when Ragib approached me about this article I was going to say 'why me?' :) Why not 'Bhasha Andolon'? Riana (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a place for another supporting voice? Please, count me in with Ayelie and Riana. Aditya Kabir 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Language Movement sounds good to me ... this is the title used in existing literature and media coverage to refer to the event. --Ragib 17:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Language Movement" sounds ok. What's the process to change the FAC name in case the title is changed during FAC?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I'm late in this conversation :) Anyway it was Language Movement when I started working. Nirav converted the capital M to m to make it Language movement. So I think this could be The Language movement or The Language Movement. And about Riana's proposal, well it will always remain as Bhasha Andolon to those who learn to speak Bangla from their mother. Regards to you all and Dhonnobad (meaning thanks in Bengali) Tarif from Bangladesh 21:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Article moved to "The Language Movement". FAC has also been moved. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It was moved back again after a short discussion on the FA page - no other options were discussed, just "Language Movement" or the addition of "The" to the title. What about other options such as "Bangladesh Language Movement", or "East Pakistan Language Movement"? Even "Bhasha Andolon" as Tarif suggested, and redirects can be made for the alternative titles. I still don't think strictly "Language Movement" is the best title for this article. -- Editor at Large • talk 00:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"Language Movement", rather than the previous "Language movement", is the title now. Capital letter in the "movement"—does not it signify a specific movement? Please comment.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Better than the previous, to be certain, though I still think that "Language Movement" is too... all-encompassing. Is it about all movements regarding language? "Language movement" was less precise in that it could have referred to any movement regarding language, or language moving itself, or some sort of movement therapy involving language (which do actually exist). However, I still believe an extra determiner or other word would help the article be more recogniseable in terms of people realising what it is about right away (or at least having an idea). -- Editor at Large • talk 23:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

I did a complete copyedit of the article today, although I am going to have a proofreader who is native to British English. I just want to make sure that I didn't subconsciously Americanize any of the writing here while I was working. I wish you guys the best of luck and hope you get your FA. Trusilver 03:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

intro question

Hello, I've done some rewriting of the intro, but before I go any further, I wanted to ask if it is fine with other people to combine some of the content of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs into the 1st paragraph. It seems to me that some of the details of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs should be moved into the body of the article. Right now, I find the intro a bit confusing, because the first paragraph covers a span from 1948 to 1999, then the second paragraph jumps back to 1947 and continues up to 1952, and then the third paragraph seems to talk about a time period starting sometime after 1952. I think it would be much better if the intro briefly described the background behind the Language movement, then described what happened up to and including the demonstrators' deaths, then described the aftermath and legacy of the movement. In other words, a chronological presentation of events. I look forward to hearing your comments. --Kyoko 14:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm..I agree that there is redundancy in the lead. How about something in line of the following?

The Language movement (Bengali: ভাষা আন্দোলন; Bhasha Andolon) was a political movement in Bangladesh (then known as East Pakistan), advocating the recognition of the Bengali language as an official language of Pakistan. After the state of Pakistan was formed in 1947, which consisted of two regions — East Pakistan (also called East Bengal) and West Pakistan — the central government ordained Urdu to be the sole national language. The policy was adopted as law in 1948, despite extensive protests among the Bengali-speaking majority of East Pakistan. Discontent with this policy led to mass agitations since 1948. Facing rising sectarian tensions, the government outlawed public meetings and rallies. The students of the University of Dhaka and other political activists defied the law and organised a protest on February 21 1952. The movement reached its climax after police killed student demonstrators on that day. The deaths provoked widespread civil unrest led by the Awami League (then Awami Muslim League). After years of struggle, the central government relented and granted official status to the Bengali language in 1956. In 1999, UNESCO declared 21 February as the International Mother Language Day, paying tribute to the Language movement and the ethno-linguistic rights of people across the world.

The Language movement served as a catalyst for the assertion of the Bengali national identity in Pakistan. Intensifying sectional rivalry, the movement became a forerunner to Bengali nationalist movements, including the 6-point movement and subsequently the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971. In Bangladesh, the day is commemorated as the Language Movement Day. The Shaheed Minar was constructed near the Dhaka Medical College to commemorate the movement and pay homage to its victims.

--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Kyoko what do you think. Tarif from Bangladesh 19:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that is much better. I suggest rewording it further to say:

the central government ordained Urdu as the sole national language. The policy was made law in 1948, despite extensive protests among the Bengali-speaking majority of East Pakistan. Facing rising sectarian tensions and mass discontent with the new law, the government outlawed public meetings and rallies.

This way, the "in 1948" isn't repeated, and I think this makes for tighter prose. --Kyoko 20:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this?

The Language Movement (Bengali: ভাষা আন্দোলন; Bhasha Andolon) was a protest movement against the exclusion of Bengali, the language of the majority, from the status of state language of Pakistan. Police opened fire on unarmed demonstrators at Dhaka University when the Movement reached its climax in 21 February 1952, killing four students. The day is commemorated in Bangladesh (previously East Bengal or East Pakistan) as the Language Movement Day. The killing provoked Awami League (then Awami Muslim League) to start widespread civil unrest, which in turn led to arrests, police beatings and further killing. In 1956, after years of struggle Bengali was accepted as a state language along Urdu into the first constitution of Pakistan. 21 February was declared as the International Mother Language Day by UNESCO in 1999.

Seeds of discontent over language issues were sown a decade before the Independence of Pakistan, in 1937. The movement crystallized in 1948 when an "Urdu-only" policy was adopted as a law with strong endorsement of Governor General Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan. Despite popular agitation led by Rastrabhasa Sangram Parishad (which evolved into Shorbodolio Kendrio Rashtrobhasha Kormi Porishod in 1952) and scholarly arguments Jinnah and chief minister Khwaja Nazimuddin adhered to the Urdu doctrine. This attitude of the government residing in West Pakistan, the other part of a country geographically divided into two-halves, led to increased sectional rivalry despite the eventual inclusion on Bengali. Eventually, this rivalry gave rise to Bengali nationalistic sentiments, including the 6 Point Movement, leading to the Bangladesh Liberation War and Independence of Bangladesh in 1971. Legacy of the Language Movement includes Shaheed Minar, a monument to commemorate the killing, the Bangla Academy, a guardian institute for the language and Ekushey Book Fair.

The copy may still be a bit clumsy, but the essence of tighter lead should be here. In the newspapers it is called an inverted pyramid, where information is structured around importance. :) Aditya Kabir 22:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this latest text, to my eyes, is that it uses the same chronological "back and forth" that I found confusing, as stated in my comments earlier. This format might still work with some rewording. I strongly suggest not going into so much detail in the lead, because from the perspective of someone who knows virtually nothing about the conflict, so many unfamiliar terms (even if wikilinked) make make me lose interest in reading more of the article, and that is exactly what the introduction should not do. --Kyoko 23:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. But, may I ask three questions here - (a) How a chronological sequence is the only acceptable structure? (b) What exactly is so confusing? (c) What are the unfamiliar "terms" here? Yours. Aditya Kabir 02:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Explaining Well, the above comment was made in a hurry, and needs some elaboration. Here goes:

• The problems with chronological sequencing are - (a) the first line stands no chance of fitting into the chronology, i.e. the events ranging from at least 1937 to 1999, and it becomes either an orphan line or an ill-fitting beginning for the first para. (b) the real important stuff, i.e. the killing and the constitutional reform comes somewhere in the middle, and the lead neither begins nor ends with the core information. (c) generally chronological sequencing makes for a uninteresting structural flow, and therefore a lot many of Wikipedia's featured articles don't use it (as is often the case with Encyclopedia Britannica, too).
• You can't do away with unfamiliar terms in an article about something alien to you. Check any article, say on medical matters, physics or aviation, and you'd see what I mean. And, in no format you can leave "terms" like the Awami League out of the lead. The best way to deal with it is probably putting a brief clarification along with each radically unfamiliar term, though I don't think it is an absolute necessity.
• A lead is a summary of the article, not a teaser campaign for it. There is a plan to make a compilation of those leads and release an abridged version of WP. Therefore, it must contain all the important points in a comprehensive but brief way (while chronological and comprehensive may not mean the same thing).
• Encyclopedias and newspapers have developed the "inverted pyramid" system of writing through a long process spanning a century or so, and is not to be discarded summarily. This system requires that - (a) The most important facts are given in the first para (including answers to Who, What, Why, Where, When and How). (b) Then a brief outline of the story is stated in the second para, without repeating much from the first para. (c) Then explanation or elaboration of the facts already stated will follow, again following the same sequence of significance.
• I am a bit confused on the "back and forth" point. There are just two dates on the first paragraph - the climax, and the international impact. The second para follows the chronological sequence wholeheartedly.

Well, in short, I am very against a time oriented structure and very for a significance oriented structure. Aditya Kabir 05:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem with the version against which Kyoko wrote (this version) is that it repeats information in the lead itself. The information in the first para is repeated (and elaborated) in the second para. This may not be acceptable. On the contrary, in this version of the lead, there is no repeat. Also, there is a compact flow. Readers will have a short idea of what happened in one paragraph.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dwaipayanc has summed up pretty well why I prefer the chronological ordering as opposed to the other version. I feel that the introduction should not reiterate facts that have already been mentioned just a few sentences before, and I believe that an article that does so as in this revision may not be granted featured article status because of redundant sentences in the introduction.

As for unfamiliar terms, I never said that they should be eliminated from the introduction. At the same time, I don't feel that the exact details of everything need to be mentioned in the very first paragraphs of the article. Keep in mind that many readers will not be familiar with Rastrabhasa Sangram Parishad or Shorbodolio Kendrio Rashtrobhasha Kormi Porishod, for example. At the very least, terms that are potentially unfamiliar should be briefly explained in the text without having to expect that the reader will have the patience to click on every wikilink. To be fair, many articles on Wikipedia are written with the apparent expectation that the reader is either already familiar with the subject or willing to look up every linked term. Featured articles are supposed to represent the best of what Wikipedia has to offer, and hopefully articles that are granted FA status use the right balance between conveying too many details in the intro, and not enough. --Kyoko 13:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The version Dwaipayan have looks quite okay, and I withdraw my proposal happily. Though I really couldn't find where exactly he summed up why you prefer chronological ordering. Well, I am resting my case for a significance-oriented structure for a chronology-oriented structure for now (though I am bit sad watching my extensive argument and example going down the drain like this). I guess this was not the place or time for such an argument. For discussing something as philosophical as an ideal structural design, I guess, the appropriate place would be the village pump. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 16:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

date format question

Hello, one glaring problem with this article is its inconsistent use of dates: sometimes the dates are given in MM/DD/YY format, other times in DD/MM/YY format. The article needs to pick one style and use it throughout. --Kyoko 14:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That problem would not have been there if all dates were wikilinked. In that case, reader would see the dates per his/her set preferences. I propose to follow DD/MM (eg 21 February) everywhere (unless it is wikilinked) as this is the practice in this region of the world.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd propose a DD/MM/YY format to match the generally Anglo-Indian style of writing. 202.56.7.164 16:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

other problems with article

I've been reading through the article and I'm still convinced that more work has to be done before it is ready to be promoted to FA status. I consider myself too involved already to express an opinion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Language Movement due to conflict of interest concerns, but if I weren't involved in the rewrite, I would oppose this article's promotion due to a number of lingering problems:

• "Background", last sentence: the words "Muslim League" need wikification, explanation, or both
  • Done by wikifying Muslim League. --Ragib 00:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Explained as well by Dwaipayan. --Tarif from Bangladesh 19:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• throughout the article: names and organisations continue to be mentioned with little context
  • Can you please give some example? --Ragib 00:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Right. Examples are badly needed. Due to proximity to the subject and its context, most editors working on the FAC may fail to notice certain things. For an outsider it would be fairly easy. Aditya Kabir 06:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• throughout the article: various sentences of awkward construction, such as "Later a new committee to push for Bengali as a state language was formed with Shamsul Huq as its convener." There are many instances when a more straightforward sentence is, in my view, more clearly understood. Why not, for example, "Later, Shamsul Huq convened a new committee to push for Bengali as a state language."?
  • A little of that done. More needed, I guess. Aditya Kabir 06:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• use of imprecise quantities, such as "many", "several", "some", etc., especially when discussing the number of demonstrators at various rallies
  • A little of that done. More needed. But, as a matter of fact, every source and expert I consulted tell me that the numbers from that period remains a little vague. Probably the assembly numbers can be stated precisely if we could lay our hands on the record of proceedings. Aditya Kabir 16:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That's right. It is difficult to find how many students who broke sec. 144 were arrested by police or how many people were there in one particular rally. Anyway on February 21 at the assembly several leaders who asked Nurul Amin to adjourn the house and to visit to the spot were Manoranjan Dhar, Boshontokumar Das, Shamsuddin Ahmed and Dhirendranath Datta. Some of the treasury bench members along with Abdur Rashid Tarkabagish who supported the motion or at least supported the adjournment were Shorfuddin Ahmed, Shamsuddin Ahmed Khondokar and Mosihuddin Ahmed (there seemed only one last name :). Another treasury bench member named Bholanath Biswas walked out of the assembly just after all the opposition members came out of the house.(Bashir;pp377-393) Tarif from Bangladesh 18:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Names of the assembly members and the treasury bench members now added.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• "Events of 1952": "Section 144" is mentioned numerous times, but it is never explained. Is it part of the constitution? Is it a countrywide law, or a city ordinance?
  • Section 144 of the criminal code is a law that prohibits gatherings of more than four people. It is a countrywide law, and the Government often invokes this to prevent political meetings, processions etc. This is similar to the Riot Act of Britain. --Ragib 00:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Explained Section 144, and started a stub too. Aditya Kabir 06:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• the word "agitation" is used too much, when other alternatives exist: "unrest", "protests", "riots", "discontent", etc.
  • Fixed now. Aditya Kabir 06:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• The article seems to contradict itself when discussing the Awami League. The introduction says that the Awami League was at the forefront of civil unrest against the Urdu-only policy. This conflicts with the last paragraph of the article, where it says the "Awami League grew out of the Language Movement and was based on Bengali nationalism." Based solely on the content of this article, the reader is left to wonder whether the Awami League existed prior to the Language Movement, or if it was formed during or after it.
  • Awami League was a breakaway faction of the Muslim League. AL was established as the Awami Muslim League in 1949. --Ragib 00:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Tried to fix that. Made a little change in the lead and in the criticism sections. Aditya Kabir 06:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I can fix some of these problems, but not all of them. Please consider the points I have mentioned. Thank you. --Kyoko 00:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Some info

• number of students ran into the Dhaka Medical College while others rallied at the university premises cordoned by the police.

The line that Kyoko did not understand would be, A number of students ran into the Dhaka Medical College (after firing tear shells on them) while others stayed at the university premises cordoned by the police.(The Azad, February 22)

• promptint officers and clerks from different institutions to boycott offices and join the procession.

Those institutions at 22 February was not only schools but also other offices like Banks

and radio stations.(Azad, February 22, 1952)

• Datta's proposal was supported by Bengali legislators and the people of East Pakistan.

Those Bengali legislators were Prem Hari Barma, Bhupendra Kumar Datta and Sris Chandra Chattaopadhyaya of East Bengal.(Bashir;pp=232-239). --Tarif from Bangladesh 12:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• The above is now incorporated. Does Kyoko has anymore hidden comments I failed to notice? Aditya Kabir 04:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled upon the info that six legislators urged to adjourn the assembly on 21 February noon. Have incorporated the info now.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

new concerns

Hello, I've made a number of changes to the article, but some clarification is needed:

• United Front in 1954, 1st paragraph: wikilinked Maulvi Abdul Huq, who may need an article, or at least some explanation in the paragraph

We just needed to spell his name right - Maulvi Abdul Haq. Aditya Kabir 13:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• United Front in 1954, 2nd paragraph: the article says "When the United Front ministry was dismissed and replaced with a martial law regime, the new military government halted the project and banned public meetings under Section 144." but no context is given. When was the UF ministry overthrown? A military coup should at least be mentioned in the paragraph before this sentence.

United Front ministry was overthrown on 30 May, 1954 as Governor General Golam Mohammad cancelled the UF government and started ruling under Governor.(Bashir;603) --Tarif from Bangladesh 17:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Done by Dwaipayan. --Tarif from Bangladesh 20:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• under "Events of 1952", it says "Kendrio Shorbodolio Kormi Porishad, or All-Party Central Language Action Committee", but under "Events after 1952", it says "Shorbodolio Kendrio Rashtrobhasha Kormi Porishod". Are these the same committee? If they're not, some translation or explanation would be helpful.

they are same. I've fixed it. --Tarif from Bangladesh 16:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm beginning to think that certain terms such as "Awami League" and others should be linked in each section of the article, because the text is long enough that readers may not want to look for the first occurence of the term. More info is at WP:MOSLINK.

Awami League is done. A few other is needed. --Tarif from Bangladesh 20:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think I now agree with User:Editor at Large that the article should be renamed "Bangladesh Language Movement" or perhaps "Language Movement of Bangladesh" in order to avoid confusion.

• I also want to add that perhaps the article could use shorter sentences. I'm not saying that the text should be written entirely in short sentences, but the current text has numerous sentences that follow the pattern dependent clause, independent clause, as in "Completed at dawn on 24 February, the monument had a handwritten note attached to it with the words "Shaheed Smritistombho". Inaugurated by the father of the slain activist Sofiur Rahman, the monument was destroyed on 26 February by police." I'm not singling out any particular section or sentence of the article for criticism. I just think that some variety in sentence length would be nice, and that it would probably increase the chances of this article attaining FA status. I've been pretty conservative in my changes to the text, because of lack of time, but I would appreciate it if someone who is more familiar with the issues than me look through the article and try to see what I mean. I personally find it helpful to read a text aloud to hear if it flows well, and currently, I don't think the article is quite at FA level.

I'm quite busy and may not be checking Wikipedia very often, so if there is something that is easily fixed, please be bold and change the article, rather than just post the material on the talk page and wait for someone else to add it. --Kyoko 10:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

References

another concern

"Following the return of the United Front to power, the anniversary on 21 February 1956 was observed for the first time in a peaceful atmosphere." However, I cannot find a source for the return of UF. It seems UF was split after 1954. Can any one see the book sources please?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

After the movement on February 21, 1955 Governor regime was over and UF was invited to form their ministry again. Governor regime ended on 3 June, 1955. On 6 June UF member, Central Health minister Abu Hossain Sarkar reformed the UF ministry. It (UF) was broken as Awami League was absent from the alience. (Bashir;608-613) --Tarif from Bangladesh 11:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for title change

Kyoko has proposed a change in the title. The proposed titles are "Bangladesh Language Movement" or "Language Movement of Bangladesh". Please comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Do reliable sources ever refer to it as the "Bangladesh Language Movement?" My preference would be the name most common in RS. Or OTOH, is it appropriate to add Bangladesh if the nation wasn't formed yet. How about "Bengali/Bangla Language Movement?" Gizza^{Discuss ©} 04:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to use terminology that is used in existing literature/scholarly work. "Bangladesh Language Movement" is not a common usage to the best of my knowledge. However, my lookup of JSTOR and other sources show examples of the term "Bengali language movement" (e.g. Rehman, Tariq, "Language and Ethnicity in Pakistan", Asian Survey, Vol. 37, No. 9 (Sep., 1997), pp. 833-839) (Fighting Words: Language Policy and Ethnic Relations in Asia - Page 57 by Michael Edward Brown, Sumit Ganguly, Pacific Basin Research Center - Political Science - 2003), etc. So, perhaps we should use "Bengali Language Movement" as the title, as supported by existing usage in scholarly work. --Ragib 05:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that the term "Language Movement" is quite vague if you have no prior knowledge of the subject. When I first saw the title, it sounded like something about the migration of a language across a geographical area. DaGizza raises a very good point about using whatever term is used in reliable sources. I believe that Wikipedia's preference is for whatever is the most commonly used term, so in this case, I would fully support a change to "Bengali Language Movement". --Kyoko 06:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I support a change to Bengali Language Movement also. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's change it to Bengali Language Movement. --Tarif from Bangladesh 11:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree to Tarif - let's change it to Bengali Language Movement. Because, I agree to Kyoko - Language Movement alone sounds a bit too vague. And also because, I agree to DaGizza - the changed name should conform to reliable sources. And finally because, I admit to Ragib's findings - if reliable sources are confirmed then let it be Bengali Language Movement. Oh, and one more point to note, that there already is an article on Urdu movement, which was a language movement too. There also are the Plain Language Movement and the Gaelic revival to think about. This latest proposal is the best so far. Go ahead with it (I may not be bold enough to make the change, yet). Cheers. Aditya Kabir 14:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead and changed to "Bengali Language Movement".--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Date linking

There have been discussions on the linking of dates. The present form of WP:DATE tells we have to wikilink all dates containing date and month (except in Section headers). I have tried to do so. Please wikilink if I missed something. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done the rest, thanks! --Tarif from Bangladesh 18:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

strange sentence

Hello, in the last sentence of the first paragraph of "Events after 1952", it says:

Police arrested students and other protesters, but many refused to post bail, and the police were subsequently forced to release them.

This sentence doesn't make sense to me, as I thought that people who don't post bail are kept in prison, not released. Is there something missing here, such as a statement about political or public pressure to release the prisoners? --Kyoko 21:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the current construction of the sentence makes it look like the last part is a result of the previous parts. However, the last part may be written as a separate sentence as:

Police arrested students and other protesters, but many refused to post bail. Later, they were released. --Ragib 21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I've changed the article as you suggested! --Kyoko 21:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, police arrested a huge number of students (probably more than the capacity of the jail). Police thought they would let the students go after signing a bond in which students would say We're wrong, we won't do it again or something like it. But the students refused and after the pressure they put into police, they were eventually released. --Tarif from Bangladesh 05:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

NYTimes report

NY times report: February 23, 1952. Courtesy of Mr. Jalal. --Ragib 22:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And more references available here. --Ragib 22:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats every one for the FA status :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to everyone as well. I remember one year ago, Tarif contacted me and started working on this article. Through his perseverance and the wonderful work of many others, we have elevated this article to featured status. This is a tribute to the language activists ... --Ragib 04:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In memory of Nirav... [4] [5] Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

tribute to all the activists of the Language Movement. I am dedicating my effort to improve this article to Nirav da. --Tarif from Bangladesh 21:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Congrats 2

Thanks to everyone for bringing this article in front page--NAHID 08:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

With reference to the use of the word "victims" in this quote: "The Shaheed Minar monument was constructed near Dhaka Medical College in memory of the movement and its victims" Should this not refer to "martyrs" as it sounds as if this refers to people hurt by the movement rather than those hurt in the service of the movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.105.149.4 (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion and language

I think the article ignores the fact that the partition of India was primarily based on religious differences and certainly not on linguistic ones since Bengali is spoken both in Bangladesh and in the West Bengal. Hindi and Urdu are also no more different than Serbian and Croatian, ie. essentially the same (alphabet is not a question of language). --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about the partition of India, nor does it state anything you mentioned. The movement is post-partition, and was a result of the imposition of Urdu as the national language of Pakistan. So, I don't really see your point. --Ragib (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Cultural suppression of the Sylheti Language and regional languages in favour of 'Shuddho' ('pure Bangla')

I have edited to give an overview of the impact on the Sylheti ethnic group of the imposition of Bangla as the state language as a result of the language movement. This is clearly an issue which affects Sylheti speakers and merits inclusion to give a rounded view of this movements successes and failures. The statements are referenced and are relevent to this article. I hope that ethnic Bengali Wiki editors such as Ragib do not turn this into an editing war.

Please be reasonable and discuss the changes before editing them out. Otherwise a senseless editing war will be the result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.119.98 (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a featured article, so we need to adhere to some standards when it comes to editing and inserting new content. Also, the large commentary you inserted is not relevant to the article. Also, please refrain from commenting on the ethnicity of other wikipedians. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please refrain from inserting unrelated commentary in a featured article. Any large changes like this needs to be thoroughly discussed in the talk page first. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added the following about the impact of the language movement on Bangladesh after liberation. It is very important to note the impact of imposaing one language on a multilinguistic country like Bangladesh. It is referenced. Only politically motivated chauvanists would oppose it's inclusion. If this is not included then this article should be tagged as unbalanced.

Ragib, as moderator please refrain from vandalising this article. Your changes can easily be changed.

'Bengali, being the beneficiary of the Liberation war, was made the official language of Bangladesh at the expense of regional languages such as Sylheti'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.13.236 (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a fringe view not supported by any references other than UK based Sylheti sites. You need to provide references from reliable sources to support such claims. The blog site you linked to is not a valid reference. --Ragib (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ragib, you really should not let your personal prejudices influence your duties as wiki moderator. A British Sylheti site is as reliable a source (at least as Bangladeshi 'academia' is concerned) as any Dhaka based source.

However, so as to ensure we do not get involved in another edit war, I have included an article from your favourite Bangladeshi newspaper The Daily Star which clearly reinforces the Sylheti site in exposing the fact that the language movement and the resulting Ekushey events promote a perceived 'pure' Bangla over the regional languages spoken by the majority. You cannot delete this as this article and other Bangladesh-related articles rely on this and other Bangla-based English newspapers.

You see, not such a 'fringe view' after all, eh bhai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.13.236 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you invoked User:SameerKhan's article, I'll invite him to explain what he exactly meant here. Do keep in mind that the Star article by User:SameerKhan was an op-ed piece rather than an established fact, and it does not really back your favorite text. I don't really care about your regional background here, so please cut the crap. This is a featured article, so any new information and controversial needs to be backed with solid references. Unfortunately, a self-published non notable website is not really a reliable source, nor is one person's op-ed piece. I'll leave it to SameerKhan to clarify his writeup. --Ragib (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the whole point you are promoting (though unreferenced) is actually irrelevant and tangential to *this* article. --Ragib (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I think you have NOT at all read Sameer's article in its entirety. Rather than criticizing the "suppression of sylheti language", Sameer talks about dialects of Bangla, and that the standardized Bangla is yet another dialect chosen as a standard. That, by no means, back your imaginary suppression of the Sylheti dialect. Sameer rather says that the standard form of Bangla isn't superior to the regional Bangla dialects. You try to twist Sameer's opinion on regional Bangla dialects into one that supports your imaginary "suppression of Sylheti language". But the essay simply does not claim anything like that. I'll leave the rest of the explanation to User:SameerKhan. --Ragib (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As the author of the article being referenced here, I felt I should make myself clear that I was not writing about a "suppression of Sylheti language". I was writing about how all forms of language should be appreciated and respected. Of course, I also discussed how the choice of the Nadia dialect as the basis for the standard language for all Bengalis was arbitrary, and that any dialect could have been promoted as the "standard" given what we know about linguistic theory. I was not claiming that choosing Nadia standard was "wrong", but I did want to point out that one does not have to be proud only of Nadia Bengali, but of whatever form of Bengali one speaks. I feel that the spirit of my article (which, I must remind everyone, is not a scientific article but an op/ed piece) would be misinterpreted if it were used to support the view that there is an active suppression of the Sylheti people. If there is such an oppression, my article is not evidence for it. --SameerKhan (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The response from Ragib brings fiorth the following questions of propriety:

- Ragib do you know the author outside wiki?

-What undue pressure was put on the author to recant on his clearly written position in the article

-Ragib, surely given the personal investment you have in denying criticism to this article (ie an oficianado of the Language Movement), you cannot continue to moderate this particular article. There should be transparancy about your position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.13.236 (talk • contribs)

Let me be sarcastic for a few moments, and laugh out loud. Then once I'm done, please check user SameerKhan's edit history. Sameer has been active in Wikipedia for quite some time. Please stop making any ludicrous comments. You owe Sameer an apology for making fake claims using his article. Nice try, BTW :). Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'd love to know who made me "an oficianado of the Language Movement". Please tell me, I can send my thanks and flowers to them for giving me this "officianando" position :D. --Ragib (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sure everyone reading this can see your semantics and sleight of hand. Ragib, you tried this before with the Drishtipat article and lost out as my contribution was adequately referenced and accepted. :D You will find that I am just as determined to ensure that a fully rounded history of the liberation war including criticisms as to it’s impact on the overwhelming majority Bangladeshis who speak regional languages/dialects.

This superficial and non-existent celebration is hardly universally accepted in Bangladesh. Boi mela and other such events are mostly Dhakaiya affairs. It is time to show this minority delusion for what it is. Sponsoring one language above others and then using this to discriminate against regional speakers while coming on to global forums like this to hypocritically cry over the Pakistani language oppression is demeaning for all Bengalis.

The following is a DIRECT QUOTE from the article. Unless the author retracts his article on the Daily Star, (with the consequent loss of academic profile) then this article is as worthy of reference as any others on this article. Is the author willing to to this?

‘Ekushey February celebrations of the language movement has been criticised for assuming the linguistic homogeneity of Bangladesh in a multilingual country through the sponsorship of the Shuddho (‘pure’) dialect as the ‘standard’ language in Bangladesh. This is in contrast to the overwhelming majority of Bangladeshis who speak Sylheti, Rangpuri and Dhakaiya and other regional languages. This can be perceived to echo earlier Pakistani policies in imposing Urdu on erstwhile East Pakistan.’ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.13.236 (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I do remember one troll who got banned for vandalizing the Drishtipat article. Are you the banned user Habz? It's hard to tell by looking at your IP. I also remember that you (or Habz) tried to add fake "references" there, which turned out to be his own comments added to a blog post's comment section. Fortunately, such falsehoods were found out easily and removed from that page.

When the author of the Star article states clearly that you misunderstood and misquoted him, why do you continue to wave that piece here? To begin with, Sameer was talking about the lay people's Bangla language vs the "standard" Bangla language. For example, in the US context, it would be comparing the New England accent vs the southern accents/dialects. Either you cannot comprehend Sameer's article, or you are simply misquoting him to support your fringe theories. I assume the latter, but in good faith there is a chance it could be the former. There is no question about Sameer being required to defend his article, since even in the piece you quoted, he merely mentions his opinion regarding the formal language vs the lay people's language (stating that none is the "better" one).

And finally, Sameer's article, as he states above, is an op-ed piece, meaning that's his personal opinion, not a scholarly piece. So now can you please stop waving it and also stop harassing the article author?

By the way, what do you mean by "Dhakayia"? If you are the banned troll User:Habz, then I've been meaning to ask you this question for quite a long time. You seem to have a great fondness for this word, and use it to denigrate people of some specific regions ... can you please explain which particular demographic you are bad-mouthing through this word? Because, whatever you didn't like, you termed it a "Dhakaiya" thing (e.g., Drishtipat as a Dhakaiya organization, Ekushey February as a "Dhakaiya" celebration etc., and any user from Bangladesh as a "Dhakaiya"). So, please enlighten us about whatever you mean by this epithet.

This being a featured article, please stop adding personal opinions that are NOT supported by any reliable references (other than some blogs). Sameer has explained your complete misunderstanding of his article, so spend some time reading the article and leave this page alone from your personal unreferenced and possibly hoax statements. --Ragib (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised that my article has been used in such a way, even when I made my intent clear by trying to smooth out any ambiguities readers may come across. If anyone really thinks I am contradicting myself, I can only assume that some people just didn't understand my point, or that they will simply believe whatever they want to believe. Personally, I love nonstandard Bengali dialects. I feel more comfortable speaking in nonstandard eastern Bengali than in "shuddho". I feel that speakers of nonstandard dialects should feel that their form of speaking is worthy of just as much honor and respect as shuddho, on 21 February and every day. I tried to express those feelings in my article, along with some linguistic facts and thoughts about nonstandard dialects and our perceptions of them. In no way was I saying that there is an organized suppression of nonstandard dialects. Yes, I know what I wrote; you don't need to repeat my quote. Yes, I pointed out that there is a parallel between choosing Urdu over Bengali and choosing Nadia Bengali over other dialects, but only in the fact that choosing another person's way of speaking over one's own is an arbitrary decision that can lead to negative perceptions of one's own way of speaking. I wasn't trying to say that the two choices represent the same kind of "cultural oppression". I didn't grow up in Asia, so I don't know if such "cultural oppression" exists in Bangladesh... but even if there is such oppression, that's not what my article is about; please do not misinterpret my point any further. --SameerKhan (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sameer Khan above paragraph accepts the points I am trying to make about 'Shuddho' and regional languages and the 'negative perceptions' of regional languages that arises from the language movement and Ekushey. He is also not prepared to retract his article. Do we need to discuss this any further.

The only reason my contribution is not being added to this article is because of Ragibs's personal political bias (I'm guessing an Awami Leaguer since he has form for jumping to the defence of self-appointed 'pro liberation' groups like Drishtipat. Ragib,has previously contributed to their blogs, a clear conflict of interest when he tried to stop me updating theior site to show accusations of pro-AL bias).

If my contribution is denied, I will go line by line through this article removing references made from Bangladeshi references. How can anyone trust Bangladesh 'academia' when authors who write something then try to wriggle out when political elements put pressure on the,m? This is clearly the reason why Bangladeshi history changes depending on which party is in power!

And yet I still have the Sylheti article (how exactly can you prove that the other articles supporting certain views about language movement are'scientific'? For example, Al Helal and Umar, what methodology did they use to collate data or verify their statements about the historical evolution of the movement? Are these 'academics' (one hesitates to use this word with Bangladeshis), are pro AL or BNP? Academics need to be neutral since topics related to the language movement and liberation war generally are fantastically controversial in Bangladesh and each party has it's own interpretations. Your delusional fairytale as told in the article is just one such view.

It would be best if this matter was arbitrated by a Non Bengali (non Indian) moderator. It is an important principle that certain moderators not have sway over what is written or not on vast swathes of wiki eg. Bangladesh-related articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.13.236 (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you trying to tell me what my opinion is? I don't mean to be rude, but I think I know what I meant when I wrote the article. I don't need anyone to warp my words. Why would I retract my article? It's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Negative perceptions of one's own dialect *do not* equate cultural oppression. If that constitutes cultural oppression, then *every* language in the world exhibits this oppression. I am just talking about the negative perceptions *all* speakers of non-standard dialects can feel, whether they speak non-standard English, Japanese, or Bengali. Bengali is hardly unique in choosing a standard dialect over other dialects.

Around the world, there are a small number of cases where is true cultural oppression of a linguistic group, where people are jailed or killed for speaking a certain way. In the vast majority of cases, however, there is simply a negative perception of non-standard dialects or non-official languages, a perception that normally does not lead to oppression. This is the case with English dialects, Spanish dialects, Arabic dialects, etc., as well as (my impression of) the situation with regard to Bengali dialects. As I said, if you feel there is something more serious going on, please find an academic study (from whatever country). My article neither agrees with your belief nor counts as a scholarly article. --SameerKhan (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to be consistant and coherant. I am actually quoting the article ie. no interpretation necessary by the reader.There is no misquote. It's good you stick to your article. This means that I can use this as one of my two refele you purport to have written talks about negative perceptions of regional languages as one such language was chosen to be 'standard'. This is EXACTLY my point and the point in the addition to this wiki entry. You don't want to talk about linguistic suppression in the article, fine. But the piece does talk about the wider situation in Bangladesh regarding use of language so there you go. This makes my point for me. It also echoes the irony of decrying Pakistani linguistic treatment while IGNORING the fact that regional languages are treated differently in post 1971 Bangladesh. Whether this is an 'active suppression' or nor is addressed in the other British Sylheti article. The criticisms of the language movement currently on the article only view things from a party political view ie. Jamaati opposition to the movement. It is very important the criticisms also include reference to how regional languages and the shuddho ('pure') language affect people post 1971. Since this affects life chances/choices for millions of Bangladeshis, it needs to be included. Just because we are Bangladeshis shouldn't mean that we don't take a rounded view of things.

This particular incident is one in a long line of incidents regarding Bangladeshi and Sylheti related articles where this one 'moderator' Ragib is constantly taking Pro Bangla nationalist, and centrist positions as opposed to regional realities. The world does not run according to Ragib. Until I pointed out his bias, Ragib had a policy of welcoming Bengali wiki members from Dhaka and those who spoke Shuddho. He also contributed to sites representing Dhaka-based diaspora political fronts like Drishtipat which profile him and then naturally defends them from fully referenced additions which shows them in a poor light. This isn't about references at all but whether one person from a particular political persuasion should control what is and isn't included in all Bangla related wiki articles.

Is Ragib man enough to take this to arbitration by Non Bengali or Indian mods?

If my sources are of concern, what of the existing ones on this article? For example what do we know about Al Helal and Umar? How do we know this isn't just their personal opinion, which like 'Sameer Khan' they will change at a whim (or more likely threat of violence from political forces)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.13.236 (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Habz, please stop talking nonsense. You are not talking logically at all. Your fringe theory is supported by no reference, the only article you claim as reference is written by Sameer, and he clarifies above that it doesn't support your position at all. :)

What long line of "incidents" are you talking about here? What Pro-"Bangla" nationalism? The only thing here is a long term vandalism of multiple article. Back in 2007, you were banned for this. If I recall correctly, you did have "references", but that turned out to be your own comments inserted in a blog of an organization, and you claimed those to be proof of bias. I am amused by your "persecution theory" above, and your theory about my welcome messages. :) What do you imply ... before welcoming someone, I magically know which language they speak? And then based on what accent or dialect of language a wikipedian speaks (which somehow magically becomes known to me), I welcome them? Aren't you sounding ridiculous here?

Also, can you please explain your obsession with "Dhaka"? I had earlier mentioned to your previous incarnation that I am not from Dhaka, and none in my immediate family are ... I am also curious about how you identify just from the username that a particular wikipedian is from Dhaka. What's the secret? Also, if you are talking about the standardized Bengali, the lay people of Dhaka don't speak that either. So, what's the deal with your "Dhaka" complex?

Also, Helal and Umar are well known sources of information on the movement, and your website is unfortunately, a self-published unreliable site. Ridiculous to compare them at all.

Finally, please stop harassing SameerKhan. He has provided enough clarification for his article, and what it means. It's funny that you claim to know better than him what his article means. Your rant against Bangladeshi academics is also deplorable and racist. I hope you will refrain from making further racist comments. --Ragib (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

To 82.12.13.236—

Your first reference isn't supporting your side (as Ragib and Sameer explained it above). Secondly, you cited from a site that isn’t neutral in this issue. They are so focused on the supremacy of Sylheti language, though that isn’t been achieved yet. So, your second one isn’t reliable either. Thirdly, you noted Bangladesh as a multilingual country. Forget to mention the reference? Now see here that Bangladesh is a monolingual country. Districts (like Sylhet, Rangpur, Naogaon, Jessore, Chittagong, Mymensingh etc) have their own dialects. Mostly they are just modified form of Bengali. So, stop adding things that are not reliable or relevant. Thanks. Tanvir 17:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

--82.12.13.236 (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Do non Benmgali wiki moderators not wish to moderate here? Welcome nevertheless Tanvir.

With regards the point about the article supporting my position regarding:

-Ekushey being a narrow minded celebration of Shuddho ('pure') Bangla rather than the regional languages spoken by most Bangladeshis

-There never was a stage where there was one unified Bengali language but a patchwork of dialects and languages, with Sylheti and Chatgaiya being UNINTELLIGABLE to other Bengalis

-Sylheti and Chatgaiya can be considered on the extreme edge of the Bengali language continuum and entirely seperate language (with Sylheti having it's own script).

-And the damaging effects of pushing ope language over others and parallel to Pakistani policies.

-Also the fact Bangladesh is a MULTIETHNIC MULTILINGUAL nation

Please see the below portions of the article with highlights.

Of course, having a written form so closely related to the spoken form is not a bad thing at all; typically, this encourages literacy and pursuit of scholarly activities, and makes the literature of a language more accessible to its speakers. However, this is not exactly the case with the transition from shadhu bhasha to cholti bhasha; in basing the new form of written language solely on the central dialect group, speakers from all other dialect regions found themselves having to learn an entirely new set of pronunciation and grammar rules.

Now, one may claim that Bangladeshis are simply so ethnically and linguistically homogeneous that it would not make sense to celebrate any language other than Bangla, but in fact we are all aware that this is not the case. Not only is Bangladesh ethnically heterogeneous—with Bangalis coexisting with lakhs of Santals, Biharis, Khasis, Garos, Bishnupriya Manipuris, Oraons, Mundas, Chakmas, Marmas, Tipperas, Mros, and other peoples—it is also highly diverse linguistically. In addition to the myriad of Tibeto-Burman, Austro-Asiatic, and Dravidian languages spoken by the non-Bangali groups, the country is rich with countless dialects and sub-dialects of Bangla. The term “dialect” is used here in the scientific sense, denoting any variant of a language, whether it is the “standard dialect” or otherwise. Indeed, experts have long described Bangla as a “dialect continuum”, a large group of related variants of the same language, where neighboring dialects—such as those of Tangail and Gazipur—are mutually intelligible (people from one group can easily understand those from another), and dialects spoken geographically far from one another—such as those of Noakhali and Dinajpur—are mutually unintelligible. The dialects at the geographical extremes of the continuum, such as Sylheti, Chittagonian, Mal Paharia, and Rohingya, are often so unintelligible to speakers of other dialects that they are considered COMPLETELY SEPERATE LANGUAGES.

Of course, having a written form so closely related to the spoken form is not a bad thing at all; typically, this encourages literacy and pursuit of scholarly activities, and makes the literature of a language more accessible to its speakers. However, this is not exactly the case with the transition from shadhu bhasha to cholti bhasha; in basing the new form of written language solely on the central dialect group, speakers from all other dialect regions found themselves having to learn an entirely new set of pronunciation and grammar rules.

Calling one form of Bangla shuddho assumes that there was once a stage of Bangla that was “pure”—stable, complete, and devoid of all external influences—and that a “pure” dialect should be more faithful to it. Such a stage of Bangla, however, has never existed.

A third term for the standard central dialect of Bangla—bhalo bangla—is even more damaging to our views of non-central dialects. One of the essential tenets of modern linguistic theory is that all forms of language—signed, spoken, written, standard, and nonstandard—are equally grammatical, equally developed, and equally complex. Native speakers of every dialect of every language can express an infinite number of concepts through their mother tongue, drawing on the basic universal structures and patterns that underlie all human languages.

But what does all this background on the history of Bangla dialects have to do with how we celebrate Ekushey February? The answer lies in the spirit of the holiday: recognising and appreciating your own mother tongue, whatever it may be. For most Bangladeshis, their mother tongue is a form of Bangla, but only a few urbanites can claim that their mother tongue is truly the same as what’s written in the books they read at the Ekushe Boi Mela. The overwhelming majority of Bangladeshis speak one of the many nonstandard dialects of Bangla, not the standard central dialect from West Bengal—and as we’ve already established, no one dialect of Bangla is more pure, pleasant, or grammatical than the others. So why do we assume that our language should emulate a form of speech from beyond our own national borders? Isn’t that exactly the reason why we protested the establishment of Urdu as our official language? What makes this form of linguistic supremacy any better than that of the Pakistani era? The point is that as individuals, we should recognise and respect our own speech—our own native dialects, our genuine mother tongues—and promote all forms of language in general. At the fundamental core of International Mother Language Day is the appreciation of diversity; to truly honour its spirit of universality, 21 February shouldn’t just be a celebration of one standardised variant of our language, but of the rich, diverse forms of Bangla and other languages spoken in this country.

The above should inform ANY REASONABLE reader who is TRUELY INTERESTED IN LINGUISTICS that my additions are clearly supported in this article as well as the Sylheti article.

Finally, Tanvir, what do you mean about the Sylheti reference is: 'so focused on the supremacy of Sylheti language, though that isn’t been achieved yet'? I could say the same about the pro Bengali nationalist position of many of the existing references. They concentrate on proving the supremacy of Shuddho ('pure Bangla;'). A position the article above finds damaging to perceptions of dialects and languages in Bangladesh. Especially as the official 'Shuddho' is spoken by a MINORITY. Your article from Govt of Bangladesh similarly takes this ideological rather than linguistic approach to defining Bangla. It is also out of date (Rangpur is now a seperate Division of Bangladesh).

The opposition to me is not based on references backing my contribution but political ideology and an example of the nationalistic attempt to suppress regional languages in favour of giving an international view to foreigners about Bengali being a single unified homogeneous language----regardless of reality.

You wouldn't be opposed to the Sylheti article because of the traditional animosity between Dhakaiyas and Sylhetis, would you??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.13.236 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the rant against "Dhakaiya". Would you PLEASE clarify what grudge you have against such people from a specific region? You freely apply this epithet to everyone, regardless of whether or not they are from Dhaka city or region. Care to explain a bit what you mean by "Dhakaiya"?

Also, you are again twisting SameerKhan's article. Please read his explanation above. It is beyond ridiculous that you claim you have a better understanding of SameerKhan's own article than the author. So, stop harassing the author and stop twisting his article ... you are simply unable to understand his words. Even after a clarification from the author!! --Ragib (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the highlights above please. These are DIRECT QUOTES. The 'clarifications' from the 'author' (no evidence of authorship provided) you talk about are so fundamental to the article that this article would have to be withdrawn from the Daily Star newspaper as entirely unreliable. With a note of explanation to accompany the withdrawal for readers. To maintain standards as this is a 'special feature' article the newspaper would also then have to investigate how an unqualified and unreliable author was permitted to publish. When this happens, I will automatically withdraw my amendments which rely on the above article. Not before. --82.12.13.236 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

You keep on being hilarious :). <sarcasm>Ok, now I claim that in your above statement, you claimed the world to be flat. No point in denying that ... I claim I know better than you what you think you wrote!!</sarcasm>. STOP harassing the author .. you keep on proving that you are utterly incapable of understanding articles, and even argue with the author when he says you DID NOT understand his writeup at all. This type of behavior is simply harassment, and getting to the point of deliberate trolling. No author is under any obligation to provide any clarification to anyone incapable of reading the writeup and comprehending that ... yet Sameer provided a patient explanation. If you can't understand his writeup, perhaps you need to read it again, or sharpen your linguistic skills. --Ragib (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Dialect vs Language: One point, from the above discussion, grabbed my attention to a greater extent. If I am not wrong, Bangla is the language and Rangpuri, Dhakayaia or even my own home-language Noakhali is a Dialect. I understand that Sylheti and Chatgaiya dialect established themselves as a language because of their structure which is distinct from Bangla. But that does not mean Bangla refers to only Pure Bangla. It includes its dialects as well. Language movement wasn't an event that involves only Pure Bangla rather its objective was to establish Bangla as a whole as one of the state languages. So, the title itself of this discussion is somewhat misleading. I presume that it was intentionally done by the anonymous user who introduced a vague claim to misguide non-Bengali speaking Wikipedians in future discussion. I will reply on the so called cultural suppression later. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 21:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Look, buddy, if you're so distressed about the dialects/languages oppressed by "pure Bangla", you can start making legitimate contributions to relevant articles - Bengali dialects, Sylheti language, Chittagonian language, or all three. Remember to stick to Wikipedia policies while you're at it. And, hey, if you really want to do so in a random article to draw attention of non-Bangladeshi moderators, try United States Constitution or United Nations or even World War II. It can be guaranteed that with the attention you want to draw, you'll manage to get your entire range of IPs banned pretty quickly. Have fun. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bengali Language Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070611133436/http://www.urducouncil.nic.in/pers_pp/index.htm to http://www.urducouncil.nic.in/pers_pp/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Language Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118214900/http://www.therepublicofrumi.com/chronicle/1954.htm to http://www.therepublicofrumi.com/chronicle/1954.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151002011317/https://mukto-mona.com/new_site/mukto-mona/bengali_heritage/bangla_language_movement.htm to https://mukto-mona.com/new_site/mukto-mona/bengali_heritage/bangla_language_movement.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)