Talk:Newar language

Requested move 28 December 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nepal Bhasa language → Nepal Bhasa language – Nepal Bhasa is the official term given by the government of Nepal. Also, the original name is "Nepal Bhasa." The term "Newar" or any other terms other than "Nepal Bhasa" are blatantly misleading, non-veracious, unscientific and derogatory. Kinsu08 (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read the outcome of the previous move requests, especially what it says about the basis in Wikipedia policy that such proposals need to have. Since I'm not seeing anything in your proposal at the moment that addresses these policy considerations, I will close this proposal soon. There is no point in trying to revise the result of the previous move debates unless you have some new and policy-conformant arguments to put on the table. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Rather than just talking about Wikipedia's guidelines and all, please stick on to the facts or at least do some research before vandalizing a certain ethnic group's identity that has been existing for thousands of years. I propose this change because it is true. Kindly tell me what proof do you want before preposterously vandalizing this content. Kinsu08 (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Although "Nepal Bhasa" is the official name, the surveys discussed above show that it is not the most common name used in reliable English-language sources, which is the key factor for Wikipedia. Kanguole 19:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Your contention has lost its ground here. You can't drop the original name of something that belongs to an ethnic group just because of some unaware wiki users unrelated to this field here couldn't find the "common name used in reliable English-language sources". (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you may be the one who is coming into this argument "unaware" (and I mean that in a factual sense, not an uncivil sense). Newar is a Sino-Tibetan language. "Nepal" (Sanskrit form) and "Newar" (Prakrit form) are both different forms of the same word, an Indo-Aryan word, so neither are likely to be the "original name". Further, per the references at Newar language#Name, the first known occurrence of either term in reference to the language was in 1380 AD -- a far cry from an "identity...existing for thousands of years" as you said above. So, as a friendly suggestion, in order to enhance your experience here at Wikipedia and minimize your frustration, I suggest you follow your own advice above and "do some research" (of scholarly literature, not nationalist propaganda). Also, familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia policy would be to your advantage as well. As Fut.Perf. points out above, unless you have new policy-based arguments supported by new evidence (i.e. quotes from reliable sources, not just your opinion), the results of the previous Move Requests aren't likely to change.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 07:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Claimed alternative names

I have again reverted the addition of poorly sourced alternative names "Newarese" and "Nepalese":

• Hodgson made a single passing mention of "Newárese", in a 1850 article about "Mongolian affinities of the Causasians"[1], but it is clear that his usual term for the language was "Newari"[2][3].
• "Nepalese" appears as a parenthetical literal translation of "Nepal Bhasa" on the cover of a magazine written in that language. (File:Buddha dharma magazine cover 1929.jpg)

Neither is evidence that these names were current in English-language sources. Kanguole 09:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC):

• I believe you concealed lots of sources. The phrase "Nepalese" in the sense of language has been well-established to refer to "Nepal Bhasa", and many sources other than an official magazine used it, such as this one (I believe someone just purchased it because its price goes to $45 from $11 in merely one week). I cannot list all the sources one by one, but whatever many I list one can always easily claim "see, there are very few".
• "Newarese" is just an alternative transcription, and should be considered a variant of "Nepalese" rather than a different name. Either way it has also been mentioned many times as an adjective for the Newah culture, nation, language and scriptures, the most recent one being in 1994.
• The word "Nepalese" has seldomly, if not never, been used to specifically refer to the Pahari culture, nation, language and scriptures in any publications. This term almost exclusively refer to that of the Nepal Valley/Newah/Newarese. In fact, that's exactly the reason why the Nepalese people choose an Indo-Aryan suffix "-i" not generally presented in English and form a neologism "Nepali" to refer to the Khaskura language. One cannot deny the link between the word "Nepalese language" and the word "Newar language" due to the existence of "Nepali language", just like one cannot deny the link between the word "Arakanese language" and the word "Rakhine language" simply because the existence of "Rohingya language".
  1. You can check Google Books and Google Scholar results which verify my claims. Don't use Google Web, which includes lots of personal blogs, unpublished advertisements.
  2. Note: When followed by "people", it is used as a nationality (Nepalese nationality) just like the case of "Burmese / Myanma / Myanmese" nationality although "Myanmar language" or "Burmese language" refer to the language of the Bamars.
• In no case should you unilaterally delete important sourced material twice. --Meh Kan Guo (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I have hidden nothing. Per WP:BURDEN, it is the responsibility of the person who wishes to add disputed material (i.e. you) to show that it is verifiable. Ideally that would be a source talking about English-language usage (as we have for "Newari" and "Newar"), rather than examples of usage. But the new examples are not even that:

• Ayton's grammar is available online, and is about Nepali.
• The journal article is clearly talking about the country of Nepal as a whole.

The rest is your view of how words should be used, or how their counterparts are used in other languages, rather than how they are (or were) used in English. Yes, these terms have a common origin, but they are different words in English. You have provided no evidence for the usage you wish this article to state. Kanguole 10:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

1. How come did you claim that Ayton's book is about Nepali? Nepalabhasa was a highly Sanskritized language, simply mentioning "Indo-Aryon" does not help your claim that the language discussed were Khaskura. I strongly suspect you are trolling me.
2. I was talking about the mentioning of Newarese in the 1994 article, are you claiming that it's about the Nepalese nationality which includes all ethnics in Nepal? Well if that's the case you should add "Newarese" in the article Nepalese people. Such claim sounds absurd and if not deliberate, would only prove your lack of knowledge about Nepal. --107.77.195.86 (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
3. The rest of my claim was not what I thought, but based on the evidences listed before. You made a claim against the evidences and if you can prove it, it will weaken my claim that Nepalese seldomly refer to Nepali specifically, but you need evidence to prove it. Also you ignored the frequency check on Google Books and Google Scholars. --107.77.195.86 (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I gave a pointer to the full text of Ayton's grammar – you can check it yourself. Or you can look in any survey of Nepali and see it mentioned as the first western study of the language.

The journal article uses "Nepalese" for things associated with the country, and mentions "Newarese" people, but neither is about language. You might say it is logical to extend it to language, but usage often does not follow one's idea of logic.

Read WP:BURDEN: you want to add the claim that this language used to be called "Nepalese" or "Newarese", so it is up to you to provide evidence for this. So far, you have not. You have produced four links, which I have addressed above – they do not substantiate the claim you wish to add. Kanguole 16:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Using the term Nepal Bhasa

Lets bring back the debate on name of this page. Back few years ago the name of this page was Nepal Bhasa, but the page has been moved to Newar. Whatever might the argument be, it is derogatory and insulting to use a name the community does not have ownership on. Before there is much of whitesplaining based on online resources, we need to understand the language politics of Nepal.

Until the invasion of Gurkhas in Nepal, and systematic suppression by the Shah, Rana and Panchayat, the Newa people had maintained their terminology ‘Nepal’. The use of the term ‘Nepal’ was not deterred until the Gorkhalis made their new capital in Nepal, after occupying it and the day Gorkhalis decided to co-opt the term ‘Nepal’. The Gorkhalis decided that they would use the name ‘Nepal’ to rename their expanded territory. Then, what was known as ‘Gorkha Bhasa'(the language of Gorkhas) was termed as ‘Nepali Bhasa’. The prominence of term ‘Nepal Bhasa, Nepal Sambat, Nepal Lipi’ was deterred and it was attempted to be erased and replaced with the term ‘Newari’ by the rulers then. An indic suffix ‘i’ was added to the term ‘Newar’, and the term ‘Newari’ formed. The term ‘Newari’ has to do with colonial legacy and establishment of hegemony of Gorkha Bhasa to erase the languages of indigenous nations amongst which was ‘Nepal Bhasa’. Since then, the terms ‘Nepal’ and ‘Newa’ became noninterchangeable.

Before the promulgation of Interim Constitution of Nepal 2005, languages apart from Nepali language was banned. The languages received a hostile state environment. During it, many names have been coined for non-Khas ethnic groups which might not have been appropriate and respectful. However, with this language's case, the Government of Nepal has already declared its official recognization as Nepal Bhasa. When the government of Nepal has itself accepted the official use of term in 1998, what is the point of going back to the term 'Newar' which isn't even a colloquial term among the speakers of the language. I notice a recurring trend in Nepal related Wikipedia pages, where non-mainstream ideas and indigenous perspectives gets slowly removed out of the article. There was a section in this article about the name of the language and also the news paper clipping of the declaration, but it seems to be removed now.

I want to bring this discussion back.

Support

• RukshanaNewa (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• I support to move the page into Nepal Bhasa. The government of Nepal officially recognizes it as Nepal Bhasa. - EkniBhattaKhas (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of RukshanaNewa. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• नेपालीमुक्ती (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of RukshanaNewa. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• kinsu08 (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

• Per WP:COMMONNAME, article titles are not governed by official names but by usage in reliable English-language sources. German and Chinese are not their official names either. Kanguole 08:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• I understand the sensitivities here, and think 'Newari' is thus probably not necessary or appropriate, but 'Newar' (without the -i) seems unproblematic, since in Newar the word is pronounced Newaa. Tibetologist (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Per Kanguole and all of the arguments of the RM that resulted in the current name five years ago in 2014. See the archives for other RMs since then which have all failed. Fut.Perf.'s comments in the close of #Move 3 still seem particularly relevant today.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 16:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• COMMONNAME is the controlling policy, and no evidence has been presented that the alternate is in common English use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• As for the previous discussions, WP isn't under the authority of the Government of Nepal and the English Wikipedia has its own policies, notably WP:COMMONNAME. The only way to make a persuasive argument to rename the article is to list a number of reliable English sources that prefer the proposed use. Kanguole's examples are also relevant and it's true for others like French, Finnish, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 07:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing in the original statement or subsequent comments provided by the support !voters is a sufficient reason to ignore the consensus reached at the previous move requests. Unless reliable sources can be provided to the contrary, this article is at the correct location per WP:COMMONNAME. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources

There seems to be a distinct lack of independent reliable sources above. I offer this one. I'm sure there are many more. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There are many more in the old move discussions (Talk:Newar language/Archive 1). This source has a discussion of names. Kanguole 11:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It is Nepal Bhasa, not newar/newari language

This page is misleading. "NEPAL BHASA" is the official name of the language and originally named by the indigenous people of Nepal. The language is in no way referred to as "Newar language" by anybody in Nepal. The title name of the page itself is an attack to the name of the language and origin. Nepal Bhasa originated in Nepal and Nepali government has given the official status and name to this language as "Nepal Bhasa" and should be referred the same the way it has been originated. Nepal and Nepali people hold the exclusive right to name its own language. Changing the name of the original is unethical, intolerance and an attack to the history and community. kinsu08 05:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This is an English-language encyclopedia, and we use the English-language common name of things in our article titles. If you believe that "Nepal Bhasa" is in common usage in English, then present evidence supporting that claim. Without such evidence, it is highly unlikely that the article's title will be changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what people in Nepal call it, we don't have Francais or Nihongo articles, we have French and Japanese articles, because English Wikipedia uses English article titles, that's the way things work. 136.158.58.17 (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Now wikipedia has a page: "Nepalis". In English, it is "Nepalese". In Nepali, it is "Nepalis". Is there a double standard policy of so-called English wikipedia? So if you don't care as a matter of your blatant ignorance what we call it in Nepal, which you definitely should have, then why "Nepalis" and not "Nepalese" on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Kinsu08 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

"Nepalis" is a perfectly good English word which is the plural of "Nepali", so there's no double standard. We simply name articles in English, like "Dutch language", which is certainly not the name preferred by the speakers of that language, but is the common term in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Colour issues

In the Phonology section, the incidence of phonemes in Kathmandu or Dolakha Newar is indicated by colour only, which will be inaccessible to some readers. In addition, light colours provide poor contrast. Kanguole 10:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Should be fixed(?) now. I split the consonant and vowel tables into two tables each and removed the color-based formatting. I don't know if that is the most elegant solution, and while I decided to remove the rows and columns that Kathmandu and Dolakha didn't use, perhaps they would be better left in to let readers compare them better. Jan kala kabinet (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi

Hi I am deepsun shrestha I am from grade 2 b my school name is united Universal school I am newari culture I am 8 years old and say goodbye to tecnoblade 2400:1A00:B040:8C52:6455:CBFE:15D2:5465 (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Same to you 103.167.232.84 (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)