Jump to content

Talk:Newar language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eukesh (talk | contribs) at 03:51, 21 August 2014 (→Use of "Nepal Bhasa" in English literature). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nepali language

No - Newa (Nepal Bhasa in this article) is the local language of the Kathmandu Valley, whereas Nepali comes from further to the west. Newa is a Sino-Tibetan language, while Nepali is an Indo-European language. BovineBeast 16:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization scheme

  • Is there any rationale to the initial case of the romanizations in the list of common words and phrases? I can't see a pattern that tells me why some are capitalized and others lower-case. The devanagari spellings don't seem to differentiate. If no one explains the system or expresses a preference I'll go in eventually and make them uniform one way or t'other. --Haruo 06:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

Hindi is my mother tongue...Bhojpuri /awadhi/maithili are dialects of Hindi

Thanks for the information. It must have been overlooked. It is now corrected. Hindi is very similar to Maithili, Bhojpuri and Nepali. So, people of cities esp in Terai understand it. I could not find any information on second and third language of Nepalese population. However, as far as I know, in places where there are no cable lines and Hindi channels, the comprehensibility of Hindi is low even in Terai region (however, this should not be confused with Maithili or Bhojpuri which are the dominant languages in terai). In Chure, Hills or Mountains, people almost do not understand Hindi outside cities. As you have mentioned, more than 80 percent of Nepalese population do understand Hindi by now thanks to Nepal Television's regular broadcast of Mumbai based Hindi programs (not a single program of Nepalese Hindi speakers have been telecasted in Nepal Television till date). Thanks again.--Eukesh 12:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Newari

Classical Newari was redirecting to Nepal Bhasa. I've no knowledge whatsoever of Newari, either classical or modern, but since ISO 639-2 have assigned a specific code to Classical Newari, I guess it deserves a specific article. I have created the stub, and let specialists see if part(s) of the historical section of Nepal Bhasa article should be moved there.universimmedia (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars of Newar Studies

I am trying to create some pages about scholars who have or are working in Newar studies]. I do not know much though, so please help me. So far I have done Horst_Brinkhaus and Siegfried Lienhard Tibetologist (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creating new page for Writing section

The article is becoming very long and difficult to navigate. Also, the old era and new era and then again renaissance era, modern era and other eras are confusing.

I would suggest streamlining the different periods in the development of the language. And moving the Writing system section to a main page. Karrattul (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhupalchowk Pahari?

Is this really a dialect of Nepal? This sounds... just weird. --114.132.245.65 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Nepals of Nepal don't speak Nepal, but Nepal

This is silly. At least provide a ref. — kwami (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes perfect sense. The Nepals/Newars of Nepal Mandala speak Nepal. Other examples are- the Tamils of Tamil Nadu speak Tamil, the Telugu speak Telugu, the Kannada speak Kannada, the Tulu of Tulu Nadu speak Tulu. This could go on for ever!--Eukesh (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense at all. This is English WP. The articles need to be in English. "Nepal" is not a language name in English. The Newari cannot speak "Nepal". That's like saying they speak "Kathmandu". — kwami (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abt the name

I would like to request the users here to kindly discuss and cite relevant references before making drastic changes in the article, such as the name of the article itself. Thank you!--Eukesh (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to revert a good faith edit with which you disagree as "revert vandalism". Your source is unavailable and in Newari, so it's difficult to confirm. If you have a copy of the book, would you be so kind as to add a quote to the cite? Third, there's no reason to delete previous, useful information like the fact that नेवाः भाय् was the Newari pronunciation of "Nepal Bhasa" due to regular phonetic changes over time until recent governmental decree that it must be called नेपाल भाषा. You are *removing* information. Ogress smash! 14:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ogress, thanks for the comment. First of all, lets get the facts straight. The page name was changed from "Nepal Bhasa" to "Newari" and not the other way around. The change was made without a discussion in the talk page, citing no sources and leaving no reasons. I just reverted it back to its original heading. Second, regarding my source, the name of the book itself is "The History of Nepalbhasa literature" which is published by "Nepalbhasha Academy", the regulating body of the language. So, the names themselves are proofs that the proper term is Nepal Bhasa. Also, in page 10 of the book, it gives various historical sources of the usage of name. Some of them are cited in the article itself. Regarding, removing नेवाः भाय्, it is a colloquial term, which has never been used in any publications. There is no problem replacing the term inthe page. The reason why I call it vandalism is because it was a hostile edit conflict started without any mention of intent or any discussion in either the talk page of the article or talk page of its regular editors. Also, it might not be your intent, but I can sense double standards against me when I have to explain why I was reverting the original page but no one is questioning the hostile "original" move. Thank you.--Eukesh (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article, in a bout of hostile edits, was moved by a user with very little contribution to the article. The user did so without any discussion in the talk page or with the editors of the page. Since the user is not responding to messages, the page has been moved to its original name (with citations). Thank you--Eukesh (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the majority of sources (and existing Wikipedia articles with the name in it) list the name as Nepal Bhasa, I recommend we maintain that form over Nepalbhasa, which is not the format for transliteration used. Conjunct forms like "Nepalabhasa" are restricted to Sanskrit; Modern (not to mention Apabhramsa and Prakrit) Indic languages make word divisions based on native intonation and division and, additionally, those forms are easy to read. This is an issue I deal with frequently in regards to the romanisation of Sinitic writing systems, where it also shows up as a problem. Given that, would you petition for Classical Nepalbhasa be moved to Classical Nepal Bhasa on the "requested moves" page. Also, should the bhasa be capitalised? If so, petition also for Nepal bhasa > Nepal Bhasa. If not, then petition for Classical Nepal bhasa. I will support your requests if you tag me as the undivided terms are problematic.
Thanks for the comment. Well, Nepal Bhasa (or Nepalbhasa) is a unique case in that it is not an Apabhramsa or Prakrit, but a Sino-Tibetan language with heavy burrowing from Sanskrit and Pali. So, I am not sure if the rules of Apabhramsa apply to it. Like I mentioned earlier, the Academy uses both Nepalbhasa and Nepal Bhasa. I can see your point, though. Where do I make the petition?--Eukesh (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The clear majority of my sources call it "Newari". "Nepal Bhasa" is the Gorkha name, not the autonym. That's fine, if it's come to predominate in English, but that would require demonstration. The common English name is certainly not "Nepal", "Nepalbhasa", "abcdefg", or any of the other ridiculous names Eukesh has moved it to.

The classical language is a separate issue. It could well be that Nepal Bhasa is used for one and Newari for the other. As usual, we follow the preponderance of sources. — kwami (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami, cite your sources. Do not lie. Nepal Bhasa is not a Gorkha name, its a native name. Are you not following the discussion at all? The term Newari is a pejorative term, a fact that is cited in the article. Please stop your bullying. I can clearly see why people are leaving wikipedia. --Eukesh (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kwami has been changing the name of the language despite repeated edits and using words like "ridiculous" and "bizarre" to describe other editors. Nobody can change the name of a language that has come down from centuries past. This Kwami has changed the name citing AFAIK arguments and challenging others to "take it to talk". He should "take it to talk". Kwami's sole contribution to this article, which has taken years to develop, is changing its name repeatedly, and he even refuses to recognize the decision of the Government of Nepal. WP admins need to give thought to vandalism like this as it could affect credibility. When vandals can change the name of an article and language as if they are the authority on it, people may start leaving WP, so admins should have some sort of control over what is changed. Zulufive (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected for one month

Following a message on my talk page from an involved editor concerned about recent disputes on this article, I see that there has been both edit warring and contested page moves. It is appears that discussion on the talk page has not been taking place in collaborative atmosphere; there are repeated accusations of vandalism and bullying.

Per WP:NOTVANDAL, I remind editors that a good-faith effort to improve Wikipedia is not vandalism. The edits may be disputed, and may in some circumstances be regarded as disruptive, but editors should be very cautious about labelling other contributions as vandalism.

To stop the edit war and move war, I have fully protected the page for one month. The protection will expire on 23 August 2014.

To edit this article while it is protected
  • Start a new section on the page, and place {{Edit protected}} at the top. Then explain the changes you proposed. An admin will review the request.
    Note that such requests are usually accepted only if the change is uncontroversial, or if there is a consensus in favour of it.
To move the page while it is protected
  • Open a Requested move discussion. The closing admin will determine whether there is a consensus to move the article.

Please note that I have no view on any of the issues which have been in dispute, and no view about whether the current title or contents of the article are appropriate. See the humorous, tongue-in-cheek essay m:The Wrong Version. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move page

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: provisionally moved back to Nepal Bhasa. This is, however, not an endorsement of a currently valid consensus for that title. While there is a clear numerical preponderance of editors who have argued with much personal conviction for this move, most of the arguments offered are merely based on the editors' subjective feeling that the term is historically more appropriate, apparently reflecting a politically motivated preference by members of the native speech community, but make little contact with the one question that is the sole decisive criterion according to our naming policies: What is the predominant usage in high-quality English language sources? About this question, based on the policy-conforming arguments as proposed so far, there is no consensus, with apparently a strong case being made that "Newari" might actually win out. This being a non-consensus situation, I am moving the page back to its long-term title before the bold move to "Newari" in May 2014, especially in order to avoid inconsistency with the (currently protected) article text, but I do encourage resubmission of an RM in favour of "Newari" on the basis of proper documentation in sources if that is felt appropriate, and I advise editors and future RM closers that only policy-conformant !votes should be taken into account then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Newari language → Nepal Bhasa – The page was called Nepal Bhasa before a hostile move from non-contributing user. Nepal Bhasa is the official name of the language as per Government of Nepal (see image in the article). Nepal Bhasa is the common/standard name used by language regulating bodies in their publications, including Nepal Bhasa Academy, Nepal Bhasa Parishad, Tribhuwan University Central Department of Nepal Bhasa (the only higher academic institution of Nepal Bhasa studies in the world) and various organizations (Chwasa Pasa, Asha Archives, Pasa Pucha International, World Newah Organization, Newah Organization of America), media (Dharmodaya, Matina Internation magazine, The Rising Nepal, Image Channel, Nepalmandal, local FMs), mobile apps(Nepal Bhasa dictionary), journals (Journal of Newah Studies), Buddhist organizations and native speakers. The term "Newari" has been listed as pejorative term by Ethnologue (there is negative connotation associated with the term "Newari" in the native community). A majority of work on the language (in English, Nepal Bhasa, Nepali and Hindi) are yet not available online, primarily due to the digital divide. So, it is very hard to find stuffs about it online. However, a list of sources and links will be added below. Eukesh (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Nepal Bhasa"

The term "Nepal Bhasa" is used in English, officially as well as commonly. Here are some examples and facts about its use-

Thank you--Eukesh (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This is a linguistic article, and we should follow the preponderance of linguistic sources. According to Hargreaves ("Kathmandu Newar", in LaPolla & Thurgood, eds., The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 2006), "Nepal Bhasa" is Kathmandu Newari -- that is, it's the standard form or prestige dialect of the language, not the language as a whole. Moving this article to "Nepal Bhasa" would therefore be like moving "French" to "Parisian" to "English" to "Received Pronunciation". Hargreaves describes the situation as follows:

Nepāl Bhāśā (Kathmandu Newar) ... is the language of the Newars of the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal. The term Nepāl Bhāśā and the colloquial term /newa bhæː/ are the traditional Newar terms, although Western and Newar linguists publishing outside Nepal have usually used the term Newari, and more recently, Newar.

Publications which use "Newari" include
  • Kamal Prakash Malla, The Newari Language: A Working Outline, and Classical Newari Literature
  • Tej R. Kansakar, Essential Newari Phrasebook: A Self-taught Guide to Conversational Newari
  • Iswaranand Sresthacharya, Newari root verbs
  • Thakur Lal Manandhar, Newari-English dictionary
  • the Library of Congress Subject Headings
  • I could go on and on. Overall, a Google Books search claims 60k hits for "Newari" but only 4k for "Nepal Bhasa" -- and most of the top-ranked of those are either mirrors of Wikipedia or mention "Nepal Bhasa" as an alternative name while using "Newari" in the text (e.g. Genetti A Grammar of Dolakha Newar). Even the restricted search "Newar language" turns up better results than the ones used to argue for a move. The preponderance of sources is clear, and the fact that Newar linguists use "Newari" belies the claim that it's pejorative.
— kwami (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on WP:SPOV. Hargreaves, David (2006). The Sino-Tibetan Languages. Routledge. p. 371., quite succinctly summarizes the matter:

KATHMANDU NEWAR (NEPAL BHASA)
Nepal Bhasa (Kathmandu Newar), spoken by approximately 690,000 speakers, is the language of the Newars of the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal (Kansakar 1997). The term Nepal Bhasa and the colloquial term /newa bhae:/ are the traditional Newar terms, alghough Western and Newar linguists publishing outside Nepal have usually used the term Newari, and more recently, Newar.

No such user (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the opposition

Regarding "This is a linguistic article"

This is an encyclopedic article about a language. All aspects of languages need to be addressed.

Regarding "and we should follow the preponderance of linguistic sources."

That is your point of view. There might have been a preponderance of archaic literature, it does not mean that it is true.

Regarding "According to Hargreaves ("Kathmandu Newar", in LaPolla & Thurgood, eds.,The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 2006), "Nepal Bhasa" is Kathmandu Newari -- that is, it's the standard form or prestige dialect of the language, not the language as a whole. Moving this article to "Nepal Bhasa" would therefore be like moving "French" to "Parisian" to "English" to "Received Pronunciation". "

Not really, sources:
  • papers like "Verb inflection in the Dolakha dialect of Nepal Bhasa" by Shrestha, Rudra Laxmi (1989)
  • In “A Grammar of Dolakha Newar”, Carol Genetti, writes “The Speakers of the Kathmandu dialect refer to their language as “Newa: bhae”, this being the modern reflex of “Nepal Bhasa” after the application of regular sound changes. This term, while perhaps being appropriate for the Kathmandu dialect, is not the ideal choice to refer to the family of dialects as a whole, especially those like Dolakhe, which did not undergo the same sound changes as the Kathmandu dialect”

which means that “Newa: bhae” is not representive, “Nepal Bhasa” is.

  • Gorkhapatra, in its regional language secion, has a section for both these dialects, which are called "Nepal Bhasa" and "Dolakhali Nepal Bhasa".
Regarding "Hargreaves describes the situation as follows:

Nepāl Bhāśā (Kathmandu Newar) ... is the language of the Newars of the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal. The term Nepāl Bhāśā and the colloquial term /newa bhæː/are the traditional Newar terms, although Western and Newar linguists publishing outside Nepal have usually used the term Newari, and more recently, Newar."

  • The quote does not say that Kathmandu Dialect is Nepal Bhasa. In fact, it says that there is a shift from “Newari” to Newar.
Regarding "Publications which use "Newari" include

• Kamal Prakash Malla, The Newari Language: A Working Outline, and Classical Newari Literature • Tej R. Kansakar, Essential Newari Phrasebook: A Self-taught Guide to Conversational Newari • Iswaranand Sresthacharya, Newari root verbs • Thakur Lal Manandhar, Newari-English dictionary • the Library of Congress Subject Headings"

  • The publications that you have mentioned were published in 80s, second dark age era, when a book could be banned if it had the words “Nepal Bhasa” in it. Also, it was long before the standardization of the name by the Government of Nepal. There were publications calling the language “Nevari” and a whole lot of variants. So, it does not really mean anything at all.
Regarding "I could go on and on. Overall, a Google Books search claims 60k hits for "Newari" but only 4k for "Nepal Bhasa" -- and most of the top-ranked of those are either mirrors of Wikipedia or mention "Nepal Bhasa" as an alternative name while using "Newari" in the text (e.g. Genetti A Grammar of Dolakha Newar)."
  • Like I mentioned before, a large volume of native publications are not available online. So, you can not judge by the hits you get in google books. Also, in book search, I found that there were 13,700,000 hits for Calcutta and 1,120,000 hits for Kolkata. So, why don’t you change the article Kolkata first? Btw, similar results can be found for Cochin vs Kochi, Trivandrum vs Thiruvananthapuram and many other subjects pertaining to South Asia. Do all of us a favor and change those articles first.
  • Also, unlike the term “Nepal Bhasa”, Newari can be used for anything from Newar architecture, to Newar culture to Newar cuisine, to Newar festivals to almost anything pertaining to Newars. The term Nepal Bhasa can be spelt as “Nepalabhasha”, “Nepal bhasha”, “Nepaalabhasha” and so on. So, it is basically a useless argument.
Regarding "Even the restricted search "Newar language" turns up better results than the ones used to argue for a move. The preponderance of sources is clear, and the fact that Newar linguists use "Newari" belies the claim that it's pejorative."
  • About pejorative, it is, some sources-
    • In “The Newar verb in Tibeto-Burman perspective” George van Driem from Rijksuniversiteit Leiden writes “Use of the Nepali term 'Newari' by English speakers, with its Indo-Aryan suffix, is increasingly felt to be objectionable by Newars.”
    • In “A Grammar of Dolakha Newar”, Carol Genetti writes “...some people in Newar community including some prominent Newar linguists consider the derivation suffix “i” found in the term Newari to constitute an “Indianization” ….These people thus hold the opinion that the term Newari is non-respectful to Newar culture."
  • Again, online preponderance does not mean anything. This is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. Like I mentioned earlier, "Calcutta" is more preponderant than “Kolkata”. It means nothing. The standard terms need to be used, not the terms that are trending in the internet. I believe this is Wikipedia and not twitter. Thank you--Eukesh (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming and moving Newari language to Nepal Bhasa as it was before

Support renaming and moving Newari language to Nepal Bhasa and rebuttal to arguments against.

  • Imposition of the term Newari and discouragement of the term Nepal Bhasa has been one of the tools used to suppress the language. Following the establishment of democracy in 1951, the name Nepal Bhasa began to be used more frequently. But since the 1960s after parliamentary democracy was abolished, the term again fell into official disfavour. The term Newari had to be used in notices and advertisements or they would not be published by the government media. Newar linguists, authors and publishers also used the term Newari to prevent rejection.
  • After the reinstatement of democracy in 1990, language lovers lobbied to have the name of the language reinstated which resulted in the government directives of 8 September 1995 and 13 November 1998.
See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Its_nepal_bhasa_clipping_9sept95.jpg
and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nepal_bhasa_trn14nov98.jpg
  • Regarding the references that have been cited to support the name Newari, I would urge readers to take a second look at them.
  • Dr. Anne Vergati who edited Thakur Lal Manandhar's Newari English Dictionary has written on page xi of the dictionary as follows:
The word Newar is of relatively recent usage. Previously the word Nepal referred only to the Valley; the language of its inhabitants was known as Nepāl-bhasā.
  • Kamal Prakash Malla, author of Classical Newari Literature, has written this on page 1 of the book:
The Capuchin missionaries who arrived in Nepal in the late 17th century and early 18th century, and the 19th-century British authors such as Kirkpatrick, Hamilton, and Hodgson popularized the term “Newāri”. The language, however, was called “Nepāla Bhāsā” in manuscripts dated since A.D. 1380 and inscriptions dated since A.D. 1410.
Following Jorgensen (1936; 1941), the term "classical Newari" is used here as a descriptive term, not as a term of literary or critical evaluation, to refer to the older dialects of Newari used mostly in manuscripts dated between ca. A. D. 1360-1900 (i.e., before modern Newari was set to printing).
See http://www.kpmalla.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Classical-Newari-Literature.pdf

Support Nepal Bhasa

Since Nepal Bhasa is the historical, officially endorsed and preferred name of the speakers, it should be retained as the title of the article.

From the context of Wiki policy, here are some points taken from Wikipedia:Article titles:

1. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change.

2. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.

3. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Karrattul (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nepal Bhasa

Country Nepal took the name from Kathmandu Valley when it used to be called Nepal , before conquest and annexation into Gorkha Empire , now called Nepal , by king Prithivi Narayan Shah . More info Thus the language of Nepal of then is Nepal Bhasha . Nepal Bhasha and Nepali Bhasha are both different and valid .

I request that for the language that all Nepalese can be proud of please do not link it to only Newar Caste , Please revert it back Nepal Bhasha --saroj (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Bhasa

I oppose the hostile move to unilaterally change the article Nepal Bhasa. I am sorry but I can't assume good faith when there is a change that is clearly against the wishes of the community. I request a revert. Nepal Bhasa is not ambiguous at all. It strictly refers to Nepal Bhasa. Historically speaking, the word Nepal refers to the valley. The revisionist attitude is unacceptable. Thank you. Kushal (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Bhasa is its proper name, not a common name for anyone to change

In present Nepal, there are 123 languages according to Census of Nepal, 2011. In the ancient Nepal, there were Nepal Bhasa, Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit, Maithil. New languages including Khas (Gorkhali), Tharu, Bhojpuri, Magar, Gurung, Sherpa, Limbu etc became parts of Nepal as dividends as Gorkhali king Prithvinarayan invaded Nepal in 1769 and went on conquering other independent principalities.

The Gorkhali language displaced Nepal Bhasa since then but the latter was spoken by Shah kings and later Rana rulers, and even by Gorkhali descendant kings such as Tribuvan, Mahendra, and even Gyanendra. Since the Gorkhali came into power, they not only replaced Nepal Bhasa the state language of Nepal but also reduced Nepal Bhasa into 'Newari' and named Gorkhali as Nepali usurping from Nepal Bhasa. All this was possible because the Gorkhalis were in power. As a result even the scholars, the Khas/Gorkhali/Nepali Bhasa speaking scholars use 'Newari' for Nepal Bhasa. And foreigners simply copy the term and wrote Newari in their "scholarly" papers in the West. So 'Newari' is English it seems. 'Nepal Bhasa' is not English, it seems. Even I myself thought `Newari` was the correct term for Nepal Bhasa, until I came to know the truth and the original name of it as Nepal Bhasa.

So in short, I request those who oppose the use of Nepal Bhasa to kindly read books (printed) before being prejudiced and haste to change the name of Nepal Bhasa into 'Newari' which is condemned by the user community. One important book is Nyayavikasini (in Sanskrit and Nepal Bhasa)[Nyayabikasini in Khas/Gorkhali/Nepali] in which the term 'Nepal Bhasa' is clearly written. This was the first law in the world dated 1380 AD.).

In response to the Khas/Gorkhali/Nepali speakers using Newari for Nepal Bhasa, the Nepal Bhasa speakers call Khas/Gorkhali/Nepali language as "Pakhe" language. So since someone willfully changed Nepal Bhasa into 'Newari,' should we also follow him/her to replace all 'Nepali' articles published on Wikipedia as "Pakhe" language? We do NOT think so. But if someone insists, then we will also have to waste our time for changing so called 'Nepali' into 'Pakhe'.

One last point and request to Wikipedia administration: Just because someone (without proper concern and knowledge) wants to change the name of a language, can it be allowed? Needless to say names are holy to those who own them. If Wikipedia lets the prejudiced people change the these holy names as they like, then Wikipedia will lose its respect from the informed people. The name of Nepal Bhasa is being displayed now as 'Newari' language as if even the Wikipedia is recognizing one prejudiced man's willful revision. This will create a unnecessary confusion. It may be someone's right to be confused. But he or she has no right to confuse others. So lets be informed and support Nepal Bhasa as it is the proper name of a language not a common name. - Suwarn Vajracharya

Support Nepal Bhasa

Actually Nepal was applied only to the Kathmandu Valley in the ancient time and the inhabitants of the Kathmandu were Nepali and their language was "Nepali Bhasha" but in the 18th century when the king of Gorkha merged the Nepal Kingdom in his Kingdom Gorkha he renamed his Kingdom as Nepal (he owned the name of the Kingdom of Kathmandu Valley) and the Gorkha language (khas kura) called Nepali language and the all people of his Kingdom called Nepali. Now the original inhabitants of Kathmandu Valley were confused that how we keep us isolated than the others so they used word Newar for the original inhabitants of Kathmandu and word "Newari" means "related to Newar", so some people thinks this language is related to Newars, so it should be "Newari language".  Nepab☺y  (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Language (Nepal Bhasa) is the correct name

The name of this language is "Nepal Bhasa"(Nepal Language). It has been called Nepal Bhasa from the begining. No matter what linguistic code is given to it, the article should remain as Nepal Language.--Ganesh Paudel (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Newar language. In closing the previous RM, I advised editors that any renewed RM would be evaluated not on headcount, but on the merit of policy-conformant argument, i.e. argument about current use in high-quality English sources. This second RM was a chance to clarify the situation in this respect. Unfortunately, I now find a result where the numerical majority of "oppose"-voters have again largely failed to make contact with this sole set of valid criteria in their argumentation. The vote by Zulufive and most of the vote by Eukesh are pure WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments; that by Karratul is purely a procedural complaint about the previous move attempts, and that by Kushal contains nothing by way of evaluable argument at all. In light of this, the plain and clear documentation of usage proposed by Kwamikagami and Kanguole carries the day, as the evidence of predominant use of "Newar[i]" was in no way successfully refuted despite attempts by Eukesh.
I note with regret that none of the opposers used the opportunity to discuss the merits of the alterntive "Newar language" as opposed to "Newari language". Since the strongest motivating argument against "Newari", the perceived negative associations, appear to be linked mostly to the foreign "-i" affix but not to the name stem "Newar" as such, and as the suggestion that recent literature may have seen a significant trend away from "Newari" to "Newar" (but not so much to "Nepal Bhasa") has stood uncontradicted, I am using my discretion in closing this in favour of "Newar language" rather than "Newari language". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Nepal Bhasa → Newari language – or to Newar language, if that's more appropriate. — As pointed out above, and in conformity with our approach to language articles on WP, and we should follow the preponderance of linguistic sources in English when deciding the name of an article. According to Hargreaves ("Kathmandu Newar", in LaPolla & Thurgood, eds., The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 2006), "Nepal Bhasa" is Kathmandu Newari -- that is, it's the standard form or prestige dialect of the language, not the language as a whole. Moving this article to "Nepal Bhasa" would therefore be like moving "French" to "Parisian" to "English" to "Received Pronunciation". Hargreaves describes the situation as follows:

Nepāl Bhāśā (Kathmandu Newar) ... is the language of the Newars of the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal. The term Nepāl Bhāśā and the colloquial term /newa bhæː/ are the traditional Newar terms, although Western and Newar linguists publishing outside Nepal have usually used the term Newari, and more recently, Newar.

Publications which use "Newari" include

  • Kamal Prakash Malla, The Newari Language: A Working Outline, and Classical Newari Literature
  • Tej R. Kansakar, Essential Newari Phrasebook: A Self-taught Guide to Conversational Newari
  • Iswaranand Sresthacharya, Newari root verbs
  • Thakur Lal Manandhar, Newari-English dictionary
  • the Library of Congress Subject Headings
  • I could go on and on. Overall, a Google Books search claims 60k hits for "Newari" but only 4k for "Nepal Bhasa" -- and most of the top-ranked of those are either mirrors of Wikipedia or mention "Nepal Bhasa" as an alternative name while using "Newari" in the text (e.g. Genetti A Grammar of Dolakha Newar). Even the less common (more recent?) name "Newar language" turns up better results than "Nepal Bhasa" does. The preponderance of sources is clear, and the fact that Newar linguists use "Newari" belies the claim that it's pejorative.

Now, we have a lot of Nepalis (perhaps Newars?), who insist that we move this article to "Nepal language", but that's not an English name for this language, and as pointed out above, emotional attachment is not a valid argument per our naming conventions. If we had Chinese editors who insisted that "Chinese" was pejorative and that we should move "Chinese language" to Zhongguohua, we wouldn't do it unless our sources did it first. — kwami (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kanguole, the question is not about the commonest name but the official name. Again, even for the commonest name, one has to review a huge mass of literature. Almost none of the literature published by Nepal Bhasa Academy, Nepal Bhasa Parishad or any of the Nepalese sources in English are available online. One can not rely on the parachute journalist publications, many of whom have never even seen a native speaker in their lifetime. Besides, all the language regulating bodies, including the Government of Nepal, which recognizes the language as a national language, use the term Nepal Bhasa. A few non-authoritative writers might have called it by different names in the past esp. before the official endorsement of the term "Nepal Bhasa" in mid-90s. It does not mean anything. Thank you.--Eukesh (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, Wikipedia policy is to prefer the common name over the official one when they differ (see WP:COMMONNAME). The references listed on the Glottolog page are not parachute journalists. Kanguole 21:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kanguole, please follow the previous discussion. Like I already said, most of the Nepalese publications are not archived by google books, thanks to the digital divide. So, one can not rely on its findings. Btw, there has been a sharp decline in the use of the term "Newari" since mid-90s in the same graph, in case you have not noticed, very close to the Kolkata/Calcutta graph. By the same "common name over official one" rule, why don't you change the name Kolkata first? --Eukesh (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, the decline in use of "Newari" is not in favour of "Nepal Bhasa" but "Newar", as there is an increasing trend to avoid the Indo-Aryan "-i" suffix with names of Tibeto-Burman languages. WP:COMMONNAME is policy – whether it's been correctly applied at Kolkata or Guangzhou are matters for discussion at those articles, and not relevant here. Kanguole 09:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The decline in the use of "Newari" is in favor of "Nepal Bhasha" or "Nepal Bhasa" please see here. Even by your criteria of Ngram, the usage of both Newar and Newari is declining please see here. Again, like I mentioned earlier, this is not a confirmatory tool as it does not display any of the sources published by language regulating authorities of Nepal. Besides, Newar or Newari are words that can be used for anything from Newar cuisine, Newar architecture, Newar dance, Newar culture, Newar music, Newar Buddhism, Newar caste system, Newar civilization, Newar deities, Newar manuscripts and so on. So, the ngram search not reliable at all. Also, see this discussion about naming. I would highly recommend Kanguole to follow the previous discussion as we are just repeating what has already been discussed. Thank you. --Eukesh (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ngrams you cite certainly do not show "Newari" or "Newar" being replaced by "Nepal Bhasha" or "Nepal Bhasa". I did read through the previous discussion. It has a great deal about historically proper and official name, but as the closer notes this is not relevant to Wikipedia policy, which is to follow common usage in high-quality English-language sources. Kanguole 23:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ngrams show that use of Newari and Newar is declining. It also shows that the use of Nepal Bhasha is increasing. It does not show a replacement of the terms because the two terms are not the same. Newar (or Newari) is an umbrella term, which has multiple usage. It can be used for cuisine, architecture, caste, ethnicity, religion, festival, culture, civilization, history, ornaments, liquor, deities, art, dance and so on. The sum total of usage for all these terms will be far greater. Since the term is not explicit, it does not indicate anything. Btw, this was already discussed in the previous talk. Thank you. --Eukesh (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- There are no new or valid arguments. All the arguments have been discussed previously see here and here. This is just a disruptive move from people who know almost nothing about the language. The official name of a language can not be changed based on whim of some people, especially when a term like "Newari" has a negative connotation as cited in three separate sources above. Like I mentioned earlier, please change the name of article Kolkata or Mumbai to Calcutta or Bombay before touching this page again. Btw, admins and bureaucrats from all Nepalese language wikipedias (Nepali, Nepal Bhasa, Bhojpuri, Sanskrit) voted against the silly arguments in the previous vote. The argument made about "emotional attachment" of Newars is as stupid as the previous argument of ""Nepal Bhasa" is the Gorkha name, not the autonym." made by the same user, who loves playing along the ethnic lines for some unknown reasons. Thank you.--Eukesh (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- I find the comment "Now, we have a lot of Nepalis (perhaps Newars?)" to be prejudiced. Please stop with the moves. They accomplish nothing. Thank you. -- Kushal (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Since it has been pointed out repeatedly that Wikipedia policy overrides official name or emotional attachment, let's see what it has to say. And I quote, "Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed."
The article title "Nepal Bhasa" was changed to "Newari" by kwami without any discussion, and opposing views were dismissed with a curt reply. The article title has been stable since its creation in 2004, and there was absolutely no reason to change it. See [1]
Wikipedia also says, "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." See [2] No such proposal to change the title "Nepal Bhasa" to "Newari" was advertised and consensus reached before the change was made. And like Wiki says, users who have been keen on changing the name could help improve the article instead of bringing up the same topic again and again. Karrattul (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publishing an erroneous title based on sources published online is perpetuating a vicious circle. Incorrect former names should be discarded so that the same mistake is not repeated. Karrattul (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please do not mess with the name

The latest move to Newar is absolutely ridiculous. There has not been one vote for Newar while there were overwhelming votes for retaining the original name Nepal Bhasa. Please do not mess with the name. After all that talk about consensus, what kind of move is this? Zulufive (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not a vote. Things on Wikipedia get decided on the basis of strength of argument, based in policy. The strength of policy-based argument was against you in the recent RM; live with it. If you wish to have the move decision reviewed, you can go to WP:Move review. However, in the meantime, please don't revert the article text to a stage that will be blatantly inconsistent with the page title; it can be returned to the "Nepal Bhasa" forms if and when there should be a valid consensus for the page to be at that title again. Also, please don't continue making blind nonsensical reverts such as having "Nepal Bhasa" stated twice in the infobox, both as the normal and the "alternative" name, which is an obvious absurdity. If you continue editing disruptively on this article, you will be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am tired of submitting references to admins who think they can pass judgement on what the name of a language should be. You don't need to block me, I am leaving. Zulufive (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Names are holy names. They are neither decided by consensus nor by majority votes

Names are holy names. They are neither decided by consensus nor by majority votes. Arguments against them are valid only for those who hold power to change something by force. I am afraid Fut.Perf is simply threatening powerless people the way he/she writes above. In the past, many have pointed out that Nepal Bhasa is a term for the language of Nepal since ancient times. And the first law book in the world, the "Nyayavikasini" has clearly mentioned in black and white that Nepal Bhasa was the 'Desa bhasa (State language)' of Nepal. Nepal Bhasa was replaced with Newari or Newar by force by the Rana Government in early part of 20th century which was reverted back to its original name Nepal Bhasa after the Democractic government replaced autocratic rulers after 1990s. So many who are jealous of this name of Nepal Bhasa are only those who come from the Khas Bahun/Chetri community. But not all from this community are biased people. There are enough informed members who are aware of the original name of Nepal Bhasa. The Government of Nepal formally recognized its past mistakes and even ordered the Goventment agencies to replace Newari or Newar with original Nepal Bhasa. Wikipedia's policy will not serve fair if it decides names of any language, place or person by consensus or votes of those handful people engaged in publishing articles or names the way they like. Wikipedia should not take the wrong side. Please do not impose on us the name you like just because you have deciding power in the Wikipedia. Please use your power for the correct usage of Nepal Bhasa, not against it. If you are blocking our arguments for the sake of correct name Nepal Bhasa, then you will be biased against the truth: Nepal Bhasa and its original name. We must correct what has been wrong, not otherwise. I believe that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia, not a boxing stage where the powerful fellow knocks the powerless down. "Truth will out". - Suwarn Vajracharya August 12, 2014.

See Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 14 August 2014

#REDIRECT [[Newar language]]

  • From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

Page is not a redirect, misplaced Template:R from move

Jwood (leave me a message) See what I'm up to 21:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks for the reminder. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move page

Newar language → Nepal Bhasa or Nepal Bhasha – The page was called Nepal Bhasa before a hostile move from non-contributing user. Nepal Bhasa is the official name of the language as per Government of Nepal (see image in the article). Nepal Bhasa is the common/standard name used by language regulating bodies in their publications, including Nepal Bhasa Academy, Nepal Bhasa Parishad, Tribhuwan University Central Department of Nepal Bhasa (the only higher academic institution of Nepal Bhasa studies in the world) and various organizations (Chwasa Pasa, Asha Archives, Pasa Pucha International, World Newah Organization, Newah Organization of America), media (Dharmodaya, Matina Internation magazine, The Rising Nepal, Image Channel, Nepalmandal, local FMs), mobile apps(Nepal Bhasa dictionary), journals (Journal of Newah Studies), Buddhist organizations and native speakers. The term "Newari" has been listed as pejorative term by Ethnologue (there is negative connotation associated with the term "Newari" in the native community). The use of word Newar language is not common. Please see this ngram. A majority of work on the language (in English, Nepal Bhasa, Nepali and Hindi) are yet not available online, primarily due to the digital divide. So, it is very hard to find stuffs about it online. However, a list of sources and links are present below.--Eukesh (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Nepal Bhasa" in English literature

The term "Nepal Bhasa" is used in English, officially as well as commonly. Here are some examples and facts about its use-

Thank you--Eukesh (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose and Speedy close Really? This has been discussed and closed twice already in the last three weeks. Consensus is clearly against moving. If you disagree with the previous close, you need to go to Wikipedia:Move review, not start a THIRD move proposal in as many weeks.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 22:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that it's too soon for another requested move, but Move Review is only for contesting the closer's assessment of the discussion at the time it was closed, not for having the discussion again. By all means continue to discuss on this page, but not as another RM. Kanguole 00:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I assume this relisting at Requested Moves is indication that the proposer disagrees with the closer's assessment. If/When there are new arguments not considered in the previous two discussions (which, btw, I don't see here), then yes of course, discussion should take place here on the talk page...but not in the form of a Requested Move immediately on the heels of two others.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Newar language" is neither common term or the standard term. This is not a repetition. The main argument against the use of Nepal Bhasa or Nepal Bhasha was that it is not the common term. This was because of a flawed ngram search, which searched Newari vs Nepal Bhasha rather than Newari language vs Nepal Bhasha (or Newar language vs Nepal Bhasha). For common term, please see ngrams here and here. For the standard name use, I have listed various organizations endorsing the name Nepal Bhasha or Nepal Bhasa in English. So, this request fundamentally challenges the previous notion of Newari language or Newar language being the common name (there was an agreement previously that the standard name is Nepal Bhasa based on the previous evidences). The move request clearly states this fact, if one bothers to read it. It is followed by the examples of use of the name "Nepal Bhasa" in English, which have largely been ignored in the entire previous discussions. The previous assessment was fundamentally flawed. See here and here. Thank you.--Eukesh (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please withdraw this RM – it's too soon. In case you're wondering why this is different from kwami opening the second RM after the first went against him, see the closing comments on the first RM. Kanguole 13:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the new discussion, remember that the issue is usage in quality English-language sources, so usage in other languages isn't relevant here. The best source in the above list would be the Journal of Newar Studies. In the issue linked (no. 6), there are two scholarly articles on the language, which are entitled "Newar Classifiers: A Summary of the Literature" and "Taboo Words and Expressions in Newar Language" (author from Tribhuvan University). It's true that it's hard for an ngram to distiguish uses of "Newar" that refer to the language from those referring to the people or culture, but instances of "Newar language" are only a small subset. Kanguole 13:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newar is considered pejorative for the speakers of the language. Revert to the neutral Nepal Bhasa acceptable to the local population. English language should get rid of its erroneous Anglicized terms and I don't care how many times Newar has been mentioned in English sources. Pejorative term - get rid of it - end of discussion. werldwayd (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newar_language&oldid=622147207"