Talk:Gauḍa (region)

Merge

Gauḍa region and Gaur, West Bengal are the same place. Why two different articles then? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

While Gauda region is a territory, Gaur, West Bengal is a location. Just as we have different pages for a district and a town, these two pages should not be merged. There is plenty of scope for separate development, as they are historically important. I oppose the merger. - Chandan Guha (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thinking in modern terms, that would be correct. But, in ancient times there was no such separation. A quick look at the articles, and another quick look at some sources indicate strongly that they not separate entities. The township is the region, and vice versa, one extending into another. Separately, the articles would keep repeating each other. BTW, even the naming isn't right as things stand. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Just as in modern times, in ancient/ medieval times also the principal/ capital city, although sometimes eponymous, had a distinct identity. I cannot think of merging Pataliputra with Magadha, or Mahasthangarh with Pundravardhana. Topics like history and culture will be common, but that does not take away the identity of the city. It should remain separate. - Chandan Guha (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As Chandan has already stated, Gauda region is more of a historical larger region, while Gaur is a modern day geographical location. Both articles should exist separately.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Chandan hasn't stated the difference of modern and historical, neither do the articles. But, if that's the case then I'd opt for a no-merge too. But, I'd also insist on a radical clean-up of the modern day entity, which right now looks nowhere near a modern location. As for the difference between a region and a geographical location, I'm still skeptical. It's not just about being eponymous, but also about being equivalent. Not much keeps the historical entities separate (apart from the spelling). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't find any logic in differentiating between the historical and the modern in the manner Aditya Kabir is trying to project. It is basically a question of different identities of the region and the city. The larger region has a different identity from the smaller city. I have pointed out that this is not a unique case, both in the historical context and modern times. On the basis of separate identities the idea of merger should be dropped. There are certain other issues like quality of writing and the name of the article on the city, which are independent of the question of merger. You don't merge a district page with its eponymous city page, just because both or either are badly written, and so on. As regards improving quality of the city article, Aditya Kabir or anybody else is welcome to come forward. As regards the naming of the city article I too have doubts about its naming. I believe that a portion of the city extends into Bangladesh (see [1]). I would suggest the name Gaur (Lakhanabati). There could be other options. - Chandan Guha (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I am trying project anything. If this has nothing to do with historical and modern identities, then so be it. Dwaipayan mentioned that difference, and I found that it has merit. If we are discussing two historical identities that seem equivalent then I find a difference difficult to establish. Dilip K. Chakrabarti has discussed Gauda to be a city-state, where the janapada (territory) and nagar (city) are essentially the same entity (Archaeological Geography of the Ganga Plain, Orient Blackswan, 2001). Dharmendra Kumar Gupta has identified Gauda to be a nagar which has projected its name on the assorted territories around it (Society and culture in the time of Daṇḍin, Meharchand Lachhmandas, 1972). Mogens Herman Hansen on the other hand identifies Gauda as a territory without a specific city-center (A comparative study of thirty city-state cultures, Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 2000).

Tej Ram Sharma writes that this assorted territories are not always known as Gauda, as it was often known as part of Pundra or Pundravardhana (Personal and Geographical Names in the Gupta Inscriptions, Concept Publishing Company, 1978). Amita Chakrabarti explains that Gauda country was the extent of area ruled by Gauda people based in Gauda city, and had a variable boundary, sometimes extending up to Kalinga and in other times merging with the territory of the Vanga people (History of Bengal, c. A.D. 550 to c. A.D. 750, University of Burdwan, 1991). Ronald B. Inden has the same observation - "From at least the tenth century AD the city of Gauda (in modern Malda Distrcit) was held to be the premier city of the eastern country and the major capital of its ruling dynasties. As a result, the entire eastern country came to be called by that name. Subsequently, during the middle period, the term "Gauda" was also apllied to a smaller area roughly coterminous with modern Bengal, and area containing a set of three countries - Varendra, Vanga and Radha." (Marriage and rank in Bengali culture: a history of caste and clan, page 14, University of California Press, 1976)

In essence, I see no difference in identities of a territory and a city here, rather a projection of one onto the other. As for nomenclature, I believe "Gauda" was the ancient name for the city/territory, while Gaur/Lakhnauti was the Sultanate era name for it. Darasbari Mosque (the one covered by Archnet) lies in the Varendra part of the territory of Gaur/Lakhnauti. It now lies in Shibganj upazila of Chapainawabganj district. This Gauda, Gaur, Lakhanabati, Lakhnauti looks like a simple case of Geographical renaming, like Kakamuchee → Manbai → Bombay → Mumbai, Nanking → Nanjing or Ikosium → Icosium → Algiers. We don't have separate articles for each of the names. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The scholarly references are certainly impressive. However, instead of leading to a solution of the argument these merely make it more complex. Aditya Kabir appears to be eager to develop the subject. I still feel that he can develop the region page leaving the city page as it is. There is no point in expanding the argument and straying far and wide off the point. I do not want to stand in the way of what Aditya Kabir wants to do. I only hope that it does not end as a bundle of confusion. - Chandan Guha (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Chandan Guha's argument, sadly, has started to look like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. My reasoning is pretty simple – Gauda and Gaur are the same. If it's a region then both are regions, and if it's a city then both are cities. It's entirely possible to quote dozens of scholarly work to illustrate that point. Geographical renaming can't ever be a reason to keep two separate articles. What would we write then? "Gauda is a territory and a city in ancient Bengal; it is the same as Gaur of medieval Bengal" and "Gaur is a territory and a city in medieval Bengal; it is the same as Gauda of ancient Bengal". Would that not be really meaningless?

Annapurna Chattopadhyaya (The people and culture of Bengal, a study in origins, Volume 1, Part 2, Firma K.L.M., 2002), Monier Monier-Williams (Modern India And The Indians, Routledge, 2001), Vincent A. Smith (The Early History of India, Atlantic Publishers, 1999), Akshayakumāra Maitreya (The fall of the Pāla Empire, University of North Bengal, 1987), Upendra Thakur (Some Aspects of Asian History and Culture, Abhinav Publications, 1986) and Asiatic Society of Bengal (Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Volume 62, 1894) all explicitly say that two are the same.

I am quoting James Heitzman (The city in South Asia, page 66, Routledge, 2008), here – "In Bengal, the imposition of rule from Delhi had resulted, in 1211, in a shift of the political center to Lakhnauti (Lakshmanavati), also known as Gaur (Gauda), and older administrative center located near the Bhagirath River's confluence with the Mahandanda River... The struggle culminated in the truimph of a military adventurer who took control of Lakhnauti/Gaur." Encyclopedia Brittanica writes – "...and this king (Lakshmanasena) is said by tradition to have founded the royal city in Gauda which in later days reverted to a form of this ancient name (Gaur), but which the founder called after his own name Laleshmanavati, or as it sounded in the popular speech Lakhnaoti."

No fact is supporting the proposition that Gauda and Gaur are not the same, and no scholar is supporting the proposition that one is a territory/region and the other is a city. If no contrary evidence is found, I think I should merge the articles (and probably develop the merged articles, as Chandan Guha is indicating). If needed, I can get the larger community involved to get a broader consensus. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think merger is required, but Aditya Kabir can go ahead the way he likes. - Chandan Guha (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

With Bangladeshi aggressiveness at a high pitch, I withdraw from this page. Bangladeshi Wikipedians can go ahead and do whatever they like. I will not be part of it anymore. - Chandan Guha (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, assume good faith and comment on the content, not the editor. I am just another fellow Wikipedian, not an enemy (though probably not respectable enough to be addressed in second person, as you do with other editors). And, I really don't see any animosity anywhere. Had I been rude? If so, I apologize. Before I go onto the topic of disagreement, a few pointers on Wikipedia behavioral guidelines:

• "With Bangladeshi aggressiveness at a high pitch, I withdraw from this page." - that's a clear transgression of "No personal attack" instance 02.
• "Bangladeshi Wikipedians can go ahead and do whatever they like. I will not be part of it anymore." - that's a transgression of "No personal attack" instance 01.
• The whole is a clear violation of our core policies.

I am proposing a merger if two articles that discusses the same topic, not fighting for any country or against any. I hope you are doing the same. In fact, I am bit hurt and surprised by your warring attitude. If it's about something I said or did, I apologize again. If it's about something I can help with I will be glad to help out. I am not an administrator, so there's a limit to what I can do. But, I definitely can take any issue to dispute resolution, and so can you.

Now for the issue at hand. "I don't think merger is required" - is obviously a mistaken statement. Because, WP:MERGE explicitly says that articles are to be merged when – (a) There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope; or (b) There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap – as is the case here. A common exception is a "spin out" article ("when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article") – which doesn't apply here.

But Aditya Kabir will not "go ahead the way he likes", as this is not about his personal opinion. He will rather get a consensus first. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate to see the discussion gone in a wrong way. I hope and believe it is not a very serious issue, and mere result of high wikistress!

Unfortunately I do not have the time to go through all the evidences presented (the academic sources). What I understand by quickly glancing at the discussion above and my personal experience (I lived in English Bazar for some years, and visited gaur, the ruined city, a few times), Gaur, the ruined city, is a specific archeological and geographic location. However, Gauḍa region, at least in modern time, is a geographical region with perhaps not-so-sure border, and which has historical connotation. I do not know whether in historical times (say 1000 or 2000 years ago) the two were same/similar in meaning (evidences and discussion on this may be present in the sources presented by Aditya Kabir, but I was not able to go through those due to time constraint). The usage of Gauda region as a geographical entity (with historical origin) is evidenced by modern day usage such as University of Gour Banga, which is headquartered at English Bazar, and has affiliated colleges in the districts of Malda, Uttar Dinajpur and Dakshin Dinajpur in the Indian state of West Bengal.

My personal opinion, as of now, is not to merge the articles, and rather clarify what we are meaning in each article. I will propose some texts for the leads of the article at a later time... Have to go now... Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I think the dispute here is resolvable! First, the name and pronunciation. Gauda=Gaur=Gour (the Bengali pronunciation is same). Please see page 118 (beginning of chapter 6) of this book (Studies In The Geography Of Ancient And Medieval India, by Dinesh Chandra Sarkar. ISBN 9788120806900).

Second, Gauda (or Gaur or Gour) means both a city and a "country" (territory). Please see page section 1 of chapter 6 of that book (page 118). The section begins with "Gauda as the name of a city". Now, at page 121, the section 2 begins, "Gauda as the name of a country". The section begins with "In modern times, the name Gauda is often used in Bengali literature to indicate the whole area inhabited by Bengali speaking people. Originally, however, the Gauda country seems to have comprised ..."

Banglapedia also has two separate entries for Gaur city and Gauda. Again, the pronunciation of Gauda, Gour, Gaur are same in Bengali, and that may have given rise to some misunderstanding here as well.

Aditya, I think we will need to have both articles. One for the geographical city (ruined now), and one for the larger geo-histo-cultural entity )!). --Dwaipayan (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The third opinion process is for when a dispute has only two editors, and there are three editors in this dispute Perhaps you should try WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options. Coastside (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I offer my sincere apologies for hurting the sentiments of Aditya Kabir. That anyway was not my intention. Interested Editors/ readers may also see Culture of Bengal, Talk:Kavigan, Talk:Alkap, and Talk:Dhaki. - Chandan Guha (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir accepts Chandan Guha's apology. He was previously totally bewildered by Chandan Guha's angry comments. His situation is now understood. But, Aditya Kabir (who prefers to be addressed directly) still wants to tell that the situation was sparked by another editor who does not represent Aditya Kabir or his affiliations. Now, Aditya Kabir will move on to solving the Gauda/Gour confusion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearing up the state of confusion

In light of the information furnished by Dwaipayan, especially that of Dr. Sarkar (I am amazed to find that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on him – we must start one). My argument and Dwaipayan's has made three things clear:

1. There is a country/territory/region by the name Gauda/Gour
2. There is a city by the name Gauda/Gour
3. The names Gauda and Gour apply both to a country and a city

Therefore, I propose:

• Move Gauda region to Gauda (country) or Gauda (region)
• Move Gour, West Bengal to Gauda (city)
• Incorporate the fact that over the time there was a case of geographical renaming into both articles: Gauda → Gaur → Lakshmanavati → Lakhnauti → Gour

• Create redirect pages Gour (country) and Gour (city) and redirect them to appropriate article
• Create redirect pages Lakshmanavati and Lakhnauti and redirect them to Gauda (city)

• Update the disambiguation page for Gauda

I really don't want an unsuspecting reader (i.e. everyone but Bengal history buffs) to believe Gauda is a country and Gour is a city. The overlapping of the city and the town can be dealt with in both the articles separately. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I overall agree with Aditya. However, instead of Gauda(country), I would prefer Gauda (region), as the use of the word country may be confusing. Country, in modern usage, usually means political countries instead of just land. And there is no doubt we need an article on Dinesh Chandra Sarkar.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, mon ami. Gauda (region) it is then. Shall I go ahead and Wikipedia:Just do it!? Or shall I wait for a few more comments? As for Dr. Sarkar, I think I am going to start the article right away. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just go ahead and do it.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)