text:
Paleolithic dog

Purported remains of "Paleolithic dogs" have been reported from several European archaeological sites dating to over 30,000 years ago. Their status as domesticated is highly controversial, with some authors suggesting them to be the ancestors of the domestic dog or an extinct, morphologically and genetically divergent wolf population.

Taxonomy
One authority has classified the Paleolithic dog as Canis c.f. familiaris (where c.f. is a Latin term meaning uncertain, as in Canis believed to be familiaris). Previously in 1969, a study of ancient mammoth-bone dwellings at the Mezine paleolithic site in the Chernigov region, Ukraine uncovered 3 possibly domesticated "short-faced wolves". The specimens were classified as Canis lupus domesticus (domesticated wolf).

Naming
In 2002, a study looked at 2 fossil skulls of large canids dated at 16,945 years before present (YBP) that had been found buried 2 metres and 7 metres from what was once a mammoth-bone hut at the Upper Paleolithic site of Eliseevichi-1 in the Bryansk region of central Russia, and using an accepted morphologically based definition of domestication declared them to be "Ice Age dogs". In 2009, another study looked at these 2 early dog skulls in comparison to other much earlier but morphologically similar fossil skulls that had been found across Europe and concluded that the earlier specimens were "Paleolithic dogs", which were morphologically and genetically distinct from Pleistocene wolves that lived in Europe at that time.

Description

The Paleolithic dog was smaller than the Pleistocene wolf (Canis c.f. lupus) and the extant grey wolf (Canis lupus), with a skull size that indicates a dog similar in size to the modern large dog breeds. The Paleolithic dog had a mean body mass of 36-37 kg compared to Pleistocene wolf 42-44 kg and recent European wolf 41-42 kg.

The earliest sign of domestication in dogs was thought to be the neotenization of skull morphology  and the shortening of snout length. This leads to tooth crowding, a reduction in tooth size and the number of teeth, which has been attributed to the strong selection for reduced aggression.

Compared with the Pleistocene and modern wolves, the Paleolithic dog had a shorter skull length, a shorter viscerocranium (face) length, and a wider snout. It had a wider palate and wider braincase, relatively short and massive jaws, and a shorter carnassial length but these were larger than the modern dog and closer to those of the wolf. The mandible of the Paleolithic dog was more massive compared to the elongated mandible of the wolves and had more crowded premolars, and a hook-like extension in the caudal border of the coronoid process of the mandible. The snout width was greater than those of both the Pleistocene and modern wolves, and implies well-developed carnassials driven by powerful jaws. In two morphometric analyses, the nearest dog skull-shape that was similar to the Paleolithic dog was that of the Central Asian Shepherd Dog.

Diet
In 2015, a study of bone collagen taken from a number of species found at the 30,000 YBP mammoth-hut site of Predmosti in the Czech Republic indicated that the Pleistocene wolf ate horse and possibly mammoth, the Paleolithic dog ate reindeer and muskox, and the humans ate specifically mammoth. The study proposes that the Paleolithic dog's diet had been artificially restricted because it was not a diet similar to the Pleistocene wolf. Some remote Arctic tribal people today restrict the diet of their dogs away from what those people prefer to eat. An analysis of a specimen from the Eliseevichi-1 site on the Russian plain also revealed that the Paleolithic dog ate reindeer.

In 2020, a study of dental microwear on tooth enamel for canine specimens from Predmosti dated 28,500 YBP suggest a higher bone consumption for the proto-dogs compared with wolf specimens. This indicates two morphologically and behaviourally different canine types. The study proposes that the proto-dogs consumed more bone along with other less desirable food scraps within human camps, therefore this may be evidence of early dog domestication.

Archaeological evidence

 * See further Paleoecology of the time

Early specimens
There are a number of recently discovered specimens which are proposed as being Paleolithic dogs, however their taxonomy is debated. These have been found in either Europe or Siberia and date 40,000–17,000 YBP. They include Hohle Fels in Germany, Goyet Caves in Belgium, Predmosti in the Czech Republic, and four sites in Russia: Razboinichya Cave in the Altai Republic, Kostyonki-8, Ulakhan Sular in the Sakha Republic, and Eliseevichi 1 on the Russian plain. Paw-prints from Chauvet Cave in France dated 26,000 YBP are suggested as being those of a dog, however these have been challenged as being left by a wolf.

There are also a number of later proposed Paleolithic dogs whose taxonomy has not been confirmed. These include a number of specimens from Germany (Kniegrotte, Oelknitz, Teufelsbrucke), Switzerland (Monruz, Kesslerloch, Champre-veyres-Hauterive), as well as Ukraine (Mezin, Mezhirich). A set of specimens dating 15,000–13,500 YBP have been confidently identified as domesticated dogs, based on their morphology and the archaeological sites in which they have been found. These include Spain (Erralla), France (Montespan, Le Morin, Le Closeau, Pont d'Ambon) and Germany (Bonn-Oberkassel). After this period, the remains of domesticated dogs have been identified from archaeological sites across Eurasia.

Possible dog domestication between 15,000 and 40,000 YBP is not clear due to the debate over what the Paleolithic dog specimens represent. This is due to the flexibility of genus Canis morphology, and the close morphological similarities between Canis lupus and Canis familiaris. It is also due to the scarcity of Pleistocene wolf specimens available for analyses and so their morphological variation is unknown. Habitat type, climate, and prey specialization greatly modify the morphological plasticity of grey wolf populations, resulting in a range of morphologically, genetically, and ecologically distinct wolf morphotypes. With no baseline to work from, zooarchaeologists find it difficult to be able to differentiate between the initial indicators of dog domestication and various types of Late Pleistocene wolf ecomorphs, which can lead to the mis-identification of both early dogs and wolves. Additionally, the ongoing prehistoric admixture with local wolf populations during the domestication process may have led to canids that were domesticated in their behavior but wolflike in their morphology. Attempting to identify early tamed wolves, wolfdogs, or proto-dogs through morphological analysis alone may be impossible without the inclusion of genetic analyses.

All specimens
The table below lists by location and timing in years before present the very early co-location of hominid and wolf specimens, followed by proposed paleolithic dog and then early dog specimens, with the regions in which they had been found color-coded as purple – Western Eurasia, red – Eastern Eurasia and green – Central Eurasia.

Early domestication debate
Among archeologists, the proposed timing of the development of a relationship between humans and wolves is debated. There exists two schools of thought. The early domestication theory argues that the relationship commenced once humans moved into the colder parts of Eurasia around 35,000 YBP, which is when the proposed Paleolithic dogs first began to appear. Wolves that were adjusting to live with humans may have developed shorter, wider skulls and more steeply-rising foreheads that would make wolf facial expressions easier to interpret. The late domestication theory argues that Paleolithic dogs are an unusual phenotype of wolf and that dogs appeared only when they could be phenotypically distinguishable from the wolf, which is usually based on a reduction in size. This argument maintains that domesticated dogs are more clearly identified when they are associated with human occupation, and those interred side by side with human remains provide the most conclusive evidence, commencing with the 14,200 years old Bonn-Oberkassel dog.

The debate centres around Homo sapiens and if they had entered into cooperation with wolves soon after they moved into Eurasia, and if so when and where did these wolves change into domesticated dogs. In arguing that domestication leads to reduction in size, the late domestication theory ignores that modern horses and pigs are larger than their wild ancestors. It also ignores that if hunter-gathers entered into a hunting relationship with wolves then there would be no need of selection for a reduction in size. A reduction in size would have occurred much later when humans moved into agricultural villages. The late domestication theory does not consider the possibility that humans may have formed a relationship with non-domesticated wolves and that dogs in the early stages of domestication might be indistinguishable from wolves. According to indigenous North Americans, over the past 20,000 years the canids living with them were wolves that could not be distinguished as dogs.

The problem in attempting to identify when and where domestication occurred is the possibility that the process of domestication occurred in a number of places and at a number of times throughout prehistory. Early dog remains have been found in different parts of the world. This suggests that dog domestication may have taken place in different regions independently by hunter-gatherers, in some cases at the same time and in other cases at different times, with different wolf subspecies producing different dog lineages. Therefore, the number of dog domestication events is not known. A study of the maternal mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) shows that dogs fall within 4 mDNA clades, indicating that dogs are derived from 4 separate lineages and therefore there may not have been a single domestication event.

A domestication study looked at the reasons why the archeological record that is based on the dating of fossil remains often differed from the genetic record contained within the cells of living species. The study concluded that our inability to date domestication is because domestication is a continuum and there is no single point where we can say that a species was clearly domesticated using these two techniques. The study proposes that changes in morphology across time and how humans were interacting with the species in the past needs to be considered in addition to these two techniques.

"...'wild' and 'domesticated' exist as concepts along a continuum, and the boundary between them is often blurred — and, at least in the case of wolves, it was never clear to begin with."

Relationship to the domestic dog
In 2013, a major Mitochondrial DNA study has found that divergence times from wolf to dog implies a European origin of the domestic dog dating 18,800-32,100 years ago, which supports the hypothesis that dog domestication preceded the emergence of agriculture and occurred in the context of European hunter-gatherer cultures.

In 2009, a study proposed that there was a low frequency of recognized dog skulls in Upper Paleolithic sites because existing specimens had not yet been recognized as dogs. The study looked at the 2 Eliseevichi-1 dog skulls in comparison to much earlier Late Pleistocene but morphologically similar fossil skulls that had been found across Europe, and proposed the much earlier specimens were Paleolithic dogs that were morphologically and genetically distinct from the Pleistocene wolves living in Europe at that time. The study looked at 117 skulls of recent and fossil large canids. Several skulls of fossil large canids from sites in Belgium, Ukraine and Russia were examined using multivariate analysis to look for evidence of the presence of Paleolithic dogs that were separate from Pleistocene wolves. Reference groups included the Eliseevichi-1 prehistoric dogs, recent dogs and wolves.

The osteometric analysis of the skulls indicated that the Paleolithic dogs fell outside the skull ranges of the Pleistocene wolf group and the modern wolf group, and were closer related to those of the Eliseevichi-1 prehistoric dog group. The fossil large canid from Goyet, Belgium dated at 36,000 YBP was clearly different from the recent wolves, resembling most closely the Eliseevichi-1 prehistoric dogs and suggesting that dog domestication had already started during the Aurignacian. The two Epigravettian Mezine, Ukraine and Mezhirich, Ukraine skulls were also identified as being Paleolithic dogs. Collagen analysis indicated that the Paleolithic dogs associated with human hunter-gatherer camp-sites (Eliseevichi-1, Mezine and Mezhirich) had been specifically eating reindeer, while other predator species in those locations and times had eaten a range of prey.

Further studies later looked at wolf-like fossils from Paleolithic hunter-gatherer sites across Europe and proposed to have identified Paleolithic dogs at Predmosti (Czech Republic 26,000-27,000 YBP), Kostenki-8 (Russia 23,000-27,700 YBP), Kostenki-1 (Russia 22,000-24,000 BP), Kostenki-17 (Russia Upper Paleolithic) and Verholenskaya (Russia late glacial). In the human burial zone at the Predmosti site, 3 Paleolithic skulls were found that resemble those of a Siberian husky but they were larger and heavier than the modern husky. For one skull, "a large bone fragment is present between the upper and lower incisors that extends several centimetres into the mouth cavity. The size, thickness and shape of the fragment suggest that it could be a fragment of a bone of a large mammal, probably from a mammoth. The position of the bone fragment in the mouth and the articulated state of the lower jaw with the skull indicate that this mammoth bone fragment was inserted artificially into the mouth of the dog post-mortem." The morphology of some wolf-like fossils was such that they could not be assigned to either the Pleistocene wolf nor Paleolithic dog groups.

It has been proposed that based on the genetic evidence of modern dogs being traced to the ancient wolves of Europe, the archaeological evidence of the Paleolithic dog remains being found at known European hunting camp-sites, their morphology, and collagen analysis that indicated that their diet had been artificially restricted compared to nearby wolves, that the Paleolithic dog was domesticated. It has also been hypothesized that the Paleolithic dog may have provided the stock from which early dogs arose, or alternatively that they are a type of wolf that is not known to science. In 2016, a study discounted the use of the Paleolithic dogs from the Predmosti site as pack animals.

There has been ongoing debate in the scientific press about what the fossil remains of the Paleolithic dog might be, with some commenters declaring them as either wolves or a unique form of wolf. These include a first article proposing the Paleolithic dog, its refutation, a counter to the refutation, a second article, its refutation, a third article that includes a counter to the refutation, its refutation, a counter to the refutation, another refutation, support given based on bone collagen analysis, and the identification of an ancient paleolithic dog in Yakutia.

As the ancestor of the dog has not been identified by scientists, this debate continues.

Two domestication events
Studies have suggested that it was possible for multiple primitive forms of the dog to have existed, including in Europe. European dog populations had undergone extensive turnover during the last 15,000 years that has erased the genomic signature of early European dogs, the genetic heritage of the modern breeds has become blurred due to admixture, and there was the possibility of past domestication events that had died out or had been largely replaced by more modern dog populations.

In 2016, a study proposed that dogs may have been domesticated separately in both Eastern and Western Eurasia from two genetically distinct and now extinct wolf populations. East Eurasian dogs then made their way with migrating people to Western Europe between 14,000 and 6,400 YBP where they partially replaced the dogs of Europe. Two domestication events in Western Eurasia and Eastern Eurasia have recently been found for the domestic pig.

As the taxonomic classification of the "proto-dog" Paleolithic dogs as being either dogs or wolves remains controversial, they were excluded from the study.

Goyet dog

 * Genus Canis, species indeterminate

In 2009, a study looked at 117 skulls of recent and fossil large canids. None of the 10 canid skulls from the Belgian caves of Goyet, Trou du Frontel, Trou de Nutons, and Trou de Chaleux could be classified, so the team took as their basic assumption that all of these canid samples were wolves. The DNA sequence of seven of the skulls indicated seven unique haplotypes that represented ancient wolf lineages lost until now. The osteometric analysis of the skulls showed that one large canid fossil from Goyet was clearly different from recent wolves, resembling most closely the Eliseevichi-1 dogs (15,000 years YBP) and so was identified as a Paleolithic dog. The analysis indicated that the Belgian fossil large canids in general preyed on horse and large bovids.

In November 2013, a DNA study sequenced three haplotypes from the ancient Belgium canids (the Goyet dog – Belgium 36,000 YBP cataloged as Canis species Genbank accession number KF661079, and with Belgium 30,000 YBP KF661080 and 26,000 years YBP KF661078 cataloged as Canis lupus) and found they formed the most diverging group. Although the cranial morphology of the Goyet dog has been interpreted as dog-like, its mitochondrial DNA relation to other canids places it as an ancient sister-group to all modern dogs and wolves rather than a direct ancestor. However, in 2015 three-dimensional geometric morphometric analyses indicated this, and the Eliseevichi-1 dog, is more likely from a wolf. Belgium 26,000 YBP has been found to be uniquely large but was found not to be related to the Beringian wolf. This Belgium canid clade may represent a phenotypically distinct and not previously recognized population of grey wolf, or the Goyet dog may represent an aborted domestication episode. If so, there may have been originally more than one ancient domestication event for dogs as there was for domestic pigs. A 2016 review proposed that it most likely represents an extinct morphologically and genetically divergent wolf population.

Altai dog

 * Genus Canis, species indeterminate

In 2011, a study looked at the well-preserved 33,000-year-old skull and left mandible of a dog-like canid that was excavated from Razboinichya Cave in the Altai Mountains of southern Siberia (Central Asia). The morphology was compared to the skulls and mandibles of large Pleistocene wolves from Predmosti, Czech Republic, dated 31,000 YBP, modern wolves from Europe and North America, and prehistoric Greenland dogs from the Thule period (1,000 YBP or later) to represent large-sized but unimproved fully domestic dogs. "The Razboinichya Cave cranium is virtually identical in size and shape to prehistoric Greenland dogs" and not the ancient nor modern wolves. However, the lower carnassial tooth fell within the lower range of values for prehistoric wolves and was only slightly smaller than modern European wolves, and the upper carnassial tooth fell within the range of modern wolves. "We conclude, therefore, that this specimen may represent a dog in the very early stages of domestication, i.e. an incipient dog, rather than an aberrant wolf... The Razboinichya Cave specimen appears to be an incipient dog...and probably represents wolf domestication disrupted by the climatic and cultural changes associated with the Last Glacial Maximum".

In 2007, a mtDNA analysis of extinct eastern Beringian wolves showed that two ancient wolves from Ukraine dated 30,000 YBP and 28,000 YBP and the 33,000 YBP Altai dog had the same sequence as six Beringian wolves, indicating a common maternal ancestor. In 2013, a DNA study of the Altai dog deposited the sequence in GenBank with a classification of Canis lupus familiaris (dog). "The analyses revealed that the unique haplotype of the Altai dog is more closely related to modern dogs and prehistoric New World canids than it is to contemporary wolves... This preliminary analysis affirms the conclusion that the Altai specimen is likely an ancient dog with shallow divergence from ancient wolves. These results suggest a more ancient history of the dog outside of the Middle East or East Asia." The haplotype groups closest to the Altai dog included such diverse breeds as the Tibetan mastiff, Newfoundland, Chinese crested, cocker spaniel and Siberian husky.

In November 2013, a study looked at 18 fossil canids and compared these with the complete mitochondrial genome sequences from 49 modern wolves and 77 modern dogs. A more comprehensive analysis of the complete mDNA found that the phylogenetic position of the Altai dog as being either dog or wolf was inconclusive and cataloged its sequence as Canis species GenBank accession number JX173682. Of four tests, 2 tests showed its sequence to fall within the wolf clade and 2 tests within the dog clade. The sequence strongly suggests a position at the root of a clade uniting two ancient wolf genomes, two modern wolves, as well as two dogs of Scandinavian origin. However, the study does not support its recent common ancestry with the great majority of modern dogs. The study suggests that it may represent an aborted domestication episode. If so, there may have been originally more than one ancient domestication event for dogs as there was for domestic pigs.

In 2017, two prominent evolutionary biologists reviewed all of the evidence available on dog divergence and supported the specimens from the Altai mountains as being those of dogs from a lineage that is now extinct and that was derived from a population of small wolves that is also now extinct.

Local unknown wolves
Ecological factors including habitat type, climate, prey specialization and predatory competition will greatly influence wolf genetic population structure and cranio-dental plasticity. Therefore, within the Pleistocene grey wolf population the variations between local environments would have encouraged a range of wolf ecotypes that were genetically, morphologically and ecologically distinct from one another.

There are a small number of Canis remains that have been found at Goyet Cave, Belgium (36,500 YBP) Razboinichya Cave, Russia (33,500 YBP) Kostenki 8, Russia (33,500-26,500 YBP) Predmosti, Czech Republic (31,000 YBP) and Eliseevichi-1, Russia (17,000 YBP). Based on cranial morphometric study of the characteristics thought to be associated with the domestication process, these have been proposed as early Paleolithic dogs. These characteristics of shortened rostrum, tooth crowding, and absence or rotation of premolars have been documented in both ancient and modern wolves. Rather than representing early dogs, these specimens may represent an extinct morphologically and genetically divergent wolf population.

However, regardless of it eventually proving to be either a proto-dog or an unknown species of wolf, the original proposal was that the "Paleolithic dog" was domesticated.

In 2021, a study found that the cranial measurements of a number of Paleolithic dog specimens exhibited a relatively shorter skull and a relatively wider palate and brain case when compared with Pleistocene and recent northern wolves, and that these features are the morphological signs of domestication.

title: Paleolithic dog


text:
Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput/FAQ2

Various credible secondary sources - in this case, mainstream news outlets - reported that Mumbai's and the AIIMS' medical examiners determined it was suicide and that Rhea Chakraborty is being accused of abetment of suicide. Note that the final determination of death doesn't mean the investigation is over, especially in a case involving a celebrity (see also Chris Benoit double-murder and suicide). We are also not allowed to cite investigation or government documents as they are considered primary sources.
 * Why are you saying it's suicide? The investigation is ongoing!

The actual mechanism of death - asphyxia via hanging - is publicly known and not seriously disputed by any sensible party. We also do not use words or terms that imply profoundness where there is only vagueness in Wikipedia's voice - they must always be attributed.
 * This death is mysterious! Why aren't you calling it as such?

No official investigations or credible news reports are calling Rajput's death a murder, with the CBI-sanctioned AIIMS autopsy review definitively ruling it out. Wikipedia does not include fringe or conspiracy theories that no credible source is taking seriously, and our biographical policy likewise forbids us from including them in this particular instance.
 * This is a case of murder! Why aren't you saying so?

We're not allowed to synthesize new information by "reading between the lines". We are limited to whatever information the source explicitly says. Creative interpretations of sources also flagrantly violate our biographical policy.
 * Why are you rejecting my interpretation of the sources?

The CBI has outright stated that they are not shar[ing] any details of the investigation with the media and that any claims attributed to it (As of the time of this writing, 19 September 2020 UTC) are not credible. It should be noted this is generally standard operating procedure for serious investigations the world over, generally to avoid prejudicing the case before it goes to a jury or (as has happened here) inflaming a trial by media.
 * The Central Bureau of Investigation said (something)! Why aren't you mentioning this?!

Unless a person is notable specifically for their height or their height is otherwise relevant (such as for sports where height/weight is a major factor), Wikipedia's policy is to omit height from a person's article and infoboxes. Sushant Singh Rajput's article is no exception; the only time height was ever mentioned in the article was either as the result of unsourced edits prior to the announcement of his death or additions made immediately after the news broke on social media, all instances of which were reverted quickly on the English-language Wikipedia for having no source and which would shortly after be removed from the article on Hindi Wikipedia for the same reason. See Talk:Sushant_Singh_Rajput/Archive_1 for more details.
 * Why are you censoring his height?

The confusion here is of time zones. News broke around 2:15 p.m. IST. Wikipedia shows timestamps in UTC. IST is 5 hour 30 minutes ahead of UTC. Death info first appeared in article at 8:55 UTC (this edit) which means at 14:25 IST (2:25 p.m.)
 * If the news of Rajput's demise broke around 2:15 p.m. then why did the article have death info around 9 am?

Unless she (or one of her supporters) has additional sources that can back up her assertions, no. It should be noted that Priyanka is herself the subject of an FIR in connection with the case.
 * What about Sushant's sister Priyanka? Doesn't she get a say in this?

When someone requests an edit that is very likely to be challenged, they are required to provide links to credible published secondary sources that support the edit they wish to make. In addition, requests to make edits against a consensus or that are part of an ongoing dispute will generally be declined.
 * Why are you rejecting my edit request out of hand?

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput/FAQ2


text:
Talk:Zigzag, Oregon

Source

 * https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/community_of_zigzag/ --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Zigzag, Oregon


text:
WUBA

Noun

 * 1) Originally referred to the everyday academic attire of midshipmen.
 * 2)  A female midshipman
 * 1)  A female midshipman

Usage notes

 * Used in the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

title: WUBA


text:
User:Zkw adrian/Sample page

Li Cheng Uk Government Primary School is an elementary/primary school located in Hong Kong, it's location is 43 Tonkin St., Kowloon, Hong Kong. There are 26 classrooms in the school(the information may not be up to date) The school was built for local children but was then populated with foreign children in 1961 and it's construction was ended in mid-1957. You can visit the schools' website with the link here: lcu.edu.hk/

title: User:Zkw adrian/Sample page


text:
Saint Hill Green

Saint Hill Green is a small village near East Grinstead, West Sussex, England. Its name is first attested in 1568 as Saynt Hill, which may mean "singed or burned hill".

It is notable for two country houses in the vicinity: Standen, designed by the architect Philip Webb in the Arts and Crafts style and now a National Trust property, and the 1792-built Saint Hill Manor, which had several notable owners before having been purchased by L. Ron Hubbard and becoming one of the international centres for the Church of Scientology, which he founded.

title: Saint Hill Green


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ouellette Manor

The result was redirect. There was nearly a consensus to delete. Redirecting and keeping the history allows someone to carry out a merge (the other possible outcome of this debate) if they wish, and consensus at the destination article allows. Petros471 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ouellette Manor
An apartment building, with nothing to distinguish it from the thousands of others that exist in the world. This is part of a series of articles on buildings in Windsor, Ontario, one of which has already been deleted (see Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers). Indrian 18:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable building. Akradecki 19:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into new "urban renewal" or "High-rise buildings" section in the Windsor, Ontario article?  User:Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk''' 16:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vegaswikian 17:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


text:
Karzcino railway station

Karzcino is a non-operational PKP railway station in Karzcino (Pomeranian Voivodeship), Poland.

title: Karzcino railway station


text:
User:Borunendra/sandbox

Abhayapuri town got it’s name from Abhayamata, the presiding deity of the Royal family, and not from Rani Abhayeswari. The kingdom of Bijni is only ruled by male rulers traditionally.

title: User:Borunendra/sandbox


text:
Talk:Kamrupi dialects

Reverts
I am writing here to discuss the revert 1revert 2 by user:Chaipau. The content removed was included from book named 'A Study on Kāmrūpī: A Dialect of Assamese', page 5 by noted linguist 'Upendranath Goswami'. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 04:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the linguistic literature the modern dialect of Assamese (Kamrupi dialect, modern period, Kamrup region a small part of Assam) is distinguished from the historical language of Kamarupa (Kamarupi Prakrit, pre-14th century, entire Assam and North Bengal) that is the ancestor of Assamese as well as the Kamatapuri lects. No linguist claims that the two are same, and they cannot be.  In a more recent PhD thesis, Toulmin 2006, p 14, this distinction is clearly mentioned in the passage named "Kamrupa".  Toulmin points out that "Kamrupa/Kamrupi" is used to refer to both the modern dialect as well as the historical language, even though they are different.  Upendranath Goswami in the passage clearly is talking about the historical pre-14th century language when he says: "So the Aryan language spoken first in Assam was the Kamrupi language spoken in Rangpur, Cooch-Behar, Goalpara, Kamrup district and some parts of Nowgong and Darrang district."  Here, "Aryan language spoken first in Assam" refers to the historical period, and "Rangpur, Cooch-Behar, Goalpara, Kamrup district and some parts of Nowgong and Darrang district" refers to the region.  User:Bhaskarbhagawati cannot use the name "Kamrupi" to claim the historical Prakrit and the modern-day dialect to be the same.
 * This issue has been extensively discussed here as well as elsewhere (e.g. Talk:Kamarupi_Prakrit/Archive_2).
 * Chaipau (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not making any claims here, nevertheless 'A Study on Kāmrūpī: A Dialect of Assamese', Page 6 and 'A Study on Kāmrūpī: A Dialect of Assamese', page 5 can help. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak 16:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition revert 3 and revert 4, see A Study on Kāmrūpī: A Dialect of Assamese - Page 28. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak 06:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The Third Opinion request made in regard to this dispute has been removed (i.e. denied) Because like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, 3O requires thorough recent talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss (which does not appear to be the case here, but let me say just in case), consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For revert 5, see A Study on Kāmrūpī: A Dialect of Assamese - Page 6. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak 09:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Kamrupi dialect -> Kamrupi dialects_1
Kamrupi is a group of dialects, not a single dialect. This has been accepted by recent scholarship. For example, the IITG website clearly states the finding of recent research: Several regional dialects are typically recognized. These dialects vary primarily with respect to phonology and morphology. A high degree of mutual intelligibility is enjoyed among the dialects. Banikanta Kakati has divided the Assamese dialects into two major groups.

However, recent studies have shown that there are four dialect groups, listed below from east to west:

 * 1) Eastern group spoken in and other districts around Sibsagar district.
 * 2) Central group spoken in present Nagaon district and adjoining areas.
 * 3) Kamrupi group spoken in undivided Kamrup, Nalbari, Barpeta, Darrang, Kokrajhar and Bongaigaon.
 * 4) Goalparia group spoken in Goalpara, Dhubri, Kokrajhar and Bongaigaon districts
 * The said article is not new and is best example of lax writing. Notable scholars have wrote extensively about Assamese dialects, many of them are Phd works. Kakati wrote various works on subject which are considered pioneer works, where he done thorough comparitive study. His works are supported by later scholars. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  00:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Background
Banikanta Kakati's work was seminal, but it is old. He completed his thesis in 1935 and published the thesis in the form of a book in 1941---his work is 83 years old. He had identified two dialects: Eastern and Western. G C Goswami has, within a few decades, divided the Eastern dialect further into Eastern and Central. U N Goswami established the Kamrupi dialect within the Western dialect and the Western dialect was divided into Kamrupi and Goalpariya dialects.

It is now observed that these 4 dialects have within their regional areas further dialectal diversity. That is what the IITG website claims. This classification is accepted generally, and the RCILTS website is quoted in scholarships. (e.g. Nath et. al. "A Preliminary Study on the VOT Patterns of the Assamese Language and Its Nalbaria Variety", p543).

The claim that Kamrupi is not a single dialect, but a group of dialects in evidenced in recent scholarship on Barpetia and Nalbaria dialects, two dialects that are part of the Kamarupi group: Wikipedia should follow recent scholarship and the title of this article should be Kamrupi dialects, and not Kamrupi dialect. It should also align with the convention used in the article Goalpariya dialects, which has the plural "s".
 * Barpetia dialect in scholar.google.com.
 * Nalbaria dialect in scholar.google.com

Chaipau (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Kakati as i mentioned is considered pioneer in science of linguistics. His works on Assamese language are expanded by noted scholars like S. Sarma, U.C. Goswami, G.C. Goswami and many others. U.N. Goswami contributed more than other on this subject including a Phd work, links are there in this article. As he wrote dedicated work on subject, this article will be prepared as such. Speculative works will confuse readers and need to taken out. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  00:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Recent research is not speculative. Kakati's work (1935) is nearly ninety years old.  If we go by that work alone, then this article should not exist, because he did not identify the Kamrupi dialect.   U N Goswami's work (1971) is nearly fifty years old which identifies the Kamrupi dialect.  And in this 50 years, much work has been done, using modern methods of data collection.  The older linguists did not apply electronic data collection methods, whereas the modern researchers are increasingly using modern linguistic methods.  Against these methods, it is the older linguists' methods that are beginning to look more speculative. Chaipau (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The recent findings are not the product of a single linguist, but many. And these finding do not contradict the works of Kakati and Goswami but show them as incomplete.  So please do not keep rejecting the recent findings.  Chaipau (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am aware of recent brief mentions here and there, which is inline with above mentioned scholars, if fact they quoted Goswami and Kakati. Avoid cherry pickings from amateurs and random webpages. Linguists clearly equited it as 'one' ancient language with long history and its lost prestige later. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  11:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, they quote Kakati and Goswami because they are extending their work, not negating them. The people you call amateurs are University professors.  The webpages you call "random" are official pages of the RCILTS, a network of centers established by the Government of India across the country.  These are quoted in academic papers and published in journals and conference proceedings.  If you do not agree to these changes, please take the matter to the relevant forum on Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you do not agree with current title, kindly follow move request process, we can continue discussion here. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  04:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Spellings
Hi, do the native speakers call it Kamrupi? isn't it কামৰূপীয়া (kamrupia)? And many spellings are wrong. For example do Kamrupia speakers say /manuʃ/, should not it end with /h/? And in many spellings different letters are used for the same sound. For example ঘৰক /ɡʱɔɾɔk/ is written as "gharok". I think IPA should be used instead of other romanisations because they can vary and hence misleading, or atleast the original Assamese spellings. I'm also looking forward for an article for Assamese dialects. Sagir Ahmed Msa (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing these issues up. I have heard natives calling it kothito (spoken) as opposed to likhito (standard Assamese).  But Kamrupia is probably correct.  I shall keep a lookout for a reference and insert it.  It is called Kamrupi in most English works and that is why it is used here.  Yes, /manuʃ/ is wrong and it should end with /h/.  I agree on IPA, maybe we can have the romanization alongside. We have a section on Assamese dialects (Assamese_language) and maybe we need an article dedicated to it. Chaipau (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Sagir Ahmed Msa (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please consider
If you do not understand linguistics please avoid it since wikipedia is not your private website. And please try to avoid politics. You can promote the language without being dishonest. I am telling you again that the 15th century and 2018 forms of a language are not the same, they are different languages. Sound change is a thing. If you want to contribute to linguistic topics, you should first study linguistics. Msasag (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Are there recent edits that you object to? — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Msasag Well, yes i am not a linguist but i do read experts and this article is prepared as such. Original research is not allowed here, even by scholars. What is political here ? You can say that modern Kamrupi language changed from medieval variety, still it is the same language. We have separate article for ancient Kamrupi language, i invite you to create a separate article for medieval Kamrupi language. The word 'manushya' is used by Kamrupi people even today. Are you from Kamrup region ? भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  17:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes mainly the recents because the earlier edits are maybe because of misunderstanding, but many of the recent edits are clearly ignorance.
 * It is ok if you add wrong infos due to misunderstanding, but if someone corrects it why do you revert? if there are no sources of the corrections, why dont you remove the whole thing? not having mistakes is better than having. Well i am from central assam which shares border with Kamrup, but why should that matter? You know that the term "theng" is present in standard Assamese too, but still you removed it just to make more differences between eastern Assamese and Kamrupi to show that Kamrupi is a different language from eastern Assamese. According to linguistics all dialects and political dialects are also languages and political languages can be dialects of some very closely related languages. And no language is superior or informal. Do you know about loanword? Even in Medieval Kamrupi the word মনুষ্য (manuṣya/monusyo/monuisso) is a loanword from Sanskrit মনুষ্য/ मनुष्य (manuṣya), and the modern eastern Assamese and Kamrupi word monuisso is also a loanword. The inherited term which is cognate to the Sanskrit loanword is মুনিহ (munih) in eastern Assamese. You added "ch" which is pronounced similar to the British English pronunciation of the "ch" in "choice" and this sound is absent in pure Kamrupi. When the romanisation "o" represents the /ɔ/ sound in most of the words, then why need to use "a" in some words for the same sound? I can say the same for the "ch" too if you think that "ch" and "s" represent the same sound which is /s/ since in many words "s" is used which had /tʃ/ and /tʃʰ/ earlier. I think the comparisons should be among native (tadbhava/inherited) and semantic changes and loanwords should not be included to show a proper phonological comparison. And no, medieval and modern Kamrupi are not the same language. If you want to add medieval Kamrupi words then add them separately as Medieval Kamrupi words, just like I did for Middle Assamese (which is most likely the late medieval form of central Assamese and probably eastern and western too). Msasag (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Explain here why you reverted last two edits. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  16:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I asked you to study sounds and sound change, I don't know if you did or didn't, but it's clear that you still haven't understood or just ignored. Anyways, your link about "chowk" shows the English word which was Sanskritised from Assamese/Kamruipa. In IAST romanisation which is based on Sanskrit the value of চ is c, but generally it's Sanskritised as ch because it makes the /tʃ/ sound in English (and this sound isn't present in Kamruipa). And we know that English or Sanskrit ≠ Kamruipa. We should use only one romansation if the name of the romanisation isn't mentioned, it doesn't mislead learners.
 * In your 2nd edit your link shows some English and (Eastern) Assamese writings where the word কামৰূপী (kamrupi) is mentioned in the Assamese texts. This doesn't show that Kamrupi is the native Kamrupi/Kanruipa word, it rather shows the author's choice. In a public website we should try to avoid misleading infos. There are lots of sources on internet, that doesn't mean we can pick anything, we should try to bring the correct informations only. Msasag
 * Thank you; i encourage you to see WP:OR. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  20:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This article has some major flaws. Chaipau (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It conflates medieval Assamese with present-day Kamrupi dialect. This is a long standing problem with this article.
 * Many of the examples given are WP:OR. For example, the sentences given as examples of Kamrupi in Buranjis; the glossarial examples etc.  No sources are given.
 * I do not see any reason to include Sylheti here, given that there is no discussion on Sylheti and its relationship to Kamrupi in the text.
 * If OR is not tolerated for scholars as well (I don't know what this means), then we should remove all opinions that are quoted from the preface of books---books that originated in theses. Random comments by past scholars are profusely quoted even if their opinions do not have much value now.

False claims
,, It's important to preserve Kamrupi Assamese which is being replaced by Standard Assamese and unfortunately considered as informal. But we should avoid false informations. In the 1st part ("Irrespective of dialect status today, Kamrupi is directly separated from Magadhi Prakrit, along with other middle eastern Indo Aryan languages like Radhi, Vanga and Varendri.[41] This form of Apabhramsa, further gave rise to modern Assamese in east.") in "History" section, Kamrupi dialect of Assamese is confused with the Kamarupi group of Bengali-Assamese languages, that includes Assamese, Eastern Goalpariya, Kamtapuri, Surjapuri, Nepali Rajbanshi, Tajpuria languages. And others: Rarhi, Bangic and Varendri are also different groups of Bengali-Assamese languages that include languages like Bengali in Rarhic; Sylheti, Mymensinghiya, Nokhailla, Chittagonian, Puran Dhakaya, Chakma etc in Bangic; Rajshahia and Maldahia in Varendri. The 2nd part ("All ancient and medieval Assamese literature is written in Kamrupi,[69][9][70] before usage of eastern variety by American Christian missionaries, to translate bible in the middle 19th century.") is also false. Assamese dialects are related to each other and so have the same origin. The variety of ancient literature was probably not differentiated into different dialects yet. Sankardev was from Nagaon where Central Assamese is spoken. Madhavdev was from Lakhimpur where Eastern Assamese is spoken. Madhav Kandali was also from Central Assam. And so their works are in ancestors of these dialects. This article mentions that Hastividyarnava puthi is written in Kamrupi dialect, but it's clearly in Eastern Assamese. A line from Hastividyarnava puthi: "ak hothate box koribo nüari, puza-ere-he box koribo pari." ("ak" is not related or similar to "iak". iak comes from i and related to xi. While "ak" is related to "ta-k". Similar to "iat-tat" and "öt-töt" which is related to "köt-zöt".). In Kamrupi it should be close to modern "ak hothate box korba nori, puza-edi-he bor korba pari.". Tripura buranji was also probably written in Eastern or Central. Msasag (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Msasag we are reproducing what citations are saying, original research and removal of sourced content is not allowed here. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  06:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is a lot of WP:OR here.  For example, "Kamarupi dialect" of Magadhi is being read as "Kamrupi dialect" of Assamese here. Chaipau (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Removing false contents isn't allowed? Msasag (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You can tag unsourced claims for references, this article is built on works of eminent linguist and historian of Assam, thus accurate. I have also added quotes alonside references. Mere arguements for POV pushing is not suitable, see wp:verifiability. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  09:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed references do not have any relevance

 * ই সকলোবোৰ ৰচনাৰ ভিতৰত ১৬ শ-১৭ শ শতিকাত পীতাম্বৰ সিদ্ধান্ত বাগীশে ৰচনা কৰা ১৮ খন কৌমুদী'কামৰূপী পদ্ধতি আৰু হিন্দু সংস্কাৰৰ সৰ্বভাৰতীয় পদ্ধতি উভয়ৰে ক্ষেত্ৰত আটাইতকৈ উল্লেখযোগ্য ৰচনাৱলী ॥ is about Kamrupi mores or culture.
 * কামৰূপী সঙ্গীতৰ বৈশিষ্ট্যৰ ব্যঞ্জন কৰিছে। প্রতীক-ধর্মী কাব্যিক নাটৰূপে এনে ব্যঞ্জনাত্মক ভাব-মাহাত্ম্যত নাটখনিৰ সার্থকতা। - “উদাৰ-চৰিতানাং তু বস্থধৈৱ কুটুম্বকম”—'লুইত কোৱৰ নাটৰ ৰহস্যৰ অন্তৰালত এই উদাৰ মহান ভাব এটি ধ্বনিত হৈছে। is about Kamrupi music.
 * অকল যে তেওঁলােকৰ ক্ষমতা সিমান দূৰীলৈকে ব্যাপ্ত হৈছিল এনে নহয়, কামৰূপৰ ব্ৰহ্মণ সমাজৰ আচাৰ ব্যৱহাৰ, কৃষ্টি আৰু সভ্যতা, কামৰূপী ব্ৰাহ্মণে সেইবিলাক ঠাইত গৈ চলাইছিল আৰু তাৰ চিন আজিকোপৰ্যন্ত সেই সেই দেশৰ লােক সমাজত পোৱা যায় । is about spread of culture from Kamarupa.

These quotes (and references) are not relevant in Kamrupi dialect.

Chaipau (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They are included because some editors are using different spellings for Kamrupi. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  03:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Improving this article
Hello  I wish to seek your help to improve this article and make it look like an encyclopedia article, rather than a political battlefield that it does now. It should have enough information for a general reader.

Here are a few topics we could discuss and come to a convergence on

Is Kamrupi dialect (today) the same as the language from the 12th century?
Kamrupi dialect (modern) is different from Kamarupi Prakrit, as reported by Goswami (1970) and recorded here:

 * Final vowels are dropped: OIA (-a) > MIA (-a) > Kamrupi (-zero) (Other such examples are given in Goswami, p51-55)
 * In Kamrupi the initial stress results in loss of vowels in the interior. This is one of the major difference between Kamrupi and eastern Assamese as well as with MIA. For example badli (Kamrupi), vatuli (Sanskrit), baduli (standard Assamese) (Goswami p67).  A celebrated examples is pumpkin gourd: kumra (Kamrupi), kusmandaka (Sanskrit), Kumhandaa (Prakrit), komora (Standard Assamese) (Goswami p66).  Note that the "d" in Sanskrit and Prakrit are transcribed with the retroflex flap.
 * The dative -lai which are seen in the Caryas (meru shikhara lai, Carya 47) (Goswami 1970, p230) is not found in Kamrupi but found in Standard Assamese.

Specifically, Kamarupi Prakrit had language features that are preserved in Eastern Assamese (e.g. -lai) which are absent in the Kamrupi dialect today. Therefore, the effort to somehow indicate that the Kamrupi dialect is the old language should be dropped.

Chaipau (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 * A name game is being played by Bhaskarbhagawati. The modern region of Kamrup has the same name as the ancient region of Kamarupa which was larger. It doesn't mean it's only about the Kamarupi prakrit (which Mr Bhaskarbhagawati calls 'Old Kamrupi') and Kamrupi dialect of Assamese. Kamtapuri lects, Eastern Goalpariya, other dialects of Assamese are not different, they are also descendants of the Kamarupi prakrit. Rather than promoting the true meaning (i.e linguistic meaning) of 'dialect', a propaganda based on misunderstandings and lies is being spread with no certain aim. Eastern Assamese, Central Assamese and 'Standard Assamese' are also dialects of Assamese language. I don't consider Western Goalpariya (spoken in Dhubri, Kokrajhar, Western Goalpara in Assam. And also in Rangpur division of Bangladesh and North Bengal of West Bengal where they are falsely counted as dialects of Bengali. Though recently it got regional official status in West Bengal so there are some hope) as a dialect of Assamese because linguistically it's not. And I'm not sure about Eastern Goalpariya which is spoken in Bongaigaon and Eastern Goalpara districts. Dialect doesn't mean inferior, it means a very closely related and mutually very intelligible language. A contributor should have knowledge about the topic to differentiate between reliable and non reliable sources. Msasag (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Msasag, I agree. Since this is an article on a linguistic topic, I think we should bring the focus back to linguistics. Chaipau (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Its not about what editors thinks, its what reliable sources says, editors are not supposed to include unpublished facts. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  03:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Then please stick with your words. "It's not about what the editor thinks", correct, stop confusing between Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect of Assamese. In comparison to other descendants of Kamarupi Prakrit, the only thing that it common between Kamarupi prakrit and Kamrupu dialect of Assamese and distinct from others is their names. Just because the names are same or similar in case of some sources that used an extra "a" in "kamArupi" especially for the Prakrit doesn't mean Kamrupi dialect of Assamese is the only descendant of Kamarupi Prakrit. I'm sorry for you and wikipedia readers that you can't understand simple things @Bhaskarbhagawati. And yes, add "reliable sources" only. Don't add unpublished and unreliable sources. Also the reason why wikipedia uses humans as editors instead of some current robots is probably because humans are about to have knowledge about the topic by themselves and are more advanced than current robots. So it's also a priority to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources. Msasag (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Msasag stay away from deleting citations from wikipedia, it amounts to wp:disruptive editing which has consequences for editors. It is second time i am reminding you. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  20:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Bhaskarbhagawati, the citation has to make sense. Searching for favorable quotes from the web has given you too many false positives. Chaipau (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Editors are not allowed to fast check reliable sources as per wp:rsn, so called web searches are actually books written by eminent linguist of Assam. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  11:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this article about a dialect or a region?
I have moved the section on linguistic features up. Bhaskarbhagawati moved it down, but I moved it down again. please discuss here before moving it down again. The section on region is too bloated, especially given that there is a main article dedicated to the topic: Kamrup region. Chaipau (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Kindly don't make major changes to article at this point of time, it is going through serious issues. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  20:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * O.K Chaipau, your last edit lead to deletion of sizable content and reliable sources. Due to its size i follow up one at a time, which will be convenient for you too. So first, why do you believe Upendranath Goswami should not be used in this article ? भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  19:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the issue is not whether to use Goswami, but that your reading of Goswami's works is incorrect. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you and agreed, nevertheless that should not be the reason to exclude him. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  19:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody is excluding him. Your edits are being undone because you're adding problematic content. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my so called problematic content are there in article for last few years including Goswami. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  21:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Æµ§œš¹ as you are involved, you seems still interested in the subject ? If so, try to answer my first question, then i move on to next one. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  07:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

user:Bhaskarbhagawati just because someone does not agree with you does not mean the person is not independent. Chaipau (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, I find this strange situation where I introduced the reference Goswami (1970) and Bhaskarbhagawati deleted it. It is clear from you edits that you have had a POV to push. Goswami 1970 is a valuable work but your POV prevents you from seeing its true worth. Chaipau (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course he is, although last time as layman (on subject) he is won over by your well designed arguments (not sources ?). The 2012 example you provided is not in correct context, that happened when you are attempting to divide Kamrupi (language) article into two for unknown reasons, was redirected to original page. As you answered my first question honestly, now you should not mass delete Goswami as you did multiple times recently, even if he don't align with your position. I do reproduced exactly what he said with full quotes (not cherry pickings as claimed by Aeusoes1). So, who is censoring Goswami now ? भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  13:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

 * WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT is disruptive editing, let me point out. It has been seven years now and yet you have not accepted the consensus on this point. Here is user:Kwamikagami disputing your assertions: .  Please move on.  Chaipau (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Updating citations is not disruption, deleting reliable sources is wp:disruptive editing. Consensus do changes with time. Again you put in 2012 selective conversation, he too said that he is open for evidences, but you seems not ? भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  16:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus changes with discussion regarding proposed changes. So far, no such discussion has occurred. We've just got this meta-discussion that isn't productive.
 * Bhagawati, am I correct that you would like to see the article reflect that Kamarupa Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect are the same? — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Æµ§œš¹ its not important what a editor wants, article should only reproduce what reliable sources saying ? भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  10:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's clear you're wasting everyone's time here. I caution other editors not to feed into Bhaskarbhagawati's talk page disruption by responding, lest the talk page get bloated with pointless and unproductive chatter. Regards. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Aeusoes, you are welcome, it will be better if you stayed, anyway. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  16:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I shall not feed this troll. But no one has the right to ask another to stay away from a collaborative work. I wonder whether this is covered in some policy. Probably WP:OWNBEHAVIOR Chaipau (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because you lack proper sources, and when i said stay away ?, i said he should have stayed at current talk, see quote mining and opportunism. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  17:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati is trying to pass of references (which he had originally rejected) at the WP:RSN so he could continue his disruptive editing here: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Chaipau (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the correct rhotic in Kamrupi? Is it /ɾ/ or /ɹ/?
do you have any input here? Is there a difference in consonants from Standard Assamese in this and other consonants? Chaipau (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I know that the ঝ phoneme is different and unique in the south Kamrupi dialect (Palasbari) among all dialects of Assamese outside the Goalparia dialects. Any other difference?  Chaipau (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 * It is [ɾ] in Kamrupi dialects. And I've heard [r] also. In standard Assamese it is [ɹ] and in Eastern sometimes and especially in Central the r sound is absent or very light, maybe the vocalic /r̩/, unsure. Msasag (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

RFC on Title of Old Form of Language
There is a Request for Comments at Talk:Kamarupi Prakrit on the proper primary title of that article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

RFC on Lede Paragraph
Which of two versions of the lede paragraph of this article, Kamrupi dialect, should be used?

Please choose version A, which is the current version, or version B, in the Survey. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. Extended discussion may take place in the Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Status Quo (version A)
The Kamrupi dialect is a group of regional dialects of Assamese language, spoken in the Kamrup region. It formerly enjoyed prestige status. It is one of two western dialect groups of the Assamese language, the other being Goalpariya. Kamrupi is heterogeneous with three subdialects— Barpetia dialect, Nalbaria dialect and Palasbaria dialect.

In medieval times, Kamrupi was used in the Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas for literary purposes in parallel with Sanskrit, both for prose and poetry. This went against the practices of literary figures of mid India like Vidyapati who used Sanskrit for prose and Maithili for poetry. In more recent times, the South Kamrupi dialect has been used in the works of author Indira Goswami. Poet and nationalist Ambikagiri Raichoudhury also used Kamrupi in his works to great extent. In 2018, the Kamrupi film Village Rockstars became the first from the region to be selected for India's official entry to the 91st Academy Awards.

Version B
Kamrupi dialect (formerly Kamrupi language) was first Indo-Aryan language spoken in North Bengal, Western Assam and parts of central Assam, is also a modern dialect of Assamese language, that formerly enjoyed prestige status.

Kamrupi is heterogeneous with three subdialects— West (Barpeta), Central (Nalbari) and South Kamrupi (Palashbari). In medieval times, Kamrupi was used in the Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas for literary purposes in parallel with Sanskrit, both for prose and poetry. This went against the practices of literary figures of mid India like Vidyapati who used Sanskrit for prose and Maithili for poetry.

In more recent times, the South Kamrupi dialect has been used in the works of author Indira Goswami. Poet and nationalist Ambikagiri Raichoudhury also used Kamrupi in his works to great extent. In 2018, the Kamrupi film Village Rockstars became the first from the region to be selected for India's official entry to the 91st Academy Awards. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  08:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * False dichotomy. Both versions have their strengths and should be merged. The second seems to have a problem in its first sentence and thus its general thrust, in alleging that one term is a former name, which implies no sources still use it; this doesn't seem accurate. It's not WP's job to pick a side in a real-world dispute, but lay out what the dispute is and what the sides are, within WP:DUE bounds.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion
Real-world dispute: as far as I can see, there is no real-world dispute. Most of the claims in the second version come from sources older than 1978 (e.g., Medhi, Kaliram (1988) is a posthumous publication based on a 1936 work in Assamese). In 1978 the name Kamarupi Prakrit was coined. This was accepted by different authors, including Upendranath Goswami, whose pre-1978 (actually 1950s PhD thesis) is been used to create a dispute that does not exist. This dispute exists only in Wikipedia—and the question whether Kamrupi dialect is the same as Kamarupi Prakrit, has been answered in WP:DRN. (Disclaimer: I am a party in this dispute.) Chaipau (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement with the point that there are no real world dispute on the subject. We have single long standing article on the subject till 2012, till then i am not involved as major editor on the subject. In 2012, Chaipau divided it, subsequently burden of proof for its original position fell on me. Even after, the standing lede was, which is recently changed by Chaipau. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  10:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

RFC on Historical Note
Should the statement in the second paragraph, "In medieval times, Kamrupi was used in the Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas for literary purposes in parallel with Sanskrit, both for prose and poetry" be changed to "In late medieval times Kamrupi forms are found in prose, such as those compiled in the Kamrupar Buranji." Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Please answer Yes or No with a brief explanation in the Survey. Do not discuss in the Survey. Discuss in the Threaded discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * False dichotomy – decline to !vote. See Threaded discussion. Mathglot (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Mathglot's analysis below is spot-on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion
As SMcCandlish said in another survey above, the Rfc statement offers a false dichotomy. Particularly in a subject area with such a longstanding and complex set of disputes, Rfc questions should be carefully worded to present two (or a small number) of choices in one variable, ideally as a minimal pair with everything else kept the same, with the exception of the one changing variable. But I count eight variables in this Rfc: This leads to 256 possible options. As it is, it's an impossible question. One of these parameters should have been offered as a choice, and all the rest of them kept the same. Imho, the Rfc should be withdrawn. Mathglot (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * when: In medieval times or In late medieval times
 * subj.: Kamrupi vs. Kamrupi forms (presume the first one means, "Kamrupi language")
 * Verb: ...was used vs. ...were found
 * where: in the Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas vs. (no analogous location)
 * what for: for literary purposes vs. (no analogous purpose)
 * other lang: in parallel with Sanskrit vs. (not along side another language)
 * style: both for prose and poetry vs. in prose
 * example: (no example) vs. such as those compiled in the Kamrupar Buranji
 * , somehow I missed this.  Is it possible to offer the your comments in each of the points listed above?  I am sure we can come to a compromise sentence. We are very eager to get this RfC going and finished, and seek your help.  Or any other suggestion?  Chaipau (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 26 May 2019

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is consensus that dialect is the most suitable term for the subject of this article, as there is mutual intelligibility between Kamrupi and other Assamese dialects, and there is no political recognition of Kamrupi as a language. Although scholars do not unanimously consider Kamrupi a dialect, the majority opinion of editors in this RfC who have analyzed the available sources conclude that dialect is a more suitable classification than language. Some editors have suggested that Kamrupi comprises more than one dialect; any interested editor may submit another requested move to Kamrupi dialects or a more appropriate title. (non-admin closure) —  Newslinger  talk   06:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Kamrupi dialect → Kamrupi language – As per suggestion at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Kamrupi discussion and suggestions that dialects are sometimes also referred to as languages. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)  --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I favour changing the title of "Kamrupi dialect" to "Kamrupi language" as a natural language, in line of Sylheti language which is considered dialect of Bengali language, Bhojpuri language, Awadhi language which are considered dialects of Hindi language and such. Historically this article was named "Kamrupi" but it was changed to "Kamrupi dialect" in 2012 citing title of Upendranath Goswami's work listed here in Talk:Kamrupi_dialect, where it is named as "Kamrupi language" (please check out the work to make a opinion). भास्कर् Bhagawati   Speak  16:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems that the modern "Kamrupi dialect" is most usefully described as a dialect of modern Assamese, sharing with other such dialects a high degree of mutual intelligibility. It is also helpful to continue to use a name that clearly distinguishes Kamrupi dialect from the postulated Kamarupi Prakrit, the supposed ancestor of Kamrupi dialect and also of a large number of other tongues. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are definite language movements, and definite linguistic reasons too, for establishing Bhojpuri, Sylheti languages as languages on their own rights—many of these movements have political overtones. For example, the Sylheti-as-a-language is strong in and around London, but the Sylheti speakers from Assam do not claim it is a different language.  There are some definite movements for the Bhojpuri and Maithili languages too.  The Maithili movement has so far yielded a separate script—Tirhuta.  All these movements are trying to establish a "dialect" as a separate language.  I don't see any such movement for claiming the Kamrupi dialect as a language separate from the Assamese language.  Rather, what is being attempted here is the establishment of the Kamrupi dialect as the fountainhead of the Assamese language and the KRNB lects (by equating Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect, for instance).  This has no linguistic or real world political basis.  If we were to move this article to Kamrupi language, we would be initiating a movement in Wikipedia the counterpart of which does not exist in the real-world. Chaipau (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We had numerous language movements in late 19th century and early 20th century for "Kamrupi language". There are numerous scholarly works on this movements, one of the latest is Sengupta, Madhumita (2016). Becoming Assamese: Colonialism and New Subjectivities in Northeast India. भास्कर् Bhagawati   Speak  14:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: language vs. dialect
Linguists do use both terms, but they are rather wishy-washy about it. My sense is that unlike many terms, such as morpheme or tagmeme or allophone which all have clear definitions, language and dialect do not; rather, they are more like convenience terms, depending what specific linguistic subject is being addressed. The famous epigram in this area is of course, "A language is a dialect with an army and navy". That said, we can fall back on what the "majority of reliable sources say", but it's a bit of an apples-vs.-oranges kind of thing, where "more" attestations of L over D (or vice versa) may not indicate "agreement" among linguists that's it's one or the other, but rather it may indicate that there are more studies about it in one context, rather than the other. I.e, if we're tallying RSes, we may not be measuring what it is, but in what context it has been studied and reported on. Possiby a subtle difference, and maybe there's no other, or no better way to do it. But just wanted to raise the issue, so people could factor it in, while thinking about the question. Mathglot (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As an actual Linguist, I assure you the above is NOT how we distinguish between a language and a dialect. Generally speaking, the rule is one of "Mutual Intelligibility" or Can speakers of two "Dialects" pretty much understand each other?  If yes, they are dialects.  If no, they are separate languages.  That is simplifying a very complex issue since some Languages start out as dialects of each other, diverge to the degree of Mutual Unintelligibility, then over hundreds of years can come back together as one language and diverge again.  It's not a perfect method of coming down on one side or another, but it's better than the a saying that a language is a langauge if it has a Navy & an Army.  If the two Dialects cannot be understood by speakers of one or the other to a reasonable degree, then they are separate languages by the old rules of Linguistics.  There are problems with that, of course.  For example, My husband is a native speaker of American English but cannot understand me when I speak my native dialect of Hiberno-English.  It's just gibberish to him.  Of course, Hiberno-English is not unintelligible to all speakers of American-English, so it remains a Dialect and not a Language, even though the grammar is different, the vocabulary is often different and tonality is used.  The issue is similar to that of Oneida and Mohawk, two languages rather recently (in terms of Linguistics) separated langauges.  To me, if you know one, you know the other, and for some native speakers of Mohawk, they have no trouble understanding Oneida but not often the other way around. Of course, there are fewer native speakers of Oneida than Mohawk, so that could play a role.  So, there is middle ground but it usually when languages are either diverging or coming back together that such middle ground exists.  Also, that ground exists when one dialect is fading in an area.  My point is - it isn't all politics and silly Linguists making up rules.  Mutual Intelligibility is the gold standard for distinguishing a dialect from a language and from there.. it's a mucky road of professional judgment, understanding the history of the languages/dialects, and knowing which dialect is in ascendency in terms of usage.  Thanks for reading. LiPollis (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * the use of the term dialect, it seems, varies given the context. Mutual intelligibility is not necessary the only criterion for determining languages and dialects, especially in the context of a dialect continuum.  In the present context, we may accept the term dialect to mean a variety, which means both the Kamrupi dialect as well as the standard variety of the Assamese language are both dialects among allied varieties.  As far as the name of this article is concerned, we should continue to use the standard terminology—which is that it is a dialect (look at the title of the standard work on this variety—A Study on Kamrupi: A Dialect of Assamese).  In fact, Kamrupi dialect does not define a single dialect but a group of dialects. Chaipau (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding mutual intelligibility: so which one is the dialect: Danish, or Norwegian? Urdu, or Hindi?   Dutch  or Afrikaans? Nobody said it was about silly linguists making up rules; I was trying to say, it was silly non-linguists making up rules, and the linguists were clever for not getting sucked into that silly debate.  Or maybe I was wrong about that? Speaking of 'silly', that's one of my fave words, etymologically speaking, as I don't know a word that has changed meaning in English more than that one. Wikipedia has an easier job than linguists do: we can just see what the reliable sources say, and go with that. Mathglot (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Lisapollison and Mathglot, try to make a opinion on our subject based on the works listed in our Talk:Kamrupi_dialect section and help us to reach a consensus. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  14:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem like an appropriate line of discussion. We should be depending on reliable sources, as Chaipau has indicated lead heavily towards dialect here, not debating the merits of various methods for distinguishing a dialect from a language. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 18:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We (me, Chaipau, Aeusoes, Richard Keating), the parties in dispute made our point. The uninvolved editors can also help with their opinions. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  19:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

After much reading and weighing of data, I say Dialect or Dialect family is most appropriate, based on the available sources. Of course the latter isn't really a choice since it's OR by me. I must say this is a very aggravating topic because clearly there is more going on with Kamrupi and its related dialects that ACT like a language family branch and not merely a group of similar dialects. That is my reading of all cited sources and also some private opinions I managed to pry loose from retired Linguists. But then, we have to rely on what sources we have, which are somewhat out of date. This is the very type of issue that makes for an excellent field of study for a new Ph.D candidate, from which a life's work could be derived. Of course, we cannot wait 15 or 20 years for a new body of work in this area. SO again, with regret, because I believe we are looking a Family branch of languages, I say using the term Dialect is the only proper course at this time. I assure you all, I did not arrive at this position without twisting myself into wikipedian knots trying to find a way to successfully argue the other position, which I believe may be a true argument, but not one that can be supported at this time by reliable sources. Opinion, even informed opinion, is Original Research. Thank you, however, for inviting me to familiarize myself with this issue, read the data and comment upon it. Sometimes the burden of being a volunteer editor on the world's biggest encyclopedia is to prevent procedural error since such error has a way of spreading from Wikipedia and into print. Once, an inexperienced editor fiddled with a fact I researched carefully and in changing my original statement by 1 letter/digit, they managed to embed that error into a folktale and it looks as if we can never stuff that genie back into the bottle even though we corrected the article. Wikipedia is so influential that even though I am inclined to agree with the argument for calling Kamrupi a language, there is not, in my opinion, a clear path through the cited sources to arrive at that conclusion without Synthesis and OR. Therefore, pending more data, using the term Dialect would be the correct action, in my opinion. LiPollis (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Lisapollison thank you and welcome to discussion, yes indeed the Upendranath Goswami's 1958/1970 thesis/book is became somewhat old, nonetheless he is still considered expert on this subject and regularly reprinted. The language vs dialect debate, his citation maybe of interest. Even if we consider linguistically it as dialect, can we follow the example of other wikipedia articles on dialect which are named xyz languages ? It is less likely that name will influence real life movements, as article will speak for itself ?  भास्कर् Bhagawati   Speak  03:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed! The linguistic situation is such that it can support not just one PhD and a lifelong pursuit, but can open up an entirely new cross-functional focus area. In the last few hundred years many previously Tibeto-Burman speakers had taken to the Indo-Aryan Assamese, and many of them probably were previously Austro-asiatic speakers.  Linguist Dipankar Moral had started looking into it, but unfortunately he passed away.  Stephen Morey and a few others are approaching this in their own way.  In this context, given also the ethnic strife, the debate whether Kamrupi is a dialect or a language is extremely constricting.  And how right you are on your comment on the impact of Wikipedia. I know of at least one printed book that has taken this debate and spinned it according to its own political agenda.  Chaipau (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Lisapollison, there is consensus on "no real world dispute" on the subject. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  11:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Precisely. There is no political activism to name Kamrupi a language.  There is no mention in the academic literature either.  But here in Wikipedia we are having a lengthy discussion.  Chaipau (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for reading my comment. I offered it only as my reading of the literature. If I were still teaching Sociolinguistics or even Historical Linguistics, this is a topic I would now include.  I learned a great deal from this experience and it will help me to be a more informed editor.  I have read the responses to my posts and in them I see exactly why this issue continues to be one that is hard to resolve. I am still reading on the subject, using Google Books as my treasure map.  Of course, this has led me down numerous Linguistic rabbit holes as I am fairly certain others have gone before.  I still come down on the side of Dialect, even though I am not happy about it. Dipanker Moral is often cited, thanked and celebrated but sadly, I can find nothing he published that would settle the issue in a different direction.  I favor Dialect for all the reasons I have stated but I am open to continue reading and have new material posted to my talk page for my continuing education. Ethnologue still lists Kamrupi as a dialect they choose to label as "Western Assamese" which I know has been discussed to death (the term, not Ethnologue's use of it) and Ethnologue is as close as we come to an "official" list of languages plus the breakdown of data.  Therefore,  going against their categorization without a new supporting reference could create unnecessary controversy.  I mention this only as an example of why changing the name could create problems.  It is not my intent to start a conversation about whether Ethnologue is the final arbiter on language. It's more like Wikipedia, an encyclopedic presentation of data but minus the open-sourcing. My point is simply that the published Academic consensus by numbers remains in favor of Dialect, at this time.  I understand that this is most likely due to lack of more modern research and/or re-assessment.   Thank you again for your kind attention and for the opportunity to contribute.  I also thank the editors active on this page for directing me to past discussions and important references.LiPollis (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Resources for commentators
I am opening this section for all those editors who are new to this subject. I have observed that in past most uninvolved editors unable to comment on it due to their unfamiliarity with the subject. I have initiated and participated discussions on this subject since 2012, most probably i will not in future on same issues as current ones. I am adding resources on the subject, so that uninvolved editors can take well informed decision in light of their acquired knowledge. I also invite other involved editors to add resources they deemed fit.

Material

 * A Study on Kamrupi a dialect of Assamese, i have listed this work first because its author Upendranath Goswami wrote exclusively and more than anybody else on the subject and this article is named and created based on this work, thank you. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  16:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 October 2019

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kamrupi dialect → Kamrupi dialects – Since the last RM, the article has developed to be very clear that Kamrupi is a group of dialects, not a single dialect, nor a separate language. Longer names like "Kamrupi dialect continuum" would be possible but not necessarily more WP:PRECISE for our readership, and not as WP:CONCISE. "Kamrupi Assamese" would be more WP:NATURAL (and WP:CONSISTENT with American English, Mexican Spanish, etc.), but is ambiguous, since it could esaily refer to Assamese people of Kamrup (and disambiguating it would put us right back in the dialects vs. dialect vs. language argument, just inside parentheses). The current proposal is WP:CONSISTENT with various other articles of this sort, such as Drèents dialects, Hessian dialects, etc. Though some articles with names in this pattern are basically subarticles of major-language main articles, e.g. Bengali dialects and German dialects, there's certainly no requirement that they be of that nature to have such a name, and their content is precise enough that no confusion will result. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Support: I strongly support this move. Recently the Goalpariya dialect page too moved to Goalpariya dialects .  Chaipau (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Ngrams has little to say (insufficient data), and sources seem to support this. Kamrupi Assamese did seem like a natural alternative, but SMcCandlish's argument against it is persuasive, as it just kicks the problem down the field, and ends up failing CONCISE compared to the add-s alternative. Mathglot (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – In contrast to general statements, the statistics (scholar) yields 42 hits for Kamrupi dialect, 14 for Kamrupi language and 3 for Kamrupi dialects (that too not in titular terms). The present name satisfies WP:COMMON NAME criteria and suggested name is coined afresh in Wikipedia itself which has no real life use. The titles of work on the subject are "A study on Kāmrūpī: a dialect of Assamese", "Onomatopoetic and echo-words in Kamrupi", "O. I. A. sibilants in Kāmrupi" etc. We are definitely not working on two different subjects.  भास्कर् Bhagawati   Speak  19:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support –  WP:COMMON NAME doesn't seem so relevant here, since the issue is that the topic is a group of dialects, not a single uniform dialect. We do want our article titles to accurately reflect what is covered, even if the means using a name that has less hits on Google Scholar. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]  19:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Kamrupi dialect -> Kamrupi dialects
Paine Ellsworth, thanks for closing the discussion. The result outcome based on three favourable votes. I like to draw your attention that we don't have evidences against existence of subject (Kamrupi dialect) and why we can't have article on it. The very first citation on lede i.e. "Kamrupi is defined as a dialect of Assamese in the title of the seminal work—Goswami, Upendranath (1970), A Study on Kamrupi: A dialect of Assamese", google scholar and google books firmly establishes Kamrupi dialect as indiviual subject. I am not opposed to Kamrupi dialects but it can be a secondary article about subdialects based on primary Kamrupi dialect article. Same way as Bengali language – Bengali dialects etc. Kindly rethink, thank you. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  01:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you very much for your concerns! There were actually four favourable !votes and rationales, because the nomination must also be included. As closer, I don't want to become an expert on languages and dialects. My goal is to evaluate the requested move discussion and to close the discussion based on my evaluation of the reasonings of the participants. Your rationale was indeed a strong reasoning in terms of keeping the status quo; however, the other editors' reasonings were also strong. Hopefully, this article's title has landed at its final resting place. Best to you, Bhaskarbhagawati!  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 01:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kamrupi dialects


text:
Problem based learning

Problem based learning (PBL) is an approach to education where students can actively learn. Used mostly in higher educational settings, PBL allows students to work together in teams and tackle problems that resemble real-world scenarios. Rather than instructors lecturing and giving students’ information to memorize for a test, PBL put the students into the driver’s seat. This gives students the ability to collaborate and explore what they already know, their hunches, and explore available resources to try and find a solution. Once the problem is clarified, students set out to find answers and therefore teach themselves.

Where it is used

Problem based learning is used in a learning environment, traditionally the classroom. Although PBL is geared towards collegiate settings it is being used in high school and other institutions. PBL has been a primary method of teaching in the medical and law fields for a long time. It is now being implementing in engineering, computer science, and other fields as well. Traditionally problem based learning occurs in the classroom setting and therefore students and professors are the key participants. In PBL the students are more essential than the instructor. In the professional field, project teams working on real life problems are using the same process.

To gain a picture of where PBL is being used around the world, the PBL Directory was set up by the University of Brighton. How it works

Problem based learning is effective because it does not simply entail the student to memorize dictated facts, but requires the students to become actively involved and use their own reasoning skills. PBL requires the student to access the knowledge he/she already has and use available resources to discover new information. Being able to relate a topic to an already existing understanding of the world helps students learn and understand new information. If a student learns or figures concepts out on his/her own he/she is more likely to retain the information. Having to constantly recall on information learned causes a deeper understanding of the subject and better long term recall, because constant refinement and revision of what was learned will take place throughout the course.

PBL accomplishes these objectives because the problems are the main vehicle for learning not the instructor. Making the student the center of learning will make the student actively engaged and more motivated. One of the first steps in true learning is to recognize that the information is important. Presenting real world based problems to students early in the learning process demonstrates the importance of the material. PBL causes students to learn how to apply information and approach problems that have no definite right or wrong answer, which improves the students reasoning skills and critical thinking skills, along with introducing new material. Students who use problem based learning in school have a greater understanding of how different subjects relate to each other, understand the application, and have better problem solving, group working, critical reasoning, and communication skills.

Implementation

The class setting that uses problem based learning is slightly different than the typical classroom setting. The teacher should not lecture very long, he/she should simply introduce the topic, problem, and what is expected of the class. The students then divide into groups. In the groups the students ensure they understand the problem and then begin brainstorming on solutions. The students are allowed to use the internet and any other available resources. Between the resources and the knowledge of the various group members a solution is devised. Even though there is no right or wrong answer the students need feedback to make problem base learning an effective learning tool. The facilitator then informs the group what was good, what would not actually work and why, and other suggestions. Allowing the class to see other solutions is also another good way to receive feedback and additional ideas.

title: Problem based learning


text:
Talk:Bunny Allen

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bunny Allen. 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/20110629113345/http://www.salon.com/wlust/feature/1998/03/19feature.html to http://www.salon.com/wlust/feature/1998/03/19feature.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bunny Allen


text:
Jan P. Matuszyński

Jan Paweł Matuszyński (born 23 April 1984, Katowice) is a Polish film director and a producer of documentary films.

Life
In 2012, he graduated in Film and Television Directing at the Krzysztof Kieślowski Film School in Katowice. In 2014, he was awarded the Silver George Award at the Moscow Film Festival for his documentary film Deep Love.

In 2016, he won the Golden Lions award at the 41st Gdynia Film Festival for Ostatnia rodzina (The Last Family), a film telling the story of artist Zdzisław Beksiński, starring Andrzej Seweryn (awarded the Silver Leopard for that role at the Locarno Film Festival) and Dawid Ogrodnik. In 2016, he was awarded the Paszport Polityki Award in the film category for Ostatnia rodzina.

His latest film Żeby nie było śladów (Leave No Traces) entered the main competition at the 78th Venice International Film Festival.

Filmography

 * Afterparty, etude, 2009
 * Amisze znad Wisły, documentary, 2010
 * Niebo, documentary, 2011
 * Offline, short film, 2012
 * Deep Love, documentary, 2013
 * Kolaudacja, documentary, 2014
 * The Last Family, 2016
 * Król (The King), TV series, 2020
 * Żeby nie było śladów (Leave No Traces), 2021

title: Jan P. Matuszyński


text:
Talk:High School Mathematics Extensions/Logic/Problem Set/Solutions

That <IP_ADDRESS> is me, Tom Lam or lemontea(it keeps kicking me out while I'm editing)

Why is there no boarder with table?

Problem on the solution
On the questions about NAND, I've find the answer that's simplier,using only six NAND operators.

{[(x NAND x) NAND (y NAND y)] NAND w} NAND (z NAND z)

Solution: Let (x+y)w+z = a NAND b, where a and b can either be one of x,y,w,z or another NAND operator.

$$(x+y)w+z=(ab)'$$

$$(x+y)w+z=a'+b'$$

Therefore $$a=[(x+y)w]'$$ and $$b=z'$$, both need further NAND operators. Let a = c NAND d, and let b = e NAND f.

$$(x+y)w+z={(cd)'}^{'}+{(ef)'}^{'}$$

$$(x+y)w+z=cd+ef$$

Therefore d=w, e=f=z,c=x+y.Let c = g NAND h.

$$x+y=(gh)'$$

$$x+y=g'+h'$$

Now g=x' and h=y', we still need more NAND operators. Let g = i NAND j and let h = k NAND l.

$$(ij)'=x'$$ $$x=ij$$ $$(kl)'=y'$$ $$kl=y$$

Therefore i=j=x and k=l=y.

Now substitute all the variables back, you should get:

(x+y)w+z={[(x NAND x) NAND (y NAND y)] NAND w} NAND (z NAND z)

Thanks.

 * Hey, tops! Did you figure this out yourself? Really good. Xiaodai 09:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually i didn't read the solutions. The one in there is a shocker. Xiaodai 09:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi!Yes, I did figure this out myself, but I just want to ask: what do you mean by "shocker" and "i didn't read the solutions." in your last comment? I'm completely confused.Lemontea 19:25, 20 Nov 2004 (GMT+8)


text:
File:Skateboarders.jpg

Summary
Moving from right to left: James Karhu, Gary Snell (black shirt), David Karhu (grey shirt), Michael Patterson (red shirt), Ben Rogan.

Kelvin Kay user:Kkmd

title: File:Skateboarders.jpg


text:
Teletraffic engineering/What is the Engset calculation?

Author: Nosipho Dhladhla

Summary
The Engset traffic model explores the relationship between offered traffic usually during the busy hour, the blocking that will occur in that traffic and the number of circuits provided where there number of sources from which the traffic is generated is known. It is used in place of the Erlang B traffic model in cases where the ratio of the number of sources to the number of circuits is less than 10, as the Erlang B overestimates blocking for a finite number of sources [1]. The Engset formula assumes that calls, when blocked, are cleared ( only valid if the calls are overflowed to another trunk group). It is used in applications such as small telephone systems or PBX systems, where a finite number of users have dial access [2].

Definition
The Engset formula is used to determine the blocking probability or probability of congestion occuriing within a circuit group. It is similar to the Erlang B formula but specifies a finite number of sources.It also assumes that blocked calls are cleared or overflowed to another circuit group.

Engset Calculation
The Engset calculation, was developed by Tore Olaus Engset to determine the probability of congestion occurring within a circuit group. The level of congestion can be used to determine a network's perfomance as it is measured by the grade of service. The Engset formula requires that the user knows the expected peak traffic, the number of sources and the number of circuits in the network [3].

Engset's equation is similar to the Erlang B formula except that the Erlang B assumes an infinite number to sources. In situations where you have a limited number of sources generating calls to a call centre, Erlang B can result in too high a number of circuits required [4]. Engset specifies a finite number of callers and thus would produce a more accurate result for traffic generated by a finite source [3, 4]. For a large user population, however, the Engset and the Erlang B give the same result [3].

Solving the Engset formula involves iteration in that to obtain the answer to this probability, the calculation must first determine an initial estimate. The user makes an initial guess of probability Pb, and runs the Engset formula using that guess. The process is repeated using the answer found as the new guess until it (the guess at that time) converges with the answer [3,2].

Engset formula [2]:

 * $$P(b)=\frac{\left[\frac{\left(S-1\right)!}{N!\cdot\left(S-1-N\right)!}\right]\cdot M^N}{\sum_{X=1}^N\left[\frac{\left(S-1\right)!}{X!\cdot\left(S-1-X\right)!}\right]\cdot M^X}$$

 * $$M=\frac{A}{S-A\cdot\left(1-P(b)\right)}$$

where

 * A = offered traffic in erlangs, from all sources
 * S = number of sources of traffic
 * N = number of circuits
 * P(b) = probability of blocking

Example
Suppose that company X has 10 telephone extensions, generating 5 erlangs of traffic for outgoing calls during the busy hour. Using the Erlang B formula for a grade of service of 1%, 11 circuits (lines) would be needed by company X. Calculations for Erlang B can be carried out using the Erlang B calculator. There are only 10 extensions so 11 lines is an overestimate.

Using the Engset formula for the same example, 9 lines would be specified which is fine as not all extensions will be used simultaneously all the time. Calculations done using the Engset calculator.

Exercises
Exercise 1

Using the Erlang B formula and the Engset formula, compare the number of lines specified in each of the calculations for the same number of sources and traffic offered for a grade of service of 0.01.

Number of sources: 10, 20, and 100.

Offered traffic = 5 erlangs.

Solution 1

Exercise 2

Finite source formulas such as the Engset formula have fewer applications than infinite formulas (Erlang). Another finite source formula is the Binomial formula. It differs from the Engset formula in that it uses traffic per source rather than the total traffic from all sources. It also assumes that traffic is queued rather cleared when blocked as does the Engset formula [2].

The Binomial finite source formula is given by [2]:

$$ \begin{matrix} \mathbf{Pb = \sum^{S-1}_{x=N} ~ \frac {(S-1)!} {x! (S-1-X)!} ~ A^x (1-A)^{(S-1-X)}} & \begin{array}{l} \mathbf{Where:} \\ \mathbf{\quad A = Offered~Erlangs~per~source} \\ \mathbf{\quad S = Number~of~sources} \\ \mathbf{\quad N = Number~of~servers} \\ \mathbf{\quad Pb = Probability~of~blcoking} \end{array} \end{matrix} $$

Compare the probabilities for the Binomial and Engset calculations for the same number of sources for traffic offered equal to 2 erlangs, with 5 available lines and a grade of service of 0.02.

Number of sources: 10, 20, and 30.

Solution 2