User talk:CharlesWain

Soma Mondal, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rusalkii (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am glad I am able to make little contributions to expand the scope of Wikipedia. I will try making quality contributions in future too. Thanks again !Dear Debasish (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding ongoing dispute related to inclusion of a statement in Origin section. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Pala Empire".The discussion is about the topic Pala Empire.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Ekdalian (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CharlesWain! Your additions to Varendra have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You made an edit saying Saradananda, Swami (1978). Sri Ramakrishna, the great master is an insufficiently reliable source. Could you please explain? As far I know, this is one of the primary sources of information on Ramakrishna being written by his direct disciple. RamasSquirrel (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RamasSquirrel, please read WP:Primary.CharlesWain (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Just read it. The usage in Ramakrishna article from the primary source is straightforward and doesn't depend on any analysis, interpretation etc. In that case, it's use is not against the policy. Do you feel otherwise? RamasSquirrel (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you proposing or planning to add, RamasSquirrel?CharlesWain (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In another vision following Ramakrishna's birth, his mother saw a strange tall person lying in the bed instead of the baby Ramakrishna.^{[better source needed]}

The above line was added by me and you had added the 'better source needed' comment regarding the source of this line, which is Sri Ramakrishna the Great Master (1978). So I wanted to understand the reason behind the comment. RamasSquirrel (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rani Rashmoni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalyani. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia but know many facts about Hare Krishna Konar and want to recorrect the article of Hare Krishna Konar but I am unable to do it, so can you please check grammatical or other mistakes in that article please do the needfulls. Privetwik (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Privetwik, whenever you add contents, please give citations. The article has multiple issues - grammar, spelling, sentence structure etc. A large part of the article is unsourced, and the style of writing in many sections doesn't suit encyclopaedia. I will work later.You make correct the mistakes and improve the article, if you want.CharlesWain (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Thank You very much to you. Privetwik (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Vyas Smriti Kayasthas are shudra. NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shibakali Mondal, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shibakali Mondal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello charles why are you editing that false propaganda that pours a bad light on sahas . Sahas are baniyas they are buisnessman of bengal . Sahasworld (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respected sir, I'm new to Wikipedia Wisher08 (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I observed that a edit I had made in the Mahishya page got reversed by another user. I just want to know if the process I followed while making that edit did not align with the correct process in anyway. I feel you would be able to clarify my doubt Wisher08 (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wisher08, Your statement is correct, but the source you added as citation was a blog which is considered unreliable. Read WP:RS. Thanks and regards,-CharlesWain (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir. You guidance is highly esteemed. Wisher08 (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlesWain, I had added that name to the notable personality list of the Mahishya page, surmising from the fact that the surname is widely found in the Medinipur region, which is predominantly inhabited by the said caste. Moreover, the Tamluk Raj family which is vertably certified as Mahishyas, also had the said surname throughout history. Therefore, I surmised, albeit I'll admit I didn't have my source exactly stating it. This is to let you know that I did not make the edit in bad faith. I'll be delighted if you helped me find the suitable source. Thanks and regards. Wisher08 (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanja is not usually a Mahishya surname. Do you have any source supporting that Tamluk Raj family used Bhanja surname? As per as I know, they used to be Bhuiyan, and are now Roy. I will look into it. Thanks, Wisher08. CharlesWain (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you visit the page Tamluk and proceed to the "Landmarks and tourist places", you will find the Raj family refered to as the "Bhanj Dynasty" along with the source. Bhanja is generally a Oriya surname primarily used by the Khandayat community. I inferred that the Tamluk Raj family might have been a cadet branch of the Bhanja dynasty of Orissa. Since, most Mahishyas of Medinipur region similar/ same surnames with the Khandayats of the neighbouring state, I believed Bhanja to be a Mahishyas surname. Thanks, @CharlesWain. Wisher08 (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahishyas of Medinipur have Khandait connection, but what you have written here is WP:OR. Not sure of actor Sumit Bhanja, but Kanan Devi's adoptive father was Mahishya by caste. You may consider adding her to notable list.CharlesWain (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but I couldn't find any suitable source corroborating that. Thanks and regards. Wisher08 (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wisher08, I probably have a source; I shall look into that later. CharlesWain (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a source and utilised it as well! Regards. Wisher08 (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to the Swaminarayan Akshardham page. I noticed, though, that your recent edits are heavily focused on the lawsuit, which gives the article an unbalanced feel. Wikipedia guidelines emphasize a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) to ensure topics are covered fairly. The lawsuit is already mentioned thoroughly, so focusing just on that without expanding other sections makes the article seem one-sided. The talk page had previously decided to keep the lawsuit out of the introduction and as seen with the recent talk section about it, the consensus is that it ruins the balance of the article and pushes a non NPOV view. Ram112313 (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CharlesWain.. as an experienced editor, the following edit summary ([1]) is not expected from you: "Reverted 1 edit by Ekdalian (talk): Then help find one instead of reverting a good faith edit". I edit hundreds of articles and how do I assume good faith here and start searching for sources? You are well aware that as per WP:BURDEN, "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." This is an inappropriate edit summary and not an ideal behavior, especially since you are also aware of WP:GS/CASTE! You could have simply restored the content after adding a relevant source. This is just a friendly message to let you know what I expect from you. I shall leave it here. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't forget to provide edit summaries. I am not posting the standard template (message), but would like to let you know that you have not provided edit summaries in your recent edits related to the above-mentioned article. Ekdalian (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that our discussion on the Ghoshal page was less than ideal. Since I was the first one to escalate the debate, it is only proper for me to apologize first. In my defense though, I have never engaged in bitter edit warring. I have only tried to reach consensus through debate. Most of my stuff is on the Talk pages. Am I an SPA? I don't know- I created this account to correct wrongs and bring other reputable sources to people's attention on a topic that most people on here have very little knowledge about. I am not a regular on the internet, let alone on Wikipedia... However, I do have the bad habit of sticking to a certain topic unless I have completely hammered my point across. However, I also understand the need for consensus on things like these. The topics I have dwelt on are already very niche and to be fair, quite unimportant and so, things around these parts are run by two or three experienced editors who kinda make all the decisions. I do hope we all can engage in constructive, honest debate in the Talk pages. I would again like to apologise for my beahviour yesterday, as it is important to be civil both in real life and the virtual one. :) Justaghost4 (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion on the topic. You cannot tag-team and revert edits without taking part in the discussion. Please revert your edit and allow the discussion to conclude. Upd Edit (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you provide a source for the caste recently added by an IP here? Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fylindfotberserk, I have sources, but you may not be able to verify as those are in Bengali. GC Denham, SP, on special duty in the criminal Intelligence Department, mentioned about Basanta Biswas, his background and caste in a report titled "Notes on Revolutionary Activity in Benares" dated July 19, 1915. Basanta Biswas was from a notable family of Nadia, and I have like half a dozen sources on their family history, but mention of caste only exist in Bengali sources except the mentioned police report.CharlesWain (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then please add one of those sources with quotation and trans-quotation. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fylindfotberserk, I added a magazine, with translated quote, and a book mentioning about his grand uncle Digambar Biswas, leader of Indigo revolt. Hope this would be okay here. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. In the first reference you added [2], the title is in Bengali with English alphabets. It should be in Bengali alphabets, and you can add another parameter (trans-title) with a translated version of it in English. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ekdalian (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy holidays!
	Wishing you a Merry Christmas filled with love and joy, a Happy Holiday season surrounded by warmth and laughter, and a New Year brimming with hope, happiness, and success! 🎄🎉✨ Baqi:) (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't my intent to edit war. But the britannica link has not been edited since ages. Britannica does not even mention that Marathi is classical. They have not updated it yet. The link I am providing is the official government link and should not that suffice ? Since it is by the Ministry of Culture and that same Ministry has granted Marathi classical stature. It was also in the news that the reason Marathi has been granted classical status is because of its oldest inscription in Naneghat near Pune that clearly states Marathino in it. No other Indo-Aryan language has an inscription that is this old. If you make the earliest attestation date 1000CE then that itself voids the criteria since the minimum years is 1,500 years old. Gatha Saptashati is 2000 years old which is the oldest collection of poems. The other source appended there which Kuvalaya-mala also states Marathi to be present in the 6th-7th century. Tamil 2000 years ago and Tamil now is very different. On the basis of Tamil's continuity with its ancestor 2000 years ago it was granted classical stature. It is the same case with Marathi and Maharashtri Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://pib.gov.in/FeaturesDeatils.aspx?NoteId=153318&ModuleId+=+2

please refer to this link. This is proper and official. This is the latest documentation. I do not know why this is being questioned unless there is a personal bias. If you do not respond I will assume you have accepted my argumentation and shall redit Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rightmostdoor6, Britannica is a very notable encyclopaedia and considered a reliable tertiary source in Wikipedia. But Britannica is not the only source, there are other sources, for example - check this article of Central Institute of Indian Languages- [3], which has also been cited in our article. CharlesWain (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the article has it been mentioned that Maharashtri and Marathi are discontinuous or not the same. Can you kindly share with me the article where it clearly states that Marathi and Maharashtri are separate languages. Because I have provided you with the official government link and i feel that is the one that should be sacrosanct since your Central Institute article has nothing mentioned regarding Marathi or Maharashtri and again it is edited by some user. On the other hand I have shared you the link where it states that Maharashtri and Marathi have had continuity all along. So could you share me a link that counters that please Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also check this article Marathi-Konkani languages too.

Article talk page is the appropriate page to discuss about contents and disputes. CharlesWain (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://pib.gov.in/FeaturesDeatils.aspx?NoteId=153318&ModuleId+=+2

can you please take the time out and read this ? This is by the Indian Government that has granted classical statuses to all languages Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rightmostdoor6, it's clearly mentioned in the cited article that the time period of old Marathi is 1000-1300 CE, which has been derived and evolved through Maharashtri Prakrit and Apabhramsa. Please check again. CharlesWain (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time beside Bengali language you have added Apabhramsa. So how is it that you accept The Apabhramsa period for Bengali as its own but not for Marathi ?? Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 09:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You want to add Jain Apabhramsa period which is 600 CE?

Fine with me if old Marathi period stays as well. CharlesWain (talk) 09:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://pib.gov.in/FeaturesDeatils.aspx?NoteId=153318&ModuleId+=+2

this article is the latest and official source. You can read this and all youe doubts shall be clarified. I am not putting what is in my mind. I am also putting accurate information based on this government document. There should be no reason to deny. You are not even taking the time to read it and are simply editinf due to your personal bias and self-righteous attitude that it is either your way or the highway. This is absolutely unfair and below the belt Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is another cited article which is by the Ministry of Culture of India which clearly states Marathi existed 2,200 years ago. You have not shown me an article yet where it is saying that Marathi and Maharashtri are discontinuous. Even the article you state that has 1000 CE mentioned states that Marathi descended from Maharashtri. It's the same with Classical Sanskrit, Tamil and even Kannda from Hallegannada. Are you going to say Hallegannada and Kannada are not the same ? Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 09:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned here evolved. Yes all languages have evolved. Tamil spoken now is very different from what it was 2000 years ago. Same with Marathi. You are right about evolution. You yourself have mentioned it. It is evolution but of the same linguistic tradition and conintuity like Tamil with Old Tamil and Kannada with Hallegannada Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rightmostdoor6, As far as Tamil is concerned it's clearly mentioned in our source that the time period of old Tamil is 300 BCE-700 CE and same has been mentioned in our article. Do you have a source for the old Marathi too ? I can't see. Is Maharashtri Prakrit same as Marathi? If you say so, then Odia is also 2300 years ( attestation period 3rd century BCE) old atleast, and same goes for other Prakrit derived languages. CharlesWain (talk) 09:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Odia is not that old simply because there is no inscription in Odia or Bengali proving it. For Marathi there is an inscription.

this article is the latest source, read it up

https://pib.gov.in/FeaturesDeatils.aspx?NoteId=153318&ModuleId+=+2&reg=3&lang=1 Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PIB is a press release by government, not a scholarly source or WP:HISTRS, hence is not reliable source, especially for contentious issue. Whereas we have a good source for Odia. CharlesWain (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that press release outlines the evidences on the basis of which classical status was granted. That is also the same body that granted Bengali and Odia classical status Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The CIIL that is central institute of indian languages still has not updated its classical list. If you see it has only 4 languages. It does not have the latest list included yet. The CIIL article states the first stage of Marathi as Maharashtri then Jain Apanhramsa then old, middle & modern. In the same CIIL article it is mentioned that "The word Marathi is derived from mahārāṣtrī, mahā means ‘great’ and rāṣtra means ‘nation’ or ‘land’, and hence mahārāṣtrī means ‘the language of the great land’" Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have found another link. This is by the Maharashtra goverment and it gives more details of how Marathi is the modern-day Maharashtri. The link is below. I request you to read from Page 41-43 for a better understanding.

https://dgipr.maharashtra.gov.in/sites/default/files/2020-08/MAhead-FEB%202013.pdf Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the CIIL source jain apabhramsa is also marathi from 600CE. It is written as Jain Marathi in the article later which is under Maharashtri. I think you should change the date to 600CE or before if you want to go basis the CIIL artilce. Marathi Scholar L R Pangarkar had proved that Apabhramsa Marathi and Maharashtri are stages of the same language continuum. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rightmostdoor6, Another editor also rejected your edit. I can at best add notes giving these details. If you must, you should open a discussion on article talk page and involve other experienced editors to build WP:CONSENSUS, and see if they allow. And please don't do unilateral edit on this contentious issue, it will lead to edit warring, which we don't want. CharlesWain (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i am not editing it. Also Since our conversation here has gone so deep hence I thought of continuing it here itself rather than there. It would be difficult for me to start afresh there. There is one source attached which is of 'Kuvalaya-mala' which states Marathi in 6th Century CE. It is there from the start so should not that source be considered Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're contented with adding notes, I will do the relevant edits tomorrow. Let me know. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What should be the crux of the notes ? The history pertaining to Marathi or something else is expected, if you could clarify Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have one final point to make please..that for a language to be classical the min. required age is 1500 years. So if Marathi's attestation is 1000 years then how will it qualify ? Also the other sources like CIIL are not updated because they are dated way before Marathi was declared classical. They havent considered the latest facets and findings even though in CIIL the 1st stage of Marathi is Maharashtri. And since it is a government website, not much can be expected when it comes to updating the latest info at the earliest Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://study.com/academy/lesson/marathi-history-grammar-alphabet-language.html#:~:text=The%20Marathi%20language%20evolved%20from,finally%20emerged%20around%20100%20B.C.E.

https://www.culturopedia.com/marathi/ Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if you think

pracitically in this scenario the Tamil

spoken right now is very different from what it was before. Go check Tolkappiyam and it would be very difficult for the average Tamil native to comprehend it. But yet it is getting tagged as being the same language. Tamil was given classical status in 2004 so there has been a lot of time to register its facts. Marathi has received 2 months ago and the latest facts I have put forward through that article that you must read first Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This source is literally present in the page as well but I do not know why you are neglecting it when it is official and the latest bit of actual info i.e. facts. No point in denying facts. That way no matter what proof is put forth you shall always be in denial Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rightmostdoor6, first of all, my talk page isn't appropriate page page for discussing content dispute. The discussion should be in relevant article talk page.

secondly, opening talk page discussion isn't just formality, you need to achieve WP:Consensus here. And achieving consensus needs time, sometimes weeks. You should be patient. Other editiors aren't always online, or WP:SPA like you. Sorry, You should revert your last edit and achieve consensus. Otherwise You may be reported for distruptive editing, WP: edit war. CharlesWain (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think i am doing a formality ? If i were then why would I bother replying to each and every message of yours Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a moderator who has about 600K edits. You can go check it in the history of edits on that page. He himself reverted an edit made by a random to my original edit. The Ministry of culture article is a citation present in the page itself beside Marathi language. I am not doing anything wrong. I am updating as per that citation only. You are choosing to ignore that citation on purpose i am very aware. Britannica does not even acknowledge Marathi as classical like the other Dravidian languages because it has not been updated since ages. But you are hellbent on only looking at that outdated source. Even the source Kuvalaya-mala states 600 CE but you are putting 1000CE. How is this right Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will also find an Article which is Tamil-Kannada languages but it s just a similar family. Marathi-Konkani is just a similar family yet distinct languages because Konkani isnt classical. Marathi is. So you cannot compare both. And putting attestation date as 1,000 CE when the criteria is 1,500 years old defeats the purpose of Marathi being classical and then should not even be on the list Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rightmostdoor6, Neither study.com nor culturopedia is considered a reliable source in Wikipedia, furthermore Culturopedia isn't supporting your point. Check this source, which is reliable academic source. You should open a discussion on Classical languages of India article itself and seek other editors' opinions. Thanks.CharlesWain (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  i know culturopedia is 600CE. Basically it was just to show that there is a general consensus that its attestation is much earlier and before 1000CE that you were inputting. CIIL has Maharashtri as the first stage of Marathi evolution. 1000 CE if it is put then classical tag should not be given at all is also one of my main points since the minimum criterion is 1,500 years old. There is a reason why Konkani isnt classical but Marathi is because Konkani became a different language and is not continuous with Marathi and it diverged from the evolution of Marathi whereas Marathi maintained its continuity. Many proofs were submitted by the Marathi Experts' Committee but yes those are proofs that the general public like you or me arent tangible to. But The Sahitya Akademi with experts from all languages accepted Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The source you shared states Marathi the word originated from Maharashtri and that is what i mentioned in my earlier argumentations that the name evolved to Maharathi and Marahathi and then finally Marathi. But they are all continuous and are of the same linguistic tradition despite different phases and lingustic shifts. Naneghata inscription in Maharashtra was one of the key artefacts supporting this Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The inscription has the term "Maharithano" mentioned. But all reliable sources giving old Marathi the time period of 1000 CE to 1300 CE. If we consider Prakrit or Apabhramsa the early form of the indo Aryan languages, then every language in this list is atleast 2000 to 2300 years old. CharlesWain (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I shall edit the page accordingly giving notes. CharlesWain (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not Maharithano as you wrote. 'Maharathino' it is. That is what the Marathi people were called. In your source that you shared it is even mentioned that the word Marathi emerged from the word Maharashtri. It is there in the source you shared. The language is the same. The name has changed and the stages have Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Konkani has not gotten classical status for a reason because it is not continuous with Marathi and Maharashtri. 1000 CE deep and major literary works in Marathi were composed so it is not possible the the language just got born and reached such a deep and mature stage immediately. Odia, Assamese and Bangla have a common ancestor and they divered from Magadhi late. This is not the case with Marathi. Moreover criteria is 1,500 years old. How will Marathi be considered classical if it is 1000 years old then ? Has the government wrongly accorded it classical status because criteria is a minimum of 1,500 years. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Rightmostdoor6,You said "Odia, Assamese and Bangla have a common ancestor and they divered from Magadhi". No, Odia linguist and historian claimed Odia is first found in a 3rd century BCE inscription, and based on this report govt. gave Odia classical language status a decade ago. They even said Odia is totally distinct from Hindi, Bengali, Assamese or other languages-you can find it here. Of course major linguists would not agree, but that's the report govt. accepted. You can't have two different standards at the same place. If we accept Prakrit or Apabhramsa early form for one language, we have to accept for all others and edit accordingly. CharlesWain (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I know Odia is an ancient language and it is much older than Bangla for sure. Major linguists have a tough time digesting facts especially if their language is at threat so I am aware and not denying what you are saying. It's just that you are doing the same thing like the other major linguists in Marathi's case and I am in that Odia situation because even I am giving you the government report and I am not making anything up by myself. We knew all this historicity of Marathi even before Marathi was made classical. It's just that they made it official on pen and paper in 2024 and that is the document I shared with you. With Marathi the case is a bit different because the government has accepted it and Maharashtri as the same which is why in many places it has directly used Marathi in place of using Prakrit or Maharashtri Prakrit etc.Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/clamour-grows-for-marathi-to-be-given-classical-language-status/articleshow/63776578.cms# Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also i urge you to change Odia's date to 3rd century BCE then because that is the truth and not false info. You should change it then. The only advantage Tamil has that the name never changed or at least in recent times to address Old Tamil they kept using the name for it also as Tamil and kept using that only unlike for languages like Marathi, Odia, Telugu etc. In fact this Indo-Aryan and Dravidian division has also been debunked but the world follows the West so it has to be used in this manner for others to understand since it is so ingrained Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Odia and Bangla were indistinguishable before 11th Century. Charyapada, which was written between 8th-9th and 10th century is considered the earliest literary work of both Odia and Bengali. That's what the sources saying. I got your point. I will try to do relevant edits in a couple of days. CharlesWain (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh ok..Marathi was always separate. Konkani emerged much later(unlike Odia/Bangla which were contemporary at a point in time)which is why Konkani has almost no literature even in the middle ages. ok sure, hope you do the relevant edits but by keeping it fair for both Marathi and Odia languages since a lot of effort believe me has gone in by the Classical Committee of both these languages and all it takes is a minute for people to downplay their efforts and make a change. So it's a request please.. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This source says otherwise. Anyway I will vide more sources. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Konkani linguists are always trying to claim everything in their favour. If it were that way then why were they not able to produce enough evidence to claim Maharashtri as its own and be declared classical. It's simply because of lack of actual evidence than theoretical claims. On the other hand Marathi could since there are 85 Pothis in the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute that align with Maharashtri and prove its continuity. Of course we do not have access to those but these were submitted way back in 2013. Change of central government delayed classical declaration to 2024. Marathi had fulfilled the criteria back then but its submission also got delayed unlike Odia which was submitted on time. ACTUALLY even Malayalam was first rejected. But due to Chidambaram's pressure it was later declared classical. Also for Konkani, the Prakrit name is Maharashtri which has links to Maharashtra and Marathi in its name itself. No Konkani Prakrit as such and no literature available either to prove. They arent able to prove its continuity with Maharashtri. Maharashtri to Marathi is one single line of continuity. Midway Konkani branched out of it into a separate line and then language. In Maharashtra earlier Kokan(Konkan) is a region and the dialect of that region being Kokani(Konkani) was how it was. And all Konkani linguists' claims are rather based on theories rather than actual epigraphical or manuscript evidences which is why even to this day it is not declared classical Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If the term is Maharathino it means obviously the language of the region was Marathi. It could not have been Gujarati or Kannada etc. Indian people to this date cannot differentiate between Marathi and Marathi so to further confuse Maharathino isnt a surprise. But Maharathino was what Marathi people were called and it is obvious the language had to be Marathi smd not Konkani or Malayalam. All this in-depth was produced to the Sahitya Akademi on the basis of which classical status was given and the Ministry of Culture created the press release document Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Marathi reached a mature linguistic stage around the 10th century so the language surely was not born in the 10th century. Because to compose literary works like Lilacharitra and Dnyaneshwari which had such deep and mature usage of the language, the language surely could not have been just born and would have had to exist centuries before to reach the deep literary stage in the 10th century and beyond Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]