Jump to content

Talk:Bengali–Assamese languages

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

Khulnaiya

[edit]

@Batternut Hi, the Khulnaiya words were collected from a native speaker of Khulnaiya. Sagir Ahmed Msa (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses the distinct languages of the Bengali–Assamese family. Bengali has many dialects, as do the others. It just is not feasible to put all the dialects in the comparison table. Besides, there is very little evidence of the notability of Khulnaiya, and your comment above rather suggests that the addition was original research, which is not allowed. Batternut (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison table compares the languages which makes classifying (according to linguistics, not ethnicity or socio-politics) and studying languages easier for linguists. Sagir Ahmed Msa (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The place to write educational texts is Wikibooks. Batternut (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rohingya

[edit]

@Dlohcierekim:, @Anatoliatheo:, @Raymond3023: Why did you remove the sourced Rohingya words?

@Dlohcierekim:, @Anatoliatheo:, @Raymond3023: No answer???

Script

[edit]

According to all the sources added here, the languages use Bengali script and not Eastern Nagari. So please don't revert to push this unsourced POV. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Script

[edit]

The Assamese script is used in the Hajong language. The Assamese ৰ /ɹɔ/ and ৱ /vo/ are used in this language. And Koch Rajbanshi also uses these. @Chaipau:, any suggestions in this matter? Axomiya deka (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The inline Ethnologue citation says Bengali and Latin script. So it should be that way. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is Hajong language, but this is not Bengali script.
Hajong Hajong (in IPA) English Case
বুৰি-ৰৗ buri-rɯ the old woman unmarked
বুৰি-ৰৗগে buri-rɯge to the old woman dative
বুৰি-লৗ buri-lɯ of the old woman genitive
বুৰি নি buri ni to/at the old woman locative
বুৰি ভায় buri bʰaʲ to the old woman allative
বুৰি থিকি buri t̪ʰiki from the old woman ablative
বুৰি দিঅৗ buri diɯ through/by the help of the old woman instrumental

Axomiya deka (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source says "Bengali script" for all languages here so we should follow that. Anyway it redirects to Bengali-Assamese script which is used by all of these languages. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The script is Eastern Nagari, but neither Bengali nor Assamese alphabet. The example is ৰৗ. The consonant is not found in Bengali alphabet and the vowel is not found in Assamese alphabet. Chaipau (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Script names

[edit]

@Za-ari-masen: the name of the script is Bengali-Assamese script in Wikipedia and the alphabets are different. Chaipau (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the script in wikipedia has been changed if that's the only reason you have. Please follow the sources and don't edit war. Za-ari-masen (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Za-ari-masen:, please do not keep claiming Alphabets and Scripts are same. You are linking the scripts to alphabets. Furthermore, the Assamese alphabet is not at all the Bengali alphabet. This is adequately documented both in "Origin of Bengali Script" and the "Evolution of Assamese Script". So please desist from these false claims. Chaipau (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow the sources. All the sources clearly indicate that these languages use Bengali script. Don't use the title of a wikipedia article as a justification to push your POV. Za-ari-masen (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the script has been discussed and resolved Talk:Bengali–Assamese_script/Archive_1#Requested_move_13_February_2019. Chaipau (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chaipau, you just did exactly the thing I asked you to not to. Za-ari-masen (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Za-ari-masen please resolve this issue in the talk page of Bengali-Assamese script. This page is just following the convention set there. Chaipau (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Title of a wikipedia article (which has been tagged with numerous issues) cannot be a justification to change the content. The sources say these languages use Bengali Script. If you want to change it, bring proper sources to back your claim. That's the only convention here. You are now being stubbornly disruptive. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Keatinge, since you have just reverted my edit, can you point me any source at this talkpage that says these languages use "Bengali-Assamese script"? If not, please self-revert otherwise this would be regarded as a team-warring. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chaipau, bring a source that says these languages use "Bengali-Assamese script" and we can have a discussion. Otherwise, quit repeating the same thing and wasting both of our time. Za-ari-masen (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

[edit]

User:Chaipau you are involved in persistent edit warring to prove your seemingly unsubstantiated claims. Immediately stop the edit war and build consensus with other editors here. Thank you.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhaskarbhagawati: This is clearly not edit warring and the point is definitely not unsubstantiated.
  • There is a reason why there are separate articles for "scripts" and "alphabets". What should not be done in this article is use [[Bengali alphabet|Bengali script]]
  • One cannot pass off "Bengali alphabet" to mean "Bengali script". The script that is used for Assamese is called "Assamese script" in Assam (Bora, Mahendra (1981). The Evolution of Assamese Script. Jorhat, Assam: Assam Sahitya Sabha.) and the script for Bengali is called Bengali script (Banerji, R D (1919). The Origin of the Bengali Script. University of Calcutta.). These are not scripts in themselves, but rather alphabets used for specific languages.
  • Writers such has Brandt have pointed out that the over arching script is better called "Easter Nagari script", since the script is used in many languages in their own specific ways. For example, Meitei uses the Bengali "ro" but the Assamese "wo". Thus it uses neither the Assamese nor the Bengali alphabet but an alphabet specific for itself which is neither "Bengali" nor "Assamese".
  • Brandt also asserts that the Bengali naturally asserts the script is called "Bengali" without merit.
Chaipau (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that identity and naming are difficult in this subject. From the references presented on these pages, it seems to me that the most appropriate names are those that Chaipau presents - but I think that "Easter Nagari script" should be "Eastern Nagari script". I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's only this single source that mentions Eastern Nagari and this source is the only thing that Chaipau try to present everywhere which has already been discarded at the talk page of that article with consensus. On the other hand, there are numerous sources that call it Bengali script which is also officially accepted by Unicode standard. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one is calling it Eastern Nagari. We are using the name that has been agreed upon, even though it is a misnomer. Chaipau (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

I have removed this map from the article as it's misleading and inaccurate. There is no source added in the file description. As another editor has also expressed the same concern, do not re-add the map without reaching a consensus. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the map again. I agree with the editor who inserted it. The map is based on Suniti Kumar Chatterji's four group of Magadhi Apabhramsa, and the citation clearly references it. The citation is: [1]. Please do not remove the map. Chaipau (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chaipau, the map is still misleading. Suniti Kumar Chatterji includes North Bengali (Rangpur, Dinajpur, Jalpaiguri, South Darjeeling, West Goalpara, East Purnia) and Assamese under Kamarupic dialects but the map includes parts of Nepal, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland as well. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Za-ari-masen: Nepal has pockets of North Bengali speakers and Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland have Nefamese and Nagamese, which are Assamese-based creoles, which are showed shaded. Thus the map gives a much fuller and accurate depiction of the Bengali-Assamese languages. Chaipau (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide a source for the North Bengali speakers in Nepal, migrants don't count. Nefamese is a pidgin, not native to Arunachal Pradesh and according to the wikipedia article, its usage is already endangered, being replaced by Hindi. I won't be opposing the inclusion of the map for now and will wait and see if anybody else raises such concern in future. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nefamese and Nagamese are native to Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland. These creoles were used in All India Radio broadcasts. Nefamese is endangered, but that does not mean it does not exist or did not exist. Nagamese is veritably the lingua franca in Nagaland. The portion of Nepal showed within the Bengali-Assamese language map was within the Koch kingdom, and the Bengali-Assamese speakers there are native to that place. Chaipau (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glottolog classifies Nagamese as a Bengali-Assamese pidgin and it has 3 million speakers. I notice that it is missing throughout the page - this is definitely a knowledge gap.

Word comparison

[edit]

@Chaipau: The word Jol is also an Assamese word, please refer to any Assamese dictionary. The word Pani is actually of Persian origin, & was probably derived from Bengali during the colonial era when it was imposed, which also resulted in the change of the script. Just like the word for book was originally Pustok (like Dhormopustok - the 1st Bible) in Assamese but now its Kitaab (of Persian origin). Jol is also present in many Assamese words - Jolpropat (waterfall), Jolpan (snacks), Jolpoth (water channel) etc. Tizen03 (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tizen03: yes it is used as part of another word, but never on its own. It does not matter what the source of pani is. Chaipau (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, Hindu Bengalis almost strictly use jol. Had interactions with them in different parts India, some guys coming from interior villages do not even know what the hell paani is. One guy in my college (in Punjab) would ask for jol in the mess and most Punjabis wouldn't understand. Average northernly people have almost forgotten the root word jal. Pani is more natural for the Muslims of Bengal region, though the ones living in west Bengal would use jol. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The word pānī is not "of Persian origin", it derives straight from Sanskrit पानीय. The Persian word is āb, which was not widely loaned into Indo-Aryan languages. –Austronesier (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: Absolutely true. The names Punjab , Chenab, etc have that Persian -ab, which doesn't seem to have spread beyond that region. Muslims of Bengal use synonymous terms more common in colloquial Hindu-Urdu like paani, bhabhi, etc instead of the terms commonly used by the Hindus. Along with many of the Persian terms like zameen, which are also used in other languages. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet

[edit]

Might it be helpful to remove the entire "Alphabet" column in the script table? Much steam in the discussion around this article exudes from that column... –Austronesier (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: I introduced the alphabet column because Za-ari-masen inserted internal links that pointed to the Bengali alphabet and not to Bengali-Assamese script.[2] Languages such as Bishnupriya Manipuri language uses neither the Bengali alphabet nor the Assamese alphabet but a hybrid. So does the Meitei language. I am OK removing the alphabet columns as long as the internal links point to the Bengali-Assamese script. But I don't think they will remain so—e.g. [3]. To resolve this issue, I had started an RfC (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Is_an_"alphabet"_and_a_"script"_same?), but that discussion digressed into something else. Chaipau (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not remove both the script and alphabet columns to keep it cool? Since all the sources cited here call the script "Bengali", it's a borderline source misrepresentation and synthesis to have Bengali-Assamese as the script anyway. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is not need to remove the information on scripts just to accommodate a particular reading of references. It is well known (and mentioned in the Bengali-Assamese script article with citations) that many authors, especially those from Bengal, call the Bengali-Assamese/Eastern-Nagari script "Bengali". These authors are referring to the script, not to the alphabet. Bishnupriya Manipuri does not use the Bengali alphabet. There is no ৱ in the Bengali alphabet and Bishnupriya uses it profusely (bpy:বিশেষ:সব_পাতা/ৱ). Chaipau (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is the WP:SYNTHESIS I'm talking about, one has to point towards other sources to prove that the Bengali script mentioned in these citations are same as Bengali-Assamese. Besides, most of these languages use the same script with few exceptions, this could be easily mentioned in prose. There is no need to have this problematic script column that only repeats "Bengali-Assamese" serially and that too with a synthesis. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Za-ari-masen: When a thing is called differently by different people, and we use a source that calls that thing differently from the way we do, that's not synthesis. –Austronesier (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Austronesier when you combine multiple sources to form an information, it's WP:SYNTHESIS. For example, the source for Sylheti language says it uses "Bengali script" but we have Bengali-Assamese added here as the script pointing to the sources cited on Bengali-Assamese script. That's a synthesis. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Za-ari-masen: No, it's not synthesis if it is just two different names for the same thing. We can cite works about "Cristobal Colon" in our article about Christopher Columbus. –Austronesier (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Za-ari-masen: SYNTH is not a policy, per se, but a part of WP:OR Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_policy. Could you please point to where any new information that was generated? Also look at Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_summary. Your reading cannot be verified , but OTOH what you call SYNTH can be verified! Your reading of SYNTH is at best Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_rigid_rule and at worst WP:GAME. Chaipau (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Austronesier, can you show me a source that says Sylheti language uses Bengali-Assamese script? If not, then you have to combine multiple sources to prove that "Bengali script" = "Bengali-Assamese script" and thus Sylheti uses Bengali-Assamese script, that's a classic WP:SYNTHESIS. I'm pinging Kmzayeem, UserNumber to know if I'm wrong in my interpretation of WP:synthesis. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just would like to point out that this could be WP:CANVASS. Chaipau (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are not having a poll here like AfD or RfC so it's not canvassing, there is no harm in seeking opinions of editors in discussions. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Za-ari-masen: Per what I have explained above, and per the links cited by Chaipau, I don't have to. Identifying synoynms, and replacing one with another in a statement to make it conform with our consensus nomenclature, is not a chain of arguments to reach a new conclusion. Btw, I don't mind UserNumber being pinged here, who has a good understanding of sensible linguistics details. –Austronesier (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Austronesier your example of Cristobal Colon/Christopher Columbus is not relevant here IMO which is the Spanish/English name for a person, we are not just talking about alternative names in different languages here. Bengali script also refers to Bengali alphabet so one could very well interpret it this way. Since we are again deflecting from the main discussion, I'm proposing to remove both script and alphabet columns for the reasons mentioned earlier. Let's see what Kmzayeem and UserNumber have to say. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Za-ari-masen: Alternative names in English a.k.a synonyms. –Austronesier (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: CANVASS does not cover just AfD or RfC but all discussions. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. Please don't keep "bending it". Chaipau (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: Moi? –Austronesier (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: Apologies. Now corrected. Need coffee (or Darjeeling Tea!). Chaipau (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Za-ari-masen: No, This article should not be downgraded with less information to satisfy a flawed reading of Wikipedia policies. Chaipau (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my suggestion. The idea was to reduce steam pressure, but it's not the kettle that's to blame, but the fire... –Austronesier (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: I think your suggestion was right-on and we should implement it since we have settled the issue. If this (Bengali script = Bengali-Assamese script) is not taken as consensus we should move forward with other mechanisms. Should we let the fire smolder? What do you say? Chaipau (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kmzayeem, the discussion is mainly about whether to keep the script and alphabet columns in the article or not. Initially suggested by Austronesier to remove the alphabet column as it has been a source of disputes to which I suggested we should remove both script and alphabet columns. My rationale about removing the column has been given in this two diffs: [4], [5]. Also, Chaipau don't change contents from Bishnupriya Manipuri language referring to this discussion. The discussion here is different from that and we still haven't reached any consensus here. Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Za-ari-masen: @Kmzayeem: it was pointed out to user:Za-ari-masen that "Bengali script" was synonymous with the standard nomenclature of the script in Wikipedia which is Bengali-Assamese script. This follows from the the sources, such as Brandt, and also passes WP:V from bpy:বিশেষ:সব_পাতা/ৱ. Za-ari-masen's claim that the source means Bengali alphabet fails WP:V.
@Austronesier: Look at this: [6]. Chaipau (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Well, my understanding is that apart from Bengali and Assamese, most of these languages are primarily used only in oral form. There are both a script and an alphabet added for Chittagonian language which doesn't have any written form, might seem a bit amusing to a native Chittagonian. I think we can do without the script and alphabet list. May be a column for native demography could be added. Like for Chakma language, there is Chakma people and so on. --Zayeem (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kmzayeem's suggestion. The script column is more purposeless since all these languages use the same script with few exceptions which can be adequately mentioned in prose. The main purpose of such lists is to show the variance among the subjects. Demography is an interesting topic which could show enough variance to justify a separate column here. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding demographics is fine, but that does not mean writing systems should go away. Writing systems are an integral part of a language. Chaipau (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove both script and alphabet; there is a native name header which can include the names in different scripts used.UserNumber (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the rationale for removing legitimate information? Chaipau (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's more-so subjective information; there's too many differential opinions. Also, a lot of the information is inaccurate as it mentions historic scripts which are no longer in use as well as many of these languages being spoken varieties and rarely written in, and never officially. UserNumber (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@UserNumber:, @Kmzayeem:, it seems we have a consensus here to remove the script and alphabet columns. Chaipau, I'd suggest you to be careful of WP:IDHT in your discussion here. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not CONSENSUS. Austronesier has retracted his earlier suggestion. [7] Chaipau (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, my suggestion was explicitly linked to a hope of diminishing WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. But to the contrary, it set off the same Pavlovian behavioral pattern we have witnessed on numerous talk pages before. With all due respect to @UserNumber: and @Kmzayeem: and their well-argued positions, we so far only have a sample of input from canvassed editors. –Austronesier (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@UserNumber: Note that you are removing legitimate information. You have yourself said there are many smaller languages that use a variety of different scripts, and many that do not have a strong literary tradition. Yes, this is a fact. But why do you want to suppress it in Wikipedia? There are many languages that are trying to develop their own languages and improve literary activity. Wikipedia too supports these different languages, no matter how small or "insignificant" now. For example bpy:. The entire linguistic community is involved in the preservation of languages and sustaining them. Please understand that to suppress the reality of these languages is blatantly political and definitely not WP:NPOV.

@Za-ari-masen: The "alphabet" column I introduced was an effort to converge and create CONSENSUS, so you may insert the links to Bengali alphabet you so seem to be fixated on. But this was a mechanism that makes the meanings of these links clear and not give undue weight to a dominant language (Brandt). But it seems you are not interested in CONSENSUS but ramming through a POV by sheer number by GAMING the rules. I request you to stop using these tactics.

Chaipau (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaipau, You are wrong, Wikipedia doesn't support anything, it's not a place for activism. We are all supposed to improve the accuracy of the information by citing reliable sources. And I don't know what information UserNumber removed, he hasn't even edited the article. POV is precisely what is seen in your behaviour here. When Austronesier decided to withdraw his suggestion, you argued the suggestion should be implemented ignoring my arguments. Now when the consensus is going against you, you are saying that Austronesier has retracted his suggestion so there is no consensus. Furthermore, everywhere you give undue weight to particular sources (e.g. brandt, solomon) that support your POV and reject all the other sources shown by your opponents. When others point out the flaws in your argument, you would shout "POV", "GAMING" and accuse others of being "nationalist". Your behavior in these talk pages has been highly disruptive which is not conducive to a healthy discussion. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaipau:, You said at the start that there is no ৱ in the Bengali alphabet. This is only true for the MODERN Bengali alphabet. Before the 20th century, ৱ was used in Bengali as well. So for this article are we judging languages by their past or present? UserNumber (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@UserNumber: When did Bengali alphabet drop the ৱ? Maybe that will help us determine what kind of past we are looking at. Chaipau (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Following the reforms of Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar in the 1800s in association with Fort William College. Funnily enough as I type this I just realised the former page has been vandalised and much information has been removed (old revision) UserNumber (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strange it should be "dropped" then, because Halhed's Bengali Grammar did not have it either. When did it come back between Halhed and Vidyasagar? Also, there are many similarities between East Bengal and Assam in many respects, not just because Sylhet and Assam were together for a while. So that is a gray area. Chaipau (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The information in Ishwar_Chandra_Vidyasagar#Bengali_alphabet_and_language_reconstruction was removed because it was unsourced, so it was not "vandalized". It would be great if could be retrieved with a citation. –Austronesier (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a page from the Encyclopédie, published between 1751–1766. Look at the third line in the Consonants (Consonnes) section, it includes ৱ as vô. Secondly, I never mentioned anything about Sylhet, I am aware that Eastern Bengali (Bangladeshi) has many similarities with Assamese. Halhed and Vidyasagar were both based in West Bengal, let's not neglect the East. UserNumber (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier:, so I can now remove any information on any page if it is unsourced? UserNumber (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@UserNumber: Certainly, per WP:UNSOURCED. The best and most civil procedure IMO is to tag such information first, unless it is highly dubious. The community must get a chance to improve the situation either way: add sources, or delete the text if no source can be provided within due time. The pity with the aforementioned information was that it had been tagged for more than a year already. A removal of content at such a stage is definitely not reproachable—WP:V is not negotiable. –Austronesier (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break: Off topic

[edit]
Chaipau, the source says "exclusively written in Bangla", it's not the script but the alphabet the source Kim & Kim talks about. You can add Bengali-Assamese when the source is for the script and not the alphabet. And you are again derailing the thread which is disruptive, please stop doing that. Keep discussions about Bishnupriya on Talk:Bishnupriya Manipuri language. Za-ari-masen (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Za-ari-masen: sure, it means it is exclusively written in Bengali-Assamese script and not in Devanagari script as well as was done in the past; the full quote reads: "Also, although Bishnupriya is now written exclusively using the Bangla script, this wasn’t always so. According to some, Bishnupriya was written using the Devanagri script prior to the takeover of Manipur by the Meiteis." Chaipau (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

@Austronesier: I have finally dropped the alphabet column. This is because the script name has settled on Bengali-Assamese script and there is no need to now distinguish the alphabets. Chaipau (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it, please refrain from making mass changes without discussion, especially when the edit is controversial and has been debated earlier. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bengali–Assamese_languages&oldid=1204587972"