Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics/Archive 19

Sylheti language - how should we address the language vs dialect issue?
There seems to be some debate associated with the issue of whether the Sylheti language is a dialect or an independent language. So how should we address it on Wikipedia in the lead of the article. There is currently two different versions: Furthermore, regarding the opinion of a professional linguist (who happens to be a Wikipedian) in a [|popular newspaper] that "they are almost universally considered by linguists to be separate languages on their own":
 * Address the issue frontally and state that it in the lead itself: is an Eastern Indo-Aryan language,[7][8] generally considered to be a dialect of the Bengali language.[9]
 * Not mention "language" and point to "variety" instead: is an Eastern Indo-Aryan variety,[7] generally considered as a part of the Vangiya dialect group of the Bengali language.[8]
 * Is this a reliable source to claim that Sylheti is a separate language?
 * Should the paraphrase of the quoted sentence be "some linguists may consider Sylheti to be a separate language" or " linguists almost universally consider Sylheti to be a separate language"?

We have tried to discuss these issues here: Talk:Sylheti_language.

Thank you for your inputs.

Chaipau (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The linguist is clearly pro-language especially with his terminology like "universally". UserNumber (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to apply a Wikipedia NPOV standard on a source? It can either be RS or not, and NPOV standards don't apply there.  And by "universally" he is referring to the universe of linguists—he is eminently qualified to speak for them. Chaipau (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Try something like is an Eastern Indo-Aryan language variety. Generally considered to be a dialect of the Bengali language, linguists classify it as a separate language. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This sounds very neutral and accurate to me. Chaipau (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is the linguistic controversy here? Just start the article the way you would start any other language article, and some way further down in the lede mention that Bengalis, as well as some (most?) Sylhetis, consider it to be a dialect of Bengali. The word "variety" is a perfectly neutral word when used in properly linguistic discourse. It is much less than perfectly neutral when used in general contexts aimed at lay readership, like the lede sections of Wikipedia articles. Also, there are a number of Sylheti varieties, so unless you're narrowing your discussion to a particular one, calling Sylheti "a variety" (in the singular) can be misleading. – Uanfala (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There seems to be no controversy among linguists—all including Chatterji (1926) maintain Sylheti is independent/distinct. Contemporary linguists are making that point more emphatically. But there is some resistance here to stating the linguists' position and giving more weight to the general belief that Sylheti is a dialect of Bengali.  Interestingly, one of the sources calls it a minoritized language, which seems to be at play here in Wikipedia. I agree that linguistically "variety" could be misleading, but is there an alternative? I would think "Sylheti is an Eastern Indo-Aryan language " (cite ), but these edits are quickly reverted by other editors.  Chaipau (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Addendum: The compromise text above seems acceptable (none of the other editors have supported that yet) because the second sentence, as given by Wugapodes above, clarifies the situation accurately.  Chaipau (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are still enough dispute among linguists on the language/dialect issue, Grierson, Chatterji, Rasinger and several others have called Sylheti a dialect of Bengali, while in several literature it has been described as "Sylheti Bangla". What Chaipau is quoting here is an opinion piece from a newspaper. Although, written by a linguist, the focus of the content is mainly the ethnic demography of Bangladesh where Sylheti is only mentioned in passing, it's clearly not reliable enough to cite a contentious fact per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be pointed out that Grierson (1903) and Chatterji (1926) are old; and Rasinger's work (2007, based on the thesis) is not on Sylheti per se with the claim made more in passing. Even so Chatterji specifically calls the dialects independent  and mentions that Sylheti is further away from Bengali than Assamese a different language . Besides Simard et. al. (2020, linked above), contemporary linguists have called it a language: Sen (2020), Khan (2018, above) and others.  The claim that linguists themselves are divided is not true as clearly stated by Khan: "they are almost universally considered by linguists to be separate languages on their own." That linguists are progressively endorsing the position that Sylheti is a language can be seen here: Gope&Mahanta (2014) "Sylheti is generally considered to be one of the varieties of Bangla"; Mahanta&Gope 2018 "Sylheti is an Indo-Aryan language spoken by about 11 million people in India and Bangladesh (Hammarström et al., 2017)." with the qualification "Along the linguistic continuum of eastern Indic languages, Sylheti occupies an ambiguous position, where it is considered a distinct language by many and also as a dialect of Bengali or Bangla by some others." The positions of linguists seem to have converged after 2017. Chaipau (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What all the modern linguists agree to is that Sylheti's classification is still ambiguous, that's even shown in the quotes you provided. Khan (2018) is an opinion piece and not a reliable source. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please specify what you mean by "classification"? Classification in the proper sense, i.e. the genealogical relation to other Indo-Aryan languages, or the the question of "language" vs. "dialect"? These are two completely different things. –Austronesier (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Language vs Dialect. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * all contemporary linguists we have seen so far have called it a language, in the sense Austronesier has mentioned below. The change in Gope/Mahanta after 2017 is glaring.  The 2020 volume from the SOAS project effectively opens up the floodgates. Chaipau (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They have called it a "language" as a default term used for any linguistic variety. They have all reiterated that whether Sylheti is a language or a dialect is still ambiguous, so the position is still inconclusive. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you seem to be taking things backwards. The default word for a language variety is not "language", it's "variety", that's the whole point of the term. – Uanfala (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) This is a recurrent problem. I agree with that for the lay reader, obviously "language" is a more recognizable term than "language variety". And also, calling e.g. Sylheti (or another illustrative case, Low German) a (=one) language variety is inaccurate, because the term variety/lect implies a uniformity which is not given in this case with numerous local varieties of Sylheti. I agree to sacrifice recognizability in the lede for the sake of consenses, but not at the expense of accuracy. So 's otherwise perfect suggestion still needs a minor tweak in that direction. As for the "dispute among linguists", that's mostly a matter of WP:DATED. Grierson, Chatterji are still reliable in the field of genealogical micro-classification (unless proven wrong by later studies), but not for the dialect/language-question. In their times, "dialect" was the default term for a "language variety" without literary tradition; most current linguists prefer "language" as default term for language varieties that are sufficiently distinct to the point of low or zero mutual intelligibility. The Daily Star op ed is nice, but there are of course better sources, such as this volume related to the SOAS Sylheti Project. –Austronesier (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Upon Uanfala's and Austronesier's call for accuracy on the term "variety", could we have this as the tweaked Wugapodes' suggestion: is an Eastern Indo-Aryan language variety . Generally considered to be a dialect of the Bengali language, linguists classify it as a separate language.? Chaipau (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no need to remove variety as linguists are still inconclusive about the position. The line should be is an Eastern Indo-Aryan linguistic variety. Generally considered to be a dialect of the Bengali language, some linguists classify it as a separate language. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * could you please address the issues raised by and  regarding the problem with "variety"? Chaipau (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Already stated above. The linguistic classification of Sylheti is still ambiguous regarding the language/dialect issue, why should we call it a language and not a dialect? That would be a WP:POV. We can follow the content of Scots language which has a similar status to that of Sylheti, where the lead sentence calls it a "variety". Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would expect a phrase like generally considered in such a context to mean "generally considered in the (linguistic) literature on the subject", but this expectation is then contradicted by the latter part of the sentence (linguistics classify it...). We need to be explicit about who consideres Sylheti a dialect. – Uanfala (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Sociolinguistics is the context we are talking about as the native speakers themselves consider it a dialect which has also been corroborated by some linguists. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To be precise natives have used terms like "slang" or "corrupt Bengali". There are natives not exposed to Bengali who were not able to understand the language.  Though lingusts have called it a dialect, those are dated as pointed out.  Are you including the opinion of non-native speakers as well?  Linguists have noted that it is a minoritized language. Chaipau (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about exactly? "Slang", "Corrupt Bengali" are the terms used in particular literature but what difference does it make? The overall perception is that the natives consider Sylheti as an informal form of Bengali language (a dialect in other words), no matter if they are exposed to standard Bengali or not. That's why it's often called as "Sylheti Bangla" or simply "Bengali" by natives. Again, the linguists are still inconclusive on the language/dialect issue. Perhaps, could explain it better if I'm unable to clarify. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is important to figure out what has been reported in the literature and not use our own terms. The editorial introduction to the SOAS project page has this to say: In terms of vocabulary and structure, Sylheti is on a linguistic continuum between Assamese and Bengali, arguably more similar to the former than to Kolkata-based standard Bengali (or Bangla), yet it is often viewed politically as a dialect of Bengali.page iv  So the term dialect is used not in the socialinguistics sense, as you claim, but in the political sense. Chaipau (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The anecdotal evidences presented by Rasinger, McCarthy, Evans and Mahon shows that the native Sylheti speakers consider Sylheti and Bengali to be mutually intelligible with small differences between the two, due to which, Rasinger states "Sylheti is generally defined as a dialect of Bengali". The context is clearly sociolingustic. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Rasinger 2007 is based on his PhD thesis, and the primary focus of that study is the survey of uptake of English language in London among twelve first generation Sylheti speakers. It is not a study of Sylheti. This linguist very likely made a passing comment on the political position.  McCarthy, Evans and Mahon (2013) reports anecdotal mutual intelligibility between Bengali and Sylheti, which Simard et al (2020) addresses: "The claim of mutual intelligibility by some speakers of both Sylheti and Bengali may be more an effect of the speakers’ exposure to both languages...".  Your claim of linguists' support for a dialect status is not established at all. Chaipau (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Rasinger 2007 is a published scholarly book on the sociolinguistics of Sylheti-origin British Bangladeshis and Sylheti has been discussed quite significantly, I'm not sure why you remarked Sylheti only has a passing mention. The source is also cited by McCarthy at al, so surely a reliable one. Furthermore, Grierson and Chatterji also described it a dialect. These are enough to claim the dialect status for Sylheti on sociolinguistic context. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As a native Sylheti, I can confirm that most of us Sylhetis refer to our language as Bangla/Bengali. Grierson never said Sylheti is a separate language. And many linguists have included Sylheti when writing about Bengali dialects. If it was a separate language, why would it be mentioned in works relating to Bengali dialects? Even gov of BD and India don't see it as separate. We need to differentiate between REALITY and LINGUIST/SEPARATIST's DREAM. In reality, it's a dialect; I invite you to come and visit Sylhet and you can see the opinion of the locals. UserNumber (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * there is no dispute that many Sylhetis consider the language as a dialect or variety of Bengali. This is adequately reported in the linguistic literature itself, supported by the observed language shift. What we are trying to determine now is the position of linguists.  What it means to be a language could be different linguistically and politically and we want these positions to be accurately stated and attributed.  Chaipau (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * whether you like it or not: Science strives for separation of observing subject and observed object ("objectivity") rather than adoption of popular beliefs by people who are involved. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the first version. The Vangiya group classification comes from Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, a Bengali linguist from colonial period. He did consider Sylheti as a dialect of Bengali, but he also included languages which he considered as separate languages in those groups where he included his Bengali dialects. For example, he included Standard Bengali and Odia (separate language) in the Rarhi group. And he included Assamese (separate language) and KRNB lects in the Kamarupi group. So Vangiya group doesn't necessarily mean that they are dialects of Standard Bengali. He also included Chittagonian (and Rohingya), Chakma, Hajong, Bishnupriya Manipuri under the Vangiya group. We should use recent sources from linguists (especially non Bengal based because we are familiar with the status of Sylheti and Bengali based nationalism there) because they are updated and more reliable. Moreover, some earlier linguists did consider Sylheti and Chittagonian to be more distinct from standard Bengali compared to Assamese, so this brings the question whether Assamese is a dialect of Bengali or not. In colonial times, Assamese was seen as a "corrupted form of Bengali" as mentioned in some sources and that due to disagreement of its speakers, Assamese gained the separate language status. Sylheti is considered as a separate language by newer linguists and it's still politically still counted under Bengali, and has two different views among its native speakers, informal form of Bengali and separate language. Terms like "informal form" and "corrupted form" are certainly non linguistic. Therefore I support the first version. Msasag (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , this isn't true. I'm a native speaker and I don't see it as either. Sylheti language evolved naturally and is much older than Standard Bengali. Bengali was only standardised in the 19th century, prior to that it historically always made sense to call Sylheti as a regional form of Bengali. Even today, Sylheti folk literature is popular all over Bangladesh and eastern India; people view it as the same language, just a different dialect. UserNumber (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think is pointing out an important issue with Chatterji's classification.  It has been pointed out by Toulmin (2009) that the dialects in page 140 are the dialects of eastern Magadhan, not Bengali (Note that Chatterji’s classification of ‘Bengali dialects’ includes lects ancestral to both Asamiya and Oriya. However, Chatterji does not intend to classify these lects as dialects of Bangla. Therefore, Chatterji’s four dialects—Rāḍha, Varêndra, Vaŋga, and Kāmrupa—should not be termed ‘dialects of Bengali’ but rather, ‘dialects [in the sense of historical derivatives] of eastern Magadhan’ (cf. Chatterji 1926:92ff.) (p218).  So we cannot use this classification of Sylheti under Vanga by Chatterji to mean Sylheti is a dialect of Bengali. In fact neither Ethnologue nor Glottolog follow Chatterji's classification, and we may safely consider it to be WP:DATED as  has pointed out.  This issue also pertains to the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics. Chaipau (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this goes back to what was discussed by Thaut et al. (2020) and Rasinger (2007) that is the level of exposure which Sylheti speakers had with Bengali, those who had higher exposure would see it as a dialect or consider it to have small differences, whereas those with less exposure would see it as a separate language. As a Sylheti speaker in the UK, I am not entirely surprised if it is viewed as a separate language by some of its speakers since we have less exposure of Bengali than in Bangladesh or India. We call it Bengali because we have an identity associated with Bengali or Bangladesh but the vernacular we specify as being Sylheti, I'm not sure if that's from a sociocultural, political or sociolinguistic angle? Based on a purely linguistic and scientific angle then definitely one can argue it is a distinct language. My opinion is purely of experience I have very limited knowledge regarding the technicalities of linguistics, I'll leave that to the experts. Abu Ayyub (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Also to add most Bengali speakers would consider Sylheti to be not Bengali in particular those from West Bengal (see Minority Nationalisms in South Asia: 'We are with culture but without geography': locating Sylheti identity in contemporary India, Nabanipa Bhattacharjee.') Abu Ayyub (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Third proposal

 * is an Eastern Indo-Aryan language. Popularly considered to be a dialect of the Bengali language, linguists classify it as a separate language. Here I have taken 's basic statement and (1) removed "variety" on the besis of the issues raised by and  and (2) replaced "generally" by "popular" to specify who considers it a dialect as asked by u:Uanfala.  The word "popular" is used following 's insistence and it also includes 's point that not all native speakers may identify with the Bengali, or the West Bengali's may not accept the Sylheti as Bengali.  I do not think  has established that some linguists have a valid argument to call it a language, since the two works he cites have been addressed in the linguistic literature.   has pointed out that Chatterji's classification is flawed, and as u:Asutronesier has pointed out, WP:DATED.  Anyway, from Khan (2018) we have that linguists "almost universally" consider Sylheti to be a language. Chaipau (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What has Grierson said about Sylheti's status? I don't recall him classifying it as a separate language but rather eastern Bengali. Another question, how come Sylheti folk songs are considered a part of Bengali language, including in West Bengal, where they remain popular today? Poets of Sylhet like Radharaman Dutta and Hason Raja are seen as Bengali poets. How about changing it to: is an Eastern Indo-Aryan language variety. Popularly considered to be a dialect of the Bengali language, recent linguists have begun classifying it as a separate language.. The first sentence ambigously defines it, second sentence clarifies who sees it as a dialect and who sees it as a separate language. UserNumber (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your second sentence is good. The first sentence reinserts the misleading "variety"—so that is not good.  Chaipau (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would slightly tweak 's proposal, is an Eastern Indo-Aryan language variety. Generally considered to be a dialect of the Bengali language, some recent linguists have begun classifying it as a separate language. Keep it "generally considered" as it is as "popularly" would be an WP:OR and add "some" before linguists. I'm not sure what I failed to establish; there are already several sources where linguists have called it a dialect, Chatterji, Rasinger, Grierson and others, while all the modern linguists have agreed that the classification is still ambiguous. When the linguists are inconclusive, we can't interpret it as "linguists classify it as separate language." Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "all the modern linguists have agreed that the classification is still ambiguous" does not match the lead of the SOAS project paper which flatly states: "Sylheti is a minoritised, politically unrecognised, and understudied Eastern Indo-Aryan language." At least for these linguists, the matter is quite clear. "All the modern linguists" is counterfactual. –Austronesier (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Austronesier, you said it yourself that "language" is the default term used by modern linguists for such linguistic varieties. Simard et al. do state that Sylheti is also considered a dialect and the "understudied" part itself is a manifestation that the linguists are still inconclusive on defining the classification. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As already pointed out to you, recent linguists overwhelmingly call it a language. I am amused by your creative interpretation of "understudied language" to mean "understudied dialect".  The SOAS volume, to which Simard gives the introduction has a number of studies on the Sylheti language to partially fill this gap.  Ethnologue and Glottolog both classifies Sylheti as a language and Glottolog places Sylheti in a branch parallel to Bengali.  Sylheti is a language accepted in the Linguistic standards.  Please move on.  Chaipau (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm particularly amused by your deliberate attempts at misquoting my comments. By "understudied" they meant, it requires more study which ultimately means the linguists are inconclusive on their hypotheses and statements, including the issue of language vs dialect. There is still a discussion on this page started by you where you, quite intensely, argued that Ethnologue is not a reliable source and now you are referring to it as it suits your POV. The classification of Sylheti is ambiguous, please stop starting unnecessary discussions one after another! Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * By "understudied language" they mean it is not enough studied by others (there can be different reasons for it. For Sylheti it's due to its political status). They are not inconclusive as you said. They did their study and declared it as a separate language from Bengali. Msasag (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Uhm, to interpret "understudied" in such a way is quite creative. No, they are not inconclusive about the status as a language, that's a wishful misreading. Understudied means that we need to know more about the various aspects of a language, such as phonology, morphology, syntax, vitality etc. –Austronesier (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article by Simard et al is a hypothesis which they have tried to prove, it doesn't mean it's the conclusion of all modern linguists. Several modern linguists continue to call it "Sylheti dialect", Chung 2019 for example, . Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, Chung uses "dialect" for all Bengali varieties, including the standard one. – Uanfala (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes because it's essentially a dialect native to the Greater Nadia region, also known as the "Nadia standard". Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact Simard makes this point explicitly. Simard et al states that the language is understudied and hence various studies have been presented in the volume that proves Sylheti is a language. The papers presented in this volume highlight some of the striking structural differences between Sylheti and standard Bengali, in phonetics and phonology, lexicon, and grammatical structure, and challenge the view that Sylheti is merely a dialectal variation of Bengali.  I don't think anything can be said more emphatically in academic writing.  Chaipau (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Understudied' means that it has been academically neglected - linguists in Bangladesh report to be under political pressure to not do language studies on Sylheti without calling it a dialect. Schools to learn the Sylheti Nagri script cannot open unless they call Sylheti a 'dialect' (with some under pressure to add more Sanskritic elements to the script so that it mirrors the Sanskritic spellings that the Bangla language has adopted). The linguists in India have more freedom as the recent tonal studies on Sylheti indicate. It's the 21st century and only now have tonal studies been carried out on Sylheti, which is further indication of Sylheti being understudied. 'Understudied' means that the language lacks, for example, a descriptive grammar. Not a 30-page sketch grammar, but a 300-500 page real grammar like all languages should have so that linguists have access to each language's unique linguistic system for typological comparison. Chittigonian is also a major understudied language - wouldn't it be nice to be able to typologicially compare Sylheti's tonal system with Chittigonian's tonal system? And also with the Rohingian tonal system? We can't because such research on Chittigonian has yet to be published, if even carried out.

Again, please consult what is required to be submitted to Ethnologue for any language variety to acquire an ISO language code. Linguists who respect the work of fellow linguists, who put politics aside, accept the non-political ISO code distribution process. Sylheti's classification as a language is NOT ambiguous. And I vote that if 'dialect of Bengali' is retained on this Wiki page, the same should be indicated on the Bangla/Bengali language Wiki page, to not promote cultural supremecy of one language over another. If we're going to continue to use the term dialect on a page about language it should be used in its linguistic sense, which means saying 'Sylheti dialect', 'Nadia dialect', etc. In linguistics there is no hierachy of language variation so 'dialect of' is not an acceptable descriptor. Or we should be consistent with the Wiki pages of related languages: Rohingia: 'It is an Eastern Indo-Aryan language belonging to the Bengali–Assamese branch, and is related to the Chittagonian language spoken in neighbouring Bangladesh.' Chittagonian: 'is an Indo-Aryan language spoken in the Chittagong Division in Bangladesh. It is generally considered to be a nonstandard dialect of Bengali because its speakers identify with Bengali culture and Standard Bengali as literary language, but the two are not mutually intelligible.' Manipuri Bishnupriya: 'is an Indo-Aryan language spoken in parts of the Indian states of Manipur, Assam, Tripura and others, as well as in the Sylhet Division of Bangladesh, Burma, and other countries.' Chakma: 'is an Indo-Aryan language spoken by the Chakma and Daingnet people.' etc. These are all recognised Indo-Aryan LANGUAGES. Tuahtme (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Fourth proposal - Split 1
Since this is getting derailed again—could we decide on the first sentence first: is an Eastern Indo-Aryan language. I have dropped the word "variety" here because of the objections from Uanfala and Austronesier. UserNumber and Za-ari-masen favors retaining "variety" this, and Msasag favors removing it. Since this recommendation comes from specialists here, I think it is binding on us. If it fails here, I shall seek advice on where to go next. Chaipau (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Addition: I have parsed the comments and can say that users and  too favor dropping "variety". Chaipau (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Additional comments
This discussion is focusing on the terms language and dialect (of Bengali), but there's no sign of 'Bengali' being discussed and defined. Today the standard language used in formal institutions is Bangla(/Bengali), a relatively modern dialectal variation that was standardized in the 1920s (as stated above). It is clear that Sylheti is not a dialect of Bangla and even the often misinformed/politically-motivated colonial linguistic studies puts what would be today's Bangla in a 'western' branch while Sylheti is grouped in an 'eastern' branch (see above). The term Bengali used to describe the inhabitants of the historical geographical area(s) that have had various political borders over hundreds of years of rulers from very different origins, is not the same term that describes the Bangla/Bengali language - sociolinguistically, this has influenced both identifiers of ethnicity and unspecific indentifiers of language. A parallel would be calling all the specific languages spoken in the Iberian peninsula by the unspecific term 'Spanish' which would then make Castilian a 'dialect of Spanish', Catalan a 'dialect of Spanish', Aranese, Galician, Portugese, Menderico, Mirandeses, etc. all 'dialects of Spanish', 'Spanish' being some socio-political historical term to indicate present-day politics, not a linguistic term. If I can propose another parallel - a parallel example to help further the discussion, not an exact similitude, the term Bengali when referring today to languageS is like the term Romance; just as today we can linguistically call the Gaul branch of languages one branch of Romance dialects, and the Iberian branch of languages another branch of Romance dialects, all these are still languages today, as recognized by various international scientific (non-partisan/non-political) institutions such as UNESCO and Ethnologue. (Please take a look at what is required by Ethnologue to make a proposal for a language to be accorded an ISO code, which Sylheti does have, internationally recognized, syl.) Calling Parisian French a 'dialect of Castilian' is equivalent to calling Sylheti a 'dialect of Bangla' - this is not linguistically correct, as in, there in no observed data according to the scientific method that would allow a linguist to declare that Bangla and Sylheti, two languages on different evolutionary branches, are 'dialects' of each other, especially because that's not how linguists use the term dialect. These languages are on separate historical brances of language evolution. Yes, recognizing the political influence of historical and present-day government policy on how certain speakers identify the language they speak is significant, but it does not change linguistic science. To continue to highlight that Sylheti is a 'dialect of Bengali' in any way other than to reflect present-day political policy and mis-informed/biased education policy is perpetuating an unscientific political bias. Linguistically, if 'dialect of Bengali' is to be used on this page, with Bengali defined either geographically or as a larger historical grouping of languages similar to Romance, then we should change the Bangla language page to reflect that fact too, that today's standard Bangla is also a dialect of Bengali. There is of course a term already used similar to Romance in reference to all these related language, that is Bengali-Assamese. Can we think that when people say 'dialect of Bengali' they actually mean 'dialect of Bengali-Assamese'? In summary, if we include that some people call Sylheti a 'dialect of Bengali', we need to define what they're referring to by Bengali, a term with different historical meanings, not all linguistic, in different languages, exonyms and endonyms, etc. which is a social study, not a study of language and does not change scientific observation of linguistic conlusions. However, if Bengali here is used to mean the Bangla language, it is recognized as incorrect by ALL linguists - Sylheti on the eastern branch is not a dialect of standard Bangla that is merely one language variety/dialectal variation on the western branch. (I've worked with Sylheti speakers who say that Sylheti can't be a language because it's not written. Their politically biased education denied them access to learning about the hundreds of years of the Sylheti/Syloti Nagri script and writing tradition in the Sylheti language. I won't call them wrong because that is what they learned, but if I repeat that declaration as fact, that Sylheti isn't a language because some people say that Sylheti isn't a language because it's not written, it would be irresponsible of me, with my knowledge of the written Sylheti Nagri history and that the majority of the world's ~7000 languages aren't written, writing is not a basis for analyzing a spoken or signed communication system as a lnaguage or not, and I, and for example, this Wiki page, would be wrong.) Tuahtme (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for that insightful information. Although I am neutral in this debate, I do feel there is enough weight from modern-day linguists to argue it is a language. The dialect side don't have much of a credible linguistic or scientific argument, I feel it is as you have mentioned based on historical and political factors that play a role in viewing it as a dialect. What one can argue from a historical perspective is the linguistic tradition that was in Bengal and that Sylheti played a part in Middle Bengali Muslim literature having developed Sylheti Nagri that followed a poetic tradition that was prevalent in much of Bengal, it was not seen as something separate even though it had a slight difference. Then you have those poets of the late 19th/20th century where they contributed to Bengali literature. Are these not sociolinguistic factors to argue it is a dialect? A suggestion maybe it can sound like this...Sylheti is an Eastern Indo-Aryan language. In sociolinguistic terms, it is generally viewed as a dialect of Bengali. ...If it needs sharpening up or corrections, suggestions are most welcome. Or you can attack this suggestion, just be pleasant when doing so. Abu Ayyub (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this comment came in general, I wasn't sure where to place it. Could you please make specific comments in the specific subsections above.  Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , saying Sylheti is a dialect of Bengali is nowhere near similar to calling French a dialect of Castillian. When we say Bengali, we don't mean Standard Bengali, which is also a dialect - the dialect of the Nadia district. Both Standard Bengali and Sylheti are dialects of a language known as Bengali. The vast majority of Sylheti speakers willingly identify as Bengali speakers, and so do the people of Nadia. There is no need to strip one group of their identity just because the standardised version of the language doesn't favour them. The Nagri script was used all over Bengal and known through various names, most notable Musalmani Nagri. The standardised version of Nagri came about in the 1800s through the work of a Sylheti, and this version was called Sylheti Nagri. UserNumber (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a Wiki page about the Sylheti language, not the 'Bengali' ethnic or geographic identity. No idenitites are being 'stripped', however, it is important to recognise diversity to halt a 'Bengali' cultural imperialism in the region that is moving toward erasing linguistic diversity to fit, for example, with the Bangladesh ideology of a 'monolingual nation' (quote from the Bangladesh Wiki page). Linguicism and linguicide are real. There is no 'Bengali' language that has as dialects both Nadia Bangla and Sylheti. That is the Bengali-Assamese group of languages. Please also recognise that when the term 'dialect' is used here, it's meant to denegrate the language of a whole population for not being the same as the politically recognised standard. The fact that some speakers have been so socially and politically beaten to denegrate the status of their mother language should not be encouraged. Wiki has ethics standards, right? And really, if 'dialect of Bengali' is acceptable, try to edit it into the Bengali language Wiki page - the Bangla language, the dialect of Bengali spoken historically in the Nadia area, and see how long people will allow that dismissive and insulting usage of the term dialect remain. Tuahtme (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's not discuss ethnic identity when we mean linguistic identity. An ethnic Irishman doesn't become an ethnic Englishman if he doesn't speak Irish, either. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "halt a 'Bengali' cultural imperialism in the region that is moving toward erasing linguistic diversity to fit", "Linguicism and linguicide are real" — Tuahtme, your posts don't look civil and you need to see WP:NPA, WP:AGF to know how to interact with other editors. Sylheti is still called a dialect by many linguists and no, they are not Bangladeshi linguists. Dialect is a linguistic term and many languages do have regional variations. Very few Bengalis are native speakers of the standard version and most speak the regional variations. There is nothing about ethnic pride here. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You claim dialect is a linguistic term and yet you are ignoring the objections to your claim that "Sylheti is a dialect of Bengali" that linguists in this group have put forward.  deconstructs Rasinger 2007 here.  Here is an objection to Chung 2019  which deals with Sylhet in the same manner as Rasinger 2007.  You are cherry picking "dialect" mentioned in linguistic sources to support your POV without paying heed to the linguistic worth of these mentions. Chaipau (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Chaipau, I have never ignored any arguments from anyone. I have seen Uanfala's comment on Rasinger 2007 and I would respectfully disagree. Uanfala says that low prestige cannot be a criteria to determine a dialect which is wrong, prestige is an important element in sociolinguistics and without taking prestige into account, languages like Bengali, English, French, German would end up getting disintegrated into dozens of so called "distinct languages" with the standard version being spoken by only few hundred thousands. I have already said that Sylheti is considered a dialect on sociolinguistic context. I don't see any objection to Chung 2019, Uanfala challenged the use of "dialect" to describe the standard version of Bengali to which I replied that even the standard version is a dialect native to the Nadia region, you seem to have missed this part. Regarding cherry-picking, the only cherry-picking I see here is in your over-emphasize on Simard et al and the Khan op-ed and the rejection to all the other sources. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Uanfala's argument has been that your case, that Sylheti is a dialect of Bengali, has not been made on the basis of either Rasinger 2007 or Chung 2019. The basic objection is More importantly though, it's clear from this quote that he uses the term "dialect" in a way that's closer to the everyday meaning ("low-prestige variety") than to the meaning usually employed in linguistics texts, including Wikipedia articles ("a sufficiently distinct variety").  Since Rasinger is not using a linguistic definition of dialect you cannot use Rasinger to define Sylheti is a dialect in the linguistic sense.  Chaipau (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I said sociolinguistic, for purely linguistic sense, there are Chatterji, Grierson, Chung and others. And Uanfala did say that Rasinger supports the pro-dialect view, "If you need a source supporting the dialect view, this definitely is one" in his words. He mainly objected to the criteria used by Rasinger to claim the dialect view. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Chung has the same problem as Rasinger, look at Uanfala's objection above. Chatterji (1926) and Grierson (1903) are 94 and 117 year old works.  Their work has been superseded by others, as Austronesier has pointed out.  Chung has the same basic problem as Rasinger.  It does not study Sylheti, only how the Sylhetis take to English (Chung interestingly shows that Sylhetis take to English differently than standard Bengalis, BTW). Chaipau (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like you are passing off your own interpretations as Uanfala's. I don't see any problem with Chung 2019, it's purely a linguistic scholarly source which talks about the differences among standard Bengali and the dialects spoken in Dhaka and Sylhet. Even Rasinger doen't look any problematic, you may or may not agree with a scholarly source but that doesn't mean you have to reject them altogether. It is established that many linguists continue to describe the variety as "Sylheti dialect". Learn to accept disagreements and move on. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, let us be clear about who said what. Uanfala said in the Sylheti talk page that Rasinger's definition of dialect is non-linguistic and I agree with it.  On this point you disagree with both Uanfala and I.  Uanfala did not find Chung illuminating and neither did I.  What Uanfala did not say and I said is that like Rasinger Chung did not study Sylheti per se, but like Raisinger looked at linguistic aspects of Sylheti speakers learning English.  And neither of these can, within the scope of their studies, determine whether Sylheti is a dialect or not.  You seem to be using "scholarly source" to give your claim a linguistic sheen.  Chaipau (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I feel that as a Sylheti my identity is being stripped. Most Sylhetis like me believe Sylheti is a part of the Bengali language, and history shows that Sylhetis have played a huge part in the Bengali literature. Almost all texts on Bengali literature will mention Sylhetis. From Krishna Chaitanya and Radharaman Dutta, to Hason Raja and Shah Abdul Karim. And now you want to kick out Sylhetis from the Bengali-speaking community, just because our dialect is different? The status of language is not solely based on linguistics, but also cultural connection and self-identification of the natives. UserNumber (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would request you to please limit yourself to linguistic arguments here. Wikipedia acknowledges the sociolinguistic and political situation, but the terms "dialect" and "language" here will have to be defined according to linguistics.  It is very clear that some Sylhetis accept Bengali literary tradition whereas some others don't.  Sylheti language will have say that precisely, but it cannot take sides in this politics of identity.  The definitions of dialect and language cannot be bent to favor one side or another.  Chaipau (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , precisely! We must not take sides; the article can not lean towards dialect nor language either. UserNumber (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, a "politically correct" position is also political. We just go by linguistic definitions here.  Please look at Abu Ayyub's reply below. Chaipau (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * - I think we should just ignore this identity discussion it really would not lead anywhere, even if Sylheti was recognised as a language it wouldn't stop me identifying as a Bengali just how Cornish people would with being English or Cantonese people with being Chinese, one's identity is too powerful. Here's what I found from Chinese language; The varieties of Chinese are usually considered by native speakers to be regional variants of ethnic Chinese speech, without consideration of whether they are mutually intelligible. Due to their lack of mutual intelligibility, they are generally described as distinct languages (perhaps hundreds) by linguists - I feel this quite similar to how Sylheti is viewed from the native speakers' one hand and the linguists on the other. Abu Ayyub (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article would definitely be improved if it treated at greater length the perceptions of the Sylhetis themselves (provided there are good sources). But calling Sylheti a language is not at all incompatible with emphasising the common identity, or the shared cultural, political, literary, and linguistic commonalities. This situation is not uncommon in South Asia – remember the Hindi belt, with the several dozen distinct languages, whose speakers often identify with Hindi. (Incidentally, for that it's not even necessary for two languages to be closely related, or related at all – the Brahuis in Balochistan identify as Baloch, and are accepted as such, despite the fact that their language is from a different family). – Uanfala (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC) – Uanfala (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an article where identity politics is probably the subject itself: Sylhetis. Chaipau (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope you agree with Abu Ayyub and Uanfala above that the linguistic definition of the Sylheti language does not impact the identity of the Sylheti people. If you agree with this, then we would have taken a major step towards agreement. Chaipau (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and even in many linguistic definitions of the variety, it has been described as "Sylheti dialect" as discussed above. Let's agree that there is no consensus among linguists on this dialect vs language issue. Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are the only one saying that here. The linguistic evidence is that they are distinct languages.  Chaipau (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not me, it's the linguists. Chung, Rasinger, Chatterji, Grierson and others. Sources have already been shown. You don't agree with these linguists that's a different thing. Za-ari-masen (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Could we please distinguish the following?
 * 1. How linguists refer to Sylheti in passing mentions.
 * 2. What they explicitly state. As far as I can see, so far that's only Rasinger (who argues it's a dialect, but obviously using the everyday meaning of the word), and Simard et at. (who argue it should be considered a language).
 * 3. What is being generalised about the opinions of linguists: what some/many/most linguists think. As far as I can see, of the sources brought up in this discussion, that's only Mahanta and Gope, who mention (only in passing) that Sylheti is considered a distinct language by many and also as a dialect of Bengali or Bangla by some others.
 * Using #1 and #2 for sweeping statements like #3 would usually be OR. The current version of the article makes such a statement in the lede (generally considered to be a dialect of Bengali), but bizarrely, it claims the very opposite of what is stated in the only relevant one of the sources cited. – Uanfala (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sen (2020) could probably lie between (1) and (2): because of significant morpho-phonological differences and a lack of mutual intelligibility, a strong argument can be made in favour of Sylheti claiming the status of a language in its own right.  Surprisingly Sen says Sylheti is also considered as a dialect of Assamese—though people have been talking about the similarity with Assamese, no one else that I know of has claimed it is a "dialect" of Assamese. Chaipau (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , we can also add Muhammad Shahidullah to the list. (see his Anchalik Bhasar Abhidhan) UserNumber (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I strongly agree. I have been thinking why we are ignoring Muhammad Shahidullah's research, who is considered one of the eminent linguists in the research of Bengali language. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

"Internet" vs. "internet"
Please see Talk:Internet

There's some debate there about what a proper name is, about distinguishing between a proper-noun phrase and a common-noun phrase that refer to different topics ("the Internet" vs. "an internet"), and about whether news style guides (cf. WP:NOT policy) should be considered reliable for how to write about technical topics. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

TERF has an RFC
TERF has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Loki (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Two missing sounds
There are two vowels with missing sounds at IPA vowel chart with audio: ø̞ and ɤ̞. Perhaps someone involved in this WikiProject could attend to this. Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Linguistic homeland
Urheimat (now moved to "linguistic homeland") was recently nominated for deletion and, while it was obviously kept, the article is in a bit of a state. Only a small portion of the text is about the concept itself. The rest is a very long list of sections, of varying quality, about the homelands of particular language families, turning it into a doomed attempt to summarise the language history of the entire world. Any assistance in cleaning up these sections and splitting them off to standalone articles where appropriate would be appreciated. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of these are forks or summaries of (sections of) existing articles. Should we just scrap the entire panorama of concrete Urheimat proposals, or leave micro-sections with hatnotes? I strongly opt for the first solution. –Austronesier (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think a set of bullet-point lists with links to individual articles and a one or two sentence summary would be a good thing to aim for. It makes sense to have some sort of list of homelands in this article, but the section headings alone add a lot of visual clutter and make the article hard to navigate. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe the better title is Index of linguistic homeland articles or List of linguistic homelands if we're going to replace most of the prose? I think such a page might actually be useful. If I get some free time today I'll try to draft something. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Category:Urheimat has some of the articles but not all of them. Gbear605 (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, especially if there are language families where the homeland isn't quite a notable subject on its own. But I think there should also be a base article on the concept itself. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The concept "Linguistic homeland" should have an article of its own, even if it won't be exceedingly long after a cleanup of the family sections. And if the latter are reduced to a bullet-point list, the info could stay on the main article as a section.
 * BTW, I have seen that in some cases, the article has material that is apparently not covered anywhere else, e.g. Linguistic homeland. I will move this to Hmong–Mien languages and leave a "bullet-pointable" summary + hatnote in the current format. –Austronesier (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Taskforce Proposal: Indo-European Topics
My fellow Wikipedians --

Our coverage of Indo-European and Proto-Indo-European topics is in disrepair. We've got a great deal of content and a great deal of articles. But they overlap, conflict, contradict confuse and muddle.

To say nothing of the PIE template(s), just look at this list of articles. You can figure out just by the titles that there's a great deal of redundancy:
 * Proto-Indo-European language
 * Proto-Indo-European homeland
 * Paleolithic Continuity Theory
 * Indigenous Aryans
 * Kurgan hypothesis
 * Armenian hypothesis
 * North European hypothesis
 * Proto-Indo-Europeans
 * Proto-Indo-European society
 * Proto-Indo-European mythology
 * Indo-European languages
 * List of Indo-European languages
 * Proto-Indo-European phonology
 * Proto-Indo-European accent
 * Indo-European sound laws
 * Indo-European ablaut
 * Proto-Indo-European root
 * Indo-European vocabulary
 * Proto-Indo-European nominals
 * Proto-Indo-European verbs
 * Proto-Indo-European pronouns
 * Proto-Indo-European particles

(I am aware that some of these articles don't belong exclusively or even at all to linguistics.)

To take one example of where we see issues, let's look at "Proto-Indo-European homeland". This article generally sloppy (eg it can't decide between "urheimat" and "homeland"), but let's look at its structure specifically. You'd expect this article to look something like this:
 * a short section for background & context
 * section about various methods and considerations for locating the Urheimat
 * sections or subsections explaining the various hypotheses. Could be divided into mainstream and fringe ones.
 * Should these (sub)sections have their own pages, then they should be introduced here briefly (1-2 paragraphs) and preceded by Template:Main. Ideally this is not needed bc it they don't have their own main pages.

Instead, the article is structured so:
 * Hypotheses
 * considerations
 * going into these hypotheses in depth.
 * Most of them have mainpages, but this article goes into about the same depth, making it pointless to have main pages.

At any rate -- problems like these are abound when it comes to PIE topics. That's why I propose an Indo-European Topics taskforce to fix this madness. Let me know if there's any interest. CampWood (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * While I broadly agree with you, it is considerably easier to identify problems with these top-level overview articles than to fix them. Case in point: Proto-Indo-European homeland. You might find fault with the current state, but it is significantly better than the random collection of material that existed in 2016. The improvement between then and now is the result of years of diligent editing by and others. The "right" article structure is always going to be subjective (though I don't actually see much difference between your preferred structure and the existing one?), but I think those that put in the hard work of gathering sources, fact-checking, and writing, should have the privilege of deciding.
 * That said, I do agree that PIE articles are not in the best shape. Apart from the usual problems that overview articles on Wikipedia always have (ad hoc coverage, lack of structure, repetition, poor quality sourcing, etc.), it's a topic area that suffers badly from attritional edits by fringe theorists, POV-pushers, and indiscriminate data-dumps from the latest aDNA paper. I like the idea of a task force, and since, like you say, the topic isn't purely linguistic, it could be a good opportunity for collaboration between WP Linguistics, WP Archaeology, and WP [I don't actually know if there is one for human population genetics]. However, I think it's important to have some concrete goals for improving content and not simply rearranging it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Joe, for the compliment. "Diligent editing" is indeed what's needed, and asks for a lot more effort than making broad proposals with which nobody would disagree. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We should be consolidating task forces, not making more. WikiProject Linguistics is already threadbare, so a new taskforce is unlikely to attract many participants and likely to divert editor resources from useful tasks. I would recommend you just edit the articles as you see fit, and/or write an essay/style guide at WikiProject Linguistics/Writing about Proto-Indo-European topics, and/or post here every so often to keep us updated or ask for help. Anyone interested in PIE is probably already watching this page, and it would help revitalize this project rather than fracturing it more. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Finished MOS:DIACRITICS merge from MOS:CAPS to WP:MOS
For details, please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Preferred gender pronoun § Requested move 3 December 2020
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Preferred gender pronoun § Requested move 3 December 2020. GreenComputer (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Attestation of chickenhawk
Hello, the article on the lexeme chickenhawk concluded with a well-sourced sentence (The Atlantic, Newsweek, etc.) on its contemporary attestation/usage in English. However, a single-purpose account has repeatedly removed the information as an "irrelevant personal opinion." Looking for commentary and/or involvement regarding the linguistic neutrality of presenting the attestation ("has been used as") and the reliability of the sources. Thanks. Doremo (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of the merits of the edits themselves, your accusations of bad faith editing on the part of the editor in question are in extremely poor form. You're engaging in an edit war and haven't even bothered to initiate a discussion, even though the user has shown a willingness to do so by creating an account. You know better than this.
 * I'm surprised I have to tell this to someone who's been at the project for ten-plus years, but before you task the community with doing a bunch of work for you, you should engage in WP:BRD and start a discussion in the article talk page. Rather than biting a newcomer who may not be familiar with our policies and community standards, welcome them their talk page and invite them to participate in the discussion you've started. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 07:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was seeking broader input on the relevance of contemporary attestation (it's OK if you're not interested in that aspect). Thank you for the suggestion to move the discussion from the edit summaries to the talk page, which I've now added. Doremo (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Terminology science
In plaint English, this article is in such a poor state that it needs to be fixed or it risks deletion. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Fringe Etymologies
Hi everyone,

I've discovered a number of Fringe etymologies at the page Slavicism (see, , and this talk page thread and I was hoping anyone who knows more about Slavic etymologies could help pick out some more (I'm limited to my knowledge of Germanic). Thanks!--Ermenrich (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that you've removed the crazy stuff, what's left in the article is a few paragraphs of text copied verbatim from Slavic languages. – Uanfala (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The Language Instinct
Additional input by editors more familiar with the topic is requested here: Talk:The Language Instinct. Crossroads -talk- 21:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Resources
What would you suggest be the best reliable resources to take into consideration when editing articles? Besides mainstream websites such as google. Reinhearted (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The page Reliable sources gives general information about the criteria for what constitutes a reliable source in which context. Check also the very helpful links in the "See also" section. If there is a specific source which are not sure about whether it is reliable or not, you may raise the issue in Reliable sources/Noticeboard. And ideally, you should then provide more context about your inquiry, especially if you are in a content dispute (as I can gather from your talk page). As for Google, remember that it is just a search engine, that will lead you to all types sources, including reliable and non-reliable ones. –Austronesier (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I hosted an edit-a-thon where the university library compiled some books for us to use. They're listed at User:Wugapodes/IYIL sources and may be a good place to start. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

LSA edit-a-thon on Monday
Hi all, the Linguistic Society of America's annual meeting is coming up and---as is becoming the norm---there will be a Wikipedia edit-a-thon in conjunction. This year, it looks to be 11 January 2021, from 20:00 UTC to 23:00 UTC (noon to 3 pacific). I wanted to make you all aware for a few reasons, a big one being that we'd like you to join us in building the encyclopedia. If you can't commit the whole time, there are lots of ways you can still be involved and helpful. After edit-a-thons, many people never come back especially since most ling articles are lonely places. If you see new faces on your watchlist, WelcomeNewcomers by leaving a message on their user talk or thanking them with the thanks button. If you can, lead by example and try to fix the newbie errors instead of reverting. If you need to revert, try to leave them a message or ping them to the article talk page. I'll be on the zoom call to wrangle them, so if you're really having problems during the event get in touch. Suggestions on what articles could use expert attention or that you've been wanting a collaborator on are also incredibly appreciated and you can feel free to let me know and I'll compile them as a handout for participants. Thanks everyone and hopefully we get some new editors and new content! WugapodesOutreach (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for doing this! I'd suggest modality (natural language), donkey sentence, cataphora, discourse relation, and Discourse representation theory as articles in need of attention. The articles scope (formal semantics) could use another pair of eyes, and also counterfactual conditional, especially the grammar subsection. Botterweg14 (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Color-coding in phonology tables
We have a long-running minority practice of color-coding phonology tables to indicate things like dialectal variation (e.g. Hmong language) or phonotactic limitations (e.g. Selkup language). This in principle risks problems in accessibility or printability, though; see MOS:COLORCODING. Should we consider having particular recommendations on how to use contrast in tables, for starters e.g. table cell color vs. text color (and perhaps specific color guidelines)? I know I've also seen bolding-for-emphasis and italics-for-emphasis which could be debatable as well.

This comment inspired by running into Dargwa language whose hot pink and gold text on normal light gray seems pretty straining to read even as a person with unimpaired color vision (formerly also more copiously in running text which I've fixed already); I also recall Abkhaz language having darkish blue and darkish green which are not the easiest to tell apart immediately. (Abkhaz phonology remedies this by adding asterisks / daggers, though.) -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 14:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Could we maybe modify class Wikitable_IPA for other kinds of emphasis than just bold heading cells and light content cells? Then they could be changed at the template level if we run into complications from whatever conventions we decide on. — kwami (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid the issue is not limited to phonology tables. On one occasion I have applied a color-based description of dialectal variation also to a pronoun table (→Nias language). –Austronesier (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * We could still use the same table format. Diactical variation is often given in IPA, and even if it isn't, it doesn't hurt anything to have it presented in a font that supports the IPA. — kwami (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This also does not seem like something that would be limited to linguistics topics. I'm not familiar enough with best practices regarding accessibility or printability parameters, but WP:COLOR says we should make sure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 06:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation changes
An IP editor has recently made dozens of credible but unsourced non-English IPA changes. Please could an expert check them? If you have the CIDR gadget enabled then the edits can be seen here, otherwise there is a Latin sample here. Thanks, Certes (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Credible or not, the Latin transcriptions go against what's laid out at Help:IPA/Latin. I recommend immediate reverts of such edits and, if we believe the anonymous editor in question to be interested in discussion, starting a thread at Help talk:IPA/Latin. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 18:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Any other opinions? (preferably from a rollbacker who can save me the tedium of manually undoing them all!) Certes (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done reverting. I saw recently that some people believe Classical Latin contrasted vowels only quantitatively and not qualitatively so the IP may have been pushing that POV. But as Aeusoes1 said if they believed the key and transcriptions should be changed they should bring it up at the key's talk. If they resume the disruptive editing point to this discussion (since the last IPv6 is likely stale now). (You don't need the gadget to view the range contributions now, btw.) Nardog (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Should the older non-Latin edits such as and  be reverted too?  The same editor has also made several non-IPA contributions on topics such as Portuguese verb conjugation and Colloquial Finnish which I'm not competent to assess. Certes (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Me neither. FWIW Portuguese phonology seems to be a topic that attracts a lot of OR and unsourced edits. Nardog (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rolled back the Portuguese; this is about conjugation of the pretérito mais-que-perfeito of the subjunctive; in any case, they included no references, and that's reason enough to remove it. Mathglot (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Am I meant to introduce myself?
"If you wish to participate in WikiProject Etymology, please add your name to the list below and introduce yourself on the project talk page". So hi? I'm LocalPunk :) happy to be here, I have a special interest in etymology LocalPunk (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Auditory phonetics
I'd like to suggest that the article on Auditory phonetics be removed from the list of topics needing attention, as it has been considerably expanded from the single sentence mentioned. RoachPeter (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Contemplate mood (or aspect?)
Please see: Talk:Irrealis mood  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for expansion: Phonetics
Surely the criticism of the Phonetics article is no longer valid? RoachPeter (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which criticism, where, from whom?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Linguistics. Nobody takes care of these lists anyway, so WP:be bold. Nardog (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

XKCD and the Tower of Babel
Members of this WikiProject may want to visit the page at https://xkcd.com/2421/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Proto-Eskimo-Aleut language
Any knowledgeable folks here? I've found this paper, which calls for a re-evaluation of the evidence, as many alleged cognates between Eskimo and Aleut are highly dubious and likely the result of relatively recent language contact and borrowing. My understanding as an outsider is that while Proto-Eskimo is relatively well understood and there are decent reconstructions, Proto-Aleut is much less so, and while their relationship is not in doubt, it is distant and a good reconstruction of Proto-Eskimo-Aleut is still sorely lacking. Weeding out borrowings and other false cognates between the two primary branches is vital for the progress of the reconstruction, but it also thins out the evidence, which doesn't seem to be overwhelmingly plentiful anyway, so the paper brings bad news in this sense. I wonder what the effect on PEA reconstruction really factually is, and how large the amount of remaining evidence, and reconstructible material. Also, should the paper be mentioned in Proto-Eskimo-Aleut language or other articles? Is there recent literature on Eskimo-Aleut in the form of long-form studies, monographs, textbooks? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Technonym or occupational surname
Please state your opinion in Talk:surname. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Crowdsourced list of linguists at WikiProject Women in Red
Hello all! I’ve just created a redlist for women in linguistics as part of WikiProject Women in Red. Would like to encourage people to jump in, edit, and create articles. Muspilli (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Flow chart for Philadelphia English article
Hi all, Josef Fruehwald uploaded File:Philadelphia Short-A Flow Chart.svg for use in Philadelphia English, but it needs some clean-up before it can be added. If anyone has the time and skills to work with SVG flow charts, feel free to lend a hand. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

IPA phones - Occurrence tables - Links
Hi, so I'm feeling free to make a suggestion here. In the process of editing Voiced_dental,_alveolar_and_postalveolar_lateral_approximants I've discovered that references to individual languages are given either at the left after the language name, or at the right in the notes, seemingly without rhyme or reason. It is obvious to me that they should be consistently subjoined to individual statements in the notes, and that they're both difficult to detect and out of place next to language names fight me Let this be a policy proposal if anybody wants to take this up because I'm not active very on the website - too big and scary for me. Tho I can go ahead and convert that page if y'all agree. Brutal Russian (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I find it annoying when the exact same citation is placed under both language and note columns. User:Aeusoes1/Phone tables, which documents conventions based on old discussions from the '00s, says the citation should go in the first column, but I agree with you, they should go in the last column only (at the beginning if there is no note or if the note is cited to another source, and after the note if the citation provides verification for the note—but never after the cross reference to the phonology article). What do you think? Nardog (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the MOS say anything about these lone footnote markers?
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Language !! Word !! IPA!! Meaning !! Notes
 * Gibberish || foo || || 'bar' || []
 * }
 * For some reason, I don't like them, but if MOS is silent about it, I won't object to have them in this default position in the absence of explicit notes. –Austronesier (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've found it a bit aesthetically unpleasing when inline citations appear under a dedicated column in a table (usually an accolades list, e.g. List of accolades received by Her (film)), but I find it even more discombobulating when citations appear under different columns depending on row in the same table. I bet you wouldn't dislike it as much if it appears among other cells in the same columns that have notes and cross references. Nardog (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The way we have it now has a certain meaning, which I had thought was clear: when the citation is in the Language or dialect column, it is indicating that the source is backing up the claim that the sound in question occurs in a given language/dialect. When the citation is in the notes column, it is backing up the claim that is being put in the notes column, which goes beyond simple occurrence and gives information about allophony, orthographic representation, etc. For example, Italian is given as having the same source for both the claim that the postalveolar lateral occurs in that language (Language column) and the claims that the sound is palatalized laminal and an allophone of before  (notes column).
 * Naturally, there are going to be a lot of instances where the same source can back up both claims, but it seems to me that, if we are going to be both clear and exhaustive in backing up our claims, we would want to put citations in both places. I could come up with specific scenarios where not doing so might be confusing; do I need to do so to indicate the importance of keeping our citations clear and consistent in this regard? — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 18:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. What an inline citation indicates in general is "the preceding information can be found in this source". So if the citation appears only after the language/variety, it suggests only that the sound occurs in that language/variety, not the ensuing information, i.e. the IPA, orthography and meaning of the example word (the source sometimes does not actually provide verification for the specific example, but that's typically with a language that has a large number of native speakers and dictionaries, satisfying WP:BLUE, while the word indeed usually appears in the source when it comes to underdocumented languages). If the note is cited to the same source, then the citation after the language is completely redundant because, since the note is explaining something about the sound in the language (such as allophony), it goes without saying that the source also provides verification for the fact the sound occurs in that language. Nardog (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure it's really a good idea to remove a citation after a claim with the logic that placing the citation in a specific other place implies verification of the first claim. This is spurious reasoning. Sure, it's likely often true. But, again, I could come up with examples, hypothetical and possibly real, where this assumption would be incorrect. If you would like me to do so, you have but to ask. Even if what you're advocating would be clear most of the time, IMHO, we should be catering our citation policy to be clear even for rarer cases of ambiguity.
 * Also, if we are expected to glean from a citation in the notes column that the example word (either its orthographic representation, IPA transcription, or its meaning) is backed up in the source, then there is a whole lot of work needed to be done to clarify whether this is the case. The way I see it, it would be untoward to infer a citation for an example from anything other than a citation after the example in question. The examples are technically uncited, but citing example words is very atypical because these kinds of examples are not so thoroughly scrutinized as to require a citation. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 01:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, if we are expected to glean from a citation in the notes column that the example word (either its orthographic representation, IPA transcription, or its meaning) is backed up in the source, then there is a whole lot of work needed to be done to clarify whether this is the case. The way I see it, it would be untoward to infer a citation for an example from anything other than a citation after the example in question. The examples are technically uncited, but citing example words is very atypical because these kinds of examples are not so thoroughly scrutinized as to require a citation. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 01:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Note about brackets in language infobox
An editor has contested a recent addition of a note about brackets and delimiters in Infobox language. Input will be appreciated at Template talk:IPA notice. Nardog (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed MoS addition on optional stress marking in Russian, Ukrainian, Japanese, Korean, etc.
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, for a proposal relating to optional characters/marks for indicating vocal stress, used in some foreign languages, include "ruby" characters for Japanese and Korean, and znaki udareniya marks in Ukrainian and Russian. The short version is that, based on a rule already long found in MOS:JAPAN and consonant with WP:NOTDICT policy, MoS would instruct (in MOS:FOREIGN) not to use these marks (primarily intended for pedagogical purposes) except in unusual circumstances, like direct quotation, or discussion of the marks themselves. Target date for implementation is April 21. PS: This does not relate to Vietnamese tone marks. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Rhotacism (speech impediment)
Rhotacism (speech impediment) needs to be looked at. An IP user recently added multiple tags to this article, including one claiming that the title is inaccurate. They also made this edit, which removed unreliably sourced material and OR but was justified as ableism. In August 2019, I tagged this article for lack of medical citations and OR, and the claim of inaccuracy is backed up by the talk page, where the most recent commentor, claimed that the term speech impediment is outdated. From the other comments, I suspect that the article has a major NPOV violation where the subject is unduly presented as a speech impediment. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 23:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Lambdacism" (should probably be at De-lambdacism or De-lambdacization, or De-lambdacisation) may have related issues. I did some minor cleanup at what is presently Rhotacism (speech impediment), but it should move to De-rhotacism, De-rhotacization, or De-rhotacisation, since those are accurate terms, and collectively used more in the speech–language professional literature, according to the lead (plus they're not ambiguous, thus we wouldn't need a parenthetical disambiguator, disputed or otherwise). I would advocate the short forms for MOS:COMMONALITY and WP:CONCISE reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

"To play Nintendo"
Dear linguists and interested people, I have a question about the linguistic classification of the term "Nintendo". Can this company name be classified as a neologism of the 1980s when used instead of the term "video game" or "video game console"? Usage examples: "to play Nintendo", "I'm taking the Nintendo with me on vacation." – Gebu (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Try Reference desk/Language. This page is for discussion on how to improve articles related to linguistics. Nardog (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your answer! At the top of this page it says "[...] this page is where people [...] discuss what they are doing.". I am in the process of adding articles to the Category:Neologisms (German) in the German Wikipedia. – Gebu (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles are (usually) about concepts rather than words. So Nintendo is an article about a Japanese company, not about an 8 letter word. The company isn't a neologism, so I don't think it would be appropriate for that category (see WP:SHAREDNAME). But Wiktionary would definitely be interested in this genericized sense of the word "Nintendo", especially if you can find durably recorded citations to support its existence. Colin M (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Thinking about the immortality of the crab
Not really linguistics-related, but since this project's banner was on the talk page, there's an editorial dispute between myself and another editor which could use more views. Opencooper (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right that it's not linguistics-related. I've taken the liberty of removing the said banner: this projects doesn't track articles about individual words or phrases. – Uanfala (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

English pronunciation respelling key, issue about example word
Please see Help talk:Pronunciation respelling key.

There's a dispute (with too few participants) about what example(s) to provide and whether the current one is adequate for or confusing for most editors. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

BBC (sexual slang)
WT:LINGUISTICS seems as a good a place as any for notices about English-language slang coverage. Please see: Talk:BBC (disambiguation) – apparently the entry to for the sexual term keeps getting censored off the disambiguation page, despite there being an ideal article section to point to. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is now an RfC, below the original thread.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)