Talk:Chittagonian language

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Languages Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Bangladesh Low‑importance Bangladesh portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list: edit history watch purge Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengalis and related pages Take a look at the requested articles. Make a MRT line 3 article. Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton. Bengal (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bengal, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.

Writing system

May I propose to write Eastern Nagari script in place of Bengali script as the writing system of Chittagonoan? -Bikram98 17:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That will be entirely incorrect, as Bengali script (sans the other extra characters) are used to write Chittaonian (in fact, written Chittagonian is same as Bengali, the differences seem quite arbitrary). --Ragib 20:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Ragib The written Chittagonian is never same as Bengali. Chittagonian is a tonal language. It has stress tones and stretch tones which are not available in Bengali. RicardoSadik (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your delusion

Chittagongian dont exist

Chittagong has two language

Chatgaiya (noakhali and rohingya mixed) and bengali

Stop your delusional

The whole Chittagong district is bengali land but feni lakshimpur are not

stop your delusional statements Abrarward (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Language or Dialect?

Till date chatgaonian is not recognised as a language. As it is not, please don't create several languages by splitting a single language that you wany. I don't think Wikipedia is a place to divert folk. I you have any official proof then change it to a language. শরদিন্দু ভট্টাচার্য্য (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe the general perception is that Chittagonian is a dialect. Although Ethnologue lists it as a language. May be we can have comprehensive discussion here. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chittagonian is a dialect . Not a Language. And the two are indeed mutually intelligible . I , as a Bengali speaker , can easily understand Chittagonian , as , for the fact , it's not a different language. Bukhara (Kingdom of Bukhara) (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: I have added some details from Masica (1991), The Indo-Aryan Languages, which explain both the common perception, and the assessment by linguists. –Austronesier (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Austronesier, thanks, that should solve the dispute. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Za-ari-masen: I just noticed that the Infobox has the entry "Ethnicity: Chittagonians". Judging from the explanations in Ethnologue and Masica (1991), speakers of Chittagonian ethnically identify as Bengali, so "Chittagonian" would maximally denote a regional identiy, but not an ethnicity. What do you think? –Austronesier (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Austronesier, you are right, Chittagonian or Chatgaia is not an ethnicity, it is more like a Demonym like Parisian, Chicagoan etc. There are such demonyms for almost all the districts in Bangladesh. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Chittagonian people identify themselves as Chittainga(Chittagonian) and they call the Bengalis 'Boinga' which means the people of Bongo that means Bengali people. If Chittagonians had identified themselves as Bengali then they would never call the Bengalis with a particular name(Boinga) which literally means The Bengalis. LOL 103.148.177.5 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chittagong is not a dialect. It is a completely different language. Assamese is seventy percent similar to Bengali, if it is a different language, then Chittaganian is not even thirty percent similar to Bengali, how is it a dialect? 103.148.10.251 (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In term of mutual intelligibility, 80% of Chittagonian does not match with Bengali, so it cannot be a dialect of Bengali. You learned Chittagonian on your own, so you can understand. The rest of the Bengali speakers who have not learned Chittagonian do not understand Chittagonian. Listening to Bengali dialects for the first time, it can be understood that they are Bengali dialects, but this rule does not apply in the case of Chittagonian language. A Bengali speaker who has not heard Chittagonian language before cannot understand it for the first time. If you go to a village of Chittagong or Cox's Bazar and talk to someone who never went to school, never learned Bengali and never heard Bengali, he will not understand your words if you talk to him in Bengali. Above all, as far as the distance of Assamese language from Bengali is concerned, Chittagonian language is able to prove even greater distance with Bengali. If Assamese language can be a distinct language, why can't Chittagonian? SDKRicardo (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is about how to improve the encyclopedic content of this article. The article is called "Chittagonian language" and begins with "Chittagonian (চাটগাঁইয়া Caṭgãia) is an Indo-Aryan language". What is your point? If you want to chat about the sociolinguistic status of Chittagonian in Bangladesh, see WP:NOTFORUM. –Austronesier (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOSIS

@Glennznl: I think WP:MOSIS has an exception for Indic scripts in language articles. Exceptions are articles on the script itself, articles on a language that uses the script, and articles on texts originally written in a particular script. Chaipau (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: Thanks I wasn't aware of the exception, I reverted such edits of mine. Glennznl (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Chittagonian language → Chittagonian – I'm requesting a move to the new article, along with its associated talk page, because per WP:NCL, there's nothing else called 'Chittagonian'. PK2 (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the established naming scheme for most languages, regardless of ambiguity. (t · c) buidhe 02:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Is that the case? I can see counterexamples such as Old Frisian. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Chittagonian" is the general demonym for Chittagong (the city, but also district, or division), so it is not exclusively or predomiantly used for the language only. This also reflected by the current dab Chittagonian. –Austronesier (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: As per Austronesier. Chaipau (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: In agreement with Austronesier. --Glennznl (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: per any number of discussions about adding 'language' to the end of titles lately—blindlynx (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Formatting & SEO Settings

Hi Austronesia, I have added tables. Is any extended-user here who can fix the page name, category and SEO settings. As it is not showing in Google or Wikipedia search. Slake000 (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slake000: I have removed the material, since the reference is all-in-all not a WP:reliable source, in spite of it being published in an academic journal. Much of its content, especially the material which have you inserted here, is cited from Wikipedia and a Wikipedia mirror, so we have a WP:circular reference. Please also note that you should not make large verbatim quotes from sources. You can make excerpts from tables, and if you cite a text, you have to paraphrase it properly (thus not just superficially).

As for your request: what exactly do have in mind about the page title? When I search for "Chittagonian language", every major search engine brings me to this article. –Austronesier (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

spelling

@RicardoSadik, It seems you and i are getting into edit warring, so let's talk. You removed pronunciation (saŋʈgaiyaŋ) from infobox, changed the order on lede and added your original research, i.e. from চাটগাঁইয়া & চিটাইঙ্গা to সিটাইঙ্গা & চাটগাঁইয়া. Please don't add your original research, here on ctg incubator you claimed every Chatgaiya's writing of Chatgaiya is wrong and you are correct. Please stop. I and other editors reverted your edits, restored last good version but you keeps doing it.

Most common name source mentions for this language is: চাটগাঁইয়া ("... which is generally known as Chatgaiyan Buli" or "চট্টগ্রামের আঞ্চলিক ভাষাকে বলা হয় ‘চাটগাঁইয়া বুলি’ from Banglapedia) & চিটাইঙ্গা ([1], [2]).

Please provide reliable sources for সিটাইঙ্গা. If there is no source, please restore last good version.

(ping @SalamAlayka who also removed সিটাইঙ্গা & others who also reverted RicardoSadik's edits: @Yamaguchi先生, @Glennznl, @Sumanuil) আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

আফতাবুজ্জামান, Are you a linguist? I meant 'Bengali literate' Chittagonians write Chittagonian with 'Bengali alphabets' in a wrong way. For example: The word 'Sitainga'. They say it right but write it wrong while they write it with 'Bengali alphabets'. They write 'চিটাইঙ্গা' which is incorrect because 'চ' gives 'cha' sound instead of 'sa' sound. We have 'স' for 'sa' sound. How do you write 'Islam' with Bengali alphabet? Is it 'ইচলাম' or 'ইসলাম'? And these are not my 'personal opinions'. These are the research of Chittagonian Language Academy team. You keep showing Bengali articles! How many times we have to tell you that CHITTAGONIAN AND BENGALI ARE TWO SEPARATE LANGUAGES. In Bengali its চাটগাঁইয়া(Chatgãiya) but in Chittagonian its সিটাইঙ্গা(Sitainga). If you still have doubts then come to Chittagong, ask average Chittagonian people whether they call themselves 'চাটগাঁইয়া' or 'সিটাইঙ্গা'. Those who are removing 'সিটাইঙ্গা' from Wikipedia, what contributions they have for Chittagonian language?? RicardoSadik (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such "Chittagonian Language Academy", it's a facebook page, not an actual academy. Please provide source for "সিটাইঙ্গা". Reliable sources says it's চাটগাঁইয়া & চিটাইঙ্গা. You might be right & if there is reliable sources, i'm ok with something like this. If you can't provide reliable sources, please restore last good version (note that i didn't write that version). Thank you. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RicardoSadik: I told you about this in the Wikimedia Incubator. Still, you continue to do same. Please stop, because Wikipedia has rules and policy. For your information, I repeat that Wikipedia is not a place of original research, the information you add here must be cited from reliable sources, otherwise, there are rules for deletion. It is not at all desirable that you are creating edit war repeatedly. According to the policy, administrator can block a user to creating edit war and breaking 3RR rules. So please do not revert each other's edits without adding reliable sources. Try to contribute according to the rules. Thank you. Riaz (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop treating Chittagonian as a dialect of Bangla. Wikipedia is not a place for language dictation also. Chittagonian is an internationally recognised distinct language. Bangla articles don't determine how the native name 'Sitainga' should be written on Wikipedia English as Chittagonian is not a dialect of Bangla. RicardoSadik (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most Chatgaiya writes Chatgaiya using Bengali alphabet, it doesn't mean we are saying it's a dialect of Bengali (leave it for linguist). I am discussing about spelling. Reliable sources says it's চাটগাঁইয়া & চিটাইঙ্গা. You keeps removing চিটাইঙ্গা and added সিটাইঙ্গা instead, but no one, even Chatgaiya's doesn't write this word using স. In another discussion, you said everyone is wrong and you're right, do you know that's original research. You can see on the article history that everyone disagreeing with you. Please provide reliable sources for সিটাইঙ্গা and we can add it with other spelling. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RicardoSadik: The majority of Chittagonians, and the majority of Indo-Aryan-researching linguists consider it to be a Bengali dialect. If you have any evidence to prove otherwise, please provide them. SalamAlayka (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's controversial, some consider it, some don't. Note that not much research has been done about this language/dialect. I think this should be discussed separately, not in this section. Here i'm just asking about চ / স spelling and if he has source or not. If not last good version should be restored. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamaguchi先生, there is no consensus and no RS was provided. It would be great if restore a version before this edit war started. Thank you. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SalamAlayka Majority of Chittagonians? So you're saying that a voting happened where 'majority of Chittagonians' said that Chittagonian is a dialect of Bengali? Who arranged that voting? You? We've already provided the reference of an American linguist named Colin Masica who said in his book 'Indo Aryan Languages' that Chittagonian is different enough to be considered a separate language. Ethnologue has listed Chittagonian as a separate language. Chittagonian has ISO Language code as a separate language.

Came out of the cave you're living in, come to Chittagong, arrange a voting and then see how many Chittagonians vote for Chittagonian to be a dialect of Bengali. RicardoSadik (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RicardoSadik: Having a separate ISO code doesn't imply you can change the order in the lead. Please cite source when you make changes. And refrain from making personal attacks. Regards. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 15:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear আফতাবুজ্জামান, বুলি is not a Chittagonian word. In fact, Chittagonian people doesn't know the meaning of this word. People of Chittagong doesn't use this kind of word. And of course, this word does not make any sense in the Chittagonian language. Most of the Chittagonian people are completely ignorant of their own language. If you tell them, stop writing Chatgaiya from today, write Chittagonian instead, then they will start write that. In fact, Chittagonian people refer to their language as sitainga Bhasha / sitainga Zuban / sitainga Mat / sitainga Hotha. The word 'বুলি' is not used in any regional language of Chittagong, of course they do not mean language by it. You said not to use uncommon words, now don't do that yourself. Hope you won't force Chittagonian to use Bengali words even though there are common chittagonian words. Thank you. Saeedmoin (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Saeedmoin you can't apply your original research here per WP:OR, so please stop repeating the same things and provide reliable sources for your claims —MdsShakil (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MdsShakil this is not any kind of research. We're saying that what people says. You want the source again and again? If someone publishes a fake news and links to it, will it become true according to the rules of the wiki? Saeedmoin (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Saeedmoin: The rules of wikipedia are not, at all, vague. You cannot write anything without citing proper sources, see WP:OR. The sources must be reliable, see WP:Reliable sources. The rules are very clear. Wikipedia do not judge truth or falseness. If 1% of the reliable sources say something different from the other 99%, then wikipedia will allow you to publish the claim of that 1% sources along with that of the other 99%. You must keep the both. But, YOU HAVE TO CITE FIRST. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 22:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. আফতাবুজ্জামান has cited a column from Prothom Alo for the word 'চিটাইঙ্গা'. In that column there's no such word like 'চিটাইঙ্গা', no such line where it states the pronunciation style of the Chittagonians. What kind of citing is that?

So what's the problem with writing 'সিটাইঙ্গা' and using the same source as reference? They both don't make any sense right? RicardoSadik (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Prothom Alo and look for "চট্টগ্রামে আঞ্চলিকতা টিকে থাকার পেছনে প্রধান যা লক্ষণীয়, তা হলো এখানকার চাটগাঁইয়া ভাষা। চাটগাঁইয়া বা চিটাইঙ্গা ভাষা হলো ইন্দো-আর্য ভাষাগোষ্ঠীর মধ্যে একটি।" আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How a BANGLA article can be the source of the NATIVE name of another language? And its not even wikipedia Bangla. You can write whatever you want in wikipedia Bangla but not in wikipedia English.

Native name means how the native speakers pronounce it. The native pronunciation is 'siʈaiŋga', so 'স' is used for the 's' sound. If the native pronunciation were 'chiʈaiŋga' then you could write 'চিটাইঙ্গা'.

Be rational. RicardoSadik (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"BANGLA article" so? Is there any rule that says in English wikipedia reference has to be/must be in English? Prothom Alo says native spelling is চিটাইঙ্গা. Above many editor disagree with about "সিটাইঙ্গা". Please provide reliable sources for "সিটাইঙ্গা" and i will add it. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"BANGLA article" means its written in Bangla and doesn’t care about how native Chittagonians pronounce. So চিটাইঙ্গা is written according to Bangla phonology. NATIVE NAME of Chittagonian should be written according to native phonology.

And again BE RATIONAL. RicardoSadik (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who says they don't care and that's not native spelling? I am not going to argue with you anymore as there is no point, you are saying same thing again and again. I will say again, Please provide reliable sources for "সিটাইঙ্গা" and i will add it. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You won't understand the point as you don't know about the phonological difference between Bengali and Chittagonian.

I have added a source for the spelling "সিটাইঙ্গা" RicardoSadik (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RicardoSadik: That is what we trying to make you understand so long... Can you please cite a reliable source so that we can understand the "phonological" difference between চিটাইঙ্গা and সিটাইঙ্গা. Please, do not repeat the same "nonsense" as you are since the beginning of this conversation - that is doing nothing but wasting our valuable time. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 02:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS It is very funny, that you are using this "blog" published a week ago by @Saeedmoin:, a participant of this conversation, for citation of your claim. Seems like a group of "cabals" are trying heart and soul to have what they mean to have. LOL. (: — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 02:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Meghmollar2017 It's a common matter in eastern languages that, ​​the [ch/চ] sound changes to [s]. In Assamese, Chakma and Sylheti languages, ​​the [ch/চ] sound changes to [s], similarly in Chittagonian language all [ch] changes to [s]. Similarly in some dialects of East Bengal the [ch] sound changes to [s]. See the wiki page for Bengali language and east bengali dialects. In Bengali alphabet, the letter স has two pronunciations. In case of 'tatshama/sanskita' words it is pronounced like [sh]. Expect this, it is used for pronouncing [s]. The Bengali letter চ is pronounced like [ch]. As an eastern language, all [ch] in Chittagonian change to s, like assamese and chakma. Not like the standard dialect of Bengali Language. In fact, Chittagong people are not good at pronouncing [চ], they pronounce [চ] as [sa]. Since the Bengali alphabet has the letter স for the pronunciation of [sa], it is better to write this pronunciation with স. It is not proper to write চ and change its pronunciation to [s] instead of [ch]. We pronounce like [s], and write with [স/s]. Thank you! Saeedmoin (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Saeedmoin: I do have a phonological sense how these eastern Indian dialects sound like. Let us take Sylheti language from your example. Sylheti term for tea sounds like sa, but is written as চা/ꠌꠣ. Similar case is for Chittagonian. If you think otherwise, you have to provide proof citing from professional linguists; you are not a linguist. This is Wikipedia, not your phonology classroom. Provide a reliable citation, otherwise leave this conversation as it is now so that anyone can continue in the future (if he has a citation). — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 14:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Meghmollar2017 In Sylheti, they write চা/ꠌꠣ, because of they've ꠌ for [s] sound, and they don't have any pronunciation like [ch], character pronounced like [চ]. Sylheti ꠌ is similar to English s. They write what they pronounce. Everyone write sylhet as সিলেট, pronounce like silet, not shilet. The [স/s] sound in সিলেট is same to Chittagonian [স/s] in [সিটাইঙগা/sitainga]. The only difference is in pressure. Sylhet's 'স' is stressed, sitainga's 's 'স' is not. Otherwise, the two 's' are pronounced from the same place. If সিলেট can use 'স' for sounds pronounced from the same place, why can't it be used in সিটাইঙগা? Why do you want to change the pronunciation of a language forcefully? Why are you forcing to write with a character that's pronunciation does not exist actually in this language. Why are you trying to change the phonology of a language, denying the unique pronunciation of a language? Isn't it oppression? Please stop making personal attacks. Polite behavior is always desirable on wiki. Personal attacks are never polite behavior. I have no obligation to do a phonology class on wiki, You are playing the role of the blind, that's why i had to. Saeedmoin (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Saeedmoin: I feel sorry if it seemed personal attack to you. However, it is very annoying to shout the exact same thing over and over for obvious reason. If you say we are turning blind, that's probably because there is nothing to see in before. There is no absolute proof of your claim and to some extent YOU are trying to change the "spelling" forcefully, without citation, showing self-proclaimed so-called "phonological" logics; obviously you couldn't show any linguistic proof other than your discussion-page "lectures". I am sorry if it sounded harsh again. Wikipedia is definitely not oppressive; you are unable to fill-up its criteria for inclusion. And here's a disclaimer: I am obviously not going to reply next time if there's the same repeative "phonology" and no citation for your claim (except the self-published one). — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 19:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Repeated Edit-war is not going to work either. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 19:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source not provided

"The Arabic script has historically been used to write this language."

No source has been provided to back this statement. Al Gofran Orin (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

The Chittagonian people identify themselves as Chittainga(Chittagonian) and they call the Bengalis 'Boinga' which means the people of Bongo that means Bengali people. If Chittagonians had identified themselves as Bengali then they would never call the Bengalis with a particular name(Boinga) which literally means The Bengalis. LOL 103.148.177.5 (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

chittagonian a different ethnicity

Chitaingha or chatgaiya are not bengali culturally or biologically..They are a different ethnic group than bangla speaking bengali. 27.147.224.249 (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The language of Chittagong is ranked 67th in the world. It is a completely different language, their language is culturally different from Bengalis. But why is the ethnicity called Bengali here? Ethnicity will be Chittagonian/Chittinga — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad8855 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Chittagongian can also be called Chittagongese like how Bengali is known as Bengalese by some in English. Also the term ending with "gong" fits the ese suffix more. Aowai (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Chittagonian language is not a dialect of Bengali, it is a completely separate language and caste like Oriya, Assamese. Here is straight up false information. 103.200.92.127 (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Provide legible source. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 11:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

103.164.255.10 (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chittagonian are not Bangali dialects. Chittagonian ethnicity is chittagonian not Bengali.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are correct

Hi, chittagongian is a dialect of bengali and my edit on first line must not be removed. (UTC) must stop removing my proofreaded and corrected edits. 01: 06, 17 September 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrarward (talk • contribs)

@Abrarward, hello! This is a place where we discuss about a topic with verifiable sources and logic to reach a consensus as I have mentioned you in my Talk Page. So, instead of complaining, you should discuss why your edit is right and how according to the policies of English Wikipedia. After we reach a consensus, required changes will be made to the article. Before that, my advice is not to engage in an editwar. Thank you. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 08:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

my sources are correct

That sources is reflection of ongoing stratus of so called chittagongian language.

I have given a good source that chittagongian is a dialect Abrarward (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abrarward, there are also some reliable sources that claim Chittagonian language a distinct language. Both school of thought is reflected in the present form of the lead section in a neutral POV. While I do not discredit the reliability of your mentioned sources, I would argue that there is no need to change the lead sentence the way you wanted. In fact, this is how Wikipedia treats other languages/dialects, as well. For example, see Sylheti language, Rangpuri language, or Rusyn language, etc. Please, establish your argument as a consensus here before you go and change the article. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 20:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

unlike sylheti chittagongian is debated as a language or dialect.

My argument seems more neutral as there is a debate on it unlike sylheti.

So please allow me to stop this and move on.

My edit will be better as people will get to understand that chittagongian identity is a mixed and confusing rather than a confirmed identity.

Ok.

Thank you Abrarward (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

please reach a concensus and let my edit since confusion over chittagongian identity will stop. Unlike sylheti, chittagongian is rather a complex and difficult identity. Sylheti is confirmed as different language but chittagongian isnt and many people identyfying as chittagongian is actually a bengali Abrarward (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abrarward, both Sylheti and Chittagonian are debated whether they are distinct languages or dialects of Bengali language. Wikipedia does mention both of the two schools of thought for both of the languages. You need to place arguments in order to clarify how your edit will end "confusion" over Chittagonian "identity" with proper and verifiable sources for your claims. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 02:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well that might be true there is evidence that people of chittagong identyfying as chittagongian often speak pure bengali and my edit recognizes that. It will remove this confusion. Compared to chitagongian, people identyfying as a sylheti never speak pure bengali. Thus, my edits are to prove that people identyfying as chittagongian does not mean that they do not speak pure bengali unlike sylheti where people identyfying as sylheti never speak pure bengali. My edit is meant to stop this confusion Abrarward (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abrarward, well, it is unnecessary to state that way. The lead section in the current form is enough to portray the linguistic situation. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it maintains a common formation for each of the things. However, you can add your sources but do not change the lead sentence. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 02:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir i have not changed the lead sentence

i just added more details to it

but yes i will correct the heading and put a better sentence Abrarward (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abrarward, as I have mentioned earlier, every article on English Wikipedia has its own encyclopaedic structure. So, it is better not to change the lead sentence and the lead section as a whole without comprising the policies and MOS of English Wikipedia. See WP:LEAD, MOS:LEAD for more info. Thank you. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 03:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

i suggest you forward that i did reach a concensus that i can put my sentences on but without changing the first sentence Abrarward (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

my edited source seems to be relitivelt perfect? do tyou want me to edit with adding setence after i edit without removing disrupting the first sentences

instead of undoing my edits so rudely just fix my edits

it seems your the one who is causing edit war Abrarward (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear,

what happened?

You told me that I could add my sentence.

Why did you just remove my sentence without just editing in correclty? Abrarward (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abrarward Your edits duplicate material that is already in the introductory section, so the simplest fix was to go back to what was already there, especially since that text uses proper English grammar. —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

Is this a good sentence to add after the lead section.

"Chittagongian is often referred to as a dialect of bengali as well by many linguistic experts due to the growing number of people living in chittagong region identyfying themselves as a bengali." Abrarward (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abrarward What reliable sources support the claims that (1) linguistic experts consider it a dialect and (2) people identifying as Bengali is the factor that leads to its status as a dialect? —C.Fred (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well i have posted some reliable sources that consider chittagongian is a bengali dialect. I have posted some credible links. You did not even look at it. Why are you judging before even looking at it. There is already a chittagongian bengali at first line. Abrarward (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop random users

Hi, Random users are removing my edits when i reached a concensus with other users. I suggest someone to stop these random users from coming in and removing my edits. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrarward (talk • contribs) 09:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abrarward, I would rather say you are engaging in an WP:EDITWAR, which can result in your block from editing Wikipedia forever. Please stay in the discussion and do not edit the article for now. Answer the questions C.Fred already asked. Stay in the discussion. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 09:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I have answered C.Fred.

My last edit seemed okay enough and was a good improvement.

Can you please explain what I can personally do to make everything correct

Thank you Abrarward (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abrarward, First of all, do not make any further attempt to edit the article. Secondly, mention who and which sources in response to C.Fred's question. Provide necessary links there. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 10:21, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:C.Fred - Wikipedia

in here i have answered some of freds questions Abrarward (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abrarward, I think you are missing the point. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 10:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained to fred that i fixed my grammatical mistake and wrote a completely accurate sentence on growing number of bengali speakers in chittagong leading to some naming it chitagongian bengali. Therefore, i beleive i have answered fred question and he has been able to understand that i put this information since there needs to be clarification on whats really going in chittagong with the chittagongian bengali and this is never raised in the chittagongian language section. Thank you Abrarward (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abrarward, I think you are still missing the point. Please provide specific links on this talk page where a linguist has said exactly the same as you wrote. Moreover, the provided sources in the previous edits have failed verification. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 11:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure

I will list it here

There are linguistic enthusiasts who said many people living in chittagong speak standard bengali

(PDF) Language Shift and Maintenance of Chittagonian Language towards Standard Bengali Language Abrarward (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

c8.pdf Abrarward (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

c8.pdf Abrarward (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abrarward The article you cited in your most recent edit refers to Chittagonian as a distinct language.

I'm going to be blunt at this point. Based on the three editors participating in discussion here, it looks like there is consensus that your text should not be included in the article. I respectfully suggest you stop trying to include it. —C.Fred (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have noticed that but there is a point that they are mentoining that there is a growing number of bengali speakers living in chittagong. My point was not about chittagongian as a language or not it was about people living in chittagong speaking bengali which is why there is a verb called chittagongian bengali. I will respectfully not include my text in the article.

c8.pdf Abrarward (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine I will gladly accept this verdict but can we continue discussion on which article might be suitable cuz i have included some article where there isnt mention of chittagongian language and it direclty speaks about the growing mumber of bengali speakers in chittagong leading to term chittagongian bengali. Thank you very much

c8.pdf Abrarward (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]