Talk:Sikkimese Bhutia language

Manual of the Sikkim Bhutia Language Or Dénjong Ké By Graham Sandberg

http://books.google.com/books?id=v05AAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Graham+Sandberg%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Jy8eU-CrOaKg0QGsu4HICw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Manual of the Sikkim-Bhutia language, or, Dé-jong Ké (1888)

https://archive.org/details/manualofsikkimbh00sanduoft

Rajmaan (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

sikkimese language must be used to refer Bhutia, Lepcha, Nepali,Limbu(Sherpa), Newari, Gurung,Magar,Tamang,Sunwar languages as a whole and when referring Bhutia language it has to be referred as Bhutia language.

Puskard (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

True, this article is misleading. Here, bhutia language is portrayed to represent as a sikkimese language. There are many languages in sikkim like lepcha, nepali, mangar,etc which are all sikkimese language. Kkk1996 (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

True.. this needs to be corrected. This is utterly misleading. Vegetamajin87 (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

How is it misleading? Prior to 1975, so called 'bhutia language' was referred to as Sikkimese. Denjongke itself means language of sikkim. The other languages in sikkim have their own names but none refer to themselves as language of sikkim. 2409:40E1:10F0:DBBA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The phonology charts on this page are rather misleading in that the IPA transcriptions are not enclosed in slashes while (from what I can gather) the Wylie tranliterations are. I think it would make more sense to enclose the IPA transcriptions in slashes (as per the norm) and either leave the transliterations blank (without slashes) or use angle bracket. Is there any reason for this or should I go ahead and change it?

ibarrere 22:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 1 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marlem J., Liannp, Jlia22, Iur444 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Softstarkid, SPLL, Zabdu2, Llill2, Umnawahal, Wsehwail, TramTrimTrom.

— Assignment last updated by UICLing (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I have done some edits. The stuff that got taken off, I tried my best to put all of that in simpler words and this is the end result. The changes happened in the Bilabial Plosives, Dento-Alveolar Plosives & Affricates, and the Postalveolar Plosives sections. Marlem J. (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Students: Respond to your peer feedback by posting what changes you will make and what should be made to the article based on your peers' suggestions. Click "reply" below to respond. @Marlem J., @Jlia22, @Lur444 UICLing (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I can try rearranging the information into charts to make it neater if I can get to it on time because there's still more sections I need to add. I need to search for more examples as well as try to make some things shorter if I can. I will double check on the phonology chart to make sure that it's as up to date as it can possibly be. Marlem J. (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I will first focus on creating a vocabulary section with information about interesting/noteworthy vocab in the language. There is a lot of information in the grammar overall, however a lot of it is pretty technical (especially the grammatical sections) so that limits what I can process and add. After the vocab section, as suggested in our peer reviews, I would like to add information about the language's history and add language examples, as well as dialectal differences if possible. To do this, I will read the first chapter, which should have information on these topics. Jlia22 (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Bhutia language doesn't represent sikkimese language Kkk1996 (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The title of the page SIKKIMESE LANGUAGE is misleading and should be changed to BHUTIA LANGUAGE Vegetamajin87 (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

yeah..it is totally misleading. It should be changed to bhutia language as soon as possible. Kkk1996 (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

How is it misleading? Denjongke itself means sikkimese language. The so called bhutia language is called sikkimese within the bhutia community itself. TseTen10 (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

So why not Keep the title to Denjongke?? Kkk1996 (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

In the top section it says that “voiceless nasals actually don’t occur at all” whereas in the nasals section it describes voiceless nasals occuring word-initially? Garethphua (言) 05:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

As a member of the sikkimese Denjongpa or bhutia community I am extremely dissatisfied to see the title be renamed from Sikkimese to bhutia language. Denjongke or Sikkimese is a language indigenous to sikkim, Denjongke itself means language of sikkim. The language has been called sikkimese for a long time, more importantly, it is still called sikkimese within the community. When government websites still refer to our language as Sikkimese(bhutia), I don't see how any person would find the title to be misleading. TseTen10 (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The sole purpose of keeping the title to 'sikkimese bhutia language' is to mislead people. If it is not misleading then why not keep it to 'denjongke'? Kkk1996 (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

If the language is known within the Bhutia community as Denjongke, then why not simply refer to it as Denjongke in the article?

Using the term “Sikkimese” seems unnecessary and potentially misleading — especially when it implies that this is the Sikkimese language, as if it represents the entire state. Sikkim is home to many linguistic communities, including Lepcha, Limbu, Magar, Rai, Tamang, Newar, and various Nepali-speaking groups, all of whom have their own languages and cultural identities.

Labeling Denjongke as the "Sikkimese language" risks erasing this diversity and could be interpreted as an attempt to promote one community's language as representative of the entire state. That’s not accurate, nor is it neutral — and it could mislead readers who are unfamiliar with Sikkim’s ethnolinguistic makeup.

In Reference, https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/a0f940c3-e578-41e8-a7c7-a9000ba4ae1e/content, the author explicitly states in the Background section that referring to the Bhutia language as "Sikkimese" is controversial. This suggests that there is no scholarly consensus on this terminology.

In Reference, https://dspace.cus.ac.in/jspui/bitstream/1/6959/1/Sangay%20Diki%20Bhutia-PhD-Anthropology.pdf, author has clearly mentioned and termed the language as Bhutia Language. and also by going through references of the above mentioned Ph.D thesis it is clear that the government itself identifies the language name as Bhutia language.

It can be inferred from @TseTen10 messages on previous talk that his sole motive was to gradually change the language name to sikkimese which is not acceptable at all. Therefore, none of the references cited clearly justify equating the Bhutia language with the term "Sikkimese" in an academic or encyclopedic context. I suggest we reconsider the article’s naming and phrasing to reflect this nuance and avoid conflating political geography ("Sikkimese") with linguistic identity ("Denjongke" ).

So again: Why not just call it Denjongke, the name it is known by among its speakers, and clarify that it is the language of the Bhutia community in Sikkim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkk1996 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the Ngrams for Denjongke, and the large spike in 2017 is entirely due to a single book published that year. I'm not convinced that "Denjongke" is more common than the other titles in post-2010 sources. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about the Ngram data. That’s exactly my point too. Similarly, referring to the Bhutia language as "Sikkimese" isn’t widely used either. For clarity and accuracy, the name should be changed back to "Bhutia", as it was earlier. Kkk1996 (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I reiterate here again Denjongke= Sikkim Language= Sikkimese. Sikkimese as a term for the language may not be as common in use nowdays, but it is a fact that it has been and still is a term used to refer to the language. If the user is a sikkim native, i would request you to look up government circulars around pre merger and few years post merger era, where the government itself has referred to this language as Sikkimese.

Aslo, i would like to add, this wiki page stayed as Sikkimese language for a very very long time without any problems. If the user has a genuine concern, a debate is entertainable, however if this is sparked by a sense of communal hatred, please do not waste our time. TseTen10 (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm open to debate and hearing all perspectives.Also, I will be bringing up references to pre-merger and post-merger government circulars in the course of this discussion to support the points further.

But let me ask you this directly:

What is the language spoken by Sikkimese people in the present-day scenario?

Sikkim today is a multilingual state. Nepali is widely spoken by the majority, alongside Lepcha, Bhutia, Limbu, and others. So, when the term "Sikkimese language" is used without clarification, it creates confusion — does it refer to the Bhutia language or to the collective languages of Sikkimese people? Kkk1996 (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the clarification provided was changing Sikkimese language to Sikkimese Bhutia language. To say that calling Bhutia as Sikkimese is completely misleading can only come out of communal hatred when it is a known fact that this language was referred to as Sikkimese and has been recorded as such in international books. Though today the lingua franca of Sikkim may be Nepali, that is not sufficient to take away from the fact that Sikkimese is in fact another name for the Bhutia language, not borne due to majority speakers, not because of government use( historically Tibetan was used), but from the simple fact that the language is called Denjong Ke ie. Sikkim Language. Similarly, Newa is known as Nepal Bhasa historically, and even though Nepali or Khas Bhasa is the majority language of nepal, it doesn't take away from the fact that Nepal Bhasa is the nomenclature used for the Newa language.

Before we take this debate any further, i would like to ask you if you have any insight on denjongke, are you a speaker, do you understand it or do you have a genuine interest in it apart from the fact that you wish to rename this page? Because if you do not have any affiliation with this language or the community that speaks it, your view on the complexities of our community's language and history is most probably reductive; showing it as lesser than what it is. Kindly clarify your intentions. TseTen10 (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

First of all, claiming one language as the “Sikkimese language” risks alienating speakers of other indigenous languages in Sikkim, and such a claim can understandably be seen as communal in nature.

Let’s consider this: if a region called “XYZ” is home to many linguistic communities, and just one community that speaks the language “ABC” claims that their language literally means “language of XYZ,” isn’t that unfair to the other communities who also belong to and have deep roots in that same region?

It’s a fact that when a kingdom is ruled by one community for an extended period, many things—historical narratives, cultural claims, and official records—tend to reflect the perspective of that ruling group. Over time, this often leads to the impression that everything belongs solely to them.

However, let’s not forget that long before the establishment of the kingdom, the region we now call Sikkim was already inhabited by other indigenous communities. Their presence, languages, and cultures are just as intrinsic to Sikkim’s identity and history. Ignoring that is not just inaccurate, it’s unfair to the diverse roots of this land.

To all your questions, I would simply like to say that, as someone belonging to one of the indigenous communities of Sikkim and a speaker of one of its indigenous languages, it is genuinely hurtful to see only one language being claimed as the “Sikkimese” language. Such a claim disregards the linguistic and cultural diversity of Sikkim and sidelines the identities of other equally indigenous communities. My concern comes from a place of shared belonging and a desire for inclusive representation—not opposition. Kkk1996 (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Again I reiterate, Denjong-ke literally translates to Sikkim- language i.e, Sikkimese. That is not a baseless "claim" or propaganda made for communal purpose, but an actual fact. Denjongke was the name of the language and hence that has been translated to be Sikkimese, just in the same lines as how Nihon-go(Japan-language) is translated in English as Japanese.

As for the indigenous communities of Sikkim, which include the Yakthung(limbu) and Rong(Lepcha) communities and maybe to a lesser extent the Magars, i have already explained how the names for their language mean other things.

RONG RING- lepcha language.

YAKTHUNG PAN- Yakthung( the people or possibly Yakthung laaje/ limbuwan) Language.

You can see how both nomenclatures do not claim the language to be the Sikkim Language.

Additionally, i would also like to add that the migration of Bhutias into Sikkim is not a recent event of the past century, but something that occurred more than 600 years ago, predating the establishment of the Kingdom itself, so to call Denjongke a foreign or alien language would be untrue. Also to add, it was not singly the Bhutia community that ruled Sikkim, historically speaking, the Kazis that usually held much more power over their areas than even the chogyal were of Lepcha origin. And towards the 19th century, we had Newari Taksaris, and Thikadars and Mondals of every community. TseTen10 (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

So your community migrated to this land around 600 years ago, long after indigenous communities like the Lepchas, Yakthungs and others had already been living here. Over time, your community may have grown in number, even becoming dominant during certain periods. But does that give the right to claim that the language spoken by your community is the language of this land?

Just because the language was named 'Denjongke' and translating it to 'Sikkim language' or 'Sikkimese'—does not automatically entitle it to represent the whole of Sikkim’s linguistic heritage. Naming a language that way doesn’t make the claim legitimate.

The Lepchas call their language Rong-Ring. The Yakthungs call theirs Yakthungpan. Neither of these names claims exclusivity as the language of Sikkim, despite these communities being one of the earliest known inhabitants of this land. So, if your community came here centuries later, and then named your language to mean 'Sikkimese', does that name alone give it the right to define the identity of the entire land? That’s a serious question of fairness and historical integrity and it only means you are trying to overwrite history by replacing the diverse cultural roots of this land with singular narrative that suits yours position. Which is not just misleading it's unjust. Kkk1996 (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

first of all, if you are an avid reader you would know that the Bhutia population has never been in majority. The earliest data suggest that there was roughly equal population of Bhutias and limbus, and double population of the lepchas. Second is that, the name denjongke is tied to the Geopolitical entity of Sikkim that came into existence because of the treaty between bhutias, lepchas and limbus. And, like I have been trying to explain, calling this language denjongke or Sikkimese is not a recent phenomenon,it has been so for centuries. If you have an irk with that, I suggest you travel back in time and prevent the Kingdom from ever being established. I do not wish to continue this debate if you are not able to digest the simple meaning of the name denjoke. Yes we have Sikkimese languages, that include all that are spoken in Sikkim, but the only language that has been called Sikkimese is the Bhutia language. TseTen10 (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you read some of the sources like this-

Source: Journal of Global Language, Translation & Education Practice (JOGLTEP), 2020

https://jogltep.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/JOGLTEP5.pdf Let me quote directly from page 5 of that journal: “In 1670, Tensung Namgyal succeeded his father as second Chogyal of Sikkim. Tensung Namgyal married three women: a Bhutanese, a Tibetan, and a Tsong. The third queen, named Yoyohangma, also referred to as Thungwamukma, was the daughter of a Limbu Chief of Limbuwan… The inevitable circumstance led to the construction of the new capital of Sikkim at Rabdentse for the third wife… She named it 'Sukhim,' which in her expression in the Limbu language, meant 'what a new beautiful, peaceful house!' Since then, Sukhim became the name of the newly built palace of Rabdentse.” “At a later stage, the word 'Su-Khim' became the name of the whole country (Risley, 1894, p. 40)… Due to mispronunciation, 'Su-Khim' was metamorphosed into 'Sikkom,' 'Sukhim,' and then finally 'Sikkim.' Therefore, the very name of Sikkim originated from two Limbu words: 'Su' and 'Khim' meaning 'a new house' in the Limbu language. In glorifying the fact, Sinha (1975) states, 'the appellation Sikkim is the greatest contribution of the Limbus to Sikkim'... This is the reason why the Sikkimi Limbus today consider the word Sikkim as an epitaph of their Queen, Yoyohangma, and still call Sikkim 'Sukhim', not Sikkim.” Kkk1996 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Before you try to brand your language as “Sikkimese”, just remember:

from where the name “Sikkim” itself comes. Not from Bhutia. That’s not just an opinion — it’s recorded, cited, and acknowledged.

Now coming to your insistence that only Bhutia is called “Sikkimese” — that’s not history, that’s hegemony. If you're going to reduce centuries of multiethnic co-existence to one linguistic label, you're doing exactly what colonial and feudal powers did — erase and rename.

You are free to call your language Denjongke. No one is denying that. But don’t try to hijack the identity of an entire state by claiming “only Bhutia is Sikkimese”. That’s not unity — that’s exclusion. And we’re not here for it.

And coming to the treaty part you should read not only the quoted but the whole document the claim of equal representation that was never genuinely upheld . Kkk1996 (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Bruh i literally said that there are Sikkimese languages but the only language that has been called Sikkimese is the Bhutia language. And its not hegemony, look up past government circulars, I have said before also. And as for the treaty where you're claiming it was unfair, look around, almost all the Kazis that hold land and power today still are of lepcha origin. The Limbus didn't fare as well probably because the majority of Limbu territory was lost to Nepal, look up historical limbuwan and comment. And as for the multi ethnic coexistence part, that was ensured by the treaty itself. There are still many places in Sikkim where the Lepcha and Limbu cultures exist untouched, where people still grow up speaking their language, where they still follow their animosity religions of Mun and Yumaism. No community has been persecuted for their Ethnicity, unlike Nepal where communities have been forced to learn Khas Bhasa and follow Hinduism from after the Rana regime, and any effort to preserve their original culture was banned. THAT IS HEGEMONY, where a language is systemically imposed on people, where native languages are annihilated. Hegemony is how the Khas Bhasa came to be called Nepali. Sikkimese is called so because of its name. And before we have any further discussion, look up past govt circulars.

And as for your " Sikkim doesn't even come form Bhutia", are you for real. Do you think all country names come from their own language? Do you think Japan is a word in Japanese? Or Korea is a word in Korean? Nomenclatures change when they are translated into another language. TseTen10 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

First of all, let's not twist words. Nobody claimed “all country names must come from their own language.” But when you go around aggressively branding Bhutia as “the only Sikkimese language”, and dismissing others, then yes, the origin of the word Sikkim becomes very relevant. Because if the name that defines the land itself was born out of the Limbu language, then that fact undeniably anchors Limbu history and identity in the roots of Sikkimese identity — whether you like it or not.

Since you’re so adamant about “looking up history,” let me quote another source you might have conveniently missed. and i hope you will read the full document.

Linguistic Study and Aspiration for Identity Survival among the Limboo Tribe of Sikkim

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/62364113/Linguistic_Study_and_Aspiration_for_Identity_Survival_among_the_Limboo_Tribe_of_Sikkim20200314-129991-6lhbh0-libre.pdf?1584291271=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DLinguistic_Study_and_Aspiration_for_Iden.pdf&Expires=1752045584&Signature=UVuFSVFkV1GB9jYaBcI1L8fhx5bg5DKYoSi~letInCV85Kdr4usU1-hJ99aovcf-7Ukq7S4TxElp7PAqZjWO1-69XtONlbyKbTrgiz61DSpf-e2kAUJjPM7RQubDfQs~JQDHe2Njh0PW7AciBl9r-lZSNlWUGTwLB5kvzM58O3YrjcP5xljsXPVY2oXoTHgj3to-98-9LubrGAnCqOX7E~l99DxNoiL-6kFiroL31dGC1T2sIkwAbxo~7hM85t0jM5ERFuFjZ5dnAAwpvRFfhaGR0RZIE2Op~Y~7tNQ-4zM-A4J5ZcHAeOdiLuOlCBTHlbeQx5-qHKcYeTm8d379Cg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

“The Limboo language has been remained silent due to the linguistic suppression from the administration. In Sikkim, the use of script started at Hee-Martam (West district) in 1737 by Teyongsi Sirijunga Srijonga II… At that time the Chogyal of Sikkim had banned any religion other than Buddhism and the dominance of Bhutia administration put a ban on reading and writing of Limboo script and also teaching and learning of Limboo religion… The Ta-Tsang Lamas of Pemayangtse monastery assassinated Teyongsi Sirijunga and some disciples to stop the awakening… After the death of Sirijunga, it was a dark phase for Limboo people… The Limboo could not develop after the 220 years of suppression.”

— (Subba, J.R. 2009, quoted in JOGLTEP)

So before you romanticize “multi-ethnic coexistence” and make it sound like all communities lived in peaceful linguistic harmony under Bhutia rule, you might want to acknowledge the historical reality of systemic suppression — the kind that involved bans, executions, and cultural erasure. You’re talking about language recognition and calling it a simple matter of nomenclature, while Limboo people were historically executed for trying to teach their script and religion.

The fact that Lepchas and Limbus still exist and preserve their culture is not because the system supported them — it’s because they resisted it. Cultural survival despite domination is not evidence of equality. You want to talk about persecution in Nepal under Khas Bhasa? Fine. But don’t use that to blind yourself to the quiet, sanctioned domination that happened in Sikkim too — under the exact same structures that privileged your language and your religion.

So no, your language doesn’t get to monopolize the label “Sikkimese.” It is one of several Sikkimese languages — not the definition of Sikkim itself. Kkk1996 (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

First of all again, i said there are Sikkimese languages. And i said that the only language that has been named Sikkimese is bhutia. That doesnt mean that other languages spoken in Sikkim are not Sikkimese languages, they are, but the nomenclatures for them are different.

Second, the execution of Sirijunga in Sikkim is a multi factorial event, especially the fact that it occured during a time when Sikkim had no head of state( read up about Tamding Gyalpo). That is not to say that the murder was justified, but to say that it was part of a systemic oppression of another language is rubbish. There has been no low passed that enforced bhutia language, nor any law that outlawed other languages.

Just to add, this conversation is done from my side. You refuse to understand my arguments, reject historical realities, and moreover you bring the same old argument repeatedly. Before you think that this is some valiant issue concerning our state, look again, it is only you and I quarreling in the talk section of a web page that everyone reads; no one had a problem with the pages name for many years. Maybe that says something doesn't it? Anyways, have fun revelling in the hatred you have. TseTen10 (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

You keep insisting you “acknowledge Sikkimese languages,” yet argue only Bhutia deserves the actual name. That’s the whole problem — naming is power, and yours has historically monopolized it.

Calling Sirijunga’s execution “multi-factorial” while ignoring the role of Bhutia religious authority is classic deflection. Cultural suppression doesn’t need formal laws — domination happens through control, exclusion, and silencing.

And no, silence over the years doesn’t equal agreement. Many lived with it, not accepted it. Just because the debate didn’t happen earlier doesn’t make your version the truth.

Just check this Someone had problem in 2016 itslef and that is genuine

"sikkimese language must be used to refer Bhutia, Lepcha, Nepali,Limbu(Sherpa), Newari, Gurung,Magar,Tamang,Sunwar languages as a whole and when referring Bhutia language it has to be referred as Bhutia language.

Puskard (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)"

You can call it hatred — I call it historical correction. Kkk1996 (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Never said Bhutia deserves the title of Sikkimese, i said that it is a historical fact that it was and is called Sikkimese. And also to clarify, i never said that the other languages spoken are not Sikkimese languages, they are but their names mean different things. TseTen10 (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Question: Who are sikkimese people?

Answer: Lepchas, Limbus, Bhutias, Mangars, Tamangs, and others

(correct answer)

Question: How many community speak bhutia language?

Answer: only 1

Lepchas-No

Limbus-No

Bhutias-Yes

Mangars-No

Tamangs-No

Others-No

(correct answer)

Question: Which community language is/should be called "sikkimese"?

Answer: Bhutia.

(wrong answer)

Question:Does one community have right to claim their Language as "sikkimese"?

Answer: No

(correct answer)

Question: By naming this language as "sikkimese" in wikipedia doesn't it hurt the sentiments of other sikkimese community?

Answer: yes it hurts

(correct answer) Kkk1996 (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Wow, you still havent realized that Sikkimese is an accepted term for the Bhutia language, thats not something im making up. It has been used by the government also. So no matter what you say, it wont take away from the fact that Sikkimese is a term used to refer to the Bhutia language. TseTen10 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

What is the source and who accepted that term?

Let's say for a moment, sikkimese is accepted term for bhutia language..which is not true

don't you think it is unjust? Kkk1996 (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I told you, revisit past govt circulars. And also it is not a question of just or unjust, it is a question of fact or not, and yes it is a fact that Bhutia language has been referred to a Sikkimese language in many contexts. TseTen10 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any govt circulars for the same. Moreover all govt notifications and circulars mentions the language as bhutia language not sikkimese. Kkk1996 (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701

@LaundryPizza03

@Tiggerjay

@ZionniThePeruser

Hope you all are going through this talk page Kkk1996 (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I have posted an old govt circular that i had saved from Facebook.

Im not being able to find the original post rn but will link it when i come across it.

https://ibb.co/Xx17CstQ TseTen10 (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

https://sikkimtourism.gov.in/Public/ExperienceSikkim/history

A government website that has mentioned the language as Sikkimese( Bhutia).

https://trisikkim.org/tribes/bhutia-tribe/

Website of TRAI that mentions under the language and dialect section that the bhutias speak a language known as Sikkimese lhokay or denjongke.

https://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/bot/pdf/bot_1995_01_25.pdf

Tibetology article on Sikkimese bhutia TseTen10 (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

https://www.scribd.com/presentation/477693383/Bhasha-Sangam-Learn-Bhutia-Sikkimese-pptx

Learn Bhutia( Sikkimese) under bhasha sangam that is a central govt initiative.

There are many non government websites all over the internet that list the language simply as Sikkimese. You can find them yourself. TseTen10 (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Atleast if not much, you can now see that Sikkimese as a term for Bhutia language was and is in use by others also. Im not making it up. TseTen10 (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_states/sikkim/2022/Bill16of2022Sikkim.pdf

Let me now provide a source (above one) that speaks louder than assumptions — the Sikkim Official Language Act, 1977, passed by the Sikkim Legislative Assembly, the primary law-making body constituted by democratic elections and recognized by the Government of India.

The Act explicitly mentions Nepali, Bhutia, and Lepcha as official languages. Later amendments — including the 1995, 1996, also 2022 Amendments — added Limbu, Newar, and others. But in none of these legal documents is there any mention of a language called “Sikkimese.”

So if we’re discussing official recognition, let’s be accurate: there is no state-recognized language called "Sikkimese". Bhutia may have been referred to as “Sikkimese” in certain academic or community contexts — but never in official state legislation. That label is not a legal designation, and certainly not exclusive. Kkk1996 (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

https://www.sikkim.gov.in/departments/sikkim-legislative-assembly/language-used-in-assembly

This is the official website of Sikkim government where in it states the name of official language used in aassembly, it again says bhutia, Sikkimese is not mentioned, to quote “ The business of the Assembly is translated in the official languages of the State of Sikkim, namely Nepali, Bhutia. Lepcha. Hindi or English. Members can also speak in other regional languages which have been recognised as official language.” Kkk1996 (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

https://www.sikkim.gov.in/departments/information-and-public-relations-department/administration

Website of Information and public relations department, Sikkim government….

Which quotes “Sikkim herald, the official bi-weekly newspaper of the Government of Sikkim, published by the department of Information and Public Relations has been a regular feature of the State ever since its inception in the early 1960s Sikkim Herald comes out in thirteen different State Languages, viz English, Nepali, Newar, Lepcha, Gurung, Limbu, Tamang, Sunwar , Manger , Sherpa, Bhutia, Rai and Tibetan. This has been made possible due to the policy decision of the state Government to recognize these languages as State Languages. The publication of Sikkim Herald in local languages has made it a mass based bi- weekly paper where different communities had it in their own dialects and languages.”

They have again mentioned bhutia along with other Sikkimese language but no separate term for Sikkimese is there.. Kkk1996 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

https://sikkimexpress.com/news-details/national-council-includesbhutia-language-for-teaching-in-icse-schools

Just to bring things into current perspective — here's a recent newspaper article of 2025 reporting that the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE) has now approved Bhutia language as a second language subject in ICSE schools.

In fact, Minister Sonam Lama, who himself stated:

“Till now, there was no system for teaching of Bhutia language in private schools as it was not affiliated with CISCE even though parents wanted their children to learn Bhutia language... As Bhutia language is now recognized as a second language by the CISCE, our students can study Bhutia language in private schools also.

Again no separate mention of language called sikkimese, commonly bhutia is only preferred. Kkk1996 (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Please refer to legislation pre-merger as well. As you are a Sikkimese, you would know that under article 371f of the constitution, the old laws of Sikkim are still relevant. As for the sources that i have provided, could you atleast now accept the fact that Bhutia is also called Sikkimese? My only motive was to counter your blatant rejection pf that fact, and as you can see from the sources i have pointed out, it is called Sikkimese. As for why this page is called Sikkimese Bhutia language, clarification has been provided in earlier discussions. TseTen10 (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to provide you with the clarification, Bhutia is a specific word only in the context of Sikkim, which too is getting filuted due to the inclusion of Sherpa,Kagatey, Yolmo under the BL category. Outside Sikkim, Bhutia is a word used by tibetans, Bhutanese, Bhotias, Bhutis etc. Since the word simply means "from tibet". Sikkimese bhutia has been preferred to refer to the bhutia language of Sikkim. If you find an irk with this, you could very well go changing the title of other pages to Sikkimese lepcha, Sikkimese limbu, Sikkimese nepali but you can see yourself that that is not quite fitting. Denjong ke is the only language that has been curtailed by geographical boundaries and tied to the land mainly because of geopolitics; dialects in bhutan and Tibet that could be called denjong ke are classified as entirely different languages. TseTen10 (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

This indentation is out of control, please use {{outdent}} if it gets to level 10. We do not care what the official name of the language is, we care about what secondary sources call it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to further clarify and emphasize a few important observations based on both previous discussions and the sources presented:

While user Tseten has cited some academic references that use the term “Sikkimese,” it is critical to note that even in those very academic sources, the term “Bhutia” is far more consistently used. In fact, when “Sikkimese” is mentioned, it is rarely used on its own — instead, it appears in combination with “Bhutia,” such as:

“Sikkimese Bhutia”

“Bhutia (Sikkimese)”

or “Sikkimese (Bhutia)”

This pattern shows that “Sikkimese” is not a standalone name for the language, even within scholarly contexts. Its usage is limited, and mostly by select individuals — not by institutions, government bodies, or the broader academic community.

On the other hand, the term “Bhutia” is clearly dominant and consistently used across:

Academic literature (PhD theses, linguistic journals, language classifications)

Government records and legislation (e.g. Sikkim Official Language Act, Assembly usage)

Newspaper and media reporting, including the 2025 article on Bhutia’s inclusion in the CISCE curriculum

Official websites of the Government of Sikkim, TRI Sikkim, and Ministry of Education initiatives.

This establishes “Bhutia” as not only the official name, but also the most commonly used name in reliable secondary sources — which is the standard Wikipedia follows for article titles.

Additionally, although this article is titled “Sikkimese Bhutia language”, the actual content inside uses only “Sikkimese” throughout, which is inaccurate and misleading. Such usage risks gradually shifting the terminology and erasing the actual name — “Bhutia”. This is not acceptable on a neutral encyclopedic platform like Wikipedia, and may even be seen as unintentionally revisionist.

To reiterate, we do not name other articles as “Sikkimese Lepcha” or “Sikkimese Limbu.” So why should only Bhutia be renamed using a regional or geographic descriptor, especially when “Bhutia” itself is official, accurate, and unambiguous?

Therefore, I strongly recommend:

The article be renamed to “Bhutia language”.

the article title and body content must reflect “Bhutia”, as the official, common, and encyclopedically appropriate name. Kkk1996 (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

To show how bhutia language is preferred by secondary sources:

Usage in West Bengal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QzCTQfpXK8

In areas like Darjeeling and Kalimpong (which were historically linked to Sikkim but are now in West Bengal), Bhutia language is still spoken widely. Yet, in this 2017 video and news clip from The Himalayan Beacon, the West Bengal Bhutia Development Board repeatedly refers to the language as “Bhutia language”, not “Sikkimese.”

The quote from Lhendup Bhutia (Cultural In-Charge) clearly says:

"...the Board would do its utmost to preserve the cultural heritage of the Bhutia people and as such they would work hard to preserve their language. Soon, the Bhutia people would learn Bhutia language through songs.”

This shows clearly that outside Sikkim too, even in West Bengal, the Bhutia-speaking population uses and identifies with the name “Bhutia language”, not “Sikkimese.” Kkk1996 (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvMUipG9VF8

Sikkim chronicle one of the leading digital media of Sikkim confirms that Sikkim University has started a PhD program in Bhutia language, alongside Lepcha. The degree program is titled under “Bhutia language”, not “Sikkimese.” If universities and research institutions themselves formally name it as Bhutia, this further supports its status as the academically and officially accepted name + the leading media of Sikkim names it as bhutia language..shows how bhutia is commony used. Kkk1996 (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The use of Sikkimese language has been noted in many books and articles. You can see that on Ngrams. During the time of the Kingdom, the Royal family did their fair share of representing Sikkim at international platforms, then the language was referred to as Sikkimese. You can check out ngrams for the other sources.

As for my other argument, I'm afraid you haven't understood. Bhutia is infact an ambiguous term when used outside of Sikkim. There are Singshapa bhutias of Nepal, Bhutanese Bhutias, Tibetan Bhutias and Bhutis, Bhotias of Himachal.etc. Inside Sikkim also as you are aware, Sherpas, Hyolmos, Kagateys which are tibetic groups of nepal have also been included under the Bhutia category, which if you ask me has infact undermined the distinctive identity of Sikkimese Bhutias. Hence why it is important to distinguish the language as Sikkimese Bhutia or as ut has been historically Sikkimese.

You have reiterated my own arguement that is that other indigenous languages do not use Sikkimese terminology, and as I have explained that unlike Denjongke, they haven't been separated by geopolitics. TseTen10 (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

https://exams.nta.ac.in/CUET-PG/syllabus.html#:~:text=Languages%20Subjects,Italian%20(LAQP41)

To say that “Bhutia” is used only inside Sikkim is factually incorrect. Even national bodies of India, such as the National Testing Agency (NTA) — which conducts the CUET-PG exam for admission to universities across the country — officially list the language as “Bhutia” under the language subjects (subject code LAQP08).

There is no mention of “Sikkimese” in this context. This clearly proves that the term “Bhutia” is officially recognized and used beyond the borders of Sikkim, even at the national academic level. Therefore, the claim that “Bhutia” is a local or regionally confined name does not hold up against verifiable facts. Kkk1996 (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bhutia

International dictionary confusing the different bhutias

https://wbbdb.org/

From our own neighboring state where bhutia is used freely be Sikkimese bhutias, Bhutanese, Tibetans, and Singshapas TseTen10 (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Now I'm stepping away because it's becoming increasingly circular — confusing Bhutia as a language, Bhutia as a community, and Sikkimese as a regional identity versus Sikkimese as a language. Even the Ngram data you're relying on is inconsistent and misleading, since “Sikkimese language” is often used in literature to refer to all languages spoken in Sikkim, not just Bhutia.

You’ve selectively cited sources — some of which ironically admit that calling Bhutia the “Sikkimese language” is controversial. Yet in this article body, the term “Sikkimese” is being used exclusively for the Bhutia language — and that’s exactly how dilution begins. Slowly but surely, “Sikkimese” becomes code for only one group — at the cost of others who are equally Sikkimese.

Let’s not forget, Sikkim is home to many ethnic groups: Lepcha, Limbu, Rai, Tamang, Magar, Newar, Sherpa, Bhutia, Gurung, Bahun, Chettri, and more. Equating one language to the identity of the whole state is not only inaccurate — it’s deeply insensitive.

You talk about history — then acknowledge all of it. Before the Bhutia community came with the Chogyal lineage, other communities were already living in Sikkim. If you cite the monarchy, we’ll cite what existed before and what was recognized after: the merger with India, Article 371F, and the Sikkim Subject Regulations, all of which protect the diverse fabric of Sikkim, not just one thread.

Also, don’t forget the treaty of three communities how it got diluted. What’s happening now with this push to rename Bhutia as “Sikkimese” echoes how the Limbu identity was once marginalized — same playbook, different decade.

In the end, your objective seems clear — to appropriate the shared identity of “Sikkimese” for one group, while sidelining others. So enjoy redefining “Sikkimese” to suit your narrative, and enjoy eating away at the rightful share of the Sikkimese people as a whole. Kkk1996 (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

This is becoming increasingly circular because you refuse to understand my arguements. Article 371f protects old laws of the Kingdom, not what came before that. And as for the other indigenous communities of Limbu and Lepcha, Lepchas lived among clans before there was a Sikkim to live in and the Limbus lived in the larger kingdom of Yakthung laaje. It is from the coming yogether of these two communities with the Bhutias that Sikkim was established.

Lets be real, Sikkimese used to be the official government term for denjongke during the pre merger government. The language was represented as Sikkimese on international level then and hence has been mentioned as Sikkimese in many books and articles. This point, you are refusing to even believe.

And as for the definition of Sikkimese today, i hope you understand that is a legal identity provided to anyone with a Sikkim subject or coi. It has nothing to do with Ethnicity, or language. If we go by your arguements, if there is a Bihari old settler, does that make Bhojpuri an indigenous Sikkimese language?

And since you echo so much with the dilution of Limbu identity, did you even know that they had a separate Tsong seat in the Sikkim durbar at the time of the Kingdom. The real dilution comes from the fact that they were clubbed in as a Nepali group at the behest of politicians that accused the chogyal of trying to divide the Nepali community. Do you not think that that is a greater dilution? If you can cry about their language here you can sure as well show support for that cause, or does this dilution not fit your "bhutias oppressed other community " narrative? 2409:40E1:3085:1769:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Guys, just change the title to "drejongke" the endonym of the bhutia Language. Lhawang Sherpa (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Sikkimese Bhutia language → Bhutia language, I propose renaming this article to Bhutia language in accordance with Wikipedia's article title policy, particularly WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:PRECISION. The current title Sikkimese Bhutia language appears to be a descriptive or compound label used in certain contexts for geographic clarification, but it does not reflect the most commonly used standalone name for the language in reliable English-language secondary sources.

A review of academic linguistic and anthropological literature—including descriptive grammars, journal publications, and theses—indicates that the term Bhutia language is more consistently used as the primary name when referring to the language spoken by the Bhutia community of Sikkim. For example: Yliniemi (2021), A Descriptive Grammar of Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia) — refers to Bhutia language in pedagogical and descriptive contexts within the grammatical discussion. Bhutia (2019), Dynamics of Identity Among the Bhutia of Sikkim — consistently uses Bhutia language in linguistic and cultural analysis. Mukherjee (1996), Census of India report — refers to AIR Gangtok broadcasts in Bhutia language. In many academic works where the term Sikkimese appears, it is frequently used adjectivally or parenthetically (e.g., Bhutia (Sikkimese)) for regional specification rather than as part of the primary name of the language itself.

A comparative search of academic databases supports the prevalence of the term Bhutia language over Sikkimese Bhutia language in scholarly usage. Google Scholar search results (February 2026): Search Term Results "Bhutia language" significantly higher "Sikkimese Bhutia language" substantially fewer "Sikkimese language" broader but ambiguous usage This indicates that: Bhutia language is widely used as a standalone linguistic identifier in academic contexts. Sikkimese Bhutia language occurs far less frequently and appears primarily as a descriptive geographic qualifier rather than the primary name of the language. Sikkimese language is often used in literature to refer collectively to languages spoken in Sikkim, further contributing to ambiguity in article titling.

A comparison using Google Books Ngram Viewer (English corpus, 1950–2022) was conducted for the following terms: Bhutia language Sikkimese Bhutia language Sikkimese language The results indicate: The term Bhutia language appears consistently in English-language publications across multiple decades. The compound term Sikkimese Bhutia language does not register any measurable usage in the Google Books corpus and is not recognized by Ngram Viewer. The term Sikkimese language appears intermittently but is used in a broader geographic or collective sense, referring to languages spoken in Sikkim rather than specifically to the Bhutia language. This suggests that: Bhutia language functions as the primary standalone linguistic identifier in long-term scholarly usage. Sikkimese Bhutia language is not widely attested in published academic literature as a standard name for the language. Per WP:COMMONNAME, article titles should reflect the name that is most frequently used in reliable English-language secondary sources. Based on academic usage across linguistic and anthropological publications, Bhutia language appears to be the more common and concise standalone term.

Further, WP:CONCISE encourages the use of the shortest title that accurately identifies the subject without unnecessary disambiguation. Since the article body clearly specifies that this refers to the Bhutia language spoken in Sikkim, geographic clarification can be handled within the lead section rather than the title itself, as recommended by WP:PRECISION.

Therefore, renaming the article to Bhutia language would better align with Wikipedia’s naming conventions by: Reflecting the most commonly used name in reliable secondary sources (WP:COMMONNAME) Avoiding unnecessary length or redundancy (WP:CONCISE) Reserving disambiguation for cases of genuine ambiguity (WP:PRECISION) Support from other editors and additional academic sourcing is welcome. Kkk1996 (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Dude how much time do you have on your plate for you to consistently spew hate against a community. All your issues I have addressed before already. And get a life and move on. TseTen10 (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

This move request is based solely on Wikipedia’s naming policies, particularly WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:PRECISION and usage in reliable secondary sources. It is not directed toward any community and is not intended to express hostility or bias.

If there are policy-based reasons to oppose the move. I welcome that discussion.

To keep the discussion productive, I suggest we focus on article title policy and sourcing rather than personal remarks. Kkk1996 (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure, as I had explained earlier the term Bhutia is not an endonym nor is it entirely specific. In India itself the term Bhutia/Bhotia/Bhotiya/Bhoti has been used to reference many regional dialects of the Tibetan language. An even more interesting fact would be that even the Tamang of Nepal and their language have been historically referred to as Bhote, Bhote lama.

Additionally even in the Sikkim, Darjeeling Himalayan belt, the term Bhutia and it being used as the name of a language has been used by many; us sikkimese lhopo Bhutia, singshapa bhutia of Darjeeling and eastern Nepal, Bhutanese descent Bhutia of Darjeeling Kalimpong and even Tibetan bhutia descendants of refugees or the older Kalimpong Tibetan traders.

in lieu of the above reasons we had reached a conclusion that the page be titled “ Sikkimese Bhutia Language”.

moderator have already clarified that Wikipedia doesn’t necessarily demand jargon used in legislation and even so, I have shared with you an office circular referring to lhokay as Sikkimese language.

If you do find the title redundant, I suggest we revert it back to “Sikkimese Language“, as it had been for many years and as it still is on trusted language sites as ethnologue, omniglot, glottolog etc. TseTen10 (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

And just to add, are you a native speaker of this language? Do you know and understand with certainty the endonyms and exonyms of this language? Are you part of or included in a community that speaks this language that you can attest that this isn’t called so and so?

ང་ ལན་ སུང་ཤད་ ཨིན། ངའི་ ཁྱིམ་ན་ ཨ་ཏང་ འདི་ སྐད་ ཀྱབས་བཞིན་ འདུག་ ཏེ་ ང་ཅག་ཙུ་ གྱིས་ སྐད་ འདི་ལོ་ ལྷོ་སྐད་, འབྲས་ལྗོངས་སྐད་ ཡང་ན་ བྱིན་སྐད་ན་ སི་ཀི་མིས་ དང་ བོ་ཧོ་ཊི་ཡ་ སུང་བོ་ ཨིན།

You get to have an opinion when you can actually understand what I have said. Without that, no doubt you’re looking at this from an Imperial colonial mindset( your greater Nepal propaganda can decay in human excreta which is exactly what the person that came up with it had for brains) TseTen10 (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal remarks and accusations. Per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, discussions on Wikipedia should focus on reliable sources and article naming policy, not on the identity or motives of other editors.

This move request concerns article title policy (WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION). I would appreciate keeping the discussion focused on sources and naming conventions rather than personal commentary. Kkk1996 (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I apologise, I don’t understand your technical jargon. Please go through all the sources and explanations provided in this discussion and the two or more discussions that we have had earlier. And if possible I would also like to know, why is the user bringing up the same exact topic that has been discussed redundantly for almost a year now. If the title seems redundant, I encourage you to consider reverting to the title of “Sikkimese Language”, as it had been , unproblematically for many years, since the inception of this page. TseTen10 (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Just check this Someone had problem in 2016 itslef and that is genuine

"sikkimese language must be used to refer Bhutia, Lepcha, Nepali,Limbu(Sherpa), Newari, Gurung,Magar,Tamang,Sunwar languages as a whole and when referring Bhutia language it has to be referred as Bhutia language.

Puskard (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)" Kkk1996 (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

https://www.ethnologue.com/language/sip/

https://indianetzone.wordpress.com/2025/01/28/sikkimese-language/

https://wikitravel.org/en/Sikkimese_phrasebook

https://www.omniglot.com/writing/sikkimese.htm

https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/sikk1242?

https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/f28ddcd9-b227-47b1-ae69-50ed8bea7f7d/download

https://nzasia.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/nzjas_jun2021_bhutia_holmes-tagchungdarpa.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43301114

All these sources refer to the language as Sikkimese TseTen10 (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I would like to point out a specific issue regarding the sources you present. In our previous discussion also, I mentioned that some of the sources you present appear counter your own argument.

Just for example: this source which you presented:

https://www.omniglot.com/writing/sikkimese.htm

At the end of the article, Three YouTube videos are listed there as sample material under “Sikkimese.” However:

One of the listed videos is no longer available.

One available video is titled “#Learn Lhokay, Bhutia Language Part One,” which itself refers to the language as Bhutia (Lhokay).

Another video is titled “Sikkimese new song malai sikkim man parcha,” but the song is a well-known Nepali-language song rather than in the Bhutia/Denjongke language.

This is just one example that illustrates the broader concern I have consistently raised.

Using “Sikkimese” as the primary name of the language creates ambiguity. The term “Sikkimese” generally refers to anything relating to Sikkim, including its people and the many languages spoken in the state such as Nepali, Lepcha, Limbu, Magar, Tamang and others. Therefore, “Sikkimese language” can reasonably be interpreted as referring to any language spoken in Sikkim or to the collective languages of the state.

Under WP:PRECISION, article titles should avoid such ambiguity. By contrast, “Bhutia language” functions as a specific linguistic identifier in academic and institutional contexts and avoids the broader geographic ambiguity associated with the term “Sikkimese.” Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION, the article title should reflect the most commonly used and unambiguous name in reliable secondary sources. Kkk1996 (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

How is it contradictory? Have I mentioned that Sikkimese language is not called Bhutia?

even so, you must concede that Sikkimese was arguably the original official name for the language in view of that being the name in international publications and websites like ethnologue.

Since you are concerned, do look into the ambiguity of the term bhutia as well. I have linked a website

https://wbbdb.org/

from our neighbouring state where all the “Bhutia” have been coalesced as one.

so in your concern for ambiguity, are we to understand that the bhutia language of Sikkim is the same as the language in West Bengal?

Additionally, since you have again reiterated that we have many languages in Sikkim, I would like to place a similar argument; there are many languages in Nepal, why is it that the Khas Bhasa is referred to as Nepali? Is Khas bhasa the Nepali language? TseTen10 (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Also I would like to request you to go through all the old discussion. Please do not bring up already countered arguments again. TseTen10 (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

There are three separate issues here which should be addressed under Wikipedia policy.

First, regarding the claim that “Sikkimese” was historically used in international publications: under WP:COMMONNAME, article titles are determined by the name most commonly used in reliable English-language secondary sources today, not necessarily by historical or earlier official terminology. Historical usage alone does not determine the current article title if more precise terminology is now predominant in academic literature.

Second, regarding ambiguity of the term “Bhutia”: ambiguity concerns under WP:PRECISION can be resolved through disambiguation pages or hatnotes where necessary. Many language articles use ethnolinguistic names even when similar ethnonyms exist elsewhere. The question is whether reliable linguistic sources consistently use “Bhutia language” to refer specifically to the Tibetic language of Sikkim. If that is the prevailing usage in scholarly literature, then geographic clarification can be handled in the lead rather than embedded in the title.

Third, the analogy with Khas Bhasa/Nepali is not directly comparable. “Nepali” is the standardized and internationally recognized name of the language in modern linguistic classification. The issue here is whether “Sikkimese” functions as a standardized, unambiguous primary name in contemporary academic literature, or whether it is used more broadly as a geographic descriptor.

The core question remains: what name do reliable secondary linguistic sources most consistently use when referring specifically to this language? That is the standard set by WP:COMMONNAME.

I suggest we continue focusing on comparative usage in peer-reviewed linguistic publications and established language databases rather than on historical or political analogies. Kkk1996 (talk) 12:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

And before you ask me for sources, please refer to our earlier discussions where I have painstakingly added sources. You bring up the same topic again and again, I can’t repeat the same thing continuously. And seriously dude get a life, for you it’s about erasing the identity of another, for me it’s about the survival and identity of this already endangered language; ain’t no way I’m giving up to a hater. TseTen10 (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Went through your contribution history; your only additions are to this page trying to change Sikkimese to Bhutia, and for 2 long years in fact. If this isn’t hate motivated idk what this is. TseTen10 (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I will not respond to personal remarks regarding my edit history or motives. Per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, discussions should focus on content and sources rather than on assumptions about other editors.

This move request concerns article title policy only. My position is based on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION, supported by previously cited academic and institutional sources.

If there are specific policy-based arguments or reliable secondary sources demonstrating that “Sikkimese” is the most common and unambiguous name in contemporary English-language scholarship, I am open to reviewing them.

Otherwise, I suggest we allow uninvolved editors to evaluate the sources presented and determine whether the current title reflects prevailing academic usage Kkk1996 (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright then, so the sources that I have presented to you in this discussion and older ones, and also the google ngrams aren’t enough evidence? TseTen10 (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The issue is not whether “Sikkimese” appears in some sources — it clearly does. The question under WP:COMMONNAME is comparative usage: which term is more consistently and predominantly used in reliable, contemporary English-language secondary sources when referring specifically to this language.

Regarding Google Ngram, it can show historical appearance of terms in books, but it does not distinguish between:

“Sikkimese” used as a general geographic adjective,

“Sikkimese language” used collectively for languages of Sikkim,

and “Sikkimese” used specifically as the standardized name of this Tibetic language.

For article titling, Wikipedia gives greater weight to how modern linguistic scholarship and institutional sources currently identify the language in a precise sense.

Similarly, the presence of some databases or websites using “Sikkimese” does not automatically establish it as the most common or least ambiguous primary title if other reliable sources consistently use “Bhutia language.” Kkk1996 (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Like I clarified before Bhutia itself is an ambiguous word that is understood in Sikkim as the name of this language only because of physical proximity to the people. To the people outside of Sikkim, bhutia could be anybody including and not limited to Bhotias of Uttarakhand, Kinnaur, Lahaul, Spiti, Ladakh, Gilgit-Baltistan, Arunachal, Nepal, Bhutan and even the Tibetans.

Sikkimese Bhutia as a title is accepted and fitting not only because it clarifies the geographical and historical basis of this language but also because this is the terminology used most frequently by speakers of this language when engaging in contemporary literature. For these articles refer Kowal’s links in the old main discussion. TseTen10 (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I would also just like to add this, something I have said in previous discussions as well. The other languages you have mentioned have an identity even beyond Sikkim. Tamang, Magar, Tamukyi, Yakthungpan, Bantawa( rai dialect spoken most in Sikkim), Sherpa, Tibetan etc exist outside of Sikkim also, even Lepcha which is indigenous to Sikkim, exists without Sikkim due to the efforts of our Lepcha brothers in the Kalimpong hills. Denjongke is one language that loses it’s identity when you cut off the “Sikkimese” tag, Sikkimese bhutia would just be Bhutia meaning Tibetan dialect, with no reference as to where it’s from, who speaks it etc. Atleast when the name is Sikkimese Bhutia the geographical location of this dialect is clear TseTen10 (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

My concern is that keeping “Sikkimese” as the first word in the title has already influenced how the article is framed. In the body, the language is increasingly referred to simply as “Sikkimese,” which seems to manipulate and creates the impression that this is the only language spoken in Sikkim, rather than a specific Tibetic language known as Bhutia or Denjongke spoken by only one community of sikkim.

Because Sikkim is multilingual, this risks reader ambiguity and gradual conceptual dilution of the language’s distinct ethnolinguistic identity. Under WP:PRECISION, titles should minimize ambiguity. Under WP:COMMONNAME, the title should reflect how reliable linguistic sources identify the language itself not merely its geographic location.

If geographic clarification is necessary, I suggest one of the following policy-consistent alternatives:

Bhutia language (Sikkim)

Bhutia language (Sikkimese Bhutia language)

Denjongke (with “also known as Bhutia or Sikkimese Bhutia” clearly stated in the lead)

This would preserve linguistic identity, retain geographic specificity, and improve clarity for readers. Kkk1996 (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that “Sikkimese” is also one of the names for Denjongke( denjongke literally means Sikkim-language), as you would also agree as it has been mentioned in many scholarly articles, including the paper by Juha Yliniemi.

To say that referring to this language by an accepted terminology( Sikkimese) creates the confusion that this is the only language spoken in Sikkim is overkill. A simple google search would reveal that Sikkimese is the language spoken by the Bhutia community and Nepali is the lingua franca.

Even so, if it is a problem that bothers you that much, I think it would be apt if the body also referred to the language as Sikkimese Bhutia.

However, since it is an accepted fact that Sikkimese is also a name for this language as proven by the articles and Facebook and YouTube posts, “Sikkimese” cannot be removed from the info box, or diluted into Sikkimese Bhutia.

does that suffice? TseTen10 (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The question under WP:COMMONNAME is how reliable secondary sources most consistently refer to the language in scholarly writing.

Across multiple academic works, including people from different communities within Sikkim and outside sikkim, the language is repeatedly referred to as “Bhutia language” when mentioned in linguistic, anthropological, and sociocultural contexts with the exception of some few people. Apart from some selected people escpecially people the bhutia community other majority of the people name it as bhutia language.

Few selected sources available in google scholar by different Community of Authors:

Magar community author

1. Krishna Manger — Magar as an Endangered Language of Sikkim

📎 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Krishna-Manger/publication/369644415_Magar_as_an_Endangered_Language_of_Sikkim/links/6425b056315dfb4ccebc1a16/Magar-as-an-Endangered-Language-of-Sikkim.pdf

2. Lepcha community author

Lepcha MPhil thesis (linguistic context)

📎 https://dspace.cus.ac.in/jspui/bitstream/1/6085/1/2018_08_29_16_32_16.pdf

3. Limboo community author

Linguistic Study and Aspiration for Identity Survival among the Limboo Tribe of Sikkim

📎 https://www.academia.edu/download/62364113/Linguistic_Study_and_Aspiration_for_Identity_Survival_among_the_Limboo_Tribe_of_Sikkim20200314-129991-6lhbh0.pdf

4. Rai community author

Shruti Rai — MPhil Anthropology thesis

📎 http://dspace.cus.ac.in/jspui/bitstream/1/7734/1/Shruti%20Rai-Anthropology-MPhil.pdf

Sherpa + Limboo community context

5. Negative Impacts of River Dams: A Case Study on Sikkim’s Hydro-Electric Projects

(see linguistic discussion page 113)

📎 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kuldeep-Dutta/publication/363654762_Negative-Impacts_of_River-Dams_A_Case_Study_on_Sikkim's_Hydro-Electric_Projects/links/6381cbd5554def619372efe8/Negative-Impacts-of-River-Dams-A-Case-Study-on-Sikkims-Hydro-Electric-Projects.pdf#page=113

6. Rai + Gurung community context

Taylor & Francis book chapter (cultural/linguistic identity discussion)

📎 https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/chapters/edit/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9781003052487-4&type=chapterpdf

7. Bhutia community author

Sangay Diki Bhutia — PhD in Anthropology

📎 http://dspace.cus.ac.in/jspui/bitstream/1/6959/1/Sangay%20Diki%20Bhutia-PhD-Anthropology.pdf

8. Additional Academic / Institutional Sources

Political Science / cultural context

MPhil thesis referring to language/cultural identity

📎 http://dspace.cus.ac.in/jspui/bitstream/1/4729/1/Bishwas%20Mani%20Rai-MPhil-Pol%20Sc.pdf

Published book snippet/ref page (Google Books)

(multiple references to languages of Sikkim including Bhutia)

📎 https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=iY4bVR9--XAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=language+sikkim&ots=Eo_C2z_hjH&sig=4scUpXBge_n3xC8fd0JQ9_bKo1M

Peer-Reviewed Journal Article

Cultural/linguistic discussion including Bhutia contexts

📎 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00699667221091380

In these works, when the language of the Bhutia community of Sikkim is referenced in English, it is commonly called “Bhutia language.” “Sikkimese” appears in some contexts, but often adjectivally or descriptively rather than as the consistent standalone linguistic identifier.

This demonstrates that:

The usage of “Bhutia language” is not limited to outsiders.

It is used by scholars from within Sikkim’s communities or outside communities.

It is used in peer-reviewed theses, journal articles, and academic books.

It appears across disciplines (linguistics, anthropology, political science, identity studies).

Under WP:COMMONNAME, the issue is comparative predominance in reliable secondary English-language sources.

If multiple independent scholarly sources, consistently refer to it as “Bhutia language,” that strongly supports its standing as the primary academic identifier.

PS: Searching keyword "sikkimese" or "sikkimese language" in google scholar and categorizing it as equivalent to "bhutia language" is nothing but manipulation. Kkk1996 (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

How can you call it manipulation when it has been mentioned as so in many places as I have linked above. Most notably:

Descriptive grammar of Denjongke by Juha Yliniemi clearly stated all the terminologies for the language that included “Sikkimese”.

Pangen Mintok a central radio program clearly states “Sikkimese Bhutia show”.

Ethnologue, Omniglot, Glottilog and even Wikipedia(before you raised an issue) list this language as Sikkimese.

clarify one thing for me, do you agree and accept that Sikkimese is a terminology used to refer to the language? TseTen10 (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I also wanna ask you again, do you have any insight on denjongke/Sikkimese? TseTen10 (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Providing a list of secondary sources utilising either “Sikkimese” or “Sikkimese Bhutia”:

Articles on “Sikkimese Bhutia”

1. A Descriptive Grammar of Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia).

2. Decolonising Sikkimese Bhutia Language and Cultural Production: The Journey from Colonial Representation to Revival and Reclamation

3. Some Traits of the Ladakhi Speech in Comparison with Dajongka (Sikkimese)

4. The Dajong Ka ('bras ljons skad) Sikkimese Language

5. The life of a semi-urban Lhopo/Sikkimese Bhutia family

Referred to as Sikkimese Bhutia in the content:

1. Dynamics of Identity Among the Bhutia of Sikkim: an Anthopological Study new identity in Sikkim and started calling themselves Sikkimese Bhutia from then onwards. … of India, the Sikkimese Bhutia are also migrated from Tibet and settled in Sikkim.

2. ICULD-0003 Drenjongke (Bhutia): Words in a frame sentence Sikkimese Bhutia, Lhoke or Drenjongke. Based on negligible phonetic differences, real differences in the form of several morphological desinences and some lexical

3. Can pollution bring balance to the hidden land? Fibreglass interventions in the ecology of Sikkimese Cham cultures of west Sikkim, my own recollections of participating in cham as a child and member of the Pemayangtse community and extensive interviews in Sikkimese Bhutia and Nepali

4. The Chile is my uncle: Spicy kinship between humans and more-than-humans in the Sikkimese Himalayas Sikkim between 2010 and 2023 among SikkimeseBhutia Lhokyed and Rong language speakers using Sikkimese Bhutia

5. Foxes, Yetis, and Bulls as Lamas: Human-Animal Interactions as a Resource for Exploring Buddhist Ethics in Sikkim Sikkimese Bhutia language oral traditions feature an abundance of stories related to human-animal interactions.

6. A phonetic analysis of Drenjongke: a first critical assessment speakers of Drenjongke, Sikkimese Bhutia or Lhoke. Based

7. ICULD-0009 Drenjongke (Bhutia): Words representing the sound system Drenjongke language is a Trans-Himalayan language of the Bodish subgroup spoken in Sikkim. The language is also called Lhoke, Bhutia or Sikkimese.

8. Ritual in Sikkim: Expression of Cultural Identity and Change among the Lhopos . It led to the introduction of Sikkimese or Lho skad7 languageclasses and the teaching of Sikkimese history in the vernacular

9. Lamas, shamans and ancestors: village religion in Sikkim The language of the Lhopo is a southern Tibetan dialect variously called Lhoke, … , Bhutia or simply Sikkimese which is written using the Tibetan alphabet. When reproducing Sikkimese

10. Economic history and development of Sikkim: Before and after independence Sikkimese" or the Bhutia language is understood by all and is used as a common language… and the Nepalis on the other, Gorkhali is used as the common language

11. National Hegemonies, Local Allegiances: Historiography and Ethnography of a Buddhist Kingdom during his travels in Sikkim, met the translator of the History of Sikkim:“We spent a … in Lhoke ( lho skad ), the national language of Sikkim. This text retraces the history of the main

12. Political stability and its effect on economy: some lessons from Sikkim Himalaya In this study, ‘Sikkimese identity’ is roughly defined as the Sikkimese’s … languages of English, Nepali, Sikkimese(Bhutia), and Lepcha, there are several additional official languages

13. Potential of Homestays as tourism product in Sikkim In Northen Sikkim, where they are the major inhabitants, they are known as the Lachenpas and Lachungpas. The language spoken by the bhutias is bhutia sikkimese .

14. Living with the Mountain: Mountain Propitiation Rituals in the Making of Human-Environmental Ethics in Sikkim. This is also representative of the Sikkimese Bhutia language preference to use the

15. Plants used as ethnoveterinary medicines in Sikkim Himalayas They live primarily in some of the inner dry valleys of northern Sikkim. … have a distinct identity and languagecalled Sikkimese.

16. The Tibetic languages and their classification Some other Tibetic languages such as Dzongkha, Sikkimese Lhoke or Ladakhi have also achieved a reasonable degree of standardization.

17. Word Formation in Bhotia Language of Sikkim As per the above discussion, this may be highlighted that the Bhotia language in Sikkim is alternatively known as Danjongka as well as Sikkim Bhotia.

18. Political Parties and Ethnicity in Sikkim since 1975 The Sikkimese Bhutia people speak their own language and … Sikkimese Bhutia language was a spoken dialect and for all

19. An acoustic and articulatory study of Drenjongke fricatives Sikkimese”, is a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in Sikkim, … , as the official languages in Sikkim are Nepali and English.

20. Folk uses of some lichens in Sikkim Sikkimese, Lepcha, and Nepali languages, respectively. The region is mountainous.

21. Sikkim—Where Feudalism Fights Democracy numerically important languages are Nepali, Sikkim Bhutiya

Websites mentioning Sikkimese/ Sikkimese Bhutia language:

1. https://www.omniglot.comSikkimese language and alphabet

2. https://www.ethnologue.comSikkimese Language (SIP)

3. https://indianetzone.wordpress.comSikkimese Language - Indian Encyclopedia - WordPress.com

4. http://sikkimtourism.gov.inAbout Sikkim

5. https://wikitravel.orgSikkimese phrasebook

6. http://kids.kiddle.coSikkimese language Facts for Kids

7. https://accuratelangsols.comSikkimese - Language Interpretation, Translation, Transcription - ALS

8. https://www.indianetzone.comSikkimese Language

9. https://www.itraininginstitute.comSikkimese Language Course | Learn with Experts

10. https://mandalas.lifeAbout Sikkimese language

11. https://grokipedia.comSikkimese Bhutia language

12. https://en.bharatpedia.orgSikkimese language

13.https://www.dl1.en-us.nina.azSikkimese Bhutia language - Wikipedia | Encyclopedia

14. https://sources.mandala.library.virginia.eduPDFThe Sikkimese Bhutia Language or Denjong Ke

15. From our very own Sikkim University: http://14.139.206.50:8080PDF(SIKKIMESE BHUTIA)

16. https://www.translation-services-usa.comEnglish to Sikkimese Translations

17. https://language.census.gov.inPDFSIKKIM

Facebook posts with Sikkimese/ Sikkimese Bhutia language:

1. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AnQiwBwxt/?mibextid=wwXIfr

2. https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1AYDEaA4YN/?mibextid=wwXIfr

3. https://www.facebook.com/share/1GqRt5dyFh/?mibextid=wwXIfr

4. https://www.facebook.com/share/18MAHxMjLw/?mibextid=wwXIfr

5. https://www.facebook.com/share/1DQqhpokX8/?mibextid=wwXIfr

6. Facebook · Chinmaya Kanchenjunga : Editor-S K Sarda10+ reactions · 8 years agoChinmaya - Sikkimese Bhutia language-alphabets. Source: Vintage Sikkim

7. Facebook · Northeast - The Land of Seven Sister and One Brother20+ reactions · 7 years agoNortheast - Did you know ? Sikkim has 11 official languages: Sikkimese or Bhutia ...

8. Facebook · Sikkim 'The Switzerland Of India'5 years agoLanguages Of Sikkim First four main ...

9. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=888485537307798&vanity=100027980080011&http_ref=eyJ0cyI6MTc3MjI5NDE4OTAwMCwiciI6Imh0dHBzOlwvXC93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbVwvIn0%3D

YouTube playlist of videos containing Sikkimese/ Sikkimese Bhutia:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWHxWyyY0kKx49RHGW4w8DoBims57FS3T&si=eQ3BRqjiQ5JYEuhx

There are many videos here. Can’t link individually since Wikipedia is not allowing that. However the videos saved here are only a fraction of the amount of videos out there.

quite a lot of the links don’t seem to be working since I’ve copy pasted from my notes app; can someone help resolve that? TseTen10 (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

In the YouTube and Facebook links shared, the speakers and content appear primarily from the Bhutia community. Can you point to videos where members of other Sikkimese communities — Lepcha, Magar, Limboo, Rai, Sherpa, Tamang, Pradhan, etc. — refer to the language independently as “Sikkimese language”? by the way in some of the comments i can see it being referred as "bhutia language"

Also, many of the academic sources cited are authored by members of the Bhutia community. That is valid, but for determining common English usage under WP:COMMONNAME, we should also look at independent scholars across different communities and disciplines.

I also feel that some sources are being cited without fully reading their context. For example, in Dynamics of Identity Among the Bhutia of Sikkim: An Anthropological Study, the passage you quoted discusses identity (“Sikkimese Bhutia” as a people), but when referring to the language, it clearly mentions “Bhutia language,” not “Sikkimese Bhutia language.” That distinction is important.

Because the current Wikipedia page body increasingly uses “Sikkimese” alone, it creates an impression that this is the primary standalone name. Many AI tools rely on Wikipedia content, so repeated wording there can amplify ambiguity.

The word “Sikkimese” commonly refers to the people of Sikkim as a whole — who belong to multiple communities and speak different languages. It does not automatically mean the Bhutia language.

Therefore, not every instance of the word “Sikkimese” should be treated as proof that “Sikkimese language” is the established standalone name for the Bhutia language.

Under WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION, the issue is clear, unambiguous linguistic naming based on broad and consistent scholarly usage. Kkk1996 (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hasn’t it already been proved by a number of the articles, posts, and also that one govt circular I linked for you( don’t wanna go through the trouble of linking it again) that “Sikkimese” is one of the accepted terminology for this language.

Your suggestions to change this title to Bhutia language(Sikkim), Denjongke(Bhutia language) etc. seem much more redundant than the current title. As for the Ambiguity part of “Sikkimese” you already mentioned a soln for the ambiguity of “Bhutia”, why can’t that solution be applied to the current title.

The best option I see here is having the body language changed consistently to “Sikkimese Bhutia” to address your concerns. However, I maintain that since “Sikkimese” is an accepted, historically accurate and ,where I’m from, actively used terminology especially among native speakers, it shall not be removed from the info box or diluted into Sikkimese Bhutia. TseTen10 (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The language is spoken by Sikkimese Bhutias, majority of the contribution to content related to the language will of course come from its native speakers smh. TseTen10 (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The question under WP:COMMONNAME is not whether a term exists, but which term is most consistently and unambiguously. The reason the body increasingly uses “Sikkimese” alone is because the first word of the title is “Sikkimese.” Naturally, editors tend to repeat the title term throughout the article. That framing effect is precisely what has created the current ambiguity.

If the title were changed to “Bhutia language” or “Bhutia language (Sikkimese Bhutia)”, the body would consistently reflect that wording, and the ambiguity would largely disappear.

So this is not about denying that “Sikkimese” exists as a term. It is about ensuring that the primary title is precise and unambiguous. Changing the title would help resolve the recurring confusion in the article body itself. Kkk1996 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe the consistency of the term “Sikkimese Bhutia” in secondary English sources has already been established by the quite lengthy list of sources I have provided for you. As for ambiguity, I think you yourself agree that “Sikkimese Bhutia language” is a more apt and specific terminology by your suggestion as Bhutia language(Sikkimese Bhutia).

it seems to me that your issue is with the content of the body, for which I have already given you a suggestion, and if I am not wrong, that is an edit that you can make yourself instead of burdening us with what has technically become a very unfruitful discussion.

Finally, I must admit I have an irk with you:

1. You have no insight or personal connection to this language.

2. You consistently, by use of cunning language, deny the existence of “Sikkimese” as a terminology for the language.

3. You have expressed dissent over the fact that my sources have a majority of Sikkimese Bhutia persons as authors; that really gives off undertones of prejudice against the community.

Hence, I would appreciate it if you could atleast acknowledge that “Sikkimese” is in fact a term used to refer to this language, and that Sikkimese Bhutias contribution to the academic domain of this language is legitimate. TseTen10 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It does appear that “Sikkimese” is indeed used in some sources to refer to the language. I do, however, have certain reservations regarding the historical evolution of that term and how it came to be applied. There are also broader concerns about fairness (or in your language "cunningness") toward other community languages, but I do not wish to expand the discussion in that direction here, as it may unnecessarily complicate matters.

My main point is more practical and usage-based: “Bhutia language” appears to be the more commonly used term overall and not only by members of the Bhutia community, but also by scholars and speakers from other communities. In terms of general recognition and frequency in academic and descriptive usage, “Bhutia language” seems to have broader currency.

Therefore, my concern is not about denying the existence of the term “Sikkimese,” but about what is most commonly and neutrally used across sources and communities. From that perspective, “Bhutia language” appears to be the more established and widely recognized terminology. But I have already said the reason that I have objection in naimg the first term as "sikkimese" thats why i suggested Bhutia language(Sikkimese Bhutia) to be the title. Kkk1996 (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Again with your words. What do you mean it does “appear” and you have “reservations”; I would like you to accept that it is a fact, and stop insinuating that this is some sort of propaganda to make Bhutia language as Sikkimese language, when evidently, Sikkimese is the older terminology of the two, used in Wikipedia, Ethnologue, and also in tourism books published by the government of Sikkim, International encyclopaedias( I do not wish to go through the trouble of locating them for you, find them yourself). TseTen10 (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

denjongke is older terminology or sikkimese bhutia is? Kkk1996 (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• between the TWO*

TseTen10 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Dude just get this over with; can’t you just edit the body yourself; problem solved.

please Dai TseTen10 (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe, Wikipedia does not automatically prioritize older terminology simply because it is older. Per Wikipedia’s naming conventions, article titles are generally based on the name most commonly used in reliable, contemporary English-language sources, not necessarily the historically earliest term.

If we were to prioritize older terminology alone, many articles across Wikipedia would require renaming, which is not how WP:COMMONNAME functions. The key question is not which term appeared first historically, but which term is most widely and neutrally used in current reliable sources. Kkk1996 (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe I was using that argument to refute your insinuation that I was trying to somehow make Bhutia language as Sikkimese language, when it already is. I hope you are able to comprehend my message. TseTen10 (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

[2]: titled A Descriptive Grammar of Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia)

[3]: titled The Life of a Semi-Urban Lhopo/Sikkimese Bhutia Family

[4]: Afterwards, the Tibetan immigrants formed a new identity in Sikkim and started calling themselves Sikkimese Bhutia from then onwards.

[5]: titled DECOLONISING SIKKIMESE BHUTIA LANGUAGE AND CULTURAL PRODUCTION: THE JOURNEY FROM COLONIAL REPRESENTATION TO REVIVAL AND RECLAMATION

kindly refer this addition by a fellow member in one of the older discussions. I’m not tech savvy so can’t link TseTen10 (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

15:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AnQiwBwxt/?mibextid=wwXIfr

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1AYDEaA4YN/?mibextid=wwXIfr

https://www.facebook.com/share/1GqRt5dyFh/?mibextid=wwXIfr

https://www.facebook.com/share/18MAHxMjLw/?mibextid=wwXIfr

https://www.facebook.com/share/1DQqhpokX8/?mibextid=wwXIfr

4Uspy_M1rXw

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPXvysf7vvxMUgOjEkmGWg03z13r0xh1N&si=-czbquJJdDyXkske

I think contemporary English literature must include above all social media, and when talking about Sikkim, what better than Facebook. The above are links where the language has been referred to as Sikkimese, Sikkimese bhutia etc. Additionally included a govt. Funded radio show Pangen Mintok aired in the “Sikkimese Bhutia language “ TseTen10 (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)