Talk:Croatian language

1RR

This article has become another battleground. Enough is, quite frankly, enough of the edit warring, as the article is now protected for the fourth time since July due to it. We're going to try something new. Starting now, this article; under the discretionary sanctions authorised in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia; is hereby placed on a 1RR restriction. This means one revert, per user, per day. This restriction is per person, not per account. The most obvious vandalism is excepted from this restriction, and I do mean obvious. This restriction applies to all users, and I will place an edit notice of this for the article. Any appeals should be directed towards my talk page in the first instance, or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement in the second. Courcelles 11:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The above timestamp has intentionally been moved forward 15 years, to stop automatic archival. True timestamp: Courcelles 11:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead

The lead paragraph of this article should be more in line with the leads at Serbian language, Bosnian language, and Montenegrin language since these four lects form a clear and well-defined set of varieties of a common language. The leads should reflect that. --Taivo (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Director (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Likewise. --biblbroks (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Against--Sokac121 (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Taivo, too. --JorisvS (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Contra --Roberta F. (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Against (http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=BA) --Man Usk (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ethnologue has nothing to do with reordering information that is already present in the lead. --Taivo (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree the lead should conform to WP:LEAD and WP:V instead. Modeling one lead after another article is borderline WP:CIRCULAR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read the edit. It was a reordering of information already present in the lead to 2-1 instead of 1-2 based on the other identical varieties of Serbo-Croatian, not some rewrite as you seem to imply. --Taivo (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Against --Wustenfuchs 16:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You may have gotten the wrong impression, folks. This is not a vote (or poll). -- Director (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that many of the editors expressing opinions above haven't bothered to actually look at the edit I made to see that it neither added nor subtracted information from the lead, but simply reordered it to bring it line with its sister articles at Bosnian language, Serbian language, and Montenegrin language. Here is the edit in question. --Taivo (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Improper referencing

There is a problem with a reference (current #4: Benjamin W. Fortson IV, Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (2010, Blackwell), pg. 431, "Because of their mutual intelligibility, Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are usually thought of as constituting one language called Serbo-Croatian.")

The source does not say that the Croatian is a collection of "varieties of the Serbo-Croatian language" as indicated in the article - hence that particular source does not support the claim made.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This article was discussed before. User (forgot name) added his edit without discussion at talk page, so I reverted all thing. --Wustenfuchs 17:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I usually keep out of linguistic issues and I did not do much actual research here, but having reviewed the sources at Serbo-Croatian, I am confident that kwami and Taivo did not misquote anyone. I will add that a source that states "Croatian constitutes a part of Serbo-Croatian" is by no means misquoted under WP:SYNTH as supporting the statement that Croatian is a variant of Serbo-Croatian.

Wustenfuchs, please be very careful as this article is under a 1RR restriction. I won't edit-war with you, I'll just report the second revert. -- Director (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It is stated in the lead that it is a variant of SC, but lead is different. If you want to report, then please do. --Wustenfuchs 17:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The referencing was absolutely correct, Wustenfuchs and has been discussed before. Croatian is part of a complex including Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin and the lead here should match the leads in those other articles, with the same trajectory. It's well-referenced. Thanks, Wustenfuchs for edit warring and getting the article protected (sarcasm). --Taivo (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

One may discuss, but the sources must support the claims directly per WP:V.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sentence "Croatian, although technically a register of Serbo-Croatian, is sometimes considered a distinct language by itself." claimed to be supported by ref #13 (Cvetkovic, Ljudmila) is not really supported by the sentence. It contains a WP:WEASEL "sometimes" which is absent from the source - AGF inadvertently giving impression that it is rarely considered a distinct language, when opposite is generally the case.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Tomobe03, the "opposite" is not the case. In English language linguistic sources outside the former Yugoslavia these lects are nearly always discussed as extremely close variants of a single language that is most commonly called "Serbo-Croatian". It is only very, very rarely that these forms are listed without the comment that they are mutually-intelligible variants of a single language. Artificial labels such as "B/C/S(/M)" have not caught on in the English-language linguistic community yet. For example, in J.P. Mallory and D.Q. Adams, The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (2006, Oxford), the list of forms for this language in the index is clearly labelled "Serbo-Croatian" (page 722). That's just the very first book I pulled off the shelf that might have relevant information. --Taivo (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I dare say it is and this the source. Besides, the point of the objection is that the weasel word "sometimes" is completely absent from the source and use of that source to back up this particular claim is in violation of WP:V--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What was meant by the "opposite is generally the case"? That it is never considered a distinct language, that it is always considered a distinct language, or that it is often considered a distinct language? I'd say that not just in this particular and highly dubious case, but everywhere and every time one source's claim shouldn't make a great difference. And that whatever its specialty is. In this case even greater precision is required. Also, I fear that this source's text doesn't even deal with statistics not to mention if the source's field of expertise should be scientific enough to support sufficiently any of the claims. Though I might be wrong, of course. --biblbroks (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Relocated From Below

Consensus can be reached, and it was reached way before. Just see the archive. The lead that was made by Tavio started a very long discussion before, and probably will do the same in 3 or 4 days. The lead that I reverted was there for months, and it seams it was good for both sides. That is why I reverted Tavio's edit. I think it was very constructive for the article. --Wustenfuchs 18:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs, it was obviously not "good for both sides", since it characterized Croatian as a "standard language of the Croats" - not as a variant of Serbo-Croatian. The sentence that mentions Serbo-Croatian does not even make grammatical sense ("they" are part of Serbo-Croatian?? who's "they"?). The current lede paragraph strikes me as merely a clever/desperate way to avoid stating what the sources support. Its a mangled and deliberately evasive POV wreck. The lede needs to state, plain and simple, that Croatian is a variant/form/standard of the Serbo-Croatian language. All else is compromising for the sake of nationalist sensibilities of Wikipedia users from Croatia. -- Director (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Tavio" made no such edits, Wustenfuchs. --Taivo (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"They" are probably dialects, we can correct it if you want, but I think it's clear enough what is "they". Another important thing is that this lead that I made is correct also. Dialects, namely Chakavian, Shtokavian and Kajkavian make Croatian language - so this is correct. Also some users insist it is variant of Serbo-Croatian, if we observe SC as family of languages, then they are also correct. So I think that I made the most optimal lead. --Wustenfuchs 18:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Taivo, I read it wrong it seams. --Wustenfuchs 18:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wgfinley, the sources are unequivocal that Croatian is not a language in its own right other than for nationalistic purposes. The linguistic literature, independent of former-Yugoslav or politically-motivated literature, is crystal clear that Croatian is completely mutually intelligible with Serbian and Bosnian and that the label most commonly applied to this non-Slovenian West South Slavic language is "Serbo-Croatian" (still being commonly used long after the breakup of Yugoslavia). Wustenfuchs, they are not a "family of languages", they are one, single, solitary language--the non-former-Yugoslav linguistic sources are crystal clear on that fact. My edit was simply to bring this article into line with the articles on Bosnian, Serbian, and Montenegrin as part of a cluster of lects that constitute a single language, Serbo-Croatian. --Taivo (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm here in an admin capacity, I don't do content disputes. I've had this page on my watch list since 2010 due to the constant disputes that crop here and to direct conversation as needed. You need to discuss the issue amongst yourselves and reach a consensus. If you can do that I can lift the protection earlier but the issues should be discussed as opposed to edit warring or seeking to exclude editors from the conversation citing various infractions, you all seem to be doing a good job on that since I protected the page, progress!! --WGFinley (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I think I misread who had written what above, WGFinley. My comments are probably only directed at Wustenfuchs. My apologies for inserting you into the content issue. --Taivo (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look carefully at my edit, there was nothing said that was different than what is already in the lead. All I did was move the clause about Serbo-Croatian to a position following the name to bring it into line with the articles on the other three lects that constitute Serbo-Croation--Bosnian language, Serbian language, and Montenegrin language. Since these four are a mutually-intelligible group of dialects, the intros should reflect that relationship with similar wording. As it is written now, the second sentence barely makes any sense (starting with the strange "they" which doesn't have a real antecedent). --Taivo (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Continuing Discussion

Source #4 (David Dalby, Linguasphere (1999/2000, Linguasphere Observatory), pg. 445, 53-AAA-g, "Srpski+Hrvatski, Serbo-Croatian".)is problematic too. Unfortunately it is offline, but the Linguasphere website itself does not support the claim made in the reference quote as it states Srpski+Hrvatski (Serbian+Croatian) but branches further and in no place does it make the equation proposed in the reference quote. This in particular seems like a case of WP:SYNTH.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Tomobe03. Linguasphere lists these numbers for languages and then divides the languages up into constituent dialects and sub-dialects. The number 53-AAA-g refers to a single language--Srpski+Hrvatski, Serbo-Croatian, and then lists the constituents dialects for that language with their subdialects. --Taivo (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That's OR - Srpski+Hrvatski in both Serbian and Croatian means Serbian+Croatian. To a casual observer that may appear as two. I don't see where you get the notion that the two mean a single language called "Serbo-Croatian"?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Tomobe03, you don't seem to understand the way that Linguasphere labels things. It doesn't use "-", but "+" for some reason in its language names. Thus we find "Hindi+Urdu" for Hindi-Urdu, for example. It's simply a notational artifact of the source and does not imply what you are assuming. The fact that Linguasphere assigns this a number is the indication that this is a language. --Taivo (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

All of the above, and those are just the first few checked, are references which fail to directly support the claims in violation of WP:V. If one aims to support a claim that "Croatian language is a variety of Serbo-Croatian" or that it is "usually called Serbo-Croatian", one must provide sources claiming that verbatim (outside wiki per WP:CIRCULAR. Otherwise, that's WP:SYNTH or WP:OR no matter how compelling the case may be.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Tomobe03, but you don't seem to understand WP:V, WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. The references are crystal clear in their statements and in what they demonstrate in the article. --Taivo (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand them perfectly - don't worry about that. If "sometimes called..." is apparently supported by a source which does not say "sometimes called..." that's SYNTH/OR. Sorry about that, but there's no way around it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. At no point does Wikipedia require that we turn off our brains when writing or evaluating sources. The sources are perfectly fine and demonstrate without any equivocation what they are being used for. --Taivo (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you are free to skew the info from the cited sources in any way you see fit. Even by adding weasel words that would otherwise be completely useless if it wasn't for your bigotry.161.53.243.70 (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The very first sentence of WP:V is: Verifiability on Wikipedia is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. (emphasis added) - therefore there's no room for interpretation of the sources and that's the problem with interpreting "sometimes", interpreting what linguasphere meant or did not mean to say, interpreting what is usual and interpreting if a language is a part or variant of something else. If a majority of sources directly support one claim - state it and cite it properly. If a significant minority of sources claims something else - state that too and cite that properly - it's simple as that. Wikipedia is a mirror, not the lamp.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the term "sometimes" may be interpreted everything between "in all but one case" to "in only one case". Is there a proposal for replacement of "sometimes"? --biblbroks (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously there are sources claiming Croatian to be a part or variety of Serbo-Croatian and other sources claiming it to be a distinct language. I don't see what is the big deal noting situation as it is - i.e. both groups of sources, duly noting that majority of British/American linguists claim X, majority of Croatian linguists (it's their language after all) claiming Y and the language being recognized as official language (i.e. distinct language) by whichever countries and the EU (not yet, but starting at a clearly defined date) and that's it. The circumstances in linguistics are bound to change in this respect (they're never constant no matter how one tries to believe otherwise) so this article, like some others, will probably require occasional updates... On the matter at hand: Source #13 has very little to do with the sentence it claims to support so as a quick-fix I'd propose replacing "sometimes" with "also"... That gives little information but at least it does not give information that is not contained in the source.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I can go with also. --biblbroks (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In sentence "Croatian will become an official EU language with the accession of Croatia, though when the other states accede, translation might not normally be provided between the various Serbo-Croat standards, and documents in other EU languages might not necessarily be translated into all of them." the reference #18 ("Vandoren: EU membership – challenge and chance for Croatia – Daily – tportal.hr". Daily.tportal.hr. 2010-09-30. Retrieved 2010-10-27.) does not support the last part of the sentence (starting with "though when other...") and this claim appears to be pure original research.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Taivo and Kwami interpreted falsely:

See from this source: Lewis, M. Paul ed. (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. ISBN 1-55671-216-2; ISBN 978-1-55671-216-6, Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/

Linguistic Lineage for Croatian

• Indo-European (439)
  • Slavic (18)
    • South (7)
      • Western (4)
        • Croatian [hrv] (Croatia)

Second link (complete Western): Language Family Trees : Indo-European, Slavic, South, Western

• Indo-European (439)
  • Slavic (18)
    • South (7)
      • Western (4)
        • Bosnian [bos] (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
        • Croatian [hrv] (Croatia)
        • Serbian [srp] (Serbia)
        • Slovene [slv] (Slovenia)

Also relevant: so called Serbo-Croatian is per Ethnologue spoken only in the Republic of Serbia along with Serbian (4,500,000 speakers in Serbia), Romano-Serbian (172,000), Bosniac/Bosnian (135,000), Croatian language (114,000) and an unidentified number of Montenegrin language speakers in Mali Iđoš.

So called Serbo-Croatian is presented as A macrolanguage of Serbia not as a a macrolanguage of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Romania, Montenegro, Croatia and Slovenia.

Source: Lewis, M. Paul ed. (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. ISBN 1-55671-216-2 ; ISBN 978-1-55671-216-6, Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/

Taivo and Kwami are inserting POV in this and other related articles. They have not cited properly. Everyone can see the source. Sad to see that my fellow editors who present the so called Serbo-Croatian do not cite extensively from the sources. Please document everything. Cite extensively. -- Sokac121 (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sokac121, Ethnologue is far from the only source on this issue. The great majority of non-Croatian sources separate West South Slavic into two languages--Slovenian/Slovene and Serbo-Croatian. --Taivo (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

While I'm sure every Croat worth his salt is bound and obliged to oppose the fact that Croatian is generally described as a variant of Serbo-Croatian, if anyone's "interpreting anything falsely" - its you. The sources do not say its "spoken only in Serbia", they state its "spoken in Serbia". And its actually official in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

• "In the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Ijekavian standard literary language of the three constitutive nations is officially used, designated by one of the terms: Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian." (Language law of 1993, cited in E.C. Hawkesworth, 2006. Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian Linguistic Complex, Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed.) - those are in effect three designation for one language.

Sokac121, the sources in general are very clear on this issue, I recommend you review them all - and objectively at that. Not just the few you can find that disagree with the majority (and those that can be misrepresented). Rest assured we (I at least) will not be copying down text here simply because you refuse to review the cited sources. -- Director (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That is the whole point, the article should reflect that this particular group generally holds one view and that that group holds another. At any rate it is not for wiki contributors to cherry pick reliable sources or dismiss Croatian or Serbian linguists summarily as incompetent on their respective languages whatever those may be. Danish language is mutually intelligible with Norwegian and Swedish yet I don't believe there's this type of controversy in those articles. Why not say what reliable (as conflicting as may be) sources say and add that the two, or three or four (if you count Bosnian and Montenegrin) are mutually intelligible? Linguistics are not physics - they're not really an exact science, so conflicting opinions are quite possible, as they are in philosophy or sociology. Add to the sourced info where either Croatian or Serbo-Croatian is in official use or at least taught in schools and that's about that. For instance, this article (as well as the one on Serbo-Croatian and possibly Serbian (I did not look it up to be hones)) might mention that Croatia and Serbia officially hold the two languages sufficiently distinct to appoint court interpreters: [1], [2].--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian are at least different dialects, and there are some problems with mutual intelligibility. Serbian and Croatian are different standards of the same dialect. A more appropriate comparison would be Hindi and Urdu, or Malay and Indonesian. No-one argues that they are different languages genealogically, only sociolinguistically. Sociolinguistics is perfectly valid, of course, but we have repeated efforts by biased editors who wish to deny that Croatian is a form of Serbo-Croatian. If the reaction is inflexible, it's because of the chronic attempts by such editors to distort the article if any wiggle room is allowed to them. — kwami (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would an editor be biased if he/she is providing reliable sources for contributions? WP:RS clearly states that "..articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered...", so the article should reflect exactly that. Dismissing any contributions claiming that Croatian and Serbian are not separate languages no matter how referenced out of hand is IMHO clearly biased.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a side note to "some" problems with mutual intelligibility. Croatian and Serbian are easily mutually intelligible at casual-conversation level, with relatively few incomprehensible words for speakers of the opposite language. Still, in area of scientific terminology the differences are far greater, and I'm talking about completely different lexemes used, not their variations or words which have a common root. That my also amount to "some" problems - and why should we ignore that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This whole discussion started with a simple reordering edit. If you look at the edit, it was moving the linguistically sound comment about "variety of Serbo-Croatian" up to the place it belongs to match the introductions at Bosnian language, Serbian language, and Montenegrin language. There has been no evidence adduced here to indicate that treating "Croatian" like the other Serbo-Croatian varieties is a bad thing. There was no addition or subtraction of sources, no claims made that are not already made in the article--just a movement of one comment to match the leads in Croatian's sister lects. It's always amazing to me how the national flags come out in any of these articles with the slightest stylistic edit. Despite what you are trying to wikilawyer, Tomobe03, the references are sound, they are not a violation of WP:OR, WP:V, or WP:SYNTH, but they have nothing to do with the edit that I made to bring this article in line with the articles on Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian. --Taivo (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT there are multiple sources which do not directly support claims or are subject to interpretation (see above). That has nothing to do with reordering of contents, the same would be true if everything was as before the edits. The comments that the article should accurately reflect multiple sources and all aspects (English-speaking world RSes, Croatian RSes, official use, use in schools etc., Croatia/Serbia treatment of Serbian/Croatian as foreign language) also apply regardless of the reordering.

I'm not wikilawyering here, I have cited several specific instances (see above) where sources were the sources do not directly support claims made. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but I suppose you can find other sources as well. I'm not doing this to be a nuisance but to contribute to quality of the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, this argument of greater differences in the area of scientific terminology is rather void I think. It is based on a false presumption that differences necessarily prevent intelligibility. Yet when it comes to analysis of the exchange in the area of academia one must remember that conversators in these cases are far more apt to convey their thoughts and comprehend the meaning of the message than are speakers engaged in a so called casual conversation. In an every day communication it might be even more usual for misunderstanding or failure of communication to happen than it is in an scientific environment especially due to localisms and phrases restricted to idioms. --biblbroks (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Tomobe03, but you are simply being willfully blind to what the sources are telling you. There is no ambiguity, there is no "interpretation", there is no original research involved. They are plain and simple verification of the facts stated in the text--that "Serbo-Croatian" is the predominant English language label for the mutually intelligible non-Slovenian West South Slavic lects. Any reasonable reader can see that without any problem. I can't remember whether it was on this page or over at Talk:Serbo-Croatian language, but I spent five minutes grabbing three books on Indo-European in order off my shelf that postdate 1993. Every single one of them labelled this language "Serbo(-)Croatian". It's not even remarked that "this isn't called 'Serbo-Croatian' anymore". They simply use the term as a matter of course. You are, indeed, wikilawyering this. When your comments are interminable references to WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH without any reliable English-language linguistic sources to dispute the facts, that is wikilawyering. We word with evidence here, not legal briefs. --Taivo (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Two Issues Have Become Comingled

There are two separate issues that have become irretrievably comingled here.

• Reordering the existing initial paragraph to match those of Bosnian language, Serbian language, and Montenegrin language without any addition or subtraction of information. This is the initial issue and the one that prompted the edit war from Wustenfuchs and the page protection.
• The interminable effort by nationalists to make Croatian not a part of Serbo-Croatian or to disparage the reliable sources in order to make it seem less so. This is the direction that much of the commenting and wikilawyering by Tomobe03 has taken.

I would like these two issues discussed separately, but am not sure how to separate them other than to start two new sections. --Taivo (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's totally unacceptable to call whoever disagrees with the current wording of the article 'nationalist'. People who read wikipedia articles sometimes also read talk pages, you know? This is a disgrace.193.198.8.211 (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you bothered to look at the issues for two seconds, you'd see that I didn't change the wording of the article other than to basically reverse two sentences. The article is scientifically accurate in its current form and I have no quibble over the content (just the ordering). What else would you call editors who don't look at the science and simply want to deny evidence because of the political stance of their country of origin? If you have a better word besides "nationalist"... --Taivo (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And, why is it necessary to be so dramatic about the term nationalist? It ain't always pejorative. It's chauvinist that is. --biblbroks (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, there's no need to be dramatic about it. I have just skimmed this talk page (as well as the archives) and saw wikipedia editors and unknown IPs being labeled as nationalists. What can be read between the lines is that some editors here think that nationalists are people who want to distort reality because they live in their own myths and fairy tales. Now, about the language(s): I think somebody here wrote that the label Serbo-Croatian will remain in the article as long as it is a common name in English. There obviously exist a difference between the usage of the term Serbo-Croatian in mass media and that in scientific/linguistic circles. I mean, how often do you see it used in the anglophone media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.243.70 (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, this talk page documents that comments coming from this IP address might be perceived differently than how it is attempted to present them here. Anglophone media? Cannot it be possible that what is labeled by this term can also have a certain bias? Or maybe just an insufficiently justified tendency to political correctness? Or to the least an ill informed perspective of the linguistic, that is scientific situation? I come to think that overly emphasize of this "usage" argument constitutes a perfidious form of POV pushing. As if products of mass media somehow inherently weigh in on this. I can't say that the previous comment isn't a subtle way to appeal to ridicule. --biblbroks (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mass media usage doesn't matter in this circumstance. What matters on this page is linguistic usage in linguistic reliable sources. If mass media typically confused quarks and leptons we wouldn't change the terminology in Wikipedia. Same here. Indeed, mass media often calls polyglots "linguists", but check out the Linguistics article and you will see that is not the definition we use in Wikipedia. When a scientific discipline, such as linguistics, uses a particular label for a particular entity fairly consistently (as I have demonstrated over and over and over with reliable sources), we follow that scientific usage. We do not follow the dictates of a government or the nationalistic desires of an ethnic group, we follow the science. --Taivo (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

biblbroks, I made no argument whatsoever. I just asked a question, hoping it would be sufficiently important to investigate. Now, if you people say it isn't, that's fine with me. Furthermore, this IP is a terminal in a public institution that thousands of people visit regularly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.243.70 (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

161.53.243.70, your so-called just-asked-a-question comment contains a claim about the statistics on "the usage of the term Serbo-Croatian". What exactly does this claim serve for - or to forge it differently - what is to be derived from it? Since you are so inexplicably indifferent but nevertheless trying to be helpful, would you be so nice to explain why do you think we would care about the fact that the IP address of the terminal you posted from is described as affiliated to one university library? Or you could instead register and deprive us of the concern you allude. --biblbroks (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I was recommended this talk page by a colleague. He said "people would not eat in this restaurant if they knew who the cooks are". I now see the guy was right. You read a little too much into what I wrote. And surely, there are more important things than playing detective and acting paranoid about my simple observation. I've been a tourism worker for several years and, as a rule, foreign tourist used the term "Croatian" when asking me about the local language (with a handful of exceptions though), which prompted me to ask whether this "common name" refers to a term used by the majority of people or to a term restricted to scientific circles. Since that issue was clarified, I see no further reason to write here. --161.53.243.70--

I really don't see a point of any discussion here. I pointed out several specific instances where sourcing is incorrect and that's it - only to be personally attacked by Taivo as ignorant and manipulative (wikilawyering) nationalist, with next to zero discussion about the issues raised other than saying that one cannot blindly represent what sources say or that whatever is contained in there may be reinterpreted at will. You really cannot expect to improve quality of articles "working" like that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said that you were ignorant, I said that you failed to understand the interaction of Wikipedia policy, human intellect, and scientific evidence. And not a single, solitary one of the sources cited in the lead is inappropriate. They all precisely say exactly what they are listed to say--that Croatian is a part of "Serbo-Croatian". Your claim that the sources are "incorrect" is simply wrong. --Taivo (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have quoted specifically what was wrong and just brushing those examples aside, as well as summarily dismissing "former-Yugoslav or politically-motivated literature" as you label it because you say so just serves to confirm that pulling a rank and telling others what's acceptable and what's not is the way this article editing works. What do you call English language sources that were not published in former Yugoslavia or countries that emerged there since 1990s, which somehow support the idea? I see you ignore those too. What would it take to convince that there are other reliable sources supporting that there are independent languages instead of Serbo-Croatian with no native speakers (those that admit that they speak it) and in no official use or school use anywhere? Is there a particular publisher, linguist or other source that would be acceptable to you? Are there any inadmissible ones by name, nationality or view held? Is there a combination of factors that are necessary to get your approval? Or does that, boil down to case-by-case "because I say so" basis?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ No, it's that we're really tired of going over this over and over and over, because even if we satisfy you, there will soon be someone else making the same objections, and then someone else, and then someone else. Frankly, convincing you feels like a waste of time (no offense intended), because it won't actually solve the problem. This is the case for lots of articles that attract passionate POV battles, like homeopathic medicine. You could read the pages and pages of debate we've already had about this in the archives. The lit is quite clear: Serbian and Croatian are a single abstand language with multiple standardized registers. A pluricentric language, like Urdu or Malay. The common English name for that language is Serbo-Croatian. — kwami (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Reliable sources supporting that there are independent languages instead of Serbo-Croatian with no native speakers (those that admit that they speak it) and in no official use or school use anywhere"? So if there was a source that promotes a position that there are several independent languages instead of one Hindi-Urdu with no native speakers (those that admit that they speak it) and in no official use or school use anywhere, it should be considered on the grounds that there is no official use of it by this name of Hindi-Urdu? Or maybe on the grounds that those that admit they speak it (if there are such) are wrong? Why - because having no linguistic background? If the article Hindi-Urdu is to taken as trusted then the situation with Croatian and other SC languages is quite similar... I think:

...colloquial Hindi and Urdu are all but indistinguishable, and even the official standards are nearly identical in grammar, though they differ in literary conventions and in academic and technical vocabulary, with Urdu retaining stronger Persian, Central Asian and Arabic influences, and Hindi relying more heavily on Sanskrit.

— taken from the lede of Hindi-Urdu.

And this similarity was already noted I'd say. Though, perhaps there are sources that could deny it. --biblbroks (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there any objections remaining, or may users be allowed to repair the grammatically incoherent lede paragraph? -- Director (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Kwami has already fixed the first paragraph. --Taivo (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, didn't notice. -- Director (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

First sentence

Croatian (hrvatski jezik) is the collective name for varieties of the Serbo-Croatian language[3][4][5] spoken by Croats --> are all dialects of Croatian classified as Serbocroatian? Aren't there strong isoglosses between Croatian dialects? Once a Slavist told me that kay and shto dialects are more different when compared to each other than Ukrainian and Belarussian are. Is that true? Thanks174.120.98.2 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are very strong isoglosses, to the point where probably the only reason for saying Croatian is a single language is that the speakers are ethnically Croat. Yes, they're all subsumed under SC, as far as we've been able to tell from the lit (several sources state this, though most don't mention it). As for your last point, I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me. — kwami (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Linguasphere breaks "Serbo-Croatian" into "Historical Serbo-Croatian", "Literary Serbian", "Literary Croatian", "Literary Ikavski", "Generalized Serbian", "Generalized Croatian", "Kajkavski", "Chakavski", "Shtokavski", and "Torlakski". So this source, the most detailed of the general sources, while recognizing the varieties in detail, groups them all under "Serbo-Croatian". If we want to get really accurate, then this article should probably only cover Standard Croatian with separate articles for Kajkavian and Chakavian since these aren't really part of the literary standard. As it currently stands, Wikipedia has four different articles on Shtokavian (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and Montenegrin), which are linked as Serbo-Croatian, plus separate articles on Chakavian and Kajkavian, which are called, incorrectly as far as the linguistics goes, part of "Croatian". It is rather messy. The information in the language template box at Serbo-Croatian is accurate, but the first comment on the dialect articles is misleading since it says they are dialects of "Croatian". The language template box here is utterly misleading and inaccurate since it lists Shtokavian and Torlakian as dialects of "Croatian". The most accurate statement is "Kajkavian and Chakavian are dialects of Serbo-Croatian spoken by Croatian minorities. Bosnian, Montenegrin, Serbian, and Standard Croatian are varieties of the Shtokavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian. Torlakian is a dialect of Serbo-Croatian spoken by a Serbian minority." --Taivo (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's possible to list Torlakian as "Croatian" because of the Krashovani who identify themselves as Croats. Josip Lisac's book on the Croats' dialects includes Torlakian just because of the ethnic connection, regardless of how marginalized the dialectal group has become among all educated speakers of SC (Torlakian can be a separate dialect, a subdialect of Shtokavian Ekavian, or some dialect of Bulgarian/Macedonian; it just depends on the person you ask). If anything, some Croatian nationalists seem to prefer to overlook the Krashovanis and their Torlakian speech since their use of it "violates" or contradicts the cherished idea that Croatian is some deliberate hybrid of Chakavian, Kajkavian and ("Western") Shtokavian. In contrast, this same line of thinking often holds that Serbian is some deliberate hybrid of ("Eastern") Shtokavian and Torlakian (if not Shtokavian and Slaveno-Serbian).

As it concerns the noticeable separation of Kajkavian from Shtokavian on linguistic grounds despite the priority and emphasis of ethnically-driven linguistic classification (i.e. Kajkavian is closer to standard Slovenian than standard Croatian), Marc Greenberg alludes to this in his monograph on nationalist myths used by linguists in the former Yugoslavia at http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/969/1/yugoslav_myths96.pdf LAuburger (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

weren't karašovani originally kajkavian settlers who eventually started speaking some kind of torlak-kajkavian mixture? supposedly, their speech gradually accepted characteristics of torlak dialect due to their interaction with neighboring serbian(?) settlers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.183.220 (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably. However it's not actually relevant here how they came to speak Torlakian nor their likely having been speakers of Kajkavian in some bygone era. Put it another way: Is it that relevant that most Dalmatians on the mainland today are native speakers of just Shtokavian Ijekavian but their ancestors were native speakers of just Chakavian? Whatever Kajkavian elements the Krashovanis used to use are practically gone as they've already shifted wholesale to Torlakian. Even Lisac's book on dialectology encompasses Torlak just because of the Krashovanis' (and Janjevci's) "membership" in "Croathood". Their likely having used Kajkavian originally acts as nothing more than a piece of historical trivia. LAuburger (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

hmmm, I think that vast majority of Dalmatians speak ikavian variant of štokavian, not ijekavian. Most of them descend from populations that came from what is now Bosnia and Herzegovina anyway. and this argument that the torlak speech of this community of Croats is part of Croatian language in Romania is not valid, methinks. there are (or were?) communities of Croats in Hungary whose ancestors used to speak čakavian, and yet their contemporary Hungarian speech is not considered Croatian, despite of their Croatian identity. are the rules different because torlak dialect is a closely related one? or is the entire matter a product of sociolinguistic reality?78.1.183.220 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Anon IP, neither Torlakian, nor Kajkavian, nor Chakavian are "dialects of the Croatian language". They are dialects of the Serbo-Croatian language. The "Croatian language" is one of the varieties of the Shtokavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian. Kaj and Cha are spoken by ethnic Croatians, but their dialects do not form the basis of Standard Croatian, which is simply a variety of the Shto dialect. This is the great Croatian confusion--ethnic Croatians speak three different dialects, but the Croatian language is simply one of four varieties of the Shto dialect. --Taivo (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

so, čakavian and kajkavian ≠ Croatian language? they aren't Croatian standard language but they are very much Croatian. neither can only standard Croatian be called Croatian, nor only štokavian varieties spoken by Croats. in that regard, the previous wording was ok.78.0.205.143 (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, anon IP, they are not part of the Croatian language. They are dialects of Serbo-Croatian spoken by Croatians. This is the great problem with all these "languages"--that writers continually confuse ethnicity with language. --Taivo (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

this definition sounds too synthetic. of course they are part of the Croatian language. the latter is not a genetic term, since these dialects don't descend from some paleo-Croatian, but Croatian as a term most certainly and without any doubt whatsoever refers to idioms that Croatians traditionally consider as their own. it's a sociolinguistic system located inside of a larger dialect continuum. in reality, in everyday life, the former takes precedence. the current lead wording largely fails to reflect the reality on the ground since it reduces two large Croatian dialects to some obscure/unimportant speeches that some Croatians just happen to use. it's artificial and inaccurate.78.0.205.143 (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Normally they're said to be "Croatian", though it's often difficult to tell if that's a linguistic or ethnic label. ELL2 only speaks of dialects of SC as a unit, not of S or C, but they don't go into any detail. It of course doesn't make any cladistic sense to cut 'language' across 'dialects'.

Should S and C be listed under Shtokavian in the info box family tree, the way B and M are? — kwami (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This makes more sense.78.0.205.143 (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is true, though. Kajkavian Serbo-Croatian is very similar to standard Slovenian. I've heard that the transition from Kajkavian Serbo-Croatian to Slovene (from Croatia into Slovenia) is "seamless", as it were. This was the basis for the 19th century notion of the Illyrian movement that Slovene is also part of the single "Illyrian language" (i.e. "Serbo-Croatian"). Also, from 1918 to 1943 this was the official state of affairs, the Serbo-Croato-Slovene language (Srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenski) was official in the whole of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (it was renamed into "Yugoslav language" in 1929). Serbian nationalists, for another example, attempted to deal with that fact by proclaiming all Kajkavian-speakers to be "Slovenes" (that weren't aware of that fact), which, of course, actually includes the population of the Croatian capital Zagreb. Of course, according to them, most everybody else are "Serbs" (that just do not know it yet)... -- Director (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading this ever-changing page I must repeat my comments from the past four years (as this page is constantly deleted and re-written, the history is lost, but many will recall my comments from the following remarks): I MUST wonder how many of you are actually professional linguists. There seems to be none around. Despite the heavy use of some "technical" words like "isoglosses", very little actually have any idea what they are talking about. A lot of political-nationalist opinion still prevails. As a Spanish, I am protected by both. As a linguist specialising in Slavic languages, I am informed well enough to shake my head at the comments and decisions the self-appointed "editors" and "admins" pretend to present as "authoritative".

You all need to get one thing in your non-lingustic heads: there is no such thing as a "croat" (hrvatski in reality), serbian (srpski), "bosnian" (bosanski) and/or montenegrin (crnogorski), languages.

I have posted a few years back a perfect example of absolute and total UNIFORMITY of the four listed "languages and invited all to tell me in which language the text was written. Hrvats were claiming "hrvatski", serbs were claiming "srpski".

The absolute fact was, and still is, that the text was written in ije-e-kavski neutral tone and no one could tell the difference.

That is because there is NO discernible difference in the grammar and linguistical construction between the "four languages". At best, there can be some regional characteristics in the speech, but these do not amount to even dialectal differences. Accent is not a dialectal identification, yet it is exactly the accent that makes up for the BULK of the differences that are often claimed as "determining differences" that somehow, magically, "prove" these four "languages" to be separate entities.

Here's another example that confirms beyond ANY doubts whatsoever that the fab "four" are one and the same language:

"Ana je krenula prema parku. Put kroz park je puno kraci nego glavnom cestom. Zimska vecer je brzo pala i lampe su se pocele polako paliti. Dan se u trenu pretvorio u noc. Zbog hladnoce park je bio pust. Napusten zapravo. Ni cesta nije bila nista bolja. Tek poneki auto bi prosao, brzo nestajuci u okrilju mraka. Ana je cvrsto stisnula torbu ispod ruke i sakrila sake duboko u dzepove svog kaputa. Ubrzala je korak, zamotala sal oko vrata i pokrila usta. 'Ova je zima rano dosla' pomislila je u sebi. Uz malo srece mozda nece dugo trajati."

I invite anyone up to the task to determine the "language" and elaborate the "conclusive differences".

There are NONE. This text is perfectly in line with grammar rules of "serbian", "croatian", "bosnian" and "montenegrin". That the current "authorities" (and by "authorities" I mean political and governmental entities) are working hard in Hrvatska to invent "old croatian" words, which have NEVER existed is a futile exercise in stupidity because the GRAMMAR is still the one and the same and those "old" new "croatian words are only testament to that stupidity because the "others" (serbs, bosnians and montenegrins) WILL understand them too.

This paranoid schizophrenia goes so far that the words are borrowed from other slavic languages in a panicking attempt to "prove" the "uniqueness" of "hrvatski". One such rediculous example is the word borrowed from Russian, of all languages, "glasovati" (to vote). Gramatically, it is absolutely wrong, and naturally, the other three "people"/"languages" are still using the correct word "glasati" for "to vote". Another word is "izbornik", "selector" in english. The term is a borrowed term from bulgarian: човек който избира - a man who chooses" - izbornik from izbira (chooses in english). Or existing words being used in a new context, like "gospodarstvo", which is now meant to mean "economy", although the original meaning of the word is a general description of a rural property belonging to a rich person - "gospodin".

The problem with all these "changes" is that, as said above, are perfectly understandable to the other three members of the serbo-croatian speaking club.

Another, my favourite, problem with the "hrvatski/croatian" being a "different language" is the most abused explanation: "hrvatski" is "ijekavski", while "srpski" is "ekavski". The thing is that polish and russian are ijekavski too. And "srpski" was ijekavski until just recently, when Obrenovic dynasty took over from Karadjordjevici and by decree introduced an ekavian" dialect as an "official" serbian language because Karadjordjevic was in favour of lingusitc reforms by Vuk Karadzic, who was in turn their vocal supporter. Until then, the ekavski variant was spoken by a minority of Serbs in central Serbia, from where Obrenovic dynasty comes from. Pure political perversity, just as the one currently undergoing in Hrvatska. Serbian orthodox priests still today serve the liturgies and sermons mostly in ijekavski. All Serbs from Hrvatska and Bosna are talking ijekavski.

In the meantime, majority of Hrvats are naturally kajkavians, and kajkavski is also official language of Slovenia... Cakavski, another supposedly "hrvatski language" itself has at least three different variants, one of them being ikavski, which is spoken also in Slovenia, Montenegro and Bosnian south where majority of Bosnian Hrvats AND Serbs live. And don't get me even started on ROMANIAN Hrvati and Srbi... Torlakian has as much with serbo-croatian as bulgarian has. Actually, Bulgarian and Macedonian are closer to Torlakian than serbo-croatian is, so what is that telling us...?

So, while your efforts to learn linguistics are commendable, I will reiterate my serious suggestion and invite you to move out of this nonsense and take up knitting or painting because what you are doing here (and this hysteria is not limited to serbo-croatian by any means. Danish/Norwegian/Swedish "languages" are in much the same waters. Most differences in these three dialects are actually in the alphabet and the way they write and talk, not in the grammar, as any of the people in any of the three countries will tell you if you ask them.) is pointless and scientifically speaking completely useless. Utter nonsense. Absolutely utter.

So, the truth about the fab four is that the differences are more regionally induced than linguisticallly. As Hrvati are the most vocal proponents of this nonsense that they speak somehow a different language when they themselves have parts of their own population speaking kajkavski, cakavski, ikavski, which are all significantly different to their current variant of serbo-croatian in the vocabulary, the question should be asked: how come one people speak all these different "languages" in their own country? And how did that come about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.222.152 (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC comment

I came here via RfC. My observations:

1. There is no clear RfC question out there.
2. There is an infinite argument on whether the Croatian language is a separate language. (For those who haven't been to ex-Yugoslavia: here the name of the language one speaks the least depends on the language itself.)
3. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, the next one on the same topic will occur on this page in the near future.

Summary: I would suggest removing the RfC tag. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(Warning:possible irony) Sorry, I didn't get that third one right: is it more of a prognosis? --biblbroks (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

@"here the name of the language one speaks the least depends on the language itself" Haha, ain't that the truth... -- Director (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)