Talk:Laki language
| WikiProject Iran | (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
[edit] Laki is a Persian dialect
IF this language shares 78% of its words as the same as Persian, then it is a majority Persian language, and a Persian dialect.
- Perhaps, and now that it's a new language it's not Persian any more. Russian is a Slavic language, but we call it Russian. Swedish is Germanic but we call it Swedish. DukeTwicep (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] weblog
please do not use weblogs in external link sections, thanks--Pejman47 09:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Every one I think Laki ia a language just as Farsi and Kurdi. I had found Words that are originaly in Old Persian(Parsie_e Bastan) that have different forms in Farsi ,Kurdi and Luri. for example you can compare the word An( means that) in Farsi with Luri ,Kurdi, Laki and Old Persian counterparts.
80.191.228.199 10:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Arash Nadri
[edit] Wikipedia' Unreliablity
Laki Language and articles the like which are based on nothing outside of personal ideas of various virtual individuals, have made Wikipedia a simply-at-hand source to skim materials rather than an adequately reliable scientific source. This, let alone causing socio-ethnic tensions in particular cases, is why scholars and peoples who seek reliable information, regard Wikipedia not seriously in practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.219.138.247 (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Then perhaps you should do something about it instead of talking and spreading misconceptions. Yes everyone knows that scholars don't seek their info on Wikipedia, it would be foolish to do so, however it is a good place to start. And quite frankly, obscure articles like this are prone to be subjected to vandalism, as very few are watching them. If it causes socio-ethnic tensions then perhaps that is because people are gullible enough to trust what is said on pages like these and to not second-guess the sources. Wikipedia has never been, and will probably never be a reliable scientific source. Scientists seek knowledge from Actual sources. Now that we have that settled, perhaps you should become a member and try to improve instead of disproportionately pointing out the obvious flaws of Wikipedia. DukeTwicep (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
