Talk:Slavomolisano language/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 →


terminology

Jugoslaven, kindly explain why you insist on Serbo-Croatian here, too. Molise Slavic split off from its parent South Slavic language way before the term "Serbo-Croatian" was in use, so using it instead of the current term "Croatian" (in the opinion of Ethnologue/SIL as of late, too, not to mention the representatives of those people and Italians) makes no sense to me. --Joy [shallot] 23:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian dialects - Jugoslaven

So frickin' what? Do you not grasp the concept of "Serbo-Croatian" being outdated terminology? Or that two different pages need not use the very same criteria to explain a versatile subject. I mean, come on. --Joy [shallot] 08:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See it:Lingue parlate in Italia: ...in it:Molise in alcuni centri esistono ancora comunità parlanti il croato... So, Italians definitively call this language croatian. --Sombrero 08:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Three

Stop linking "three", that's like linking "the". Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context - Jshadias 20:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's just User:Jugoslaven being obtrusive, he's reverting without regard to collateral damage. --Joy [shallot] 08:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to add a sample

I'll add a sample soon, from a Russian source. --VKokielov 22:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Molise Slavic -- Guglionese

The article says:

Three villages in the Campobasso province — Montemitro (Mundimitar), Aquaviva Collercroce (Živavoda Kruč) and San Felice del Molise (Filić) — have approximately 3,000 speakers of Molise Slavic.

I have been made aware of a community known as Guglionese, in which a Slavic language is spoken. The name of this language was given to me by my informant as -- here I am spelling the name phonetically, I have no idea whatsoever how the name ought to be spelled -- yoomeshane.

Does anybody know about this language, or dialect, or whatever one may call it?

David Pinto Montreal, Canada david_e_pinto@yahoo.ca

Maybe it is about Slavic community in Italian province Giula near Slovenian border. Luka Jačov 08:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Slavi

is a term that Venetians use for their colonies in the eastern Adriatic coast. They also use Schiavoni, so in venice, we have Riva degli Schiavoni, named after Croats from the eastern Adriatic coast, who were selling their goods there. Also, historical sources from the western Adriatic coast called medieval Croatian dukes as Slavs... so, saying that Molisisans are not considering themselves Croats, and using this sort of argument is political, and not a scientifical approach.

First of all, try to make a user account so we can have normal communication. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 14:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
About naming: This is not the question for anyone outside Molise. If those people say that they are Zlavs, then they are Zlavs, if they say that they are Croats, they are Croats. In the part of the article Molise Croats should be described how they came into Molise, are they Croats by origin etc. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 14:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Language is called "Molise Slavic" because it is usualy to call this language just as "Molisian" and I think that some people said that "Molisian" can mean "Molisian Itialian", too; so they added suffix. (I think that it should be named as just "Molisian".) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 14:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Slavi or Zlavs is a "nickname" (often pejorative) used by Italians for all the Slavic peoples in Italy, simply because they won't bother with individual nationalities. Therefore, if a Molise Croat is calling himself "Slav", it's because he doesn't know any better. There are many other analogous cases in Europe: Lapps/Sami, Tzigans/Roma etc. --Zmaj 14:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sample

Moved from the page. Please verify that it is Molise Croatian, not Burgenland Croatian ("Gradiscanski Hrvati")! --millosh (talk (sr:)) 12:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It is defenetly Molisan. You can see it by Italian borrowings: funia, maneštra Luka Jačov 15:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

OK if you say so. Why it is related to Burgenland (Gradiscanski) Croatian. Just the name of the journal? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous poem (from Hrvatske Novine: Tajednik Gradišćanskih Hrvatov):

SIN MOJ
Mo prosič solite saki dan
ma što činiš, ne govoreš maj
je funia dan, je počela noča,
maneštra se mrzli za te čeka.
Letu vlase e tvoja mat
gleda vane za te vit.
Boli život za sta zgoro,
ma samo mat te hoče dobro.
Sin moj!
Nimam već suze za još plaka
nimam već riče za govorat.
Srce se guli za te misli
što ti prodava, oni ke sve te išće!
Palako govoru, čelkadi saki dan,
ke je dola droga na vi grad.
Sin moj!
Tvoje oč, bihu toko lipe,
sada jesu mrtve,
Boga ja molim, da ti živiš
droga ja hočem da ti zabiš,
doma te čekam, ke se vrniš,
Solite ke mi prosiš,
kupiš paradis, ma smrtu platiš.

Milose, ja sam ovo slozio ondje i mogu utvrditi da sam to uzeo iz dijela o Molizkoslavenskom.  :) Tajednik zaista je samo izvor. --VKokielov 23:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 :) E, dobro je. Mislim, u svakom slucaju ce biti dobro jer ce neko ko opet pomisli da je los primer -- da vidi raspravu na strani. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Language and dialect

It can be said that "Molise Slavic language is spoken by Croats", but language is not the dialect of another language: not the dialect of Croatian, not the dialect of Serbo-Croatian. Please, look at the definitions of both terms. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

E, Luka, mrzi me da se prepucavam na engleskom; tj. mrzi me da se prepucavam uopste. Ako je nesto jezik, onda nije dijalekat. Nema veze da li tu stoji srpskohrvatski ili hrvatski; i nema veze kako se jezik zove (moliski sl(o|a)venski ili moliski hrvatski). Otprilike, to mu dodje kao da kazes "kuca A je prozor kuce B". Dakle, ako hoces da se ovo zove dijalektom, trazi da se clanak zove "molisko slovenski dijalekat". --millosh (talk (sr:)) 12:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Ako ti nije bitno dogovorit cemo se - meni je svejedno da li ces ga nazvati jezikom, ili dijalektom, dok je u pitanju HRVATSKI, jer su Molisani HRVATI. A sve nesto sumnjam da hoces. Dajte se vise ostavite Hrvatske, Hrvata, hrvatske povijesti i kulture na miru i prestanite glumiti "Engleze".

Ima mnogo takozvanih jezika koji nisu ništa drugo nego dijalekti-Meänkieli. Kad sam započeo članak nazvao sam ga language jer je več bio crveni link na članku List of endagered languages, no možda bi stvarno bilo bolje da se prebaci u Molise Slavic language. Druga stvar, ovaj anonimni editor te optužuje za vandalizam.

Ti 24.... tko si ti uopče i kome se obračaš? Što se tiče tvrdnje da su Moližani Hrvati; jesi ti Moliški Zlav da to možeš reč u njihovo ime?! Mogu samo citirat mještane sela Mundimitar: Ma kakvi Hrvati! Taj narod nikad nije ni postojao, več je sve to izmišljotina Vatikana!

A i uostalom oni sami sebe nazivaju Zlavima a ne Hrvatima.

HA, HA, HA, ovo je dobar dokaz jalovosti hrvatske politike u prisvajanju Moliskih Slavena. Uskoro ce se otkriti i sve ostale jalove provokacije i lazi koje plasira hdz-ovska politika u pogledu tzv. 'hrvatskog' jezika, pripadnosti nekih nacionalnih grupa 'Hrvatima' i sve slicne providne gluposti! Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talkcontribs) 01:49, 29 July 2007

Još bih ti preporučio da pročitaš ovaj putopis: http://www.srpsko-nasledje.co.yu/sr-l/1998/03/article-17.html Luka Jačov 14:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Bravo Luka, uvijek nadjes pravi odgovor na svako pitanje. Ovaj link dokazuje da su Molizanski Slaveni Srbi a ne Hrvati.( ako cemo uopce dijeliti ljude u S-H dijasistemu na 'Srbe' i Hrvate')..Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talkcontribs) 01:49, 29 July 2007
Dakle, ko je sta po nacionalnosti/etnicitetu, to je na njemu da odluci (verujem da odgovor na to mozemo dobiti i na italijanskoj Vikipediji). Ako ljudi kazu da su Hrvati, onda su Hrvati, ako kazu da su Sloveni, onda su Sloveni; ako kazu da su Hrvati a da govore moliski slovenski, onda je to tako itd. Nema tu sta mnogo da se prica. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
(Usput, aj potpisujte redove ili bar koristite uvlacenje i sl. da bih znao ko sta prica.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Moliski se uci u skolama. Dakle, ne uci se standardni (srpsko)hrvatski, nego se uci ikavski stokavski koji ne postoji ni u jednoj normi: ni u sh, ni u hr ni u bs. Dakle, oni ne govore ni po jednom standardu, vec po nekom svom skolskom. Dakle, imaju svoj standard koji je razlicit od ma kog srspkohrvatskog standarda. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
To je bila prica o standardnom jeziku. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Druga je stvar o "jeziku kao sistemu dijalekata". U tom smislu, kao sto sam ti onomad i rekao, to se moze tretirati "srpskohrvatskim dijalektom" iskljucivo ako se ti ljudi tamo tako odredjuju. A ako se neko odredjuje kao Zlav, onda je logicno da svoj jezik ne zove "srpskohrvatskim". Mada i to treba proveriti. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Opet da ponovim (tebi, Luka), kajkavski, cakavski, stokavski i torlacki imaju isto toliko veze koliko i npr. ceski i slovacki ili poljski i kasupski ili kajkavski i slovenacki... I stvarno ne razumem potrebu za trpanje cetiri razlicita jezicka sistema u jednu vrecu. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Glede clanka: Neki srpski ucenjak je napisao da su Molizani Srbi. I sta sa tim? Kako se ti ljudi danas osecaju? Mislim, mozemo ustanovljavati ko je sta istorijski bio i to je istorijski relevantno, ali za danas je vazno ustanoviti kako se ti ljudi danas osecaju. Etnicka i nacionalna pripadnost ne tece u venama nego je stvar licnog odredjenja i drustvenog prihvatanja. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I na kraju, bolje je ne odrediti etnicku/nacionalnu pripadnost (joj, jos samo ako nam dodje neko ko ce stavljati da je to "dijalekat srpskog jezika"), nego stavljati vrlo problematicnu "opstu" pripadnost. Bolje je jezik definisati lingvisticki ako postoje politicke tenzije, nego pokusati unifikovati to i pokrenuti jos veci problem. Dakle, do konkretnih istrazivanja (uzmimo, zamolimo nekog iz Italije da nam to objasni, porazgovaramo, ako imamo srece, sa nekim od tih ljudi itd.) mislim da je izuzetno korisno da se manemo corava posla i ne pokusavamo odredjivati jezik politicki (sto je, preko konstatacije "kuca je prozor", jos jedna izuzetno losa stvar, pa bilo to "dijalekat srpskohrvatskog" ili "dijalekat hrvatskog"). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


Here is mentioned village Mundimitar, please check their webpages:

U školama se uči standardni hrvatski a njihov standard. Imaju učiteljicu iz Hrvatske. Luka Jačov 19:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Inače ti mene odgovoraš na nešto što uopče nije bilo namjenjeno tebi:). Luka Jačov 20:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Ako se uci standardni hrvatski, onda clanak treba nazvati dijalektom, a opisati da uce standardni hrvatski u skolama, tj. da je to njihov standard. U tom smislu se moze reci u politickom smislu da je "dijalekat deo hrvatskog", dok nije preterano smisleno govoriti da je deo srpskohrvatskog. Takodje, dobro bi bilo da posaljes neki link koji potvrdjuje da uce standardni hrvatski a ne svoj ikavski. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
A sta sam ti odgovarao sto nije bilo meni upuceno? Ono za clanak? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Ono je bilo upučeno anonimnom useru. Luka Jačov 16:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You can relativize everything like that claiming that every local dialect is a separate language which everbody sees you tend do it . The fact is that science consider those 4 dialects close enough to consider them to be the part of one language. I dont recall any study that claims differently and if it those then it is not widely accepted. What you are doing here you are intrusing your personal opinion to all of us. Luka Jačov 16:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Moving

So, this article should be moved into Molise Slavic. I don't think that we should name it as a "dialect", but it should not be named as "language". --millosh (talk (sr:)) 14:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope that we can agree about that. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 14:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

What does Molise Slavic mean?! Nothing! It is just pronoun! Molise Slavic what? Luka Jačov 16:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Come now, Luka, don't pretend to be a fool. Molise Slavic what? Finnish what? Serbo-Croatian what? --VKokielov 21:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Request not fulfilled due to lack of consensus. Rob Church Talk 12:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

request for adding information: Medo Pucić was a Serbian nobleman, politician and poet from Dubrovnik who was the president of the Serbian Party (which won municipal elections in 1855.) He cried for the Serbdom of old Dubrovnik HolyRomanEmperor 17:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree with millosh, this page should not be named as "dialect". - FrancisTyers 17:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Surname

It is not correct that they lost their last names; they just became italinized so for example Đorđević became Giorgetta, Stanišić became Stanischia and so on. Luka Jačov 15:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Giorgetta is Jurjević (Italian for Jure/Juraj is Giorgio); surname Stanić is fournd among coastal Croats, Lalli is Lalić, etc. Some families here still have living memories on their cousins that migrated to Italy, and you're selling you greaterserbianist propaganda. Open your eyes and read the text on Molise Croat webpages, Luka. Stop living in your fake world. Your lies won't help you in your life. Enjoy looking at Mundimitar football team shirts. Kubura 15:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No original research

As I already said on the "Molise Croats" talk page, the concept of "Molise Slavs" is breaking the Wikipedia rule of "no original research", since the existing literature overwhelmingly prefers "Molise Croats". You can't promote your pet theories here, but accept what is considered general knowledge. The dialect logically follows from the ethnic name. --Zmaj 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No original research. Look at other wikipedia's. Stop your Great-Croatian propaganda. Luka Jačov 22:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias cannot be considered as proof. Since there is a global consensus that those people are called "Molise Croats", there is absolutely no justification to call their language "Slavic". --Zmaj 07:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If they call themselfs simply Slavs and scientist call it Molise Slavic there is nothing u can do. Luka Jačov 21:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You are deliberately ignoring all the links and local Molisan web pages where they call themselves Croats. This is pure and simple sabotage on your part. --Zmaj 20:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

<nationmaster link> Molise-Croatian-dialect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molise_Croatian_dialect

One of the above is shameful plagiarism. I have no clue which, though I have my bias.... Wgroleau (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 12:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Slavic dialect in MoliseMolise Croatian dialect – The ethnic group is called Molise Croats and they speak a dialect of Croatian. Slavic dialect in Molise is therefore too vague as a description and should be replaced with Molise Croatian dialect.


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support - of course, I proposed this. --Zmaj 07:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - hey, which idiot made it "Slavic"? They are Croats, they came from Croatia. Their language is almost the same as Chakavian dialect spoken in croatian coast of Adriatic. --Sombrero 08:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. There is only Molise Croatian, not some half-identified "Slavic dialect". A cheap shot from Serbian propagandists, who seem to be obsessed with anything Croatian. See the official linx. Mir Harven 09:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Those people originate from Croatia, and the dialect is an apparent offshoot of Chakavian dialect. Recent national awakening seems to have shifted their identification from "Zlavic" into Croatian side.Duja 10:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - it's Croatian dialect; same surnames are on Cro. side of Adriatic, among Croats and among Molise Croats. Kubura 10:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - as major nation have right to choose name for their country, so people in Molise have right to be called Croats, as they are, and wiki should respect that. Or should we deny rule about original research? SpeedyGonsales 12:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
They consider themselfs to be simply Slavs. It is Croatians from Croatia that call them Croats. Luka Jačov 12:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Andrej Šalov 15:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Most common, it seems. --Elephantus 16:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - of course they speak old croatian. I am familiar with Chakavian dialekt also. Damirux 16:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Indeed, they are Slavs, distinct from Croats. But their language's name & their name - is a fact. There is no doubt that they speak the Molise Croatian language - just as there is no doubt that Sorbs speak the Lusatian Serbian language. The move seems good. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Yes I'm a yugo-nostalgic, and you might hate me for that I'm quite sure, but that has nothing to do with my opposition. Just wanted to clear that up before eveyone says "oh my god he doesn't want Croatian recognition!", alas that's not why I'm opposed. See below "Molise Croatian is too far departed from Croatian". --Hurricane Angel 22:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose --M. Pokrajac 23:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As said in this talk page. Luka Jačov 23:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of the requested move

Add any additional comments
  • I'd appreciate if those involved in the discussion would respect WP:NPA and WP:AGF. "A cheap shot from Serbian propagandists" is a low kick, to put it mildly.
Actually, it's a high-kick, something like mavashi. Mir Harven 11:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Just as Luka pushes his POV into an extreme Serbo-Croatian (not Serbian) position, Mir pushes his into an extreme "separate languages" one. (No, I don't wish to enter into another heated debate). Plese, let's discuss arguments. Duja 10:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT DEMOCRACY! Luka Jačov 12:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

But Wikipedia should be encyclopedia, not place for original research? SpeedyGonsales 12:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
True. See Wikipedia:Straw polls. The point of the voting is not to overwhelm the minority, but to provide a summarized place for discussion. It is on administrator's discretion whose arguments will be taken into account (although 2/3 is generally treated as WP:Consensus on such issues). There are certain arguments to call it "Molise Slavic" and that was one of names it was referred to – there are also arguments in favor of "Molise Croatian", which are IMO prevailing. See http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/Philo/Sprachwiss/slavistik/acqua/spracheE.htm. Google searches (again, non convincing) seem to favor "Molise Croatian". However, you, Luka, did not do much to present your arguments. Mutual accusations of nationalism/unitarism won't solve the problem. Duja 13:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems Luka hasn't noticed that the edit war stopped when the voting started. VKokielov tried to make a thoughtful NPOV introduction to the article, but Luka automatically reverted everything to his version. This is total disrespect of other users, bordering on vandalism. --Zmaj 13:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

People call themselfs Slavs and Italian wikipedia where the language is spoken mentions it as Slavo molisano. Luka Jačov 15:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"People" do not consider themselves to be some kind of amorphous Slavs, but Croats. This kind of "research" has been in existence in the 19th and a part of 20th century, mainly due to the off-and-on Italian irredentist policy & political pressures exerted on language researchers. Two elements seem to be confused here: the crystallization of national affiliation (which is, as far as Molise Croats are concerned, a completed process-similar to the Serbian national affiliation in Croatia); a rather clumsy Italian terminology which frequently dumps all Slavophone peoples as "Slavs" (for instance, during 1980s, citizens of Yugoslavia, ie. Yugoslavs, had been called in Italian media "Slavi"-and not "Jugoslavi"). Casual Italian appelation & dated data are simply irrelevant. And this can be checked in language description manuals (grammars, vocabularies), as well as in Molise Croatian web pages (some are, I suppose, available on the Internet). Mir Harven 20:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at the Italian article it is written by Molise Slav and he says it is Molise Slavi (slavomolisano). Luka Jačov 12:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

    • I am beginning to have serios questions on the capacity of some interlocutors to express a rational opinion on this issue. So, I'll only enumerate a few things that would, in any reasonable world, be sufficient for removal of the "Molise Slavic" title and replacement with "Molise Croatian":
    • In or out of context, an appellation of some randomly chosen (or, "chosen") person about the language name issue is irrelevant. Without delving into question how this kind of appellation has appeared at all (let's avoid conspiracy theories)- this is absolutely without consequences. Not few people in ex-Yugoslavia called their language (mostly Serbian) "Yugoslav language". This too is as inconsequential as possible "Molise Slavic" calling presented on a Web page.
    • Even in the necessarily limited information space such is the one we call the Internet, situation is unequivocal:
    • Given all that, I think that all arguments presented, supposedly, in favor of keeping the "Molise Slavic" title, are simply untenable. Mir Harven 13:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you a better suggestion?

Edit the article instead of reverting it. --VKokielov 16:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


They call them selves as Slavs, so for language there is no other name(s). They simply call their language na-našo (our language). So, I suggest that we call it as Molise Serbo-Croatian dialect. --M. Pokrajac 23:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Like it or not, during the times of national awakenings (19-20th c.) Molise Croats people formed themselves nationally in the same way as other Croats on the E Adriatic. Church records show where these Molise Croats come from. This fact was scientifically adopted during the times of Yugoslavia. Jačov, Pokrajac, where/when do you live? Enjoy looking at Mundimitar FC football shirts. Maybe this'll help you. See their national feeling. Kubura 12:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Where it is not true that they were formed nationally in during national awakenings in Europe. You are spreading mis-information here! The term Molise Croats started to be in use in 1990's after Croatia's indepedence and when Croatia took minority in its coverage. About their national feeling in 19th century I also advise u to read this: [1]. Luka Jačov 23:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading through the information available and pending the outcome of an investigation into what the people themselves declare their language as (which can presumably be found in Census documents), this page should be moved to Molise Slavic language (note the capitalisation). Just my €0.02 :) - FrancisTyers 18:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the user page of the administrator FrancisTyers has a quote: Properly, the language/dialect distinction is, in the pure logical sense, meaningless. It seems that he is supporting an opinion contradicting what is generally considered as truth (i.e. that the language/dialect distinction is meaningful). Therefore, he is biased in this area.
Secondly, the links and data provided by Mir Harven below indicate there is an overwhelming global consensus about the dialect name being "Molise Croatian dialect".
And last but not least, the voting is overwhelmingly in favor of "Molise Croatian dialect". I know this is not crucial, but it is not insigificant either. --Zmaj 18:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And u Zmaj r declared as Croatian nationalist and we can say u r biased too?? Can we? Dont pretend to be stupid. Luka Jačov 23:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't take words out of my mouth, Luka. --VKokielov 00:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, but I have a feeling that the "Slavic" solely for the reason not to mention "Croatian", while "Serbo-Croatian" could be pushed only to mention "Serb" next to "Croatian".

Now, I don't want anyone to think anything of this; but this is my impression. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Many nationalists do that, I'm not surprised you caught on this. --Hurricane Angel 22:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Molise Croatian is too far departed from standard Croatian

In the article it mentions that the language has been highly Italianized, and that the language uses archaic forms of Croatian. Now old Croatian was a form of Old Church Slavonic, yes? And old Serbian was also Old Church Slavonic. So the further back in time you go, the more Serbian and Croatian and other Slavic languages converge. If the Molise dialect has been highly italianized it is even more inappropriate to call it Croatian. Their language is archaic because, as the article states the original settlers arrived in the 15th century, around about at the same time when the Croatian language began to diverge from Old Church Slavonic. They would not have been on the mainland to experience the evolution of Croatian and remained with this ancient form. Is this not reason enough to conclude that it is not appropriately Croatian?

Also, the article also states that the inhabitants of these villages are not necessarily Croatian, although they are slavs. If they are told that they are speaking a form of Croatian, would their reaction be positive or negative?

In my opinion my first point is the most crucial idea in the naming of the article, and as I have outlined, the language is more related to Old Church Slavonic than Croatian. --Hurricane Angel 22:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaken, as you will discover upon reading Old Church Slavonic. Bulgarian is the closest we've got to a descendant of Old Church Slavonic. The western South Slavic Languages had been distinct from Bulgarian for a long enough time by then. What's more, Croatian adaptations of Old Church Slavonic -- that is, adaptations in points of Latinate liturgy -- rather often replaced the language with the vernacular. I read a story about John Chrysostom in a mixture of chakavian with Church Slavonic -- and, believe me -- it was much more Chakavian than Church Slavonic. --VKokielov 00:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't you have read what I said. I proposed that the two most important ideas to be answered are
  • 1) Is this language related more to Old Church Slavonic (which won't be answered by visiting the article because it doesn't concern itself with three small italian villages), or to standard Croatian?
It is very close to the shtokavian dialect, which means it is about as close to Serbian as it is to Croatian. It has nothing to do with Old Church Slavonic. --VKokielov 04:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Not correct, VKokielov. Not "closer to." It is Croatian language. Dialectal forms are as same as between coastal Croatian dialects. Form like "nosia" is found only among Croatian dialects. Ikavian reflection of yat is found only among the Croats. Kubura 10:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't set the grass you're standing on on fire, Kubura. Don't sacrifice my support over a principle. --VKokielov 11:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 1a) Even if it was closer to Croatian, it is an old version of Croatian, which thereby also accepts the fact that the Serbian language also converges on this old south Slavic way of speaking. Therefore if that is true, which is what I have found and I'm open to someone telling me otherwise if I'm mistaken, then it would more appropriately be called Molise Slavic Language.
Open, are you? First, Serbian and Croatian formed a linguistic continuum. They are, that is, one language, with relatively small dialectal differences; that is, except on the borders, the largest difference between Serbian or Croatian dialects isn't much larger than the difference between the Bulgarian and Macedonian languages -- and we all know how Bulgarian and Macedonian are almost mutually intelligible. The vocabularies are hopelessly confused; the foreign linguistic influences correspond very well to the borders of the past empires. The difference between Croatian and Serbian is denoted in a particular well-known and well-established, traditional manner.
Second, how in the world can a Dalmatian dialect be close to Serbian? --VKokielov 04:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 2) What are the speakers of this language ethnically. It said they are not Croatian, so why would they claim to be speaking an ancient version of Croatian? And the only explanation I have for this is that they have no computers and don't know that they are being labelled as speaking "Molise Croatian".
They are not Croatian. They are Italian. They are Italian descendants of Croats from Dalmatia. --VKokielov 04:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

--Hurricane Angel 02:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Look who's talking about Croat dialect. Hurricane Angel, are you a bigger Croat than us (coastal) Croats, so you know more about Croat dialects than Croats themselves? Kubura 10:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be a little more specific, are you coastal in the Dalmatian sense, or Italian sense. Because if you are Dalmatian, then you have just as much, or as little, say in this as I do, am I correct? What gives you more right to say on this topic more than me, neither of us are Molise. And you don't even address my points, which is something you could improve with your next reply.--Hurricane Angel 11:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Compromise?

I offer u compromise by keeping current name and mentioning alternative names in brackets. Luka Jačov 23:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no chance. Only Molise Croat dialect. Molise Croats declare themselves as Croats and they are recognised minority in Italy. Kubura 10:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Note to Administrators

Just wanted to point to administrators that most of people that voted for support were mobilized from Croatian wikipedia. User:Sombrero and User:Damirux registered themselves in sole purpose to vote in this matter. Luka Jačov 23:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are. Who, on earth, is to have a (nay, the) say on the Croatian language, but the Croats ? Mir Harven 01:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems, Luka Jačov, that you've registered on english wikipedia only to spread this greaterserbianist propaganda. Kubura 10:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Kubura what is Greatserbian in my work?! Define greatserbianism?! Luka Jačov 23:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Molisians, I would say. Besides, you know damn well that it is preferrential to add to the discussion, not simply show up, vote, and then leave, am I correct? Has anyone heard this language spoken, because I'm quite skeptical of the 'extensive' studies of three villages. Regardless, the article states that their Croatian is archaic, and highly Italized, can you still claim that only Croats can lay claim to what is said and done about this? Why not the Italians as well?--Hurricane Angel 03:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
To call the language Slavic is to hand the Italians the battle. I understand what the Croats have against the name now. It's an insult, you see, a way for the Italians to spit in the face of the rednecks. It's an old tradition. Even though the locals call themselves Slavs, it does not bide well for them to be called Slavs by the informed or educated. --VKokielov 05:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
And everyone lived happily ever after. I retract my point, on the basis that I put my full trust in you (a Russian Jew?, interesting), and that everything stated is 100% accurate. Namely, that their dialect is closer to shtokavian (in which case it's also close to Serbian, but there were no Dalmatian Serbs) and that they are of Dalmatian Croat descent. And "Second, how in the world can a Dalmatian dialect be close to Serbian?" I don't know what you're trying to tell me there?--Hurricane Angel 11:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
What in the world does it matter what I am? I'm not approaching the question from the side you are. Now when we Russian Jews get called just 'Americans' here, we become cranky. Pardon me, but we aren't wrong to be cranky. If the Italians can be called Italians, and the Irish can be called Irish, then we sure as hell can be called Jews. --VKokielov 11:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I just said it was interesting. Theres no need to get into defensive reasons as to what your namesake rights are.--Hurricane Angel 20:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And who are you to tell me what to get into and what to steer around? --VKokielov 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know what you're talking about, you made your point and I accepted it. Where do you get off on the fact that I told you to steer clear of this issue, I have said no such thing. --Hurricane Angel 01:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I misread what you wrote as sarcastic. --VKokielov 02:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
That's the problem when it comes to typing, and not speaking. --Hurricane Angel 06:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
A zato imamo nekoliko postojecih ... konvencija... koje omogucuju da mi dopunimo ono sto nama fali. --VKokielov 06:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The voting is closed; note on results and further steps

The voting is hereby closed after the period of 5 days, in accordance with the policy of Wikipedia:Requested moves, where the voting request was placed on 17 February 2006. A clear consensus for the page move has not been reached. However, the policy of requested moves allowes a page to be moved if 60% or more users support the moving of the article. There have been 10 "Support" votes and 3 "Oppose" votes, which makes for a 76% majority, meeting even the supermajority principle. Therefore, I will now move the page to Molise Croatian dialect. This does not mean that the issue is closed. Users opposing this decision can use the channels provided by the Wikipedia policy, such as consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. The article may not be moved to other names than Molise Croatian dialect without following the official policy steps. I have followed the official policy to the letter and expect others to do the same. --Zmaj 09:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, I can't move the page, so I'll wait for the administrator to do it. --Zmaj 09:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User Luka Jačov renamed the article without proper authorization. I used his talk page to inform him of today's voting results, the administrator's action and the appropriate steps for opposing the decision. --Zmaj 14:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I also informed the administrator Nightstallion of Luka Jačov's unauthorized action. --Zmaj 15:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the page back to "Molise Croatian dialect" per vote. --Elephantus 15:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. —Nightstallion (?) 17:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Molise Croatian dialectMolise Slavic dialect – high nationalist conotation - copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support - as above. Luka Jačov 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose — this has been voted on already, and decided. A vote might be possible some time in the future, but immediately re-opening a vote is disruptive to writing an encyclopaedia and makes you suffer loss of credibility here. For what it's worth, Ethnologue supports the view of this as a Croatian variety [2]. — Gareth Hughes 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems the move was voted through nationalistically. --estavisti 21:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - --M. Pokrajac 00:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Luka, requesting a new vote to revert the move that was voted yesterday is pointless. Any administrator will tell you that. Instead of embarrasing yourself, you could use some of the appropriate official steps I listed above. --Zmaj 10:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE TO ADMINISTRATORS: Don't be conned into moving the page. See what the administrator Gareth Hughes says above. This has already been voted and decided. --Zmaj 07:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert-move-vote-warring is not the way to go. File an RfC or an RfM. Mediation might be the best way, actually. —Nightstallion (?) 09:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I want another administrator on this case cos Nightstallion proved to be biased by not anwsering questions i left on his talk page. Luka Jačov 10:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The voting is closed; note on results and further steps

The voting is hereby closed after the period of 5 days, in accordance with the policy of Wikipedia:Requested moves, where the voting request was placed on 23 February 2006. A clear consensus for the page move has not been reached. However, the policy of requested moves allowes a page to be moved if 60% or more users support the moving of the article. There have been 3 "Support" votes and 1 "Oppose" votes, which makes for a 75% majority, meeting even the supermajority principle. Therefore, I will now move the page to Molise Slavic language. This does not mean that the issue is closed. Users opposing this decision can use the channels provided by the Wikipedia policy, such as consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. The article may not be moved to other names than Molise Slavic language without following the official policy steps. I have followed the official policy to the letter and expect others to do the same. --Luka Jačov 10:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Luka, you are acting like a small child, repeating the words of adults without understanding their meaning. It's pitiful. --Zmaj 11:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

being native as a reference

Luka, please, read WP:CITE and WP:NOR. Therefore, Wikipedia insists you cite your sources. This guy removes sources from this page. He adds unsuported claims. If he leaves the references alone and adds some to support his thesis, then everything would be fine.

And as for "The guy is native,what better sources do u need". The statement is contradictory. Let me prove that consistently. Your statement implies that being native makes a person a living reference. Good. I'm native Slavic, and therefore I'm reference for Slavs. I, as a reference for Slavs, claim that Slavs are not born with a priori exhaustive and accurate knowledge of history of their native language. Therefore, the guy cannot be used as a source for his own native language. But, since I derrived this fact from the premise that he can, the premise is inconsistent. Now, lets do something useful and provide sources for that. If you don't know what to do, you can try this or this. --Dijxtra 13:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The words that these "new" "native" (how naive; Luka, read natives' pages, enjoy looking at checquered t-shirts!) contributors use, seem already seen here. Luka, try those childish tricks somewhere else. Kubura 01:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dokon pop jariće krsti. Mir Harven 23:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources, at last!

The hot discussion has been going on for ages, various people have used the slogan "Cite your sources!", but nobody has done.

  • Walter Breu. "Das Moliseslavische". In: Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen. Ed. Peter Rehder. 2nd ed. Darmstadt 1991. 274-278 (ISBN 3-534-13647-0).
  • Walter Breu. "Aspekte der Deklination im Moliseslavischen". In: Slavistische Linguistik 1994. Ed. Daniel Weiss. München 1995. 65-96 (ISBN 3-87690-622-9).
  • Aleksandr Duličenko. "Molizsko-slavjanskij literaturnyj mikrojazyk". In: Slavjanskie literaturnye mikrojazyki: obrazcy tekstov. 2 vols. Tartu 2003-2004 (ISBN 9985-56914-8).

All sources speaking of a "Molise Croatian dialect" are either older than ten years (i.e. before the general acceptance of the notion of microlanguages) or written by Croatians (like this Wikipedia article). Non-Croatians may use slightly differing name forms (including such names as Italo-Croatian), but they will definitely not call this microlanguage a "dialect".

Consequently, the best name for the article would really be Molise Slavic language, but as a compromise I would also propose Molise Croatian microlanguage. Dialect is awful: if it was a dialect, we wouldn't need an article – or does anyone want to write articles about the Buzet Croatian dialect, the Lastovo Croatian dialect or the Podravina Croatian dialect?

--Daniel Bunčić 18:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

One of wikipedia's policies is no original research. You cant give terms names yourself, if Molise Slavic is used in literature this term should be used here as well. Regarding microlanguage, articles about other small languages are not labeled as such so we shouldnt labeled it here. There are many articles about dialects, I dont see your logic why dialects shouldnt have there own articles and they have (Chakavian dialect, etc). Slavic/Croatian is used to make point that it isnt Italian dialect. Conclusion: Article should be renamed to "Molise Slavic". Luka Jačov 21:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree with you. Of course I did not mean that there should be no articles about dialects. But Čakavian, Kajkavian and Štokavian are a much bigger division; Molise Slavic is actually based on a Štokavian dialect, but this one is spoken by only 4,000 people. It would be great if Wikipedia had articles about every dialect spoken by 4,000 people. However, the reason that only this article here already exists is that this dialect – in contrast to most other Serbo-Croatian dialects – is roofed not by the Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian or Montenegrin standard language but by another (developping) standard language. --Daniel Bunčić 08:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Look people, if we wrote this article 20 years ago, the title would likely be "Molise Slavic". One of points at the RM (and the reason I voted for the current name) is that those people themselves, described in the article Molise Croats appear to started feeling increasingly Croat due to overall Croatian national awakening, and the increasing cultural influence from state of Croatia. The existing literature you refer to is irrelevant for that—for very similar reasons, we have article Montenegrin language (for which term you'll find very little linguistic literature) rather than Zeta dialect (for which term you will find plenty of sources, I'm sure). Duja 09:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The question of national identity has nothing to do with the classification of languages. People may nationally identify as Germans and nonetheless speak Frisian or Upper Sorbian, and they may identify as Austrians and speak German. --Daniel Bunčić 14:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The analogy is wrong. Germans speaking Frisian is analogue to Italian (propably of croatian ancestry) speaking Molise Croatian. Austrian do speak German just like Indians speak English. But, there is no language called "Slavic". --Ante Perkovic 14:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The classification of dialects is a complicated thing. For example, the dialects along the German-Dutch border are virtually identical on both sides of the border. The only difference is that people on the Dutch side switch from these dialects to Standard Dutch when they are in a situation requiring a standard language, whereas the people on the German side switch to Standard German. --Daniel Bunčić 14:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Basicaly, this perfectly explains why Croatian and Serbian can be considered different language. Otherwise, it's offtopic here. --Ante Perkovic 14:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You are WRONG! It doesn't explain ANYTHING connected to Serbian and Croatian standard of SerboCroatian Language. Serbocroatian is ONE language with 4 writting standards, while Duch and German are 2 different languages, whose dialects get in touch on the border of the 2 countries. You cannot spread your meaningless propaganda here and anywhere, otherwise you will be BANNED from here and everywhere. Cheers.24.86.110.10 (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your personal point of view. If you're dissatisfied with the fact that peoples call their languages with their respective names, feeling them as different, that's your problem. Please, don't ignore the feelings of millions of nationally conscious persons and miles of scientific works. 4 writing standards? Come on, you don't know what are you talking about. Do you know what does that mean? Have you ever read anything about lexic, syntax and other features that divide Croatian and Serbian (more and more). You can't turn back the thime, it was long ago when all Slavs spoke same language. Dutch and German? Do you know, where does word "Dutch" comes from? From "Deutsch". About: "You will be banned...". Don't project your fears on other users. Kubura (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Must go. Will continue later. --Ante Perkovic 14:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Heinz Kloss called this "roofing" (Überdachung).
Clearly, the dialects spoken in the Molise valley are not roofed by Standard Croatian, the speakers do not know standard Croatian. --Daniel Bunčić 14:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The thing that dialects spoken in the Molise valley are not roofed by Standard Croatian is completely irrelevant for the subject. Molise Croatian is basically old chakavian forzen in time. --Ante Perkovic 18:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Traditionally, they switched to Standard Italian, but recently they have started to have a small standard language of their own, with its own orthography and standardized grammar, which can be used in newspapers and radio broadcasts. This is what Aleksandr Duličenko has termed a microlanguage.--Daniel Bunčić 14:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Since both Aleksandr Duličenko and microlanguage are red links at the moment, I have a strong feeling that we are not talking about widely accepted scientist nor ideas.
Google search for "Aleksandr+Dulicenko"+microlanguage&btnG=Search "Aleksandr Dulicenko" microlanguage gives ZERO results, so, You might have problem proving that your sources are relevant, if existing at all!--Ante Perkovic 18:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Consequently, in linguistics it's the older literature that used to call these dialects "Serbo-Croatian dialects in Italy". In principle, this is not wrong, as the dialects spoken there are in fact Štokavian of course. However, modern linguistics (of the last 10-20 years) has recognized Duličenko’s concept of microlanguages. --Daniel Bunčić 14:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"Aleksandr+Dulicenko"+microlanguage&btnG=Search Google: "Aleksandr Dulicenko" microlanguage. So much for your claim modern linguistics (of the last 10-20 years) has recognized Duličenko’s concept of microlanguages. This smells like heavy WP:OR.
And whenever we have a standard language anywhere, we write an article about this language, not about the dialects spoken in the same area when the speakers are at home with their families. Sometimes we have both, e.g. there is both an article German language and an article German dialects. Go ahead and split this article if you consider this useful and make one Molise Slavic language (about the standardization of that language) and one Molise Slavic dialects (about the dialects spoken their). --Daniel Bunčić 14:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The idea about Molise Slavic language and its dialect sounds bizare if we take into account the number od speakers (1700 people!). How many "dialects" that language can have? --Ante Perkovic 18:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Mhm. Where should I start? Whether Molisan is (semi-)standardised or not is IMO totally irrelevant for the article name. Further, I consider your proposal of split into two articles quite unproductive. For Christ's sake, it's a language of 1,700 people, and it has its own dialects? Many dialects within Croatia itself are fairly abstand from standard Croatian, and Molisan is indeed the most abstand of all (which can also explain why it was so interesting for the researches). However, I still don't see how anything of what you said affects the article title; and I disagree with your statement that:
The question of national identity has nothing to do with the classification of languages.
it has everything to do with sociolinguistic classification of languages. If it hadn't, we probably wouldn't have Bosnian and Montenegrin, and likely even not Serbian and Croatian. Duja 15:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Please do not tear my arguments apart like that any more. Some thoughts need more than two sentences in a row to be understandable. Now I'll make one last attempt to answer your questions, and then I'll be away for two or three weeks.

  • I never said there were any analogies between Frisian and Molise Slavic. I only said that just because a group might nationally identify as Croatians (do they really? aren't they rather Italians?) this does not mean that they speak Croatian. If you want to know what language they speak, you have to use linguistic arguments.
  • These linguistic arguments can surely not be historic ("a frozen dialect" – whatever that may be) if we are interested the present state.
  • The example of the dialects along the German-Dutch border was meant to illustrate that we cannot conclude what language someone speaks just because of the dialect they speak at home. One has to know what standard language they switch to. If this is Standard Croatian, then the dialect can be considered a Croatian dialect. The Slavic inhabitants of Molise do not use Standard Croatian. They increasingly switch to Standard Molise Slavic.
  • "But, there is no language called 'Slavic'" - my, don't be ridiculous! The name is not Slavic, it's Molise Slavic.
  • Your Google search is even more ridiculous. First, the real scholarly work is still going on in books and journals, that is on paper, not on the internet. Have a look at this library meta-catalogue, borrow the books you find there, read them, and then we can talk further. Second, if you had sought for Duličenko, Дуличенко, mikrojazyki, микроязыки, mikrojezici or even Dulicenko microlanguages, you would have found something.
  • "Whether Molisan is (semi-)standardised or not is IMO totally irrelevant for the article name." How can it be if the article name includes the word dialect? Dialects are never standardized, not even semi-.
  • Note that sociolinguistics includes the word linguistics. If you look only at sociology, you will notice that Serbs, Croats, South-Slavic speaking Muslims (now Bosnians) and Montenegrins have existed for some centuries, but only now have they started to build their own languages. Why haven't they had separate languages as long as they existed as separate ethnic groups?
  • "For Christ's sake, it's a language of 1,700 people, and it has its own dialects?" Every language, even one spoken by a single person, has at least one dialect. In this case, the three villages where Molise Slavic is spoken (Acquaviva Collecroce, San Felice del Molise and Montemitro) display quite considerable differences in dialect. Such dialectal differences are often a serious problem for small languages.

--Daniel Bunčić 22:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Ok, shall we WP:RM it back? - FrancisTyers · 09:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in for it. I've never done such a thing, so it would be great if you could do it. --Daniel Bunčić 14:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"All sources speaking of..."? Are you sure? Or you've pick up only the sources you want to see? What about (see the literature list), e.g.,

  • Charles Barone (...la parlata croata...),
  • N.Gliosca (...delle minoranze linguistiche degli...e Croati del Molise...)
  • A.Piccoli and A.Sammartino (Dizionario croato-molisano di Montemitro), (...lingua croatomolisana...).

Have in mind that the ideology of author M.Rešetar was pro-"Serbo-croat", and he himself as author in certain things didn't had neutral point of view.

  • At least, here's what says Italian law [3] and UNESCO

Kubura 14:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kimchi.sg 07:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Molise Croatian dialectMolise SlavicRationale: Molise Slavic is the name found in the literature. Molise Croatian dialect is almost solely used by Croatians. --FrancisTyers · 10:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation preferably giving an non-partisan academic source, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support - I stated my opinion numerous times. Luka Jačov 10:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose – We've been here already, nothing has changed in the meantime. Montenegrin language is not a name found in the literature either, yet we have it. Duja 11:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see no new arguments since last dispute --Ante Perkovic 12:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - see above discussion. The name does not matter so much, but we are dealing here with a partially standardized microlanguage, not a dialect. --Daniel Bunčić 14:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Francis. --estavisti 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Opposed What's the use of this nonsense ? The only grammar and dictionary of this language/dialect bear Croatian, not Slavic name. The claim that "Molise Slavic" is universally accepted outside of Croatia is simply a misinformation. [4],[5]Mir Harven 22:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose – There's only Molise Croat dialect. Do we have to repeat the same litany every six months? Or someone hopes that certain users will go on summer vacations, so they can push here what they want? Francis, you've said "Molise Croatian dialect is almost solely used by Croatians"? Charles Barone, N.Gliosca, A.Piccoli and A.Sammartino aren't Croatians. And there are many more non-Croat authors. Is Italian legislature [6] "Croatians" or UNESCO [7] is "Croatians"? Kubura 15:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support although per Duja, 85' and Daniel I would be willing to compromise on Molise Croatian or Molise Croatian language. - FrancisTyers · 19:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as per users above--TheFEARgod 23:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

NOTE TO ADMINISTRATORS: The issue has been voted on already. This is the second attempt at revert-move-vote-warring. Nighstallion, the administrator who closed the genuine voting, said this when the first attempt was made (see above): Revert-move-vote-warring is not the way to go. File an RfC or an RfM. Mediation might be the best way, actually. --Zmaj 06:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Its hardly "move warring" if there are six months separating the votes. Zmaj, votes are not binding forever. - FrancisTyers · 11:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It is definitely revert-move-vote-warring, since no new evidence has appeared in the meantime. --Zmaj 12:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see above for new references and argumentation presented by Daniel Buncic. - FrancisTyers · 12:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
...as well as whole bunch of reference books recently added to the article. There, you'll notice about even deal of "slavic" versus "croatian", the latter prevailing in newer works (even by the same authors). Duja 12:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis, with all due respect, I think you should have stayed out of this. The article was move-warred, and finally WP:RMoved 6 months ago, and a request for moving it back (without questioning your good faith) IMO can be received as WP:POINT. Add a recent incident involving Jačov's gaming the system to the equation, and you'll get a mess one should really stay out of. Duja 11:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your point of view, but I think that not enough people were involved in the move request. And, Montenegrin language is used in several non-partisan papers. I would be happy for the closing administrator to discount Luka's opinion here, as I would be happy to discount anyone else voting for ideology rather than academic purposes. - FrancisTyers · 11:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The Molise Slavic name was originally presented by the Italians, which wanted to lump all the non-Italian populations under one term. This is what I've been told, if this is correct then it probably should not be used because it was orignally derived as a derogatory term. --Hurricane Angel 21:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting point, do you have any references for that? - FrancisTyers · 10:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why this "voting" at all ? The issue had been debated & settled, and no new linguistic data have appeared since. This is just a farce. We, grown-ups here, don't have that much time to spend it on Yugoslav-unitarian fantasists & linguistics ignorants. Mir Harven 08:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please try and attack the argument and not the people arguing. - FrancisTyers · 10:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I cannot help myself. This is, I guess, "depravity according to the nature" (Melville's Claggart, viz. Plato). Now, seriously: why this voting rubbish ? It's been debated before: Talk:Molise_Croatian_dialect#Discussion_of_the_requested_move, among other things. There is absolutely no reason to reopen the case. No new arguments have been presented. And I know better ways to waste my time. Mir Harven 17:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello Mir, "We, grown-ups here, don't have that much time to spend it on Yugoslav-unitarian fantasists & linguistics ignorants". Is Wikipedia in danger of being shutdown, because I'm new to this idea of having a time limit. Yes, things have to get done, but I don't see why you're hurrying the issue along. Half of the previous votes was a "ballot stuffing" from the Croatian Wikipedia, I'm sure you knew that. Also, this really has nothing to do with "Yugoslav unitarians" because you must have had a look at my profile in order to bring out that word, but I'm sure you knew this has nothing to do with Yugoslavia as a nation either. If you have other things to do, go ahead and do it, I don't recall reading about anybody being required to work on an article, so you can stop with the "let's just brush the dirt under the carpet" mentality any time now. --Hurricane Angel 22:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a dirt only on "Molise Slavic" fantasists side. And this is clearly an example of anti-Croat bias with regard to this "endeavor". No arguments whatsoever. Just obsession with anything Croatian, that goes, mainly, along two ways: a)paint the Croatian heritage black if it's unquestionaby Croatian b) if there is a shadow of doubt with regard to the specific subject (item, person,..whatever) as to belonging to the Croatian heritage, and this concocted dubiety is based mainly on discarded & irrational reasons- don't give up trying to prove something resembling the flatness of the earth and try, as hard as you can, to convince all people about the unshakeable veracity of some passing remarks found in tabloid newspapers or buried in dusty & dated scholarship no rational and knowledgeable person seriously considers to have anything but a bibliographic value. It has been argued, on this very page, that all "Molise Slavic" contemporary stuff is a bunk. There has not been presented a single rational source that would question "Molise Croatian" designation. So, instead of confessing & professing: let us hear what the arguments for "Molise Slavic" are ? As has been said: the only grammar and dictionary bear the title Croatian. They have been presented in Croatia, by their authors. And not in Slovenia, Serbia, Czechia, Poland, Ukraine, Russia,..which are all Slavic speaking countries. Why in Croatia ? Btw., the authors are either Italians and Germans, or Molise Croats. As we can see at http://web.uniud.it/cip/min_tutelate_scheda.htm#2: Diffusione in Italia: il croato è parlato nei tre comuni di San Felice del Molise, Montemitro e Acquaviva Collecroce, in provincia di Campobasso. Queste piccole colonie risalgono con ogni probabilità ai secc. XV-XVI, quando numerosi abitanti della costa dalmata, per sfuggire all’invasione turca, si trasferirono al di qua dell’Adriatico, fondando diverse comunità lungo la costa e nell’entroterra fra le Marche e la Puglia. Tali colonie furono in gran parte assimilate dalle popolazioni circostanti; ancora nel secolo scorso, tuttavia, si ha notizia di gruppi slavi a Tavenna (Cb) e Castelfrentano (Ch). There is absolutely nothing dubious or thought-provoking here-perhaps only psychological motivation of those who advocate "Molise Slavic" corpse resuscitation. Mir Harven 08:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Had you looked at my previous discussion, you might have noticed that I conceded to Kokielov's arguments. So there is no need to scramble in a cold sweat to produce as many ad hominems and rhetoric as possible. UNESCO (the only organization here that is worthy of labelling it either slavic or croatian) 1993 Helsinki Report has a 1993 report and they call it Molise Croatian, good enough people? --Hurricane Angel 22:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the {{fact}} that you added to Daniels post, as he gives his references in the above section. - FrancisTyers · 10:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


A misunderstanidng

The above poll seems to have been justifed by the arguments that Daniel Bunčić has presented. However, I think that that was a misunderstanding. Bunčić's arguments were actually primarily in favour of Molisan being a (standard) language as opposed to dialect, not in favour of its being Slavic as opposed to Croatian. So the poll should have been about the renaming of Molise Croatian dialect to Molise Croatian language, not to Molise Slavic. The "pro-Slavic" side's presumption that the designation of a separate language may not contain the name of another one, hence that we must jump to "Molise Slavic", is wrong - compare Low German regional language, Banat Bulgarian (called "language" in the relevant article). The "pro-Croatian" side's presumption that if the population identifies as Croats, then their language must be a dialect of Croatian, too, is also wrong - compare the above-mentioned cases, as well as many other varieties that are called separate languages despite the absence of a separate national identity (Occitan, älvdalsmål etc.. Similarly, the links given by Mir Harven mention Molise Croatian language (Rječnik moliško-hrvatkog jezika, GRAMATIKA MOLIŠKOHRVATSKOGA JEZIKA), indicating that linguists define it as a language and not as a dialect.

Thus, this renaming is, IMO, a necessity, especially as we don't have a census that contrasts language with dialect and shows whether those people with a Croatian identity identify their vernacular as a Croatian dialect or a separate language. If we did know that they want to call it a dialect, then the issue would be more complicated, because I'm inclined to agree with Duja's suggestion thst even though a separate standard is a sufficient basis for a population's claiming a separate language, that doesn't necessarily mean that each and every standardized dialect must be called a language disregarding the speakers' attitude. --85.187.44.131 12:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages has the following guideline
Each language should be on a page titled XXX language ...
Please note that when there is nothing to disambiguate a language name from, such as Hindi, Esperanto or Inuktitut, there is no need for the "language".
This is to avoid using the qualifier "dialect" or "language" whenever possible (i.e. if it doesn't lead to ambiguity) just to avoid the eternal "dialect or language" quarrel. Ergo, I don't mind the move to either Molise Croatian language or Molise Croatian (the latter may be ambiguous). Like I said above, it's really abstand from standard Croatian, plus we have precedents in literature where it's referred to as "language". Duja 13:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Prijevod

Pa mogli bi točnije prevest ono "na našo" kao "ON our language"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.47.20 (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)