Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Talk:Vates

I would like to point out that the reconstucted Ancient Greek (classical and postclassical) pronunciation accepted by most scholars of οὐάτεις (like all cases with ου + vowel) is [oː-]/[oːw-] or [uː-]/[uːw-] and not the simple glide [w] without the full vowel [oː] or [uː] before. You can check Vox Graeca by W. Sidney Allen or The pronunciation of Greek and Latin, the sounds and accents by Edgard H. Sturtevant.--Carnby (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Croatian language

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)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems

I've been having a discussion at my talk page about Unicode articles, and the fact that there currently is no Unicode WikiProject. As such, I am looking for feedback on a WikiProject home for Unicode articles. 05:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Romanians of Serbia

There is a proposal and attempt to clarify, merge parts of and clean up the articles Romanians of Serbia and Vlachs of Serbia. If interested to help with the consolidation/clarification and/or if you want to make any suggestions, please do on there corresponding talk pages. Thanks. Codrin.B (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Swiftboating

WP:NPOV, "Explanation of the neutral point of view", offers the following guidance... Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. Is the characterization "smear", as applied to the Swift Boat Veteran for Truth campaign, a statement of "opinion" or is it a statement of "fact"? Comments on what criteria you have used and/or editors should consider in making such a determination would be helpful. Opinion or Fact? 17:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Swiftboating

Should the article say in Wikipedia's voice that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth conducted a "political smear campaign" against John Kerry? Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Request board

This is a human-edited list of requests for comment. Click here to add a new request.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every 30 minutes by RFC bot.