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)

Arbitrary reverts by user kwamikagami

I had added info to the "socio-political standpoints" section of the article and removed pov assertions that were camouflaged as sourced facts, although they're not supported by the cited source (footnote 36). Furthermore, I added info regarding the origins of the term "Serbo-Croatian." The edit has been reverted arbitrarily by user kwamikagami without any explanation whatsoever, except the claim that the current text is a "consensus result." This is in conflict to wp:ver policy.

As he's already been reported by another user at wp:ani for similar actions related to other articles, I'd like to hear some opinions before I take further steps to rectify the matter. -- esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD. If you make an edit and another editor reverts you, the proper course of action is to bring the issue here and discuss it to build a consensus for your change. You don't just reinsert your reverted text or take it "up the chain". I don't see any attempt on your part to build a consensus for your changes here. --Taivo (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In looking at your edit, I can tell right away that your edit is not based on reliable linguistic sources, which virtually unanimously talk about Croatian as a mutually intelligible variety of Serbo-Croatian which is called a separate language for no linguistic reason, but for political reasons alone. It is a linguistic fact that Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and Montenegrin are one and the same language, completely mutually intelligible, and that the standard forms of these languages are not just varieties of the same language, which linguists usually call "Serbo-Croatian", but are all varieties of only one dialect of that language--Shtokavian. We've had this discussion many times before here and cited all the reliable sources in support before. But every couple of months someone else new like yourself shows up here to push the non-Serbo-Croatian POV. There is a consensus here on how to deal with these four varieties of one language and that is to call the common language "Serbo-Croatian" and to call these four entities "varieties" within the articles. --Taivo (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I did bring the issue here, so I don't see what you criticize, sorry. Where have I "reinserted" my text, I'd be glad if you could show me? You haven't answered anything in regard to the issue at hand, to be honest. There is no need to be defensive just because I question the pushing of the "Serbo-Croatian" POV that is sold as "consensus" here. While I understand that both of you are fervent proponents of so-called "Serbo-Croatian" language and go to great lengths to ensure that this POV remains the status quo, this is NOT about the controversy whether Croatian is a language proper or whether it is a variant of so-called "Serbo-Croatian" -- I would thus appreciate it if you didn't distract from policy-violating actions by user kwamikagami. Point 1: (quote) "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.[36] <-- did you check the source? This is as POV as it gets but the linked source is placed at the end in order to imply that it applies to the entire statement, and not only to the fact that Croatian will become the 24th official language. Whether documents will be translated or not is of no concern now, since neither Serbia nor Bosnia-Herzegovina will become members of the EU anytime soon. The claim's only purpose is to weaken the impact of the fact that Croatian will become an official language of the European Union and thus will be a recognized language in its own right. As long as there is no verifiable source for this speculation regarding translations, it has to go. Point 2: I linked the information that Jacob Grimm coined the term "Serb-Croatian" to a verifiable source, the online edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. It was removed without explanation. I take it you have a "linguistic" explanation that will justify this policy violation? Point 3: The inherent bias manifested in the choice of words -- "differences are exaggerated" ... they are emphasized; sociolinguistics is not mentioned anywhere, instead the term "sociopolitical" is deliberately employed; I could go on but I'll leave it at that. -- esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for saying you had reinserted your text. I was confusing this instance with another. Once Kwami reverted your insertion, you did not reinsert it. But the proper course of action is to (as you have finally started to do) discuss the change you want to make and build a consensus for it before you proceed further. Talking about "ANI" and other administrative actions is definitely not appropriate. Kwami's reversion of your edit was not inappropriate since he was reverting back to a text that was already the result of serious discussions, presentation of appropriate reliable sources, and consensus building in the past. I've been watching and discussing at this page for at least a couple of years now and it is always the same process. You need to understand that Wikipedia does not operate by the dictates of the EU. It works by addressing the issues presented in a consensus of the reliable sources. The EU charter or language determination is not based on the science of linguistics, but on political considerations, so is totally irrelevant here for a linguistic determination of what is and is not a "language". We already mention the fact that political motivations want to call Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian separate languages, but that linguistic sources do not bear this out. That takes care of your "Point 1". It doesn't matter who invented the name "Serbo-Croatian", what matters in Wikipedia is that we use common English terms for things. The most commonly used name in the English language scientific linguistic literature for the mutually intelligible non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects is "Serbo-Croatian". Since that is the most common term used in the scientific literature, that is the term that Wikipedia uses for the language of which Croatian is a part. That takes care of your "Point 2". As far as your Point 3, the differences between the nearly identical dialects are, indeed, "exaggerated" for political reasons, not linguistic ones. We can have a discussion over this issue, however, and see what reliable linguistic sources have to say about the sociolinguistic issue. But while we must mention the political aspects of this issue, this is a linguistic article and we are guided by scientific linguistic scholars and not by the EU or any other political body or POV-pusher (unfortunately, that eliminates many Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian linguists who are either forced to or willingly push a political agenda). --Taivo (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I am afraid that we still don't talk about the same issues(s) here. Point 1 is still not dealt with: Find me a verifiable source for this claim, please: "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." If there isn't one, this will have to be deleted, any prior "consensus" notwithstanding. Regarding my approach -- it was appropriate, as a matter of fact, since user kwamikagami has simply referred me to the article talk page instead of providing a substantiated explanation for his reversion. I mentioned that he was reported for dealing with other editors' contributions in an identical manner -- I will concede that a legal background conditions a different attitude to solving problems than does a linguistic one, apparently, but that's the protocol I follow, and in this case it is important. This is not about the EU -- it's about verifiable sources. Find verfiable sources for the as of yet unsubstantiated claims and speculations, and everything will be fine. Point 2: With all due respect, but is there a council watching over this article that decides what is relevant and what is not? Let me quote again, this time from the attention box at the top of this page: "In English, this language is generally called "Serbo-Croat(ian)". Use of that term in English, which dates back at least to 1864 and was modeled on both Croatian and Serbian nationalists of the time [...]" Jacob Grimm can hardly be labelled a "Croatian and Serbian nationalist," can he -- and he invented the term in 1824. If he is the originator of the term, this piece of information can be hardly more relevant than it already is. Not to mention that its systematic deficiency is revealed, which surprisingly hasn't been discussed here at all, given all the emphasis on linguistic accuracy ... "Serbo-Croatian" means (implies) that there is another "...-Croatian." I appreciate you turning my attention to another aspect, though: Could you elaborate on the role of "common term"? Common among linguists or among the average population? What happens once this term becomes uncommon? Will the article be rewritten? If Croatian becomes a common term for "Serbo-Croatian," thanks to Croatia's accession to the EU, will Croatian become a register of "Croatian"? Point 3: Lastly, let me reiterate, just to ascertain that I have gathered everything correctly: if a Croat or Serbian linguist published a text stating that the languages were closely related but separate, it wouldn't be a valid source because it would be considered political and not linguistic? What if a Slovene or German linguist published such a text? And to reverse it, if a Croat or Serbian linguist supported the "Serbo-Croatian" claim, would his contribution be/become a valid source all of a sudden? The pushing of the "Serbo-Croatian" POV is no more linguistic than its opposing opinion, or any less political. This however, is currently not sufficiently reflected in this article. Macedonian or -- following in this article's direction -- "Bulgaro-Macedonian," proves to be a very nice comparative instance. -- esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that you are still not really understanding the issue here. First, kwami's edit summary directed you to the Talk Page (here). That is absolutely appropriate for an edit summary. THIS is the place where discussion occurs, not in edit summaries. Second, read WP:COMMONNAME. "Serbo-Croatian" is the most common English name for all non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects, to include Shtokavian (the source for Standard Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian), Kajkavian, and Chakavian. All dialects of this language are mutually intelligible with one another. Indeed, Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian are virtually indistinguishable. There are not three languages here, but one language and the most common name for that language in English is "Serbo-Croatian". You must be new to Wikipedia if you are looking for a "council" that "watches over this article". You're talking to it and it is kwami and me and any others lurking about that you will have to convince and build a consensus with. The editors who watch an article are the "council". Your attempts to circumvent me and kwami by appealing to some higher authority or "council" simply demonstrate some unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. The consensus you must build here includes us. With that said, some of your comments are valid and some are simply political baloney trying to circumvent the scientific linguistic consensus. I suggest that rather than trying to deal with 5 issues at once, you take each change you want to make and present it in a separate section here and get a consensus before moving on to the next issue. Some of your issues seem valid to me and I might agree and you might be able to build a consensus for the change, but some of your points are not valid and you won't be able to build a consensus for the change. But it's always easier to deal with things one at a time. But, I assure you, linguistic sources that are clearly free of political pressures are the only ones that will matter here. --Taivo (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No matter how much I may concur with Taivo's opinion on hand I must say that such qualifications as the construct "political baloney" can only inflame the discussion. This talk page as well as this article already has enough of its own history of, I'd say, negativity, to add any more of it. Not that I haven't contributed to it in the past, for which I apologize if I did. As for the point 1: we could convert the text "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." into something on the line with "If Croatia joins the European Union, Croatian might become one of the official EU languages, but it is not known whether translations will be normally provided between the various Serbo-Croatian standards, or if documents in other EU languages will be translated into all of them." Why do I propose the ifs and the uncertainties - because no matter how reliable sources are, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: neither we are certain that Croatian will become the official EU language, nor do we know what will become of the multitude of translations. And including the notion on the translations is of some importance because "in the case of Croatia there had been concerns that some member states would demand that only a single language, a hybrid of Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin that is understood throughout the region, be admitted. Such a language would not be changed when other Western Balkan states eventually acceded to the EU in order to reduce translating and interpreting costs. " as the text on the EU Observer site plainly states here. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea this to be added as a reference into the article. --biblbroks (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's probably a good option, Biblbroks. I won't apologize for "political baloney", but I will try to ignore or relabel the baloney sandwiches served up here in the future ;) --Taivo (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User taivo, I apologize -- I wasn't aware that you are not familiar with the concept of irony. And please don't try the condescending attitude, it will get you nowhere. This is the third time you jump to wrong conclusions. I'd like to ask you to refrain from allegations that I try circumventing anything or anybody -- the contrary is true: I have yet to receive a reply from you (or anybody else for that matter) concerning the questions I raised which is not opaque. My comments are all valid, otherwise I wouldn't have brought them up. I certainly hope that we can get past the article ownership problem that is evident here, and improve the page's quality. User biblbroks, your suggestion for an improvement is none, I'm afraid: the author quotes hearsay and unproven/informal anonymous statements, hardly a reliable source. Furthermore, he claims: "This status was awarded to Czech and Slovakian, two languages as similar to one another as Croatian is to Serbian." This statement would mean that Czech and Slovak are two standardized registers of one language, possibly "Czechoslovak"? A bold claim, to say the least. This here is a reliable source: http://europa.eu/epso/apply/news/news130_en.htm (dated June 21st, 2012). Croatia will accede (no ifs). From July 01st, 2013 Croatian (or the Croatian "variant" of "Serbo-Croatian") will become an official language of the EU and translations will be made from and to Croatian (or the Croatian "variant") -- these are facts, coming from the source. Everything else is not verified/not verifiable, and need I say it, not scientific, thus it must be deleted -- жао ми је. User taivo, before you bring up political agendas again ... this is not about the debate whether Croatian is a variant of "Serbo-Croatian" or not. If you had bothered to check my edit, you would have seen that only the sociopolitical subsection's balance was improved/established. The reason for this is that it includes claims which are (still) not substantiated or supported by verifiable sources. The scientific approach is the same across all departments: Claim/statement -> proof/no proof -> true/unverified or false.esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. You claim, Chagall, that I have not answered your issues, but I clearly expressed my opinion of your issues previously. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean that I haven't addressed your issues in a clear and scientific manner as a linguist. I have the feeling that you may not have any formal training as a linguist and may not be aware of the literature concerning Serbo-Croatian and its standard and vernacular variants. I could be wrong, but your comments aren't really linguistically-based. But anyway, your "reliable source" is a job announcement! That's not a reliable source. And it doesn't even speak to the issue at hand. And, no, Czech and Slovak are not as close as Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian, although they are still close enough to retain some mutual intelligibility. No one disputes that "Croatian" will be an EU "language", but the question is whether original documents in "Croatian" will have to be "translated" into "Serbian" and "Bosnian" when those countries also become EU members. That seems like a silly expense when all three are the same dialect of the same language. But that is the issue, not whether documents will or will not be translated from, say, French into "Croatian". The question is a valid one and you aren't addressing it--how much expense will the EU go to to provide documents in three forms of the same language? No one is saying that Croatian won't get documents translated into it from French or German. It's the issue of how the EU will treat Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian in terms of translation when they are just varieties of one dialect of one language. --Taivo (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit silly to even consider the possibility that the official documents won't be translated e.g. from Croatian to Serbian. The official languages in both countries are Croatian and Serbian, respectively, not Serbo-Croatian. The use of official documents in a foreign language, no matter how closely related it might be, would be deemed unconstitutional and thus their effects would be null and void. Sincerely, -Erik-

It's not about "closely related languages", Erik, it's about the same language. --Taivo (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

But at one level I agree with Chagall. We need a reference of some sort for that speculation. I clicked on the link and the resulting news release doesn't mention the problem of three names for the same language if all three countries join the EU. If that speculation is in the media or found in another reliable source, then it is, indeed, appropriate here. However, if that speculation is simply Wikipedia curiosity, then it isn't appropriate here. I didn't add this, so I don't know the original source. We need to find the link if there is one. --Taivo (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me. However, as far as the legal framework is concerned, the two are, for all intents and purposes, two different languages. -Erik-

You'd have to read the document for quite some time to even be sure its in the Serbian or Croatian variant, even as a native speaker. The legal positions of the Balkans governments were never in doubt, but this article is about linguistics, not politics. The scientific community, and I dare say, common sense, have the last word. -- Director (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User director, we are discussing the "sociopolitical" subsection of the article. Certainly you don't want to repeat redundant information that has been presented in the linguistic subsection of the article? The legal positions of the Croatian government or the government from a Balkan country are not the issue of debate here. The scientific community has to follow scientific rationale, otherwise its published opinions and claims are worthless. That is common sense, mind you -- and to present diverging positions adequately so that one can develop his or her own opinion based on facts, and not be instructed to accept POVs as "truth." Not to mention that your claim, native speakers couldn't tell which "variant" they read, is highly questionable. Once you begin reading official documents, you instantly recognize the respective language. -- esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

For quite some time? No way. :D Legal and scientific lexicons are arguably the areas that differ the most when Croatian and Serbian are concerned. But don't take my word for it, I'm sure there are plenty online dictionaries you can check. Anyway, I was only commenting on that issue concerning the translations. I'm glad that Taivo agreed to revise that sentence. Sounds a bit biased, so I'm glad there are sane people who run this place. One last thing. There seems to be a discord between the foreign linguistic circles and reality on the ground, whereas the former view what our linguists call a diasystem as a single language, and the latter means that the native speakers generally don't share thit view. I feel that is rather poorly explained in the article and I echo Herr chagall|esse quam videri by saying that a sociolinguistic explanation *must* be included. -Erik-

I appreciate your support, user erik. Firstly, I am glad that the speculation has finally been addressed as such. Secondly, user taivo, please pay attention to what I write and let me reiterate the following: user biblbroks claimed that it is not certain that Croatian will become an official language of the EU. Additionally, your statement "that nobody disputed that Croatian will be an EU language" was also incorrect for this very reason. My link refuted that unsubstantiated claim. I shall quote: "Croatian will become the 24th official EU language [...]" This is an official statement by the EU, and if you deny that this is not a reliable source, I fail to see on what grounds. Anything else, including the musing about possible non-translations between Serbian and Croatian, is irrelevant and does not belong into the article or more specifically, into the "sociopolitical" subsection for the following reasons: Serbia is not a member of the EU -- Croatia herself is not a member of the EU currently. This question can be brought up once it becomes critical, not now -- you will not find any reliable source, I am positive. We could ask if Martians would translate between Serbian and Croatian or not, just the same. This is simple POV pushing and as you have now also realized, constructed to be covered by a link that doesn't mention or even support said speculation at all. Thirdly, I have never claimed that Czech and Slovak are as close as Serbian and Croatian (although I'd confirm that the latter two are as close as Dutch and German), I QUOTED the source user biblbroks provided to show that it is not a reliable source -- as I asked you before, please pay attention to what I write and do not jump to wrong conclusions again. I cannot answer your inquiry regarding possible translations between Croatian and Serbian if Serbia should become an EU member state, but I don't have to, either -- once Serbia becomes a member, ask the questions or find the answers to it, right now there is no place for such a thing in the article. So much about Point 1. Point 2 was about Jacob Grimm. He coined a term of convenience. A term of convenience is a word or short phrase arrived at to describe a particular concept in the absence of a generally recognized word or phrase meaning the same thing. It is not the result of thorough research. In this instance, the term is systematically deficient, regardless whether you push the POV that Serbian and Croatian are "one language" or endorse the POV that they are separate languages. Its role as a common term doesn't mean that you can oppress or ignore said systematic deficiences. "Serbo-Croatian" specifies a Serbian "variant" of Croatian -- then there must be another, but what would its name be -- "Croato-Croatian," analogous to the terms Anglo-Canadian and Franco-Canadian? This is relevant information and of importance to the naming controversy, as the term (incorrectly) implies that there are only variants of Croatian, it serves to illustrate its systematic shortcomings. And no user taivo, you haven't responded to this point in question -- what happens if the common term changes over time? Let me quote you: "The most commonly used name in the English language [...] is 'Serbo-Croatian.' Since that is the most common term used in the scientific literature, that is the term that Wikipedia uses for the language [...]" If I understand it correctly, Wikipedia would have to follow changes of a common term -- it's a simple "yes or no" question. Point 3 does interest me the most, I have to admit: User taivo, you claim that reliable linguistic sources would be instrumental in investigating what the respective standpoints in relation to sociolinguistic issues are. Croatian and Serbian linguists, according to you, are eliminated as reliable sources if they don't push the POV that Serbian and Croatian are essentially one language. I won't comment on the scientific quality of this statement, but I shall ask you a simple question once more: if a German, French or British linguist (in short, a non-Croatian or non-Serbian scientist) supported the theory that the languages are closely related but separate, would you dismiss him as an unreliable source as well? Another simple "yes or no" question. In turn, would Croatian and Serbian linguists be reliable sources if they support the POV that Serbian and Croatian are one language? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. If you check my edit, you will see that I used neutral wording as opposed to wording resulting from personal opinion. I shall quote myself: "In their opinion [Croatians and Croatian linguists], the distinct characteristics are downplayed and the efforts to establish recognition of Croatian as a language proper are discredited as nationalist." Are there efforts to establish Croatian as a language proper? Absolutely. Do the majority of Croatians believe that these efforts are discredited as nationalist? Absolutely. Does this info belong into the "sociopolitical" subsection? Absolutely. Indeed, you are correct, user taivo, in that my comments are currently not linguistically-based -- they focus on structural and systematical consistency, of which the article on the language leaves quite a bit to be desired, I'm afraid. If systematic consistency and a scientific approach are not present, either in part or in whole, it doesn't matter whether the argument is linguistic, political or philosophical, or legal. It is not related to any unfamiliarity with the field in question, but rather with a step-by-step approach which I follow at all times -- as outlined earlier, accuracy and consistency is of paramount importance to me. Finally, I'd like to add that it's herr_chagall, not chagall. Much obliged. -- esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Chagall, half of what you wrote is immaterial, so I'm not going to read all that drivel. If you want people to read what you write on Wikipedia, then write less and more concisely, not more. You're not going to win arguments with a cascade of junk. I also pointed out that if you actually want to build a consensus on something, you should take your points one by one in separate discussions, not try to lump them all into one. About the point that you mentioned Grimm, I realized you still don't understand the process and that WP:COMMONNAME applies to our labels for things. It doesn't matter whether Grimm, Plato, or Santa Claus invented "Serbo-Croatian", that is still the most common name in English for the single language that comprises the non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects. We've debated this before and you're not going to build any consensus by trying to overwhelm us with the length of your post. A long post simply guarantees that no one will pay any attention to you. For your reading pleasure, here is an example of one of the most recent discussions on the issue of "Serbo-Croatian". --Taivo (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

User taivo, as I wrote before, for you it's herr_chagall. I'd love to write less, but since you are either not capable to grasp what I write or deliberately detract from the points I brought up with your derogatory remarks, this is difficult. Don't speak for anyone but yourself, use "me," not "us." I asked a few simple questions which you have repeatedly failed to answer and thus all your rigmarole about scientific arguments is just that, hot air. Refrain from ad hominem remarks if you're not qualified to give a sensible response. However, your are helpful inasmuch as you prove that there is an inherent ownership problem present here, of which you and user kwamikagami are the most vocal representatives. The discussions over the past years have proven this repeatedly and recently, it has been brought to the attention of a broader audience thanks to kwamikagami's disruptive behavior on numerous topics. Since I am not a fan of circular discussions, I shall proceed accordingly given your lack of willingness/ability to contribute in a constructive manner to the issues I raised. -- esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Your personal attacks notwithstanding, Chagall, you have failed to state your key issues either succinctly or with any regard for reliable sources, past consensus, Wikipedia policy, or linguistic science. And even though you continue to attack me personally, you will notice that I have addressed each and every one of your points in one post or another. You simply refuse to accept the fact that someone can disagree with you. Perhaps you have forgotten that your first point has been dealt with. In Wikipedia, we work on consensus and unless you can calmly build a consensus around your second or third points, then you will simply have to be satisfied with that. I've given you very clear suggestions on how best to proceed--keep your posts short and clear and divide your points into separate sections for separate discussion. If you wish to proceed further, then by all means do so. But you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, especially WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RS, and WP:CONSENSUS. --Taivo (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The only one having a problem with disagreement is you, the logs speak for themselves. Please follow your own advice and learn about Wikipedia policies, refrain from personal attacks and do not divert from issues in question or distort others' statements. Until you become a constructive part of this discussion, I shall ignore posts on your part due to irrelevance. -- esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, Chagall, you might ignore me if you wish, but you will not reach any consensus without engaging positively and constructively with the consensus that I represent. If you want to build a consensus, then I have been very, very clear on how to best proceed--present your points clearly and concisely one at a time. You have refused to do either. --Taivo (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Chagall, I'm not even sure what you're bitching about still. Your first point I agreed with and you made that change to the text. If you decide to continue the discussion rather than just complaining that I haven't bowed at your feet, then please start a new section and state the issue in your second point clearly and succinctly. It's not a difficult process at all unless you choose to make it such. It is entirely your choice as to how painful you want to make this. --Taivo (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems I was wrong when I wrote that sane people run this place. Wikipedia is apparently crawling with ego-trippers... Bye people and bye Wikipedia. -Erik-

Uh, no, Wikipedia is supposed to be "run" by editors who utilize Reliable Sources for the betterment of the articles - and especially when dealing with a scientific article, Wiki needs all the expert opinion it can get - and since Taivo is a PROFESSOR OF LINGUISTICS and Kwami is also linguist, their insight into these areas on the English Wiki are invaluable, as they can judge the material from RS's in a neutral manner. This Serbo-Croatian nationalist denial-fest stuff is getting rather boring, and has been addressed here time and again. I think Director's point above is the last word on this tiresome issue. There is even a header at the top of the Talk Page here and at Serbian, Montenegrin, etc., stating what the policy is for S-C. Egads, enough. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

An expected knee-jerk reaction, showing a poor grasp of the matter -- I'm not even Croat or Serb (or Bosnian-Herzegovinian or Montenegrin, or Macedonian or Slovenian), so there's no use playing that pathetic "nationalism" card here. A degree doesn't equate competence, mind you -- at least I haven't seen any on display here in this thread. You'd probably be better off sticking to good vintage Hammer horror movies than arguing like a lackey on behalf of the two POV-pushing chaps here. Good luck! -- esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

And people wonder why I don't bother to justify everything I revert ... — kwami (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm totally disappointed with the first paragraph, which essentially states that Croatian language is no language at all, but some "standardized register". Is this article only about the Croatian standard? Because the term "hrvatski jezik", as understood here in Croatia, also encompasses all non-standard Croatian idioms. The first sentence is misleading (although not wrong by default) and unnecessarily restrictive. Not a very good way to start anything. I say that I speak hrvatski when I use my čakavica, not some standardized register or some Serbo-Croatian, because that is what my speech is. Also, reducing other Croatian dialects to some obscure notion of "other dialects spoken by Croats", apparently in order to fit them into your vision of how this article should look like, is a PC abuse of science. For Christ's sake, write this article so that everyone can understand it: that Croatian and Serbian standards are both based on neoštokavian dialect (already done) and that they, along with their respective non-standard idioms, form separate sociolinguistic entities (Dunatov, 1978) (not done). @HammerFilmFan - Your comment on "nationalist denial-fest" sounds a lot like communist paranoia about internal/external enemies we've had to listen here for quite a some time.

You make a valid point. At the risk of restarting a morass, I will try to define Croatian more broadly in the lead. As far as I can tell, it is Serbo-Croatian when Croats speak it. — kwami (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your rewritten line is an accurate linguistic definition, but I do wonder what kind of nationalists will show up. --Taivo (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It can't be be much easier than this: - no one in world will say "I'm speaking Serbo-Croatian" - Serbo-Croatian is politically created language - Croatian and Serbian differs more and more, as it once was, as time passes since breakup of country that forcibly created that false language, so younger generations DO NOT understand Serbian as older! - further classifications of Croatian language in artificial and never really will cause storm of reverting article to the what it should be, as every single Croatian linguist is at alert because these misinformations - please, don't misinform millions of knowledge-thirsty people around the world; how about if I say that Hindi and Urdu are same language? OK, I can easily edit that article. So be it, Urdu and Hindu are same language

Everything you have written is incorrect, apart from the last: Hindi and Urdu *are* registers of the same language: half the time speakers can't even tell each other apart. — kwami (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. None of the relevant notes above actually apply. If this is the more appropriate format I'll implement in with the other two/three articles. -- Director (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Director, there is a difference between "Croatian" and the other three in this regard. "Serbo-Croatian" refers to all the non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects--Chakavian, Shtokavian, and Kajkavian. All four of the standardized registers are derived from Shtokavian. After the breakup, the four labels achieved the status of standardized languages. However, since Chakavian and Kajkavian are spoken in Croatia, these were subsumed under the label "Croatian" (although not part of standard Croatian). Thus, there is a level where "Croatian" = "Serbo-Croatian" in that it includes all three dialects, but neither Serbian, Bosnian, nor Montenegrin are in an equivalent position because they are strictly Shtokavian and in no sense do they include Chakavian and Kajkavian. It's a bit confusing, but the initial sentences of the "other three" article must remain as written--"standardized registers of Shtokavian" (or whatever the current wording is) and not be changed to "another name for Serbo-Croatian". I hope that explanation was clear enough. I've reverted your changes at Serbian and Bosnian based on this clarification. --Taivo (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, bad example, maxbe I'll go with Moldovan/Romanian or Indonesian/Malaysian? Nevermind. Thing is, you misguide people into belief that there is some "Serbo-Croatian", while every single fact says it isn't so. EU will accept which language as new? Serbo-Croatian? Ooops, no. It will be Croatian. I live 30 km near Serbia, but don't much understand them completely because I hadn't education in country that actively promoted merging these languages - older people unfortunately do. So, you have your Croatian under false "Serbo-Croatian" flag very temporary, as I said, expect everyone to reverse it to normal. We don't need any Indian linguist to tell us what is it. "Potrošio sam cele hartije dobijene od plata i prodavnice mrkve za te nove pantalone" is Serbian sentence which in Croatian says "Potrošio sam sve papire stečene plaćom i prodavaonice mrkve kako bih stekao hlače". Sounds different? Oh, indeed. Nevermind, this article WILL NOT BE TOLERATED IN THIS WAY, and your project of equalizing Croatian with un-existing "Serbo-Croatian" is DOOMED, and we will fight for this, I promise you. Once again - Serbian and Croatian are different languages, just as Slovak and Czech, and false data on wikipedia will result in making them accurate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AurgelmirCro (talk • contribs) 08:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, AurgelmirCro, you are contradicted by linguistic sources which are clearly marked in the article. --Taivo (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, you have violated the edit restrictions on the article. Please revert yourself, or you could be blocked. — kwami (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Easy slice! Taiko - there are countless linguists, both Croatian, but also Serbian (!), who dislike your idea - you think English ones are better linguists than ours??? So, they are from England and they are so smarta that we can't be such??? Try again, thank you very much. I don't understand Serbian, therefore there IS NO "SERBO-CROATIAN"...historic lie. And about blocking, kwami, try to block entire country of 4 million people. They will all be erasing your false statements. I am not important, but we are together - all.

AurgelmirCro, you have been reported for edit warring on this page and violating WP:1RR here. You are now subject to disciplinary action which may include blocks of your editing privileges or bans. --Taivo (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And you will get ENDLESS flow of getting things to the right way. Once again - "serbo-croatian" is false, artificial language, and Croatian is real language in southern Slavic languages. This mission is fanatical. And not just mine...

He's likely right about the "ENDLESS flow". Might be a good idea to "alert the authorities" and place the article on probation, Kosovo-style, should this get out of hand. -- Director (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

User:De728631 put it in semi-protected mode. He was right on top of this. It will be a good idea to keep a lookout for meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry, though. --Taivo (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Re the above post. No, I understand completely. But I can't tell you how wrong it feels to place Croatian of all these "languages" on a higher level with regard to correspondence with Serbo-Croatian :). I don't think it really makes sense to make that distinction.. doesn't Serbian also have the Torlakian dialect that Croatian doesn't have? -- Director (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm sorry I must reiterate my previous contention but "Croatian will become an official EU language with the accession of Croatia" cannot and should not stand because of the plain crystal ball criterion. We simply don't know if Croatian will become anything in the near or distant future as simple as we don't know that "It will be the end of the world as we know it with coming of <insert_arbitrary_future_date_here_e.g._21st_Dec._this_year>". --biblbroks (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Dialectal map

I must've said this twice already: the supposed "dialectal map" is completely out of touch with reality and is wildly inaccurate. The extent of the Kajkavian and Chakavian-speaking areas is vastly exaggerated. Especially Chakavian, which is practically extinct (a tragedy, of course, but a real one). The map should be removed forthwith, it is highly misleading. -- Director (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a more correct map? --Taivo (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it. Probably not. -- Director (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If there isn't a more accurate map, then a map that is mostly accurate is better than no map at all. --Taivo (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Depends on how "mostly accurate" the map is. One example that struck me was that the current map depicts the capital as speaking Kajkavian. The actual state of affairs is that the city speaks Shtokavian with some few Kajkavian elements - I dare say, to a man (in varying degrees).

The second-largest city (Split) is also depicted as Chakavian-speaking. So is Zadar. This is also completely incorrect. The city speaks Shtokavian with some few Chakavian elements (very few, noone even says "Cha?" anymore, for example). Down in the southern blue area, Chakavian is almost exclusively in the islands, and even there do you hear it very rarely.

So there you have about half the people of Croatia, listed erroneously as Kajkavian or Chakavian speakers. A person might look at the map and conclude that, when he goes on his Dalmatian vacation, he better buy a Chakavian phrasebook. A businessman might feel he ought to brush up on his Kajkavian to impress his Zagreb business partners (who most likely never spoke the dialect in their lives). As things are now it looks almost as if only the countryside speaks Shtokavian - which could not be farther from the facts. The map is misleading, that's what bothers me. -- Director (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Dialectal maps are commonly drawn on the basis of the original (substratum) dialects of the area. Everywhere in the modern world, dialects that weren't lucky enough to be selected as the basis (Dachsprache) of the standard language are in retreat: first, there is a level of diglossia where the dialect is spoken at home and the standard in school and formal settings, and then more and more elements from the prevailing standard are gradually intruding into the colloquial, leaving a mixture. For a linguist, that approach to the map kind of goes without saying. Only recently, in the West (Britain in particular), there is a certain revival of local dialects in the media. However, that does not change the fact that the Split is basically Chakavian area and Zagreb Kajkavian. We could insert a brief clarification (e.g. "Map of dialects originally spoken..."), but that leaves open the definition of "originally". I'm inclined not to change anything, but if you insist, I wouldn't mind. No such user (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the labelling of the map that is a problem. When we deal with Native American languages, for example, we provide maps for the original extent of the languages, not for the current area where they are spoken (which would be a sequence of tiny dots at specific addresses in an otherwise English-speaking town). Perhaps that's what the dialect map is really intending to show--the extent of the dialects at some earlier point in time before they began to be subsumed by Croatian/Serbo-Croatian. I find maps extremely helpful in language articles so that I can get a visual idea about where X and Y are spoken. Perhaps if we change the label to the map it would be more acceptable? If Chakavian is so endangered, then a current map wouldn't be any more informative than a map of where Shoshoni speakers are located in the contemporary US. --Taivo (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

But how would we label it? By my estimate this is the situation from about 60-70 years ago.. but that's just my estimate. -- Director (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

When dealing with Native American (or Australian) languages, we usually label the maps along the lines of "Historical extent of ..." or else have a prominent footnote attached that says the map shows the range at white contact. Perhaps "Historical extent of Croatian dialects" or a footnote that clearly states that this is a historical range and that the modern non-standard dialects are being replaced through their range. --Taivo (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

it's quite interesting to see that you guys are still paranoid about croatian nationalists (as if its bad to care about your nation). and i really don't understand what's the big deal with acknowledging the fact that language is a sensitive subject for croats and that they object to using serbocroatian because it was used in a long campaign of linguistic violence against their native tongue. regardless of the fact that the entire continuum between bregana and šar planina is usually considered as one language. the average joe does not care about purely technical, linguistic matters but about what he sees and hears on a daily basis - product declarations are written in croatian and serbian, respectively, job offers are posted for native Croatian and Serbian speakers separately, translations for movies are provided separately and the list goes on. by making this article more in line with the articles about bosnian and serbian, so as to bring them all closer under the umbrella of serbocroatian, you are creating a false impression that the latter exists in the cognitive space of native speakers and that its use is generally accepted - which simply isn't true.

"Is"

Could someone tell me why is Taivo changing the sentence "Croatian is a standardized form of Serbo-Croatian" to "Croatian is Serbo-Croatian language" but he doesn't do that for Bosnian and Serbian?Scrosby85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Its because Croatian includes Kajkavian and Chakavian Serbo-Croatian dialects, and the others don't. I get the idea, but I don't know if it makes sense to make the distinction. Serbian has Torlakian, does it not? -- Director (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a thorny situation, but Torlakian has not generally been considered one of the major component dialects of the non-Slovenian West South Slavic complex. In addition, modern Croatians "claim" Chakavian and Kajkavian as components of modern Croatian in a way that Serbians don't "claim" Torlakian. But Kwami probably has a better explanation. It's a difficult situation where A+B+C+D = "Serbo-Croatian" in a linguistic sense (D = "Standard Croatian, Standard Serbian, Standard Bosnian, vernacular Shtokavian"), but where "Croatian" = A+B+D, "Serbian" = C+D, "Bosnian" = D. --Taivo (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me Taivo but that is the most stupid explanation i have ever heard...So what if Croatian includes Kajkavian and Chakavian i don't get it?Where is the difference between "is serbocroatian language" and "is a standardized register of sc language"...Second this sentence "is a standardized register of serbocroatian language" was on Wikipedia for almost 2 years and then somebody comes and decide that it will be "is a serbocroatian" language...Sorry but that is very insulting to make exception just for Croatian and not for Bosnian and Serbian...Those three languages are all part of hybrid SerboCroatian language...So for all three languages must have three same sentences...Croatian will enter in EU as his own language and for Serbian and Bosnian is not even sure under what names will enter...I propose that untin Croatia joins EU all three languages be treated as same..I don't have nothing that Croatian be treated as SerboCroatian but annoys me when somebody (one or two people like Taivo) think that they know better from the Croatians,Serbians and Bosnians...Leave it the way it was been because this sentence has no head and tail...Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Guys i have no intention to make fights with you.But it simply isn't right to make exception for Croatian and not for Bosnian and Serbian...You changed that just because Kajkavian and Chakavian are part of Croatian?!They are also part of SerboCroatian...Ijust propose that all three sentences be the same for Croatian,Bosnian and Serbian...If Croatian "is serbocroatian language" then Bosnian and Serbian must also be becausse you are making people think that serbian and bosnian are different from Croatian because of not the same sentences.I see that more people on this page complained about the same situation..Take that into account not just ban people!Think about it...Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I made one revert on this subject and kwami reported me.Two guys have monopol on this subject and they just report people who don't agree with them.This is right at all :( Scrosby85 12:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs)

You have been reported for edit warring here. You have reverted twice in 24 hours on a page that is subject to WP:1RR. You don't understand what you're doing here, Scrosby85. You must build a consensus for any changes you make. The change from "a register" to "Serbo-Croatian" on this page was discussed a couple of months ago. Since Chakavian and Kajkavian are subsumed by Croats under the label "Croatian", then it is no longer a register of Shtokavian, but a label for what is otherwise called "Serbo-Croatian". "Standard Croatian" is a register of Shtokavian, but when Chakavian and Kajkavian are included in the label "Croatian", then it is more than a register. If you want to engage in a productive discussion with facts and leave your emotions and accusations at the door, then we might be able to work out some wording that preserves the linguistic facts. But if you are going to edit war, then that is not possible. --Taivo (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to understand what I talked about above, Scrosby85, I'll spell it out:

• Serbo-Croatian = Kajkavian, Chakavian, Shtokavian, Torlakian
• Shtokavian = vernacular Shtokavian, Standard Croatian, Standard Serbian, Standard Bosnian
• "Croatian", as defined by Croats = Standard Croatian, Chakavian, Kajkavian, vernacular Shtokavian
• "Serbian", as defined by Serbs = Standard Serbian, vernacular Shtokavian
• "Bosnian", as defined by Bosniaks = Standard Bosnian, vernacular Shtokavian
• Torlakian is defined by Serbs as a dialect of Serbian, but by Croats as a separate Serbo-Croatian dialect, not tied to Serbian

So, you see, the situations of "Croatian", "Serbian", and "Bosnian" are anything but parallel. --Taivo (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Taivo you are very wrong..Croatian is a language who have three dialects...Chinese is official language in China and they have more then 50 dialects...You could write that Standard Croatian is part of SerboCroatian language and that Kajkavian and Chakavian are defined as dialects or something like that...This sentence "Croatian is SerboCroatian language" don't lead anywhere because it is not constructed well and it looks like child of 11 years old wrote it...It is very confusing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

And also in Croatian law Shtokavian is official dialect in Croatian language...Kajkavian and Chakavian speaking people use Shtokavian in Public life..They only use Chakavian and Kajkavian at home...So if Shtokavian is official dialect and therefore language of Croatia it should be equal as Bosnian and Serbian... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, Scrosby85, you don't know the facts clearly, especially reading your comment about Chinese. You don't seem to have any background in linguistics. And your comment about "official dialect" only refers to Standard Croatian, but I've made abundantly clear that Chakavian and Kajkavian are subsumed by Croats into the umbrella term "Croatian". This becomes clear when reading the archives of discussion for the pages I have mentioned above. --Taivo (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

And what linguistic background do u have?Who are you to tell me that i don't have a clue about lingustic?Some kind of expet who doesn't know what to wrote and then just erase "standardized register of SerboCroatian" and that's it..Thinks problem is solved..And whoever sys different he is blocked or reported...That's not the way my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

One more thing...You describe Croatian that it "is serbocroatian language" yet only 60% of Croats are native speakers of Shtokavian dialect...But on the other hand...85-90 Serbs and Bosniaks speak Shtokavian dialect and their languages are just "standardized register of SerboCroatian"...Where is the logic?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal thoughts on what SC is or isn't matters not at all, all that matters is what the English Reliable Sources say, and that is what the article reflects. This Talk Page is not for the endless, tiresome debate of nationalists in the Balkans who seem to hate each other - this the Talk Page for an encyclopedia article to discuss Reliable Sources for the improvement of said article, period. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

HammerFilmFan...I know all of this..I'm not stupid...I'm not arguing or denying that Croatian is PART(not IS) of SerboCroatian...Im just saying that it is very confusing,not to say stupid to put sentence like "Croatian IS serbocroatian language"...It sounds very akward...I'm just saying that it would be better if it stays this way or to put that "Croatian is PART of SerboCroatian language"...I'm not nationalist and i don't hate anyone...I'm just saying that sentence what i reverted salt on open wound because bosnian and serbian articles stayed the same...Scrosby85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If u look at this page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_standard_Bosnian,_Croatian_and_Serbian

You will see that is is all the same languages..No need to put Croatian aside and write confusing sentences and on other wikipedia article about languages it says different...You get my point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Scrosby85, you just still don't get it at all. The situations of Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian are not parallel. Self-revert your change now that you know you violated WP:1RR. You are presenting no facts whatsoever to support your view. Zero. I've presented the facts on the ground, but you just keep ranting without any basis in linguistic science or fact. --Taivo (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Taivo Once again!...An average man come to Croatian language sectionand see "Croatian is SerboCroatian language" then he goes to Serbian or Bosnian language section and he sees "Serbian/Bosnian is a standardized register of SerboCroatian language"...Now my question is what did u prove with that and how?Tell me please because you didn't do absolutely nothing with that sentence...If u go to link above what i posted it clearly says next:"Standard Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian are different national variants and official registers of the pluricentric Serbo-Croatian language" So why changing this when on other wikipedia articles it clearly states different.The best way would be to put that sentence.I'm not trying to win this or something.Im just trying to be logic.Ok...Cheers mate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

How many times must this be explained to you? The situations of "Croatian", "Serbian", and "Bosnian" are not parallel when it comes to dialect coverage. And the argument WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a valid one in Wikipedia. While the standard registers of Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are nearly identical as being derived from Shtokavian, the inclusion of other dialects in the broader labels makes the three situations different (see above). --Taivo (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And how many times must i say to you that you didn't do anything with this?It is complicated as it is..Now you are changing Croatian but not Serbian or Bosnian...Who are you to decide that?Linguists all over the wold treat Serbian,Bosnian and Croatian as one language just you found something that just you know and you don't give up...And if someone try to say different you report him...Once again there is no need to make this confusing situtation over this issue more confusing by separating Croatian from Serbian and Bosnian so people get even more confused...I got here because my friend(from Norway!) on Youtube said me that he looked article about Croatian on Wikipedia and he asked why is it different from other three languages..Otherwise i wouldn't be here..Use your logic... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Once again!You didn't do much with this sentence because to normal people who don't know much about languages from this area,when they come to language section they see from Croatian that "is the SC language" and then they go to Serbian section and see "is a standardized register of the SC language"...And what they conclude?Croatian is not standardized register of SC?Or that Serbian and Bosnian are not SC languages because of different sentences...You didn't explain anything with that sentence..use you head — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

So what now Taivo?You don't know what to say and you just ignore me?That is what you do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think he's ignoring you, as I have been, because this has devolved into a "Yes it is! —No it isn't!" argument, which is pointless. You have not made a convincing case for reverting the changes suggested by the last editor, who did make a convincing case. — kwami (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Kwami's right. You've offered nothing of substance other than "Nuh-uh". WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't an argument. --Taivo (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have clearly asked what did he do with this sentence ...Please explain it to me...What does an average man concludes when he see sentence "Croatian is the SerboCroatian language" and when he goes to Serbian or Bosnian section language..Because 90% people doesn't get that i assure you...Just Taivo or whoever made this funny thing knows better then 90% linguists of the world who treat theses two languages as subgroup of SerboCroatian just like Kajkavian and Chakavian dialects..And he made that sentence because i will quote him:"Croats say that Kajkavian and Chakavian are part of Croatian language"?!.What kind of statement is that?I bet that 95% of Croatian citizens doesn't want their language to be called SerboCroatian.So if we look it that way you should remove SerboCroatian att first place... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You're misquoting. It says "Croatian is the Serbo-Croatian language as spoken by Croats" (italics mine). Note the part that I've put in italics. That makes a huge difference. --JorisvS (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It makes huge differnce?Why?I just asked him if alot of lingusts in the world treat these languages as part of SerboCroatian standard then there is no need to say something else for one of these languages..When i asked Taivo why the sentence is constructed like that he said to me "Because Croats treat Kajkavian and Chakavian dialects as Croatian language"...So if he care about their opinion so much then he could even erase SerboCroatian because Croats would never say that they speak some SerboCroatian but Croatian...Croatian can just be PART of SerboCroatian because in all four countries they call their languages by their country.This thing is confusing even without this sentence.But Taivo and Kwami are acting like some big linguists who knows everything and they don't respect other opinion..Nobody agreed to this sentence yet they arecontinuing with it and ignore other opinion like they are ignoring mine and reporting others like they did last week... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole notion of a 'Croatian language', about which this article is, is a non-linguistic construction by Croats. That gives Croats' conception of it some weight (to within NPOV requirements, of course). That's why it must be said that Croats consider Kajkavian and Chakavian 'Croatian', even though this makes the whole notion of 'Croatian' paraphyletic. Do you like me to illustrate this?

"Croatian is the Serbo-Croatian language" means that Croatian equals Serbo-Croatian (which is not true because 'Croatian' excludes 'Serbian' and 'Bosnian'). "Croatian is the Serbo-Croatian languages as spoken by Croats" means that Serbo-Croatian is only Croatian when it is spoken by an ethnic Croat. The latter is true because Kajkavian and Chakavian are considered 'Croatian' because its speakers are ethnic Croats, even though they have no relationship with the Shtokavian standardized register that is also called 'Croatian'. --JorisvS (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That would exclude any speaker who is not an ethnic Croat, but who speaks the language, or "variant," respectively. What do national minorities in Croatia (Italians in Istria, Hungarians in Međimurje or Koprivnica-Križevci) speak then, if what you wrote only applied to ethnic Croats? -- esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If they speak "as" Croats, they're speaking Croatian. — kwami (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Then Joris' above statement is false, or at least inaccurate. -- esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

JorisvS I think that even you don't know what you wrote now...So it doesn't matter what i say or other people it will be like this,it will be like this and that's it?I am talking about average persons who comes to this article and see this...Where is that explained in article what you said now?I didn't see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Kwami you should write a book about this subject because as i can see you and Taivo are well known linguists..In fact one of the best there are..And other linguists and people don't know a clue about this subject so you will not listen any other opinion and it will be like you said.No matter what people say and if 99% of people don't agree with you.Nice job.You said let's talk about this subject and what di u do?You are ignoring people..You are shame for Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Scrosby85, you clearly don't understand a thing about how Wikipedia works. We do not edit this based on your assertions. You don't have any linguistic references. We don't listen to you because you aren't saying anything based on actual scholarship. --Taivo (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Taivo excuse me but you are the last person here to call yourself linguist or that you know something about that topic.You are just ignoring people opinion and that's i.Nobody agreed to the article as it is now on Wikipedia but you still made it and keep it that way...You are disgrace... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Did he finally go away? :-) I almost had to report him for WP:FORUM.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading through the discussion and I must note there is something to this. What does "as spoken by Croats" mean? If its the same language (which certainly appears to be the case), isn't this a FORK? Shouldn't it be merged into the Serbo-Croatian article? -- Director (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There is, of course, quicksand in every direction whenever talking about Serbo-Croatian or its constituent registers/varieties/dialects. Some dogs are better left to lie quietly. The linguistic truth is that Croatian as the language spoken in Croatia is different than the other three varieties since there are three mutually intelligible dialects spoken in Croatia and not just a single variety of a single dialect. --Taivo (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Imo the most dangerous quicksand for the Wikipedia reader are obvious WP:POVFORKS, like these of the Balkans nationalist variety. -- Director (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There are two possible changes. 1) Make this article just about Standard Croatian, in which case it will closely mirror the Serbian and Bosnian articles, and make Chakavian and Kajkavian separate articles that aren't subordinate to any Croatian article. Croatians will complain because they regularly subsume Chakavian and Kajkavian into the label "Croatian" and will quote their contributions to the standard language. 2) Do away with this "content fork" entirely. I don't even want to contemplate what the Croatian nationalists would do at that point. --Taivo (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I think option (1) would be a very good idea. Of course we'd still have to note that Chakavian and Kajkavian are subsumed under the label 'Croatian' by Croatians. IMO articles should be about concepts, not labels. Implementing option (1) fixes that in this case. And of course any citable contributions of Chakavian and Kajkavian to the standard language can be mentioned in the article(s). --JorisvS (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Its an interesting case, one that should probably be discussed with the community at large. Option (2) is probably what we would go with if we were to follow the policies of this project (i.e. the sources), as opposed to catering to public opinion in one Balkans republic. On the other hand, option (2), if finally implemented, would probably make the news in Croatia in a few days. There's no question it would be widely viewed as an attack on the Croatian national identity, perhaps even as some sort of "Serbian conspiracy" (people love that sort of stuff around here). Even most moderate people would probably disapprove. -- Director (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think option (2) would follow NPOV policies. There is, after all, a Croatian national standard, distinct from the Serbian and Bosnian ones, which is easily notable enough to merit its own article. --JorisvS (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it'd make much of a difference. Either way we'd really be eliminating the "Croatian language" from Wikipedia. Here, for example, is an internet article entitled "Serbo-Croatian does not exist" (I suppose some participants here might've seen it before?). Its from 2010, and its really a good example of the kind of stuff people will hear and think over in the Balkans. The subtitle is "A group of editors on Wikipedia has six months ago begun removing references to the Croatian language and replacing them with 'Serbo-Croatian'". Here's the first sentence:

"The planetary-popular Wikipedia refuses to give up on the Serbo-Croatian language. When one searches for the Croatian language on Wikipedia, he gets a page where its only possible to choose the Serbo-Croatian language [they're talking about the Croatian grammar redirect, and misleadingly presenting it as the Croatian language article]."

Then the author brings in a Croatian linguist who's statements are presented as against "these developments", even though they seem somewhat ambiguous. The linguist does state "Serbo-Croatian doesn't exist", but his full statement is that it doesn't exist "on the level of an official language". I'm not going to translate the whole article, suffices to say that the two bold subtitles are "War against the Croatian language on Wikipedia?" ("Rat protiv hrvatskog jezika na Wikipediji?") and "Noone is reacting" ("Nitko ne reagira"). There's also a reference to some letter received by Dragutin Lesar (a leader of a minor Croatian party), in which a "reader" claims that there are twenty users from Serbia and Republika Srpska refactoring all "Croatian articles" on the most popular encyclopedia in the world.

Now, this isn't a major news site. But, if the article were fully removed, there'd probably be a lot more stuff like this, and in major news portals. Then again, this article, as it stands now, is a pretty clear-cut example of a content fork. -- Director (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Option (1) wouldn't mean deletion, though obviously such nationalists would be angry whatever we do (well, except blatantly follow their POV). Whatever nationalists' deluded ideas and behavior, I think it is best to follow reality (per the sources) and base our articles on concepts, not labels. This would lead to an article focusing on the whole language (Serbo-Croatian), an article on each of its dialects (Shtokavian, Chakavian, Kajkavian, and Torlakian) and subdialects wherever there are sufficient sources, and an article on each on the standards (Standard Croatian, Standard Serbian, Standard Bosnian, and maybe Standard Montenegrin). --JorisvS (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I am quite willing to follow the NPOV consensus here. I agree that 2) is unworkable, although required by a strict adherence to the letter of Wikipedia "law". JorisvS' set of articles would fix the problem I think, although we'd have to be careful to label all four of the national standards identically--no "Serbian", "Bosnian", "Standard Croatian". I recently got done with a discussion at Bosnian language and the entire focus was "but that's not the way they do it at Croatian [or Serbian]". The four article titles and the four leads need to almost be mirrors of each other to avoid the complaints of favoritism. --Taivo (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying you're not Serbian propagandists? :) It must be understood that, while its true Balkans nationalists will probably disapprove of whatever is done on this question, its not going to be quite the same. Regardless of whether we merge or reorganize this article, once the "Croatia/Serbia under attack!" alarm is sounded for such a "serious" issue, you'll likely see a much wider response than usual. Even more moderate Wikipedians from Croatia will likely protest in some way or another. Expect vote stacking in any RM.

I agree with the proposed reorganization as well, and I certainly agree that the articles will need to be very similar in their definition. One question though: which is more appropriate: "Standard Croatian" or "Croatian standard"? -- Director (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, too, we should make things as consistent with each other as possibly. In fact, I think we should always try to. As I've already said above, I don't think (2) would be to the letter of Wikipedia policy; I think that would be NPOV, too, because the national standards do exist. Some reordering of the content would be sufficient. 'Standard Croatian' would be the appropriate title. --JorisvS (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way. Narrowing the scope to Standard Croatian would require little change to the article; the mention of Kajkavian and Chakavian in the history section works for either conception, I think. Restricting the four national-language articles to the standards probably would allow them to be more consistent. I'm not sure moving the article to "Standard Croatian" would be a good idea, however. I think it would probably be better to leave it where it is, and to simply explain in the lead (and perhaps in a hat note) that this article deals primarily with the standard language. — kwami (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

At that point 'Standard Croatian' would be more precise as the article's title, whereas 'Croatian language' would be rather vague in comparison, but has the benefit of (probably) not inflaming the nationalists as much. --JorisvS (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

But that would mean we'd have no "Croatian language" article. I did the same thing for Standard Hindi, and there was a big argument over it, and it was eventually moved to "Hindi", despite the resulting attempts to broaden its scope to cover the "Hindi" of the Indian national census. I imagine that not having an article called "Croatian language" at all may be more objectionable than narrowing the scope of the article. — kwami (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, undoubtedly. I do think it would be a good idea to take these changes one step at a time and see how far we can get before misguided emotions get in the way. First we'd clean the article(s) to their narrower, more appropriate scope. --JorisvS (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. But other than the lead, what would you change in this article? The history involving other dialects is relevant to Standard Croatian, IMO. — kwami (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There are several things that I think could be done to the body of the article:

•  Done The phonology and grammar sections only contain general info about (Shtokavian) Serbo-Croatian. Much of the grammar section contains info that I think belongs in the lead of the Serbo-Croatian grammar article and is currently missing there. Any information regarding the phonology and grammar that doesn't fork Serbo-Croatian should probably go under a comparison of the standard languages.
• I think we should deal overtly with the most important differences between the standards, instead of merely referring our readers to 'comparison of standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian'.
• The pre-standardization history really is about Serbo-Croatian, or rather its main varieties, and often has little to do with (current) Standard Croatian. Unless it can be shown to be relevant to its standardization, it shouldn't be here.

Improvements that are probably not related to the topic shift include:

• Structuring the Sociopolitical standpoints section
• Clarifying the scope of the Current events section

--JorisvS (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Any other suggestions? --JorisvS (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone feel like summarizing Comparison of standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian into the empty differences sections here, at Serbian language, and at Bosnian language? --JorisvS (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

---

After a significant pause I must return to the original problem: "Croatian (hrvatski jezik) is the Serbo-Croatian language as spoken by Croats,..." cannot stand because of the alphabet difference - Cyrillic and Roman. I mean language, since the mankind evolved and invented writing, is not only the spoken language but it is also the written language. Therefore we are missing a crucial point with this substitution of the whole with just its part. Also, since the creation of Montenegrin and introduction of the ⟨ś⟩ and ⟨ź⟩, Croatian variant is missing at least two more sounds in its alphabet. Not to mention the already mentioned technicality: non-Croats in Croatia (or anywhere else) that speak Croatian variant are lumped under the Croat ethnicity with the existing wording. So we cannot equate Serbo-Croatian and Croatian with a simple note that the latter is the former when/as spoken by Croats. We should return to previous wording or invent a better one. --biblbroks (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong, Biblbroks. Writing is not a part of language, it is just the representation of a language. Language is oral. Spelling differences and even orthography differences have nothing whatsoever to do with distinguishing two languages, else you would have to say that British English and American English are different languages just because of "color/colour" and "personalize/personalise". Different alphabets do not hinder mutual intelligibility between Croatian and Serbian speakers for one second. There is one single, solitary, non-Slovenian West South Slavic language and the most common name for that language in English is Serbo-Croatian. Just as different orthographies don't make Urdu and Hindi into separate languages, neither do different orthographies make Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian into separate languages. And you seem to completely have forgotten the fact that Serbo-Croatian was written during the 20th century with two different alphabets normally. --Taivo (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You are right, I forgot. --biblbroks (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)