Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages

Reliable sources

Hey, all, I mainly work on video game-related articles and have gotten a number of GAs and FAs in that area. I think it'd be interesting to take a language article on as a project, though, as I've been interested in languages for a long time and, compared to the Video games project, this one has surprisingly few recognized articles (no offense, of course - it just depends on what users want to work on). Coming up with reliable sources is by far what concerns me the most about this endeavor. Any tips or general guidelines? Tezero (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you should probably look at the few GAs and FAs about languages to get an idea of what the standard is. You will find that it is quite different from articles on videogames in that we rely almost exclusively on academic publications such as articles from reviewed journals, published grammars and sometimes unpublished dissertations for some languages that have little published coverage. I think it will be very difficult to be able to bring an article to FA without having a sound knowledge of both linguistics in general and the linguistics of the language you plan to write on in general. That is the main reason there are few high quality articles on languages, they tend to be written by topic experts who specialize in one or two languages, but they generally dont venture to write about other ones. But you should definitely give it a try if you find the work interesting. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing. I know they have to be from academic publications; I'm just not sure how academic, but I suppose just looking might really be the best idea. For example, biology articles, particularly those on diseases, seem to have rather confusing standards for what constitutes an acceptable source. I'm not hugely well-versed in linguistics, but I know my share about certain individual languages and families. Tezero (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As for "how academic" the current standard is pretty much as academic as they get. You would for example not be able to build a GA article on a phrasebook, and newspaper articles about the language. I think the standard here tends to be stricter than in some other projects, and for example I think it is commonly accepted in the project that certain languages will never make it to GA because there are not enough high quality sources about them. This is a different philosophy to those who consider that if the article duly reflect the literature then it should be a GA inspite of the deficiencies of the extant literature. If you have a particular article in mind I would be happy to suggest some adequate sources. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking of Czech language, which I expect there to be plenty about. I'm in college now, too, and my university library has a decent foreign language section. Tezero (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

How good is its linguistics section? The article on Czech would need academic sources discussing its syntax, morphology, and phonology rather than language-learning materials. And yes, for Czech we would expect high-quality sources, because Czech is a language about which a whole lot has been written in academic journals and monographs. Angr (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if relying almost exclusively on academic sources for everything, even very basic information, is best for our readers. Certainly we would want everything to agree with the academic sources, but providing some "lay-accessible" sources for basic information, might be very helpful to our readers. Consider the case of a teenager trying to write a paper for school. Is that student better off with an impressive-sounding list of highly technical graduate-level sources, or is that student better off with a couple of non-academic sources—sources that the student could actually understand—being thrown in the mix? For example, I think you could use a book like this one, perhaps to support specific examples about the slight, but important, difference in pronunciation between hot chocolate and bitter chocolate, without damaging an article on the Czech language.

I lean towards providing an occasional accessible source myself, even for medicine-related articles. I think that the reference list for a well-developed article should normally include a couple of sources that typical readers can easily access and read. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

That's actually a college text book. I used an earlier edition to teach a course for third-year anthropology majors. If that's the sort of material you have in mind, I think you'll be fine. It's work like this that is more of a problem, I think. Relying on Oppenheimer's general linguistic anthropology text for the grammar of specific languages is not likely to get you all the way to good article status, though. Cnilep (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

By itself, I wouldn't expect it to contain all of the relevant information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you give teenagers enough credit. The student is better off with, and in fact deserves, the best possible sources we can provide. "...(N)on-academic source that the student could actually understand" makes it sound as if a high-school student is incapable of muddling through an academic text and I don't believe that is true. They may have to put down that iPhone or sacrifice some video game time, but with proper effort, I believe they will benefit from high-quality sourcing. If a particular student can't make heads nor tails of an academic source, perhaps they shouldn't be starting their research with an encyclopedia. In that case, a simple google search can provide them with plenty of "non-academic" sources. In order to make writing that school paper worthwhile, the student must put some work into it, which starts with tackling the research...in fact, that's usually the whole point of such assignments: to prepare them for the type of work they will be doing in college. That being said, as Cnilep points out, the source you specified is fine for our encyclopedia but using "non-academic" sources would amount to dumbing down and that's never a good idea. We should expect and demand the best from our young students.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 03:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• If post-graduate-level academic papers can be understood by average fourteen year olds, then one wonders why their authors spent another dozen years in school, instead of just putting in "proper effort" themselves and skipping all that expense and bother with finishing not only high school but also several university degrees.
• Less than half of our teenager readers are headed to university, so that's probably not the point behind their assignments. (Even if it were, Wikipedia is a point of entry for most university students when they're dealing with an unfamiliar subject.)
• "Dumbing down" is when you oversimplify or omit material because you don't think it's possible for the reader to understand it. Appropriately using a variety of types of reliable sources to support material is not dumbing down. Using academic journal articles to support basic information might look impressive at a glance, but it doesn't make the article any more verifiable or any better written. As WP:RS puts it, the source needs to be strong enough to support the material. Basic material needs only a basically reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• comment It says very clearly in TITLE that the interests of the general readership.should be put before those of specialists. While that concerns titling the same principle is inherent re content. While in a highly technical field like linguistices or pharmacolgy there is a necessary emphasis on academic-type sources, and articles are often highly technical in content and flavour, one issue towards FA for language articles could be more general interest content - common phrases, unique words and concepts etc. Instead of just phonology tables and points of grammar in technical-speak which are obscure to laymen (teenagers or not).Skookum1 (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Much later comment: For what it's worth, Czech language is at GAN now. I was worried about the use of things like Czech: An Essential Grammar (a widely known, commercially released Czech book that is nonetheless academic in tone and classed as a "grammar"), but now I've seen that Swedish language, an FA, uses a similar source. Everything else I think is suitably academic; I wouldn't have dreamed of anything like the Minnesotan book. Tezero (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Languages At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Dubious claims on Celtic articles

A user who seems to place a lot of importance in his knowledge of Celtic languages has been edit-warring for weeks over some dubious claims in our Celtic-language articles, specifically Gaulish and Lepontic, that are contradicted by our sources and by our other articles. They are that Continental Celtic is a valid genealogical clade, that Lepontic was a dialect of Gaulish (the proposal is the opposite, that "Cisalpine Gaulish" was not Gaulish at all, but Lepontic), and that the Insular Celtic and P-Celtic theories do not conflict. I've raised these points on the talk pages, but he prefers personal attacks to rational argument. Currently the articles are just tagged as "dubious". Any input would be appreciated. — kwami (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a total misrepresentation of what's going on. If fact, it you YOU, kwami who are making destructing edits to the article (notably labeling widely accepted facts as "dubious"), misrepresenting what scholars in the field have to say about the classification of the languages (I even checked with one of the scholars that you keep citing in support of your restructuring of the Celtic language trees and he described your edits as "confused"), and attempting to remove all references to controversial, yet still important new developments in Celtic linguistics, such as the potential Celticity of Tartessian. We have debated this endlessly on talk and user pages, but you flatly refuse to admit that you are in the wrong, no less that you are not a specialist in Celtic linguistics and have an imperfect understanding of the languages.Cagwinn (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages of articles where kwami and Cagwinn appear to be in dispute:

• Talk:Gaulish language
• Talk:Lepontic language
• Talk:Welsh language
• Talk:Cornish language
• Talk:Breton language
• Talk:Manx language
• Talk:Irish language
• Talk:Scottish Gaelic
• Talk:Cumbric language
• Talk:Continental Celtic languages
• Talk:Brittonic languages
• Talk:Goidelic languages
• Talk:Galatian language
• Talk:Common Brittonic
• Talk:Insular Celtic languages

Cnilep (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC). You missed a few.Cagwinn (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple of other editors who specialize in Celtic linguistics like @Akerbeltz: and maybe @Angr:. They could perhaps play a role in settling the dispute.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

We have already gotten others involved - I believe Angr has participated in some of the discussions in the various talk pages and recently I brought Cuchullain in to mediate, but kwami just went right back to business as usual, forcing me to start reverting his edits again.Cagwinn (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you engage in personal attacks rather than discussion, you don't listen to other editors, and you do not provide sources for your POV – or, when you do provide sources, they disprove your POV, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong if you care to demonstrate it: Provide sources for your claims that Continental Celtic is a genealogical family, that Lepontic is a dialect of Gaulish, and that the Insular/P-Celtic debate has been settled. If you can do that, I'll bow to your superior knowledge.

As for Tartessian, I haven't removed all coverage. However, it is a fringe theory, as other editors have noted, and should be treated as such, not plastered over every article even peripherally related to it. — kwami (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any paradigm changing shifts in the mainstream classification of Celtic and most of my sources (I think the most recent one is Routledge's The Celtic Languages from 2012 (and Routledge usually do excellent and solid languages books) are quite happy to accept the 'traditional' classification of Cont/Ins etc. This also applies to the standard book in Irish on the subject, Stair na Gaeilge from 1994.

Most of the scraps around the classification I'm aware of are between historians & archaeologists on one side and linguists on the other when you get people who think the other side has nothing to contribute to their own field. In my experience, it's worse with archaeologists questioning the existence of Celtic fullstop.

So unless there are some very recent mainstream sources which disprove Ins/Cont I see no reason why to deviate. Has Cagwinn brought any references on the matter? Akerbeltz (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Akerbeltz: I'm not suggesting we abandon Insular, but that we reflect the ongoing debate, as the Routledge volume you mention has done. Insular is currently more popular than P-Celtic, but pro-Insular authors admit that it has not been demonstrated, and they continue to include P-Celtic in their coverage as well. The Routledge volume, for example, gives an Insular tree (fig. 2.2) immediately followed by a P-Celtic tree (fig. 2.3), despite the fact that the author favors the former. The intro says, The internal structure of the family has been just as controversial. The principal proposals for divisions ... are the pseudo-geographic division into Insular and Continental Celtic and the more linguistically based division into P and Q Celtic languages. That author thus appears to favor the latter. My argument is that we similarly acknowledge the lack of consensus, but place Insular first: For Brittonic languages, we should either list both in the infobox tree ("Insular or P-Celtic"), or, if that's too busy, omit that level and go from fam2 = Celtic to fam3 = Brittonic, as we do in other language families when there's a long-standing debate like this.

None of the trees in the Routledge volume have a Continental clade. Normally we wouldn't use a grade in an info box, but since we have an article on Continental Celtic we wish to link to, it should be marked to show it's not a clade, such as by placing it in parentheses. This is what we do for other language families.

Again in the Routledge volume, there's a debate over whether Cisalpine Gaulish/Celtic is actually Gaulish, but they have Lepontic as one of the earliest branches of Celtic, not as a dialect of Gaulish. Cagwinn's sources say the same.

Cagwinn's sources also disprove his other claims. His objections go back to his insistence on emphasizing a possible Celtic classification of Tartessian, which Angr has characterized as "fringe". Since I also treat that thesis (Koch et al.) as a minor opinion per WEIGHT, he's decided that I'm a "rogue editor" who must be fought at every turn, and that appears to be where the broader dispute comes from. The fact that the passages he quotes generally prove my point suggests that this is not an entirely rational debate. — kwami (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

More obfuscation and misrepresentation from Kwami!! First of all, he is the one who continually leaves harassing/threatening comments on my personal Talk page, acting as if he is an admin, when he was stripped of such title a while back because of his misdeeds on Wikipedia. In fact, after having researched his chronic misbehavior on Wikipedia, I have seen that many other users here accuse him of abusive and obnoxious tactics, edit warring, POV pushing, rogue editing, and other shady behavior. I looked into a long running dispute he's had with a user called Skookum1 and his many complaints against Kwami are virtually the same as mine! We are dealing here with someone who is a professional Wikipedia bureaucrat and egomaniac, not someone who is genuinely interested in making Wikipedia articles the best they can be. Anyone who crosses him immediately faces an assault, with threats of administrative action, blocks, and bans, for daring to suggest that he is not right about a subject that he shows little actual expertise in (here he is making pronouncements about Celtic historical linguistics and he didn't even know who Eric Hamp was and implied that one of the leading Celtic and Indo-European linguists of the past century was some sort of fringe figure!). I have provided plenty of references in the past in support of my positions, whereas Kwami provides little to none - and when he does provide them (as he continually does with Eska [201)0], he doesn't even understand them or quote them properly (causing Eska himself to scratch his head and say that Kwami got it wrong). His treatment of the Tartessian matter is so obnoxious that Koch, recognizing my name in Talk page debates on it, reached out to me expressing his concern over the ridiculous debate that had ensued here' whether or not people agree with Koch's conclusions, the man is a highly respected scholar (and has been for many decades now!) and his work on Tartessian (which a number of other important scholars now accept, including Eric Hamp and Barry Cunliffe - who called "unassailable" a few years back in a presentation on Celtic history) can by no means be considered "fringe". Cagwinn (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion of me is irrelevant. You need to provide sources. If Eska has abandoned his position in the Routledge volume, provide a source where he says this. If Hamp has validated the Celtic classification of Tartessian, provide a source showing his work on it. If I'm confused in my reading of Eska or whoever, say what I got wrong and cite the passage to show that I'm wrong. I've been asking for such evidence for months. This is the most basic element of academic argument, one which you should have no trouble with. — kwami (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources HAVE BEEEN PROVIDED! Go back and re-read some of the debates we've had on the various talk pages!! Yes, it was Eska who said to me in personal communication that your summation of his ideas on the classification of the Celtic languages was confused. Your ridiculous dismissal of Hamp's paper in which he accepted Tartessian as Celtic proves both that you have some sort of bizarre agenda regarding this language as well a disinterest in preserving a neutral point of view in Wikipedia articles. You want to reshape every Celtic language related article on Wikipedia so that they fit YOUR IDIOSYNCRATIC POINT OF VIEW on them and not the scholarly consensus. Meanwhile, you are attempting to damage my standing as a good faith editor on Wikipedia for daring to stand up to you, as well as trying to silence me with threats of administrative action. I guarantee you that as someone with 30 years experience in the study of Celtic historical linguistics, who runs several academic-oriented mailing lists whose members include many of the scholars whose work is being cited here, I have way more to offer Wikipedia on the subject of Celtic linguistics than you do.Cagwinn (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to convince others that you have the long end of the argument it would be helpful if you provided the arguments and the data instead of simply arguing against Kwami. This argument is not going to be resolved except through collaboration. It is not actually possible to read from your posts here what your point is or in what data it is based. That makes it very hard for third parties to make out who of the two are right.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to re-litigate here all the various arguments that we have been having on numerous different talk pages.Cagwinn (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It is going to be quite difficult to get other editors to see your perspective unless you are willing to argue in favor of it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

My point is that I have already argued most of this to death in various Talk pages and don't feel it is necessary to repeat it all here - I don't have the time or patience for that. Cagwinn (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It would appear then that Cagwinn is no more willing to provide evidence here than he was on the article talk pages – he hasn't provided anything coherent there either, except to insist that he's right despite being contradicted by his own sources. The Tartessian question, which seems to motivate his opposition, has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere; I'm more interested in the easily debunked claims that Lepontic is Gaulish and that Continental Celtic is a valid clade. Settle those issues, and how to reflect the Insular/P-Celtic debate in the info boxes, and we'll have solved nearly everything. — kwami (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL - I never claimed that Lepontic was the same as Gaulish!! My issue with Tartessian is that you repeatedly removed discussions of its potential Celticity; whether or not you agree with Koch, et al, you do not have the right to remove all references to this debate, which is being had not by fringe nutjobs, but by some of the most respected scholars in the field! You seem to be seriously confused - not only about the subjects we are debating here, but also about what I have and haven't said in various Talk pages!! 18:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Here you are edit-warring over a supposed claim that Lepontic is a dialect of Gaulish. Here and here you're doing the same on at another article. You keep bringing up Tartessian, as if that were the dispute, but it has no connection to the majority of your reverts. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL!! You have got to be KIDDING ME! No, that is me undoing your ridiculous removal of Lepontic from the Continental Celtic classification (in the second case, removing important information about Lepontic) and you adding "dubious" to the Continental Celtic family! Because you are not a specialist in Celtic history or linguistics, you seem completely oblivious to the fact that it is many scholars accept that Lepontic was introduced into northern Italy by Celtic speaking immigrants from the Transalpine Celtic region and that some scholars, like Kim McCone regard Lepontic as not a separate language, but as simply an early dialect of Gaulish. Guess it's too much to ask that someone who edits Celtic language articles to actually know something about the subject.Cagwinn (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Pontificating is not helpful. Repeating that you've provided sources without ever providing any sources, except for a few which disprove your argument, is not helpful. You have made several easily debunked claims, as outlined above. Provide sources that those claims are correct, and we can reflect both POVs, or even just yours if that is judged appropriate per WEIGHT. If you do not provide sources for your POV, then we can only report the POVs that are sourced. If I am confused, don't keep repeating that I am confused, but point out *where* I am confused. Wikipedia is a cooperative enterprise, and you need to work with other editors if you hope to get anything accomplished. I'm happy to be proven wrong – I often am – but you need to actually prove that I'm wrong. — kwami (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Cagwinn, you're being unhelpful - to yourself. Sure, I know how frustrating it is to deal with an issue that spans a dozen pages but if you're ever going to get a final answer to the issue, this page is probably it. So it's in your own interest to rouse yourself and provide the sources. Failing that, I can't see how that can be read by non-involved parties as anything but bluster about something that cannot actually be proven. So unless you want to conduct a running battle with kwami over the next weeks - which will undoubtedly cost you even more time - I suggest you bring the resources to the table and end the debate. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not on Wikipedia to help myself!!!! I first started editing articles related to Celtic studies because I was disgusted by the myriad of errors that I found in nearly EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE! It was embarrassing and I decided to do something about it! I think I have made solid contributions here and the article that I have focused on have improved greatly - but now we have someone who knows very little about the subject, but who knows an awful lot about Wikipedia bureaucracy and how to manipulate it, doing great damage to the articles and doing everything in his power to stop me from standing up to him. I can leave Wikipedia any time and let it continue to devolve into absolute garbage - it doesn't affect me one bit.Cagwinn (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In showing that Eska believes in Insular Celtic, something which I have myself referenced in my edits, Cagwinn just summarized a source on the Gaulish talk page[1] that supports my argument for both of the disputed points in that thread. This is a very odd debate: How do you have a rational discussion with someone who repeatedly proves your point while claiming you're wrong? — kwami (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the problem - you don't even understand what you are doing, or why people like myself have a problem with it! These articles were much better before you started manhandling them, now all of the Celtic language articles have been compromised by YOU and it is clear that you will never let them go. Wikipedia is certainly on a downward spiral because of users like yourself. Hope you're happy!Cagwinn (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if people want to see what I am up against, look at today's edits on the Common Brittonic article - Kwami insists on adding a "dubious" tag to the classification of Insular Celtic, when it is nearly universally accepted by linguists as valid! Instead of taking the issue to the Talk page and engaging others in a discussion, he leaves threatening warnings on my personal Talk page! Kwami is POV pushing and is a Rogue Editor - none of what he does on the Celtic language articles can be considered "good faith" editing!Cagwinn (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I was asked to weigh in by Cagwinn a few days ago (here, so I'll offer my take. It was my understanding that the majority view among linguists favors the Insular/Continental division. I didn't see much brought to the table that challenged that understanding. Kwami's point seems to be that some linguists favor the P-/Q- distinction, and that therefore we should include both or neither. However, it seems to me that this may be overstating how well accepted the P-/Q- formulation really is. Kwami did bring up some sources that mention it as a possibility, such as Eska, but Eska himself apparently doesn't give it much credence. On the other hand, there are numerous sources that support the Insular/Continental formulation and Kwami himself concedes that it's more popular.

In my opinion, this isn't a debate to hash out in infoboxes. The infoboxes should represent the majority view, while the specifics of the debate can be explained in full detail in the key articles (with summary and links in sub-articles where appropriate). I would much rather see everyone here try to improve our (often shoddy) article content on the Celtic languages rather than bicker over what's in the infoboxes, which should really just support the info in the articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a matter of opinion, how to reflect a long-standing dispute in the literature. There is no right answer, but I do feel showing both sides is a more balanced approach than showing just one.

However, the other points are not matters of opinion. When sources say that Lepontic is one of the most divergent Celtic languages, we can't present it as a dialect of Gaulish. And when our sources say that Continental is a geographic group, not a language family, we can't present it as a language family. I could understand Cagwinn differing from me on how best to reflect the Insular/P-Celtic debate, as you do, but I can't understand how he could say that Lepontic is not a dialect of Gaulish, provide sources that Lepontic is not a dialect of Gaulish, and yet edit-war to restore claims that it *is* a dialect of Gaulish. If there is anything rational in that approach, I really wish he would share it. — kwami (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No one wants the dispute kept out of the articles, in fact, it really needs to be better presented. However, it doesn't need to be hashed out in the infoboxes. Those should reflect the majority view, with the details hashed out in the appropriate articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, the behavior of both parties in this discussion is pretty hard to defend Give it a rest, guys.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You may disagree with my editing style, but I would hope that after having interacted with me on many Talk pages you know that I am knowledgeable on a wide array Celtic matters - especially linguistics. Kwami, on the other hand, is not an expert on anything Celtic related and is a known trouble maker on Wikipedia. He is already re-attacking all of the Celtic language articles this evening. In addition to Common Brittonic, he has also just now assaulted Gaulish Language. I suspect by the time I wake up tomorrow, I will find all the above-listed articles will have been maliciously edited by him. He simply will not stop.Cagwinn (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

When the sources you present support my POV and contradict your own, it's hard to understand how you have anything rational to contribute. I'm happy to admit it when someone shows me that I'm wrong, but I can't see that you've even tried. — kwami (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

If we were to restrict our classification trees to divisions that are universally accepted as true genetic divisions (rather than areal classifications and so on), then for many language groups we would not be able to show any structure at all. To me, this is a symptom of infobox fixation. As far as I can tell, the insular/continental classification is pretty much universally used, if not as a truly genetic then at least as a structural classification, and that to me is plenty of justification to include it in the boxes. The debate over its precise historical interpretation vis-a-vis the p/q one can be handled in the text. Please don't overburden infoboxes with demands of absolute precision, which that format of presentation simply cannot fulfil in any case. (And please keep that squabble over Lepontic out of here. Also, Kwami, stop edit-warring.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This is my feeling as well. In general, I don't see there's much if any support for Kwami's changes and a number of editors have expressed opposition. This makes it especially troubling that Kwami has continued making the changes after they were discussed and found no support. Perma-tagging the infoboxes as "dubious" also isn't helpful (there's nothing dubious about a language being labeled "Insular" or "Continental Celtic".) This is besides the revert warring from both editors, both of whom should know better.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking further through this, it also seems to me that the debate has somehow conflated at least two issues, which may be partly responsible for the way Kwami and Cagwinn have been talking past each other. One question is whether "Insular Celtic" is a valid genetic unit, as opposed to the possible alternative view that p-/q-Celtic is an older division. In this respect, my impression is that the sources I've seen cited here and those I quickly browsed through provide a rather clear answer: the strongly predominant view in scholarship appears to be in favour of "Insular Celtic". So, for languages in that branch, I really see no reason at all not to include "Insular Celtic" as a node in the infobox family tree. The other, more technical linguistic question, which Kwami appears to be rather hung up about but whose significance may not have become very obvious to Cagwinn, is what consequence this has for the status of "Continental". While most sources do evidently use "Continental Celtic" as a convenient cover term, it is technically true that it may not be a genetic unit in the narrow sense, even if "Insular Celtic" is one. According to classifications I've seen, including the one from Eska that Cagwinn cited on Talk:Gaulish language, the "Continental" languages may be divided among each other by splits that run deeper (are genetically older) than that between any one of them and the "Insular" ones. In that case, "Continental" would be merely a grab-bag category for "everything that isn't Insular", but it wouldn't itself by a node in the tree. So there may still be room for argument whether we should include "Continental" in the infoboxes for Gaulish etc. (The third question appears to be how to to treat the relationshsips between Transalpine Gaulish, Cisalpine Gaulish and Lepontic and whether there is a linguistically valid sense in which Lepontic could be comprised within the scope of what "Gaulish" means; this is something I really have no view about yet.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point; it means there's even less reason to add "P-/Q-Celtic" to the infoboxes (or to remove Insular Celtic).--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking that we only report universally accepted nodes. That would obviously be impractical. I am asking that we report an ongoing debate on classification that appears in nearly every source on Celtic languages. As some of our sources have reported, P-Celtic was dominant early on, then Insular became the dominant theory, and now people are revisiting P-Celtic. Both theories have problems, and neither appears able to explain the evidence explained by the other. — kwami (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Treat these issues in the text, sure. But overburden the tree diagrams in the infoboxes with them: please don't. Trees are meant to be simplified, and it is quite common for family tree diagrams used for general linguistic reference purposes (rather than narrowly technical, specialist discussion of genealogical issues) to include nodes like "Insular" and "Continental", even in publications that otherwise acknowledge the problematic nature of these under a strict cladistict perspective. I've just quoted several examples on Talk:Gaulish language, please see there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It's very little of a burden, considering that we're clarifying a contentious issue. I'm asking two simple and unobtrusive things: We mark Continental as not being a normal node, e.g. by using parentheses. That's unobtrusive. And if we list Insular or P-Celtic, we list both. That's hardly obtrusive either, and if it's deemed too much, we can simply omit that node.

Consider Stifter (2008).[2] Like us here at WP, Stifter is not pushing his own analysis but summarizing the literature. There is no Continental there, and both Insular and P-Celtic ("Gallo-Brittonic") are presented as possibilities. As an encyclopedia, we should also summarize the literature like this. That's little to ask for a significantly more informative classification. — kwami (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears there's no agreement that your additions are significantly more informative. In fact, I find them confusing since they imply the P-/Q- construction is much better supported than it really is (is, sources like Eska that mention the construction specifically don't buy it). I think the consensus is to discuss the issues in the articles and leave the infoboxes reflecting the common view.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What about placing Continental in parentheses to indicate that it is not genealogical? — kwami (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, and has the potential to just further confuse readers.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

en:Languages in censuses

I invite you to help write Languages this article.--Kaiyr (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind helping, but it's an extremely long article, and that's just with the bare headings. Why not group it by something like region or language collection style, or turn it into a prose-based article rather than a list (i.e. grouped by topics related to language collecting rather than by country)? Tezero (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• • It is like Race and ethnicity in censuses--Kaiyr (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh. Well, that's an extremely long page and barely goes into any detail. Are you okay with that being the case for this article? Tezero (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please help improve five articles that a few university students wrote about language use in Singapore

In 2012, a group of Nanyang Technological University students wrote five articles about language use in Singapore for an assignment. The articles (Languages of Singapore, Language education in Singapore, Language planning and policy in Singapore, Speak Good English Movement and Speak Mandarin Campaign) contain a wealth of well-referenced information, but need considerable cleanup. Would any members of WikiProject Languages be keen to collaborate with me to bring these articles to GA status? --Hildanknight (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at the articles a couple of times thinking about reviewing them. But they are just too far outside of my area of immediate expertise, while not interesting enough for me to start delving into the literature. They've been GA candidates for a really long time and no one seems to be wanting to review them. This is sad.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Maunus: Instead of reviewing the articles, how about helping to copyedit them and clean them up (which would counter systemic bias)? You would learn more about a multilingual society and Asian cultures. Although I have made some headway into Language education in Singapore, the work is too much for a single editor to handle. --Hildanknight (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Nah, that is not my thing. I am a researcher and content writer. For that you could try the copyeditors guild. Or listing it for peer review.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed Speak Mandarin Campaign a few months ago. It was seriously deficient in citations, structure, and formatting. Not that it didn't represent good work in any way, but it wasn't GA material by any stretch. Tezero (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

African languages presentations at WikiIndaba 2014 are now online

The WikiIndaba 2014 sessions are now online at YouTube. This includes presentations on African Language Wikipedia and South African Language Wikipedia. Informative and recommended. -- Djembayz (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit wars

Edit wars I don't have time to deal with properly:

• Newari language and Classical Newari. Claim that "Nepal Bhasa" is also known as "Nepal Bhasa" [sic], and repeated moves to non-English names such as "Nepal language" and "Nepalbhasa". AFAICT, "Newari" is still the common name in English. No good ref that "Newari" is pejorative. Ethnologue says that, but they are not a RS in that regard. Most sources of both lang and culture continue to use "Newari". Needs an actual discussion rather than ad hominem attacks.
• Iranian languages, maybe still Indo-Iranian languages. Dispute over alt names by anon. IP.
• Azerbaijani language. Insistance on saying it's spoken in Eastern Europe and Western Asia rather than the Caucasus. Technically true (Daghestan is in Europe), but highly misleading. Also insisting on inferior ref (E17) for population. Not different enough that it should matter.
• Maybe review the additions to Mishing language and see what's worth saving, if refs can be found.

— kwami (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue with me in the talk page of the Azerbaijani language article, as I've asked you to do for the past month or so. Once again, you placed a dubious tag next to the term "Eastern Europe" even after I provided the sources to show you that Azerbaijani is spoken in parts of Eastern Europe, which I'll have you know not only includes Dagestan but also portions of Azerbaijan. Previously, the article only stated that Azerbaijani is spoken in Western Asia. It is in fact spoken in parts of Eastern Europe (the Caucasus, including Dagestan and Azerbaijan) and Western Asia (South Caucasus, northern Iran and Armenia). The fact you have a problem with this is baffling. Please discuss your issues in the article talk page. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Move request at Newari language

AFAICT, the current name is the one used in the preponderance of the linguistic lit. — kwami (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Language family color table

Hi there. I've raised the issue at Template talk:Infobox language/language family color table and can anyone answer? Jaqeli 23:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Linguistics vs. Languages

I've just realized something: Barring articles on individual languages and families, is there any rhyme or reason for what's in our scope as opposed to WikiProject Linguistics' scope - or both? For example, Fuck (film) is in both, while Chinese classifier is only in theirs. Tezero (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the original intent was that "languages" would cover individual languages, while "linguistics" would cover the scientific field itself? There is a lot of overlap of course, so maybe they should be merged. CodeCat (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

CodeCat is right, but a suggestion to merge the two is misguided. Those interested in languages might not be interested at all in HPSG or chain shifts. If it's a suggestion to try and increase participation, trust me, merging won't work, that's a problem of WPs in general. ALTON .ıl 15:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not a suggestion of that. But look at the GA lists for Languages and Linguistics - what hard-and-fast patterns do you see there? This is about the projects' seemingly arbitrary scopes; it has nothing to do with participation. Tezero (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Since no one's given a suggestion, I propose that articles not explicitly related to individual languages or language families be removed from this project's scope, e.g. Fuck (film), and that articles related to individual languages or language families be added, e.g. Chinese classifier. Is that alright with everyone? CodeCat? Alton? Tezero (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your change but I would still rather see the projects merged. CodeCat (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I would, too, but that depends chiefly on whether they're okay with such a merger. Tezero (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I like the change. As a long dead user I have no dog in the fight w.r.t. merging, just sharing my reaction. ALTON .ıl 16:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'll begin to switch project banners accordingly. If someone objects later on, we can always reopen the discussion. Tezero (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

US English Dialect Page Titles (revived?)

Disclaimer: I'm not sure how to revive an archived page--which "template: archive" says is feasible, recommending that course of action, yet then gives no explanation on how to do--but here is what I'll assume the template means...

Users in the past were having discussions (and the exact same kind of discussion appears on several other pages) about perhaps coming up with a uniform way to title pages related to English dialects. mnewmanqc, for example, posed "Should there be a common form for pages dealing with the varieties of English spoken in a US region? [...] Note the two predominant forms are PLACENAME dialect as in Baltimore dialect and PLACENAME English as in Pittsburgh English. My own impression is that the latter is tending to predominate in the dialectological literature."

Users tended to agree (as on some specific dialects' talk pages, etc.) that we should use a standard format but that it would be an arduous task to attempt as people would have an array of opinions. Apparently, the topic was then soon forgotten. However, I think the point of the general agreement that we could try for a standard format is that we should continue having this conversation, and see if we can get to any productive conclusions. Let's see if we can make that standard form, even if it requires some more in-depth discussion.

I'd personally argue in favor of the use of the format “PLACENAME English.” The term “English” covers a broader scope than “dialect” (just as “dialect” covers a broader scope than “accent”). For example, there are instances (such as with New York City English) where it is not clear to linguists that a language variety or dialect category can be considered a single, clear-cut, uniform-throughout dialect when there is such a great deal of intra-local variation (sometimes known as sub-varieties, sub-dialects, etc.) in terms of class, ethnicity, and so on. According to mnewmanqc on the NYC English talk page (many of whose points I’m repeating here), “NYC English” is the primary term preferred by all recent research on the topic due to its ability to cover such an expansive relevant area. The term “English” neatly includes either or both “accent” and “dialect,” allowing a greater diversity of ideas on the page, and bringing seekers of the accent and the dialect all to one convenient article, without excluding either topic. Since “English” allows for more or less broadness, it can be used to characterize what may still be defined uncertainly or without consensus by linguists, considered by some linguists a single dialect and by others a whole broad class or category of dialects, such as Inland Northern American English. The term "English" is also the predominating term as it now stands.

The user who moved the article “New Jersey English” to “New Jersey English dialects” (in order to, in good faith, emphasize the plurality of dialects in the State of New Jersey) seemed to miss the point that the original title already allowed the article to encompass multiple dialects and sub-dialects. Other thoughts? I would love the idea that we could agree on a standard format, rather than seemingly arbitrarily having articles with inconsistent names like these: Philadelphia accent, Central Pennsylvania dialect, Pittsburgh English, Boston accent, New York City English, Tidewater accent, etc. Wolfdog (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree and reiterate that the convention among specialists is increasingly PLACENAME English, which avoids confusion over of dialect status vs. accent. mnewmanqc (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The older discussion is here. Wolfdog's argument that "PLACENAME English" is a useful cover term for "PLACENAME dialect" and "PLACENAME accent" is well-taken. An objection raised in the 2010 discussion relates to cases such as Scouse, where the nickname is fairly standard both in local and scholarly usage. I have no objection to standardizing "PLACENAME accent/dialect/English/etc." to "PLACENAME English", but would find it hard to support moving pages such as Scouse to Merseyside English (or what have you; Liverpool English is currently a redirect) or Geordie to Tyneside English. I don't have the same scruple about Baltimorese, but on the third hand I think Pittsburghese is becoming more widely used (e.g. Johnstone 2013). Cnilep (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree that we could make exceptions for names such as Scouse, Geordie, Received Pronunciation, General American, etc. that virtually all the literature already recognizes by a standard name that has no need for a clarifying tag of "dialect/accent/English," etc. However, I would say that while terms like Pittsburghese may be becoming more common, again, it is certainly not the indisputable standard and so "Pittsburgh English" is better for covering all facets of that variety. Even if we do agree on this, however, it does of course cause some hassle. How could we standardize this as a guideline for Wikipedians to follow in the future? Even now, it will (apparently) take revived talk-page discussions to revert/move back, for example, "Boston accent" to "Boston English" or "New Jersey English dialects" back to "New Jersey English," etc. since such articles have already been moved from the "PLACENAME English" titles in the past. Anyone more well-versed than I am in the Wikipedia policy-making arena? I think we could bring this discussion to that level, if feasible. Wolfdog (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Navajo language

By any chance, is anyone knowledgeable about this language? I've been working on it a little in hopes of GAN while Czech's article gets reviewed, but the Grammar section (and particularly its Verbs subsection) is absolutely enormous and I don't feel I'm educated enough to know what's vital and what can go. Tezero (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Eh, never mind. I deleted the huge majority of it yesterday (well, migrated to a separate article) and I'll be building it from the ground up. Tezero (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Language templates

FYI, several lang templates are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 13 -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Lang-de

Anybody interested in merging Template:lang-de-AT into Template:lang-de? Please join discussion by clicking the above heading. --George Ho (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Bahasa Indonesa & Malay Language

Hi everyone. I'm new here, but I want to raise a question about Bahasa Indonesia & Malay language. Despite this language is combine into one for their similarity, I'm shocked to find out the numbers is far from reality. For example, Bahasa Indonesia is a compulsory to be learned by all citizen of Indonesia from the very young age of 7 years old (when you enter primary school at 1st grade) or younger, if you started with Pre-school or Kindergarden. This is a compulsory language that every citizen must able to speak and use officially to communicate with anyone else within the country. Knowing this, I wondered how come the population of nearly 250million as per Wikipedia estimation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Indonesia#Population)with a note of literacy level of 92.81% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Indonesia#Literacy) of the population, which means those are individuals age over 15 and can read and write. What language are they reading and write, other than Bahasa Indonesia? This is the only and main language being taught in all the school all over Indonesia, with additional English, Mandarin or Arabic being taught individually as per school preference. It is a compulsory for all Indonesian citizen to go through the basic 12 years education, and even if they are unable to finish their basic education, they at least able to learn and converse fluently in Bahasa Indonesia as this is a common language use among all Indonesian, besides their own race language (e.g Javanese, Bataknese, Manadonese, etc). Based on this information itself, the number is already exceeding the 250million marks, and it is not yet includes Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei and part of Thailand where this language is also used by the locals there. Therefore, I would like to question this information, as it is totally an error that needs to be replaced immediately, considering that Bahasa Indonesia & Malay language by native speaker is already more than the 6th language position in this list. And we are just base on the number of Bahasa Indonesia native speaker only. Thank you all for the assistance and I look forward to hear from you. Cheers. David.sinsuw (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have a look at Languages of Indonesia, you may find that the situation is not quite as easy as you seem to perceive it. There are countless other languages spoken in the country. Although they do not have an official status, many of them are actually written, and for many Indonesians they maybe the only languages they speak with any confidence. I do not pretend to have any actual knowledge of the language situation in Indonesia, and I am aware that a Wikipedia source should not be the basis of any statement we make elsewhere on Wikipedia, but your statement seems to reflect the official language policy of the country, and that may be quite off the linguistic reality. Landroving Linguist (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A couple of horror stories needing attention

First of all, there's the article on the Proto-Philippine language, which is a strange jumble of Old Tagalog (in Baybayin script!) and bits and pieces of information about the real Proto-Philippine language. The Old Tagalog article has some of the same issues perpetrated by the same contributor.

And then there's Kolarian, whose only references are an 1878 work on languages of India and an encyclopedia of religion written by an author who died in 1922. Someone who knows something about the history of Austroasiatic-language studies needs to tie it in to all the developments that have happened since the days they were inventing things like the telephone and the automobile. Someone also needs to fix the article on Jharkhand, which links to it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Help with checking Cantonese romanization?

Not sure exactly where I can make requests like this, but I'll take a shot here.

At Old Town Chinatown, Portland, Oregon § Translation of street names, I added Yale romanizations of the Cantonese street names. I used this tool to get them. But I don't know Cantonese, and I'm not sure my results are all that great. Some characters listed a couple different romanizations, and I don't know which ones are correct in the context. Don't know the locally preferred pronunciation either, if that's a factor. I'm not even sure Yale is the best choice in the first place. Help? — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 03:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)