Talk:Lutescens

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

? Alexander 007 08:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it for real, or is it a hoax?

There's no reference on the article, and the only google hits about it correspond to wp and copies of it. Also, the article has appeared translated in several wp, but by adhoc users, who have just wrote this single article... --83.35.138.2 11:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author's contributions list in other wp:

In the Catalan wp: ca:Especial:Contributions/Jordi25

In the Spanish wp: es:Especial:Contributions/JuanLleidaPuigverd

In the Esperanto wp: eo:Speciala:Contributions/Jordi25

In the Basque wp: eu:Aparteko:Contributions/Jordi25

And the one who adden the iw links in the English one: Special:Contributions/Eeox

I think it is really suspicious. --83.35.138.2 11:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks even worst. No information in Britannica, and the only real contribution was active only for a single day: Special:Contributions/Olthule --83.44.190.62 14:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a hoax, in which case it qualifies for speedy deletion. Searching in CSA Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts for 'lutescan', 'lutesc*', 'lutes*' or 'mysia' returns nothing; same for Bibliographie Linguistique online. If nothing real comes up I'll delete it tomorrow. — mark ✎ 16:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a full-text search in JSTOR for the terms above, which returned no results (except for a few articles treating Latin poetry in which the word lutescit occurred). — mark ✎ 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard of it, but...

First of all, thanks to Mark Dingemanse for alerting me to this interesting dilemma: Is this a hoax or not? When I first linked to this page (and fixed a typo in it) on December 11, it did not occur to me it might be a hoax (even though I had never heard of this language before) and here's why. I had linked to this page from Mysia. The article on Mysia — a region of ancient Asia Minor whose existence is not in question, although just what language or languages were spoken there, and at what times, is not quite clear — refers to this Lutescan language. The Mysia article currently says: "There are also a small number of references to a Lutescan language indigenous to Mysia in Aeolic Greek sources^{[citation needed]}."

Now, if you review the history of the Mysia article, you will see that the reference to the Lutescan language has been added and removed more than once. For example, on May 16, an anonymous user removed it with this comment: There is no such thing as a "lutescan language". But the next day Radetzky22 restored it with this comment: Numerous references to a Lutescan language exist on other websites. I think we can be certain that it did exist.

The reference seems to have been originally added by Dbachmann on March 11 with the following text: "There is a small number of references to a Lutescan language indigenous to Mysia in Aeolic Greek sources^{[citation needed]}"

In my experience, Dieter A. Bachmann of Zürich is no troll, so I'd be willing to take his word for it. However, it seems to me that either he or Radetzky22 or someone should provide more information on those Aeolic Greek sources. The coastal region of Aeolis in Asia Minor directly bordered on Mysia, so, if there are indeed Aeolic Greek sources that refer to a Lutescan language being spoken in Mysia, then clearly this article is legitimate.

In any case, the question to ask is not so much: Is this article a hoax or not?, but rather: Is the reference to a Lutescan language in the Mysia article legitimate or not? From the latter flows the former. Pasquale 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, Pasquale. I definitely agree that Dieter is not a troll, and not someone to easily fall for a hoax either (which is probably why he added the reference along with a {{fact}}-tag).

To me, all of this hinges on the question whether external, reliable sources can be produced that testify to the existence of this language. Editing in the field of African languages, I'm not unfamiliar with extremely obscure languages to which only a few references exist in the literature. Probably because of that, I'm usually quite good at tracking down such references, which is why the apparent inexistence of any non-Wikipedia references to this particular language makes the case highly suspect in my eyes.

Additionally, the ease with which false information from Wikipedia proliferates on a host of other sites should make us very careful. Therefore, I am for deleting this very soon if no real evidence can be offered. — mark ✎ 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for directing me to here. I ask for the apologies, my English is not good. Wikipedia didn't interest me until I saw this language here. I am linguist with an interest in ancient languages like this and I work with my partner who is called JuanLleidaPuigverd. When we saw this article we were very excitied and did lots of research. We found nothing on the internet, expect this article on other websites, but we were determined. We eventualy found some references in a book in the library of Universidad de Sevilla. This is about Aeolian literature and we saw one paragraph over Lutescan. It is almost the same as the article here. So with the help of a friend we translated the article into Spanish.

To mark, please be patience. There is not many information on some languages, and some are just theories, but I am sure that you know thise. I am sorry if you think we are liars because we have not written nothing before (Is that correct?). We just thought we must translate it because it made us excited.

I hope you understand. Jordi25 19:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jordi, thanks for tuning in. Don't mistake my concerns for impatience. The thing is, if information on Wikipedia is not verifiable, there is no way for it to be reliable or trustworthy, and it is in effect worthless. This is why the cite your sources policy is so important. I do not think you are liars because you have not writting anything before; the problem is, quite simply, that Wikipedia's policies leave no place for this article if nothing has been written on it before: see Wikipedia:No Original Research.

So, if you can produce a citation to your original source (including ISBN, page number, and ideally a direct quote), and if that source is a reliable one, there may be no need for this article to be deleted. — mark ✎ 19:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I return to Sevilla in a few days, when I will look for the book again. It was in English and I cannot remember the title exactly, but I can remember the words 'Greek civilization'. When I have it I will give you all the information that is necesary. Until then I hope you see this article is not lying and you don't delete it. In a few days you will have the information that you want. It is mysterious, no? Jordi25 20:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you talk about Dieter A. Bachmann you are wrong. In fact, what he did was: 1) removing all information from Lutescan language. 2) Redirecting it to Mysia, with the comment doesn't exist [1] 3) adding the only profitable line from the article to the Mysia one, with a fact template [2] . So, in fact, it really looks as he also thought it was a hoax. I'll ask him. --81.39.168.230 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anonymous user 81.39.168.230: Nothing I said about Dieter A. Bachmann was wrong. I was talking about the history of the article on Mysia, where Dieter added the reference to the Lutescan language. Unfortunately, I had not bothered to review the history of this very same article on Lutescan language, which, as you correctly point out, Dieter changed to a redirect to the Mysia article (with the comment "doesn't exist") precisely on the same date (March 11), as I just noticed now. My error was not to review the history of the Lutescan language article BEFORE I reviewed the history of the Mysia article. I just didn't think of it. What I observed was Dieter's addition of the following text to the Mysia article: "There is a small number of references to a Lutescan language indigenous to Mysia in Aeolic Greek sources^{[citation needed]}". If he thought it was a complete hoax, why would he add that text to the Mysia article? In any case, I was completely in good faith. Somehow, you seem to imply otherwise. Pasquale 19:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to warn him, as I have no user here and his talk page is semiprotected... --81.39.168.230 20:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I put a message at Dieter A. Bachmann's talk page. Pasqual (ca) · CUT 10:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put a warning message on ca:, eu:, es: and eo:, I'll wait for an answer here. Pasqual (ca) · CUT 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about the semiprotection -- I might lift it soon, the troll that made me do this seems to have left for now. On topic, I dimly remember the edits discussed above. I did not verify this and decided to leave a line in article space graced with a {{fact}} tag to inspire people to look after this. Which seems to be happening now :) I've never heard of the langauge, and I put to your consideration [3] and [4]. dab (𒁳) 11:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REFERENCE FOUND!

I have returned from Sevilla and I have the reference as I promised. The book is: Titchener, J.B. (1926), "Synopsis of Greek and Roman Civilization", Cambridge MA. The paragraph says:

"There are also Aeolian sources pertaining to a Lutescan language spoken in the Hellespontica area of Mysia. Although information on this language is sparse, it is possible that it may have been an Anatolian language, owing to certain phonetic similarities. The people who spoke it were largely nomadic, only settling on the shores of Lake Artynia ca. 1200BC. It is not thought that they reached as far as the southern Pergamene area, although this may have been possible. Once settled they were soon absorbed into the neighbouring Phrygian culture and the language died out, leaving very little trace. It is thought to have had little, if any, influence on the Phrygian language."

I hope this resolves this argument. The book is very rare and this is probably why it was not referenced before. Until next time I will try to find more sources and refernces to this language. Jordi25 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it establishes that Lutescan isn't a hoax. I'm still not convinced that enough information about Lutescan is verifiable to warrant having an encyclopedia article about it though. Titchener doesn't say which Aeolian sources mention Lutescan, doesn't give any words to back up the claim of "phonetic similarity" with Anatolian languages. If this is all the information you find about Lutescan, I'm for going back to a redirect to Mysia. —An gr 04:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the source. Indeed, this establishes that the article isn't a hoax. However, I'm still of the opinion that we should be very careful; see Wikipedia:Fact laundering for possible problems. Like Angr, I'm not sure whether this kind of information is enough to warrant a separate article. Maybe a mention in Mysia would be enough, especially considering the fact that we almost surely are not going to be able to find more info on Lutescan. — mark ✎ 09:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the Wikipedia has other articles about ancient languages about which virtually nothing is known, e.g. Philistine language, Trojan language, etc. So, I vote to let this stay. And, frankly, I never thought for a minute this might be a hoax. Pasquale 18:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see Philistine language redirected to Philistines and discussed there, and Trojan language redirected to Troy and discussed there. Indeed, the Philistine language is already discussed at Philistines#Philistine language, so a separate article is just redundant. —An gr 18:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Angr, I might even agree with you on those calls. In any case, I have nothing to do with those two pages being there — I was just giving you two random examples of dubious or marginal languages that have articles. I am sure there are more. Pasquale 22:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are comparing apples to oranges. There are many references about Trojan language and about Philistine language. Also, multitude of references about Trojan and Philistine people. However, it seems there is only a single source about both Lutescan language and the people who spoke it. So, this could be a side note on Mysia article, but not an article on its own. Also, the only reference has been checked only by a user who has not contributed in any other way to wikipedia... --83.32.69.154 01:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dear anonymous, I can tell you this. Were it not for this reference in the Wikipedia, I would never have heard about those references to a Lutescan people and a Lutescan language in Aeolian sources, and so I am extremely grateful to whoever added those references in the Wikipedia. This happens to be of great interest to me, precisely because I had recently been looking at the ancient languages of Mysia and Bithynia (there are several different layers of them, although all of them very poorly attested). To me, this is what an encyclopedia is for. But evidently, you think an encyclopedia should only contain information that is of interest to you. Pasquale 21:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your answer at all. I was not advocating to remove any reference to Lutescan language or people, but for merging it to Mysia article. In fact, if you read WP:N you'll see that "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" and that "Information which is given only superficial treatment or which is tangentially mentioned in discussions surrounding the actual focus of a work, is not sufficient to build a full, sourced encyclopedia article that stands independent of the main subject". So, I dont know if this is not what an encyclopedia is for, to you, but it is what THIS encyclopedia is. --81.39.168.119 00:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I had understood you correctly. In principle, I have no objection to removing the article while keeping all the references to "Lutescan language" within the article on Mysia. But, in an on-line encyclopedia based entirely on links, someone inevitably will want to click on those references to "Lutescan language" to find out more about it, and will be surprised to see that there is no link, and so will add a link going nowhere, and then someone will create an article duplicating the information contained in the Mysia article, and then you will propose deleting it again. Why not avoid this unnecessary vicious cycle by leaving things as they are now? Pasquale 18:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Lutescan language becomes a redirect to Mysia, then people will find the information they're looking for and no one will be tempted to start a new article unnecessarily. —An gr 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the possibility that de source "Synopsis of Greek and Roman Civilization" isn't real. The only attestation of a book of J. B. Titchener I have found is Moralia: Libelli 15-23, Regum Et Imperatorum Apophthegmata, Apophthegmata Laconica, Mulierum Virtutes, Aetia Romana Et Graeca, Parallela Minora, De Fortuna. I think it is not currently proved that the reference is not a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.132.53 (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax tag

The only reference in this article (Titchener, J.B. (1926), "Synopsis of Greek and Roman Civilization", Cambridge MA) was added by User:Jordi25 who claims it is very rare. He begins by saying "I ask for the apologies, my English is not good." Looking at his contribs, he didn't edit for 4 years and then created a fairly negative biography of a controversial British political figure, in perfect English. Whilst I'd like to assume good faith, alarm bells are ringing here, especially as the IP above casts doubt on whether this Titchener book exists. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching library catelogues online also reveals no mentions of this book.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the the Spanish and Catalan versions have already been deleted as probably hoaxes. *Strokes chin* [5] [6] --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Sevilla has no such book in its online catalog, it only has this one[7]. It's not either in the unified catalog of all Catalan universities[8]. Zero hits in google books, google sholar and normal google. The Canbridge catalog search has no books authored by "Titchener" [9]. I am prodding this article as an unsource hoax. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if the reference is reported accurately (I don't have access to it), we still just have one author back in 1926 coining this term, never again used in the 90 years since then. "Lutescan" must be an adjective formed after some placename. Latin "lutesco" means "to become muddy". In fact, lutescans is part of the binominal name of some plant species. If there was ever a tribal people of "Lutescans", google books certainly doesn't know about it. They must be known by some other name. Their "Lutescan language" is clearly unknown, but the title can redirect to the article about the people provided we find out what they are usually called. --dab (𒁳) 09:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually, lutescans in binominal names seems to be a misspelling for lutescens, e.g. Caiman lutescens. --dab (𒁳) 09:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to think that Titchener, writing at a time when readers were still expected to have a full classical education, was in good faith just referring to "a language of the swamps", just converting to Latin on the fly a Greek term like λιμνήτης. So what he is possibly saying is that there are epigraphic references to a "language of the marshlands" which he thinks may have been Anatolian. So this would just be an early reference to the Mysian language. I'll make this page a disambiguation pointer to things called "marshy" in Latin. --dab (𒁳) 10:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that Titchener and his book existed, though?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, I am working on assumptions of probability. We can drop the Mysian item and still keep the lutescans redirect to lutescens and disambiguate terms there. What we need to delete though is Lutescan language, I'll place a prod there. --dab (𒁳) 10:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually, google books is aware of the book and dates it to 1925.[10]. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JB Titchener was apparently a member of the "Illinois Greek Club" in the 1920s and 1930s. His Synopsis is all but forgotten. It was a booklet of 31 pages and probably self-published (what he did do was co-edit Onosander with Loeb in 1923). However he came round to calling the Mysian language "Lutescan" (a misprint? an error?), I suggest we can safely ignore it. --dab (𒁳) 11:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm yes, this says he was a classicist, alive 1898-1972.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this name was only mentioned once in one tiny source, then it's probably not notable enough to list it in the Lutescens disambiguation page? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so, it looks like it wasn't a hoax, but a good-faith editor that didn't know that it was just a borked name. ~~I am going to re-prod as non-notable/non-significant, just to set the record straight. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)~~ Oh, d'oh!, the article has already been rewritten as a disambiguation page. Oh, whatever, I am very tired today. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW John Bradford Titchener autor of The manuscript-tradition of Plutarchs̕ Aetia Graeca and Aetia romana 1924 has an entry in Biographical dictionary of North American classicists ed. Ward W. Briggs, American Philological Association 1994. (doesn't change that the name of the language is a typo or mistake). In ictu oculi (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]