Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amami–Okinawan languages

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This reflects mostly a content dispute among expert editors about how to classify these languages and how to reflect this classification in Wikipedia, but there is no consensus for or against the argument that the classification as presented in this article is original research requiring deletion of the article. I recommend pursuing this further on the content level via a RfC.  Sandstein  10:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amami–Okinawan languages

[edit]
Amami–Okinawan languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a novel and never before discussed division of the Ryukyuan languages that is not supported by the sources used in the article as citations. It is only a vague division on Ethnologue, which in itself is not used as a reliable source for languages. Nanshu has been disrupting Wikipedia to produce this and the other articles in that are linked to in his new definition, and is essentially his own personal research on the topic, and this article thus violates WP:SYN as he is coming up with new conclusions based on the evidence he cites. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article violates WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, and WP:CFORK. This language family is called "Northern Ryūkyūan" in the mainstream, and this "Amami–Okinawan" is a combination of a fringe theory and Nanshu's OR. He created this article as a launch point and precedent for his personal research into the Amami and Kunigami languages (which he's splintered into multiple languages and renamed the latter). This article specifically takes sources that state these languages are in fact "dialects" of Japanese and uses them to reclassify the Ryukyuan languages to better suit his still unstated agenda. Parts of it were also copy-and-pasted to five other articles. Not to mention that the article is written like a thesis paper. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a lot of politics involved in deciding whether or not something is a dialect or a language, with Japanese sources preferring to declare all of these varieties just "dialects" of Japanese, and Western academics calling them "languages" based on the application of normal scholarly criteria for distinguishing the two, such as mutual intelligibility, presence of an unbroken dialect chain etc. [1] You're accusing Nanshu of having made up these distinct languages, and I don't find that confirmed by looking at sources. Those languages are mentioned as such in the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics by Oxford University Press, and that's not a fringe publisher. You and Ryulong are accusing Nanshu of having an agenda, and he's accusing you two of having an agenda, but I will note here that on multiple occasions now you and Ryulong have made assertions about what can and cannot be found in reliable sources that were found to be demonstrably false by anyone who actually bothered to look. Andreas JN466 19:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My "agenda" is to remove these content/POV forks. Nanshu has almost completely ignored my presence in this (except for reverting me a few times), so I don't see where he's accused me of having an agenda, while he goes on rants about how Ryulong is trying to destroy Wikipedia. And also, when have I ever said "what can and cannot be found in reliable sources"? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You say above e.g. that it was Nanshu who has taken the Amami and Kunigami languages and "splintered [them] into multiple languages and renamed the latter", and that's just complete nonsense, as anyone who looks at the sources can see – unless you are alleging that these international scholars are all Nanshu writing under various pseudonyms. Andreas JN466 09:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a valid node in some classifications ([2][3][4][5][6]), and per NPOV policy it's Wikipedia's job to accurately reflect diversity in reliable sources. Andreas JN466 19:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because it's a valid node in some classifications does not mean that Nanshu's massive article that copies shit from other pages means anything. This is "Northern Ryukyuan" everywhere else other than in Nanshu's head. The International Encyclopedia of Linguistics has single sentence entries on everything here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, they are single paragraphs, not single sentences, as far as I recall. There are thousands of languages that are notable enough for Wikipedia. Many of them will not even be mentioned in a high-level work like the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. I see no reason why a Wikipedia user who has seen the term mentioned should draw a blank when searching for it on Wikipedia. Andreas JN466 09:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Searching "Northern Ryukyuan languages" resulted in 7,030 web hits and 0 book hits, while "Amami-Okinawan languages" resulted in 93 web hits and 2 book hits.. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Search for "Amami-Okinawan", without the "languages", and you'll find more, in very high-quality and recent sources, both in Google Books and in Google Scholar. And that's without looking for sources in Japanese and other languages. Andreas JN466 09:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But how many of those sources regard the languages and not the islands and their nebulous cultures?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether the group of languages in question is to be called Amami–Okinawan or Northern Ryukyuan has nothing to do with the deletion discussion. It only affects the article's title (i.e., possible renaming). Ryulong and Sturmgewehr88 have repeatedly made groundless accusations against me regarding WP:NOR and other points. They refuse to face the reality. I have cited at least 21 unique sources to write these articles. They have never demonstrated with reliable sources that they represent a "fringe theory." They failed to explained why they can be removed completely. By removing what they dislike, they challenge our WP:NPOV policy. --Nanshu (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because none of the sources (other than a vague reference in the Ethnologue) you've brought up seem to point to this being a language grouping and it's just your synthesis of the sources that has created it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep If it's a valid node, it's a suitable article. The remainder of the problem contains what the content should bem and that;s for discussion elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the sources provided clearly demonstrate that the existence of this language family is agreed to by at least a portion of academia. Thus, it makes sense to have an article on the topic, so long as that article makes it clear that the topic is still in some dispute and that there is no consensus view amongst experts. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 13:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong asked above, "but how many of those sources [mentioning Amami-Okinawan] regard the languages and not the islands and their nebulous cultures?" Among English-language sources we have:

There's no reason that this information cannot be adequately incorporated into Ryukyuan languages. There's no real point in keeping it separate when the "Sakishima languages" only number 3.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amami–Okinawan_languages&oldid=1191290460"