Talk:Croatian language/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Language and macrolanguage

I think many of the arguments here would be nullified if a change was made from "They are varieties of the Serbo-Croatian language..." into "They are varieties of the Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage" (source: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=hbs) and in other similar claims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.99.151 (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Macrolanguage" is an in-house convention of SIL. Hardly anyone else uses it. It also doesn't have a coherent definition, so I don't know that it would be an improvement: Should Croatian be considered a "macrolanguage", since it's a 'borderline case between strongly divergent dialects and very closely related languages'? German? What about Slavic? Or are we to follow only a single source, SIL, to the exclusion of more specialized and more knowledgeable sources? — kwami (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds

I had written the following in the first paragraph of the section Sounds:

Main article: Serbo-Croatian phonology

Croatian orthography usually only marks vowel length or pitch accent (with the exception of linguistic works) on homographs in contexts where without them meaning would be ambiguous. A vowel can be pronounced short or long, and when stressed (otherwise it is non-tonic) it carries either falling or rising tone. The following diacritical marks are used when vowels are stressed: short falling ‹  ̏› (double grave accent), short rising ‹  ̀› (grave accent), long falling ‹  ̑› (inverted breve), long rising ‹´› (acute accent); and when unstressed long ‹¯› (macron) is used, and when unstressed short no diacritical mark is used.

But this was reverted. I have discussed it on User talk:Kwamikagami#Croatian language. I just posted this here for the sake of further discussion. (btw, what I wrote is basically based on what is written in "Stjepan Babić & Milan Moguš (2010). Hrvatski pravopis: usklađen sa zaključcima Vijeća za normu hrvatskoga standardnog jezika. Školska knjiga: Zagreb, Croatia. ISBN 978-953-0-40034-4 (Croatian)", p. 107).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PrisonerOfIce (talk • contribs) 08:07, 24 April 2011

What Babić and Moguš describe has been my experience too. The general tendency is definitely for words NOT to be marked with stress and pitch-accent. However in addition to markings in linguistic works, you may indeed see one diacritic mark in non-technical registers to resolve ambiguities between genitive singular and genitive plural which have come to share the same ending "-a". For example, od profesora means "from the professor" or "from the professors". To make things clear, you use od profesorâ to mean "from the professors" and od profesora for "from the professor". Vput (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty intricate example :) A more common example might be "sam" (meaning am, or alone), so both of these could reasonably be used in the same sentence and one needs to be "sâm" for clarification. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

AFAICT you already listed references, so the "please give citation" undo seems completely off base, and I have rolled it back. The practice of using these accents certainly exists in both speaking and to an extent in writing, kids are taught in school about it, it gets used for disambiguation purposes in real life, there's nothing controversial about it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Where does it exists? Zagreb colloquial speech doesn't differentiate vowel lengths at all. 9 out 10 randomly pulled people from the street wouldn't have the faintest clue what that circumflex means. It's used & understood strictly in upper registers by a few nitpicking folks. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Joy, per your revert, does Croatian really usually mark diacritics where the meaning would be ambiguous? Or does it usually just leave it to context? — kwami (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about two different sets of diacritical marks: the five tonic accent marks (áàȁȃā) are never used to disambiguate; I have never seen them used for that purpose in a regular text. What is used for disambiguation is the circumflex, known as the "length sign" or "genitive sign", which, contrary to our article circumflex#Serbo-Croatian] (fixed now), indicates length rather than falling pitch (as written in Â#Croatian and Serbian, by myself). Someone has apparently conflated the circumflex with the inverted breve, which does indicate the falling pitch.

See e.g. http://www.srpskijezickiatelje.com/pravopis:ostali-znaci#toc2, for a (Serbian) Orthography citation; it's the same for Croatian, though I can't find a citation for it right now. No such user (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible, I literally copied and pasted Vput's one. But, from your own source, it exactly corroborates the addition - Акценти се бележе у речницима, граматикама и стручним језикословним текстовима, а у текстовима шире намене по потреби; доста често се јавља потреба за њима и у поезији кад није слободног стиха, а познавање акцената неопходно је за разумевање метрике. (If Transliterator did not somehow strangely fail me.) BTW, 9 out of 10 people pulled from the street would have problems identifying their own behind ;) and the inserted text does not contradict them. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

But our article now says: "Croatian orthography usually only marks vowel length or pitch accent (with the exception of linguistic works) on homographs in contexts where without them meaning would be ambiguous." I think that it's quite an overstatement: I have never in my life encountered that "po potrebi" (Transliterator works for me :) ). In the "wider purpose texts", the only thing really used is the circumflex, and even that only in a high-register print. I was aiming to the first sentence of my link: "Razlika između dugih i kratkih samoglasnika sistemat­ski se označava samo u akcentovanom tekstu, gde se nenaglašena dužina beleži ravnom crtom, a dugi akcenti istovremeno označa­vaju naglasak i dužinu. Uglasti pak znak dužine pišemo u bilo kom tekstu, ali samo po potrebi — da se jasnije razaznaju reči." No such user (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Can't we just make this two sentences? Tone/length marks are only used in dictionaries & linguistic texts. However, a caron for length is (sometimes?) used to dab homographs in (high register? academic? literary?) texts. — kwami (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Tuning the description of exactly how rare it is is a separate, valid editorial question - go ahead and edit it if you can make it better. I just had to object to the bite-y way an apparently useful, referenced addition was reverted as if it was abuse. The key point here is - people doing useful edits don't need other people's prior blessing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No, Joy, but if they object to the edit (for whatever reason), it must be discussed here and a consensus reached before putting it back in the article, per WP:BRD. --Taivo (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This is preposterous. Kwamikagami explicitly told the new user that he did not actually object to the change that much, but that he was wary of it because other people tend to make wrong changes. That just doesn't cut it. To remind you of the headline, this is a free encyclopedia that everyone can edit. The only edits that are banned by default are those under the Wikipedia:Protection policy, and that isn't the case here, so kindly stop molesting new users. Sheesh, talk about disruptive, you made me spend all this time reminding about basic principles of Wikipedia, time that could have been better spent doing... anything else :p --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh and just to make sure I didn't misunderstand anything, I took another look at the linked essay (sic!), and you might actually want to try to do that too before misrepresenting it in the future: Wikipedia:BRD#What BRD is, and is not. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Babic & Mogus (2010) discuss this too:

Excerpt from pp. 108-109,

"Duljina. Nenaglaseni slogovi mogu biti dugi i kratki. Dugi naglaseni slogovi u pismu se oznacuju duljinom. Duljina je vodoravna crtica koja se stavlja iznad slova koja oznacuju otvornike da se oznaci dugi slog. Upotrebljava se u pisanom tekstu kad je jedna rijec, recenica ili dio teksta oznacen naglascima: ... ... Cesto o duljinama ovisi znacenje jer duljina razlikovna u cijelim kategorijama: 1. u gen. mn. imenica ... 2. instr. jd. imenica ... 3. prezent i imperativ ... 4. izmedu neodredenih i odredenih pridjeva ... 5. pridjev od priloga ... Ima i drugih razika ...

"Za oznaku takve razlikovnosti nije uobicajeno da se u pismu stavlja sama duljina, obicno se stavlja s nagaskom osim kad je posrijedi genitiv mnozine. Ako na njemu treba oznaciti samu duljinu, tada se stavlja poseban znak koji se naziva genitivni znak.

"Genitivni znak. Genitivni je znak slomljen luk (ˆ) [circumflex]. Njime se oznacuje genitiv mnozine koji je glasovno jednak genitivu jedine, (jednog) jèlena ≠ (mnogo) jelenâ, jer bi cesto u pisanome tekstu mogla nastati sumnja je li taj oblik genitiv mnozine: ... ... Oduvijek ima tajnih veza / Između pjesnikâ i breza. (Cesaric)

"Kad je iz samoga oblika ili drugih rijeci potpuno jasno da je posrijedi genitiv mnozine, tada se genitivni znak ne stavlja iako to neki pisci rade: ...

"Kratak se slog ni u naglasenome tekstu nicim ne oznacuje, osim iznimno, npr. u dijalektoloskim radovima."

While the genitive sign might be more common than the other accents (according to the experiences of the people who write above), according to Babic & Mogus, what I wrote about disambiguating homographs is correct. On p. 107 they write,

"Naglasci se u pisanome tekstu upotrebljavaju kad se bez njih ne bi znalo sto je napisano jer oni kod istopisnica imaju razlikovnu sluzbu. U hrvatskome jeziku ima mnogo istopisnica, rijeci i oblika koji se jednako pisu a razlikuju se samo naglaskom: ...

"Da bi se mogla procitati i razumjeti recenica Skini to s vrata!, mora biti oznacena naglascima: Skini to s vrȃta! Na vratu je to sto treba skinuti. Skini to s vrátā! Na vratima je to sto treba skinuti."

I can't really be bothered transliterating the Cyrillic website source to properly read what it says, but Babic & Mogus is an authoritative source for standard Croatian, and I think it's best that we follow what it says, despite people's common experience as to how "common" these signs are. I think I even recall seeing them in a children's book, 'Heidi slavi Bozic', published in Croatia... does that count as "high-register"?

In any case, even if they are not widely used, since they are part of standard Croatian, isn't it our responsibility to document them here so that others too may no longer be left wondering what was meant by Skini to s vrata! :)

For those who haven't seen these signs much (maybe you've seen it more than you think but forgot about it), there might be a tendency to overreact, but the source is quite clear on this I don't really see what the issue is... I think that Stjepan Babić and Milan Moguš know what they're talking about.

PrisonerOfIce (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Funny, this is the only instance that I can recall where I actually agree with Babić and Moguš (their tracts on language history or push for hyper-ijekavianism are different matters). I say that for something as banal as prescribed diacritics to indicate length or resolve ambiguities, let's put in what they say. In practice it doesn't matter that much since in all the years that I've been dealing with the language, most texts don't mark it, and a lot of foreigners who read this article have no interest in learning or using the language. Those who do are already aware of the conventions for marking prosody. Vput (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

does that count as "high-register"? No, so perhaps s.t. like 'where precision is valued'. That would cover various academic registers as well as children's books. Like vowel marking in Arabic. — kwami (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

---"These dialects, and the four national standards, are commonly subsumed under the term "Serbo-Croatian" in English, though this term is controversial for native speakers[7] and paraphrases such as "Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian" are therefore sometimes used instead, especially in diplomatic circles." --- Controversial? It describes the native speakers' views far too mild, almost in a politically correct manner, not to mention the quoted article (a politically biased one at that) does not contain that particular word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.243.70 (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ratings

LOL @ page ratings. 78.0.192.242 (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

paraphrases

"and paraphrases such as "Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian" are therefore sometimes used instead, especially in diplomatic circles."

never heard about that. source?93.136.117.52 (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

The lead paragraph of this article should be more in line with the leads at Serbian language, Bosnian language, and Montenegrin language since these four lects form a clear and well-defined set of varieties of a common language. The leads should reflect that. --Taivo (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Director (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Likewise. --biblbroks (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Against--Sokac121 (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Taivo, too. --JorisvS (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Contra --Roberta F. (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Against (http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=BA) --Man Usk (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ethnologue has nothing to do with reordering information that is already present in the lead. --Taivo (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree the lead should conform to WP:LEAD and WP:V instead. Modeling one lead after another article is borderline WP:CIRCULAR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read the edit. It was a reordering of information already present in the lead to 2-1 instead of 1-2 based on the other identical varieties of Serbo-Croatian, not some rewrite as you seem to imply. --Taivo (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Against --Wustenfuchs 16:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You may have gotten the wrong impression, folks. This is not a vote (or poll). -- Director (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that many of the editors expressing opinions above haven't bothered to actually look at the edit I made to see that it neither added nor subtracted information from the lead, but simply reordered it to bring it line with its sister articles at Bosnian language, Serbian language, and Montenegrin language. Here is the edit in question. --Taivo (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Improper referencing

There is a problem with a reference (current #4: Benjamin W. Fortson IV, Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (2010, Blackwell), pg. 431, "Because of their mutual intelligibility, Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are usually thought of as constituting one language called Serbo-Croatian.")

The source does not say that the Croatian is a collection of "varieties of the Serbo-Croatian language" as indicated in the article - hence that particular source does not support the claim made.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This article was discussed before. User (forgot name) added his edit without discussion at talk page, so I reverted all thing. --Wustenfuchs 17:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I usually keep out of linguistic issues and I did not do much actual research here, but having reviewed the sources at Serbo-Croatian, I am confident that kwami and Taivo did not misquote anyone. I will add that a source that states "Croatian constitutes a part of Serbo-Croatian" is by no means misquoted under WP:SYNTH as supporting the statement that Croatian is a variant of Serbo-Croatian.

Wustenfuchs, please be very careful as this article is under a 1RR restriction. I won't edit-war with you, I'll just report the second revert. -- Director (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It is stated in the lead that it is a variant of SC, but lead is different. If you want to report, then please do. --Wustenfuchs 17:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The referencing was absolutely correct, Wustenfuchs and has been discussed before. Croatian is part of a complex including Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin and the lead here should match the leads in those other articles, with the same trajectory. It's well-referenced. Thanks, Wustenfuchs for edit warring and getting the article protected (sarcasm). --Taivo (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

One may discuss, but the sources must support the claims directly per WP:V.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sentence "Croatian, although technically a register of Serbo-Croatian, is sometimes considered a distinct language by itself." claimed to be supported by ref #13 (Cvetkovic, Ljudmila) is not really supported by the sentence. It contains a WP:WEASEL "sometimes" which is absent from the source - AGF inadvertently giving impression that it is rarely considered a distinct language, when opposite is generally the case.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Tomobe03, the "opposite" is not the case. In English language linguistic sources outside the former Yugoslavia these lects are nearly always discussed as extremely close variants of a single language that is most commonly called "Serbo-Croatian". It is only very, very rarely that these forms are listed without the comment that they are mutually-intelligible variants of a single language. Artificial labels such as "B/C/S(/M)" have not caught on in the English-language linguistic community yet. For example, in J.P. Mallory and D.Q. Adams, The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (2006, Oxford), the list of forms for this language in the index is clearly labelled "Serbo-Croatian" (page 722). That's just the very first book I pulled off the shelf that might have relevant information. --Taivo (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I dare say it is and this the source. Besides, the point of the objection is that the weasel word "sometimes" is completely absent from the source and use of that source to back up this particular claim is in violation of WP:V--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What was meant by the "opposite is generally the case"? That it is never considered a distinct language, that it is always considered a distinct language, or that it is often considered a distinct language? I'd say that not just in this particular and highly dubious case, but everywhere and every time one source's claim shouldn't make a great difference. And that whatever its specialty is. In this case even greater precision is required. Also, I fear that this source's text doesn't even deal with statistics not to mention if the source's field of expertise should be scientific enough to support sufficiently any of the claims. Though I might be wrong, of course. --biblbroks (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Relocated From Below

Consensus can be reached, and it was reached way before. Just see the archive. The lead that was made by Tavio started a very long discussion before, and probably will do the same in 3 or 4 days. The lead that I reverted was there for months, and it seams it was good for both sides. That is why I reverted Tavio's edit. I think it was very constructive for the article. --Wustenfuchs 18:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs, it was obviously not "good for both sides", since it characterized Croatian as a "standard language of the Croats" - not as a variant of Serbo-Croatian. The sentence that mentions Serbo-Croatian does not even make grammatical sense ("they" are part of Serbo-Croatian?? who's "they"?). The current lede paragraph strikes me as merely a clever/desperate way to avoid stating what the sources support. Its a mangled and deliberately evasive POV wreck. The lede needs to state, plain and simple, that Croatian is a variant/form/standard of the Serbo-Croatian language. All else is compromising for the sake of nationalist sensibilities of Wikipedia users from Croatia. -- Director (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Tavio" made no such edits, Wustenfuchs. --Taivo (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"They" are probably dialects, we can correct it if you want, but I think it's clear enough what is "they". Another important thing is that this lead that I made is correct also. Dialects, namely Chakavian, Shtokavian and Kajkavian make Croatian language - so this is correct. Also some users insist it is variant of Serbo-Croatian, if we observe SC as family of languages, then they are also correct. So I think that I made the most optimal lead. --Wustenfuchs 18:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Taivo, I read it wrong it seams. --Wustenfuchs 18:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wgfinley, the sources are unequivocal that Croatian is not a language in its own right other than for nationalistic purposes. The linguistic literature, independent of former-Yugoslav or politically-motivated literature, is crystal clear that Croatian is completely mutually intelligible with Serbian and Bosnian and that the label most commonly applied to this non-Slovenian West South Slavic language is "Serbo-Croatian" (still being commonly used long after the breakup of Yugoslavia). Wustenfuchs, they are not a "family of languages", they are one, single, solitary language--the non-former-Yugoslav linguistic sources are crystal clear on that fact. My edit was simply to bring this article into line with the articles on Bosnian, Serbian, and Montenegrin as part of a cluster of lects that constitute a single language, Serbo-Croatian. --Taivo (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm here in an admin capacity, I don't do content disputes. I've had this page on my watch list since 2010 due to the constant disputes that crop here and to direct conversation as needed. You need to discuss the issue amongst yourselves and reach a consensus. If you can do that I can lift the protection earlier but the issues should be discussed as opposed to edit warring or seeking to exclude editors from the conversation citing various infractions, you all seem to be doing a good job on that since I protected the page, progress!! --WGFinley (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I think I misread who had written what above, WGFinley. My comments are probably only directed at Wustenfuchs. My apologies for inserting you into the content issue. --Taivo (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look carefully at my edit, there was nothing said that was different than what is already in the lead. All I did was move the clause about Serbo-Croatian to a position following the name to bring it into line with the articles on the other three lects that constitute Serbo-Croation--Bosnian language, Serbian language, and Montenegrin language. Since these four are a mutually-intelligible group of dialects, the intros should reflect that relationship with similar wording. As it is written now, the second sentence barely makes any sense (starting with the strange "they" which doesn't have a real antecedent). --Taivo (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Continuing Discussion

Source #4 (David Dalby, Linguasphere (1999/2000, Linguasphere Observatory), pg. 445, 53-AAA-g, "Srpski+Hrvatski, Serbo-Croatian".)is problematic too. Unfortunately it is offline, but the Linguasphere website itself does not support the claim made in the reference quote as it states Srpski+Hrvatski (Serbian+Croatian) but branches further and in no place does it make the equation proposed in the reference quote. This in particular seems like a case of WP:SYNTH.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Tomobe03. Linguasphere lists these numbers for languages and then divides the languages up into constituent dialects and sub-dialects. The number 53-AAA-g refers to a single language--Srpski+Hrvatski, Serbo-Croatian, and then lists the constituents dialects for that language with their subdialects. --Taivo (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That's OR - Srpski+Hrvatski in both Serbian and Croatian means Serbian+Croatian. To a casual observer that may appear as two. I don't see where you get the notion that the two mean a single language called "Serbo-Croatian"?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Tomobe03, you don't seem to understand the way that Linguasphere labels things. It doesn't use "-", but "+" for some reason in its language names. Thus we find "Hindi+Urdu" for Hindi-Urdu, for example. It's simply a notational artifact of the source and does not imply what you are assuming. The fact that Linguasphere assigns this a number is the indication that this is a language. --Taivo (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

All of the above, and those are just the first few checked, are references which fail to directly support the claims in violation of WP:V. If one aims to support a claim that "Croatian language is a variety of Serbo-Croatian" or that it is "usually called Serbo-Croatian", one must provide sources claiming that verbatim (outside wiki per WP:CIRCULAR. Otherwise, that's WP:SYNTH or WP:OR no matter how compelling the case may be.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Tomobe03, but you don't seem to understand WP:V, WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. The references are crystal clear in their statements and in what they demonstrate in the article. --Taivo (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand them perfectly - don't worry about that. If "sometimes called..." is apparently supported by a source which does not say "sometimes called..." that's SYNTH/OR. Sorry about that, but there's no way around it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. At no point does Wikipedia require that we turn off our brains when writing or evaluating sources. The sources are perfectly fine and demonstrate without any equivocation what they are being used for. --Taivo (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you are free to skew the info from the cited sources in any way you see fit. Even by adding weasel words that would otherwise be completely useless if it wasn't for your bigotry.161.53.243.70 (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The very first sentence of WP:V is: Verifiability on Wikipedia is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. (emphasis added) - therefore there's no room for interpretation of the sources and that's the problem with interpreting "sometimes", interpreting what linguasphere meant or did not mean to say, interpreting what is usual and interpreting if a language is a part or variant of something else. If a majority of sources directly support one claim - state it and cite it properly. If a significant minority of sources claims something else - state that too and cite that properly - it's simple as that. Wikipedia is a mirror, not the lamp.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the term "sometimes" may be interpreted everything between "in all but one case" to "in only one case". Is there a proposal for replacement of "sometimes"? --biblbroks (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously there are sources claiming Croatian to be a part or variety of Serbo-Croatian and other sources claiming it to be a distinct language. I don't see what is the big deal noting situation as it is - i.e. both groups of sources, duly noting that majority of British/American linguists claim X, majority of Croatian linguists (it's their language after all) claiming Y and the language being recognized as official language (i.e. distinct language) by whichever countries and the EU (not yet, but starting at a clearly defined date) and that's it. The circumstances in linguistics are bound to change in this respect (they're never constant no matter how one tries to believe otherwise) so this article, like some others, will probably require occasional updates... On the matter at hand: Source #13 has very little to do with the sentence it claims to support so as a quick-fix I'd propose replacing "sometimes" with "also"... That gives little information but at least it does not give information that is not contained in the source.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I can go with also. --biblbroks (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In sentence "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." the reference #18 ("Vandoren: EU membership – challenge and chance for Croatia – Daily – tportal.hr". Daily.tportal.hr. 2010-09-30. Retrieved 2010-10-27.) does not support the last part of the sentence (starting with "though when other...") and this claim appears to be pure original research.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Taivo and Kwami interpreted falsely:

See from this source: Lewis, M. Paul ed. (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. ISBN 1-55671-216-2; ISBN 978-1-55671-216-6, Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/

Linguistic Lineage for Croatian

• Indo-European (439)
  • Slavic (18)
    • South (7)
      • Western (4)
        • Croatian [hrv] (Croatia)

Second link (complete Western): Language Family Trees : Indo-European, Slavic, South, Western

• Indo-European (439)
  • Slavic (18)
    • South (7)
      • Western (4)
        • Bosnian [bos] (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
        • Croatian [hrv] (Croatia)
        • Serbian [srp] (Serbia)
        • Slovene [slv] (Slovenia)

Also relevant: so called Serbo-Croatian is per Ethnologue spoken only in the Republic of Serbia along with Serbian (4,500,000 speakers in Serbia), Romano-Serbian (172,000), Bosniac/Bosnian (135,000), Croatian language (114,000) and an unidentified number of Montenegrin language speakers in Mali Iđoš.

So called Serbo-Croatian is presented as A macrolanguage of Serbia not as a a macrolanguage of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Romania, Montenegro, Croatia and Slovenia.

Source: Lewis, M. Paul ed. (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. ISBN 1-55671-216-2 ; ISBN 978-1-55671-216-6, Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/

Taivo and Kwami are inserting POV in this and other related articles. They have not cited properly. Everyone can see the source. Sad to see that my fellow editors who present the so called Serbo-Croatian do not cite extensively from the sources. Please document everything. Cite extensively. -- Sokac121 (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sokac121, Ethnologue is far from the only source on this issue. The great majority of non-Croatian sources separate West South Slavic into two languages--Slovenian/Slovene and Serbo-Croatian. --Taivo (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

While I'm sure every Croat worth his salt is bound and obliged to oppose the fact that Croatian is generally described as a variant of Serbo-Croatian, if anyone's "interpreting anything falsely" - its you. The sources do not say its "spoken only in Serbia", they state its "spoken in Serbia". And its actually official in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

• "In the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Ijekavian standard literary language of the three constitutive nations is officially used, designated by one of the terms: Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian." (Language law of 1993, cited in E.C. Hawkesworth, 2006. Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian Linguistic Complex, Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed.) - those are in effect three designation for one language.

Sokac121, the sources in general are very clear on this issue, I recommend you review them all - and objectively at that. Not just the few you can find that disagree with the majority (and those that can be misrepresented). Rest assured we (I at least) will not be copying down text here simply because you refuse to review the cited sources. -- Director (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That is the whole point, the article should reflect that this particular group generally holds one view and that that group holds another. At any rate it is not for wiki contributors to cherry pick reliable sources or dismiss Croatian or Serbian linguists summarily as incompetent on their respective languages whatever those may be. Danish language is mutually intelligible with Norwegian and Swedish yet I don't believe there's this type of controversy in those articles. Why not say what reliable (as conflicting as may be) sources say and add that the two, or three or four (if you count Bosnian and Montenegrin) are mutually intelligible? Linguistics are not physics - they're not really an exact science, so conflicting opinions are quite possible, as they are in philosophy or sociology. Add to the sourced info where either Croatian or Serbo-Croatian is in official use or at least taught in schools and that's about that. For instance, this article (as well as the one on Serbo-Croatian and possibly Serbian (I did not look it up to be hones)) might mention that Croatia and Serbia officially hold the two languages sufficiently distinct to appoint court interpreters: [1], [2].--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian are at least different dialects, and there are some problems with mutual intelligibility. Serbian and Croatian are different standards of the same dialect. A more appropriate comparison would be Hindi and Urdu, or Malay and Indonesian. No-one argues that they are different languages genealogically, only sociolinguistically. Sociolinguistics is perfectly valid, of course, but we have repeated efforts by biased editors who wish to deny that Croatian is a form of Serbo-Croatian. If the reaction is inflexible, it's because of the chronic attempts by such editors to distort the article if any wiggle room is allowed to them. — kwami (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would an editor be biased if he/she is providing reliable sources for contributions? WP:RS clearly states that "..articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered...", so the article should reflect exactly that. Dismissing any contributions claiming that Croatian and Serbian are not separate languages no matter how referenced out of hand is IMHO clearly biased.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a side note to "some" problems with mutual intelligibility. Croatian and Serbian are easily mutually intelligible at casual-conversation level, with relatively few incomprehensible words for speakers of the opposite language. Still, in area of scientific terminology the differences are far greater, and I'm talking about completely different lexemes used, not their variations or words which have a common root. That my also amount to "some" problems - and why should we ignore that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This whole discussion started with a simple reordering edit. If you look at the edit, it was moving the linguistically sound comment about "variety of Serbo-Croatian" up to the place it belongs to match the introductions at Bosnian language, Serbian language, and Montenegrin language. There has been no evidence adduced here to indicate that treating "Croatian" like the other Serbo-Croatian varieties is a bad thing. There was no addition or subtraction of sources, no claims made that are not already made in the article--just a movement of one comment to match the leads in Croatian's sister lects. It's always amazing to me how the national flags come out in any of these articles with the slightest stylistic edit. Despite what you are trying to wikilawyer, Tomobe03, the references are sound, they are not a violation of WP:OR, WP:V, or WP:SYNTH, but they have nothing to do with the edit that I made to bring this article in line with the articles on Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian. --Taivo (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT there are multiple sources which do not directly support claims or are subject to interpretation (see above). That has nothing to do with reordering of contents, the same would be true if everything was as before the edits. The comments that the article should accurately reflect multiple sources and all aspects (English-speaking world RSes, Croatian RSes, official use, use in schools etc., Croatia/Serbia treatment of Serbian/Croatian as foreign language) also apply regardless of the reordering.

I'm not wikilawyering here, I have cited several specific instances (see above) where sources were the sources do not directly support claims made. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but I suppose you can find other sources as well. I'm not doing this to be a nuisance but to contribute to quality of the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, this argument of greater differences in the area of scientific terminology is rather void I think. It is based on a false presumption that differences necessarily prevent intelligibility. Yet when it comes to analysis of the exchange in the area of academia one must remember that conversators in these cases are far more apt to convey their thoughts and comprehend the meaning of the message than are speakers engaged in a so called casual conversation. In an every day communication it might be even more usual for misunderstanding or failure of communication to happen than it is in an scientific environment especially due to localisms and phrases restricted to idioms. --biblbroks (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Tomobe03, but you are simply being willfully blind to what the sources are telling you. There is no ambiguity, there is no "interpretation", there is no original research involved. They are plain and simple verification of the facts stated in the text--that "Serbo-Croatian" is the predominant English language label for the mutually intelligible non-Slovenian West South Slavic lects. Any reasonable reader can see that without any problem. I can't remember whether it was on this page or over at Talk:Serbo-Croatian language, but I spent five minutes grabbing three books on Indo-European in order off my shelf that postdate 1993. Every single one of them labelled this language "Serbo(-)Croatian". It's not even remarked that "this isn't called 'Serbo-Croatian' anymore". They simply use the term as a matter of course. You are, indeed, wikilawyering this. When your comments are interminable references to WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH without any reliable English-language linguistic sources to dispute the facts, that is wikilawyering. We word with evidence here, not legal briefs. --Taivo (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Full Protection - 48 Hours

All parties are notified of protection and further disruption can lead to sanctions, please discuss the topic at hand in the section above. --WGFinley (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Folks, as indicated at the top of this talk page, this article is under WP:1RR pursuant to the Macedonia arbitration case. You are expected to hash out differences on the talk page and avoid making contentious edits to the article without consensus due to various national disputes. I've protected the article for 48 hours to give you an opportunity to discuss the changes and develop a consensus without further warring. Warring after protection expires will be subject to sanctions. --WGFinley (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC) "Avoid making contentious edits to the article without consensus"? Wgfinley, supposing that a consensus cannot be reached due to "national disputes", in spite of sources being overwhelmingly in support of an edit? -- Director (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Direktor, your combative attitude is going to find you subject to sanction shortly. Your discussion on this page was essentially "I'll report you". That's not conducive to harmonious editing or working out any issues. Discussion should ensue as to the nature of the edits, sources and their validity to the article. You need a heaping dose of AGF and work a bit more with others instead of constantly running to various notice boards to report infractions. --WGFinley (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC) @WGFinley, that is perhaps your perception but I think it is demonstrably not so. My pointing out the 1RR restriction to Wustenfuchs was an effort to address the annoying edit-warring, not the conflict itself, and was a smaller addendum in my post (which addresses claims by Tomboe and has nothing to do with Wustenfuchs or any reporting). Indeed, if you notice, the objections to the current version were brought-up by Tomboe - pray tell how was I supposedly hoping to resolve the conflict by warning Wustenfuchs of the 1RR and reporting him? I submit that my attitude in this issue is not "combative" in the least, and I resent this imo unwarranted derisive tone on your part, WGFinley. I was and am discussing this in the most conventional manner. -- Director (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Other editors here are trying to discuss these issues and work them out, you are refusing to do so dwelling on violations you want enforced that are at an admin's discretion. I have used my discretion and don't believe they merit a block or a ban. How about you discuss the topic at hand now? --WGFinley (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC) WGFinley you don't want to block anyone, fine, I wasn't asking you to, but what kind of bullying is this? Its late here, actually, and I was out for dinner. I'm not "refusing" to do anything, and I'm not "dwelling" on anything either. I am no less discussing and involved here than other editors, and if I hypothetically chose not to get involved, and discuss violations instead - would you block me for it, what? The primary discussion here is between Taivo (who actually did the research and introduced the changes) and Tomboe, but since you ask, I do intend to participate myself as well. -- Director (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC) WP:TE and WP:IDHT are the two that come to mind, please drop it and if you are going to contribute then do so, stop disrupting this page with wikilawyering. --WGFinley (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Two Issues Have Become Comingled

There are two separate issues that have become irretrievably comingled here.

• Reordering the existing initial paragraph to match those of Bosnian language, Serbian language, and Montenegrin language without any addition or subtraction of information. This is the initial issue and the one that prompted the edit war from Wustenfuchs and the page protection.
• The interminable effort by nationalists to make Croatian not a part of Serbo-Croatian or to disparage the reliable sources in order to make it seem less so. This is the direction that much of the commenting and wikilawyering by Tomobe03 has taken.

I would like these two issues discussed separately, but am not sure how to separate them other than to start two new sections. --Taivo (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's totally unacceptable to call whoever disagrees with the current wording of the article 'nationalist'. People who read wikipedia articles sometimes also read talk pages, you know? This is a disgrace.193.198.8.211 (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you bothered to look at the issues for two seconds, you'd see that I didn't change the wording of the article other than to basically reverse two sentences. The article is scientifically accurate in its current form and I have no quibble over the content (just the ordering). What else would you call editors who don't look at the science and simply want to deny evidence because of the political stance of their country of origin? If you have a better word besides "nationalist"... --Taivo (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And, why is it necessary to be so dramatic about the term nationalist? It ain't always pejorative. It's chauvinist that is. --biblbroks (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, there's no need to be dramatic about it. I have just skimmed this talk page (as well as the archives) and saw wikipedia editors and unknown IPs being labeled as nationalists. What can be read between the lines is that some editors here think that nationalists are people who want to distort reality because they live in their own myths and fairy tales. Now, about the language(s): I think somebody here wrote that the label Serbo-Croatian will remain in the article as long as it is a common name in English. There obviously exist a difference between the usage of the term Serbo-Croatian in mass media and that in scientific/linguistic circles. I mean, how often do you see it used in the anglophone media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.243.70 (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, this talk page documents that comments coming from this IP address might be perceived differently than how it is attempted to present them here. Anglophone media? Cannot it be possible that what is labeled by this term can also have a certain bias? Or maybe just an insufficiently justified tendency to political correctness? Or to the least an ill informed perspective of the linguistic, that is scientific situation? I come to think that overly emphasize of this "usage" argument constitutes a perfidious form of POV pushing. As if products of mass media somehow inherently weigh in on this. I can't say that the previous comment isn't a subtle way to appeal to ridicule. --biblbroks (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mass media usage doesn't matter in this circumstance. What matters on this page is linguistic usage in linguistic reliable sources. If mass media typically confused quarks and leptons we wouldn't change the terminology in Wikipedia. Same here. Indeed, mass media often calls polyglots "linguists", but check out the Linguistics article and you will see that is not the definition we use in Wikipedia. When a scientific discipline, such as linguistics, uses a particular label for a particular entity fairly consistently (as I have demonstrated over and over and over with reliable sources), we follow that scientific usage. We do not follow the dictates of a government or the nationalistic desires of an ethnic group, we follow the science. --Taivo (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

biblbroks, I made no argument whatsoever. I just asked a question, hoping it would be sufficiently important to investigate. Now, if you people say it isn't, that's fine with me. Furthermore, this IP is a terminal in a public institution that thousands of people visit regularly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.243.70 (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

161.53.243.70, your so-called just-asked-a-question comment contains a claim about the statistics on "the usage of the term Serbo-Croatian". What exactly does this claim serve for - or to forge it differently - what is to be derived from it? Since you are so inexplicably indifferent but nevertheless trying to be helpful, would you be so nice to explain why do you think we would care about the fact that the IP address of the terminal you posted from is described as affiliated to one university library? Or you could instead register and deprive us of the concern you allude. --biblbroks (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I was recommended this talk page by a colleague. He said "people would not eat in this restaurant if they knew who the cooks are". I now see the guy was right. You read a little too much into what I wrote. And surely, there are more important things than playing detective and acting paranoid about my simple observation. I've been a tourism worker for several years and, as a rule, foreign tourist used the term "Croatian" when asking me about the local language (with a handful of exceptions though), which prompted me to ask whether this "common name" refers to a term used by the majority of people or to a term restricted to scientific circles. Since that issue was clarified, I see no further reason to write here. --161.53.243.70--

I really don't see a point of any discussion here. I pointed out several specific instances where sourcing is incorrect and that's it - only to be personally attacked by Taivo as ignorant and manipulative (wikilawyering) nationalist, with next to zero discussion about the issues raised other than saying that one cannot blindly represent what sources say or that whatever is contained in there may be reinterpreted at will. You really cannot expect to improve quality of articles "working" like that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said that you were ignorant, I said that you failed to understand the interaction of Wikipedia policy, human intellect, and scientific evidence. And not a single, solitary one of the sources cited in the lead is inappropriate. They all precisely say exactly what they are listed to say--that Croatian is a part of "Serbo-Croatian". Your claim that the sources are "incorrect" is simply wrong. --Taivo (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have quoted specifically what was wrong and just brushing those examples aside, as well as summarily dismissing "former-Yugoslav or politically-motivated literature" as you label it because you say so just serves to confirm that pulling a rank and telling others what's acceptable and what's not is the way this article editing works. What do you call English language sources that were not published in former Yugoslavia or countries that emerged there since 1990s, which somehow support the idea? I see you ignore those too. What would it take to convince that there are other reliable sources supporting that there are independent languages instead of Serbo-Croatian with no native speakers (those that admit that they speak it) and in no official use or school use anywhere? Is there a particular publisher, linguist or other source that would be acceptable to you? Are there any inadmissible ones by name, nationality or view held? Is there a combination of factors that are necessary to get your approval? Or does that, boil down to case-by-case "because I say so" basis?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's that we're really tired of going over this over and over and over, because even if we satisfy you, there will soon be someone else making the same objections, and then someone else, and then someone else. Frankly, convincing you feels like a waste of time (no offense intended), because it won't actually solve the problem. This is the case for lots of articles that attract passionate POV battles, like homeopathic medicine. You could read the pages and pages of debate we've already had about this in the archives. The lit is quite clear: Serbian and Croatian are a single abstand language with multiple standardized registers. A pluricentric language, like Urdu or Malay. The common English name for that language is Serbo-Croatian. — kwami (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Reliable sources supporting that there are independent languages instead of Serbo-Croatian with no native speakers (those that admit that they speak it) and in no official use or school use anywhere"? So if there was a source that promotes a position that there are several independent languages instead of one Hindi-Urdu with no native speakers (those that admit that they speak it) and in no official use or school use anywhere, it should be considered on the grounds that there is no official use of it by this name of Hindi-Urdu? Or maybe on the grounds that those that admit they speak it (if there are such) are wrong? Why - because having no linguistic background? If the article Hindi-Urdu is to taken as trusted then the situation with Croatian and other SC languages is quite similar... I think:

...colloquial Hindi and Urdu are all but indistinguishable, and even the official standards are nearly identical in grammar, though they differ in literary conventions and in academic and technical vocabulary, with Urdu retaining stronger Persian, Central Asian and Arabic influences, and Hindi relying more heavily on Sanskrit.

— taken from the lede of Hindi-Urdu.

And this similarity was already noted I'd say. Though, perhaps there are sources that could deny it. --biblbroks (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there any objections remaining, or may users be allowed to repair the grammatically incoherent lede paragraph? -- Director (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Kwami has already fixed the first paragraph. --Taivo (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, didn't notice. -- Director (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

First sentence

Croatian (hrvatski jezik) is the collective name for varieties of the Serbo-Croatian language[3][4][5] spoken by Croats --> are all dialects of Croatian classified as Serbocroatian? Aren't there strong isoglosses between Croatian dialects? Once a Slavist told me that kay and shto dialects are more different when compared to each other than Ukrainian and Belarussian are. Is that true? Thanks174.120.98.2 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are very strong isoglosses, to the point where probably the only reason for saying Croatian is a single language is that the speakers are ethnically Croat. Yes, they're all subsumed under SC, as far as we've been able to tell from the lit (several sources state this, though most don't mention it). As for your last point, I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me. — kwami (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Linguasphere breaks "Serbo-Croatian" into "Historical Serbo-Croatian", "Literary Serbian", "Literary Croatian", "Literary Ikavski", "Generalized Serbian", "Generalized Croatian", "Kajkavski", "Chakavski", "Shtokavski", and "Torlakski". So this source, the most detailed of the general sources, while recognizing the varieties in detail, groups them all under "Serbo-Croatian". If we want to get really accurate, then this article should probably only cover Standard Croatian with separate articles for Kajkavian and Chakavian since these aren't really part of the literary standard. As it currently stands, Wikipedia has four different articles on Shtokavian (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and Montenegrin), which are linked as Serbo-Croatian, plus separate articles on Chakavian and Kajkavian, which are called, incorrectly as far as the linguistics goes, part of "Croatian". It is rather messy. The information in the language template box at Serbo-Croatian is accurate, but the first comment on the dialect articles is misleading since it says they are dialects of "Croatian". The language template box here is utterly misleading and inaccurate since it lists Shtokavian and Torlakian as dialects of "Croatian". The most accurate statement is "Kajkavian and Chakavian are dialects of Serbo-Croatian spoken by Croatian minorities. Bosnian, Montenegrin, Serbian, and Standard Croatian are varieties of the Shtokavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian. Torlakian is a dialect of Serbo-Croatian spoken by a Serbian minority." --Taivo (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's possible to list Torlakian as "Croatian" because of the Krashovani who identify themselves as Croats. Josip Lisac's book on the Croats' dialects includes Torlakian just because of the ethnic connection, regardless of how marginalized the dialectal group has become among all educated speakers of SC (Torlakian can be a separate dialect, a subdialect of Shtokavian Ekavian, or some dialect of Bulgarian/Macedonian; it just depends on the person you ask). If anything, some Croatian nationalists seem to prefer to overlook the Krashovanis and their Torlakian speech since their use of it "violates" or contradicts the cherished idea that Croatian is some deliberate hybrid of Chakavian, Kajkavian and ("Western") Shtokavian. In contrast, this same line of thinking often holds that Serbian is some deliberate hybrid of ("Eastern") Shtokavian and Torlakian (if not Shtokavian and Slaveno-Serbian).

As it concerns the noticeable separation of Kajkavian from Shtokavian on linguistic grounds despite the priority and emphasis of ethnically-driven linguistic classification (i.e. Kajkavian is closer to standard Slovenian than standard Croatian), Marc Greenberg alludes to this in his monograph on nationalist myths used by linguists in the former Yugoslavia at http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/969/1/yugoslav_myths96.pdf LAuburger (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

weren't karašovani originally kajkavian settlers who eventually started speaking some kind of torlak-kajkavian mixture? supposedly, their speech gradually accepted characteristics of torlak dialect due to their interaction with neighboring serbian(?) settlers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.183.220 (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably. However it's not actually relevant here how they came to speak Torlakian nor their likely having been speakers of Kajkavian in some bygone era. Put it another way: Is it that relevant that most Dalmatians on the mainland today are native speakers of just Shtokavian Ijekavian but their ancestors were native speakers of just Chakavian? Whatever Kajkavian elements the Krashovanis used to use are practically gone as they've already shifted wholesale to Torlakian. Even Lisac's book on dialectology encompasses Torlak just because of the Krashovanis' (and Janjevci's) "membership" in "Croathood". Their likely having used Kajkavian originally acts as nothing more than a piece of historical trivia. LAuburger (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

hmmm, I think that vast majority of Dalmatians speak ikavian variant of štokavian, not ijekavian. Most of them descend from populations that came from what is now Bosnia and Herzegovina anyway. and this argument that the torlak speech of this community of Croats is part of Croatian language in Romania is not valid, methinks. there are (or were?) communities of Croats in Hungary whose ancestors used to speak čakavian, and yet their contemporary Hungarian speech is not considered Croatian, despite of their Croatian identity. are the rules different because torlak dialect is a closely related one? or is the entire matter a product of sociolinguistic reality?78.1.183.220 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Anon IP, neither Torlakian, nor Kajkavian, nor Chakavian are "dialects of the Croatian language". They are dialects of the Serbo-Croatian language. The "Croatian language" is one of the varieties of the Shtokavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian. Kaj and Cha are spoken by ethnic Croatians, but their dialects do not form the basis of Standard Croatian, which is simply a variety of the Shto dialect. This is the great Croatian confusion--ethnic Croatians speak three different dialects, but the Croatian language is simply one of four varieties of the Shto dialect. --Taivo (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

so, čakavian and kajkavian ≠ Croatian language? they aren't Croatian standard language but they are very much Croatian. neither can only standard Croatian be called Croatian, nor only štokavian varieties spoken by Croats. in that regard, the previous wording was ok.78.0.205.143 (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, anon IP, they are not part of the Croatian language. They are dialects of Serbo-Croatian spoken by Croatians. This is the great problem with all these "languages"--that writers continually confuse ethnicity with language. --Taivo (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

this definition sounds too synthetic. of course they are part of the Croatian language. the latter is not a genetic term, since these dialects don't descend from some paleo-Croatian, but Croatian as a term most certainly and without any doubt whatsoever refers to idioms that Croatians traditionally consider as their own. it's a sociolinguistic system located inside of a larger dialect continuum. in reality, in everyday life, the former takes precedence. the current lead wording largely fails to reflect the reality on the ground since it reduces two large Croatian dialects to some obscure/unimportant speeches that some Croatians just happen to use. it's artificial and inaccurate.78.0.205.143 (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Normally they're said to be "Croatian", though it's often difficult to tell if that's a linguistic or ethnic label. ELL2 only speaks of dialects of SC as a unit, not of S or C, but they don't go into any detail. It of course doesn't make any cladistic sense to cut 'language' across 'dialects'.

Should S and C be listed under Shtokavian in the info box family tree, the way B and M are? — kwami (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This makes more sense.78.0.205.143 (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is true, though. Kajkavian Serbo-Croatian is very similar to standard Slovenian. I've heard that the transition from Kajkavian Serbo-Croatian to Slovene (from Croatia into Slovenia) is "seamless", as it were. This was the basis for the 19th century notion of the Illyrian movement that Slovene is also part of the single "Illyrian language" (i.e. "Serbo-Croatian"). Also, from 1918 to 1943 this was the official state of affairs, the Serbo-Croato-Slovene language (Srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenski) was official in the whole of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (it was renamed into "Yugoslav language" in 1929). Serbian nationalists, for another example, attempted to deal with that fact by proclaiming all Kajkavian-speakers to be "Slovenes" (that weren't aware of that fact), which, of course, actually includes the population of the Croatian capital Zagreb. Of course, according to them, most everybody else are "Serbs" (that just do not know it yet)... -- Director (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading this ever-changing page I must repeat my comments from the past four years (as this page is constantly deleted and re-written, the history is lost, but many will recall my comments from the following remarks): I MUST wonder how many of you are actually professional linguists. There seems to be none around. Despite the heavy use of some "technical" words like "isoglosses", very little actually have any idea what they are talking about. A lot of political-nationalist opinion still prevails. As a Spanish, I am protected by both. As a linguist specialising in Slavic languages, I am informed well enough to shake my head at the comments and decisions the self-appointed "editors" and "admins" pretend to present as "authoritative".

You all need to get one thing in your non-lingustic heads: there is no such thing as a "croat" (hrvatski in reality), serbian (srpski), "bosnian" (bosanski) and/or montenegrin (crnogorski), languages.

I have posted a few years back a perfect example of absolute and total UNIFORMITY of the four listed "languages and invited all to tell me in which language the text was written. Hrvats were claiming "hrvatski", serbs were claiming "srpski".

The absolute fact was, and still is, that the text was written in ije-e-kavski neutral tone and no one could tell the difference.

That is because there is NO discernible difference in the grammar and linguistical construction between the "four languages". At best, there can be some regional characteristics in the speech, but these do not amount to even dialectal differences. Accent is not a dialectal identification, yet it is exactly the accent that makes up for the BULK of the differences that are often claimed as "determining differences" that somehow, magically, "prove" these four "languages" to be separate entities.

Here's another example that confirms beyond ANY doubts whatsoever that the fab "four" are one and the same language:

"Ana je krenula prema parku. Put kroz park je puno kraci nego glavnom cestom. Zimska vecer je brzo pala i lampe su se pocele polako paliti. Dan se u trenu pretvorio u noc. Zbog hladnoce park je bio pust. Napusten zapravo. Ni cesta nije bila nista bolja. Tek poneki auto bi prosao, brzo nestajuci u okrilju mraka. Ana je cvrsto stisnula torbu ispod ruke i sakrila sake duboko u dzepove svog kaputa. Ubrzala je korak, zamotala sal oko vrata i pokrila usta. 'Ova je zima rano dosla' pomislila je u sebi. Uz malo srece mozda nece dugo trajati."

I invite anyone up to the task to determine the "language" and elaborate the "conclusive differences".

There are NONE. This text is perfectly in line with grammar rules of "serbian", "croatian", "bosnian" and "montenegrin". That the current "authorities" (and by "authorities" I mean political and governmental entities) are working hard in Hrvatska to invent "old croatian" words, which have NEVER existed is a futile exercise in stupidity because the GRAMMAR is still the one and the same and those "old" new "croatian words are only testament to that stupidity because the "others" (serbs, bosnians and montenegrins) WILL understand them too.

This paranoid schizophrenia goes so far that the words are borrowed from other slavic languages in a panicking attempt to "prove" the "uniqueness" of "hrvatski". One such rediculous example is the word borrowed from Russian, of all languages, "glasovati" (to vote). Gramatically, it is absolutely wrong, and naturally, the other three "people"/"languages" are still using the correct word "glasati" for "to vote". Another word is "izbornik", "selector" in english. The term is a borrowed term from bulgarian: човек който избира - a man who chooses" - izbornik from izbira (chooses in english). Or existing words being used in a new context, like "gospodarstvo", which is now meant to mean "economy", although the original meaning of the word is a general description of a rural property belonging to a rich person - "gospodin".

The problem with all these "changes" is that, as said above, are perfectly understandable to the other three members of the serbo-croatian speaking club.

Another, my favourite, problem with the "hrvatski/croatian" being a "different language" is the most abused explanation: "hrvatski" is "ijekavski", while "srpski" is "ekavski". The thing is that polish and russian are ijekavski too. And "srpski" was ijekavski until just recently, when Obrenovic dynasty took over from Karadjordjevici and by decree introduced an ekavian" dialect as an "official" serbian language because Karadjordjevic was in favour of lingusitc reforms by Vuk Karadzic, who was in turn their vocal supporter. Until then, the ekavski variant was spoken by a minority of Serbs in central Serbia, from where Obrenovic dynasty comes from. Pure political perversity, just as the one currently undergoing in Hrvatska. Serbian orthodox priests still today serve the liturgies and sermons mostly in ijekavski. All Serbs from Hrvatska and Bosna are talking ijekavski.

In the meantime, majority of Hrvats are naturally kajkavians, and kajkavski is also official language of Slovenia... Cakavski, another supposedly "hrvatski language" itself has at least three different variants, one of them being ikavski, which is spoken also in Slovenia, Montenegro and Bosnian south where majority of Bosnian Hrvats AND Serbs live. And don't get me even started on ROMANIAN Hrvati and Srbi... Torlakian has as much with serbo-croatian as bulgarian has. Actually, Bulgarian and Macedonian are closer to Torlakian than serbo-croatian is, so what is that telling us...?

So, while your efforts to learn linguistics are commendable, I will reiterate my serious suggestion and invite you to move out of this nonsense and take up knitting or painting because what you are doing here (and this hysteria is not limited to serbo-croatian by any means. Danish/Norwegian/Swedish "languages" are in much the same waters. Most differences in these three dialects are actually in the alphabet and the way they write and talk, not in the grammar, as any of the people in any of the three countries will tell you if you ask them.) is pointless and scientifically speaking completely useless. Utter nonsense. Absolutely utter.

So, the truth about the fab four is that the differences are more regionally induced than linguisticallly. As Hrvati are the most vocal proponents of this nonsense that they speak somehow a different language when they themselves have parts of their own population speaking kajkavski, cakavski, ikavski, which are all significantly different to their current variant of serbo-croatian in the vocabulary, the question should be asked: how come one people speak all these different "languages" in their own country? And how did that come about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.222.152 (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

man, you're crazy. but I agree that this article sucks big time, since the majority of people who frequent this talk page are either paranoid chauvinists that want to see croatian artificially severed from the rest of the continuum, or their anti-nationalist, pro-yugoslav, counterparts. the end-result is unsurprisingly bad. and all this for an, admittedly bad, name.93.136.88.104 (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What is so "crazy" about the facts I wrote? The sample text is completely indistinguishable from the "hrvatski", "srpski", crnogorski" or bosanski" language perspective. They can all claim it is written in their language. It is also complex enough to cover significant part of grammar and confirm the unifying nature of the four "languages". Moreover, since majority of Hrvati speak KAJKAVSKI, not ijekavsko-stokavski, it is also clearly disputable to claim ijekavsko-stokavski as "hrvatski" language. Kajkavski is not a dialect, it is a language. It is official language of Slovenes, and very similar to Slovak. To this day none of my claims have been proven wrong, and I have been advocating this in scientific lingustic forums, where people actually know the difference and the meaning of the word "isogloss" . Unlike the "geniuses" here who keep throwing it around to fool others (and wrongly write it as "issoglose") that they know what they are ranting about, when they haven't got a clue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.20.230.45 (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

They're not facts. Approx a third of Croats speak kajkavian Croatian, perhaps a bit more if you count Zagreb city speech, a half-kajkavian hybrid, as kajkavian. Most Croats speak shtokavian. In the past, overwhelming majority of Croatian shtokavians spoke the ikavian variety but now it is confined to Dalmatia (and Lika probably) due to influence of standard -ijekavian- Croatian. Once ikavian Slavonia is now largely ijekavian, since the standard has mostly obliterated the indigenous speech, save for some prosody. And no, the sample text is not completely indistinguishable. It is probably very similar if you're talking about standard languages, but taking Croatian language as a whole, your sentence is utterly ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is that kajkavian, Slovene and Slovak are very similar. Only kajkavian Croatian and Slovene are similar, but there are more than enough differences between them for people to consider them separate entities. As for the Slovak language, only its central dialect has a somewhat larger degree of similarity with South Slavic languages.93.136.185.83 (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong on all accounts. About a half of Hrvati speaks kajkavski. You have no idea what you are talking about. Of course Zagreb must be taken in account. Out of 4 millions of people living in Hrvatska, Zagreb has around 20% of that. Check the latest census for kajkavians in Hrvatska and that's another 25% (check the census for more info.)The fact that today's kajkavian in Zagreb is NOT "pure" is a fact of life. Evolutionary change resulting from local migrations. People move in and out, acquire the language and mix it with their own dialects. It is still kajkavian. And kajkavian is official language of Slovenija. That too is a fact. Your comment about "central Slovakian being "somewhat" similar to south slavic languages is a joke. I won't even waste the time to debate it as this is about South Slavic serbo-croatian. And I said that kajkavski and Slovenski are THE SAME, not similar as you, in your ignorance are trying to imply. Your arbitrary and insulting claims are not confirmed by any evidence and as such are self-dismissing. Careful with the language for I do not have patience for personal attacks.

I am still looking for anyone to disprove my statement about the sample text, and 2 years down the track not a single "Hrvat", Bosanac", Crnogorac" or "Srbijanac" came forth with evidence to prove that the sample text is NOT written in their dialect. Simply stating that any sentence, and this ignorant above did not specify WHICH SENTENCE may be "utterly ridiculous, is not good enough.

Why is that? That is because it is in PERFECT HARMONY with every single of those "four". And as such it proves undeniably that ANYONE who claims that "serbo-croat/croato-serbian is really four different languages is just a liar. A politically motivated ignorant with no knowledge and no credibility in linguistic matters. Show us the evidence or shut up. My duty as a linguist and a scientist is to fight and counter these fascist revisionists. This wiki page must change the name, as must all other "hrvatski", "srpski" etc "languages, in order to remain impartial.

I have also stated that ije- and e- kavstina are NOT exclusive differences of "hrvatski" and "srpski", as kajkavski is also ekavski Russian and Polish have both ijekavstina and ekavstina in use (although they are both predominantly ije-kavski, both language have many adjectives in e-kavstina). Examples: bIJEdnost in Russian is bIJEda in hrvatski, bEda in srpski (poverty in english). Another example: svJEtlošć in Polish, svJEtlost in Russian and hrvatski, svEtlost in srpski (light as in daylight in english) Who would be so stupid to conclude that they are "hrvatski" dialects?

This page must be rewritten and unified under one title because this is one single language. There are no "isoglosses", nor "diatribes" that can prove otherwise. If those who use these "big" words (for their ignorance) knew anything, they would know that these two (among myriad of other linguistic characteristics) do NOT define and/or constitute a LANGUAGE. At best they may be helpful in identifying a DIALECT. It's the grammar that defines a language. The grammar for "hrvatski", "srpski", "bosanksi" and "crnogorski" is absolutely the same.

And if the grammar is the same, then the language is the same too. Only politically and nationalistically blinded cannot accept that. Instead of "your sentence is 'utterly ridiculous'" I demand evidence of that. We all know that no one will come forth for they would be disintegrated on the spot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.20.155.211 (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Fool, not only standard language defines what a language is. Luckily, most Croats don't use the standard except in official documents etc. Not even most štokavians speak the standard Croatian at home. I speak čakavski and it's the most original Croatian language. First, most prestigious and the richest. And yet I respect other Croatian dialects and consider them parts of my own heritage. Linguist Babić said it well some time ago: "Croatian language is the interaction of Croatian speeches". Not any one speech/dialect alone, nor a standard, but all of them combined and their interactions. You're a fraud. A real linguist would know that yat reflexes are not very important (and no one with any knowledge would really compare a dialect with a yat reflex "kajkavski, cakavski, ikavski"),a nd especially wouldn't discard a basic term such as isogloss. You're a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.93.189 (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC comment

I came here via RfC. My observations:

1. There is no clear RfC question out there.
2. There is an infinite argument on whether the Croatian language is a separate language. (For those who haven't been to ex-Yugoslavia: here the name of the language one speaks the least depends on the language itself.)
3. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, the next one on the same topic will occur on this page in the near future.

Summary: I would suggest removing the RfC tag. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(Warning:possible irony) Sorry, I didn't get that third one right: is it more of a prognosis? --biblbroks (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

@"here the name of the language one speaks the least depends on the language itself" Haha, ain't that the truth... -- Director (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Croatian is the official language in several countries, soon it will be the official language in EU. But all this ignores. This article on Croatian language better to deletes.--Sokac121 (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Point? Il da rjeknem vako: "ša je pisac htio kas`ti?" Usto, gramatika engleskog ti plače, Šokac. --biblbroks (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, our ancestors called this speech "Vlach" for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.145.56 (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

mass removal

PRODUCER, you should really know better than do this or this. When editing a clearly controversial topic, you have to provide less than nonchalant reasons for such major removals, certainly not obviously flawed ones (removing a text with {{cite journal}} as "unreferenced"), because otherwise they make you seem biased. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The edits were done being bold. In the first, a "language examples" section was removed. No language articles whatsoever have this it type of section done in this way and for good reason: it isn't of any use to readers. Quotes of the bible or the lord's prayer are an odd choice to begin with and the section lacks any translation in English to show what they are saying. In the second, a section that has been unreferenced since at least April 2010 was removed. The sole reference that is in there, is a Croatian one discussing Serbianization. If this is indeed as controversial of a topic as you believe it to be then you should understand the need for reliable references for the claims being made in the article. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a red herring, really, because we do not remove content that is controversial, we remove content that is against policy. Is it unverifiable (wrong)? Is it not neutral (biased)? I see an assertion that it's not neutral, but it's against the whole section. I for one don't think that the whole section is irreparably biased. Can you please work on identifying the biased parts? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I tagged quite a bit of it. If you agree with my tags, remove or rephrase those phrases or sentences. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, we are essentially free to remove text without support. Usually after a certain amount of time and/or discussion, but challenged unsourced text can't stand in the long run. -- Director (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

So challenge actual problematic text, don't censor the entire topic and leave a gaping hole. Do you see the difference? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's been challenged since at least April 2010 and you retagging it differently does nothing. Removing challenged material cannot possibly be seen as "censorship". -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It does nothing? Why thank you for disrespecting my contribution. :P --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"citation needed" littering the Sociopolitical standpoints & Relation to Serbian sections ....

As the Talk Page states in one of the headers, Serbo-Croation is the term used in English ..... etc.

I am a historian, not a linguist, so I can't professionally judge (or probably even read many) of the references for the article. But it would seem to be crucial for these two sections to be pretty "solid" citation-wise. I don't know if these have been inserted incorrectly - i.e. the previous editor(s) paraphrasing the various cites in the sections and someone wanting a note right at that point instead of the end of the paragraph - or if the particular wording isn't in the references. Whatever the case - i.e., aggressive nationalists dropping these tags in w/o good reason, or if footnotes are truly needed - but in my opinion these should be cleaned up in a timely manner so that the header on this Talk Page - which is desperately trying to stop some of the edit-warring that has gone on for years here and in the Serbian and Macedonian articles - has more weight to it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2012 (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)

Your opposition to leaving a sourced info as is notwithstanding, there is no crystal ball criterion here ... it suffices to refer you to the article Accession of Croatia to the European Union. The Treaty of Accession has been signed, the ratification by the current EU members is in progress. Changing the wording to "may" is not only incorrect, it is misleading -- you might as well write "Croatia may become a member state of the EU." I shall alter it the part to "is expected to become," best regards. esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)