Talk:Varieties of Arabic

Latest comment:3 months ago by An anonymous username, not my real name in topic"Sharqi Arabic" listed at Redirects for discussion

Learn more about this page

This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theVarieties of Arabic article.
This isnot a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text.Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome!Learn to edit;get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL

Archives:1,2Auto-archiving period:21 days

This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Languages

	Language portal This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage oflanguages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
???	This article has not yet received a rating on theproject's importance scale.

Arab worldTop‑importance

	This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theArab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
Top	This article has been rated asTop-importance on theproject's importance scale.

Linguistics

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage oflinguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on theproject's importance scale.

Anthropology:Oral tradition

	This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAnthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on theimportance scale.
	This article is supported byOral tradition taskforce.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported byWikiProject United States Public Policy and theWikipedia Ambassador Program.

RfC on map of varieties

edit

Latest comment:2 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

Should we keep thenew map on this article?A455bcd9 (talk)11:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Survey

edit

AgreeA455bcd9 (talk)18:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure this needs an RfC unless there is someone opposing the new map. Anyway I see no reason not to use Ethnologue data, it's probably better than a lot of what you can find out there. (t ·c)buidhe17:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Buidhe, there's some strong opposition from some users, see for instance:here,there, orWikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Arabic Varieties Map.A455bcd9 (talk)17:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Well I support if this is the best map available in your opinion. (t ·c)buidhe18:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
I do think it is the best map available.A455bcd9 (talk)18:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
AgreeBryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk)20:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Agree The map looks good; it is properly sourced; and it is useful and informative for the article. --Guest2625 (talk)10:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Agree.Fad Ariff (talk)13:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but let's mention the source (Ethnologue). Some issueshave been raised concerning the accuracy of the map however I think that the value that the map provides to the reader outweighs these concerns.Alaexis_¿question?12:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Alaexis: what do you mean by "let's mention the source"? The sources are already all mentioned onFile:Arabic Varieties Map.svg. And althoughEthnologue is the main source, five other sources were used.a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk)13:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Ah, sorry, I didn't look past the first item in the list. It does seem like the main source, just counting the countries, so maybe we can write "per Ethnologue and other sources." We can also add these sources as references here to make them more visible.Alaexis_¿question?13:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Done @Alaexis.a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk)13:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Threaded discussion

edit

@A455bcd9: RfC statements are supposed to be brief and neutral. Can you please move everything that you added before the question to the discussion section or your own !vote? Thanks.M.Bitton (talk)16:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@M.Bitton: Hi, sorry for that, I've only done a few RfCs in the past. I fixed the problem, thanks for the feedback. Cheers,A455bcd9 (talk)16:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's still not quite right. If you're going to do a survey + discussion format, the survey section should just say "agree" and your arguments should go in the discussion section, so people can extend or rebut them in context.Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk)17:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Giraffedata: sorry again... M.Bitton adopted this format. I moved my comment below, is that fine?A455bcd9 (talk)18:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

a455bcd9's opinion

edit

The community reacheda consensus in August and September 2022 and decided to to remove the previous map because it wasWP:OR, unsourced, inaccurate, and erroneous. Thenew map,requested in the Map workshop, followsEthnologue's maps. Ethnologue is considered a reliable source in linguistics perEthnologue#Reception,_reliability,_and_use andWikipedia:WikiProject Languages#Interpreting online sources of data. This map also follows the guidelines ofWikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles.A455bcd9 (talk)16:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Imperfect map is better than no map

edit

Between data from a reliable source (and Ethnologue does appear to be accepted as that in Wikipedia) and data from original research / no source, I'll go with the former.

When the reliable source is wrong, that's a sticky situation, but there's nothing we can do about that; an encyclopedia isn't an authority on the facts; it just summarizes other sources. If there is no reliable source contradicting Ethnologue, we have to report the Ethnologue facts. To me, it's like when a judge has to assume Congress meant what is written in the law even though the judge knows lawmakers intended something else.Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk)20:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply