Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:38, 23 September 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Croatian language article. This is not 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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Warning: this article is subject to a 1RR limitation. Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Macedonia case, this article is subject to 1RR. Reverting more than one time in a 24-hour period may result in a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. All reverts should be discussed on the talk page. This is a bright line, not an entitlement, and reverting exactly once per day is considered disruption, and users doing so are subject to being blocked. Please see this notice about recent edit warring. Editors wishing to make controversial edits are strongly advised to discuss them first.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one: Croatian is a standardized register of a language which is also spoken by Serbs, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins. 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, is not a political endorsement of Yugoslavia, but is simply a label. As long as it remains the common name of the language in English, it will continue to be used here on Misplaced Pages.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Croatian language. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Croatian language at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Croatia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bosnia and Herzegovina Top‑importance Croatian language is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Languages Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Croatian language article. This is not 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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 30 days

1RR

This article has become another battleground. Enough is, quite frankly, enough of the edit warring, as the article is now protected for the fourth time since July due to it. We're going to try something new. Starting now, this article; under the discretionary sanctions authorised in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia; is hereby placed on a 1RR restriction. This means one revert, per user, per day. This restriction is per person, not per account. The most obvious vandalism is excepted from this restriction, and I do mean obvious. This restriction applies to all users, and I will place an edit notice of this for the article. Any appeals should be directed towards my talk page in the first instance, or Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement in the second. Courcelles 11:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The above timestamp has intentionally been moved forward 15 years, to stop automatic archival. True timestamp: Courcelles 11:53, 4 October 2010 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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. <-- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages uses for the language " If I understand it correctly, Misplaced Pages 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages, 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages is apparently crawling with ego-trippers... Bye people and bye Misplaced Pages. -Erik-

Uh, no, Misplaced Pages 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...

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Croatia articles
• Top-importance Croatia articles
• All WikiProject Croatia pages
• C-Class Bosnia and Herzegovina articles
• Top-importance Bosnia and Herzegovina articles
• All WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina pages
• C-Class language articles
• Top-importance language articles
• WikiProject Languages articles