Talk:Daylami language

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Languages Low‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

caspian languages

Caspian languages include:

Deilami
Gilaki
Talyshi
Tabari (Mazanderani)
Shahmirzadi (dialect)

Manazarib (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

It has been expressed that this page is a copypasta of a different page with names switched to appear ligit. Would someone please look into this?

Thanks.

AnnaJGrant (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea it looks like it is copied from here--SkyWalker (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or more likely, both from Gilaki language. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 10:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the code dlm is for the Dalmatian language and NOT Deilami. :/ —Strabismus (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have this page now going to Gilaki

The description and data on this page is Gilaki. Daylami refers to an extinct related language to Gilaki. Azalea pomp (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

drop candidate

we don't have any language with name of DEYLAMI! for drooping of this article what can i do?--AminSanaei (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deylami was a language once spoken in North of Iran. The materials in the article are sourced. We cannot delete this article.--St. Hubert (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i live in North of Iran and say that there we don't have any language with name of DEYLAMI and the source isn't true. i can find people that vote for dropping this article--AminSanaei (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It is not about 20 or 21 century! It is about an ancient language in the Medieval period. It is probably an extinct language.--St. Hubert (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are in mistake, this ancient language that you say about that is gilaki (gileki) and in ancient gilaki language name was deylami. therefor this article might going to gilaki article and under "ancient gilaki" title.--AminSanaei (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iranica

In the article DEYLAMITES in Iranica, nowhere you could find a language called Deilami nor Deylami. It says language of Daylamites, but it does not refere to sth called Deilami language. Because of this, I will remove those parts. Sourced editings are welcomed. sicaspi 10:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicaspi (talk • contribs)

Proposed for deletion

I've proposed this article for deletion, believing that the literature has no clear concept of a 'Deilami language.' Wilferd Madelung is one of the scholars cited in this article, but I invite you to examine his article Deylamites in Encyclopedia Iranica. Search that article for the word 'language' and see if you believe it confirms that a 'Deilami language' existed. Obviously, the Deylamites existed and they spoke some language, but anything beyond that seems to be a few random fragments of data. Here is what Madelung said:

Whatever the original language of the Deylamites may have been, in the Islamic period they spoke a northwestern Iranian dialect very similar to the language of the Gilites.

This is not enough to base a Wikipedia article on, that calls into being an entire language. Even Madelung does not use the term 'Deilami language.' EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not just based on Madelung's article in Iranica. There are not enough sources to reconstruct the Deilami language properly, but that's not a reason to delete this page (the same thing is applied to all old languages which are poorly attested). Dor example, we don't have much information about the Median language, but that's not a valid reason to delete that page. Several independent reliable sources (including Khanlari's famous book on the History of Persian language) have mentioned Deilami language and that's enough for having a Wikipedia article on this subject and reporting the presenting the summary of available academic reports on this subject. Alefbe (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you think Language of Deylamites is a better title for this page, it's fine with me. Alefbe (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be better if we knew what the 'Language of the Deylamites' actually was! I assume the Deylamites did not use writing, so any inference about what they spoke must be indirect. Is there a list of any words from the language? Do you have access to Khanlari's work? EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to know what exactly that language was to have a page on it. The main thing is that several sources (including some medieval Islamic sources) have mentioned this language (Khanlari's book just refers to those medieval brief reports). So, what we have is some medieval reports on that language and some modern scholars who have discussed those reports and have found the language notable to be mentioned in a section of a book, among medieval local Iranian languages (as Khanlari has done in a section of his book). This is enough to have a short encyclopedic article on this subject (though there is also a possibility to merge it with Dailamites). Alefbe (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That reasoning is sensible. I really don't mind if it's a separate article provided there is some genuine content that comes from the sources. It does not appear that Madelung thinks we know what they spoke; he offers fragments. If we accurately summarize the fragments, I suppose it's OK. It is possible that Khanlari is more confident about what the language was. But we need to find at least one scholar who uses the term 'Deylamite language', in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khanlari has used the term in Persian, and also some 19th-century scholars have used the term in English [1], and some modern contemporary scholars have used the term Daylamite language [2]. Alefbe (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They meant the language which Daylamite used by saying Daylamite language, for example here they mean language of Daylamites by Daylamite language(see the Farsi translaion, زبان دیلمیان=language of Daylamites). ، They never claim that some certain language with name Deilami language or sth such as this ever existed.sicaspi (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is vague what this article really want to say. It claims that a language called Deilami existed, and it was also referred to as Daylamite, Daylami, Dailamite, but it does not have any source for the latter. It also says that Deilami language, is the same as what Madelung describes as a northwestern Iranian dialect very similar to the language of the Gilites ; this claim has no sources too. As you previously said, We have some solutions:

1-We can merge the article with Dailamites) and under a title such as Language, say whatever we know about their language from all of the present sources.

2-We can change the name of this article to Language of Dailamites if we want, and do what we could in Dailamites in it.

3-We can save the current name and article, but then we should omit all materials which are not exactly related to Deilami language, I mean we should omit what relates to “language of the Deylamites”, “Daylamite language” or anything which does not state reliable source proving its relation with Deilami language. Otherwise, it would be original research.

Now we should choose between these. Please say your opinion. sicaspi (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remove Iranica because nobody opposed me. sicaspi (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]