Talk:Saraiki language/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

First sentence of article

The article's first sentence used to read:

• Saraiki (سرائیکی Sarā'īkī) is a variety of Western Punjabi Language.

This uses a term – "variety" – that is generally unknowns outside of linguistics, and it's a bit inaccurate. It's not a single variety, but several – a set of rural dialects whose speakers identify with it + the literary language that goes alongside. Now, that's a bit clunky to explain in the first sentence of an article, but there is a short way of expressing this bundle of features in simpler terms (and ones that are used across wikipedia language articles):

• Saraiki (سرائیکی Sarā'īkī) is an Indo-Aryan language of the Western Punjabi (Lahnda) group.

The mention of "language" is surely going to offend some fellow opinionated editors, but frankly having anything else in the first sentence will have to be either weasily worded, or framed with WP:FALSEBALANCE, and in either case go against the most commonly used term in those reliable sources that do make a choice of term. Still, there are alternative views to be represented, so I've moved the text about who views as it as a dialect right after the first sentence.

I've been holding this off during the course of the above RfC, but as that has stalled, and I don't see any new sources brought to light, I'm going ahead and making that change. – Uanfala (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

More ideas

• Saraiki (سرائیکی Sarā'īkī) is a diverse group of Western Punjabi ("Lahnda") dialects Thalochi, Derawali, Multani, Riasti spoken by people of various ethnic backgrounds in several discontinuous areas in central Pakistan.

• Saraiki (سرائیکی Sarā'īkī) is a one of standardised Western Punjabi ("Lahnda") dialects spoken by people of various ethnic backgrounds in several discontinuous areas in Punjab Pakistan,

Standardized dialect matches with Title Saraiki dialect.

• or Remain what used to be variety . Don't agree with change.
  • Your suggestions are copies of the first sentence of Hindko dialect and they don't apply here: as far as I know, Saraiki isn't spoken by people of various ethnic backgrounds, its dialects aren't diverse and its area is not discontinuous. Also, your two suggestions focus on either the dialect base, or the standard language, but we need to include both and if we do that we're back in the situation of clunky weasily wording that I'm trying to avoid. – Uanfala (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Sarieki speakers are of various ethnic backgrounds. Ex Prime minister Benazir Bhutto belonged to Sindhi ancestry. His husband Asif ali zardari belongs to Baloch ancestry, Ex prime minister Yusaf raza geelani belonged to Persian ancestry. Major opposition leader Imran khan belong to Niazi Pashtun ancestry. Another opposition leader Shah Mehmood Qureshi is Arab ancestry. Saraiki speakers are Jutts and Arain (Punjabi tribes), Baloch, Pashtun, Syed (Arab), Persion and Sindhi ancestry. Dialects are also diverse. Riasti has some Rajhastani flavour. Multani has Arabic influences after Arab invasion of Multan. Thalochi is more close to Hindko. Derawali has Balochi influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.69.145 (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Good to know. But before we go ahead and redefine Saraiki as a language whose speakers are ethnically non-homogeneous, we have to have a reliable source for that claim. There are such sources for Hindko and this ethnic diversity is discussed in the linguistics literature about it (that's why I've added that sentence to Hindko), but so far I haven't seen the issue treated at such length for Saraiki. It doesn't mean that it's not diverse, quite on the contrary – for example, the history of Saraiki-speaking Baloch tribes is mentioned in the first section of the article. It just means that this diversity isn't such a defining feature to be worth treating in the article's lead paragraph. Likewise for the dialects. – Uanfala (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

there is Wikipedia article on list of saraiki tribes, also google search, mianwali is a pastun saraiki district, DG khan and rajanpur are baloch saraiki districts, sindh province have sindhi saraiki, Multan and close have Punjabi jutts and arain, as well Syed (Arabic) and Persian ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.29.134 (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, some of these are already enumerated in the first section of the article (currently titled "Name"). The article is semi-protected, so if you'd like to suggest a specific addition, I'd be happy to make the edit for you (provided it's backed up by a reliable source). – Uanfala (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Specific alteration to top could; Saraiki (سرائیکی Sarā'īkī) is a one of standardised Western Punjabi variety spoken by people in central Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.187.184 (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, this wording brings us back where we started from and the imprecision and user-unfriendliness of the term "variety". – Uanfala (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Un friendliness could be sorted out by linking to variety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.86.210 (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the problem with the imprecision. Also, I'm not sure we need to force our readers to go through another article before they're able to understand this article's first sentence. – Uanfala (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That's very normal practice. we can not explain each nutty gritty in first line. We can link Western Punjabi and Variety. Then expand in article with details. Second important point is that we are not clear cut about Language status. It is controversial. Every language or dialect is by default a dialect. So logically using dialect is not a misstatement or less controversial. Best we can do is to go one step further and replace dialect with variety with a link. So that one can click and read Language / dialect scenario. one can also add fact about little efforts for standardization by using word recently Standardized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.86.210 (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide a source for the claims that the use of "language" is controversial, and the statement that every language by default is a dialect? – Uanfala (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You have all answers on this talk page filled with users and you know them all still you asking Me ? Left aside Saraiki we can even call this talk page most controversial. Even article is. Title is dialect and first sentence is Language. Are we kidding ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.86.210 (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is an oddity that I'm not happy about either. Apparently, the requested move discussion above somehow decided that Saraiki "is" a dialect. For all its flaws, it's over now and I don't have the energy to start a new one. However, regardless of what an article's title is, any content inside that article should follow our core policies on verifiability and neutral point of view, and that's not something that a requested move can override. So, would you be able to provide a source that contradicts the first sentence of the article as it stands now? – Uanfala (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe worth clarifying that in the course of the requested move discussion above, no sources were presented to back up the "dialect" view. It was supported only by one user's personal opinion that Saraiki shares at least 95% of its vocabulary with Punjabi, as well as comments by two users (subsequently found to have been sockpuppets of the same user) and the reference they had was this: almost all linguist on Indo-Aryan languages from Grierson (1903–28) to George Cardona (2014). Well that turned out to have been bogus. Incidentally, that might help answer part of Paine Ellsworth's question. – Uanfala (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested moves are all about choosing correct page titles, which of course must correspond to page content. With the present controversy about Saraiki dialect vs. language in such turmoil, it might be best to see if a more centralized discussion or even an RfC can build and garner consensus in regard to these matters. If I was wrong in the closing of the above RM discussion, then I was wrong; however, if it were attempted again today, I still don't see it ending any other way. I will say that while I weakly suspected possible sockpuppetry, I am no expert in those matters. If that was the case, and you think it was done to pad the !votes, just remember that such a charge is taken very seriously on Wikipedia and should not be made unless very certain there is a case for it.  Paine  ^u/c 15:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This isn't just a charge: linking again to the SPI case. – Uanfala (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Labelling Saraiki a language is controversial. Let us see what your favourite sources say. "the Punjabis claim that Siraiki is a dialect of Punjabi source Rahman 1995. Language Claim continues to be disputed by many Punjabi speakers who regard it as a dialect of Punjabi" source Lewis, Simons & Fennig 2016 Historically It is considered a dialect of Panjabi."; source Shackle 2003. Even most of Saraiki Potwari and Hindko claim themselves as Punjabi. In last Census 75% of Punjab population opted itselfs Punjabi despite Saraiki, Potwari and Hindko tick options. Punjab province population is 56% of the Pakistan. So by default majority of Pakistani see Saraiki as dialect of Punjabi. Left aside Punjabis or Pakistani or Saraiki. Even Linguists George Cardona put it under Punjabi. Grierson puts it under Western Punjabi. Masica 1991 used Variety. Paine Ellsworth's reservation is genuine. Uanfala controversial POVs wont able to earn any greater RFC support. Trust me you may loose time and effort again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.86.210 (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Would you be able to give me the exact page number of Shackle 2003? Grierson classified it as a Lahnda variety, and not as Punjabi (this has already been discussed in the previous thread). Afaik, Cardona doesn't say anything on the matter, but I'd assume you're referring to The Indo-Aryan Languages of which he's an editor; the relevant chapter there was written by Shackle (look in the article for Shackle 2003) and he refers to Saraiki using the same word he uses for Standard Punjabi – "variety", so that doesn't help here; if you take the fact that Saraiki is treated in the same chapter as Punjabi, and use that to back up the claim that it is a dialect of Punjabi, then you're making a wild WP:SYNTH-style inference. Likewise for the census data: all it says is that some people in Pakistan identify as Punjabi and some identify as Saraiki. As for Masica 1991, he does use the term "variety" on p. 18, but then on p. 443 defines Siraiki as a "new literary language". So, what's left of the sources you have, are the ones you've copied from the first footnote of the article and these are for the statement that many Punjabis view Saraiki as a dialect. But this view is already covered by the article's second sentence. If we expanded this minority view at the expense of other views, we'd be going squarely against WP:NPOV. – Uanfala (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You admitted that Grierson classified it as a Lahnda (WESTERN PUNJABI) variety. you admitted that Cardona discusses it under Punjabi. you admitted that Masica also used Variety on page 19. What you are not admitting that at this talk page there is no concensus to write Saraiki as language. What minority you are referring to ? 75% opted Punjabi only 17% opted Saraiki. 120 million Punjabi don't consider Saraiki as a language. so what else you want ? Language claim is controversial and use in first sentence is against Talk page consensus. Variety of Western Punjabi can be NPOV and digestible and may be you will get consensus on it. Other wise your edits are not legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.86.210 (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A "variety" is neutral term that can be used to refer to languages, dialects and registers. Grierson coined the term "Lahnda" for the language group in which he placed Saraiki specifically to avoid any association with Punjabi, which he claimed had nothing to do with Saraiki. That has already been explained in the previous thread. By "minority viewpoint" I meant one that is limited to a given group (in this case – Punjabis) and is predominant neither among Saraikis, nor in the wider world. – Uanfala (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you had mis read me. I never asked for Saraiki as dialect of eastern Punjabi. Common name for Indian Punjabi spoken in East Punjab India. It use Gurumukhi script. It is full of Sanskrit words just like Hindi. Its is mainy Doabi, Malwi Poadhi and others with just amritsar city speaks Majhi but still with Sansikrat words and Gurumukhi script. It is spoken by Sikhs who use religious terms. While west Punjabi uses Persion and Arabic words. Western Punjabi uses Shahmukhi script. Western Punjabi speakers use Islamic terms. Majhi a some what common between East and West Punjabi is limited to Lahore city and surroundings. Majority of Pakistani Punjab western Punjabis recognize themselves just Punjabi. Majhi 100% (Lahore Division Census data) Darhab 100% (Gujranwala Division Census data) Jaangli 100% (Sahiwal Division Census data) Jhangvi 100% Niswani 100% Chinavari 100% (Faisalabad Division Census data) Dhani 100% Potwari-Pahari 100% Chhachi 100% Jandali 100% Ghebi 100% (Rawalpindi Division Census data) Shahpuri & Thalochi 70% ( Sargodha Division demographic data as per census) Multani 60% (Multan division demographic data as per census) Riasti 50% ( Bahawalpur division demographic data as per census) Derawali 20% (Dera Ghazi khan Division Census data).People of Dera ghazi khan division along with cross KPK province border Dera Ismail Khan division are mainly Baloch and Pashtun, In 1964 they started political movement that they are away from Lahore and their area is underdeveloped, they are not Punjabi they are Baloch so either attach us to Balochistan Province or make new province with the name Saraikistan. Historically Saraiki was a term used by Sinshi Balochs living in adjoining area of Balochistan and Sindh province. So it is never a new term. Multan was soon on board as it was offered Capital ship of new province. Bahwalpur always wanted restoration of province status as in early days of Pakistan till 1954 from a British princely state. This is the reason you find some % of Riasti Multani and Derawali clicking Saraiki But not 100%. Second Chhachi (Hindko) click Punjabi in Punjab but in KPK province they have Pashtun majority who asks them to move to Punjab as they call them Punjabi. But Hindko people defend that they live in Hindu kush mountains not in Five rivers (Punjab) so they are not Punjabi and they also claim a seprate Hindko province named HAZARA in KPK province.

More importantly you don't have Consensus on Saraiki as a Language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.86.210 (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think the problem is that neither we, nor the world, seems to have consensus on whether Saraiki is a language or a dialect. By naming the article with the term dialect, we're probably coming down too strongly on one side of the political debate and that's not a good idea. Unfortunately 'language' makes us come down too strongly on the other side. Is there a third alternative? --regentspark (comment) 17:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There was a suggestion earlier to name the article "Saraiki" leaving the language vs dialect discussion to content. --SMS ^Talk 17:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A move to the primary title could be supported by the pageviews (the last time I checked, the language was receiving several times more hits than the ethnic group). – Uanfala (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

How would that work with the other Saraiki pages? The ones that Saraiki currently disambiguates to? --regentspark (comment) 17:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

How that would work? With a move of Saraiki to Saraiki (disambiguation) and placing a hatnote here, if I understand your question. And here are the statistics: for the first three months of the year, the language received on average 200 views per day [1], the ethnic group – 65 [2] and Saraiki culture – 25 [3]. As for the issue of trying to achieve a balance between two apparent viewpoints in a political debate, it's probably worth poiting out that this balance isn't always what it seems to be. – Uanfala (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see this as a false balance. From everything I can see, the issue is an unsettled one and there is no way of determining the weight either way because of the paucity of reliable sources. Given that, your Saraiki solution seems reasonable.--regentspark (comment) 19:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

But it is not title we are discussing here. The third neutral option for First line is Saraiki is a variety of Western Punjabi. A "variety" is neutral term that can be used to refer to languages, dialects and registers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.86.210 (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought we were talking about Saraikistan and the Hazaras. As for "variety", it refers to a single dialect, register etc. Back where we started, aren't we? – Uanfala (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Saraiki is treated by some linguists as a southern dialect of Punjabi (Nadiem 2005). Those were important incentives for the Dogri, Rajasthani and Maithili movements in India as well as for the Saraiki movement in Pakistan. The Saraiki movement started in the 1960s, with the aim to establish a collective identity for the Saraiki language group inside the Punjab Province of reasons for the movement were different: the underdevelopment of the Southern Punjab and the desire of the ‘sons of the soil’ to improve their economic and political status. The latter becomes clear from the list of demands formulated by the participants: they requested a separate Saraiki regiment in the Pakistani army, insisted on changing employment quotas, and so forth. In the late 1990s and during the following decade, the language problem practically ceased to be important. It is noteworthy, for example, that, out of 21 ‘demands’ made at the Saraiki Conference held in December 2003, only one pertained to language issues per se (Rahman 1996a: ch. 10). If the ‘sons of the soil’ are satisfied with their economic, political or social status, language movements do not arise. The situation with the Punjabi language in Pakistan may serve as a good example of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.104.85 (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this paper – it is an interesting one. Of the quotes you provided (maybe you could try to delineate one quote from another instead of running them all together?), the first one ("Saraiki is treated by some linguists as a southern dialect of Punjabi") makes it clear that the dialect view is a minority one (and the paper itself seems to treat it as a language); the second quote is about the history and politics of the Saraiki language movement, and the last one explains why there is no Punjabi language movement. I'm not sure I see the point you're trying to make. – Uanfala (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

At least now you accepted that even few linguists consider that Saraiki is dialect of Punjabi. Soon you will accept that no linguist clear cut said Saraiki a full edged different language from western Punjabi. Even One you are referring to is also first discusses Lahnda (Western Punjabi) then South Lahnda then try to say that now there is growing acceptance of it with name of Saraiki. If his book was an WP article then it would have been confused WP synthesis. This working paper clearly shows that Saraiki is just a political puppet. I have near 200 more sources mentioning Saraiki as dialect of Punjabi. So don't worry game is ON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.104.85 (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

References

RfC: Is Saraiki language?

The consensus is against a move to Saraiki language. Editors noted that this RfC was started one day after a requested move was closed as opposing a move to Saraiki language. Cunard (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the Title of the Page be Saraiki language? Should Jhangvi dialect and Shah puri dialect be written as dialect of Saraiki language?39.37.28.177 (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

IP 39.37.28.177 I think you have neither read article in full with quoted sources nor Talk page and Achieve 1 & 2 which are filled with this discussion. Please follow the steps to get a complete in sight that Saraiki in it self is not a language but a dialect then how can it can have Jhangvi dialect and shahpuri dialect which are other dialects of Punjabi. We should not waste Wikipedia editors precious time Again & Again. ₯€₠€₯

• Move Saraiki dialect to Saraiki language. There's no substantive linguistics meaning to the distinction between language and dialect and any discussion (as above) about mutual intelligibility or shared vocabulary is pure original research. What we have to decide is which designation is more common in relevant reliable sources. A brief purview of Saraiki dialect#Status of language or dialect leaves the impression that there is an even split between the two, but a closer look reveals that "dialect" is the term used in Punjabi reference grammars and other books that don't specifically treat Saraiki. On the other hand, all the sources in the Bibliography that are about Saraiki, call it "Siraiki language" or "Saraiki language". On google books, there are seven times more sources that use "language"[4] than ones using "dialect" [5]. – Uanfala (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Adding that the section I was referring to (Saraiki dialect#Status of language or dialect) didn't stand up to scrutiny: see below. – Uanfala (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Uanfala I have no words to express my emotions when someone attacks linguistics calling it unclear and then google search and provide same linguistic books as his proof. It is kind an insult to call linguists unclear. The hard work and headache linguist take to classify languages or dialects can not be radicalized. If you please again google search you will get over 50 different results which will show mutual intelligibility or shared vocabulary between Punjabi and Saraiki dialect. Linguistics is very clear with its levels.

1. Language = A group of mutually intelligible dialects.

2. Dialect = Linguists refers to a variety of a language that is a characteristic of a particular group of the language's speakers.Despite their differences, these varieties known as dialects are closely related and most often mutually intelligible. It has sub groupings if we mix language sciences with social sciences

a. Standard dialect = A dialect that is considered prestigious.

b. Non standard dialect= are based on social, political, cultural, or historical considerations

I. Sociolect = A dialect that is associated with a particular social class.

II. Ethnolect = a dialect that is associated with a particular ethnic group.

III. Regiolect = A dialect that is associated with a particular region.

3. Accent = A dialect is distinguished by its vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation (phonology, including prosody). Where a distinction can be made only in terms of pronunciation (including prosody, or just prosody itself), the term accent may be preferred over dialect

4. Other types of speech varieties = include jargons, which are characterized by differences in lexicon (vocabulary); slang; patois; pidgins; and argots.

5. Idiolect = The particular speech patterns used by an individual.

Saraiki is linguistically not a language, accent, idiolect,jargon slang, patois, pidgins, argots, accent. It does not represent any social class so not a Sociolect. Nor it is an Ethnolect because it is spoken by Jat or Arrain who also speak other dialects of Punjabi through out Punjab with few exceptions of non-Punjabi castes such as Balochi and Pathan who migrated to South Punjab and adopted Saraiki. [6]

Linguistics is very clear and as per majority linguistic sources mentioned through out talk page discussions over the years it as a southern dialect of Western Punjabi language. It falls in 2:b:III above i.e. Regiolect spoken specifically in southern districts of Punjab region. I oppose to move it to level 1 = Language. It should stand Saraiki dialect. Here on Wikipedia we can not accept pressures of some regional political powers. We Wikipedia have standards and we will stand by them no matter what pressure is created by repeated move requests / move review request/ Rfc / Dispute resolution mechanism. We have very decent knowledgeable people here to maintain those standards and WP policies. ₯€₠€₯ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.247.238 (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• • @₯€₠€₯: Here on wikipedia we don't do original research. You might want to familiarise yourself with WP:OR. And in choosing article titles, we don't try to take sides with one or another political point of view (see WP:POV). We simply go with whatever is the common term in English (see WP:COMMONNAME). Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    That was the point I was trying to make in the move request above, but it kind of fell on deaf ears... That said, this debate is now open in way to many places, with the ongoing entry at WP:MRV as well. We can't allow WP:FORUMSHOPPING to take place.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    I'm not sure this is a valid argument. The common name is Saraiki (commonly, "X is a Saraiki speaker", not "X is a Saraiki language or dialect speaker"). Language or dialect is a classification that we need to make, for disambiguation purposes, based on what scholarly sources say - which is why the emphasis on linguists. --regentspark (comment) 15:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    I agree with RegentsPark. @ Uanfala where I did WP:OR ? Read [7] with quoted sources. where I try to take sides with one or another political point of view ? what I said 'Here on Wikipedia we can not accept pressures/ WP:POV of some regional political powers. We Wikipedia have standards and we will stand by them no matter what pressure is created by repeated move requests / move review request/ Rfc / Dispute resolution mechanism. We have very decent knowledgeable people here to maintain those standards and WP policies.As per majority linguistic sources mentioned through out talk page discussions over the years it as a southern dialect of Western Punjabi language. Even if we go by (Non relevant ) common name logic then for ascertaining WP:COMMONNAME see these pro Saraiki online sources naming it as "Saraiki Boli" Here you go [8] [9] [10] . Boli means dialect [11] . I request @Andy M. Wang: being a non related editor for closure of this discussion by retaining Saraiki dialect as already this discussion has been open for periods and there is WP:NOCONSENSUS among users to move the article to Saraiki Language. ₯€₠€₯

    Social media websites aren't reliable sources. Your whole previous post was original research, but that's probably because of the misleading RfC question. I'm not claiming you're taking sides politically, I was just hinting that when choosing to call a language variety a "dialect" or a "language", whatever choice we make it will happen to coincide the view of one or another group: whether those who use the name as a tool for empowerment, emancipation or regional nationalism/separatism, or those who feel threatened by such an empowerment of a community they've hitherto seen as subordinate, or those whose sentiments of national unity or shared cultural heritage might be hurt. If I should read the aricle Dialect, then maybe you could have a look at the section Dialect § Dialect or language. – Uanfala (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    RegentsPark, Saraiki would be a suitable name, but that's ambiguous by itself. We just go with the next best common name. If something is referred to as "Siraiki language" in the majority of reliable English-language sources, that's what the article's title should be. It's not our job to try to make any classifications. – Uanfala (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    Generally, we prefer scholarly sources over others. If linguists were (or are) divided in reasonable numbers, then I can see us using other sources in making a decision but I'm not sure if that's the case here. --regentspark (comment) 21:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Note The RfC question is misleading: the aim of this discussion isn't establishing whether something is a language or a dialect, it's to find the best title for the article. – Uanfala (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comments The aricle Dialect's lead with many quoted sources clearly mentions that mutual intelligibility is the most common criteria to distinguish between dialect and language. The subsection you mentioned is having statements with out any source. Only one line is supported by a refrence to Formalizing the Notion'Language. This is not available online for cross verification. Yes I agree social media sites are not reliable sources for quoting in an article. But I am not using them in the article, These are giving us an insight to a topic which is vague. These help full sources are just few examples. There are many. Out of three such sources I mentioned. One is a song on youtube which with a title, Mithri boli bol Saraiki (Sweet dialect-speak Saraiki) this song has eighteen hundred seventy views which proof even common Saraiki accepts the fact that it is a dialect. Second a Saraiki blog spot where author writes Main tain medi boli ( I and my dialect) and urges others to promote it so that it becomes a language. Third is a Saraiki face book page titled Saraiki boli with Saraiki people liking this page. When locals also accept it a dialect it further cements linguistic classifications validity. ₯€₠€₯ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.247.238 (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  Again, this is irrelevant given that the overwhelmingly majority of English-language sources use Saraiki (or Siraiki) language. It's still an interesting observation and if you're wondering why they use boli ("dialect"), then I think the answer is in the different meaning this words has from the nearest English equivalent. I don't know how it is in Saraiki, but at least in Urdu, boli is predominantly used to refer to any language variety that doesn't have an established standard language and written tradition and in this sense it corresponds to one, now slightly antiquated, meaning of the English word "dialect". In Urdu, you can use boli to refer even to language isolates like Nihali, which couldn't possibly be called dialects in English. – Uanfala (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: As per WP:FORUMSHOPPING, we just concluded a move request on this same topic. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. @ Uanfala @39.37.28.177 @182.186.78.178 , Raising essentially the same issue on multiple move requests [[12]] [[13]] /RFCs [[14]] , [[15]] move review [[16]] /talk pages [[17]] [[18]] /Notice boards [[19]], / Sock puppet allegations [[20]] [[21]] or to multiple administrators [[22]], Mediation request [[23]] or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It is a clear case of WP:FORUMSHOP & WP:ADMINSHOP in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. [[24]] . That’s why I am reversing very recent series of edits made by @ Uanfala based on Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence under WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:FORUMSHOP . @Salvidrim: for RFC closure as now it is going overhead with repeated music.Yoyi ling (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This RfC is the only venue for discussion of the matter that is open now. All the ones you list, to my knowledge have been closed as redundant to this RfC. – Uanfala (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)::

@ Uanfala double misstatements of facts , first [[25]] edit summary is clear misstatement , there was no duplication you reversed, it was just an edit war to get desired result. Second [[26]] Other dissuasions closed due to RFC is again misstatement. This RFC (RFC 2) was preceded by consensus on Talk page achieves , Move request 1, Move request 2 , approaches to Talk page of different members , RFC 1 and Move review. It is getting tiring and overstretched now so stop edit war and this ‘’’RFC be Deactivated’’’ Yoyi ling (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

What you did was copy and paste an older version of the article on top of of the current version [27] – this created two copies of the article one above the other. I'm reverting that. If you don't like the new version, please first have a look at the edit summaries of the edits you disagree with. The biggest change is also explained in a section at the bottom of this talk page. If you disagree with anything, feel free to bring it up there. – Uanfala (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Uanfala You must wait for closure of this RFC. There is already consensus on talk page/reviews etc that it is a dialect. You cannot overturn that by Cherry picking to make philosophies / confusions by using words language variety, or only Punjabis consider it a dialect. I can take 3 R voilations by you to Administrative notice board reporting you for edit war but I don’t feel good to get others punished. I can still reverse your edits but I am avoiding edit war. Just restoring dialect for now.Yoyi ling (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Yoyi ling: I thought my rewriting of the lede made it neutral enough. I took care to represent the sources that I could find. I'd be happy to incorporate views from further reliable sources. Are there ones you would suggest? – Uanfala (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Further evidence of Forum Shopping & Tendentious editing While most of users during the course RFC were showing respect to proceeding of this RFC [28], [29] ignoring previous Forum shopping activities [30] But one editor @Uanfala was doing WP:TENDENTIOUS editing [31] with repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or show behaviour that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions. He was WP:POINTy [32] calling world renown linguistic sources of George cardona 2007, Rana Dasgupta 2014 and UCLA 2015 as bogus sources. @Uanfala Wikipedia is not about winning WP:WINNING and It is not a battleground for WP:EDITWAR you keep on doing [33] . If we analyse his contributions to this/prior discussions. Once he call Saraiki a Language [34] then he says where did I said it is not a dialect [35] then a language variety [36]. He even tried to define Dialect as a Language variety, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDIC with defining synonyms/ close jargon. If page title is dialect then it could only be expanded in Encyclopaedic manner. Those who think it's more important to win, rather than to help create an encyclopaedia we can all be proud of, are in the wrong place. Disputes are meant to be resolved per consensus. Egos are not helpful in building encyclopaedia articles. ₯€₠€₯ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.51.212.64 (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Request for closure Keeping in view WP:FORUMSHOPPING. It is requested to any of un involved senior editors @Paine Ellsworth: , @Andy M. Wang: , @Salvidrim: @Filpro: for closure of this RFC. ₯€₠€₯
  • Thank you very much, ₯€₠€₯, for your consideration; however, as closer of the RM and endorser at the MRV, there may be some editors who would consider me a bit too involved. Because of the various opinions against both the page move and this RfC, the closer might consider a procedural close, but that's just a suggestion.  Paine  ^u/c 13:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edits against RFC closure

@Cunard: User Uanfala is edit warring with other users since last three months. Latest edit war with User Peeta Singh moving against recent RFC decision. Saraiki is not a language as per Talk page consensus and closure of two Requested Moves, Move review, Dispute Resolution, Mediation request, RFC. But still he is editing first line as Saraiki is a Language. I ask Uanfala are you above Wikipedia Laws? Leave your ego. Focus on thousands of other Wikipedia articles. You had been shameless since last three months. I am sorry for language but this person is misusing his senior position and may be he will invite some hate email for this [37]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.46.153.160 (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2016‎ (UTC)

Explained above. – Uanfala (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Just explaination of new edits is not enough, new changes need consensus which you failed to get on each forum you used. So be fair with policies and don't behave autocrat. You know very well that you are hurting community standards just to win your ego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.46.153.160 (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Dialect section

Cosmetic theories of dialects of Saraiki is against talk page consensus that Saraiki is not a language. Hence be removed by some registered editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.86.210 (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. This is getting mighty confusing. Unless we can find a peer reviewed source rather than a Ph.D. thesis, I suggest removing the list of dialects and merging other content with the 'language or dialect' section below. The other references don't directly support the dialect listing or the dialect theory (Shackle, for example, is focused solely on the political movement). --regentspark (comment) 17:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The dialect classification in the thesis is largely the same as the one in Shackle's 1976 book. I think I should add a note reflecting that. Maybe worth pointing out that PhD theses at SOAS (as probably at many other places) normally go through several rounds of review (including by external reviewers). Of course, a paper from an avowedly peer-reviewed journal could be nice, but good luck finding one. – Uanfala (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Then you should use Shackle as the source. Generally, Ph.D. theses are not good sources and we shouldn't use them. Any good thesis will result in one or more papers in a peer reviewed journal and, if we can't find those, then best to avoid the thesis. --regentspark (comment) 18:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

On shahpuri article Uanfala writes it Punjabi dialect. Here he writes it as dialect of Saraiki. Sariiki it self is not shown in any major language hierarchy in the world. Isnt it clear madness of sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.86.210 (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Eastern Saraiki also called Dibhari Saraiki is spoken in Jhang and Sahiwal areas. Northern Saraiki is spoken in Chakwal, Pind Dadan Khan and Attock . Southern Saraiki is spoken in Naseerabad, Sukkar and Khairpur. Central and Standard Saraiki is spoken in Multan, Bahawalpur, Dera Ghazi khan and Dera Ismail Khan.182.186.69.39 (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I think most of what you call "Northern Saraiki" is actually part of Hindko proper. – Uanfala (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer note

Due weight to all aspects is must. I volunteer changes before DRN to be started.AksheKumar (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

DRN

Please visit dispute resolution notice board and participate a debate on saraiki dialect of Punjabi language which is poorly written by Uanfala as a separate language.AksheKumar (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It is already shown in Lahnda article then what is the dispute ? Gvinayal (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

DR Decision = Revert all Language edits, Saraiki is a dialect as per RFC. [38] Gvinayal (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Seraiki as dialect in India

In India Seraiki dailect is popular as Multani or Bahawalpuri dailect and the people like Aroras,Raisikhsetc. from Punjab,India,Rajasthan,Haryana and Delhi speaking this dialect identify themselves as Punjabi and register themselves as Punjabi speaker in census of India except few exceptions.Thus in India Seraiki or Multanis is a dialect of Punjabi not only by most Multani speaking population but also by Punjabi university,Patiala.Shemaroo (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Proposed edits to comply with RfC consensus & Dispute resolution

• Title : Saraiki dialect
• Leade: Saraiki (سرائیکی Sarā'īkī, often spelt Siraiki/Seraiki) also known as Southern Panjabi or Multani is a Punjabi variant spoken by 10% of Pakistan’s population. It belongs to Western Punjabi (Lahnda) group of Northwestern Indo-Aryan languages Saraiki is hotly contested as mere a dialect of Punjabi or separate language. While regarded by many as a dialect of Punjabi . it has supported a movement to claim for recognition as a separate language. Saraiki is to a high degree mutually intelligible with Standard dialect of Punjabi and shares with it a large portion of its vocabulary and morphology, while at the same time in its phonology and important grammatical features in common with the Sindhi language spoken to the south.. It is spoken by 20 million people in the province of Punjab, southern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and border regions of North Sindh and Eastern Balochistan in Pakistan. Multani is a "dialect" of Siraiki in the same way that Siraiki is a "dialect" of Lahnda, which is then a "dialect" of Punjabi, which in turn is a "dialect" of Indo-Aryan. In this sense both Siraiki and Standard Panjabi are "dialects" of a "Greater Punjabi" macrolanguage.

• Dialect section: to be renamed as "Subdialects" and rewritten as "The sub dialects tentatively proposed for Saraiki  : are Central Saraiki, including Multani, Sindhi Saraiki, Southern Saraiki of Rajanpur and Rahim Yar Khan Districts. Eastern Saraiki which is transitional to Standard Punjabi, Northern Saraiki, or Thali of the Thal Desert. The dialects tentatively proposed for Saraiki by ethnologue are Bahawalpuri (Reasati, Riasati), Derawali, Jatki, Multani (Khatki). The name "Derawali" is used to refer to the local dialects of both Dera Ghazi Khan and Dera Ismail Khan, but "Ḍerawali" in the former is the Multani dialect and "Derawali" in the latter is the Thaḷi dialect. 115.186.171.170 (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

References

SARAIKI IS LANGUAGE AND A DIALECT OF PUNJABI TOO

Saraiki is a language or dialect,you can not give decision studying only half popultion speaking this,you can language as claims by people of south western punjab but same time you can not ignore indian hindus,muslims and sikhs who speak this and claim as part of punjabi language.donot go mere on census datas, il ive in area WHERE MANY HINDUS,MUSLIMS,SIKHS SPEAK THIS AND REGISTERS THEMSELVES AS PUNJABI,EVEN TODAY I ASKED LOCAL HABITANT ZINDOO KHAN YOU SPEAK MULTANI WHICH IS ALSO CALLED SARAIKI,WHAT DO MENTION YOURSELF IN CENSUS ,SARAIKI OR PUNJABI? HA ANSWERED "PUNJABI" .SIR YOU WILL LITEN TO BOTH CLAIMS . IT IS NOT MATTER OF COCENSUS ,IT IS MATTER OF PEOPLE HAVING TWO ATTITUDES.Shemaroo (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your observation. It would really be nice to have a sentence or two on how Saraikis in India perceive their language if there is a reliable source about that. Now, if this view isn't represented in the article's lead paragraph, it's because of the simple fact that this is a very small émigré population and it's probably not representative of the wider community of speakers, which is in the millions. – Uanfala (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

SIR YOU JUST CAN NOT IGNRE SAYING THAT INDIAN ARE JUST SMALL EMIGRI POPULATION,IN INDIA SARAIKI (OR MULTANI) IS SPOKEN IN FAZILKA DISRICT NAD FEROZPUR DISTRICT,THEY ARE NOT EMMIGRINTS, BUT THEY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS PUNJABI SPEAKER,YOU CAN THRUST NEWLY BORN TERM SARAIKI ON ALL. Shemaroo (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC) This is just newly born pakistani view for bahawlapuri and multani you can not thrust or misguide to indian native speakers of this language, search on google about raisikhs and arorass,they are native speakers,you can thrust the view of south pakistanis,you will have mention both and nuetral view.i live in area where speakers of this dialect are in majority and they never insist being called saraiki then punjabis,do not thrust upon them.wikipedia is to tell reality not to create . Shemaroo (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion, but any contentious information you add to a wikipedia article has to be backed up with reliable sources. Again, if such sources are found, they should be included in the article, although probably not in the lede (see WP:BALANCE). Your addition to the first sentence is also redundant, because the second sentence already covers the dialect view. – Uanfala (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

Given the recent post (self admitted to being canvassed off wiki), I also went to the link and there's obvious disruptive canvassing from LX, I am inclined to place this page temporarily under 300/50 edit protection. If there are any compelling arguments to not do that, please let me know. —SpacemanSpiff 10:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: I'm not sure what this comment refers to. Please could you clarify? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This and that – an obvious sock of User:LanguageXpert, who links to a facebook post from November urging people to come and vote here. In addition to that, there appears to be recent on-wiki canvassing as well: [39] [40] [41]. – Uanfala (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

As explained above, but I made a mistake, it should be 500/30 protection, not 300/50. —SpacemanSpiff 12:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying. No objections from me.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. This has been a fascinating bid to recognize Saraiki as more than a dialect in the Lahnda continuum. We all agree that Wikipedia is required to be neutral. We must be sensitive to the perspectives of those who find the term "dialect" to have a pejorative nature, and yet further, we must all recognize that "dialect" is just a word. Some different types of languages spoken a bit differently in adjacent areas do evolve into full-fledged languages, and there are those who consider Saraiki as one of these. The sources I've read make note of all this, and yet summarize by saying that Saraiki is as yet to this day more widely considered a Punjabi dialect. So thank you all for an educational discussion! (non-admin closure)  Paine  ^u/c 05:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify, this decision is based upon the !votes and rationales of the following discussion, and those only.  Paine  ^u/c 05:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Saraiki dialect → Saraiki language – Primarily to revert the LTA user. I also agree with the Utcursch's earlier move. There are more sources supporting it as a separate language (including Ethnologue) than a dialect of Pubjabi or Sindhi. The country where its spoken the most also recognizes it as a separate language (according to 1981 and 1998 census of Pakistan). – SMS ^Talk 18:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  Paine  ^u/c 09:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Filpro (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Most linguists agree that it is a dialect of Lahnda (Western Punjabi), the dialect continuum of Standard Punjabi and Sindhi. Besides, Ethnologue refers to all of their entries as "language" be it a language or dialect. Also see, Dialect or language and Mutual intelligibility. Filpro (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: It shares at least 95% of its vocabulary with other dialects of Punjabi and there exists mutual intelligibility. I tested it on the personal level as well, i speak another dialect of Punjabi but when i open a Saraiki news website, i can make sense of almost all the news stories. King Julien of Wikipedia | do not try to make a move | 19:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Saraiki may share similarities with Punjabi or Sindhi, but calling it a part of either of these languages is far-fetched. As SMS noted, the census of Pakistan, as well as the Saraiki movement in southern Punjab, identify it as a separate language. I don't see any harm in moving the title back to what it was, and discussing the dialect controversy in a section within the article. Mar4d (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mar4d: I am sure you will find a lot of discussion on this topic in the archives. The problem is Wikipedia is not governed by Government of Pakistan. When classifying a language/dialect, we need to go by expert opinion of linguists, Grierson is an expert on languages, he describes Saraiki as the dialect of Punjabi. King Julien of Wikipedia | do not try to make a move | 16:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion Why not simply use "Saraiki" as the name of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.179.208 (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Saraiki is seprate language.182.186.19.96 (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Referring it to a blogpost. King Julien of Wikipedia | do not try to make a move | 16:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Conditionally Oppose: I will oppose it if a section is added for regional political movement to use this dialect as instrument to get new province.Yoyi ling (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Yoyi ling (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: @Anthony Appleyard: Smsarmad has violated rules and deleted my comments. With out SPI no one can declare some one sock and delete his comments. He must get the block for violation. Is not this imposing behaviour to get desired result. He should have guts to defend his case rather then using illogical excuses to avoid logical argument. I am reinserting my comments . I oppose almost all linguist on Indo-Aryan languages from Grierson (1903–28) to George Cardona (2014) have classified it as dialect of Lahnda (Westren Punjabi) language along with Hindko dialect and few other dialects. Move will complicate situation. It will give prefrence to ethno-political views over scholory work of language professionals. ₯€₠€₯

It is not a good idea to call someone a sock and remove their comments unless they are proven a sock because I can see a lot of other IPs here which I might know whose socks they actually might be but I am not accusing them as socks or removing their comments by calling them such. King Julien of Wikipedia | do not try to make a move | 16:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: "Consensus says it's a dialect." by NeilN on 15:36, 2 August 2014. King Julien of Wikipedia | do not try to make a move | 17:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  The link you provided is a link to an edit summary supported by a claim of consensus. It would be nice to have a link to the discussion where that consensus was reached. YBG (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comments it is a language.182.186.41.146 (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

***Support*** see http://globalrecordings.net/en/langcode/skr It is a Language.Saraiki is taught as subject in Schools, college and Universities.182.186.14.9 (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

References

• Comment: @182.186.19.96: You first sited a blog (which is not Reliable WP source) Then you sited globalrecordings which is also supporting the fact that Saraiki has son father relationship with Lahnda. Do you know what linguist mean by Lahnda. Lahnda means Western Punjabi) Language. So hope it will clear you about status of Saraiki as a dialect of Western Punjabi language. ₯€₠€₯
• (edit conflict) @Andy M. Wang: I Support this move. Book sources refer to it as a language. [42][43][44] A lot of what's written above appears to be WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. It matters not whether individual editors think it's mutually intelligible with something else, we go by what sources say, and I don't see much evidence of them calling it a dialect.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You are misquoting the sources, dialects are a type of language and are described as a language in literature, we are talking about a classification of dialect vs. language and that only expert linguists can do. King Julien of Wikipedia | do not try to make a move | 18:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Saraiki is language according to Govt of Pakistan. Saraiki is Subject in Universities. Saraiki is approved language in Radio and Television. So page be moved182.186.85.88 (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• At 05:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC), I closed this as No consensus was reached after 2 weeks and a relisting. This is apparently still up for debate. Page has stood since 2013, so not moved., but am comfortable and overturning myself - possibly overstepped — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

*Comment: @Amakuru Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources. The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that context. Your first source "Political Survival in Pakistan: Beyond Ideology" is not on linguistics. It just focuses how ethnos in Pakistan is used for political survival ignoring ideology for progress. This article is on linguistics so this source is not reliable in this context [45].

Your second source "Crossing Phonetics-Phonology Lines" is on Phonetics not on Language classification or Dialect continua .Hence again it is out of context and can not be used.

Your third source showing Govt publication was already contested by other user. Which I re quote; "Wikipedia is not governed by Government of Pakistan. When classifying a language/dialect, we need to go by expert opinion of linguists, Grierson is an expert on languages, he describes Saraiki as the dialect of Punjabi." Further elaboration by me "Local linguists such as Dulai, K Narinder, Gill, Harjeet Singh Gill, A Henry. Gleason (Jr), Koul, N Omkar, Siya Madhu Bala, Aamir Malik, Amar Nath as well as modern linguistics publications such as US National advisory Committee based The UCLA Language Materials Project (LMP) along with modern linguistics such as George Cardona and Nataliia Ivanovna Tolstaia classifying Saraiki as a dialect of Punjabi".

@Andy M. Wang: not over stepped. Page stood since 2013, visited by 12,258 visitors in last 90 days (max available days data)[46]. By exploiting 147,096 users in three years. Even all page watcher (78) never objected. There was express as well implied acceptance to Saraiki dialect. Your decision to not move the page was good faith & rational. ₯€₠€₯

@Andy M. Wang: I agree that you did not overstep, it was a fair close with the discussion as it was at the time, but I also thank you for reopening it now, given my late revival of the discussion. On the question of whether it's a dialect or a language, it could very easily be classed as both. See Serbian language / Croatian language, and also Kinyarwanda / Kirundi for other examples of mutually intelligible "dialects" of some broader parent "language" (respectively, Serbo-Croatian language and Rwanda-Rundi language), which are nonetheless regarded as languages, because they are standardised and universally spoken across a coherent area. My sources quoted above may not be by expert linguists, but they nonetheless qualify for ascertaining WP:COMMONNAME, which is, after all, the policy most relevant to the matter at hand here. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The sources you provided do not discuss the language vs. dialect aspect of Saraiki. They do not explain why Saraiki should be classified as a language and not the dialect. They just discuss its political dimensions. They do not have any bearing on deciding the common name for a tongue. I can find you many sources which call it a dialect. I will encourage people involved in this discussion to find a source which discusses the delicate difference between a language and a dialect and classifies Saraiki as a language based on their expert finding and analysis. King Julien of Wikipedia | do not try to make a move | 11:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Amakuru You claimed non linguistic classification of Serbian language / Croatian language, and also Kinyarwanda / Kirundi which may be two exceptions but hundreds of Wikipedia Language/dialects Articles are named based on linguistic classifications. If given an option. Best practices vs Exceptions. Obviously best practices should be followed as quoted by user SheriffIsInTown above. Secondly for ascertaining WP:COMMONNAME see these pro Saraiki online sources naming it as "Saraiki Boli" Here you go [47] [48] [49] . Boli means dialect [50] . @Andy M. Wang: I request for closure of this discussion by retaining Saraiki dialect as already this discussion has been open for more then two weeks and there is no agreement among users to move the article to Saraiki Language. ₯€₠€₯

I change my vote from Conditionally Oppose to Oppose after reading all views by participating members Yoyi ling (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dear Saraiki is langauge..https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jhangvi_dialect&oldid=539899656182.186.78.178 (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I do recognize the importance of your perspective and the work that went into that table of Saraiki dialects, even though it was deemed "not relevant" to discussions about the improvement of the Jhangvi dialect article. Saraiki appears to lie on a continuum between a "dialect" and a "language", and the consensus of Wikipedians as seen above is that Saraiki cannot yet be afforded the "language" qualifier except in more informal usage, such as at Ethnologue. There may be hope for the future when we see that there is a growing number of redirects in Wikipedia's Category:Redirects from Saraiki-language terms. Cheers!  Paine  ^u/c 09:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: I disagree with your analysis. Saying it is a dialect is pure WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, as almost all sources call it a language and not a dialect. Which reliable sources in particular persuaded you not to move this article? Many thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Amakuru, the close seems to be a reasonable reading of the consensus. I've been watching this discussion (since I was involved in an earlier discussion which left me uncertain of where Saraiki lies on the language - dialect continuum) and I don't see anything here to change the consensus that linguists generally recognize saraiki as a dialect. If we are to be a functioning site, we cannot let discussions to go on endlessly and it is better, in ambiguous cases as this one likely is, to close the discussion and to move forward. whether the title is correct or not, the discussion has been closed very reasonably by a clearly uninvolved editor. --regentspark (comment) 18:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand your concern, Amakuru, as I am certainly no expert on languages; however, rest assured that my decision was not based on my own readings, but only the consensus formed in the above discussion. There was one source that was interesting, though. It's a 2010 book titled The Social Space of Language: Vernacular Culture in British Colonial Punjab by Farina Mir. We must note that the author speaks of the Lahnda continuum and doesn't even make mention of Saraiki itself, so while I do think that there may come a day when the often blurred, indistinct and subjective differences between "languages" and "dialects" will become better defined by linguists, and that Saraiki grows nearer and nearer to the "language" end of the continuum, the consensus of Wikipedians in the above discussion is spot on, at least for now.  Paine  ^u/c 20:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks you @Paine Ellsworth: and @RegentsPark:, and I understand that you're both uninvolved, and of course have no bias one way or the other, but I would still like to know which arguments persuaded you that there was consensus not to move, that's my only question, because I'm not convinced myself, and I would like clarity on this. I, and others, cited numerous sources stating that it is language, while the "oppose" votes were simply giving their own opinions that it shares a lot in common with other languages, without mentioning a single reliable source. So again, please just tell me what aspect of the "oppose" votes you found more convincing than the "support" votes, so that I may understand your thinking. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru. In the discussion, from what I can see, a total of six sources are listed. Two are from linguists (Cardona and Grierson), three that you provided, and Ethnologue. The sources you provided are contested in the discussion as either referring to a political movement to make Saraiki a language or being government sources (which are not considered reliable) while no one is contesting the linguist sources. So, as far as the discussion goes, I don't really see how this can be closed any other way. --regentspark (comment) 23:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

[N]o one is contesting the linguist sources. That might be because nothing specific has been provided. Two names were prominently mentioned: Cardona and Grierson. Maybe the fellow IP editor who put them on the table could let us know what specifically by Cardona they had in mind? As for Grierson, that must be the Linguistic Survey of India. Now, even leaving aside the question of the suitability of a source based on data gathered at the end of the 19th century, this is odd. Because in Grierson's classification Siraiki and Punjabi end up in altogether different branches of Indo-Aryan: the former is classified in the same group with Sindhi, the latter – with Hindi. And the paper I'm reading at the moment says that the Siraiki language movement's claim for separate identity draws from Grierson's arguments. – Uanfala (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

To editor Amakuru: In addition to regentspark's comments, we also know that while many sources refer to Saraiki as a "language", many sources are not linguist sources and commonly refer to dialects as languages. Even Wikipedia, as shown by the category link I gave, does not discriminate and refers to both languages and dialects as "languages" on an informal level. It is only when we must adhere to the article titling policy that we must be "formal" and use the term dialect. Reliable linguist sources, to include the source I gave above, are what must be used to determine the way forward. This made the opposition stronger in the above RM discussion and led to my close to leave Saraiki as a dialect for now. It might be considered a "rough" consensus; however, by Wikipedia standards it is still a consensus in my humble opinion. As you know, Wikipedia has a review system in place, and that is where we should take any further discussion on this subject (if that is the desired next step).  Paine  ^u/c 00:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Move review

This is to note that the recent MRV has been closed and the above page-rename decision has been endorsed.  Paine  ^u/c 09:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Addendum

To editors Smsarmad, Uanfala, Filpro and SheriffIsInTown: also To editors Mar4d, YBG, Amakuru and Andy M. Wang: messages have also been placed on the talk pages of IPs 59.182.179.208, 182.186.19.96, 182.186.41.146, 182.186.14.9 and 182.186.85.88.

(more to come)  Paine  ^u/c 23:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

These are all the participants in the direct and closed RM discussion. After a lot more research and more discussion about the general topic of "'dialect' or 'language'?", I have come to the conclusion that there really is no easy answer to that question, so we are left with the consensus garnered above and little else. In light of this, I wanted to inform participants that I would not oppose a new RM in a few months if new material may be shown that might lead to a consensus to view Saraiki as a language rather than a dialect. My own stance would have to follow John McWhorter's January 2016 article in The Atlantic, which can be read here. So from this point forward on this particular subject I consider myself an involved editor and will close no more requested moves of the nature, "Is it a dialect of Punjabi, or not?"  Paine  ^u/c 00:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

That article probably does rather neatly sum up the problem. The term "language" has two meanings, one geopolitical, and the other academic (in the study of linguistics). Geopolitically, any tongue which is codified as the official language of a country or province, or even an ethnic group, can be thought of as a "standardized" language. Good examples of this are Kinyarwanda and Kirundi, which are mutually intelligible but somewhat different tongues, each one standardized in a single country (Rwanda and Burundi respectively). Serbian language and Croatian language is another example. In linguistics, however, the experts would be looking at languages in terms of how different they are from each other, and their phonetic properties; where they have a lot in common they call them dialects rather than separate languages, much as a zoologist would classify two related animals (mountain gorilla and eastern lowland gorilla) as a pair of subspecies rather than a separate species. In the case of Saraiki, it seems to me the consensus is that geopolitically it is a language, or at the very least its speakers are a unified ethnic group who have campaigned vigorously for it to be regarded as a language; whereas linguistically it probably is just a dialect. Which name we choose for WP:COMMONNAME purposes depends entirely on which kind of source we look at - geopolitical, or linguistic. Many above have argued we should only look at the academic linguistic sources, and that's where I disagree. This is not an open and shut case.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I only disagree with the opinion that linguists regard it as a dialect. At least I haven't yet encountered such a claim in the literature. To be fair, there are older texts that treat it as a dialect of Lahnda, but there Lahnda is treated as a language in its own right, with Multani (= Saraiki) the standard "dialect". – Uanfala (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Amakuru: The examples (Croatian/Serbian: Spoken in Croatia/Serbia and Kinyarwanda/Kirundi: Spoken in Rwanada/Burundi) you have given do not apply to Saraiki/Punjabi, it seems you have no knowledge of the subject here. Two different dialects of same languages being spoken in two different countries is geopolitically different than two dialects of same language being spoken in the same country. So, no, geopolitically, Saraiki is not a language as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: the important distinction is not a *national* boundary, but an *ethnic* boundary. (After all, national boundaries are in many parts of the world just imposed by European powers, and don't correspond to any historical or local division). The Seraiki people are a separate ethnicity from other people that speak Punjabi, and hence why their tongue is considered a language. And I don't need to have "knowledge of the subject", since I am going by sources. Which is what we do here in Wikipedia. If you want a subnational example, see Northern Sotho language, Sotho language, Tswana language. These are all mutually intelligble tongues, all spoken in South Africa (and neighbouring countries), but divided into languages according to their speakers. Thanks and I hope that clarifies.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no ethnic boundary as well, all Saraiki speaking people are not one ethnicity, no proof to that in sources, geopolitically, it is spoken in scattered areas of Pakistani and Indian Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh as it is true for other dialects of Punjabi so why we should treat Saraiki differently than all those other dialects, only because there is no political movement regarding other dialects? Wikipedia is not here to acknowledge one political movement over another. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no ethnic boundary Well, according to Gankovsky, speakers of Saraiki are culturally and economically closer to the Sindhis than to the Punjabis. – Uanfala (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Since when, culture and economics started to define ethnicity? You are and have been misrepresenting sources all over the place on Wikipedia blurring the lines between topics and causing confusion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You are and have been misrepresenting sources all over the place Where have I done that? Could you give me some examples? – Uanfala (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I am 182.186.41.146 with this account. Seriekki people want Seriekki province. Our Sereikki students federation is working hard. Punjabi are our Jutt brother. They speak same language. But we want our right. Pashtun have more seats in senate i.e. 23 KPK province 8 FATA they also get few from Baluchistan. If there will be 2 Punjab (North Punjab, South Punjab) then Punjab Jutt people will have more seats in senate i.e. 23 +23 =46 . Multan is oldest city. Sereikki is very old language. It old nam Multani Punjabi or Jatki languge of Jutt SaraikiStudents (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

To editors Paine Ellsworth, Amakuru, Uanfala, Filpro and SheriffIsInTown: Saraiki is internationally recognized as Punjabi variety. First example, US central intelligence agency writes it as Punjabi variant in World fact book. [51] Is CIA a LanguageXpert or Maria0333 sock ? The very early edits in 2005 show a sentence that Status of language is controversial. Was LanguageXpert or Maria0333 were even born back then ? Every language is a dialect. so writing dialect is not controversial but using Language is controversial ab initio. Variety is neutral so that can also be used. But if some one deletes every thing and says socks edits then CIA is also a LanguageXpert sock. In Urdu we say gherat mand aadmi k liye ishara hi kafi hay (For a honoured and dignified person even small points are important but for an egoistic child there is just insultive life), so lesson from this idiom is let us be mature and close all this bla bla. Long talk page discussions in itself proof that Language status is controversial. @Uanfala please reverse all edits you have made to articles on Saraiki dialect, Hindko Dialect, Potwari dialect, Western Punjabi and other Punjabi dialect pages because there is no Coherence in Language tree you want to grow on wiki land — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.234.213 (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2016‎ (UTC)