Jump to content

Talk:Saraiki language/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Requested move 23 December 2016

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved; the primary proposed move target, Saraiki, is already occupied by a disambiguation page, and no proposal has been made to move the disambiguation page to another title. Absent consensus to move the disambiguation page (and a specified target to which to move it), the only other proposed space to which "Saraiki dialect" could be moved is "Saraiki language". However, there is no consensus to move to that title, so no move is possible at this time. bd2412 T 21:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Saraiki dialect → ? – The use of "dialect" in the title is out of step with common usage and reflects a view that is nowadays espoused mostly by Punjabis, many of whom see Saraiki as a dialect of their own language. I can see two acceptable titles:

Likely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The only other article that this title could refer to is Saraiki people, but that doesn't seem to be widely used: most google hits I see have "Saraiki" referring to the language. Support for this can also be found in the statistics of pageviews: for the first three months of the year, the language received on average 200 views per day [1], while the ethnic group got only a third as many [2].

The WP:COMMONNAME found in established scholarly sources – everything of quality that I've encountered while rewriting the article treats it as a language: for example, Masica (1991, p. 443) harvtxt error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFMasica1991 (help) – one of the two standard reference books on Indo-Aryan languages, as well as almost all of the writings of the two authorities on Saraiki: Christopher Shackle and Tariq Rahman (their work is referenced throughout the article, but the most accessible one is probably the Encyclopedia Britannica article written by Shackle). The only exception is Shackle's chapter in Cardona's book (this is the second standard Indo-Aryan reference text), but there neither "language" nor "dialect" are used (instead, the word of choice is "variety" – a neutral term widely used in linguistics for any language/dialect/register).

Looking more widely, "language" is again overwhelmingly more common than "dialect". Google Books gives 1,020 results for the phrase "Saraiki language" [3], which is eight times more than the 129 for "Saraiki dialect" [4]. Google Scholar has 169 results for "language" [5], 17 times more that the meagre 10 returned for "dialect" [6]. On LLBA (Proquest's index of linguistics papers) I found only five articles, but all of them treat Saraiki as a language and not as a dialect.

Also, Saraiki language was the title of the article for most of its history since it was created in 2004 (and de-stubbed in 2006). It was moved to Saraiki dialect only in 2013, by a banned user [7]. There have been several discussions since then, but they have been dominated by the numerous sockspuppets of User:LanguageXpert (particularly User:Maria0333) and User:Yoyi ling. There have been good-faith opinions as well, but I don't remember seeing any viable argument for the dialect view: comments have been either outright WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH (of the type "I'm a Punjabi and I can read Saraiki newspapers, therefore it's a dialect of Punjabi") or unwarranted inferences ("In Cardona's book, Saraiki is described in the same chapter as Punjabi, so it's probably a dialect.")

Also noting that participants in the previous discussions might have been misled by the content of the article at the time: its section "Language vs. dialect", written by a banned user, had bogus sources and has since been removed (this is explained in a previous thread).

Note: of the three common spellings Saraiki, Siraiki and Seraiki, the variant with a seems to be prevalent nowadays, and that matter is not the subject of this discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 22:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Masica, Colin P. (1991). The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge language surveys. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-23420-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Shackle, Christopher (2003). "Panjabi". The Indo-Aryan languages. Routledge language family series. Y. London: Routledge. pp. 581–621. ISBN 978-0-7007-1130-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

Comments and discussion

  • Note – I've notified Wikiproject Languages, Wikiproject Pakistan, as well as the editors who have taken part in the discussions on this talk page since the start of the last requested move in September [8]. – Uanfala (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support move to either Saraiki or Saraiki language per the evidence presented in the nomination here, and also in the move request above. There is basically a disconnect here, between the "academic" view of what this language is, and the geopolitical view. Politically it is a language, despite technical similarities between this and other languages. Thus we treat it as one, similar to Serbian language / Croatian language or Kinyarwanda / Kirundi. If there are reliable sources out there telling us that this is in some sense not a language, then I can change my mind, but for now, and in the MR above, virtually no evidence has been presented, even academic. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
    • From what I've seen so far, linguistic and non-linguistic texts do align in treating it as a language. There was a claim in the previous discussion that linguistic sources don't, but that was based on an inference from the arrangement of Cardona's book, and a supposed list of linguists that was produced by one of the socks and that failed verification. – Uanfala (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
    Note: For clarity, I would support a move to Saraiki if that's the way the consensus is swinging (as of 2 Jan that seems to be the case). Although normally we divide ethnicity and language articles along the X language and X people, the fact that there doesn't seem to be consensus for "Sariki language" means we may need to compromise here and just go with plain Saraiki for the language.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


Comments by socks

* Oppose relying on just two sources and repeating Move requests. This is 3rd move request. Isnt it crazy? Even those two sources don't disassociate Saraiki from Lahnda (Western Punjabi). I have already given six sources on Dispute resolution board according to them Saraiki is a Punjabi dialect. I have 30 more scholarly sources. I agree with Paine Ellsworth for closure of this Move review to retain title as Saraiki dialect. Gvinayal (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The sources I refer to in my nomination are the two standard reference books in Indo-Aryan languages (only one of which is actually relevant for the argument here), as well as virtually all the writings of the two authorities on Saraiki. This is coupled with the overwhelming results of a broad search on Google Scholar and Google Books. No-one is disputing the fact that there do exist sources that treat Saraiki as a dialect. But these are vastly outnumbered, and none of them are among the most reliable ones. – Uanfala (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

* Oppose We Saraiki call it sadi Mithri Boli., our sweetest dialect., local name is Seriaki boli., Boli mean dialect., Name is OK. SaraikiStudents (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

* Oppose Procedurally it is not a correct request. Plus: Majority of sources list Saraiki as dialect. LisaRoy (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment by a likely sock

Source inspection The Indo-Aryan Languages By Colin P. Masica 1993

  • Page 289. Lahnda dialects (including Siraiki).....[10]
  • Page 343. Saraiki and other Lahnda dialects
  • Page 247. Lahnda (Siraiki) which lacks a Layer 1 instrumental..... [11]
  • Page 23. In Pakistan several erstwhile dialects (Siraiki & Dogri) are said to be agitating for language status[12]
  • Page 518. Lahnda/Lahndi (see also Siraiki) ..... [13]

Source inspection Linguistic survey of India by George Abraham Grierson 1903-1928

  • Volume 8. Lahnda or Westren Punjabi [14]

Source inspection The Indo-Aryan Languages By Danesh Jain, George Cardona Panjabi section written by Christopher Shackle in 2007

  • Page 588. All these structural features of MSP (Main stream Punjabi)........ occur in western varieties.........in Saraiki and other western dialects... [15]
  • Page 603. The MSP (Main stream Punjabi) declension ....Other varieties have similar pattern...Dogri...Shahpuri...Pothohari...Hindko and Saraiki ... [16]
  • Page 584. Map 16.1 Punjabi area map.............Saraiki ........ [17] 101.50.122.64 (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to dig up the instances in which the two reference books refer to Siraiki as a dialect. It would have been nice if you'd gone the extra step of actually reading these snippets in their context, but oh well... Let's start with Massica's book. The bit on p. 23 ("erstwhile dialect") really speaks for itself (maybe worth linking to wikt:erstwhile in case the meaning of the word was missed), but it's still worth looking at. It is in the context of a discussion about the different meanings of "language" and "dialect", and how one of the possible distinctions is that between a language variety that has a written standard and a literary tradition (a "language"), and one that doesn't (a "dialect"). In the following paragraph, a distinction within "languages" (in the sense above) is examined: between "developed" and "undeveloped" ones (in the sense of having a broader or a narrower range of literary registers). Then in the text that runs on to p. 24, Siraiki is given as an example of a "language" that is less "developed" than Hindi, but more "developed" than Khowar.
The following text (still on p. 24) looks at another set of meanings for "dialect" and "language" – a "dialect" is a subvariety of a larger entity, which is normally a "language". And then follows the crucial bit, that in this meaning, the terms "are often taken (mainly in academic usage itself) to be purely relative, with different applications at different levels of abstraction." And then follows an example: Sambalpuri is a "dialect" of Oriya, which is in turn a "dialect" of Magadhan, which is a "dialect" of Indo-Aryan, which is then a "dialect" of Indo-European. This should probably explain the usage in the bits you quote from pages 289 and 343. Otherwise how would such usage tally with the definition of Siraiki as a "new literary language" on p. 443? As for your quotes from pages 247 and 518, I'm not really getting your point. The fact that Siraiki belongs to the Lahnda group isn't being challenged by this RM.
As for Grierson's Linguistic Survey of India, that has already been discussed on this page. A text based on data gathered in the vastly different sociolinguistic situation at the start of the 20th century is hardly relevant for such matters today. But even if it were, then there's the trifling inconvenience that it doesn't really talk about Saraiki at all. The Saraiki dialects it describes are the unrelated ones spoken in Sindh.
Arriving now at your third source, Shackle's chapter in Cardona's book. The bit on p. 603 uses the term "variety", which is agnostic to the language/dialect distinction. The quote from p. 588 could be understood in the light of Massica's explanation that I've recounted two paragraphs above. And if you still want to read something into this single instance of the usage of "dialect", then how would you account for the fact that the same author uses "language" quite unequivocally in most of his other writings (again linking to the most accessible one: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Siraiki-language). As for the fact that Siraiki is shown on the map of Punjabi on p. 584, I'm not sure what you're aiming at here. No-one here is challenging the grouping of Saraiki within "Greater Punjabi" (as Rahman calls it) or "Common Punjabi" (in the words of Shackle).
Let me know if I've missed anything. On a side note, you really don't seem to have read the texts you're quoting: in Shackle, "MSP" doesn't stand for "Mainstream Punjabi", but for "Modern Standard Punjabi". Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support move to Saraiki - The lead, especially the footnote [3], makes clear that it is offensive to title this page "Saraiki dialect". There is a powerful movement demanding the recognition of Saraiki as a language, and the reliable sources are sensitive to that. We are not yet ready to label it a "language", but certainly we can remove the "dialect" label. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
    • If it is "offensive to title this page 'Saraiki dialect'", then perhaps the recent changes to the lead, which introduced the non-neutral text that is offensive, need to be eliminated? You seem to imply that the title should be either "Saraiki (something)", where "something" is anything besides "language" or "dialect", or just "Saraiki". In order to be able to title it just "Saraiki" with no disambiguator, it must be shown that the dialect/language/tongue/variety is the primary topic compared with the Saraiki people, Saraiki culture and other usages of "Saraiki" on Wikipedia. And if the disambiguator is not "language" or "dialect", then what would you suggest?  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 00:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm wondering, what kind of evidence is needed to persuade you that an article is the primary topic? Also. I'm not sure I see what is the recently introduced non-neutral text that you're referring to. – Uanfala (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
        • @Paine Ellsworth:, I am sorry. I thought that the move request proposed Saraiki as the new name, but I see that it didn't make a specific choice. So, I have now edited my recommendation to make it clear.
        • I am focused on the move request, using the article content as the basis. If you want to contest the article content, it will have to be a separate discussion. "Saraiki" is primarily the name of the language, and other terms like "Saraiki people" and "Saraiki culture" are derived from it. (This is different from "Punjabi", which is equally the name of the people as well as the language.) -- Kautilya3 (talk)
          • Well, again, this article can only be renamed to "Saraiki" if it meets the qualifications for being the primary topic. These qualifications are described at WP:PTOPIC. See my response below to Uanfala for a page-views link that shows that the article about the Saraiki people receives enough page views to mean that this article, Saraiki dialect, is not the primary topic, and that there is no primary topic for the title "Saraiki".  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 13:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
        • I am persuaded by the descriptions at the PTOPIC link above, namely that a primary topic is determined by usage, long-term significance and, importantly, consensus among editors as to which article is indeed the primary topic. A page-views analysis, which is one of several ways to measure the usage for the purpose of determining the primary topic, shows that this article does get more page views than the article about the Saraiki people; however, the difference is too small to be persuasive.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 13:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
          • Thank you for your reply. How big a difference in pageviews is needed for it to be persuasive? – Uanfala (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
          • PTOPIC says A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. That is the case here. Saraiki is the name of the language, as a simple search on Google Books makes clear. I think it is highly unlikely that somebody looking for Saraiki people would simply search for "Saraiki". I don't think the page views settle the issue in anyway, but WP:COMMONNAME usage does. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
        • The other editor in this discussion described it thusly: The lead, especially the footnote [3], makes clear that it is offensive to title this page "Saraiki dialect". Text that "makes it clear" that something is offensive with no explicit reason to explain the offensiveness should either be explained or removed.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 13:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
          • I suppose my reference to footnote [3] didn't sink in. Here is what it says:

Rahman 1995, p. 16: "the Punjabis claim that Siraiki is a dialect of Punjabi, whereas the Siraikis call it a language in its own right."; Shackle 2014a: "it has come to be increasingly recognized internationally as a language in its own right, although this claim continues to be disputed by many Punjabi speakers who regard it as a dialect of Punjabi"; Lewis, Simons & Fennig 2016: " Until recently it was considered a dialect of Panjabi."; Masica (1991, p. 443) harvtxt error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFMasica1991 (help) defines Saraiki as a "new literary language"; see also Shackle (2003, pp. 585–86) harvtxt error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFShackle2003 (help)

Sources
So, Punjabis claim that it is a dialect, but the Saraiki people think of it as a language. And, we side with the Punjabi POV, even though it has come to be recognized internationally as a language in its own right! This is the quintessential example of a WP:POVTITLE. As for the "offensive" bit, let me read out your own remarks from the last close: We must be sensitive to the perspectives of those who find the term "dialect" to have a pejorative nature... Now, you propose to delete from the article any text that makes it clear that it is offensive/pejorative? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, even if we disregard the issue of whether or not it causes offence to call it a dialect, the sources highlighted here by Kautilya3 provide clear secondary source evidence that both the international community and the Sariki themselves prefer to designate this as a language these days. Which just adds to the overwhelming evidence that that's what sources say and that we should therefore title it "Saraiki language". Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Please be more specific about the "international community" coming out in support of calling the Saraiki tongue a "language". That's a pretty big community. Is there an international organization of people who have rallied around this cause? How "international" is this support, exactly? And why would it come out dead against the Punjabi community, who continue to see Saraiki as a dialect of their language? Also, there are enough page views for the Saraiki people to effectively negate any bid by the dialect to call itself the primary topic – that is, neither the people nor the dialect can, in my humble opinion, be the primary topic for the "Saraiki" page title. Then there is the other need for long-term significance. Which is more significant in the long term? Is it the people or their tongue(s)?  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 18:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not particularly arguing that the language has primacy over the people, just that it is a language not a dialect. They are a people, and this is their language. Ipso facto. And I don't need to define "international community", because the source quoted above does just that. That's the essence of a WP:SECONDARYSOURCE, in that it doesn't require us to go around cherry picking things and trying to figure out which sources say what. The source speaks for other sources in noting that they tend to regard this as a language. Finally, on your point about Punjabi speakers regarding it as a dialect, that's not particularly relevant when the people themselves and the international community regard it as a language. That's similar to Lombard language, which is regarded as a dialect of Italian by the Italian authorities, but as a separate language by the native speakers and international observers.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, I'm still wondering, what is the pageviews threshold for a primary topic? What difference in pageviews between one article and another would be enough to indicate that one of them is the primary topic? – Uanfala (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
There's a saying where I come from... "That dog won't hunt." Firstly, just because a secondary source stipulates that a language is "increasingly recognized internationally as a language in its own right" doesn't make it true, especially when there is no detail about this alleged "international community" given. Who are its members? Am I a member? Are you? Thus far all I've seen is a movement by some Saraikis to get their dialect recognized as a language, another movement by Punjabi speakers to have Saraiki continue to be seen as a dialect, and no hard evidence that there is any "international effort" for either faction – is there an international organization of people who have taken up the "Saraiki language cause"??? I'll ask a third time since no one seems to be hearing, "Is there an international organization that has shown support to have the Saraiki dialect recognized as a language?" What's its name and who are its members? As for what constitutes a primary topic, if you are still unclear, then you might want to read WP:PTOPIC again and again as many times as necessary. It is explained there fully enough.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 09:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it's clear the international community referred to in the source is the academic community. As for whether the current article is the primary topic, Kautilya3 has already given one strong argument, and if you find the pageviews unconvincing, you might want to read the nomination statement at the start of the current discussion, particularly its second paragraph (Sorry if it wasn't written very clearly). The current article receives three times as many views as its alternative, which for me is enough to tick the pageview box. The reason you saw a much smaller difference in the links you provided is that you were using the part of the tool that only shows pageviews for an exact title, and doesn't show traffic coming from redirects (so pageviews from users arriving for example via Siraiki dialect or Saraiki language aren't reflected). – Uanfala (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Your interpretation of what the source depicted as "international recognition" is just that, an interpretation, which we cannot use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia requires more than one editor's choice in regard to what a source says in order to support a claim in an article. We require specific and inarguable descriptions and definitions of, in this case, international recognition. Not saying that your interpretion is wrong, just saying that your interpretation is open to question since it is not specifically stated that way in the source. As for page views, I was born on a Wednesday, Uanfala, but I was not born last Wednesday. The actual redirect analysis is not 3:1, but only 2.25:1. And when combined with the main page-view ratio of 1.5:1, the total main article plus redirect page ratio is less than 2:1 (1.9:1 to be exact). That's not near enough to prove that "Saraiki" is a primary-topic title – not even close.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 04:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, the analysis above ranges over the past twenty days and the ratios depict the page views for Saraiki dialect vs. Saraiki people (that is "dialect:people").
We may also note that there is a list of Saraiki tribes that would go hand-in-hand with the article about the Saraiki people. I just checked just the first one, the article on the Arain people, and their article received a daily average of 232 hits over the past 90 days, while the Saraiki dialect page received 162 average daily hits during the same period. In my mind, this does not bode well for the argument that the "Saraiki" title is a PTOPIC title for the Saraiki tongue. If there is a primary topic, then it is likely the Saraiki people, not the dialect.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 04:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm finding your comments here increasingly baffling, Paine Ellsworth. You're welcome to question the statements in the secondary sources given, but I don't think this is contributing to the discussion unless you tell us in light of what other sources (or knowledge of the world) you're doing that.
As for the pageviews, where are you seeing the ratio of 2.25:1? In case my reference to the top of the discussion was missed, I'm repeating the links here: 200 daily views for the language [18] vs. 65 for the people [19] – that's a ratio of 3.08. Now, that was for the first three months of the year. If we extend this to the whole period of the existence of the tool (but excluding the last four months as the recent series of shitstorms here is likely to have made the pageviews for the language even greater), then the numbers are 194 [20] vs. 62 for the people [21] – a ratio of 3.13. I'm not including List of Saraiki tribes or Saraiki culture as obvious partial title matches (i.e. their titles aren't ambiguous with Saraiki). – Uanfala (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I explained already where 2.25:1 comes from – the redirect page views for the previous twenty days for "Saraiki dialect" and "Saraiki people". Neither of our analyses is wrong; however, the different outcomes clearly show why a page-views analysis is only a part of the determination whether or not there is a primary topic.
I'm truly sorry that you are increasingly baffled, Uanfala. In an effort to clarify, all you have to do is to familiarize yourself with the guides that have already been mentioned. Those guides, particularly the closing instructions for page movers, are formed by community consensus. Would you like to know what baffles me? Here is what baffles me:
...I don't have any particular issue with the close itself.
That is a quote made by you at the October move review where you endorsed my decision in the September requested move above on this page. My decision was not to move this page to Saraiki language. And yet, here you are with a new move request way too soon, out of process and against community consensus that is found in the guide I cited above. I have explained my baffling comments as well as possible to you, Uanfala. Now perhaps you can explain your baffling action to open a new move request less than three months following a previous request that went to Move review and that you yourself endorsed in that discussion?  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 09:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so you're looking at the pageviews for the last twenty days. Well, I don't really see why we should be looking at such a small time interval (when random fluctuations are more likely to show up) rather than the longer ones I've linked to. But even then, a ratio of 2.25 is strongly suggestive of a primary topic.
The current discussions isn't about you or your close of the previous discussion, no-one is questioning that anymore. – Uanfala (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Please look again and try to understand: the ratio of 2.25 was just for the redirect page views. When combined with the article page views over the last twenty days, that ratio decreases to less than two to one. This current move request is all about my previous close, Uanfala. It doesn't fool anyone.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 16:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Ermmm... if you combine the stats like that you end up counting the views for the main title twice. The "redirect views" tool already gives you the totals, which include the views for all the redirects as well as those of the main title. – Uanfala (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Much as I respect you as a fellow Wikipedian, Paine Ellsworth, and of course we're all working towards the same goals here, you do the project and Uanfala a disservice by claiming that this move request is all about you. You closed the previous discussion, and we had a move review attended by much the same people, it was endorsed, fine. That's water under the bridge now. But fundamentally this is not about you, this is about the name of this page. Perhaps if you examined the arguments and evidence presented more critically, and don't regard this as a personal attack on your closure (which it isn't), we can come to a common ground on this. It is the evidence that drives this, not emotion. I would be happy to be persuaded that my reading of the evidence (as I've stated it above) is wrong, but I haven't been persuaded of that yet. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Then there is no disservice either to the project nor to any other editor, Amakuru, because I've never claimed such a thing. I claimed that it is and should be about moving a page that underwent a previous requested move, which ended in Not moved and further underwent a move review where the decision was endorsed. I realize that you were one of the editors who wanted that decision overturned; however, it did go on to be endorsed. As a page mover, then, I must ask how you can possibly support this requested move, it having come less than three months after the previous one. That might and probably would be acceptable if the decision had been "no consensus", but it was not, which means that a wait that is longer than the "three to six months" is in order. Yet here we are. It doesn't matter that I closed the previous discussion. What matters is that this requested move is out of order and should be procedurally closed. Forgive me if somehow I gave you the wrong slant in regard to why I strongly oppose this discussion. It's not about me – it's about community consensus that resulted in correct procedure and how that procedure is being corrupted. And frankly, although I thank you and return your respect, I have been astonished from the get go that you would support an out-of-process page move request – completely astonished!  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 04:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no such thing as procedure. See WP:IAR, which just happens to be one of the WP:five pillars of Wikipedia, and rightly so. Yes, we discussed this before, you closed it, the closure was endorsed. Sure. I get all that. But there is nothing in the "rules" to say we can't discuss it again; sure, there are sometimes disruptive reopens to closed discussions that add nothing new, and those are typically examined on a case by case basis and shut down by an admin if it's obvious nothing has changed. But that didn't happen here, and the fact that the discussion here seems to be leaning towards a consensus to move, based on the available sources that have been aired, shows that clearly it was justified. You're an experienced Wikipedian, you've been around a long time, you know as well as I do that discussions here aren't about winning or losing, they're about making our encyclopedia reflect the sources as accurately as we can. Nobody will respect you any less if this discussion is closed a different way from the way you closed the previous one. So let's move on from discussing the validity of the request and discuss the actual issues. In particular, I'd like you to show me the best sources you have that show this to be a dialect, to counter the sources already shown suggesting it's treated as a language. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I have already given my rationale and sources for my decision three months ago, so there is no sense in repeating them. You seem to keep making this about me and respect and such. This is about the community consensus that resulted in the closing instructions for admins and page movers. And it's about the POV pushing by the requestor and their out-of-process request as again stipulated by the most recent objection to this page move. If you see consensus here, then you have better vision than I have, because all I can see is no consensus to move. Amakuru, I think you go too far when you imply that I shun the five pillars and especially one of my favorites, which is to ignore all rules when there is very, very, very good reason to do so. Please explain to me what you think the very, very, very good reason is in this case to ignore the past consensus, the page-move closing instructions and, as well, good and common sense. Because, you see, in my opinion the requestor has been and is being "reckless" as that concept is used at WP:5P5. They have edit warred in this article and in other articles in an effort to push their point of view, and here we are arguing over their reckless ignoring of community consensus. The only real puzzle is how you, a respected Wikipedian, could possibly support such POV pushing and recklessness! I have no doubt that you have only this article and Wikipedia's best interests in mind; but why can't you see the undesirable POV pushing that's been going on?  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 07:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I have already given my rationale and sources for my decision three months ago The only sources you've given, as far as I remember, is a book that doesn't even talk about Saraiki (in the discussion below the previous RM) and a reference to the Library of Congress subject headings (in the move review). You don't give a link for the latter, but when I search the LoC SH the only instance I see [22] is the entry "Siraiki Hindki dialect" which points to the main heading at "Siraiki language". – Uanfala (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Uanfala, for bringing up the a book that doesn't even talk about Saraiki source. That book does, however, have much to say about standard Punjabi and the Lahnda dialect continuum, though, doesn't it. It was not strange at all to me that it did not mention several of the dialect members of the Lahnda continuum, including Saraiki. There were some dialects that the author didn't seem to consider important enough to write about.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 17:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I was going to say something similar. The sense in repeating them is that I don't recall seeing the sources at any time. The close summary on the original move request said 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. Please tell us which sources those were, and where this "summary" is that tells us Saraiki is more widely considered a Punjabi dialect. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how many more ways I can say it, Amakuru. I've had to explain my October decision several times, and not just in my closing statement. I was also compelled to explain my decision is a discussion just after the close. I was also compelled to explain my decision at Move review, and at the Hindko dialect Move review as well. I see no benefit in repeating yet another explanation here, especially when you continue to evade my questions as to how you justify supporting this obvious procedural-close candidate. And lest we forget, there is still an AN discussion open, which shows that I am not the only editor who considers this an out-of-process move request. I've said what has needed to be said several times, and frankly, I grow tired of dealing with this issue. There are more things on my to-do list than I probably have time left to complete. So please don't expect too much more from me in regard to this obvious and unmistakable dialect of the standard Punjabi language.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 17:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, well I'll have to assume from this that there are no sources that you reviewed then, since you don't seem able to say what they are. It's not a difficult request, and it could well help me to understand your position. And I've told you several times that I don't consider this out of process. Closing the discussion now would be WP:POINTy and a violation of WP:IAR. Furthermore, the new process question was closed already below here.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support moving to Saraiki on the basis of my own understanding of the region. The dialect/language remains the primary meaning of the word Saraiki, whereas when used to refer to people, Saraiki is not an ethnonym but a short for "Saraiki speaking person/people". Similarly, Saraiki culture does not refer to any material culture of any specific tribe or group but to the body of literary works written in the Saraiki language.
Hence, "Saraiki dialect/language" can be safely moved to Saraiki. — kashmiri TALK 03:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support move to Saraiki; the dialect vs. language controversy isn't new. It's a grey area fiercely contested between the Punjabi nationalists (who seek to impose their collective regional identity) and the Saraiki nationalists (who seek to carve out their own regional sub-identity within the greater Punjab region). It is of course important to go deeper into this debate within the article itself. I mentioned in my past discussions that the Census of Pakistan categorised Saraiki as seperate from Punjabi. Most importantly, the Saraiki people identify themselves as a separate group. Culturally and geographically, they are seen as a transitional group between the Punjabis in the north and the Sindhis in the south (though they arguably share greater similarities with the former). The South Punjab movement seeks to carve out a separate Saraiki-speaking province from Pakistan's Punjab province, and it has become part of the mainstream political discourse [23] [24]. Ignoring these realities and subsuming the article to the dialect controversy is nothing but a form of WP:POVTITLE. Therefore, I support moving the article to simply "Saraiki" to remove the ambiguity, or even "Saraiki language" as we have support for that usage. Mar4d (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The "Saraiki" title is ambiguous – it could apply equally well to the people or to their tongue. This article has not met the requirements found at WP:PTOPIC. As for the renaming from "dialect" to "language", in my humble opinion and per WP:NOTMOVED, there has not been enough significant change since the September requested move and the October Move review that endorsed the decision not to move this page to "Saraiki language".  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 19:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose any move: Moving it to just "Saraiki" will make the title ambiguous as there is a Saraiki classification for people as well no matter how less the hits it has compared to the language page. The status of Saraiki as a language vs dialect is disputed. There are linguists who clearly have classified it as a dialect. Any sources presented here either do not clearly classify it as a language or they are not written by linguists. In speaking terms, I am never going to say that "I speak Saraiki dialect of Punjabi language", it is easier for me to say that i speak "Saraiki" or "Saraiki language" and that is what those sources are about when they describe it as a language, they should not be taken as a classification of Saraiki one way or another. For example, according to my analysis of a couple of sources here, Rahman and Shackle are discussing the "disputed status" of Saraiki, they are not making a determination themselves. Fennings, Simon and Lewis saying "Until recently it was considered a dialect of Punjabi." does not mean that it is now a language, this statement does not confirm that Saraiki has achieved a language status now. If this statement proves anything then it proves that Saraiki is a dialect of Punjabi and has been the dialect until the authors penned aforementioned statement. Personally, i think once a dialect is always a dialect so starting moves again and again and hoping that sometimes in future a dialect will evolve into a language is not practical. Also, I see these attempts of starting these move requests again and again as attempts to sneak in one POV hoping that some editors might not be available to "oppose" these moves so a consensus can be tilted towards "support". King Julien of Wikipedia | do not try to make a move | 16:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Any sources presented here either do not clearly classify it as a language or they are not written by linguists. All the sources I've presented in my nomination statement, as well as the majority of the souces in the article, are written by linguists.
    • There are linguists who clearly have classified it as a dialect. – Could you tell us which linguists? No names or references to back up this view have been given in the discussion so far.
    • according to my analysis of a couple of sources here, Rahman and Shackle [...] are not making a determination themselves. Well, Shackle is making quite a clear determination for example in the EB article I've linked to in the nomination. But maybe we're looking at different sources. Would you be able to let me know which ones you are looking at, and maybe share some details of your analysis so I'm able to follow?
    • On a side note, you state on your user page that you're Punjabi, and that could possibly help explain some of the background for your views on the matter. But without giving any sources to back up this view, I don't think you'll be likely to solicit the agreement of anyone who doesn't already have a similar personal stake in the issue. – Uanfala (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support move to Saraiki. While it's not entirely clear which is the primary topic, the dialect/language or the ethnic group, moving to Saraiki conveniently lets us avoid picking a side in the language/dialect dispute. Per WP:NPOV, this is a desirable goal. It should also be noted that this proposal does not disagree with the previous move discussion, as the idea of moving to Saraiki wasn't even presented until after that discussion concluded. Bradv 19:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    Full disclosure: I closed the discussion below, so the closing admin is welcome to disregard my !vote here if it is seen as out of line. Bradv 20:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia article titles are not decided based upon convenience for Wikipedia editors, rather, they are decided based upon least astonishment to our readers, and "Saraiki" is an ambiguous title that may apply to the people or to one of their tongues. Our readers should not have to try to figure out why they clicked a link or searched for a title and were sent to a page they did not want nor expect. Helpful info may also be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages#Article names.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 02:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Notable are article titles like Estuary English, Mandarin Chinese, Egyptian Arabic, Canadian English and others that describe for readers a variety, varieties or groups of varieties of languages. Then perhaps another option would be to rename this article to Saraiki Punjabi?  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 03:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    The key difference between all of those examples and Saraiki, is that speakers of those tongues all regard themselves as speakers of the mother tongue. Mandarin Chinese think of themselves as Chinese speakers, Estuary English think of themselves as English speakers, and so on. Even with Swiss German, which is in some cases really quite different from Standard German, the key thing is that the native speakers think of themselves as German speakers, hence why it's called a dialect. But all the available evidence suggests that the Saraiki do not regard themselves as Punjabi speakers. This is the key key thing regarding this, and what drives all the "language" vs "dialect" examples we've discussed so far in the debate. It's not about mutual intelligibility, but self identification.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
That is a lucid and very good reason for not calling this article "Saraiki Punjabi"; however, I am not convinced that just because the relatively few people who speak the Saraiki variety of Punjabi desire for their dialect to be dubbed "language" is ample reason for the science of linguistics to agree that their dialect, one of many in the Lahnda continuum of Punjabi dialects, should now or ever be technically termed a "language" for the purpose of the COMMONNAME of this article. Saraiki tribes also are speakers of Punjabi, Sindhi and Hindi among other dialects such as Thali. So I pretty much still think the way I did when I objectively closed the RM in October as Not moved to "Saraiki language". I also think "once a dialect, always a dialect" is a lucid and very good argument made by King Julien of Wikipedia for never scientifically classifying any dialect as language. If the desire of the speakers to have their dialect scientifically reclassified to language is indeed the "key key" thing regarding this request, then let's reclose this as Not moved or No consensus and move on. That way, the proposer can come back in two months and open a new request... again. Apologies – couldn't resist.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 16:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I also think "once a dialect, always a dialect" is a lucid and very good argument You realise that this "very good argument" can be applied to any language, not excluding even English? – Uanfala (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support move to Saraiki. Dialects and languages exist along a continuum and whether something is a dialect or a language is both a political as well as a linguistic determination ("a language is a dialect with an army and navy" a nice discussion of the distinction between the two can be found here. With that in mind, it is not our (Wikipedia's) place to decide whether something is a dialect or a language but rather to look at what outside sources say. When outside sources disagree or are murky, as is clearly the case here, and when an issue is politicized, which is also, very clearly, the case here, then we have no choice but to move the article to Saraiki. --regentspark (comment) 13:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree that the sources are murky and that this issue is highly political in nature. Please consider, though, that "dialect" is a natural disambiguator that is used in more than 800 page titles on Wikipedia. Also please consider that the proposer of this RM appears to be on a mission to change or have omitted "dialect" from more than one article, and has edit-warred in both this article and at Hindko dialect, another page the proposer would like to see the natural disambiguator changed to "language". It is my contention that the proposer is using this out-of-process RM to get editors to agree to change the title of this page to the ambiguous
Saraiki dialect → Saraiki
...(just such a move request was denied in 2013 and for good reason) in order to come back in two or three months with another RM (also out-of-process) and propose
Saraiki → Saraiki language
Baby steps? There is a still-open discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard to put a stop to all this.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 16:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
It's clear from the discussion so far that "dialect" is neither a natural disambiguator for Saraiki, nor is its use backed up by any reliable sources. And if you think that I, the proposer, am somehow trying to sneakily change the title to "Saraiki language", then you might want to glance back to the nomination at the top of the discussion and see that this is already one of the two proposals I've explicitly made. – Uanfala (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, goodness! I must have missed that! Uanfala, no amount of your saying that it is "clear from the discussion" makes it so. A good read of the rationales here shows rather a lack of clarity for several editors as to whether or not Saraiki is or should be called a language rather than a dialect. So the only thing that's clear is that it remains unclear. In my humble opinion, "dialect" is still the highest and best natural qualifier for "Saraiki" in the title of this article.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 09:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Saraiki is to a high degree mutually intelligible with Standard Punjabi". It is a variant. The "language movement and a claim for recognition as a separate language" is at odds with meanings of dialect and language. The POV push should be rejected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The two quotes from the article's lede are sourced to texts that treat Saraiki as a language. Is there any reason why we would override these sources in order to use our own opinion about what should be called a language? On a side note, there's a good discussion of the inapplicability of mutual intelligibility as a criterion for choosing language/dialect labels in Masica (1991, pp. 23ff) harvtxt error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFMasica1991 (help). – Uanfala (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Sources may have POV, such as a belief that this dialect should be labelled its own language. However, that is a local opinion at odds with the meanings of "language" and "dialect". Mutually intelligible dialects, unless a case of a creole language or pidgin, cannot be considered different languages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Am I getting that right? You propose to disregard virtually all reliable sources, because they may have a POV, and instead go for your own personal opinion on what should be called a language? – Uanfala (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Sorry, my comment was uneccessarily polemical. Leaving aside the obvious WP:OR issues, I think you comment has a fair underlying assumption "let's choose a simple criterion and stick to it". That would be very nice if it were possible. This is not what linguists do (in addition to Masica's text I've linked to in the previous comment, I'd recomment having a look at ish ishwar's comment below), and this is not what we on wikipedia do either. This would be against the naming conventions, which stipulate following sources and common usage for labelling languages "even if they are not distinct languages by other criteria", and this would contradict established practice – for example Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu are all mutually intelligible, but no-one here would dream of calling them "dialects". – Uanfala (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support to move from Saraiki dialect. The distinction between a language vs a dialect is arbitrary. Different criteria are used for different speech communities. (Mutual intelligibility is never the only criterion and even that is influenced by language attitudes held by speakers.) Linguists don't have debates about this topic. But, laypeople sure do. The term dialect has a disparaging connotation for many laypeople, so it's understandable that some will find the term offensive. For this reason, linguists call lots of things language to avoid the issue. This is what Wikipedia should do in my opinion. One can always explain that X is a variety of Y without using offensive terms. That is, in fact, why linguists uses terms like variety and lect. If you just use Saraik instead of Saraiki language, that's probably fine, too. The only issue with that is the ambiguity between Saraik language and Saraik people. It's actually Wikipedia policy to use terms that are not offensive to certain social groups. Since there is an objection, Saraik language is the most reasonable solution. – ishwar  (speak) 07:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, "dialect" is objectionable to some people who speak Saraiki and who want their tongue recognized as more than what it is. We must also remember that it has been demonstrated that "language" can also be an objectionable term to those who still see a dialect as either a variety of a language (science of linguisitics) or subordinate to a language (colloquial). Wikipedia uses objectionable terms and images with the knowledge that you can't please everyone and shouldn't try. Isn't that the essence of neutrality?  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 08:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      • So your understanding of neutrality here implies siding with the Punjabi ethno-nationalist view against both the views of the international community and the Saraikis themselves? – Uanfala (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The terms language and dialect aren't defined in scientific terms. Sure, they could be, but they are not. And, linguists don't try to fight the non-linguist population in this respect. It's totally fine to say that language A is a variety of language B. Insisting to use dialect A instead of language A is to associate all of the negative connotations of the term dialect with the speech community that speaks lect A. One cannot pretend otherwise since there are alternate terms lect A and variety A. Linguists don't consider the desire to subjugate a community or delegitimize their speech a valid reason to not use the term language. Typically, linguists name the speech of communities from the perspective of the speech community being named if other terms are offensive. (Recently, Martin Haspelmath has collected these idea into a paper: https://www.academia.edu/29826079/Some_principles_for_language_names ) Sure, Wikipedia doesn't have to follow the practice used in linguistics. But, it's actually part of Wikipedia naming policy to use names that give social groups the power of self-designation in agreement with linguistic practice. If you are referring to how Wikipedia includes photos of penises in the article on penis or what-have-you, that's not an apt comparison since a full description of the penis would reasonably include a photo while a reasonable full description of Saraik (including its genealogical relation to other lects) absolutely does not need to use the word dialect for that purpose. (If that's not what you meant, then I don't follow – just give a more spelled example.) – ishwar  (speak) 18:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
You may put whatever spin you want on what I wrote, Uanfala; however, this is not a case of siding with one faction against another as if I were a Punjabi speaker or sympathizer. If I do sympathize, it would have to be with that relatively tiny faction of Saraiki speakers who want their tongue recognized as a "language" in the scientific, linguistic sense against all odds. Wikipedia does not "side" with things like this; just as with medical articles and other scientific articles like astronomy, etc., Wikipedia sticks with the science, in this case that of linguistics. You have not demonstrated to my satisfaction that linguistics considers Saraiki as anything but a member of the Lahnda continuum of Punjabi dialects. It may always be that way, and you should discontinue pushing your POV by putting interpretive spins on my words in the same manner you do with sources.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 17:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on validity of this move request

There is no policy that requires a three-month waiting period, and the consensus is that this discussion is valid. Closing this in order to let the question at hand continue without distraction. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bradv 16:35, 2 January 2017 (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.

  • Procedural comment - personally I think it's reasonable for us to rehash this discussion again. Even though the close was endorsed in MRV, the closer there did note that I agree with him that the discussion falls somewhere between "no consensus" and "consensus to endorse". I think it's entirely reasonable for us to have this request again. The issues discussed above, haven't gone away, and hopefully this RM will be better participated in than the others. I'm happy, as always, for my point of view to turn out to be the wrong one, but I'm not happy to have that happen without adequate reasons. Discussions are not decided by who shouts the loudest, but by reational arguments.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. This requested move is not in accord with WP:NOTMOVED and should be procedurally closed. WP:NOTMOVED suggests a minimum three-month waiting period before a new request is made when the previous decision was NO CONSENSUS, which implies a much longer wait when the decision is NOT MOVED. The previous decision was made less than three months ago and was a Not moved decision, which was upheld/endorsed at the October Move Review. The MR closer's note that I agree with him that the discussion falls somewhere between "no consensus" and "consensus to endorse" applies only to the October Move review decision, but not to the September Requested move decision. The only way this new Requested move may be sustained is if there were a substantial change in circumstances since September/October. There has been no such substantial change – the dialog and turmoil of edits continues in deep controversy, so IMHO this is not a good time for a new page move discussion.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 12:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
    • There has been a change in circumstances: the relevant parts of the article have been substantially rewritten (including the lede, which was previously sourced to a book of semi-fiction, and the "Language vs. dialect" section, whose references turned out to have been bogus). Also, two of the participants in the previous RM and the MRV have been subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry). – Uanfala (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
      • With all due respect, Uanfala, I strongly disagree. The changes you claim were simply your own controversial changes to the article, which were not received well at the recently closed Dispute resolution discussion, and the only other change in circumstances is the gigantic leap of continued controversy over whether or not the Saraiki dialect is indeed a dialect or a language. This very request proves that this is not yet ready for a page move, since neither of your two suggestions are viable. To move this page to "Saraiki" with no qualifier is unjustified because it is virtually impossible to prove that the dialect is the primary topic over the other Saraiki disambiguators, such as the Saraiki people. And to suggest to move the page to "Saraiki language" is completely out of process, as I've already shown.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 12:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
        I don't understand your position in this matter, Paine Ellsworth. I thought you were an uninvolved party. If you care so much about this issue, then why did you close the request above? As Uanfala says, circumstances have changed, the evidence was flimsy to begin with, and it's entirely reasonable that we should have this discussion properly, try to get as many people involved as possible, to avoid the POV pushing mess we had above. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I was an uninvolved party at the time I closed the above September RM. Since then, I've become involved with the Dialect vs. Language controversy in at least three other venues, as already noted. My position is simply to stick to Wikipedia's community consensuses when it comes to when a new RM can and should begin, and the only change I've seen is for the controversy to deepen and become quite heated. I agree that we should discuss the debate as has been done and is being done in other venues. Where I disagree is with Uanfala's gun-jumping edits to this page, which go against the consensus found at RfC, as well as with this RM, which is completely out of process, as I've already shown.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 13:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, which of my edits do you specifically disagree with? – Uanfala (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, this page move request should be closed immediately without further discussion. Either a withdraw or a procedural close is in order. Inasmuch as your edits to this page are concerned, I refer you to the RfC and the closers comments at Dispute resolution. I agree with those two discussion outcomes.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 15:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't remember seeing anything specific at the DRN. I would certainly like to correct anything I've got wrong, so I would really appreciate it if you point to any specific of my contributions to this article that you disagree with. – Uanfala (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Again, with all due respect, specifically you have been asked by other involved editors not to make edits that RfC consensus was against. To quote the DRN closer, Edits to the article that call it a language should be reverted. That is what you have "got wrong". Revert those edits to comply with RfC consensus, and withdraw this extremely premature RM – consensus decided about two months ago to keep this page title where it is. We are all allowed to disagree with consensus – I have disagreed with consensus on several occasions – and yet it is consensus that is one of the greatest strengths of Wikipedia. To make edits against consensus without going through proper channels, as described by the DRN closer, is blatant disrespect for Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 03:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. Revert those edits to comply with RfC consensus I would, but edits have to also comply with what's found in reliable sources (something that the sokc-ridden RfC and most of the comments in the previous RM didn't bother with). If you think any edits to the article are necessary, you're welcome to make them yourself. – Uanfala (talk) 10:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I keep hearing and reading about "sock-ridden" discussions, but I see no proof that the "sockpuppetry" is anything more than perhaps several editors using one public computer or one or two editors who don't have enough of a handle of English to be able to understand what they're doing wrong. In either case, the SP link you gave me shows that the authorities there disagree, which makes the serious charges of sockpuppetry controversial and loaded with problems. To be so certain about sockpuppetry without having a linguistics expert look at the cases is, IMHO, just wrong.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 17:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The other one of the SPI cases I've linked to is more relevant: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert. – Uanfala (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, the evidence is still circumstantial and not enough to warrant any degree of certainty.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 15:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, CheckUser confirmation might be for you still circumstantial as evidence, but I'm afraid that, short of divine revelation, this is the best it can get. – Uanfala (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, you may be right, except that all I see is "in some instances confirmed" without actually saying which instances, and words like "likely" and "possilikely", which says to me that it ain't over till the beautifully fat lady sings.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 15:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I see that procedural discussion is still happening. The way I see it, the circumstances have changed since the previous requests. The proposals have been refined. The article has been improved and accessible citations have been added. I could not take part in the previous two requests because I did not know enough and the article didn't clarify it to me. Now they do. Also worth noting is the fact there is no policy of three-month waiting period. It is a guidance. So I would encourage all people that may be sitting on the sidelines to take another look and provide their input so that we can settle the issue this time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2017 (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.
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Saraiki :: continued discussion on 3 January 2017

  • It seems that whether Saraiki is a language or a dialect, has not been decided in many years of discussions among linguists, and we cannot re-fight all those old arguments here on Wikipedia. It is possible for two dialects A and B to be different enough for it to be difficult or impossible to decide with full agreement whether or not A and B are dialects of one same language. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Anthony Appleyard: Every person speaks a dialect . So retaining saraiki as a dialect is not controversial. Even in all elections in Pakistan no pro saraiki party could win even a single seat out of 60 electrical seats in saraiki area. It's pro Punjab unity party Pmln who has won majority seats in saraiki speaking areas. U can verify it online. 43.245.9.244 (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)sockpuppet of a blocked user
  • In the case of Saraiki, as in probably most others, the discussion of whether it's a dialect or not, is only happening in the popular literature, invariably written by the speakers themselves, or the neighbouring community who feels it has a stake. Dialect vs. language questions aren't generally part of academic discourse, they're just conventional elements of the nomenclature, and whenever there is a discussion about that, it typically takes the form of at most a paragraph-long justification for the particular term used. There's a relevant discussion towards the end of this recent thread. – Uanfala (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This dispute could be restated as: "Which dialects are in the same language as the Saraiki language"". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    • What dispute? In academia? In that case, your question, reformulated more precisely as "Which dialects are in the same group as the standard Saraiki" is linguistically sound, although I'm not aware of any proper research, let alone dispute on the topic (Well, of course, there's the early-20th-centry Linguistic Survey of India, but its coverage of the area is sketchy and its grouping of Punjabi dialects seems to have been challenged by virtually anyone who's said anything on the matter. And there's also the tentative dialect classification that's covered in our article, but that doesn't seem to be based on explicit, rigorous research).
    • As for the popular dispute, I don't think the two sides are conducting it on common terms. The Punjabi side denies the existence of a Saraiki language altogether, whereas the Saraiki camp comes forward with reportedly exaggerated assertions of distinctiveness, as well as inflated claims for both the language's antiquity and its geographical extent. – Uanfala (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The popular discourse is actually pretty decently covered in this old revision of the present article, which I'd assume was removed during the extensive sockery the last couple of years. Although it's not explicitly sourced, it's probably based on Tariq Rahman's writings. If someone decides to follow up on Mar4d's suggestion that this topic should be treated at greater length in the article, I guess the text in that old revision could serve as a good starting point. If anyone takes up that task, I'd be happy to share the literature I've encountered so far. – Uanfala (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Having had a look at that old revision again, it's obvious that it's in the wrong tone, probably not quite neutral and possibly taken off some published essay. So whoever takes up the topic will have to work from scratch. – Uanfala (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Back to fundamentals

I'm wondering if we can establish some agreed upon facts here, preferably sourced, so that we can understand where to go from here. Here's a few things I've taken away from the long long debate on this.

  • Some facts which may not be in dispute (correct me if I'm wrong on this):
    1. The Saraiki people are a people. A distinct, recognised, ethnic group.
    2. They speak a tongue which is known as Saraiki. Perhaps it's a dialect, perhaps it's a language, but certainly that's what they speak.
    3. Linguistically, this tongue is mutually intelligible with Punjabi language, and if we were to go purely on linguistic grounds we would classify them as dialects of each other. Note that we would also classify Serbian language and Croatian language, as well as Kinyarwanda / Kirundi and Tswana language / Sotho language as "dialects" under this strictly academic definition.
    4. Within the Saraiki community, they regard their tongue as a "language". They do not think of themselves as Punjabi speakers.
    5. Other Punjabi speakers (some, most, or all?) regard Saraiki speakers as amongst their own. They think of them as fellow Punjabi speakers.
  • Other facts which are disputed:
    1. The international community regards Saraiki as a language. Third party sources which have analysed this question tell us this.
    2. International reliable sources call it a langauge more than they call it a dialect.
    3. Academics regard Saraiki as a language
    4. Academics regard Saraiki as a dialect

Any comments or objections to the above welcome. @Paine Ellsworth: and @Uanfala: what say you? Once we establish these basic facts, then I think we can move on to working out where we should place this article in the context of everything else on Wikipedia as well as policies and guidelines. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a fair summary of where our previous discussions have taken us. This is a complex issue because, while the above are generalized truths, there are details that make this subject more complicated for linguists and for editors. Yes, the Saraiki can be seen as a single ethnic group; however, they are composed of many smaller ethnic groups or "tribes". While their tongue is certainly Saraiki, they also speak several other languages and varieties of languages, such as Urdu, Punjabi, Hindi, Sindhi, Thali and so on. Another thing that can be exasperating is the large range of difference between what linguists call a "language" and what that word means in non-scientific settings. Many dialects are therefore called languages in sources such as Ethnologue, where "language" is treated as a general term rather than a term with specific connotations. I'm not sure that #4 and #5 in the first group above have been demonstrated, since there may be Saraikis who are not a part of the movement to have one of their tongues regarded as a language rather than a dialect, and there may be Punjabis who could also not care less about the issue.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 02:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
You know you can completely bypass the issue of the loaded word dialect by using the term lect which is ambiguous between language and dialect. – ishwar  (speak) 08:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd limit undisputed point #3 to "Saraiki is mutually intelligible with Punjabi". I don't think we can use that as a basis for any "linguistic" classification – I haven't seen that in the literature on Saraiki and I wouldn't expect to see it used. There's a good discussion of the matter in Masica (1991, p. 24) harvtxt error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFMasica1991 (help): mutual intelligibility is a relative, rather than an absolute concept, and it's extremely difficult to apply it in the context of Indo-Aryan languages, where widespread bilingualism and diglossia produce a very different pattern of mutual intelligibility from that found in the neatly delineated nationalities of Europe. As for #4 and #5, these are sourced in footnote no.3 of the article (although as Paine Ellsworth correctly observes, "many" does not mean "all").
Now about the disputed points: #2 is sourced again in footnote no.3 of the article, #1 comes from Shackle 2014 and #3 ("Academics regard Saraiki as a language"), I think has been demonstrated in the nomination at the start of the move request (let me know if that's not the case). As for #4, "Academics regard Saraiki as a dialect", although there probably are some, I haven't seen any, and it would be nice of this statement was backed with a source of some kind. – Uanfala (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Ish ishwar's idea to use the term "lect" instead is generally a sensible one, but it doesn't help in this particular case – "lect" can be used to refer to a single variety (like Standard Saraiki), but I'm not sure its use is appropriate for a group of varieties with a shared language identity. Also, it's not a word that most reader are aware of, so I don't think it should appear in an article's title or in its lede. – Uanfala (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure, it's appropriate. One can have sub-lects and sub-sublects, or a variety that's a variety of a variety. It goes all the way down to idiolect.. The different speech communities of a high school can be members of the set of communities in that metroplex of a local region of a greater region or an even greater region. It just means a group of individual mental grammars that are more or less similar to each other (which is the same definition of language). No, it's not a common word as it's used by only linguists pretty much. One doesn't need to use the most common word if there's a better alternative. Linguistics uses technical vocabulary for a reason. – ishwar  (speak) 07:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed this discussion and I wanted to raise awareness about some facts. Firstly I'm a native Punjabi and an editor on the western Punjabi wikipedia.

The word "Saraiki" does not exist on Pnb wiki, instead the word multani dialect is used. I myself can speak many dialects of Punjabi and when I hear the multani dialect I quickly understand it as Punjabi. The word "saraiki" was coined for political purposes. For example the dilect spoken in the district Bhakhar is Thalochi not saraiki, similarly in Multan "Multani dialect" is spoken not saraiki. If Saraiki is a language than why do we(I) find no such reference in our text books. Saanvel (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the issue you're raising, Saanvel has been raised more than once before on this talk page, and you're bound to find an answer to your question if you browse though the archives, though that's not something I'd recommend as you you'll also find much talk that's not edifying. I think the best you could do is actually read the article. What I could add is that the question whether something is a language or a dialect is of the same category as the question "How long is a piece of string?". There's a continuum of dialects that runs from one end of the Indian subcontinent to the other without anything like a sharp break that could signal a proper language boundary. How that continuum could be conceptually segmented into languages is an open-ended question. Similarity and differences between dialects do play a role: it was the similarity between the various dialects of the Punjab that led most early Raj-era administrators to regard them as constituting a single language. And it was the difference between the dialects of the eastern and western halves of the Punjab that led the early 20th-century linguist G.A. Grierson to postulate them as different languages, so different that he assigned them to separate branches of Indo-Aryan. But such considerations are made only when there isn't a local tradition or a sense of identity that dictates what would be called a language, as was indeed the case prior to the 19th century – then neither Saraiki nor Punjabi existed as overarching language labels, the people instead having more narrow local identities as speakers of for example "Riasti" or "Multani" or "Mahji" or "Doabi". But nowadays both this hyperfragmentation and the early British clumping labels have given way to a situation where the speakers of the southwest identify as Saraiki, those in northwest – as Hindko, while those in the eastern and central parts see themselves as Punjabi. It is also the case that many of the latter would like to see this identity extending throughout the whole region, which as the dominant view within that community is exemplified by that community's texbooks and its version of wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saraiki_language/Archive_4&oldid=1125075211"