Talk:Uralic languages/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wrong map

Nug, now you're edit-warring over falsifying the map? If the source says Yukaghir is a Uralic language , we can't use them to say it's not a Uralic language .

BTW, the map is clearly obsolete , containing as it does branches like Finno-Volgaic . — kwami (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would Finno-Volgaic be obsolete? Just because some researchers criticized this classification, it won't become obsolete, unless the majority of Uralic linguists abandon using it. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Read the article . Anyway , the map is of the wrong family , so it's got to go. And didn't you promise to get consent for your POV-pushing ? What's "superior " about using the wrong map? — kwami (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the map. Your caption [1] is misleading and appears to be somewhat WP:POINTy, the image clearly has "Uralic languages" as the title and in fact is simply an english translation of the german language image File:Linguistic_map_of_the_Uralic_languages.png, which is used in the German Wikipedia article Uralische Sprachen. That article properly discusses other hypotheses including the controversial link with Yukaghir and the map properly reflects that. --Nug (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No-one thinks Yukaghir is a Uralic language , so the map is idiotic. People postulate an Indo-Uralic family too, so should we add Indo-European as a branch of Uralic? It would be reasonable to add it to the Uralic–Yukaghir article , but it doesn't belong here just because it illustrates the old classification you're so attached to . Anyway , per WP:BOLD, I'm reverting . Get consensus before you restore it . — kwami (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed the Yukaghir region from the map to accommodate your objection, but you then started claiming it was "falsifying" the map, then you started edit warring the image over at commons putting the Yukaghir region back in[2]. It is somewhat disingenuous to object to the inclusion of Yukaghir in the map then subsequently object to removal of Yukaghir from the map. --Nug (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have reverted a 4th time, that's not helpful. --Nug (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Should I point out that Nug's new map egregiously abuses subgroup terminology? Komi and Udmurt do not constitute "Finno-Permic", they contitute Permic. Mordvin and Mari do not constitute "Finno-Volgaic", they (in obsolete classifications) constitute Volgaic. Pite/Lule/Northern Sami do not constitute "Central Sami", they constitute Northwestern Sami. Southern/Ume Sami do not constitute "Western Sami", they constitute Southwestern Sami (sometimes also: South Samic sensu lato).

("FV" is the union M+M+Finnic+Samic, "FP" is FV+P, "W Sami" is South thru North.)

If this and the inclusion of Yukaghir were fixed (its inclusion on the main map of the family is WP:UNDUE weight on a fringe theory), I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it though. Northern and Souther Samoyedic are also areal, but they remain quite frequently used terms. I can see Finland Swedish and Meänkieli aren't taken into account, but the previous map also includes a few similar points that could use adjustment. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 13:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Ironically the previous map was derived from one I originally created back in 2007 as User:Martintg, but I've never been happy with it due to the poor graphics. I tried to fix Yukaghir by removing it but User:Kwamikagami insists on its inclusion despite being critical of its inclusion. I can fix up the terminology. --Nug (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if this is a user-created derivative map, insisting that is has to accord with a particular source strikes me as pointless bordering on obnoxious. That said though, I'm not sure what the problem with the previous map was? Rectangular projections distort the Artic Sea area a lot more than conical ones. The distance from Finnmark to Taimyr is considerably less than the distance from Livonia to upper Yenisei.

Another distribution question: why is the western Udmurt area shown as Permyak-speaking? --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 16:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Map projection used in the previous map is the only advantage, the problems are many, the lack of differentiation in Sami, the omission of Ingrian, the exaggerated range of Mordvinic (with its alternate fingers of Moksha and Erzya), the limited range of Karelian and other misplaced areas. No map is perfect, I admit that this previous map (which I created in 2007) has many issues, that is why I want to correct that with this new map. You mentioned that Finland Swedish isn't taken into account, but that's a Indo-European/Germanic language, so I'm not sure how that is relevant to Uralic. --Nug (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

As in, predominantly Swedish-speaking areas of Finland are shown as Finnish-speaking. Minor point I admit, and perhaps consistent with not showing (by crosshatching etc) that a Russian majority is found overlapping just about all the more eastern Uralic languages. OTOH a map indicating that most Uralic languages are minority languages across most of their range might not be a bad idea.--Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 00:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If Nug is the person credited on the new map, Ihsan Yilmaz Bayraktarli, then changing it would be no problem , but otherwise it's fraud. If there are errors in the old uncredited map, it would be better to just fix that . — kwami (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly, Creative Commons allows me to remix or adapt any work released under that licence. --Nug (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

But not to falsely claim it's the original . That's fraud . — kwami (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop lying, I never made such a claim. We are still waiting for a link to the discussion you claimed was "surprising with their convincing case"[3]. Or is this yet another one of your lies too? --Nug (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You caught me. If someone disagrees with you, or you don't understand something, it must mean they're lying.

However, you might not want to accuse someone of lying in the same paragraph you misquote them. The more ignorant of us may fail to appreciate your righteousness if you do. — kwami (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The function of a locator map in an article such as this is not to present levels of classification detail ad nauseum or to conform to X theory or Y theory. That is what the text is for. It is to locate the language family in space--little more. People want to see a map that orients them to the world's surface and presents just enough detail that they can make sense of the geographic detail presented in the text. The "original" map, the one that Kwami is supporting, is superior in that regard since it shows the Uralic languages as a larger visual area than Nug's map, in which the Uralic languages are tiny visually and crammed into the left half of the map. What's the point of having half of the map empty of Uralic languages. In addition, it is far easier to read kwami's map and its legend when it is clicked on. Nug's map takes too many steps to make any reading sense. As I said earlier, the map should not take more work to interpret than reading the text. The original map is better in that regard. --Taivo (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Your support of Kwamikagami at 3RN on the basis that I breached the principle of WP:BRD appears to be somewhat ironic given your apparent acquiescence in Kwamikagami's problematic edits raised here and here, as well as his revert contrary to BRD here where he claims consensus exists claiming: "It was a surprise to me too, but they made a convincing case.", but then ignores requests to provide a link to that alleged discussion. Now whether this apparent acquiescence is because you were simply unaware of this opposition to Kwamikagami's edits removing mention of "finno-ugric" or is a sign of support is unknown, but the apparent subtext to Kwamikagami's objection over the new image seems to be mention of the term "Finno-Ugric".

Now, to address each of your points with regard to the new map. Yes, I agree that the role of a locator map it to locate a language family in space. In this regard the new map is superior in that it is of similar projection to maps used in other language family articles, such as Indo-European languages or Altaic languages, thus making it easier to compare. Obviously a conical projection of the old map makes the presentation inconsistent. In any case I've tightened up the visual area so as not to be so crammed[4]. Secondly, claiming one additional click is a major short coming is a rather weak argument, particular when it allows a reader to explore the location of language groups in greater detail. You no doubt have heard the saying "A picture is worth a thousand words", so I read with incredulity your claim that viewing a map could take more work that reading textual description of a location. It is far easier to comprehend the location of a particular group on a map than to read in the text that language group AAA "is to be found in the area bounded by XXX river to the east, YYY river to the North, ZZZ mountains to the west and extends WWW kilometres to the south." And having visually located such a language group on the map, it is far easier to read in the text that this particular group is attributed to X or Y theory then the other way around. Cheers. --Nug (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You tread quite heavily on the bounds of personal attack, Nug. It doesn't matter one whit to me what you and Kwami fight over on any other page. It is irrelevant to this discussion. In Wikipedia, each discussion is independent of every other discussion. On this page, you were violating WP:BRD by not establishing a consensus after you were reverted the first time. You don't seem to get the point of the issue I was making above. This is a general locator map and the current map is superior because it does not require clicking to find the meaning of the arcane abbreviations on your proposed replacement. A reader can look at the map, find "Nganasan" quickly, then return to reading the article. The map should never be so complex as to require more work than reading the text. A map that shows Uralic as a solid color (see, for example, the map at Algic languages) is a good locator map because it is simple and does not require additional clicks to comprehend. That's the reason why the current map is superior to your proposed one--it shows the location of the languages and their names prominently. --Taivo (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeating your argument does not make it any more valid. You must have remarkable eyesight, since it is impossible to read the names of the languages on the current map without clicking the map anyway, so your "does not require additional clicks to comprehend" argument is debunked. However I do agree that a map that shows Uralic as a solid colour similar to the map at Algic languages, is a possible solution. --Nug (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I can read them on my screen. And even if you have to click, the name is right there and it is still easier than your map because the name is right there and you don't have to cross-match a number on the colored blotch with a number in the legend. It's still easier. --Taivo (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Everything Taivo said is common sense, Nug. Feel free to improve the map, but know that if people judge the changes to make it worse, you'll be reverted. — kwami (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, reverted per the point both Taivo and I have made, that the map should not be an attempt to push a particular POV. Especially one you've tried and failed to get consensus for. — kwami (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)