Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::::::::::Unfortunately, it seems that you are just trolling this entire discussion. All of your claims have been proven wrong, and now you are just stalling, since you have no arguments for your false "consensus" claims, that served you as an excuse for censoring this article. And let me add another quote here, from American linguist Robert D. Greenberg, of the ], who stated: . Maybe we should include that into this article too. ] (]) 19:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::Unfortunately, it seems that you are just trolling this entire discussion. All of your claims have been proven wrong, and now you are just stalling, since you have no arguments for your false "consensus" claims, that served you as an excuse for censoring this article. And let me add another quote here, from American linguist Robert D. Greenberg, of the ], who stated: . Maybe we should include that into this article too. ] (]) 19:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
*I have to agree with {{U|TaivoLinguist}} here. Regarding the nature of Serbo-Croatian, there are obviously two (or more) views. But, per ], we should present those views in {{tq|proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources}}. Thus, a view that is held by a minority of reliable sources should not be given the same prominence as a view held by a majority. TaivoLinguist shows that clear majority of linguistic sources holds the view that Serbo-Croatian is one ''language''. Based on ], minority view (that it is a macrolanguage) should not be given the same prominence in the article. That is not "censorship", that is what Misplaced Pages policy tell us to do. {{U|Sorabino}} denies existence of such consensus by providing some non-linguistic sources (like ISO and Encyclopedia Britannica). Per ], {{tq|academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources }}. Thus linguistic (academic) science papers and books should be given precedence over other sources (like encyclopedias). Citing prominent scientists that hold minority view cannot be an evidence against the existence of scientific consensus (Every scientific consensus has its opponents, but that does not mean that there is no consensus). So, there is no question whether the ISO classification ("macrolanguage") should be mentioned: of course it should. But it should not be given the same prominence as the majority scientific view. '''] ]''' 19:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
*I have to agree with {{U|TaivoLinguist}} here. Regarding the nature of Serbo-Croatian, there are obviously two (or more) views. But, per ], we should present those views in {{tq|proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources}}. Thus, a view that is held by a minority of reliable sources should not be given the same prominence as a view held by a majority. TaivoLinguist shows that clear majority of linguistic sources holds the view that Serbo-Croatian is one ''language''. Based on ], minority view (that it is a macrolanguage) should not be given the same prominence in the article. That is not "censorship", that is what Misplaced Pages policy tell us to do. {{U|Sorabino}} denies existence of such consensus by providing some non-linguistic sources (like ISO and Encyclopedia Britannica). Per ], {{tq|academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources }}. Thus linguistic (academic) science papers and books should be given precedence over other sources (like encyclopedias). Citing prominent scientists that hold minority view cannot be an evidence against the existence of scientific consensus (Every scientific consensus has its opponents, but that does not mean that there is no consensus). So, there is no question whether the ISO classification ("macrolanguage") should be mentioned: of course it should. But it should not be given the same prominence as the majority scientific view. '''] ]''' 19:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
::{{ping|Vanjagenije}} You are known to be a staunch advocate of ''Serbo-Croatian'' "language", so there is no need for you to pretend to be neutral in this debate. For years now, you were just fine wit continuous suppression and censorship of all other views in this article and other related articles, and now, when it is obvious that those views are relevant and must be included in the content of this article, you are trying to cover yourself, as an administrator who bares great responsibility for the creation of this problem. Since you are part of the problem, you should let other administrators to make their impartial judgement here. But since you joined the discussion, can you quote any source that would prove the existence of any kind of "consensus" on ''Serbo-Croatian'' linguistic controversy? You implied such "consensus" as basis for your majority-minority qualifications. So, what are your sources for the existence of such consensus? Term ] is used in linguistic literature as designation for ''Serbo-Croatian'' long before ] adopted that classification, for example - here is a quote from a Czechoslovakian linguist Jiří Marvan from 1988: . The same term has been widely accepted by modern scholars, and there never was any justified reason for its suppression from this article. But you did not react on that, obviously. ] (]) 20:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
*I am sad to see that ] is using tired nationalist propaganda phrases, such as . That is not what I expected based on our sporadic interaction. I am afraid that this discussion is futile, as only one party is discussing science and understands ]. ] (]) 20:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
*I am sad to see that ] is using tired nationalist propaganda phrases, such as . That is not what I expected based on our sporadic interaction. I am afraid that this discussion is futile, as only one party is discussing science and understands ]. ] (]) 20:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:23, 1 February 2019
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Serbo-Croatian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one:
In English, the language spoken by Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins is generally called "Serbo-Croat(ian)". Use of that term in English, which dates back at least to 1864 and was modeled on both Croatian and Serbian nationalists of the time, is not a political endorsement of Yugoslavia, but is simply a label. As long as it remains the common name of the language in English, it will continue to be used here on Misplaced Pages.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Serbo-Croatian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
Serbo-Croatian is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontenegroWikipedia:WikiProject MontenegroTemplate:WikiProject MontenegroMontenegro
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia
Serbo-Croatian is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia
Please correct the misspelling: "u uerish haruacchi slosena", it should be "uersih" (versih, eng. verses).
Syllabic "r"
We're told that this feature also exists in Czech, Slovak and Macedonian. Another language it exists in is Slovene, but this isn't mentioned. And in the linked article on Serbo-Croatian phonology there's no mention of other languages in which the feature exists, whereas you would expect a more specialised article to include at least the same and, if possible, more information. I think someone should compare the information in the two articles and make sure it matches. Since this would involve inserting or possibly removing links, I will leave this to someone with the requisite technical knowledge.89.212.50.177 (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
language code
This article says the language code sh is deprecated but confusingly doesn't mention that it is and why it's used by the Serbo-Croatian Misplaced Pages. --Espoo (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Nothing confusing about it: all ISO 639-1 and 6349-2 codes have been replaced (deprecated) by ISO 639-3 codes. --Taivo (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Good luck with those questions, nobody wants to deal with that here, because its just a tip of the iceberg. Code "sh" was deprecated back in 2000 by ISO, and here is the real link, not the useless one currently placed in the article. In spite of deprecation, code "sh" is still being used in many articles on English Misplaced Pages, and there are several users who are constantly removing codes for real languages, replacing them with "sh" code. Not to mention the fact that this article does not even mention the term "macrolanguage" (that is the official ISO designation for BCMS cluster). There should be an entire section on the subject, but it seems that we are still pretending here that "Serbo-Croatian language" actually exist, and for some reason those appearances "must" be kept, since the truth would consequently undermine the very existence of a failed pet-project called the Serbo-Croatian Misplaced Pages. Current census numbers in this article are the prime example of manipulation. Advocates of Serbo-Croatian "language" are terrified of the fact that all census data in last twenty years are showing zero-point-zero-something percent of "Serbo-Croatian" speakers in all countries of former Yugoslavia, and that is why in this article we still have a cumulative fairy-tail story about millions of speakers. This entire article should be transformed into a credible article on Serbo-Croatian as a multilanguage, referring to BCMS cluster, as defined by ISO. In its present state, this article is very misleading. Sorabino (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Link to Serbo-Croatian Misplaced Pages
We do not link under the "See Also" section to the Wikipedias in that language in language articles. There are links on the left to other language Wikipedias. A link to "Serbo-Croatian Misplaced Pages" is not appropriate here. --Taivo (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems that we have a serious problem here. Information on official ISO classification of Serbo-Croatian as a linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, is constantly being suppressed and removed from this article, and several other related articles. Archive of this talk page shows that this problem is recurring and persisting for more than a decade now. Some advocates of Serbo-Croatian "language" don't like the term "macrolanguage" and they also don't agree with ISO classification. That wouldn't be a problem, since everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but some users are going much further, trying to suppress any mention of official ISO terminology and classification of Serbo-Croatian as a macrolanguage. They are constantly removing all content on that subject, not only from this article, but also from some other related articles. And there lies the problem. Any suppression or censorship of relevant and properly referenced contend on the "I don't like it" basis is by definition improper. Selective monopolization and reduction of content to one's own POV is not useful editing. Classification of Serbo-Croatian is a complex linguistic problem, and this article should provide information on all relevant views and opinions on that subject. It should go without saying that official position of ISO on that subject constitutes a relevant information, that should not be suppressed or censored from this article, and other relevant articles. It should be also noted that classification of Serbo-Croatian as a macrolanguage is accepted by many linguists and scholarly institutions, and there are no justified reasons for suppression of relevant content on that subject. Sorabino (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
There is no problem mentioning the use of the term "macrolanguage" in the article. The problem has always been giving it WP:UNDUE influence, turning it into an entire paragraph, and using it solely as the basis for calling Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian "separate languages" as if they were German and French. The term "macrolanguage" is an ad hoc term that ISO 639-3 uses rather loosely. It is not widely used in linguistic literature contra the claim by Sorabino. Serbo-Croatian is the label for a small set of mutually intelligible dialects, not separate languages. The linguistic literature has been uniform in this. Using the ISO 639-3 use of the term "macrolanguage" has been used in this article (and the others) to argue that these are separate languages and that "macrolanguage" is term used for a grouping of languages. Such is not the case. I have never opposed a mention of ISO, but I have always opposed the misuse of the ISO label to push for a nationalistic agenda whereby "Serbo-Croatian" is not used in its scholarly sense as a label for a dialect complex, but in its political sense to group separate languages. Serbo-Croatian is a single pluricentric language, not a cluster of different languages. --Taivo (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Linguists do not rely on ISO 639-3 as some sort of universal listing of the world's languages. Many of the "languages" that are separated by ISO are clearly dialects and not separate mutually unintelligible languages. While ISO 639-3 separates Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian into three "languages" under the "macrolanguage" Serbo-Croatian, Glottolog, which is much more linguistically sound, lists these three as dialects of the "Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian" language. Linguasphere also lists these as dialects of a single language "Srpski-Hrvatski" ("Serbo-Croatian"). Klose's "Sprechen der Welt" also lists Serbisch, Kroatisch, etc. as dialects of "Serbokroatisch". I could go on and on. Thus, using ISO's use of the vague term "macrolanguage" to justify calling Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian separate languages (as Sorabino's paragraph is trying to do), is putting WP:UNDUE weight on a single source whose main purpose is not a linguistically unassailable listing of the world's languages by consistent measure, but a system of coding useful in computer-assisted research and bibliographic cataloguing. --Taivo (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The definitions and classifications that underlie ISO 639-3 are something of a last resort: to be used as sources in the absence of any in-depth literature on the topic. I don't think this is the case for a major topic like Serbo-Croatian. How it is defined in the various ISO standards is of course relevant information, but I'm not sure it deserves a place in the lede, at least not a very prominent one. – Uanfala (talk)13:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you. I placed the comment in the lead because I was getting ready to head to work and didn't want to spend a lot of time thinking about it. It is the maximum length that I think the topic deserves. I would be happy to see it moved into a more appropriate place. But at least Sorabino can no longer claim that we've ignored his "reliable source". --Taivo (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Lets get serious, because we have some serious problems here. For years, this article has been policed by advocates of Serbo-Croatian "language", who suppressed all content referring to other views, and the same censorship was also implemented in other related articles. Such practice was regrettable, and in total odds with Misplaced Pages editing guidelines. There is only one way to remedy this situation. This particular article should be substantially improved in order reflect the full complexity of all issues related to "Serbo-Croatian" linguistic label. From the very lead, readers should be informed that there are three main linguistic theories and uses of "Serbo-Croatian" label. First is the notion of Serbo-Croatian as an individual language, second is the notion of Serbo-Croatian as a pluricentric language, and third is the notion of Serbo-Croatian as a linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, consisting of four individual languages: Bosniac, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian. All of those views should be presented and explained from linguistic and historical perspective, without misrepresentations, like in some recent edits. After several removals of content on ISO classification, that problem was raised here, forcing advocates of Serbo-Croatian "language" to adopt other tactics. That resulted in this edit, which is the prime example of manipulative editing. That edit states, literally: "ISO 639-3 recognizes the pluricentric nature of the language by referring to it as a "macrolanguage""! That is not what 639-3 recognizes at all. It clearly and explicitly defines "Serbo-Croatian" as a linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, not as a pluricentric language. It is obvious that some users, who are policing this article for years, are not interested in constructive editing. Simply speaking, they are using all opportunities not only to push their own POV, but also to suppress all other views by removing or manipulating content. Such behavior should stop, since it is inappropriate by all standards. Sorabino (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
It's also quite clear that Sorabino is neither a linguist nor familiar with either the linguistic attitude toward ISO 639-3's classification scheme nor the linguistic literature in general. He is relying 100% on ISO 639-3's label of Serbo-Croatian as a "macrolanguage", a label that is not accepted anywhere else in linguistic literature. ISO 639-3 is not considered to be a major or particularly reliable source when it comes to determining what is and is not either a language or a dialect cluster. The vast majority of linguistic literature, a clear consensus, is that Serbo-Croatian is a single language that comprises a dialect cluster. There really isn't any debate on the issue. Sorabino refuses to recognize the importance of these other linguistic sources and overemphasizes the label "macrolanguage" used by ISO 639-3, which linguists in general ignore. I have cited major reliable linguistic sources (sources that are uniformly and universally respected by linguists) at Talk:Croatian and Talk:Chakavian already. If Sorabino continues to ignore the linguistic literature in his single-minded drive to push ISO 639-3 as the only source of interest to him, then I'll replicate the list here as well. Linguists do not treat Serbo-Croatian as a "macrolanguage" in the sense of a small family of languages. They uniformly treat Serbo-Croatian as a single pluricentric language with three to five dialects (depending on how they treat Chakavian, Kajkavian, and Montenegrin). My sentence about ISO 639-3 was a compromise to mollify Sorabino, but if he insists on pushing the "multiple languages" narrative, then I will remove it because that is not the linguistic consensus among actual linguists in well-respected linguistic classifications. The reason that ISO 639-3 is not well-respected is simple: too many of its distinctions are based on political calculations and not solid rigorous linguistic ones. --Taivo (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica isn't a linguistic source, but nice try. The lead should reflect the majority opinion of linguistic sources and I've listed only linguistic sources in the references that you want to ignore. The article already lists the controversial nature of the name "Serbo-Croatian" for this language and potential alternates in the Name section, but if you want to add a sentence about the political differences that prevent patriots from recognizing that they speak the same language, then if we can come to an agreement on wording here on the Talk Page, then we can add something there. But don't just shove something into the article without getting a WP:CONSENSUS here first. Propose a sentence for the Name section. But as far as the linguistic classification in the infobox and in the lead goes, Misplaced Pages follows the majority view of linguists. --Taivo (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
As I suspected, you are not interested in real conversation. Your claims that ISO and Encyclopedia Britannica are somehow not relevant are quite revealing, since they are exposing the true nature of your POV pushing. That article in EB was written by top class linguist Wayles Browne, who is a renown expert in South Slavic languages. It is clear that your claims on the current state of linguistic "consensus" are 100% wrong. Your suppression of other relevant views and referenced content is in total odds with Misplaced Pages guidelines. So, please stop censoring this article, and other relevant articles. The lead should reflect all relevant views on the subject, like in the EB article. Sorabino (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
"The lead should reflect the majority opinion of linguistic sources" - no, the lead should reflect the majority opinion of reliable sources, and Britannica is one. I don't think the idea that articles on linguistic topics must rely exclusively on purely linguistic publications has any basis in wiki policies and guidelines. On the other hand, one might presume Browne did not invent anything in his article, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find additional linguistic sources that support his views.
I'm rather unfamiliar with this article so I gave it a quick scan, and noticed some problems which are roughly in line with Sorabino's criticism above. I'll take a more thorough look later and list my observations here. GregorB (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
(copied from Talk:Croatian language because Sorabino perversely insists on spreading this discussion across three Talk pages). Perhaps you (Sorabino) missed the fact that Browne's education was partially at the University of Zagreb. But neverthelss, one linguist isn't a consensus. You also ignore the simple facts of the matter. 1) all the dialects of Serbo-Croatian are mutually intelligible and in a purely linguistic sense that means that they belong to one language. 2) In every source (including EB) that mentions the "many languages" option, they make very clear that dividing these dialects into languages is based on non-linguistic factors including politics. The linguistic measurement of language versus dialect is, and always has been, degree of mutual intelligibility. 3) The mutual intelligibility measure between these dialects is unequivocal and makes them uncontestably dialects of one language. This fact has been recognized in all the classifications of the world's languages that are based on scientific linguistic measures alone. 4) Thus, in Misplaced Pages articles on languages, in the infobox and in the lead, where editors have uniformly relied on scientific linguist measures and ignored tribal politics, these are dialects of a single language. Further down in the article, where non-linguistic political position can be discussed, then a brief discussion of the non-linguistic issues can be included. But these are not political articles, they are linguistic articles based on linguistically reliable sources. When it comes to language classification, the best linguistically reliable sources include Glottolog and Linguasphere. For Slavic languages alone, there are other sources in print. But you need to wrap your head around the fact that editors in Misplaced Pages have uniformly favored purely linguistic solutions to issues dealing with languages and have preferred to leave political solutions outside the door. --Taivo (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@GregorB: Language articles are subject to the science of linguistics and thus the consistent WP:CONSENSUS among editors on Misplaced Pages has been to rely on linguisticreliable sources and not on the variety of non-linguistic opinions on this issue that are based on the tribal politics of the Balkans. Since this is based on WP:CONSENSUS then it is, indeed, based on Misplaced Pages policies. --Taivo (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Why do linguists rely solely on the science of linguistics to determine relationships between languages? Because since the middle of the 19th century very clear and precise means have been developed to track the evolution of languages over time in order to determine their place within the world of languages. This isn't politics or ethnicity, but simple historical/comparative linguistics. There are standards, there are rules, there are factors to consider and factors to ignore. It's a science. --Taivo (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think Wayles Browne's article, quoted above, could be described as one of "non-linguistic opinions on this issue that are based on the tribal politics of the Balkans". That put aside, "tribal politics of the Balkans" is real and it produces sociolinguistic effects, making it all the more relevant to this article, whether one liked it or not. Sociolinguistics is science too.
See the notice at the top of the page where it comments on "In English, the language spoken by Croats...". This has been discussed at various times throughout the Archives. The notice itself is evidence of the consensus. --Taivo (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
You said:
Language articles are subject to the science of linguistics and thus the consistent WP:CONSENSUS among editors on Misplaced Pages has been to rely on linguisticreliable sources and not on the variety of non-linguistic opinions on this issue that are based on the tribal politics of the Balkans.
This, however has nothing to with the notice you mention. I'm not disputing what the notice says - I'm disputing both the idea that exclusively linguistic sources may be used in this article, and your claim - also in the above quote - that this has already been established by consensus. GregorB (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry. You didn't mention which consensus you were referencing and the issue of one language versus four is always the elephant in the room in these articles. I've been editing languages articles in Misplaced Pages for over a decade and the consensus on language articles always ends up with linguistics over politics. I can't really point to a specific discussion, just the results of hundreds of discussions over the years here. Take, for example, the listing in the infoboxes on genetic affiliation of a language: it's a genetic affiliation and not any other kind. The genetic affiliation of a language is a purely linguistic result. If you look back over the history of this article and the articles on Croatian language, Serbian language, for example, you see that every time "Serbo-Croatian" has been deleted from the genetic affiliation in the infobox, it has been reverted by one of the linguists who watch these articles. It's all tied to the overall "consensus" that has worked on hundreds of pages in Misplaced Pages that linguists control "language" pages. Perhaps it's been discussed at some point or other, perhaps not, but it's been the consistent result, including here. You can look back through the archives of this article and you'll find that the end result of every dispute is a linguistic result. Sorry I can't be more specific, but I don't have the time to browse back through a decade of linguistic discussion to find X, Y, or Z specific statement. --Taivo (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
But in this particular article, I've already provided references to reliable linguistic sources that consistently use linguistic methodology to list Croatian, Serbian, etc. as dialects of a single language that is most commonly (but admittedly problematically) called "Serbo-Croatian". I don't have a problem with mentioning the political issues of tribalism in the Balkans in the body of the article. It would be appropriate there. But the linguistic issues in a linguistics article must always be given pride of place just as physics must be given pride of place in a physics article. --Taivo (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
It is obvious that advocates of Serbo-Croatian "language" have no interest in following Misplaced Pages editing guidelines. There is no justification for their continuous suppression of relevant linguistic views, expressed (for example) by linguistic experts of the ISO team, and also by linguistic experts of the editorial team of Encyclopedia Britannica. Some advocates of Serbo-Croatian "language" have often claimed here that there is some kind of "consensus" that supports their views, but it is clear that there is no linguistic consensus regarding Serbo-Croatian controversy. Sources are showing that there are three distinctive views on the subject. First view regards Serbo-Croatian as an individual language, second view regards Serbo-Croatian as a pluricentric language, and third view regards Serbo-Croatian as a linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, consisting of four individual languages: Bosniac, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian. Precisely because of that plurality of views, editorial team of Encyclopedia Britannica decided to present the full scope of views in their article on Serbo-Croatian, and we should follow that example in our articles. So far, not a single reference was produced that would support the claim that there is any kind of "consensus" among scholars regarding the Serbo-Croatian controversy. Therefore, the "consensus" claim, that is 100% false, can not be used as an excuse for censoring and policing the content of this article, and other related article. We are not debating here which view on the subject is right, but whether all views should be represented in this article. That should be a non-issue, since it would go without saying, according to editing guidelines, but unfortunately advocates of Serbo-Croatian "language" are not respecting those guidelines, nor facts. Maybe it is time for administrators to take a look on what has been happening here. Sorabino (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
You clearly don't have a real understanding of how Misplaced Pages works or the process of building WP:CONSENSUS. You've already demonstrated that you have no real understanding of linguistics, the science of the field, the nature of linguistic classification, or the nature of ISO 639-3. Your edit to the article, while well-intentioned, had a couple of problems that I have fixed. First, it was just placed in the article without care for the context or the flow of the existing text. I've moved it to a more logical place within the text--just before the section where national constitutions label the different varieties and treat them as distinct languages. Second, the use of extensive quotes that are easily summarized is discouraged, especially in articles that are already on the long side. I've summarized the quotes. --Taivo (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@TaivoLinguist: Are you still claiming that there is so-called "consensus" on the Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy, and if you are, can you provide any reference that would state the existence of such consensus? So far, you repeated the "consensus" claim many times, but never produced any reference that would support such a claim. Sorabino (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I have provided several times a list of well-respected linguistic classifications that all treat Serbo-Croatian as a single language, but you have simply chosen to ignore them. I understand that you don't know how the science of linguistics works or what a linguistic classification means in terms of language relationships. But I agree with you that a comment in the article is appropriate and have left the substance of your comment and references in an appropriate place in the flow of text. --Taivo (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Clearly, you are avoiding to answer the question on your "consensus" claims. You have repeated those claims many times, but now, when called out and proven wrong, you are avoiding the issue. You even went so far in claiming that there are no linguistic sources that would oppose your views, and you claimed that by posing here as some kind of a linguistic expert. Now, when it is factually shown that those claims were wrong, you are trying to avoid the issue. Are you still opposed to inclusion of all views in the lead of this article, and if you are state your reasons? On several occasions, you opposed to such inclusion on the basis of your "consensus" claims, but it has been shown here that such "consensus" does not exist. Sorabino (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
You simply don't understand the issue, but it's pointless to argue with you because you 1) don't understand what linguistics is or how linguistic science functions and 2) refuse to learn anything that contradicts your non-linguistic worldview. Even Ronelle Alexander states that native speakers consider their language to be "one language", but that non-linguistic factors divide it into multiple entities that are labelled "languages" (pages 424-426 of his grammar of BCS). --Taivo (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Man, we are on a talk page, discussing serious issues regarding the lead and content of this article. So, I simply have to ask you again, are you still opposed to the inclusion of all views in the lead of this article, and if you are, please state your reasons? That is the initial issue that is discussed here. And please respond, do you still claim that there is "consensus" on the Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy? Sorabino (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I still oppose the inclusion of non-linguistic information in the lead other than the sociolinguistic issues that are already discussed in the third paragraph (the one that begins, "Serbo-Croatian was standardized"). Since the labelling of Bosnian etc. as separate "languages" is a sociolinguistic issue (per every author) and not a linguistic issue, a very brief mention in that paragraph could be agreed on, but the purely linguistic issues in the remainder of the lead and the infobox must remain purely linguistic. Even native speakers recognize that the four national standards are "one language" (per Ronelle Alexander, whom you cite as an authority), but that they are distinct for non-linguistic reasons. I've never disagreed that non-linguistic factors have been used to label these as different languages, but purely linguistic factors dictate that they are one and that is where linguists are in agreement. --Taivo (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, now we are making some progress, finally. The view that Serbo-Croatian as a linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, consisting of four individual languages: Bosniac, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian is supported by relevant linguistic sources and should be included in the lead. Many linguists support that view, not just those who are from the lands of former Yugoslavia, but also the foreign ones, as shown above. Sorabino (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
You still don't seem to understand my comments--they are the same things I have been saying from the beginning. Once you understand then we can come to a complete agreement on the lead. Even those linguists who refer to these four dialects as "languages" admit that the decision to call them languages is not a rigorous linguistic decision but a non-linguistic one. Most of them freely admit that the linguistic reality is that this is one language, not a "macrolanguage", but one pluricentric, mutually intelligible language across three or four dialects, each with separate national standards. As long as that distinction--between linguistic reality and non-linguistic factors that shape terminology decisions--is clear in the wording of whatever changes or additions are made in the third paragraph of the lead, then we can agree on exact wording. --Taivo (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with TaivoLinguist here. Regarding the nature of Serbo-Croatian, there are obviously two (or more) views. But, per WP:DUE, we should present those views in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Thus, a view that is held by a minority of reliable sources should not be given the same prominence as a view held by a majority. TaivoLinguist shows that clear majority of linguistic sources holds the view that Serbo-Croatian is one language. Based on WP:DUE, minority view (that it is a macrolanguage) should not be given the same prominence in the article. That is not "censorship", that is what Misplaced Pages policy tell us to do. Sorabino denies existence of such consensus by providing some non-linguistic sources (like ISO and Encyclopedia Britannica). Per WP:SOURCE, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources . Thus linguistic (academic) science papers and books should be given precedence over other sources (like encyclopedias). Citing prominent scientists that hold minority view cannot be an evidence against the existence of scientific consensus (Every scientific consensus has its opponents, but that does not mean that there is no consensus). So, there is no question whether the ISO classification ("macrolanguage") should be mentioned: of course it should. But it should not be given the same prominence as the majority scientific view. Vanjagenije(talk)19:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: You are known to be a staunch advocate of Serbo-Croatian "language", so there is no need for you to pretend to be neutral in this debate. For years now, you were just fine wit continuous suppression and censorship of all other views in this article and other related articles, and now, when it is obvious that those views are relevant and must be included in the content of this article, you are trying to cover yourself, as an administrator who bares great responsibility for the creation of this problem. Since you are part of the problem, you should let other administrators to make their impartial judgement here. But since you joined the discussion, can you quote any source that would prove the existence of any kind of "consensus" on Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy? You implied such "consensus" as basis for your majority-minority qualifications. So, what are your sources for the existence of such consensus? Term macrolanguage is used in linguistic literature as designation for Serbo-Croatian long before ISO adopted that classification, for example - here is a quote from a Czechoslovakian linguist Jiří Marvan from 1988: "One of the official languages is Serbo-Croatian; this is the local national language, a "macro-language" in the Yugoslav context". The same term has been widely accepted by modern scholars, and there never was any justified reason for its suppression from this article. But you did not react on that, obviously. Sorabino (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
