Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Užican speech

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:V, which as a core policy overrules any consensus here. This article quotes zero sources. End of discussion. Sandstein 20:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Užican speech

Užican speech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Dicdef, bordering on original research. Well, the situation is as follows: in a dialect continuum of Serbo-Croatian, there are numerous dialects, sub-dialects and sub-sub dialects. So, there probably is such thing as "Užice speech" or "Zlatibor speech", in the sense that, like every other dialect, it has some specifics. Those are enumerated in detail in sr:Zlatiborski govor with zero (0) references, meaning that they're by and large original research. I can't find any Google scholar hits on the subject, under various search terms. Most google hits for "Zlatibor dialect" by and large refer back to Wikipedia [1]; the situation is even worse for "Zlatiborski govor" [2]. The "traditional" map of South Slavic dialects classify this under wider "Eastern Herzegovinian" dialects[3]. I'm afraid that this is a case of local-patriotism without serious scholarly research underneath; there might be some social or linguistic study on the specifics of local speech around (not presented yet), but even if there were, do we want an article of specifics of every local sub-dialect around, without wider recognition? Duja► 09:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a sub-dialect of the Eastern Herzegovinian dialect. It is not much written about indeed, so I suppose one can barely find any Google links about it, apart from Wikipedia. It is, however, mentioned here as "užički govor" (Užice speech), here as "изворни ужички језик" (original Užican language), here as "the dialect area of Titovo Uzice" (note that this is an article on Serbo-Croatian prosody published in an eminent journal devoted to Slavonic studies), and here as "народни језик" (vernacular of the Uzice region). Furthermore, Ottoman early geographer Evliya Çelebi while visiting Užice region mentioned that the local population spoke 'the Bosnian language'. Academic Ljubomir Simović in his book "Užice sa vranama" devoted a chapter to the language of Užice people: "О ужичким именима и надимцима или О томе како Ужичани схватају однос између речи и ствари". There he wrote (p. 274), "Unfortunately, soon there will be nothing left neither of that world nor of that language" (Uzican dialect, that is), and so on. --George D. Božović 11:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Užican speech is no different from other Serbo-Croatian sub-dialects such as Bunjevac ("traditionally" part of wider Younger Ikavian dialect), Našinski ("traditionally" classified under wider Torlakian dialect), Molise Croatian dialect (not a widely recognized dialect in Yugoslav dialectology), etc. --George D. Božović 11:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that Bunjevac speech was subject of extensive scholarly research (including at least 2 books [4], [5]), and Našinski (stupid title btw) has one scholarly reference; I quickly found another (Vidoeski, Božidar. 1986. Goranskiot govor. Prilozi, Makedonska Akademija na Naukite i Umetnostite, Oddelenie za lingvistika i literaturna nauka, 11,2:45-76.). Molise Croatian, with only 2000 speakers, has volumes of research. You have been criticized on sr:wiki for the OR in that article. It can be argued that those dialects were studied more because they present a discontinuity with the surrounding areas, either in terms of linguistic specifics or increased ethno-sociologist interest for the ethnic group that speaks them. But so far, you haven't presented an extensive reference on the Užice speech, or a reason why it should be singled out among many subdialects. Duja► 11:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to understand the point with Užican. However, I must admit - there really is no extensive reference on the Užice speech, unlike Bunjevac or Gorani speeches! Or at least, I'm not aware of any so far. Yet, I could say that Wikipedia should have an article on it because it is a dialect of significance when it comes to Serbian vernacular literature, since there are many well-studied Zlatiborian anecdotes (erske anegdote) written in it, and many well-known poems and popular songs such as "Užičanka", "Oj, Užice", "Zlatibore, moj zeleni bore", and the newer ones "Zlatibore, pitaj Taru" or "Sa Ovčara i Kablara", which were compiled in this dialect (similarly to another Eastern Herzegovinian speech which also has significant literature in it, the Dubrovnik speech); but if Wikipedia's policies are ignorant enough to prevent its existence in this encyclopaedia, then I really have no other possibility but to agree upon its deletion. Therefore I shall not even vote myself, although I was looking forward to editing and improving it eventually. --George D. Božović 15:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, oh boy. Before the usual flamewars that accompanies these sorts of topics, I'll point out that there are few ghits, and it does not appear that this article can be sourced as per WP:RS. For that reason I am voting for deletion. Lankiveil 12:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC).

• Delete certainly per WP:RS, probably also WP:OR. --Targeman 15:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment @ George: as you say, there are no extensive references on the Uzice dialect. I'm a linguist and I know where to look but I can't find a single study concerning this dialect. So deleting this article would not be the result of an "ignorant policy", it'd be the normal academic approach - no sources, no article. I'm not familiar with the state of South Slavic dialectology but I'd reckon that if no university has taken up the subject yet, it's probably a sub-dialect or patois barely distinguishable from other Zlatibor variants of Serbian. --Targeman 16:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep there do not have to be extensive references, there just have to be sufficient substantial references. that it is less documented than other dialects is irrelevant if it is documented adequately. DGG (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep any dialect spoken by a non-trivial number of people is notable, see also:WP:BIAS. This is also part of a comprehensive series of articles, and random pot shots like this do not help the project. We need a ref, but WP:AGF. Dhaluza 23:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Replies (to both):
  1. The article in its current state is a dicdef; it comes down to: "Foo speech is a dialect spoken by inhabitants of Foo region". I can write at least 50 similar ones for any given region Foo, just for the linguistic area I know about.
  2. Since, admittedly, there are no adequate references, the article cannot grow beyond that level. The references produced in George's post above are just passing mentions.
  3. It is part of a "wider" series just because it's stretched into that series. Other articles from the series ({{South Slavic languages sidebar}}) have extensive references.
  4. "any dialect spoken by a non-trivial number of people is notable" – is it WP:BIGNUMBER, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING or a combination thereof?
  5. Who is not WP:AGF? Duja► 09:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• ...P.S. And, there is a big issue of taxonomy: in a dialect continuum, potentially every village has (slightly) different dialect from the neighboring village, and so on. I argue that, in the case at hand, the border is drawn arbitrarily. Duja► 09:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, in the case at hand it was not drawn arbitrarily. The Užice region has "some specific geographical, and also ethnographic characteristics within Serbia" (Rade Poznanović, "Tradicionalno usmeno narodno stvaralaštvo užičkog kraja" - this work deals with the Užican vernacular literature, but not the language itself unfortunately). This is a well defined region whose inhabitants (so-called Ere, Starovlasi, or Užičani) have a somewhat different culture and mentality than the people from the rest of Serbia. This region was more influenced by mediaeval Celts ("Vlachs", hence the name Starovlasi) and later also Ottoman Turks than some other regions, and thus developed into a somewhat specific ethnographic area. Its specific ethnography includes Užican customs, as well as language and literature produced in it... There are much more works about the specific ethnography of the Užičans, and I can name some of them. Unfortunately, neither of them deals with the Užican dialect more closely than barely mentioning it. They usually describe Užican customs or cuisine, or sometimes even the vernacular literature (like the work I quoted above) but not the vernacular itself... --George D. Božović 18:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's clear two things out, shall we? First: This dialect does exist in the Serbo-Croatian dialect continuum, within a "wider" Eastern Herzegovinian dialect, right? Even you admitted that in your first post. And second: It is a notable dialect 1) because there is a notable literature produced in it, and unlike the dialect itself this literature was much written about, and 2) because it is spoken by a somewhat distinct ethnographic regional group who also keeps some other distinct ethnographic and even historical features, and they were written about too. So, how come there is no need for an article about it in an encyclopaedia that already contains many articles about similar dialects and regional languages? --George D. Božović 18:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I have no doubt was you say is true (dialect exists, ethnographically separate population, etc.) I myself would love to see as many articles about dialects as possible, but if no serious scientist has ever studied this particular dialect, Wikipedia shoud not be the place to publish the first study (WP:OR). So I'll regretfully stick to my vote. Of course, as soon as this dialect has been studied by competent linguists and their work published, Užican speech (which IMHO should preferably be titled Užican dialect) should be restored without hesitation. --Targeman 18:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you're right at some point. Just to mention that speech is actually the usual term in Serbian dialectology for these sub-dialects. There are three super-dialects (Shtokavian, Chakavian, and Kajkavian) which divide into several dialects each, and which further divide into many sub-dialects, so-called speeches. Some of those regional speeches were subject to extensive studies, but many of them were not written about that much. --George D. Božović 19:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to the items above:

1. The article in it's current state in a stub, which is distinct from a dicdef.
2. The article can grow with references, that is what a stub is for.
3. So this article needs work to bring it up to the same standards. Deleting it is regressive, not progressive.
4. No, it is a corollary of the principle that all populated places are notable.
5. All should WP:AGF

Also, there is no requirement that a subject be scientifically studied. WP acceps both scientific and other reliable sources. Dhaluza 00:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

--Dhaluza 00:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep - Are the "in other languages" links talking about the same thing[6]? If so, it seems that much more could be said. But I think that that comment is touching on the dispute alluded to above. In any case, if it exists as a dialect, surely there is some mention of it in English. Even so, it seems notable enough for a stub, with more written if/when more is published. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, that's what I basically said in the intro. That article is created by George D. Božović. I'll select a comment from its talk page [7], translating to:

  George, let's get straight. I wrote elsewhere that I very like the article even in the current state (which you don't consider too good). I also emplasized that it was written by a man whom I exceptionally value both as an expert on Serbian and as an erudite (...) That makes me even more uncomfortable to turn your attention to the omission of references, and I did that just because somewhere around the corner, in an ambush, a bunch of quasi-scientists waits with a bunch of half-literate articles without a single reference, to "hang" those articles on Wikipedia, with the excuse "if George can, why can't we?", ignoring the old Latin Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. So, this objection was not for the sake of myself, but for the sake of you and Wikipedia, and only with the desire to eliminate problems even before they emerge.

  I didn't write those words, but I can sign each of them. Alas, feeling a bit more rouge than people of sr. wiki, with due respect to George's knowledge and personality, I'm inclined to say "no references" = no pasaran. Duja► 10:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You've read the discussion there. That article was written by me long before Serbian Wikipedia started applying the policy of citing sources. So, when I was later asked to provide references for it, I didn't do it because, like I wrote there, I gave up on that article. And I gave up on that article because quite some time I've been working on a new one. A totally new one which would also contain sources for most of the material... --George D. Božović 11:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Right now this article Užican speech contains two bare sentences. I don't think it would be much difficult to find references for both of them. --George D. Božović 11:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

But on the other hand, I believe this article can actually be turned into a redirect to a general article about the Užicans themselves, as a regional ethnographically diverse group, which could also contain a section about the Užican dialect, similarly to the article about the Shopi. --George D. Božović 14:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.