 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
@ Uanfala: I had merged this article because, given the sourcing in the article, it's not clear that this language variety is notable. It doesn't have a language code, and the article states it's a jargon rather than an independent language. I'm not super familiar with this variety, so you may know better, but it looked to me that this content would be better maintained there until sizeable enough to be spun out. — Wug· a·po·des 03:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not super familiar with this either, but from what I've seen so far it appears that: 1) not much is known about it and it may well be that not much more will ever be known (this lends support to a merge proposal in principle), 2) some vague mentions have been made of a putative relationship to Kohistani (I don't know which Kohistani is meant, but even if we knew we'd need very solid evidence before merging there). I have no issue with this being a standalone article (I think secret languages, if sufficiently unique, should be inherently notable), and I don't see a suitable merge target at present. Of course, if at some point in the future a proper article is created about the
Shaikh Mohammadi (and not just a fork-out of the one paragraph we currently have on that redirect's target), then a merge there would make sense. –
Uanfala (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'll let it be then, thanks! —
Wug·
a·po·des 15:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- A heads up,
Wugapodes, about the section immediately below. The moral is that it's never a good idea to boldly merge or split articles based solely on what wikipedia says about the topics without checking the sources, and it's almost never a good idea to do so based only on other tertiary texts. –
Uanfala (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree with your moral since (1) readers still get to the same content through the same links (see
WP:PRESERVE), (2) it's
easily reversed if someone disagrees or shows it's in error, and (3) draws attention to articles in need of it from people with knowledge and interest (See
meatball:PageChurn). It's not like there's any harm and clearly the article has benefited from the attention, so I'll continue to follow
WP:BRD since it works fine. —
Wug·
a·po·des 01:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry but what you appear to be saying is that making a mess was a good idea because after it eventually got cleaned up everything got nicer than before. And the fact that this particular mess got clean up was a stroke of luck, most other articles about smaller languages don't really have any watchers. Maybe what happened here – the merging of two articles that had nothing to do with each other – is an extreme example, but in any number of cases it's a terrible idea to be making big changes to the topic structure without doing at least some of the background reading first. –
Uanfala (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think you and I place different value or emphasis on
WP:BOLD. If you have further suggestions for the article feel free to leave them here; if you have problems with me,
my user talk page is a more appropriate place to raise concerns. For what it's worth, I like this thought from your user page
If you think of yourself as efficient, chances are others will see you as sloppy. Conversely, if you expect people to be careful, you'll most likely be seen as a curmudgeon.
and perhaps we can both reflect on it. Thanks for being the R in BRD. — Wug· a·po·des 11:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think you and I place different value or emphasis on
WP:BOLD. If you have further suggestions for the article feel free to leave them here; if you have problems with me,
my user talk page is a more appropriate place to raise concerns. For what it's worth, I like this thought from your user page
- Sorry but what you appear to be saying is that making a mess was a good idea because after it eventually got cleaned up everything got nicer than before. And the fact that this particular mess got clean up was a stroke of luck, most other articles about smaller languages don't really have any watchers. Maybe what happened here – the merging of two articles that had nothing to do with each other – is an extreme example, but in any number of cases it's a terrible idea to be making big changes to the topic structure without doing at least some of the background reading first. –
Uanfala (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree with your moral since (1) readers still get to the same content through the same links (see
WP:PRESERVE), (2) it's
easily reversed if someone disagrees or shows it's in error, and (3) draws attention to articles in need of it from people with knowledge and interest (See
meatball:PageChurn). It's not like there's any harm and clearly the article has benefited from the attention, so I'll continue to follow
WP:BRD since it works fine. —
Wug·
a·po·des 01:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- A heads up,
Wugapodes, about the section immediately below. The moral is that it's never a good idea to boldly merge or split articles based solely on what wikipedia says about the topics without checking the sources, and it's almost never a good idea to do so based only on other tertiary texts. –
Uanfala (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'll let it be then, thanks! —
Wug·
a·po·des 15:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I've just removed the mention of the purported similarity to Kohistani from the article. It was sourced to David Phillips' 2001 encyclopedia Peoples on the Move: Introducing the Nomads of the World
[1], which states that Adurgari resembles Kohistani in Pakistan
, but this is almost certainly a misinterpretation of the following claim in Olesen's 1987 paper: a detailed analysis of this language would perhaps, indicate the predominance of a particular ethnic group, such as the Kohistāni (of Parwān), among the Sheikh Mohammadi.
The rub is that
Parwan is in Afghanistan and has nothing to do with Pakistani Kohistan (where
the language most commonly known as "Kohistani" is spoken). I'm not quite sure what to make of this statement, maybe it suggest some language of Parwan (like Pashayi) as a source of the vocabulary? Rao 1995 gives five words in the language, and judging from her footnotes, two of these are from Arabic/Persian, while there's one word each with a parallel in
Magati and in European Romani. –
Uanfala (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
For the benefit of the future generations who will attempt to expand the article: The first-hand sources on the language so far appear to be the following:
- Olesen, Asta (1977). Fra kaste til pjalteproletariat? : etnisk erhvervsspecialisering i Østafghanistan, belyst ved udviklingen i kornrenseres, sigtemageres og småhandelsfolks vilkår. Århus: Univ. Institut for etnografi og socialantropologie.
- Allan, Nigel John Roger (1978).
Men and Crops in the Central Hindukush (Thesis). New York: Syracuse University.
{{ cite thesis}}: Invalid|ref=harv( help) - Olesen, Asta (1987). "Peddling in East Afghanistan: Adaptive Strategies of the Peripatetic Sheikh Mohammadi". In Rao, Aparna (ed.). In The Other Nomads: Peripatetic Minorities in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Cologne: Böhlau. pp. 35–63. ISBN 3-412-08085-3.
- Rao, Aparna (1995). "Marginality and language use: the example of peripatetics in Afghanistan". Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society. 5 (2): 69–95.
I don't have access to the first two, #3 had a very brief mention, and #4 has about half a page. Additionally, Pstrusinska and Orywal have written on the topic, but as far as I've been able to tell, their work is all second-hand. – Uanfala (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)