Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angaur language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep, without prejudice to a continuing discussion as to whether a merge is the correct editorial decision. I second Edison's compliments on an excellent scholarly AfD discussion.--Kubigula (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Angaur language
This language might be a hoax. According to the article, it is one of the official languages of Palau (contradicting that very article which states English, Palauan and Japanese as the official languages of this country) and that it is spoken in the island of Angaur (again, contradicting). Article has no sources. The Ethnologue has no records of this language. Google search retrieves Wikipedia and its mirrors. Húsönd 03:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The CIA World Factbook lists Angaur language as one of the three official languages of the island of Angaur. Ethnologue states that Palauan is not an official language of Sonsorol, Tobi and Angaur. E.B. Carr, "Notes concerning Language-Names", American Speech (1953)[1] also mentions "Angaurese". Since the island state itself only has a population of 188, it's possible the language may be nearly or actually extinct. Ethnologue only appears to list living languages in Palau. Dbromage [Talk] 03:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Normally Ethnologue lists recently extinct languages as well. What is possible is that Angaurese is another name for Palauan, or is a dialect of Palauan. This map suggests that Ethnologue believes the only language spoken on Angaur is Palauan. I'll have to take your word for the ref in American Speech since the jstor link doesn't work for me. Can you see the entire article? Does he discuss Angaurese at all, or just mention it in passing? —Angr/talk 17:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Seems like Ethnologue contradicts itself as the entry on Palauan says it is not an official language in Angaur. The JSTOR article mentions Angaurese in the context of other Micronesian languages. I have asked Wikiproject Languages for guidance. What's the definition of "recently extinct"? Dbromage [Talk] 00:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know if they ever define it; I just phrased it that way to explain that many indigenous languages that became extinct since the era of colonization (or so) are included, but extinct ancient languages like Sumerian and Etruscan are not. Ancient languages are generally only included if they're still used liturgically, like Latin and Sanskrit. —Angr 03:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- A logical conclusion is the language may have become extinct since WW2. The Factbook may be technically correct even if it's no longer a living language. My own conclusion for the purposes of this AFD is the language and therefore article is not a hoax. The Factbook is generally considered (at least on Wikipedia) to be a reliable source for the purposes of citations so I see no pressing reason to delete the article. It certainly needs more research, but for now I'm inclined to Keep. Dbromage [Talk] 04:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I'm going to come down on the side of reluctant keep with a plea for someone to actually go to the library and track down sources on the languages of Palau; it's clear the Internet isn't going to help us much more than this. Ultimately, it's more likely that Ethnologue accidentally overlooked a living or recently extinct language than that both the JSTOR article and the CIA Factbook accidentally created a fictitious language. —Angr 16:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm even more reluctant. A mere mention on the CIA Factbook, without any backing from other sources, hints at a mistake. If it's not a mistake, then this article would still need a lot more sourced info to be any useful. I think it's preferable to delete this and wait for better sources with actual info about this purported language, than risking having an article about a non-existent language simply because it's briefly mentioned somewhere.--Húsönd 16:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- If it were just the CIA Factbook, I'd agree; but the 1953 article in American Speech gets my attention. —Angr 19:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Such a hiatus between that source and the CIA Factbook is worrisome. How come this language isn't mentioned elsewhere through all this time? My guess would be that the 1953 source made a mistake, and either the CIA Factbook tagged along or coincidentally made the same mistake. Unless some precise, thorough records about this language are found, I don't think we should risk having this article which might just be perpetuating a mistake. Húsönd 20:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, why would this language not be mentioned in the article about Angaur, the very island where it is spoken and official? One would think that the contributors of that article wouldn't have forgotten to add that extremely pertinent piece of information. Húsönd 20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Palau was in German hands for 30 years and then Japanese hands for the next 30. Japan forced cultural change but it's very possible there may be some reliable German sources. Dbromage [Talk] 00:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- If it were just the CIA Factbook, I'd agree; but the 1953 article in American Speech gets my attention. —Angr 19:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm even more reluctant. A mere mention on the CIA Factbook, without any backing from other sources, hints at a mistake. If it's not a mistake, then this article would still need a lot more sourced info to be any useful. I think it's preferable to delete this and wait for better sources with actual info about this purported language, than risking having an article about a non-existent language simply because it's briefly mentioned somewhere.--Húsönd 16:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I'm going to come down on the side of reluctant keep with a plea for someone to actually go to the library and track down sources on the languages of Palau; it's clear the Internet isn't going to help us much more than this. Ultimately, it's more likely that Ethnologue accidentally overlooked a living or recently extinct language than that both the JSTOR article and the CIA Factbook accidentally created a fictitious language. —Angr 16:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- A logical conclusion is the language may have become extinct since WW2. The Factbook may be technically correct even if it's no longer a living language. My own conclusion for the purposes of this AFD is the language and therefore article is not a hoax. The Factbook is generally considered (at least on Wikipedia) to be a reliable source for the purposes of citations so I see no pressing reason to delete the article. It certainly needs more research, but for now I'm inclined to Keep. Dbromage [Talk] 04:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know if they ever define it; I just phrased it that way to explain that many indigenous languages that became extinct since the era of colonization (or so) are included, but extinct ancient languages like Sumerian and Etruscan are not. Ancient languages are generally only included if they're still used liturgically, like Latin and Sanskrit. —Angr 03:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Seems like Ethnologue contradicts itself as the entry on Palauan says it is not an official language in Angaur. The JSTOR article mentions Angaurese in the context of other Micronesian languages. I have asked Wikiproject Languages for guidance. What's the definition of "recently extinct"? Dbromage [Talk] 00:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Journal of an Expedition to the Western Caroline Islands, September 4 to October 1, 1961 by Daniel Carleton Gajdusek, National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness includes a hint: "The medical corpsman of the detachment--a part-Negro American, I believe, who corrected me quickly when I implied that I thought he might be an islander, by asking if he spoke local Angaur language".[2] Dbromage [Talk] 01:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's just another brief mention, doesn't say anything really about the language. As far as we know, the corpsman could have referred to any language spoken on the island that he could not understand as "local Angaur language". Or, he could err in believing that there existed a local Angaur language in the first place. This doesn't add much. I am very skeptical about this language and don't think that these brief mentions should suffice to establish the existence of an actual language. Sources abound for any other language spoken on this planet, no matter how scarce or remote their speakers. Same should be expected for this one, unless it's not a language at all. Húsönd 02:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm skeptical too, but I'm willing to at least have a skeptical-sounding encyclopedia article about it. And it isn't true that "source abound for any other language spoken on this planet", or do you know something about Sentinelese that the rest of us don't? —Angr 04:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, about the Sentinelese at least we know that they've been isolated enough for a long time to likely speak their own language, and that research about it hasn't been possible. Not like Angaur, whose people haven't been isolated and any research about their language could (and would) have been conducted.--Húsönd 09:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm skeptical too, but I'm willing to at least have a skeptical-sounding encyclopedia article about it. And it isn't true that "source abound for any other language spoken on this planet", or do you know something about Sentinelese that the rest of us don't? —Angr 04:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's just another brief mention, doesn't say anything really about the language. As far as we know, the corpsman could have referred to any language spoken on the island that he could not understand as "local Angaur language". Or, he could err in believing that there existed a local Angaur language in the first place. This doesn't add much. I am very skeptical about this language and don't think that these brief mentions should suffice to establish the existence of an actual language. Sources abound for any other language spoken on this planet, no matter how scarce or remote their speakers. Same should be expected for this one, unless it's not a language at all. Húsönd 02:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 22:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Angaur There's enough verifiable third party sources in this discussion alone to justify at least mentioning it on the Anguar page, but not enough on either to have them be separate entries. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Maybe this can help: in The New York Times Almanac 2002, pag. 636, it is stated: "Languages [of Palau]: English (official) in all 16 states; Palauan (official) in 13 states; Sonsoralese, Angaur, Japanese, Tobi in one state each".--Aldux 23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment — The ethnologue declares that the official languages in Angaur are Japanese and English only. If there still exists a separate Angaur language, I would assume it to be some sort of a creole language which mixes English, Japanese, and perhaps Palauan. (Otherwise it may be extinct.) Creole languages such as Hawaiian Pidgin can be routinely ignored, from official recognition, even if they may be spoken by the majority of the population.--Endroit 05:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge to Angaur; muliple reliable sources give weak support to this having in the past been a distinct dialect. An extinct or nearly extinct language can still be notable. If we don't know enough about it to discuss its special vocabulary, grammar, differences from related dialects, etc. then merge it to the locality. (And complements to all for having a scholarly and collaborative AFD without the incivility that disagreements sometimes descend into). Edison 15:35, 12 September 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.
