Talk:Lenca language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject El Salvador (Rated Stub-Class) El Salvador Portal Lenca language is within the scope of WikiProject El Salvador, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the country of El Salvador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) WikiProject Mesoamerica (Rated stub-Class) (Rated mid-importance) This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, its civilizations, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page. Resources and guidelines for editing Mesoamerica-related articles: Guidelines— Outline of suggested guidelines and editing conventions Resources— Selected resources and compendia of Mesoamerican sources and studies Citations— Bibliography and pre-filled citations for Mesoamerican sources Journals— Links to selected journals publishing Mesoamerican research, example citation templates Article listing— Inventory and watchlists of WP:MESO articles and their talk pages (Article Watchlist)—(Talkpage Watchlist) Worklists— Project worklists and activities NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload. Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. WikiProject Mesoamerica priority open tasks: (click "show" to expand) WikiProject Mesoamerica Open Tasklist: a shortlist of things you can do to help out. Queries welcomed here. (Project Main • Activities • Catalogue • Guidelines • Strategy• Tools and refs) edit | watch | purge NEWS and ANNOUNCEMENTS: → Mesoamerica, Maya civilization, Olmec, Palenque are WP:MESO collaboration targets of the moment. → Pre-filled citation templates for Mesoamerican sources at Citations. → Recently promoted to GA status: Yuri Knorosov, Nahuatl language, Charles Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg. PROJECT ACTIVITIES: Meta-tasks and subprojects: • add project banner to articles • document Strategy • assign article ratings per the assessment scheme • add to Project references • collate images and maps • More... Categorisation: • develop full Category scheme • reorganise Cat:Mesoamerica contents • More category tasks... Templates: • {{Mesoamerica site infobox}} (create) • {{Mesoamerica ruler infobox}} (create) • {{Maya civilization}} (improve) • {{WP Mesoamerica}} project banner (populate) • More... ARTICLE TO-DO: Requested articles: • History of Mesoamerica • Chenes (Maya subregion & architectural style) • 260-day Mesoamerican calendar • List of Mesoamerican cultures • Hermann Beyer • Huastec civilization • Valley of Oaxaca • More... Expand from stub: • Calendar round • Chiapas highlands • Chilam Balam • Chol language • Trecena • Veintena • More... Cleanup/attention needed: • Domesticated plants of Mesoamerica • Gender in Mesoamerican cultures • History of Mesoamerica (Paleo-Indian) • Gender in Maya society • Olmec figurine • More... Improvement drive: Start-Class • Mesoamerican calendars • Mesoamerican chronology • Mixtec • Monte Albán • Toltec • Yucatán Peninsula • More... Improvement drive: B-Class • Chichen Itza • La Venta • Maya calendar • Maya civilization • Maya script • Olmec • Quetzalcoatl • More... Prepare for Quality reviews (GA, PR, FAC): • Mesoamerica • Mayan languages • Spanish conquest of Mexico • Palenque • Chunchucmil • More... WikiProject Central America     (Rated Stub-Class) Latin America Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Central America, which collaborates on articles related to Central America. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. Additional information: Related work groups (nations): Honduras work group WikiProject Languages (Rated Stub-Class) This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. language Portal Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Greenberg, Lenca, and POV language

I certainly don't want an edit war either, so I'll do my best to respond to Rsheptak's comments here, and explain my reasoning. My main concern here involves the subset of the NPOV policy, not giving undue weight to minority viewpoints. In other words, as I interpret it, presenting every viewpoint on the classification of Lenca on completely equal footing would itself be POV. Because some classifications are more accepted than others by specialists. So I don't think it's POV to note that most linguists reject Greenberg's methods and his classifications of American languages, because those linguists' views are also relevant, and they provide a clearer picture of viewpoints on the classification of Lenca. That being said, I can definitely see how the wording I used in the present version of the article could be POV (oddly, the part that concerns me the most is that I used "but" after the mention of Greenberg's views).

I don't see how saying that Campbell "disagrees" with Umaña's classification is POV, though. Though I suppose we could say something like "...(notably Chol and Yucatec). Lyle Campbell lists Lenca as unclassified" or "...Lyle Campbell, on the other hand, lists the language as unclassified".

Thoughts? --Miskwito 21:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Campbell, the first suggested wording is what I wrote, but either of the two are fine with me. WRT Greenberg, we both agree that some, but not all, linguists disagree with his classification. This however, is not about WP:UNDUE, giving undue weight to a minority opinion, but rather about the appropriateness of the inclusion of this information in an article about the Lenca language. It adds nothing to the readers knowledge about Lenca. It involves the reader in a debate that is peripheral to the subject of the article. Rsheptak 19:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I still feel it's important, though, that readers are aware of the reception some of the various theories have had. Would it be any better to say something like "Joseph Greenberg, as part of his controversial classification of American Indian languages, classified Lenca as a Macro-Chibchan language. More recently, Constenla Umaña has also argued that Lenca ...[etc.]"? --Miskwito 23:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it does add to the readers knowledge about Lenca to know its classificational situation - also which proposals are more trustworthy than others. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 05:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Miskwito, I would agree to your new Greenberg language. Maunus, the article, as originally rewritten, made it clear that the classification of Lenca was disputed. I'm no proponent of Greenberg, but I think you enter a slippery slope if you start using arguments like "trustworthyness" in this forum. In a scholarly paper, sure, but Wikipedia has proved over and over again its not scholarly. Anyhow, I think Miswito's proposed solution is fine. Rsheptak 02:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats a really bad argument Rsheptak - since it basically means that because something in wikipedia is crap it doesn't matter if everything is. Given the fact that mainstream linguistics fairly unanimously reject grenbergs classification it is simply not fair to mention without also mentioning that it is not accepted by the linguistic community.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)