File talk:Serbo croatian languages2006 02.png

Bosnian/Bosniak[edit]

For the problems related to this file, please see this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Serbo_croatian_languages2006.png

And here is proof that this file is POV: these are official Montenegrin census results about language: http://www.monstat.org/userfiles/file/popis03/Popis03.zip - they are in Cyrillic script, but it is clear from that document that in the Plav (Плав) municipality (page 11) there are 6.500 speakers of Bosniak (Бошњачки) and only 192 speakers of Bosnian (Босански). In another words, almost all Bosniaks there declared that their language is Bosniak. There is no source that would claim that people in Plav municipality are speaking Bosnian instead Bosniak. PANONIAN 10:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're different names for the same thing. What you're claiming is like saying that "Croat" and "Croatian" are different languages. It's just silly. No-one proposes that these are distinct languages, and no-one recognizes them as such. This img is supposed to map languages, not language names. Come up with a reliable source that proves me wrong, and we'll rewrite the Serbo-Croatian article. — kwami (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source is here, so please deal with it in accordance with logic: http://www.monstat.org/userfiles/file/popis03/Popis03.zip - I am not aware that any census listed Croat and Croatian as separate languages and there are no even two different names for it in Serbo-Croatian. It is called only "hrvatski", so you found very bad example. Contrary to this, there are not only two different names for Bosnian (bosanski) and Bosniak (bošnjački), but these two names would have different meaning in Serbo-Croatian: "bosanski" means "the language of Bosnia" while "bošnjački" means "the language of the Bosniaks". Therefore, the Montenegrin census listed them separately. Also, if we speak about language recognition, neither of the two, Bosnian and Bosniak, are not recognized as official in Montenegro since the sole official language of Montenegro is Montenegrin. So, no one recognized anywhere that speakers of Bosniak from Plav municipality are in fact speakers of Bosnian. I provided for you a source with official census results, now you have to provide a source that say that somebody recognized Bosniak speakers from Plav as Bosnian speakers. PANONIAN 11:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And not to mention that in your map Vojvodina is not part of Serbia and Republika Srpska is not part of something called "Bosnia" (official name of that country is Bosnia and Herzegovina and your map would be a clear insult for people of Herzegovina, who are very proud for being Herzegovinians and not Bosnians). PANONIAN 11:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When reading a map, larger letters are commonly used for higher geographic or political categories, smaller letters for lower categories. Thus "Serbia" (large letters) is the state, and "Vojvodina" (small letters) the region within the state. Also, when a map is crowded, it is common to abbreviate names so that they fit. "Bosnia" is the normal English short form of "Bosnia and Herzegovina", thus it is used on the map. (Your version, BTW, denies that Bosnia and Herzegovina exists at all, surely a worse sin than abbreviating its name.)

As for your ref, it's rather long. Would you please give the page # where it states that Bosnian and Bosniak are distinct languages? — kwami (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trolling - I gave you source that list Bosnian and Bosniak separately and you just ignoring it. Demographic maps are useless if they do not reflect officially published census results. We are not speaking here about general issues related to Bosnian language, only about language declared by the people of Plav and demographic maps are obligated to present an accurate description of census results. Whether Bosnian and Bosniak are same or not should be elaborated in relevant articles, but census results should not be falsified because of your personal opinion. Regarding your explanation about geographical names on this map, what then happened with names Central Serbia and Brčko? You have very problematic knowledge not only about local demographics, but also about local geography. And no matter that name Bosnia is used in some English sources it is still wrong and still insulting for Herzegovinians. PANONIAN 12:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>OMG, why then Bosniak language redirects to Bosnian language? I propose that we split them immediately. We need more BBBCCMMSS languages so that we can achieve proper political correctness.</sarcasm> No such user (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It redirects there because it is an alternate name for Bosnian language, but it is also listed as separate language in Montenegrin census and we have to present census results correctly in demographic maps. I do not care how this issue will be described in relevant articles, but falsification of sources will not bring any good to anybody. PANONIAN 12:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated use of words like "falsification" and "trolling", when it is obvious that neither are accurate, suggests that, at the very least, you are prone to hyperbole. You might try being factual when engaging in an academic discussion: It will get you further. (Either that, or when you say I'm "trolling" by asking for a page number, I will assume that there is no page number in your ref that supports you, and that you are not working in good faith.) — kwami (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to be polite with you as much as I can because I see that you are an admin here, no matter that you do not behaving like one. Do you deny that I gave you on this page an link to "Popis03.zip" file and that I described that linguistic census data for Plav municipality is on page 11? What exactly is your problem here? PANONIAN 13:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you've been quite rude, so you must not be trying very hard. Secondly, you should not be polite because I'm an admin and you're trying to curry favor, but because I'm a fellow editor and we need to work together. Thirdly, thank you for the page number, but you claimed that your ref demonstrated that these were different languages. I already understood that both "Bosnian" and "Bosniak" are listed in the census, but that doesn't establish them as different languages. In the census of India, various names are listed, with their numbers first listed individually and then added together, because they're considered variant names of the same language. There's nothing unusual about a national census listing multiple names of a language; this is done in the interest of accuracy, because if people do not have an option for what they normally call their language, you'll get incomplete results. There is an ongoing debate over whether the language of ethnic Muslims should be called "Bosnian" or "Bosniak", so it's not surprising that both options should be allowed. That says nothing about whether the state considers these various names to be different or the same language, or even whether the people themselves consider them to be different or the same.

You've created a beautiful map, and that's certainly appreciated. But you did not say you created a map of the names people call their language, but claimed that it shows different SC languages. That so far appears to be unsupported by your references. — kwami (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do not know how rude behavior looks, but do you expect that I love you if you trying to destroy my work like this? I really do not know how we can work together when you simply do not want to listen arguments and engaging in revert war with you about map usage in articles would certainly result in my block from your side. So, do whatever you want here, but you are not an admin in Commons and rules there are little different, so please do not try to destroy more of my files there. PANONIAN 15:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I get it: you think you WP:OWN your work. No, even on Commons, anyone can modify your work as they see fit, and they should when there are errors. If you wish to retain control, don't release it without copyright. — kwami (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think that. I always correct my work whenever people convince me that there are errors in it. However, you cannot convince me that falsification of census results is an proper action. Demographic maps are usually made to represent exact data from census results, no matter if somebody like these results or not. In this case, I have census results on my side and you have nothing but your POV and your adminship advantage. PANONIAN 16:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you insert this image in the article in the moment when it was locked, and other users weren't allowed to contribute. Administrators shouldn't do something like that, even if they think they are right. Otherwise, it can be seen as abuse of admin privileges. Please, don't do it. I guess it has done by mistake, so you should revert your edit. Regards. micki t 17:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image was moved by Panonian. I merely updated the link. This has nothing to do with any dispute at Croatian. I could have put in a redirect, but Panonian's having a fit and edit warring, and I didn't want to provoke him any further. It also wouldn't do the Croatian article any good to have the map switch back and forth six times a day. — kwami (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is disagreement about this image. You need to discuss it first on this page and after that image can be put into the article. Not before. I know it's not easy, but it is the right way. Until then, controversial images should not be inserted anywhere, especially if the articles are locked. I have not suggested that this was done intentionally, in order to avoid discussing. But such actions could make it harder to find a solution acceptable to all. Sorry for my bad English. micki t 18:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding. This image was already in the article. Panonian moved it. I've restored the article to the way it was when it was protected. — kwami (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so :) I am aware that the image is changed several times on Wikimedia Commons. PANONIAN's image was in the article until the October 15th. Then you tried to change the image on Commons, but he did not agree with that. The discussion began on Commons and continued here today. Article was locked at 08:43, 21 October 2010. At the time the original (PANONIAN's) picture was in the article and in the meantime there were no changes on it. Then you put your picture in a locked article. Did I miss something? micki t 19:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did: The edit war spilled over to WP-en. I uploaded the corrected version of the map here on Oct 18 to avoid the edit war on Commons. The Croatian article was locked on Oct 21 with my local version of the map in it. It didn't transclude the version at Commons. Panonian replaced it with his version on Oct 22, after the article was protected. I reverted, and he reverted me. Panonian then moved my version of the map here (with the 02 suffix) that same day. Rather than continue a pointless edit war, I updated the link in the article to match Panonian's move. I then deleted the original location so that the Commons version would transclude, as Panonian wished. — kwami (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you have deleted an image that had the same name as the one on Commons? I apologize for the misunderstanding. As you can see, from my perspective it looked different. micki t 21:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Panonian, I understand your argument, but if the file you've used to base the map on lists Bosnian and Bosniak as separate, then it contradicts everyone's understanding of the linguistic situation in the area. It seems like the solution would be to incorporate that understanding in the map by synthesizing the information with other sources that contextualize the Bosnian/Bosniak issue. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem with "everyone's understanding of the linguistic situation in the area" is that such understanding is obviously based on simplified sources. I am not denying that terms Bosnian and Bosniak are often used as a two names for the same language, but I based my map on official census data, and in the case of this data, they are listed as two languages. Since map reflect census results, I do not see why in the case of Plav municipality we should ignore the census and instead of accurate census results we would have some second hand opinions from simplified sources. How exactly an first hand official source can be less valid than second hand one? PANONIAN 20:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you should also see this map created by another Wiki user: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MontenegroLanguage2003.png - this is detailed (settlement level based) linguistic map of Montenegro where Bosnian and Bosniak are also listed separately. So, I do not think that "everyone's understanding of the linguistic situation in the area" argument could be valid. This is usual way in which census data is presented in demographic maps. If we start to use second hand opinions instead first hand statements of local people about their language and ethnicity then we can say that all languages presented in this map are non-existing and that they are only names for Serbo-Croatian language. In fact, I agree with this opinion and therefore I created 2 maps: one that reflects all this area as Serbo-Croatian speaking and another one that reflects what people declared in census about their language. Map version uploaded by User:Kwamikagami neither reflects scientific opinion about one Serbo-Croatian language neither way how people declared their language in census. I really do not understand what his map is supposed to represent if both sources, linguistic science and statistical publication are ignored. PANONIAN 21:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything other than census data to back up the notion that Bosnian and Bosniak are anything other than synonymous? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is not the point. I am not denying that Bosnian and Bosniak are synonymous and so my basic point was that map was made to reflect census results in the way in which they were published in official statistical publication. The interpretation of such results in the way in which User:Kwamikagami using them is something that should be elaborated in relevant articles and not in a map which was meant to be an exact reflection of census results. I understand what User:Kwamikagami want to do with his map version and I already agreed on Wiki Commons that he upload his map version and that he use his version in Bosnian language article. The problem here is that he done much more: he first uploaded his map into English Wikipedia under same name as original map in commons and that made the usage of original map in English Wikipedia impossible. Therefore, I uploaded his map under different name and he then replaced original map with his version in all articles in English Wikipedia, and I do not agree with that action. User:Kwamikagami had 2 basic objections in Wiki Commons: 1. that color in which Croatian language is presented should not be same as color in which Serbo-Croatian language is presented in this map since these maps are used in same articles, and 2. that Bosnian and Bosniak are synonymous and that they should be presented as single language. I think that first objection is only personal subjective view of the user (I personally like blue color in maps) and that the second objection is falsification of census results because map is made to reflect census results. However, I will try to propose compromise here: due to disagreement about this issue, I do not see why both maps could not exist and why both maps could not be used in some articles. My map reflects exact data from the census and Kwamikagami's map is an interpretation of census results and both could be useful in some articles. Therefore, I am proposing that Kwamikagami's map is published in articles related to Bosnian language and to general articles about Serbo-Croatian language, while my map should be returned to articles that are not directly related to these two subjects. In another words, Kwamikagami's map should remain in articles Demographics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbo-Croatian, Bosnian language and Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, while my map should be returned to articles Serbs, Serbian language, Montenegrin language, Serbian culture and Croatian language. Furthermore, I can add some kind of a note in a bottom of my map that describing that Bosnian and Bosniak are synonymous, but that they are presented as separate in Montenegrin census and that they are present as such in a map due to that, while user:Kwamikagami should also add note to his map describing that Bosnian and Bosniak were presented as separate in Montenegrin census but that they are presented as same in a map. And last, but not obligatory, user:Kwamikagami should do something with a very bad way in which geographical names are presented in his map - when accuracy and aesthetics are in question such way of presentation is simply terrible. I believe that this is a fair compromise, but, as I say, I am not going to be involved in revert war about this and user:Kwamikagami can do what ever he want in English Wikipedia. PANONIAN 22:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable position and I'm glad that we have so much common ground. If we are to have two maps, then, as Kwami has implied above, we should label this map as one differently, particularly as it emphasizes the self-reporting more than the other. Something along the lines of "map of the names people call their language" would be appropriate IMHO.

I share Kwami's caution about using the same color blue for Croatian and for Serbo-Croatian, though it's a minor issue and more in anticipation of POV concerns than of confusing readers. Another color issue is the color distinction between Bosnian and Bosniak. It seems to me like they should be similar colors to each other, even if they're separate. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is not that Panonian mapped the census results, but that he claimed the names were all distinct languages. But without that claim, there's still the problem that the Bosnian/Bosniak dichotomy is not reflected in the census data of the rest of the Balkans, so the census data from Bosnia is not comparable to that of Montenegro, and Panonian's map violates WP:synthesis. — kwami (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was busy with some other things, but now I am back to this issue. I uploaded new versions of both, my original map in commons and this one in en wiki:

In original map, I included a note that describe that Bosnian and Bosniak are used as synonyms, but that they are presented separately because of official Montenegrin census results. I also used somewhat similar color for Bosnian and Bosniak, but different enough that readers can distinguish them. In this map, for example, the two colors are too similar and I cannot distinguish the difference between them at all: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MontenegroLanguage2003.png (for sure, that is not the best way of presentation). Speaking about color symbolism, I am generally against such symbolism in any map. There is simply no valid reason that Bosniaks and their language are presented with green color in most maps that I saw on Internet or in published sources. The fact that many Bosniaks are Muslims (certainly not all of them) and that green is a color of Islam does not mean that we have to present them with green color everywhere. If we present them as members of an ethnic group or as speakers of an language usage of green color is totally out of context. Same thing is with blue color that I used for Croatian. The fact that I used same color in other map for Serbo-Croatian does not mean that I cannot use this color here since two maps are not created as part of an series, but each of them was created as a represantion of an specific subject. Also, something about last comment posted by Kwamikagami: There was no census in Bosnia and Herzegovina after 1991 and in that last census almost all citizens of Bosnia declared Serbo-Croatian as their language. While I used linguistic census data for Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia and Romania, such data simply does not exist if we speak about Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo. In last two cases I was forced to use unofficial estimates about ethnic groups assuming that members of certain ethnic group are also speakers of a certain language (This, however, does not have always to be the case since, for example, citizens of several Serb-majority municipalities in Croatia declared that Croatian is their language while many Croats, Bunjevci and Bulgarians in Serbia declared that their language is Serbian). Due to that, official linguistic data from Montenegrin census is certainly more valid than unofficial estimation about ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Anyway, in improved version of this map, I accepted your view that Bosnian and Bosniak are used as synonyms and presented them with same color, but I used both names in a map legend and I also included a note that Montenegrin census list them separately and that citizens of Plav municipality declared Bosniak in census. I also corrected the way in which some geographical names are presented and used different color for internal borders (In this year, 2006, Kosovo has not yet declared independence, thus, presenting Kosovo as a part of Serbia in this map is historically justified). Also, if there are no objections, I will fulfill my original compromise proposal that both maps should be used in some of the articles in en Wiki. PANONIAN 14:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those all look like improvements. I don't see anything I object to. — kwami (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]