Talk:Galizan

With all due respects, I certainly think that the article is not neutral and unbiased. The very characterization of Galizan as a "language" pre-frames the topic. That is why I think a header like "Galizan" would be more neutral in what is undoubtedly a social and academic debate in Galiza itself.

It was me who introduced earlier changes and some links (I don't know how to sign up, so I just made the changes and left it at that -- the concept of this "wiki" is fascinating but I still don't know exactly how it works). This version of the entry is more fair (thought the last paragraph is in my opinion *very* far-fetched). I will try to suggest more changes and see what you think.

Celso Alvarez Cáccamo, Professor of Linguistics http://www.udc.es/dep/lx/cac


 * If you haven't by now, you should read How to edit a page and How to log in. These should answer your questions about Wikipedia. If they don't, use their comment page. Logging in enables you to watch page, so that you know if they are changed.


 * About the spelling, Google finds 144 "Galizan" and 98600 "Galician" in English-language pages. I think that "Galician (the spelling Galizan is preferred by (the name of the movement))" is a better start. The disproportion is not so high for Galiza / Galicia though.
 * I 'd like to know why the situation is not called diglossia. It is a pity that we don't have an article on diglossia or Ferguson (hint hint).
 * It would be better to attribute the dialect / full language positions to somebody. How would you call that supporters of each one. "Officialdom" and "Galician nationalists"? What do the Portuguese think?
 * -- Error


 * To be fair, there are only 1680 hits for "Galician language" and 5 for "Galizan language". -- Zoe

- I am thinking now that probably it's better to just redirect to Galician and make a note there about the different names. -- Error 23:29, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)