Talk:Konso language

Classification of Konso(id)
Moved to Konsoid Talk page (now the Oromoid Talk page)

A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Konso language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121113000000/http://www.csa.gov.et/index.php?option=com_rubberdoc&view=doc&id=264&format=raw&Itemid=521 to http://www.csa.gov.et/index.php?option=com_rubberdoc&view=doc&id=264&format=raw&Itemid=521

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Dissertation not a suitable citation
A portion of this article includes an assertion that a certain person's dissertation is the "most complete description" of this language. A citation is given to this dissertation. This fact may or may not be true, but a citation to that dissertation is a PRIMARY source. It reaches or implies a conclusion (i.e., that this dissertation is in fact a "complete description") not directly and explicitly supported by the source. What we need for it to be included is another source, a SECONDARY source, that in fact says, "The dissertation by so and so is the most complete description of this language to date" or something similar. Simply providing a citation to that dissertation itself doesn't make it the "most complete" version of anything. Am removing this a second time, and asking the person who added it back in to consider this before putting it in again— if a secondary source can be found which says this, then I am all for including it here... if none can be found, then it needs to remain out of this article.

Understand that I am not saying this particular claim is not TRUE! It very well may be, and who am I to object! What I am saying is that we need evidence that someone ELSE, a reliable independent source, SAYS that it is true! This is a higher level of standard than simply saying that it is true. This is the standard I am asking for here, and that Wikipedia asks of anyone including such claims and references in its articles. I have no argument against including the dissertation in the external links section, however. KDS4444 (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I can see your point, and in principle agree with you, if the waters were not muddied by the scarce availability of data in general on the language. As you can see from the other cited sources, there is not anything that closely approaches Ongaye's thesis in size and scope, and it has been published chronologically after any of the other cited sources - so it is literally impossible to find any source that substantiates in any wikifiable way the claim that Ongaye's thesis is the most complete description. Note please that the text did not say "complete", but "most complete", which by no means is to be understood in a way that the thesis covers everything; it doesn't. It is just "completer" than any of the other cited works. It must be possible to state the obvious in Wikipedia without reference to a (non-existing) extra source verifying this claim that becomes evident from just looking at the stated facts. In any case, I will try to re-word things in a way that does not violate your feelings again. Landroving Linguist (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Your rewording is perfect! Thank you!  And please understand and do not assign to me a set of "feelings" about this.  What I have said here was done utterly dispassionately and with an eye towards improving this article to make it consistent in terms of form and style with Wikipedia and with encyclopedias generally— this isn't me trying to "get my way" here or me insisting that "you are wrong," but it is me reading this from the perspective of a new reader who has come to expect Wikipedia to maintain a certain set of standards with respect to its content...  And if I come along and read that someone's work is the most complete version of something to date, I ALSO assume that someone not involved in that estimation made that statement.  And when it turns out that no one actually DID make that statement, even if it is empirically true at some level, the misleading presentation brings discredit upon Wikipedia.  We can say lots of powerful, accurate, "truthful" things so long as we present those things in the right context.  I am sure (with no doubt in my mind whatsoever) that this gentleman's dissertation is exactly the rare work you claim it to be— it may also be superseded in the future by someone else's PUBLISHED work, which may itself be reviewed by yet someone ELSE and THAT person may claim that the published book is the most complete.   Wikipedia's phrasing aught to allow for that possibility.  That is what I was thinking of, with no disrespect meant.  I like your current rewording.  Again, well done, and Thank you!!  KDS4444 (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also: saying the sky is BLUE is a bit easier for me to verify than the completeness of a linguistic monograph! We do allow for the inclusion of reasonably simple mathematical computations and their easily-reached  conclusions, but require reliable sources to be included for more complex ones or for those that draw important conclusions from those calculations.  You can read about that here, if you like, or maybe you already have. KDS4444 (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear KDS444, you are right - my comment about not violating your feelings was not called for. Please accept my apologies! Landroving Linguist (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)