User talk:Mo-Al/Archive 3

Speedy deletion nomination of Habibi Yah Habibi


A tag has been placed on Habibi Yah Habibi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. keystoneridin! (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marshallese phonology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Voicing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Marshallese language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Voicing


 * Minkowski diagram (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Origin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Urapmin people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

ASL peer review
You're welcome! And I'm not quite done yet ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Urapmin people, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Telefol and Telefolmin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"reportedly"
No need to add the needless word "reportedly" into wp sentences. Everything in wp is "reportedly." Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon bombing
Formatting - I've got a discussion started on the article's talk page. Please don't change the article's formatting without first discussing it there. Rklawton (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Re:Somali language
Hi Middayexpress,

I wanted to ask about the "History" section in the Somali language article which you removed on this edit: I'm unclear on why this doesn't belong in the article -- other well-maintained language articles (e.g. Swedish language) have a history section, and in the case of Somali the profound historical influence of Arabic and the unique literacy situation seem highly relevant. I would appreciate your input.

Thank you, Mo-Al (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Mo-Al. The material on historic trade between populations in the Horn and Yemeni and Omani merchants is off-topic. It has nothing to do with the Somali language. Further, the national campaign for a standard orthography belongs on and is already discussed in the Somali orthography article. Arabic's influence on Somali is also already mentioned in the vocabulary section. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. However, it would seem that the trade between Somali and Arab merchants is relevant since it is the cause of the language contact between Somali and Arabic (according to my understanding, which may be incorrect). Additionally, the historical development of Somali literacy seems notable enough to merit inclusion in this article as well as in the Somali orthography page. However, that's just my admittedly fallible judgment.
 * The bigger issue here is that the "History" section seems to be standard in Featured and Good Article-status language pages (see Swedish language, Tamil language, Biblical Hebrew, etc.) I'd like to get this article to Good Article status, and the absence of this section could be an issue during review. I agree though that it should be kept notable and non-redundant. Perhaps we could consolidate historical information from other sections, or add some new information. Do you have thoughts on how would be best to do this? Mo-Al (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The campaign above was on choosing a standard orthography/writing system for the Somali language from among the existing or would be writing systems, not on literacy per se. This info on the various writing scripts (such as Osmanya, Borama and Kaddare, the undeciphered ancient Somali script notwithstanding) was already in the article. However, you moved it and the links pointing to those writing script pages to the separate Somali orthography page, and replaced it with a cogent summary. It was a good decision, as it turns out. Regarding the historical material on social contacts, it's already mentioned in the vocabulary section that the Arabic loan-words in Somali stem from the Somali people's social, cultural, commercial and religious links and contacts with nearby populations in the Arabian peninsula. Passed that, we start to wander off-topic and into territory covered by the Ajuuraan State, Adal Sultanate, Ifat Sultanate, Walashma dynasty, Warsangali Sultanate, Majeerteen Sultanate and Sultanate of Hobyo articles. Similarly, discussing the history of the Somali language beyond what is already mentioned on the north-to-south migration that is responsible for its modern distribution delves into territory on the origins of the Somali ethnic group itself as well as the complicated etymology of the ethnonym "Somali". This is the domain of the Somali people article, where it is likewise already discussed. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree that we should avoid redundancy. I guess the ideal would be to mention how far back materials in Somali can be dated, how vigorously it was used throughout history, etc. Do you think that this would be appropriate? Mo-Al (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That depends on what exactly you mean by how vigorously it was used. The oldest existing documents in Somali date back several centuries and are in Wadaad's writing (like this 14th century stone tablet from the Ajuuraan period). This is one of the things that was moved to the Somali orthography page. There's also the undeciphered ancient Somali script, of which the Royal Geographical Society of Great Britain, among various others, found inscriptions. According to Somalia's former Ministry of Information and National Guidance, this "lost" script represents the earliest written attestation of Somali. Middayexpress (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Load words, main areas spoken
Hi. Please note that per Template:Infobox language, this parameter is reserved for "countries in which it is mainly spoken". That would not include Ethiopia much less Kenya, where Somali and other Cushitic tongues represent a tiny fraction of spoken languages. In this edit, you also write that "the number of loan words in a dictionary is not significant without context". However, ironically enough, you completely removed that context when you deleted a) the actual number of loanwords in the newer Somali language dictionary vs. the older one, b) the names and dates of those dictionaries, and c) the fact that those loan words were from a fellow Afro-Asiatic language. Kindly explain your reasoning here because as it is, it doesn't make any sense. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Middayexpress.
 * The Somali Region is quite populous and appears to contain at least half the number of Somali-speakers as does Somalia. Somalis in Kenya are also fairly populous and spread over a large region, though their numbers are somewhat lower. Note that the featured language article Swedish language includes Finland in this field.
 * As for the loanword section -- the number of loanwords in a dictionary isn't a meaningful number without knowing how many words are in the dictionary as a whole, or what the criteria are for inclusion in said dictionary. The raw number is fairly meaningless. The names and dates of the dictionaries aren't needed because the reference style we're using has names and dates in the footnotes rather than in the article text. It's not clear why Arabic being an Afro-Asiatic language is relevant to the vocabulary section, though if you want to add it back I'm not strongly opposed.
 * Best. Mo-Al (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The number of Somali speakers in Ethiopia is comparable to that found in Yemen. Kenya has even fewer. Despite this, Yemen is not listed in the infobox among the areas where Somali is "native to" (what the parameter actually states on the page proper). This is presumably because the language isn't native to that country. Somali is likewise not native to Kenya, as Somali emigration to that largely Bantu and Nilotic-speaking nation only began in the 19th century. Yemeni contacts are, in comparison, much older and considerably more extensive. Regarding the loanwords, the purpose was to show that the number of Arabic loanwords in Somali has actually decreased over the years, not increased. I can cite the total number of words that are in the dictionary as a whole, if you prefer. The dictionaries will have to be mentioned by name, though, so readers know which exact works are being referred to. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Yemen should be listed as well, if the Somali-speaking population is so numerous. Note that the featured language article Tamil language includes a number of places where Tamil was imported in the 19th century.
 * The article currently states that the number of loanwords has decreased with a citation, so this should be sufficient. The number of words in a particular dictionary of the language is somewhat tangential to this point, and probably doesn't need to be included.
 * Best, Mo-Al (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yemen, let alone Kenya, obviously cannot be listed as a nation where the Somali language is "native to" for the simple fact that it is not native to that country. If a similar situation exists on the Tamil language infobox, it too should be corrected, not reproduced on another page. Regarding the loanwords, the page states that "Arabic loan words were more extensively used in older Somali literature than in modern Somali". However, this is not what the source asserts. It says that Arabic loanwords were more extensive in the Somali language as a whole, not just in its literature. It also attempts to quantify just how extensive those lexical borrowings were in the past vs. the present, a significant difference. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the Tamil page demonstrates that the term "native" could include groups whose history stretches back for a period of about two centuries. The term "native" is fairly nebulous and as such I think we should stick to the standard set by that page.
 * I'll correct the page to indicate that the words were more extensive in the language. However I doubt the numbers themselves belong on the page.
 * Best, Mo-Al (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's better to follow Wikipedia's actual template instructions than the edits of another Wikipedian on another page. No worries regarding the vocab issue; I'll fix it later. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The question is what the word "native" means. The Tamil article demonstrates that it includes the situation in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Yemen. Therefore it seems that this *is* following the template instructions. (Also, I fixed the vocab issue along with expanding that section.) Mo-Al (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The parameter's meaning is defined on Template:Infobox language, not the Tamil page. It states that this parameter is reserved for "countries in which it is mainly spoken". That would not include Ethiopia or Yemen, and certainly not Kenya. At any rate, I've fixed a few inaccuracies. For starters, Somalia is definitely not ethnically homogeneous. That's a line the former communist government used to use to unify the populace, but it's not at all true. There are actually many different ethnic groups besides ethnic Somalis (e.g. Bajuni). The low bound estimate of ethnic Somalis in fact sometimes goes as low as 60%. Also, please note that there obviously was Somali word for "blue" before Somalis adapted "buluug" from the English blue. Per Larajasse (1897), it was madow 'adan. Lastly, Somali language instruction certainly did not begin in the 1970s. For example, Osman Yusuf Kenadid, who invented the Osmanya script, was teaching his pupils to write in Somali as far back as the 1920s (his script was for Somali). There are much earlier examples as well. Wadaad's writing is likewise in Somali. It just uses a modified Arabic script. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This indeed includes Ethiopia, since millions of Somali speakers live there. It probably does include Kenya as well. The Tamil page is a featured article, which means that we can use it as a guide.
 * The homogeneity statement is sourced. Please find a source for your statement.
 * The national language education campaign certainly began in the 1970s.
 * Best, Mo-Al (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the fact remains that the Tamil page is not what defines the infobox's parameters. Its actual template documentation does. The homogeneity statement is wrong, as explained. The new conservative estimate is around 80%-85% (e.g. ). And it too is a likely overestimation since it is counting many non-Somali, assimilated peoples as ethnically Somali due to the widespread practice of shegaad (client adoption) by Somali clans. Also, Kenadid was obviously not the only Somali language instructor of his day. In the pre-colonial period, pupils were taught in either Somali or Arabic or both. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, let's go by the infobox. "Mainly" means places where many speakers reside. This definitely includes Ethiopia, and maybe also Kenya and Yemen.
 * This doesn't contradict the article, which says that 95% *speak* Somali. 80% still qualifies as "relatively ethnically homogeneous".
 * By the way, regarding buluug, there is a difference between being able to express a color in a language and having a single word for it. For example, in Japanese one could say momoiro 'peach-colored' for 'pink', but linguists would not say that they really had a native word for 'pink'. This is basically why Japanese borrowed the English word 'pink' as pinku.
 * Best, Mo-Al (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, what it states is that "Somalia itself is relatively ethnically homogeneous, unlike many other African countries, and Somali is spoken by 95% of its inhabitants". This is false. Somalia is not ethnically homogeneous, though this has been erroneously asserted many times (see here). At any rate, this off-topic material. You also again removed the assertion that "Soravia (1994) noted a total of 1,436 Arabic loanwords in Agostini a.o. 1985, a prominent 40,000-entry Somali dictionary. Most of the terms consisted of commonly-used nouns. These lexical borrowings may have been more extensive in the past since a few words that Zaborski (1967:122) observed in the older literature were absent in Agostini's later work. ". What gives? Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If a sourced claim is false, you must find a source that directly contradicts that claim. You have not done so yet.
 * The claim is not off-topic because it is relevant to the linguistic homogeneity of the country.
 * The article already states that about 20% of the vocabulary is Arabic. Why is the fact that a particular dictionary of the language contained 1,436 Arabic loanwords out of 40,000 relevant? These numbers themselves are not inherently relevant except for the percentage they imply, which is already stated in the article.Mo-Al (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not cited a source that debunks the claim that "Somalia itself is relatively ethnically homogeneous, unlike many other African countries", eh? Look again :
 * "'Backed by the nationalist ideology of politicians, it has been a common assumption of scholars of Somalia that Somalia is ethnically homogenous, and that the Somali people share one religion and culture. Thus it had been held that Somalia is a prototype of the nation-state in Africa. The apparent absurdity of the civil war which Somalia has suffered since 1990 raises questions about this perception which has subsequently been revealed to be a myth that has been created in a nationalist undertone.'"
 * The loanword percentage is obviously relevant because it illustrates the decreasing trend in Arabic loanwords in Somali. That's why the book it was drawn from made the comparison in the first place.
 * Further, the template parameter is reserved for "countries in which it is mainly spoken". On the page proper, it also states that these are areas where the language is "native to". Kenya et al. cannot remain, unless one wants to give the misimpression that Somali is at once "mainly spoken" and "native to" those areas when it obviously is not. Middayexpress (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've contacted another one of the more active WikiProject Somalia editors about this issue. Hopefully, he can help sort this out. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, since you have a source, I recommend incorporating it into the article. It's not a good idea to just delete sourced material without adding something in its place that explains why the former claim was wrong, since this leaves a gap with no explanation attached.
 * The numbers themselves don't illustrate this trend. They only illustrate the modern frequency of loanwords. The trend was cited without numerical data behind it.
 * I think we are arguing about what "native" means. I agree that it would be wise to get a third opinion. Mo-Al (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How "ethnically homogeneous" Somalia is completely WP:OFFTOPIC. It has nothing to with the properties of the Somali language. As such, it doesn't belong at all on the page. The loanword figure does illustrate the decreasing trend in Arabic loanwords. The book it was drawn from itself states as much. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "native" means "originating, growing, or produced in a certain place or region; indigenous" . That, again, would obviously not include Kenya et al. Middayexpress (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, let's remove the ethnically homogeneous comment.
 * Perhaps it would be wiser to use the region= field to bypass this issue. Note that the infobox page says that this "is not for the broader region where the states are located, but rather the regions within the country, or across countries, where it is spoken." So instead of "Horn of Africa", maybe the region field should say something like "Somalia, Djibouti, Somali Region, Eastern Kenya". (This might also avoid the whole Somaliland debate since it's referring to a geographical region rather than political entities.) Mo-Al (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The geographic region (singular) in this case would be the Horn of Africa. That would indeed resolve the Somaliland issue. But I'm also not opposed to the format above, though for Kenya the parameter would instead point to the North Eastern Province. Middayexpress (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm wary of just saying "Horn of Africa" because this doesn't make clear that Somali is not spoken in much of Ethiopia or Kenya. So I guess we should use the format above. And yes, good call with the North Eastern Province. Mo-Al (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We'd also probably have to also list Puntland and the other major Somalian regions, or we'd end up again with Somaliland juxtaposed by Somalia, while the Somali Region of Ethiopia and the North Eastern Province of Kenya (which both historically also had secessionist movements; Ethiopia still does) are treated differently. Middayexpress (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on Somali politics, so I can't get involved in that issue. Mo-Al (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Then how do you propose we resolve the Kenya et al. issue? Somali is certainly not native there. Middayexpress (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * By using the region= field. The Somaliland issue will be an issue no matter which field you use. So might as well solve the other issues by switching to region=. Mo-Al (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * By using the region parameter in its traditional, singular way, the Somaliland issue wouldn't be a problem because the parameter would simply state Horn of Africa. It would also resolve the Kenya et al. matter. Middayexpress (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the infobox page does say that this field "is not for the broader region where the states are located". Wouldn't that make it impossible to just state "Horn of Africa"? Mo-Al (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see where you're referring to. By the looks of it, the region parameter is indeed not set aside for the broader region, but rather for regions within the country itself: "region=geographic region in which it is mainly spoken ← you do not have to define both this and states; use this parameter for a single statement about geographic distribution. It is not for the broader region where the states are located, but rather the regions within the country, or across countries, where it is spoken. (That is, do not add SE Asia if we state it's in Laos, or West Africa if we state it's in Mali.)" Also note that the states parameter is for countries in which it is mainly spoken with "multigenerational communities". Middayexpress (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose all the listed countries do have "multigenerational communities". But if you'd rather not stick with the states= field, then I guess we should switch to region=. Mo-Al (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Nilo-Saharan
Somali's general realtionship with other languages in the Ethiopian Language Area is more informative than one syntactical commonality it may have with a few Nilo-Saharan languages. Somali is also head-final according to Saeed and most specialists, which Heine and Nurse are not (c.f. ). Middayexpress (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Adjectives follow nouns in Somali (e.g. ninka dheer). This is *unlike* Amharic (e.g. təgu tämariʷočč). This is an important detail which Heine and Nurse are pointing out, even though they agree that Somali is *mostly* head-final, and they are totally correct. Therefore Somali's syntax in this regard is more like some Nilo-Saharan languages than Amharic. Mo-Al (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no shortage of material which asserts otherwise. If you'll notice, Heine's map also includes the entire Horn region as SOV, but only a tiny portion of the Nilo-Saharan speech area . So if a comparison is to be made here, it's first and foremost with other related languages in the Afro-Asiatic family, not an entirely seperate phylum. Middayexpress (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also note Wedekind: "Cushitic languages as well as the Semitic languages of East Africa typically have the order Subject-Object-Verb (SOV), and are "head final"." Middayexpress (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. BUT the adjective goes after the noun in Somali. This is NOT a contradiction. Mo-Al (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Saeed, the verbal group in Somali is a head-final phrase while noun phrases are head-initial. Middayexpress (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's the point that Heine and Nurse were making. Mo-Al (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * One thing's certain, it's misleading to insist that this characteristic is typical of Nilo-Saharan languages in general when their map quite clearly shows that most Nilo-Saharan languages are not even SOV to begin with. No worries though; I'll fix that later. Middayexpress (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "among some languages of the Nilo-Saharan phylum". If you want you can tweak the wording. (I'm not sure which languages Heine and Nurse are referring to, but it seems likely that they are ones which have had contact with Cushitic.) Mo-Al (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * They mention Kanuri. Whatever the case, it's not any more informative than indicating that such and such unrelated Indo-European language also shares the same feature. They also don't state that this pattern is not a general characteristic of the Ethiosemitic languages. They say that "Ethiopian Semitic languages occupy an intermediate position between type D1 and type D2" . Middayexpress (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's relevant from a typological perspective, which is why they wrote it in the first place.
 * This is what I meant by "not a general characteristic".
 * Best, Mo-Al (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, to avoid argument I'll remove the Nilo-Saharan statement. However I have another citation for the Ethiosemitic claim which I will add right now. Mo-Al (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)