User talk:Razlem/Angos

"As of 2012, there are at least 4 speakers in Hungary, Finland, and the United States." The link doesn't confirm that.Qaqaqaq (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As with any language, the number of speakers can not be confirmed so concisely. To do so here would require one to go to the profiles and posting history of each member of the Angos wiki. In other words, the information is verifiable, but can not be compiled into any one link. Razlem (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, with all due respect to the project, I cannot really imagine how a language that was started in 2011 can possibly have four speakers in 2012 (nor, for that matter, how that explains a wiki created in 2010). Developing a full-blown language is not something you can do in a year, and learning it even less so. Mere participation in a forum doesn't make a person a "speaker". Besides, I'm afraid verifiability (see WP:V) is a serious issue. For an article to be acceptable, there must be some significant coverage in secondary and tertiary sources, otherwise the whole thing will be discarded as original research (see WP:OR) and promotion. At present, there are only two references: one to project's website (which is a primary source), and one to a non-obliging list of languages (where "active" means only that they haven't been abandoned by their authors yet). Unless you can provide links to books, media coverage and the like, this article will be deleted sooner or later. Because the article is done really nicely, I'd strongly suggest you to take it to Frathwiki or somesuch. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  03:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "I cannot really imagine how a language that was started in 2011 can possibly have four speakers in 2012"
 * The language was designed to be 'pick-up and go' with simple phonological and grammatical rules. Honestly, the only way I could show you is by teaching you the language itself.
 * "(nor, for that matter, how that explains a wiki created in 2010)"
 * The history of the language is fairly complex. Suffice it to say, the language that is Angos today was decided on in 2011.
 * "Mere participation in a forum doesn't make a person a "speaker"."
 * I disagree. Each of the participants shows a clear command of the language, well within the boundaries of what constitutes speaking a language.
 * "Developing a full-blown language is not something you can do in a year, and learning it even less so."
 * Yet here we are.
 * this article will be deleted sooner or later.

I actually am unsure about the technical issues this will raise, but Facebook already recognizes Angos as a language, and it draws the summary from the existing Wikipedia page. If this page is deleted, will the Facebook page be deleted as well, or will it just be devoid of information?

Also, about verifiability, how could this be classified as original research? It exists; it is used by others not affiliated with its creator. From the "in a nutshell" on the Verifiability page: "Other people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up." All the raw data is available on the wikispaces site, and I've included the link in the references section of the page. How would having an article published about the language be more verifiable than having actual people using the language in a public space? Razlem (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you have missed the point of WP:OR and WP:V. Verifiability does not only mean that you can prove that something exists, it basically means that there must be significant (non-trivial) coverage in reliable third-party sources. Personal websites are no reliable sources for the simple reason that anybody can write anything on his website/blog/etc. To give you a somewhat annoying example: let's suppose that somebody makes the somewhat extravagant claim that he owns 200,000 cats. Interesting as this claim may be, it doesn't prove anything. He can write it on his website, but that still doesn't prove anything. But let's suppose that his "collection" ends up in the Guinness Book of Records. Then we suddenly have an independent source that probably checks its facts before publishing something. And only at this point the subject might qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia.
 * The website at Wikispaces does not prove anything but the fact that Angos exists. There is, however, no source that confirms things like the following: that this page is indeed an authoritative resource on the subject; that the author of the project is indeed Benjamin Wood, nor, for that matter, that Benjamin Wood exists at all; that the language was indeed created or formalized in 2011; etc.etc.etc. That’s why there must be reliable sources that confirm all this information or, at the very least, that this particular website is indeed the place where people should look for information about Angos. Besides, personal websites rarely last forever. Many new conlangs are being created each year, and part of them even end up on a website. After a few years, their authors sometimes lose interest and the website disappears. And what then? All the evidence proving that the language has ever existed, is suddenly gone without a trace!
 * As for the subject of original research, let’s take your four users as an example. To confirm this info, one would have to make a thorough analysis of forum posts and the like. This is research that should not be done by Wikipedia. And even then, the result doesn’t prove anything, because a forum can easily be manipulated. One person can write under many different login names. You’ll be surprised, but I actually know of one conlanger who filled an entire forum practically on his own, asking questions under one pseudonym, answering them under another, thus having entire discussions with himself. Not that I am accusing you of doing this as well (on the contrary!), I’m just trying to explain why this sort of evidence cannot be accepted. For the record, there is a lot of info in the WP article that I haven’t even found on Wikispaces (for example the name of the author, percentages about vocabulary source). If this is true, then Wikipedia is actually the ONLY source, which is a situation that may never occur.
 * At last there is the subject of notability (WP:N) to be addressed. There must be some good reasons why among thousands of constructed languages this particular one merits an article, and here goes the same thing: these reasons must be confirmed somehow by independent resources. A conlang cannot be expected to make it to the front page of the New York Times, but two-three examples of non-trivial coverage in the media or in scientific papers are the least that may be expected. Mind, Wikipedia is there to describe things that have proven their significance, not to make them significant.
 * I can't answer your question about Facebook - I have no idea how it works. But it won't make much of a difference. I have been around here long enough to know that the only reason this article is still there, is that it has managed to fly under the radar. I'm not much of a deletionist myself. But sooner or later the subject will come up. Just in case, I would still recommend you to copy this page to other places, like Frathwiki. It might actually help, and even if it doesn’t, it won’t hurt either. Best regards, &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  21:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've moved the article to FrathWiki. I'll try and promote the language a bit more before writing another article. This page can be deleted if necessary. Razlem (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability
I believe Angos has amassed significant notability since the previous discussion. Its internet presence has grown and stabilized, as evidenced by the Facebook page (the fact that Facebook recognizes the language should be significant enough), Subreddit, and the official page stats. Additionally, a complete grammar is available to the public domain on Scribd. I believe this is enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Razlem (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Self Referenced?
How can you refer to its Facebook page as a reliable source when (a) the Facebook page just copies the Wikipedia article's text in the first place and (b) it only has 10 likes? All that does is self-refer one back off the other: that's hardly grounds for gaining traction as a reliable source :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferkuirestro (talk • contribs) 21:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm using Facebook as a reference for speaker statistics, not information about the language. If you had read to the table of contents you would have seen that. But the number of likes or speakers on the FB page is really irrelevant; the fact that Facebook recognizes Angos as a language (and not, for example, an 'interest' page) is what's significant and notable. Razlem (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how it works, but Facebook recognises every language with a Wikipedia article as a language - apparently because there is a Wikipedia article. So from that point of view, Ferkuirestro is right in calling this a self-reference. The same goes also for books that are filled with Wikipedia stuff. You should understand, however, that Facebook is an abominable source for speaker statistics. Just for your amusement and amazement, here's a list of speaker statistics on Facebook I've compiled a while back:

At last, if Facebook is right, then there are 4,300 people who speak Old Prussian, 3,700 people who speak Etruscan, 3,100 who speak Gaulish, 2,900 who speak Hattic, 2,200 who speak Tocharian, 2,100 who speak Hittite, 770 who speak Mozarabic, 640 who speak Pictish, 610 who speak Crimean Gothic, 250 who speak Eteocretan, and 220 who speak Polabian. Needless to add that about several of these languages nothing or hardly anything is known at all. Like I said, I don't know how Facebook works, but I guess anybody can call himself a speaker of any language if he likes. In any case, it is quite obvious that as a source of information it has no value at all - even as a primary source. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  02:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see your point. I'll fix that in the article then.
 * On a slightly different note, I was looking at other conlang articles to see what kind of sources they were referencing. Several seem to be missing verifiable sources (notably, Ro, Sona, and Spokil). Unless there's something I missed? Razlem (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, a book is a verifiable source. Verifiability doesn't necessarily mean it is on the 'net. The three you mention have a reasonable web presence. As a matter of fact, there are much worse cases: "historical" languages that basically are known only because they were mentioned in Mario Pei's book, for example. &mdash;IJzeren Jan  Uszkiełtu?  04:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I mixed up the terms. I meant to say that their sources are those written by people who are affiliated with the language, and not 3rd party sources like news articles or scientific papers, which I think is the main problem right now with this article. For each of those languages, their books were written by their creators, and the external links, like Angos, are just links to dictionaries, grammars, or discussion boards. Also, as seen above, you can't really trust online presences, so one can't be sure how active any of these language communities are online. Plus, you have to consider that the communities may be bigger simply because they have been around longer.Razlem (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Updated Notability
I'm happy to post that Angos has been mentioned in a linguistic paper. Now the language can officially exist according to Wikipedia, because apparently real speakers count for nothing. The paper: Libert, Alan R. "The Representation of Uralic Languages in Artificial International Auxiliary Languages." Journal of Universal Language 14.1 (2013): 117-42. Print.
 * Razlem (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Export
Hello. I exported this to Angos, where original research is allowed. It seems like a novel article, but it doesn't have enough coverage to remain here. The journal where it was mentioned in might also not be an accepted source for Wikipedia. Hope this helps. - Sidelight 12 Talk 13:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)