User talk:S.K.

First User Block in 18 years in any Wiki by JBW
 You have been blocked temporarily from editing for long-term edit-warring and refusal to accept consensus regarding Aramaic. Anyone who edits Wikipedia to any significant extent is likely to find at times that a consensus of other editors holds a view which one personally regards as completely wrong. However, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and when consensus is against us, we have to accept that, however much we dislike doing so. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. JBW (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Dan Palraz: Response to your comment at Talk:Aramaic
@Dan Palraz: With the ridiculous block of JBW I can't at the moment and given this overall experience I don't want to contribute to the English Wikipedia anymore.

Just one last response regarding your comment: There are a two reliable sources accepted by at least three of the six participants of the move discussion from what seems to be one of the most respected Aramaists in the world (look at the book description at the publisher etc. and search for him in Wikipedia and be surprised that articles of him are cited in many of the articles in this language family) and two other evenly well respected researchers on language classification cited by a renowned research institute as the basis for their classification of Aramaic as language family.

So assuming for the moment there is a "language family" "Aramaic" what should that be besides that what is currently described in the article Aramaic? The current article describes all historic and current varieties. And yes, which of those varieties are considered languages and which are considered dialects based on which definition of language is open for discussion. That's why I put in the Cleanup template. But this needs to be resolved IN THIS article, as I see no place for two articles. They would describe the same thing, only under different titles.

BTW: One last word regarding the wording "language family": The German Wikipedia distinguishes between "language family" and "de:Genetische Einheit". The English Wikipedia uses the same word for both concepts. That's why I used "sub-group of the Semitic languages" to describe the concept, where in German I would have used "Genetische Einheit". S.K. (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I’m glad @Austronesier sees it (with different words and a nice name) the same. S.K. (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You might have you missed the most important part of my comment: the word "moot". Linguistic diversity is never adequately captured by taxomomic structures. Atomizing dialect chains into ISO-coded languages is a choice made by certain organizations, but not the ultimate guide for Wikipedia. We have had similar discussions for Ainu, Nivkh, Berber, Chinese etc. and in each case, there are other arguments at play than just linguistic distance measured by Swadesh counts and mutual intelligibility.
 * Btw, this block leaves me totally bewildered. While I agree that there should also be a point to slowly leave the dead horse, I don't see any egregious violation in your few comments in Talk:Aramaic and the (utterly annoying) hatnote. By this austere standard, I could list dozens of blockables in a minute (you know, the very ones that always prove to be miraculously unblockable when brought to ANI). –Austronesier (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I did see the word “moot” in your comment. And I understand your point. Those classifications into languages and ISO codes have multiple factors beyond pure linguistic ones. Just in the last days I was involved in a discussions around Serbo-Croatian vs. the individual “languages” in the German Wikipedia. There are many sociolinguistic/political/… etc. aspects involved besides “core” linguistic points like e.g. mutual intelligibility. But my main point was, the set of varieties described in the article Aramaic is labeled in the most modern RS provided as “language family” or “a historical-linguistic abstraction”. So the current scholary opinion based on those sources seems to be that the set of varieties over all times is more than a single individual language, it’s better described as “language family” (or depending on the definition of language family as “Genetische Einheit”). It might well be that saying those 7 varieties are "languages", those 3 are "dialects” and the remaining 5 are "registers” is moot as you say. But for this one would have to read the complete articles/books cited to understand the arguments how they arrive at the conclusion that overall Aramaic is more than a single language. And describe this in the article (this is what the hatnote was about).
 * Regarding the block: it might have been that my main “crime” was listing Syriac563s behavior as vandalism. But instead of throwing it back as “boomerang” one could have looked at the contributions of Syriac563 not only related to me and the article Aramaic. And one could have taken into account some IPs mysteriously having related opinions and wording in similar articles. But no, better block an 18 year contributor with (including Wikidata) over 230.000 edits that cites sources and expects the same from those having different viewpoints without previous warning for one month. Better protect an innocent accounts right to label me and others as Assyrian nationalist. S.K. (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)