Talk:Bashkir language
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 15 July 2015
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. I'm not convinced that it's the Bashkir language is the primary meaning of "Bashkir" (and not, say, a Bashkir person). Could you elaborate on your reasoning and provide additional information to support it, please?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 15, 2015; 16:00 (UTC)
- Strong oppose no reasoning provided on why this is primary instead of the ethnic group the Bashkirs -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose ambiguous title. Khestwol (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy close. Yet another attempt by Shhhhwwww to subvert NCLANG rather than having an honest discussion there. — kwami (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Two sets of each demonstrative pronoun
editIs there a semantic, etymological, pragmatic (etc.) difference between the был/ошо and шул/теге pairs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.118.173.88 (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand Bashkir
edit
Template:Expand Bashkir has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Nothing, I just misclicked, sorry. Letimo1 (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Declension table
edit@Letimo1: Hello! What is wrong with the table that you are removing? Please explain. —Alalch E. 18:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
// vs [] for allophones
editMy edit changing // for [] to indicate allophones was reverted, without any other explanation than "no these are better." Wikipedia and, you know, just linguistics textbooks in general use // for phonemic transcription and [] for narrow transcription (which includes allophones). So allophones are never indicated by //.
@Fdom5997, @Yue, @Bababashqort, @ThatDohDude, @Başqurd Am I wrong with this? Shouldn't we keep this consistent throughout the article, at least, anyway? IlmarisenVasara 01:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Pretty sure the editor who reverted you did so because you did not use the {{IPAblink}} template. I restored your edits with the template; if that was not the reason you were reverted, I am sure other editors will clarify their specific reasons here. Yue🌙 01:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- So to be clear, {{IPAslink}} is for //, and {{IPAblink}} is for []? IlmarisenVasara 01:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- You didn’t put the allophones with . They were transcribed fine but were not properly written the way they should be on Wikipedia. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I appreciate the clarification. I would have liked this explanation to be on the descriprion of the undoing, but I'm glad we're addressing any confusion. IlmarisenVasara 01:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Yue is absolutely right. They needed to be transcribed (like I said) with the template. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I got it, thank you again. Just so you know, whatever you wrote after "with" didn't render properly so I don't see it, but I can gather from context that it's the proper template to use, which I can see anyway from Yue's edit. Sorry for the confusion, I was just looking for some clarification. IlmarisenVasara 01:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
"Shha with diaeresis" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
The redirect Shha with diaeresis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 23 § Shha with diaeresis until a consensus is reached. Janhrach (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Discussion on the number of dialects
editI have restored the academically accepted three-dialect system (Southern, Eastern, and Northwestern) for the Bashkir language and the accompanying general locator map. This information is supported by reliable linguistic sources, most notably **Glottolog** ([1]).
I would like to remind everyone that this exact content issue was the subject of several recent, extensive discussions: 1. The map in question, "File:Idioma baskir.png", was recently nominated for deletion on Commons and the community consensus was to **keep** it ([2]). It is considered a valid locator map. 2. The removal of the third (Northwestern) dialect was a central point in the recent WP:ANI case against User:Vofa, which resulted in a **community-wide topic ban** for that user from this very subject area ([3]).
The community has made its consensus clear on this matter. Removing this information goes against established consensus and reliable linguistic sources.
@Il Nur:, could you please explain on what grounds you are removing this information, given the recent community decisions? I urge you to discuss this here before making any further reverts to avoid edit warring. MR973 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- The participant is trying to mislead you, and no one has removed the information that the Bashkir language has three dialects. However, there is an opinion that the language only has two dialects, and the third is a dialect of Tatar, which is confirmed by the population censuses in Russia, where all speakers of the third dialect identify their language as Tatar in the censuses. There are also studies on this topic. I have created a map based on these studies and the official census data. However, the participant does not like this information, and he promotes other, unconfirmed data and a map, as indicated in the description of the map itself. Previously, he tried to delete my map on Wikimedia Commons, but he was unsuccessful. It is also unclear why he is deleting information from a source that indicates the number of native speakers of the Bashkir language. He has already been permanently blocked in the Russian Wikipedia for his destructive activities in the Bashkir theme, but he continues his destructive activities in other sections. Il Nur (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Il Nur Your arguments are based on misrepresentation of facts and Wikipedia policies.
- 1. **You claim "no one has removed the information that the Bashkir language has three dialects," but this is false.** You (or like-minded editors) have repeatedly removed the Northwestern dialect from the infobox template (`|dia3=Northwestern`), which is a key part of the article's summary. Removing it from the infobox is functionally the same as removing the information from the article's lead.
- 2. **Mainstream scientific consensus vs. your sources:** The three-dialect system is the mainstream view in Bashkir linguistics, supported by top-tier sources like **Glottolog**. Equating self-identification in a census with linguistic classification is a flawed argument. The sources you seem to rely on for speaker numbers (like a general information page from Indiana University with no date for its data) are not considered as reliable as recent census data or specialized linguistic resources.
- 3. **Community decisions:** You are ignoring the fact that another user (Vofa) was recently **topic-banned** for pushing this exact same POV. This shows a clear community consensus against your position.
- 4. **Personal attacks:** Please stop bringing up my block history. It is irrelevant and a violation of WP:NPA. We must discuss the content, not the editors.
- Please provide reliable, mainstream linguistic sources that specialize in the Bashkir language to support your claims on the talk page, or cease this disruptive editing. MR973 (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Provide a link where I removed that there are three dialects of Bashkir, or stop misleading people. You're doing exactly what you were blocked for in another section before being blocked - engaging in destructive behavior, pushing only the opinion you believe to be true, and engaging in insults. No one is arguing that there are three dialects of Bashkir, but there are numerous scientific works that claim there are only two, and there is no truth in this matter. Population censuses also show that the speakers of the so-called
- the third dialect indicates that their language is Tatar. and you have no right to delete it. The image proves this. You tried to delete my image from Wikimedia Commons, but you were not allowed to do so, and now you have come here to slander me in order to promote your own opinion by deleting others. Please leave me alone and do not bother me again. Il Nur (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Il Nur Your response contains several factual inaccuracies, misrepresentations of Wikipedia policy, and personal attacks. Let's address them one by one.
- 1. **"Provide a link where I removed that there are three dialects"**: This is a misleading question. You know that removing `|dia3=Northwestern` from the article's infobox, as has been done repeatedly by you or like-minded editors, effectively removes this key information from the article's summary. The article's history clearly shows this pattern of removing the third dialect.
- 2. **"No one is arguing that there are three dialects... but there are numerous scientific works that claim there are only two"**: This is a contradiction. The mainstream academic consensus in **Bashkir linguistics** is a three-dialect system. By trying to present a minority viewpoint as an equal "truth", you are violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. The article on the **Bashkir language** must primarily reflect the mainstream view from its primary field of study.
- 3. **"Population censuses also show..."**: This is a flawed argument that you keep repeating. A population census measures **ethnic self-identification**, which is a socio-political choice. **Linguistic classification** is based on scientific analysis of a language's structure (phonetics, grammar, lexicon). Conflating the two is a well-known method of pushing a POV and is not how linguistic topics are handled on Wikipedia.
- 4. **"You tried to delete my image from Wikimedia Commons, but you were not allowed to do so"**: This is a gross misrepresentation. The deletion request for your map was closed as "Speedy keep per COM:INUSE", which is a **technical, procedural** reason because the file was in use. It was **NOT** a judgment on your map's factual accuracy. In fact, the discussion highlighted the map's significant flaws.
- 5. **"You have come here to slander me" and "Please leave me alone"**: Bringing up my block history and accusing me of "slander" are clear violations of WP:NPA (No Personal Attacks). Please stop. As for your request to be "left alone", this is a public talk page for a collaborative project. When you make controversial edits, you are **required** to discuss them with other editors. Refusing to discuss and telling others to leave you alone is considered disruptive behavior, per WP:IDHT.
- The facts are clear. The three-dialect system is the academic standard. Another user was recently topic-banned for pushing the exact same misleading POV you are pushing now. Your arguments are based on flawed logic and misinterpretation of policies. MR973 (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)