Talk:Slovene dialects

Slovenian/Slovene

How many times I do still have to say that Wikipedia does not prefer one form of English over the other? I moved the page back terefore (Slovenian-->Slovene). If consensus will be reached, I'll respect it, but has not been yet. --Eleassar777 my talk 07:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both Slovenian and Slovene are used, but official publications use Slovenian. The term Slovenian is more widely used. See Google - Slovenian gives 35mio results while Slovene gives 4mio results.

The list of dialects in this article is very wrong. Prekmurski, for instance, is not spoken in Prlekija. Prlekija is a region and uses prleski dialect. Prekmurje is another region and uses prekmurski dialect. This is a very poor page. Needs cleanup.

H Slavic?

Are any of the Slovenian dialects h slavic? -iopq 16:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the German edition of this article, which contains at the end a separate section on this specific phenomenon, the dialects of "Küstenland (Primorsko), in Oberkrain und Kärnten," that is the dialects spoken in the Slovenian regions of Primorsko, Gorenjsko, and Koroško. Woollymammoth (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No key for the map

A key for the map is required (color->dialect). 79.11.24.218 (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

This article was tagged per process for comparison tot he external site [1]. I have checked archives of that site, and it only archives back to 2008, while the text has been present in this article for several years. It does not seem to have been copied from that source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this article should use the map based directly on the Fran Ramovš source and not that webpage which is not an academic source directly. The map from the website is based on the one from Fran Ramovš, but it isn't that map exactly. Azalea pomp (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

standard

We should clarify how the standard language derives from which dialects.

The Prekmurian/Prekmurščina, Rezijanščina construction is the correct

The prekmurščina and rezijanščina form apply the utmost publication. I know this publications from the Museum of Murska Sobota. Marko Jesenšek, the rector of the Maribor University also adopt this form STYLISTICS IN ADVERTISING TEXTS IN PREKMURJE. I recite the complete publications about the prekmurščina, if necessary. The Zora's book alike apply the names. Doncsecz^talk 15:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Prekmursko/rezijansko narečje

The source currently cited in this article (Smole, Vera. 1998. "Slovenska narečja". Enciklopedija Slovenije, vol 12. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, pp. 1–5) has "prekmursko narečje" and "rejijansko narečje". This can be easily verified. If you think the source is being misquoted, please explain why. In line with good WP dispute resolution, I suggest that a 3rd editor make any change (or not) on this detail, rather than myself or user Doncsecz.Doremo (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In this list [Beiträge in Zeitschriften und Sammelbänden, sonstige Publikationen 1] but then it is publication about the terms rezijanščina. What is it? Assigment of 150 publication and books? Jože Toporišič in his grammar wrot about prekmurščina and rezijanščina. I right denote. Doncsecz^talk 16:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have ca. 10-15 book (and learned books from the 2000s years), where wrote about the prekmurščina. Doncsecz^talk 16:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's possible to add -ščina to any dialect name (gorenjščina, selščina, etc.) I suggest that you undo your unilateral change and show good faith by allowing a third editor to make any such change.Doremo (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thence not possible to add the -ščina other dialect, as the publications and also Toporišič except, that the regional literature in the Prekmurje (and the isolation in Resia) was subsist up the Second World War. Much utmost feature to exist still in the Prekmurian (Zinka Zorko, 2009; Mihaela Koletnik, 2008). Few book and person except this features, therefore apply the prekmurščina, rezijanščina. Doncsecz^talk 17:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Your statement (at least what I understand of it) is incorrect: [[2]], [[3]]. I suggest that you undo your unilateral change and show good faith by allowing a third editor to make any such change.Doremo (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Is far scarce events. Utmost book wrote prekmurščina term. In ours tidings or in the Vestnik and Radio Val Murska Sobota mostly read the prekmurščina. Doncsecz^talk 17:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Doremo's campaign

Doremo exert stulifity the prekmurščina name. The -ščina have other and other denotation. The prekmurščina is out and away rich dialect between the Slovene dialects through the literature. Vilko Novak, Franc Šebjanič, Ivan Zelko, Franci Just, Ivan Škafar in few book and article wrote aboute the extensive prekmurian literature, but Doremo evidently it is beyond him. Regrettably few Slovene linguist aspire underplay the prekmurian literature, as in the 1990s again come to light the Wendish question. Doncsecz^talk 13:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Doncsecz, please review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please direct constructive comments at content (e.g., grammaticality of -ščina, reliability of Rigler, Logar, Zorko, etc.) rather than people (e.g., "campaign," "beyond him"). Doremo (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Doremo, i was 100x tell: the Prekmurščina and Rezijanščina is specific dialects through his history and literature, detto this is regional languages, other speech is some dialects. You unadvisedly recline upon this sources, but Ramovš and Logar also discern the Prekmurian and Resian, for ex. the dolenjsko narečje thence dolenjščina, as a great dialect of Slovene language, otherwise simply dialect. I'am not goofy, i study Slavic studies-Slovene language and dialects. I at present construct my thesis for diploma about the Prekmurščina, Prekmurian identity, Nouvi Zákon, Szvéti evangyeliomi and other works of István and Miklós Küzmics. Seas of books, reviews, articles stand up for the Prekmurščina, but after the World War the dictatorship was manipulate the science. Constantly was practise muddy (and also today) the relevance of the Prekmurian literature. And you take few obsolete theory, that the prekmurian is dinkey speech. Doncsecz^talk 13:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The Prekmurian ist the only dialect, in which attempts are literary, in other dialects this is very small. Doncsecz^talk 07:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Here in the Slovene wikipedia's article: some author from Istra, Gorenjska and Notranjska. The Prekmurje and Raba March is slightly deficient.
The Prekmurian authors:

• Feri Lainšček: Srebrni brejg, Nigdar ne boš znala, Mislice, Pojep na dejdekovom biciklini, Halgato, and few article in the newspaper Porabje
• Milan Zrinski is permanent writer in the Slovenski koledar in Hungary
• Milan Vincetič: Šift v idini, Vujšlo mordje, Srebrni brejg and also permanent writer in the Slovenski koledar
• Károly Holecz the editor of the Porabje, his book the Andovske parpovejsti
• Károly Krajczár teacher and gleaner of the Slovene fables in the Raba March
• Jože Ftičar: Za nápršnjek vedríne prekmurian roman and permanent editor of the catholic Calendar Stopinje
• Ferenc Mukics wrote two romans: Vtrgnjene korenjé and Garaboncijaš
• Irén Barbér was also permanent editor of the Porabje and Slovenski koledar, his works in Prekmurian Trnova paut, Živlenje je kratko, Pripovesti pa zgodbe
• Miki Roš the author of the Prekmurian film Oča, his works Srebrni brejg, Kak san vido svejt spod stola, Škrat Babilon and wrote articles in the Porabje and Slovenski koledar
• Branko Pintarič: Kak so šli v lejs trejbit and few prekmurian piece
• From Janko Durič also pieces
• The Veseli pajdaši (Happy Friends) in Hungary, prekmurian company
• Prekmurian company in Dobrovnik
• Jože Brumen
• Marta Sever
• Marjanna Szukics editor of the Porabje
• Lojze Kozar author of the prekmurian catholic hymns
• Aleksander Balažič wrote prekmurian hymns and sermons
• Vera Gašpar in the Slovenski koledar
• Dušan Mukič son of Ferenc Mukics
• Mária Kozár Mukics
• Franc Kuzmič in the Museum of Murska Sobota, pastor of the Pentecostal Church Prekmurje
• Ferenc Kranjec
• Ernest Ružič
• Erika Köles Kiss
• Jože Karba
• Jože Vugrinec
• Vilko Šimon

My sources:

• Franci Just: Med verzuško in pesmijo (2000)
• Franci Just: Besede iz Porabja, besede za Porabje (2003)
• Slovenski koledar from 2003, 2011, 2005, 2010, 2006
• Stopenje from 2000, 2003, 2005, 2010 etc.
• And in the article
• Spoznavanje Slovenstva, 1999.

The Porabje, it appears in the newspaper every week. [Izdelano v literarnem laboratoriju Ferija Lainščka po postopku duhovno-pesniške arheologije Here] Lainšček speak about the revitalization of Prekmurian Literature; Prekmurska narečna slovstvena ustvarjalnost : zbornik mednarodnega znanstvenega srečanja, Murska Sobota, 14. in 15. julij 2003 (Petanjci 2005) Doncsecz^talk 08:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Prekmurian liturgical language

In July 24 the Catholic Church published the new hymnal in prekmurian language, within a few years the Evangelic Church also published his hymnal. Still planned to the publishing of new books in the Prekmurje, other dialects is not dominate in the liturgy and literature. Moreover most people in the Prekmurje think, the Prekmurian is a language, his language. The situation is similar in Croatia, where the Kajkavian and Chakavian language have older, abundant literature. The Prekmurian, Kajkavian, Chakavian, Burgenland Croatian languages is homogeneous variants, in the slovene regions almost only the older generation speak the dialect, in the Prekmurje the younger generations active speakers of the Prekmurian. Doncsecz^talk 20:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

One-sided opinions

Doremo's arguments is the official government position about the Slovene dialects. In recent years been mentioned several times, that the linguistics is not decided what the dialect? Incidentally, if there is a living literature of dialects and have old literary roots, this is language. On the other dialect literature is only NOW! But the official Slovene dialect-research try to prove it, also the Old Prekmurian literature also a primitive village-literature of the Slovene literature, as in the 19th century the prekmurian language received many Central Slovene words (some terms!). They try to let alone challenge the Prekmurian identity, however the Prekmurje not as a part of Slovenia but something peculiar within its borders – so says the Slovene civilians, some the politicians think otherwise. But this official opinions is official lies, while destroying the Prekmurje, because ideological propaganda will be Slovenia, economic help no.
I quote User:Benf86's opinion:
I have yet to meet a qualified Slovenian => English translator or at least one such translator in training and/or a native English speaker who would actually prefer 'Prekmurian' to 'Prekmurje'. While 'Prekmurian' is used by locals and Slovenes in general, it is used more or less jokingly or in a non-serious context, similarly to 'Over-Mura (moving cake)' and similar examples. I recognize the possibility that some Slovene authors use the 'Prekmurian' adjective but that doesn't make it the norm by itself. The English pages are primarily for English speakers and they will, as a rule, use 'Prekmurje' so I would say that the version preferred by native speakers should take precedence. On the topic of dialect:language, professional opinions in Slovenia differ. The more Slovenia-centric linguists argue that Prekmurščina is nothing more than a dialect of Slovene. Ideologically unbiased linguists, however, at least privately admit that it's a separate language. The Statistical Bureau of Slovenia Eleassar quoted is certainly the official point of view but one could argue that it is severely biased and does not necessarily reflect real circumstances, as it is the case with certain minorities not being officially recognized in Slovenia etc. Personally I am in favor of the 'separate language' theory, since the differences between Prekmurščina and Slovene are (common opinion, though scientifically unproven) larger than between Slovene and certain other south Slavic languages e.g. Croatian. Historically it is a question of choosing a reference point in time, which can be used to prove either that it's a language or a dialect. It is clear, however, that modern Prekmurščina lacks any kind of official standardization, then again, so do many other >languages<. The argument I would use for using 'language' instead of 'dialect' is that if different versions of English, German, Spanish, Portuguese etc. can all be referred to as different languages or at least language variants, as opposed to dialects of English, then Prekmurščina (and many other dialects) deserve the same courtesy. However, as the joke goes - A language is a dialect supported by an army. And Prekmurje doesn't have one.'
The SIL international organization has been asked to make a note of the Prekmurian Slovene, hopefully it does. Doncsecz^talk 07:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Scholarly sources

Doncsecz, before deleting material (native names of dialects and published sources) and giving undue weight to the Prekmurje dialect (in what is simply a list), please explain why you feel that this Wikipedia article should reflect your personal opinion instead of published scholarly material by Tine Logar and other established linguists. Doremo (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Not personal opinion! Tine Logar's sources is from 1996 is obsolet, old and biased. The Slovene linguistics since the World War II try to demote the Prekmurian language, that a dialect. Zinka Zorko linguistic, Ernest Ružič journalist and Feri Lainšček writer stated, that the Prekmurian is a distinct literary language. Doremo do not look for sources from the Communistic Yugoslavia and from the 1990s, this is the 21th century! Lots of Prekmurje believes, that the Prekmurian is distinct language! Doncsecz^talk 07:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary for requested Third Opinion: Doremo supports the inclusion of native dialect names attested in scholarly sources (including Tine Logar, Tom S. Priestly, Zinka Zorko, Jakob Rigler, and others) in the list format of this article, without undue weight on a particular dialect. Doncsecz has selectively deleted these names and sources, claiming that they are tainted by communist ideology (Doremo disagrees) and seeks to highlight the special nature of the Prekmurje dialect in this article. Doremo (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I. I have no idea, Doremo is coming from, but Doremo does not know the South Slavic linguistics.

II. The Yugoslav linguistics there was no factual of the 2000s (see also: the Serbocroatian question)

III. The opinion of the Slovene linguistics (Logar, Riegler) about the dialect-language question is subject opinion in Europe, the policy directs that opinion.

IV. Zinka Zorko and more or less also Jože Toporišič recognizes that self-sufficiency of the Prekmurian.

V. For ex.: the Cantonese in foreign countries is separate language, as independent from the Mandarin language, not only in China, as communistic the state controls the linguistics. Doncsecz^talk 10:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

VI. The political groups of Prekmurje wanted language-autonomy for Prekmurje, about this wrote the official linguistics and historians: fascist, anti-Yugoslav, Hungarian propaganda. Doncsecz^talk 10:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Doncsecz, I cannot understand your comments above. Please stop deleting scholarly sources and dialect names without consensus from other editors. Your last edit deleted material from Francka Benedik, Tine Logar, Tom S. Priestly, Jakob Rigler, and Zinka Zorko. You cannot simply dismiss all these scholars as communists (they are not) and delete them to advance your personal opinions. If you want to add information about the Prekmurje dialect, please do so at that page, not here. Doing so here gives undue weight to a single dialect. Doremo (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not personal opinion!

1. The Prekmurian is still standardized language

2. The Prekmurians and Slovene civilians believe it is a language, not a simple dialect

3. Logar's and other sources not tackling, as politically directed.

4. I'am student of University in Szombathely and i know very well other opinions and the situations in Prekmurje.

5. Doremo, How do you know that all is not it in Prekmurje?

6. There is no agreement: other editors did not intervene in the debate.

Doncsecz^talk 06:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Doncsecz, I still don't understand most of your comments. However, the point is whether or not to include standard sources and attested dialect names in this article. Your opinion on whether or not the Prekmurje dialect is an independent language is irrelevant to this issue. Once again, please justify your deletion of material from Francka Benedik, Tine Logar, Tom S. Priestly, Jakob Rigler, and Zinka Zorko. Doremo (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The sources of Riegler and Logar is unilateral. Bring another source, that does not disparages the Prekmurian literature. Doncsecz^talk 18:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

How can you possibly claim that Benedik, Logar, Priestly, Rigler, and Zorko are "not scholarly sources"[4]? You yourself seemed to cite Zorko earlier. And what on earth does literature from Prekmurje have to do with citing attested names for Slovenian dialects? Who's disparaging literature? What is "unilateral" supposed to mean? Please refrain from making unsubstantiated deletions and let other editors interested in the topic come to a consensus on this matter. Doremo (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Talking about absurds because they do not know the Prekmurje. Zorka also agrees that the Prekmurian is a distinct language, previously this could not have written because of the policy. In the 1990s was many problems: strengthening of the Hungarian nationalism and revisionsm, joining the European Union, the Yugoslav war. However today the Prekmurje more and more colony of Slovenia, do not get any support from Ljubljana.
The Slovene sources from Prekmurje (Novak, Kuzmič, Mukics, Balažič, Škafar) confirm that it is a language, as there is no international agreement: what is the dialect and language? The Slovene opinions about the dialect is unilateral, in this case the Slovene language also dialect of the Croatian or Serbian language. Opinion of foreign linguists, if you have a high literary qualities of the dialect, this is language (Anna Jászó Adamik, Paul-Louis Thomas).
In the 1920s-1930s also the Slovene linguists accepted, the Prekmurian also a language, variant of the Slovene. Doncsecz^talk 06:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Doncsecz, stop dismissing scholarship that doesn't match your opinion as "stupid"[5]. It's Rigler, not "Riegler," and it's Zorko, not "Zorka". Familiarize yourself with these and other mainstream works before dismissing them and their journals/publishers (Slavistična revija, Jezik in slovstvo, Slovenska matica, etc.) as ignorant. Doremo (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Leave your spelling! And meet other sources and opinions also from the Slavistična Revija (for. ex. Jožef Smej, Vilko Novak and Franc Kuzmič). I'm not stupid, i better know this than you! Doncsecz^talk 08:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Note for requested 3rd opinion (for non-Slovenian speakers): Doncsecz is under the mistaken impression that the Slovenian suffix -ščina is used exclusively to denote standardized languages. This is not correct—not in standard Slovenian, in colloquial Slovenian, or in linguistics (as already shown by the examples from the literature). It simply means 'way of speaking used by __', whether this refers to a full-fledged language, a regional dialect, a city dialect, professional jargon, etc. Some additional examples (among very many) from the Standard Slovenian Dictionary (SSKJ):

čákavščina -e ž (ā) lingv. najzahodnejša hrvatska narečna skupina [Čakavian, westernmost Croatian dialect group]

čásnikarščina -e ž (ȃ) nav. slabš. jezik, stil, značilen za časopise [journalese, linguistic style typical of newspapers]

dolénjščina -e ž (ẹ́) dolenjsko narečje [Lower Carniolan dialect]

dúnajščina -e ž (ú) za Dunaj značilna govorica [Viennese dialect]

ékavščina -e ž (ẹ̄) lingv. skupina vzhodnih štokavskih govorov [Ekavian, group of eastern Štokavian dialects]

gorénjščina -e ž (ẹ́) gorenjsko narečje [Upper Carniolan dialect]

etc. Doremo (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, it is a productive suffix that can be applied to almost anything; e.g., rupelščina 'manner of speech characteristic of Dimitrij Rupel'[6]. This is why linguists freely use it to designate dialects. Doremo (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The new opinions reject, that the -ščina is the title of the dialect. And the čakavščina (Chakavian), kajkavščina (Kajkavian) similarly as the Prekmurian also languages, variants of the Croatian! The Kajkavian and Chakavian also have literary language and independent literature! Doncsecz^talk 08:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Doncsecz, you are quite mistaken. Additional examples from the 2001 Slovenian normative guide (Pravopis):

čákavščina -e ž, pojm. (á; ȃ) jezikosl. |hrvaško narečje| [Čakavian, Croatian dialect]

čásnikarščina -e ž, pojm. (ȃ) poud. |jezik, stil, značilen za časopise| [journalese]

čiribírščina -e ž, pojm. (ı̑) poud. |jezikovna mešanica| [mishmash of languages]

dalmatínščina -e ž, pojm. (ı̑) |dalmatinski govor| [Dalmatian dialect]

dolénjščina -e ž, pojm. (ẹ́) |narečje| [Lower Carniolan dialect]

dúnajščina -e ž, pojm. (ú) |dunajska mestna govorica| [Viennese dialect]

etc.

This suffix is not reserved for standard languages. Given your obvious unfamiliarity with this topic (Slovenian dialects), I’d like to politely suggest that you focus your efforts on some other area. Doremo (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Despite, that this article is about the Slovene dialects, more facts you can write, indeed the Tajik language also the separate, distinct dialect of the Persian language. There is the Prekmurian and Resian is the separate dialects. Doncsecz^talk 09:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

To sum up your position, Doncsecz, you're claiming that mainstream Slovenian linguists (Benedik, Logar, Priestly, Toporišič, Rigler, and Zorko), publications (Slavistična revija, Jezik in slovstvo, SP 2001, SSKJ), and publishers (SAZU, Slovenska matica) are engaged in some kind of neo-communist conspiracy to discredit the Prekmurje dialect through malicious use of the suffix -ščina? And therefore they should be dismissed as "non-scholarly" and deleted? Doremo (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What are you trying to prove? The other dialects also language? Toporišič in 2008 and 2011 already talked differently about the dialect in the book Slovenska Slovnica. Your idea is good about the communistic conspiracy. The communistic dictaroship for ex. was denied, that in the Prekmurje was movement the autonomy, the attempts of József Klekl, József Szakovics and Iván Bassa was fascist-christian propaganda (see the propagandic roman of Miško Kranjec Rdeči gardist/Red guard). Toporišič's opinion has changed in 2008. Doncsecz^talk 15:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Your scholary sources is great humbugs, for the Slovene civilians the Prekmurje is not part of the Slovene Nation. The Prekmurian searchers based on the Prekmurian identity in our books. Doncsecz^talk 16:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Benedik, Logar, Priestly, Toporišič, Rigler, Zorko, Slavistična revija, Jezik in slovstvo, SP 2001, SSKJ, SAZU, and Slovenska matica are "humbugs"?? Doremo (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You can not understand? You was locking for sources, that the Prekmurian is minor dialect. Meanwhile i was looking for other sources (from Prekmurje): that the Prekmurian is not simply dialect. You left out these resources! As according this and this the Prekmurian simply dialect, and simply dialect. This not neutrality! For this reason humbugs the sources Doremo! Doncsecz^talk 17:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to remove the 3O request as I have no expertise in this area at all, but I'd like to offer a thought on the discussion so far. Doncsecz, you appear to argue that Prekmurian is a distinct language, while Doremo argues that it is a dialect. I have no commentary on which is the correct answer as I can't review your sources, but it might be worth bearing in mind that this article is titled Slovene dialects. I see two options:

• Prekmurian is a dialect. It should be retained on the page and given equal space and description to the other dialects in the list, so as not to fall foul of WP:UNDUE.
• Prekmurian is a distinct language. It should be removed from the page as not related to the article, which is specifically about dialects and not languages.

I have no commentary on sources. I'm not sure that Wikipedia's reliable source noticeboard will necessarily have the expertise to be able to assess foreign language sources but since you both contest the reliability of the sources, I'm at a loss to try to assess which of you is correct. I very much think you'll need to find an editor who understands Slovenian to help resolve this for you. I see you've both been involved at WT:SLO before and I suggest you seek their help again for this issue. Failing that, you might even be able to request help at either the Slovenčina or Slovenščina language Wikipedias (apologies, I don't know which language is appropriate here).

In any case, I won't remove the 3O request in case someone with the ability to help you stumbles across it. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

TechnoSymbiosis, thank you for the commentary. Although the general opinion is that the Prekmurje dialect is merely one of many Slovenian dialects (albeit a prominent one with a rich history), I'm not taking an overt position for/against its language/dialect status here, and that's really not the issue in dispute. The article previously listed dialect names based on the standard (and widely reproduced) 1983 Ramovš/Logar/Rigler map, to which other attested names were added based on reliable sources (I can assure editors that they are very reliable sources). However, user Doncsecz is cherry-picking among attested names to fit his/her position on the language/dialect issue so that the inventory of names is skewed, no longer representing the original source (the map) or a neutral listing of names attested in other reliable sources. In addition, he/she has expanded the commentary on the Prekmurje dialect (which has its own article), giving undue emphasis to this particular item in the list. Doremo (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, TechnoSymbiosis's logic is impeccable: either remove the Prekmurje dialect from the list as a non-dialect (I don't think any mainstream linguist, Slovenian or otherwise, would support this), or retain it and treat it equally. (Of course, it and its special issues can be treated in any amount of detail at its own page.) Doremo (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. My intent was to eliminate one of the options in contention, that being that Prekmurian is a language, yet still appears in a list of dialects. That's not a defensible position. Simply, for Prekmurian to continue to appear in this article, it must be treated as a dialect. If such a treatment is impossible, it must be removed. In either case, the sources must confirm the correct status of the Prekmurje dialect/language, and where sources conflict, consensus must be sought. I can't help you develop consensus on the sources since I can't read them.

I will add, however, that there are a few pieces of evidence that suggest prior consensus was to treat Prekmurian as a dialect. Firstly, the main article is at Prekmurje dialect, and secondly I see that you've both been involved in a discussion at the end of 2010 at WT:SLO where other editors seemed to support the view that Prekmurje is a dialect. Certainly consensus can change, but you'll need more input to break this stalemate. In the event that you can't obtain a consensus for change, the status quo should be preserved, that being that Prekmurje is treated as a dialect.

I do understand that this particular dispute is one that some people can be sensitive about. It's important in assessing sources that we try to be as neutral as possible, and try to avoid allowing our personal feelings or political opinions to influence our decisions. Sometimes that means acknowledging that a view is mainstream, even if we think it's wrong. Remember that Wikipedia's standard of inclusion is verifiability, not truth. It may well be the case that an injustice exists and that a language has been demoted to a dialect as a means of oppression, but it's not Wikipedia's job to set the record straight.

I admit I had some difficulty following some of the conversation above. Are there sources that indicate Prekmurje to be a full fledged language, rather than a dialect? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional input, TechnoSymbiosis, which I find fair and balanced. Regarding the sources, I'm not aware that any of them take an explicit stance on the Prekmurje dialect/language issue (or are even interested in that issue). They've simply been cited as attestations of dozens of different dialect names across Slovenia.

To resolve this dispute, I'd like to invite Doncsecz to state whether he/she feels that the Prekmurje dialect should be retained or removed from this list. If retained, then 1) it should be treated neutrally like all other dialects, and 2) the deleted reliable sources on dialect names should be restored. If removed, then he/she must first seek consensus for such a change from other editors because it is not at all a mainstream position. Of course, comments from any other editor are also welcome.

Let me emphasize again that the crux of the disagreement (or a sticking point) on the sources seems to be Doncsecz's unique notion that the -ščina suffix is reserved for full-fledged languages. As already demonstrated, this is incorrect. Doremo (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not think so. Doremo and Techno are very wrong track, as here the article about varieties of Persian language, actually Persian dialects in Tajikistan and Afghanistan with separate literary language, so: varieties of Persian, autonomous dialects!! But this article (with Doremo's "corrections") try prove, that the prekmurščina (and also rezijanščina) is decayed, insignificant dialects, as his Central Slovene "sources" this claim! Obviously the facts: like the article of Persian language. Why are so treated in the dialect? So: TechnoSymbiosis also ignore the other articles in the Wikipedia. Doncsecz^talk 06:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Doncsecz, as the first step to resolving this dispute, please state whether you favor retention or removal of the Prekmurje dialect from the list of Slovenian dialects. Doremo (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

We are what we discussing here? Doremo's opinion the Prekmurian is dialect, as Slovenia has DOZENS OF DIALECTS!!! The world has a DOZEN SLAVIC LANGUAGES, BUT ALL RUSSIAN DIALECT. You can not comprehend, Doremo? Whatever may be 200,000 of Slovene dialects, but the Prekmurian is not simply dialect.

Remove the Prekmurian from the list – OK! Get into the See also section! But Doremo, stop this argument: Slovene language has dozens, or few hundred or few thousand dialect, therefore the prekmurščina also a insignificant dialect. Horrible and outrageous opinions! Doncsecz^talk 12:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Doncsecz appears to favor removing the Prekmurje dialect from the list of Slovenian dialects. I do not. I would like to hear other editors' opinions on this issue so that we can reach consensus. Doremo (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy

This article is (or was) a list of Slovenian dialects with attested native names and sources. User Doncsecz is damaging its neutrality by giving undue weight to certain dialects while suppressing verified information about others, and is damaging its factual accuracy by selectively deleting standard/reliable sources that do not conform to his/her unique theory (see above). Doremo (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The old sources at risk the neutrality, as only rely on slovene sources, yet foreign opinions other divided into the dialects and language. Many slovene sources biased againts the Prekmurian and Resian, insults and deny the Prekmurian and Resian literature. The views are so one-sided, otherwise the Slovene language also a dialect of the Croatian language. In the foreign opinions is detemining the identity and history of a language/dialect (Anna Jászó Adamik). Doncsecz^talk 16:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Doncsecz has a history of getting very emotional over this topic, discrediting sources he doesn't agree with, and insulting other editors. He is also known for quoting unpublished opinions to confirm his views. All in all, he is far from neutral. For these and other reasons, he was blocked from editing at Slovene Wikipedia several times. I see that he is continuing with his aggressive rhetoric here, muddling the issue with irrelevant examples (such as varieties of Persian language), picking at trivialities, accusing other people of what he himself is doing wrong, and being otherwise un-constructive. I suggest sticking with the above quoted scholarly sources despite his attempts of discrediting. I believe Prekmurian should be in this list, noting its "special" status and that some people consider it a stand-alone language. Nothing more and nothing less. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yerpo, ti si bil agresiven in delal osramotje na slovenski wikipediji. Ti si rekel: da ti ne zanima, kaj pravijo drugi, ker tam ti pišeš zgodovino. Prekmurski viri od prekmurskih raziskovalcev kot Franc Kuzmič in Vilko Novak Vam niso bili "relevantni," samo tisti, ki zanikajo veliko stvari. Yerpo, dobro bi bilo, če ti tukaj ne brblaš, ker ti si zakrknjen ponarejalec zgodovine. Ti in drugi so bili sposobni uporabiti take vire, ki jih so kreirali "uradni" raziskovalci in avtorji slovenske komunistične partije. Kakor Doremo, tak Vi tudi ste argumentirali na te "vire," ki poskusijo blatiti vzhodno slovenščino, oz. prekmurščina, da je madžaronski propagandni jezik, da prekmurska naselja nimajo imen v prekmurščini, čeprav če greš v Prekmurje, boš slišal ta značilna imena. Yerpo, pa drugi so večinoma iz Ljubljane, in kakor znamo Ljubljančari sovražijo tistega, ki pride iz vzhodne regije Slovenije. Tukaj so bili različni viri, kot iz Madžarske ali iz Francije, ki pokažejo, da slovenski jezikoslovci v tem vprašanju zelo enostranski. (Yerpo's behavior is very-very objectionable, it is rejected by the Prekmurian sources in the Slovene Wikipedia and he stated, he is the "creator" [forger] of the history, that is not interested in the prekmurian sources. Yerpo is also unilateral). Doncsecz^talk 19:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The above slur illustrates perfectly what I was talking about. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ti praviš, da je blazni govor, dasi ti rekel, da ti ne zanima, kaj rečejo drugi viri???!!! Pa tvoji prijatelji, ki so v povzetku urejanja pisali, da zaradi tega treba to brisati, ker kitajsko, pa arabsko tako in tako je? Napisal sem mojo diplomsko nalogo na univerzi iz tistih virov, ki ste jih brisali iz wikipedije, ker Vam niso bili "ustrezni," ker drugačno so rekli, kakor Vi? Ti si destruktiven, pa ti si vreden za blokiranje, Yerpo! Tako se obnašaš, kak kralj, ali diktator in "bruhaš" na drugo mnenje, dasi nič ne poznaš samo iz drugorazrednih virov./I was already wrote my diploma about the prekmurščina with this sources. Yerpo these sources boldly rejected, that "not credible sources." Doncsecz^talk 20:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to you, I acknowledge sources from both sides, as evident from my first message on this topic, while you want to completely reject and ignore some of them on ideological basis. It's clear who is neutral and who isn't. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The Central Slovene sources also have ideological basis (primarly from the 80s and 90s). At the same time, your word (like administrator from the Slovene wikipedia) is very-very discredited. The Maribor University is outraged because the articles about the Slovene language and Slovene phonetics. There are many incorrect and false informations for years, but the users do not improve the articles. Doncsecz^talk 20:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of pointing out a couple of problems in this new slur of yours. Please stop wasting our time with this childish attempts of diverting attention (this also goes for your messages on my talk page). — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Kaj hočeš zdaj, da prosiš vire? Jaz popravim vaše napake, zablode, ko ne pustite me urejati članke? Iščite Slovnico Jožeta Toporišiča ali Franca Žagarja in po tistih virih popravite članek, zakaj me vprašate, mene, ki "ne zna slovenščine," kakor ste rekli! Ti imaš otročje poskuse, ker z menoj dosti se ukvarjaš. Pa je zanimivo (kakor sem ti rekel), ko pišem na hrvaški wikipediji v hrvaški temi, (ki jo komaj poznam), Hrvati to ne razpravljajo./Sorry Yerpo, but you have childish attempt. I was wrote in your discussion, that the Croats are not discussed my articles in Croatian theme (i barely know the Croatian culture and language). It is interesting, that the Croats more support. Doncsecz^talk 20:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Doncsecz, please use English on this talk page so that other editors can follow the conversation. Your parentheticals are not accurate or full translations of your comments in Slovenian. Doremo (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yerpo, thank you for your commentary on this issue. I also agree with your characterization of user Doncsecz's behavior. I'll wait for still another editor to comment on this (so that firm consensus is obvious) before restoring the sources. Of course, any other editor is welcome to do so himself or herself. I suggest restoring the article version of 15:06, 8 September 2011 as a basis for moving forward. Doremo (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Very nice this pogrom. Although Yerpo exhaust the transgression of the rules. He says: the Wikipedia is a challange of other opinions, consequently otherwise edited to the articles and discard the old sources! Yerpo did not do so! Sweet way selects the sources. Yerpo does not address the quality: Egyházasrádóc the village of Vas county is in Tolna county! Or this superficial article about a important theme! Doncsecz^talk 05:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

When John said it, who is a self-serving editor and states: He is not interested in other sources, only their own laws. This he said so in the Slovene Wikipedia! See also this article from internet: Vsem tistim predvsem mladim, ki mislijo, da je na Wikipediji vse objavljeno resnica! Wikipedia je prosta spletna enciklopedija, kjer so vsi uporabniki enakopravni. Vsak prispeva po svojih pozitivnih močeh h gradnji in plemenitenju Wiki enciklopedije. Torej gre za enakopravno soustvarjanje. Povzročanje škode in vandalizem nad podatki je prepovedan. Tako je v teoriji na sl.Wikipediji. Dejansko pa so se nekateri uporabniki negativnih namenov združili v hijensko združbo, ki izključuje vse dobronamerno misleče. Delujejo sicer le na nekaterih temah! Blokirajo redke uporabnike, ki so še sploh pripravljeni svoj prosti čas žrtvovati v skupno dobro, brišejo prispevke, onemogočajo druge, si dovolijo presojati kateri viri so verodostojni in kateri ne, kradejo podatke, izključujejo celo le navedbe zunanjih virov, ki jim niso po godu, itd., itd. Zgodilo se je, da je znanec preučil več knjig o temi, dopolnil članek v zares kvalitetno pisanje in navedel vire. Uporabniku IP 213 ni šla vsebina skupaj z stališčem, ki ga zastopa. Več tednov preučevano dopolnilo članka je zbrisal, zanimivo pa je, da je ohranil vse vire prispevane vire, ki so se nanašali na novo dopolnilo, kot da bi se nanašali na vsebino prejšnjega članka, ki virov sploh ni imel. Na opozorilo, da je to neprimerno, barbarizem nad resnico, se ni(so) zmenil, pač pa je vedno znova in znova brisal prispevano in v sodelovanju z drugima dvema onemogočil znančevo uporabniško ime. Gre za manipulacijo virov, vandalizem, zavestnega potvarjanja in siromašenja Wikipedije. Posledica pa je, da čedalje več Slovencev ne želi več izgubljati časa pri soustvarjanju Wikipedije. Pametni odneha, nori pa ustvarja vsebino! Dejansko so posledice že močno vidne, saj mnogih podatkov v slovenščini, ki se neposredno tičejo Slovencev, ne boste našli, jih pa najdete v slovaščini, poljščini, bretonščini, itd. ki se jih tema sploh ne tiče. Tem družboslovnim hijenam je po godu le tisto, kar je že zdavnaj zastarelo in preživeto, čeprav novih in novih dokazov in virov kar mrgoli. V bistvu je človek presenečen, kako je mogoče v 3. tisočletju podoživeti srednjeveško inkvizicijo, s kurjenjem čarovnic in knjig!!! Tu ne gre za kako nagajivo mularijo, pač pa za ljudi, ki so že več let zaposleni v dopoldanskih službah. Glede na različne informacije smo ugotovili, da gre za iztirjence, ki so zaposleni v šolstvu (FF, FDV) in delujejo za interese, ki so Slovencem zelo v škodo. Tisti, ki naj bi prvi skrbeli za resnico, so ravno največji lažnivci in inkvizitorski barbari, Zaradi tega so na Wikipediji so uporabniki, IP 213, Jalen, Andrejj in njihovi sodelavci šalabajzerji! In english from the Google translator: Especially all those young people who think that everything published on Wikipedia truth! Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, where all users are equal. Each contributes its positive efforts to build and enrich Wiki encyclopedia. Thus there is an equal co-creation. Causing damage and vandalism of data is prohibited. Thus, in theory at sl.Wikipediji. In fact, some users have negative intentions together in hijensko organization which excludes all the benevolent-minded. Otherwise operate only on certain topics! Rare block users who are willing to even sacrifice their free time for the common good, delete posts, depriving others allow you to assess which sources are credible and which do not, steal information, even only indication exclude external sources that are not with attitude, etc.. etc.. It has happened to an acquaintance examined several books on the subject, supplemented article in really high quality writing and indicated resources. IP 213 user did not go along with the contents of the view that it represents. Several weeks studied supplement article is deleted, it is interesting that it was maintaining all the resources contributed resources, which are related to the new addition as if it is related to the contents of the previous article that did not have resources. In a warning that this is inappropriate, barbarism of truth, is (are) found, but it is again and again wiping contributed, in cooperation with the other two disabled znančevo username. It is a manipulation of resources, vandalism, and impoverishment of conscious misrepresentation of Wikipedia. The result is that an increasing number of Slovenians no longer wishes to spend time in creating a better Wikipedia. Smart gives up, it creates a crazy content! Indeed, the consequences are already highly visible, because many of data in Slovenian, which directly affect the Slovenes, you will not find them can be found in the Slovak, Polish, Breton, etc.. those who are not at all concerned. This social science hyena am in favor of only what has long since obsolete and outdated, although new and new evidence and resources abound. In fact, the man surprised at how it can be in the third Millennium recapture medieval Inquisition, the burning of witches and books! This is not about how naughty bastards, but for people who have many years working in the morning services. Given the variety of information, we found that there iztirjence who are employed in education (Faculty of Arts, Faculty of Social Sciences) and act for the interests that are very detrimental to the Slovenes. Those who should first take care of the truth are precisely the biggest liars and inkvizitorski barbarians As a consequence, Wikipedia users, IP 213, Jalen, and their colleagues Andrejj šalabajzerji! Amazing, that Yerpo, and others is administrators! Doncsecz^talk 06:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this internet spitting contest (salabajzer.si) that Doncsecz quoted suffers from the exact same syndromes as his own approach, outlined above (granted, it's at least written in understandable Slovene). No wonder that he can relate. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Doncsecz, please stick to the topic at hand and refrain from talking about "witches," "hyenas," "bastards," "liars," etc. So far two editors favor restoring the deleted sources. Additional comments from other editors are welcome. Doremo (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Avtor tega članka nima nikakršne sindrome. Jaz tudi nimam, kakor nimajo drugi, ki te kritizirajo, ker neprestano kvariš wikipedijo, ter norosti pišeš o Sloveniji in slovenščini, ker tebi niso všeč nekateri viri. A razumeš? Predavatelji in profesorji so rekli o tvoji wikipediji, koliko laži pišejo, ampak nočete teh korigirati. O tem govori Yerpo! Avtor ima pravico, da ti in drugi so samovoljni. Doncsecz^talk 06:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And we're again at "he said, she said". No sources whatsoever, we're just expected to believe His Authoritativeness Doncsecz's claims about wide popular support of his opinions. Sorry, this is not how it works. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your One and Only Truth. If what you claim is supported by reliable sources, it can be mentioned in a proper place, along with other opinions published by other reliable sources - see WP:NEUTRAL - "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (emphasis mine). A large part of our disagreements at Slovene Wikipedia comes from your inability to understand that. I also suspect this is behind the issue with the anonymous salabajzer that wrote the above joke, but I honestly can't say, because he was very careful to avoid any specifics. Since I suspect you'll continue like this (judging by my experience with you), I'll stop "debating" on this level now. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Doncsecz quoted suffers from the exact same syndromes as his own approach – this is Yerpo's personal attack againts me. Therefore, why not get blocks? Doncsecz^talk 06:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, you don't know what a personal attack is. Hint: you already made several against me in this "discussion" alone, not to mention my talk page. But I forgive you. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There, I made an attempt of balancing this subject. The issue should be explained more thoroughly in the relevant article, because this list is not the right place to do it. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Yerpo. I think the note will fairly address Doncsecz's concern while also maintaining balance in the list itself. Doremo (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What is this fight about?

Can somebody please summarize, in no more than 100 words, what this whole fight is about? The only thing I see you people doing on this page is exchanging some passages of almost unreadably, incomprehensible non-English with other equally incomprehensible passages [7], and adding and removing lots of names in -ščina. What is this all about? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

From what I can gather, there is a dispute as to whether Prekmurje is a dialect of Slovene, or a distinct language. One editor has sought to provide an expanded description of Prekmurje in the article's list of dialects that appears to give it undue weight, with the justification that the language is 'not merely a dialect'. Another editor disagrees that Prekmurje is a distinct language, or that it should be treated any differently to the other dialects in the list.

Part of the dispute seems to stem from political issues. There's a perception that the Prekmurje 'language' is being demoted to a dialect as an act of suppression, and that academic works from a particular period in the country's history are inherently biased in favour of this assertion. I'd have helped assess the sources myself but I can't read Slovenian and there are few Slovenian-literate editors interested in participating in this discussion. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, since at least one editor appears to be getting quite heated, I considered if it might be valuable to suggest a break from editing Slovene language topics for everyone involved for a week or two, but it appears that this is an issue that has spanned several months (if not years) on Wikipedia for this same editor, so I don't think a break will help diffuse the situation in this instance. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank your for asking for clarification. I'll try to summarize this as neutrally as possible (being a party to the dispute as I am). The page lists Slovenian dialects (including the Prekmujre dialect), with English names followed by native (Slovenian) names. The user Doncsecz has long advocated an independent-language theory of the Prekmurje dialect (this is not at all a mainstream view in linguistics, in Slovenia, or even in Prekmurje), and most of his/her contributions (here and elsewhere) are dedicated to fostering this unusual theory. To assert his/her position, he/she has insisted (at various times) on using the name Prekmurian (rejected by consensus) for the dialect, giving it undue weight within the list of Slovene dialects on this page, and (incorrectly) claiming that Slovenian dialect names ending in -ščina are reserved for full-fledged languages (hence the flap over the suffix). This, in turn, was used to justify his/her large-scale deletion of reliable sources.
The slow-motion edit war (as TransporterMan termed it) came to an end on 8 September with my refusal to revert, after which I also sought a 3rd opinion and solicited input at WikiProject Slovenia at the suggestion of user TechnoSymbiosis. As a result, a fourth user (Yerpo) also became involved. In the end, user Doncsecz himself/herself undid his/her deletions and user Yerpo restored balance (removed undue weight) from the article. As far as I can tell, user Doncsecz has now withdrawn due to consensus from other editors and the dispute related to this article is no longer active.
I have to point out that user Doncsecz is very difficult to work with, as is evident from other users' interactions with him/her. He/she has a very poor command of English, making it very difficult to communicate. He/she also resorts to ad hominem attacks and vulgarity, making communication unpleasant as well.
I'm willing to take a voluntary break from editing Slovenian topics if the community thinks it will help (I need to prepare a conference paper anyhow :-) ). However, Doncsecz's "territory" is limited to Prekmurje, so there's really no need to avoid non-Prekmurje topics on WP. Doremo (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I should also point out that user Doncsecz has asserted at various times that I bear some kind of hatred for the Prekmurje dialect. This is not true and is not implied in any of my edits or posts, so I don't know where the idea came from. However, he/she has repeatedly asserted this and appears to have construed my editorship as some kind of personal nemesis. I only bring this up because the information might be useful if anyone feels the need to mediate anything. Doremo (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. Let me now also give some input. Two things: The solution with Yerpo's edit [8] doesn't quite convince me, as I don't really see signs of anything being "disputed" in this source. I can see that the source is not taking note of a "separate language" concept, but its whole topic seems to be entirely independent of it anyway. Ignoring a fringe claim is not the same thing as disputing it. I personally would reduce this whole thing to simply stating that this variety has a history of a separate literary written tradition, period. Leave the whole question of what it means to be a separate "literary language" out, it's of only marginal interest to linguistics anyway. – Second thing, and sorry I'm going to word it rather bluntly: this whole article as it now stands, independently of all the recent reverts, is complete crap. It focusses entirely on categorizing and taxonomizing a hierarchy of alleged units ("dialect groups", "dialects", "subdialects"), which it presents in a reified way, as if counting them and deciding whether some variety was a "dialect" or a "subdialect" was in any way meaningful. It's not. It's not what dialectologists do. These kinds of hierarchies are entirely superficial conventions and not at all what real linguists are interested in. What linguists are interested in is, of course, the actual structure of the dialects: what features do they have in common and by what features do they differ from each other? What isoglosses run where between them? About this, the article contains nothing. Nada. Zilch. Not a single word of actual linguistic information. Not a single sentence that would tell me anything at all about what the article is supposed to be about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my source does dispute it in the intro (although it would be good to add additional ones which I haven't had time to do yet), but I suppose it's a bit confusing for English speakers because the Slovene and English abstracts don't quite match. The Slovene abstract says "Čeprav je prvotni namen slovnice, tj. uveljavitev pokrajinskega knjižnega jezika, zastarel...", which means "despite the original goal of the grammar, i.e. the establishment of a regional literary language, being obsolete...". He goes on by referring to the Prekmurian as a dialect for the rest of the article. I added this source mainly to stop the pointless arguing because I knew even Doncsecz recognizes M.L. Greenberg as an authority on the subject. I'm not a linguist, but this dispute is - as you probably guessed by now - more of a political and local-patriotic nature than anything else. I'll look for more sources when I get the chance.

As for the rest of your critique, I'm inclined to agree. This page is - as of now - merely a list following a convenient overview in the stated source. Maybe it should be renamed to a List of Slovene dialects, or it can just wait for someone knowledgeable to expand it. I'll leave that to (hopefully unbiased) linguists. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to mildly disagree about your characterization of that source (which, needless to say, is of course a very good source, no doubt): the author is simply stating that there was a (presumably isolated) proposal in 1942 that aimed at establishing a regional literary standard, and that it is now obsolete; this latter fact he is apparently taking for granted without any need of discussion. That's still something significantly different from a "dispute". In this, I get the impression that what Doremo below says is quite likely correct: it looks like "a non-issue". Such a situation is a recurrent problem for POV disputes in Wikipedia: if an editor pushes a fringe view that is so fringy that reliable sources don't even bother to refute it, it becomes difficult to treat the matter well in keeping with WP:V and WP:NOR. The only good solution in such cases is to de-focus the issue as much as possible, which shouldn't be too difficult here. Of course, that article can serve as an excellent source of information on the nature of that dialect otherwise. Including the fact that there was an old written tradition, that some of the written tradition was based on Hungarian orthographic norms, that it's relatively remote from the Carniolan-based standard, and so on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The way it's phrased suggests that the goal itself is obsolete, not just the attempt. Otherwise, you're right. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This source is probably sufficient for showing that mainstream linguists treat the Prekmurje dialect as a dialect. You really won't find anything more explicit on the topic; serious linguists don't debate the issue (just as they don't debate whether the Boston dialect is a separate language). It's a non-issue in linguistics. I'm unwilling to pursue that specific issue myself because I'm not particularly interested in it, and doing so could be construed as attacking the editor that holds that opinion. I find your characterization of "crap" offensive and would appreciate an apology; this division of Slovenian dialects has been used by "real linguists" in Slovenia and abroad for over a century. As the article stands, it's a solid framework for developing something with greater detail, including isoglosses and other features, as well as separate articles on the individual dialects (so far they're only linked to their geographical locations). The article's development has been stalled by the silly debate over the Prekmurje dialect, which is why I've left the "poorly defined list" tag on the article. Doremo (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Not disputed

This is not disputed, Marko Jesenšek wrote in the book Prekmuriana (123. 129. p.) that the Slovene linguists by the 1990s one-sided approach to the Prekmurian question (Škrabec, Rigler), but Jesenšek's opinion, the Prekmurian is still literary language, the only regional literary language of the Slovene. Greenberg also accept the wiev.In 2012 published the Prekmurian grammar. Doncsecz^talk 15:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Greenberg explicitly states in the quoted work that Prekmurian is a dialect, so yes, its status as a standalone language is still disputed. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Where was this? Now published the Savaria and Maribor University the Prekmurian grammar and now Greenberg can not deny, just because of Jesenšek. Here the question is not it the Prekmurian is separate language, but it the Prekmurian is still Slovene regional literary language. Doncsecz^talk 15:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"now Greenberg can not deny, just because of Jesenšek"

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this sentence. You will have to be more specific. Now kindly stop reverting and return the previous version until it's clear what you're talking about! — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Leta 2010 je izhajala knjiga Prekmuriana, zdaj že Greenberg ima drugo mnenje. Leta 2012 bodo izdali Prekmursko slovnico Avgusta Pavla, tam tudi bodo napisali, da se je prekmurska knjižna norma ohranila, torej še vedno knjižni jezik pri slovenščini. Doncsecz^talk 16:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Kje je Greenberg napisal to drugo mnenje? — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

V uvodu Prekmurske slovnice, ki bo izhajala leta 2012. Mariborska in sombotelska univerza bosta izdali slovnico. Vendar v Prekmuriani je tudi napisano, da je Škrabec enostransko pisal o prekmurski knjižni normi, tudi Rigler in drugi. Zaradi tega se ni razširil slovenski knjižni jezik s prekmurskimi elementi, čeprav Pleteršnikov slovar je veliko besed posojal iz pertoške pesmarice, Nouvega Zákona in Knig žoltárszkih. Te besede niso se ohranile v današnjem slovenskem knjižnem jeziku, samo trpniška oblike je prišla iz prekmurščine v knjižno slovenščino. Doncsecz^talk 16:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha, torej govoriš o delu, ki še ni izdano. Ko bo izdano se oglasi in popravi navedek, do takrat pa ta podatek za Wikipedijo ne obstaja in je Greenberg še vedno mnenja da je prekmurščina narečje, torej je jezikovni status sporen. Oprosti, ampak samo na besedo ti ne verjamemo da bo res to pisalo (in tudi če bi ti, tega še vedno ne bi smeli zapisati v članku - glej pravilo WP:V). Zdaj pa prosim vrni nazaj z objavljenim virom podprt podatek. Hvala. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Vendar tukaj ni bilo vprašanje, če je prekmurščina res samostojen jezik, ker je Avgust Pavel tudi pisal, da je narečje, ki je standardizirano poleg osrednje slovenščine. To je edino slovensko narečje, ki ima še vedno ta knjižni jezik, ki je čeprav obmejen, vendar še vedno živi in bogatejši kot druge narečne literature. Dokler ne bo izhajala slovnica, naj bo to v predlogi off. Doncsecz^talk 16:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What Jesenšek thinks (or, for that matter, what Greenberg or I think, or what Doncsecz thinks we think) is irrelevant. The status of the Prekmurje dialect has been disputed by some researchers, and the 15 September 2011 note expressed that fact clearly and fairly with a reference. The note should be reverted to the 15 September 2011 formulation until there is consensus on changing it. Doremo (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that is irrelevant, many people just do not understand that it is separate dialect. The prekmurian literary language still live and much richer than the other dialects. This is the second Slovene literary language. Doncsecz^talk 16:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Who doesn't understand that it is a separate dialect? I think everybody does. However, according to some linguists, it's not a literary language, but a well-established dialect with a literary standard. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Prekmurska slovnica je napisana v madžarščini, tam piše Pavel önállósult nyelvjárás, v slovenskem prevodu osamosvojeno narečje. Ker nisem videl še angleškega prevoda slovnice, zaradi tega ne morem druge oblike najti, kot samo separate dialect. Doncsecz^talk 16:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Če napišeš "regional literary language" to pomeni jezik. In ta status je sporen dokler Greenberg ne objavi drugačnega mnenja, zato prosim vrni izbrisani del opombe z virom. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Takrat je treba boljši angleški izraz iskati, ker ti kako bi prevedel pokrajinski. Namreč Jesenšek pokrajinski piše. Doncsecz^talk 16:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Pokrajinski je čisto lepo "regional", do sem ni nič spornega. Če piše "jezik" pa je to Jesenškovo stališče, ki ga je seveda treba upoštevat, ampak je hkrati treba upoštevat tudi to, da drugi jezikoslovci mislijo drugače. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Če je eno narečje ima tako visok kvalitet, pa še vedno živi kot knjižna norma, takrat to ne morebiti vsakdanje narečje, to je tudi en tip jezika. Na Madžarskem niso taka narečja, v paloškem narečju nikoli niso pisali knjige ali časopisa. Doncsecz^talk 16:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Torej je narečje s knjižnim standardom, kaj je narobe s tako oznako? Ti pa praviš da je Prekmurščina nek tip jezika, ki ni jezik, kar je nesmisel. /

So it's a dialect with a literary standard, which is a good enough distinction. What you're saying is that Prekmurian is a type of language that isn't a language, which is nonsense. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Gospod prof. Vörös v Sombotelu bi ti mogel pojasniti, kaj je to. Ampak Škrabec je tudi tako mislil, kot zdaj ti, da samo en jezik morebiti, drugi so pa primitivnosti. Jesenšek pa je napisal, ker tudi tako razmišlja kot Vörös, da poleg osrednje slovenščine so bili vzhodne knjižne norme, kot prekmurščina. Tako ne moremo omalovaževati prekmurski knjižni jezik, kot je Škrabec delal. Narečje, ki ima širši kvalitet, čeprav nekaj modernih besed ne more izraziti, tisti je pokrajinski jezik, ki je osamosvojeno narečje. Druga narečja samo v govoru živijo./Prof. Vörös in Szombathely would be able to explain it to you. But Škrabec so are thought, that is only language, others is primitiveness. Jesenšek, like as Vörös wrote that was other literary languages in the eastern region. Doncsecz^talk 17:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC))Poglej spodaj: Burgenland Croatian.

So we are back at the beginning - Jesenšek and Vörös say it's a regional language while for example Škrabec and Greenberg say it's a dialect. It's what we are trying to tell you the whole time!! And that's what the note clearly said before you started removing referenced content (and broke the code so that the note now doesn't display correctly). You may think this is "omalovaževanje", but that is your personal opinion which is irrelevant. It still has a literary norm and is better defined (probably also more stable) as other dialects. Nobody is disputing that. It's just that according to some, that makes it a regional language. According to others, it doesn't. That's the whole story, why must you drag local-patriotic feelings into this? You won't make Prekmurian more special than it is by arguing on the internet. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Oprosti Yerpo, vendar to local-patriotic feelings malo je šaljivno, ker Vilko Novak in Franc Kuzmič tudi podobno mislita. Novak se je trudil objektivno pisati, ali pred 90-mi leti so ga obtožili, da je madžaron, ali separatist (Zbornik soboškega muzeja 13.-14.; 123. str.). Novak je bil samo zavesten Prekmurec, a je bil objektiven. Doncsecz^talk 18:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Najprej razjasniva, da jaz nikoli nisem hotel govoriti, da prekmurščina ni del slovenskega jezika. Škrabec je zanikal, da je prekmurščina knjižni jezik (Škrabcu ni bila knjižna norma Küzmičev Nouvi Zákon, torej prekmurščina nikoli ni bila knjižni jezik). Greenbergu pa samo to je knjižni jezik, ki je trajal do leta 1945. Jesenšek pa je pokazal, da današnji avtorji so tudi tvorijo eno knjižno normo, saj nadaljujejo stare tradicije in veliko besed lahko izražajo v prekmurščini, kot drugi narečni avtorji. 18:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Najprej razjasniva, da noben ne govori o tem, da si ti hotel govoriti, da prekmurščina ni del slovenskega jezika. Ne vem zakaj kompliciraš zdaj s tem in mešaš zadevo. Greenberg ne govori o knjižnem jeziku, ampak o knjižni normi. Pravi samo, da je bil namen prekmurske slovnice l. 1942 uveljaviti knjižni jezik, kar velja za zastarel cilj. To pomeni da po njegovem tudi takrat ni bila knjižni jezik. Znotraj slovenščine ali izven, to je tukaj vseeno. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Prekmurska slovnica je bila res poskus standardizacije, ampak zelo slaba je bila. Jesenšek je tudi napisal, da je Pavel mešal stvari, ker na eni strani hotel kanonizirati prekmurski jezik, na drugi strani ovekovečiti narečja. Vendar tako ne morebiti ta slovnica, če hoče kanonizirati. Nouvi Zákon, Szvéti evangyeliomi, Kniga Molitvena in Knige 'zoltárszke, ter učbeniki so bili pravi standardi, ker ni bil v njih kaos. Pavlova slovnica je funkcionalna slovnica, piše Jesenšek, v standardiziranju prekmurskega jezika nima pomembne vloge. Greenberg mislim pozabi (ki ga poudari Jesenšek), da zaradi tega ne izšla slovnica, ker ni bila pravi standard in cilj je zastarel, temveč Pavel ni zanikal, da je prekmurščina slovenski jezik, ker Sándor Mikola je trdil, da vendščina ne spada k nobeni jezikovni družini (kasneje pa je trdil, da je samo madžarsko narečje). Knjižna norma in knjižni jezik mislim enaka pojma. Doncsecz^talk 18:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

V tem času so napisali dve slovnici medžimurskega jezika, ki je pravzaprav kajkavščina. Te dve slovnici so izdali v tiski, vendar nimata upa, temveč pretiravanja, v uvodu pišejo, da medžimurski jezik je posebna jezikovna skupina, nima sorodnosti s kajkavščino. V 1870-ih letih so poskuli nekaj knjig napisati v medžimurščini, vendar ta poskus ni mogel uspeti takega visokega kvaliteta kot prekmurščina. Doncsecz^talk 18:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Knjižna norma in knjižni jezik mislim enaka pojma. To ni res. / That is not true. For example, Taraškievica has a literary norm, but is not considered a language - only variant of the orthography of the Belarusian language. The rest that you wrote still doesn't change the original claim: that some linguists say that Prekmurian is a regional language, while others say it's a standardized dialect. The article must reflect that. What you think Greenberg forgot is very irrelevant here. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

To je zelo zanimivo, ker na moji Univerzi tako razlagajo to, da nekateri drugi jeziki v drugih državah imajo svojo knjižno normo, da nekaj značilnosti potegnijo iz regionalnih govorov, vendar jeziki so enaki (hrvaški jezik v Bosni, ali nemški jezik v Avstriji imata tipičnosti, ali enaka sta s hrvaškim in z nemškim jezikom). Ker v tem članku ne vedem takega primera, ki bi bil ustrezen v zadevi prekmurščine. Doncsecz^talk 19:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Zakaj bi moral biti en primer? / Why one example? Just understand that there is no one single truth about Prekmurian, because it's a complicated topic. Some experts say one thing, other experts say another. According to rules, we must present both opinions. We are not in the position to say which is the "right" one. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Poglej: Catalan in Valencian, ta dva sta enaka jezika, nimata velikih značilnosti v standardu. Komaj so mogli najti v narečjih značilnosti, da bi bil Valencian popolno različen jezik. Hrvaščina v Bosni in Hercegovini je tudi samo nekaj značilnosti mogla najti v tamkajšnjem štokavskem narečju, ker je temelj hrvaškega knjižnega jezika na Hrvaškem tudi štokavščina. Gradiščanščina je pravi primer, ker se temelji na gradiščansko-čakavsko in gradiščansko-štokavsko narečje, pa te dve narečji na Gradiščanskem drugačni, kot na Hrvaškem. Gradiščanščina je ohranila kajkavski in slovenski vpliv tudi, tako je različnejša od srbščine, kot današnji hrvaški knjižni jezik. Doncsecz^talk 19:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Prekmurian. You can say it's the same example, but that is just your original interpretation, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. Stick to what all relevant experts say about Prekmurian. If they say more than one thing, then the article must report all those things. What of this don't you understand? — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

As for local-patriotism, this is indeed my feeling about your attitude. You keep reacting very emotionally to the subject and often claim that people despise Prekmurians when we disagree with your claims. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

To ni vojni pohod za eno osebo, Yerpo. Franc Kuzmič, Branko Pintarič in še veliko ljudi širi to. Prej sem pisal o tem. Prekmurci pa ne črtijo to, ker to ni separatizem. Prekmurci vztrajajo pri prekmurščini, ne pri ekstremnih stališčih. Zakaj pišejo ti avtorji v prekmurščini toliko del? Drugi Prekmurci pa zadržajo, ne črtijo, zadržajo. Madžarski nacionalisti pravijo, da so Prekmurci vedno imeli madžarsko dušo, niso hoteli Slovani biti in črtili priključitev Prekmurja. Na drugi strani pa v Sloveniji pravijo, da so Prekmurci pozdravili priključitev. Prekmurci so bili v tem času zadržani: niso pozdravili priključitve, ali tudi niso vztrajali fanatično pri Madžarski. Prekmurci so mirovni ljudje, se ne borijo, se ne uprejo, samo pasivni. Vendar imajo svoje šege, in ena izmed teh je prekmurščina. Vedno se veselijo novi prekmurski knjigi. Doncsecz^talk 19:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to your tone, not what other Prekmurians feel. What you wrote just now says absolutely nothing about whether Prekmurian is a regional language or a standardized dialect. Again, please stick to the topic. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Torej, to želim napisati v članek, kakor Jesenšek meni poleg novega opažanja, da prekmurščina, ki je vzhodno narečje slovenskega jezika, ampak ima svoje knjižne tradicije od 16. stoletja do danes, tako je druga knjižna norma pri slovenskem jeziku. Ker prejšnja mnenja so enostransko bila s prekmurščino, zaradi tega ta mnenja so že zastarala, kakor piše Jesenšek in lahko pravimo, da prekmurščina ima nesporno pomembno vlogo danes tudi, kot knjižna norma. Če ni ustrezen literary language, naj bo literary norm. Doncsecz^talk 19:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So, it could simply be something like that: "Prekmurian is distinct among Slovene dialects because it has a long history of separated development, a standardized grammar and a large number of written sources representing literary norm." Would that be ok with you? — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Dobro je./This is good. Doncsecz^talk 13:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

To be exact, what Greenberg thinks is relevant, if it's published in a reliable source. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Other example the Burgenland Croatian language: the Croatian State recognize the Burgenland Croatian. This is also Croatian language, the variant of the Croatian, but standardised, educated language, his standard account the Croatian dialects of Burgenland, Vas and Moson county./Drugi primer je gradiščanščina: hrvaška država prizna gradiščanski jezik. To je tudi hrvaški jezik, del hrvaščine, ampak standardiziran, poučni jezik, njegov standard upošteva hrvaška narečja na Gradiščanskem, v Mošonski in Železni županiji. Doncsecz^talk 16:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you / hvala. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Yerpo's suggested note text with the following minor grammatical corrections: "The Prekmurje dialect is distinct among Slovene dialects because it has a long history of separate development, a standardized grammar, and a large number of written sources representing a literary norm." Because the other editor has not objected to it in the past 10 hours, I will insert it and repair the damaged markup. Doremo (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Eleassar removed the edition. Jesenšek not disputed, that is distinct dialect. in the same way also Rezijanščina distinct, but restrictive. The prekmurian vocabulary is richer than the rezijanščina. Doncsecz^talk 13:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The topic is too complex to be adequately explained in a footnote and it seems biased to do so in regard to the Resia dialects (and perhaps others), as it also has a long history, a standardized grammar and a large number of written sources representing a literary norm. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The topic is best handled at the Prekmurje dialect page, where it can be treated with as much detail as necessary. The Slovene dialects page clearly links to the Prekmurje dialect page, so any reader will have easy access to further information. Doremo (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Bordering on Croatian/Serbo-Croatian issue

JorisvS, I think it's time to start providing good references to what you're claiming in your edit summaries. I know it's a highly political issue, but Croatian is a language that has dialects (according to Ethnologue), whereas Serbo-Croatian is considered a macro-language - a class higher. I also note that you seem to be the only person advocating a different interpretation around here and that your edits tend to be unreferenced. Which is highly problematic in the context of Wikipedia, especially since you're instructing other people to read on it. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Both "bordering on Croatian" and "bordering on Serbo-Croatian" are factually accurate. The first is a single language by sociopolitical criteria, and the second by linguistic criteria. Perhaps you can compromise with "bordering on (Serbo-)Croatian" or by piping the link to Serbo-Croatian so that it reads "Croatian". Doremo (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

In any case, I think referring to Serbo-Croatian is misleading here, the sentence in question implying that it represents a single point in the dialect continuum. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

But Slovene cannot form a dialect continuum with Standard Croatian, because Standard Croatian is a formal standardization and not a dialect located somewhere in the dialect continuum. Serbo-Croatian is the entire language, including all the dialects that are a part of it, which can (and do) form a dialect continuum with the neighboring Slovene dialects. --JorisvS (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

As artificial standards, neither Standard Slovene nor Standard Croatian can form a continuum with anything. But Slovene (as a linguistic division of South Slavic) can be accurately described as forming a dialect continuum with Croatian (as a sociopolitical division of Serbo-Croatian), with Serbo-Croatian (as a linguistic division of South Slavic), or with all other South Slavic languages. Doremo (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)