Please take a look at this article. Thanks, —Abhishek Talk to me 16:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Repaired. TheMike •Leave me a message! 03:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies, contraversies and thier presentation ...Let me know your thoughts
- I've reached my 3RR limit on this article/image. I believe I am enforcing Wiki policy by removing that particular image (there are still 3 acceptable images on the page I have left untouched).RobertRosen (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have asked for Astronaut's opinion. Let us see what he says, and decide based upon that. Have a nice day. TheMike •Leave me a message! 16:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Astronaut may not be an unbiased towards me (I've reverted his reverts). On the "religion", I've got a newspaper RS which claims that both Rajiv and she were Hindu.RobertRosen (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please let me have a look at that newspaper RS. Regards, TheMike •Leave me a message! 16:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if you feel that there is an issue with the image, please raise it at Commons, where the image is located. If the file is deleted from commons, it will get delinked here. There is no need to remove it from the article as long as the image exists in Commons. TheMike •Leave me a message! 17:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't edit /participate at Commons. My only concern is copyvio with this BLP page Sonia Gandhi. Here's one such link [1] concerning their cremation details by Hindu rites "according to our custom". PS: I'm discussing this here (informally) rather than on the articles talk page. Also, IMHO the ref you provided for her being RC would not stand as RS considering it is only a caption to a photo gallery and appears sourced to be off the net. RobertRosen (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BBC is a RS. It is not a wiki or a mirror or anything, so their reports are reliable. It also mentions that she follows the Hindu faith closely, but it need not mean that she has given up her faith. I really appreciate the fact that we are talking this out rather than edit warring :) . As far as the image is concerned, I will contact someone active in Commons regarding that and get back to you. Regards, TheMike •Leave me a message! 05:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You have a new message at AbhisheksinghWIKI's talk page.
abhishek singh (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi "Mike" and/or "Swaroop". Please keep a watch on National RTI Forum and its talk. I am concerned that the other editor is developing a proprietary interest iGen this article.RobertRosen (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gentlemen, RobertRosen and Mike Lynch. My username is Cullen328 and my real first name is Jim. My only proprietary interest is to accurately reflect what the reliable sources say about any given topic. I am 58 years old. I am married and have two young adult sons. I own and operate a small business. I have never been to India but would love to visit there and Nepal too because I have a deep love of the high mountains. I live in the small town of American Canyon, which has a very large percentage of Indian-American residents. Most are Hindu, some are Sikh, and our next door neighbors are Catholics from Goa with Portugese names though they don't appear Portugese at all. I and my immediate family are Jewish, although I come from a Christian background as well. I am a caring person and can be persuaded by reliable information. Engage me, give me reliable sources, and you will find me to be very reasonable. But don't add bad sources, don't add POV language, and don't remove material that the reliable sources support. Cooperation and adherence to policy and guidelines will most assuredly lead to consensus. Please give your opinions on an Indian related article I wrote on a completely different topic: Kalpataru Day. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I must make one remark about the organisation in question. There are not many references available, and it is quite a minor organisation. Hence, I do not see much room for conflict between you two editors. I have not been looking at that article for a month or so, so I am not in touch with recent developments. I do not see much scope for expansion of that article. If anyone of you can add more info to it, please do so, but I doubt you will find sources. TheMike •Leave me a message! 11:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I have developed a new article on RTI - National RTI awards. Would it be possible for you to take the time to look at the article, improve it, give feedback or rate it? I am hoping to bring it up to Wikipedia's high standards.
I truly appreciate your help
regards
abhishek singh (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mike! I saw your comments at Abhishek's page and liked your thoughts. There are definitely a lot of issues that we need to work on but it's great seeing so many people interested in doing things about it. I know you've poked around the Wiki Guides page a bit but was wondering if you had given any thought into becoming one? I think you'd be a great addition. Jalexander--WMF 22:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have updated the Project Page you are mentoring on with usernames for all the students in your Area of Study. Please send them a message introducing yourself and let them know you are there to help.
As always, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hi Mike. Have a look at S P Jain Center of Management. I have marked it with an advert tag; but i wanted to add a db-spam tag too, since it IS written like an advertisement, with no helpful information. Should I go ahead? Please tell me your opinion on this; I am quite new to editing. PratikMallya Talk! 19:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't suggest you mark it for db-spam. It will probably get declined. The article is poorly written, but it is notable. You can remove all the irrelevant sections like the pics of all those people, which are not needed. You may have to delete most of the article, and retain and rewrite only some lines which are not promotional, but are factual. I will help you do that if needed. Have a good day! Yes Michael? •Talk 07:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there... I'm writing to seek the opinions of seasoned editors. A few days ago, there was an edit war on the Konkani language page, specifically between an editor of Goan descent and an editor of Mangalorean descent. The former didn't appreciate content contributed by the latter and eventually resulted in a massive edit war. The consequence of such an altercation led to the latter creating a whole new page for the non-Goan dialects of Konkani at Kanara (Canara) Konkani. The editor who created this whole new page has contributed significantly and quite productively, I must say. However, I am not convinced whether this is the right way to go.. i.e. having two different pages for essentially the same language. Quite interestingly, I found out that there is already a page for Karnataka Konkani at Karnataka Konkani. This kind of duplication and redundancy is a little unsettling. Your feedback would be appreciated. Signed | Aoghac2z | 06:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Butting in Since I am a (mangalore) Konkani speaker myself, I would just advise you to be very polite when making any suggestions for change/replacement of the page(s). Konkani people are a very proud lot, and extremely sensitive about their language (which, I think, is because of fear of it gradually dying out).
About this matter, I can say from my personal experience (a mangalorean konkani speaker who did his undergraduate studies in Goa) that goan konkani is almost a completely different language(there is some similarity, but differences are much more); whereas the konkani spoken by those living outside goa can be said to be different dialects (they use the same words for the same meaning, only the pronunciation is different). In this scenario, goan and the other konkani are same only in name; and thus perhaps different pages is justified. However, a page for different dialects is a waste of wikipedia resources, and may also lead to a lot of confusion; it may be advisable to put them under one page only.PratikMallya Talk! 08:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your enthusiasm. I'm a native speaker of Mangalorean Konkani myself, so I don't need any cautionary note regarding politeness and sensitivity. :) Getting to the elephant in the room, I'm very sorry to say that your personal experience in Goa or whatsoever is of no relevance here. Linguistic publications and major linguists do NOT treat Mangalorean Konkani to be a separate language at all, rather it is considered a dialect. Be it George Cardona, Manoharray Sardessai or Ayyapannicker... all major linguists consider Mangalorean Konkani to be a dialect, not a separate language. In my opinion, when you maintain two separate pages, one for 'Konkani' and the other for 'Kanara Konkani', it gives the reader an impression that Kanara Konkani is a whole different language and not part of mainstream 'Konkani'. Signed | Aoghac2z | 14:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But then, I don't think separate articles will be a good idea. Not many people will know that two different widely spoken dialects of Konkani exist. I myself did not know :) . I will have a look at the two (three?) pages and get back to you. Yes Michael? •Talk 09:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks quite messed up. This should be sorted out immediately. The Canara Konkani page is well written, though there are a few issues. User:Aoghac2z, I am not Konkani myself, so I do not know the intricacies of the language. Would a disambiguation page serve any purpose, or will it complicate further? Yes Michael? •Talk 14:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the situation is messed up, indeed. The author of the new page has done a very commendable job and the content contributed by him is very productive... even though there are issues with the reliability of sources used. As far as my personal opinion goes, I do not believe that a separate page for the Kanara dialects of Konkani is proper. It is also important to take into consideration the fact that the author of the new page created the page out of an edit war... so the motives behind the creation of the new page itself were not legitimate in an academic sense. Like, I said there's already a page for Kanara Konkani at Karnataka Konkani.... so as it stands right now, there are 3 separate pages for essentially the same language. I would say we kickstart the process of merging the content from this new page into the main language article. Signed | Aoghac2z | 14:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a situation where having two different articles would be better indeed? For example, if the histories of both the Canara and Goan Konkani are different, then it would make more sense to keep it in two different articles. Yes Michael? •Talk 14:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the evolution of the language and the history is not different at all. Konkani speakers in Karnataka came to Karnataka from Goa in the 15th and 16th centuries. At the time of migration, Konkani was already a very developed language, so there are no differences in history or linguistic evolution. If you look at the new page.. you will notice that the history aspect of it is something that should have been included in the main article... there is nothing unique about Kanara Konkani from a historical standpoint that distinguishes it from Goan Konkani. Signed | Aoghac2z | 15:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then all is well I suppose. The Konkani Language article should discuss both dialects, and the differences between them could be laid out neatly. But, if there is a world's difference between the two dialects, then the article will become huge, and could be better off split into two. I believe that one article is the way to go. Also, since both the dialects have separate ISO codes, (or whatever codes), both the infoboxes could be included in the relevant sections. Thoughts? Yes Michael? •Talk 15:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gentlemen, couldn't help not peeking into your conversation. As has been mentioned by user Aoghac2z, Canara Konkani indeed evolved of Goan Konkani. That is all there is to it. Their paths went separate ways thereafter. Canara Konkani has undergone tremendous variance from Goan Konkani rendering the dialects mutually unintelligible. The comparison is like Kannada and Telugu. It must be stressed that although the Canarese Konkani dialects have not yet been standardised, they vary dramatically in terms of phonetics, syntax and orthography from the newly promulgated Standard Konkani, the Goan Antruz dialect. Although Canara Konkani phonology-syntax-orthography is not standardised, prevalent rules of speech are popularly employed in writing and this rarely undergoes variation. Canara Konkani has been written in the Kannada script and follows different orthographic rules from Goan Konkani which is predominantly written in the Devanagari or Roman Scripts. e.g. the name of the language in the Kannada script is ಕೊಂಕಣಿ (koṅkaṇi - कॊंकणि) and this pronunciation is prevalent in Karnataka and Kerala. In the Devanagari script, the name of the language is कोंकणी (kōṅkaṇī - ಕೋಂಕಣೀ ) and it is pronounced that way in Goa Omniglot.
Let me share some examples:
- "having brought" in Goan Konkani is written/spoken as हाडुन/हाडोन ಹಾಡುನ್/ಹಾಡೋನ್. The same in Canara Konkani is written/spoken as हाड्नु/हाड्न ಹಾಡ್ನು/ಹಾಡ್ನ್.
- Goan Konkani does not undergo vowel rounding:- second person singular imperative is written/spoken as कर ಕರ್ (do!), first person singular optative करू ಕರು (do I?). in Canara Konkani second person singular imperative is written/spoken as करि ಕರಿ (do!), first person singular optative कोरुं ಕೋರುಂ (do i?).
- Canara Konkani shows temporal compensation like Kannada :- देव ದೇವ್ (god) - दॆवालॆं ದೆವಾಲೆಂ (of god), पूत ಪೂತ್ (son)-पुतालॆं ಪುತಾಲೆಂ (of the son). Goan Konkani does not :- देव ದೇವ್ (god) - देवाचॆं ದೇವಾಚೆಂ (of god), पूत ಪೂತ್ (son) - पूताचॆं ಪೂತಾಚೆಂ (of the son)
- Canara Konkani nouns/pronouns, like Kannada end in short vowels :- दोणि ದೋಣಿ (boat), आम्मि/आमि ಆಮ್ಮಿ/ಆಮಿ (we). Goan Konkani ends in Long Vowels :- आमी ಆಮೀ (we), वोडी ವೋಡೀ (boat)
- The verb declinations are different: verb- to do: Canara करचॆं ಕರ್ಚೆಂ Goa करुंक ಕರುಂಕ್
must do Canara करुक ज़ाय ಕರುಕ್ ಜ಼ಾಯ್ Goa करपाक ज़ाय ಕರ್ಪಾಕ್ ಜ಼ಾಯ್
- Goan Konkani pluralisation of words ending in ई are different from Canara Konkani. In Goan Konkani गाडी ಗಾಡೀ (car) - गाड्यॊ ಗಾಡ್ಯೊ (cars). In Canara Konkani गाडि ಗಾಡಿ (car) - गाडियॊ ಗಾಡಿಯೊ (cars).
- The preposition (postposition) "in" shows difference in declination when it follows ई in Goan and Canara Konkani.Goan:- गाडी ಗಾಡೀ (car) - गाडींत ಗಾಡೀಂತ್ (in the car), भुरगी ಭುರ್ಗೀ (girl) - भुरगीक ಭುರ್ಗೀಕ್ (to the girl). Canara:-गाडि ಗಾಡಿ (car) - गाडियेक ಗಾಡಿಯೆಕ್ (to the car), च़लि ಚ಼ಲಿ (girl) - च़लियेक ಚ಼ಲಿಯೆಕ್ (to the girl).
- The continuous tense shows variance: I am doing Goan Konkani हांव करत आसा ಹಾಂವ್ ಕರತ್ ಆಸಾ Canara Konkani हांव करतऽसा/कर्त आसा ಹಾಂವ್ ಕರ್ತ ಆಸಾ
- All these examples are from the book on Goan Konkani grammar written by Fr. Thomas Stevens and the book on Canara Konkani Grammar by Fr. Agnelus Maffei will show the stark difference between the Goan Konkani family and Canara Konkani family. There are many more; listing all would not be humanly possible for one person.
- you may peruse Canara Konkani websites Save My Language, Konkani Mitra, [2] to confirm prevalent orthographic rules, syntax and phonemes.
I would also like to share with you that Canara Konkani has a separate ISO code ISO 639-3 kex Canara Konkani Code
I suggest that Canara Konkani be a separate page because:
- Goan Konkani received state support from 1962 and became the official language of Goa in 1985. Government of Karnataka founded Karnataka Konkani Sahitya Akademi only in 1997. Hence Konkani organisations have to heavily rely on Goan patronage.
- Goan Konkani is being taught from 1962 from pre-school to university level. Canara Konkani has hereto, not received any such support from the Govt. of Karnataka and is being taught on an experimental basis in St. Aloysius College and Canara Saraswat Education Trust's Ganapati High school.
- There is a tendency to maintain status quo in the Konkani linguasphere because littérateurs tend to get into hair splitting arguments on phonology-syntax-orthography. Hence the name of the language is koṅkaṇi in the Kannada script and kōṅkaṇī in the Devanagari and Konkani organisations have done zilch to rectify this anomaly.
Canara Konkani has a long way to go in terms of standardisation; but that does not deny the fact that it stands out separately.
What I mean to arrive at is that Canara Konkani only relies on Goa for patronage. Otherwise, to all intents and purposes, the Canara Konkani dialect family and Goan Konkani dialect family are mutually unintelligible.
If, for example, German can have separate articles for Hochdeutsch, Plattdeutsch and Schweizerdeutsch, I am certain Canara Konkani can stand separate on the basis of the same convention too.
As far as the Karnataka Konkani article is concerned, it is vociferously guarded by a user from Goa who refuses to allow any contribution other than those in the Standard Antruz Goan Konkani; which is not spoken and is unintelligible to Canaraites (it is unintelligible to the Goans themselves). I have not only tried to contribute to the Konkani Language page but also to the Karnataka Konkani page but in vain. The user and I have had several discussions on our respective user pages. I also requested the said user on several occasions to discuss on the posts before deleting them; that too did not work. The said user perceivably has a Jingoistic agendum; to Hinduise and Goanise the Konkani language and Karnataka Konkani articles. Said user has also censured me on my talk page w.r.t. the Canara Konkani that I write in and holds that only the Goan Antruz dialect is truly Konkani. This is against the conventions followed in Wikipedia which give equal weightage to all dialects of a language.
I am not very sure that justice will be done to Canara Konkani if the article is merged into Karnataka Konkani. I don't mind the merging of the articles if it is deemed fit by mutual consent and as long as the neutrality, stability and the fidelity of the article are vouchsafe.Imperium Caelestis 23:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The analysis provided by User:ImperiumCaelestis is indeed correct. However, I'm not sure which source he has picked that up from. I can deem that to be correct based on my own knowledge of my mother tongue. That being said, I have a major concern with the kind of sources User:ImperiumCaelestis is relying on....Sites like Save My Language, Konkani Mitra, Konkani Sansar are sites of private organizations. They are not a linguistic governing body nor an academic body that contributes to the study of Konkani from an academic standpoint. All these three sites seem to constitute self-published content. We have had instances from the past when some people have tried to add content based on sites like SaveMyLanguage.org, only to be questioned about the reliability of such a site by veteran Konkani editors like Deepak D'souza. Anyone can start a site like that, and generate content based on mass user submission. Such sources do not offer any reliability on the orthography rules.
Additionally, I want to come to a bigger point here. There is no such dialect or a sub-family type called 'Kanara Konkani'. There are significant differences even between Mangalorean Catholic Konkani and Mangalorean Saraswat Konkani. Mangalorean Catholic Konkani is related to the Bardesi dialect (a northern Goan dialect) than the Mangalorean Saraswat dialect. Mangalorean Saraswat Konkani on the other hand is related to the southern Goan (Saxxti) dialects. Even simple words like 'your' are enough to demonstrate the difference. In Mangalorean Catholic Konkani, 'your' would be 'tuje' which is the same in most Goan dialects. Whereas, in Mangalorean Saraswat Konkani, it is 'tugele', which is what you will hear even in North Kanara (Karwari) dialects of Konkani... even though Karwar Konkani as a whole is heavily influenced by Goan dialects.
Mangalorean Catholic Konkani and Mangalorean Saraswat Konkani do not share an immediate common history to be clubbed together. All Konkani dialects share a common history.. but my point is... even though both the aforementioned dialects are spoken in the South Kanara area, their evolution and histories are quite distinct.
I would have to beg to differ with the statement "the Canara Konkani dialect family and Goan Konkani dialect family are mutually unintelligible". The dialect of Konkani spoken in Karwar (which also falls under Canara region) is closer to the Goan dialects than the Mangalorean. It would be quite an exaggeration to say they're unintelligible. Speakers of Urdu and Hindi do understand each other even though both speakers are unaware about the intricate details of specific vocabulary used. If Goan and non-Goan dialects of Konkani were 'unintelligible', then linguists would consider them to be separate languages. However, that is NOT the case.
Examples of High German and Low German are fine.. because linguistic bodies do recognize their distinct identities. But which linguistic organization recognizes 'Kanara Konkani' to be a distinct linguistic family?
Lastly, just because User:Nijgoykar was being unaccommodating, it doesn't warrant moving on to a whole new page. There are ways to deal with jingoism. Signed | Aoghac2z | 00:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Canara Catholics and Canara Saraswats use "-jem", "-chem" and "-gelem" interchangably. The Canara Saraswats say "Aan Tuzo!!" (teraa baap!!). The Canara Catholics, though rarely, use "gelem"; please refer to the attachment by Ancy D'souza supporting the voviyo on the Mangalorean_Catholics page.
- Although Mangalorean Catholics and Mangalorean Saraswats might have arrived during two different timelines, they have mutually interacted with each other for more that three centuries and hence understand each quite well. This is due to the fact that the Mangalorean Catholics have preserved the Sanskrit base of their dialect and that both dialects have a huge corpus of Kannada and Tulu words, e.g. nel-floor, mudi-ring are some of the words common to both dialects. In fact but in Goan Konkani translates to "पुण" , whereas in Canara Konkani, both Saraswat and Catholic, to "ज़ाल्ल्यार".
- the dialect in Karwar have also retained the अ sound hence करता is pronounced as kartaa and not as cortaam or ever cottaam as is in Goan Konkani. Hence I say mutually intelligible. My kuladevataa is Shri Lakshminaray Mahamaya at Ankola, Karwar and hence I can confidently say, as I go there quite often, that I do not find the dialect unintelligible. I have, however, found Goan Konkani, both Hindu and Catholic, Hard to digest and decipher. N.B. the North Canara dialect too used ज़ाल्ल्यार and not पुण. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImperiumCaelestis (talk • contribs) 00:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Linguists do indeed consider them as separate dialects. It is an accepted fact that ISO-639 deals with languages.
I would also like to share with you that Canara Konkani has a separate ISO code. The Konkani language codes are:
ISO 639-2 kok (Konkani Macrolanguage) comprising of,
- ISO 639-3 knn Konkani (Independent language)
- ISO639-3 gom Goan Konkani
- ISO639-3 kex Kanara Konkani [3]Imperium Caelestis
- Sorry fellas. Was sleeping all this time. Anyway, I must get another clarification. As an editor mentioned somewhere above, are the differences so large as Kannada and Telugu? Yes Michael? •Talk 03:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I still feel that there should be only one article. All the differences mentioned above can be mentioned in the article. I await your comments. Yes Michael? •Talk 04:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]