Talk:Cyrillization of Arabic

Sources

Joe Roe, which sources did you use for the text that you've just restored? – Uanfala (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

They are copied from ru:Арабско-русская практическая транскрипция, as I said in my edit summary. – Joe (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The bit about a system having been used by Arabic speakers in Soviet countries is not mentioned in the Russian article. And neither is the purported system represented in the table here: if we're going to see that table as derived from the Russian article, we'll have to say it's put together from some of the obscure alternative variants listed there. Unless we have sources about the existence of this scheme I don't think we should keep it in the article. – Uanfala (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I assumed it was a simplified version of the tables in the Russian article. Either way, it's better than nothing. It wouldn't be difficult to copy the tables from ruwiki if you wanted the more detailed information. – Joe (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

An unsourced arrangement of what seems like randomly picked obscure transliteration variants is definitely not better than nothing. I'll remove the table, but you're more than welcome to adapt the Russian one: that would be a tangible improvement. – Uanfala (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works, Uanfala. As far as I can tell every conversion here can also be found in the ruwiki table and, by extension, sourced to the general references given there. It's only the selection of variants that is ambiguous. We retain and improve imperfect content, not delete it. If you actually think any of the individual rows are inaccurate, or are able to check these Russian print references that I'm taking on good faith, then by all means let's discuss it. Otherwise, I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. – Joe (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if I haven't been very clear. I'm all for retaining and improving upon imperfect content, but here that's a tad bit too far. Let's comeplete leave aside the history of hoaxing on this topic, and simply stick to the basics. What we have here is one very detailed table in the Russian wikipedia that lists a standard transcription system, with several rarer non-standard variants listed for each letter. One the other hand, the table here that you so're so insistent on restoring picks one of those rare, obscure variants for each letter and presents the whole thing as though it was part of a single transcription system. Maybe the table in the Russian encyclopedia is sourced, and maybe the table that you keep restoring is not a WP:SYNTH-style selection of otherwise unconnected variants, but even then this would be one very obscure system, and choosing it as the one to present in the article (without making it explicit that it's an oddity) is at best misleading. And please, don't restore content for which you only have the vague supposition that there might somewhere be sources for. BRD is all very fine, but if some unsourced content is challenged and you can't find a source to back it up, then you need an extraordinarily good reason for restoring it. – Uanfala (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I've replaced the more idiosyncratic things in this table with the ones from the ruwiki table. It would be good to have the full table(s) at some point, but I trust this is enough to stop you edit warring. – Joe (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, this is less implausible; still, this is only a subset of the variants listed in the Russian article, so WP:SYNTH continues to apply in full force. – Uanfala (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

How can including less information than the source material does be synthesis? It's merely incomplete. – Joe (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Arabic-Russian transcription table. – Uanfala (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Why have you now reverted to trying to edit war in your preferred version? For the umpteenth time: that isn't how it works. I understand that you don't agree that the references are adequate, but the table is clearly not "unsourced" at this point. If you have any (more) specific concerns regarding the factual accuracy of the table then I will try to address them (again). Or, you know, you could be constructive and improve the article yourself. – Joe (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Joe Roe

Just lettting you know that you're at 3R there. And really, if unsourced content has been challenged (by two editors nonetheless) then the burden of proof is on those who want that content to stay. Also, I find the whole situation a bit ironic in light of the autopatrol discussion: you might want to be aware that people would expect you to hold your own work up to at least the same standard of sourcing that you expect of others. – Uanfala (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC) I am not sure how many different ways I can say "it isn't unsourced". A relevent extract from WP:V: Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back. – Joe (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC) One acceptable way of saying that "it isn't unsourced" is to actually provide a source. And no, copying the bilbiography of the corresponding article in another language version of wikipedia (of which your content is a selective and inaccurate adaption) is not acceptable. – Uanfala (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC) I provided four sources, days ago. As you well know. You seem to be under the impression that the use of these references are subject to your personal approval (e.g. "is not acceptable", above), but that is not the case. – Joe (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Sorry, have you actually used any of those sources? – Uanfala (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC) "Used"? No, obviously not, because as you know I didn't add the table. But I managed to track down one of them online (Yushmanov 1928, p. 7) to check that it verifies the transliterations currently listed. It does. And although the others are harder to access, I see no reason not to WP:AGF on the part of our colleagues at ruwiki, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. (Also, I'm not sure if you actually read Cyrillic and/or Arabic, but for the record the vast majority of the transliterations listed are obvious and uncontroversial. Only a few like jim and waw carry any ambiguity, making this extended discussion of policy technicalities even more tedious.) – Joe (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Tranliteration schemes are never completey obvious by themselves. But yes, many of those in the table appear alright, but some don't: see и, while the Cyrillic names of some letters are completely off, see for example ص and the hamza. You were adding sources most of which you haven't seen to content you haven't written? Alright. But the mention of Yushmanov gives me a bit of hope. Could you give me a link to the online version you've used? There's one I can see on gooble books, but it's in "snippet preivew", which makes it useless. – Uanfala (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Did you expect somebody to rewrite it from scratch? What's the point of a collaborative encyclopaedia if we can't build on each other's work? I shouldn't, it's from a dubious source. But if you google the title + "pdf" you should find it, or email me and I'll reply with the PDF. – Joe (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC) P.S. Do you mind if I move this to Talk:Cyrillization of Arabic? – Joe (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC) If the content is unsourced and grossly inaccurate, then the right thing to do, even in a collaborative encyclopedia like this one, is not to make incremental changes to make it gradually less inaccurate, but to rewrite it from scratch, using sources. Thank you for the pointer to Yushmanov's book. I've had a look at p. 7: there is a table of the Arabic script with the Cyrillic names of the letters (they do not match the ones in the wikipedia article) and a last column indicating the pronunciation of each letter. I'm not seeing any transliteration schemes there, is there anything I'm missing? As for moving this thread to the article talk page, some if does belong there; feel free to move whatever you see appropriate. – Uanfala (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC) There is a transliteration table on p. 11 though: but it's a scholarly tranliteration, and it's different from the one in the wikipedia article. – Uanfala (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC) I never disputed that the names of the letters should be. And are you seriously contending that a table of Arabic letters with Cyrillic equivalents is not a Cyrillization of Arabic? I surrender, Uanfala. You are clearly more interested in finding problems than fixing them. If you are so intent on stubbifying the article, then do so. It's not worth any more of my time. I hope you feel that you are making a valuable contribution to the encyclopaedia. – Joe (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)