Talk:Croatian language: Difference between revisions

Warning: this article is subject to a 1RR limitation. Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Macedonia case, this article is subject to 1RR. Reverting more than one time in a 24-hour period may result in a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. All reverts should be discussed on the talk page. This is a bright line, not an entitlement, and reverting exactly once per day is considered disruption, and users doing so are subject to being blocked. Please see this notice about recent edit warring. Editors wishing to make controversial edits are strongly advised to discuss them first.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one: Croatian is a standardized register of a language which is also spoken by Serbs, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins. In English, this language is generally called "Serbo-Croat(ian)". Use of that term in English, which dates back at least to 1864 and was modeled on both Croatian and Serbian nationalists of the time, is not a political endorsement of Yugoslavia, but is simply a label. As long as it remains the common name of the language in English, it will continue to be used here on Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Croatian language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Croatian language. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Croatian language at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Croatia C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Languages C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Croatian language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has become another battleground. Enough is, quite frankly, enough of the edit warring, as the article is now protected for the fourth time since July due to it. We're going to try something new. Starting now, this article; under the discretionary sanctions authorised in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia; is hereby placed on a 1RR restriction. This means one revert, per user, per day. This restriction is per person, not per account. The most obvious vandalism is excepted from this restriction, and I do mean obvious. This restriction applies to all users, and I will place an edit notice of this for the article. Any appeals should be directed towards my talk page in the first instance, or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement in the second. Courcelles 11:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above timestamp has intentionally been moved forward 15 years, to stop automatic archival. True timestamp: Courcelles 11:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think many of the arguments here would be nullified if a change was made from "They are varieties of the Serbo-Croatian language..." into "They are varieties of the Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage" (source: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=hbs) and in other similar claims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.99.151 (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Macrolanguage" is an in-house convention of SIL. Hardly anyone else uses it. It also doesn't have a coherent definition, so I don't know that it would be an improvement: Should Croatian be considered a "macrolanguage", since it's a 'borderline case between strongly divergent dialects and very closely related languages'? German? What about Slavic? Or are we to follow only a single source, SIL, to the exclusion of more specialized and more knowledgeable sources? — kwami (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had written the following in the first paragraph of the section Sounds:

Main article: Serbo-Croatian phonology

Croatian orthography usually only marks vowel length or pitch accent (with the exception of linguistic works) on homographs in contexts where without them meaning would be ambiguous. A vowel can be pronounced short or long, and when stressed (otherwise it is non-tonic) it carries either falling or rising tone. The following diacritical marks are used when vowels are stressed: short falling ‹  ̏› (double grave accent), short rising ‹  ̀› (grave accent), long falling ‹  ̑› (inverted breve), long rising ‹´› (acute accent); and when unstressed long ‹¯› (macron) is used, and when unstressed short no diacritical mark is used.^[1]

But this was reverted. I have discussed it on User talk:Kwamikagami#Croatian language. I just posted this here for the sake of further discussion. (btw, what I wrote is basically based on what is written in "Stjepan Babić & Milan Moguš (2010). Hrvatski pravopis: usklađen sa zaključcima Vijeća za normu hrvatskoga standardnog jezika. Školska knjiga: Zagreb, Croatia. ISBN 978-953-0-40034-4 (Croatian)", p. 107).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PrisonerOfIce (talk • contribs) 08:07, 24 April 2011

What Babić and Moguš describe has been my experience too. The general tendency is definitely for words NOT to be marked with stress and pitch-accent. However in addition to markings in linguistic works, you may indeed see one diacritic mark in non-technical registers to resolve ambiguities between genitive singular and genitive plural which have come to share the same ending "-a". For example, od profesora means "from the professor" or "from the professors". To make things clear, you use od profesorâ to mean "from the professors" and od profesora for "from the professor". Vput (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a pretty intricate example :) A more common example might be "sam" (meaning am, or alone), so both of these could reasonably be used in the same sentence and one needs to be "sâm" for clarification. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT you already listed references, so the "please give citation" undo seems completely off base, and I have rolled it back. The practice of using these accents certainly exists in both speaking and to an extent in writing, kids are taught in school about it, it gets used for disambiguation purposes in real life, there's nothing controversial about it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it exists? Zagreb colloquial speech doesn't differentiate vowel lengths at all. 9 out 10 randomly pulled people from the street wouldn't have the faintest clue what that circumflex means. It's used & understood strictly in upper registers by a few nitpicking folks. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joy, per your revert, does Croatian really usually mark diacritics where the meaning would be ambiguous? Or does it usually just leave it to context? — kwami (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about two different sets of diacritical marks: the five tonic accent marks (áàȁȃā) are never used to disambiguate; I have never seen them used for that purpose in a regular text. What is used for disambiguation is the circumflex, known as the "length sign" or "genitive sign", which, contrary to our article circumflex#Serbo-Croatian] (fixed now), indicates length rather than falling pitch (as written in Â#Croatian and Serbian, by myself). Someone has apparently conflated the circumflex with the inverted breve, which does indicate the falling pitch.

See e.g. http://www.srpskijezickiatelje.com/pravopis:ostali-znaci#toc2, for a (Serbian) Orthography citation; it's the same for Croatian, though I can't find a citation for it right now. No such user (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, I literally copied and pasted Vput's one. But, from your own source, it exactly corroborates the addition - Акценти се бележе у речницима, граматикама и стручним језикословним текстовима, а у текстовима шире намене по потреби; доста често се јавља потреба за њима и у поезији кад није слободног стиха, а познавање акцената неопходно је за разумевање метрике. (If Transliterator did not somehow strangely fail me.) BTW, 9 out of 10 people pulled from the street would have problems identifying their own behind ;) and the inserted text does not contradict them. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But our article now says: "Croatian orthography usually only marks vowel length or pitch accent (with the exception of linguistic works) on homographs in contexts where without them meaning would be ambiguous." I think that it's quite an overstatement: I have never in my life encountered that "po potrebi" (Transliterator works for me :) ). In the "wider purpose texts", the only thing really used is the circumflex, and even that only in a high-register print. I was aiming to the first sentence of my link: "Razlika između dugih i kratkih samoglasnika sistemat­ski se označava samo u akcentovanom tekstu, gde se nenaglašena dužina beleži ravnom crtom, a dugi akcenti istovremeno označa­vaju naglasak i dužinu. Uglasti pak znak dužine pišemo u bilo kom tekstu, ali samo po potrebi — da se jasnije razaznaju reči." No such user (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just make this two sentences? Tone/length marks are only used in dictionaries & linguistic texts. However, a caron for length is (sometimes?) used to dab homographs in (high register? academic? literary?) texts. — kwami (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuning the description of exactly how rare it is is a separate, valid editorial question - go ahead and edit it if you can make it better. I just had to object to the bite-y way an apparently useful, referenced addition was reverted as if it was abuse. The key point here is - people doing useful edits don't need other people's prior blessing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Joy, but if they object to the edit (for whatever reason), it must be discussed here and a consensus reached before putting it back in the article, per WP:BRD. --Taivo (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is preposterous. Kwamikagami explicitly told the new user that he did not actually object to the change that much, but that he was wary of it because other people tend to make wrong changes. That just doesn't cut it. To remind you of the headline, this is a free encyclopedia that everyone can edit. The only edits that are banned by default are those under the Wikipedia:Protection policy, and that isn't the case here, so kindly stop molesting new users. Sheesh, talk about disruptive, you made me spend all this time reminding about basic principles of Wikipedia, time that could have been better spent doing... anything else :p --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and just to make sure I didn't misunderstand anything, I took another look at the linked essay (sic!), and you might actually want to try to do that too before misrepresenting it in the future: Wikipedia:BRD#What BRD is, and is not. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Babic & Mogus (2010) discuss this too:

Excerpt from pp. 108-109,

"Duljina. Nenaglaseni slogovi mogu biti dugi i kratki. Dugi naglaseni slogovi u pismu se oznacuju duljinom. Duljina je vodoravna crtica koja se stavlja iznad slova koja oznacuju otvornike da se oznaci dugi slog. Upotrebljava se u pisanom tekstu kad je jedna rijec, recenica ili dio teksta oznacen naglascima: ... ... Cesto o duljinama ovisi znacenje jer duljina razlikovna u cijelim kategorijama: 1. u gen. mn. imenica ... 2. instr. jd. imenica ... 3. prezent i imperativ ... 4. izmedu neodredenih i odredenih pridjeva ... 5. pridjev od priloga ... Ima i drugih razika ...

"Za oznaku takve razlikovnosti nije uobicajeno da se u pismu stavlja sama duljina, obicno se stavlja s nagaskom osim kad je posrijedi genitiv mnozine. Ako na njemu treba oznaciti samu duljinu, tada se stavlja poseban znak koji se naziva genitivni znak.

"Genitivni znak. Genitivni je znak slomljen luk (ˆ) [circumflex]. Njime se oznacuje genitiv mnozine koji je glasovno jednak genitivu jedine, (jednog) jèlena ≠ (mnogo) jelenâ, jer bi cesto u pisanome tekstu mogla nastati sumnja je li taj oblik genitiv mnozine: ... ... Oduvijek ima tajnih veza / Između pjesnikâ i breza. (Cesaric)

"Kad je iz samoga oblika ili drugih rijeci potpuno jasno da je posrijedi genitiv mnozine, tada se genitivni znak ne stavlja iako to neki pisci rade: ...

"Kratak se slog ni u naglasenome tekstu nicim ne oznacuje, osim iznimno, npr. u dijalektoloskim radovima."

While the genitive sign might be more common than the other accents (according to the experiences of the people who write above), according to Babic & Mogus, what I wrote about disambiguating homographs is correct. On p. 107 they write,

"Naglasci se u pisanome tekstu upotrebljavaju kad se bez njih ne bi znalo sto je napisano jer oni kod istopisnica imaju razlikovnu sluzbu. U hrvatskome jeziku ima mnogo istopisnica, rijeci i oblika koji se jednako pisu a razlikuju se samo naglaskom: ...

"Da bi se mogla procitati i razumjeti recenica Skini to s vrata!, mora biti oznacena naglascima: Skini to s vrȃta! Na vratu je to sto treba skinuti. Skini to s vrátā! Na vratima je to sto treba skinuti."

I can't really be bothered transliterating the Cyrillic website source to properly read what it says, but Babic & Mogus is an authoritative source for standard Croatian, and I think it's best that we follow what it says, despite people's common experience as to how "common" these signs are. I think I even recall seeing them in a children's book, 'Heidi slavi Bozic', published in Croatia... does that count as "high-register"?

In any case, even if they are not widely used, since they are part of standard Croatian, isn't it our responsibility to document them here so that others too may no longer be left wondering what was meant by Skini to s vrata! :)

For those who haven't seen these signs much (maybe you've seen it more than you think but forgot about it), there might be a tendency to overreact, but the source is quite clear on this I don't really see what the issue is... I think that Stjepan Babić and Milan Moguš know what they're talking about.

PrisonerOfIce (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, this is the only instance that I can recall where I actually agree with Babić and Moguš (their tracts on language history or push for hyper-ijekavianism are different matters). I say that for something as banal as prescribed diacritics to indicate length or resolve ambiguities, let's put in what they say. In practice it doesn't matter that much since in all the years that I've been dealing with the language, most texts don't mark it, and a lot of foreigners who read this article have no interest in learning or using the language. Those who do are already aware of the conventions for marking prosody. Vput (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

does that count as "high-register"? No, so perhaps s.t. like 'where precision is valued'. That would cover various academic registers as well as children's books. Like vowel marking in Arabic. — kwami (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---"These dialects, and the four national standards, are commonly subsumed under the term "Serbo-Croatian" in English, though this term is controversial for native speakers[7] and paraphrases such as "Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian" are therefore sometimes used instead, especially in diplomatic circles." --- Controversial? It describes the native speakers' views far too mild, almost in a politically correct manner, not to mention the quoted article (a politically biased one at that) does not contain that particular word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.243.70 (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ page ratings. 78.0.192.242 (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"and paraphrases such as "Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian" are therefore sometimes used instead, especially in diplomatic circles."

never heard about that. source?93.136.117.52 (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph of this article should be more in line with the leads at Serbian language, Bosnian language, and Montenegrin language since these four lects form a clear and well-defined set of varieties of a common language. The leads should reflect that. --Taivo (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- Director (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. --biblbroks (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Language and linguistics When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There is a problem with a reference (current #4: Benjamin W. Fortson IV, Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (2010, Blackwell), pg. 431, "Because of their mutual intelligibility, Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are usually thought of as constituting one language called Serbo-Croatian.")

The source does not say that the Croatian is a collection of "varieties of the Serbo-Croatian language" as indicated in the article - hence that particular source does not support the claim made.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was discussed before. User (forgot name) added his edit without discussion at talk page, so I reverted all thing. --Wustenfuchs 17:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I usually keep out of linguistic issues and I did not do much actual research here, but having reviewed the sources at Serbo-Croatian, I am confident that kwami and Taivo did not misquote anyone. I will add that a source that states "Croatian constitutes a part of Serbo-Croatian" is by no means misquoted under WP:SYNTH as supporting the statement that Croatian is a variant of Serbo-Croatian.

Wustenfuchs, please be very careful as this article is under a 1RR restriction. I won't edit-war with you, I'll just report the second revert. -- Director (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is stated in the lead that it is a variant of SC, but lead is different. If you want to report, then please do. --Wustenfuchs 17:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing was absolutely correct, Wustenfuchs and has been discussed before. Croatian is part of a complex including Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin and the lead here should match the leads in those other articles, with the same trajectory. It's well-referenced. Thanks, Wustenfuchs for edit warring and getting the article protected (sarcasm). --Taivo (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One may discuss, but the sources must support the claims directly per WP:V.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence "Croatian, although technically a register of Serbo-Croatian, is sometimes considered a distinct language by itself." claimed to be supported by ref #13 (Cvetkovic, Ljudmila) is not really supported by the sentence. It contains a WP:WEASEL "sometimes" which is absent from the source - AGF inadvertently giving impression that it is rarely considered a distinct language, when opposite is generally the case.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Tomobe03, the "opposite" is not the case. In English language linguistic sources outside the former Yugoslavia these lects are nearly always discussed as extremely close variants of a single language that is most commonly called "Serbo-Croatian". It is only very, very rarely that these forms are listed without the comment that they are mutually-intelligible variants of a single language. Artificial labels such as "B/C/S(/M)" have not caught on in the English-language linguistic community yet. For example, in J.P. Mallory and D.Q. Adams, The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (2006, Oxford), the list of forms for this language in the index is clearly labelled "Serbo-Croatian" (page 722). That's just the very first book I pulled off the shelf that might have relevant information. --Taivo (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dare say it is and this the source. Besides, the point of the objection is that the weasel word "sometimes" is completely absent from the source and use of that source to back up this particular claim is in violation of WP:V--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can be reached, and it was reached way before. Just see the archive. The lead that was made by Tavio started a very long discussion before, and probably will do the same in 3 or 4 days. The lead that I reverted was there for months, and it seams it was good for both sides. That is why I reverted Tavio's edit. I think it was very constructive for the article. --Wustenfuchs 18:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wustenfuchs, it was obviously not "good for both sides", since it characterized Croatian as a "standard language of the Croats" - not as a variant of Serbo-Croatian. The sentence that mentions Serbo-Croatian does not even make grammatical sense ("they" are part of Serbo-Croatian?? who's "they"?). The current lede paragraph strikes me as merely a clever/desperate way to avoid stating what the sources support. Its a mangled and deliberately evasive POV wreck. The lede needs to state, plain and simple, that Croatian is a variant/form/standard of the Serbo-Croatian language. All else is compromising for the sake of nationalist sensibilities of Wikipedia users from Croatia. -- Director (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Tavio" made no such edits, Wustenfuchs. --Taivo (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"They" are probably dialects, we can correct it if you want, but I think it's clear enough what is "they". Another important thing is that this lead that I made is correct also. Dialects, namely Chakavian, Shtokavian and Kajkavian make Croatian language - so this is correct. Also some users insist it is variant of Serbo-Croatian, if we observe SC as family of languages, then they are also correct. So I think that I made the most optimal lead. --Wustenfuchs 18:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Taivo, I read it wrong it seams. --Wustenfuchs 18:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wgfinley, the sources are unequivocal that Croatian is not a language in its own right other than for nationalistic purposes. The linguistic literature, independent of former-Yugoslav or politically-motivated literature, is crystal clear that Croatian is completely mutually intelligible with Serbian and Bosnian and that the label most commonly applied to this non-Slovenian West South Slavic language is "Serbo-Croatian" (still being commonly used long after the breakup of Yugoslavia). Wustenfuchs, they are not a "family of languages", they are one, single, solitary language--the non-former-Yugoslav linguistic sources are crystal clear on that fact. My edit was simply to bring this article into line with the articles on Bosnian, Serbian, and Montenegrin as part of a cluster of lects that constitute a single language, Serbo-Croatian. --Taivo (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here in an admin capacity, I don't do content disputes. I've had this page on my watch list since 2010 due to the constant disputes that crop here and to direct conversation as needed. You need to discuss the issue amongst yourselves and reach a consensus. If you can do that I can lift the protection earlier but the issues should be discussed as opposed to edit warring or seeking to exclude editors from the conversation citing various infractions, you all seem to be doing a good job on that since I protected the page, progress!! --WGFinley (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I think I misread who had written what above, WGFinley. My comments are probably only directed at Wustenfuchs. My apologies for inserting you into the content issue. --Taivo (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully at my edit, there was nothing said that was different than what is already in the lead. All I did was move the clause about Serbo-Croatian to a position following the name to bring it into line with the articles on the other three lects that constitute Serbo-Croation--Bosnian language, Serbian language, and Montenegrin language. Since these four are a mutually-intelligible group of dialects, the intros should reflect that relationship with similar wording. As it is written now, the second sentence barely makes any sense (starting with the strange "they" which doesn't have a real antecedent). --Taivo (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source #4 (David Dalby, Linguasphere (1999/2000, Linguasphere Observatory), pg. 445, 53-AAA-g, "Srpski+Hrvatski, Serbo-Croatian".)is problematic too. Unfortunately it is offline, but the Linguasphere website itself does not support the claim made in the reference quote as it states Srpski+Hrvatski (Serbian+Croatian) but branches further and in no place does it make the equation proposed in the reference quote. This in particular seems like a case of WP:SYNTH.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Tomobe03. Linguasphere lists these numbers for languages and then divides the languages up into constituent dialects and sub-dialects. The number 53-AAA-g refers to a single language--Srpski+Hrvatski, Serbo-Croatian, and then lists the constituents dialects for that language with their subdialects. --Taivo (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's OR - Srpski+Hrvatski in both Serbian and Croatian means Serbian+Croatian. To a casual observer that may appear as two. I don't see where you get the notion that the two mean a single language called "Serbo-Croatian"?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Tomobe03, you don't seem to understand the way that Linguasphere labels things. It doesn't use "-", but "+" for some reason in its language names. Thus we find "Hindi+Urdu" for Hindi-Urdu, for example. It's simply a notational artifact of the source and does not imply what you are assuming. The fact that Linguasphere assigns this a number is the indication that this is a language. --Taivo (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above, and those are just the first few checked, are references which fail to directly support the claims in violation of WP:V. If one aims to support a claim that "Croatian language is a variety of Serbo-Croatian" or that it is "usually called Serbo-Croatian", one must provide sources claiming that verbatim (outside wiki per WP:CIRCULAR. Otherwise, that's WP:SYNTH or WP:OR no matter how compelling the case may be.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Tomobe03, but you don't seem to understand WP:V, WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. The references are crystal clear in their statements and in what they demonstrate in the article. --Taivo (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand them perfectly - don't worry about that. If "sometimes called..." is apparently supported by a source which does not say "sometimes called..." that's SYNTH/OR. Sorry about that, but there's no way around it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. At no point does Wikipedia require that we turn off our brains when writing or evaluating sources. The sources are perfectly fine and demonstrate without any equivocation what they are being used for. --Taivo (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In sentence "Croatian will become an official EU language with the accession of Croatia, though when the other states accede, translation might not normally be provided between the various Serbo-Croat standards, and documents in other EU languages might not necessarily be translated into all of them." the reference #18 ("Vandoren: EU membership – challenge and chance for Croatia – Daily – tportal.hr". Daily.tportal.hr. 2010-09-30. Retrieved 2010-10-27.) does not support the last part of the sentence (starting with "though when other...") and this claim appears to be pure original research.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]