File talk:Arabic Varieties Map.svg

Coverage

So, no Arabic in Ghat? IOIOI (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @IOIOI! Ghat is so close to the Algerian border that it probably cannot be displayed on this map. In any case, Ethnologue is the main source for this map, if you have any feedback, please contact them directly. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to contact Ethnologue, I will remove inaccurate map from articles. Do not restore it, please, until its complete and valid. IOIOI (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @IOIOI,

Please note that:

1. "the map is not the territory" => no map is ever perfect
2. This new map is entirely based on reliable sources, namely and mostly en:Ethnologue, "the standard reference" in linguistics
3. We can and we will update this map regularly based on reliable sources,
4. The old map on the other hand is entirely unsourced. It is pure original research.
5. The old map is also EXTREMELY wrong and inaccurate: it even mentions dialects that just... don't exist at all! Such as "Somali Arabic" (Somali is a language totally different from Arabic). This old map was so inaccurate that the English Wikipedia community decided to remove it from all articles, even before creating a new one. Contributors and linguists on the English Wikipedia considered that it was better to have no map than to have this terribly wrong map. You can follow the debate here.

So, unless the Polish Wikipedia has lower quality standards than all other Wikimedia projects and prefers an unsourced grossly inaccurate map, I think it would be better for the Polish Wikipedia to follow what all other language editions did (especially the English and Arabic Wikipedias) and use this new map.

What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@IOIOI: I very strongly feel the frustration of a dialect map's failing to reflect what one knows to be the case on the ground. I think that there's a relevant discussion below about how we conceive of this map. I request that you not edit the map without engaging in that conversation, & that you only edit the map if you've got a reliable source. (If you don't have one, I'm happy to help you look for one.) This map is meant to replace a very inaccurate map whose inaccuracies largely come from disregard for reliable sourcing. A couple people (not me) put a lot of work into producing a map that was sourced. There are almost certainly errors in a project of this magnitude, & they should be fixed, but they should be fixed with reliable sources. Pathawi (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pathawi: I'm not going even touch this map. I know that previous is inaccurate but you cannot place this map in article of "Arabic language", where for ex. Tunisia is not even in 50% covered by Arabic. Does no one near Algerian border in Tunisia use Arabic dialect, really? Perhaps I don't understand this map but if so, for sure I'm not alone. IOIOI (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is where or not anyone in an area speaks Arabic. I live in Chicago in the US. I know a dozen people in my neighbourhood who speak Arabic. Chicago isn't on this map. Why? I'd say there are two reasons: 1) nobody—including the Arabic-speakers—thinks of Arabic as local to this neighbourhood; 2) the neighbourhood doesn't constitute a dialect area. So the mere presence of some Arabic-speakers doesn't make a region merit consideration. I can pretty simply tell you how this map came to reflect a non-Arabic region in Algeria near the Tunisian border: The map for Algeria was based off of Ethnologue's Algeria map, which shows that region as a Tachawit area rather than as an Algerian Arabic area. There are at least two ways in which that could be a problem: 1) the map in Ethnologue could be just plain inaccurate; 2) the Ethnologue map for Algeria shows regions as belonging to only one variety of speech, when perhaps there are multiple languages or dialects in use in some areas. I don't know.

The issue is really one of reliable sources. I have no idea what Polish Wikipedia's policies are. In English Wikipedia, information can only be included if it's reliably sourced. So if we know that this region that Ethnologue has marked as Tachawit has an abundance of Algerian Arabic speakers, we can't rely on our own personal knowledge: We have to make that claim from a reliable source. Perhaps Polish Wikipedia is different, & you can just add things you know from personal experience, or remove sourced information because you disagree with it. For English Wikipedia, we'd need a more reliable source to edit this map.

I don't follow what you're saying about Tunisia: This map has Tunisia almost completely as an Arabic-speaking region. Pathawi (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @IOIOI! Please note that, as of today, the Polish Wikipedia is the only Wikimedia project still using the old map. All other Wikimedia projects, and especially the English and Arabic Wikipedias switched to this new map. The presence of a non-existing dialect ("Somali Arabic") should be enough to discard the old map. The old map also shows the en:Nubi language in South Egypt & North Sudan whereas this language is spoken in... Uganda and Kenya! Of course the new map isn't perfect and some of its borders could be improved, but it doesn't include total non-sense such as "Somali Arabic" and "Nubi in Egypt". The new map also includes varieties that do not appear on the old map: Uzbeki Arabic, Tajiki Arabic, and Maltese. And it's more accurate in Bahrain and Cyprus thanks to inserts. Last but not least, the old map's legend is in English whereas the current one is multilingual, so that you can add a clickable legend in your project's language (e.g., Polish) below, as done on the Frysk Wikipedia here. That's why I thought the new map would be better for the Polish Wikipedia, but it's up to your community to decide. Have a good day. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Bahrain and Eastern Arabia errors

There's several errors in the map around Eastern Arabia. I'll list some good sources to verify some of the areas displayed in the map.

In Bahrain, we should look to Holes, where the areas he cites for the Gulf dilaect is as follows (p. 9): the major centers of Sunni population, including Muharraq, Hidd, Rifa', East and West, Jaw, Askar, Budayya, Jisra, Zallāq, Wasmiyya, and the Sunni quarters of Manama. He includes also includes a map (p. 10).

The main difference between this map and Holes is that Muharraq is labeled as red, when it should be colored blue. Considering Muharraq is the largest center for this dialect, I think it's an important detail.

In Eastern Saudi Arabia, the region of Qatif should be labeled as Baharna Arabic as well. And consequently the color used for Baharna should be changed since it would border a Najdi area.

For the Dammam metropolitan area (from Dammam to Dhahran), the best source is perhaps Alaodini, where he notes the Gulf dialect of the Dawasir tribe local to Dammam and the larger supra-local Najdi dialect, and a koineization occurring between them. It's worth noting, however, that the Dawasir are a minority of the population of Dammam.

The Ahsa region is primarily Gulf-speaking. The City of Hofuf also has a Southern Najdi dialect of the Ajman tribe. But the two cities of Hofuf and Mubarraz are also undergoing koineization to the Najdi supra-dialect.

In Northeast SA, there's a confusing Gulf Arabic area encircling a Najdi area. This area is in the desert, and doesn't make much sense. It circles back to the city of Jubail, which is a recently-developed city with very similar demographics to the Dammam metropolitan area. I can not find any linguistic data specific to Jubail anywhere. 176.44.61.134 10:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

With regards to Oman, we can look again to Holes, where he describes Gulf dialects as being limited to three groups:

1. the extreme northern areas bordering on the UAE.
2. Some Bedouin-descended groups on the Bātina such as in Suhar and Saham.
3. The population living along the extreme eastern coastal strip fro Sūr to Ras al-hadd.

The large area in the Omani desert speaks a Bedouin Omani dialect that is characterized by Omani features, not Gulf.

It's also worth noting that a large area of the desert in Oman is inhabited by the Harasis and Mehrah, two tribes that speak Modern South Arabian languages, and many of their members learn Arabic as a second language. This area includes Jiddat al-Harasis in central Oman, and the western border between Saudi Arabia and Oman. Regardless, the Arabic dialect they speak is Omani, not Gulf.

There is a rural Omani dialect that is noted as being similar to Baharna dialect, and its location seems to match the orange dot marked 19 in the map. So that seems correct.

With regards the Gulf area in Southern Saudi Arabia, that area on the Yemen border (Al-Kharkhir and Sharurah governorates) is primarily inhabited by Mehrah. They speak Mehri as their first language, not Arabic. 176.44.61.134 13:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi and thanks a lot for these useful comments!

• Bahrain: you're right, we need to fix this, the source (Ethnologue) agrees with you. We made a mistake while drawing the map.
• Baharna in Qatif: good point, I sent the feedback to Ethnologue: https://www.ethnologue.com/contribution/704391
• Other feedback: please send them directly to Ethnologue, together with the sources. Contributor program

A455bcd9 (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Why? The sources are here and the sourced maps are included (Holes 1989 and Holes 1983). There's no requirement for wikicommons maps to get Ethnologue's approval. High surv (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It's better to follow only one source, otherwise it could be considered original research: for instance in Saudi Arabia and Oman, why would we sometimes follow one source (Ethnologue) and sometimes another one (Holes or Alaodini or whoever)? Here, we only used Ethnologue, and when Ethnologue didn't have a map for a specific area, we tried to find other sources. If you want to include your suggestion, feel free to copy this map and create a new one under a new name. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

How would using multiple sources be considered original research? You, @Pathawi, and many others have acknowledged that Ethnologue's reliability is questionable. If we were to build an actually reliable map, as was the original goal, using original dialectal work is vital.

@Goran tek-en what do you think? High surv (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 @High surv @Pathawi I'm a graphic worker but to me, of course, having more sources saying the same thing will make things more reliable. But I guess different sources will say slightly differently things (the same with maps) so one would have to combine them in a sensible way. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

In general: I don't think using multiple sources is OR for a map any more than it is for a Wikipedia article; as noted, we've had to use multiple sources for this map anyhow. As for when to use which source: We should prefer more reliable sources. I think a good case can be made for the greater reliability of a dialectologist who's worked on the dialect in question & published in academic press—especially if we're dealing with peer-reviewed material. I think that the most consistent approach for the map would be to use the best sources available, "best" as determined by Wikipedia reliability standards. I don't think it should be Ethnologue plus whatever we can find to fill in Ethnologue's gaps.

That said: I think Holes 1983 & 1989 and Almakrami 2015 are easy, as they include maps & appear in peer-reviewed journals. I'm not sure which article in the Klimiuk book the IP-address editor is citing—I would normally look thru the whole thing, but it's a crazy morning. The dissertations & MA thesis we should handle with care: They're probably great, but the Reliable sources guidelines ask a little diligence of use (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Additionally, Alaodini provides no dialect map—I'd have to read the dissertation more closely to see how clearly she outlines the dialect region & I think we really do have to think about the WP:SYNTHESIS guideline if we're assembling multiple sources on one dialect. I don't think that that's in principle impossible, but it depends on the specific sources & what recognition one has of the other. I can't see the other dissertation or the MA thesis.

A project like this is an incredible amount of work. That's not part of any argument. I just want to acknowledge that this is a lot of data to deal with. Pathawi (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 @High surv @Pathawi I just would like to say that commons and wikipedia is two different things and have different "rules" regarding sources and stuff like that. I don't have the different pages with them right now but you should consider this. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: I get that Commons & Wikipedia have different standards, but the plan was to produce a map that would be acceptable for Wikipedia use. That's why the Wikipedia standards are relevant. Pathawi (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pathawi I didn't say which standards to use just that there is a difference that might be of interest to consider. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en You're right: Commons and Wikipedia have different standards. @Pathawi: you're right as well, because we want this map to be used on Wikipedia, and especially in featured articles on the English Wikipedia such as en:Levantine Arabic, it must follow the strictest criteria of the English Wikipedia. For instance, we should avoid dissertations & MA theses.

"I don't think using multiple sources is OR for a map any more than it is for a Wikipedia article": on a Wikipedia article, if sources diverge, you can cite the various authors. On a map, by definition, you have to do a synthesis. And synthesis can be OR. Another important criterion is Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." If Ethnologue says that one dialect isn't spoken somewhere and another source says the opposite, how do we decide which source we follow? "Verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source" => if it's us doing a patchwork of different articles using our own knowledge to create a map, I don't think it's verifiable.

Given the difficulty of this challenge, I chose to stick to one source (Ethnologue) and to use other sources to fill the gaps (and cite them explicitly). So we used all Ethnologue's countries maps, and when these maps didn't exist (e.g., Israel, Palestine, and Iran) or didn't show the exact location of Arabic dialects (e.g., Sudan, South Sudan, CAR, and Turkey), we used other reliable sources.

The advantage of using Ethnologue is their contributor program: they update their maps every year based on contributors' feedback. So we update this map every year as well.

And of course, if someone wants to create another map using or combining other sources, they're free to do so. Then each Wikimedia Project will choose whichever map they prefer. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 @Goran tek-en @Pathawi

I'm convinced of your stance regarding areas where we would have to synthesize many resources. But even if we were to stick to a one-source-per-area rule, it's worth considering using better maps than Ethnologue's when they can be used as a singular source. In the case of Oman for example, we have a more accurate map included in Holes 1989 that covers all of Oman, and it can entirely fill the role of this Ethnologue map. But I recognize the issues this would cause since "Ethnologue" is listed as the source, and not the individual maps.

I would say that even if we improve Ethnologue's maps over the years, my main gripe with it is that it actually greatly hinders verifiability. The source for the data is never clear in Ethnologue maps, and the decisions are not transparent. High surv (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@High surv: I agree that if we have an objectively better map for one area we could decide to use it and list it as the source for this area.

However, I'm not sure the map in Holes 1989 (p. 450) is objectively better. This map shows 15 varieties: how do we map these 15 varieties to the varieties recognized in the ISO standard? It's also unclear on this map which varieties are spoken in the Musandam Governorate. I feel like using this map requires prior knowledge and interpretation. That's why I'm afraid it cannot "entirely fill the role of this Ethnologue map". But please let me know if I'm wrong.

Ethnologue doesn't hinder verifiability: if Ethnologue releases a new map of Oman, then anyone can open this map and verify that the Wikimedia map follows Ethnologue's map. I agree that Ethnologue doesn't seem transparent. In reality they're okay: they have (internally) the sources for all their claims and you can also follow discussions that lead to changes. However, they unfortunately don't display these sources and discussions on each language's page. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The map in Holes 1989 (p. 450) is also not precise enough: what are the boundaries for each of the 15 dialects? What about 4, 5, 10, 11, and 12 where the dots are in the sea: what's the land area where these dialects are spoken? Transforming this map into something like File:Arabic Varieties Map.svg would require a lot of interpretation and guesses from the graphic worker. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

You're right. I looked at the Holes maps too hastily. Pathawi (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You're right that a map weds you to a synthesis. That's a very fair point. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's guidelines are overwhelmingly oriented toward propositional text rather than illustration, which is one of the reasons that there's so much wildness going on with maps. With this map, we're already dealing with a synthesis. If we tried to apply Wikipedia's synthesis policy verbatim, this map would very clearly be OR. In fact, even a map that used exclusively Ethnologue sources would be OR: 'If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.' (WP:SYNTHESIS) If we want to work with maps like this at all, we have to find some reasonable interpretation that is otherwise in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I think that reliable sourcing is pretty clearly a top tier priority, and that ceteris paribus, better sourcing ought to make a particular representation preferable.

I'm not sure that the differing sources is really practically a problem in the way you describe: 'If Ethnologue says that one dialect isn't spoken somewhere and another source says the opposite, how do we decide which source we follow?' Realistically, if an Ethnologue map doesn't show some given language spoken in some given location, but a linguist who's done fieldwork there claims in a peer-reviewed journal that that language is spoken there, do you really understand the sources to be in conflict? I wouldn't read it that way. I'd interpret it as Ethnologue being (necessarily) behind academic publishing. I'd be shocked if someone from SIL who didn't do work in the location in question were to debate a real linguist on the basis of evidence from Ethnologue. (In fact, my expectation would be that Ethnologue would amend its date to follow the work of that linguist in the next update after becoming aware of this work.) I can imagine such a dispute at some point between actual linguists doing fieldwork, but I don't think we have that situation right now. I imagine that it could be pretty easily addressed through hatching, the way we've done with the national maps where we aren't able to determine better dialect region outlines.

I don't think the verifiability problem is any worse than the one we already have. Again: This map is already a synthesis.

Two quick final points:

1. I don't think that Wikipedia guidelines—even those for featured articles—prohibit the use of dissertations. The guidelines basically put the burden of proof on the person who would want to include such a source to show that the source has had significant scholarly influence. The sources proposed above thus require some vetting, & I'd guess that they're too recent to have had scholarly influence yet.
2. I think it would be a very, very bad outcome of this to have Ethnologue become a preferential source. It's a Christian missionary organisation that does not submit itself to any kind of academic review. I don't think that elevating that one source is in keeping with the spirit of a collaborative encyclopædia. Pathawi (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

In theory I agree with everything you say @Pathawi. (on dissertations, I would add that: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." per en:WP:SCHOLARSHIP). In practice, it's harder, as shown by the example of the Omani map in Holes 1989 (p. 450). What do you think about my above questions? (how do we map the 15 dialects to the ISO varieties? how do we determine the boundaries of each dialect based on this map? looks like OR to me...)

As you said: "In fact, my expectation would be that Ethnologue would amend its date to follow the work of that linguist in the next update after becoming aware of this work." That's why, practically, I would just contact Ethnologue, provide them with reliable sources, and ask them to amend their maps. Then they check the sources and contact their informations and, based on my experience, in 90% of cases they accept suggestions. It's not ideal and it's slower (although I'm don't think this map needs to be constantly updated, once a year is fine) but “Done is Better Than Perfect". That's why I did for Baharna in Qatif for instance: https://www.ethnologue.com/contribution/704391 A455bcd9 (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Potentially useful for our discussion:

• Featured picture criteria on the English Wikipedia (I nominated this map here btw)
• Featured picture criteria on Commons (I nominated this map here btw)

A455bcd9 (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 @Pathawi I just want to say that to me this discussion is mixing two things;

1 the wikipedia article

2 the map itself, as a stand alone map at commons

Those two things has different objectives and are separat from each other. You can't put whatever synthesis or other guidelines at wikipedia on a map at commons.

What_Commons_is_not and specially read Wikimedia_Commons_is_not_Wikipedia --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: we totally agree that Commonns <> Wikipedia. However, we want this map to be used on featured articles in the English Wikipedia, we want this map to follow the English Wikipedia's standards. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 A map at commons can't follow the standars of English Wikipedia as it's a stand alone media and not a part of wikipedia. If when creating maps/illustrations the graphic workers had to follow all the different standards of where a media can/will be used it would become impossible to do anything.

This map is NOT created solely for your article, but the article can use it, if it follows the usage for its license.

What wikipedia say about maps/illustrations included in an article which is proposed for Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria can not be valid for a map/illustration uploaded to commons, it can however say this for a map/illustration which is only uploaded to wikipedia.

So there is a difference to where you propose it, wikipedia or commons and this map can thereby not be proposed to Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria to my understanding but to Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#Featured_picture_candidates --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: of course a map on Commons can follow the standards of the English Wikipedia if the map's author decides to follow them!

"This map is NOT created solely for your article, but the article can use it, if it follows the usage for its license.": that's not correct. We can only use this image on the English Wikipedia if it follows the English Wikipedia's criteria.

en:Wikipedia:Featured_pictures don't have to be uploaded on Wikipedia: most Featured pictures on the English Wikipedia are already Featured pictures on Commons.

Anyway, this is a theoretical problem as we haven't found other sources and (I think) the current map is already great and amazing :) A455bcd9 (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It's important to note that while we can't find similar maps that are "properly sourced", this map (which is supposed to fill that gap) is WP:SYNTHESIS (as already mentioned) and full of errors (due to the source used, i.e., Ethnologue). M.Bitton (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

"full of errors": as all maps are! But as long as it is sourced, it's "fine"... A455bcd9 (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That depends on what it's used for and where. For example, on en.wp, there is no guarantee of inclusion for properly sourced and factual content (which isn't even the case with this map). M.Bitton (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. By the way: what are errors you identified? A455bcd9 (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 We have different views on this and that's fine but for work I do and upload to commons I follow commons different guidelines (to the best of my knowledge) and I will leave it with that. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: I know that Wikipedia & Wikimedia Commons have different standards. I think I've already acknowledged that explicitly above. However, this map—on which you've done amazing work—emerged from a request on Wikipedia. It seems strange to divorce it from that purpose. I agree with A455bcd9 that it's entirely possible for users to agree to apply Wikipedia standards on Wikimedia: What can't happen is that User X cannot insist that User Y follow Wikipedia standards on Wikimedia Commons. I don't believe that's happened. But if Wikipedia standards can't be followed, & if you're asking others not to edit this map, then very quickly what's going to happen is that the map will become unusable on Wikipedia, which defeats the purpose of the original request. That seems like a shame, given how much work has gone into this, & it seems unnecessary. I don't think anyone's trying to force anyone (including you) to do anything, right now: I think that what's happening is a discussion about editing standards in order to maintain the map's usability on Wikipedia. That seems like a worthwhile discussion to have, given the map's history. Pathawi (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Bahrain update

Hi @Goran tek-en: as mentioned in the above discussion, we noticed issues in the Bahrain inset. This is because the Ethnologue map we used wasn't clear enough (low resolution). Here is a high-resolution version from the same source (Ethnologue). The main differences are the "18" areas in en:Manama and en:Muharraq that should be expended a bit. There's no urgency at all, but if you have some time in the next few months to update the map it would be awesome. Thanks again for your help! A455bcd9 (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 Draft Bahrain, what is strange to me is the very sharp corners (I soften some) but I think this is due to how the map was created (probably from dataset). Feddback thanks. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en, I agree with you, your version is perfect, thanks for your reactivity! A455bcd9 (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 New version uploaded. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en, amazing, thanks! A455bcd9 (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Colors in the 13/20 mixed area

In Western Saudi Arabia (Red Sea coast), one area is shared by 13 (Najdi) and 20 (Hijazi): source. I'm colorblind so I didn't catch it earlier but I feel like when we changed 20's color, we forgot to change that mixed area. Am I right @Goran tek-en? A455bcd9 (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 We(I) sure did. I read some of the discussions about the different patterns so I have added something in the legend, tell me if you want it or not and check 13/20, thanks. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: thanks a lot. 13/20 looks good now. Regarding the additional legend, please discard it; I think it's not necessary on the image. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 New version uploaded.  Done --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Algeria

At Wikipedia's Arabic Talk page, Nehaoua initially opposed this map (& may still—I'm not sure), then adduced a 2019 map produced by Dr. Kheireddine Abainia for Algerian Arabic (in doi:10.1007/s10579-019-09454-8). I think it's fairly straightforward by Wikipedia policy that Dr. Kheireddine's map should be considered a preferable source. WP:LANGUAGE states: 'Ethnologue's sources (when they can be identified) should be checked for the accuracy of its claims whenever possible, and other sources used when available and Ethnologue's sources cannot be identified.' In the present case, I cannot identify Ethnologue's sources at all. Dr. Kheireddine explains his sources. As a graduate student in linguistics I don't find these convincinging, but the source is present. Dr. Kheireddine's article is generally a reliable source, appearing in a peer-reviewed academic journal. I don't propose editing the map immediately! I want to review the more recent (past two decades) sources cited in Glottolog first before suggesting a course of action. However, Nehaoua's suggestion was leading to expanded conversation on a Wikipedia page that is not the home of this map, so I thought I'd try to move that conversation here in order to centralise such conversations. Pathawi (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pathawi, thanks for moving the debate here. First of all, WP:LANGUAGE isn't a policy. It doesn't have much value (unfortunately).

Then, when it comes to Dr. Abainia's article, I'll copy (and edit a bit) what I wrote on Wikipedia:

• The author: Kheireddine ABAINIA is a computer scientist (PhD in Telecommunication & Information Processing and Assistant Professor teaching "Introduction to Arduino and communication protocols") who applies his knowledge to the Algerian dialects. He may be a reliable source on computational linguistics but he's note a reliable source on Arabic dialectology.
• The publication: Language Resources and Evaluation: impact factor of 1.8 (that's "average") and focus on "acquisition, creation, annotation, and use of language resources, together with methods for evaluation of resources, technologies, and applications" => Again, I don't think this review is reliable in dialectology (and it's not even an excellent source in computational linguistics)
• The article: "This paper aims to provide a new multi-purpose parallelcorpus (i.e., DZDC12 corpus), which will serve as a testbed for various naturallanguage processing and information retrieval applications." Per en:WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Citation counts", and this article has only been cited 10 times by other authors, and for the corpus, not for the map. Per en:WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." => the illustration of dialects is secondary to the main purpose of the article. Again, the article isn't focused on Arabic dialectology.
• Still, assuming for the sake of the argument that if this map came from an acceptable source. Could we even use it in a larger map of Arabic dialects? How?
  • Is "Sahel Algerian" the same thing as Algerian Saharan Arabic? What about "Saharan Ksouri"? What about "Saharan"? What do the stripes (Berber areas) mean? How should we color the Berber areas? Is the "Extreme Eastern-Southern" dialect part of Algerian Arabic or Tunisian Arabic? Are the western dialects part of Algerian Arabic or Moroccan Arabic (two users in the source cited by the author said that "le dialecte tlemcenien sonne très marocain")? The article and the map say nothing about these questions.
  • Glottolog and Ethnologue only have 3 sub-dialects in Algerian Arabic (in addition to Hassaniya and Algerian Saharan Arabic): Algiers, Constantine, and Oran.
  • How do we match them with the 13 dialects on that map? We would have to guess and use our own knowledge (en:WP:OR) or combine this map with other sources (en:WP:SYNTHESIS?).

You wrote that he "explains his sources." (his last name is Abainia btw). However his sources are 1/ himself and 2/ a random French discussion forum where a random user "Amokrane18" posted an original research map of Algerian dialects; per en:WP:USERGENERATED such a source is "unacceptable":

• "Therefore, this research work aims to accurately cluster Algerian dialects according to author’s knowledge related to Algerian dialects, as well as based on some user reviews on Babel Project."

Abainia then adds that his map is just a shot and that it still needs to be studied thoroughly by "experts in linguistics" (acknowledging that he isn't one):

• "Figure 2 shows an attempt to cluster different dialects over the Algerian map. [...] Although Algerian dialects are clustered by regions, they still require a thorough study by experts in linguistics and socio-linguistics, as no linguistic study has been conducted to accurately cluster Algerian dialects by region."

He explicitly acknowledged that he made up the sub-dialects and he asked for proper experts to do the job...

Based on the above, I consider that Dr. Abainia's map is not a reliable source. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

"In the present case, I cannot identify Ethnologue's sources at all.":

• Algeria: "General References: Applegate 1970, Bateson 1967, Cohen 1985, Fischer and Jastrow 1980, Marçais 1977, Zavadovskii 1962"
• Bibliography

A455bcd9 (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 thank you for your contributions, with this map, I show you the difference between the new map that divides all of Algeria into two dialects but there is an interactive dialect with near countries (Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania and Morroco)

• Orani, Saharan, Tell, Sahel Algerian (Sahal=plains), = Algerian sub-dialect
• Saharan Ksouri = Algerian Saharan Arabic
• the extreme western dialects part of Moroccan Arabic
• Extreme east = Tunisian dialect

Nehaoua (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Nehaoua: but this is en:WP:OR. Although I trust you, we cannot add something on Wikipedia just because one editor claims it. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Dr Kheireddine's map is certainly a reliable source. I don't think one can actually make the sort of evaluation you're making there based on impact factor etc. What seems more open to reasonable debate is whether or not it's preferable to Ethnologue. Ethnologue's sources are actually still obscure: That source page is for Algeria as a country, rather than for Algerian Arabic. Several of those sources are not plausible sources for this map, dealing specifically with other languages. This is a holiday weekend in the United States, so I won't be able to check Zadovskiĭ at our university library until tomorrow. I've placed an interlibrary loan request in for Fischer & Jastrow, so we'll see with that one. Marçais' description (x–xi) could hardly be the source for Ethnologue's map & is, in fact, far closer to Dr Kheireddine's. Marçais, however, has no map, & does not provide the level of detail in his description suggested by the gaps in the Ethnologue map. As for citation comparison to see what's entered the main stream: Ethnologue on the whole gets cited a fair bit, but largely in passing ('Ethnologue says there are 73,000 speakers. Now on with my actual research.'). The relevant comparison is whether this Ethnologue map or the Algerian Arabic article has been cited, & in the latter case if it's been cited for location.

I agree that Dr Kheireddine's map does not represent a method I would endorse, but unless Zadovskiĭ is some unexpectedly magical Maghribian source with extraordinary specificity, I think it's quite clear that there's at least one source that's superior to Ethnologue. It's not good, but it looks like it's better than the alternative. I will trace down the other relevant cited sources to be sure, & I'll look up the Glottolog sources: I'm not advocating a change yet.

As for how to make Dr Kheireddine's map correlate to ISO dialects: Saharan Ksouri seems pretty clearly to correspond to Algerian Saharan Arabic. (جبال القصور are the western portion of the Atlas Range; ASA is spoken in the Atlas Mountains along the Moroccan border.) "Sahel" is ساحل, which means coast—the "Sahel" of English & French is derived from this, but has a specific reference that is not necessary in Arabic. All of the northern dialects (including "Sahel Algerian") clearly belong to Algerian Arabic. (The eastern dialects, per Marçais, 's'apparente aux parlers tunisiens', but the ISO description explicitly notes that these are distinct. I'm sure we'll continue to debate this, but this does not seem to me to be an insuperable problem at all.)

I agree with A455bcd9 that we need to work from sources—local knowledge may well be correct, but for (English) Wikipedia we can't rely on it. Pathawi (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pathawi: Per en:WP:REPUTABLE (bold and italics not mine): "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. [...] A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. [...] When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts: The piece of work itself (the article, book) / The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) / The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press) Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

So one should make the sort of evaluation I made based on impact factor, etc. That's why Dr. Abainia's map (is there a reason why you call him Dr Kheireddine btw?) is not a reliable source in this context. If you disagree, we should ask on en:WP:RSN.

Regarding Ethnologue: they don't have to provide sources as they're the source themselves and they're considered reliable in linguistics on the English Wikipedia. (They have 5,000 field linguists and 300 PhD linguists to gather data. It's like when Cantineau makes a dialect map: we don't ask him his sources ;) )

And fwiw Ethnologue is especially considered reliable for maps:

• Lyle Campbell: "language maps are highly valuable [...] most of the maps are of high quality and are user-friendly" (+ she mentions the Algeria-Morocco-Tunisia map)
• Asya Pereltsvaig: maps "are generally fairly accurate although they often depict the linguistic situation as it once was or as someone might imagine it to be but not as it actually is"
• Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics: uses Ethnologue as its primary source language maps. (+ it includes the "Map of the Berber-speaking region in North Africa", i.e., the "holes" in our map of Arabic varieties)

tl;dr: Abainia's map cannot be used, while Ethnologue map can.

A455bcd9 (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

they're considered reliable in linguistics on the English Wikipedia they cannot possibly be considered as a reliable source for every language out there, it's simply impossible. Did they do any field work in Algeria? No! Is there an indication that they, at the very least, understand the language they are talking about? No! Does citing ancient sources make them reliable? Hell no!!If anything, it shows that they are out of touch with reality and confirms what you quoted above about them: they often depict the linguistic situation as it once was or as someone might imagine it to be but not as it actually is.

Abainia's map cannot be used, while Ethnologue map can That's nothing more than your irrelevant opinion. M.Bitton (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

"That's nothing more than your irrelevant opinion.": should I say the same thing about yours? A455bcd9 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

In any case, if you think Abainia's map is highly reliable, we can ask on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: I think it would be good to have other contributors' opinions.

Similarly, there's a discussion on that page about Glottolog. We could start one about Ethnologue. Either in general or in particular regarding the Algerian Arabic map. A455bcd9 (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Ethnologue doesn't know anything about Algerian Arabic (just look at the crappy sources that they use). For the other map, there are already 3 editors who disagree with you (we call that a consensus). M.Bitton (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what's your point @M.Bitton and what you want to do with Abainia's map. But again, I'd be happy to start a discussion on WP:RSN about this map. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Sinai Peninsula

The map incorrectly shows that no dialect is spoken in the central part of the Sinai Peninsula. Please refer to Rudolf de Jong A Grammar of the Bedouin Dialects of Central and Southern Sinai which contains several maps in the Appendix showing the dialectal variation throughout the entire peninsula. Link to the book: https://brill.com/display/title/18361

The dialects of central Sinai are considered by de Jong, Palva, and others to belong the Northwest Arabian dialect group. Coolcat108 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Coolcat108, as the legend says, the map doesn't say that "no dialect is spoken in the central part of the Sinai Peninsula" but that this is a "Sparsely populated area". A455bcd9 (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

A good comparison (although a bit old, I'll check if we have a more recent map): File:World population density 1994 - with equator.png A455bcd9 (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

While the central portion of Sinai may be relatively sparsely populated, there are regions which are much more sparsely populated which have been filled in on your map. Coolcat108 (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes @Coolcat108, it's because we followed the sources used. de Jong is definitely a reliable source centered on the subject. So we could use it (and add it to the list of sources) and color the whole Sinai accordingly. It's a good idea. Let's wait and see what other contributors think? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I asked Ethnologue, here's their answer: https://www.ethnologue.com/contribution/704611

We don't have to follow them and we could still color the whole Sinai as we have a reliable source. A455bcd9 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

South and North Levantine merged

Hi @Goran tek-en, The ISO standard has just merged South Levantine Arabic (previously [ajp]) and North Levantine Arabic ([apc]) into a single Levantine Arabic ([apc]): https://iso639-3.sil.org/request/2022-006

Could you please update the map accordingly? (so removing number 14 and expanding number 15 to the whole former 14 area)

It may be better to create a new file dated 2023 to avoid disrupting Wikipedia editions that added a legend referring to numbers 14 and 15.

Thanks for your help. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 I can do that in a bit of time.

• How about the numbering, should we just omit one number (14 or 15) or should we renumber everything after 14?

Omitting one number can be a cause of confusion, so I suggest we renumber, what you say. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, we should renumber. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 Now you will have to help me to check the map, we do have double of some numbers and it's a bit confusing to change like that.

New draft renumbered.

Itried to show the "legtab" here but it doesn't show correctly here so you will have to check ones it's uploaded. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Goran tek-en: thanks. I think you forgot to color the Gaza Strip as part of 14, it seems that you kept the previous color of the former 14. Other than that, everything looks perfect. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 Gaza fixed. I used the color of previous 15 as it was apc, not correct?

Should I use color of previous 14 ajp instead although that's not logical to me. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: the color is fine, the only issue was Gaza. If it's now fixed then: perfect! Thanks a lot :) A455bcd9 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 Now you can find it here Arabic Varieties Map-2023..

• Please check all the information, also links for wikipedia, wikidata and structured data.  Done

--please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: Thanks a lot! :) A455bcd9 (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)