207:. Yes, they are still very much unfinished (and young!), but they have to start somewhere, just like there are quite a number of Knowledge articles that are very much unfinished (sometimes nothing more than a very short definition, but of which the subjects in principle certainly warrant an article). If the Swadesh list of Slavic languages article has the right to exist, so have these, and only when the lists exist (though otherwise still empty) will other users ever add information to them. I did add a call for patience to the talk pages of the still empty lists to try to prevent reactions similar to yours.
256:
not all the words in the list necessarily have to be cognates to be included). If there aren't (yet) sufficient independent sources for the complete scope of the article, then, unfortunately, the article would have to await completion until that time, though potentially part of it could still be added, something not uncommon in other
Knowledge articles (what, by the way, does that mean precisely, a "completed article"?). I, for one, will try to stick to the sources, keen on having the information properly cited. Does this sufficiently satisfy your concerns? --
31:
71:
300:. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C."
293:(outdent) Yes, I noted those unsourced additions. I have no particular expertise in Slavic languages, but if you see anything that strikes you as off, maybe you could check to make sure those data don't conflict with known-good sources? Otherwise, I guess we just wait for someone to add better sourced data.
320:
C is an extremely common pitfall (even when trying to prevent it), though fortunately easy to fix by the same or other users if properly sourced. Unfortunately, not everyone is in the habit of properly sourcing their edits (like the anonymous user who recently expanded the Avar-Andic
Swadesh list),
255:
Many articles use information from different sources. Does this common synthesis then, according to you, also constitute original research? When I created these articles my intention was exactly a summary from other sources, certainly not to 'publish a comparison of cognates' (aside the point that
304:
combining data from, say, published lexicons to imply a conclusion about the relationship among languages or their histories is a step too far. That is, implying conclusions not made by the source material constitutes original research; citing similar conclusions from several sources does not.
303:
In terms of comparative or diachronic linguistic research, I take this to mean that combining research from, say, journal articles that present comparative work is completely fine, since such combination implies conclusions similar to those actually made in those articles. On the other hand,
228:
via synthesis. I agree that it is worthwhile to publish a comparison of cognates in these various sets of genetically related languages, but creating new lists of this type strikes me as beyond the purview of
Knowledge. If the research has already been done and published in peer-reviewed
123:
233:
or books, then those sources should be summarized on
Knowledge. If the research has not yet been done, however, Knowledge is not a suitable place to collaborate on it. For more discussion, see
271:
78:
64:
188:. May I suggest moving these pages to user space pending adding some content to the tables, in order to prevent other editors from proposing or nominating the pages for deletion as I did?
203:
I have looked at your links, but I can't find the potential conflict. Can you explain what you concretely mean, then? In my opinion these articles are simply (stub) sister articles of
59:
180:
You appear to have created a number of 'Swadesh list of...' pages, most of which are largely empty. I'm a bit concerned that these may conflict with policies such as
319:
Yes, I completely agree. These
Swadesh lists must be bound by the published materials, wherever these bounds lie at the moment. It is good to note that A+B-: -->
170:
274:(!), unfortunately without sources. I did place a request for the sources on the anonymous user talk page, hopefully that this has any effect... --
330:
283:
265:
250:
219:
150:
296:
To your question, "Does this common synthesis then, according to you, also constitute original research?" let me quote from
313:
197:
321:
making it hard for us to check whether their edits are reliable and within the bounds of what
Knowledge is(n't). --
204:
234:
154:
90:
Article includes only an empty table. It appears that the page's creator intended to fill in words from the
238:
142:
82:
60:
175:
146:
38:
181:
8:
326:
279:
261:
215:
158:
134:
111:
210:
If this explanation doesn't satify you, could you please elaborate on what you mean? --
119:
47:
17:
100:
309:
246:
193:
185:
166:
94:
for each language, but has not done so since creating the page on 19 November 2009.
297:
99:
While all contributions to
Knowledge are appreciated, content or articles may be
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
129:
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing
322:
275:
257:
230:
225:
224:
My principal concern is that filling out these charts would be essentially
211:
91:
305:
242:
189:
162:
70:
106:
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the
270:
An anonymous user just added a lot of entries to the
153:can result in deletion without discussion, and
118:notice, but please explain why in your
14:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
272:Swadesh list of Avar-Andic languages
79:Swadesh list of Avar-Andic languages
65:Swadesh list of Avar-Andic languages
25:
23:
101:deleted for any of several reasons
85:because of the following concern:
69:
24:
342:
205:Swadesh list of Slavic languages
29:
241:. Hope this helps clear it up.
13:
1:
331:21:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
314:17:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
284:12:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
266:23:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
251:22:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
220:21:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
198:19:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
171:20:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
7:
157:allows discussion to reach
10:
347:
143:Proposed Deletion process
235:WP:What Knowledge is not
151:Speedy Deletion process
124:the article's talk page
74:
155:Articles for Deletion
83:proposed for deletion
73:
42:of past discussions.
239:WP:What Knowledge is
176:Swadesh list pages
147:deletion processes
75:
226:original research
61:Proposed deletion
54:
53:
48:current talk page
18:User talk:JorisvS
338:
298:Knowledge policy
140:
139:
133:
117:
116:
110:
33:
32:
26:
346:
345:
341:
340:
339:
337:
336:
335:
178:
137:
131:
130:
114:
108:
107:
68:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
344:
334:
333:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
268:
208:
177:
174:
161:for deletion.
141:will stop the
97:
96:
67:
58:
56:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
343:
332:
328:
324:
318:
317:
316:
315:
311:
307:
301:
299:
294:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
267:
263:
259:
254:
253:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
227:
223:
222:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:
202:
201:
200:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
182:WP:NOT PAPERS
173:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
136:
127:
125:
121:
113:
104:
102:
95:
93:
88:
87:
86:
84:
80:
72:
66:
62:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
302:
295:
292:
186:WP:NOT#STATS
179:
149:exist. The
145:, but other
128:
120:edit summary
105:
98:
92:Swadesh list
89:
77:The article
76:
55:
43:
37:
36:This is an
135:dated prod
112:dated prod
159:consensus
81:has been
231:journals
323:JorisvS
276:JorisvS
258:JorisvS
212:JorisvS
39:archive
306:Cnilep
243:Cnilep
190:Cnilep
163:Cnilep
122:or on
16:<
327:talk
310:talk
280:talk
262:talk
247:talk
237:and
216:talk
194:talk
184:and
167:talk
63:of
329:)
312:)
282:)
264:)
249:)
218:)
196:)
169:)
138:}}
132:{{
126:.
115:}}
109:{{
103:.
325:(
308:(
278:(
260:(
245:(
214:(
192:(
165:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
