Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

File talk:Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg

Please do not delete this page. It is created for discussion of the informational content of an image that happens to be hosted at Commons.

Source of information in the image

Background

This image has been discussed at Commons, at Deletion requests/File:Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg. The issue related to the source of the information in the map. The image was retained at Commons because "It is not the purpose of Commons to make the decision of the wikipedias whether an uploaded file is accurate." However, English Wikipedia needs to evaluate the suitability of this image for inclusion in articles here. To start discussion, I'm copying some prior comments from Commons and Talk pages here:

A map purporting to show a statistical distribution and created by a contributor who provides no source for the data on which it is allegedly based is useless Sitush (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be promptly deleted. It is copied badly. The original should be restored on all places.--Khalid Mahmood (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be deleted, Mr. Khalid Mehmood you actually up loaded a similar map but that was based on positions of Sir Gerison Linguistic work of 1920. British Colonial settlements post irrigation system in Punjab in 1930's and Post independence 1947 Migrations as well as recent settlements in Choolistan desert has brought in Majhi dialect Settlers and mixed up the demography in Shah Puri, Jaangli, Changvi, and Riasti dialect speaking areas.You being a local will also appropriate the facts stated by me. I acknowledge your work and efforts on Punjabi dialect articles. Please see those articles and you will appreciate my effort on those articles to carry forward your initiative. Being a professional I request you and all other's support to not delete the File which with all my honesty is very true representation of 2013 positions Maria0333 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And your reliable source for the data is? - Sitush (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For that you have to do a lot of reading . If you are linguist then you will easily digest the material in following references. but if you are not a linguist then you better stay away [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] [11][12][13]Maria0333 (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Well, it looks like you have created the image by synthesising information from various sources in order to present a unique summary, a montage of facs gleaned from several places. Even if this file survives on Commons, it cannot be used on English Wikipedia for this reason. Other people may not have a problem with it but English Wikipedia will have. - Sitush (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, No one has objected on English Wikipedia so why you not being professional linguist taking extra Head ache and interest. It is not digesting. You better focus on something productive. Additionally who told you that I have synthesized it. I just referred you to books where you can read and verify my map because unfortunately you neither a local nor a linguist so its my duty to guide you through. BEST RegardsMaria0333 (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I objected and I am fairly sure that I've seen someone else object a while before me. The point is, none of the sources you provide contain all of the information and working out which bit comes from which source is a nightmare. I do not think Commons has a policy against synthesising content and so perhaps this is ok here, but English Wikipedia does and even if the image survives here it will be removed from all the articles on English Wikipedia that currently use it. Whether that leaves it with any value is a matter for this community to consider. My remarks were intended as a "heads-up", a comment on what is going to happen regardless of this deletion discussion. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I am not sure that all of the various sources have used the same method to arrive at the conclusion that you have aggregated from them. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I again advise you to stay away from an area where you are not an expert. I am a linguist and this work belongs to me as I have indicated in my up load. In my Masters times I read all these books so I referred you to them. You should understand the Fact for example an accountant has his own competence although when ever his Chief executive asks him something about accounting he refers his CEO to books like Maigs and Meigs and Tax ACT etc because those books provided him a base. His own vision or work could not be out rightly rejected because he made a base from such books as a new learner. Applying to my case you cant out rightly reject it. The only option available to some one who thinks that there is a wrong representation in the map which I up loaded ..for example Thalochi dialect in the map then I well come to any changes he proposes as an professional in the areas of Thalochi in the map based on valid arguments Maria0333 (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This map looks like a nice piece of work. However, examination of the map and its usage indicates that someone is using Commons as a venue for publishing their own original research, then is citing Commons as a content source for an encyclopedia article. That is an inappropriate use of Commons. --Orlady (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Own work is not discouraged on Wiki Commons if it is not proved as wrong representation. Any one is invited to pin point any wrong representation on my uploaded map. Khalid Mehmood has also up loaded a similar map and I think he appears to me from same profession of linguistics. I hope to see his fresh comments when he logs in after his break from WP. Maria0333 (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously i am very confused that how I describe all of you that I have not created a New mobile technology or new formula or new painting. Because unfortunately there is no published map on the subject. I have just given a shape of all dialects agreed by all known linguists in to a map. Only map already available (File:Dialects Of Punjabi.jpg) on WP which was uploaded by Khalid Mehmood WP user, which was based on 1900,s position so I just made it as per modern linguist work specially of CARDONA. I am surprised that no one objected on Khalid Mehmood map uploaded in 2010 for 3 years on the same grounds of Self publishing and just for sake of an unknown ego they are making my Map controversial with out any professional discussion on its accuracy. That is the best case of discrimination. Unfortunately every one is just playing with words and with out any professional objectivity. Every thing in the world revolves around objectivity and it over rides Rules, every time they both compete the end result is modification of rules to accommodate the logic. Maria0333 (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
uNFORTUNATELY I have been discussing with users who appears to me not from A linguist back round. So making life easy for you all, You vote here on the basis of a single and most recent source of my map which is a latest research in 2007, Book named 'The Indo-Aryan Languages' by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain. up loader of first map on punjabi dialects as his own work Mr. Khalid Mehmood has requested deletion with out a reason as to where it is wrong although I have explained him that his uploaded image was as per Sir Garrison 1919 positions and my work is as per latest linguistic research post Irrigation colonization, Indo pak partition and Recent cultivation of Thal and Choolistan deserts.Maria0333 (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I have commented on your talk page at EN Wikipedia, on page 639 of that book there is a map of the dialects. It has some broad similarities to your map, but it has far less detail and there are noteworthy discrepancies with your map -- in particular, your map shows more dialects than the published map and it does not include some of the principal dialects that are described (and mapped) in the book. --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References
1. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named lmp.ucla.edu
2. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named books.google.com.pk
3. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ReferenceA
4. http://books.google.fr/books?id=C9MPCd6mO6sC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
5. Dulai, Narinder K. 1989. A Pedagogical Grammar of Punjabi. Patiala: Indian Institute of Language Studies.
6. Gill, Harjeet Singh Gill and Henry A. Gleason, Jr: A Reference Grammar of Punjabi: Patiala University Press
7. Koul, Omkar N. and Madhu Bala :Punjabi Language and Linguistics: An Annotated Bibliography: New Delhi: Indian Institute of Language Studies
8. Malik, Amar Nath,: 1995 : The Phonology and Morphology of Panjabi: New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers
9. http://dsal.uchicago.edu/books/lsi/lsi.php?volume=8-1&pages=600#page/8/mode/1up
10. Grierson 1920
11. Masica 1991:25
12. Burling 1970:chapter on India
13. Shackle 1970:240
I know you created those maps in good faith according to the best of your abilities.
You also know that, in creating them, you drew information from a variety of sources, using your own personal interpretation and expertise, to draw conclusions about where the boundaries lie on your maps.
The work you did, that is the definition of original research, which includes synthesis.
Original research is prohibited on Wikipedia, although more latitude is given for images to allow for original work. The problem here is that your maps represent data synthesized from multiple sources, and that crosses over the line into prohibited territory.
If an expert had performed this research and had it published in a peer-reviewed journal, then it could be referenced and the maps could be reproduced. If there's a consensus of expert opinion about the locations of these boundaries that would be unambiguously interpreted the same way, by anyone outside your area of expertise, then drawing a map based on that consensus would be fine. But that isn't what occurred.
The controversy over these maps isn't about how factual they are, or that they were made in good faith. I am sure your maps represent well-intentioned, hard work on your part. Rather, the controversy arises due to conflict with established Wikipedia policies. They may well be accurate, but we can't know that without reliable and verifiable sources that corroborate the synthesis you've performed. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Had it been controversial then it would had been criticized by some Linguist or local dialect speaker but it is being made controversial by an non local not linguist user Sitush. In courts lawyers misuse rules and laws to put their client case forward. I am afraid that the principle of True and fair view and Accurate professional information will also be beaten again here by same course of misusing the rules. In fact all WP articles are a synthesized reflection of various sources first hand information. I again reiterate the need for a professional discussion on commons to improve the map if required. Other wise I dont agree with the use less nik nok involving rules used for deleting valid and useful contribution. I am strong on my content on map thats why I have full confidence that I can easily defend that if some professional linguist plugs in to commons. Amatulic Thanks for guidance and Full respect for you as an WP editor by me. Honesty should prevail over rules and rules should be used to accommodate good faith contributions. Please also refer to refrences I have mentioned on commons to re check my map accuracy. BEST REGARDS Maria0333 (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maria0333, you need to understand that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. It only describes work that has been published elsewhere. If you (as an expert) had published this map in a peer-reviewed linguistics journal as part of a paper documenting the basis for the map, then Wikipedia could cite your paper and articles could show a copyright-free version of your map. However, it appears that you have chosen to publish your work on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. You can argue all you want about the professional quality of your work, but until it has been published by a reliable source, Wikipedia can't use it. --Orlady (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maria, I do not doubt the validity, factualness, or usefulness of your contributions. However, you still don't understand the controversy. There's a simple test.
Ask yourself: Could these maps have been produced by a lay-person examining the available sources?
If the answer is "yes" then there is no problem. That means such maps must either be available in reliable sources already, or the data needed to reproduce the maps are present in reliable sources and can be unambiguously interpreted.
If the answer is "no", then we can't use the maps on the English Wikipedia, because they represent original research requiring specific expertise, and the English Wikipedia does not publish such work if it hasn't already been published elsewhere. The maps are likely fine on Commons (I don't see why they would be deleted), or on Wikipedias in other languages, because all those sites have their own rules. But here, we abide by the rules on the English Wikipedia.
The prohibition against publishing original thought is one of the reasons that Wikipedia is considered a reliable source of information, and why it's often the first place people refer to when seeking information about any topic.
You have performed research that is probably worthy of publication somewhere. If you do publish that research in a reliable source, then we could use them on Wikipedia. But Wikipedia can't be the first publisher. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously i am very confused that how I describe all of you that I have not created a New mobile technology or new formula or new painting. Because unfortunately there is no published map on the subject. I have just given a shape of all dialects agreed by all known linguists in to a map. Only map already available (File:Dialects Of Punjabi.jpg) on WP which was uploaded by Khalid Mehmood WP user, which was based on 1900,s position so I just made it as per modern linguist work specially of CARDONA. I am surprised that no one objected on Khalid Mehmood map uploaded in 2010 for 3 years on the same grounds of Self publishing and just for sake of an unknown ego they are making my Map controversial with out any professional discussion on its accuracy. That is the best case of discrimination. Unfortunately every one is just playing with words and with out any professional objectivity. Every thing in the world revolves around objectivity and it over rides Rules, every time they both compete the end result is modification of rules to accommodate the logic Maria0333 (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are still confused? As I suggested before, ask yourself: Could these maps have been produced by a lay-person examining the available sources?
That's really the crux of the issue.
Please don't engage in misdirection with accusations of discrimination or egos. You are not helping yourself by doing so.
On Wikipedia, verifiability matters more than truth. Anyone working in academic disciplines should be able to understand and accept that. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion If a lay person read the latest research of 2007 in the Publication named 'The Indo-Aryan Languages' by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain he can easily verify the map. additionally any local editor can also very easily verify the dialects and the districts which cover them. My confidence level is 200% on the credential thats why I always well come constructive criticism on my map. You also refer to Wiki media common map page to see how the up loader of first map on punjabi dialects as his own work Mr. Khalid Mehmood has requested deletion with out a reason as to where it is wrong although I have explained him that his uploaded image was as per Sir Garrison 1919 positions and my work is as per latest linguistic research post Irrigation colonization, Indo pak partition and Recent cultivation of Thal and Choolistan deserts. Maria0333 (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listen Maria, can you please provide here 1 (only one) reliable (not blog, opinion piece etc) source where all the data from which this map is created is present. I am from the region and can understand these languages and the context. Maybe I will be able to read the source better than those from the 'rival' or 'foreign' country.
You have to understand no one is ganging up on you because of your gender or questioning your credibility. Many here are experienced editors who are trying to explain you the policies and trying to resolve this. So relax, calm down, and read the entire conversation again.
Cheers Samar Talk 07:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may go to image Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg on wiki media commons where I have been discussing with users who appears to me not from A linguist back round. You vote there. Best source of my map is latest research in 2007 in Publication named 'The Indo-Aryan Languages' by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain. Maria0333 (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The book you mention is available for "preview" on Google Books in the US. It has a chapter on this language, by Christopher Shackle. On page 639 there is a map of the dialects that has some broad similarities to your map, but has far less detail and has noteworthy discrepancies with your map (in particular, your map shows more dialects than Shackle's map and it does not include some of the principal dialects that he describes). (Note: The Shackle map could be in color in the print edition, but color does not show in the preview.) --Orlady (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I cannot preview the book. Maria you have ebook or scanned copy of the page? Samar Talk 16:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady and samar You may go to image Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg on wiki media commons where I have been discussing with users who appears to me not from A linguist back round. You vote there. Best source of my map is latest research in 2007 in Publication named 'The Indo-Aryan Languages' by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain.Maria0333 (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons discussion was closed because "It is not the purpose of Commons to make the decision of the wikipedias whether an uploaded file is accurate." Commons made no judgement on the validity of the map. As I stated above, the source you provided above does not appear to support the information in the map. Please do not remove the tags that identify the map as possible original research. --Orlady (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If others object to your maps, the burden is on you to try to form a consensus on the talk page. See WP:BURDEN. You will not achieve your objective by continually inserting your maps over the objections of others. My job as an administrator is to prevent disruption of the Wikipedia project and edit-warring is disruptive. I do not want to have to block you again.
I suggest you use the talk pages to demonstrate that a layperson's interpretation of sources would be the same as yours, and also explain, in the context of Wikipedia policy and not your opinion, why your map is preferable to maps that have already been published in verifiable and reliable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Map was deleted on two reasons. 1... Commons deletion discussion but now Deletion request by Sitush has been rejected on Wikimedia Commons. 2... Sitush has a self perception that map is synthesis, which is actually not because it is based on latest research of 2007 in the Publication named 'The Indo-Aryan Languages' by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain. So I am re inserting it. Unless Sitush prove it again as a synthesis and refer me the areas of map being synthesized also mentioning the different publications along with page numbers where from in his kind opinion I have synthesized the map. Sitush should not message me again here but move to relevant articles talk pages and develop WP consensus for deletion if he proved it synthesis. Rules are rules for every one whether a established editor or a non established editor. In fact established editor should first set the example for non established editors and immediate blockages cant help because establish editors must be have patience enough to make people under stand the rules by first complying those rules. Thanks for your great guidance Amatulic and Best regards Maria0333 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continue discussion here

Summary of the issues

These are the issues, as I understand them:

  • This map was created by User:Maria0333, apparently based on information compiled from several different sources.
  • The verifiability of the content has been questioned because the source of the map information has not been clearly identified. One source is the 2007 book 'The Indo-Aryan Languages' by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain, in which the chapter on this language is by Christopher Shackle and a map of dialects appears on page 639. Maria0333 has named some other sources.
  • There is concern that her compilation of data to create of this map is an original contribution that has never been published outside Wikipedia -- and, thus, constitutes original research.
  • Verifiability and "no original research" are core policies of English Wikipedia and the burden of proof for demonstrating the policy compliance of content lies with the person who introduces that content.

Determination of the acceptability of the map information might be based on answers to questions such as these:

  1. Where did the information in the map come from?
  2. Has this map been published previously? Where?
  3. If it has not been published previously, have substantially similar maps been published? --Orlady (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comments by Samar

- As the book is not available for preview in my area I cannot comment on the content and this particular's map conformity to it. Based on my local knowledge, the dialects overlap a great extent in the region and it is difficult to identify the areas where a particular dialect is spoken especially when there is such a variety even at the lowest administrative divisions such as tehsils. It will be great if I can see a screen shot of the page 639 mentioned above (email perhaps?) so I can understand how the regional variation is identified.

- One thing that concerns me is that the creator now is saying that only one source is used but in deletion discussion on Commons she gave multiple sources.

Sitush: And your reliable source for the data is?
Maria0333: 'For that you have to do a lot of reading . If you are linguist then you will easily digest the material in following references. but if you are not a linguist then you better stay away.

- This image has been added on too many pages (and still counting) where it has little relevance. I don't see why article on Darya Khan requires the whole Languages of Punjab map. Cleaning it up will be a mess.

- I don't see this discussion going far without the cooperation of the creator. What is the main issue of the creator - involvement of editors who are neither 'locals' nor 'linguists' and are incapable of understanding?! Should we involve linguists or locals so the discussion can continue. Samar Talk 18:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can send you a screenshot of the map, Samar. I have sent you email via the Wikipedia interface. If you reply to that with your email address, I can send the file. --Orlady (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments copied from Maria0333's talk page
Before January there had been a similar map up loaded by Mr. Khalid Mehmood which was being used on these and few other articles since 2010. That map was replaced because it was as per Sir garrison's work of 1920 with this one which is as per Cardona 2007. Actually all the 13 references i mentioned you in commons to study contain all the dialects descriptions because all agree on these dialects but spoken areas covered for a specific dialects are based on latest research of Cardona. Because so many areas have been divided in to various districts and tehsils with various names in last 90 years and Cardona perfectly clarifies about the boundaries of these dialects so if u compare khalid mehmood map It contains all the dialects I included in the map. but areas have been corrected as per cardona. Maria0333 (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I copied the above comments here in hopes of furthering discussion. The Khalid Mehmood map she refers to is File:Dialects Of Punjabi.jpg. I think the person she names "Sir garrison" probably is G.A. Grierson, although his Linguistic Survey of India was published in 1903, not 1920. It is apparently the main source for this map of Punjabi dialects, which is linked from this LL-Map page. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dont try to malign my image. We in local language call him Sir as an respect and pronounce him garrison and his work is dated 1919 for your very kind information. Any ways I am not interested to be part of non linguist fun pokers club BYEMaria0333 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a written encyclopedia, so we have to rely on spelling rather than pronunciation. Accordingly, I need to call this man "Grierson". Please pardon my confusion over dates. I only know what I read. LL-MAP, which I believe to be a solidly reliable source, cites "Grierson, G. A. 1903 (reprint 1963). Linguistic Survey of India. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass"; that was my source for the 1903 date. However, I see from George Abraham Grierson, List of titles of the Linguistic Survey of India, and the preface to the Cardona and Jain book that this was an 11-volume work (including 19 parts), with the first volume issued in 1903 and the final volume in 1928. List of titles of the Linguistic Survey of India does not give dates for the individual volumes. --Orlady (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Cardona map support Maria's changes? (I can't access it either.) — kwami (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments

- The Cardona map mentioned above (pg 639) does not support this map.

- I have not read the concerned chapters of the particular book, regardless it is highly improbable that a map with distinct lingual boundaries can be created based on simple text.

- Cartography is an advanced subject. Such maps are created through specific softwares (ArcGIS comes to mind) and most certainly not on MS Paint or similar tools.

- I do not deny the usefulness of this particular map, it does provide a general info on the Punjabi dialects in the region. However, it is neither accurate nor precise. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and reliability of content is of paramount importance. Many readers use this source for their research and work. Samar Talk 15:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush comments

The uploader has been blocked as a sock of LanguageXpert. This image seems to be clearly a case of WP:OI. - Sitush (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference lmp.ucla.edu was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference books.google.com.pk was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference ReferenceA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ http://books.google.fr/books?id=C9MPCd6mO6sC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
  5. ^ Dulai, Narinder K. 1989. A Pedagogical Grammar of Punjabi. Patiala: Indian Institute of Language Studies.
  6. ^ Gill, Harjeet Singh Gill and Henry A. Gleason, Jr: A Reference Grammar of Punjabi: Patiala University Press
  7. ^ Koul, Omkar N. and Madhu Bala :Punjabi Language and Linguistics: An Annotated Bibliography: New Delhi: Indian Institute of Language Studies
  8. ^ Malik, Amar Nath,: 1995 : The Phonology and Morphology of Panjabi: New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers
  9. ^ http://dsal.uchicago.edu/books/lsi/lsi.php?volume=8-1&pages=600#page/8/mode/1up
  10. ^ Grierson 1920
  11. ^ Masica 1991:25
  12. ^ Burling 1970:chapter on India
  13. ^ Shackle 1970:240
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Map_on_Dialects_Of_Punjabi_Language.jpg