[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mappila Malayalam

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep without consensus, to what appears to be a content or naming dispute (a common problem in linguistics), rather than notability or other reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mappila Malayalam

edit
Mappila Malayalam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I come from this region. The exact region that is quoted in the article to be speaking Mapilla Malayalam. I have never heard of such a thing in my entire life, until I read this article. I can tell you this is absurd because there exists no such thing that is spoken in these areas. Let me again tell you that it's slang. Similar to the various slangs used in Bangalore and Northern Karnataka where you will hear "Hengri Hegri etc" A similar style of speaking. This is not restricted to a particular part of Kerala. If you go to the Eranakulam side they have their own style, but it is still Malayalam. Visit Trishur area similar thing. I am astonished to find that this is such a propaganda in the name of religion. It's like saying Mapilla Kannada is spoken by Muslims of Karnataka. Absurd.

I would like you to go to these areas and ask the people which language they speak. Just like that. They will say Malayalam. Ask them they had ever heard of Mapilla Malayalam, I can assure you that they will be very much astonished to hear it from you. Also let me remind you that the people of this area (Irrespective of religion) speak the same slang.

There are three links in the article. One is from some NVTC site. It says "The Arabic script is also used occasionally by Muslims in Kerala." Why should muslims in Kerala use Arabic script to write Malayalam. Why not write Arabic itself. The flaw in this statement is that it never claims that the Muslims of Kerala writes Malayalam in Arabic script. First of all the Muslims of Kerala are not well versed with Arabic. Even in mosques during Ramadan time and all the speech is given to the faithful in Malayalam but a translator, that's the Maulvi.

The second link is by a website run by a Jewish person. Don't know how credible it is. The researcher must have got confused with the way he looks at Kerala. Since the said area is a an area with higher percentage of Muslims than rest of Kerala he must have thought that it's a different language. One or two Arabic word and voila you have got a new language. It's idotic thing. I had to admit that certain limited words are loaned from Arabic into Malayalam just like how words like Lorry, Bus are loaned from English. These things never existed when Malayalam was born and no revolutionary writers tried to find alternatives for it. So it struck. That will not make it English Malayalam. Now I think you are convinced that there is only one Malayalam and yes, ofcourse with certain slangs in different parts but nothing religious as such until now. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Though your concerns are not without merit, this article is notable and verifiable. Claiming that the content of a certain subject is heresy or idiocy will not get the article deleted; this is censorship and Wikipedia is not censored. If you feel the article is incorrect, your best interests would be to edit the article and find sources with which to countermand its facts, or perhaps create another article addressing the fallacies within this. However, outright deletion is not the answer.--WaltCip (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WaltClip. The article seems reasonably well sourced, has a variety of external links which relate to the subject, and is therefore verifiable. Another reason is the notability of the subject. Although I wouldn't base any keep on search engine hits, the article receives 30,900 hits. Rudget.talk 17:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm afraid your google search was malformed. Your search returned all instances of "Mappila" or "Malayalam". To verify the existence of this particular topic, you needed to put the phrase in quotes. A properly formatted google search returns only 74 non-duplicative hits. (And the first on the list is the Wikipedia article. That's not usually a good sign though some of the other hits do appear possibly relevant.) Rossami (talk)
  • Strong Keep The article is well formatted, written and appears to have many valid sources, which clearly make it notable. I agree with WaltCip, <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">if the article can't simply be deleted per se, you can change it to support your point, but that will be eventually checked as well. scope_creep (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether the article is accurate or not, but this is not a content fork, any more than American English is a fork of English language. --Alivemajor (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Well, accuracy is kinda of an important factor in this case. With the two Articles you have listed above, you are dealing a national lexicon not with undocumented local tonal variations.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? English isn't tonal, but American English does differ in more than just "national lexicon", and if it was "undocumented variation" we wouldn't very well be able to document in Wikipedia, would we? --Alivemajor (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I should have expanded that comment for clarity. I wasn't referring to English or tonal languages. The general language of English and its variant form, American English, includes a vastly different lexicon than say, British English. This is quite distinct. So I don't think that is a valid comparison. Malayalam, Arabi(Arabic)-Malayalam have very subtle dialectal differences regarding pronuciation and tonal value. The addition of other Arabic words does not qualify it as a language or even a new regional dialect. I don't think the subtitles of the actual variation is what is important here.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel that this is the primary distinction with this discussion. The word Mappila generally (but not completely), refers to or is interchangeable as "Muslim" in this region. 'Arabic' is more definitive as it deals with ethnic origin versus Mappila which is primarily a religious distinction, this is also apparent in the infobox which is dedicated to Islam. A comparison would be something like calling Saudi Arabia, Saudi Islam. All Arab ethnic groups are not Muslims. Granted, before anyone chimes in about this yes, I am aware that there are mentions of other religions that are vaguely connected to 'Mappila' but the consensus is that it is primarily a religious divide. After reviewing the history of other Malayalam related articles there have been attempts to divide the language along various religions in this area. I defer primary weight of this discussion to the native speakers in the area that say this is not the correct distinction of this dialect.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Article appears to be untrue after further investigation. I researched this dialect and found nothing of substance to corroborate it. Most of the links are misleading and deal with Islam or a connected word in the article's title not with a possible Indian dialect. Also, several individuals from this region of India have chimed in on the Afd page and on the article's discussion page and said this is not a dialect. I know people in this region of Kerela who also said this dialect does not exist. There does appear to be an Islamic (Arabic) connection in the region but it does not claim to have its own dialect. There is a connection between the Arabic (Mappila) community in Kerela, and the actual language of the people Malayalee but I feel the primary contributer is a bit confused on this being an actual Indian-Arabic dialect, using original undocumented information and not substantiating the article. He is choosing to list multiple links to the Islamic faith unrelated to the article. The article looks good in format but is basically not true. --- Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)*

*Merge to Malayalam language. I am a native speaker of the language, but I have never heard of this name before. I am aware that Muslim speakers have their own "dialect" of Malayalam. For example, they use "Umma" and "Baapa" for "Amma" and "Achan" (Mother and Father). --vi5in[talk] 00:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete After going through the article again, I think it should probably be deleted. The only salvageable content seems to be the difference in vocabulary between Standard Malayalam and Muslim dialects. This information could be added to the dialects section in Malayalam language. --vi5in[talk] 19:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MAPPILA MAYALAM AS A RECOGNIZED DIALECT!! You can not merge this because it is not a valid term for all of you academicians here. The article called Arabic Malayalam deals with this and it is not divided by religion but by ethnic and cultural background! There is confusion here with the religious verses cultural context.----Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What I meant by Merge, is that you can at least merge the vocabulary part of this article. Muslims in Kerala do have a different form of Malayalam. You could mention that. --vi5in[talk] 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the issue here, at least for me, is the original research in an area that requires an outside expert should not be maintained here as 'first hand publishing' and the title implies the religion versus cultural difference and is not founded.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not relevant that this language might not be know by Wikipedians or even that it might be a desire by the reilable sources to promote it as a language. There are two references cited in that article: (1) Chaitanya's Book Kerala:India, the land and the people. and (2) Dravidian encyclopaedia. It is not Wikipedia original research to cite to those references. In other words, the cited references can be original research; the article cannot. Unless there is consensus that these references do not support the article, I do not yet see a policy reason to delete the article. In other words, please stop giving your personal opinions and start discussing the reliable source material. Thank you. -- Jreferee t/c 18:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    References have to be reliable. Who is Chaitanya? Who wrote Dravidian encyclopedia? --Jacob.jose (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Krishna Chaitanya was a journalist/writer, his real name was Krishna something else but used Chaitanya as a pseudonym. He was a Malayali but operated out of somewhere in North India. This book about Kerala was republished in Malayalam, I read this translation many years ago but can't remember anything. Died sometime in the mid/late ninties Tintin 02:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I would expect those comments from a User but not a seasoned Admin, asking someone to stop giving their opinion. Consensus is about opinion, Jreferee. Here 80% of the Articles are a matter of unscholarly opinion. Did you actually go to the links that you referenced above? Did you research this before you made the above comments? The problem is that are no reliably cited text in these sources. My opinion is based on outside research and contacting people that actually live in Kerela, India where I have been. Granted, I have studied languages of this area of central Asia, I am not claiming to be an expert in this field but this article is made up and I am not the only one to point that out. Wikipedia Malayalam deleted it for that reason. No wonder Wikipedia is so unreliable overall. Your Welcome---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your post on my talk page. I'm not sure why you think my 18:30, 22 November 2007 post above was directed specifically at you. It wasn't. Wikipedia is nothing more than a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable information. Wikipedia prohibits original research and relies on the reliable source material for reliability. Your claim that Wikipedia is so unreliable overall is like claiming that the phone company is unreliable overall because of what people say into their phones. In the same way the phone company has no control over what people say into their phones, Wikipedia has no control over what the reliable sources print. If the reliable sources say it, we put it in, if they don't, we don't. Personal opinions about a topic are important to determine whether the article is conveying information properly, but do not address whether the topic and article meet Wikipledia's article standards. Chaitanya's Book and the Dravidian encyclopaedia convey information about Mappila Malayalam. Does the article accurately reflect what these two sources say about Mappila Malayalam? Are these two sources Wikipedia reliable sources for the information conveyed? Is the article written in a way that puts the topic of Mappila Malayalam in proper context with respect to the Malayalam language? If the information as presented conveys untrue facts, wouldn't it be better to rewrite the article to accurately convey the information to educate others rather then delete the article to prevent their education? -- Jreferee t/c 05:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment- I am afraid your comparison to the phone company and what people say into the phone holds no bearing to what is happening with this article. I think Wikipedia is a fun source for a lot of interesting opinions but consistent and reliable it is not and that is very truly reflected in the academic world. If I were to tell anyone of the noted scholars that I deal with, 'I read it on Wikipedia', they would just look at me funny. I know there are many contributors that have a lot of academic credential that are very balanced in their writing but then someone interjects something they think they know about or that 'must be' put in, then the whole concept of accurate information is lost. That is one of it's strengths, in many ways in several areas but also its major flaw when in depth research is needed. The problem here is not something that can be fixed with a rewrite. The dialect, as it is titled does not exist. There is a correlation between to two words but it is being confused with a distinct dialect. The information it contains should be deleted, as it is original research. The sources do not reflect Mappila Malayalam as a dialect itself, this has been inferred by the contributor and expounded upon to create this article. I could create an article called Christian English Tennessee Twang and make it fit the facts but that still wouldn't make it a recognized dialect or make it true. I really question the logic of putting original articles like this in Wikipedia until we prove it to be untrue. I think the reverse should be the case. I am glad our justice system doesn't work in that way. Your statement "Wikipedia is nothing more than a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable information.", is how we would like to think of it, but unfortunately is not true. It is opinionated and too many times not verifiable. I believe this to be the case with this article and so did Wikipedia Malayalam. I did spend way too much time researching this one but I wanted to make sure as many bases were covered as possible and still I came back that the article is original research on an academic topic that is essentially false. Sorry to be the stick in the mud about it all but keep it if you like, just makes US Wiki look silly when their own native speakers wouldn't list it.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I wrote the article.Every language has its own dialects.Mappila Malayalam is not a different language, but is a muslim dialect of Malayalam.I have done tons of research and has wasted enough of my valuable time in writing this articles. I have given many reliable reference to this article.If every wikipedians are against this article, then i have no more word to say.I strongly recomend to KEEP this article. ARUNKUMAR P.R (talk · contribs) 10:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arunkumar- I see you put a lot of work into the article and it looks great. I know that the Mappila are associated with Malayalam but are you the first to write about it as a distinct dialect? Thanks!---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No comment on the validity of all this relative to what the local users posted above, but the sources if nothing else assert and show that the subject is notable. Sounds like anything else is a content dispute. • Lawrence Cohen 22:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mappila_Malayalam&oldid=1142288427"