Talk:Ethnologue/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ethnologue is full of errors - why is this not mentioned?

Ethnologue is as unscientific as you can find. It is so full of errors I am shocked it is quoted and used as a source so often. I have personally on mor than one occasion contacted the editor, who conceded without delay that the information was wrong. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ethnologue is widely used by professionals, even by those who are aware of its flaws. There is however often no better or equally comprehensive source. When there is it is fine to use the highest quality source instead. If you have references to sources that critique the accuracy of the Etonologue then we can use those sources and include the information, otherwise we cant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Often, people look in Ethnologue and find an error (usually concerning population numbers and not other information), then declare to the world "Ethnologue is full of errors". It's not. Like all resources (such as Encyclopedia Britannica) which attempt to cover the world, there are errors, sometimes easily found. And, like all such sources, when errors are found and the editors are presented with accurate (and properly sourced) corrections, these corrections are made as soon as possible, in the next edition at the latest. I have corrected errors in Ethnologue before on several occasions and the editors are very easy to work with. Correcting errors in Encyclopedia Britannica is far more difficult and, in some cases, nearly impossible. --Taivo (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Taivo, I have no idea why you would presume that I am talking about numbers. It is far less important than correct facts. besides, no-ONE can tell you what the right number is for any language; It is not like the number of cars or houses, each with an individual licence. The errors I am referring to is in the value they ascribe to specific aspects of languages - eg, the "principal languages", which often include languages that are by no account of any significance; considering a major San tribe in Botswana as "immigrants", etc.. That kind of information is deliberately used HERE in the WP by POV-oriented editors, knowing that no-one will go after them if they claim the Ethnologue says so. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If you know of errors in Ethnologue, and have the sources to show them the error, then why don't you contact the editors to correct them? I have and they correct the errors as quickly as they can. And I didn't say at all that the only errors in Ethnologue are number errors. I've had them fix classification errors as well. As far as I can tell you are one of those people who have found an error in one of the languages you work on and rather than helping to improve Ethnologue you scream that it is completely unreliable because of the error you found. There is far more accuracy in Ethnologue than there is error. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it is far from the "so full of errors" that you claim. And, if you have the reliable sources to back you up, you can correct Ethnologue errors that have crept into Wikipedia. You can't simply rely on "I say so", of course, but if you have the sources, you can always influence the text in Wikipedia away from Ethnologue if other editors recognize the error. Please provide a specific example and I will look at it. --Taivo (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Just who the heck do you think you are to say that "you are one of those people"? I hae found many errors and I have been in contact with Ethnologue on a number of occasions. For your information, each time I came across a dispute here and someone clings steadfastly to what Ethnologue says there is no solution because it is the only source. In one specific case, EVERYONE involved agreed that Ethnologue was wrong, but the editor in question would not back down because he had a source, those saying the opposite did not.

And yes, they do respond and they do correct what is wrong. But that makes it evident that they information is often wrong, that it is indeed full of errors. The point is that it should come with some kind of a disclaimer and perhaps the editors - being aware of the disclaimer - woud NOT insist on this or that based on Ethnologue. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Just who am I? I'm certainly not the one who is claiming that Ethnologue is "full of errors" without objective facts at my disposal. There are errors, but your assertion of "full" is simply groundless. And your stated problem isn't with Ethnologue, your problem is with Wikipedia's requirement of reliable sources. Indeed, if there is only one reliable source for a fact (and Ethnologue qualifies as a reliable source per Wikipedia's definition), then that source carries more weight here than all of your "I say so", no matter how loudly you say it. The information in Ethnologue is not "often wrong", it is sometimes wrong. I work on a group of seven languages and the information on those languages in Ethnologue is largely correct. So based on my experience with Ethnologue, it is not "full of errors", but is full of reliable information. --Taivo (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I should have known. You are one of their contributors. No wonder all the screaming and kicking. I will take this discussion where it is better served. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You obviously don't know the meaning of "contributor". Have I corrected errors in Ethnologue? Of course, any responsible linguist does. Beyond that, no, I have no official connection to Ethnologue. I am a linguist and a professor at a research university. You're just sore because your ranting isn't being reciprocated by a reasonable scholar. I asked you for specific cases, but since you have failed to cite any, then I will assume that you are just writing an anti-Ethnologue screed. --Taivo (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• If we had all stuck to the purpose of this page, which is suggesting improvements to the article then this exchange would have turned out more amiably. Does anyone have any sources critiqueing Ethnologue that they think shoudl be used to add information to the article? If not then our personal opinions about the Ethnologue are rather irrelevant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Maunus, for your constructive input. Yes, in fact, there is a very strong advisory on Wikipedia on how to use Ethnologue information. We should think of how to make it more prominent so editors don't blindly use it as a bible on everything language-related but use their with when they sense that something does not sound/ look right. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This talkpage is the place where we discuss how to improve the article about The Ethnologue using information found in published reliable sources. Your concern is rather about how we at wikipedia should use the Ethnologue as a source in articles about languages. The correct place for such a discussin would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages, which is where we discuss our general editorial approach to articles on languages. I would suggest you make a thread there, preferably with some concrete examples of the problems that you have experienced, and some sources that back up your critique. I think there are good arguments to rely less on ethnologue than we sometimes do, but there are also some good arguments for using the ethnologue prominently because its scope and systematicity.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus. Actually my concern is both. It is about this article and it is about how to use Ethnologue in the WP. As for the article on Ethnologue, I have since seen on discussion pages that there is a general mood that there are many inaccuracies. And Ethnologue knows this and admits it. So I feel that this should be reflected here, like on any other article where there are sections on negative aspects of an entity. But thanks, I will get my duvcks in a row and preepare something to present to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a good idea, I think some supporting sources would be useful for the proposal to be actionable. It is certainly common knowledge among linguists that Ethnologue is far from infallible, but most of us use it in different ways and as a source of reference for certain kinds of information anyway. And "common knowledge" is in anycase not an admissible source on which to base edits to articles here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: I entirely disagree. This article is about Ethnologue and the talk page is to be used to discuss improving the article. The article is not a how-to guide for Wikipedian use and the talk page is not for discussing what you don't like about Ethnologue. Your longevity in this project belies your ignorance about said project. I think we've tolerated your whinging quite long enough. Put down the lance; jousting this windmill serves no purpose. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You disagree because you can't read. Try again. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

People tell me that Wikipedia is becoming more hostile. Let's not give them additional evidence of this. Whether we think the Ethnologue is reliable or not, we need to keep this discussion about the topic, and keep it civil.Pete unseth (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Citing sources in Ethnologue

I appreciate the additions made by @Neil P. Quinn:, adding scholarly opinions about Ethnologue. Nicely done!

In response to Hammarström's criticism, the "failure" to cite sources, I'd like to say three things. (Full disclosure, I'm one of Ethnologue's research editors, which is why I'm doing so here rather than trying to adjust the article.) 1) The criticism is not entirely accurate, in that Ethnologue does disclose its sources in many cases. See, for example, the Ethnologue article on American Sign Language, which cites four sources. Hammarström's criticism, as quoted, could give the impression that Ethnologue never cites sources, which is not accurate. Ethnologue's citation practices are described in its http://www.ethnologue.com/about/plan-site introductory articles]. So, I'd like to request that some editor address this concern in the article; it is obviously not appropriate for me to do so. 2) In the past, citations were kept to a minimum, partly to save space in an already large printed volume, and partly to make reading easier for people who are not specialists, who constitute the primary audience. (In publications for a mixed popular and scientific audience, it is common to provide fewer citations than in scholarly articles.) Now that Ethnologue is primarily an internet publication, we are working to report more sources, especially for certain types of information like population that especially need backup. 3) People are always welcome to write and ask the editor for the source of any information. For changes made in the last several years, we have been careful to keep track of all sources in our database. Unfortunately, sources were not always recorded in earlier days, but in this case, if you have better information, we welcome corrections and we will remove controversial information from the past that we can't back up. AlbertBickford (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that I've read Hammerström's article, I'll add a couple more comments. 1) Hammarström makes it clear that Ethnologue does cite sources, especially in more recent editions. His concern is that it still does not provide enough citations. So, the quote given (taken from the abstract) comes across as more absolute than his more nuanced (and, in my opinion, entirely fair) position in his article. 2) He also indicates that many other similar publications (p. 735) have followed the same practice of not listing sources. It is thus clear that Ethnologue's former practice is a by-product of its origin as a print publication, where space was at a premium, and many other publications made the same choice. Changes this extensive take time. AlbertBickford (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, AlbertBickford. Ethnologue was created in an era long before the example of Glottolog et al., when the internet as a whole was lacking in sources. Just look at some of the earliest Wikipedia articles. They are virtually citation-free. Indeed, many older, shorter articles still have very, very few citations. It was certainly a different era in Wikipedia just ten years ago, not at all like today's era where some editor or other demands a citation for every single sentence. --Taivo (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@AlbertBickford: thanks for pinging me, and sorry it's taken so long to respond. (By the way, I deeply appreciate your scruples in not editing the page directly. I know I've been tempted to edit my employer's article as well.)

I think you make a good point. To be honest, I added that quote without reading the full article (which I haven't been able to access), thinking that a quote from the first page and a citation was more useful than no mention at all. Do you think you could send me a copy so I could more accurately characterize it? My email is mail (at) myfullname (dot) com. In the meantime, I've moved the quotes out of the introduction to a separate "Reputation" section so they're not unnecessarily prominent.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Neil P. Quinn: I tried the regular email route, and it bounced. So, I sent you an email through the Wikipedia system. AlbertBickford (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@AlbertBickford: Thanks for sending me the article! I've (finally) read it and updated the reputation section. Let me know if you can think of any improvements. Also, I'd be very interested to know about any other scholarly sources which review Ethnologue or discuss its history and reputation.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Neil P. Quinn: I think what you did is fair both to Ethnologue and to Hammerstrom. Thanks for doing it. I'll keep an eye out for other reviews, commentary, etc. on Ethnologue. AlbertBickford (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Relative importance of the paywall

How significant is the paywall? Important enough to include it in the lead of the article? Or, would it be better down in the main body of the article? By comparison, the articles on Encyclopedia Britannica and the New York Times do not mention income generation from their websites until later in the article. I'm guessing that the mention of the paywall in Ethnologue was stuck in the lead without much thought--or maybe because people were upset enough about it--which isn't exactly a NPOV. I recommend moving discussion of the paywall to the end of the Overview section. Comments? AlbertBickford (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No one responded to my proposal, so I went ahead and made the change. If anyone objects, they can revert, but if so, I'd appreciate discussion of the reasons. AlbertBickford (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

it's useless. I change it, now

Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale · history; only one edition: 04:18, 5 November 2016‎ . (←Redirected page to Ethnologue) 24 bytes. Then its use at this article (Ethnologue) like an internal link is recusrsive and worse it's useless. I change it, now.

Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale · Revision history

(cur | prev) 04:18, 5 November 2016‎ John Vandenberg (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24 bytes) (+24)‎ . . (←Redirected page to Ethnologue) (thank)
... estimate of language viability using the Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS) · · · · · · · · versus the actual one:
... estimate of language viability using the Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS)
Then its use at this article (Ethnologue) like an internal link is recursive and worse it's useless. I change it, now. --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

only

• I've found only this caWp (wp article) about ca:Escala EGIDS; with the wikidata link: EGIDS. --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

and I wanna cite here this small talk section archived

• Talk:Ethnologue/Archive 1#New reference for EGIDS

response

The previous post included my signature, copied from elsewhere, but I am not responsible for it, so I removed my signature. I assume the person who copied the reference is the same one who made the last few posts about EGIDS. I'm mystified by the argument as to why reference to EGIDS should be removed, since it has been used in the last several editions of the Ethnologue, has actually gone through a few cycles of refinement (although I don't know why that would make a difference), and is cited by others who are interested in language vitality. BTW, I am a regular contributor to Ethnologue, and the principal author on one of the articles that revised EGIDS, so I'll refrain from editing the article directly. But, I felt I needed to make a response here. AlbertBickford (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, the person had included a post about EGIDS in the previous section, rather in this new section, so I moved that. AlbertBickford (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, now I understand. The editor is talking about a wikilink to EGIDS that redirected to the Ethnologue article, hence the link was useless. I agree with that. Sorry, I misunderstood the intent of the post. AlbertBickford (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Review of the page

The information displayed on this site, appears to all be relevant to the topic. However, I do think that the information is a little out of date, as most of the information has not been updated since 2018. The tone of the article is neutral and there does not appear to be any heavily biased claims. I did notice that most of the references for this article, are from the Ethnologue official website. This article could be improved if a variety of different references were used that were not from the official website. The use of diverse references from different authors and publishers would led credence to this article. --Vmarti7 (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC) (Vmarti7)