Dinika amin'ny mpikambana:Aeusoes1
Aeusoes1: hello there. I would like to ask your opinion about a certain issue. I have noticed that you are an English user who is well acquainted with phonetic trascriptions and lingustics in general, and you have also been registered since a few years so you should be quite expert with this site dynamics. I would have contacted you in en.wikipedia if my current IP address had not been caught in an IP range block a few days ago caused by another user whose vandalisms had nothing to do with what I am going to talk about. The issue is about the fact that the pronunciations of some words in a certain language, sourced by a dictionary based on IPA and linked in that language help page, may have more than one possible pronunciations, the first one is the most correct modern pronunciation, while the second and possibly third is a tolerated alternative which was used in the past but nowadays is considered obsolete, the symbol guide of the dictionary itself says so. Unfortunately a few days ago a user has deliberately decided to invert the order, writing in the edit summary that his version is better, which means going against a source and following one's POV if I am right. In case you are available for a little help to me I will tell you further details, it is not complicated. Thank you. I am sending you also a ping just to be sure that you read this thread: Endrika:Ping.SIiesnoc (resaka) 23 Septambra 2019 à 18:49 (UTC)
- That seems simple enough. What is the page in question? Aeusoes1 (resaka) 23 Septambra 2019 à 20:46 (UTC)
- Aeusoes1: thanks for replying! Here are the details. The language is Italian, the source is the DiPI, which is considerated the ultimate source about modern Italian orthoepy, is the only dictionary based on IPA and is linked in the bottom of the Help:IPA/Italian page. You can find its full version in PDF here. There are a few words in Italian, mostly word-endings, containing an intervocalic S which, once, was traditionally pronounced "s" but, nowadays, it is pronounced "z" also by actors, dubbers, professionists of the language, and even in Tuscan Italian it is starting being voiced unlike in the past. Well, even though this source, often added as a reference in lots of pages containing Italian IPAs, always registers the modern pronunciation as first and then, separated by a full stop, the accepted antiquated unvoiced pronunciation, for every word without exception, a user has decided from day to day and without consulting anyone that all the pronunciations had to be inverted, giving the readers false information conflicting that source but, guess, according to his POV. Have a look at his first massive disruption here, he is not stopping. If you compare any of the IPAs he vandalised with their sourced version in the DiPI, you will verify what I have just said. What do you sincerely think about the issue I have just explained? Do you agree with my considerations or do you think that his edits are correct and constructive? Also take in consideration that this particular user has been blocked several times out of en.wikipedia, while there he has often quarreled with other users about his edits to IPAs and has recently been subject of a signalation to admins, so I do not think there is good faith in his wrong edits but just pretence of being right and non collaborative behaviour, not to talk about flouting sources. Let me know your opinion about this case, thank you again! There is no ping template here so I am not doing it again.SIiesnoc (resaka) 24 Septambra 2019 à 09:22 (UTC)
- I'm sure the user in question is acting in good faith, but it still may be a problem. I've brought it up at the Italian IPA help page. Aeusoes1 (resaka) 24 Septambra 2019 à 16:02 (UTC)
- Aeusoes1: again, thank you for your help! Even if that user was in good faith, users who edit pages should rely on sources, not on their own opinions. The source, this orthoepy dictionary based on IPA and drafted by some of the most illustrious Italian linguists such as Luciano Canepari, provides that order because it testifies that the voiced pronunciation of intervocalis S is dominant in the 3rd millennium compared to the unvoiced one. This can be liked or unliked, but it is the truth, even dubbers and theatre actors in 90% of cases refuse the outdated pronunciation, which is starting disappearing even in Tuscany. Either we accept the source and write down what it says, or we refuse it completely, at least this is what I think. Let's hope that the discussion you have opened will lead to a conclusion and will not just stale, maybe also other users expert in Italian phonology such as LiliCharlie will join. Good evening!SIiesnoc (resaka) 24 Septambra 2019 à 18:18 (UTC)
- I'm sure the user in question is acting in good faith, but it still may be a problem. I've brought it up at the Italian IPA help page. Aeusoes1 (resaka) 24 Septambra 2019 à 16:02 (UTC)
- Aeusoes1: thanks for replying! Here are the details. The language is Italian, the source is the DiPI, which is considerated the ultimate source about modern Italian orthoepy, is the only dictionary based on IPA and is linked in the bottom of the Help:IPA/Italian page. You can find its full version in PDF here. There are a few words in Italian, mostly word-endings, containing an intervocalic S which, once, was traditionally pronounced "s" but, nowadays, it is pronounced "z" also by actors, dubbers, professionists of the language, and even in Tuscan Italian it is starting being voiced unlike in the past. Well, even though this source, often added as a reference in lots of pages containing Italian IPAs, always registers the modern pronunciation as first and then, separated by a full stop, the accepted antiquated unvoiced pronunciation, for every word without exception, a user has decided from day to day and without consulting anyone that all the pronunciations had to be inverted, giving the readers false information conflicting that source but, guess, according to his POV. Have a look at his first massive disruption here, he is not stopping. If you compare any of the IPAs he vandalised with their sourced version in the DiPI, you will verify what I have just said. What do you sincerely think about the issue I have just explained? Do you agree with my considerations or do you think that his edits are correct and constructive? Also take in consideration that this particular user has been blocked several times out of en.wikipedia, while there he has often quarreled with other users about his edits to IPAs and has recently been subject of a signalation to admins, so I do not think there is good faith in his wrong edits but just pretence of being right and non collaborative behaviour, not to talk about flouting sources. Let me know your opinion about this case, thank you again! There is no ping template here so I am not doing it again.SIiesnoc (resaka) 24 Septambra 2019 à 09:22 (UTC)
Aeusoes1: hi, I have seen that there was a discussion about this matter in en.wikipedia. Has it come to an end or is it just staling?SIiesnoc (resaka) 18 Oktobra 2019 à 18:42 (UTC)
Aeusoes1: hello!SIiesnoc (resaka) 18 Oktobra 2019 à 22:40 (UTC)