Talk:Navarro-Aragonese

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Languages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Spain This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please stop removing content, discuss any matters here. I am the main contributor to the article, so if you see any specific problems bring them up here. I think it is much better to contribute by adding than mass removing

Please spare us another show of your well-known stubbornness and inability to compromise. The lead was a mess and in addition there was a Clarification needed tag almost one year old. I would add a new section myself about the linguistic situation in Navarre in the Middle Ages if I could understand what you are trying to convey with your sources; in any case it's obvious that such details don't belong in the lead. Please stop making a fool of yourself. --Jotamar (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O, your bulldozing was very constructive then, I should understand. Anyway, I am not engaging in your ad hominem game, much as I could say. So back on the topic, there was this clarificification needed tag, that was all. Instead of taking a constructive approach

WP:VER

to put your own version, and remove everything on the grounds that "we do not know much", I marvel at your positive contribution.

The source Pezonaga cites Mozarabic or (generic) Romance in the Ribera, and not Navarrese Romance or Aragonese, Ok, I can buy that if you are zelous and want to take it as OR. The tongue was not Castilian, that is sure. Whoever with a slight command on the topic knows that it only could have been Navarro-Aragonese Romance or Mozarabic, a continuum really. Baroja points to Navarro-Aragonese around Tudela in the 9th century (Los Vascones y sus vecinos), much adventerous as it is to label it as 'Navarro-Aragonese' during that period. The 11th century Glosas Emilianenses in Rioja have been labeled, strictly speaking, in academia as Navarro-Aragonese Romance, I think we can agree on that, and that a language (probably in a Basque-Romance bilingual context, as studies have suggested) spoken in that Rioja setting was Navarro-Aragonese. Further geographic information is provided in Ricardo Cierbide 1998, pages 509-510. More is provided in Jimeno Jurio 1995, page 82. Further details come from other sources, most of them quoted in the references, althoug I guess that can be improved. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, you may have a point in that the lead may be shortened, and its information transferred to the appropriate section if that helps settle the dispute. We can build consensus based on that. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's really difficult discussing with you and not slipping into sarcasm. So you sound very reasonable in the talk page but your contribution to clarify the matter in the text so far is one blank line. I'll need to call a 3rd party, as usual. --Jotamar (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, you are funny man. Listen, I produced the article, a remarkable one I think, and took the pains (you do not) to add detail and accuracy, although that is sure, it can be improved. I should remind you, again, WP:PRESERVE ("Instead of removing content from an article, consider: (...)"). The fact is you had a point but you decided to take a sweeping approach, not very helpful believe me, instead of relocating it or trying to change something. You do not want to waste time? Not me either.

The dispute can be fixed here, but please yourself, 3rd party comment is also fine. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was this language an old form of modern Aragonese like Old Spanish for example? Also, if this language is extinct the article should have was not is. 2600:6C63:417F:23FB:496:57D7:B7B8:3373 (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Aragonese is a dying language, and it's spoken in remote towns that in the Middle Ages were outlying areas of the general Navarro-Aragonese speaking region. Comparing this situation to Old Spanish vs Modern Spanish is of very little use. --Jotamar (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still contradictory; the animated graphic makes it appear that the language has survived to the 21st century, while part of the article text, including the lead, states it merged into Castilian and Aragonese. Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 21:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The animated map is indeed unreliable, it makes one think that the language was born in a small area and then it expands to a larger region, but what was spoken in this region before? Please tell us what change would be needed in your opinion. --Jotamar (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]