Talk:Diaphoneme

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject icon Linguistics Low‐importance

It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and noticed uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm having trouble identifying any uncited claims. Can you please mark them with {{citation needed }} tags? — Æμ§œš1 14:12, 29 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• @Aeusoes1: I added citation needed tags to the article for uncited statements and for statements that use parenthetical citations, which per WP:PAREN should be replaced with inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm sorry, but a lot of what you've tagged actually is cited. It's just they are formatted as attributive phrases, rather than reference notes or parenthetical citations. I could quibble about the distinction between parenthetical and attributive references, but even if that distinction weren't meaningful, it still doesn't follow that a deprecated citation format is the same thing as an uncited claim. As such, I've removed the citation needed tags. If there's a more appropriate tag or hatnote to put that has to do with citation formatting rather than citations themselves, that would be more appropriate.

Anyway, what's left is a set of four statements:

Two of them are rather benign analyses following examples of diaphonemic representation. In the first, the diaphonemic transcription of "New York" is described as an example of a polylectal representation. The second is clearly an elaboration of an already cited work, Orten (1991). We could explicitly cite Orten again, but it is redundant IMHO.

The other two I would say are the most valid. @Kwamikagami: is the one who [added the paragraph about Chao] in 2010 and may be better suited to provide accurate references. I am the one who added the bit about speakers who can hear a contrast that they don't make. I'm almost certain that it is backed up in the source cited earlier in that paragraph, but it doesn't hurt to check my notes on that. — Æμ§œš1 04:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Copied the 1ary sources from General Chinese. — kwami (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, I moved the other claim down a few paragraphs where a well-cited example is given.

The only other uncited claim remaining is the bit about a diaphonemic transcription of New York. As I recall this was originally placed in the lede section, but the desire to have citations even in the lede prompted finding an example that could be attributed.

It seems to me like this New York example works to illustrate already-cited claims, on par with defining a word and then using that word in a sentence or identifying a grammatical rule and then generating a fictional sentence illustrating that rule. I may be too familiar with the topic to make an objective assessment on this, so I'll leave it to other users to weigh in. If we do decide to keep it, I think it might be best to switch it and the example given in the lede, since it would be more familiar to readers. — Æμ§œš1 15:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]