Talk:Giuseppe Pitrè

Requested move 29 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Dekimasu's summary from his earlier reversed close still seems to hold true now. If anything, the "oppose" votes have a slight edge as there does seem to be some evidence presented that the è form is more common in sources, whereas the supports look like appeals to a so-called "correct" Italian form, without much accompanying evidence. Either way, it's a no move.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

---

• Giuseppe Pitrè → Giuseppe Pitré
• Sicilian Ethnographic Museum Giuseppe Pitrè → Sicilian Ethnographic Museum Giuseppe Pitré

– The title should correctly use the acute (é). The correct spelling for Standard Italian as opposed to a less common regional Sicilian pronunciation. For the full explanation which is more complicated and involved further sources and linguistics please read this message left on my talk page, and this other message left on Kbb2's talk page. The issue of title is connected to a dispute between the proposer and Enzian44 from the German Wikipedia. Please consider me neutral. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

There's also this SPI which I posted several hours ago. It should also be considered.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm also neutral. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for your comment, I'd started typing before you finished, then I replied to Frayae and came back here to end the comment, so there was a conflict of editions. But about your off-topic precisation added to discredit me, a CU won't find any relation between me and Essjaey, I didn't even know about this coincidence with our names and I've become aware of it today, I swear on my very life. Let me say that if I'm not going to say here what I think about you and the way you've chosen to "help" me when I asked it's because if I did it I'd be blocked for real, it seems that not only in real life but on the Internet too I've a very bad luck with the people I choose to try calling on. Essakra (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Essakra: I'm not going to answer to this post as it's dishonest. Anyone interested in the real story should read the SPI. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with the last part: anyone is free to compare my edits with Essjaey's and his socks' and to establish in all conscience if I have anything to do with them or if it's just a case of "assuming bad faith" towards me. Anyway, I dare to think that users coming here are probably (probably) more interested in this spelling and pronunciation issue than in our personal business that you've aired. Essakra (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Essakra: This isn't our personal business but information that is related to the proposed move. It proves that it's already been proposed, likely by you (but that's to be determined by the admins) - using an IP that's been banned wikiwide. Also, I don't think you know how SPI's work. WP:SPI would be a good lecture. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

If your aim was proving that it's already been proposed, you should have linked that proposal by that blocked user. In this way you've planted, intentionally, the suspicion that me and Essjaey are the same person. The effect of this is that I've been discredited in the eyes of the users who'll come here to discuss about my proposal. You don't need me to draw a picture, do you? Also, if a SPI works like "CheckUsers verify through their tools which IPs have been used by the suspected users in order to establish which ones are socks and which one aren't" there's no problem; if it works like "normal people who are admins in Wikipedia make a subjective judgement just on the bases of a few selected similarities in the accused users' edits" it means that there's something wrong in this encyclopedy, and I'm starting to think that you're hoping that in this case the SPI will work like this. Essakra (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Essakra: What I do hope for is that we end pointless discussions and focus on the issue. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

And what I think you're hoping is that my wish to move the pages to their correct spellings won't be fulfilled. Maybe I'm wrong, but I swear this is the impression you're giving. Essakra (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Essakra: I don't know which spelling is the correct one and I've already told you that. I'm starting to think that you're deliberately misrepresenting me here. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's end this. Essakra (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

To be more specific, it isn't just a matter of correctness (and there's no doubt that the spelling "Pitré" and the related pronunciation /pi'tre/ are the officially correct forms in Standard Italian), because there's also the "Use commonly recognizable names" criterium. Searching Google Books for "Giuseppe Pitrè" -"Pitré" you'll find about half of the results for "Giuseppe Pitré" -"Pitrè". In this case, as you can see, the most correct form corresponds to the most common in English: which could be a valid reson to keep un incorrect and less common spelling? Essakra (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. He's Sicilian. There are multiple languages (sometimes classified as dialects) in Italy, and they do not all have the same orthography. This is no different from using Galician for a Galician subject instead of imposing Castilian ("Spanish") on him/her.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

"He's Sicilian". I'd like Kbb2 to comment this statement, since if we were talking about "Caltanissetta" and somebody tried replacing the Standard Italian pronunciation /kaltanis'setta/ with the local Sicilian pronunciation /kaltanis'sɛtta/ because "It's Sicilian" he'd rollback that edit sooner than immediately. Instead, dear SMcCandlish, why don't we move the page about the city of "Cork" to its Irish name "Corcaigh"? If you're coherent with your previous statement you should agree with this, don't you? By the way, you forgot to comment the part about the "Wikipedia:COMMONMANE" criterium... Essakra (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Essakra: I still don't understand why you're conflating spelling with pronunciation. Only the latter is my area of interest, and what I'm reverting and not reverting isn't really any of your business to be honest. This discussion has already been derailed so let's just stay on topic of the spelling of Pitrè's surname. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I must be remembering it wrong... I thought I'd already explained to you that in Italian "è" indicates the pronunciation /ɛ/ and "é indicates the pronunciation /e/ (no exception). So if we write "Pitrè" we suggest a wrong pronunciation, there's no escape from this. But as I've said I must be remembering it wrong and I didn't tell you so you couldn't be aware of this... Essakra (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Essakra: I was talking about my areas of interest. You don't have to explain Italian orthography to me, it's not what I was talking about. Take a look at our messages again. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're caring about the correct "spelling", then you have to know it's biunivocally related to its pronunciation. If you agree with the spelling "Pitrè", then you must agree also with the pronunciation /pi'trɛ/. But this isn't the Standard Italian pronunciation, it's a wrong pronunciation which is coincidentially identical to the local Sicilian pronunciation. Have you got anything to say about this? Essakra (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Essakra: This has nothing to do with what I said. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Err... Let's say "okay", but... Have you got anything to say about this? Essakra (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Essakra: I've already said what I know on my talk page. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's end this. Essakra (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment There is no evidence that the proposed name is the common name. There are 81,700 google results for "Giuseppe Pitrè" and only 9,990 Google results for "Giuseppe Pitré". I doubt that the rationale of Standard Italian being prefered over Sicilian Italian holds weight because there is no such preference in our naming guidelines. I also see many sources using "Giuseppe Pitrè" that are reliable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Err... Yes, you've searched "Google", didn't you? Well, I searched "Google Books in English". Google Books because its results include only publications while Google includes everything (and most of this "everything" aren't reliable sources). In English because this is the English wiki and the most commonly used name is referred to English language (that's why the page about the Italian man Cristoforo Colombo is named Christopher Columbus). One more thing: there's no "Sicilian Italian", there're no sources for that, the only sources are for "Standard Italian", all the other varieties of Italian have no official acknowledgement, not al all. And so far I thought that even a child would understand that the Standard Italian is the one that should be taken into consideration when there's a single spelling and a pronunciation to decide to use. I'm both disappointed and astonished... Essakra (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Very well. Google books. Your search - "Giuseppe Pitrè" - did not match any book results. I will agree that is not very promising. But many books do use the spelling that apparently gets not results, I conclude that Google book search is faulty because I am not using it correctly, I encourage others to look for themselves. Furthermore consider I am a child on this subject even though I am not. Iceland has no regions because it is tiny. English has many many regions requiring MOS:ENGVAR to deal with them all disagreeing. Why can I not apply the ENGVAR principle to Italian? That is that all dialects are equally valid. Without irrefutable proof that the (é) is more common than (è) I am unlikely to support it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Pardon, I haven't understood what you've said. You've talked about so many things that I couldn't get your point. May you help me to understad, please? Essakra (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes sorry. I will outline my thoughts in list form:

1. I can't get a results count from Google books correctly.
2. I can't compare Italy to Iceland.
3. I can compare Italian to English.
4. I can apply the principle of MOS:ENGVAR to Italian.
5. ENGVAR suggests all dialects are equally valid.
6. There is no irrefutable proof that the (é) is more common than (è).
7. There is no reason to replace one variant of Italian with another.

— Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Google Books results are more for "Pitré" than for "Pitrè". I've never mentioned Iceland as it has nothing to do with Italy. British English has a standard as American, Australian, Canadian English have theirs, while "one" Italian officially exixts, no dictionary or encyclopedy registers dialectal pronunciations (instead, dialects spoken in Italian peninsula and islands are different languages, some of them have also their own wikis where the language used is the dialect and not the local variety of Italian). We aren't talking of dialects but of differences in pronunciations of Italian language depending on the place where it's spoken. No variety of Italian has ever had an official status, has ever been recognised, Italian language is officialy only the Tuscan (Florentine) which is the standard registered in every single Italian dictionary and encyclopedy, if you want to challenge this assertion bring a source proving you're right, proving that also the local pronunciations of Italian in Sicily, Latium, Lombardy or Sardinia are officially recognised. The proof is the higher frequency in Google Books in English for "Pitré" than for "Pitrè", and apart from that there's still the fact that the first one is the "only" acknowledged spelling for the ultimate source about Italian orthography and pronunciation. There's no reason to keep a spelling that isn't just incorrect but also less common; there was no reason for a German user to go around the wikis and rollback the moving made consensually just because he ignores Italian language and can't understand such linguistic issues. Essakra (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Support I'd like to ping some more users who seem to be quite experienced about Italian language and phonology as they've edited several times in "Help:IPA/Italian": @Nardog, Aeusoes1, Vaselineeeeeeee, and IvanScrooge98: Essakra (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

We aren't talking of dialects but of differences in pronunciation of Italian language depending on the place where it's spoken. — I thought this was what a dialect was? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

In Italy "dialects" are actually "languages" sometimes with their official status: have a look at scn.wiki, nap.wiki, lmo.wiki, vec.wiki etc... Instead, usa.wiki, australia.wiki, canada.wiki and similar don't exist: they're all variants of English, not different languages. You didn't know this, and this isn't a fault, you couldn't know it if you aren't Italian or haven't studied Italian deeply, but I knew that and now you know it too. In Italy dialects are minor languages with local acknowledgements, while the varieties of Italian spoken in Italy are as many as the persons who live in Italy. There's no reason to keep the local pronunciation and spelling instead than the only one officially acknowledged and registered. Anyway, I'm waiting for the users I pinged to reply. Good night. P.S.: I don't think that if our German friend had heared an Italian admin talking about the Duden as "Schmutz" and, on the only base of such an opinion, moving pages about German names through the wikis as he liked he'd have shown coherence with his behaviour about this Italian issues about the which he proved his lack of knowledge ;-) Essakra (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe I understand. The current title is in the Sicilian language and the proposed title is in the Italian language which are both Italo-Dalmatian languages and thus have Mutual intelligibility. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually it's in the "Sicilian variety of Italian", not in the Sicilian language, or the name wouldn't be "Giuseppe" but "Giuseppi"... You haven't understood yet, if you didn't grow in Italy it's difficult to understand, it's not your fault and you're not stupid or ignorant, I don't understand a lot of issues about English language... Anyway, even if there was "mutual intelligibility", can you tell me "1" reason to prefere the unsourced Sicilian pronunciation and spelling than the Standard Italian ones? And in case you prefere the first one, can you tell me why "ALL" the other names of Italian people (except the ones with English versions) are spelled, and their pronunciation is reported, in Standard Italian BUT for Giuseppe Pitré we should make an exception? See us tomorrow... Essakra (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Giuseppe Pitrè is the official form of his name as results from the documents on the page of the Historical Archive of the Italien Senate, from his publications, the article in the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, the Archivio biografico comunale di Palermo. There is no reason for discussions about Google results or to prefere wrong spellings in english publications. --Enzian44 (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, it’s actually pretty clear the correct Italian spelling (and thus pronunciation) is Pitré, as it has been said multiple times that spellings used in official documents are very variable, since there’s no general awareness (nor teaching) of the difference between the two accents among Italians; however, it is also clear this is a Sicilian surname, so my proposal is the following: move the page to the proper Italian spelling (which is the one that should be taken into consideration in a move discussion, as it is the sole supposed to be “official”) and add the Sicilian-language one as a side note. What do you think? イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 21:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree with your proposal! Non è che potresti mettere anche il tuo Favorevole allo spostamento su un'altra riga? Essakra (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh right, I forgot XD: support. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 21:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I have read this long discussion. I am not the best user to ask for an opinion about this, I cannot see why bringing up me. But I was pinged so I will say what I think: support. Personally I agree with the argumentations of other two Italians. Greetings--Wbunaa (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)— Wbunaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose. From all the searching I've done it seems that Pitrè is the far more common spelling. It's the spelling used in the Zipes/Russo translation of Pitrè's tales, The Collected Sicilian Folk and Fairy Tales of Giuseppe Pitrè, and also in works by the folklore scholar Alan Dundes, such as here. It's what I see on the covers of all the books of his tales that I can find on amazon.it, or on a google images search. It also appears in this article from an Italian encyclopedia. It's by far the more common spelling that I see when searching on JSTOR, and appears, for example, in a 1997 article the Italian journal Lares: "L'impegno dello Stato italiano per Giuseppe Pitré, storico della cultura tradizionale siciliana". I could understand making the change if the Italian wikipedia article changed first, but I don't see why English wikipedia has to be the arbiter of what is the correct Italian orthography. Mudbringer (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mudbringer: See WP:COMMONNAME. It's not quite about either of the spellings being correct but more common in English sources. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I intended to say that we shouldn't try to make a final decision on what the correct form is, but it seems to me that many of the arguments made here for changing the spelling are largely based on the idea that "Pitré" is simply the "correct" form. As far as I have been able to make a judgement on the most common form, it seems to me to be "Pitrè". The most recent book I've acquired that mentions him is The Penguin Classics edition of The Tale of Tales (Pentamerone, translated by Nancy Canepa and originally published 2007), and he is listed in the bibliography there as "Pitrè", in the index as "Pitré" and appears a couple dozen times in the text as "Pitrè". And as I said, most of the articles I could find mentioning him on JSTOR have "Pitrè". The 2009 translation The Collected Sicilian Folk and Fairy Tales of Giuseppe Pitrè by Zipes and Russo also uses the "Pitrè" form throughout, as well as Caterina the Wise and Other Wondrous Sicilian Folk and Fairy Tales published in 2017 (apparently a selection from the collected tales), and The King of Love and Other Fairy Tales, 2012, translated by Cocuzza and Watson. So at least going by references in books and academic articles, the most common spelling seems to be the one currently used in the wikipedia article, and there is no need as yet to change it. Mudbringer (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

(I see now that I somehow wrote "Pitré" in quoting the title of the Italian article in Lares, although it's actually "Pitrè") Mudbringer (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to specify just a pair of things. Searching Google Books in English, results for "Giuseppe Pitré" -"Pitrè" are much more than for "Giuseppe Pitrè" -"Pitré". On the bases of these researches, it seems that the most common name is "Giuseppe Pitré", not "Giuseppe Pitrè". Anyway, this "WP:COMMONNAME" criterium could be absolutely determinant in cases such as "Bill Clinton" who is hardly ever mentioned as "William Jefferson Clinton", but in a case like this where the difference, one way or the other, isn't that overwhelming should we really count one by one the results for both spellings and compare them to each others? Such a criterium was created to help the readers of Wikipedia by providing the most commonly known, and thus researched, name, not to sophisticare the users' lifes in debates... There's no doubt that the only correct form is "Pitré" (when you want to know how to spell a name or word in a foreign language, do you search Google or consult a dictionary such as the DOP? I bet the second!), while "Pitrè" is just a mispell, common too but wrong. I wonder why English users can't get this... The Italian users who wrote here, including me, agree to move the page and about the incorrectness of the current spelling: does any of you really think that Italians are less qualified than English about an issue regarding their language? No offense, of course! Essakra (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Essakra: Can you link to the Google Books search? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Mmm... It looks like it's impossible to link the URLs directly... I'll just write them down, you'll have to copy and paste them into your URL bar: 1) https://www.google.com/search?q="giuseppe+pitré"+-"pitrè"&tbm=bks&source=lnt&tbs=lr:lang_1en&lr=lang_en 2) https://www.google.com/search?q="giuseppe+pitrè"+-"pitré"&tbm=bks&source=lnt&tbs=lr:lang_1en&lr=lang_en (all I had to do was typing "giuseppe pitré" -"pitrè" and "giuseppe pitrè" -"pitré" in Google Books and search just for pages in English). Essakra (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

When I search for "giuseppe pitré" -"pitrè", in many of the results the spelling that actually appears in the book is "Pitrè"; indeed the first result for both I get is the same book: "The Collected Sicilian Folk and Fairy Tales of Giuseppe Pitrè" which I mentioned above. I Of course I don't claim to be able to judge correctness better than an Italian, but I can't help wondering why the request for moving was rejected on the Italian page. Mudbringer (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The point here is: Italian does not work like English. I mean, we all know English words may have different spellings for the same pronunciation, and I think that’s what the community’s policy is based on, but in Italian a change in spelling usually reflects a change in pronunciation, and I’m pretty sure none of us wants a misleading pronunciation in an entry. I simply don’t find the regular criterium o “the most common spelling found on the web” applicable in cases like this, also given that Italians ourselves are not taught to be able to clearly distinguish an acute from a grave and that this might be why you find more Pitrès than Pitrés. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 10:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

An example: the general criterium works well for Mazzarino sometimes spelled Mazarino, as the pronunciation is the exact same [maddzaˈriːno]. But this is an exception to general Italian spelling rules. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 10:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mudbringer: Machine translated (not Google translate) from the Italian Wikipedia. (it:Giuseppe Pitrè). — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for movement
IP 86.56.211.43 has added a move request based on this source, which however does not refer specifically to Giuseppe Pitrè, but only to the surname Pitré. On the contrary, Treccani reports it as Pitrè. As there are no "stronger", more authoritative sources than Treccani, I think that requesting a move is out of place. Therefore I removed the notice. --  Il Passeggero - amo sentirvi 08:46, 19 Jul 2018 (CEST)

From (it:Museo etnografico siciliano Giuseppe Pitrè) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Grafia surname
The correct form of the surname is "Pitrè", with a grave accent, not acute, as also reported in the discussion Discussione:Giuseppe Pitrè the ip that has included the move request has supplied this source, which does not refer specifically to Giuseppe Pitrè, but only to the last name Pitré. On the contrary, Treccani reports it as "Pitrè" and so does the website of the museum. --  Il Passeggero - amo sentirvi 08:46, 19 Jul 2018 (CEST)

Well, this one may be a valid reason not to move the page. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 11:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's a partial list of pages where the encyclopedy "Treccani" itself spells Giuseppe's name as "Pitré": [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]; unluckily, about "this" spelling, the Treccani doesn't show internal consistency, thus it can't be considered, about "this" spelling, a reliable source. Essakra (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Essakra: I found that for some surnames, such as Giuffrè, Segrè and Manfré DOP lists forms ending with both é and è. Is there some likely reason why they are so seemingly strict with respect to Pitré being the only correct form? I've been listening to many YouTube videos, and the pronunciations I hear mostly correspond to Pitrè, I think, but the speakers generally seem to be Sicilian, as in this video. Also, this video is very interesting, because the man apparently subtly corrects the girls' pronunciation of Pitrè with his own pronunciation of Pitré. Is that how it sounds to you? Also while searching around I found a singer who writes her name Giulia Pitrè, so that written form is still being used by contemporary people. There's also a musical group "Le lingue di Pitrè" I'm happy to have discovered. Anyway, the evidence for the usual written form that I would rate the highest is covers of books that show Pitrè (or Pitré) as the author, and of all the images I've found so far, whether books in English or Italian, nearly all show Pitrè, with a single exception of Pitre'. So I think adding a simple note about the Sicilian pronunciation versus the pronunciation considered to be the Tuscan standard would be a more appropriate action to take than moving the page itself. Mudbringer (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that we should add a note about the Sicilian pronunciation (and spelling) which is common too, after moving the page? That's exactly what I'm hoping for: the syntax of the first line should sound like "Giuseppe Pitré<ref>The surname is officially spelled Pitré in Standard Italian and pronounced [piˈtre], but also the spelling Pitrè, which reflects the local Sicilian pronunciation [piˈtrɛ], is common although not officially acknowledged.</ref> (21 December 1841 – 10 April 1916)". Do you think this is acceptable? This sentence doesn't say anything but the truth. Anyway, I'm happy that you've really tried doing some research to base your argumentations instead of expressing an opinion without knowing anything about the subject. I'm going to clearing up the doubts you've expressed in your last comment. Giuffré/è (and Gioffré/è, it's another variant, /u/ vs. /o/, both existent and correct), Segré/è and Manfré/è have both spellings because both pronunciations are possible and correct in Standard Italian (wow, how could you find such examples inside a full dictionary? ^_^), I can't tell you why just because there isn't a "rule", as there isn't a rule in English to establish when the plural of names ending in /f/ is /fs/ or /vz/: just, it's like that, period (and to know the correct form you have to consult a dictionary, both in English and in Italian); an example of a name ending just in "é" and another one just in "è": Malé vs. Almè. In the first video the speaker sounds to my ear as a Sicilian, so it's obvious he pronounces "Pitrè" (as well as a Lombard would say "perchè" (why/because) instead of the Standard Italian "perché"); in the second video there're young students and a teacher, I think, and the teacher seems to be correcting the student, as you said. Nowadays local dialects (minor languages) are less spoken than 50 or 100 years ago, but the local pronunciations of Italian language still remain and make the speakers' place of birth recognisable for an Italian, so it isn't strange that living Sicilians pronounce "Pitrè", but let me add that about the spellings "there’s no general awareness (nor teaching) of the difference between the two accents among Italians" (quote). Most of the books registering the form "Pitrè" are ancient, while most of the books registering the form "Pitré" are modern: have you wondered why? Try searching in books written in 19th century (where you find "Pitrè" most easily) the word "perché": you'll find that spelling very rarely, you'll find almost always "perchè", that's because until about WWII even in books there wasn't a clear distinction between grave and acute accents, and the default rule was to use always the grave at the end of words (and often acute inside words, where it's hadly ever written). Both for the Sicilian pronunciation and for the inadequate teaching of accents, even today it's quite common a wrong spelling such as "Pitrè": this isn't a very noted name (or word), so it's easier to find it written wrongly than "perché" (even if, if you google "perchè", you'll find millions of results, and "perché" is one of the most common word used in Italian as it means both "why" and "because"...). Sorry for writing so much, but at least I think I've cleared up your doubts about these issues. Essakra (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the guy in the second video is actually French (you can also tell by his accent), so he’s more likely not correcting the girl, but just repeating the name according to the way he usually pronounces Italian words. But I might be wrong. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 09:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you're right! His name is Jean Paul Barreaud, a French who's been living for years in Italy. Essakra (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the enlightening answers to my questions. To be clear, I still oppose moving (changing the name) of this page. Essakra says Most of the books registering the form "Pitrè" are ancient, but I wouldn't regard books published in 2013, 2013, 2013, 2016 and 2017 as very old. I don't think English Wikipedia should be used to advance a standard that seems to be principally based on one dictionary, however authoritative that dictionary is perceived by some people to be. The arguments for moving the page should be much more persuasive on Italian wikipedia, so why don't you make them there? Mudbringer (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! If you still aren't convinced about the moving, I'll respect your opinion. I'd like to correct just an error in your last argumentation. "Most of the books registering the form "Pitrè" are ancient" is a true statement: the majority of the books (not all) where you read "Pitrè" are from 19th century and the first half of 20th century; of course there're still today books with that spelling, but the majority is still ancient. Searching books for "Giuseppe Pitrè" -"Pitré" we've found less results than for ""Giuseppe Pitré" -"Pitrè". English wiki, in my opinion, shouldn't suggest a wrong spelling (and pronunciation), but if the English community established so I can't oppose. I'm not interested in Italian wiki business (it's known that it's the most biased wiki because of its local admins who're used to circumvent rules as they like) so I'm mainly interested in English wiki and in emproving this one because it's really a free, democratic, and open to everybody encyclopedy. Essakra (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It's been nice arguing with you! I didn't intend to imply that most books with the orthography "Pitrè" are new, but rather that most (essentially all) new books that feature that scholar prominently use the orthography "Pitrè". While we're summing things up, one thing in your comments that I had a little trouble understanding was your use of the word "accent". "Grave accent" and "acute accent" are fine, but just "accent" without a modifier usually refers to regional varieties of pronunciation. So you may find the expressions "accent mark" or "diacritic" useful. Also, "ancient" generally means "from before the Middle Ages". By the way, I've recently proofread s:Italian Popular Tales on Wikisource, which includes many tales collected by Pitrè, and I'm going to try to improve the Wikipedia articles that focus on tales from that collection. I'm also trying to learn how to read the tales in Sicilian, and I'm hoping to put at least one volume of his on Wikisource (probably on the multilingual Wikisource), and attempt very literal English translations of a few of the tales. I hope to see you around! Mudbringer (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, if it’s not going to be moved, I’ve added a note on the page. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 10:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both, IvanScrooge98 for adding information to the page and Mudbringer for the exchange of views. Essakra (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support.Ittevilo (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)— Ittevilo (talkEDIT:I support the move request for the same reasons expressed by the other supporters. Pitré is the correct form, Pitrè is wrong. No matter how that person used to write his name, If 'D'annunzio' wrote his name 'D'annunzio' we shouldn't write it like this, if 'De Amicis' wrote his name 'de Amicis' we shouldn't write it like this. If an error is more common, which doesn't seem in this case, we shouldn't title a page with the erroneous orthography but with the correct and then add a note about the more common orthography, the title should be the correct one. Pitré is correct because a vocabulary states its correctness. If I don't know how to write a word in a foreign language I'll look for it in a vocabulary, which can't be wrong because its main aim is to provide the correct orthography of words. It was made an example about the pronunciation of English words when plural, I'll make another example, if you don't know if the plural of 'potato' is 'potatos' or 'potatoes' you'll look for it in a vocabulary to know the correct form, no matter that if you look for it on Google you find more occurrences with the erroneous orthography. It's not acceptable that an encyclopedy like this suggests the wrong orthography, even more so when the wrong orthography is linked to a wrong pronunciation, probably the dialectal pronunciation which isn't the right Italian pronunciation. At the beginning I didn't know anything about this case and opposed for this reason, now the fact that the troublemaker IP is against the move request just confirms that the request is correct and has to be accepted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ittevilo (talk • contribs) 10:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: Please DO NOT cheat. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened. It was opened on July 29 at 17:47. You closed it at 16:56. You closed it before the established time. I wouldn't have said anything if the final result was a "no", but since the last user changed opinion we have currently: 4 users who supported, 2 users who opposed, 2 users who just commented. The consensus was reached before the requested time expired. There's the consensus to move the page. The fact you closed this discussion before the right time is just your error. Or your will. Essakra (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Consensus is not based upon numbers; the final comment held little weight either before or after the change, since it does not contain evidence in support of or against a change (for that matter, it is from an account with a small number of edits that only relate to the single issue of spelling of terms in Italian and Italian dialects). I do not have any interest in the title for this page; I am uninvolved in this discussion and have no connection to this topic. I have no problem with leaving this open for someone else to close, but the idea that the close was invalid because it took place 51 minutes too early is an example of Wikilawyering: "Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express." Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. For the record, this was the text of my close: The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. I note that this article has been edited to show that both pronunciations and state that both spellings are in use. The current title is the stable location of the article (note WP:TITLECHANGES, WP:STABLE), and note as always that the "correct" spelling in Italian or Sicilian is not the determining factor in the titles of articles on the English Wikipedia. Please consider taking a step back from this discussion and moving on to other topics for a period before introducing this issue again. I do not believe that this close was inappropriate, but I apologize for offending you by closing the discussion after only 167 hours instead of 168 hours. Dekimasuよ! 18:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Further, an earlier supporter also gave no reasoning, and has 3 total edits on Wikipedia. And normally, it is understood that the editor who proposes a move supports it, but in this discussion that was not the case–in effect, you were the editor who raised the question. Thus in a normal situation, the !vote count would include only one of the four editors who you counted here. Later in the discussion that editor responded to further input with "Well, this one may be a valid reason not to move the page." Again, this is neither here nor there as far as closing the discussion is concerned, because the discussion did not reach a clear consensus to move the page based upon the arguments presented. Dekimasuよ! 18:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me reply. I don't know who's Ittevilo, why he came here just to say "oppose" and why he changed opinion later. I do accept your apologies, even if they hadn't been sincere, but I'm asking you to be absolutely sincere when answering this question: if you'd closed the discussion at the right time, with 4 supports and 2 opposes, you'd have considered the consensus reached or not? About the earlier supporter, you have to know this: I pinged a few users who recently edited the page "Help:IPA/Italian", among whom you find IvanScrooge98 and Wbunaa, unfortunately just the 2 of them came here to reply, maybe because just the 2 of them are Italian and cared about this issue. And about IvanScrooge98, he didn't say "I've changed my mind", he didn't even deleted what he wrote (support), unlike Frayae, he just admitted "this one may be a valid reason not to move the page". Instead, do you know who's the anonymous IP from the USA who came here, after the discussion was closed and the time over, just to oppose the move? Essakra (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I would have closed the discussion the same way, as no consensus. It would still be simplest to close it that way now, and move on to other productive editing in the encyclopedia. No, I do not know who the IP is. I note, however, that the IP was recently in a dispute with User:Ittevilo. Dekimasuよ! 19:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, at least you're honest. In this case you're free to close the case, if you're sure that any other English admin would do the same and consider no consensus reached. About the IP... Now I understand, probably he came here after Ittevilo just to oppose his opinion, if Ittevilo hadn't changed opinion I'm sure the IP would have supported the move: the discussion is closed, he had no interest in it, he came just after him and all his efforts are useless at this point, it must be personal... Essakra (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Whoa, there, Silver. I came here not knowing Ittevilo was here, had no idea what his opinion was, and couldn't care less -- the more he can be avoided, the better. What I found was an endless stream of bickering over the spelling, and presumably pronunciation, of Pitrè's name, some of it informed, a lot of it dilettante to the point of silly (par for the Wikipedia course, unavoidable). I chimed in with facts having to do with the spelling Pitrè. Why that displeases you I have no idea, but that's not my interest -- I'm interested in trying to help make Wikipedia factually informative. Peace. 47.32.20.133 (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent moves

I note the recent moves:

23:07, 26 July 2018‎ Enzian44 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (46 bytes) (+46)‎ . . (Enzian44 moved page Giuseppe Pitré to Giuseppe Pitrè over redirect: http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/giuseppe-pitre_(Dizionario-Biografico) and http://notes9.senato.it/web/senregno.nsf/0bfb046b74a984aec125711400599c6a/b3d4fb87eed95a814125646f005e9480?OpenDocument (Historical Archive of the Italian Senate)
23:10, 26 July 2018‎ Enzian44 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (75 bytes) (+75)‎ . . (Enzian44 moved page Sicilian Ethnographic Museum Giuseppe Pitré to Sicilian Ethnographic Museum Giuseppe Pitrè over redirect: As documented by http://notes9.senato.it/web/senregno.nsf/0bfb046b74a984aec125711400599c6a/b3d4fb87eed95a814125646f005e9480?OpenDocument, the Founder of the Institution is written Pitrè)  

which this RM seeks to reverse and overwrite. Andrewa (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Andrewa, please note that those were in fact reversions to the stable titles. The original moves took place on July 19, here and here. The July 19 moves were performed as uncontroversial requests through WP:RMTR, but it then became clear that the moves were not uncontroversial, so the July 26 moves were warranted. Dekimasuよ! 19:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Good points, and thank you for the diffs. Andrewa (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The move "was" uncontroversial. Here, in English wiki. It took a German user, who knows NOTHING about Italian and Italy (a person who doesn't know Bruno Migliorini's DOP and calls it "trash" can't be considered a literate person), to move it back just on the bases of his personal judgement and ignorance to make it controversial, I bet that if the page hadn't been moved in German wiki he'd never come here to play the contrarian and create all this mess. Essakra (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you meant what I've understood, but if you meant that Enzian44, a German user who hardly ever edits English wiki, came here to rollback an uncontroversial move and shouldn't have done it, I totally agree with you. Essakra (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Discuss the contributions not the contributor, please.

No, I don't mean that or any other interpretation. I just mean that this past history (and the rest of it as added above by Dekimasu) is relevant to this RM. My reason for posting it here rather than just linking to it is that if this RM goes ahead it will be overwritten and unavailable without a great deal of work by users more powerful than you or I... in practice, lost. Andrewa (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I've understood now... "We are all equal but some are more equal than others". In the free encyclopedy 2 opposers are enough to stop 4 supporters... Essakra (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. For example, If those two are here to build an encyclopedia, but the other four are here to promote their own views, we try to go with the two. But we don't assess the people themselves, just their arguments. Or that's the theory. And the four don't generally like it very much. That's life. Andrewa (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

And... The ones who decide "who is here to build an encyclopedia" and "who is here to promote their own views" are the 2 "more equal than others", aren't they? And... The ones who decide "which arguments are valid" are the 2 "more equal than others", aren't they? Got it. Well, do you want a few "reliable secondary sources (in English)"? I don't know how reliable and how secondary they are, but here's a small list I gave Frayae, although most of them is in Italian, have a look: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. And let's not forget that by searching Google Books in English the results for "Giuseppe Pitré" -"Pitrè" are almost twice the results for "Giuseppe Pitrè" -"Pitré"... Essakra (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Most of them is in Italian... I'm sorry, but I have no time to follow up irrelevant links. Give me a list of just those that are in English, and which you think are secondary sources, and I'm happy to check those. English secondary sources. But those only. Andrewa (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Again: have a look, among them you'll find wht you're looking for. Unless it's you, as "one of the 2 more equal than others", to decide which sources are relevant, secondary and English. But I agree with a thing you said: "Pitre" could be the best solution, also consider that the results for "Giuseppe Pitre" -"Pitré" -"Pitrè" are more than the other 2 researches I've already tried: https://www.google.com/search?q="giuseppe+pitre"+-"pitré"+-"pitrè"&tbm=bks&source=lnt&tbs=lr:lang_1en&lr=lang_en. Essakra (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Under these circumstances, you're free to close the request, Dekimasu. I've accepted that ignorance and arrogance have won, they couldn't be defeated. God bless Wikipedia! Essakra (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We do our best. Perhaps there is some ignorance and arrogance on both sides? How many times, for example, do we need to tell you that we don't follow Italian usage here, before you will stop wasting our time by giving links to Italian sites, and expecting us to sort them out for you? Or if you want to challenge that policy, there's a way to do that too, and I'm happy to explain it to you. Or, before reverting the close, did it occur to you that there might be a proper way to challenge it? It's called move review, and again I'd have been happy to explain it to you.

All the best. Andrewa (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"How many times"? I don't know... Could you please quote all the times you've told me that you "don't follow Italian usage here"? I remember just once. As I remember that the 5 pillars there's no mention of your denial of primary sources, nor about the language they must be written in (in Italian wiki a lot of sources in English are used when they're about English business...). But I may remember wrong in both cases. Anyway, you're free to explain me those 2 things you told me about, I'll listen to you. Essakra (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

On the name, not the move: All evidence is that it's Pitrè.

His books published during his lifetime, when he was there to edit (and you can bet he would have edited what he didn't approve of), are published under Pitrè; his daughter's signature in a 1941 publication with Pitrè on the title page (presumably approved by her) isn't totally clear, but appears to reflect Pitrè, certainly no reason to think Pitré ([28]); scholarly publications about him and his work by far prefer Pitrè. Upshot: plenty of reasons to assume that Pitrè is the form he used, precious few indications (truth: none that I've found) that he opted or would opt for Pitré. And, obviously, "Standard Italian", although not relevant to the genuine form of the cognome, can accept Pitrè structurally and phonetically as easily as it can Pitré. Easy to understand laziness-carelessness-distraction producing Pitré today, but consciously insisting on distorting Pitrè to Pitré is at best very puzzling. 47.32.20.133 (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The issue seems to have been settled satisfactorily, but just a little bit of follow-up can do no harm. Someone above mentioned the Italian Senate, and sure enough, on their pages it's clearly Pitrè wherever it is clear, both in the recently-written text for the web page ([29]) and in the documents submitted by him for his Senate appointment as well as those issued as part of the appointment ([30]). A couple of times in script it's not clear, including his own signature, exasperatingly inconclusive in this regard. But it's clearly written Pitrè on his birth certificate, and every time it is in print it's Pitrè. For those enamored of appeal to distant authority, both the Treccani Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani and their online encyclopedia adopt the genuine form Pitrè.([31])([32])]. (As a side note, care and cross-checking are in order when consulting Dizionario d'ortografia e di pronunzia (DOP). It can be very useful, but it can also be untrustworthy regarding actual Italian pronunciation if the Italian norm diverges from a sort of spruced-up Florentine ideal. Improvements are supposedly ongoing, but it's still quite capable of providing misleading or even false information due to this, politely euphemized in the Italian Wikipedia article devoted to it: "L'opera è caratterizzata da un'impostazione neopuristica fiorentinocentrica e, al paragone con altre opere congeneri, da una normatività piuttosto rigida.") 47.32.20.133 (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for those links. They all appear to be primary sources and/or in other languages than English. If we can find reliable secondary sources (in English) and they support this view that might settle the issue, but primary sources have little relevance (they do have some) and non-English sources even less. And non-English primary sources are a very last resort. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Nevertheless, a smidgen of misunderstanding there, methinks, regarding types of primary sources (thus also their values), and to some extent of what constitutes secondary source. A birth certificate is a presumably factual primary source for an official name, not an opinionated or possibly misremembered interpretation (which, "ironically", a secondary source could be -- name miscopied, abbreviations, alternate spelling...). In Pitrè's case, however, we do have secondary sources that corroborate the primary source of his birth certificate (and, presumably, his own primary-source declarations): the official government documents produced by the Italian Senate for the Senate appointment, implicitly approving Pitrè for the nation. The same is true of the title pages of his books published while he was alive: Pitrè without any exception that I've been able to find. -- As for the narrow definition of secondary source, there is no published scholarly study of his name that I know of. If there were, it would be the result of research into exactly those sorts of documents mentioned above, in the best case supplemented by a trip to Palermo to quiz knowledgeable people there. As for what anglophones do with it, he's no Petrarch; he's not sufficiently well known in the anglosphere to have an anglicized version of his name. Results will thus vary. The crowd who seem to think that diacritics are optional decorations (e.g. latté but omerta, habañero but jalapeno; Enrique Pena Nieto and Feliz Ano Nuevo), might choose any of Pitre, Pitré or Pitrè, while those who are knowledgeable as a result of research into both primary and secondary sources (very much including those noted above), would most likely opt for Pitrè. A case in point is an Amazon page with Pitre, Pitré and Pitrè, while the authors of the book, who actually know their subject matter, use Pitrè consistently on the cover and within([33]). Unfortunately that sort of incoherence isn't confined to mass marketers like Amazon. Taylor & Francis, who might be expected to respect the integrity of titles published under their own Routledge imprint, provide Pitré and Pitre on their web page for the same book that has Pitrè on the cover and throughout ([34]). Basta. The evidence for Pitrè couldn't be any clearer. Do with it as you please. 47.32.20.133 (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If this were Andrewpedia, I'd probably go with Pitre, on the grounds that the title is just a handle for the article and that gives a nice simple URL that won't cause anyone any problems. But like you, I am restricted to what consensus allows. It has its pros and cons, and can be puzzling, but it works sort of. Andrewa (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if more input is needed, but here are two important secondary sources in English: Italian Folktales by Italo Calvino, and The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Folktales and Fairy Tales: Vol. 1, Vol 2 and Vol 3. In the former "Pitrè" is used exclusively, and in the the 3 vols. of the latter, there are 9 pages showing "Pitrè" and 2 showing "Pitré" that are visible to me, not counting one of each in the front matter which is the same in all three volumes. Mudbringer (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Excellent finds, Mudbringer. You've nailed it. Pitrè throughout, except for three occurrences of Pitré in the Greenwood Encyclopedia, two of which self-convict as irrelevant by accompanying the striking misspelling of his given name as Guiseppe. Pitré, Guiseppe in Vol. 1 p xxviii is in a list that could have been compiled by anyone, not author's text (those who have trusted drudge work to underpaid assistants can sympathize). Guiseppe Pitré in Vol. 2 p 556 is in the entry for the Swede Selma Lagerlöf, written by the Norwegian expert Marte Hult, not charged with knowing the niceties of how Italian phonology and spelling conventions relate (although Guiseppe is a bit much even for that). The sole puzzling outlier is Giuseppe Pitré on p 891 of Vol. 3, in an entry by Gina Miele, who is expected to -- and does -- know her stuff. One can only guess at which of any number of causes explains her odd Pitré, but some comfort is offered by a clear Pitrè on the first page of a 2009 publication of hers([35]). 47.32.20.133 (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Obviously the correct name is "Pitrè". The discussion above was made by a LTA known as MaoMio, with a "special" obsession for accents, and some ability for canvassing and harassing. The website of the Italian Senate, and all the other sources, point at Pitrè. Please watch Sicilian Ethnographic Museum Giuseppe Pitrè as well. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 16:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)