[Wikipedia-l] Request for creation of ... the surinamese thread

[Mark Williamson]

>  No, it is NOT an acceptable name to use because other languages are
> also spoken widely in Surinam such as 
>  >Saramaccan, 
>  Is an inland language not commonly used outside the jungle areas that
> Saramaccaners live in. Not a nationally widely spoken language

5% of the population of Surinam

>  >Aukan,
>  Aucaners same situation as Saramacaners.

3,5% of the population of Surinam.
  
>  >Guyanese,
>  Definately not spoken in most of Surinam and as the name suggest it is not
> a Surinamese language.

11% of the population of Surinam. You're right that most of its
speakers are in Guyana, but 50000 of them are in Surinam which is 11%
of the population of the nation.

>  Javanese, 
>  Only spoken by people of Indonesian background and as the name suggest it
> is not a Surinamese language. 

It has a longer history in Surinam than Arabic (not "Moroccan") does
in the Netherlands. In fact, what is Sranan Tongo's history in
Surinam? How long has it been spoken there? It was brought by
"immigrants" just as much as Javanese was. And also, the Javanese
spoken in Surinam is a distinct variety of Javanese, unique to
Surinam, so it IS very much a Surinamese language.

It is spoken by 14% of the population, hardly a negligible figure.

>  Chinese, 
>  Only spoken by people of  Chinese background and as the name suggest it is
> not a Surinamese language. 

Chinese has nearly as long a history in Surinam as does Sranan Tongo.
In addition to that, it's spoken by 3% of the population.

> Hindustani

A form of Hindustani unique to Surinam, so it's a very much
"Surinamese" language, and it's spoken by a whopping 35% of the
population.

>  and Native American languages. 
>  There are about 10.000 of those, they are not even acknowledged in the
> Surinamese flag with its five points which stand for the five most important
>  ethniticities. 

3385 speakers total. In addition, the speakers of these languages have
a much much much longer history in Surinam than any of the other
people, they are more "Surinamese" than Indians, Chinese, Javanese,
Blacks, Europeans, or mixed-race.

"Five most important ethnicities" is a judgement passed by the ruling
elites. Do you think the Native Americans would agree that they're not
important??

>  These are just as much "Surinamese" as Sranan. 
>  No they are not. Sranan is what binds most of the population together with
> Dutch .... so what is next you are going to call  Moroccan a Dutch language
> because people in the Netherlands speak Moroccan? Or Dutch a Thai language
> because there are Dutch people in Thailand? All of these languages are not
> Surinamese. They happen to be spoken in the country of Surinam yes. There is
> but one Surinamese and that is Sranan Tongo. 

This is a very glorified view of a language spoken by only 29% of the
population. Hindustani is spoken by more people in Surinam, actually
35%, and Dutch is spoken by 46% of the population.

>  So while "Sranan" does indeed mean "Surinamese", the name "Sranan" is also
> used in English to distinguish it from other languages of Surinam.
>  
>  Well I am not a native Oxford-English or American-English or whatever
> English speaker but I still have my doubts about that.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sranang_Tongo,
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=srn, both of which
prefer the name "Sranang Tongo" or "Sranan".
  
> <>Well, you're one person, and "rusty I admit though" is not comforting
>  at all. And what about Papiamento??
>  How comforting is it for me to see you requesting many languages you never
> spoke or heard of? If we go in that road of argumenting. My 4 years in
> Surinam are a lot more comforting. And no I do not speak Papiamentu.
  
What the hell? How many languages have I requested in my ENTIRE
LIFE??? Sicilian, Friulian, and Ligurian. THAT IS ALL. 3 languages. A
whopping 3 languages. With Sicilian and Friulian, I had native
speakers who expressed interest BEFORE the Wikipedias were created.
Both were created, are now active, and scn.wiki has over 1000
articles.

>  Who decides if wikipedias get created? You? It sometimes seems like it.
>  
>  You know very well it isn't me. 
>  Precisely but your reactions on this list and elsewhere always show that
> you feel you should be the one who is deciding. 6 people support NDS-NL
> among which 2 native speakers. And you oppose and because you oppose you
> feel you can obstruct the whole progress because your "demands" weren't met.
> Frankly I am getting a littlebit tired of your "every language has to go by
> me" attitude. You are doing lots of good work in the languagefield. But
> destroying it by your behaviour.

No, I don't feel that I should be the one deciding. But the process is
one of community discussion, and any community member has the right to
express their opinion. "every language has to go by me" attitude? What
the hell??!? A language obviously doesn't need my blessing to get a
Wikipedia created, and I don't think it should be the case, but I as
everybody else in the community have a right to express my opinion on
each language. So stuff it.

>  It's the decision of the developers, ultimately, although if a board member
> or somebody else high up in the organisational structure decides it should
> be created, the developer will usually create it for them.
>  
>  So maybe I should go to a board member instead of discussing with you here!
> Good alternative indeed. Thanks for your understanding.

Asking a board member is not an "alternative" for community
discussion. Community discussion, and resolution of outstanding
issues, is nessecary before the creation of any new Wikipedia.

On the talkpage, Angela implied in one of her comments that as long as
there is an opposing vote, there needs to be a community discussion to
observe objections and explore solutions before it can be created.

I have a right to express my opinion on any language. So please, let
me express my opinion.

Mark