[Wikipedia-l] Conspicuous only in its absence (was Moldavian)

[GerardM]

Hoi,
A regulatory body can only regulate within its sphere of influence. What is
called "Moldovan" does not necessarily relate to the Moldovan country and
thereby the relation does not necessarily exist. This has been explained to
you before.

There are plenty of languages that do not have a regulatory body associated
with them. It is therefore not really necessary to differentiate languages
based on the fact if such a body exists or not. This has been explained to
you before.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 3/10/07, Jacky PB <dpotop1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> My constructive position (made clear a long time ago
> in a discussion here, and in other discussions on
> various Wikipedia fora) is the following:
> * Given that no Cyrillic script Moldovan editor exists
> on Wikipedia, it is only important *for the time
> being* that reading capability is provided for
> Cyrillic readers.
> * This reading capability can already be provided
> using the transliteration script of
> :en:User:Bogdangiusca. I have tried it, and it
> provides decent results. This script should be the
> only content of a mo-cyr.wiki, transliterating pages
> of ro.wiki. For the script, please contact its author.
> * When/if Cyrillic-script Moldovan editors ask for
> their wikipedia, then (and only then) the mo-cyr.wiki
> should be given to them.
> * Why mo-cyr? Because there are 2 Moldovan languages
> at the time being:
>    - the guys that declared themselves Moldovan in
>    the Moldovan census are a very large majority,
>    and their Latin-scripted version of Moldovan is
>    regulated by the Moldovan Academy of Sciences.
>    - the guys that (are forced to) use the Cyrillic
>    script in Transnistria probably use the last
>    language standard of the Soviet times (I know
>    of no existent regulating body).
> You see that you just can't let a minority take
> exclusive use of the ISO code mo/mol. OTOH, the
> Latin-scripted language is identical with Romanian,
> as stated by its regulatory body.
>
> As you see, this *is* constructive, and the elements
> of the solution (and the agreement of Romanians) are
> here for a very long time now.
>
> Dpotop1
>
> --- GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > In what the WMF aims to do it reserves no place on
> > what wikipedia editors do
> > and do not do. It says that we aim to provide
> > information to people. For the
> > language committee it is nor necessarily relevant
> > what language people
> > identify with as it has brought us an un-ending
> > amount of people who do not
> > want to communicate with others and create new
> > "languages" for political
> > reasons.
> >
> > If you are so happy denying the use of Moldovan, be
> > constructive and promote
> > the use of the ro.wikipedia with the Cyrillic
> > script. If all you can do is
> > deny this option as well as deny the existence of a
> > mo.wikipedia, please
> > refrain from posting unless you have something
> > positive to say.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> >
> > On 3/10/07, Jacky PB <dpotop1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think this is a big misunderstanding on your
> > part.
> > > > The existance of
> > > > a Wikipedia in a linguistic entity does not
> > indicate
> > > > any level of
> > > > difference from other Wikipedias' languages. It
> > does
> > > > not claim that it
> > > > is a "language" or a "dialect".
> > >
> > > I think there's no misunderstanding here.
> > > You do have Wikipedia editors identifying their
> > > linguistic identity as Bosniac, Croatian, Sebian,
> > or
> > > Serbo-Croatian. You don't have Wikipedia editors
> > > identifying their linguistic identity as Moldovan.
> > > That makes all the difference.
> > >
> > > :en:Dpotop
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > We have Wikipedias in Bosnian, Croatian,
> > Serbian,
> > > > and Serbo-Croatian.
> > > > It's a bit of a paradox, if we have Wikipedias
> > in
> > > > the first 3, we
> > > > shouldn't have one in the fourth logically.
> > > >
> > > > But this problem is non-existant from a
> > linguistic
> > > > standpoint
> > > > precisely for the reason I stated above. All
> > four
> > > > are linguistic
> > > > entities, despite the fact that Serbo-Croatian
> > is an
> > > > "umbrella" entity
> > > > that allows for the use of the other three. As
> > long
> > > > as there is a
> > > > reason to have these Wikis separate (ie, unless
> > BCS
> > > > people can agree
> > > > to a merger), they will be separate.
> > > >
> > > > Now, I think everybody here knows by now that
> > you
> > > > would be willing to
> > > > merge mo and ro Wikipedias with a script
> > conversion
> > > > system on
> > > > ro.wikipedia. That is fine. Nobody here objects
> > to
> > > > such a system. What
> > > > we do object to is that at this very moment, the
> > > > proposal has very
> > > > little support from the Romanian Wikipedian
> > > > community. You have been
> > > > told many times that you are welcome to try to
> > test
> > > > the waters,
> > > > organize a poll at ro.wp, try to convince people
> > of
> > > > the utility and
> > > > validity of such a system, but you keep
> > complaining
> > > > to this list about
> > > > how it's not your responsibility and about how
> > WE
> > > > need to do
> > > > something.
> > > >
> > > > How can you have not figured out by now that
> > with
> > > > hundreds of e-mails
> > > > repeating the exact same thing in so many words,
> > you
> > > > are not only
> > > > failing to change anything, you are actually
> > making
> > > > people more and
> > > > more firmly against the position you represent?
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > > On 09/03/07, Liviu Andronic
> > <landronimirc at gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On 3/5/07, Gerard Meijssen
> > > > <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Verbosity is a prerequisite for my
> > arguments
> > > > to be understood. Otherwise
> > > > > > > these are simply skipped.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > .... Really ? ...
> > > > >
> > > > > At times, this is the feeling that I have. At
> > any
> > > > rate, verbosity is
> > > > > necessary to make my arguments clear.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  > 2. According to the recently adopted
> > Language
> > > > proposal
> > > > > > >
> > policy<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WM:LPP>-
> > > > that I suppose can be
> > > > > > > applied to existing wikipedias to
> > determine
> > > > their
> > > > > > > "validity" - there are three "essential"
> > > > requisites that can be
> > > > > > verified: a
> > > > > > > valid ISO-639 code, language singularity
> > and a
> > > > viable community and
> > > > > > > audience.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > > You are plain wrong. You are also wrong in
> > > > applying the policy in this
> > > > > > way. The policy determines how new languages
> > are
> > > > to be accepted. The
> > > > > > Moldovan Wikipedia already exists and it
> > does
> > > > have a valid ISO 639 code.
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >     GerardM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have no intent to renew this
> > > > > debate. This is simply to say that my view
> > over
> > > > > the entire issue has not radically changed.
> > For
> > > > the following (same)
> > > > > reasons:
> > > > >
> > > > > From what I know, the tiny wikipedias (like
> > the
> > > > Moldovan one) were created �
> > > > > partir de a "list" with no formal voting and
> > > > without following any specific
> > > > > guidelines or policy. On this basis, I believe
> > > > that the newly adopted policy
> > > > > could be used  for determining the
> > "correctness"
> > > > of wikipedias that  were
> > > > > created in "obscure" ways. In any case, it  is
> > not
> > > > up to me to decide such a
> > > > > usage.
> > > > >
> > > > > As to the valid ISO 639 code.. It is valid
> > indeed
> > > > in the eyes of the ISO,
> > > > > but also according to the official POV of the
> > > > Party of Communists in RM (I
> > > > > suspect), of the Transnistrian authorities and
> > > > might have been in the eyes
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Don't get soaked.  Take a quick peek at the forecast
> with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>