I was going to hold off on this until the holidays are over, but rather remarkably, unless somebody hacked the Library of Congress's web site <https://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_changes.php>, Montenegrin has been granted an ISO 639–2 code ("cnr"). This has been in the air over the last month, and represents the first addition to ISO 639–2 in over five years. The Montenegrin community is jumping for joy, and I've just full-protected the page Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Montenegrin 5 <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Montenegrin_5> on Meta because the discussion is getting out of hand. If srwiki, hrwiki and bswiki didn't exist, we wouldn't have to create this one, either. But I have to admit that I don't really see any way we can currently justify not approving this project (as "eligible"). My questions are, therefore: - Am I right about that? - Is LangCom willing to see this project marked as "eligible" based on an ISO 639-2 code alone? - The rules are that non-collective ISO 639-2 codes are supposed to be reflected in ISO 639-3 as well. So do I wait until this code is published by SIL? - If so, what happens if SIL does not take action? Steven Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook> _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

On 26 Dec 2017, at 22:43, Steven White &lt;Koala19890(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: I was going to hold off on this until the holidays are over, but rather remarkably, unless somebody hacked the Library of Congress's web site, Montenegrin has been granted an ISO 639–2 code ("cnr"). This has been in the air over the last month, and represents the first addition to ISO 639–2 in over five years. The Montenegrin community is jumping for joy, and I've just full-protected the page Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Montenegrin 5 on Meta because the discussion is getting out of hand. If srwiki, hrwiki and bswiki didn't exist, we wouldn't have to create this one, either. But I have to admit that I don't really see any way we can currently justify not approving this project (as "eligible"). My questions are, therefore: • Am I right about that? • Is LangCom willing to see this project marked as "eligible" based on an ISO 639-2 code alone? • The rules are that non-collective ISO 639-2 codes are supposed to be reflected in ISO 639-3 as well. So do I wait until this code is published by SIL? • If so, what happens if SIL does not take action? Steven Sent from Outlook _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

It’s true. This language is as far as anyone knows identical to Serbian according to the classification we currently use. It is not certain that there could be a Monenegrin Wiki that would differ in any meaningful way from the Serbian one. remarkably, unless somebody hacked the Library of Congress's web site, Montenegrin has been granted an ISO 639–2 code ("cnr"). This has been in the air over the last month, and represents the first addition to ISO 639–2 in over five years. The Montenegrin community is jumping for joy, and I've just full-protected the page Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Montenegrin 5 on Meta because the discussion is getting out of hand. this one, either. But I have to admit that I don't really see any way we can currently justify not approving this project (as "eligible"). My questions are, therefore: based on an ISO 639-2 code alone? to be reflected in ISO 639-3 as well. So do I wait until this code is published by SIL? _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

2017-12-27 0:33 GMT+01:00 Steven White &lt;Koala19890(a)hotmail.com <mailto:Koala19890@hotmail.com>>: The main thing that is urgent is that the Montenegrin community is getting restless. As to whether this should be approved (even waiting for an ISO 639-3 code), in principle I agree with MF-Warburg. But in practice, it's a little hard for me to understand why there shouldn't be a Montenegrin Wikipedia when there are separate Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian Wikipedias. If I were a Montenegrin I would not be able to understand that at all.  If there were still only one Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, I think we could make a case for not creating any of the others. But from where we stand now, how can we possibly say that separate Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian projects are acceptable, but a Montenegrin one is not? These separate projects were all created before Langcom and the current policy existed. They wouldn't be created today. Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Steven White *Sent:* Tuesday, December 26, 2017 5:43 PM *To:* langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> *Subject:* Montenegrin Wikipedia (URGENT) I was going to hold off on this until the holidays are over, but rather remarkably, unless somebody hacked the Library of Congress's web site <https://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_changes.php>, Montenegrin has been granted an ISO 639–2 code ("cnr"). This has been in the air over the last month, and represents the first addition to ISO 639–2 in over five years. The Montenegrin community is jumping for joy, and I've just full-protected the page Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Montenegrin 5 <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Montenegrin_5> on Meta because the discussion is getting out of hand. If srwiki, hrwiki and bswiki didn't exist, we wouldn't have to create this one, either. But I have to admit that I don't really see any way we can currently justify not approving this project (as "eligible"). My questions are, therefore: * Am I right about that? * Is LangCom willing to see this project marked as "eligible" based on an ISO 639-2 code alone? * The rules are that non-collective ISO 639-2 codes are supposed to be reflected in ISO 639-3 as well. So do I wait until this code is published by SIL? * If so, what happens if SIL does not take action? Steven Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook> _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

On 28 Dec 2017, at 03:00, Steven White &lt;Koala19890(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: From a purely linguistic perspective, it's hard to argue with any of this. And I don't have a skin in the game here; objectively, it doesn't matter to me if Montenegrin becomes eligible or not. Still, I would say the following: Concerning MF-Warburg's comment: I fully understand that the others are grandfathered and wouldn't be created now. But the fact that they exist now means that the question about Montenegrin cannot be considered in a vacuum, either. Concerning Jan's comment: I hear you. But to extend your analogy, the Irish are looking for an Irish English wiki because every time an Irishman tries to bring a different POV to articles about Ireland on the British wiki, s/he is being shot down. (Pretend it's 1975, or 1922, and the example is more trenchant.) Also, this whole issue of language secessionism doesn't really exist in English, so to make that comparison is only partially valid. I do think we need to hear from Milos on this subject. Let me add: On the Meta discussion page, I'm about to allow the discussion to reopen, with a focus on really two questions only: • The principal question is whether or not Montenegrins actually have "free, unbiased access to the sum of all human knowledge" on the current projects. What they keep suggesting is that they don't: Serbian POV dominates, and Montenegrin POV is given short shrift. I am going to ask the Montenegrin advocates to prove that with concrete examples. But if they do so, then either (a) NPOV is going to have to be enforced from the outside (if that's even possible, but thereby violating normal practices of project autonomy) or (b) we're going to have to allow the Montenegrins to have their own project. • The second question: It's really quite remarkable in a way that the Montenegrins got the Library of Congress to make the first change to ISO 639-2 in five years. I'll grant that was probably just a political victory. But I'm going to invite the Montenegrin community to share any new evidence that they may have that may have changed LoC's mind, and could change ours. Maybe there isn't any new evidence. But if there is, we should be open to it. Steven Sent from Outlook _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

From a purely linguistic perspective, it's hard to argue with any of this. And I don't have a skin in the game here; objectively, it doesn't matter to me if Montenegrin becomes eligible or not. Still, I would say the following: Concerning MF-Warburg's comment: I fully understand that the others are grandfathered and wouldn't be created now. But the fact that they exist now means that the question about Montenegrin cannot be considered in a vacuum, either. Concerning Jan's comment: I hear you. But to extend your analogy, the Irish are looking for an Irish English wiki because every time an Irishman tries to bring a different POV to articles about Ireland on the British wiki, s/he is being shot down. (Pretend it's 1975, or 1922, and the example is more trenchant.) Also, this whole issue of language secessionism <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_secessionism> doesn't really exist in English, so to make that comparison is only partially valid. I do think we need to hear from Milos on this subject. Let me add: On the Meta discussion page, I'm about to allow the discussion to reopen, with a focus on really two questions only: - The principal question is whether or not Montenegrins actually have "free, unbiased access to the sum of all human knowledge" on the current projects. What they keep suggesting is that they don't: Serbian POV dominates, and Montenegrin POV is given short shrift. I am going to ask the Montenegrin advocates to prove that with concrete examples. But if they do so, then either (a) NPOV is going to have to be enforced from the outside (if that's even possible, but thereby violating normal practices of project autonomy) or (b) we're going to have to allow the Montenegrins to have their own project. - The second question: It's really quite remarkable in a way that the Montenegrins got the Library of Congress to make the first change to ISO 639-2 in five years. I'll grant that was probably just a political victory. But I'm going to invite the Montenegrin community to share any new evidence that they may have that may have changed LoC's mind, and could change ours. Maybe there isn't any new evidence. But if there is, we should be open to it. Steven Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook> _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom