Mark Williamson wrote:
On 18/03/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email)
<alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Its very existence is a POV fork - it's a language which nobody
offically recognises as being distinct from Romanian (I say lift, you
say elevator), for a country which nobody offically recognises as
existing. If the Foundation says yes, a country which doesn't exist is
allowed to have projects in a language which doesn't exist, they are
promoting the POV that the country and it's language exist and should be
recognised. /That/ is not a goal of the Foundation.
That's a rather inaccurate assessment. The official language of the
Republic of Moldova, which is recognised by every nation on earth, is
"Moldovan".
Ok, so how is it different to Romanian? According to [1] Moldovan "is
essentially the same as Romanian". Let's call a spade a spade, mmkay?
Also, whether or not Transnistria is internationally
recognised as an
independent country, it's certainly undeniable that there is some
usage of the Cyrillic script over there.
Sure, but as Bogdan Giusca wrote:
NO MOLDOVANS requested or wanted this Wikipedia.
We have *no* Transnistrian Moldovan contributors who want to write a
wikipedia in Cyrillic alphabet.
Its only supporters are Node_ue (the kid in Arizona who barely speaks the
language) and a few Russians who support it for ideological/political
reasons and who can't contribute anyway, as they don't know the
language.
There are no newspapers, no journals, no magazines, no books currently
published in Romanian Cyrillic in Transnistria. The children use
decades old schoolbooks from the time of the Soviet Union.
Virtually everyone there would like to switch the education system to
the Latin alphabet, but dissent is not something easy to do in a
totalitarian regime: there are some Romanian/Moldovan Transnistrians
in prison since 1991 for political dissent.
So, they are obviously not doing it by choice, and none of them were
contributing anyway.
And if having mowp is a statement by WMF to the
legitimacy of
Transnistria, isn't *not* having it equally POV in the opposite
direction? Note that I don't personally think it's POV.
No. NPOV says that we have to include all *majority* viewpoints, not
*all* viewpoints. Including all viewpoints is /balanced/, but inclusion
of a POV which is not in the majority (recogninsing the unrecognised
language of an unrecognised nation) is itself POV. If the UN recognises
Trasnistria overnight, and they declare that their offical language is
Moldovan written in Cyrillic script, and Transnistrians start to ask for
a Wikipedia in Moldovan-Cyrillic, they can have it. But not before.
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Moldova#Language
--
Alphax -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP