The problem with your POV is that it isn't shared by the community. When you are a member of a subcommittee, you don't necessarily have to act in line with the will of the community, but the solutions you advocate should not be in total opposition to what the community believes to be reasonable.
You would likely vote to prohibit the creation of Latgalian using the code "bat-ltg". The community disagrees with you, as you can tell from the messages already sent. There is precedent in existing Wikimedia projects to support the usage of such code. You will suggest code such as "lat-ltg", which community and requester deemed unacceptable due to its political implications, of which the current proposed code has none (while the status of Latgalian is controversial as a dialect or language, everybody agrees that it is Baltic, and thus the more inclusive code is best). If a subcommittee is to work properly, it needs to be formed of indivduals who are not only knowledgeable about the topics involved, but who can aslo be expected to act reasonably and (with a certain degree of latitude) in line with the will of the larger community which they serve.
The current process for requesting new languages, chaotic and imperfect though it can be at times, is wonderful for sifting out minority views such as yours so that we are not forced to take a solution which is unsatisfactory to the community.
Mark
On 18/10/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Please understand that I raise a technical point that does not in any way prevent projects to be started. It does prevent the unfortunate creation of a project like als.wikipedia.org where als in ISO-639-3 is Albanian, the main language .. Fortunately, on WiktionaryZ we have already reached agreement that the als code can be replaced for Schwyzerdütsch (gsw). When this is a good solution for the als.wikipedia folks, this would help a lot.
Please let me know what is problematic with my view point. The fact that this is not yet shared does not negate the merit of the point of view.
Thanks, GerardM http://wiktionaryz.org/Portal:gsw
On 10/18/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree with your advocacy.
You have extreme viewpoints not shared by most members of the community. For this reason, I worry that your membership on the board languages subcommittee may unduly influence the creation of Wikis in new languages in a direction to which the community would not agree.
Mark
On 17/10/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I do advocate to not include a language under a code that is incompatible with the terms of use of the ISO-639. This does only mean that a code needs to be picked that is *clearly *outside ISO-639, this can be accomplished by picking a four character code. I also advocate to follow the ISO-639 and not deviate from it's content. There are well established ways in which you can inform about dialects scripts etc. I do advocate to use these established ways.
My point is that when people want recognition for the language that they speak and write as a language, they have to jump through the hoops that are there to jump through. In the mean time there can be a code that allows them to work on a WMF project. However, what I am not saying is that any "language" deserves it's own project. There have already been two languages that have been deleted because of popular demand.
Thanks, GerardM
ScottL wrote:
Are you advocating dis-including a language because it does not
have
an acceptable abbreviation? Or are you maintaining that it is not actually a language?
If the first, then I suspect that is not a good reason to disallow
a
new wikipedia to be formed.
If the second, then we are still "'recognize[ing]' what some activists believe". Though an appeal to the processes of an external body as part of our process does seem to mitigate that somewhat though
I
think that is questionable in terms of our principals.
SKL
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, In the past many things have been done that we should regret. We have
on the
one hand Brion who insists that we maintain the RFC to do with
indicating
content, on the other hand I advocate to use the ISO-639-3 standard
and
engage in the process to get adequate resolution on what is to be
considered
a language. Then there are people who consider that it does not make
a
difference and that we can do as we like.
Yes, we have several codes that are wrong. Codes that are contrary to
the
terms of use of the ISO-639 code. The fact that we have done these
things
does not sanction that we continue to do so.
When Samogitian gets the zog code, it means that we should be able to
use
that code. From an RFC point of view it seems that we are not allowed
to do
this. This is as foolhardy as insisting on using codes that are
patently
wrong and incompatible with what is done in the rest of the world.
ISO is working on codes where dialects are given an official code.
When this
happens the position of these codes will become even more untenable.
It is
to be prefered to accept the best codes that comply with current
practices
and work on amending the practices where needed.
The difference between a language and a dialect is often a
problematic one.
Issues are often highly politicized. It is absolutely wrong to
"recognize"
what some activists believe for reasons that have nothing to do with linguistics. Engaging in the process to get the recognition through
ISO and
Ethnologue is open to us, let us go that route.
Thanks, GerardM
On 10/17/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Arns has a really good point. This is based on precedent.
While we do try to follow certain conventions where possible, we do have some inconsistencies with standards. But we're not ISOpedia. Whether we conform to standards or not is our own choice.
In the past, we have generally had codes in the form of fiu-vro, bat-smg, and map-bms.
This is despite the fact that Võro, Samogitian, and Banyumasan are considered by the Ethnologue (and many others) to be dialects of Estonian, Lithuanian, and Javanese respectively.
We are not perfect.
Mark
On 17/10/06, Zordsdavini iz Litvy zordsdavini@gmail.com wrote:
> Latgalian is going in the same way as Samogitian. Soon Samogitian
will
> have
> iso. It will be ZOG. For now it use bat-smg. The latgalian will
have
> iso,
> too, I hope because Latgalian have more tradition than Samogitian.
When
> Samogitian wiki was starting we decided to use bat-smg. I think the
best
> code for now is bat-ltg. To write about dictionary differences can > proposer.
> I'll tell him. > > Arns > > 2006/10/17, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com: > >> Hoi, >> There are two issues. >> * What/ is/ the code for the moment >> * Get recognition for Latgalian as a language. >> >> People have considered languages like Min-Nan and Yue as a dialect
of
>> Chinese for a long time. They HAD to use codes like zh-min-nan
because
>> this was necessary to comply with the standards. At this moment we >> have
>> 7602 languages that are recognised in ISO-639-3. This is a big >> improvement over what was in ISO-639-2. The ISO-639-3 codes will >> become
>> part of how languages are seen in the near future on the Internet.
I
>> am
>> afraid that Latgalian is at this moment considered a dialect of >> Latvian.
>> I am also sure that there are many other "languages/dialects" that
are
>> in a similar situation. Either because people are afronted because >> what
>> it considers a language they consider a dialect or the other way >> around.
>> There are also many people who consider something a dialect of for >> instance Italian while everybody knows that Italian was
constructed
>> after the unification of Italy and, that Italian is based on >> Florentine.
>> The point I am making here there is a lot of confusion and there
is a
>> lot of posturing based on bad information. Having to base the code
for
>> Latgalian on Latvian is the best for the moment. >> >> When you consider Latgalian a language, there are processes open
to us
>> to have this considered by organisations like Ethnologue and ISO.
We
>> have contacts that may help us achieve this. In order to get to
that
>> stage, it is necessary to jump through certain hoops. One of these
is
>> to
>> demonstrate that there is indeed this difference that warrants >> Latgalian
>> to be considered a language. Aspects of this are also showing >> literature
>> and current use of the language. One of the first resources would
be a
>> Swadesh list where both Latvian and Latgalian can be compared. >> >> FYI I am from an area of the Netherlands; Westfriesland where they >> used
>> to speak a language; Westfries. It has a literature; it has a
grammar
>> it
>> is not understood by people who speak Dutch. There are dialects of >> Westfries there are dictionaries of Westfries and there are
revival
>> societies that give cabaret performances in Westfries. At some
stage I
>> am sure that someone will ask for a Wikipedia in Westfries. I
would
>> not
>> stop them. I KNOW that it takes relatively little effort to make
the
>> case for Westfries. In WiktionaryZ I would welcome dictionaries in >> Westfries or Latgalian... NB Westfries is not West Frisian ..
which
>> imho
>> is a complete misnomer. >> >> Thanks, >> GerardM >> >> Zordsdavini iz Litvy wrote: >> >>> latgalian has long tradition of writing system. It was in
1918-1944
>>> >> second >> >>> official language. Considering of dialect status is political.
And
>>> there
>> are >> >>> very active people which are working on latgalian language life. >>> It's
>>> dialect like neopolitanian or venecian. We say it's the language. >>> >>> Arns >>> >>> 2006/10/17, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com: >>> >>> >>>> Hoi, >>>> The code bat is a "collective code" for Baltic (other).
Latgalian
>>>> >> however >> >>>> is >>>> considered a dialect of Latvian and therefore it is not "other". >>>> >>>> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=lav >>>> http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=bat >>>> Thanks, >>>> GerardM >>>> >>>> On 10/17/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 10/17/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hoi, >>>>>> According to Ethnologue Latgalian is a dialect of Latvian.
From
>>>>>> my
>>>> point >>>> >>>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> view, there is not even a proposed code to be used for your >>>>>> proposed
>>>>>> Wikipedia that would be acceptable. Acceptable would be
something
>>>>>> >> like >> >>>>>> "lv-latg" or "lav-latg" .. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> There's a test wiki at >>>>> http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Test-wp/ltg
>>>>> The code bat-ltv has been suggested. >>>>> >>>>> Angela
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l