Please provide info about the reason to move existed be.wp.org community somewhere instead of creating new bel.wp.org for our community? We don't want such results of separation that we can observe now. We should revert this change and create a new domain for new Belarusian community. Is it possible? Please, hear the voices of Belarusians. Don't make a road of war between us.
Ihar Hrachyshka
Because you were unwilling to compromise.
You insisted on having the interface of your Wiki written in a non-official, OR variety of the Belarusan language different to the one studied in schools by millions of Belarusan citizens.
Your administrators fostered the oppression of the official variety. This has all been debated extensively already. It's too late now to go back.
Mark
On 28/03/07, Ihar Hrachyshka ihar.hrachyshka@gmail.com wrote:
Please provide info about the reason to move existed be.wp.org community somewhere instead of creating new bel.wp.org for our community? We don't want such results of separation that we can observe now. We should revert this change and create a new domain for new Belarusian community. Is it possible? Please, hear the voices of Belarusians. Don't make a road of war between us.
Ihar Hrachyshka
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I apologise if that seemed rude.
But it is true, this was already discussed in several places over the last year, including this mailinglist.
The fact that there was very little reaction from the be-x-old community until their Wiki got moved says something to me, perhaps they knew what was going on, they just thought it would never happen?
Mark
On 29/03/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Because you were unwilling to compromise.
You insisted on having the interface of your Wiki written in a non-official, OR variety of the Belarusan language different to the one studied in schools by millions of Belarusan citizens.
Your administrators fostered the oppression of the official variety. This has all been debated extensively already. It's too late now to go back.
Mark
On 28/03/07, Ihar Hrachyshka ihar.hrachyshka@gmail.com wrote:
Please provide info about the reason to move existed be.wp.org community somewhere instead of creating new bel.wp.org for our community? We don't want such results of separation that we can observe now. We should revert this change and create a new domain for new Belarusian community. Is it possible? Please, hear the voices of Belarusians. Don't make a road of war between us.
Ihar Hrachyshka
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
No problem. BUT: I, Yury Tarasievich, Zolotariow, Maxim Litvin and other real contributors of new Bel-Wiki doesn't support such FORM of solving the problem. Anyway, if Wikifoundation can't revert changes so can we make something to give the old be-Wikipedia a domain with full read-write access? Also we need to restore their media-gallery.
Thanks.
On 29/03/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I apologise if that seemed rude.
But it is true, this was already discussed in several places over the last year, including this mailinglist.
The fact that there was very little reaction from the be-x-old community until their Wiki got moved says something to me, perhaps they knew what was going on, they just thought it would never happen?
Mark
On 29/03/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Because you were unwilling to compromise.
You insisted on having the interface of your Wiki written in a non-official, OR variety of the Belarusan language different to the one studied in schools by millions of Belarusan citizens.
Your administrators fostered the oppression of the official variety. This has all been debated extensively already. It's too late now to go back.
Mark
On 28/03/07, Ihar Hrachyshka ihar.hrachyshka@gmail.com wrote:
Please provide info about the reason to move existed be.wp.org community somewhere instead of creating new bel.wp.org for our community? We don't want such results of separation that we can observe now. We should revert this change and create a new domain for new Belarusian community. Is it possible? Please, hear the voices of Belarusians. Don't make a road of war between us.
Ihar Hrachyshka
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I wasn't aware it was read-only.
I imagine though that your complaints about it being read-only will not be listened to by anybody at all -- I was similarly upset about teh Moldavian Wikipedia, but it remains read-only.
But I do wish you luck.
As far as what happened to the media, that is beyond me.
Mark
On 29/03/07, Ihar Hrachyshka ihar.hrachyshka@gmail.com wrote:
No problem. BUT: I, Yury Tarasievich, Zolotariow, Maxim Litvin and other real contributors of new Bel-Wiki doesn't support such FORM of solving the problem. Anyway, if Wikifoundation can't revert changes so can we make something to give the old be-Wikipedia a domain with full read-write access? Also we need to restore their media-gallery.
Thanks.
On 29/03/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I apologise if that seemed rude.
But it is true, this was already discussed in several places over the last year, including this mailinglist.
The fact that there was very little reaction from the be-x-old community until their Wiki got moved says something to me, perhaps they knew what was going on, they just thought it would never happen?
Mark
On 29/03/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Because you were unwilling to compromise.
You insisted on having the interface of your Wiki written in a non-official, OR variety of the Belarusan language different to the one studied in schools by millions of Belarusan citizens.
Your administrators fostered the oppression of the official variety. This has all been debated extensively already. It's too late now to go back.
Mark
On 28/03/07, Ihar Hrachyshka ihar.hrachyshka@gmail.com wrote:
Please provide info about the reason to move existed be.wp.org community somewhere instead of creating new bel.wp.org for our community? We don't want such results of separation that we can observe now. We should revert this change and create a new domain for new Belarusian community. Is it possible? Please, hear the voices of Belarusians. Don't make a road of war between us.
Ihar Hrachyshka
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hello,
I imagine though that your complaints about it being read-only will not be listened to by anybody at all -- I was similarly upset about teh Moldavian Wikipedia, but it remains read-only.
The problem is, that Moldavian Wikipedia didn't have enough contributors and content, and was put read-only just because it was filled with spam; Belarusian wikipedia has large number of active contributors.
But now we have only politically-rigged wikipedia in active state, but actual Belarusian wikipedia is frozen. I don't feel it to be right. First of all wikipedia which is about knowledge should be put in work; and I am not sure that wikipedia that is about politics (current be.wiki) should work under WMF logo.
But I do wish you luck.
Thank you.
Monkbel.
The more use the cliches like "political-rigged" and "actual", more the worse for your case. The jibe about "about politics" is outrageous. ---
Hi Yury,
The more use the cliches like "political-rigged" and "actual", more the worse for your case. The jibe about "about politics" is outrageous.
If this "war of words" was not started by your side, it wouldn't be such "outrageous". I myself would prefer to keep all the dispute only about languages and language variants; but the "political" accusations and tags appear again and again.
First of all, let's calm down all the discussion. Hopefully it could result in some compromise which would be useful for Belarus and Belarusian language.
Monk.
On 29/03/07, Monk monkbel@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I imagine though that your complaints about it being read-only will not be listened to by anybody at all -- I was similarly upset about teh Moldavian Wikipedia, but it remains read-only.
The problem is, that Moldavian Wikipedia didn't have enough contributors and content, and was put read-only just because it was filled with spam; Belarusian wikipedia has large number of active contributors.
It had more contributors and content than does the Afar Wikipedia (aa.wp)...
And where is this spam? I never saw such things.
But now we have only politically-rigged wikipedia in active state, but actual Belarusian wikipedia is frozen. I don't feel it to be right. First of all wikipedia which is about knowledge should be put in work; and I am not sure that wikipedia that is about politics (current be.wiki) should work under WMF logo.
Well, according to the other side, it is your Wikipedia which was politically rigged. Theirs is written in the official variety, the one taught in schools. I do understand that it can be seen as a support of the current government, but I don't see how your version is any _less_ "politically rigged". If anything, it seems to be much moreso.
Hoi, Wikipedia is not a platform to fight political fights. When, what was the Belarus Wikipedia, decided that the orthography as used in Belarus was not to be used, it lost its right to call itself be.wikipedia.org. This problem became acute when there was an incubator project for the official language.
The language committee was asked how to deal with it. We found that there is little or no chance to get this "orthography" recognised by the current ISO-639 standard. The standard allows for a private label; we selected an arbitrary label. From my personal point of view, there should be no be-x-old wikipedia in the first place; I would see it moved outside of the Wikimedia Foundation.
There is no chance of having both a be and a bel wikipedia because these codes refer to the same language. Where you say "hear the Belarusians" you made the concious choice not to hear those Belarusians that write the official Belarus orthography. This truth has come home to roost.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Ihar Hrachyshka ihar.hrachyshka@gmail.com wrote:
Please provide info about the reason to move existed be.wp.org community somewhere instead of creating new bel.wp.org for our community? We don't want such results of separation that we can observe now. We should revert this change and create a new domain for new Belarusian community. Is it possible? Please, hear the voices of Belarusians. Don't make a road of war between us.
Ihar Hrachyshka
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
У Чцв, 29/03/2007 у 14:12 +0200, GerardM піша:
Hoi, Wikipedia is not a platform to fight political fights. When, what was the Belarus Wikipedia, decided that the orthography as used in Belarus was not to be used, it lost its right to call itself be.wikipedia.org. This problem became acute when there was an incubator project for the official language.
The language committee was asked how to deal with it. We found that there is little or no chance to get this "orthography" recognised by the current ISO-639 standard. The standard allows for a private label; we selected an arbitrary label. From my personal point of view, there should be no be-x-old wikipedia in the first place; I would see it moved outside of the Wikimedia Foundation.
There is no chance of having both a be and a bel wikipedia because these codes refer to the same language. Where you say "hear the Belarusians" you made the concious choice not to hear those Belarusians that write the official Belarus orthography. This truth has come home to roost.
I know that those who write now the official orthography are against such a solve of the problem. I am one of admins of new Bel-Wiki and we didn't want to ban be-x-old. We wanted to start a new project with other language politics. That's it. So, if this can't be reverted (though all the Belarusian Wikipedians from both sides support such revertion) then - what can our community do to stay be-x-old project - even in other domain - apart with current be.wp.org?
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Ihar Hrachyshka ihar.hrachyshka@gmail.com wrote:
Please provide info about the reason to move existed be.wp.org community somewhere instead of creating new bel.wp.org for our community? We don't want such results of separation that we can observe now. We should revert this change and create a new domain for new Belarusian community. Is it possible? Please, hear the voices of Belarusians. Don't make a road of war between us.
Ihar Hrachyshka
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Ihar Hrachyshka schreef:
У Чцв, 29/03/2007 у 14:12 +0200, GerardM піша:
Hoi, Wikipedia is not a platform to fight political fights. When, what was the Belarus Wikipedia, decided that the orthography as used in Belarus was not to be used, it lost its right to call itself be.wikipedia.org. This problem became acute when there was an incubator project for the official language.
The language committee was asked how to deal with it. We found that there is little or no chance to get this "orthography" recognised by the current ISO-639 standard. The standard allows for a private label; we selected an arbitrary label. From my personal point of view, there should be no be-x-old wikipedia in the first place; I would see it moved outside of the Wikimedia Foundation.
There is no chance of having both a be and a bel wikipedia because these codes refer to the same language. Where you say "hear the Belarusians" you made the concious choice not to hear those Belarusians that write the official Belarus orthography. This truth has come home to roost.
I know that those who write now the official orthography are against such a solve of the problem. I am one of admins of new Bel-Wiki and we didn't want to ban be-x-old. We wanted to start a new project with other language politics. That's it. So, if this can't be reverted (though all the Belarusian Wikipedians from both sides support such revertion) then - what can our community do to stay be-x-old project - even in other domain - apart with current be.wp.org?
Hoi, There should be only one Belarus wikipedia. If anything, you should work together. If you can find it in yourself, you can think of the difference being comparable to the difference between American, British, Australian etc English and just allow for the difference.
If you want anything good to come out of it, you have to work together. This is the best way because it will also ensure that you will have an NPOV. The differences of opinion that are there because of the obvious political differences will need to be worked out as a consequence as well. The only reason why you get the be.wikipedia is because it is the official orthography. It is not because any of the inherent points of view are endorsed.
Thanks, GerardM
On 29/03/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The language committee was asked how to deal with it. We found that there is little or no chance to get this "orthography" recognised by the current ISO-639 standard. The standard allows for a private label; we selected an arbitrary label. From my personal point of view, there should be no be-x-old wikipedia in the first place; I would see it moved outside of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Could you explain how this orthography was consistent and formalised enough for an entire Wikimedia project to use it and yet is not recognised by the standard? It seems unusual that such an orthography can be used enough to have this level of recognition (to the extent that it displaces the formal orthography) and yet not be recognised by the standard.
Has the Norwegian solution been considered (seperate Bokmål and Nynorsk Wikipedias) as a soltution to the Belarussian problem?
Wikimedia needs to be pragmatic. No standard is perfect.
Like every fad, by token of piggy-backing "the establishment" -- the standard orthography and grammar, retro-fitting some features of choice, long cancelled in standard line, and introducing some new features like new letter into alphabet.
There's 1 (one) small book, normalising orthography, and according to which all this is supposedly run. You could compare the phenomenon with Russian phonetic slang, possibly.
---
Hoi!
It seems unusual that such an orthography can be used enough to have this level of recognition (to the extent that it displaces the formal orthography) and yet not be recognised by the standard.
The only level of recognition this ortography had was a wiki. There *might* be a Linux locale in the future, but that's not a recognition.
It's loosely based on an experimental prerevolutionary ortography. Anyway, both the original and this "sort-of" version never were taught in school, at least not extensively (there was no time for that at the moment) and after the soviet take-up a number of reforms were made to all soviet languages (starting from the most diffused, russian). Massive formal education in the byelorussian linguistic entity started to be delivered only after the soviet reforms were in place.
A double standard would be usable if both version where recognized at international level, yet they are not and there is no apparent chance for such a recognition. If this claim was accepted we would have no way to keep anyone from asking (say) a Quaker wikipedia based on what's survived of that language in Melville's work, another in runic script, etc. This is absolutely NOT acceptable.
Rules are rules, we are not in a feudal system where we give privileges to relatives. People and linguistic entities are all equal and all have the same rights and rules. If we open the gates to the flood I will accept a klingon wiki back straight away. They even have a regular code...
I understand that people have worked for this and no one says their work will be deleted, what is in discussion is whether it should be hosted by wmf or not. If and when an Arbitration Committee chooses for a NO the existing content will obviously be handed over to the Community, so that they can host it where they please. This is not the Holy Inquisition, Gestapo or NKVD, we don't burn books in public squares.
Has the Norwegian solution been considered (seperate Bokmål and Nynorsk Wikipedias) as a soltution to the Belarussian problem?
If they get an ISO recognition they will obviously be hosted as anyone else, but not until then. We absolutely exclude becoming a place in which linguistic codes get issued, because this is not wmf mission.
Wikimedia needs to be pragmatic. No standard is perfect.
Sorry, no. Issueing linguistic standards means issueing political statements, which is absolutely incompatible with our mission (NPOV, etc). If anyone does not like ISO (true, it's far from being perfect) they are welcome to discuss the issue directly with ISO.
As you perfectly understand the alternative is that we will start to say "yes" to one lot and "no" to another. Based on what? On our moods? On the number of hysterics they can make? On the money they can pay me to change my vote? On someone's political ideas? Maybe we can have one more ordeal of crazy berserks in meta? No, sorry. There's but one God, and He is called ISO.
BTW, that's because we ARE pragmatic. It's true Oldak, there's no such thing as a perfect system, yet it's a long time since we all decided that having a clear set of Unperfect Laws and a number of independent powers balancing each other is much better then hoping for some Emperor's sympathy. At least THIS much is clear. We are not Gods or Emperors, so let ISO care for codes while we care for encyclopedias.
Bèrto ‘d Sèra ------------- DISCLAIMER: this is NOT a colletive statement from wmf LangCom but just my own PRIVATE correspondence...
On 29/03/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
Hoi!
It seems unusual that such an orthography can be used enough to have this level of recognition (to the extent that it displaces the formal orthography) and yet not be recognised by the standard.
The only level of recognition this ortography had was a wiki. There *might* be a Linux locale in the future, but that's not a recognition.
It's loosely based on an experimental prerevolutionary ortography. Anyway, both the original and this "sort-of" version never were taught in school, at least not extensively (there was no time for that at the moment) and after the soviet take-up a number of reforms were made to all soviet languages (starting from the most diffused, russian). Massive formal education in the byelorussian linguistic entity started to be delivered only after the soviet reforms were in place.
A double standard would be usable if both version where recognized at international level, yet they are not and there is no apparent chance for such a recognition. If this claim was accepted we would have no way to keep anyone from asking (say) a Quaker wikipedia based on what's survived of that language in Melville's work, another in runic script, etc. This is absolutely NOT acceptable.
Rules are rules, we are not in a feudal system where we give privileges to relatives. People and linguistic entities are all equal and all have the same rights and rules. If we open the gates to the flood I will accept a klingon wiki back straight away. They even have a regular code...
I understand that people have worked for this and no one says their work will be deleted, what is in discussion is whether it should be hosted by wmf or not. If and when an Arbitration Committee chooses for a NO the existing content will obviously be handed over to the Community, so that they can host it where they please. This is not the Holy Inquisition, Gestapo or NKVD, we don't burn books in public squares.
Has the Norwegian solution been considered (seperate Bokmål and Nynorsk Wikipedias) as a soltution to the Belarussian problem?
If they get an ISO recognition they will obviously be hosted as anyone else, but not until then. We absolutely exclude becoming a place in which linguistic codes get issued, because this is not wmf mission.
Wikimedia needs to be pragmatic. No standard is perfect.
Sorry, no. Issueing linguistic standards means issueing political statements, which is absolutely incompatible with our mission (NPOV, etc). If anyone does not like ISO (true, it's far from being perfect) they are welcome to discuss the issue directly with ISO.
As you perfectly understand the alternative is that we will start to say "yes" to one lot and "no" to another. Based on what? On our moods? On the number of hysterics they can make? On the money they can pay me to change my vote? On someone's political ideas? Maybe we can have one more ordeal of crazy berserks in meta? No, sorry. There's but one God, and He is called ISO.
BTW, that's because we ARE pragmatic. It's true Oldak, there's no such thing as a perfect system, yet it's a long time since we all decided that having a clear set of Unperfect Laws and a number of independent powers balancing each other is much better then hoping for some Emperor's sympathy. At least THIS much is clear. We are not Gods or Emperors, so let ISO care for codes while we care for encyclopedias.
Thanks for clearing this up and giving an account of the situation "for dummies". Based on what you say, and assuming it is correct, the committee was right to make the decision that it made. Wikimedia should not pander to the political use of language: it can be quite manipulative.
Hi all,
and another question according to the point.
As all we know, all the variants of English (British English, American English, Australian and so on) live together in en.wiki, and never thousands of articles in one version were deleted at once.
And Belarusian grammar versions differ essentially less that British English differs from American English. So I don't see why the solution for English wikipedia couldn't be used in Belarusian one.
As everybody knows, previous be.wiki (be-x-old) has large number of articles in both language versions (ratio roughly corresponds to ratio of active speakers of both versions in Internet), and both language versions contributors were welcomed in old wiki. But new one states that it will forbid any contribution in grammar that is not favored by current admins right from the start.
As I see, the only variant which would help Belarusian wikipedia to develop, progress and grow on - to allow both versions contributors to put their efforts in it.
You know, there is nearly 1 mln internet users in Belarus; and while vast majority of them use only Russian language, thousands (up to dozens of thousands) of them use so-called "classical" version of Belarusian language (which was mostly used in be-x-old), and only hundreds use "normative" version of Belarusian language (the one that is used in be now).
Thank you. Monk.
Internet isn't yet commodity here in our country. Paper sources hold much more sway.
Language codes just do not get transferred to best internet chatters.
You are an entity, yes, set out to destroy the existing Belarusian language and culture and replace it with your version -- okay, your right. But get yourself your own blessed language code for that.
P.S. Some years ago I witnessed a creation of one of such sites you call "proofs". So, there was 1 tech and 1 editor, who re-edited everything incoming (like 90+% or even 99% in standard Belarusian and Russian) into his flavour of "classic". It was politics. Thousands pages (and I mean real thousands, there was sort of 4800 or so) of pages. And... grant money. I could add -- near to zero interest, excepting the indexing bots. ---
You are an entity, yes, set out to destroy the existing Belarusian language and culture and replace it with your version -- okay, your right. But get yourself your own blessed language code for that.
Now, now. They may hate you because they think you're communists or evil or whatever, but still, I wouldn't say they're out to _destroy the existing Belarusian language and culture_. They just want to modify it.
Some years ago I witnessed a creation of one of such sites you call "proofs". So, there was 1 tech and 1 editor, who re-edited everything incoming (like 90+% or even 99% in standard Belarusian and Russian) into his flavour of "classic". It was politics. Thousands pages (and I mean real thousands, there was sort of 4800 or so) of pages. And... grant money. I could add -- near to zero interest, excepting the indexing bots.
This speaks to me. And this is very possible, lest anyone doubt it -- if it were your full-time job to translate articles, you would only need a handful of people to run a functioning online newspaper (see http://www.tempusnostru.it/ which is a Sardinian-language online newspaper that functions with a skeletal staff - not that I have a problem with that periodical, in fact I am supportive of it and enjoy the articles it publishes very much)
Mark
On 30/03/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
You are an entity, yes, set out to destroy the existing Belarusian language and culture and replace it with your version -- okay, your right. But get yourself your own blessed language code for that.
Now, now. They may hate you because they think you're communists or evil or whatever, but still, I wouldn't say they're out to _destroy the existing Belarusian language and culture_. They just want to modify it.
Well, just think one logical step more and realise what would *really* mean such *hypothetical* modification -- everything kicked back to square one. 50 years of development (and I'm talking bare agreed minimum here, it's more like 70-75 of continuity) virtually cancelled. Popular reputation of language down the drain, for if one group of trouble-makers could impose their particular "vision", why not another? Why bother when Russian is so *sufficient*?
With revolutions and world wars and empire falls, the stability is at real premium here, but no, it's just ought to be some "real thing" and devil take all dissenters. They and only they know what the "real" language is, and everybody "ought" to talk it. Cooperation they want, my foot.
Anyway, that's what their spiritual leaders write openly: "This Soviet deviation blah blah must die, so that the real one could be reinstated". I'm not naming names right now but I keep those articles.
Sorry folks, flew off the handle a bit. ---
Hi,
You are an entity, yes, set out to destroy the existing Belarusian language and culture and replace it with your version -- okay, your right. But get yourself your own blessed language code for that.
Now, now. They may hate you because they think you're communists or evil or whatever, but still, I wouldn't say they're out to _destroy the existing Belarusian language and culture_. They just want to modify it.
Excuse me, Mark, but nobody hates "them" (those who prefer normative version), because everyone who prefers classical version understands that two versions should coexist and this is ok. But those who prefer norm version really hate, as we could clearly see in Yury's letters, because of lack of strength - they just don't have enough supporters in Belarus. I just don't understand, why they try to get support by hate, not by good.
MONK
Don't think I haven'tr seen the livejournal posts about "coming to vote against the communists".
Mark
On 29/03/07, Monk monkbel@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
You are an entity, yes, set out to destroy the existing Belarusian language and culture and replace it with your version -- okay, your right. But get yourself your own blessed language code for that.
Now, now. They may hate you because they think you're communists or evil or whatever, but still, I wouldn't say they're out to _destroy the existing Belarusian language and culture_. They just want to modify it.
Excuse me, Mark, but nobody hates "them" (those who prefer normative version), because everyone who prefers classical version understands that two versions should coexist and this is ok. But those who prefer norm version really hate, as we could clearly see in Yury's letters, because of lack of strength - they just don't have enough supporters in Belarus. I just don't understand, why they try to get support by hate, not by good.
MONK
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
First, slogan was to vote against communist orthography, not communists. and it was just an element of PR-technology, not symbol of hate. Second, the only aim of voting against was not to tolerate the split of one unified and whole Belarusian Wikipedia.
2007/3/30, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
Don't think I haven'tr seen the livejournal posts about "coming to vote against the communists".
Mark
On 30/03/07, Jan Marozau janmarozau@gmail.com wrote:
First, slogan was to vote against communist orthography, not communists. and it was just an element of PR-technology, not symbol of hate.
Excuse me, I should think of it as about PR and pray for your god for abusing me. It was just a joke, wasn't it?
Second, the only aim of voting against was not to tolerate the split of one unified and whole Belarusian Wikipedia.
Oh yeah. That sounds really good. Especially if you would remind that the slogan was "Say no to communist spelling in Wikipedia". No compromise. Just a big brother's love. That sounds really tolerant.
2007/3/30, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
Don't think I haven'tr seen the livejournal posts about "coming to vote against the communists".
Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I see no point to rebut your populism and stormy emotions.
OK, you're holy right, tarashkevica-users are angry villains, terrorists and fascism propagandists, who hate Belarus and belarusians and tarashkevica has nothing common with "real" Belarusian language. So damn them and all that! You winners, let be-x-old die. it would be logical and natural conclusion of war :(
2007/3/30, Ihar Hrachyshka ihar.hrachyshka@gmail.com:
On 30/03/07, Jan Marozau janmarozau@gmail.com wrote:
First, slogan was to vote against communist orthography, not communists. and it was just an element of PR-technology, not symbol of hate.
Excuse me, I should think of it as about PR and pray for your god for abusing me. It was just a joke, wasn't it?
Second, the only aim of voting against was not to tolerate the split of
one
unified and whole Belarusian Wikipedia.
Oh yeah. That sounds really good. Especially if you would remind that the slogan was "Say no to communist spelling in Wikipedia". No compromise. Just a big brother's love. That sounds really tolerant.
2007/3/30, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
Don't think I haven'tr seen the livejournal posts about "coming to vote against the communists".
Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 30/03/07, Jan Marozau janmarozau@gmail.com wrote:
I see no point to rebut your populism and stormy emotions.
OK, you're holy right, tarashkevica-users are angry villains, terrorists and fascism propagandists, who hate Belarus and belarusians and tarashkevica has nothing common with "real" Belarusian language.
If I would think so I wouldn't spend my time here. I say: you don't want to miss be-x-old. I say: we don't want to miss be-x-old. What's the problem?
So damn them and all that! You winners, let be-x-old die. it would be logical and natural conclusion of war
Make love, not war. Just stop to blame all the people around who doesn't support your efforts to draw our hard work in Incubator and on Meta in black (and "red") colours.
:(
2007/3/30, Ihar Hrachyshka ihar.hrachyshka@gmail.com:
On 30/03/07, Jan Marozau janmarozau@gmail.com wrote:
First, slogan was to vote against communist orthography, not communists. and it was just an element of PR-technology, not symbol of hate.
Excuse me, I should think of it as about PR and pray for your god for abusing me. It was just a joke, wasn't it?
Second, the only aim of voting against was not to tolerate the split of
one
unified and whole Belarusian Wikipedia.
Oh yeah. That sounds really good. Especially if you would remind that the slogan was "Say no to communist spelling in Wikipedia". No compromise. Just a big brother's love. That sounds really tolerant.
2007/3/30, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
Don't think I haven'tr seen the livejournal posts about "coming to vote against the communists".
Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
У Пят, 30/03/2007 у 09:22 +0300, Monk піша:
Hi,
You are an entity, yes, set out to destroy the existing Belarusian language and culture and replace it with your version -- okay, your right. But get yourself your own blessed language code for that.
Now, now. They may hate you because they think you're communists or evil or whatever, but still, I wouldn't say they're out to _destroy the existing Belarusian language and culture_. They just want to modify it.
Excuse me, Mark, but nobody hates "them" (those who prefer normative version), because everyone who prefers classical version understands that two versions should coexist and this is ok. But those who prefer norm version really hate, as we could clearly see in Yury's letters, because of lack of strength - they just don't have enough supporters in Belarus. I just don't understand, why they try to get support by hate, not by good.
You are wrong. Your supporters blame in LJ, forums, Meta that we are communists and russifictors. Some people blame we are "pidors" and "suki" in your community forum in LJ. Administrators of be-x-old that are also administrators of that forum didn't delete such posts. And after all of that we try to support your willing to restore your Wiki, write here emails with supporting words, distribute info about possibilities to help your status. Do you think it's a good state for community? We do it not for people like I described here, but for people that can think and shut their mouth if they are wrong. PS: If I would know that all the contributors of be-x-old think the same as I described then I wouldn't even say a word for your Wiki. Say "thank you" for those who think twice before showing their negative emotions and missculturness everywhere they could. PSPS: possibly too rude, but I don't know how else I can make you here our voice. So excuse me if something wrong.
MONK
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Yeah, we all know how much support and unity alternativers enjoy in real life.
They are regularly going around the country, visiting cities and villages taking roll-calls and numbers they get are *unbelievable*. They produced 1 (one) slim book on their own orthography after 15 years of quarrels, and that surely settles down any disputable issues which the whole enterprise rises. They are maintaining language courses teaching the alternative version with tens of participators, which is *everything* compared to meagre ~80,000 state schools graduates per year.
All the Internet chats, which are for years filled with filth against the normative anything, where foul-mouthing the millions of Belarusian people as "red cattle, idiots, and when do they die out already?" -- this is a sign of brotherly love, yes.
Okay, let folks judge what they could see in Yury's letters, but this discussion is laughable, and I'm bowing out of this discussion for now, sorry for bother.
---
almost unbroken lie and all-around NPOV from worshippers of so called "normative" Belarusian orthography
Hi,
I'm sorry but it seems that Berto have got some wrong information.
I hope this message will be read carefully by all subscribers of this list, including those who made the controversial decision.
It seems unusual that such an orthography can be used enough to have this level of recognition (to the extent that it displaces the formal orthography) and yet not be recognised by the standard.
The only level of recognition this ortography had was a wiki. There *might* be a Linux locale in the future, but that's not a recognition.
I don't know anything about Linux locale, but this wiki is just one of thousands resources in this orthography. Yes, classical version doesn't have its own Language Institute due to political issues, but it is recognized; there are regular printed newspapers, recognized by government in this grammar; big number of books in this grammar are printed yearly (including fiction and scientific). Vast majority of sites and blogs are created in classical version (I don't have specific statistics, but rough count allows to say that around 80-90% of all Belarusian language sites and almost 100% of Belarusian language blogs are in classical version). It is not recognized by ISO yet just because nobody here in Belarus knew that it could be necessary; lack of ISO code never was an obstacle to use the language.
It is codified thoroughly; there are reference books, textbooks, primers in it; big orthographic dictionaries exist, and cross-language dictionaries as well.
A double standard would be usable if both version where recognized at international level, yet they are not and there is no apparent chance for such a recognition. If this claim was accepted we would have no way to keep anyone from asking (say) a Quaker wikipedia based on what's survived of that language in Melville's work, another in runic script, etc. This is absolutely NOT acceptable.
It is just speculation. There are no obstacles to classical version being recognized at international level. Some languages which are not codified, and are spoken just by hundreds of people are recognized; and this language is codified, has strict rules, and is actively used by approx. 50-100 thousand people.
I understand that people have worked for this and no one says their work will be deleted, what is in discussion is whether it should be hosted by wmf or not. If and when an Arbitration Committee chooses for a NO the existing content will obviously be handed over to the Community, so that they can host it where they please. This is not the Holy Inquisition, Gestapo or NKVD, we don't burn books in public squares.
Thanks, really. But the main point is that this content is free encyclopedic content, it is strongly crosslinked to other wmf projects (interwiki, commons pics, mediawiki software and so on), and it seems that there is no other competitive projects where this content could be usefully hosted and worked on.
Has the Norwegian solution been considered (seperate Bokmål and Nynorsk Wikipedias) as a soltution to the Belarussian problem?
If they get an ISO recognition they will obviously be hosted as anyone else, but not until then. We absolutely exclude becoming a place in which linguistic codes get issued, because this is not wmf mission.
Thanks for this point. I hope ISO code will be issued in nearby future and Norwegian solution will be possible.
Thank you.
--- Monk, native Belarusian speaker, who can use both grammar systems, and who is clearly against the discrimination of living natural language in Wikipedia.
Hoi!
I don't know anything about Linux locale, but this wiki is just one of thousands resources in this orthography.
None of them is an ISO code.
It is not recognized by ISO
Exactly, It's just as you say. Why it's not recognized is none of our problems. We don't aim to become a power centre capable to deliver international recognition. Your problem must be dealt with at ISO level.
Bèrto d Sèra Personagi dlann 2006 për larvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojàotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
But WHY to get the different ISO-code for one and the same language? it's just orthography!
Hoi!
I don't know anything about Linux locale, but this wiki is just one of thousands resources in this orthography.
None of them is an ISO code.
It is not recognized by ISO
Exactly, It's just as you say. Why it's not recognized is none of our problems. We don't aim to become a power centre capable to deliver international recognition. Your problem must be dealt with at ISO level.
Bèrto 'd Sèra Personagi dl'ann 2006 për l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojàotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi, There is no chance of getting a second ISO-639-3 code for Belarus. People do however get hot under the collar about things like orthographies. In the Netherlands there are two opposing orthographies .. one of them is official the other is used by newspapers etc. Thanks, GerardM
On 3/30/07, Jan Marozau janmarozau@gmail.com wrote:
But WHY to get the different ISO-code for one and the same language? it's just orthography!
Hoi!
I don't know anything about Linux locale, but this wiki is just one of thousands resources in this orthography.
None of them is an ISO code.
It is not recognized by ISO
Exactly, It's just as you say. Why it's not recognized is none of our problems. We don't aim to become a power centre capable to deliver international recognition. Your problem must be dealt with at ISO level.
Bèrto 'd Sèra Personagi dl'ann 2006 për l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti
vojàotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi!
We have the same problem in pms.wikipedia. While there is a unified version (called Koiné) there are also regional variants that include local graphies.
We solved the problem with a few ingredients: 1) no hysterics (those who are "too hot" on this problem cannot become admins) 2) templates showing which version is used on the page (although they use different alphabets they are mutually understandable) 3) tolerance, tolerance and more tolerance (after a 500 year long bloody religious war on one of our churches appeared a writing saying "Let anyone have it as they please", which still is our motto).
We are now trying to include in our wiki detailed articles explaining where these linguistic systems come from (there actually is a number of historical reasons behind any of them).
We also have a problem that is common to most weak languages: a drift towards stronger languages in our vocabularies. While our word PA has been exported to french the import flow mostly been brought us words from french (we were twice annexed to France) and italian.
The result was that we excluded the use of archaic piemontese terms from the interface but allow them (with a link and an explanation) in texts. There's nothing wrong in reintroducing almost forgotten forms of a language, but the wiki must remain accessible to all (not just to a sect of linguistic integralists).
Basically there is but one thing you need: understanding that insulting each other won't change a thing. Having political fights is the very last thing that will help anyone. NPOV means NPOV, not NPOV means "not a wiki", and "not a wiki" implies "not to be hosted here".
If we become convinced that something is not NPOV from the very start, then not even an ISO code will help. Hope both sides have this extremely clear. This may well end up as "no byelorussian wiki AT ALL". WMF publishes encyclopedias, not a soviet, antisoviet or pro-martian "pravda"s.
It's my last word on the subject, next thing I'm going to do is pick up all the delirious emails we get and use them to write a personal recomendation to the Board that I will difend in front of any Arbitration Committee.
Enough is enough. We are all adults here, so let's behave like adults. Can't you see that you make your Country ridicolous in the eyes of the world? Kak vam ne stydno, vsem?? Derzhite sebja v ruki v konze konzov!
Bèrto ‘d Sèra Personagi dl’ann 2006 për l’arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojàotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Okay. Sorry. Let myself to get unnderved.
Anyway, it's regrettable we didn't get that kind of close attention of Wikipedia authorities at least year ago.
---
Privet
I agree, but the past is gone and the only thing we can act upon is the present. Everyone is willing to help, but the atmosphere must remain within constructive boundaries.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yury Tarasievich Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 3:47 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Be-x-old
Okay. Sorry. Let myself to get unnderved.
Anyway, it's regrettable we didn't get that kind of close attention of Wikipedia authorities at least year ago.
---
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org