[Foundation-l] Fwd: Pt-Portuguese Wikipedia
Chris Lee
theornamentalist at gmail.com
Wed Mar 24 02:30:03 UTC 2010
Wow, those are some bitter words. Aside from the deep disgust you have...
I don't think we need to contact any professors, most editors are probably
not professors anyway. If there are parties from each side who believe there
are significant differences and a need to split, rather than bring the work
to the non native speakers and ask for our opinion or mediation, I was
suggesting to simply take an article and have each side show eachother and
us the differences there are; not in content, of course.
And dude, relax.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam at fct.unl.pt>wrote:
> That is a good idea, but you have the work cut
> out for you. Simply e-mail the article
> «Portuguese language» to the largest possible
> number of professors of Portuguese at the most
> prestigious universities in the world and in both
> Portugal and Brazil and ask for their comments. A
> few things in that article and in both the
> «European Portuguese» and «Brazilian Portuguese»
> could use a few touches. You got to send out the
> article to a lot of professors to unsure that
> you'll get a few answers. Be sure to ask
> permission to publish their comments. Copy/Paste
> them to the article discussion page and there you have it.
>
> That is the long road. The short way? Take a look
> at the articles «Língua portuguesa», «Português
> europeu», and «Português brasileiro»? Would you
> trust those responsible for an Encyclopedia that
> have the articles about their own language in
> that sorry state? OK, not all is that bad. You
> can always feast your eyes in the excellent
> translation made in «Futebol», or for something
> completely different, how about «Bruna Ferraz»?
> If you're male and above 18, don't miss on what
> the Commons have to offer. For something
> Portuguese, you can take a look at «Braga». I do
> agree that those two towers of the cathedral
> don't stand a chance in the comparison.
>
> A final note. It is perfectly alright with
> everybody to say «Brazilian Portuguese». I wonder
> what Google might have to say about the
> difference between «European Portuguese» and
> «Portuguese of Portugal» (not even mentioned in
> the English version, but written as an
> alternative title in the Portuguese version -
> «português de Portugal»). European Portuguese?
> Only in Wikipedia. I bet you that if you asked on
> the street about it, people would not know what
> you're talking about or wonder if it is the
> Portuguese used in Brussels or some other place
> like that. I don't think such thing even exists.
> There's always been one and only one Portuguese,
> the Portuguese of Portugal. Everything else are
> just its descendancy spread all over the world, aside from syphilis, of
> course.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Virgilio A. P. Machado
>
>
> At 21:03 23-03-2010, you wrote:
> >As an example, maybe an article, possibly a featured one on the site be
> >assigned to a few Brazilian Portuguese speakers to edit and to a few
> >European Portuguese speakers to edit to their respective dialects, AND
> not
> >on content. Measures could be taken to check that these are not biased
> >'separatist' editors, and then at least we can assess the severity of the
> >issue.
> >And since most of this discussion is between non native speakers of either
> >dialect (as the en community seems to be policing the wiki-world (not much
> >different from the real world...)) hopefully there is at least one
> >Portuguese-English speaker who can relay the findings back to us non
> >speakers?
> >Just a thought.
> >
> >On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam at fct.unl.pt
> >wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, but I could not grasp the argument "that the fomentation
> > > around the European Portuguese issue seems to be perennial" is "clear
> > > evidence that the community within the Portuguese wikipedia has a
> > > very good handle on the issue." Does it mean that if a problem
> > > doesn't go away it's because it is well handled?
> > >
> > > I'm glad someone considers addressing matters of one's language a
> > > pastime and salute the agreement that you don't have to know
> > > Portuguese to engage in such pastime. Everybody should have a hobby
> > > of some kind. Writing to a mailing list could be one. I do have other
> > > things to do, but this is so much more fun.
> > >
> > > Nice try that of mentioning Galician, but that is a controversial
> > > issue and I would not touch it with a ten foot pole. It would also
> > > make you terribly unpopular in a lot of Spanish circles of power.
> > > There might be a mistake in the statement that those two wikipedias
> > > relate to the Portuguese language grouping. I believe the
> > > non-controversial wording is Portuguese-Galician language grouping.
> > >
> > > I read with great interest the considerations about "how to discern
> > > the degree of apartness within the *many* Portuguese dialects", that
> > > it is "easy to weigh the pros and the cons [,of creating a European
> > > Portuguese only wikipedia] and come to a fair *evaluation* that it
> > > would be a very problematic "solution". I was very entertained by a
> > > "personal evaluation" and that someone of great authority in these
> > > matters doesn't "think a European Portuguese only wikipedia is a case
> > > where it is ideally justified." One must be really clever to reach
> > > all those conclusion so easily. I surely don't have an answer for
> > > that, myself, but would love to see, and I am willing to contribute
> > > to a serious study of the problem.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Virgilio A. P. Machado
> > >
> > >
> > > At 14:44 23-03-2010, you wrote:
> > > >Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote:
> > > > > I don't see any evidence that "nobody outside the
> > > > > Portuguese community can see a problem" unless
> > > > > one personal opinion should be considered proof.
> > > > >
> > > > > The statement was not about anybody outside the
> > > > > Portuguese community seeing a problem, but that
> > > > > "the issue keeps popping up". The very fact that
> > > > > is being addressed here corroborates that
> > > > > statement. Examples of previous discussions were
> > > > > also provided spanning a period of five years. No
> > > > > evidence has been produced to the contrary, i.e.,
> > > > > that the issue does not keep popping up.
> > > > >
> > > >There is also clear evidence that the community
> > > >within the Portuguese wikipedia has a very good
> > > >handle on the issue, for all that the fomentation
> > > >around the European Portuguese issue seems to be
> > > >perennial.
> > > >
> > > > > If "it all seems to be a lot of fuss about
> > > > > nothing" that might be because appearances can be
> > > > > deceiving and burring your head in the sand or
> > > > > looking the other way will not make any existing
> > > > > problems go away, although everybody is entitled
> > > > > to ignore them. That's a very common attitude
> > > > > when the problems are not at your doorstep,
> > > > > although there's always the danger that they will
> > > > > eventually get there. Again, the very fact that
> > > > > this discussion is taking place here is a symptom
> > > > > that there is a fuss about something.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >To me it seems that the great majority of people
> > > >who are themselves on the Portuguese wikipedia
> > > >do not think raising this issue time and again is
> > > >a useful pastime. Thus the issue of whether you are
> > > >or are not Portuguese language speaking yourself,
> > > >seems to me a moot point.
> > > >
> > > > > No statements were made concerning the creation
> > > > > or not of a "two-wiki solution". It's nice to
> > > > > know that someone believes that "the wider
> > > > > Wikimedia community will never accept a two-wiki
> > > > > solution". Hopefully not everybody will have such
> > > > > a preconceived idea and keep an open mind about
> > > > > the specific needs of specific projects. Until
> > > > > the problems and needs are properly accessed it
> > > > > is premature to dismiss any alternative solution.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >I'll agree that "two-wiki solution" in this connection
> > > >is very poor phrasing. Adding a European Portuguese
> > > >only wikipedia wouldn't be a solution, and it wouldn't
> > > >be "two-wiki", since I believe there currently exist
> > > >*at least* two wikipedias relating to the Portuguese
> > > >language grouping, namely Portuguese and Galician.
> > > >
> > > >The issue is really whether how to discern the degree
> > > >of apartness within the *many* Portuguese dialects,
> > > >including not only European and Brazilian but the
> > > >African, creole Portuguese etc, and which can not
> > > >reasonably be expected to be able to contribute
> > > >within the default Portuguese wikipedia.
> > > >
> > > >One does not need to dismiss a proposed solution,
> > > >to point out the inherent problems with it. And
> > > >creating a European Portuguese only wikipedia
> > > >would create many problems, of such weight, that
> > > >though not dismissing the concept as a theoretical
> > > >possibility, it is easy to weigh the pros and the cons,
> > > >and come to a fair *evaluation* that it would be a
> > > >very problematic "solution".
> > > >
> > > >My personal evaluation tends to be that an European
> > > >only wikipedia is not a good solution, though I am not
> > > >sure about the African Portuguese or the Creole Portuguese
> > > >cases -- purely because I have not at all studied
> > > >the issues with those. I would agree that there is still
> > > >perhaps too much resistance towards creating
> > > >separate wikipedias for creoles, dialects and the
> > > >like -- in the general case -- though I don't think a
> > > >European Portuguese only wikipedia is a case where
> > > >it is ideally justified.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Yours,
> > > >
> > > >Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >foundation-l mailing list
> > > >foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > >
> > > Prof. Virgilio A. P. Machado vam at fct.unl.pt
> > > Engenharia
> > > Industrial
> > > http://web.archive.org/web/20070824105539/www.ipei.pt/GDEI/
> > >
> > DEMI/FCT/UNL<
> http://web.archive.org/web/20070824105539/www.ipei.pt/GDEI/%0ADEMI/FCT/UNL
> >
> > Fax: 351-21-294-8546 or 21-294-8531
> > > Universidade de Portugal or 351-21-295-4461
> > > 2829-516 Caparica Tel.: 351-21-294-8542 or
> > > 21-294-8567
> > > PORTUGAL or 351-21-294-8300 or 21
> 294-8500
> > > Ext.112-32
> > > 96-577-3726
> > > Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia/UNL (FCT/UNL)
> > >
> > > (Dr. Machado is Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering at the
> > > School of Sciences and Engineering/UNL of the University of Portugal)
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >_______________________________________________
> >foundation-l mailing list
> >foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> Prof. Virgilio A. P. Machado vam at fct.unl.pt
> Engenharia
> Industrial
> http://web.archive.org/web/20070824105539/www.ipei.pt/GDEI/
> DEMI/FCT/UNL<http://web.archive.org/web/20070824105539/www.ipei.pt/GDEI/%0ADEMI/FCT/UNL> Fax: 351-21-294-8546 or 21-294-8531
> Universidade de Portugal or 351-21-295-4461
> 2829-516 Caparica Tel.: 351-21-294-8542 or
> 21-294-8567
> PORTUGAL or 351-21-294-8300 or 21 294-8500
> Ext.112-32
> 96-577-3726
> Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia/UNL (FCT/UNL)
>
> (Dr. Machado is Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering at the
> School of Sciences and Engineering/UNL of the University of Portugal)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
More information about the foundation-l
mailing list