[Wikipedia-l] Re: Quenya language request, and Chinese Wikipedia again

[Felix Wan]

On Sat, February 19, 2005 8:49 pm, Sheng Jiong said:
>> I believe that earlier on Sheng Jiong claimed that there is not even
>> one book written entirely in Cantonese.  Now obviously he has raised the
>> bar: even if X books are written in Cantonese, those are exceptions.  I
>> don't know how many will be significant.
>
> It would be sufficient if there begins a movement calling native
> Cantonese/Hong Kong writers to write in Cantonese (as in the May
> Fourth Movement, when scholars abaondoned classic Chinese and write in
> baihuawen), and when there start to be newspapers printed in Cantonese,
> scholars writing academic essays in Cantonese.
>
If you say that, then I can understand your requirement.

No, the level of acceptance of written Cantonese has not reached that of
baihuawen at the time of May Fourth Movement yet.

> Basically anyone with a common sense would know if Cantonese is widely
> accepted as a written language. But obviously you are deliberately
> making that seems difficult.
>
No, I was not making it difficult.  I was just expressing my frustration,
and trying to present an accurate image of how much written Cantonese is
accepted.

What was frustrating was that sometimes you said Cantonese did not meet
such and such requirement, and then when someone provided prove that it
did, you switched and said that that was an exception.

>> Even if we can find a school teaching written cantonese, I believe that
>> will be an exception.  He may require that it must happen in
>> government sponsored grade schools.
>
>> If we can many articles written in Cantonese, he may require a
>> newspaper or magazine written completely in Cantonese.  And if there is
>> one, then of course that on newspaper is an exception.
>
> Do you have common sense? If you decide today to found a school
> teaching only in Cantonese and have a grand total of 2 students, do you
> take it as a proof that Cantonese has been widely accepted?
>
Of course I will not take that as a proof.  However, even common sense
can differ from person to person.  If a university in Hong Kong starts
to offer courses on written Cantonese, I will count that as very
significant proof of acceptance, will you?  That evidence *alone* will
not proof *wide* acceptance though.

> You are purposely missing my central point of argument: Cantonese
> written language is not widely accepted. The rest are examples/proofs that
> they are not accepted. You try to prove me wrong on giving a 
> counter-example to my example, but that does not touch the basis of my 
> argument. Because you failed to prove it has been *widely* accepted.
>
I was not purposely missing your central point of argument because I
stated that clearly in the later part of my email, but either you forgot
to remove that comment after you read that part, or you purposely left
it there so that if I forgot to reply, people may get the impression that
I was really missing your point.

> Anyone can invent a language. If five people invented an artificial
> language and decide to set up a Wikipedia using that language, do we allow
> it? Of course Cantonese is quite different as you are just trying to write
> in the way you talk, and I have no problem with that if everybody does
> this. But the thing is, has this idea been accepted? Apparently no.
>
Apparently that is not done by everyone, but some people.  That means
this idea has been accepted by some people.  If the Wikimedia community
wants, we can set up criteria and start to measure the level of acceptence.

>> I understand that the main point of Sheng Jiong is that Cantonese has
>> to be widely accepted as a written language before we consider using it
>> to write Wikipedia.  However, we all understand that there are different
>> degrees of acceptance.  How much acceptance is enough?
>
> That is my main point. And I agree that it is impossible to give an
> accurate definition regarding the acceptance level. But we can all tell
> that Cantonese as written language is not yet accepted widely enough.
> Examples include the previous examples I have given. (which you take as
> a "bar" for the set up of Cantonese Wikipedia)
>
We may say that "Cantonese as written language is not as widely accepted
as Baihuawen circa 1920-1930". That is what I believe, and that is an
objective statement verifiable by scholars.  But "Cantonese as written
language is not yet accepted widely enough" is a subjective judgement.
What is enough and what is not enough differs from people to people.

>> But if that is not
>> the goal, I will invite the board to read all the arguments, learn the 
>> facts, weigh the pros and cons, and make the best decision.
>
> I am not against letting the board making the decision at the end. But
> the Wikipedian tradition should be to let the community decide whenever
> possible.
>
I am confused.  First I thought there was a clear guideline on how to
start a new Wikipedia, then I found that it was ambiguious when there is
opposition, then I found this mailing list.  When I wrote to this mailing
list, of course I am appealing to the community.  But then someone here
said that the board will make the final decision.  So of course I will
address the board when I state my arguments.

So at the end, who should make the decision?

Felix Wan