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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected] > >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 > > > >[email protected] > > > >Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > > > Prof. Virgilio A. P. Machado [email protected] > > > 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 > > > [email protected] > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >foundation-l mailing list > >[email protected] > >Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > Prof. Virgilio A. P. Machado [email protected] > 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 > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
