I share the view of Oliver, Gerard, and Michael for all the reasons stated. Gerard’s statement was compact and to the point.
Regards, Karen Broome > On May 18, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Oliver Stegen <[email protected]> wrote: > > For the record: > I'm opposed to changing arn to qmp for the reasons given by Gerard and > Michael already. > > Otherwise, I have no time to follow the unacceptable exchanges. I do expect > appropriate apologies from Milos. > For now, I will remain silent on LangCom until proper behaviour has returned. > > Oliver > > > On 18-May-17 13:43, Michael Everson wrote: >> On 17 May 2017, at 22:14, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote: >>> This is response to Oliver, as well. >>> >>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Karen Broome <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I agree that pressuring the JAC to adopt a less offensive code is futile. >>>> There are national libraries and government-funded software systems that >>>> use these codes that cannot be updated in any kind of timely way. Lots of >>>> countries would like representations that more closely resemble the native >>>> language names. I can’t remember the issue, but I have been up against >>>> something like this before and gave up, as interop and compatibility with >>>> legacy systems was paramount. 639-2 codes are not likely to change for >>>> that reason. >>> Here is the background of the story… >> Some of us were actually there. >> >>> This is not about "closer representation", but about replacing the code >>> based on *offensive* language name. >> >> What about code stability in a widespread international standard? >> >>> Replacing code names because of more trivial (and racist reasons, BTW) have >>> happened in at least in the case of ROM=>RON change. >> When do you think that change was made? What evidence do you have for it? >> >> In 1996, a ballot went out where some language codess were changed. The >> ballot had gd gae/gdh for Scottish Gaelic, ga iri/gai for Irish, and nothing >> for Manx. Ireland lobbied for gd/gla, ga/gle, and gv/glv which were >> accepted. On that ballot at that time the codes for Romanian were already >> rum/ron. 1996. TWENTY YEARS AGO. >> >>> (Poor Romanians were offended because the code had a meaning of a member of >>> Roma ethnicity.) >> ROM is now used in ISO 639 as a macrolanguage term for the Romany languages. >> >>> Allowing a racist-based change requested by white people >> Kindly stop this racist bullshit. The very concept of “white” vs “non-white” >> is largely meaningless in South America, compared to the use of those >> categories in North America. In Europe we do not share the baggage that they >> do in the United States, and encouraging it as you are doing is not >> constructive. >> >> The correct terms to use are “endonym” and “exonym”. You maintain that at >> least some Mapuche dislike an exonym so much that they refuse to use a >> Wikipedia prefixed with “arn”. They live in Chile, right? In a region called >> Araucanía. They may call it something else in their language, but it would >> appear that this term would be widespread and visible everywhere. >> >>> and not allowing offensive-name-based change by indigenous people is a >>> typical institutional racist behavior, no matter of particular excuse >> What about code stability in a widespread international standard? >> >>> I know there are always pretty valid excuses as long as it's not about >>> interests and money of white people. >> This has nothing to do with melanin content of human beings of indigenous >> and European extraction in Chile. >> >>> We could, for example, see that in relation to not fixing many scripts >>> inside of Unicode because of "reasons", while adding tons of nonsense >>> emoticons afterwards because >>> "it's cool”. >> Whatever are you on about? “Fixing” scripts implies that some are “broken”. >> The addition of characters of all kinds proceeds every year. I just got 84 >> characters approved for Fairy Chess, an important intellectual activity to >> some humans. >> >> Please note that ISO/IEC 10646 and ISO 639 are unrelated standards. >> >>> It is not about ISO 639-2, but about ISO 639-3. We are using ISO 639-3 >>> codes. If there is the rule which fixes ISO 639-3 to ISO 639-2, >> I don’t think you understand the relation between the standards. Firstly, >> ISO 639-2 is essentially fixed and frozen. No additional codes are to be >> added to it. This is for stability of the code set, which is implemented in >> billions of devices worldwide. >> >>> that’s definitely unfortunate and requires changes of the rules inside of >>> JAC to avoid widespread institutional racism. >> Stop using this terminology. Clearly you don’t know how to do so. >> >>> A note to Oliver: First, thank you for really reading the document and >>> finding the relevant part. >> You might thank him too for pointing out your error. >> >>> At the other side, can we or not JAC's and Unicode's behavior >> Unicode has NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THIS. >> >>> put under the definition "The collective failure of an organisation to >>> provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their >>> colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, >>> attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting >>> prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which >>> disadvantage minority ethnic people.”? >> Their language has been recognized and given a three-letter identifier which >> serves to identify texts written for the benefit of the 260,000 native >> speakers. >> >>> If *you* think not, please send me a private email with the reasons. I >>> would be happy to be convinced by you in opposite and will apologize here. >>> If convinced, will do that partially for JAC, as well, because I think that >>> it's not possible to defend Unicode's institutional racism. >> Miloš Rančić, I hereby request an immediate formal apology from you right >> now, here, in public, for having attacked the Unicode Consortium as >> perpetrating “institutional racism”. The Unicode Consortium, along with >> ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2, maintains the Universal Character Set, known as the >> Unicode Standard and ISO/IEC 10646. This standard has nothing whatever to do >> with the language codes of ISO 639. >> >> It appears to me that you do not understand the development of these >> international standards. >> >> Michael Everson >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >> http://www.avg.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
