Thanks for the info. So, what can we do? If we boldly reject requests for new Serbo-Croatian language/dialect Wikipedias and say the existing ones wouldn't be allowed today, isn't this case the same?
Satdeep Gill <[email protected]> schrieb am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019, 16:12: > It's not clear at all. Depends upon who you ask. It's a typical > language-dialect problem. > > I do know that, the Saraiki community in Pakistan has also been demanding > a separate Saraikistan. So, for the community it's pretty much a separate > language. > > If you are asking my opinion then even Punjabi and Western Punjabi > Wikipedias should have been one Wikipedia with two scripts (maybe a third > script as well). Even Hindi-Urdu for that matter. It's always the > socio-political reasons. > > As per Wikipedia: > > > *Saraiki was considered a dialect of Punjabi > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_dialects> by most British colonial > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj> administrators,[29] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saraiki_language#cite_note-FOOTNOTERahman1996173-32> > and is still seen as such by many Punjabis > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabis>.[30] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saraiki_language#cite_note-FOOTNOTEShackle2014a-33> > Saraikis, however, consider it a language in its own right[31] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saraiki_language#cite_note-34> and see the > use of the term "dialect" as stigmatising > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stigma>.[32] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saraiki_language#cite_note-FOOTNOTERahman1996175-35> > A language movement was started in the 1960s to standardise a script and > promote the language.[20] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saraiki_language#cite_note-FOOTNOTEShackle1977-22>[33] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saraiki_language#cite_note-FOOTNOTERahman1997838-36> > * > > Best > Satdeep > > On Mon, 21 Oct, 2019, 9:20 AM MF-Warburg, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > While there may be a close similarity to Western Punjabi, I agree with >> Steven's point that the right time to bring that issue up would have been >> when we decided whether to mark the language as eligible. We *did* mark >> it as eligible (by Satdeep just over 2 years ago), and that has to mean >> something. To walk back on that now, after volunteers have spent hundreds >> and hundreds of hours working on it, is just not ok. >> >> I disagree with this notion. >> One of the tasks of the Language Committee is precisely to prevent new >> "Serbo-Croation" cases from happening. It has been suggested that this >> might be such a case here. So let us please discuss this issue and clear it >> up. I have done some reading and it seems to me that there might be enough >> differences between Saraiki and Western Punjabi anyway. But Satdeep brought >> up that that might not be the case, and on the request page there are also >> people who says that it's not a separate language (while others, of course, >> say the opposite). >> I just would like this to be clarified in order not to have a situation >> in several years where everyone acknowledges that it is most unfortunate >> that there are several wikis... >> >> (It is also a matter of fact that languages get marked as eligible all >> the time without a discussion, just because the majority of cases don't >> turn out to be problematic at all. I looked at the archives and saw that >> back then, Satdeep said on this list "There is some controversy regarding >> this but according to my analysis, it should be eligible." - That does not >> directly contradict his statement "Western Punjabi and Saraiki are >> pretty similar and my personal view is that this should be accommodated on >> one Wikipedia but the sociology-political situation in Pakistan calls for a >> separate Wikipedia for Saraiki." from 8 October, but I still would *love >> *to have the whole thing clarified as requested on 16 Oct. >> Back in 2017, Oliver Stegen said in reply to the mentioned mail: "Any >> controversies may come to ight and be discussed accordingly during the >> verification phase which has started now." and I agree with this; a random >> marking as eligible should not prevent a discussion about what the >> situation really is.) >> [Mails from 29 + 30 August 2017] >> >> >> Am So., 20. Okt. 2019 um 05:30 Uhr schrieb Jon Harald Søby < >> [email protected]>: >> >>> I finally heard back from the first person [1] I emailed now, and he >>> basically echoed what Satdeep said: All pages he checked, except the one I >>> mentioned in the first email, are in Saraiki. >>> >>> While there may be a close similarity to Western Punjabi, I agree with >>> Steven's point that the right time to bring that issue up would have been >>> when we decided whether to mark the language as eligible. We *did* mark >>> it as eligible (by Satdeep just over 2 years ago), and that has to mean >>> something. To walk back on that now, after volunteers have spent hundreds >>> and hundreds of hours working on it, is just not ok. >>> >>> Therefore I would like to officially propose that we approve the Saraiki >>> Wikipedia, as they meet all of our criteria. >>> >>> [1] I'll be happy to disclose his name and details on the private list >>> if anyone on the committee wants me to, but I don't want to do so here on >>> the public list since I never brought that up with him. >>> >>> ons. 16. okt. 2019 kl. 18:04 skrev Jon Harald Søby <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> I have not gotten a reply yet. Yesterday I emailed to more people from >>>> Pakistani universities with Saraiki departments, but no reply from any if >>>> them yet either. >>>> >>>> ons. 16. okt. 2019, 16:29 skrev Steven White <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> Have we heard from the expert yet? >>>>> >>>>> On a related subject: Do we have any Wiktionary experts here? >>>>> Saraiki Wiktionary is also now approvable in theory (assuming that the >>>>> language issue on the Wikipedia clears). My concern about the Saraiki >>>>> Wiktionary is only that compared to a lot of Wiktionary projects, this one >>>>> appears pretty basic to me: just a straight Saraiki dictionary, with >>>>> little >>>>> in the way of bells and whistles (pronunciation, translations to other >>>>> languages, etc.). But that's just based on the gross appearance of pages, >>>>> as I do not read Saraiki (or any other language written in Perso-Arabic >>>>> script). So Satdeep and anyone else: Does the content look ok? Are there >>>>> greater expectations of what a Wiktionary should contain—expectations we >>>>> have not communicated, I will add—or is this project appropriate and >>>>> acceptable? >>>>> >>>>> Steven >>>>> >>>>> Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> *From:* Langcom <[email protected]> on behalf of >>>>> Jon Harald Søby <[email protected]> >>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 10, 2019 3:38 PM >>>>> *To:* Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Langcom] Wikipedia in Saraiki >>>>> >>>>> I am still waiting to hear back from the expert. If he says the rest >>>>> of the pages look fine, then I think we can move forward – Steven makes >>>>> some good points as usual. >>>>> >>>>> tor. 10. okt. 2019 kl. 21:03 skrev Gerard Meijssen < >>>>> [email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>> Hoi, >>>>> The final stage is that we verify if the language it is said to be. >>>>> When we find it is not or are not certain we have all the room to seek >>>>> another authority to move forward. At this stage it becomes confusing and >>>>> I >>>>> am not convinced at all that we should. >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> GerardM >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 19:21, Steven White <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This is effectively the same problem as we saw in the discussion of >>>>> Montenegrin Wikipedia—although since all but two of us are from Europe, >>>>> North America or Israel, we feel more confident making calls in a case >>>>> like >>>>> Montenegrin than we do here. (And, candidly, there is less chance in the >>>>> Montenegrin case of being accused of racism/Euro-centrism, even if that >>>>> accusation would be totally without merit in this case.) >>>>> >>>>> But as I said back then, the rule as currently written is fine when >>>>> the language area starts with a clean slate. If there were no Western >>>>> Punjabi Wikipedia now, we could reasonably try to get a single project to >>>>> try to accommodate both Western Punjabi and Saraiki. (Whether that effort >>>>> would be successful is a different question, but we could try.) However, I >>>>> take Satdeep's comment below to indicate that there would be serious >>>>> problems trying to integrate a new Saraiki-language community into a >>>>> ten-year old Western Punjabi-language community, and that he recommends >>>>> against it, based on the current "facts on the ground". Besides, to some >>>>> extent the time to say "no" has passed, since Satdeep marked the project >>>>> as >>>>> "eligible" in 2017. So I think we need to move forward with this. >>>>> >>>>> Steven >>>>> >>>>> Sent from Outlook >>>>> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fweboutlook&data=02%7C01%7C%7C27b14763c84b4b786fe808d74db9839a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637063331479640783&sdata=%2Be5t%2F8MN7boQ1F1ZLIYwwDG0L5Y2w685G48TmpiTLN8%3D&reserved=0> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> *From:* Langcom <[email protected]> on behalf of >>>>> Jon Harald Søby <[email protected]> >>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 9, 2019 4:44 AM >>>>> *To:* Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Langcom] Wikipedia in Saraiki >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> As for the Western Punjabi/Saraiki issue, I don't know enough about >>>>> that to have any opinion either way. >>>>> >>>>> tir. 8. okt. 2019 kl. 19:00 skrev Satdeep Gill <[email protected] >>>>> >: >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> P.S. Western Punjabi and Saraiki are pretty similar and my personal >>>>> view is that this should be accommodated on one Wikipedia but the >>>>> sociology-political situation in Pakistan calls for a separate Wikipedia >>>>> for Saraiki. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> Satdeep Gill >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Langcom mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >>>>> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.wikimedia.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flangcom&data=02%7C01%7C%7C27b14763c84b4b786fe808d74db9839a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637063331479640783&sdata=vRDOwHRLv%2B6qFNok%2BLJNeiRAFrzuBWGo6pRn1BO1%2B9g%3D&reserved=0> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Langcom mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >>>>> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.wikimedia.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flangcom&data=02%7C01%7C%7C27b14763c84b4b786fe808d74db9839a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637063331479650791&sdata=XOi5ymt%2Fz8fi71Oltu04freVjNcHF97HV0YlMZsR4p4%3D&reserved=0> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> mvh >>>>> Jon Harald Søby >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Langcom mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> mvh >>> Jon Harald Søby >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Langcom mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >> > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
