[Langcom] Re: Moroccan Tamazight (Wp/zgh)

[Jon Harald Søby]

Hello folks,

I would like to suggest the approval of this test wiki. Any objections?
Anass can surely verify the content personally, I don't think we need any
external verification in this case.

lør. 26. aug. 2023 kl. 12:48 skrev Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:

> Hoi,
> There may be some who consider languages in the Arabic family as
> ineligible. This is not the case, one example is the Egyptian Arabic
> Wikipedia. The notion that everyone who speaks one kind of Arabic
> understands every other version of Arabic is wrong.
>
> There are many languages derived from Arabic, all have their own ISO code
> they may all have their own dialects. The notion of politics is EXACTLY why
> many people want to standardise on one Arabic Wikipedia.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 at 02:56, Sotiale Wiki  wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> Standard Arabic is arb (Arabic: ara) and still if someone posts a new
>> language request for Wp/arb, it won't be eligible. Unless the speakers of
>> Arabic Wikipedia are unable to communicate in Standard Arabic. But I don't
>> think there's any reason a native speaker of Arabic can't speak Standard
>> Arabic. So there is no reason for existing Arabic Wikipedia to be
>> disqualified for this reason, but even so, the Arabic Wikipedia was created
>> prior to the LPP and is therefore unaffected.
>>
>> The requirement to be a distinct language is to ensure that there are no
>> multiple Wikipedias for a language that is sufficiently communicative at
>> the dialect level equivalent(If this were incomprehensible to native
>> speakers, it would have been recognized as a separate language). In
>> general, these branches are likely for political reasons, which may be
>> on-wiki as well as off-wiki reasons. This permission of Wikipedia
>> jeopardizes NPOV by creating Wikipedia with different views of the same
>> language for that purpose. Even if it has no such purpose, it is likely to
>> be abused as such.
>>
>> Sotiale
>>
>>
>> 
>>  바이러스가
>> 없습니다.www.avast.com
>> 
>> <#m_922395621415868508_m_600196279916464_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>> 2023년 8월 26일 (토) 오전 3:32, Anass Sedrati 님이 작성:
>>
>>> Hello Sotiale and thank you for your answer,
>>>
>>> Sorry for my late reply as I was travelling back from Singapore and had
>>> also other engagements.
>>>
>>> So regarding your argumentation, if you consider zgh not a distinct
>>> language "because it is just a standard representation of Berber
>>> languages", then we have also to consider standard Arabic (ISO 639:ara)
>>> not a distinct language because it is not spoken in any country/region and
>>> is "a standard representation of Arabic languages". Of course, there are
>>> many more sources and books in standard Arabic due to religious and
>>> historical reasons, but it is still a standardized language, and only a
>>> written one. This said, it will of course never be considered to close the
>>> Arabic Wikipedia because of it. Therefore, it can be really tricky to base
>>> the decisions on this argument, although it is understandable that some
>>> languages are "bigger" or more established than others. What do you think?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Anass
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 3:08 PM MF-Warburg 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 NB: there has also been a discussion at <
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Moroccan_Amazigh#Clerking_note>.
 I believe there are several requests open for related languages. It would
 be good to have some clarity to avoid the community being split into
 multiple incubator test-wikis.

 Am Fr., 18. Aug. 2023 um 14:38 Uhr schrieb Sotiale Wiki <
 sotiale...@gmail.com>:

> Thank you for your kind explanation.
>
> If this can be understood as the relationship between Standard Arabic
> (ISO 639:arb) and Arabic (ISO 639:ara), then zgh is not a distinct 
> language
> because it is just a standard representation of Berber languages. This is
> true even in light of the current LPP, which excludes different written
> forms of any language.
>
> Therefore, it seems that eligibility for this language cannot be
> recognized.
>
> Sotiale
>
> 2023년 8월 16일 (수) 오후 10:48, Anass Sedrati 님이 작성:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am very familiar with this case as I come myself from Morocco and
>> speak Berber. The standard Tamazight (
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Moroccan_Amazigh) is not a
>> spoken language, but only a written one. It was created by the official
>> Academy of Berber languages in Morocco (
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Institute_of_Amazigh_Culture) in
>> an attempt to standardize the Berber languages, as there are

[Langcom] Re: Moroccan Tamazight (Wp/zgh)

[Anass Sedrati]

Hello Jon,

Yes I confirm that I can verify the content (although I am not active in
that Wiki due to lack of time mainly). I can check it in some weeks (now
fully occupied with Indaba preparations), and I can return to you with a
status about it.

Thank you for your trust!

Best regards,

Anass

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 3:23 PM Jon Harald Søby  wrote:

> Hello folks,
>
> I would like to suggest the approval of this test wiki. Any objections?
> Anass can surely verify the content personally, I don't think we need any
> external verification in this case.
>
> lør. 26. aug. 2023 kl. 12:48 skrev Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hoi,
>> There may be some who consider languages in the Arabic family as
>> ineligible. This is not the case, one example is the Egyptian Arabic
>> Wikipedia. The notion that everyone who speaks one kind of Arabic
>> understands every other version of Arabic is wrong.
>>
>> There are many languages derived from Arabic, all have their own ISO code
>> they may all have their own dialects. The notion of politics is EXACTLY why
>> many people want to standardise on one Arabic Wikipedia.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>>
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 at 02:56, Sotiale Wiki  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> Standard Arabic is arb (Arabic: ara) and still if someone posts a new
>>> language request for Wp/arb, it won't be eligible. Unless the speakers of
>>> Arabic Wikipedia are unable to communicate in Standard Arabic. But I don't
>>> think there's any reason a native speaker of Arabic can't speak Standard
>>> Arabic. So there is no reason for existing Arabic Wikipedia to be
>>> disqualified for this reason, but even so, the Arabic Wikipedia was created
>>> prior to the LPP and is therefore unaffected.
>>>
>>> The requirement to be a distinct language is to ensure that there are no
>>> multiple Wikipedias for a language that is sufficiently communicative at
>>> the dialect level equivalent(If this were incomprehensible to native
>>> speakers, it would have been recognized as a separate language). In
>>> general, these branches are likely for political reasons, which may be
>>> on-wiki as well as off-wiki reasons. This permission of Wikipedia
>>> jeopardizes NPOV by creating Wikipedia with different views of the same
>>> language for that purpose. Even if it has no such purpose, it is likely to
>>> be abused as such.
>>>
>>> Sotiale
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>  바이러스가
>>> 없습니다.www.avast.com
>>> 
>>> <#m_-691553891053305514_m_922395621415868508_m_600196279916464_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>
>>> 2023년 8월 26일 (토) 오전 3:32, Anass Sedrati 님이 작성:
>>>
 Hello Sotiale and thank you for your answer,

 Sorry for my late reply as I was travelling back from Singapore and had
 also other engagements.

 So regarding your argumentation, if you consider zgh not a distinct
 language "because it is just a standard representation of Berber
 languages", then we have also to consider standard Arabic (ISO
 639:ara) not a distinct language because it is not spoken in any
 country/region and is "a standard representation of Arabic languages". Of
 course, there are many more sources and books in standard Arabic due to
 religious and historical reasons, but it is still a standardized language,
 and only a written one. This said, it will of course never be considered to
 close the Arabic Wikipedia because of it. Therefore, it can be really
 tricky to base the decisions on this argument, although it is
 understandable that some languages are "bigger" or more established than
 others. What do you think?

 Best regards,

 Anass

 On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 3:08 PM MF-Warburg 
 wrote:

> NB: there has also been a discussion at <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Moroccan_Amazigh#Clerking_note>.
> I believe there are several requests open for related languages. It would
> be good to have some clarity to avoid the community being split into
> multiple incubator test-wikis.
>
> Am Fr., 18. Aug. 2023 um 14:38 Uhr schrieb Sotiale Wiki <
> sotiale...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Thank you for your kind explanation.
>>
>> If this can be understood as the relationship between Standard Arabic
>> (ISO 639:arb) and Arabic (ISO 639:ara), then zgh is not a distinct 
>> language
>> because it is just a standard representation of Berber languages. This is
>> true even in light of the current LPP, which excludes different written
>> forms of any language.
>>
>> Therefore, it seems that eligibility for this language cannot be
>> recognized.
>>
>> Sotiale
>>
>> 2023년 8월 16일 (수) 오후 10:48, Anass Sedrati 님이 작성:
>

[Langcom] Re: Moroccan Tamazight (Wp/zgh)

[Tochi Precious]

I actually went through it this afternoon and saw how engaged and active it
has been for 3 years. I recommend the approval.

---
Tochi

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 2:23 PM Jon Harald Søby  wrote:

> Hello folks,
>
> I would like to suggest the approval of this test wiki. Any objections?
> Anass can surely verify the content personally, I don't think we need any
> external verification in this case.
>
> lør. 26. aug. 2023 kl. 12:48 skrev Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hoi,
>> There may be some who consider languages in the Arabic family as
>> ineligible. This is not the case, one example is the Egyptian Arabic
>> Wikipedia. The notion that everyone who speaks one kind of Arabic
>> understands every other version of Arabic is wrong.
>>
>> There are many languages derived from Arabic, all have their own ISO code
>> they may all have their own dialects. The notion of politics is EXACTLY why
>> many people want to standardise on one Arabic Wikipedia.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>>
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 at 02:56, Sotiale Wiki  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> Standard Arabic is arb (Arabic: ara) and still if someone posts a new
>>> language request for Wp/arb, it won't be eligible. Unless the speakers of
>>> Arabic Wikipedia are unable to communicate in Standard Arabic. But I don't
>>> think there's any reason a native speaker of Arabic can't speak Standard
>>> Arabic. So there is no reason for existing Arabic Wikipedia to be
>>> disqualified for this reason, but even so, the Arabic Wikipedia was created
>>> prior to the LPP and is therefore unaffected.
>>>
>>> The requirement to be a distinct language is to ensure that there are no
>>> multiple Wikipedias for a language that is sufficiently communicative at
>>> the dialect level equivalent(If this were incomprehensible to native
>>> speakers, it would have been recognized as a separate language). In
>>> general, these branches are likely for political reasons, which may be
>>> on-wiki as well as off-wiki reasons. This permission of Wikipedia
>>> jeopardizes NPOV by creating Wikipedia with different views of the same
>>> language for that purpose. Even if it has no such purpose, it is likely to
>>> be abused as such.
>>>
>>> Sotiale
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>  바이러스가
>>> 없습니다.www.avast.com
>>> 
>>> <#m_-681473850486263020_m_922395621415868508_m_600196279916464_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>
>>> 2023년 8월 26일 (토) 오전 3:32, Anass Sedrati 님이 작성:
>>>
 Hello Sotiale and thank you for your answer,

 Sorry for my late reply as I was travelling back from Singapore and had
 also other engagements.

 So regarding your argumentation, if you consider zgh not a distinct
 language "because it is just a standard representation of Berber
 languages", then we have also to consider standard Arabic (ISO
 639:ara) not a distinct language because it is not spoken in any
 country/region and is "a standard representation of Arabic languages". Of
 course, there are many more sources and books in standard Arabic due to
 religious and historical reasons, but it is still a standardized language,
 and only a written one. This said, it will of course never be considered to
 close the Arabic Wikipedia because of it. Therefore, it can be really
 tricky to base the decisions on this argument, although it is
 understandable that some languages are "bigger" or more established than
 others. What do you think?

 Best regards,

 Anass

 On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 3:08 PM MF-Warburg 
 wrote:

> NB: there has also been a discussion at <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Moroccan_Amazigh#Clerking_note>.
> I believe there are several requests open for related languages. It would
> be good to have some clarity to avoid the community being split into
> multiple incubator test-wikis.
>
> Am Fr., 18. Aug. 2023 um 14:38 Uhr schrieb Sotiale Wiki <
> sotiale...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Thank you for your kind explanation.
>>
>> If this can be understood as the relationship between Standard Arabic
>> (ISO 639:arb) and Arabic (ISO 639:ara), then zgh is not a distinct 
>> language
>> because it is just a standard representation of Berber languages. This is
>> true even in light of the current LPP, which excludes different written
>> forms of any language.
>>
>> Therefore, it seems that eligibility for this language cannot be
>> recognized.
>>
>> Sotiale
>>
>> 2023년 8월 16일 (수) 오후 10:48, Anass Sedrati 님이 작성:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am very familiar with this case as I come myself from Morocco and
>>> speak Berber. The standard Tamazight (
>>> http