Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Scots Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is a proposal for closing and/or deleting a wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is subject to the current closing projects policy.

The proposal is rejected and the project will be kept open.

  • Explanation by the closing Langcom member: Obviously not trolling, but ultimate ignorance. Proposer should educate him/herself in linguistic diversity. Useful resource in this case is English Wikipedia article Scots language. --Millosh 09:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


Joke project. Funny for a few minutes, but inappropriate use of resources. Chzz 02:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Not a joke. It's a real language with 200,000 native speakers. --Ron Ritzman 02:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Entirely real language, no serious reason for closure has been provided. Courcelles 02:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Real language, lots of people who speak it, and decent activity. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose and a trout to Chzz. —Gfoley Four— 02:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment no, it isn't a real language; it's English, written in a semblance of a specific pronounced dialect. Is anyone actually being serious here? Will we host a Liverpudlian Wiki, a Scouse Wiki, a Cockney Wiki? Chzz 02:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
By that logic, the Dutch Wikipedia should be closed because it's just German spoken in a funny way. harej 03:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
No you have it backwards. German is actually "Dutch spoken in a funny way". Now if you'll excuse me I have to compose a proposal to close the English Wikipedia. After all it's just Scots spoken in a funny way. --Ron Ritzman 03:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, Scots is closer to its linguistic roots than English is. For that matter, we have both Malaysian and Indonesian side-by-side. This proposal is doomed from the start. Wōdenhelm 04:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Chzz, Cockney dialect doesn't have an ISO code, Scots does. Scots is closer to Old English than modern English is, if you want to get into a linguistic argument about the virtues of each language... Tempodivalse [talk] 03:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
You just provided strong justification that ISO does not equal language. Cockney has never been called a language but always a dialect, verifying that dialects are lumped into IOS also. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It might be similar to English, but it meets all the criteria for being a language in its own right. If it has a sufficient corpus of speakers and texts and if there's a more-or-less standard grammar, it's a language to me. harej 03:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Vehement Oppose - Scots is legally recognized as a language, which evolved from Middle English (not even Modern English), and is different enough to warrant its own recognition. Furthermore, this proposal seems to serve no purpose other than insulting the language, as well as an attempt to shut down a legitimate project over someone's little whim. The English/Scots relation can be likewise compared to Spanish/Portuguese, and perhaps German/Dutch. From my own observations over the years, English speakers have a hard time coping with varieties of speech within their language family, other than the artificial Standard. In fact, I'd say that the wide variety of languages that Wikimedia honors (that other major publications seem to ignore), Scots is one of the very target languages which stand to be better upheld. This proposal is absolutely senseless, and is possibly discriminatory in nature. It wont hold up. Wōdenhelm 03:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
"legally recognized" - got a ref for that? Is it more recognized than Scouse/Geordie/Cockney etc? Should we make a L33t and a lolcat wiki? Chzz 04:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Right here: In 2007, the Scottish Government issued its official position on the status of Scots: "Notwithstanding the UK government's and the Scottish Executive's obligations under part II of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the Scottish Executive recognises and respects Scots (in all its forms) as a distinct language, and does not consider the use of Scots to be an indication of poor competence in English."[1] Wōdenhelm 05:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
That's from the en:Council of Europe then, which apparently "cannot make binding laws". Chzz 06:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Either way, it shows recognition. Your discriminatory attempt at shutting down this Wikipedia is no different from trying to go after Portuguese, Dutch, Malaysian, or any other of that nature, for simply being similar to, yet not conforming to some artificial standard. Your proposal is foolish, and I can guarantee it'll fail. Wōdenhelm 06:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and close French wikipedia as a barbarous Latin spoken by savages. Seb az86556 04:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
    Oh, mon Dieu! -- Dferg 08:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
    Aye, and close the Esperanto Wikipedia. Those guys have no business making up their own language. Right? (/sarcasm) Tempodivalse [talk] 03:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I feel sad for zh-min-nan and zh-yue and zh-wu and zhuang. --Bencmq 05:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Dferg 08:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the understanding that there does seem to be official recognition; if it's not disruptive in and of itself, I can't really see a valid reason for shutting it down. ThatPeskyCommoner 08:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposer obviously hasn't read the article Scots language. Whatever one's own position on the language status of Scots, Scots does have a long-standing literary tradition. A Scots wiki can be accepted as a contemporary continuation of that tradition. Nogger 12:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - to be honest, a lot of the opposes are assuming that dialect = language. According to Wikipedia: "Since there are no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing languages from dialects, scholars and other interested parties often disagree about the linguistic, historical and social status of Scots". Therefore, there is no legitimate reason to keep. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
    That doesn't explain why we should close it, though. How does it possibly hurt Wikimedia to expand free content to one more group of people? Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
You fail to see the significant differences, which are indeed enough to warrant different Wikipedias. The same argument could be made for Norwegian/Swedish/Danish, but guess what. Wōdenhelm 22:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
If that is our rationale (i.e. "how would it hurt") then you could justify a lulcatz wiki. I don't buy such generalizations or doing whatever we want whenever we want kind of arguments. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't know that some people's first language was lolcat. However, this language is spoken by over 200,000 people. See the difference, and what I was trying to say now? Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
"However, this language is spoken by over 200,000 people. " Not sure how you can say that because if you heard them speak it sounds an awful a lot like English. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, while I'm here, I'll pick apart your argument a bit more. If a group of 100,000 people in northern Canada decided to speak lolcats instead of English, and taught it to they children over many generations, then there certainly would be a Wikipedia for lolcats. The aim here is to provide a free encyclopedia to everyone on this planet... so if a Scots Wikipedia would help bring free knowledge to even 100 people who legitimately speak Scots better than English, then why on Earth would we not have one? Honestly, why are we so focussed on drama and creating problems to be fixed (i.e. things like this request) when we could be actually working towards that goal? Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Making our projects laughable only hinders, not helps. Scottish people are quite able to use the English Wikipedia with proper spelling instead of trying to capture their accents through phonetic transcription. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Your use of "laughable" just proves that your motivation here is prejudiced. You still failed to address the single Nordic language which is arbitrarily split into the 3 labels of Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish. (see what I did there?). Wōdenhelm 00:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Prejudice? How? What am I prejudiced against? I actually have written academic papers dealing with the Romantic Poets and their relationship with Scottish Literature, which was written in the same "Scot" you talk about. It is perfectly readable with only a few word differences, which is common to all dialect differences. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, so now somebody actually supports this bullshit. Can somebody else close this as vandalism, please? I honestly thought it was a joke... or maybe Chzz got drunk... Seb az86556 22:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Now now. All people should have a chance to express their opinion. Then the majority can prevail. #minorityrights harej 22:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Opinions are one thing. This is something else. Seb az86556 22:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
You argue about opinions, but even the Wiki points out that your "opinion" on the validity of this being a language isn't fact. The WMF took a stance on languages having to be languages. That is why we don't have a Montenegran wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
It has an ISO code. End of debate. Seb az86556 22:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Your statement is not necessarily true because the code does not make it official especially since the International Standards Organization is not a linguistic body. It is only a short hand company. Furthermore, it is also not a 1 code but a 2 and a 3. There is substantial evidence that it is merely a dialect, especially when it appears to be little more than misspelled English. This is the equivalent of saying Shakespearean is its own English, "Ye Olde English", even though it is still part of Modern English. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
That's just it; Scots didnt evolve from Modern English. Early Modern (Shakespearian) is therefore closer to Standard English than Scots is. Wōdenhelm 00:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you misread what I said. I was pointing out that Modern English is same thing as Shakespearian. Scots didn't "evolve" from Modern English. It -is- Modern English. From Wikipedia: "Consequently, Scots is often regarded as one of the ancient varieties of English, but with its own distinct dialects." They are the same language with the same source, Middle English. Jive has more literature proving it is a language than Scot does, especially with Jive having actual substantial differences beyond spelling and pronunciation. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a few weeks ago, I gave an audio recording of Shetlandic Scots to some of my friends (American), and in some cases, they didnt even recognize it to be related to English. Besides that, I can see that you've been banned from editing Wikipedia, so quite frankly, anything you've put here is void and worthy of deletion. Wōdenhelm 01:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

After I was banned at Wikipedia, SJ, a WMF Board member, proxied this page that I wrote 100%. An Arbitrator also proxied this and this one. Why? Because not only were they incredibly well written pages, but that I am a literature scholar whose real identity is well known across the WMF and I have participated in many meet ups and other events. And I can give a recording of any Scottish accent and people wont understand here. I can also play Cockney here and people wont get it. Now, I could do the opposite and have someone from backwater Louisiana speak for a Brit and the Brit wont understand. That is called "Dialect". Same language, different pronunciation. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I know what a dialect is, you jackhole, Scots uses different vocabulary as well. There's a long literary history, an identity, as well as some of its own grammar. It's a language, regardless of the fact that you can understand it easily. Norwegians understand Danish just fine, yet they dont deny its standing. Wōdenhelm 01:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Resorting to statements like "jackhole" is proof that you are not here under the best intentions. Americans use a different vocabulary based on regions, especially from British. I already pointed out Jive. As for Norwegian et al, you really need to refresh your history. See here where they establish a unique written language that does more than rely on phonetics of accents. Regardless, your arguments would be for the abolition of another Wiki, not the preservation of this one. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? I was using your own style of argument against you. I'm against the abolition of all Wikipedia language editions. Get a job. Wōdenhelm 03:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I have a job. And your own argument didn't do anything against me - all you did was undermine another language. You need to justify this as a language, not others as dialects. You cannot disprove that Jive is more different from English than Scots is yet is still a dialect. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I dont need to justify anything; it's recognized as a language, has an ISO code, is recognized by professional linguists, as well as by Scotland. You're just trying to use your opinion as a basis for "this is how it is". And no, I did not undermine another language; I was demonstrating to you, the very thing you're doing. Wōdenhelm 04:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Reder 23:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, calling the language a "joke" is an affront. It has its own ISO code and is as different from English as Dansk is to Svenska or Russkij to Belaruskaja. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
ISO is not provided by a linguistics organization and has nothing to do with linguistics. It is provided by a company that trademarks and sells standardization to other companies and organizations. Merely saying the two is different does not make them so, and the Wikipedia page makes it clear that its establishment as a language is controversial at best. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • OpposePer Bencmq. Email Vaibhav Talk 03:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment "Making our projects laughable only hinders, not helps" -- says it all. Tnx, OR. Chzz 07:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep and Speedy close proposal The proposer's suggestion that Scots is a joke is bad-faith trollery. Evertype 08:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Member of LangCom.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.