Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Brazilian Portuguese

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia[edit]

See also the second, third, and fourth requests (all are rejected).
main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Brazilian Portuguese)
submitted verification final decision
This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 22:02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Brazilian Portuguese (pt-BR [invented])
  • Editing community: Fábio Soldá (NP) / Darlan Xavier (N)
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: —
  • External links:
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Relevant infos: The Brazilian Portuguese is the language spoken in Brazil. There are many differences between the brazilian dialect and the european dialect. Many words are written differently, some words in Portugal are unknown in Brazil, and some brazilian words are unknown in Portugal. And, even, some grammar aspects are different.
    • Approximate number of speakers: 180,000,000
    • Location(s) spoken: Brazil
  • Comments: I'm proposing a new version of the Wikipedia in Brazilian Portuguese due the conflicts of orthography and words in the portuguese Wikipedia. In some cases, the different versions in the same text coexist; there are two words separed by slashes or brackets with the same meaning, but one is spoken in Brazil, another in Portugal.

    • Oppose - The distinction between Brazilian Portuguese and European Portuguese (if you have to make a distinction) is the same between the UK dialect of English and English spoken in the USA. And for many of the same reasons. Brazil is a land of immigrants and is a large country with a very diverse cultural background. Indeed many comparisons between Brazil and the USA can be made, with a note that the USA has a larger proportion of immigrants from Nordic counries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, England, ect.) and Brazil has a larger portion of its population from southern Europe (Portugal and Italy), although São Paulo does have a significant Japanese population as well, for instance that does influence the language and culture in that city as well. African culture is also a major influence in Brazil. There are formal language "treaties" between Brazil and Portugal to try and keep things consistant, but as all languages experience growth and change by its speakers Portuguese is no different. Since the population in Brazil is so much larger than it is in Portugal, it is no wonder then that Brazilian culture is a dominating influence on the language, just like American movies and music can sometimes offend people in England seemingly to detract from the "proper usage" of the language. I learned Portuguese by living in São Paulo for a couple of years and speak it fluently. I am not a native speaker, but I can't see supporting this as a seperate project simply because the language distinction isn't there even for "native speakers" of this dialect. Or perhaps consider a "King's English" Wikipedia with correct spelling and punctuation guidelines for the Wikipedia to suite the tastes of somebody from England? I think not. --Roberth 13:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Roberth, I proposed it because there are many conflicts in many articles in the european Wikipedia. Some people there insist in write words like "proje(c)to", "acadê(é)mico", and write two words with the same meaning, but one is used in Brazil, another in Portugal, like "trem/comboio" (train), "arquivo/ficheiro" (file) or "celular/telemóvel" (mobile phone). We need remember, also, unlike USA, Brazil has not a worldwide influence - only, perhaps, in some adjacent countries like Paraguay and in Portugal (but the portuguese influence in Brazil is greater). There is also a very large number of wikipedists from Portugal, and even the brazilians wants to suit the tastes of the people from Portugal; more than the portugeses to the brazilians.
    • Oppose, just for the same reasons as I opposed an AE Wikipedia. Brazilian Portuguese is IN NO WAY a language and hardly a separate dialect. Caesarion Velim, non opto 17:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oppose. I am not a native speaker, but I have been learning the language since 1995. I see no huge difference between Brazilian & European Portuguese. I can understand both just fine. --Chris 04:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oppose It isn't the same case about Murcian. European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese have not enough differences as dialect, such between US English and UK English, or Valencian and Catalan, or Argentinian Spanish and Castilian Spanish. --Joanot 13:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oppose There is no reason to have a separate Wikipedia just because of minor differences in spelling and vocabulary. It would be like splitting the English-language Wikipedia in a number of regional ones (American, Australian, English...) --AngelRiesgo 07:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oppose Raetius 13:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Maybe, it would be technically possible to create just a Brasillian-Portuguese-variant of portuguese Wikipedia.
  • Oppose — the two orthographies are mainly just that. -- Olve 21:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Too similar in orthography and there is no precedent (see English and German Wikipedia arrangements). Ronline 08:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Belgian man 12:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Support --Thiago90ap 04:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose - in a few years both countries will use the same spelling, that's agreed already.
  • Support - in fact it is agreed the same spelling, but the dialects are still different, in english there are no significant grammar issues in portuguese there are, spelling and grammar is different, portuguese grammar is built around the Latin use, the portuguese from Brazil grammar as evolved to a more english based grammar, way too different, it is incorrect in portuguese from Portugal to use the Gerund alone, and in Brazil it's used commonly, and in fact portuguese from Brazil=16th+18th centuries portuguese mixed with the english grammar because of the english strong influence in Brazil
  • Support - Spelling alone does not a culture make, I find very unfortunate this to be the final decision, indeed Portugal and Brazil have approved so called "Acordo Ortográfico" >> "Orthographic Agreement". It was and still is a very polemic decision, at least in Portugal, all institutions in both countries should abide by the recent agreement. Many are the authors who refuse to comply, and in my opinion they're baked by reason: It is impossible to change a language by decree, language obeys other kind of law, its very pratice, for one. "From now on all of you British speaking will spell 'color' (my ortho-corretion just kiked in by the way) not 'colour'", now imagine this multiplied by a multitude of words and contexts. I cannot tell about British-English vs American-English, but European-Portuguese vs Brazilian-Portuguese differ significantly not just orthographically but also grammatically and syntatically, as already been pointed. Some here were very authoritatively pointing out that there is no differences (you just can't prove/demonstrate a negative), I am sorry to say that you are wrong, evidence exists to contrary, I am indeed a native speaker (European-Portuguese). I believe the issue here would be on how to separate the current mix of languages into two different wikipedia versions... that I am sure is a difficult task, not to mention the fact that there is established only one wikipedia domain which all contributors (Portuguese and Brazilian) target. Practicalities, not good of an argument make. BTW - I am sure some of you noticed the recurrent spelling mistakes in english: indeed someone is not "baked" by reason... I believe I am atually backed by reason (oops). This case here is a very good english illustration of the ambiguity the Agreement brings to both languages ("facto" becomes "fato", "facto" translates to "fact" and "fato" translates to "suit", if that may not be an issue in Portuguese-Brazil it actually is in Portuguese-European and yes we do have homonyms also). If the agreement may constitute an actual impoverishment of either languages orthographically, it is also a cultural impoverishment grammatically. This decision is sad specially coming from an initiative such as Wikipedia and the values which it tries to convey. PS: I hate to point out that even companies like Microsoft acknowledged (after some years of shipping Portuguese-Brazil only) the need to differentiate the languages in question, in such a restricted scope of language as it is an Operating System. Pedro Soares (never contributed before sorry, IP should follow) 01:48 AM, 7 April 2009, GMT