Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-12/Banning Lojban entries

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Lojban is a language[edit]

Why not keeping the simple principle "all languages"? Why creating unneeded controversies? Why trying to judge, to ignore the neutrality principle by banning recognized languages some people want to include? Lojban is a language. With pages in many Wikipedias... With an ISO code... With a Wikipedia... You're not obliged to contribute for Lojban words but, please, don't delete them if somebody wants to create them. Lmaltier 21:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The "Rationale" section seems to answer at least some of these questions. Equinox 21:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the question is whether Lojban meets our definition of a language... —CodeCat 01:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Why restrict at all what we consider a language? For me, at least, I think of it in terms of two issues
  1. Invariably some of the entries will be crappy. Crap begets more crap. Some members don't like crap (e.g. it creates more work for them or they just don't like seeing crap on en.wikt).
  2. Defining obscure artificial language does not appear to (a) help facilitate people's real-world communication needs, or (b) provide material for academics to potentially help help answer real world questions (e.g. understanding the migrations of ancient peoples). (And this type of judgement really only makes sense at the language level.)
The web is plenty big, not everything needs to be here. --Bequw τ 02:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
@Lmaltier, you seem to have answered your own question. 'Why not keeping the simple principle "all languages"?' Indeed. What evidence is there that Lojban is a language? I don't know, I'd be happy to hear evidence. I hope this vote isn't starting too soon as we need to look for evidence and not 'jump the gun' and just vote on it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I tried searching for random Lojban gismu in Google Books in the hopes of finding some books in Lojban language, but to no avail. -- Liliana 17:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
You say "all languages", and then you bring up criteria. I'm not totally against including all languages with an ISO 639-3 code, but I don't see how in current CFI we can attest any Lojban. There simply aren't three independent permanently archived sources.--Prosfilaes 03:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
You forget Wikipedia (at least). What evidence is there that Lojban is a language? I already provided it (more than necessary). I mentioned criteria but I think they are sufficient criteria, not necessary ones (e.g. it's clear that many true languages are absent from the liste of ISO codes). If we define a number of criteria, all languages meeting them shoiuld be included, and only other ones should be discussed. Note that I don't promote Lojban, of course, I don't promote anything, except neutrality. If somebody wants to iclude it, it's arbitrary to remove it, even if there is a majority wanting to exclude it. Lmaltier 20:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a permanently archived source. If we accept it as such for English, Dutch and Esperanto, then I will count it towards Lojban's sources.--Prosfilaes 00:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Problem with Wikipedia is anyone can edit it; editors could create their own words and add them Wikipedia, or indeed any Wikimedia project. I'd say Wikipedia is durably archived, but it allows for 'cheating' if you will. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Lojban, besides having a history of use since 1987 (a spinoff of 1955's Loglan), not only has translations of long works (Alice in Wonderland, Little Prince, Metamorphosis, book of Esther, etc.), but also has original material, such as the novel la nicte cadzu (Night Walker), la teris. po'u lo tirxu cu vitke zi'o le barda tcadu (Terry the Tiger and the Big City), and various (of course) jbo.wikipedia pages and youtube videos (see selckicku's channel, for example) Some of these works are linked here http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Texts+In+Lojban There are 23 megabytes of spontaneous lojban utterances in irc located at http://www.lojban.org/irclogs/ And it's been important enough to be mentioned in several hundred books (most notably, a few dozen pages in Arika Orkent's "In the Lang of Invented Languages". It is also one of sixteen languages (14 natural, 2 artificial) available on the MMORPG cantr.net for roleplaying in. There are also currently a pair of newborn twins that are being raised bilingually in lojban and English. I have no idea of what your criteria for inclusion as a "real language" is, and I'm really kind of neutral about whether or not it should be in wiktionary, but I hope I have given you some food for thought. Gejyspa 15:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue is whether there are "durably archived" sources (e.g., published books, available, say, on amazon.com, or Google Books, or somewhere else) written entirely in Lojban (not about Lojban) authored and/or published by multiple (at least 3) independent sources. Searching "Lojban" at the Library of Congress Online Catalog returns basically four records for works in Lojban: (1) Lojbo karni by the LLG, (2) Ju'i Lobypli by R. LeChevalier, (3) Hoi Loglypli by R. LeChevalier, (4) Me la Uacintyn Loglytuan. by R. LeChevalier. If there are only two published authors of works (entirely in Lojban) and besides that only a rather small online "fan base" (at lojban.org et al.) then Lojban words might have trouble meeting the requirements of WT:CFI which are what make a language "real" for Wiktionary purposes. Otherwise (if, say, the criterion for a word's "Lojbanic correctness" were its inclusion in jbovlaste), then someone could simulteneously edit jbovlaste and en.wiktionary, leading to a self-augmenting feedback loop (kind of like a microphone which is too close to its speaker(s), leading to high-pitched noise). —AugPi (t) 06:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

More radical[edit]

I think we should make more aggressive changes, even if they're practically the same. How about:

Besides the more aggressive language overall, I moved Lojban to the unapproved languages and not the literary work one; I moved Láadan to the literary works, since it's basically only used in Elgin's Native Tongue. And I specifically said that the non-literary languages may be approved if they fit CFI. I removed any mention by name of any language not having an ISO 639-3; there is endless numbers of them, and I'm not even sure that Orcish really existed in anything but the most trivial way.--Prosfilaes 03:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm undecided on the issue of Lojban, but I agree this is a more elegant re-edit of the relevant CFI text. --EncycloPetey 04:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The above revised proposal would be better because Lojban is not a fictional language (invented for inclusion in a work of fiction) and its use is not restricted to any literary work: for example, see http://xorxes.110mb.com/LPP.html. —AugPi (t) 15:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Oops, sorry: I am just now noticing the Láadan part. —AugPi (t) 05:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

if this vote fails[edit]

If the vote were to end now, it would have 5 in support of the proposal to ban Lojban and 8 opposed (i.e., in support of allowing Lojban). We require a consensus to include any conlang. Does that mean that 8/(5+8)≈62% is insufficient and that Lojban has no consensus any longer and is banned?​—msh210 (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't think that the views expressed in a vote designed the "wrong way around", i.e. proposing banning Lojban, can be taken as sufficient to show a lack of consensus to keep Lojban. After all, there may be some people who didn't vote in opposition simply because there were enough votes in opposition already to make the vote fail. If someone wanted to demonstrate such lack of consensus, he would have to design either a proposal to continue allowing Lojban or a proposal that offers the two options in a balanced way.​—msh210 (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I think at the current state it would simply cause the status quo to be kept. -- Liliana 21:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)