Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Murcian Spanish

< Requests for new languages

Murcian Spanish Wikipedia

edit
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 02:03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Murcian Spanish ([no code])
  • Editing community: Assarbe (P)
    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.
  1. Support--Joanot 05:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support--Pasha 16:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support--Alba 19:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support--Guardamarenc 13:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support--Charlitos 17:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC) (N)[reply]
  6. Support--Orhan_akademi 10:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC) (N)[reply]
  7. Support--Liza 23:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC) (N)[reply]
  8. Support--ILVI 01:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support--Buzkid 23:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support--Alquerias Llibre 02:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (N)[reply]
  11. Support--nikolo 16:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (N)[reply]
  12. Support--Foro-fico 14:07, 3 September 2005(N)
  13. Support--Iacin 10:12, 4 October 2005 (N)
  14. Support--Daryo
  15. Support--GranayOro 14:25, 1 September 2005 (N)
  16. Support--Tudmir 15:17, 20 November 2005 (N)
  17. Support--Loqu 14:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support--Hégésippe | ±Θ± 04:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support--Marley 13:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISO code: no ISO 639-2 code, "mu" proposed.
  • Proposed domain: mu.wikipedia.org
  • Relevant infos: language spoken in Murcia, at the south-east of Spain
  • Link to article(s) on the language in an existing Wikipedia: Murcian/Panotxo (in Catalan), Murciano (in Spanish), Murciano (in German).
  • Approximate number of speakers: 350.000 - 3.500.000
  • Location(s) spoken: Region of Murcia (Spain, Europe); Alicante and Albacete.
  • Closely related languages, if any: It's considered, by some linguists, as a transition language between Spanish and Catalan.
  • External links to organizations that promote the language: Llengua maere (in Murcian, and some extracts in Spanish and Catalan), Dialectological study about Murcian from University of Murcia (in Spanish)
  • Link to request on a mailing list:

Current supports

edit

Comments

edit

Iam agree with those, who against defining Murcian as a language.I learn Spanish and I undestood example of Murciano, that I have seen copmpleetly, though my knowledge of Spanish isnt very good. In this case, what will be if Spanish would be my native language? Probably I wouldnt have a problems with undersanding of Murciano.If you treat any dialects as a languages, you have got fully confusion in minds. Have Murcian some specific features, that dosnt exist niether in Spanish nor Catalan? Where is different grammar? Where is strong difference in vocabulary? Its stupid! This is not linguistics, this is dialectology more!

Part II of the Murcian ongoing

edit
  • SUPPORT -- wikipedia en llengua maere!! --Node ue 01:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Murcian was moved from the aproved list because the "bogus users" matter, what has been demostred that there are real usernames... What's the problem now? Why Murcian wikipedia is still denied?
    • Actually no one has fixed the "bogus users" matter - most of them are still not real usernames. --Chamdarae 19:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Chamadrae, the best way to verify this is: Were the support votes added by individual anonymous users, or one person?
  • SUPPORT, Chieríos compaeriquios: Leyo er murciano y l'ascribo (anque una jelepa).Lo platico (solitiquiamente ambunas feces). (Dear wikipedists: I am able to read and write murcian and I speak it sometimes) --85.97.78.137 09:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE hyperfragmentation. Next Cartagenese Wikipedia; at least it will have an historical foundation. (Pity that Cantonese has already been taken) 80.58.192.196 18:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cartagena never have had their own language. Cartagena nunca ha tenido su propia lengua!!. Seamos serios. Este argumento es la mayor parida de todas. Menuda tontería. ¿Jugamos a tergiversar la realidad?
  • SUPPORT -- I'm really surprised since Murcian is not in the aproved list yet. It has been completely proved that most of the supporters were real nicknames. The Murcian speakers and our language are being victims of many dreadful prejudices and a huge ignorance about this issue. For this reason I claim for our right of having a Wikipedia in our mother tongue: the Murcian language. Many important linguists, such as Francisco Martínez Torres and Antonio Sánchez Verdú, among others, have stated that Murcian is a true language fully structured and it has a huge number of speakers (me included). Many opposed comments which I have read here are false. Furthermore, these opposed people just seem to hate our language. Therefore I claim for common sense and the creation of our Murcian Wikipedia. Lastly, I have to say that all the supporters are looking forward to working in this great project!Alquerias Llibre 17:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC) (Real Nickname)[reply]
Chapeau... i just can say that!!
  • SUPPORT I agree, Murcian is our language. And I would like to support this project, because our language deserve to be recognized. Greetings from Lorca (Murcia).Daryo.
  • Oppose This language is too close to Spanish to be considered independent. There's no natural use of this language besides folkloric festivities or academic work: Spanish/Castillian is mostly the one an unique language spoken in Murcia region (Catalan is spoken by few in an isolated valley) and what some people think they talk or use is only a mild dialectal and lexical variety of Spanish no more distant from the standard than Porteño or other South American or Spanish regional speeches. The true Murcian language seen in [1] and other sites should be understood as fictional or dead. -- J 13:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Support--Aranrui 01:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment A long time ago, after Chamdarae identified the bogus user names in the support list, someone edited this section to substitute "real" for "bogus", in a childish attempt to claim that those user names are valid. Alquerias Llibre, a user who voted in favour of the Murcian wikipedia... before registering as a user in a Wikipedia claims above that "It has been completely proved that most of the supporters were real nicknames" (!), as if editing a list of unregistered names to add "(real username)" behind the bogus names were to miraculously make those names valid. I have identified the bogus names again, and will count the support and oppose votes that belong to valid users once more. I have expressed myself against a wikipedia in Murcian, but I accept that there may be a lot of people who honestly support it, but please please follow the rules and vote as registered users. Names in red or fake links to would-be names in different wikipedias cannot be accepted. And, frankly, if at some point there was a deluge of registrations and votes in favour of this new wikipedia, I'm afraid the suspicion of sockpuppetry would be quite inevitable. --AngelRiesgo 00:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE It's totally nonsense. --Javier Carro 13:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have recounted the number of support and opposition votes in the above discussion. If we don't accept votes that correspond to IP addresses, user names in red, and bogus user names, there are, if I have counted correctly, 9 votes in support of the Murcian wikipedia (Assarbe, Joanot, Pasha, Guardamarenc, Alba, Charlitos, Orhan_Akademi, Alquerias Llibre and Node ue) and 5 votes against it (Chamdarae, Ecemaml, AngelRiesgo, Javier Carro and J). I have had the generosity to count user Alba (which looks more like an abandoned user name in Spanish Wikipedia. Please, Alba, correct me if I'm wrong) and Alquerias Llibre (who registered as a user in the Spanish wkipedia after having a vote cast here in his or her name). I see that red names supporting the Murcian wikipedia continue to appear. The whole thing about all the bogus names is quite silly, actually. If there are so many Murcian speakers who want to take part in this project, why on earth can't they register as users in Meta and speak for themselves? --AngelRiesgo 00:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really pleased for your "generosity to count" me as a real user name, you are so kind, thank you very much. I do not know what I would do without your generosity. Thank God that the guardians of the Spanish language have come to save our sinful souls and to order our destiny. I'm a real registered user, do not doubt it, please. --Alquerias Llibre 12:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perdona, pero o yo no entiendo cómo funciona wikipedia o eres tú el que no lo entiende. Cualquiera puede consultar el historial de ediciones y ver que el primer voto de Alquerias Llibre no corresponde a una edición de un usuario llamado "Alquerias Llibre", lo cual hace que, según yo lo entiendo, el voto no sea válido. Sinceramente, no entiendo qué quieres decir. El voto de "Alba" tampoco fue hecho por un usuario "Alba". Por eso, esos dos votos me han parecido sospechosos. Mientras que todas mis ediciones pueden comprobarse revisando el historial y viendo que, efectivamente, quien firma como "AngelRiesgo" es, pues eso, "AngelRiesgo", éste no ha sido tu caso. Dices que eres un usuario real, y no dudo que eres una persona de carne y hueso, pero desde luego no eres un usuario registrado en Meta, ya que tu nombre sale en rojo. Entonces, ¿Por qué diablos no te registras y votas como usuario registrado para que no haya estos malentendidos? No se puede decir que son usuarios reales nombres que no corresponden a los autores de las ediciones de las páginas, hombre. ¿Es tan difícil de entender? --AngelRiesgo 01:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Te pido disculpas porque acabo de comprobar que sí estás registrado en Meta, es sólo que al no haber editado tu página de usuario tu nombre sale en rojo. Ha sido un error mío en este caso, pero sí es verdad que en tu primer voto no estabas registrado con ese nombre. Pero vale, muy bien, acepto que tu voto es completamente válido. Sin embargo, no lo son los de usuarios como Todmir y compañía, que ni existían ni creo que existan ahora como usuarios registrados de ninguna wikipedia. Tal vez tú no hayas tenido nada que ver, pero a los partidarios de la wikipedia en murciano os resta mucha credibilidad el que algún desaprensivo se haya puesto a añadir nombres de usuario inventados. Al menos yo no voy por ahí inventándome siete u ocho nombres de usuario para hacer bulto. --AngelRiesgo 01:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bueno, gracias por la puntualización. Acabo de editar mi página de usuario para que mi nombre no aparezca en rojo, ya que empiezo a estar bastante cansado de tener que demostrar una y otra vez la autenticidad de mi firma. Además, para que no haya dudas, he borrado mi firma en la lista de arriba y he vuelto a firmar por si acaso no lo hice bien la vez anterior. En lo que respecta al resto de usuarios, no tengo ni la menor idea de ellos, yo sólo puedo hablar por mí mismo: firmé yo solito y por nadie más. Dudo mucho que no existan dichas personas, estoy convencido de que simplemente no supieron utilizar este sistema correctamente o no supieron registrarse. Lo que pasa es que aprovechais la situación para pisotearnos este ilusionante proyecto... En fin, yo aprovecho para animar a todos los que firmaron al principio para que se vuelvan a registrar correctamente, si es que no lo hicieron (que lo dudo). --Alquerias Llibre 02:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose --Sanbec 16:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lourdes Cardenal 17:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC) Hago mías las palabras de ÁngelRiesgo[reply]
  • OPPOSE Felipealvarez 19:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC) What would be the next? Puente-Vallecano, Villa-Vallecano, Villaverdeño, Carabanchelero, Fuencarralero, Toledano, or Madripo-pijeño from Barrio Salamanca? Murciano / Panocho it's only a dialect, Porteño in Buenos Aires it's more different by far from Standart Spanish than Murcian Dialect. These people that think they are writting in murciano, it's analphabet people that only would get the basic education degree with the new educative law, because they absolutly don't know Spanish grammar and ortographic rules.[reply]
    The easiest statement to oppose the Murcian Wikipedia is just to say that we are "analphabet people that only would get the basic education degree with the new educative law [...] they absolutly don't know Spanish grammar and ortographic rules"!!!! Not only you judge us and insult us calling us analphabet people, but you also state that we don't know Spanish properly. Do not judge me without knowing anything about me. Fistly, I did not study the new educative law, I studied at the former educative system (EGB, BUP, COU...). And lastly, I know perfectly how to write Spanish since I studied Spanish Philology at the University of Murcia. Anyway, the only argumentation against Murcian Wikipedia that I have read here is full of prejudices, insults and total ignorance about Murcian language. --Alquerias Llibre 12:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Really the Murcian is a Spanish dialect, maybe exist some dialects from Spanish with better grammatic and literary indivualism than Murcian.--Taichi - (^_^) 05:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose --Only it's a Spanish dialect. Rata de Biblioteca 10:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT -- It is a demonstrated fact that the distinction between a language and a dialect is completely arbitrary and just political. Murcian has all the features to be considered a language, the problem is only political and a fact of identity. The people who claim that Murcian is a dialect just want to underestimate the value of Murcian language towards Spanish, you only have to read their argumentation in order to realize about this. Furthermore, it is also a fact that all these people come from the Spanish Wikipedia and they are always fighting against the creation of other wikipedias in minority languages of Spain. --Alquerias Llibre 13:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT Buenas, soy un nacionalista murciano mas. Por lo visto hay que escribir para que algunos crean de una vez que somos de carne y hueso. No se si he seguido los pasos correctos para APOYAR la llengua murciana , pero esa es mi posicion. I SUPPORT THE MURCIAN LANGUAGE ;) Murcia*Llibre
  • SUPPORT I just want to support that people who are defending and promoting our cultural backgropund in Murcia. It´s the same that will have a Wikipedia in murcian or not, as well the oficial recognition, we know who we are and we know what murcian is and what meaning for us. Anyway, thanks to everyone who is making possible that the murcian not die. I´m a real and registered user and i sign in my own name. Un salúo y un envión mu juerte pa tos dende Venezuela, que no sus pare naide!. Pacorro
  • SUPPORT Hola, yo soy un murciano.Los unicos analafabetos son los que no son capaces de reconocer el la diferencia entre el murciano y el castellano. Reto a quien piense lo contrario que venga a murcia pero no al la capital, haber si es capaz de entender el murciano, el cual tiene una fonetica y un vocabulario diferente en muchos asectos al del castellano. No os opongais desde la ignorancia o la envidia. I SUPPORT THE MURCIAN LANGUAGE. mmoreloz
  • SUPPORT Soy murciano y mi lengua madre es el murciano panocho, desde que nací hace 28 años, y eso no quita que haya aprendido correcto y perfectísimo castellano o español o como quieran llamarlo, pero la lengua que mamé de mi madre y de mi abuela es el murciano. Apoyo incondicionalmente a mi lengua madre, el murciano (N) MURCIA LIBRE --nikolo
  • Support Estoy a favor del murciano como lengua de la comunidad autónoma de la región de Murcia. This comment is moved from inappropiate place of the page, and it's made by Juan Antonio Alonso Costa (reference:[2]). --Joanot 12:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT Soy cartagenero, que es una forma de ser murciano, cantonal auténtico, es decir, republicano y federalista, no meapilas ni provincialista de esos reaccionarios. En mi trozo de tierra, se dice babaol a lo mismo que en otros arrecujones se le menta ababol, ababola,... Me gusta la diversidad. Y lo mismo que defiendo la biodiversidad, también hay que defender la etnodiversidad, la riqueza cultural de nuestra tierra, nuestra lengua madre, y todas sus variantes. antonetevive
  • OPPOSE Anna 21:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC) An absolute nonsense. Defending Murcia culture has nothing to do with creating a dialectical wikipedia.[reply]
  • SOY IACIN: Estimados amigos, es verdad que el murciano se habla en una zona con 3.500.000 de personas; de ellas ahi quien habla ingles, ruso, o analfabetos, pero para crear wikipedia en catalan tambien se ha utilizado el censo de Los Paises Catalanes y no se han restado las comarcas castellano hablantes, ni los analfabetos, ni los inmigrantes...; ¿Cuanta gente habla Murciano en el mundo?, pues solo podemos decir que con encuestas se aproxima al 10% de esa poblacion, aunque entre el 76-80% de estos 3 millones y medio utilizan al menos 200 de sus más de 5000 palabras exclusivas.
  • Hola! Es la primera vez que escribo por aquí, me registré en su día y voté a favor de la wikipedia en la lengua murciana, la de mi tierra y la que asiduamente practico, pues he ganado algún concurso en nuestro idioma que ha convocado L'Ajuntaera. He oído que a pesar de que nuestra wikipedia en murciano ha sido apoyada por un número mayor de votos a favor que en contra esta, sin embargo, no ha sido añun colgada en la red, corríjanme si me equivoco, hay quienes dudan de la veracidad de algunos votos, incluso el mío! Por favor, sólo os pido una cosa, esto es una enciclopedia virtual libre, participativa y sin ideologías fascistas, centralistas y discrimanatorias hacia nadie. O eso quiero pensar! Así que por favor, dejad de discriminar a esta humilde lengua nuestra y a nuestro sencillo y honrado pueblo nuestro y déjennos poder expresarnos en nuestro idioma y defender y difundir nuestro patrimonio lingüistico, tan denostado y maltratado por muchos. Soy GranayOro y quien quiera saber más datos de mi, que me lo pida. Pero EXISTO y soy Murciano!! Apa la LLengua Murciana!!
  • SUPPORT Iacin 08:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC) La pregunta es la siguiente, ¿Por que no tenemos derecho a defender nuestras costumbres, gastronomia, leyendas, y nuestra LENGUA?. ¿Quien es el que niega la identidad de tantos millones de personas por subjetivamente pensar que es politica?, ¿no es todo politica?, Si, todo es politica, el que usted nos discrimine y dude, es su politica. Otra cosa, dialecto son TODAS las lenguas, pues todas vienen de otras; pero el murciano es dialecto del latinP, aragones y mozarabe y por lo tanto merece una wikipedia.[reply]
  • Yo también comienzo a estar harto de este JUEGO SUCIO de la wiki española. Ya está bien hombre!!. Esto es de una poca verguenza que clama al cielo. La wiki murciana fue parada con malas artes, un usuario la movió de la lista de aprobadas por un motivo inventado por el y... ¿donde está ese usuario? ¿no quiere dar la cara? ¿donde quedan sus disculpas? que yo sepa no ha vuelto a aparecer. Lo de esta proposal ya raya lo surrealista y lo ilegal. Y nos encargaremos de que todo esto se sepa. Las malas artes, este juego sucio tiene que ser conocido por la sociedad murciana. Señores, un poco más de verguenza y seriedad! Para empezar podríamos empezar por dirigirnos a esa gente que nos pisotea el proyecto, a su página de usuario, a ver que contestan, están haciendo lo que les da la gana y eso no lo podemos consentir --Assarbe 11:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Assarbe, I agree with you. This is a huge discrimination against us and our language. What about our rights? We have satisfied all the requirements to create the Murcian Wikipedia and we all the supporters have already proved that we are real user names. What's going on now? --Alquerias Llibre 13:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hola! soy Murciano, practico la lengua murciana asiduamente e incluso he ganado premios en nuestra lengua. Y apoyo totalmente la aprobación de la wikipedia en Murciano, que demuestre que existe la pluralidad, el respeto a las minorías lingüisticas y la democracia participativa en estsa enciclopedia virtual. Apa la llengua murcian. I SUPPORT THE MURCIAN LANGUAGE. JAVIMURCIANICO--JaviMurcianico 17:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hola, estoy varios dias intentando escribir, no se si esta vez lo conseguiré editar. Por si acaso decir que soy murciano y defiendo la llengua murciana. I SUPPORT THE MURCIAN LANGUAGE TOO.

VIVA EL PAIS MURCIANO!

Estoy a favor del murciano como lengua de la comunidad autónoma de la región de Murcia. --Foro-fico 09:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)I really am Foro-fico and I support the murcian language. Thanks. Foro-fico[reply]

En defensa del murciano: En la revista belga La Hulpe (febrero 1999), Paul Van Melle dice: "Jacques Canut ha publicado sus poemarios en tres lenguas. El francés y el castellano no nos extrañan, pero descubrimos el murciano que nos transporta (no lo olvidaré jamás) a la Edad de Oro del s. XIII donde las reminiscencias aragonesas, catalanas y mozárabes coexisten armoniosamente. Me complacen aún más cuando descubro que los textos son pura pesía y no sólamente nostágicos.{...}En la versión murciana no se pierde un ápice toda la musicalidad del texto francés". (De "Archivo de la palabra"; A. S. Verdú y F. M. Torres; 2004) Foro-fico --Foro-fico 17:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hola! Soy Palmesanico, murciano y practicante de la llengua murciana. He ganado algún premio de literatura en nuestro idioma, y me indigna esta repentina reacción en contra airada y sin motivo alguno, de ciertas personas de la wikipedia española contra la nuestra. Si esto es una enciclopedia virtual libre, plural y participativa, que se demuestre ya mismo. I SUPPORT THE MURCIAN LANGUAGE. Apa noestra llengua! Palmesanico --Palmesanico 16:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Insered above coment here from a bad place [3] --Joanot 12:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be FAIR!

edit

Please, be fair discussing this proposal, and don't strike nor change any comment from other person, as it should be considered as vandalism. Annonymous comments also are welcome here, in spite of the condition to have a registered user name from some wikimedia project for voting. --Joanot 00:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the history of this proposal, and I'm a bit ugly because I've just factually verified that here was a attempt to disrupt a normal on-going. I don't know why someone was removing more than half supports from people with registered usernames in meta, claiming it as "sockpuppets".
As all you can see, here are 21 people all them with registered username on meta supporting it, and, please, I insist again to demand a fair process, specially to Javier Carro from Spanish Wikipedia (disruptings).
This proposal isn't under any kind of dubious justice yet, in spite of a bad starting, but now it's all OK!. So, I think people should discuss about the proposal issues, not about the process itself. --Joanot 01:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perdonen si tengo que hablar en español, pero pienso yo que los usuarios que están en rojo y que no tienen enlaces a sus páginas de usuarios en las wikipedias que colaboran, deberían anularsele los votos. No es por nada, pero si quieren luchar por hacer la wiki que sea gente que ya colabore en Wikipedia, no gente que ahora de repente estan sacando chance de que se propone esta versión para hacer votos de dudosa reputación. Más mesura señores.--Taichi - (^_^) 04:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yo pienso que lo importante es tener una buena base de colaboradores, independientemente de que trabajen en otras wikis. ¿Que se supone que deben hacer estos usuarios? ¿editar artículos en una wiki que no es la suya? ¿porque? ¿con que motivo? ¿deben editar artículos en la wiki española, la misma que nos niega el derecho a tener nuestra propia wiki? No parece muy justo --84.121.5.254 20:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Taichi, I want to answer you with any intention to look for polemic. Where is it telling that anybody must first have contributed in one of the wikimedia project in order to be able to participate in a new language request? I say it because in #Procedure section I don't see anything like to such condition. Perhaps the policy about the creation of new language version is in another page?. Anyway, I wouldn't consider this condition as reasonable because those linguistic comunity that doesn't understand (or doesn't have interest to contribute in) any other language, so they cannot (don't want to) participate in other language wiki wouldn't be able to create new wikis. --Joanot 10:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I stroke through anonymous contributions with their commentaries to the voting relies on the principle explained at the beginning of this page, according to which the voters must have a page in meta. Which of those anonymous users had a page in meta? I also request for neutral judgement over what is happening here. Every single edition I stroke through was made by users whose none existence as users I checked previously by going to the user page leading the link they have provided.

We urgently need a clear and specific policy about who and how are allowed to vote here to avoid the abuse being committed in this voting can happen again.

About Martorell's request, I better don't comment it. Rather I prefer strongly suggest to anyone interested in helping to solve the mess in this voting to check the history of it, to check who are voting in favor and opposed and how they voted. I also think that it is really necessary a checkuser over the editors of this voting, because, not only me, but there are many who suspect that certain users voted with different names. --Javier Carro 09:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All those users who have supported this proposal have a user account registered in meta. Because of those pages aren't edited it isn't meaning these aren't registered. You can see on the toolbox of every userpage that if there is a user's contribution view link, it's meaning it's registered.
If you suspect about sockpupeeting, you're in your right to ask for checkuser, but until it isn't factual, you have no right to edit comments and disrupt voting made by others, it's considered vandalism. Please, assume good faith, until you have other facts at least. --Joanot 11:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, the non anonymous votings I stroke through were registered. I assume my mistake caused by the links they provided. Those links guided to non existing users in other Wikimedia projects. Anyone can check it in my polemical edition. Nevertheless, I think it is not fair that voting here is so easy to manipulate like creating as many user pages as necessary. I suposse that even the Checkuser mechanisms would not detect the cases of false users created with dynamic IP addresses. Am I right? --Javier Carro 12:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I would mistake too as easy as you did, because the participation of registered users supporting this proposal seem to be done from very newbie persons, editing in not appropiate sections of the page, wrong signatures, and etc. Because of it I did not considered your edits as vandalism, I've pressumed good faith on you too.
And about checkuser, I don't know the utility of checkuser, so I don't know the efficience of it. Anyway, I think that opposing this proposal because of suspecting "sockpupeeting" is a futile struggle, and we should discuss about the kind of the proposal. If Murcian Wikipedia is actually promoted only by political reasons, I'm sure it will go to inactive, and it will go to be down, so I'm not worried about it. --Joanot 12:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Servien 14:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT Murcian people want to have a Wikipedia in their language.... MURCIAN WIKIPEDIA NOW! Por la dinidá e nuestra llengua, por la llibertá e nuestro pueblo! --Todmir 15:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


En apoyo de la Llengua Murciana. --Cicucho 12:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]



(Amigoh de Murcia: Ehque uhtedeh podriaih ayudah
tamien i poneh suh botoh pa la Gwiki andalusa,
lo apresiariamoh munchisimo?
Nohotroh deborberemoh er faboh tamien!)


Without consideration of whether the language should exist or not, the vote above does not seem fair to me at all. I am not convinced anonymous votes should be authorized and I am totally convinced sockpuppetry is very unfair. Per one participant request, I run a quick ip check over some usernames, and consider there is high chance several votes are from the same person. I raised the issue on foundation-l@wikimedia.org Anthere 17:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT?? are you supposing that all this users are invented by one person? I think openly Wiki doesn't want a wiki in murcian. This project should be aproved 2 months ago. The users are REAL persons. They haven't already a place where work, this place would be the MURCIAN WIKI.
  • SUPPORT, well, what can I say about this User Felipealvarez...whether we all approve this request or not, I can't accept the way he adressed to the murcian people...I really believe in this project...but please do not confuse a person who speaks murcian dialect with an illiterate person, P-L-E-A-S-E...Orhan_akademi 14:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: Accusations of foul play have been bandied about by both sides of the debate, and I see that some of the names originally identified as bogus names by me and Chamdarae have come to life as Meta users claiming that they exist and we are being unfair and doing nasty things. I'm tired of this debate, but since I was one of the people who first raised the accusation of sockpuppetry, I feel I have to at least explain why I said that the user names were bogus names and why I still think they must be regarded as such. First, the problem is not whether these user names exist as Meta user names as of today, but rather that their original votes didn't correspond to these users, but actually came from editions by (at most) a couple of people. I don't really understand why some of the supporters of the Murcian wikipedia insist in denying the facts. After all, it just takes a while to check the history of edits and see what happened initially. Here are the facts, as I see them: The proposal for the Murcian wikipedia was moved to the "approved" section after it had received nine supporting votes. This was the state of the vote on 1 September: [4]. Now this looks fine until one checks that, apart from Assarbe and Joanot, both of them registered users at Meta, the other six names have been added with a wikipedia prefix in front of their names and point to user pages in the Catalan, Spanish and Occitan wikipedias. This could be acceptable, I suppose, if it weren't for the fact that only Guardamarenc and Alba actually correspond to existing users in the wikipedias they claim to come from, and Alba has no user page and no history of contributions at all. Things get even worse when one checks the history of edits and sees that all these votes actually come from two users: an IP 84.121.10.206 and Assarbe himself. By checking the contributions of 84.121.10.206 ([5]), one can see that this user added the votes with the names Pasha, Todmir, Alba, Mangas and Guardamarenc. Anyone with the patience to go through the different edits will see that the names initially appeared in red, but Mr. 84.121.10.206 found that by adding a prefix "es:", "oc:" or "ca:" before the names, they appeared in a nice shade of blue. In this way, between 30 August and 1 September, Murcian went from two supporting votes (Assarbe and Joanot) to seven. Mr. 84.121.10.206 edited the support label to indicate that there were eight support votes, actually one more than was the case. But this was promptly fixed by Assarbe, who added a vote for a user with the name of GranaYOro ([6]) and on 3 September decided to add a new vote, this time with the name of Foro-Fico ([7]). Now if I am misinterpreting anything, feel free to correct me. I didn't want to get to this level of pointing fingers and showing links to edit histories, but the accusations of foul play and the appearances of "people" like GranaYOro, Todmir or Foro-Fico saying "who said that I don't exist?" have got on my nerves a bit, to be honest. The only real votes I can see in the original list of support correspond to Assarbe and Joanot. Guardamarenc does indeed exist as a user in the Catalan wikipedia, which begs the question of whether 84.121.10.206 could be him/her. As for Alba, since the vote came from 84.121.10.206 it shouldn't be accepted, and the lack of a contribution history makes me suspect that it is just a coincidence that 84.121.10.206 used a name that had actually been registered at some point in the past. Again, if I am getting any facts wrong, please correct me. I see that all these names that were originally used by 84.121.10.206 and Assarbe now exist as Meta users, but this can only reinforce the suspicion of sockpuppetry. Aside from my personal view about a wikipedia in Murcian, proponents should not forget that this is not just about getting a few tens, or hundreds for that matter, of funny names giving support votes. In the end, the final say about whether a wikipedia in Murcian should exist rests with the Wikimedia board and given the lack of consensus and the shenanigans that have been going on here, I don't think they will feel very sympathetic to this proposal. One of the things that worry me about this vote (or the one on Andalusian below) is that it seems to refute the idea that a wiki community can discuss things peacefully and in a spirit of accceptance of the rules. I have no problem in accepting a wikipedia in Murcian if a majority of people want it, but please, please, don't get into personal attacks with accusations of foul play when it is the original proponents of the Murcian wikipedia who have been responsible for most, if not all, of the foul play in this discussion. --AngelRiesgo 01:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMENT You said: "I see that all these names that were originally used by 84.121.10.206 and Assarbe now exist as Meta users, but this can only reinforce the suspicion of sockpuppetry." I still want to pressuming good faith: These names would be real persons who expressed to Assarbe their support to this project, and Assarbe added it himself. Of course it can't be accepted as valid supports, but I think it wouldn't be a sockpuppetry, for me, it's more factually these are very "newbie" persons who doesn't know yet the rules, the wiki codes, etc... of wikimedia projects. Why I'm pressuming good faith? Please, go ahead to User talk:Assarbe and you see there are statements from persons offering their support to this project. Just the persons with the same name as Assarbe added them here. And now, after a month, those persons could have been realized which is the valid process (and, why not?, perhaps they have been learning things related to wiki world), and registered their own user accounts here. Of course, you can also think, that Assarbe was writting himself in his own user talk page simulating "virtual persons", or you can also say that someone was registering more than one account. Ok, if you have some credible fact, I will stop to pressuping good faith. --Joanot 13:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    ANOTHER COMMENT You said:"one can see that this user added the votes with the names Pasha, Todmir, Alba, Mangas and Guardamarenc" Quiero precisar que he hecho el voto "Pasha" al fin del mes de agosto y que después no he mas tocado los votos. Quizas, una otra persona ha cambiando el texto. Pero, existo yo, Pasha, y soy un contributor regular de la wiki en occitan. Pensaba que era suficiente ser registrado en una wiki. Entonces, por supuesto, esta contribucion sera el de 82.XX.XX o no sé que. Me interesa una wiki en murciano porque estoy de origen murciana. Si se necesita que sea registrado en la meta, digamelo. --Pasha --00:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)~[reply]
  • OPPOSE Por favor, 3,5 millones de hablantes ¿dónde?, deben incluir al 90% de castellano hablantes de Alicante capital. Conozco a gente de Murcia y no hablan, ni por asomo, de la forma en la que se escribe el panocho, tienen, es cierto, palabras propias, como hay en todas partes, y un acento peculiar, pero vamos, no es un idioma, es un dialecto del castellano. --84.120.24.85 15:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El censo lingüístico dels Països Catalans se considera de 11 millones de habitantes, que es la población de las comunidades de Cataluña, Valencia y Baleares (amén de los restantes territorios). Los 3 millones de habitantes corresponden al área de influencia donde el léxico es el mismo, no estrictamente al número de hablantes.

Oppose: I don't see what all the fuss is about. There are no (or very few) votes in favor of the proposal. In a situation such as this, it's not about presuming good faith. Presuming good faith refers to when a user realizes a malicious act and one presumes that it was an accident/that he had good intentions. To presume good faith in this case would be to say that the user really had been expressed support by 20 different users and that he, accordingly, added their names to the list. In any case, the user would be asked to revert the edits, leave his own signature, and let everyone else vote for themselves. We would never simply leave it the way it is. Imagine me registering 20 times to vote for the U.S. president with the argument "ah, don't you worry about that, my friends told me who they supported". I would be turned down in a flash and perhaps arrested. Why are the invalid votes not striked and if there are true supporters, they can come and reactivate their vote?
SUPPORT Excuse me, you are wrong (and an anonimous nickname). You are late since all the support nicknames have been already registered and they stated that they were real nicknames and they support the creation of the Murcian Wiki. Stop that because we have already solved the problem that you have stated, please. --Alquerias Llibre 00:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compaeres, si con 27 votos contra 12 la wiki murciana aún no se ha aprobado, creo que ya nos podemos hacer una idea de lo que sucederá. Esta proposal lleva camino de hacerse eterna en este apartado. Aquí se dan motivos de oppose de los cuales creo que los de la wiki española se dejan el más importante... el que les gusta aplastar lenguas más pequeñas, ¿no es lo que llevan haciendo siglos? . Pero vaya, creo que el argumento de los usuarios falsos les está cundiendo y muy bien. Espero que ningun murciano con dignidad colabore jamás con la wiki castellana, la misma que nos lleva puteando de lo lindo ya casi tres meses. Y en lenguaje cervantino lo digo... Ahora, si algún compañero quiere traducir esto al inglés, perfecto. A mi no se me da muy bien

Why should the Murcian Wiki not be approved?

edit
  1. Murcian is not a language by anyone's standards. The Spanish government does not recognize it, the CIA does not recognize it, nobody does. Not even the "Murcian speakers" (besides the ¿3? that have voted here).
SUPPORT Excuse me, you are completely wrong. All the users are real, and nobody signed for me, I signed in the right way. And also, you forget that there is an asociation called "L'Ajuntaera pa la plática, el esturrie y'el escarculle la llengua murciana" which has more than 1,000 members, and all of them recognize, defend and speak Murcian language. Moreover, I know many organizations that recognize our language. You are lying! Be fair and go to your Spanish wikipedia. --Alquerias Llibre 01:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The language is not documented. There is no official Murcian dictionary, nor a decent one, on that matter. The most notable ones are parts of blogs, or geocities sites.
SUPPORT You mean in the internet, but you do not mention the great dictionaries that we already have. For instance:

- Sánchez Verdú, Antonio y Martínez Torres, Francisco. Diccionario Popular de Nuestra Tierra (Murciano-Castellano/Castellano-Murciano). La Opinión. 1999. - Molina, Patricio. Parablero murciano. Ediciones Mediterráneo. Murcia. 1991. - Ruiz Marín, Diego. Vocabulario de las hablas murcianas. Consejería de Presidencia de la Región de Murcia. Murcia. 2000. - Serrano Botella, Ángel. El Diccionario Icue. Habla popular de Cartagena. Asociación de Libreros de Cartagena. Cartagena. 1997. - Sevilla, Alberto. Vocabulario murciano. Novograf. Murcia. 1990. - Vela Urrea, José María. Así se habla en Murcia: vocabulario murciano con ejemplos referenciados y dos vocabularios (murciano-castellano y castellano-murciano). El autor. Murcia. 2002. - Gómez Ortín, Francisco. Vocabulario del noroeste murciano. Editora Regional de Murcia. Murcia. 1991. - Sánchez Verdú, Antonio y Martínez Torres, Francisco. Gran Diccionario Popular de Cartagena y su Comarca. La Opinión. 2002. - Ortuño Palao, Miguel y Ortín Marco, Carmen. Diccionario del habla de Yecla. Academia Alfonso X. Murcia. 1999. - Ramírez Xarriá, Jerónimo. El panocho: vocabulario popular murciano y otros apuntes de interés. Murcia. 1927. - García Soriano, Justo. Vocabulario murciano. Con un estudio preliminar y un apéndice de documentos regionales. Bermejo. Madrid. 1932. - Sánchez Martínez, Agustín [et alii]. Carcabulario fabético-panocho. Edicao a los operaores der junema y aficionaos que lo necesiten. A.P.O.P. Murcia. 1999.--Alquerias Llibre 01:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It splits Wikipedia unnecessarily. The Spanish Wikipedia is already split in enough pieces. Imagine if we split the English Wikipedia into African American Slang, Californian African American Slang, New York African American Slang, Texan redneck slang, Texan gentlemen slang, Boston slurrs, English Gentlemen's English, English prisoner's English....you get the point. The English Wikipedia would be heavily hit. This is not good for the already existent Spanish/Catalan wikis. A major goal of Wikipedia is to provide free knowledge to anyone who wants it in their native language. First of all, Murcian is not a language, and second of all, the native language of all supposed Murcian speakers is undoubtedly Spanish, that's what they're taught in school anyway. Is a Murcian going to understand an intent at phoneticizing the way he speaks better than Spanish?
SUPPORT That's just your own personal opinion!Not a fact! --Alquerias Llibre 01:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT There is an Indian English request
  1. There is no writing form. English, Spanish, Catalan, Galician, German...languages have rules of grammar and spelling. Murcian appears to be a simple immitation of the way Murcians speak. This is comparable to me writing "Naw, dawg, I eint doin dat, das foolish". Can this string of errors be corrected using a set of rules besides that of English? Did I err in writing "eint" instead of "ain't"? Is 'das' spelled 'dats'? But I don't pronounce the 'T'...
SUPPORT No way! You do not know what you are talking about. There is a long tradition of writing in Murcian language. Ok, there is not a official form, but there is a high fixed agreement in grammatical rules among all the Murcian writers. Two centuries of literary tradition!!! --Alquerias Llibre 01:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There is virtually no verifiable vote in favor of the proposal (1-3 is my estimate)
SUPPORT Just count again the support votes and check if they are real nicknames. You will see that they are real registered names. Stop lying, please! Do not be scared since we will neither split nor destroy your Spanish language. --Alquerias Llibre 01:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The proposal is fishy by any definition.
SUPPORT Your personal opinion again, not a fact! --Alquerias Llibre 01:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The same user in which we are to presume good faith edits his own discussion page, trying to make it look like there are supporters of the Murcian WIkipedia. ([8])
  2. The user does not respond to "other users" asking how they can help, despite the fact that he asks for help. Of course, why would he respond to himself...(sorry to not presume good faith. I presumed it, and proved myself wrong)--Orgullomoore 10:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I really wrote this question and i wrote an email to Assarbe. So he answer me by e-mail and that doesn't appear on the user page... --Pasha--00:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)~[reply]

Your arguments are not at all difficult to prove invalid and if my preocupation were that this proposal would be approved, I would do so. Contrarily, I trust that the Board will google your "dictionaries" (I did some and found dictionaries that Señor Llibre describes as "great" and found 1 page documents with 50 entries. Yes, most of them are online), investigate the obvious sockpuppetry issues, and will preserve the original goal of Wikipedia, avoiding diversion down regionalist paths. Additionally, If I had the ganas, I would expostulate your screaming (periods don't bite) at me to "go back to my Spanish Wikipedia" (I am actually a native of Spring, Texas, United States of America), but I don't. Saludos--Orgullomoore 06:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compaeres, si con 27 votos contra 12 la wiki murciana aún no se ha aprobado, creo que ya nos podemos hacer una idea de lo que sucederá. Esta proposal lleva camino de hacerse eterna en este apartado. Algunos dicen que va a ocupar más espacio escrito que la biblia. Aquí se dan motivos de oppose de los cuales creo que los de la wiki española se dejan el más importante... el que les gusta aplastar lenguas más pequeñas, ¿no es lo que llevan haciendo siglos? . Pero vaya, creo que el argumento de los usuarios falsos les está cundiendo y muy bien. Espero que ningun murciano con dignidad colabore jamás con la wiki castellana, la misma que nos lleva puteando de lo lindo ya casi tres meses. Y en lenguaje cervantino lo digo... Ahora, si algún compañero quiere traducir esto al inglés, perfecto. A mi no se me da muy bien
  • Compadres, if with 27 votes versus 12 the Murcian Wiki has still not been approved, I think we can get an idea of what's going to happen. This proposal is on it's way to becoming eternal in this section. Some say it will occupy more written space than the Bible. Of the opposing reasons here, I think those of the Spanish WIkipedia leave us the most important one... that they like to smash smaller languages, isn't that what they've been doing for centuries? But goodness, I think the argument about false users is gaining ground, and quite well. I hope that no Murcian with dignity ever collaborates with the Spanish Wikipedia, the same one that's been screwing us over for almost three months now. And in Cervantes' words I say it... Now, if some compadre wants to translate this into English, perfect. It doesn't go over so well for me.--Traducción libre y mala del compadre Orgullomoore, sin comentario alguno.

Because all language have equal oportunities to aproved.

Why should MURCIAN WIKI be aproved?

edit

Because there are 27 users... REAL USERS, you understand?? that want this project and it's more than sure that will be very supporters. And the opposers are, most of them (12), of the SPANISH WIKI. And we kwow why you don't want that this project be aproved.

¿Como probar que algunos de estos usuarios son reales, si apenas son IP's, y puede alguno pasarse en vez de usuario registrado como IP y haciendo duplicidad de votos?. Segundo, cual es el odio que se tiene con la wiki española, primero yo soy panameño, yo ni siquiera estoy involucrado en esta enemistad estúpida (sí, es estúpida porque no me imagino que en un país tan pequeño como España, sus propios vecinos se odien mutuamente porque solo hablan una variante del español común); yo sólo he votado en contra porque la verdad las pruebas no son contundentes y no me demuestran claramente que el murciano tenga suficiente criterio lingüístico como para hacer una Wikipedia, y que esto parece un truco desesperado de algunos para hacer sus caprichos personales, por eso he votado en contra. A mi no me vengan con cosas que yo no soy español y que no debo meter narices, yo soy colaborador de la wiki en ladino, y a mi me gusta esa versión de la wiki, pero una wiki en murciano me parece un poco surrealista.--Taichi - (あ！) 21:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well... If this proccess is presumed as irregular or not I don't want to make an opinion about this. Perhaps it would be regular, but Murcian language have enough reasons to have their own project. If you read some text from http://www.llenguamaere.com, such the followin text i.e.:

Murcian: Mesmicamente se pritende qu'er murciano, tan orviao munchas añás, güerva a zarpullir con la juerza que ya tiniba en su día y'e la que nus arbullecemos tuiquios los qu'hamos tinío la taina e tiner la nacencia n'este terraje, sin orviar a los que, allegaos d'otros roales, sienten y quién a Murcia como nusotros mesmos.
Spanish: Mismamente se pretende que el murciano, tan olvidado muchos años, vuelva a surgir con la fuerza que ya tenía en su día y de la que nos orgullecemos todos los que hemos tenido la suerte de tener el nacimiento en esta tierra, sin olvidar a los que, llegados de otros lugares, sienten y quieren a Murcia como a nosotros mismos.

The linguistic differences are obvious. Murcian is the most distanced dialect from Spanish, because it's a language transition between catalan, aragonese, mossarabic, and spanish. And because of it, when Murcian particularities are considered as a "bizarre" form of Spanish, and these are being rejected in every Spanish text, so Murcian should have the right to try having its own space itself, as here are Wikipedias in dialects such as Sicilian or Neapolitan. Andalusian case is different, because Andalusian particularities are assumed as Spanish directly. The linguistic status of Ladino (Judeoespañol) is the most likely compared exemple with Murcian, as this language is also a transition dialect of several languages (and they have a Wikipedia too). In the other side, I don't know if proposing a Wikipedia in Murcian would be the correct way... Perhaps it would be better that the first step for Murcian was starting a Wiktionary. --Joanot 22:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joanot, Sicilian and Neapolitan are not dialects (of Italian). They are separate languages descended from Latin, just as Catalan is distinct from Spanish. --VingenzoTM


Hola: Soy azadares usuaria registrada y estoy a favor de la LLengua Murciana, lengua materna en la que suelo escribir poesía y prosa, negar la existencia de esta lengua vernácula es negar la historia de Murcia, más extensa que la de otras regiones españolas. --83.53.93.136 13:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I don't have anything against a Murcian Wikipedia, if someone wants to have it. It would probably be a kind of "creation" of a language (Murcian doesn't have a standard or a literature to speak of) but that should not be necessarily bad. What I oppose is the way this has been handled, sockpuppetry and such, it is not serious and, to me, it forebodes a quite POV future for that Wikipedia. I guess nationalisms have mined linguistic issues. es:Usuario:Ecelan

"""Support""" Murcian language it's a language transition between catalan, aragonese, mossarabic, and spanish.It's the language of the murcian people and must be considered to create the Wikipedia in our language.Our language it's our identidy and the language of murcian people so spanish people can't say anything about it.

Id con cuidado. Hay un usuario colombiano que hace años que pide hacer una Wikipedia en colombiano. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:HeKeIsDa sinceramente, se entiende menos que el murciano, y según él proviene del castellano.

Support Sinceramente, eso que aparece en la wiki colombiana tiene poco de castellano, seguramente será alguna mezcla de "castellano-indígena" en alguna provincia interior. En cualquier caso ¿que tiene que ver que se entienda menos? ¿es esa el requisito último para una wiki? ¿el entenderse más o menos? porque recuerdo la existencia de una wiki aragonesa y asturiana que son bien comprensibles para cualquier castellano-hablante. Cada vez veo excusas menos consistentes.
  • Oppose: Exactly. The next thing we'd be doing was creating a Wikipedia for the language spoken in our shire. Besides, aragonés and asturiano are as much dialects as Murciano. Two wrongs don't make one right. There are four languages in the Spanish State: Español, Català, Euskera, Galego. Final. Whoever contradicts this is either blatantly ignorant or just wants to have this for regional pride. -- Leptictidium 11:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chico, informate un poquito y no hables por hablar... que ni el aragones ni el asturiano estén reconocidos como oficiales, no significa que no sean idiomas... ya que están reconocidos como tales por ISO y SIL. Sabemos que te va a costar asumirlo, pèro hay vida después de Catalunya, y el catalán no es el único idioma (mira si no el aranés)
    • I agree that Murcian is a *dialect*, but Aragonese and Asturian are *languages* on their own right. A language is not only a difference in phonetics or in vocabulary. What makes a language truly independent is its morphosyntaxis, that is, its grammar. Aragonese and Asturian have their own evolution from vulgar Latin. They're even prior to Spanish (Castilian) in many aspects, so how could they be dialects of it? The fact that they are "socially eaten" by Spanish doesn't make them dialects of it, but endangered languages. Murcian, on the contrary, has a Spanish grammar, with a few differences remaining from Old Spanish. Phonetics is different when compared to (Standard) Northern Spanish, but no so much to Southern Spanish (just like Andalusian, Low Extremaduran or Canarian). What makes Murcian a bit different is its vocabulary, resulting from a Mozarabic substract and a blend of Aragonese, Catalan and Medieval Spanish words. It is a distinct variety in its own right, but not a language, linguistically speaking. This said, should I oppose to a Wikipedia in Murcian? No, why? I just don't care. But don't say things like Murcian coming from Latin like Aragonese or Catalan. What's more, from a historical point of view, that doesn't make sense either. Even if we considered Murcian (or Andalusian, or any Latin American variety) a language, it would still come from Castilian, not from Latin, because grammar is Castilian. (Just like Ladino is considered a language by many and clearly comes from old Spanish). Obviously many Southern Spanish words come from other sources (other Latin languages, Amerindian languages in the case of Latin America), but these varieties are morphosyntactically Castilian, that's all. And I'm sorry if I disappoint someone, but I still have to see real serious written proof that Murcian is gramatically different from Spanish. Gramatically, I say. Could someone, for example, simply conjugate the verb "to do" in Murcian, to see it compared to other Iberian languages? I'm always willing to change my mind on this, of course. Good luck, anyway. --E. M.


- Support - a lot of native contributors nl:Boudewijn Idema , 20:37 (UTC), 7 July 2006.


Hola a tos. Vide la descusión que der murciano y er panocho s´alleva en esta plana y quisiá yo puer aryuar con er tema en lo que puá; conojo esta llengua y mi enza es aryuar en su mantinencia. ¿Hay ambún llugar po aquí ande se platique esta custión? Sus adejo un mail mío, po si no lo hay: elroxocoxo@hotmail.com.

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Murcian_Spanish&oldid=25166116"