Talk:N'Ko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project’s importance scale.

The "more popular" statement about Bambara is could use some quantative support. Evertype 14:40, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

---

Is it appropriate that the common last name "Ngo" redirect here? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:55, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well it's an alternate spelling for all I know. But if feel like putting together a decent stub at Ngo (name), by all means go ahead and mould Ngo it into a disambig! — mark ✎ 22:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It took a while before I actually found out it was written "N'Ko". People had been talking about it, but I had never seen the word written down, and in Bambara it sounds more like Ngo.
I support Mark's proposal, but unfortunately I don't know anything about the last name Ngo. Guaka 12:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

N'Ko is never called Ngo, which is completely different. The disambuguation page is unnecessary and erroneous. Evertype June 28, 2005 21:42 (UTC)

It might never be written "ngo", but it sounded like that the first time someone told me about it. Though from the explanation I had guessed it could have been written "n'go", so I was looking for that as well... Guaka 1 July 2005 10:32 (UTC)

I've made the Ngo disambig to here into a redirect to Non-governmental organization. I concur with Evertype. — mark ✎ 1 July 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Contents 1 N'ko (strange comments on Unicode) 2 Rumours 3 Encoding controversy 4 Automated conversion 5 Unwelcome changes: only one article needed 6 N'Ko alphabet day 7 Admins abusing their position: Admin User:Roozbeh 8 N'Ko article(s) 9 N'Ko article(s) II

[edit] N'ko (strange comments on Unicode)

moved from User talk:Guaka

Guaka,

Could you please explain the meaning of these comments since it seems you wrote them ?

" In 2004 a proposition presented by the Irish delegation was approved by the working group (WG2). The Technical Unicode committees was blocked by Canada, declaring that the Kamasere accents and three old characters, "Old Ja", "Cha" and "Ra" should be removed — a decision considered political by the other WG members. "

You may email me at patrick.andries<à>xcential.com. I'm one of the Canadian members and I'm astounded by the comments hereabove...

Patrick, you shouldn't be astounded. The discussions on the Unicode-Afrique list have gone far and wide. When I was in Mali, I was interviewed for television, and one of the questions they asked me was about "the Canadian problem". The N'Ko community is bitterly opposed with Canada's opposition to the encoding of N'Ko, and rejects the technical suggestions Canada has made, in favour of the encoding as it stands. As you have been told a number of times. Evertype 06:58, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

I have had a discussion with some people at the multilingualism conference in Bamako. They weren't really happy with the situation. Later I was bold and wrote down something in the article, either collecting information from Google searches or from a paper (Which I don't have near me right now). Guaka 12:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rumours

[Evertype] Patrick, you shouldn't be astounded.

Because this involves you? I note with interest you don't disapprove Guaka's comments.

No, not because it involves me. You shouldn't be astounded that this story has found its way to the Wikipedia. And I did not put it there. And with regard to "approving" Guaka's comments, I did edit them for accuracy and neutrality. Evertype

[Guaka] I have had a discussion with some people at the multilingualism conference in Bamako.

Who were these people ? Mr Everson (above).

I am afraid you don't understand how angry the N'Ko community is. I met with hundreds of them in Bamako, and when I was interviewed for radio and television, I was asked (in addition to a good number of other things) to talk about "le problème canadien". I had to respond to that. I didn't ask the question, or ask them to ask the question. Evertype

I haven't attended the first day, and I was feeling rather sick, so I haven't talked to a great many people. I don't remember the names of the people whom I talked with about the N'Ko unicode issue. I do remember that they were from several different West African countries. Guaka

[Guaka] They weren't really happy with the situation.

If they only hear Mr. Everson's side of the story, I can well imagine.

This, Patrick, is where your credibility among the N'Ko community has fallen to zero. They have answered your questions, though you pretend that they have not. They have authorized me to answer you questions, though you pretend that they have not. I have answered your questions, over and over and over again, though you pretend that I have not, or that my arguments can be dismissed by your saying that I have not responded to your questions. Evertype

[Guaka]Later I was bold and wrote down something in the article, either collecting information from Google searches or from a paper (Which I don't have near me right now). Guaka 12:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could you still explain what is meant above? What do you mean by "The Technical Unicode committees was blocked by Canada,"? Which committees?

That text has been edited. It no longer states that, as it was inaccurate. Evertype

I just tried to write down the little I knew in the hope that someone would make it more accurate. That's how I often add things to Wikipedia, and I'm very glad once again to see this method proves to be very effective. Guaka

[Guaka] "declaring that the Kamasere accents"

No, some.

[Guaka] ""Old Ja", "Cha" and "Ra" should be removed

Careful with the syntax here « "old ja", "old cha" and "old ra" should be removed.»

Correct, that is the current Canadian position. It is not the position of the N'Ko user community, which is united in preferring the current technical solution for encoding

[Guaka] "a decision considered political by the other WG members."

Where did you get this ? Did you speak to the German, French or Moroccan WG or only Everson (Ireland)? In what way political? What would Canada gain politically ?

Patrick, I did not write the text or speak to Guaka before he wrote this text. It is, however inaccurate, and I have lately edited it for accuracy. Evertype

I think these were words used by the people in Bamako I met. They find the issue political in the sense that people from Canada can block something that will nearly only be used by and be useful to West-African people. They wonder how this could be possible. Guaka

What is very political is the way Mr. Everson has enflammed this discussion rather than answering the technical questions Canada posed: where is Mr Everson's, sorry Ireland, document sent to the WG2 answering the Canadian questions?

We have discussed this many, many, many times, Patrick. We (WG2) discussed the Canadian technical proposals in China, and we rejected them. We have discussed it on Unicode-Afrique. We have discussed it over and over again, and you do nothing but claim that "we have not answered your questions" (which we have). You dismissed (unreasonably) Mamady Doumbouya's document which was written for the Xiamen meeting, you've dismissed all of the arguments and discussion I have given on a variety of fora -- now, what I am I to understand, that you are here again asking me to write it all down in a WG2 document? And I want you to understand something here. The N'Ko proposal is not "Mr Everson's". It is a joint paper written by professors of N'Ko together with me. Whenever I have given responses to you it has been with their enthusiastic approval and agreement with what I have said. Evertype

Please remove these comments (which seem to please Mr. Everson) and check actual sources and technical discussions: N'ko comments prior to Xiamen WG2 meeting and disposition of comments, note the questions asked.

It is disingenuous to say that we have not answered your questions. We have. You just don't like our answers. We recognize that there is often more than one technical solution to an encoding. We have considered your solutions. We rejected them as inadequate to our requirements. It is a pity that you have not been able to accept that rejection gracefully. Evertype 17:56, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Anybody is welcome to improve Wikipedia articles, though simple removal of text is often not appreciated by the Wikipedia community. In this case I suggest you add the reasons for removing the Kamasere accents and the old characters and Tte reasons the N'Ko community wants to keep them. Guaka 13:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to stipulate the fact that it's very likely that I have seen Evertype at the Unesco multingualism conference in Bamako, but that I have never spoken to him.
At the conference I was struck by the energy the N'Ko supporters were talking about the Unicode issue that I thought something about this fact ought to be mentioned in the Wikipedia article. This had nothing to do with Evertype until he improved this article. Guaka 13:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Encoding controversy

The ballotting period is over (for technical changes) and the "controversy" is over too, since the Canadian objections were overruled and their suggestions were not accepted. Should the text be revised now accordingly? Evertype 20:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think so, but it would be best to cite a source. I don't know how you feel about citing yourself :). — mark ✎ 20:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The controversy is not dead, I'm just learning of it! Controversies may start well after something has been approved by a few interested parties in a room. People still complain about other decisions made by a standards body well after its standardization. The Canadian objections about the Old Variants are linguistically and typographiccaly valid. Indeed they are even validated by a Russian specialist of the language and script! On the other hand, Mr Everson comparison between thse Old Forms and the long s seems very poor (it is therefore understandable Mr Everson wants to remove any criticism from the N'ko page and initiated this discussion). The decision to bypass the concerns were therefore apparently taken because of political considerations (knowning personally how some decisions are made in other ISO working groups, it is not at all impossible). If encoding must be discussed, it would be best to explain in an historical subsection how the encoding evolved and present both sides of the question. Otherwise, it is of very little interest to discuss the encoding except to be able to quote Mr. Everson (which I'm sure he agrees with). Remove links to Mr Everson or mention the alternatives, much more instructive.207.195.241.106 20:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, anonymous poster, the standardization process is an open one. Arguments for different interpretations of the data and different encodings were heard by WG2 and by the UTC. The solution chosen, which is preferred by the user community, was not the one proposedby the Canadians. The cumulative weight of a great many arguments for the users' preferred encoding won the day. Nit-picking at whether any single one of them was a perfect analogy failed the opponants of the encoding. N'Ko has been encoded. I am preparing fonts which follow that encoding, and will make them freely-available to the user community in due course. Do let's move on. Evertype 17:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Automated conversion

Once the Unicode people have sorted themselves out... is there anyone able and willing to create some kind of automated conversion system for Latin to N'Ko and vice versa so that the (currently very small) Wikipedias in the relevant languages will be accessible to the N'Ko users. I don't know if this is even possible (I suppose it depends on how the letters correspond) but the Chinese and I believe some other Wikipedias have managed conversion systems, so if anyone is looking for a programming project...! 86.136.88.200 15:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unwelcome changes: only one article needed

There is no reason N'Ko language and script should not be in the same article. I am going to revert this. -- Evertype·✆ 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You are making false claims. Thus your argument fails. thus I reverted the mix. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made no false claim. There is no justification for separating this into two stubs. Splitting articles like this often happens when the article is quite long. That is not the case here. "N'Ko" refers to both the script and the literary language written in it. There is no need to have a dismbiguation page. -- Evertype·✆ 10:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

N.B. You split this article without discussion. That split is controversial. I oppose it. If you wish to see the article split, you must propose that it be split and get other Wikipedians to consensus that it be split. -- Evertype·✆ 10:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course you made a false claim. And you are mixing topics now. Keep in mind that this is wikipedia and not your personal homepage. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your stating again that I have made a false claim does not make it so. Now you are engaged in re-naming N'Ko script to N'ko alphabet, and renaming N'Ko language to N'Ko language and script. This is ridiculous, and frankly I consider it vandalism. You are not doing any good here, you are just messing up the article. There should be ONE article, N'Ko. I am going to seek administrative help to sort this out. -- Evertype·✆ 12:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree to your first sentence. Only your false claims, make the false claims false claims. That I state it, only shall make it more obvious to the reader. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly a content dispute. Administrators do not rule on 'which presentation of content is correct'. We are supposed to have no more say in that than any other user, and admins who act differently are abusing their positions. We do get involved in disruptive activities like edit/move warring (which you are both guilty of) and incivility (which you are both guilty of). So... cut that out. Discuss the reasons you feel that these concepts should be combined in one article or split in two. Solicit outside opinions. Try to get consensus. Follow the dispute resolution process if you can't just sort it out peaceably. Note, 'run to get an admin to over-rule the other user', is no part of that process.

Tobias - The argument could be made that N'Ko the 'literary language' is so named because it is generally thought of as N'Ko the script in application... that is, the two concepts are so closely bound together that they may be considered one thing. Too, at this time there may not be enough variation for large articles on each to be constructed.

Evertype - The fact that N'Ko has been encoded both as a script and a language suggests that they are now viewed as separate concepts. Over time linguistic drift will inevitably serve to increase differences between N'Ko script/language used by Bambara speakers and that used by Mandinka speakers (just as the Latin alphabet 'literary scripts' of English speakers in England, America, and Australia diverge as the spoken forms have).

Which argument is 'better' / 'best supported by other factors'? Are there other/better arguments which would settle it one way or the other? Not my call. Work it out amongst yourselves or get other interested parties involved to come up with what seems most logical/useful to most people. --CBD 12:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not consider a language to be a script. There is a lot of content about the script, but only very few is said about the language. IMO, further lang info would be good. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You claim I am guilty of incivility. By which edit(s)? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

See your edits in this thread above. Saying, 'false claims' and 'Wikipedia is not your personal homepage' are unnecessarily hostile. You could have said something like, 'I do not agree with your position because of X, Y, and Z'. As it is, I'm not even sure what 'claims' you are referring to. Evertype's accusation of 'vandalism' was similarly improper. There is no reason to be so accusatory and negative. It just gets in the way of sorting out different ideas/opinions. --CBD 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmmh. Your suggestion is impractical. One person makes a false claim with only few keystrokes, and the person discovering it shall make lengthy sentencens. IMO one cannot be hostile enough towards false claims. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And his claim at WP:RM is borderline a lie. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

CBD, I consider what Mr Conradi is doing to be vandalism, so I called it that. He is not engaging with fellow editors. There needs to be only one article here. Having more than one is just confusing. I requested on this page that consensus of editors be obtained before splitting the article. That was not unreasonable. But it is ignored, and Mr Conradi simply goes right ahead, accusing me of lying into the bargain. That is uncivil as well, and it is hard not to be angry about it. -- Evertype·✆ 17:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutly fine for me that you call my actions vandalism if this is your opinion. Be aware that your opinion is not in line with WP:VANDAL. Your "he-is-not-engaging-claim" is one more of your false claims. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tobias, when you say "can't be hostile enough"... any hostility is "uncivil" by definition. Even if you are 'right' it is still uncivil and the wrong way to go about things. You can challenge / dispute anything you like, but there is no reason it has to be done in a hostile / uncivil manner.

Evertype, the Wikipedia definition of vandalism is in brief, 'intentional damage to the encyclopedia'. Tobias is arguing that 'script ISO 15924 Nkoo' and 'language ISO 639-2 nqo' should have separate articles even though both have the common name N'Ko. I can certainly see a debate over whether that is the best approach or not, but there seem no grounds for suggesting that it is so inconceivably bizarre as to be 'vandalism'. Also, Tobias split the articles on November 6th. You posted to WP:RM asking them to be merged back on November 7th. There had been no agreement to do so in the interim, so listing the change as "uncontroversial" seems overly optimistic. --CBD 12:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, CBD, if you don't think Mr Conradi's splitting and re-splitting is vandalism, then call it something else. I think it is damaging to the encycolopaedia to do what he is doing with the N'Ko script. It's impossible to work with this man. He isn't courteous enough even to try to resolve the dispute, or listen to other editors. He just charges away. New we have N'Ko and N'Ko alphabet and N'Ko language and the whole thing is a mess, and Mr Conradi doesn't care a damn that this is a problem. His behaviour, including his personal attacks on me, is exactly the sort of thing that makes people want to give up participating in the Wikipedia altogether. I would like a solution. I have tried to propose solutions. I have asked other editors to weigh in and help resolve this. My optimism is certainly waning. -- Evertype·✆ 15:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

why don't you help expanding the content related to the language? Since N'Ko is protected you could do so, like I did at N'Ko language. I can imagie that you know something more and you also mentioned you have sources. From the two sources I found I did add some statements about the language. But this is not very much yet. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Evertype, you see that it is annoying when Tobias 'charges away'... but don't seem to recognize that you have done the same. You've been right there reverting, calling for deletion, listing as an uncontested merge, et cetera. Surely you can see how this would be just as frustrating to him as his similar actions have been to you. Ditto the civility... you have been consistently rude and condescending, while complaining that his incivility makes it difficult to work together. The "solution" you are looking for should be obvious... if you recognize that incivility and edit warring are disruptive, don't do those things. The two of you have been escalating back and forth because neither of you seems to have made any attempt to 'rise above it'. When someone makes an edit you don't agree with or says something you consider incivil responding in kind (or worse) obviously isn't going to solve anything. The world would not end if a Wikipedia page was less than optimally designed for a few days. Stop always fighting and try to actually be respectful of other ideas / positions even if you disagree. --CBD 04:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

CBD, you may believe that I have been uncivil. I have tried to deal with an unpleasant situation both here and on ISO 15924-related pages which include being constantly accused of "suppression" and "false claims". It is not easy to be blythe in the face of that. Recently I merged Assamese script with Bengali script because they are the same, and there was indications on the Talk pages that it would not be an unwelcome merge. One editor disagreed and reverted. We are now discussing the matter on the Bengali talk page. I did not immediately revert because I was "in the right". Mr Conradi split N'Ko. I object (for good reasons) and reverted. Mr Conradi did not discuss. He reverted and continued to edit the two articles; I tried to revert that and explain and take it to the Talk page, and this was summarily ignored by Mr Conradi. Further attempts to address the question were further complicated by Mr Conradi moving N'Ko script to N'Ko alphabet. I was advised by another admin to file a VfD, and did so. Believe me what he has done on the language article is quite poor. In point of fact (as I have said elsewhere) the N'Ko literary dialect does not exist apart from the N'ko script; it is not written i other scripts. This can be explained in detail. But not while the article is split. It makes no sense. The "solution" I am looking for "is" obvious: N'Ko should deal with the script and the associated literary language. That is to say: (1) we had an article; (2) it was split without discussion; (3) this was controversial, (4) I am prepared to help re-merge this mess and clean up the article and add actual content, not just stuff found on the internet (as Mr Conradi has done at N'Ko language. My objection is not just to "an edit I don't agree with". It is a string of unilateral actions which are controversial and detrimental to the article. I have endeavoured to express this. Indeed I have tried to be reasonable. If I have failed, it is regrettable. How can we clean up the mess and get back to N'Ko? -- Evertype·✆ 10:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] N'Ko alphabet day

Mr Conradi, why did you remove this category? -- Evertype·✆ 12:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the entries in that category do not point to the alphabet. Rather they usually go to an article about the day, or if there is no such article they point to a page named for the day which then redirects to the alphabet. There is also one instance of going directly to the alphabet (in addition to a separate page for the day). Some sort of consistency of practice there would probably be a good idea. Logically, I'd think that all pages in an 'alphabet day' category should be... days. With the redirects if there is insufficient info on a particular celebration to justify a separate article. --CBD 12:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It had been set up with redirects to the script page. I don't see how it makes sense not to have the tag on the article which refers to the holiday, even if that is not a page dedicaed to the holiday. I will look into this and try to make sense of it. -- Evertype·✆ 17:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admins abusing their position: Admin User:Roozbeh

Administrators do not rule on 'which presentation of content is correct'. We are supposed to have no more say in that than any other user, and admins who act differently are abusing their positions.

Which to me seems Roozbeh did.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=N%27Ko

It is multiple abuse of rights and violation of WP rules. Deleting page, moving page, protecting page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Roozbeh was informed about it but sticks to it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] N'Ko article(s)

OK, I have an idea. For now, we can keep the two as one article. For what it's worth, I have seen articles on wikipedia which discuss both a WS and a language in one article (unfortunately, I cannot recall any at the moment). When the topics expand enough that they will not be a stub on their own, we can have "N'Ko" redirect to the larger article, with a dablink at the top which says

How's that? I'm willing to keep an eye on the page to see if it expands, but the page seems like it is at "start" status, even with the two topics together, so a merge is not very appropriate, in my opinion. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that 99% of the language articles are not merged with script articles. I would guess 99% of script articles are not merged with language articles. I would try to get these numbers to 100%. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to me to have the two articles split. Mr Conradi endeavours to force a taxonomy for all language and script articles on the Wikipedia. But he does NOT know anything about N'Ko. The literary dialect which now has the ISO 639 script code "nqo" is only ever written in N'Ko script. Indeed, because of the nature of the N'Ko script and the way it informs the literary dialect, it is impossible to see how the literary dialect could be written in the Latin or Arabic scripts, because it is intimately tied to the writing conventions of the N'Ko script. I have tried to explain this elsewhere, but instead of discussing with other editors and agreeing in consensus, Mr Conradi has ploughed on ahead, splitting and adding more material to the split articles, oblivious to the fact that he is doing is counter to the facts of the sociolinguistic situation for N'Ko. It makes no sense at all to have N'Ko alphabet separate from N'Ko language, and that split in fact makes it more difficult to write an article which correctly and usefully addresses the facts. A single article, N'Ko, is all that is needed here. I (who have worked with the N'Ko user community for several years) cannot edit Mr Conradi's split articles. I cannot improve them. They make no sense while split. The split is only wanted by Mr Conradi. Not by anyone else. He split the articles without consultation or consensus. There is sustained opposition to the split; he has not convinced me with his "justification" that "all language and script articles should be split". It makes sense for many of them to be split. It makes no sense for N'Ko to be split. N'Ko is a special case. We (the Wikipedia community interested in Writing Systems) should not want Mr Conradi to "get the numbers to 100%". He wishes to do this for its own sake, not because it makes sense to treat N'Ko this way. I ask you, Mr Conradi, can you possibly agree that in this case your desire for tidiness is incorrect and unhelpful, and that you should listen to someone with expertise in the script in question, and agree to allow us to revert to a single article N'Ko which can then be improved and expanded usefully? I ask this courteously, despite the fact that your willfulness and your apparent pleasure in doing whatever you please with the Wikipedia is extremely exasperating. Ikiroid, that is the best I can do. -- Evertype·✆ 09:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm somewhat late to the party, but I just want to register my support for one article here. I agree with Evertype that we should not force a taxonomy where it simply doesn't make sense. — mark ✎ 18:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've merged the articles. Could you look and see if it needs further clean-up? -- Evertype·✆

[edit] N'Ko article(s) II

At some point we may want to look at the reinstating of separate articles on the alphabet and on the Manding-based language-standardization/sociocultural movement. Like any alphabet, N'Ko can be used for other languages, but more importantly this apparently is happening not only in other Mande languages (just heard of work in Soninke) but also in at least one language of another family - the Pular of Guinea (I have sample pages of a book describing this use). This is not a proposal yet but a heads-up. If there is info on its practical use for still other languages (beyond experiments or demonstrations), that would be of interest. --A12n 18:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)