Talk:Language Purification

StartIwanjka (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

On which aspects does the article need improvement?
Hello Skysmith,

We've been working hard on improving the article. And, as you can hopefully see, it has improved in a fast manner (due to the help of several people who think in the same direction). Can you help us with: - How to elimninate the 'neutrality of this article is disputed' tag: This tag was added at the first creation of the article. At that moment, it really was in a draft format. It has undergone several improvement cycles (including new concepts, and research on the defined concepts). - The same for the 'cleanup' tag. I don't think that we (the main contributors) have the mandate to remove the tag, or do we? - The 'tag' about: 'original research' and 'inverified' claims: This tag is partly applyable. But who should we fix this? Iwanjka already asked in the beginnig to all people to post there remarks on the material. Until now, no remarks. Can be read as 'we agree', but that is off course dangerous. We have contributed to several other articles as well, which has showed the 'correctness' (to our oppinion) of the stated material. See for example: Buddhism, secions about 'length' and 'spelling' at the discussion page. Or take a look at: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix_talk:Swadesh_list#semantic_field_theory (contains a contribution from our side as well).

Can you please provide us with advice?

Of course it a good idea when content is disputed, to first start at a 'conceptual' environment. But than: what is the dispute? Until so far, nobody has mentioned a 'disagree' or 'discuss' statement. Moving the article causes quite some work and delay, which we -looking at the relevance of the article, see the WikiMantics topic- think we cannot afford. We are looking forward to your reaction,

Regards Marie, 91.141.153.142 (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

_____________________
 * Unfortunately. unsuitable comments aside ("!!!Spread the word, but watch out not to kill the message!!!"), the page has too many references to what could or should be done with Wikipedia or Wiktionary than about the subject in general. This could be suitable in a project page or in the Meta but not in articlespace. Tone of the article is partly marketing spiel advocating certain project ("Business case calculation, benefit estimation (huge)"), has large number of neologisms (bableisme, wordconception, woconning) and discussion and references to someone's opinion (Talk pages are for that). That is not suitable in WP articlespace.
 * The article should be about the processes of language purification (I have it in my missing topics list, that's how I noticed the article thought I am not qualified to write about it), where the term originates, who is advocating it and what's done with it (no self-references to Wikipedia) and so on. With appropriate outside references.
 * If you want more comments, please contact me through my talk page - Skysmith (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Relevance...
Hello Sky and Marie,

I read the article about language purification. I agree with Sky that the article adresses some different topics, which should be separated. I find the article so relevant and actual, that I would regret it when it was removed. Note: the reason that I read this article, because I ready a discussion about the spelling (and meaning (also called semantics in the article) of the word 'Bhuddha' (see Bhuddism article in Wiki). It seems so obvious (spelling, or trying to unify semantics), but it is so important. I think, this is the reason why the authors added the 'business case section' (which I find astunishing, but it does seem to make sense). I hope it is possible to keep the article (and probably decompose it into different articles or and/or domains).

Regards from India, RajeshRajeshSri (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring will take place within 3 weeks
Sky (and Rajesh),

Thank you for your contributions. I agree with Sky (and Rajesh). We will have a meeting with editors (living at various places on the world) soon, and start decomposing the article. From a process perspective I will be the contact person Unfortunately I will be not available untill the 25th of September. I have added a remark in the article for people not the use the content 'as a fact'. Untill that moment we will not add links tho the content in other Wiki articles as well to avoid unnecessary 'pollution'. Hopefully, with this action and intention, you can leave the article on the Wiki untill 30 september: we will remoce or at least reduce it strongly at that moment (eg remove Wiki in general related topics).

You cancontact me at marielejeu@spirilogic.com. When I come back, I will try the communication feature with talk pages (I'm not familiar with that yet, and I don't have time right now to find out).

Avec Regards, Marie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marielejeu (talk • contribs) 18:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This article will be refactored in about 3 weeks
To all: The Wiki moderators (e.g. Sky Smith) have made clear that this article should be decomposed (and should be reviewed and be agreed upon by more people).

Please don't use article, nor its content in other articles untill that moment (off course it can be mentioned that there is discussion at hand about the mentioned material, but don't add pointers (links) to this wiki article, instead use pointers (links) towards www.spirilogic.com. Whe will list at that webpage where the final content will gets its place.

Note: the spirilogic organization has an ideal footprint: it, or the particpants don't make 'profit' and the published material, or their contributions. It is all like 'open source'.

Avec regards, Marie Marielejeu (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Replacing tags
I included the note that the article is a work in progress. - Skysmith (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)