Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Ancient Greek 3

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Ancient Greek Wikipedia[edit]

See also the first request (rejected).
See also the second request (rejected).
See also the fourth request (open).
submitted verification final decision
This proposal has been rejected.
This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy based on the discussion on this page.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

this request for a language is not permissable under the policy. GerardM 13:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal summary

vartanskleros, Jake the Editor Man

  • 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: previous request (closed during reform), test page in incubator
  • External links:
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

Ancient Greek is not a dead language. It is the official language of the Greek Orthodox Church and of the Autonomous Monastic Republic of Mt. Athos (see section 3 of greek constitution article 125). If Latin and Old Church Slavonic are allowed on wikipedia for the same religious reasons, Ancient Greek must be allowed as well.

Arguments in favour[edit]

  • Strong support Not fair that Ancient Greek doesn't have a Wikipedia. A lot of people know this language and are willing to contribute. If this Wiki shouldn't be opened, why does the Anglo-Saxon and Gothic Wikipedias exist? Timpul 10:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - there are many willing contributors with interest in classical languages. But I am wary of saying "it's not fair, Latin's got one" because that is not really a valid reason. Jake the Editor Man 10:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ancient Greek is widely understood, and is in a unique position amongst ancient languages for the amount of scientific, technical and other academic work done in it, meaning that far more articles can be written in using attested words and phrases than in any ancient language (and many modern ones as well). Not so much a dead language as a retired one that is still able to do its job. See also the first and second requests for this wikipedia for other arguments. Obviously, the request will be denied as the language proposal policy stands right now, but many wikipedians are working on a community draft which would drop the "native speaker" requirement which led to the second request being denied. The first was turned away on a technicality. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --MIKHEIL 15:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against[edit]

Other discussion[edit]

Gothic and Anglo-Saxon got one, cause they were quick enough to get through before intelligent rules were set up. And its very hard to get rid of them, once they have made it into the Wikipedia family.

Actually this request is not very useful, cause the Language proposal policy asks for native speakers. The last request was rejected cause of that. Nothing has changed since then. There is no equality in wrongful treatment (I don't know the exact English term for this, but I'm sure, there is one). Efforts are made to reform the policy (Meta:Language proposal policy/Community draft), but until the policy has changed, new requests are futile.

By the way: Greek constitution has only 120 articles... --::Slomox:: >< 13:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but, we demand that present discussion remains opened, as is still opened Latina wikinews request, even when latin don't meet the requirement of native speakers, too. Crazymadlover
  • The assertion is that "Ancient Greek" is no dead language. The consequence is simple, have this assertion accepted by the maintainer of the ISO-639-3. When SIL agrees, the proposal will be deemed to be eligible, until this time it will not be eligible. GerardM 15:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greek is indeed not dead. But it has no native speakers and that's what the policy asks for. Any change to SIL wouldn't change that. --::Slomox:: >< 18:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial languages has lack of native speakers. The policy is absolutly contradictory. Crazymadlover

Esperanto has a lot of native speakers. I'm not sure about other constructed languages, though. But languages like Volapük, Lojban, Interlingua and Ido were introduced before the native speaker rules were set up. I'm not sure if there are native speakers for these 4 conlangs. — N-true 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek is part of Western cultural heritage, so it is as undoubtedly important as Latin which has it's own Latin Wikipedia.