Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Ancient Greek 4

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
main page Request for a new language edition: Wikipedia Ancient Greek 4
submitted verification final decision
Discuss the creation of this language project on this page. Votes will be ignored when judging the proposal. Please provide arguments or reasons and be prepared to defend them (see the Language proposal policy).

The language committee needs to verify the language is eligible to be approved.

  • Check that the project does not already exist (see list).
  • Obtain an ISO 639 code
  • Ensure the requested language is sufficiently unique that it could not exist on a more general wiki.
  • Ensure that there are a sufficient number of native editors of that language to merit an edition in that language.
  • The community needs to develop an active test project; it must remain active until approval (automated statistics, recent changes). It is generally considered active if the analysis lists at least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the previous few months.
  • The community needs to complete required MediaWiki interface translations in that language (about localization, translatewiki, check completion).
  • The community needs to discuss and complete the settings table below:
What Value Example / Explanation
Proposal
Language code grc (SILEthnologue) A valid ISO 639-1 or 639-3 language code, like "fr", "de", "nso", ...
Language name Ancient Greek Language name in English
Language name Ἀρχαία ἑλληνικά Language name in your language. This will appear in the language list on Special:Preferences, in the interwiki sidebar on other wikis, ...
Language Wikidata item Q35497 - item has currently the following values:
  • en label = Ancient Greek
  • native label (P1705) = Ἀρχαία ἑλληνική
  • instance/subclass (P31/P279) = language, Q5774287 / Hellenic languages
  • Wikimedia language code (P424) = grc
  • writing system (P282) = Greek alphabet, Greek diacritics
  • number of speakers (P1098) =


Item about the language at Wikidata. It would normally include the Wikimedia language code, name of the language, etc. Please complete at Wikidata if needed.
Community Lefcant (P), LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs, Omnipaedista, Ioshus, SPQRobin, Hieronymos, Glycon, Yannos,

vartanskleros, Jake the Editor Man, Ο Ελληνόαυστραλός βοηθός, Alexius Vuianovicius, Gts-tg, Memnone di Rodi, EggSalt, Andrew Dalby, Cuzkatzimhut, Ah3kal
You can optionally list your user name if you are an active contributor to the test wiki. Add "N" next to your name if you are a native speaker of this language.

Links Links to previous requests, or references to external websites or documents.
Settings
Project name Βικιπαιδεία "Wikipedia" in your language
Project namespace usually the same as the project name
Project talk namespace Διάλεξις "Wikipedia talk" (the discussion namespace of the project namespace)
Enable uploads no Default is "no". Preferably, files should be uploaded to Commons.
If you want, you can enable local file uploading, either by any user ("yes") or by administrators only ("admin").
Notes: (1) This setting can be changed afterwards. The setting can only be "yes" or "admin" at approval if the test creates an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) first. (2) Files on Commons can be used on all Wikis. (3) Uploading fair-use images is not allowed on Commons (more info). (4) Localisation to your language may be insufficient on Commons.
Optional settings
Project logo [[:
Wikipedia-logo-v2-grc.png
]]
135x135 PNG derivative from a decent SVG image (instructions)
Default project timezone Etc/GMT "Continent/City", e.g. "Europe/Brussels" or "America/Mexico City" (see list of valid timezones)
Additional namespaces For example for a Wikisource which would need "Page", "Page talk", "Index", "Index talk"
Additional settings Anything else that should be set
submit phabricator task (includes everything automatically, except additional namespaces/settings)

Arguments in favour[edit]

  • Strongly in favour as:
  1. In daily use: There is a living population that are natural speakers and have been making continuous use of the language (en:Koine Greek = bible Greek), namely the sum of Greek Orthodox churches, monasteries and of course the head authority of the Orthodox church worldwide in Ecumenical Patriarchate where the language is used for communication and admin purposes further to solely liturgical, as well as the autonomous state of en:Mount Athos, very similar to Latin use in the Vatican City. Further to the Christian church, the language is also used by the modern pagan followers of the old religion.
  2. Is useful: If people are paying in order to be taught Ancient Greek on a degree level in universities and educational institutions, and the language is also taught in secondary education in UK (Telegraph), Germany (Spiegel), and France (en:Secondary_education_in_France#Curriculum), then surely this showcases that there is both a demand as well as a need for offering a free encyclopedia in this language, in the spirit of Wikimedia's mission which is to provide the sum of human knowledge to every human being.
  3. Can describe modern concepts: Ancient Greek has continuously been used for creating words for new concepts (e.g. en:List of Greek and Latin roots in English and en:List_of_Latin_and_Greek_words_commonly_used_in_systematic_names) and it is the bedrock of wordsmithing for science and humanities along with Latin. If this didn't apply a great lot of modern words in most European languages would be very different from what they are today (Airplane anybody?). Furthermore there already is an available mapping of most core modern terms in one of the pages in the incubator wiki as demonstrated here, conveying the meaning and maintaining the linguistic accuracy of the language. Lastly, the Zolotas speeches are interesting too.
  4. Has modern uses:The existence of modern mass market books published in ancient Greek like here and here and here, a 6000+ lines poem and even having a more than 10 years old news website in Ancient Greek
  5. Classification:SIL, the official registration authority for ISO 639-3 has the grc language code assigned with the language having a status of being Active, as well as being unique enough to be Individual in scope and Historic in type not classified as ancient or extinct as per the respective classification definitions in the ISO
  6. Has closest thing to native speakers: Furthermore, independent pockets of people numbering up to 5,000 have been found that are speakers of a very close dialect of the language such as the example here and here and here.
  7. Has translated interface:(Update 01.03.2016 - the required MediaWiki interface translations have been fully completed!
  8. Already has a great number of articles:More than 2000 articles at the incubator project which shows that there is an active interest and potential.
  9. This should already exist: The previous rejected proposals were at Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ancient_Greek, Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ancient_Greek_2, and Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ancient_Greek_3. Especially when it comes to the 1st and 2nd proposal, where the grc wikipedia was practically there in being created, it was declined citing a change in policy and that the request was made before the new policy was put forward, however at a later time than grc first being declined, Old Church Slavonic was approved despite being in the exact same situation as grc. I am happy that Old Church Slavonic managed to be approved, but it is simply wrong to have had declined grc retroactively as illustrated by this event. To make things worst, the 2nd grc proposal was approved as eligible, and then it was retroactively turned down as well due to having been approved before the change in the language proposal policy.
A great lot of other things could be said about the cultural and educational importance and legacy of the language, the large volume of available material, the high number of people familiar with the language internationally and able to contribute, but at the end of the day if none of the above matters and the single most important argument for having the committee proceed to approval is that there are people that use this language day to day as native speakers, arguments for this are presented above. Gts-tg (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Everything said about SIL is irrelevant. The code "grc" has a status of Active, just like "akk" (Akkadian); that merely means it has not been retired. Individual means the code "grc" isn't considered to be a code for macrolanguage that includes sublanguages; it's conceivable that this might be changed if Medieval Greek is split out (which is a live proposal), and would be changed if (hypothetically) Doric and Koine Greek got separate codes. It is classified as "historic", which merely means that it went extinct in the last millennium; since ISO 639-2 defines "grc" as including Greek up to 1453, by definition it is historic and not ancient and not (recently) extinct.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
SIL has a language code for the language which is a major and practical requirement for having a wiki. Also, being classified as historical in scope it does most definitely not mean that it is extinct, these are the ancient (extinct long time ago) and extinct (recently extinct) status languages, it means that it has a distinct literature of its own. The classicifation texts are very clear in the SIL links, the claim to the opposite is only your interpretation. As for Akkadian being listed as Active, good for Akkadian and power to it, the only problem is that the language is listed as of ancient type and therefore considered extinct by ISO, not the case with grc. Gts-tg (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Middle and Old English are mentioned as example languages of historical. The classification is not perfectly clear, but if you check the divisions it's clear that all currently spoken languages are classified as living, and historical is reserved for dead languages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
This is not the explanation offered in the ISO classification details. Gts-tg (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/types.asp , which you linked to, says:
"A language is listed as living when there are people still living who learned it as a first language." Ancient Greek is not listed as living.
"A language is listed as historic when it is considered to be distinct from any modern languages that are descended from it; for instance, Old English and Middle English. Here, too, the criterion is that the language have a literature that is treated distinctly by the scholarly community." Old English and Middle English are both dead languages.
Note that Dutch is the ancestor of Afrikaans, and both of them are listed as living. Middle Dutch, on the other hand, is listed as historical.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
It feels a bit like going in circles. SIL has the grc language code assigned with the language having a status of being Active, as well as being unique enough to be Individual in scope and Historic in type not classified as ancient or extinct as per the respective classification definitions in the ISO Gts-tg (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
It could be going in circles because you're repeating yourself instead of replying to me. No one is contesting that grc is an active code; it is indeed the code to use for Ancient Greek. Nor does anyone contest that SIL considers it a language (which is what individual means here). It is not classified as living; it is classified as historic, ancient or extinct, all of which mean that the language is not in current use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, not classified as ancient or extinct as per the respective classification definitions in the ISO. How does this not answer your question? The rest is something that is your interpretation. SIL does not have the language listed as extinct. You made your point that this is not how you see it. I made my point based on what SIL has written down. We agree to disagree, and that's that I guess. Gts-tg (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
That the relevant categories are ancient' and extinct is your interpretation. As I pointed out, the category historic is a subset of the set of dead languages, unlike the category living.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • There are so many people who want to use their knowledge of Ancient Greek for something beneficial and useful to comunity, and this is one of the best ways. Besides Latin, Ancient Greek was the language of the educated european elite and it has been the language of many poets, philosophers, writers historians and scientists. This calls for the foundation of Wikipedia in this language, which would develop fatser than some of the existing Wikipedias in living languages, which have a negligible amount of native speakers and are stagnating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexius Vuianovicius (talk)
  • Ancient Greek is a living language, as it is taught at several universities all around the world and spoken at Orthodox Churches. I am confident that the logic of the Language proposal policy is to make sure that there will be enough users to support the new wiki. I am sure that nobody will doubt that there will be a lot of users of ancient greek from all over the world to support it. --FocalPoint (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
    Living language is a language which has native speakers... --Ochilov (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
    Like... Sanskrit or old English ? नृत्यहस्त Hrunting Schaeffe, καὶ τὸ σιγᾶν πολλάκις ἐστὶ σοφώτατον ἀνθρώπῳ νοῆσαι. ...Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    Hebrew language did not have any native speakers for a long number of centuries, yet it was kept alive by the Judaist church.Gts-tg (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly in favour: The proposal for a new language edition of Wikipedia has to have a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community and audience: Ancient Greek native speakers don't exist, but the scholars, students, writers, journalists, Romeyka native speakers and the members of Greek Orthodox Church and Greek Catholic Church form a viable community and audience for this Wikipedia, as demonstrated by the thousands of articles created by the incubator project. They can use Ancient Greek to share their knowledge as every language community does.--Memnone di Rodi (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly in favour:It is the language of Orthodox church in Greek and it is still used nowadays. Just like the one argument above, there are many scholars who fully understand it. In addition, there are Ancient Greek books available in bookstore, so it is used in publication. Since it is used in publication, there is no way it can not be a means of acquiring knowledge. Since it is a means of aquiring knowledge, an Ancient greek Wikipedia is reasonable. ----損齋 (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • In favour: there is an active community of speakers and writers (as a part of this, it is the language of communication of the Greek Orthodox Church). Recent work at the incubator Ancient Greek wiki demonstrates that there will be sufficient users to keep the wiki active. By linking with the big collection of Ancient Greek texts at wikisource, and other similar resources, this new wiki will fill a communication gap. We need it Andrew Dalby (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly in favour: There is an active community of speakers/users/learners of the language, and similar creative efforts of contemporary discussions in it are already scattered on the web, perhaps not to the awareness of detractors. Nevertheless, Google searches, time and again, net the incubator sites entries on the top of their list, and full integration into WP would streamline and focus the public's strong interest in the language and details about it. it is a window to the world, not just the ancient or liturgical world, but a part of our world that can actually be understood. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I find that a potential integration of links to incubator projects within Wikipedia (i.e. as in the lower left hand side where the other wikipedia links are present) is really an excellent idea that would foster extra participation in the incubator wikis and an extra incentive for existing incubator editors to be writing more articles, under the right setup (e.g. not as a full integration but have it as a user option only to opt in, and have the incubator wikilinks clearly display as such and be separate from the standard links to other wikipedias). Don't want to expand too much on it here, but I'll have a look on how this could be pursued/where to forward the idea. Gts-tg (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • In favor: Although I am not one of them, there is an active community of speakers and a lot of scholars that would benefit from having an Ancient Greek Wikipedia. It is used by theologians and historians alike. It is the language of Orthodox Christianity. And it is the predecessor of many modern languages and words we know today. It has earned a Wiki by right of being all-pervasive in the ancient/classical world. It's value to history can not be understated. PsychoticSpartan123 (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weakly in favour It won't attract many editors or readers, but can be a useful tool for those learning the language. I'm slightly dubious that "ancient Greek" is the language of the Orthodox church. Do you have to decide which of several flavours you are using? See this recent rant (over-?)stressing the differerences. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Johnbod en:Koine Greek is a version of ancient Greek, and it is what the church is using for comms, admin and liturgical purposes (you can have a look at the patriarchate link at the top of the in favour arguments to verify). Also as per the example of Latin Wikipedia, it shows that classical languages can be very successful in terms of editor participation and content creation. Gts-tg (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget New Testament is written in Koiné Greek.--Memnone di Rodi (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
If the proposal is for a Koine Greek Wiki it should sday so. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The case is made based on that Koine Greek is language in use (Church) and a primary dialect that will be used. However the ISO code grc, designates all ancient Greek in general (except for Mycenean), so other dialects should not be excluded and it will be up to the community to decide on forming a policy (e.g. similar to policies in en wiki about use of US vs UK English in articles). Gts-tg (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly in favor I am an admin at Latin Vicipaedia and also use the versions in Sanskrit and Old English; I teach Ancient Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit and regularly send students to Vicipaedia. I'd like to do the same with Greek. Many of the most important texts in Western culture come from Ancient Greek (from the Iliad to tragedy to Plato's Republic to the New Testament -- and more). Greek and Latin have been at the forefront of Digital Humanities work for over 20 years: surely this digital tool, too, should exist in both of those languages. A. Mahoney (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • In favor. Fundamental texts of modern civilization are Greek, and great part of words of english, spanish and other vocabularies are ancient Greek. The Ancient Greek WP can offer articles about words commonly used in many languages, explained in the original language and not as they were (miss)interpreted in Latin and in English via Latin.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • In favor. Koine Greek is in use, in the same fashion as is Latin and more than Old Church Slavonic. There are instances of modern literature translated in this language. Harry Potter (link given above) and Asterix four issues. There will be problems in modern terminology, but this is a common problem even in modern languages like modern greek, as terminology evolves in english more rapidly than any other language can catch up and integrate in its vocabulary. The problem with Koine vs. Attic or any other can be solved within the community, and is not in my opinion something that should matter the final decision. More over, the language is heared every Sunday in Greek-Orthodox churches, as the full text of the mass is in Koine Greek. So it may be a "dead" language, as far as native speakers are concearned, but it is living in many other ways.—Ah3kal (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah3kal with regards to modern terminology, an effort has been made in one of the grc incubator pages to provide a good level of mapping/walkthrough. Gts-tg (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly in favor Wenn man von Altgriechisch redet, ist ja bei weitem nicht nur die klassische Antike gemeint. Sondern ebenso die Koine - sie füllt ja einen noch viel größeren Raum aus als das klassische Griechisch - und andere Entwicklungen danach. Ja, auch eine konservative Katharevousa ist wohl mit recht als altgriechisch zu bezeichnen. Und - Katharevousa ist eine "erlaubte" Sprachform des Neugriechischen. Nun ist es aber so, daß in der neugriechischen Wikipedia ALLES, was auch nur ansatzweise sprachlich altertümlich wirkt, nicht akzeptiert wird. Somit sind heutige Muttersprachler der Katharevousa in der wundervollen Wikipediawelt heimatlos! Darüberhinaus ist es absurd zu behaupten, es gäbe keinen Bedarf. Viele Menschen wissen gar nicht, daß es einen Altgriechisch-Inkubator gibt. Wäre er in der Sprachenleiste links der Artikel als normale Wikipedia sichtbar, würden auch automatisch viel mehr Menschen zu seinem Wachsen beitragen. (Se oni parolas pri malnovgreka lingvo, oni ne limigu ĝin je la klasika helena. Temas ankaŭ pri la kojnea - tia ĉi lingvo plenigas ja literature kaj tempe multan pli grandan spacon inter la grekaĵoj ol la t.n. "klasika" lingvoŝtupo. Eĉ konservativa versio de la katarevusa rajte taksiĝu versio malnovgreka. Problemo granda estas nun ke ĉe la novgreka Vikipedio ĈIO, kio iel ajn flaretas gramatike la malnovgrekan tuj reĵetatas. Tamen estas ankaŭ la katarevusa laŭleĝa versio de la greka lingvo, ĉu ne? Sed nenie ĉevikipedie la tiel parolantaj, vivantaj homoj povas senti sin hejme. Pluse absurdege estas diri ke bezono pri malnovgreklingva Vikipedio simple ne estus. Multaj homoj eĉ ne scias ke jam ekzistas kovejo vikipedia por la malnovgreka. Se maldekstre ĉe la listo kun la diverslingvaj artikoloversioj ĝi aperus, aŭtomate multaj pli kontribuus al ties ekfloron.) [Translation of the German version in Esperanto] - Giorno2 (talk)
    An impeccably wise point you made above:"Were the incubator project visible in the language-bar to the left of the items visible in mainspace Wikipedia, many more people would automatically contribute to its growth." It jibes with my point above that Google and search engines already bypass WPs exclusion of the incubator articles and list relevant searches at their very top (experiment to appreciate the veracity of the point!). So WP is not doing itself or the reader a service sending people to Google instead of integrating the project into mainspace--it just discriminates in favor of hackers. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
    Ich möchte noch einen Aspekt hinzufügen: Ähnlich wie Latein oder Esperanto ist auch Altgriechisch (war immerhin schon einmal Weltsprache!) übernational bzw. international, was einen besonderen zusätzlichen Reiz bei der Schaffung einer Altgriechischwikipedia ausmachen würde. Altgriechisch gehört eben der ganzen Welt und so würde sich auch bald eine bunte Schar von Artikelverfassern von überall her finden. Ich muß auch widersprechen, daß in solchen internationalen Wikipedias nur Informationen zu finden seien, die es "eh schon in der muttersprachlichen Wikipedia" gibt. Bei der Esperanto-Wikipedia etwa gibt es viel Information, die ausschließlich dort zu finden ist. (Translation in Esperanto: Lasu min ankoraŭ aldoni alian argumenton: simile al la lingvoj latina aŭ Esperanto ankaŭ la malnovgreka - jes ja ĝi iam jam estis monda lingvo! - estas internacia kaj supranacia idiomo. Tio estus pluse alloge por elkobejigo de la malnovgrekaĵoj. Apartenas la malnovgreka al la tuta mondo, kaj certe baldaŭ troviĝus aro bunta da artikolverkantoj de ĉie ajn. Mi ankaŭ devas kontraŭdiri alian argumentaĉon ke en tiaj internaciaj vikipedioj estus nur informoj kiuj jam ekzistas en la Vikipedio en la respektiva gepatra lingvo. Ekzemple ĉe la Esperanto-vikipedio ja estas amaso da informoj kiuj ekskluzive tie troviĝas!) Giorno2 (talk)
  • In favour as work at the incubator proves that the Ancient Greek wikipedia will have sufficient users to keep it active. Additionally, the amount of sources on a number of different topics is more than adequate for this wikipedia to flourish. Heracletus (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support: as a regular editor in it.wikisource I would greatly appreciate a collaborative Encyclopaedia in Ancient Greek, but I am concerned about the maintenance of its user interface (Mediawiki is not easily translatable in Ancient Greek) and the continuity of an active community to preserve such a treasure form vandalism. - εΔω 08:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
the required MediaWiki interface translations have been fully completed :-)--Memnone di Rodi (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Okay, why not? --Ochilov (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." It goes without saying that to "freely share in the sum of all knowledge" includes being able to do so in the great classical languages: Ancient Greek is one of the foundational languages of Western civilization, and a language like that can never truly die. It lives on and continues to take creative forms in original writing around the world and in the Greek Orthodox Church (as does Latin in the Latin Church). For those of us who supported this project from its beginning, it is about time! Many thanks to those who contributed to the incubator project for years, and proved that it is feasible: "Your work shall be rewarded." Dovi (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly in favour I used to be a frequent editor of the incubator project but gradually lost interest because it didn't look like it was going to end up amounting to a Wikipedia. Now though, we have the opportunity once more to encourage classics students across the globe to take part in writing Ancient Greek in a modern context. Greek composition is a stressed component of many classics courses, and so writing articles would prove a great outlet for all who possess this skill. Similar proposals have been struck down many times despite active public support and interest; I dearly hope that this one will make it further. --Poimenlaon (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • In favour ""Encyclopedia" is a Greek word. Wikipedia is a Greek word for half. As much as Latin and perhaps more, Greek is present in all current languages ​​in Europe (Greek word), America, Australia ... It is essential for linguistic, medicine, biology (Greek word), cosmology (Greek word), physics (Greek word), philosophy (Greek word), mathematics (Greek word), etc ... It is a living language, not only for its current use in the Greek Orthodox worship: modern Greek language is derived directly from ancient Greek, it is its natural continuation. Someone who has learned the ancient Greek understands to a significant extent modern Greek written. Greek held place of universal language until recently. Greek roots today serve as an inexhaustible basis for making new words helpfull for our contemporary world, or words coming from the technics (Greek word) or the technology (Greek word): telephone... psychology ... psychiatry ... democracy ... telescope ... cinema... astronaute... politics... économy... the list is long and inexhaustible and it should be added to another one where Greek roots are combined with Latin roots: automobile ... television ... Ancient Greek is taught today in colleges and high schools in France, in Greece and many other countries. It is important and rewarding to have an edition of Wikipedia in ancient Greek! --Gnomon historicus (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • In favour. It seems to me that, as far as the existence or not of native speakers is concerned, ancient Greek is in a position akin to Latin. Even though neither language has native speakers in the strict sense of the term, they are both still in use for liturgical and administrative purposes by Christian Churches. I fail to see how the language committee could maintain consistency in rejecting this request while there is a Wikipedia in Latin. The request should be accepted, and, as noted above, the creation of an ancient Greek wikisource should follow. Ασμοδαίος (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
If you want an Ancient Greek Wikisource, create one. The proposal passed six years ago, and nobody has gotten around to adding Ancient Greek texts to the Multilingual Wikisource to provide a base for the Ancient Greek Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Pour fort ! Je ne comprends pas grand-chose à votre charabia en anglais moderne, mais apparemment tout le monde est pour et la proposition est rejetée à chaque fois (rejetée trois fois) ! Comment est-ce possible ? Je pense qu'une Wikipédia en grec ancien a un très fort potentiel, car nombreux sont les locuteurs dans le monde. Je note que Wikipédia en latin existe et compte plus de cent mille articles. Je suppose que Wikipédia en grec ancien suivra le même chemin. S'il y a bien une Wikipédia qui manque au panel actuel, c'est celle-là ! 78.250.23.52 00:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Ce que je ne comprends pas vraiment c’est qu’il y a plein de Wikipédia écrites dans des langues non vivantes, puisque ça semble être le point bloquant pour la Wikipédia en grec : on trouve bien sûr les exemples fameux des Wikipédia en latin (peut-être une langue morte, mais une Wikipédia très vivante !), en sanskrit, en vieil anglais… mais aussi toutes les Wikipédia en langues construites : esperanto, interlingua, etc. ! Je ne comprends vraiment pas pourquoi une Wikipédia en grec ancien ne fonctionnerait pas, alors qu’il y a des centaines de milliers de locuteurs dans le monde, et que c’est une langue largement enseignée, et que ceux qui l’étudient auront naturellement envie, peut-être pas d’y participer parce qu’ils n’auront peut-être pas le niveau pour écrire en grec ancien, mais ils auront naturellement envie d’essayer de lire et comprendre les articles ! Il y aura certainement suffisamment de contributeurs, et encore plus certainement beaucoup de lecteurs ! 78.250.198.78 08:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In favor if there is an Old English Version, it's should be normal to have this one. And Ancient greek is a common second language teach in France (at least). (sorry for my bad english) -- GrandCelinien (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • In favor obviously no "native speakers", but a widely taught language especially in Germany and Greece, I do not seriously doubt a community is impossible in this language. Kumʞum quoi ? 07:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: It should be great to have an Ancient Greek Wikipedia. Ancient Greek was the language of the first playwrights, of many philosophers, historians, mathematicians, and so on. It is a fine idea, and I strongly hope it will exist. Best regards, Kertraon (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly in favor. Given the language is still regularly taught throughout Europe, the encyclopedia could certainly serve as an educational device (as a collection of contemporary speeches, more easily to grasp for a learning purpose). Alexander Doria (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • In favour, Ancient Greek is taught in school in many countries like France, Switzerland, and probably other French-speaking countries. I'm sure a Wikipedia in Ancient Greek will be very useful for pupils/students. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly in favor. There are a Latin wikipedia, a Sanskrit wikipedia, an Old English wikipedia; why not an Ancient Greek wikipedia? Patroklis (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • In favor I think ancient Greek deserves to be here, this is fundemental to all encyclopedias.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I think Wikimedia Foundation could make an exception for this language, very important for European culture. Ancient Greek speakers haven't managed to create Wikipedia, at that time when Wikipedias in dead languages (Old English, Gotic e. g.) have been created. --Danvintius Bookix (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly in favor. Greek language is not just the today's Demotic dialect nor the Katharevousa (~1982) and so on, but as Georgios Hatzidakis (one of the top linguists of the 19th century, also called «wise» by the philologist’s community) pointed out in the L&S lexicon’s intro “short history of the Greek language” (first Gr. ed. by Ἀνέστης Κωνσταντινίδης 1901 p. β´) «Usually they divide the Greek language into two, ancient and modern, in fact the last years into even three, including the medieval Greek, some others assert that modern (means Katharevousa) is the “daughter” of the ancient, some that is the same, the ancient. But even a not smart man can easily realize that nothing can succeed by this disunity… because even from the Homeric Greek we notice great changes and distortions… because of these it has to be emphasized that every division into ancient and modern or ancient medieval and modern it can only roughly be true. Because every phase of the language, Homeric, Attic, Koine or medieval, old byzantine and newest and every other spoken dialect after those, all together form the Greek language, like the age of a living man from the time of birth until today is his life».
  • Prototype: «Συνήθως διαιροῦσι τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν γλῶσσαν εἰς ἀρχαίαν καὶ νεωτέραν, ἀπό τινων δ’ ἐτῶν φέρεται κεχωρισμένη καὶ ἡ μεσαιωνικὴ Ἑλληνική˙ καὶ ἄλλοι μὲν ἀποφαίνονται ὅτι ἡ νεωτέρα Ἑλληνικὴ εἶναι θυγάτηρ τῆς ἀρχαίας, ἄλλοι δὲ ὅτι αὐτὴ αὕτη ἡ ἀρχαία. Ἀλλὰ πᾶς τις καὶ μικρὸν σκεπτόμενος νοεῖ εὐκόλως ὅτι οὔτε διὰ τῆς διαιρέσεως ταύτης οὔτε διὰ τῶν μεταφορικῶν τούτων ὀνομασιῶν ἐντυγχάνεταί τι λόγου ἄξιον. Διότι αἱ ἀλλοιώσεις τῆς γλώσσης καὶ ἡ τροπὴ ἀυτῆς ἀπὸ φάσεως ἀρχαιοτέρας εἰς φάσιν νεωτέραν δὲν τελεῖται, ὅπως αἱ πολιτικαὶ μεταβολαὶ καὶ αἱ μεταπτώσεις, ἐν ἑνί τινι χρόνῳ, ἀλλὰ κατὰ μικρὸν, ἐν σειρᾷ ἀδιακόπῳ ἐπὶ μήκιστον καὶ συνίστανται ἐν μυρίοις ἀπεσπασμένοις, ἐλαχίστοις καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀφανέσι παθήμασι. Ἀπ’ αὐτῶν τῶν Ὁμηρικῶν χρόνων ἄρχονται ἀναφαινόμεναι τροπαὶ καὶ ἀλλοιώσεις, δι’ ὧν ἡ γλῶσσα ἐλάμβανε τὸν νεώτερον τύπον (πρβλ. Οὐδ’ ἔνθα πεφυγμένος ἦεν, ἢ ἐθέλεις ὄφρ’ αὐτὸς ἔχῃς γέρας κ.τ.τ.), ἐξηκολούθησαν δ’ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν δόκιμον περίοδον καὶ ἐπέδωκαν ἔτι μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς μεταγενεστέροις καὶ πρώτοις Βυζαντικοῖς χρόνοις. Διὰ ταῦτα λεκτέον ὅτι πᾶσα διαίρεσις εἰς ἀρχαίαν καὶ νεωτέραν ἢ εἰς ἀρχαίαν, μέσην καὶ νεωτέραν κτλ., μόνον κατὰ προσέγγισιν δύναται ν’ ἀληθεύῃ, ὅτι δὲ πᾶσαι αἱ διὰ γραπτῶν μνημείων παραδεδομέναι ἡμῖν παλαιότεραι φύσεις αὐτῆς, Ὁμηρική, δόκιμος ἢ Ἀττική, Κοινὴ ἢ μεταγενεστέρα, ἀρχαιοτέρα καὶ νεωτέρα Βυζαντική, καὶ πᾶσα ἡ νεωτέρα, λαλουμένη καὶ γραφομένη, πᾶσαι αὗται ἀπαρτίζουσι τὴν ὅλην Ἑλληνικὴν γλῶσσαν, καθ’ ὃν τρόπον πᾶσαι αἱ ἡλικίαι ζῶντος ἔτι ἀνθρώπου ἀπὸ τῆς γεννήσεως αὐτοῦ μέχρι σήμερον ἀποτελοῦσι τὸν βίον αὐτοῦ.» (ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΣ ΕΠΙΘΕΩΡΗΣΙΣ ΤΗΣ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑΣ ΤΗΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗΣ ΓΛΩΣΣΗΣ, σ. β´-γ´).
All the above to prove as briefly as possible that Classical Greek (the four main dialects) is not a dead language, is just an old state of the language, before the -proven- simplification that occurs, just like in any other language.
If Wikipedia won’t espouse the Classical Greek (that is the Attic Greek) it will only grow bigger the fictional chasm, therefore the adoption of Attic (mainly!) will fix the problem and it won’t give gigantic proportions.
Of course all the above with the prerequisite that they are -and will be- people here who can actually handle and “operate” such an advanced language with so tiny and delicate meanings, otherwise it reminds me what Plutarch was frequently saying paraphrasing what Socrates said in Plato’s Phaedon (67b2) «...καθαροῦ γὰρ οὐ θεμιτὸν ἅπτεσθαι μὴ καθαρῷ...». But no matter how well you know a language you will always, ALWAYS make a lot of mistakes and especially writing Greek, but this is the answer here, the contribution of several users. Referring to mistakes take a look at the work «ΚΡΙΤΙΚΑΙ ΚΑΙ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΙΚΑΙ ΠΑΡΑΤΗΡΗΣΕΙΣ ὑπὸ Κων. Στ. Κόντου, τυπογραφεῖον ἀδελφῶν Περρῆ τῷ 1985» in which he analyses mistakes... from the 1000times corrected Greek editions like Teubner, Bekker etc. Odoiporos (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly in favour Ancient Greek is no different from Latin from usage aspects. We have Latin and Old English Wikipedias. Ancient Greek is a language of science and it's pretty alive.

Aryaqk (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Strongly in favour. Classical Greek is still living, including on the Internet (see http://www.akwn.net or http://www.idyllion.eu/cgr/1-1_allgemeines.html), more than Old English for example. Many people are waiting for a Classical Greek Wikipedia.FabSylvanus (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    Vous ne voyez pas que tout ceci est absurde ? Sur cette page trente-trois avis sont favorables, trois sont opposés, mais le soi-disant comité des langues composé de je ne sais qui continue pour je ne sais quelle raison de refuser la création d'une Wikipédia en grec. D'ailleurs c'est écrit en introduction : le comité ne tient aucun compte des votes ! Traduction : vous avez un avis ? Gardez-le pour vous, le comité s'en fiche royalement ! Aucun argument ni même aucune décision n'est annoncé sur cette page. On ne sait même pas s'ils la lisent, ni qui ils sont ! Ça me fait penser à une nouvelle de Kafka : la Parabole de la Loi... Un type attend devant une porte gardée de pouvoir accéder à une pièce pour pouvoir défendre ses droits, sans même savoir ce qu'il y a derrière la porte ni pourquoi on le fait attendre... Il attend, il attend, devient vieux, puis meurt, sans jamais avoir vraiment su ce qu'il y avait derrière la porte ni comment y accéder... 78.250.45.52 10:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly in favour there are Old English and Latin Wikipedias. There can be an Ancient Greek wikipedia too. A lot of people know this language and a lot other are learning it. It's a language of science like Latin. Cosmopolitanist (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly in favour because ancient greek is the root of every scientific term and often we speak using ancient greek words in our daily language. We need it as a complement of our real culture! Let's go to start this wikipedia version!!!ἕτοιμοί ἐσμεν. θαρρεῖν. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.6.157.83 (talk)
  • Strongly in favor. User:gts-tg already covered many good points above. Given the success and activity of other Wikis in historical languages, there is no reason not to have a Wikipedia in one as important and relevant as Ancient Greek. We already have Sanskrit, Classical Chinese, Old Church Slavonic, Old English Gothic, and notably Latin. In light of this, not allowing Ancient Greek is an absurdity.
In regards to the policy:
  1. It is a proposed Wikipedia which does not exist yet.
  2. Ancient Greek has an ISO 639-3 and ISO 639-2 code of grc.
  3. It is sufficiently unique from Modern Greek.
  4. There is a viable community and audience, with many people around the world interested in and competent in the language. As for native speakers, the policy offers a modified requirement for artificial languages (which have few native speakers): it must have a reasonable degree of recognition. While Ancient Greek is not artificial, it would certainly pass any test of recognition and relevance. Given the success of other aforementioned Wikis which have few if any native speakers (notably Latin), Ancient Greek should be permitted.
  5. There is an active test project.
  6. The mediawiki interface is already localized as far as I'm aware.
And so, the conditions have essentially been met. The only point against is a lack of native speakers, which is heavily outweighed by Ancient Greek's notability & relevance, the success of the Latin and Esperanto Wikipedias (among others), the existence of Wikis for many other historical languages, and the exception clause for artificial languages, the principle of which should extend to Ancient Greek (as argued above).
Finally, an Ancient Greek Wikipedia would certainly facilitate the mission of gathering and providing knowledge to the world. Xcalibur (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly in favor. Doesn't really differ from Latin Wikipedia case (as already pointed above: religious usage, taught in schools, new literature published, etc.). Also, current content in Wp/grc incubator wiki proves, that it works. --Tomisti (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • For a general discussion and my personal arguments in favour, see my essay. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 09:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Arguments against[edit]

  • I am really a fan of Ancient Greece, but here I strongly Oppose. For a long time the only strong argument of the Ancient Greek Wikipedians was that we already have Latin Wikipedia. But Latin is the official language of one country, Vatican. Nobody considers Ancient Greek as their native language, so the main aim of Wikimedia, giving free knowledge, is not applicable here. Nobody needs a free knowledge in Ancient Greek because nobody speaks it as a native or uses it as a door to the world, as Esperanto. --Ochilov (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean when you say "a door to the world"? IMHO, a door to the world is a language which allows people coming from different places and cultures to communicate, offering the unique viewpoint of that language. English can be a door to the world, too, but this privileges anglophone people; classical and artificial languages, like Latin and Esperanto, solve this problem. Ancient Greek can be a door to the world, because it meets the aforesaid requirements and because, as cited before by the supporters of the request, there are many people around the world interested to use Ancient Greek to communicate.--Memnone di Rodi (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Di Rodi, Count me as one who is interested in Ancient Greek.The problem is not about official language. it is about the community only. If there is a community, we have reasons to spread knowledge using the language it speaks. On the other hand, Vantican is not really a country where people natively speaks Latin, it is rather like an organization and community where Latin is spoken.----損齋 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
損齋, Vatic is not a country? LOL --Ochilov (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Ochilov Yes,It is a country, However, it has no real native speakers of Latin. The church is its real body and the church's member is from different background. My full sentence is: Vantican is not really a country where people natively speaks Latin. So it does not deny Vantican as a country but it specifies Vantican as a country where Latin is not really a native language.----損齋 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
There is, without a doubt, a (non insignificant) community that uses ancient greek as the door to their world. They usually focus on theological topics, but on some occasions it is used in daily life. My grandmother wrote letters with a Greek monk in ancient greek. Most of these people do not use Wikipedia, and most probable never will, thou. I'm not sure if this matters if there are at least some active contributors. AFAIK it is not clear what a "native" language constitutes. Wikipedia says it is relevant weather this language constitutes the sociolinguistic identity of the speaker. There are people for that is clearly the case. But AFAIK it is doubtful if this is the case for any of the contributors; but hard to tell where hobby, subculture and culture begin and end. --91.1.9.14 22:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Quoting your comment, "Wikipedia says it is relevant whether this language constitutes the sociolinguistic identity of the speaker." If Wikipedia says that, Wikipedia is not a reliable source! The Wikimedia Foundation really needs the answer to two quite different questions, whether using this language contributes to the sum of human knowledge, and whether there is a user community to keep the new wiki active. It seems pretty clear that the answer will be yes to both. Andrew Dalby (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The Latin of Vatican is medieval latin, not ancient. At least not as ancient as the Koine Greek. On the other hand, the Greek equivalent of Vatican is the Autonomous Region of Athos, where old Greek is used in official papers and service. The same applies to the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Church of Greece. Therefore, ancient Greek is still used in daily life and there are a couple of million Greeks who understand it quite well.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The primary purpose of a Wikipedia is to serve as an encyclopedia, to deliver knowledge to people. There are maybe 50 Wikipedias that serve as the primary Internet-using language of enough people to really grow large enough and see enough use. There's probably a couple dozen Wikipedias on the fringes, where there's some actual use, which probably includes Esperanto and maybe Latin. Outside that, the rules of being a living language with an ISO 639-3 code serve to form a bright line, with no disrespect to any living language or living language community. In practice, we have plenty of Wikipedias in languages whose speakers use the English or Spanish or Arabic or Russian or Chinese Wikipedias.
Latin is a frequent comparison, as another language with a Wikipedia outside the bright line. As Latin was grandfathered in, there's no reason to think that even if Ancient Greek could surpass Latin that it would get a Wikipedia. But both currently and historically, it had nowhere near the use of Latin. Latin was the dominant language for international communication, at least in the West, up until the 20th century. Everywhere I can find, the number of students taking Latin outweigh the number taking Ancient Greek, and however marginal it is as a current language of scholarship, there seems to be a few instances, more than you can find for Ancient Greek.
Wikipedia is not a wiki for people to practice their language skills. Feel free to check out Wikia or en:w:Comparison of wiki hosting services for that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The assertion that ancient Greek is some marginal forgotten language that noone uses is simply false, a lot of links were produced in the first argument in favour in order to demonstrate the obvious, but I see no replies to these arguments. As for Greek and Latin, the reason they are often paired up together is because they both had a profound effect in all of the later European languages and both had continuous use since antiquity in the context of scholars and religious authorities in Europe. But to really consider all the historically important languages, one would have to also count in Traditional Chinese, Sanskrit, and Arabic, all of which also have their own Wikipedias and they are doing just fine -and no, the editors there are not some clueless people practicing their language skills as you mentioned the case would be for the ancient Greek editors-. Ancient Greek not having a wiki really is one huge omission. Also, Wikimedia's main mission is to to provide the sum of human knowledge to every human being. It has been demonstrated that there is a plethora of universities teaching the ancient Greek language on a degree level, surely the universities curricula are a part of human knowledge, not to mention the secondary education classes in several countries. Gts-tg (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
It really does not make your case to start off your discussion with a strawman. I certainly acknowledge that Harry Potter has been translated into Ancient Greek; I have a copy on my shelf. The question is, is Ancient Greek a language that people actually need an encyclopedia in? Is there anyone out there who has really said I want to look up Obama, but I wish Wikipedia had a convenient language to do it in, like Ancient Greek?
Are you seriously comparing the most spoken and the fifth most spoken languages on the planet to Ancient Greek? If by Traditional Chinese you mean Classical Chinese, then I would contend that neither it nor Sanskrit are doing just fine. Let's look:
First, some hard numbers. List of Wikipedias says the Sanskrit Wikipedia is the 133rd largest Wikipedia with ten thousand articles. Classical Chinese is 141st, with four thousand articles.
en:w:Barack Obama. sa:w:बराक्_ओबामा is sad. It's barely a stub, and the right-hand side is barely translated. It implies that most of the detail about the US is unavailable; I suppose since Illinois is only maybe the 10,000 most important geographical feature in the world, it's reasonable they haven't gotten around to it, but doesn't that make you wonder why you'd look something up here instead of an encyclopedia that has gotten around to all the major political subdivisions? The Classical Chinese Wikipedia doesn't have an article for one of the most powerful and important people in the world.
sa:w:पुराणानि is, I think, the featured article on the front page of the Sanskrit Wikipedia. It doesn't look bad, though the blue link to red link ratio is not really promising. en:w:Puranas and hi:w:पुराण do still make me wonder who is going to this page. The Classical Chinese Wikipedia again does not have an article on the subject.
zh-classical:w:段祺瑞 is the featured article on the front page of the Classical Chinese Wikipedia. It seems a little sparse for a featured article, and again a high red link to blue link ratio. en:w:Duan Qirui and zh:w:段祺瑞 do make wonder, again, who is going to the Classical Chinese article instead of a better article in a language they understand just fine. The Sanskrit Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the subject.
So, no, I don't think they are doing just fine.
"Ancient Greek not having a wiki" is false; both a Wikisource and a Wikiquote have been approved. As I said, there are many places where you can put up an Ancient Greek wiki for free.
There are a plethora of universities teaching Ancient Greek. That's why an Ancient Greek Wikisource and Wikiquote have been approved, and is perfect justification for textbooks on Ancient Greek on the various Wikibook projects already in existence. But it does not mean that an Ancient Greek encyclopedia is helpful; it could be harmful if it blurs the line between what was actually used in Ancient Greek and words made up just for the encyclopedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I do not understand the strawman reference, but setting this aside I made no comparison between ancient Greek and English, not sure what gave you this impression but if you want to take the conversation there as per your critique of Traditional Chinese and Sanskrit Wikipedias comparing them against the English Wikipedia in order to determine how healthy these projects may be, I find this to be a flawed approach as:
a) en wiki is edited by practically anyone who understands English so it's natural to have overly long and detailed articles,
b) Sanskrit and Traditional Chinese do not have a worldwide audience but are doing just fine because they have active communities that work on the respective projects (and they're certainly a lot better off than the 50+ lang wikis that are struggling to get past 100 articles), the number of articles is only one of the many criterias to determine project health.
c) and probably the most important, articles in other languages -i.e. Sanskrit and Tradiotional Chinese- do not necessarily exist in en Wikipedia. They are just as important to have as they form part of the sum of human knowledge.
Why did you avoid making any reference to Latin though? As for the answer to your question, yes, there are people that are interested indeed to be reading or writing about everyday things in this language, even what it comes to be reading about Obama as per your example (as in the case of detailing meetings between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the US President for example). Again, examples for this have been listed in the first argument in favour above, where within the links provided there is also a ancient Greek news website running for more than 10 years describing current events. In short, just because you are not aware of something it does not mean that it does not exist or it is unimportant, that's why some hard links and hard evidence is needed which have been provided. Also, if someone wants to experience how the language was used in a historical context, then that's what projects like Wikisource and Wiktionary are for, Wikipedia is for making use of the language to describe/transfer knowledge without any imposed chronological restrictions, and the language in question is fully equipped to do as such. Gts-tg (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
You made a comparison between Ancient Greek and Traditional Chinese, which generally refers to language currently spoken in Taiwan, not Classical Chinese, and Chinese, not English, has the most native speakers in the world.
Yes, there's lots of Wikipedias that are struggling to get past 50+ articles. Their existence doesn't make Sanskrit and Classical Chinese any more viable, and for the most part they are within the bright line of native languages and irrelevant to this discussion. The number of articles is only one criteria, but you don't suggest a second one; what would make them look better? I compared their articles--a major article, and the current featured article of each WP--to local vernacular versions as well as English.
No, the Sanskrit and Classical Chinese Wikipedias don't have articles that don't exist in the English Wikipedia. I could probably be proven wrong, but look at the featured articles; despite being featured articles, they exist in the English Wikipedia, full articles, not stubs. The Sanskrit and Classical Chinese articles have a bunch of redlinks, unlike the English, Hindi or Chinese articles, indicating that the other languages cover the related subjects better.
Wikipedia is for transferring knowledge, and an Ancient Greek Wikipedia adds absolutely nothing to its ability to transfer knowledge.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Ancient Greek, Latin, Traditional Chinese, Sanskrit, Arabic, are the 5 languages that have had the greatest influence on all other languages. 4 of these have a Wikipedia, 1 does not. Let's fix this. Adding even more to that -the comparison-, Chinese, Greek and Sanskrit -as languages overall regardless of dialects- are the 3 oldest languages in continuous use since archaic times (> 1000 BC). But beyond this reference in reply to your query, I feel this thread is getting out of scope. I've made all the points that I feel make a strong case for the usefulness and notability of the language in question, feel free to comment as much as you want on these. Gts-tg (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance of any of that to the value of having an encyclopedia in the language. We should and do have places for recording old texts in the languages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: your argument seems decent in general BUT - and you haven't addressed this properly - surely it applies to Latin too? Let me tell you, there are no native speakers of Latin either. (If there are, they number less than 5 or 6 and I'm willing to bet most of these prefer whatever became their second language after dozens of years of using it, and even the 1 or 2 who remain will be hyper-competent in that second language.) There is no-one who thinks "if only Latin-language Wikipedia existed I could find out who this Obama is that everybody keeps talking about" - we all have native-language Wikipedias. Latin-language Wikipedia is a tool for language learning or practice, nothing more or less. Do not use your polemic somewhere it can actually do damage, like here - all we want is to be treated equally to the Latinists. I noticed you targeted Sanskrit and Chinese, too, and I suppose the implication is that they are not worthy of being Wikipedias either, for the same reason you stand opposed to AG. Why not try and convince people to get rid of the Latin-language Wikipedia? If you could do that, I think we could all rest in peace, secure in the knowledge that fair standards ("no Wikipedias for dead languages!") are actually being applied uniformly. But if you are not devoting yourself to campaigning against the Latin-language Wikipedia's existence, I don't see how or why you should take a stance against this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.153.77.196 (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2018
The decision has been made; Latin has a Wikipedia. Like many things in real life, once a decision to open a Wikipedia has been made, it is not to be reversed lightly. People working in an existing Wikipedia have some faith that their work will not disappear or that they will not forced to move to Wikia without good reason. That's part of the reason why the standards for starting a new Wikipedia are as high as they are, so we don't have to close an working Wikipedia or tolerate a Wikipedia that really shouldn't be there. Stare decisis applies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, there are a good few language versions where the main contributors are non-everyday speakers, such as with endangered languages. There is also the case point of Esperanto, which whilst has native speakers, the huge majority of speakers are second, third, fourth etc. speakers and as you've said, has alot of good use. The Esperanto & Latin Wikipedias are primarily language learning tools but to those who can speak said languages, they are also useful for reference, particularly in topic related to the subject matter. There are many articles on the Esperanto Wikipedia version which only exist due to their significance to the language, such as books and music, which would be deleted from other versions.Uamaol (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not understand what the purpose of such a project is. Yes, there are people who are fluent in Ancient Greek, but they are a tiny minority (academics, language enthousists, etc. But do they need such an encyclopedia?
The purpose of an encyclopedia is to give everybody access to knowledge. Since Ancient Greek is nobody's first language, there is nobody who would need or could profit from an Ancient Greek encyclopedia. What I have seen here looks to me more like an online game. Players show how well they can write a text in this language.
Another aspect of the game is to invent new Ancient Greek words. The words I see here are ridiculous: "Νεοικουμένη" for America, "Πυρίτοκον" for Oxygen, etc. There are already perfectly valid Greek terms for this: Ἀμερικἠ, Ὀξυγόνον, etc. I know, the purists among editors will say these are Katharevousa words and therefore not ancient Greek, but these would be the natural choice for anybody using Ancient Greek for legitimate purposes (such as on an academic diploma). And, who would use these words outside of this project? Is the Wikipedia community entitled to invent language (like Zamendorf did with Esperanto)? Yes, an ancient language can be revived, like Hebrew, but the revival of Hebrew was done by the whole community of zionists so that it was transformed into a living language, Ivrit. By the way the septuagint uses lots of Hebrew place names only transliterated without adding Greek endings.
To summarize, this project is useless unless it seen as a game. I fully endorse the policy of not starting Wikipedias in practically extinct languages. AndreasJS (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Point 2 alone (number of academic degrees offered in US alone) in the first argument in favour, clearly demonstrates that there are a lot of people that can benefit from as well as benefit such a encyclopedia. Users from the latin wikipedia have also strong expressed arguments in favour explaining that an ancient greek wikipedia is needed. It is also surprising, and a pity, that a el.wikisource editor sometimes dealing with ancient Greek texts is describing the potential for a wikipedia in this language in such dark colours, but perhaps he would not consider the same for any other wiki in a language he does not partly understand, e.g. like Sanskrit or traditional Chinese wikipedias. As for some texts in the incubator wiki, I need to remind that this is an incubator wiki, with no polishing and no real structure. Lastly, argument 5 from the first argument in favour shows that ancient Greek is not classified as an extinct language by the ISO authority. Gts-tg (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Je ne comprends pas l'argument qui explique qu'une Wikipédia en grec ancien ne serait pas utile parce que personne n'aurait le grec ancien pour langue maternelle. Premièrement je ne suis pas du tout sûr que personne n'ait pour langue maternelle le grec ancien. J'ai bien connu un ami dont la langue maternelle était le latin. À la maison ses parents lui parlaient en latin ! Deuxièmement, ma langue maternelle a beau être le français, cela ne signifie pas pour autant que je ne consulte que la Wikipédia en français ! Je consulte fréquemment les Wikipédia en d'autres langues, pour multiplier les points de vue ! Une Wikipédia en grec ancien me paraîtrait donc extrêmement profitable ! 78.250.23.52 00:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Language proposal policy demands that a project needs a substantial community of "living native speakers". Ancient Greek doesn't have native speakers; all the arguments to the contrary given above by the proponents are bogus. Even if you accept a fuzzy boundary between "classical" ancient Greek and modern descendants: what the Orthodox church community uses is not Ancient Greek but a variant of Katharevousa, syntactically modern Greek relexified with elements of ancient Greek. The proposed new project, in contrast, uses a self-designed mixture of classical and en:Koine usage (with idiosyncratic elements of archaic usage such as the obsolete letter "ϝ" arbitrarily strewn in); whatever we might call this form of Greek, it has little or nothing to do with what the orthodox community uses. In addition, the orthodox church cirles aren't native speakers of their form of Katharevousa either; every living speaker of Katharevousa today is, first and foremost, a speaker of (demotic) Modern Greek. The number of people worldwide for whom Ancient Greek, in whatever form, would be the natural preferred medium of seeking online information is zero or close to zero. This is a dead language, and the project would be destined to be yet another mere playground for language enthusiasts, a wiki made entirely as a hobby sandbox for its editors, not for any actual reader community. I thought our language policy had been formed explicitly with the idea of stopping the proliferation of dead-language projects like the "Old English" one? Fut.Perf. 08:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The language of the original text of the New Testament and the Septuagint translation of the Bible is the one being used by the Church, this is a fact. The language in these documents is Koine Greek, katharevousa was created in the 19th century as a dialect resembling the Koine but is not the same. Also, the Incubator wiki has no solid structure and policies set up, it is simply an incubator setup where interested editors contribute and test different things, among these using the digamma (ϝ), there is no point in critisizing the incubator wiki for having a mixture of classical, koine and byzantine koine greek, especially when fully grown wikis like en wikipedia has a mixture of US, UK, AU and other forms of English. Also, it has been demonstrated that there is a large number of people that are able to contribute, and large number of people that would benefit from having such an encyclopedia and would form an actual reader community. The language policy has the purpose of ensuring that a project is viable and is in line with Wikimedia's main mission, to provide the sum of human knowledge to every human being. It has been demonstrated that Ancient Greek is an especially important language that is part of the human knowledge, and as such it really is an important omission to not have it's own Wikipedia while all of the other historically important languages (Latin, Sanskrit, Classical Chinese) have a wikipedia and are successful in having their own community and generating content that is useful to readers. Gts-tg (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend you stop badgering every oppose vote with lengthy restatements of the same arguments you've used before. I for one have seen them above, and am not buying them. There may be a potential readership (of language enthusiasts), but there isn't a native language community as demanded by our policy, and the other classical-language wikis are just legacy items from before our language policy was clarified to (rightly) exclude such projects. And no, you are wrong about the orthodox church using Koine as a living language. Biblical Koine is used exclusively in the fixed body of their liturgical texts; whatever they produce now in their present-day church life, as e.g. on the website you linked to [1], is very definitely not Biblical Koine but exactly modern Katharevousa as formed in the 19th century. Fut.Perf. 09:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
At the top of the page it says Please provide arguments or reasons and be prepared to defend them, there is no reason to be aggressive against me about this nor claim that I am badgering people. You make the assertion that the dialect used in the patriarchate page is Katharevousa and not Koine, what is your definite certainty based on? Gts-tg (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Most obvious signs of Katharevousa are: the total absence of Ancient Greek modal particles (δὲ, μὲν etc.); frequent relative clauses with "ο οποιος"; completely modern word order in noun phrases with possessive or prepositional modifiers; modern idioms and loan translations from 19th-century French/English such as "λαμβάνω μέρος" (='prendre part', 'take part'), as indeed also found in the very first phrase, the title "Ἡ Αὐτοῦ Θειοτάτη Παναγιότης" (='His Holiness'). If you look at other texts on the same website, such as this announcement [2], you can add: the (inconsistent) use of subordinating "να" side by side with "όπως"; the (inconsistent) use of "θα"-futures (e.g. "θέλει πραγματοποιηθῆ", "θὰ μετάσχουν"); the (equally inconsistent) use of modern possessive clitics (e.g. "πρὸς πληροφορίαν καὶ ἐνημέρωσίν του") side by side with full "αυτοὺ", etc. Fut.Perf. 09:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't find this to be a satisfactory reply, the ancient Greek modal particles vary in use throughout time and as for the modern words or expressions, these stem from within the language itself, e.g. the same way that ἀεροπλάνον or ἀεροσκάφος would be used for airplane although airplanes only appeared in the start of the 20th century. It's not a wikipedia about historical use of Koine Greek, but rather a wikipedia that is using the language to describe any kind of concepts as it has been continuously used for this purpose along with Latin in science and humanities. Gts-tg (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, read up on what Katharevousa is, you'll find its typical features described. You wanted to know why those church texts are Katharevousa; I showed you how to verify the presence of those features in those texts. There are plenty more if you want to know. Fut.Perf. 09:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This isn't really an answer, just an iteration of your position in an assertive mode, again, how are the Church texts Katharevousa and not Koine?? Gts-tg (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Those are the fixed body of ancient liturgical and historical theological texts. I said nothing produced by the church today is Koiné. Fut.Perf. 10:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This is not what academia thinks http://www.ethnologue.com/language/grc . Use of Katharevousa instead of Koine seems to be based on your own interpretation. Gts-tg (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Dude, that very website says "no known L1 speakers", "extinct", "used as a religious language". Koiné is used exclusively in the fixed texts of the liturgy. If you want to know how "academia" sees the difference between ancient/Koiné Greek and the Katharevousa writings produced by the church today, just consult any language history of Greek (start with G. Horrocks, Greek: A history of the language and its speakers, or this [3] useful article by Peter Mackridge. Fut.Perf. 10:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, you are being assertive without actually saying anything but simply providing your own interpretation. The document in the link deals with Diglossia/Language question which is a completely different issue dealing between modern Demotic and Katharevousa Greek not use of language by the Church. As for the grc extinct status, consult the official ISO authority at http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=grc . Gts-tg (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Huh? That ISO 639-3 listing contains no information about "living" or "extinct" status whatsoever. What are you referring to, the "status: active" mark? That merely means the code is supposed to be in active use (i.e. not deprecated), not the language itself. (Check it out: even Sumerian is marked "active" in that field.) I notice you cited this as an argument in your initial proposal further up on this page; you'd better correct that, as it's quite seriously misleading. "Type: historical" means it has no native speakers, being a former stage of a language that's distinct from all its descendants that are still in use today. Moreover, the very definition of the entry ("to 1453") implies that any language actively produced today in living use isn't part of it. Fut.Perf. 12:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Of course it does. If you look up Historical definition you will see that it does not designate it either as extinct (=recently extinct) or ancient (=extinct a long time ago). The initial proposal is crystal clear in what it says with regards to the particular point and it is accompanied by links, no matter how you want to have it interpreted. Gts-tg (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The definition of historical, in context, excludes Living languages (that would be tagged Living) and explicitly lists "Old English and Middle English" as historical languages, both of which are extinct languages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. The difference between "historical" and "extinct/ancient", in that classification, is merely that "historical" languages have a single modern continuation under the same name (e.g. Old English -> Modern English; Ancient Greek -> Modern Greek), whereas "ancient" ones either went truly extinct (e.g. Sumerian) or split up into families (e.g. Latin). Lack of present-day speakers is common to all of these categories that aren't "living". The issue of preserved non-L1 uses (literary/ritual etc.) is completely outside the scope of that classification. Fut.Perf. 09:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Since nobody has debunked #8 of the arguments in the original proposal yet, here goes. Gts-tg said: "Has closest thing to native speakers: Furthermore, independent pockets of people numbering up to 5,000 have been found that are speakers of a very close dialect of the language such as the example here and here and here." – This is outrageously misleading. The dialect referred to in those reports is a form of modern Pontic Greek. The researcher quoted in the cam.ac.uk piece clearly describes it as a Modern Greek dialect, though with some archaic features; all the stuff about "they still speak Ancient Greek" is the product of sensationalist journalists, a canard similar to "in Belfast they still speak like Shakespeare". Here [4] is the actual project website of the linguist studying the dialect, with authentic speech samples. This is what a sample sentence sounds like: "Prin pisini fain, prin spudžisini so mandrin tši pao". The suggestion that a speaker of such a dialect would find an encyclopedia in Ancient Greek a natural and inherently accessible medium of information is preposterous. Fut.Perf. 09:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    No Future Perfect at Sunrise, the sensationalist journalism you are referring to comes from the Cambridge page, BBC news, and the Independent. Don't like it? Tough luck. The Greek dialect in question is being spoken in the Pontus region of Turkey, and is a version of Greek that maintains strong and unique archaic features and is the closest one out of all (Cypriot, Pontic itself, Griko, Tsakonic, Cappadocian, and others) to it. No matter how much energy you are going to exert against any chance of having or even considering the thought of having an ancient greek Wikipedia, promoting your interpretation for fact on the Church speaking Katharevousa (fyi the church has historically been against use of Katharevousa, you are confusing Byzantine/Ecclesiastecal Koine with Katharevousa, so as you'd say on the matter, dude read up on it), and insisting on a strongly bureaucratic consideration, the case has been made that the language is useful on many accounts and is in a position to be a successful project, the links and rationale are above for anyone to judge for themselves. Gts-tg (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    I just felt I had to jump in here: @Gts-tg:, while I agree with most of what you have said in this page as a whole, and most certainly think this Wikipedia may be of use or at least interest to me (as a student and hopeful future academic in Greek language), I have to defend Fut. Perf. in what he has said on these two specific issues. 1) The Greek Orthodox Church does not really speak Greek that is regarded in any serious academic circle as identical to or in any way classifiable as Biblical Greek / New Testament Greek / koine. It's a little like Latin in the Vatican - not many priests (and I say this as someone who knows!) speak decent Latin these days; there are exceptions whose professions are essentially given entirely to Latin, but they very much stand in contrast to the majority of those in the Vatican, who actually cannot speak Latin. To call Latin a living language because Egger, Gallagher and a tiny handful of others are well-versed in it would be absurd. (That is not to say that Latin is not a living language - just that this would be a terrible argument. And anyway - Latin has its Wikipedia!) Similarly, (I believe) very few in the Greek Orthodox Church even make a serious attempt to speak what we might call the 'religious katharevousa', and (I know) that those who do almost ubiquitously do not speak a dialect that is or could be treated as one and the same with the Greek of the Church Fathers, let alone the kind of Greek I am really hoping to see on an 'Ancient Greek Wikipedia' (which is several hundred years older and really noticeably different). And that you as administrator should tolerate 'Ancient Greek' without particles on the grounds that 'usage varies' - sure, but not really, not in good 'Ancient' Greek, and isn't that what we all really want? - disappoints me (though of course I understand we are taking what we can get at this point). Fut.Perf. made some efforts to describe the differences between katharevousa and koine; I would suggest that he was actually taking it pretty easy on you there - the difference is huge; I don't know the extent of your personal experience with Greek, especially across these time-periods, but I would second Fut.Perf. in recommending Horrocks' book as a first resource if your experience is limited. In any case, I am practically a full-time student of the Greek language, and have been for many years: let me just say that the languages are very different. They are very different, on every level, and to the point that the kind of Greek that even relatively puristic members of the Greek Orthodox Church would seem, I think, to Demosthenes, as alien certainly as the Middle English of Chaucer seems to us, perhaps more; and if I wake up tomorrow and find that the English-language Wikipedia has been rewritten into Chaucerian prose, I will not be happy to use this resource as a major port of call for information anymore, nor will I continue to call that language "English". TLDR, then: the members of the Greek Orthodox Church - even those speaking some of the most traditional/puristic/old-fashioned katharevousa - are much happier to look up resources in demotic Greek than in anything you could possibly call 'Ancient Greek'. There are exceptions: there is a large community of Biblical scholars and students who would be extremely interested in a koine Greek Wikipedia (and fine I'm sure with Attic), as they are very keen on living and communicative Greek usage for better analysis and exegesis of the Bible. Their reaction to an AG Wikipedia would be something like that of a Vivarium Novum student to the Latin Wikipedia. But, not to put too fine a point on it, we're talking about academics here (in the loose sense) - students and their teachers. They won't go home and speak that language to their kids (unless they've consciously and concertedly decided to make a project of it). For them, this is their work. Someone like Fut.Perf. may decide for himself whether he thinks it is worth writing up a Wikipedia to support that work or lifestyle of theirs, but it is a choice - they do not naturally end up in the position of speaking koine Greek - they decide on it and begin it as second language, usually quite late in life (by of course language-learning standards; but I would say none before the age of 13 or 14 or so). (Of course, if they speak that language to their kids, those kids would probably be candidates for exactly what you're talking about. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone like that and haven't heard of a single example. Given how few of the Biblical Greek scholars actually speak fair Biblical Greek, I'd honestly feel sorry for the kid. Not to say there are none who could do a decent job - does Christophe Rico speak Greek to his children?) 2) Fut.Perf. is right about the Pontic Greek as well. I'm not really sure how you missed this one, if you have made any effort to look into the whole Trabzon Pontic thing: when I first the whole 'Greek is still alive! It's still spoken!' thing, I of course jumped at the idea and started looking into the whole project excitedly. Unfortunately - and with all humility I suggest I may be taken as a decent proxy for an 'Ancient Greek speaker', at least in so far as I have worked hard full-time for many years on the language, syntax and composition - not much of Romeyka is intelligible to me. If you look into it, try listening to or reading a few samples of Romeyka, I am confident you would find that the Romeyka dialect has no place on this Wikipedia, and thus it's largely indefensible to suggest we are writing a Wikipedia so the Trabzon Turks can have access to information! It cannot be called anything other than "sensationalist journalism" that this language was referred to as 'living archaic Greek'; it is only identifiable with archaic Greek on the basis of some pretty limited linguistic similarities like retention of the infinitive; it has developed independently so much that one cannot hope to take the two together, from the perspective of actual language use. Only a historical linguist working on evolution of Greek throughout later times could be interested in Romeyka for this reason. And while the infinitives and other archaic features that died away from most Greek will get such linguists going, none of them would claim the language is actually similar, let alone the same. Again, I urge you to listen to samples and try to understand them before you argue otherwise. I am confident that on both these points my views would be corroborated by top scholars, were I to ask them - and I could easily ask Horrocks or the linguist in charge of the Romeyka research what she thinks, since both are at my university. I am happy to do so if that is the kind of weight that would be needed to settle this point. In summation, we should really not be looking at Greek Orthodox practitioners or the Pontic Greek speakers and trying to identify them as whole communities speaking Greek. I know the Wikipedia page on AG says something to the effect of their Greek being close to archaic, but it's patently false for our purpose (a useful idea only for someone interested in particular facets of Greek historical linguistics). We cannot use Romeyka or Greek Orthodox Church members to help us write (or read) (anything that could reasonably be called) Ancient Greek better, nor would an AG Wikipedia be particularly useful or intelligible to them. There are plenty of other arguments you made for why this Wikipedia is a good reason and I don't remember seeing anything wrong with them - I certainly agree with the conclusion and want and value such a Wikipedia highly. I would add that there is a strong academic community of people working on both spoken and written Greek - lots of scholars and teachers on the Biblical front; and a fair number even for Attic (consider Alex Petkas, Joseph Conlon, Gerardo Guzman). But these are enthusiasts and professionals. They are not natives. They learnt the language by choice and not through compelled immersion in it, always because they were interested in it (or in literature, culture, history, etc.) and not because it was the automatic medium of communication employed around them, and always as a second language. If that is a good enough reason not to have an Ancient Greek Wikipedia - and I hope it is not! - then I can't see how we can justify keeping ours. At least, until some of those enthusiasts start raising their kids speaking Ancient Greek! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.153.77.196 (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2018
  • Thanks, a few quick notes based on your feedback:
    On biblical Greek
    With regards to the Greek Orthodox Church (historically the Orthodox Church) the 4 patriarchates (Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria) that most of the Greek -and some non Greek- Orthodox clergy fall under worldwide (there are some self governing churches like Church of Greece for Greece itself), historically and leading up to the present times they have been using the Medieval Greek Koine (Patriarchate of Constantinople being a good example, especially the Ecumenical Patriarch) based on the Byzantine texts/canons etc, and these deriving from the Biblical Greek version of Koine (apart from Biblical Greek being used everywhere for liturgical purposes). This is of course a direct analogy with the Vatican/Latin/Roman Catholic example, where, even if nowdays not everybody speaks perfect Latin as you also mention (and church/medieval Latin is not the same as classical) they nevertheless do and have been doing historically so.
    On administrators
    About your comment on me as an administrator of the grc incubator website, all I am doing is taking care of things like reverting vandalisms or trying to advance the development of the project and the project becoming a reality. But whenever you find that there is something inconsistent content wise, you are more than welcome to amend it, it's up for everyone to participate into this effort, not just the administrators.
    On Fut.Perf.
    Fut.Perf. made some claims both with regards to linguistic issues but also with regards to how knowledgeable I am and what I stand for. I have already answered these, and I don't think I need to return to these.
    On the bundling of several types of Greek
    The shoehorning of all kinds of ancient Greek dialects in a single wikipedia is not by community preference, and certainly not by my preference, it is due to SIL having just one code (grc/ISO 639-3) with the rather arbitrary monolithic rule that ancient Greek (homeric, attic, koine as the main large groups) is anything before 1453 (fall of Constantinople). I'm not happy with how SIL has handled this, but at the same time this is what we have to work with. As a remedy I have proposed to handle this in ways that other encyclopedias have done before to varying degrees with dealing with different dialects of their content -i.e. Portuguese (Portugal/Brazil), Spanish and French (originating countries and atlantic/pacific/african differentiations), or even English (dialects in Commonwealth and ex colonies that still use English)-.
    On Pontic
    With regards to the Pontic speakers, as the language committee has been going to great lenths to be strict on the rule that native speakers is a must prerequisite, then it is natural to expect links like [5], [6], [7] having a place as part of the overall support effort.
    On arguments
    Epigrammaticaly, the large body of text that you placed above serves more to highlight the opposition to a creation of the particular wiki as per the Fut.Perf. arguments. As you find that there are plenty of good arguments to support the existence of a grc wiki, and that indeed the good reasons for doing are the clear majority, all you have to do is to place an argument in favour in the corresponding section, so that it becomes a reality. Gts-tg (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


  • No,Just No. Generally speaking, "Classical Greek" refers to Attic Greek. And with no particle, Koine can't be Attic Greek (completely different) Wikipedia with Attic Greek should have the name of"Classical Greek". Rename with "Koine Greek" And it's OK.--Yoshiciv (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
    Je ne comprends pas ce que vous avez écrit. Cette requête est bien une requête pour le lancement d'une Wikipédia en grec ancien, c'est-à-dire en attique, non ? Si oui, je continue d'y être fortement favorable. Si non, si cette requête concerne une Wikipédia en koiné, alors je suis d'accord avec vous : il faut renommer la requête en : demande d'une Wikipédia en koine. Une Wikipédia en koine me semble intéressante. Mais ce qui, moi, personnellement, m'intéresse, et que je trouve indispensable, c'est la Wikipédia en grec ancien, c'est-à-dire en attique, étant donné que c'est le grec qu'on apprend à l'école (dans mon pays, en tous cas).
Je suis fortement favorable à cette Wikipédia en grec ancien (attique, donc). Cependant j'ai une inquiétude : comment parler de tous les concepts qui n'ont pas de mot en grec ancien, puisque le grec ancien est une langue morte ? Comment dit-on classeur, avion, magnétoscope, haut-parleur, télévision, plaque de cuisson, four à micro-ondes, chaussures de sport, électricité, téléphone, etc., en grec ancien ? Si nous inventons ces mots, nous nous livrons à une sorte de travail inédit... Comment s'y sont-ils pris pour la Wikipédia en latin ? Ceci dit, de même que le latin n'est pas une langue complètement morte, dans le sens que des lettrés continuent d'écrire des articles et des textes en latin, le grec ancien non plus est encore assez vivaces : il y a des revues qui paraissent régulièrement écrites en grec ancien, des revues électroniques aussi. Par exemple http://ch.hypotheses.org/. On y lit des traductions de textes modernes vers le grec ancien. Il existe donc peut-être des publications et des mots qui traduisent tous ces concepts nés depuis la disparition du grec ancien. En tous cas je suis malgré toutes ces difficultés en faveur de cette Wikipédia en grec ancien, langue étudiée, comme le latin ou le sanskrit, dans tellement de pays... Cela me paraît indispensable. Il est incroyable que cette Wikipédia en grec ancien n'existe pas encore ! Quel temps perdons-nous ! 78.250.210.136 21:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
With regards to how modern terms can be used in ancient Greek see the entries at incubator:Wp/grc/Βικιπαιδεία:Ἀγορά/Λόγιοι_Ἑλληνικοὶ_ὅροι_περὶ_συγχρόνων_ἐννοιῶν, as well as the links in item 3 of the original proposal at the top of the current page. With regards to Attic vs Koine, they both fall under the same ISO code so both are covered, see more at incubator:Wp/grc/Ϝικιπαιδεία:Πολλάκις_αἰτηθέντα, and for encyclopedic purposes you can also see en:Atticism. Gts-tg (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Merci pour les liens. Pour ce qui est de la possibilité de décrire le monde contemporain en grec ancien, j'ai relativement confiance : on trouve sur beaucoup de sites des textes modernes écrits par exemple en français ou en d'autres langues et traduits en grec ancien. On trouve par exemple Harry Potter - La pierre philosophale ici : http://www.projethomere.com/travaux/bibliotheque_homere/harry_potter_lithos.htm. Par contre en suivant vos liens sur Wp/grc, je note que de nombreuses discussions ont lieu en anglais, tenant les non anglophones à l'écart des discussions. Il me semble que celles-ci devraient également se tenir en grec. Accepter des discussions dans une autre langue me semble un mauvais signal quant à la capacité à rédiger une encyclopédie en grec ancien... 2A01:CB00:796:3C00:116F:268:F7B9:58E4 21:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral/Other comments[edit]

  • Neutral Maybe we can encourage WMF HQ staffs to review the de facto attitude on historical/ancient/extinct languages, if this test-wiki can really describe modern concepts without ad hoc neologisms. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The Harry Potter translator didn't think Ancient Greek could; he used words from 19th century Greek for stuff like trains and cars. (Current Modern Greek uses more borrowings, like τρένο from the Italian treno.) There's also the question of the value of Wikipedias in extinct languages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Coptic 3 has been approved as eligible. This is a very solid indication that the current request for grc will go through successfully, even more so while grc had an even stronger case than Coptic to begin with. Gts-tg (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Gts-tg: I don't think so, there's @GerardM: which may still don't agree ([8], [9]). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Liuxinyu970226 to the best of my knowledge there have been significant developments since February -when these messages are dated- within the committee. As for Coptic, I still think that having been made eligible it presents a very strong indication of a positive outcome for grc. Gts-tg (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that the policy on historic languages is very arbitrary. There must be a better standard than whether the proposal was submitted before or after a certain date. Of course, deleting the existing Wikis for Latin, Sanskrit, Classical Chinese et al would be worse. But there is a more sensible solution: judge the viability of a Wiki based not only on native speakers, but on secondary speakers, support, and overall relevance, while disregarding when it was proposed/approved. This would avoid confusing situations, such as a Wiki being turned down for lack of native speakers, while conlangs with few or no native speakers are allowed; or the presence of a Gothic wiki while Ancient Greek is not approved. Xcalibur (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the policy on projects in historic languages is starting to move a little, as shown by the decision on Coptic that @Gts-tg mentioned above. In particular, I think LangCom is starting to be more accommodating to
  • Wikipedia projects (because of what an encyclopedia is), in
  • languages with a substantial existing literature, because (1) the written style is therefore well-established, (2) there are people who read it, and (3) there is a broad enough vocabulary to hope that such a language can accommodate modern concepts.
Even in such languages, LangCom is not interested in allowing other projects (aside from Wikisource, of course). Additionally, LangCom is really not interested in allowing projects in historical languages that were not written languages. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.) @Xcalibur, "when it was proposed/approved" is not a factor. Simply put, the policy has been applied uniformly to any project that didn't already exist when the policy was established. The issue with Latin, Sanskrit, etc. was that the projects already existed when the policy was established, and they were grandfathered. That is all, no more and no less. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I understand that they were grandfathered in. However, that leads to quite a bit of confusion when a Wiki proposal is rejected, in spite of it being no more or less viable than an existing Wiki (as seen on the third proposal). That's the point I was getting at. Now that there are successful Wikis in historic and constructed languages, we should have a rule that treats them all fairly, without the arbitrary nature of a grandfather clause.
Of course, there are a lot of factors that go into this, but I think it's possible to construct a simple yet flexible rule to handle these matters. When it comes to creating a Wikipedia in a particular language, the question should not be: is there a pool of native speakers, and did it exist before the policy was changed? Rather, we should ask: Is there a significant number of L1 and/or L2 speakers? Is there a literature, a significant vocabulary and consistent style? Is it viable for a general purpose encyclopedia? Is there popular support, dedicated users, and the potential to contribute something of value? This is just my preliminary train of thought, but I think this is the proper direction.
As for the particular issue of modern vocabulary, the Latin Wiki has proven that this can be surmounted.
Above all, I'm arguing for a sensible rule that includes viable Wikipedias while avoiding unnecessary friction and confusion. Xcalibur (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
To summarize what I said above -- I think the native speakers prerequisite should be changed to 'overall viability' of a language (perhaps using the criteria outlined above). The fact that there's an exception clause to that rule is proof that it's not sound IMO. Xcalibur (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree: let's propose to the language committee to extend the exception they made fo artificial language (like Esperanto) to dead languages which have a numerous and active living community interested in using them to share knowledge.--Memnone di Rodi (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, if an artificial language can have the L1 requirement waived, then why not a historical language with an active community interested in it? What we need is a consistent, non-arbitrary rule that makes sense. I could petition Langcom on their talk page, but I'm not sure about protocol. Xcalibur (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

In my previous discussion with language committee, I was told that since language being revitalized would have some form of artificiality so there could be a chance that artificial standard might apply? C933103 (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)