Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Ancient Hebrew
Ancient Hebrew Wikipedia
| submitted | verification | final decision |
 |
This proposal has been rejected. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy based on the discussion on this page. The closing committee member provided the following comment: The request is ambiguous. Ancient Hebrew may mean Biblical Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew or Medieval Hebrew. However, even the request is for a particular older variant of Hebrew language, per Language proposal policy it couldn't get a project. At the other side, Wikisource in Ancient Hebrew would be acceptable. --Millosh 17:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC) |
| Proposal summary |
|---|
|
| Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly. |
My name is Ilan David, I live in Jerusalem, I want to make a Wikipedia for all religious Jews which is the language of the holly books. The language which is called today "Hebrew" is not the original one and have tons of changes from the original Hebrew that was learned and written by Jewish rabbis over the ages. The new language which the "Zionists" origanted over the past century in order to fit it to their position is full of mistakes & new words which are not appropriate to our believes ,culture and traditions as it is the language of whom are not religious and the of "Israelis" which profanes the Jewish beliefs.
Please understand , The Jews are divided into three major groups: The first is the ancient one that has kept its culture over 3300 years and keeps it until today, The Second group are some copiers which made lots of reformation until they lost almost all of the Jewish uniqueness because they liked other cultures and ridiculed the Jews Religion but wanted to keep some symbolic ceremonials in their new theories, The third Group are the ones that profanes the Jewish religion entirely and have nothing in comment with the ancient Jew otherwise than the name "Jew" and they certainly wants to blur all the differences between them and the real "Jews" so they could get support from the world public opinion, so their major act was to take control over our language.
Arguments in favour
- "Hebrew" as its known today is a reformed version of the ancient Hebrew and medieval Hebrew.
- A pure Hebrew, which is used by all of the religious Jews societies is a completely different dialect and cannot be related to what is written in the Hebrew Wikipedia.
- Ancient Hebrew is an extinct language on the book, but practically there are thousands of Yeshiva's (Rabbinical colleges) that read it daily and fluently.
- Ancient Hebrew - referred to the biblical Hebrew is very common by Jews as it is an obligition of every Jew to read the entire Torah every year.
- The Jews have a great holly library starts from the bible and threw a collection of rabbinic writings on Jewish civil and religious law (Talmud ,Kabbalah,Ethics and more) from all ages that have always been learned by Jews, so as a matter of fact Hebrew has never been extincted cause it is tied with the rich culture of the Jews. There are no other languages such as Hebrew that have produced thousands of new books every century since the roman empire despite of her speakers scattered all around the globe.
- The Hebrew Wikipedia derives an attitude that is forbidden to a Jew to even read or think about and reflects only the non believers aspect. The Hebrew Wikipedia brings non modest pictures and rude issues which make it immoral in an Judaism aspect. The Hebrew Wikipedia derives thousands of persons which hated Judaism , fought against it , wrote lots of books to scorn the Rabbis, though with all being estimated and praised.
- Preventing a Pure Hebrew WP is not recognizing that Modern Hebrew is a non-religious dialect, and discriminating the Jews who keeps their culture and tradition.
- The new Wikipedia, hopefully will help us to save our culture which of course depends on our faithful dialect and is being now under a great danger.
- Encyclopedia is better when it's pure and without immoral content.
Arguments against
- Strong oppose. Linguistic purism of this kind is unenforceable. We might have a "Cleanspeech" no-Romance-borrowings version for English, in which we could, instead of "Royal Air Force" say things like "Kingly Wolken-Might". It's ridiculous. This is a bad proposal. Sorry, Ilan, but you've got the wrong idea about language. Evertype 21:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)