Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Phoenician 2

Phoenician 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: This request was closed because of insufficient community and per the discussion on this page, notably relating to complete extinction and insufficient language documentation. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:59:35, 08 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal summary
Language details: Phoenician (dabarīm Pōnnīm or Kana'nīm, phn ISO—) Editing community: ms-wp:Lokey3310 (P) List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your name if you are a native speaker of this language. Relevant pages: previous request (closed in reform) External links: —
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

I m reopening this discussion and I suggest someone to attract Phoenician speaker mostly from this website and from several person who study Phoenician at Harvard, JHU, Berkeley, UCLA, University of Michigan, The Catholic University of America, dan Chicago that teaches semitic philology. I can be sure that the Phoenician will have their language glory back greatly after its creation even though Phoenician language is considered a dead language. — Lokey3310 11:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments in favour

Support, even though it may be a dead language it is not extinct, Phoenecian is the language and alphabet of origin of thousands of languages and nearly every alphabet is linked to having evolved from Phoenician, with the possible exception of Chinese whihc may or may not have develeoped its writting system independantly or in mixture with phoenecian influences. No one really speaks Old English, Anglo-Saxon, and argueable Latin and Sanskrit has very veyr few speakers and its mostly a ceremonial and academic and heritage language, im quite certain none have monolinguals or fist language speakres. Old Chruch Slavonic is also "dead" i believe as dead as Classical Chinese and Calssical Japanese. There are probably more scholars who can speak/write/read Phoenecian than some so called "living languages". I say taking into account this languages history and its contextual importance to writing and most of our languages we give it a shot. As long as there are willing participants, i mean there are wikipedias like sango and namib that have zero native speakers or contributors. Its simple discrimination if we dont let them have it, it would be as helpful as Latin, Old Church Slavonic, Old English, Anglo-Saxon, Gothic, Sandskrit, and Classical Chinese and Japanese, which are only so useful, alltho some are studied like Latin and Classical Chinese, but not to become a speaker but rather to get a better grip on the modern descendants. If there one willing contributor and there seems to be many, i strongly support this project and ill contribute and help too with logistics and spam watching, Q&A, etc.Qrc2006 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against

Unlike Latin and Old Church Slavonic, this language is EXTINCT for over two thousands years, and is not used by anyone except phoeniciologists. Therefore, this wiki will be edited by several specialists and read by no more than a couple thousands. On this basis I must strongly oppose. MaxSem 18:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I second Maxsem's arguments) --ARBE0 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very against any requests for extinct languages. What reason would there be for a wiki in an extinct language which nobody speaks anymore. The only people who would be able to read it are scholars of that language. There is absolutely no reason to have this language.--86.30.24.196 23:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed -- I actually support dead-language Wikipedias when the language in question is well-documented, and with a long tradition of active use which has continued until the present day (such as Latin, Sanskrit, and Classical Chinese), and I participate in a minor way in the Latin Wikipedia. However, Phoenician is not particularly "well-documented" in the relevant sense -- while there are enough surviving inscriptions to give linguists a good idea of where Phoenician fit in to the Semitic language family, there's simply not nearly enough information available about important matters of vocabulary, grammar, etc. that would be needed to start up a Wikipedia. The orthography used during the "classical" Phoenician period was phonologically fragmentary, giving almost no information on vowels, double consonants, etc. which were an important part of Phoneician linguistic morphology. This would make a Phoenician Wikipedia basically an exercise in communicating in a highly-artificial code, much of which would have to be created by the Phoenician Wikipedia enthusiasts themselves. Furthermore, the main proposer seems to be fired with a mystical enthusiasm for the Phoenician alphabet as the source of other alphabets, which is rather irrelevant to the prospects for a Phoenician Wikipedia (and the alphabet was not actually invented by Phoenicians anyway, though they certainly greatly popuylarized one particular form of the early alphabet). AnonMoos 19:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

~~Why can we try use Incubator Wiki to demonstrate and prove its reliability as a successful project? — Lokey3310 11:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Attempting to make demonstration project on a test wiki at this test wiki incubator. – Lokey3310 12:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]