This is not the first project where people make an effort to standardise a language. This is not considered original research. Original research is associated with the content of articles.

Please get your facts straight.
Thanks,
GerardM

The Egyptian Arabic effort has proven itself as a good effort worthy of its own project. When you compare this with the request for a Lebanese Wikipedia, you will find that the language is known as North Levantine Arabic. According to the text at Ethnologue there are more people in Syria who speak the language then in Lebanon AND there were no people actively supporting this proposal. Now only requests from people who actively support a project are taken further.

The policy is really explicit about accepting certain arguments for or against a request. Political and religious argument are not acceptable. This means that the notion of a unified Arabic world is not relevant and certainly not when weighed against the recognition of separate languages by ISO.

The notion that it splits up the Arabic Wikipedia community is not a valid argument either because who can determine for someone else what to work on. The ability of people from different languages to understand each other has also not been a real issue in the past. Neapolitan and Catalan people understand each other really well probably much better then an Iraqi and a Moroccan.

When people consider this as a move against their religion, they fail to see that it is every one’s right to work on the Wikipedia they feel most comfortable with. If for religious reasons people object to something like the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia, they show a lack of respect for the views of those who either do not share their interpretation of religion, their religion or value their mother tongue as a language separate from Arabic.

The freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. So you are quite welcome not to appreciate the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia, but you are not free to effectively deny this project its existence.
Thanks,
GerardM

- I didn’t single out Coptic Nationalists as the supporters. In fact I specifically mentioned “Egyptian Nationalists, and Coptic Nationalists who differ from the first only in being Christians” I really see no difference.

- I was referring to “Arab-ism” as a term which has cultural, linguistic, political, and ethnological aspects to it, that are confused by many of us, and is indeed intriguing.

- I was not referring to “Egypt and its role as a nation”, but was rather tackling “the concept of Egypt as state”

Should we blame this on the fact that I was commenting in my native Cairene Accent all the way? ;P I think this should have been noted as well, as it is significant.

(يا حمير بكل لغات العالم في عامية وفي فصحى…) انظر ماذا كتبت

أحمد لو وجدت هذه اللغة بمنتدى معين …والله ما كنت أزعل…
بس وكيبيديا موسوعة …(يعني مواضيعها لازم تكون موثقة) ..مومجلة شعبية أو مسلسل ولا فلم…
بتمنى تكون قرأت تعليمات الكتابة في وكيبيديا مصري…

//فيه شوية صغيرة من المقالات فى ويكيبيديا مصرى منها نسخ بالأبجديه اللاتينى لأن كان فيه اقتراح من سنة 1948 لكتابه المصرى بحروف الابجديه اللاتينية//

تصور أنو كتبنا العلمية تنكتب بلغات عامية محكية…
هلق في حدا سأل أنو كيف وكيبيديا بتقبل …والله هون المهزلة

رح أضرب مثل …بأمريكا في شي اسمو لغة الشات طبعاً هيي انكليزي مع اختصارات كثيرة…وتستخدم بشكل واسع جدا في المحادثات الشعبية … بس مستحيل أي أحد يتجرأ يكتب مقالة علمية باستخدام تلك اللغة …

يعني أنا مع المصريين يعتزو بوطنهم ولهجتهم … بس على الأقل يسموها لهجة وليست لغة
أنا بتمنى من الجميع أن يرى خطورة التسمية …
تصور ماذا سيحدث لو أن كل اللهجات الموجودة سميت لغات …

بصراحة الموضوع خطير جدا

يا حمير بكل لغات العالم في عامية وفي فصحى…
الفصحى للكتابة العلمية والأكادمية
والعامية للاستخدام الشعبي ولكن لا يجوز استخدام العامية كاستخدام الفصحى…

يعني مو العتب على الغرب إذا اضحك علينا …
أنا رأيي لازم نعمل وكيبيديا صعيدي…على الأقل إذا حكى الصعيدي ما حدا بيفهم عليه …
بس يعني شو بدنا نعمل إذا الشعب صار شغلو الشاغل هو الفزلكة

بالمناسبة أنا هلق كنت عم أكتب عربي سوري….