This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acithec.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This claim very much needs corroborative documentation (and editing - it either is the only or isn't):
In the United States, for example, American Sign Language is the most used minority language yet almost the only minority language which lacks official government recognition.
We read the following in the article:
To date, the auxiliary language Interlingua has been most successsful in obtaining official recognition. For example, the Interlingua organization Union Mundial pro Interlingua (UMI) has consultative status with UNESCO and has been influential in the work of the International Organization for Standardization.
Where are the references for this? So far, I do not know about any relationship between ISO and UMI. I would like to know more about that.
I have read somewhere that UEA (Universala Esperanto Asocio) has some symbolic links with UNESCO (something along the lines of an abstract declaration that states "compatibilities of some goals"), but I do not know any real influence UEA has upon UNESCO or ISO. -- Antonielly 19:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Should that language be mentioned here? There are some articles and mentions about Esperanto as a minority language, e.g. John Edwards: Minority Languages and Group Identity: Cases and Categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2010:"Esperanto" (...) "this rather special minority language", p. 12. Or Fettes, Mark: 1996, 'The Esperanto Community: A Quasi-Ethnic Linguistic Minority?', Language Problems and Language Planning 20 (1), 53-59 -- Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven ( talk) 17:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deutsche Welle link is dead and 250 000 to 400 000 is way to much. Usually they estimate it around 250 000 but official 2011 census is around 35 330. I will put from 35 330 to 250 000. Also there is debate if Vlach is Romanian but I will leave that out. -- 188.230.189.111 ( talk) 01:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Context: Some countries recognize some languages of traditional minority ethnic communities as co-official languages. This status generally includes right to equal use of some language at local/regional/state level plus public authorities and governments use minority language in equal scope in its work (documents, road signs, other materials...). You might take a look at these article: European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages... Question: I recently had an editorial conflict regarding the addition of minority languages names into articles about municipalities that officially introduced minority co-official language. My idea is that when there are sources that certain (local) government had introduced additional minority coofficial language, we should add name of that village or town in minority language in article lead section, infobox and name/language section if there is one. Is there a common Wikipedia practice in such cases and if there is not what is your opinion as members of Wikipedia community?-- MirkoS18 ( talk) 20:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
|official_languages
(for languages recognised in legislation, constitution, etc.), |national_languages
(for other country-wide languages), |regional_languages
(for languages associated with particular regions), among others. See, for example
Canada, which includes both official languages and regional languages). Whether they warrant discussion within the article or in separate articles for the relevant regions may depend on how notable to the nation as a whole. —
sroc
💬 08:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)All of this can even apply outside of geographical topics. For example, the lead at Manx cat mentions the Manx language name of the cat, and it's sensible to do so, even though Manx is not (last time I looked) a co-official language, and is no longer a native language of anyone, but only a revived one.
The main reason it's important to retain these names in articles is that they'll be found in older (or non-official) sources, and users searching for these names should find them and be led to the right article, with a minimum of guesswork or confusion. The second most important reason is that excluding names from particular minority languages on some subjective basis like they're "too minority" or "not official enough" or whatever, is shameless PoV-pushing bias. There are others, but these two are more than sufficient reasons to know what to do and why. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Clarification: Reading through more of this, I would think there is no need to include language information at the levels of local through major subnational division, except where it differs from the level above it. E.g. some US states have more than English as official languages to some degree, and the distinct sub-nation-state countries of the UK do, and as noted in the OP, sometimes a locality does. But if it's the same as the national level, there's no reason to say it. There's nothing encyclopedically informative about the fact that German is an official language in Munich. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
There's been an uptick in editing warring on Croatian articles with FDrago77 and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi each reporting the other for vandalism (I have declined both reports). I cannot see where consensus was decided in the above conversation or why this conversation is here, where the discussion is supposed to be about this article. Suggest a RFC be opened in the proper place or WP:DRN be utilized. -- NeilN talk to me 13:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Responding to User:NeilN: First, I don't think that the dispute resolution noticeboard is a forum for discussion of an issue involving names in general, unless a specific page, possibly in the MOS is the page at issue, since DRN is for issues about article content. The suggestion was made that a new RFC should be well-publicized in a central place. I agree. I would suggest the page in the MOS (and I haven't researched that specific page yet) having to do with article ledes, to add language stating that place names should include all of the languages in which a place is known. The RFC should then be publicized at multiple projects and added to the list of central RFCs. That is my suggestion for now. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
"Irish is the first official language and there are no other minority languages"
Cough... Ulster Scots (in Donegal), Irish Sign Language, and Shelta.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Minority language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.onkwehonwe.com/educationWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Support for minority languages is sometimes viewed as supporting separatism, for example the ongoing revival of the Celtic languages (Irish, Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Manx, Cornish and Breton).
The article offers no elaboration here. Is there some kind of evidence that support for Celtic languages is linked to political sentiment? 2602:306:CFEA:170:8415:8737:4EC3:30A0 ( talk) 17:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
German is also the official language of Liechtenstein -- 2607:FEA8:FF01:4B63:9CF0:5A17:1414:3D61 ( talk) 14:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acithec.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This claim very much needs corroborative documentation (and editing - it either is the only or isn't):
In the United States, for example, American Sign Language is the most used minority language yet almost the only minority language which lacks official government recognition.
We read the following in the article:
To date, the auxiliary language Interlingua has been most successsful in obtaining official recognition. For example, the Interlingua organization Union Mundial pro Interlingua (UMI) has consultative status with UNESCO and has been influential in the work of the International Organization for Standardization.
Where are the references for this? So far, I do not know about any relationship between ISO and UMI. I would like to know more about that.
I have read somewhere that UEA (Universala Esperanto Asocio) has some symbolic links with UNESCO (something along the lines of an abstract declaration that states "compatibilities of some goals"), but I do not know any real influence UEA has upon UNESCO or ISO. -- Antonielly 19:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Should that language be mentioned here? There are some articles and mentions about Esperanto as a minority language, e.g. John Edwards: Minority Languages and Group Identity: Cases and Categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2010:"Esperanto" (...) "this rather special minority language", p. 12. Or Fettes, Mark: 1996, 'The Esperanto Community: A Quasi-Ethnic Linguistic Minority?', Language Problems and Language Planning 20 (1), 53-59 -- Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven ( talk) 17:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Deutsche Welle link is dead and 250 000 to 400 000 is way to much. Usually they estimate it around 250 000 but official 2011 census is around 35 330. I will put from 35 330 to 250 000. Also there is debate if Vlach is Romanian but I will leave that out. -- 188.230.189.111 ( talk) 01:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Context: Some countries recognize some languages of traditional minority ethnic communities as co-official languages. This status generally includes right to equal use of some language at local/regional/state level plus public authorities and governments use minority language in equal scope in its work (documents, road signs, other materials...). You might take a look at these article: European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages... Question: I recently had an editorial conflict regarding the addition of minority languages names into articles about municipalities that officially introduced minority co-official language. My idea is that when there are sources that certain (local) government had introduced additional minority coofficial language, we should add name of that village or town in minority language in article lead section, infobox and name/language section if there is one. Is there a common Wikipedia practice in such cases and if there is not what is your opinion as members of Wikipedia community?-- MirkoS18 ( talk) 20:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
|official_languages
(for languages recognised in legislation, constitution, etc.), |national_languages
(for other country-wide languages), |regional_languages
(for languages associated with particular regions), among others. See, for example
Canada, which includes both official languages and regional languages). Whether they warrant discussion within the article or in separate articles for the relevant regions may depend on how notable to the nation as a whole. —
sroc
💬 08:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)All of this can even apply outside of geographical topics. For example, the lead at Manx cat mentions the Manx language name of the cat, and it's sensible to do so, even though Manx is not (last time I looked) a co-official language, and is no longer a native language of anyone, but only a revived one.
The main reason it's important to retain these names in articles is that they'll be found in older (or non-official) sources, and users searching for these names should find them and be led to the right article, with a minimum of guesswork or confusion. The second most important reason is that excluding names from particular minority languages on some subjective basis like they're "too minority" or "not official enough" or whatever, is shameless PoV-pushing bias. There are others, but these two are more than sufficient reasons to know what to do and why. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Clarification: Reading through more of this, I would think there is no need to include language information at the levels of local through major subnational division, except where it differs from the level above it. E.g. some US states have more than English as official languages to some degree, and the distinct sub-nation-state countries of the UK do, and as noted in the OP, sometimes a locality does. But if it's the same as the national level, there's no reason to say it. There's nothing encyclopedically informative about the fact that German is an official language in Munich. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
There's been an uptick in editing warring on Croatian articles with FDrago77 and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi each reporting the other for vandalism (I have declined both reports). I cannot see where consensus was decided in the above conversation or why this conversation is here, where the discussion is supposed to be about this article. Suggest a RFC be opened in the proper place or WP:DRN be utilized. -- NeilN talk to me 13:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Responding to User:NeilN: First, I don't think that the dispute resolution noticeboard is a forum for discussion of an issue involving names in general, unless a specific page, possibly in the MOS is the page at issue, since DRN is for issues about article content. The suggestion was made that a new RFC should be well-publicized in a central place. I agree. I would suggest the page in the MOS (and I haven't researched that specific page yet) having to do with article ledes, to add language stating that place names should include all of the languages in which a place is known. The RFC should then be publicized at multiple projects and added to the list of central RFCs. That is my suggestion for now. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
"Irish is the first official language and there are no other minority languages"
Cough... Ulster Scots (in Donegal), Irish Sign Language, and Shelta.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Minority language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.onkwehonwe.com/educationWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Support for minority languages is sometimes viewed as supporting separatism, for example the ongoing revival of the Celtic languages (Irish, Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Manx, Cornish and Breton).
The article offers no elaboration here. Is there some kind of evidence that support for Celtic languages is linked to political sentiment? 2602:306:CFEA:170:8415:8737:4EC3:30A0 ( talk) 17:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
German is also the official language of Liechtenstein -- 2607:FEA8:FF01:4B63:9CF0:5A17:1414:3D61 ( talk) 14:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)