Talk:Minority language

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

comment

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.

The United States doesn't have government recognition of languages. --Thnidu (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed that sentence. --Thnidu (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Consciously Created Auxiliary Languages (conauxlangs)

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)

From what I recall, ISO made Interlingua the main basis for its international standardization of terminology. Gopsill's book International Languages: A Matter for Interlingua briefly discusses the relationship between Interlingua and ISO. I'll include this book as a reference for now, although I think there is a better one and I'll look for that one as well.

Along similar lines, the US Department of Agriculture used Interlingua pretty thoroughly in its large Multilingual Compendium of Plant Diseases, and the Interlingua translation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was actually requested by the UN.

I've also read about a declaration between UNESCO and UEA, but at this point I'm a little skeptical of it. I think this was in a Wikipedia article. As I recall, ISO initially voted to adopt Esperanto but later rejected it almost unanimously in favor of Interlingua. The Interlingua article makes a brief mention of ISO. Cal (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Unesco lists the Universal Esperanto Association (UEA) as a "UNESCO NGO". --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Esperanto as a minority language

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)

CONLANGs are not "minority languages" in the sense meant here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Romanian in Serbia

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)

Minority languages ​​in geographical articles

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to mention co-official languages in articles (lede, infobox, etc) that are cited to reliable sources. The majority argument is based on WP:RS and WP:VER, and is a strong PAG based argument, and there is little augment against. AlbinoFerret 15:01, 7 August 2015 (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)

The {{infobox country}} infobox template has the parameters |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)

You may also note Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages. I've flagged this RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages § RfC: Minority languages ​​in geographical articles. —sroc 💬 08:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for yours contribution. In this particular case it was a minority languages in Southeastern European state of Croatia. Minority languages have been introduced as co-oficial in number of municipalities based on mentioned European Charter, Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities and Law on Use of Languages and Scripts of National Minorities. However, use of minority languages ​​and alphabets is subject to some public outcry that I described in this article 2013 Anti-Cyrillic protests in Croatia. Resentment has been extended to Wikipedia community and few edit conflicts have occurred on this issue. The problem is somewhat controversial since many people still conect it with war in Croatia 20-25 years ago. I was even accused by the two editors of bias toward inclusion of minority languages. My view is that if some municipalities on the basis of relevant laws introduced some minority language as co-official language on teritory of this municipality-than we need to mention name in minority language in infobox and leade section of article about that municipality/village. It seems to me that this is opinion of the most of the editors on WP Croatia to. Still, since I am myself member of minority I might not be 100% neutral and that is why opinion of the community would be of the great help in order to gain neutral conclusion.--MirkoS18 (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no disagreement with any of the above, but it doesn't address the question asked. My answer is: Yes, for any geographical topic, include the name in all relevant languages (where they differ on the name), including: co-official languages; officially recognized minority languages; languages that reliable sources indicate are notable in the area even if they're not officially recognized; and languages of historical importance to the topic. See for example the article on Skopje, Macdeonia. It is at the English-language name for this place, it gives the native Macedonian name in Macedonian script and transliterated, and provides an ancient name. I have not looked into the demographics, but it's quite possible that another name, in Croat, or Serbian, or modern Greek or whatever, should also be added.

  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 

• Comment - On the one hand, I concur that place names should be listed in all of the appropriate minority languages. However, it isn't clear to me how this RFC will be closed and how it will affect policy with regard to articles being edited. It should probably be included in the MOS on article ledes. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - If a language has official status in a region (country, province or municipality), the regions name can be added in this language to the article at the appropriate places. I think other arguments, like the size of a language, only come into account if the language is not officially reognised. I think it is possible to have too many languages. The lead section and infobox should never be made too big. It should be practical for the reader. For example South Africa has 11 official languages. These should not be in the lead section, and are put in a collapsable table in the infobox. However they have their own section of the article. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I made changes according to this discusion but the editor in question dleleted minority names from infoboxes again under claim that this conversation here is just user's personal opinion (Trpinja, Bobota, Negoslavci, Borovo...). Do you have any advice what I should do in order to avoid edit waring while changing articles in question.--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I also now invited editors from WP Croatia, WP Serbia, WP Republika Srpska and WP Hungary to share their oppinion if they are interested.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. To me there is no doubt whatsoever that, if a language has a co-official status in a subdivision (town, settlement), as attested by a reliable source (this bit is crucial, of course), then the name of the subdivision in that language should be listed in the article as appropriate (intro, infobox, etc.), and that this cannot be dismissed as "personal opinion". I would specifically like to ask IvanOS to desist from edits such as the ones given by MirkoS18 in the above paragraph. On the other hand, I still think that one should be careful when adding the minority names in languages that don't have an official status. Note the difference between Pula/Pola (Italian is co-official, so "Pola" in both intro and infobox) and e.g. Rijeka/Fiume (Italian is not co-official, so "Fiume" in intro only and not in the infobox) - while other solutions are possible, this arguably could be the way to go. Also, if e.g. some Serbs happen to live in Foobartown, Croatia, I'd say this still does not warrant adding its name in Cyrillic to the article's intro. GregorB (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I support adding minority languages to geographical places where they are co-official, as well in places where certain minority has a significant population, even though its language isn't perhaps an official one. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I fully support this conclusion as it is only reasonable.--Zoupan 18:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - As someone who has been involved in some of these tussles over the inclusion of place names in minority languages, I think you have to go with whether or not the language has official status locally or under national rules. And it is important to be consistent, otherwise partisans will say, "But article x on the other side of the border doesn't do this, why do it here?" Brianyoumans (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. There is an ongoing dispute on whether to include Turkish language in the introduction of settlements in Kosovo which has no Turkish community. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Turkish_language_in_introduction_of_Gra.C4.8Danica.2C_Kosovo.--Zoupan 17:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I like GregorB idea since seeks to be inclusive, shows the kind of difference between official and unofficial minority languages and reduces conflicts. Although I share oppinion with Yerevani Axjik I understand that it might lead us into conflict. That is why my question is concernes only situations where some (minority) language have co-official status. In the case of Kosovo it seems to me that editor does not insists on the inclusion of the Turkish name into the infobox but just into the lead. It might be justified on historical grounds since Kosovo was part of Ottoman state until First Balkan War. Maybe not modern Turkish language but Ottoman Turkish language seems like justified on historical grounds while Moder Turkish might be justified where modern day community live. Also-I wanted to ask if this discussion will lead to any "final recommendations" since editor with whom I came into conflict deleted my contributions once again and refuses to get involved in this talk even I explicitly invited him. Maybe infobox can be changed in a way that it get new section Official Minority Language(s)?--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not support Ottoman Turkish to be included in the introduction of any settlement, since that belongs to history only (history section). It could be bolded (if appropriate) in the history section, regarding Ottoman-era history.--Zoupan 18:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, Well!! Which side we must put the Armenian and Greek languages for Turkish cities ? They include almost half of the Turkish cities. Bitlis,Artvin,Sivas,Erzurum,Van, Edirne...and more..Greek and Armenian officially not recognized in Turkey and in almost all of these cities Armenian and Greek population is 0%. Yes, many of the Turkish cities name is of Greek origin and there are important for the Armenians of eastern Turkish cities. They should be included in the sections of etmology or history. But not the introduction paragraphs or infoboxes. Then, we should add the Ottoman Turkish language rest of the cities in each country within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire.Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Greece, Serbia,?? Maurice Flesier (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. As far as I can see Turkey is not party in European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and does not guarantee protection for minority languages so I dont think this debate is completely relevant in this case. Also, inclusion of historically relevant languages is not my initial question. I'd like to get advice and consensus on what should we do in case when some minority language is legally recognised as co-official language.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Support the idea that if the language is legally recognized as co-official, official minority, or some such status, that the minority language name should be in the lede and/or the infobox. If the minority language is not recognized, things are murkier; I would say, at a minimum, that if the "minority" language is actually the majority language in the geographic area of the article, the minority language name should be in the lede or the infobox. As to historical usage, that is a fuzzier situation; significant historical names should certainly be in the article somewhere, and if the historical name is more well known in English than the current name, it should be in the lede or the infobox. Brianyoumans (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: We already agreed few years ago on WP Croatia that minority names won't be in infoboxes. If there is one or two minority names of settlement, they can be listed in the lede. If we have more than two minority names of settlement they should be listed in special section (for example #Name). That agreement is respected, but MirkoS18 periodically violate it with aggressive edits, as now. --IvanOS 14:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Not even official names, such as Pula/Pola? And we agreed on this? I don't remember this outcome, can you point us to the discussion? GregorB (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support the inclusion of names that hold official status. However, as in the case of one of @MirkoS18's disputes with an editor, I suspect that there may be some resistance to listing the secondary/minority name as the "native name" in the infobox. Is there some other option for placing it? The field "nickname" available in Template:Infobox settlement doesn't seem to fit, either. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  In fact, there is also section "official name" but one user expressed concern because than we have minority name on map (together with source) and it makes it less easy to read. It would certainly be the best option if we can add section "minority name(s)" or "official minority name(s)" in infobox.--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  In Template talk:Infobox settlement#Minority language name I was told that we actually should use section "native name" in infobox for this case and add form of { {lang} }, such as { {lang-de} }, if necessary.--MirkoS18 (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks! I think I'll ask there too since I'm not sure if he completely understood the situation. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Croatian native names

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)

@NeilN:, he did not 'report me for vandalism'- he made a spurious personal attack based on lies which one would have though would have warranted a- shall we say- slightly more robust response. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi If you can point to a discussion where consensus was determined by an uninvolved editor that would help resolve the matter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I made one RFC for this discussion on four lists Society, sports, and culture, History and geography, Language and linguistics, Politics, government, and law. Discussion was added HERE and after one month it was removed HERE. If there has been any procedural error it was result of fact that I don't have experience with Wikipedia bureaucracy and I wanted constructively to resolve issue that arose there. In the end, Wikipedia should not be bureaucracy as far as I saw? Have a nice day/evening.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@MirkoS18: The problem is no one uninvolved has determined the outcome of that discussion. To have consensus you can point to, you should have an admin or uninvolved editor that you all can trust make a determination. Or you can try WP:DRN if you have more points to make. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:. I didn't know about this part with formal closure or something. I mean, most of editors here are people I never before heard of so I didn't saw any problem with neutrality. Can than someone close this discussion and if yes can you help us with this?--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

MirkoS18 , I would close it but I am very leery of doing so, given the unusual location of the RFC and relatively sparse turn out. "...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" may have a huge impact on Indian place articles for example. I am pinging Robert McClenon who participated in the discussion and who is experienced at dispute resolution. My suggestion would be to hold a carefully worded RFC in a centralized location and advertise it heavily. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:. Sorry maybe it is irrelevant but I didn't see anything like European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages or Section Twenty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for India? I'm curious about it if there is but if there is no than my question would not affect that case.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@MirkoS18: Looking, I find, Languages of India. "The Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution lists 22 languages, which have been referred to as scheduled languages and given recognition, status and official encouragement. In addition, the Government of India has awarded the distinction of classical language to Tamil, Sanskrit, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam and Oriya." An editor more familiar with India (Sitush or SpacemanSpiff perhaps?) might know if local governments also have official languages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

NeilN is right, the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution covers major regional languages. Some states also have multiple official languages, and some have sub-region specific official languages too, e.g. in Puducherry you have three primary official languages -- Tamil, English, French and two additional ones Malayalam and Telugu based on the region (all this for territory less than 500sq km!), not that the national official language -- Hindi, doesn't feature in the scheme of things there! —SpacemanSpiff 21:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

So MirkoS18, your arguments for including minority official languages in all those places have to be very strong, given all the articles this might affect (not just Croatian ones). Expect pushback - editors don't care about things like European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages or Section Twenty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they care about how/why the change is going to improve articles for the readers of the English-language Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't read why you were interested in this, but we ran an rfc and gained consensus not to include non-English names in any India related article, so we only have English and IPA if needed across all India articles, common sense exceptions with respect to literature etc would of course apply. Life has been a lot easier for editors and readers since then. —SpacemanSpiff 21:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff:. So as for some reason I assumed this is not actually relevant for India since there is different consensus in this case?--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We ran an rfc, gained consensus that this is causing more problems than solving. As for other scripts, they are always available in the interwiki links on the side, so I would say yes, we have formed WP:INDICSCRIPT after careful deliberation and any change discussed here shouldn't apply across the board. —SpacemanSpiff 22:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:. I do not know what editors do, or do not care about. I think that argument that reader will find all those names in all official local documents (village schools/statutes/plates/documents/books...) and that they should be able to link those names with usual English name will definitely improve article quality for readers. Of course, information itself about co-official minority names in of use for reader. But visible form of village name in that language might be of extra help taking into consideration that people will see it on plates if they find themselves in that settlement for some reason. I mean, I already said many of this things before in this conversation. Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Minority language names

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)

Croats and Serbs have the same names of settlements, the difference is only in the alphabet. The names of the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet are listed under Articles. --FDrago77 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Irish minority languages

"Irish is the first official language and there are no other minority languages"

Cough... Ulster Scots (in Donegal), Irish Sign Language, and Shelta.

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090623045825/http://www.mikroglottika.com/publications.html to http://www.mikroglottika.com/publications.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.onkwehonwe.com/education

When 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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"Supporting separatism"

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 also in Liechtenstein

German is also the official language of Liechtenstein --2607:FEA8:FF01:4B63:9CF0:5A17:1414:3D61 (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)