Talk:Minority language

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

message: 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)
replies: text: CONLANGs are not "minority languages" in the sense meant here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Esperanto as a minority language 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Romanian in Serbia 

message: 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)
replies: text: The  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)

text: You may also note Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages.  I've flagged this RfC at .  —sroc 💬 08:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: , 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: . 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: . 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)
replies: text:  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 ( or  perhaps?) might know if local governments also have official languages. --NeilN talk to me 21:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: . 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Minority languages ​​in geographical articles

message: There's been an uptick in editing warring on Croatian articles with  and  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)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: . 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: . 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)
replies: text:  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 ( or  perhaps?) might know if local governments also have official languages. --NeilN talk to me 21:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: . 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)
thread_title: Croatian native names

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Minority language names

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Supporting separatism" 

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