Talk:Language ideology

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brian Cox95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

[Untitled]
I find this passage from the introduction confusing: "...notions about the value of certain ways of speaking. These aspects are all studied in the field of sociolinguistics, but the idea of language ideology is a relatively recent area of inquiry, which is primarily explored in linguistic anthropology." As written, it almost seems to contradict itself. I believe that the intent is to say that the label language ideology and its focus as a particular area of study is relatively recent and of primary interest within linguistic anthropology, right? (Though, by the way, I don't think either Wolfram or Schilling-Estes call themselves linguistic anthropologists.) Therefore, wouldn't it be more precise to say, "but the study of language ideology as such is a relatively recent area of inquiry," etc.? Cnilep (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic profiling
The reference doesn't say anything about language ideology, at least insofar as identifying it as causing discrimination via linguistic profiling - it identifies such discrimination as racially/ethnically based, with linguistic profiling enabling the discrimination (but with linguistic profiling not being considered discriminatory in and of itself). Allens (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization
Why are subsection and sub-subsection headings written with every important word capitalized? Normally such headings use sentence case (capitalize only the first word).--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Mary Louise Pratt is a scholar
A user at IP 87.113.180.161 has placed the template who on a sentence reading, "Scholars have subsequently used...." Since the cited author is a scholar, I believe this template is unwarranted. However, the user reversed my edits to the page, and I wish to avoid edit warring. (See also comments at User talk:Cnilep User talk:87.113.180.161.) Cnilep (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't even understand the objection. Is this WP:IDONTLIKEIT? If the IP user is claiming that it's WP:SYNTH, fine, but that has nothing to do with weasel words. Is the objection that only found one source, and so it should be "A scholar [has said this]"? Still, the "who" tag is inappropriate, given that it's answered immediately... by the reference.  0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 02:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Language ideology. 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/20060907074308/http://lals.la.psu.edu/ling001/myths/intro/index.php to http://lals.la.psu.edu/ling001/myths/intro/index.php/

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) 21:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)