Talk:Minoritized language

"Other Uses" Hijacked by LGBT activists
I tried removing section "Other uses" that states LGBT issues could have meaning in regard to "Minoritized Language". We are in an edit war. I insist that LGBT issue is not relevant to LANGUAGE or even ethnicity and does not belong here, and that this is just playing politics with science. Please discuss. 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The page has not been hijacked by anyone. The section on "other uses" exists because of minoritizedwho have noted that the same process by which languages are marginalized and delegitimized also applies to people of color and LGBT people. Calling them "minority groups" is not always accurate (see "majority minority") ; the unifying feature is the minoritization that they face. It is a bit ironic that your changes are basically denying the legitimacy of the discrimination faced by the LGBT community, a classic element of minoritization. Catrìona (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Scholors first then: The very first sentence states: "In sociolinguistics, a minoritized language is a LANGUAGE that is marginalized, persecuted or banned." What language would be lost by total "minoritization" of the LGBT population?   None.    I don't disagree that LGBT have been (and are) subject to discrimination.   But that alone is not an issue of language or linguistics.  Are you suggesting that "minoritized language" extends to a denial of Freedom of Speech?   If so, then Democrats are denied such at a Republican Convention (or vice-versa)?  Yet (at least in the US) they share a common language, and the language is not lost, even if there is disagreement.  LGBT discrimination can be represented elsewhere on WP (and probably is).   Keep the topic on language and linguistics. 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The first reference clearly indicates that "minoritized" is an invented word. 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow your example. It's appropriate to put in a brief mention of how the term - since it is invented for a specific meaning in context of language, culture and other forms of marginalization - is used in other contexts. Other than this one sentence, the article focuses on languages. Catrìona (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Explain to us how LGBT a) language and b) language in context to culture - can or will be lost.  Other forms of "marginalization" are out of scope.   I insist that you are making a political issue out of a science article.2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I would agree with 2600. The article is on "Minoritized Language" and deals with a specific linguistic topic. I can't see any justification for including other types of minoritisation in the body of the article. You could have a case to link to other examples in the "See also" section. To take a less emotionally-charged example I would not go to the Horse racing article and add a section on "Other kinds of racing" (greyhounds, bicycles, pigeons etc).  Tigerboy1966  07:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be more sympathetic to that argument if there were articles on, say, Minoritization of people of color or Minoritization of LGBT people. But these articles don't exist, nor should they. A link in the see also section, eg to heterosexism, doesn't help without some explanation of how the term "minoritized" is used in different contexts, because the connection is not immediately obvious. At least that's the reason I included the section in the first place. Catrìona (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP allows you to create new articles.   But your edits on LGBT and heterosexism simply do not belong in this article.  2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 September 2018
I request the section on "Other uses" be eliminated, along with its references, as well as the link to heterosexism, as not being in scope with the article topic regarding language and linguistics and adding no significant value to the article. 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC) 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, if one vote is a consensus, then I vote in favor of 2600! --2600:6C48:7006:200:B056:6066:1296:EF0B (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggested compromise
Looking for a compromise here. I don't think that anyone is "hijacking" the article or that anyone is "denying the legitimacy of the discrimination faced by the LGBT community". 2600 and I don't think that the "Other uses" section belongs here and I haven't seen any cogent arguments for its inclusion. On the other hand, I have no problems with links to other forms of discrimination, including those relating to LGBTQ+ people, in the "See also" section or by the addition of appropriate categories.  Tigerboy1966  14:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of other articles on LGBT issues and discrimination.  The intent of this article is about the loss of LANGUAGES, particularly tribal languages.    I could easily make a case that Republicans are "minoritized" at a Democratic convention, or other forms of discrimination.   But the key word in the topic title is "language".    The case has not been made that LGBT community has a unique language that is threatened with extinction.2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind. Could you explain exactly what changes you are proposing? Catrìona (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am saying take the "Other uses" section out and add links to other examples of prejudice and discrimination (including those related to LGBTQ+ people) in the "see also" section and add categories. Neither you nor 2600 would entirely happy with that but that's how WP works. Compromise; that's how you resolve conflicts. Nobody wins an edit war.  Tigerboy1966  17:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you already said that. What I was asking for is exactly what the proposed "see also" section would look like, and exactly what categories should be added. Then I could decide whether to support your proposal. Catrìona (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not say that "see also" and "categories" should be added: I suggested that they could be added as a way of reaching a compromise. I would invite you add the links and categories that you think are appropriate, and then delete the "other uses" section. I can do both of these for you if you like, but not one without the other. Then we can all go home.  Tigerboy1966  12:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You pretty much need to look at my edits to see what I think.  I see no connection to sociolinguistics and LGBT at all.   It simply does not belong in this article.
 * Right, that's me out of here. I tried to stand in the middle waving a white flag (with a tiny rainbow border) and I got shot by both sides. Hope you enjoy your war.  Tigerboy1966  13:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If nobody will uphold the credibility of WP then all of WP is subject to being used as a propaganda machine.  I made a very strong case why it does not belong here, yet Catrìona offered weak (very) justification why that information is relevant to the topic.  The references provided do not support it.  I think I'm done with WP as a whole.  I used to give money to support WP but no more.  See also Criticism of Wikipedia.  2600:6C48:7006:200:B056:6066:1296:EF0B (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

reduced educational achievement
Does it really reduce educational achievement? In France minoritisation of regional languages was meant to make communication easier and it was used for education and it had avoided many problems. French already was the admnistrative language of royalty but it is after royalty that France imposed it on the rest of the country.

History of French language

This language was taught by school as early as 1794. 24 000 schools were created for this purpose. Also it was not French was not the really the majority language neither abolutely or relatively, it was barely more spoken than occitan. By 1809 the number of french speakers went from 3 millions to 29 millions as recorded under Napoleon First (Native or not). (Which represented the whole population of France). And possibly foreign speakers. Still billions of speakers retained their regional languages at the same time.

Public school became compulsory and universal only in 1882.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politique_linguistique_de_la_France#La_politique_jacobine_de_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9ralisation_de_la_langue_fran%C3%A7aise_:_juin_1793_%C3%A0_juillet_1794

However from this time regional languages are being attacked directly even if French at this time is spoken by the whole population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OPAZL (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Institutionalized racism linked
Is language a form of "institutionalised racism"? I am not sure it should be linked to it. Yet it is partly at times with "internal racism" in some countries.

Minoritised languages minoritising other languages
Most national languages are minoritised (more or less) by English. The spelling I use for minoritised is minoritised. If English minoritises French...French also minoritises/minoritised french regionnal languages or accents. Or even dialects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OjuzKiopo (talk • contribs) 11:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: WR120
— Assignment last updated by Ghach (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)