Talk:List of countries where language is a political issue
|
|
This article is very POV - especially the minor/serious "rankings" bit.
It is trying hard to be NPOV. (a) There's nothing POV about noting that language is, or is not, a factor in a country's politics. Some bilingual countries get on quite happily (e.g. the Swedish speaking minority in Finland); others are constantly at each other's throats (e.g. Flemings and Walloons in Belgium). (b) The rankings are judgements, but I've tried to ground them in objective facts. There is a difference between the situation in Canada/Quebec, where language issues threaten the dissolution of the country, and the situation in France/Brittany, where a lot of people would like to see more Breton around, but no-one actually speaks it and Breton nationalists only get derisory votes in elections. We have to try to express those differences. seglea 06:08, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
very well put. Xah P0lyglut 06:10, 2003 Dec 13 (UTC)
I added Norway to the list of countries. While there is little controversy about the spoken languages (Norwegian and Lappish) there are some controversy about the two Norwegian written languages, bokmål and nynorsk. The official terms (according to the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) are "Dano-Norwegian" (bokmål) and "New-Norwegian" (nynorsk), but even using these terms on the english wikipedia entry on Norwegian Language led to discussions about POV (see discussion page). We are in fact having quite a heathed debate on the Norwegian wiki at the time being, about whether or not we should have seperate wikis, use both languages on the same wikipedia (again divided by those who want to write in both languages in the same article and those who thinks everybody should be able to change it back and forth) or just stick with the most used language, bokmål (used by 85% of the Norwegian population). Maybe I should have graded it "moderate" instead of "moderate-to-minor", but it's not something that everybody care to discuss (except that kids have to learn both languages at school). :) Mendalus 04:50, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
There is also the problem of small language groups that are rapidly disappearing. This shows up more as an academic issue because linguistics is rapdily losing its base of languages for comparison as a few major languages take over the world. Its not seen as a political issue only because the groups involved are small and politically powerless. For example, in Canada language issues focus on English/French, but a lot of First Nations languages have disappeared or are close to it. The difference is that the First Nations are scattered into many small diverse groups and have relatively little economic and political power. Edmilne 04:59, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
VfD
- List of countries where language is a political issue - cannot be NPOV'ed --Jiang | Talk 06:03, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I think that's an abuse of the concept of NPOV. There are plenty of badly needed articles that are inevitably going to be writing about areas where there are strong differences of opinion; what we have to do is to record the existence and severity of those differences, without taking up a position on them. It would be NPOV if we asserted which language was the important one, or something like that. I put the article up because in editing pages about Belgium I found I needed somewhere to link to for linguistic disputes (existing references were to linguistics - jump there to see how ridiculous that is). The best thing of course would be if we had a set of articles like the very fair Spanish in the United States - my longterm hope is that this list would link to such articles, which would explain what the difficulty is in each case.
- Keep. i think this article is useful. Situations like English/French in Quebec or Mandarin/Taiwanese in Taiwan is a gravity of war, not trivia. Xah P0lyglut 06:33, 2003 Dec 13 (UTC)
- Keep. Article looks balanced and neutral to me, as well as useful. Spellbinder 06:44, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Keep, but consider eliminating the assessments of gravity, as that seems very subjective. -Anthropos 06:48, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
- The level of gravity might be, but the level of conflict it engenders is relatively easy to judge.209.102.126.52 06:54, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems to be neutral article. The "gravity assessments" could be tricky but do add something to the article. I suspect language is political issue in every country where more than one language is spoken, ie almost every country in the world. Are there any completely monolingual countries? I cannot think of one off hand. ping 07:16, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)~
- Delete. I can't think of a major country where language isn't a political issue. So this page will become a list of the world's countries, with an essentially arbitrary assessment of how contentious or political language issues are there. -- Finlay McWalter 13:18, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I'm afraid Finlay is probably correct. There may be a place for an article on contentious issues related to languages, but this is not it. Delete - Marshman 17:33, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. The gravity thing is too subjective, but the article as a whole is useful. moink 18:04, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Agreed. Keep, would lead off to a number of very interesting articles. I think the gravity assessments should be removed. I would argue that for any country mentioned in this article language disputes should by definition be a fairly serious matter and worthy of a proper article on the subject. I would remove France and the UK from that list. I suspect language issues are pretty much settled in New Zealand and Switzerland but I'm not sure. :ChrisG
- Keep and add to Cleanup. The list itself has the fatal flaw of using a single word to describe each conflict. The political issue in Belgium is "serious"? Really? That imparts no information whatsoever. If nobody volunteers then VfD again in a few weeks. Tempshill 19:34, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- The meaning of "serious" is explained on the page. It therefore only "imparts no information" if you've forgotten the definition by the time you read the list. Onebyone 20:01, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Language in New Zealand is not a huge issue but it is certainly not settled and there is always the potential that it could flare up. Apart from the obvious Maori/English issue which will always be with us there is the question of the changing demographics due to immigration. Auckland particularly has an increasing polyglot population; in the last three years it has become common to see advertisements etc wholly in Asiatic languages. There is also an increasing Somali population. Add this to the pre-existing populations of Tongan, Samoan and Cook Island Maori speeking people and it becomes clear that Auckland is a very complex linguistic mixture. Presumeably there are many other cities in the same situation.
Meanwhile I have been assured by experts that language is always a political issue. ping 07:27, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Is anyone going to disagree if I point out that English vs. Welsh is a controversial issue in Wales? Or that Japan has no controversy over language? That's not POV. Wiwaxia 23:29, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I won't disagree with you and I agree your statment is very neutral. I don't think neutrality is the real issue here despite some of the comments. The difficulty is in setting limits on the subject, e.g. where would Singapore fit on the list. With three seperate races, Malay, Chinese and Indian, they made English the official language so no one race has a linguistic advantage. In solving a political problem did they remove themselves from the list? ping 08:07, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I don't know the situation that well, but are we sure that the situation in Belgium warrants a serious categorisation? i.e. that the unity of the country is threatened or that terrorism or violence is involved? Belgium has been a stable country for several centuries now, and I don't see evidence of threatened separation. DJ Clayworth 18:34, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I don't see why the situation in France was ranked as serious, and I de-ranked it to minor. The little terrorism that exists in Corsica, for instance, as little grassroot support (as demonstrated by the defeat of the independantists in regional elections and the local referendum turning down proposals for more autonomy). David.Monniaux 16:13, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Changed again to fit definitions in the article. Clarified as being local issue only. -- Naive cynic 15:44, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I don't know any single part of France where there is terrorism or strife caused by language issues. First, there is no terrorism in Brittany unless you count the ridiculous stunts of some Breton nationalist groups as terrorism. Second, the problems in Corsica are not so much a problem of language as complex problems of mafias, subsidies, local politics and Corsican cultures. Third, the problems in the Basque Country are rather on the Spanish side. David.Monniaux 11:01, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article itself has potential, but I am shocked and offended by its phrasing. Problematic, serious, friction, gravity, threaten, contained, intensely seriously, etc. Might I remind that self-determination is something deemed legitimate by the UN and the international community? The desire for freedom can be something else than a product of friction, than a threat: it can, on the contrary, be a sign of newfound confidence and a quest for dignity. Why do we so seldomly speak in such cataclysmic terms about the violent conquests that lead to many of these nations being annexed by other nations, whether it be Scotland, or Quebec, or others?
Also, someone would have to explain to me how the devil the situation in Quebec is moderate, serious in past when the approval is now higher than in the past (i.e.: 50% in a poll from the end of June 2004) and that a referendum is planned by the independentists. Unless this is is just a list about terrorism and not independentist fervor.
So, we have to drastically and urgently change the terminology in this slanted article. --Liberlogos 14:28, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I am rather more positive than you about the article. Friction is really a matter of fact, whatever are the reasons behind it: quest of dignity, newfound confidence, or ethnically disguised economic conflicts. A "threat" to the unity of a country is a matter of fact as well. So, the topic can thus be objective (maybe not currently perfect as such) and can be very useful, notably to know where language is an issue and how the issue is dealt with. Some countries could improve the way they deal with the language issue by looking at how other countries deal with it. Dividing a country is an option, cultural and language tolerance is another. --Edcolins 21:30, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
How come there is not a single African country mentioned in this list? I hope I'll find the time to do some research, but there are at least 10 that definitely should be listed here, and probably many more. This must be a case of the systemic bias of Wikipedia. - Strangeloop (talk) 13:15, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Well, if I recall, most countries in Africa (and South Asia for that matter) are extremely multilingual and multiethnic, and use one or a few linguæ francæ as a second language to intercommunicate, usually Arabic or a language native to Europe. (Though some local languages such as Amharic, Berber, Oromo, Swahili, Tigrinya, etc. are also used as regional linguæ francæ) So, it's almost never a case of just two or three languages to dispute over, but rather dozens or hundreds. However, I do recall that there seems to be some controversy in some Maghreb region countries about whether Berber should be recognized as a national language. Also, during the dictatorship period in Ethiopia, if I recall, Amharic was forced as the national language (can someone verify this)? But I think maybe a reason why African linguistic politics are so seldom discussed is because many people simply do not study them. That in itself could be a result of bias, but it means that an exclusion of mention comes from lack of study, and not deliberate exclusion. (So let's all study! ^_^) - Gilgamesh 00:01, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I removed Vietnamese from the list. I don't see how it can be viewed as a serious issue when Canada's is viewed as moderate. As far as I know, most people living in Vietnam speak Vietnamese as a first language (87%) and the rest speak Vietnamese as a second language. Nobody has raised the issue of language as a political issue.
I think the problem with this article is that it confuses language as being a point of political debate and political debate as being a source of violence. For example, the situation in Canada is classified as "moderate, serious in the past", presumably because terrorism existed in the 60/70s and does not exist anymore. However, from a political point of view, the situation is as serious as ever, and definitely more than in Belgium. If the classification is an indication of the level of violence, it is not clear and does not belong there; if it is an indication of political relevance, it is not well done and should be corrected.
- I'm going to change Canada's status to "serious." It may be "confined" to Quebec, but as that province has almost 25% of the country's people and has flirted with secession, it's definitely a serious issue. Funnyhat 20:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)