Talk:Linguistic imperialism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This garbage does not belong in Wikipedia![edit]

"Can something more concrete be built out of this rather generic whine?" The answer is clearly No. I'm sticking an NPOV tag on it. Actually, this article should be deleted, because it's the very crap that fuels the argument contra Wiki's open collaboration. Talk pages, fine, but not the articles! This is nothing more than some undergrad who's trying to score easy points with the politically correct academic hack he happens to be infatuated with. If we permit this garbage, then why not an article called, "The Evils of Popery" or French "Culinary Imperialism"? Wikipedia is NOT for polemic! To the author of this article: If you really need show your erudition on the subject, then place it in the article on Phillipson, the clown who cooked up the notion. And for God's sake, READ the article on NPOV and weasel words! — J M Rice 20:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: this article is an embarrassing, worthless, high-school personal essay.--Lubiesque (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is each case also an example of language shift? If so, then this article can be reduced to a redirect to that better-written one. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World wide view?[edit]

Shouldn't the Chinese linguistic imperialism be mentioned somewhere? In fact, that's why the Mandarin language has become the most spoken in the world. And wouldn’t it be great to mention the Russian linguistic imperialism in the Sovjet Union? Aaker 06:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should. But the Mandarin speakers can't stop deleting it. Danielsms (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

500 years from now[edit]

Can someone please start a language future or whatever page, which discusses what e.g., language(s) everybody in the world might be speaking in e.g., 500 years. Jidanni 21:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

while whoever's going to write the above article is peering into their crystal ball, can they also find out the winners of all major horse races for the next 500 years? --86.138.30.7 (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Study regarding Wikipedia[edit]

Did anybody study Wikipedia in regards to this? It would be interesting, considering the naming disputes here.--Molobo (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Nihil novi (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting question, especially concerning people who try to adopt Polish expressions for names and places even though English expressions are in use for centuries.(62.134.88.61 (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If the names denote Polish things, then it can hardly be linguistic imperialism. On the contrary, it is linguistic decolonization. Nihil novi (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Can somebody write a specific part for Mandarin imperialism?[edit]

I've uploaded two photos about Mandarin promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezexyz (talk • contribs) 10:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will write it. It seems some Mandarin speakers come here to delete the photos. How shameful. Danielsms (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the above users, you have to provide reputable sources that actually states these images have a connection to the topic of "Linguistic Imperialism". Further, these photos lacks any description for them to be used on an encyclopedia article. Also, we do not cite Wikipedia articles as a source.--TheLeopard (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, another Mandarin speaker tries to cover up the truth. Danielsms (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
??? I can speak the sweet smell of the citrus reticulata, its ripping flesh and irresistible juices? I could also speak Tetela in mix with Mindoro, and I assure you they are very tasty cocktail drinks. However, this is English Wikipedia, so please cite reputable references for any material you contribute.--TheLeopard (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Danielsms is just yet another editor who's unwilling to learn how Wikipedia works and insists on shouting "conspiracy" instead of realizing that his edits are outside of policy. Ignore him. No one is denying that Mandarin is often cited as an example of linguistic imperialism; nevertheless, it needs to be presented here in an encyclopedic fashion, using sources and adhering to all Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view and verifiability. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madarin linguistic imperialism.* One might not come with the other.

Mandarin speakers can't stop deleting photos about the wrongdoing of Mandarin Promoting Policy[edit]

They are targeting this photo.

Danielsms (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why need to reference photo that shows the wrongdoing of Mandarin pushing policy[edit]

Mandarin speakers, you can't stop people from telling the truth to the World. Danielsms (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you need sources to state that they are related to this topic "linguistic imperalism". You should also provide a source for the English text, otherwise, translating by user themselves, is original research.--TheLeopard (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"This article gave many examples from various languages, yet single out and adding images for only one". You just want to hide the truth. Sorry but you won't win. 190.188.80.49 (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your view Mandarin can be used in the context of Linguistic imperialism. However, you need to see Rjanag's comment above and make use of WP:REF, WP:ENCYC and also WP:NPOV. Rather than be perceived as an editor with a hidden or biased agenda, source the information and present it in a fair and balanced view encompassing all views. For example, Singapore is promoting Mandarin over other Chinese variants such as Cantonese or Minnan so its citizens can compete and take advantage of the mainland Chinese market. see Speak Mandarin Campaign. And of course, see 2010 controversy over proposed increase of adoption of Standard Mandarin by Guangzhou Television. More information on Putonghua. Here I have given you something to start with. Visik (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Phillipson[edit]

So what language does Dr Phillipson write his critique of English Language Imperialism? Scots Gaelic? If not why not?--Streona (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His book Linguistic Imperialism is in English. I don't know whether he is a speaker of Scots Gaelic (I would guess not -- I think he's Danish), but he described that language as a "threatened language" in the book. (see Phillipson, Robert (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford University Press. p. 103. ISBN 978-0-19-437146-9.) Also see Robert Phillipson (13 March 2012). "Linguistic imperialism alive and kicking". Guardian Weekly. See also [1]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More and better sources needed, for sure[edit]

Who has suggestions for sources to improve this article? What encyclopedia-style or professional-handbook-style or university-textbook-style reliable sources mention the topic of this article? In particular, where can we find a broad overview of this topic with international perspective, rather than sources that focus solely on one language or on just one country? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WeijiBaikeBianji: Giving the subject, I'd suggest checking sources cited in other Wikipedia language sites. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Searching in Google Books for encyclopedia "Linguistic imperialism" turned up quite a few sources. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded article[edit]

Some of us have made minor improvements in the past few months, but recently I changed my mind and gave up hope. Language shift seems to cover the topic adequately, though it omits this article's linguistic conservatism POV. If some of this conservative material ought to be in an article, it can be incorporated as a section or subsection of either of those. Meanwhile, I intend this weekend to abolish this article by reducing it to a redirect to language shift. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've noted a short discussion between yourself and another user on this talk page, plus the merge tag. Sorry, but I have to disagree. Linguistic imperialism is an entirely different prospect to language shift, as is well documented by research (see Google Scholar). The dynamics and intent are far more aggressive than that of language shift. In fact, having read over the language shift article, it's equally lacking in RS, so there's a stronger argument for merging that article into this one as the term 'language shift' is closely linked with endangered languages, ergo is more specialised than the broader 'linguistic imperialism' nomenclature.
I don't dispute that this article is in desperate need of serious improvement, but I do object to merging and redirecting to the other article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid. With the attention of someone having far more relevant competence than mine, hope becomes reasonable. I have taken down the merge tag. Sorry to be late getting back to you; the past few days are busier than I expected when I raised the flag. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jim.henderson. Apologies for my belated response. I'm stuck in a Wikipedia vs real life balance at the moment. I've bookmarked this article for my priorities list, but I do need to find time to do some serious reading up for the articles. I'm far better equipped from the 'Endangered languages' side of things. Linguistic imperialism is something I need to reacquaint myself with in order to do justice to the differences between the thrust of the concepts. Endangered languages is a relatively recent area of studies and has developed a lexicon of its own, but some of the terms are borrowed from surrounding disciplines and tread on their toes. Getting to the heart of the differences is dependent on finding solid RS on which to base the articles.
P.S. Good to bump into you again, and happy editing. There's always so much to be done, and only one lifetime in which to do it! In between, we catch colds and other 'stuff' happens to slow us down... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linguistic imperialism. 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:

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) 11:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linguistic imperialism. 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:

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) 19:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linguistic imperialism. 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:

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) 19:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English and the Philippines[edit]

This doesn't fit in the English section as it is currently structured (with an {{undue weight section}} tag. Rather than try to integrate it there, I'll mention it here.

I'm a nonacademic with some personal interest in Philippine history, and I've just run across this chapter titled, "Diffusion and directions: English language policy in the Philippines" from Azirah Hashim; Norizah Hassan (2006), English in Southeast Asia: Prospects, Perspectives, and Possibilities, University of Malaya Press, ISBN 978-983-100-319-0 \. A snippet:

On 13 August 1898, a few months before American forces officially occupied Manila, American soldiers had already begun to teach in Corregidor (Estioko 1994: 186). It is assumed that their first lesson was English. It was no accident that the first English teachers in the Philippines were American soldiers. Public education was introduced as an essential component of military strategy. General Arthur MacArthur himself declared the following about public education:

The matter [public education] is so closely allied to the exercise of military force in these islands that in my annual report I treated the matter as a military subject and suggested a rapid extension of educational facilities as an exclusively military measure. (UNESCO-Philippine Educational Foundation 1953: 74)

Throughout the American colonial period, English was systematically promoted as the language that would “civilize” the Filipinos. The aim was to systematically confine the native languages to outside the territories of schooling. The policy was institutionalized through the heavy use of instructional materials of Anglo-American origin for language instruction. Throughout four decades of American public education, [...]

It might be useful for someone more attuned to the topic of this WP article than I to take a look at this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet points[edit]

Does anyone else feel that the use of bullet points throughout the article gives it an unprofessional vibe? It gives me the feeling that it's not a reliable source to use for this topic. Toricooper (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: WR120[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 3 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacobzzzzzz (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jacobzzzzzz (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Are there some problems to add

Main article: [[:English language imperialism [ja; zh]]]

in #English section? Sugi moyo(魔王語/한국어/English) 19:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linguistic_imperialism&oldid=1202025997"