Language desk
< April 5	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 6[edit]

Article on a country, then the language section, can there be a section on neighboring countries where the language is also understood?[edit]

Quite an important issue to understand how 2 neighboring countries/peoples feel towards each other is if they understand each other. Wouldn't it make sense to make that a standard part of a template for articles on a country? Where is that discussed? Example:

the {{Navboxes - (at the bottem of articles where you can click "show/ not show and then they flip out really relevant links to other articles) in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_language
do not appear in the main article on Armenia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia#Languages
the {{Navboxes at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_dialects

Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a research question (which is what the Reference desk is for), but more an issue to discuss at the proposals section of the Wikipedia Village pump or (if people are monitoring the page) Template talk:Infobox language. Mutual intelligibility is not a binary quality, and high mutual intelligibility is not at all an indicator of mutual warm feelings, so there may be an issue whether such an addition is helpful. --Lambiam 12:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any country's article, those countries it borders are usually named and linked in the lede (first paragraph), so one can quickly open those articles and check their language demographics for the relevant languages(s). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.130.213 (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Africanized" in Africanized bee racist?[edit]

Was it oversight? It's quite a recent word as the species is from the 1950s. As the species resulted from "honey bees from Europe and southern Africa", why are they not "Europeanized bees"?

The similarity of descriptions of Africanized bees to stereotypes about black men, such as the word "killer bee" and the association with "[being] more defensive", "[that they] react to disturbances faster", "[that they] chase people further", killing humans and "victims receiving 10 times more stings" seem strong to be coincidental, but then again that doesn't prove the naming was racially motivated.

It seems likely, in any case, that media/societal narrative on "killer bees" was to a large extent fueled by (not intentional) racism following the label "Africanized bees", as well as the paralelism between mating of the fact that it is offspring of an European bee race and an African bee race and narrative on racism against interracial relationships. Wallby (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They originated from an accidental release of a few African bee swarms spreading out and crossbreeding with local European honey bee colonies, rather than European honey bee swarms being introduced in local African bee colonies. In view of the originating event, the epithet Africanized seems more apt than Europeanized. --Lambiam 12:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, they're called "killer bees" due to their aggressiveness and potentially lethal attacks on animals including humans. Of course, maybe they have a reason to be as mad as hornets, if they were originally forced to take the back of the buzz. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are the "murder hornets", with similar concerns about racism because they are also known as Asian giant hornets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such descriptions are (accurate) reflections of the geographical origins of the species or variety of insect concerned. Anyone who can derive racism towards other human ethnicities from them is so deficient in their thinking that no amount of pandering to them will likely have any effect. How far must we distort our descriptions of reality to allow for possible malicious interpretations by evil fools? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.130.213 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]