This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
On the other hand, it does not seem to have been made entirely with good judgement. They mention English speakers in Ecuador but not the fact that Hindi is an official language of Fiji. Munci ( talk) 21:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey!
Tibetan is listed twice. (sorry for putting it here but I'm a wikinoob) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.191.19.242 (
talk)
02:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see ethnologue removed from this article. Ethnologue provides unreliable data, unreliable dating of this data, contradicts itself and contradicts other sources. We should use better non-religious sources, such as UN, CIA, etc... It might be interesting to define what "native speaker" means, as I feel bilinguals can also be considered native speakers of both languages. Ren ✉ 23:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought the UN had some numbers... I'm not an expert, but it seems clear to me that ethnologue is an unreliable source, I can't say about the others. I feel using Encarta or ethnologue as facts is wrong, since they don't provide us with their sources, making such refs unfit for wikipedia. We could use data from governments directly. I'm sure people wouldn't mind if we calculate things ourselves, sums shouldn't be too hard.
Basically, I offer to get rid of encarta, ethnologue, and expand the "other estimates". It's more encyclopedic, It's more wikipedia, It just seems right that way. Statistics are great but we need to know how these stats were gathered before to compare anything to anything else. I offer we organize it as Rank-Language-Family-Number(includeslower/higher estimate 1st lang spkr, same for second language, or just total). Remains the issue of what a second language native speaker is. Two or three refs per number, and no wiki/encyclopedia refs. Refs should include which year data was collected and how (if possible) it was collected. Ren ✉ 18:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The thing is there is already the article
Ethnologue list of most-spoken languages which does more or less the same thing as this article in its current state, just shorter. And I don't think putting in second language speakers is really relevant to this article because it is already covered at
List of languages by number of native speakers.
Munci (
talk)
03:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the talkpage for List of languages by number of native speakers and it currently includes second speakers (and my point is that I don't know what is considered a "second language speaker". The way I see it, we have to include populations who speak two (or more) languages natively. Example: Zimbabwe. Most of them speak shona, the other speak ndebele... but they communicate with each other in english... a majority of the population are native english speakers. therefore english-speaking zimbabweans should be considered native speakers of english. Ren ✉ 00:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I found this list at http://www2.ignatius.edu/faculty/turner/languages.htm. It seems far more realistic.
Mandarin Chinese (1.12 billion)
English (480 million)
Spanish (320 million)
Russian (285 million)
French (265 million)
Hindi/Urdu (250 million)
Arabic (221 million)
Portuguese (188 million)
Bengali (185 million)
Japanese (133 million)
German (109 million)
Ren ✉ 00:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
That list that Ren listed I think is just as unreliable. 480 million native speakers of English? 133 million for Japanese (less than the population of Japan), 265 million for French? Too high. In terms of native speakers, I find those figures more dubious than the ones listed on the article.
Also, copied directly from the website regarding that list: "Thus, if you add the secondary speaker populations to the primary speaker populations, you get the following (and I believe more accurate) list: (number of speakers in parentheses)". So that list also accounts for non-native speakers. Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 00:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I think Ren is misunderstanding what a native language speaker is. It doesn't mean just that you can speak it fluently but as your mother tongue; the first language the person learnt. Only people bilingual from a very young age could count for multiple languages. Langue maternelle quoi. Munci ( talk) 11:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the data already includes second language speakers. That's why I offered to define "second language native speakers". Because I think it's fair to say that Cajun people speak french and english natively, that shona people speak english and shona natively, etc. The list I provided can't be used as a ref, and I'm in no way offering to use original research. The way we normally do things on wikipedia is including good refs, and if they contradict each other, let's say one says 200000 spanish speakers, and another 300000, then we should write 200m ~ 300m, and provide the references. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN APPROXIMATE AFTER ALL. Citing other encyclopaedias certainly isn't our way here. If it is not possible to do what I offer I suggest we just delete this article. I don't see why using non-encarta and non-ethnologue references would be OR. Ren ✉ 12:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Allow me to offer renaming it to "List of languages supposedly sorted by number of native speakers according [verify claims] to two self-contradicting websites" :D Ren ✉ 02:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
If we count every language that has at least one speaker (a very silly thing to do considering statistical significance), why not counting the mother tong of every Jew who was born in Baghdad more than fifty years ago (e.g. Sami Michael)? Eddau ( talk) 02:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If we are counting every language, where is Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language? Do we really have to pretend to count every language? It is clearly impossible to do so. Eddau ( talk) 02:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
This list counts almost 20 sign languages while " List of sign languages" counts about 10 times more. Eddau ( talk) 03:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
About the inclusion of sign languages: Do they qualify as "spoken"? Ren ✉ 04:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh I know they are languages, but they aren't spoken, are they? They're signed. Moreover there's an article just for sign languages over here: List of sign languages by number of native signers Ren ✉ 13:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. This article is about spoken languages. There is an article about signed languages. There are articles about computer languages. There are articles about artificial, seemingly useless languages, and about dead languages. This one is about spoken languages. Ren ✉ 15:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The whole article is nonsense. The CIA factbook on Iran states 58% Persian and Persian dialects, in Afghanistan it is 50% Afghan-Persian, and in Tajikistan it is above 80% Persian. These are all the same language no different than Australian, American and British. The total number from the CIA factbook is a tleast 60%. However this is an understatement. I suggest either Encarta be removed and the CIA factbook to replace it. And also the CIA factbook should primacy. Ethnologue is so messedup that it counts the total population of all languages in Iran (do the math) as around 45 million whereas Iran's population is 72 million according to the latest census. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.168.124 ( talk) 04:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Tajikistan
Population: 7,349,145 (July 2009 est.)
[1]
Nationality:
noun: Tajikistani(s)
adjective: Tajikistani
Ethnic groups:
Tajik 79.9%, Uzbek 15.3%, Russian 1.1%, Kyrgyz 1.1%, other 2.6% (2000 census)
Languages:
Tajik (official)
Uzbekistan
Population:
27,606,007 (July 2009 est.)
[2]
Nationality:
noun: Uzbekistani
adjective: Uzbekistani
Ethnic groups:
Uzbek 80%, Russian 5.5%, Tajik 5%, Kazakh 3%, Karakalpak 2.5%, Tatar 1.5%, other 2.5% (1996 est.)
Languages:
Uzbek 74.3%, Russian 14.2%, Tajik 4.4%, other 7.1%
Afghanistan
Population:
28.396 million (July 2009 est.)
[3]
Nationality:
noun: Afghan(s)
adjective: Afghan
Ethnic groups:
Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%
Languages:
Afghan Persian or Dari (official) 50%, Pashto (official) 35%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%, much bilingualism
Iran
Population:
66,429,284 (July 2009 est.)
[4]
Nationality:
noun: Iranian(s)
adjective: Iranian
Ethnic groups: Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%
Languages:
Persian and Persian dialects 58%, Turkic and Turkic dialects 26%, Kurdish 9%, Luri 2%, Balochi 1%, Arabic 1%, Turkish 1%, other 2%
Tadjik and Afghan Persian or Dari not the Persian languages... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ilgar Khankishiyev (
talk •
contribs)
16:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes they are. What you have quoted are official names of the language. They have different official names. However specialist and linguistic sources consider them variants of the same language. Sources are brought with this regard. Also CIA factbook calls it "Afghan Persian" as well, since it is Persian of Afghanistan.I will add linguistic sources that refer to these as Persian dialects of one language. -- Np4 ( talk) 19:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is a source for example:
Bernard Lewis,"The multiple identities of the Middle East", Schocken Books, 1998. ISBN-0805241728, 9780805241723 pg. 55: "Apart from Iran, Persian has official status in two other countries; in Afghanistan, where the local form of Persian is known as Dari, and in the former soviet Republic of Tajikistan."
Also ethnologue considers Afghan Persian and Iranian Persian to be dialects of the same language
[2] (hence both listed under Persian). It is just that ethnologue uses wrong statistics (the total population of Iran is 45 million). Plus I am native speaker and I can assure you I understand both along with Tajiki. But I have added sources with this regard from scholars including Bernard Lewis (an expert of the region). And if we are going by your classification, then Azerbaijani would be 11.2 million see:
[3]... So just like Ethnologue has Eastern Persian (Afghan Persian) and Western Persian, there is a South Azerbaijani and Northern Azerbaijani, but these are not considered different languages (both in the case of Persian or Azeri). Thanks. And I have added 3-4 sources with this regard from specialized sources, and that should be sufficient. --
Np4 (
talk)
19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi.Azerbaijani is/are (the) language (tongue), there is/are many dialects. Azerbaijani is/are called in spite of divide (the) Azerbaijani of north and South. But (only) language (tongue) of Tajik and Dari is not Persian. Tajik and Dari is/are called from apparently from name.To belong to (the) family of like (analogous) language (tongue) is not to say to be still (yet) Persian.
Ilgar Khankishiyev (
talk)
18:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Tajiks have been shown as (like) separate language (tongue) in the article in 72 places. Ilgar Khankishiyev ( talk) 18:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, You do not speak the language but I do. Per ethnologue, Tajik is a Persian language [4]. I understand it and communicate with Tajiks in Persian and they understand me and I listen to their radio. And here is a new source confirming the same thing (From Radio Free Europe): [5] "Iran, Tajikistan, and many regions in Afghanistan speak various dialects of Persian that are mutually intelligible. In 2006, the three countries' leaders met in Dushanbe and agreed to establish a joint television channel."
Furthermore, you can't delete sources in wikipedia as it will get you banned. However the Encyclopedia of Orient and Bernard Lewis calls these dialects Persian and mutually intellgible. In terms of sources Bernard Lewis is a well know scholar and you cannot push WP:OR in wikipedia and delete it. It is considered vandalism and bad editing to delete sourced information that is WP:RS Wikipedia works by secondary sources (that is scholars who summarize like Bernard Lewis) and it is stronger than Teriatary sources (like factbooks or even ethnologue). Plus the Encyclopedia of Orient has also been added which you are not allowed to remove and consequent vandalism will be reported. Also the name of the language is "Farsi", "Dari" and "Farsi-Dari" much like Deutch, German, Almany refer to the same language. "Tajiki" is a new name made during the USSR era, but ethnologe, Bernard Lewis and Encyclopedia of Orient also agree it is a Persian dialect and mutually intelligble with the Persian of Iran (and I can say that based on personal experience). So do not delete sources as it is considered vandalism.
Official language !!!
[5]
www.cia.gov
Tajik (official)
Tajikistan
Afghan Persian or Dari (official)
Afghanistan
Article about native speakers and not about native language family...
Classification language family →Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Iranian, Western, Southwestern, Persian
www.ethnologue.com
Tajik (Alternate names →Galcha, Tadzhik, Tajiki Persian)
[6]
Farsi, Eastern(Alternate names → Dari, Parsi, Persian)
[7]
Farsi, Western (Alternate names → New Persian, Parsi, Persian)
[8]
Ilgar Khankishiyev (
talk)
16:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I will report you to the administrator for DELETING sources. Why are you deleting sources!? Who told you, you can delete Bernard Lewis and other scholars?!? Do you understand the rulers of WIkipedia or are you vandalizing to get banned?
Native speakers is Eastern Farsi, and Western Farsi" according to ethnologue. Under Tajiki: Read again: "Dialect blending into Dari Persian [prs] in Afghanistan" (Tajiki). [6]
Read again: [ [7]] "The individual languages within this macrolanguage are: Dari [prs] Iranian Persian [pes]"
Did you understand what it says? Do you know what a macrolanguage is? (Azeri is also a macrolanguage:"South Azeri" and "North Azeri") [8] Read it again [9].
A macrolanguage has several dialects. Azeri is also a macrolanguage [10]. And if we are to use the same criterion, then "Azeri South" and "Azeri North" should be separate. However you are trying to separate from the same site "Eastern Farsi" and "Western Farsi". So stop the bias editing.
[11]
Persian (10)
Aimaq [aiq] (Afghanistan) Bukharic [bhh] (Israel) Darwazi [drw] (Afghanistan) Dehwari [deh] (Pakistan) Dzhidi [jpr] (Israel) Farsi, Eastern [prs] (Afghanistan) Farsi, Western [pes] (Iran) Hazaragi [haz] (Afghanistan) Pahlavani [phv] (Afghanistan) Tajiki [tgk] (Tajikistan)
These are considered dialects in ethnologue, not separate languages. The actual family is called "South Western" [12].
As per CIA factbook, those are official names for the same language, nothing more. Dari-Persian and Tajiki and Farsi are different names for the same language and are considered dialects of the same macrolanguage. All of them are correcrt historically (Tajiki is a name Turks used for Persian).
Also you deleted information from other sources which is UNACCEPTABLE. You do not have the right to delete other sites. You cannot use it to delete other sites. SO DO NOT REMOVE INFORMATION AGAIN. Specially These: A) David Levinson, Karen Christensen, "Encyclopedia of modern Asia", Charles Scribner's Sons, 2002. pg 50: "The most important modern languages of the Iranian family are (West Iranian) Persian (Farsi, Dari, and Tajiki), Tati, Baluchi, Zaza, and numerous unwritten " -- RustamDastani ( talk) 10:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC) B) Bernard Lewis,"The multiple identities of the Middle East", Schocken Books, 1998. ISBN-0805241728, 9780805241723 pg. 55: "Apart from Iran, Persian has official status in two other countries; in Afghanistan, where the local form of Persian is known as Dari, and in the former soviet Republic of Tajikistan."
Do you have a problem comprehending these very clear statements? And do you understand you cannot delete these statements per WP:VANDALISM?
Now this is your 5th time deleting valid information. Specially books by Bernard Lewis and other experts. I have reported you to the administration for violating Wikipedia Guidelines and performing WP:vandalism. -- RustamDastani ( talk) 10:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The MSN Encarta link is taken from SIL (Ethnologue). So it is not only redudant, but it takes data from the same wrong source. I suggest Encarta in the article be replaced by the CIA factbook. -- Np4 ( talk) 20:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
My comments: 1) The Encarta estimate link does not work [15]. 2) The Encarta estimate is heavily reliant on ethnologue. At least with CIA factbook or another source, you will get a much more independent estimate. Given the high correlation between ethnologue and Encarta (where it used ethnologue), I recommend Encarta/MSN to be replaced for CIA factbook. Most of the numbers of ethnlogue and Encarta are almost exact. So replacing it with CIA factbook is a good idea in order to have a different estimate. This would improve the article's wiki quality as well since many wikipedia articles rely on the factbook and not encarta. -- Chetori6 ( talk) 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec)
Those number are ridicolous for say Kannda or Gujari. I say for each language, multiple sources like at least 8-10 are used and the most common figure (the median or mean) is adopted. Also the disparity could be due to years. Also you overlook the many similarities between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.168.124 ( talk) 03:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
So Piraha, w 300 speakers, is ranked 500th, that is, in the top 10% of the world's languages. I think we might have a problem here.
I left off watching this article years ago. It doesn't look as though it's improved much. kwami ( talk) 12:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Well there are what? 6000 languages in the world. Already having 500 is far from complete but it is an incomplete list which is unlikely to ever be complete. This should probably be stressed mroe in the lead. Which does still need to be split since it's too long by the way. Munci ( talk) 13:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Does seem so. Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 15:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
If you grant that the populations of australia, new zealand, ireland, the united kingdom, canada, and the united states are native speakers of english with any pockets of non-English replaced by smaller native english populations such as say Jamaica or non-nation state enclaves ( Philippine English etc.), then that's flat out more that 438 million (by their current wiki reported populations). The Ethnologue based ranking is a joke and a highlight of how politicized elements can descend to farce. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that the editors of this page come to a consensus, not on the basis of a supposed authority but on the basis of plain reason as to what constitutues a native speaker of a language and then apply that consistently and uniformly. This concept has a range of meanings from an extreme of the highly proficient monoglot speaker of the prestige dialect of a standardized language learned in infancy to less restrictive ones. In the above thread here are some things I take as NOT excluding a person from being a "native speaker":
- It's not the language (one/both) their parents spoke nor of their home ethnicity
- It's not the first language they spoke
- They don't speak a prestige dialect but do speak a fully intelligible one of the lang in question
- It's not the only or even primary spoken language (but it was either learned in childhood or has become one in which they are fully competent speakers early in life)
- & etc.
. Once you have a wiki consensus precising definition you can apply that. As the archives and related articles show, this is a highly contentious matter, so it will be easy to distinguish yourselves from the disorderly mob-like behavior that has gone before. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 01:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone suggested it and I agree. Instead alphabetize it. Or alphabetize each range and put a language by its highest WP:RS estimate. -- RustamDastani ( talk) 14:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree. Ranking is fine? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.124.181.51 (
talk)
08:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Ranking in principal doesn't seem to be a bad idea, but the actual ranking seems to be a bit off. For example it states that French is the 4th most widely spoken language when 2nd language speakers are factored in, yet I have not seen data anywhere- including this same article- that supports that claim. The article says that including 2nd language speakers there are 200 million French speakers. That's less speakers than (at least) Mandarin, English, Spanish, Hindi/Urdu, Arabic, Bengali, Portuguese, Russian and Japanese. How is it supposed to be fourth? Unless they're actually including all those they mention in the article who [I'm paraphrasing]- 'speak French pretty well'. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.178.77.197 (
talk)
15:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the arguments here go around whether one language has more speakers or whatever. Pleas abstain from original research or personal opinions. They are against the basic principels of Wiki. Just reliable and prestigous sources are valid. I know that for some people the United Nations. just to use an example. is not a prestigious source. but for most people are. Koon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.124.181.51 ( talk) 08:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
? any help will be appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.86.52 ( talk) 09:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Italian native speakers are 70 million, not 60. 60 are the speakers in Italy of Italian language.-- FrankVonPedro ( talk) 16:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The phrase 1,000+ million appears several times in the article in reference to number of speakers. This number does not exist, the correct term being obviously one billion. But since it appears so many times, is it possible it's just being used for ease of comparison? If not it should be changed. Howan ( talk) 00:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The page on List of Languages by Number of Native Speakers needs a citation for the number of speakers in Ter Sami. On the page about Ter Sami [16] it cites that the number of speakers being 2 using this website [17]. If it would qualify as a reliable source, then the citation would no longer be needed.
Somewherethereliesus (
talk)
19:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
kindly saraiki may be included in list as it is largest language in pakistan. And 9th largest in the world. sariki laguage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.10.107 ( talk) 01:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Tibetan seems to be listed twice. If anyone could correct this, that'd be great. AlexanderKaras ( talk) 00:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I read somewhere Harrison Ford and Sharon stone are fluent in Tibetan too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.198 ( talk) 01:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Dutch counts more, 16.9 million (The Netherlands), 6 million (Belgium), Suriname, Aruba, Netherlands antilles, older Indonesians. 24 million native speakers at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.144.121 ( talk) 20:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Afrikaans has more native speakers, but the SA government denies it. And add the Namibians who speak it in a large number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.144.121 ( talk) 21:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is the Nepali language (No 53) in front of Serbo-Croatian (No 54), when it is obvious that Serbo-Croatian has more speakers according to both estimates? For both languages the two estimates are identical:
Vanjagenije ( talk) 17:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The Serbo-Croatian language in Croatia is spoken by less than 5,000 (4,961) people [18]. SC is not an official language in any country.-- Sokac121 ( talk) 21:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Serbian language and Croatian language are not one and the same language. Serbo-Croatian is an artificial language that was forced upon many nations, it is now being spoken by less than 100.000 speakers. Why is this Wikipedia tollerating the incorrect information on the number of speakers of that "language?" In Austria, in Gradišće (Burgenland), Croats speak the a variant of the Croatian language, called gradiščanski, that has no connections with Serbian language.-- Sokac121 ( talk) 23:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I know this is a stupid question, but… According to Wikipedia, the populations of the United States and the United Kingdom alone are 310 million and 62 million, respectively; so, even considering that relatively tiny percentages of the two countries’ citizens don’t speak English natively, how is it possible that there are only 328–350 million native English speakers in the entire world? If the reason be that these figures are simply outdated, then I would submit that these numbers are so far removed from the current reality that the figures in this article are essentially meaningless and practically useless. — Technion ( talk) 19:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
By this list nobody in the world speaks french... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartakus21century ( talk • contribs) 07:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The numbers here are ridicolous. For example Kurdish is put at 10 million! Or Persian is put at 30 million. These numbers completely contradict CIA factbook, Library of Congress and standard demographic numbers.-- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 02:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is certainly of value, but numbers need to be verified, languguages need to be defined, etc. I will do my part. cheers, Bruinfan12 ( talk) 13:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Catalan is not official in Spain. Catalan is official in Andorra and co-official in Catalonia (with spanish), but not official or co-official in Balearic Islands, Valencia, Aragon, France or Italy. You must correct that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.214.142.101 ( talk) 13:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we have in this point a similar (not same) problem that in the above "Serbo-Croatian" controversy. We must avoid here political contaminations. It is correct that "Catalan" is not the official name of the language spoken in Valencia, but "Valencian" is. Since a linguistic point of view, Catalan and Valencian must be considered as two variants of the same language; in fact, Catalan in Lleida is more similar to Valencian that Standard Catalan based on the variants of the Catalan coast (Barcelona, Girona). But, unfortunately, there`s no an historical global name for all the variants spoken in Catalonia, Valencia, Aragón, Balearic Islands, Andorra, Rosellón (France) and Algero (Sardinia). And the use of the word "Catalan" for all of them is controversial because of Catalan nationalistic aspirations; Valencian people (and so Balearic) don`t like it, and I understand why: they are not "Catalan people". But, as always, there`s no solution for this controversy until Politicians let Philologists debate it calmly. Habibicb, 21 October 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habibicb ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
it’s funny that for Swahili you've put 5mil and secondary language for 80mil, not correct... this is the first language in Tanzania (and Zanzibar), Kenya, Malawi, and secondary in Congo, north of Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.86.158 ( talk) 14:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
616 native speakers. Really? Presumably that number was derived from adding the 580 on Norfolk (in 1989) to the 36 on Pitcairn (in 2002). Clearly nonsense. wjemather bigissue 20:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
On the other hand, it does not seem to have been made entirely with good judgement. They mention English speakers in Ecuador but not the fact that Hindi is an official language of Fiji. Munci ( talk) 21:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey!
Tibetan is listed twice. (sorry for putting it here but I'm a wikinoob) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.191.19.242 (
talk)
02:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see ethnologue removed from this article. Ethnologue provides unreliable data, unreliable dating of this data, contradicts itself and contradicts other sources. We should use better non-religious sources, such as UN, CIA, etc... It might be interesting to define what "native speaker" means, as I feel bilinguals can also be considered native speakers of both languages. Ren ✉ 23:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought the UN had some numbers... I'm not an expert, but it seems clear to me that ethnologue is an unreliable source, I can't say about the others. I feel using Encarta or ethnologue as facts is wrong, since they don't provide us with their sources, making such refs unfit for wikipedia. We could use data from governments directly. I'm sure people wouldn't mind if we calculate things ourselves, sums shouldn't be too hard.
Basically, I offer to get rid of encarta, ethnologue, and expand the "other estimates". It's more encyclopedic, It's more wikipedia, It just seems right that way. Statistics are great but we need to know how these stats were gathered before to compare anything to anything else. I offer we organize it as Rank-Language-Family-Number(includeslower/higher estimate 1st lang spkr, same for second language, or just total). Remains the issue of what a second language native speaker is. Two or three refs per number, and no wiki/encyclopedia refs. Refs should include which year data was collected and how (if possible) it was collected. Ren ✉ 18:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The thing is there is already the article
Ethnologue list of most-spoken languages which does more or less the same thing as this article in its current state, just shorter. And I don't think putting in second language speakers is really relevant to this article because it is already covered at
List of languages by number of native speakers.
Munci (
talk)
03:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the talkpage for List of languages by number of native speakers and it currently includes second speakers (and my point is that I don't know what is considered a "second language speaker". The way I see it, we have to include populations who speak two (or more) languages natively. Example: Zimbabwe. Most of them speak shona, the other speak ndebele... but they communicate with each other in english... a majority of the population are native english speakers. therefore english-speaking zimbabweans should be considered native speakers of english. Ren ✉ 00:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I found this list at http://www2.ignatius.edu/faculty/turner/languages.htm. It seems far more realistic.
Mandarin Chinese (1.12 billion)
English (480 million)
Spanish (320 million)
Russian (285 million)
French (265 million)
Hindi/Urdu (250 million)
Arabic (221 million)
Portuguese (188 million)
Bengali (185 million)
Japanese (133 million)
German (109 million)
Ren ✉ 00:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
That list that Ren listed I think is just as unreliable. 480 million native speakers of English? 133 million for Japanese (less than the population of Japan), 265 million for French? Too high. In terms of native speakers, I find those figures more dubious than the ones listed on the article.
Also, copied directly from the website regarding that list: "Thus, if you add the secondary speaker populations to the primary speaker populations, you get the following (and I believe more accurate) list: (number of speakers in parentheses)". So that list also accounts for non-native speakers. Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 00:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I think Ren is misunderstanding what a native language speaker is. It doesn't mean just that you can speak it fluently but as your mother tongue; the first language the person learnt. Only people bilingual from a very young age could count for multiple languages. Langue maternelle quoi. Munci ( talk) 11:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the data already includes second language speakers. That's why I offered to define "second language native speakers". Because I think it's fair to say that Cajun people speak french and english natively, that shona people speak english and shona natively, etc. The list I provided can't be used as a ref, and I'm in no way offering to use original research. The way we normally do things on wikipedia is including good refs, and if they contradict each other, let's say one says 200000 spanish speakers, and another 300000, then we should write 200m ~ 300m, and provide the references. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN APPROXIMATE AFTER ALL. Citing other encyclopaedias certainly isn't our way here. If it is not possible to do what I offer I suggest we just delete this article. I don't see why using non-encarta and non-ethnologue references would be OR. Ren ✉ 12:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Allow me to offer renaming it to "List of languages supposedly sorted by number of native speakers according [verify claims] to two self-contradicting websites" :D Ren ✉ 02:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
If we count every language that has at least one speaker (a very silly thing to do considering statistical significance), why not counting the mother tong of every Jew who was born in Baghdad more than fifty years ago (e.g. Sami Michael)? Eddau ( talk) 02:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If we are counting every language, where is Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language? Do we really have to pretend to count every language? It is clearly impossible to do so. Eddau ( talk) 02:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
This list counts almost 20 sign languages while " List of sign languages" counts about 10 times more. Eddau ( talk) 03:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
About the inclusion of sign languages: Do they qualify as "spoken"? Ren ✉ 04:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh I know they are languages, but they aren't spoken, are they? They're signed. Moreover there's an article just for sign languages over here: List of sign languages by number of native signers Ren ✉ 13:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. This article is about spoken languages. There is an article about signed languages. There are articles about computer languages. There are articles about artificial, seemingly useless languages, and about dead languages. This one is about spoken languages. Ren ✉ 15:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The whole article is nonsense. The CIA factbook on Iran states 58% Persian and Persian dialects, in Afghanistan it is 50% Afghan-Persian, and in Tajikistan it is above 80% Persian. These are all the same language no different than Australian, American and British. The total number from the CIA factbook is a tleast 60%. However this is an understatement. I suggest either Encarta be removed and the CIA factbook to replace it. And also the CIA factbook should primacy. Ethnologue is so messedup that it counts the total population of all languages in Iran (do the math) as around 45 million whereas Iran's population is 72 million according to the latest census. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.168.124 ( talk) 04:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Tajikistan
Population: 7,349,145 (July 2009 est.)
[1]
Nationality:
noun: Tajikistani(s)
adjective: Tajikistani
Ethnic groups:
Tajik 79.9%, Uzbek 15.3%, Russian 1.1%, Kyrgyz 1.1%, other 2.6% (2000 census)
Languages:
Tajik (official)
Uzbekistan
Population:
27,606,007 (July 2009 est.)
[2]
Nationality:
noun: Uzbekistani
adjective: Uzbekistani
Ethnic groups:
Uzbek 80%, Russian 5.5%, Tajik 5%, Kazakh 3%, Karakalpak 2.5%, Tatar 1.5%, other 2.5% (1996 est.)
Languages:
Uzbek 74.3%, Russian 14.2%, Tajik 4.4%, other 7.1%
Afghanistan
Population:
28.396 million (July 2009 est.)
[3]
Nationality:
noun: Afghan(s)
adjective: Afghan
Ethnic groups:
Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%
Languages:
Afghan Persian or Dari (official) 50%, Pashto (official) 35%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%, much bilingualism
Iran
Population:
66,429,284 (July 2009 est.)
[4]
Nationality:
noun: Iranian(s)
adjective: Iranian
Ethnic groups: Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%
Languages:
Persian and Persian dialects 58%, Turkic and Turkic dialects 26%, Kurdish 9%, Luri 2%, Balochi 1%, Arabic 1%, Turkish 1%, other 2%
Tadjik and Afghan Persian or Dari not the Persian languages... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ilgar Khankishiyev (
talk •
contribs)
16:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes they are. What you have quoted are official names of the language. They have different official names. However specialist and linguistic sources consider them variants of the same language. Sources are brought with this regard. Also CIA factbook calls it "Afghan Persian" as well, since it is Persian of Afghanistan.I will add linguistic sources that refer to these as Persian dialects of one language. -- Np4 ( talk) 19:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is a source for example:
Bernard Lewis,"The multiple identities of the Middle East", Schocken Books, 1998. ISBN-0805241728, 9780805241723 pg. 55: "Apart from Iran, Persian has official status in two other countries; in Afghanistan, where the local form of Persian is known as Dari, and in the former soviet Republic of Tajikistan."
Also ethnologue considers Afghan Persian and Iranian Persian to be dialects of the same language
[2] (hence both listed under Persian). It is just that ethnologue uses wrong statistics (the total population of Iran is 45 million). Plus I am native speaker and I can assure you I understand both along with Tajiki. But I have added sources with this regard from scholars including Bernard Lewis (an expert of the region). And if we are going by your classification, then Azerbaijani would be 11.2 million see:
[3]... So just like Ethnologue has Eastern Persian (Afghan Persian) and Western Persian, there is a South Azerbaijani and Northern Azerbaijani, but these are not considered different languages (both in the case of Persian or Azeri). Thanks. And I have added 3-4 sources with this regard from specialized sources, and that should be sufficient. --
Np4 (
talk)
19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi.Azerbaijani is/are (the) language (tongue), there is/are many dialects. Azerbaijani is/are called in spite of divide (the) Azerbaijani of north and South. But (only) language (tongue) of Tajik and Dari is not Persian. Tajik and Dari is/are called from apparently from name.To belong to (the) family of like (analogous) language (tongue) is not to say to be still (yet) Persian.
Ilgar Khankishiyev (
talk)
18:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Tajiks have been shown as (like) separate language (tongue) in the article in 72 places. Ilgar Khankishiyev ( talk) 18:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, You do not speak the language but I do. Per ethnologue, Tajik is a Persian language [4]. I understand it and communicate with Tajiks in Persian and they understand me and I listen to their radio. And here is a new source confirming the same thing (From Radio Free Europe): [5] "Iran, Tajikistan, and many regions in Afghanistan speak various dialects of Persian that are mutually intelligible. In 2006, the three countries' leaders met in Dushanbe and agreed to establish a joint television channel."
Furthermore, you can't delete sources in wikipedia as it will get you banned. However the Encyclopedia of Orient and Bernard Lewis calls these dialects Persian and mutually intellgible. In terms of sources Bernard Lewis is a well know scholar and you cannot push WP:OR in wikipedia and delete it. It is considered vandalism and bad editing to delete sourced information that is WP:RS Wikipedia works by secondary sources (that is scholars who summarize like Bernard Lewis) and it is stronger than Teriatary sources (like factbooks or even ethnologue). Plus the Encyclopedia of Orient has also been added which you are not allowed to remove and consequent vandalism will be reported. Also the name of the language is "Farsi", "Dari" and "Farsi-Dari" much like Deutch, German, Almany refer to the same language. "Tajiki" is a new name made during the USSR era, but ethnologe, Bernard Lewis and Encyclopedia of Orient also agree it is a Persian dialect and mutually intelligble with the Persian of Iran (and I can say that based on personal experience). So do not delete sources as it is considered vandalism.
Official language !!!
[5]
www.cia.gov
Tajik (official)
Tajikistan
Afghan Persian or Dari (official)
Afghanistan
Article about native speakers and not about native language family...
Classification language family →Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Iranian, Western, Southwestern, Persian
www.ethnologue.com
Tajik (Alternate names →Galcha, Tadzhik, Tajiki Persian)
[6]
Farsi, Eastern(Alternate names → Dari, Parsi, Persian)
[7]
Farsi, Western (Alternate names → New Persian, Parsi, Persian)
[8]
Ilgar Khankishiyev (
talk)
16:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I will report you to the administrator for DELETING sources. Why are you deleting sources!? Who told you, you can delete Bernard Lewis and other scholars?!? Do you understand the rulers of WIkipedia or are you vandalizing to get banned?
Native speakers is Eastern Farsi, and Western Farsi" according to ethnologue. Under Tajiki: Read again: "Dialect blending into Dari Persian [prs] in Afghanistan" (Tajiki). [6]
Read again: [ [7]] "The individual languages within this macrolanguage are: Dari [prs] Iranian Persian [pes]"
Did you understand what it says? Do you know what a macrolanguage is? (Azeri is also a macrolanguage:"South Azeri" and "North Azeri") [8] Read it again [9].
A macrolanguage has several dialects. Azeri is also a macrolanguage [10]. And if we are to use the same criterion, then "Azeri South" and "Azeri North" should be separate. However you are trying to separate from the same site "Eastern Farsi" and "Western Farsi". So stop the bias editing.
[11]
Persian (10)
Aimaq [aiq] (Afghanistan) Bukharic [bhh] (Israel) Darwazi [drw] (Afghanistan) Dehwari [deh] (Pakistan) Dzhidi [jpr] (Israel) Farsi, Eastern [prs] (Afghanistan) Farsi, Western [pes] (Iran) Hazaragi [haz] (Afghanistan) Pahlavani [phv] (Afghanistan) Tajiki [tgk] (Tajikistan)
These are considered dialects in ethnologue, not separate languages. The actual family is called "South Western" [12].
As per CIA factbook, those are official names for the same language, nothing more. Dari-Persian and Tajiki and Farsi are different names for the same language and are considered dialects of the same macrolanguage. All of them are correcrt historically (Tajiki is a name Turks used for Persian).
Also you deleted information from other sources which is UNACCEPTABLE. You do not have the right to delete other sites. You cannot use it to delete other sites. SO DO NOT REMOVE INFORMATION AGAIN. Specially These: A) David Levinson, Karen Christensen, "Encyclopedia of modern Asia", Charles Scribner's Sons, 2002. pg 50: "The most important modern languages of the Iranian family are (West Iranian) Persian (Farsi, Dari, and Tajiki), Tati, Baluchi, Zaza, and numerous unwritten " -- RustamDastani ( talk) 10:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC) B) Bernard Lewis,"The multiple identities of the Middle East", Schocken Books, 1998. ISBN-0805241728, 9780805241723 pg. 55: "Apart from Iran, Persian has official status in two other countries; in Afghanistan, where the local form of Persian is known as Dari, and in the former soviet Republic of Tajikistan."
Do you have a problem comprehending these very clear statements? And do you understand you cannot delete these statements per WP:VANDALISM?
Now this is your 5th time deleting valid information. Specially books by Bernard Lewis and other experts. I have reported you to the administration for violating Wikipedia Guidelines and performing WP:vandalism. -- RustamDastani ( talk) 10:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The MSN Encarta link is taken from SIL (Ethnologue). So it is not only redudant, but it takes data from the same wrong source. I suggest Encarta in the article be replaced by the CIA factbook. -- Np4 ( talk) 20:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
My comments: 1) The Encarta estimate link does not work [15]. 2) The Encarta estimate is heavily reliant on ethnologue. At least with CIA factbook or another source, you will get a much more independent estimate. Given the high correlation between ethnologue and Encarta (where it used ethnologue), I recommend Encarta/MSN to be replaced for CIA factbook. Most of the numbers of ethnlogue and Encarta are almost exact. So replacing it with CIA factbook is a good idea in order to have a different estimate. This would improve the article's wiki quality as well since many wikipedia articles rely on the factbook and not encarta. -- Chetori6 ( talk) 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec)
Those number are ridicolous for say Kannda or Gujari. I say for each language, multiple sources like at least 8-10 are used and the most common figure (the median or mean) is adopted. Also the disparity could be due to years. Also you overlook the many similarities between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.168.124 ( talk) 03:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
So Piraha, w 300 speakers, is ranked 500th, that is, in the top 10% of the world's languages. I think we might have a problem here.
I left off watching this article years ago. It doesn't look as though it's improved much. kwami ( talk) 12:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Well there are what? 6000 languages in the world. Already having 500 is far from complete but it is an incomplete list which is unlikely to ever be complete. This should probably be stressed mroe in the lead. Which does still need to be split since it's too long by the way. Munci ( talk) 13:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Does seem so. Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 15:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
If you grant that the populations of australia, new zealand, ireland, the united kingdom, canada, and the united states are native speakers of english with any pockets of non-English replaced by smaller native english populations such as say Jamaica or non-nation state enclaves ( Philippine English etc.), then that's flat out more that 438 million (by their current wiki reported populations). The Ethnologue based ranking is a joke and a highlight of how politicized elements can descend to farce. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that the editors of this page come to a consensus, not on the basis of a supposed authority but on the basis of plain reason as to what constitutues a native speaker of a language and then apply that consistently and uniformly. This concept has a range of meanings from an extreme of the highly proficient monoglot speaker of the prestige dialect of a standardized language learned in infancy to less restrictive ones. In the above thread here are some things I take as NOT excluding a person from being a "native speaker":
- It's not the language (one/both) their parents spoke nor of their home ethnicity
- It's not the first language they spoke
- They don't speak a prestige dialect but do speak a fully intelligible one of the lang in question
- It's not the only or even primary spoken language (but it was either learned in childhood or has become one in which they are fully competent speakers early in life)
- & etc.
. Once you have a wiki consensus precising definition you can apply that. As the archives and related articles show, this is a highly contentious matter, so it will be easy to distinguish yourselves from the disorderly mob-like behavior that has gone before. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 01:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone suggested it and I agree. Instead alphabetize it. Or alphabetize each range and put a language by its highest WP:RS estimate. -- RustamDastani ( talk) 14:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree. Ranking is fine? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.124.181.51 (
talk)
08:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Ranking in principal doesn't seem to be a bad idea, but the actual ranking seems to be a bit off. For example it states that French is the 4th most widely spoken language when 2nd language speakers are factored in, yet I have not seen data anywhere- including this same article- that supports that claim. The article says that including 2nd language speakers there are 200 million French speakers. That's less speakers than (at least) Mandarin, English, Spanish, Hindi/Urdu, Arabic, Bengali, Portuguese, Russian and Japanese. How is it supposed to be fourth? Unless they're actually including all those they mention in the article who [I'm paraphrasing]- 'speak French pretty well'. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.178.77.197 (
talk)
15:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the arguments here go around whether one language has more speakers or whatever. Pleas abstain from original research or personal opinions. They are against the basic principels of Wiki. Just reliable and prestigous sources are valid. I know that for some people the United Nations. just to use an example. is not a prestigious source. but for most people are. Koon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.124.181.51 ( talk) 08:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
? any help will be appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.86.52 ( talk) 09:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Italian native speakers are 70 million, not 60. 60 are the speakers in Italy of Italian language.-- FrankVonPedro ( talk) 16:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The phrase 1,000+ million appears several times in the article in reference to number of speakers. This number does not exist, the correct term being obviously one billion. But since it appears so many times, is it possible it's just being used for ease of comparison? If not it should be changed. Howan ( talk) 00:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The page on List of Languages by Number of Native Speakers needs a citation for the number of speakers in Ter Sami. On the page about Ter Sami [16] it cites that the number of speakers being 2 using this website [17]. If it would qualify as a reliable source, then the citation would no longer be needed.
Somewherethereliesus (
talk)
19:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
kindly saraiki may be included in list as it is largest language in pakistan. And 9th largest in the world. sariki laguage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.10.107 ( talk) 01:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Tibetan seems to be listed twice. If anyone could correct this, that'd be great. AlexanderKaras ( talk) 00:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I read somewhere Harrison Ford and Sharon stone are fluent in Tibetan too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.198 ( talk) 01:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Dutch counts more, 16.9 million (The Netherlands), 6 million (Belgium), Suriname, Aruba, Netherlands antilles, older Indonesians. 24 million native speakers at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.144.121 ( talk) 20:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Afrikaans has more native speakers, but the SA government denies it. And add the Namibians who speak it in a large number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.144.121 ( talk) 21:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is the Nepali language (No 53) in front of Serbo-Croatian (No 54), when it is obvious that Serbo-Croatian has more speakers according to both estimates? For both languages the two estimates are identical:
Vanjagenije ( talk) 17:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The Serbo-Croatian language in Croatia is spoken by less than 5,000 (4,961) people [18]. SC is not an official language in any country.-- Sokac121 ( talk) 21:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Serbian language and Croatian language are not one and the same language. Serbo-Croatian is an artificial language that was forced upon many nations, it is now being spoken by less than 100.000 speakers. Why is this Wikipedia tollerating the incorrect information on the number of speakers of that "language?" In Austria, in Gradišće (Burgenland), Croats speak the a variant of the Croatian language, called gradiščanski, that has no connections with Serbian language.-- Sokac121 ( talk) 23:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I know this is a stupid question, but… According to Wikipedia, the populations of the United States and the United Kingdom alone are 310 million and 62 million, respectively; so, even considering that relatively tiny percentages of the two countries’ citizens don’t speak English natively, how is it possible that there are only 328–350 million native English speakers in the entire world? If the reason be that these figures are simply outdated, then I would submit that these numbers are so far removed from the current reality that the figures in this article are essentially meaningless and practically useless. — Technion ( talk) 19:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
By this list nobody in the world speaks french... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartakus21century ( talk • contribs) 07:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The numbers here are ridicolous. For example Kurdish is put at 10 million! Or Persian is put at 30 million. These numbers completely contradict CIA factbook, Library of Congress and standard demographic numbers.-- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 02:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is certainly of value, but numbers need to be verified, languguages need to be defined, etc. I will do my part. cheers, Bruinfan12 ( talk) 13:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Catalan is not official in Spain. Catalan is official in Andorra and co-official in Catalonia (with spanish), but not official or co-official in Balearic Islands, Valencia, Aragon, France or Italy. You must correct that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.214.142.101 ( talk) 13:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we have in this point a similar (not same) problem that in the above "Serbo-Croatian" controversy. We must avoid here political contaminations. It is correct that "Catalan" is not the official name of the language spoken in Valencia, but "Valencian" is. Since a linguistic point of view, Catalan and Valencian must be considered as two variants of the same language; in fact, Catalan in Lleida is more similar to Valencian that Standard Catalan based on the variants of the Catalan coast (Barcelona, Girona). But, unfortunately, there`s no an historical global name for all the variants spoken in Catalonia, Valencia, Aragón, Balearic Islands, Andorra, Rosellón (France) and Algero (Sardinia). And the use of the word "Catalan" for all of them is controversial because of Catalan nationalistic aspirations; Valencian people (and so Balearic) don`t like it, and I understand why: they are not "Catalan people". But, as always, there`s no solution for this controversy until Politicians let Philologists debate it calmly. Habibicb, 21 October 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habibicb ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
it’s funny that for Swahili you've put 5mil and secondary language for 80mil, not correct... this is the first language in Tanzania (and Zanzibar), Kenya, Malawi, and secondary in Congo, north of Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.86.158 ( talk) 14:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
616 native speakers. Really? Presumably that number was derived from adding the 580 on Norfolk (in 1989) to the 36 on Pitcairn (in 2002). Clearly nonsense. wjemather bigissue 20:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)