Jump to content

Talk:List of languages by number of native speakers/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10
You can still see it if you click the link entitled 'archives' to the right of the actual link.

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)

Every Wikipedia page has its own number of Hebrew natural speakers. 5 million, 8 million, 10 million...Eddau (talk) 02:26, 22 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)

ethonologue

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 agreeEddau (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Last I checked, the UN and the CIA don't provide language estimates. Also in terms of numbers dealing with people, the CIA is by far the most unreliable. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 17:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone provide specific examples of problems with Ethnologue? This Ethnologue-bashing strikes me as very similar to people who engage in Wikipedia-bashing: based on misconceptions and not reality. I am not willing to take as a premise that the Ethnologue data is unsound; I know many of the people who collected it personally, and for those few languages for which I myself know anything about the number of speakers, I've found the Ethnologue data quite reliable. If it's possible to show numerous inconsistencies and erros in their speaker estimates, then I will fully be in favor of not using their numbers, but let's see the facts first. Also, "non-religious" source? I'm not a fan of evangelism either, but how is the CIA less biased than missionaries? Everyone has an agenda; that doesn't mean the data is bad. Also, let's realize that there is essentially no perfectly accurate way to obtain this kind of data; does that mean this type of data should never appear anywhere?JohnDillinger43 02:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDillinger43 (talk • contribs)
In that case, we should consider deleting this article. Presenting unreliable data is not a solution. Eddau (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
In absence of reliable sources, deleting the article is not a bad option. Alefbe (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Why not nominate for deletion then? There's been some other concerns that it wouldn't be a terribly bad idea to delete the article. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 20:00, 4 January 2010 (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)

I disagree with the suggestions of Ren and Eddau. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia of published knowledge. Adding up numbers from sources from here and there is Original Research, and expressly forbidden by the policies of Wikipedia. I do not insist on using Ethnologue or Encarta, but the numbers you provide need to be taken out of reliable published secondary sources. If you cannot provide such sources for your numbers, then you cannot provide these numbers, even if you know for a fact that your numbers are right and the published numbers are wrong. That is just how things are done in Wikipedia, even if doing in differently "just seems right that way". By the way, Ethnologue provides the sources for all its data - at least in the printed version. Landroving Linguist (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Ethnologue provides the sources for all its data, but those sources are bad. The Justification of their estimation of the number of natural Hebrew speakers in the world in 1999 is the addition of the number of natural Hebrew speakers in USA in 1970 and the number of natural Hebrew speakers in Israel in 1995. They claim they can calculate it this way because one researcher did an estimation of this kind in 1994 before having the partial data from 1995[1]. Come on. I would never dare writing such estimation in a test.Eddau (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
So provide a different reliable published source giving better numbers, and all is well. Just don't engage in original research in Wikipedia. Do that in your test, where it is entirely appropriate. Landroving Linguist (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
You just do not get it. Nobody can give a reliable and comparable estimation to the number of the speakers of all the languages in the world. Ethnologue’s estimation is not good enough for Wikipedia regardless of my actions.Eddau (talk) 20:51, 2 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)

I don't see that either - I think, any secondary reference would be acceptable here, as long as it is published and reliable. Actually, I agree that this article could just as well be deleted, because it has very little encyclopaedic value, and it is very messy, not to speak of the impossibility to maintain some quality, what with all these people who have the insatiable urge to blow up the speaker numbers of their languages... On the other hand, other people find this list-type article rather handy, so I would not really support a deletion move. The moment it is deleted, it would show up in some other form on Wikipedia. Landroving Linguist (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
If there must be an alternative to this pseudo-statistical article, we can change it with a list counting the permanent residents of all the states or regions in which each language is an official one. I.E. Near the word “Mandarin” there will be the number of permanent residents of regions recognizing Mandarin as their official language, near “English” there will be the number of permanent residents of regions recognizing English as their official language and so on. The data for this estimation is updated, statistically significant, and easily verified by several sources. I still prefer erasing the whole thing and say honestly “nobody knows”, but if you insist, than that is my second choice.Eddau (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Second language native speakers are not the same as first language native speakers which is what the article is based on. In a sense, third language native speakers or higher may still be used which is not what the article is supposed to list. I haven't heard of anyone learning two first languages at the same time. But if you have a source that says this, then I'd be more likely to believe. I don't think Cajun people speak French and English natively at the same time. Rather, they learn one of the languages first (might be a short amount of time), then move on to another language. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 15:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
There are people who have more than one natural language. There are toddlers who speak one language at home and another in the preschool and with their friends. I met many of them in Israel. In Switzerland I met many toddlers who speak one language with their Mom, a second language with their Dad, and a third with everyone else.Eddau (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
But wouldn't they have had to have learn a second or higher language, in this case a non-native language (non-native to them at least) then to use at school? Or, wouldn't they have to have had learned a first language first? I ask because I'm familiar with similar situations where a person learns a language at school and must use that language which is different from the household (people would consider that to be a second non-native language where I'm from). I don't know if it's the similar or the same as the situation you described above. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 14:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It is not the same situation. When a person speaks three languages fluently since he or she learned to speak, learned all three of them together, and keeps using those three languages daily until adulthood, that person has three mother tongs. Eddau (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


There are people with more than one native language. And this article is a list of languages according to the number of native speakers, not according to the number of native speakers who only have one native language. In it's current state, it also seems to include data for secondary (non-native) speakers.


I would like to add that we speak french and english at home, and my son is a native speaker of both languages. Which one is the first native language and which one is the second? He doesn't even have a nationality! I think Eddau's solution may provide the best alternative. It's impossible for us to get reliable data other than gross approximates for the most spoken languages, and this list, it seems, will never be able to provide wikipedia-quality information.
Another thing, relating to references: The Wikipedia way is to prefer secondary sources. Not primary, not tertiary.Ren ✉ 15:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Point taken. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 16:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Ren:Well in that case your son is a native speaker of two languages but that's not the case for the Shona. ALready more than half of Zimbabwe doesn't speak English and most of those Shona that do know English didn't learn it until they went to school. Munci (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
My partner is a native speaker of English (which is also why my son is a native speaker english, I'm native french), and she is shona. Her entire family speak both languages, and they usually include english words when speaking shona, but no shona words when speaking english... Although I suspect limitations of the language itself, not limited knowledge of it. 7 of her 8 brother and sisters have english names (Elizabeth, James, Margaret, etc) I suspect this is different for people who come from villages, so I can't say for sure, but her parents come from villages and have english names as well. I know this represents OR, it's off-topic and all, but when personal experience contradicts the 'official' data, I have this urge to complain and say something's wrong. Also, whoever renamed this article is a genius ;) Ren ✉ 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
That sounds similar to the situation with Indian families I know. They all speak Hindi, English and possibly other languages and use occasional English words when speaking Indian languages. But these are people from big cities living now in Scotland. That's not particularly representative of Indians. And most of them speak English fluently, not natively. I just don't think such generalisations as 'Shonas speak English natively' can be made.
I am sure that the naming thing is not really a sign of which language they speak natively. I know someone from Réunion with an Arabic name and someone else with a Greek name. Doesn't mean either of them can speak any of either of these languages. I expect the name choices to be more religion-based than language-based. I mean, centuries ago when Europeans started using Hebrew names like ' Elisheva' and 'Yaʿqob', they weren't doing it because they spoke Hebrew as native language.
Even more off-topic and purely curious, what is you and your son's abilities in Shona? Munci (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
No abilities whatsoever. I have no trouble copying the words though... and I understand the english words they put in-between;) Ren ✉ 21:14, 4 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)

That's gonna fill up my entire screen! lol. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 02:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing from the list

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)

  • Other sign languages

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)

YES!!! They are languages! They have sentences that are obeying grammar rolls. They have a vocabulary and some of them have a rich vocabulary. One can express with them an extremely large amount of ideas (there are always ideas that one can express with one language but not with another). They have jocks. They help forming cultures. There are people, deaf and hearing, who regard them as their mother tongs and the think and dream mostly in those languages. YES!!! They are languages!Eddau (talk) 02:41, 8 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 signersRen ✉ 13:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you can find excuses of the same kind for not having the Judeo-Arabic languages in this article. You can claim that there is a need to get the Hebrew, Yiddish and Ladino languages out of it because this article is not for Jewish languages, just like it is not for languages of deaf persons. Eddau (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The title contains the word 'speakers'. Sign languages do not have speakers. Instead, they have signers. As far as I can tell, this is Ren's point. Theoretically, the title could be changed somehow to make it more inclusive of sign languages. Munci (talk) 15:18, 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)

I do not understand your point. Why should there be a segregation sign languages to to other languages? Change the word "spoken" to "used"Eddau (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense

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)

Languages of Tajik and Dari is not Persian

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)

suggestion for improvement

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)

If you check under the new MSN Encarta dictionary, they have different figures from their old list. Only a few languages have been updated to MSN Encarta dictionary.
The CIA is just as unreliable when it comes to demography (hard numbers). First off, there is no indication that the percentages they have are for native speakers. Secondly, deriving numbers based on the percentages off their population list/numbers which by far is the least reliable and least accurate list/numbers I've come by is just as unreliable. Some countries on their list stick out as sore thumb as obviously wrong. No list is perfect, but replacing numbers that's just a unreliable isn't the way to go. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
How can you tell who is more reliable when none of them give any indication of statistical significance? This entire article is not worthy. It is not science. It is a chip speculation.Eddau (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you're responding to my statement since you indented twice. I didn't say any of them was more reliable than the other but both were equally unreliable. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 22:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course it is wrong, how the Portuguese has 150 millions of speakers if both IBGE and CIA say that only in Brazil there are about 190 millions of inhabitants.[13][14]--Luizdl (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Brazil is one of the countries that have a wrong population according to the CIA. Almost 200 million listed while other reliable sources like the UN put it a couple million less than that. An example of unreliability from the CIA. Just look at the link Luizdl gave. Big difference in population even accounting for one year. Also, I don't think 100% of Brazilian speak Portuguese as a native language (no percentages listed). So again, no indication of native speakers shown. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 02:42, 26 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)

The Encarta link does work. You have to however type in the entry of language like type in English or Spanish. That link is the home page. You have to search up the languages individually. To address the other concern, another source maybe, but the fundamental problem I already pointed out about the CIA you still haven't addressed. This is an article for native speakers. Nowhere in the CIA did they mention anything about native speakers. Assuming that it is is heading towards serious POV and personal analysis which is against Wikipedia policy. The individual entries are different than the ones here, the old Encarta estimates. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 22:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

1) In order to see the Encarta estimate, you go to the archived version.
2)While it is true that many wikipedia articles rely on the CIA World Factbook, I do not see why this should be the case. It is generally a good thing not to rely on any single source and the Factbook is probably not the best single to be relying on even if one does. The reason so many articles do rely on it is more due to the ease of doing so. Personally, I think the census figures would be better to be more numerous in the article. The problem with that though is that they are not necessarily consistent. Munci (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
In terms of reliability, census figures or figures from a countries statistics department I consider more accurate, so I have no problem in having them being added but not replacing anything. There are new Encarta estimates, rather Encarta Dictionary estimates. These estimates look a bit different from the Ethnologue's list. Like these:
1) Chinese
2) English
3) Hindi
4) Spanish
A difference by at least several million people. So they are not almost exact. The dictionary estimates also doesn't say that it's from Ethnologue and as stated are different by several million people. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 22:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Those are for major languages, however ethnologue and MSN make significant differences for languages in 50 million to 100 million range. I also believe we need a totally independent source (totally independent) from ethnologue and the Library of Congress or CIA factbook or World Almanac are it. Adding 4-5 different columns of sources will probably make the article better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.168.124 (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Until there is any indication that CIA's percentages are based off native speakers, we cannot simply just add it to the article as another source like Encarta and Ethnologue and treat them as native speakers. We have to be careful here. Furthermore, not every country has percentages, an example you can see above is with Brazil, and I'm very doubtful that diverse countries like Brazil have a 100% native speaking population of the official language language of that country. Totally independent source, yes, but per the reasons I cited above and now still make use the CIA equally unreliable or more unreliable. Is there a an online version of the World Almanac you can provide? How do you explain languages like these then where the difference is greater than 10% and still by several million:
1) Gujarati
2) Malay
3) Malayalam:
4) Kannada:
5) Ukrainian
Still not the same to me. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 21:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Gujari is not Gujarati. The Kannada estimate is not ridiculous either. I think you're mixing up languages. I haven't overlooked the similarities. A 10% difference is anything but similar. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 03:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Piraha is #500

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)

Hasn't improved by much looks to be true. But anyways, this is a list that will probably never be complete since there are thousands of languages and because of this, rankings for lesser known languages will most likely be off. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 23:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Evidently what's happening is that "500th" here really means "500th among the languages in this list", rather than in the whole world. Piraha has made it onto the list simply because it is very famous compared to other languages of a similar speaker-count, and there are probably similar biases taking place further up the list. Now, the top 10, 20, 50 in this list will be the top in the world - but below a certain cut-off, we will to start miss languages and the ranking will no longer be worldwide. Someone needs to decide how low that cut-off can be safely placed. Lfh (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, the Encarta list stops at 10 million so that could be that cut-off point. That could also be the cut-off point for splitting the article. Munci (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Could work. The SIL estimates go down to about 1 million. Splitting the article is another question, but whether or not we do that, we can simply omit the ranking column below the chosen cut-off, so we don't get absurdities like Piraha at 500. Lfh (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Omitting the rankings seems like the best way to go since it's been causing problems even before this. The basis for the rankings are not very good either. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 19:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Let's say 10 million then. Is there a way of doing that automatically? Lfh (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
No? I mean, the alternative is to tediously delete those column entries (below 10M) one-by-one. Or is that whole idea on hold now? Lfh (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems deleting the column entries one by one is inf act the only way to do it unfortunately. Munci (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Does seem so. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 15:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it, but with 1M cut-off. Ah, you did it! Lfh (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
And now the rankings are back again. Brilliant. Lfh (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Absurdity

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)

Considering that most of those countries are countries that have a good number of immigrant populations, hence, not everyone is a native speaker of English, the figure is not absurd. Native speakers are not based on the total populations of "English speaking countries" especially since the majority of English speaking countries have a fair number immigrants especially the United States and Canada with people that don't speak English as a native language. You didn't factor in that which is why you got a higher number. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 17:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Please reread my original post beginning this thread to see that I did in fact make such a factoring. You are very much mistaken if you think that English is not the overwhelming native language in the countries listed. In fact the populations of those countries are overwhelmingly English monoglots, the large spanish speaking population in the US and the hodgepodge of other langs in the UK notwithstanding. Also it's very questionable if immigrants to a country like the united states who originally spoke another language but have separated themselves from that sprachraum and become members of the essentially monolingual american (u.k, etc.) linguistic community are much different from native speakers with various idiolects (and much less different than say speakers of high and the various low Germans or Chineses). The large spanish-only speaking population in the US, recent immigrants, the internationally (and interlinguistically) mobile, etc. are what I factored out as indicated. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
No you didn't. Here's what you did. You added up all the population estimates of each of the countries (rounded off): US= 309 mil, UK= 62 mil, CAN= 34 mil, AUS= 22 mil, NZL = 4.3 mil IRL = 6.2 mil. Total = 437.5 mil, rounded off = 438 mil, exactly the same number you got. Absolutely none of these countries have a 100% native speaker rate of English. I know English is the majority language, but this in no way signifies that off these 438 million people, 438 million are native speakers of English. How is this accounted for then? In cases of the US, Spanish is not the only native language spoken. Most notably European languages (French and Italian) are other native languages. Even if they become a monolingual speaker, this does not mean that they are native speaker. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 18:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
So what do you take to be the meaning of the text following "with any pockets ..." and all of the other response I made to you? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Most Filipinos learn English as second, third, or higher language almost never as a first language. This is the same for other countries where English is an official language like Nigeria and India. This isn't enough to push the number that high when factoring in non-native speakers. Have you also looked at English language#Countries in order of total speakers. Those are the more significant countries and the total first language population gives a total of 314 million, actually less than the Ethnologue estimate. Again, these small enclaves will not account to more than 100 million. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 19:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I only counted the countries linked in the first sentence of the first entry of this thread, and with the logic that has now been explained to the terminal point of tedium. Also the figures in English language#Countries in order of total speakers are whack, for example the current population of the united states is over 300 million. The other figures are equally distorted but it's different from (and not mutually exclusive with so as to form a basis for the counterargument) the list I gave anyway. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
But your logic that quote "any pockets of non-English replaced by smaller native english populations such as say Jamaica or non-nation state enclaves (Philippine English etc.)" is not correct because the number of non-native speakers in the countries you listed far outweighs the number of speakers who speak English as a native language in small pockets. Do you have any published evidence that refutes this statement? The small pockets will not make a significant change in population. I've already shown it to you through the link I gave above and through explanation. An additional 100 million speakers over 10 years is hard to believe. The US figure is for the 2000 census which of course will give a lower number. Accounting for the years will give you less than 40 million people assuming the ratio of non-native English speakers and English speakers are the about the same or 40 million of those people are all native speakers (which is unlikely). How are census figures whacked? They are one of the most reliable sources of information we have. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
"whack", it doesn't get inflected. For closure, I added up a quick list of the external elements and it came to less than 15 million. Allowing the hole to be as big as 60 though only subtracts 45 from the 438. That's my point, at about 390 million you start to have a really firm support and a number smaller than that is dubious to say the least. This makes English second only to Putonghua, which is the general and I think correct understanding. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, I am suspicious that Hochchinesich is in fact a formal register that overlays a patchwork of mutually unintelligible local dialects. If this were the case then the actual contest might be between English and Spanish. For a basis for that I would look to the statistics on the proficiency examinations for literacy in Modern Standard Chinese, since the count of native speakers of dialects of same fully intelligible with the standard would appear to be about 130 million (Beijing + Northeastern) plus an unclear number from Henan, Hubei, and elsewhere and this total would be more like 300 million, fudging the "elsewhere" apparently being the basis for 3X that. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A Suggestion for how to proceed here

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)

As I understand your proposal, this would violate OR policy. Maybe you want to clarify. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Wiki policies are not a consistent and legalistically actionable framework and I will bow out of this article's talk space at this point. What I suggest is done all the time and is a mainstay for how, when in fact it does happen, that quality articles are crafted. Something should be done about all the stuff that was transcluded below because it doesn't belong here and severely degrades the function of this page. The material simply needs to be developed more or less consistently with those often contradictory policies and made clear in the main space of the article after being worked out here. FWIW, with the possible exception of Hochchinesisch, there's no lang spoken natively by even a tenth of humanity so none really has an overwhelming position (although those with a minority position are lookin at a probable 'Sprachtod'). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Omit Ranking

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)

That makes sense if the table is sortable by the number of speakers column(s). In that case a ranking column is superfluous and unnecessarily contentious. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:01, 26 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)

No self-research or personal opinions please.

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)

If arabs are 450 million how come it says only 221 million speakers.

? any help will be appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.86.52 (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Because 450 million Arabs does not mean 450 million native speakers. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 12:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Please also see thread directly above. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 12:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Italian native speakers

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)

1,000 Million

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)

"1,000 million" is perfectly acceptable in British English, where "billion" implies a million millions, just not in American English. 75.216.103.137 (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Somewherethereliesus, 2 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

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)

 Done Awesome! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:04, 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

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

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

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)

Serbo-Croatian vs. Nepali

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:

  • 16,056,000 for Nepali
  • 16,600,000 for Serbo-Croatian (Croatian 6,200,00 + Bosnian 1,800,000 + Serbian 8,600,000)

Vanjagenije (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian

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)

Well, You obviously do not know that Serbo-Croatian is actually the same language as Serbian and Croatian. Those are different names for the same language. Serbo-Croatian is not official language in any country, official in Serbia is Serbian, official language of Croatia is Croatian, and official language of Bosnia is "Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian", bu this is actually all the same language. I speak it, so I know. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:05, 26 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)

English

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)

I cant verify the sources but maybe a piece of the puzzle you are missing is that this is english as a native language (the L1 language, which could exclude upwards of 40 million hispanohablantes just in the united states). --— robbiemuffin page talk 17:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Practically useless? AFD candidate? Sure, the specific figures given may sometimes have problems, but the article is still useful, because it does give a reasonably decent picture of how to compare the number of native speakers of different languages. As far as the Hebrew thing, I just changed it to the number actually given by ethnologue. Is that so hard? john k (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
How is the article a "reasonably decent picture" if all of the data is outdated, and obtained from unreliable sources? In my opinion the only useful thing about it is ascertaining already obvious facts, such as English having more native speakers than Korean, but still we would have no idea how much more, just that there is more. The bad numbers are just going to mislead people. I also think this article should either find some better sources for the data, or be deleted. Anawrahta (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It gives a basic sense of the number of speakers of each language; that English has more speakers than Korean is perhaps obvious. That Tamil has more speakers than Malayalam seems less obvious, and is equally conveyed by this article. The numbers are sourced as well as we've been able to. Exact numbers are obviously impossible, but that doesn't mean the whole endeavor should be abandoned. john k (talk) 18:05, 10 August 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)

dispute tag

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)

Keep it and improve it

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

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)

swahili

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)

It's true that it's the first language in Tanzania, but for most Tanzanians it's not the native language but, yes, a secondary language.--178.119.221.40 (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Norfuk

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. wjematherbigissue 20:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ti.html
  2. ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uz.html
  3. ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html
  4. ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
  5. ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html
  6. ^ http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=tgk
  7. ^ http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=prs
  8. ^ http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=pes
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers/Archive_7&oldid=1136259763"