Talk:World language/Archive 3

This may be off topic but why does Wikipedia list Portuguese (also English, French, Spanish and some other constructed languages) as a "Worldwide" language in the "Languages" sidebar of each articles? And maybe we should just adopt this standard to decide which languages are world languages.--Njsgdsza (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Presumably because of their geographical distribution across multiple continents, which is one of the factors scholars consider when determining whether something is a world language, among several others (see e.g. Ammon 2010^[1] and Benrabah 2014^[2]). TompaDompa (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I would urge readers to understand that the current official languages of the United Nations (UN), which are English, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese and Arabic, are the best source available for the data on which languages fit the list of World language - https://ask.un.org/faq/14463. In the United Nations, two of those languages - English and French, are used as working languages of the UN Secretariat, https://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/secretariat/ which is the main office of the leader of the United Nations, the United Nations Secretary General. This proves that English and French are foremost of the all languages Dajo767 (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

^^This does not really prove that ["English and French are foremost"] - because it was a decision made 75 years ago. --DLMcN (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, the entire framing is wrong. As LiliCharlie pointed out below, we're not here to find out "the truth" and spread it, but to reflect sources. Reaching your own conclusion about what is and isn't a world language based on the indicators you have personally decided are the most important is textbook WP:Original research, and I don't understand how you can still be unable to see that after it has been pointed out to you repeatedly? TompaDompa (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

In the section that is now titled "(Standard) Chinese" we mention Standard Chinese, Standard Northern Mandarin, and Standard Mandarin, and all three wililinks take users to the same article Standard Chinese. My point is this: If sources speak of Mandarin they usually mean Mandarin Chinese rather than Standard Chinese which is a much smaller variety that only educated speakers master. English speakers often use "Mandarin" for Standard Chinese, of course, but that is not the way Sinologists and other experts use the term. It's just misleading, or misled. Beijing Mandarin would be an intermediate variety, but still much too small to make up the 1120 million L1+L2 speakers that the latest edition of Ethnologue reports for Mandarin Chinese (ISO 639 code cmn). I believe the section title and content, plus the table, should be altered accordingly. We currently cite the Ethnologue speaker number of 1.324 billion for the macrolanguage Chinese (ISO 639 code zh or zho, which refer to all living Sinitic languages except Dunganese), but ISO 639 macrolanguages are only a book-keeping mechanism to group languages on sociological grounds, and not real, individual languages that enable communication. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Everyday I wake up to an Anglophone World - but do I? I go out there and see all the newspapers, magazines, and street signs in English. I see neighbors chatting among themselves in English. I do believe we are all living in an Anglophone world. The recent edits of Tompadoma only serves to steer the opinion of the readers to believe this nonsense. I do not want to engage in an edit war. I simply placed a template over it. If that Tompadoma responds to this message. I am just going to ignore it. He wants to promote English by falsely suggesting that we live in an Anglophone World. Yes of course there is Anglphone World - United States, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia. I am presuming people like Tompadoma live in one of these Anglophone countries - HENCE conveniently taking sources and UNRELIABLE sources that mention English as the 'foremost' world language. There must be independent sources. But he throws away independent verifiabale sources like the - working language of the United Nations - calls them Original research and throws a bunch of confusing arguments about wikipeda standards/guidelines. Just nonsense. Languages of the United Nations are a reliable source. WP:REPUTABLE, WP:BESTSOURCES - English and French are the main working languages while Spanish, Arabic, Russian and Chinese are other official languages. But the agenda of Tompadoma and a few other editors here is to falsely promote an image of the entire world being Anglophone. I am disappointed, angry, and I do not want to argue. I only hope other wikipedia editors see through this article, see how some user have inserted his subjective opinion using some Unreliable sources, unverifiable sources, and sources without any notability, to promote his view. And there are bunch of editors here who support him also. WP:BIASEDSOURCES Dajo767 (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that uses the term world language (not UN working language or so) and ranks French, Spanish or Arabic above English?

Note that Wikipedia is not a place for personal attacks. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Dajo767, please read both what the cited sources say, and what the article said before you mass reverted my edits (again). Nobody has claimed that academic consensus is that English is the only world language, nor has anybody written that English is the only world language in WP:WikiVoice. What I did write is that some authors, not all, consider it to be the only world language—and that is also what the sources say. If you read the 2014 article Competition between four "world" languages in Algeria by Mohamed Benrabah, which is a free access article meaning it is available to read for anybody with an internet connection without requiring a subscription, you'll see that it says In the literature on world language dominance, authors can be roughly divided into two separate groups. The first one consists of those who refer to English as the only "world" or "global" language, with no other language deserving this label. [...] The second group of writers prefer a pluralist approach arguing that there are a few contenders for the position of "world" language. You clearly don't agree with that first group, and you don't have to. But we have to acknowledge that that viewpoint exists in academia, that's what WP:NPOV is all about. Now, it is my impression based on the literature I have read that the academic consensus has moved further and further away from the viewpoint that English is the only world language over the course of the last few decades such that that viewpoint has now largely fallen out of favour—and if I had a WP:RELIABLE source stating that I would gladly add it to the article—but that's just my personal gut feeling and I could be wrong. The same source also summarizes academic viewpoints on English as a world language, and it turns out that even those authors who do not view English as the only world language still consider it to hold a unique position as the foremost (or pre-eminent, or predominant, or some related term) world language. That's why we describe it as the foremost world language—that's the academic consensus.

I want to clear up what is evidently a misunderstanding here. The problem with the official and working languages of the United Nations is not the source itself. The source is fine, for what it is—namely a source on which the official and working languages of the United Nations are. The problem is that you tried to use it to say something the source doesn't actually say, namely that the official and working languages of the United Nations are world languages (which is a sociolinguistic concept). Treating "official and working languages of the United Nations" and "world languages" as synonyms is what is WP:Original research.

I'm going to restore the version before your mass revert and keep editing. If you are willing to bury the hatchet and start working collaboratively on improving this article, nothing would make me happier. But you need to understand that I am all out of patience by now. You have demonstrated a frankly shocking disregard for Wikipedia's policies, specifically when it comes to sourcing, on this talk page and in the edits you have made to the article itself. You have done so repeatedly, and you have done so after being told—also repeatedly, as in these edits by LiliCharlie: —to abide by WP:OR. It's honestly difficult to tell if you don't understand Wikipedia's policies or don't care about them. I will not hesitate to bring this to WP:ANI if necessary. TompaDompa (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"I think it's important to retain the English>French>Spanish>Portuguese>other languages hierarchy to accurately reflect the sources, but otherwise I don't have much of an opinion about how to do it. This is not really a topic that I have a great interest in (I happened to come here while following a WP:SOCK that edited a page on my watchlist), so I doubt I will find the time to contribute much more on this page, I'm afraid. TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)" TompaDompa Dajo767 (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC) TompaDompa I was the one who put that who put a notice on Request for Article protection WP:RFPP and I presume you saw it and came from there, because there were no edits from you on this article on record prior to that posting. I had requested that this article be protected with at ECP because someone was promoting Spanish language. But he was better than you, because you apparently dropped in here just to promote your ideals. Take this up with an admin. Dajo767 (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's just silly, Dajo767, because I was the one who told you to post to WP:RFPP. See Special:Diff/974974902. That was right after making this edit to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesOredan (check the time stamps), which is what I was referring to when I said I happened to come here while following a WP:SOCK. TompaDompa (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, you apparently do not know much about the subject matter. You TompaDompa came here following a sock and not for the subject of the article. Because as you said, " This is not really a topic that I have a great interest in (I happened to come here while following a WP:SOCK that edited a page on my watchlist), so I doubt I will find the time to contribute much more on this page, I'm afraid. TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)" Dajo767 (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Right, I said that four months ago. And since then, I have found the time to locate sources and read up on the subject. Hence why I've started editing the article to get it in line with what the sources say, adding sources along the way. TompaDompa (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Right, I said that four months ago. And since then, I have found the time to locate sources and read up on the subject. Hence why I've started editing the article to get it in line with what the sources say, adding sources along the way. TompaDompa (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC) @ TompaDompa In four months you became a subject matter expert, WP:EXPERT. And you found yourself the authority to throw out decades of accepted wisdom, by your so called "sources", - the most blatant display is your unwillingness to accept French language has the same position as English in the World as World Language Dajo767 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@ LiliCharlie and DLMcN I hope that you all reading through all this and making your independent judgements about me and about TompaDompa. Dajo767 (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

None of this is by my authority, we go by what the sources say. I have no problem accepting that some sources consider English and French to be equals from a world language perspective—Mazrui (1976) labels them both world languages, for instance—but that's not really the consensus among academics, now is it? Ammon (2010) says that English is doubtlessly the predominent world language and adds that there is virtually no descriptive parameter or indicator for the international or global rank of a language which, if applied to today's languages worldwide, does not place English at the top. Benrabah (2014) says The different models and terminologies described so far all agree on one undeniable fact: English holds a "unique" position in the linguistic constellation, both in terms of status and function. in reference to among other things Abram de Swaan's global language system which places English higher than French, and notes that some authors even consider English to be the only world language (In the literature on world language dominance, authors can be roughly divided into two separate groups. The first one consists of those who refer to English as the only "world" or "global" language, with no other language deserving this label. [...] The second group of writers prefer a pluralist approach arguing that there are a few contenders for the position of "world" language.). Mufwene (2010) says that it appears that what has made English the foremost 'world language' is its function as lingua franca, a status which La Francophonie, as the Organization of Francophone States, wishes French had reached to the same extent. Pei (1968) say that French is Second only to English in distributional power. Even Fischer Weltalmanach, which is in German and thus not biased by being in the English language itself (though I will note that Mario Pei was an Italian-born American, Ulrich Ammon a German, Mohamed Benrabah from what I can gather Algerian or alternatively Algerian-born French, Abram de Swaan Dutch, and Salikoko Mufwene Congolese, so it's not like all these authors are necessarily biased in favour of English), says Seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg ist Englisch die weltweit dominierende Verkehrssprache. All these sources, though they do regard French as a world language, place English ahead of it. Perhaps you can point us in the direction of the sociolinguistic sources you think demonstrate that academic consensus is that English and French are on equal footing when it comes to being world languages? TompaDompa (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

God bless the world wide web - ANYONE can be an expert on any subject (he or she previously had little knowledge about), in just 4 months just by using World Wide Web. Extraordinary Dajo767 (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"I think it's important to retain the English>French>Spanish>Portuguese>other languages hierarchy to accurately reflect the sources, but otherwise I don't have much of an opinion about how to do it. This is not really a topic that I have a great interest in (I happened to come here while following a WP:SOCK that edited a page on my watchlist), so I doubt I will find the time to contribute much more on this page, I'm afraid. TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)" He uses Biased sources WP:BIASEDSOURCES to promote his views which is unbalanced and against wikipedia policy of Neutrality WP:NEUTRAL . His edits started when I posted a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for WP:RPP on 07:20, 26 August 2020 for Extended Confirmed Protection WP:ECP or 30/500 protection WP:BLUELOCK . His is manipulating this article and I request this user be blocked from editing further. Use Wikipedia:Blocking policy to block him please Dajo767 (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I was in fact the one who directed you to WP:RFPP, see Special:Diff/974974902. Just as I did then, I'll tell you that you are at the wrong venue. The one you want is WP:ANI, though I would strongly recommend that you read and consider WP:BOOMERANG before posting there. TompaDompa (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, you TompaDompa apparently do not know much about the subject matter. You came here following a sock and not for the subject of the article. Because as you said, " This is not really a topic that I have a great interest in (I happened to come here while following a WP:SOCK that edited a page on my watchlist), so I doubt I will find the time to contribute much more on this page, I'm afraid. TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)" Dajo767 (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, I have since found the time to locate sources and read up on the subject. Hence why I've started editing the article to get it in line with what the sources say, adding sources along the way. TompaDompa (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Right, I said that four months ago. And since then, I have found the time to locate sources and read up on the subject. Hence why I've started editing the article to get it in line with what the sources say, adding sources along the way. TompaDompa (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC) @ TompaDompa In four months you became a subject matter expert, WP:EXPERT. And you found yourself the authority to throw out decades of accepted wisdom, by your so called "sources", - the most blatant display is your unwillingness to accept French language has the same position as English in the World as World Language Dajo767 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@ LiliCharlie and DLMcN I hope that you all reading through all this and making your independent judgements about me and about TompaDompa. Dajo767 (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

My "independent judgement" is as follows:

1. If there are academic sources that say some language is the foremost world language, or the only world language, then this article is the place to report the existence of those sources. It actually seems that such sources exist, and that the language so described is English. At this point I am not aware of a recent source that says French falls into one of those two categories.
2. We have exactly three binding core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Truth is expressly not among them. Nor is life-long expertise.
3. I don't care what background editors have as long as they respect our policies, especially the content and conduct policies such as this one: Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Repeated commenting on contributors or ignoring some other Wikipedia policy is highly disruptive and may rightfully lead to unpleasant consequences. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

See my response above. There's no point in writing everything twice. TompaDompa (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

God bless the world wide web - ANYONE can be an expert on any subject (he or she previously had little knowledge about), in just 4 months just by using World Wide Web. Extraordinary Dajo767 (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Tompa - Thank you for your commendable efforts in locating and interpreting all those source-references... Dajo, as I said in your personal talk-file, you need to take a long break from editing this page. It is quite clear that you are guilty of more than one Wikipedia code-violation. --DLMcN (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

DLMcN I will take that long break you suggested, and I have presented my arguments here. I hope that when I come back after that long break, this article has corrected itself due to contributions by by other editors interested in dispersing true, fair and neutral information. Obviously I am NOT referring to TompaDoma, who became a subject matter expert on this topic in less than 4 months. As he himself said and I quoted above, he had no interest and knowledge on this subject four months prior, and most of his research in these four months, I presume, were by finding questionable sources, and misinterpreting. I agree he is skilled in Wikipedia policy, and use of wikipedia, but has ignorance on this subject and he used his 4 months of research to locate these sources and present this article. Anyway, I hope this article will be restored back to a reliable article, by editors who are really interested and knowledgeable. Thank you for your suggestion. See you later Dajo767 (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not really a topic that I have a great interest in (I happened to come here while following a WP:SOCK that edited a page on my watchlist), so I doubt I will find the time to contribute much more on this page, I'm afraid. TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)" Dajo767 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Right, I said that four months ago. And since then, I have found the time to locate sources and read up on the subject. Hence why I've started editing the article to get it in line with what the sources say, adding sources along the way. TompaDompa (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Dajo767 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Remember these words, before I part for my break - In less than 4 months can I become an expert on a subject I had no interest in or no knowledge in? See you guys Dajo767 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Over 250 users have this page on their watchlist, and I'm sure they had reason not to rectify TompaDompa's sourced contributions.

Again: Wikipedia doesn't require contributors to be experts, but it requires users to refrain from commenting on contributors. And to refrain from saying "forget your sources, I know the truth." That is against all our core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Dajo - Thank you for telling us that you will be withdrawing from this page - for a while, at least. Enjoy your break ! --DLMcN (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Speaker numbers are often regarded as one of the major criteria for deciding if a language qualifies as a world language. However language classifications and speaker counts vary wildly, for various reasons. For example, is Chinese one language or 1½ dozen languages? How many native speakers does International/Standard Arabic have? (Ethnologue says none at all, they're all native speakers of over 30 other languages.) Are Hindi and Urdu two huge languages or one that is even bigger? Are Indonesian and Malay (and 30+ others) one language? Is German one language or many? Or Persian?

It seems to me that this article's content is difficult to understand and evaluate without a few remarks on the uncertainties of language classification and speaker counts, and that we should mention those issues, as we do in articles List of languages by number of native speakers and List of languages by total number of speakers. Unfortunately there is nothing like the German Wikipedia article de:Einzelsprache on this Wikipedia and we have no article individual language or separate language we can link to. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'm not sure that's a good idea. The main issue is that the literature on the concept of world languages doesn't seem to be problematizing the issue from this angle to any meaningful extent (there is some discussion on the specific issue of whether to consider Hindi on its own or together with Urdu, i.e. as Hindustani, but not much beyond that). I get the impression that authors who discuss the concept of world languages tend to be more interested in it as a concept (i.e. the theoretical framework) rather than in the precise classification of individual languages, though I could be wrong. Adding a disclaimer like this gets a bit too close to editorializing about how the literature should be approaching the subject—rather than simply summarizing what it actually does say about it—for my comfort. Not to mention, it would seem WP:UNDUE to add a disclaimer that is long enough to properly contextualize and explain the problem of delimiting languages to an article as brief as this one. I also want to point out that speaker counts are not that big of a focus among the sources I've consulted on this topic (summarized at World language#Concept), so I think we should take care not to over-emphasize that aspect. TompaDompa (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Tompa and everybody - Before now, I have been very reluctant to suggest dividing the list up into different categories, because it might precipitate yet another round of bitter arguments (for example with Tamil making a new claim for inclusion!) However, if a particular language was supported by only one source - perhaps it could then be relegated to a separate sentence, suitably worded?

Your recent addition of Dutch prompted me to ask this: Anne-Marie de Mejía just gives it a very brief mention [> I am wondering on what grounds exactly?] ... If we go back several decades, then yes, it was indeed more important than it is now - because it used to be an administrative language in the Belgian Congo and in what is now Indonesia, and it even retained some status in South Africa for quite a while after being replaced by Afrikaans.

How would that^ proposal affect Swahili, Hindi/Urdu, Japanese, and Indonesian/Malay? (or German?) --DLMcN (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

There are two ways of dividing languages into categories here: either by degree of globality (sources consider language A to be more global than language B) or by the extent to which they are accepted as world languages (more sources consider language A to be a world language than language B). Both ways are valid, but they should not be conflated, and there are issues with both.

With regard to the former, Ammon lays out a framework for ranking world languages by a series of metrics which can be used for assessing the globality of each language. These different indicators result in quite different ranking orders depending on which one is considered, and Ammon does not really attempt to synthesize them into an overall ranking order beyond noting that English comes out on top (There is virtually no descriptive parameter or indicator for the international or global rank of a language which, if applied to today's languages world-wide, does not place English at the top).^[1] English being the foremost world language is not a view unique to Ammon, but rather—as noted by Benrabah^[2]—something about which there is agreement even when approaching the topic from different angles and using different models. Indeed, this is just about the only thing we can say about the ranking of world languages by degree of globality based on the sources we have—English is number one. So if we divide the languages into categories, we get a higher category with only English, and a lower category with the other languages. That's not exactly ideal, as it would seem to imply that all of the other languages have roughly equal globality, which is not necessarily (and by my reckoning absolutely not) the case.

With regard to the latter, we need to take into account both the number of sources and (perhaps even more importantly) their relative weight—WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:AGEMATTERS, who the author is (particularly whether they are a linguist or not) matters, and so on—and this is not altogether easy. There are a few things we can say, however. English is universally considered a world language, and it is the only language for which that is the case. So English would be alone in the top category. As LiliCharlie noted back in November, French is considered a world language by all sources that accept the existence of multiple world languages. Dutch, on the other hand, is only described as a world language by one of our sources, and that source doesn't go into why it would be considered one but rather says (somewhat nebulously) that it is "generally recognised" as one.^[3] None of the other sources I have come across even bother discussing whether Dutch is a world language, which they do for some debatable edge cases in order to dismiss them on the grounds of something or other. So it would seem obvious that French should be in the second-highest category (right after English) and Dutch in the lowest category. But what do we do about the languages in between? How many categories should there be, and where do we draw the lines between them? Spanish, for instance, is described as a world language by some sources such as Ammon^[4] and Mufwene,^[5] whereas others dismiss it (such as Pei^[6]) or express reservations (such as Mazrui^[7]). It wouldn't seem right to me to put Spanish in the same category as either French or Dutch, so that would mean that we need at least four categories. Coming up with a division of categories that accurately represents the sources—and maintaining it as we add more sources—seems like it would be quite a hassle for a somewhat questionable benefit. In fact, I'm not sure doing this would be a net improvement at all, and I fear that we would end up with WP:Edit wars all over again. Moreover, I am wary of making too strong statements about the WP:Academic consensus (or lack thereof) based on relatively few sources, of which only one (Benrabah) attempts to summarize the viewpoints at any significant length (it's not a review article outright, but it does devote several pages to serving that purpose). I worry that we might inadvertently misrepresent the prevalence and prominence of the various viewpoints by basing the article on what might be an unrepresentative sample of sources simply because we've missed other sources.

In summary, I worry that this proposed change would do more harm than good, and would therefore err on the side of not implementing it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

TompaDompa - Thank you for devoting all that time and effort to your replies. It is indeed true: the current presentation is not ideal, nor is my suggestion of a 'second' category consisting [say] of French, Mandarin Chinese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. --DLMcN (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Weber (1995), who is not necessarily a citable source for this article, gives not one but many rankings of languages. We might do something similar in a unified table that can be sorted by many criteria, e.g. number of L1 speakers, of L2 speakers, of L1+L2 speakers, ratio L2/L1 speakers, number of countries where official, population of countries where official, ratio speakers/population of countries where official, GNP of countries where official, published books per year, number of web pages, scientific publications per year, etc. I don't know where to get all the data from or what the default ranking should be, though.

Article zh:世界语言 does something similar. They don't have a unified table but cite seven rankings in section zh:世界语言#世界语言排名, five of them from Weber (1995). Their general "distribution" table above that section is sorted by number of speakers but ignores the languages with numerous speakers that are not candidates for being a world language. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S.: Do we have a template for tables that can be sorted horizontally? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That source by Weber is an interesting read, but as far as I can tell it is not a WP:Reliable source (though I will note that Benrabah cites Weber, albeit not in the context of world languages but rather in the context of various choices of indicators for ranking languages); information on Weber himself can be found here. Regardless, we can't use it for this article since it does not deal with the sociolinguistic concept of world languages but rather with how influential certain major languages are. Weber's concept of how influential languages are does seem to roughly correspond to Ammon's global function, but that assessment is of course WP:Original research on my part. At any rate, Weber's factors that make a language influential are fairly similar to Ammon's indicators of globality. There are some important differences, however. As noted above, Ammon does not attempt to synthesize these indicators into an overall ranking order, but Weber does. Ammon attaches the highest significance to the number of non-native speakers, whereas Weber ranks the number of secondary speakers as the fourth most important out of the six fields he considers. Weber considers the economic power of the countries using the language, whereas Ammon considers the economic strength of the people using the language. And so on.

The question might be whether to create a table for Ammon's set of indicators of globality. I say no, for several reasons.
Firstly, that would basically turn this into an article primarily about Ammon's definition of world languages, which although important and prominent in the literature, is not so dominant as to be considered the mainstream way to define the concept by my reckoning. In other words, I don't think it would be consistent with WP:NPOV to elevate Ammon's definition to primacy like that. We already dedicate a separate paragraph to Ammon's definition, a paragraph that is longer than what we write about all other proposed definitions combined—though in fairness there is more detail to go into about Ammon's definition than the rest—so we're already pushing it WP:WEIGHT-wise.
Secondly, Ammon is very clear about the limitations of these indicators and repeatedly adds caveats when discussing them. He outright calls them indicators of dubious validity and reliability.
Thirdly, we lack reliable, up-to-date data. This is an issue that Ammon also raises. For instance: Ammon used 2005 data for the GDP of the speakers of the various languages back in 2010, which would now be a decade and a half out of date (and I doubt we could find a source that would give us updated figures considering it is not exactly a standard measure—at any rate, it wouldn't be easy), and the number of non-native speakers (i.e. the most important indicator) is subject to very high levels of uncertainty—the estimates for the number of learners reported by Ammon vary by a few hundred million people for English and a factor of ten for Chinese.
Fourthly, this would overemphasize the quantitative aspects of what makes something a world language (or not). The various definitions that have been proposed are generally qualitative rather than quantitative in nature (Mazrui notwithstanding), and the authors tend to focus on—or at least lend the most weight to—the qualitative aspects when assessing languages. The risk of relying too much on quantitative measure, too, is something that Ammon brings up (quantity alone does not fully capture ranks or degrees in a language's functioning as an 'international language' – or, a fortiori, as a 'world language.').

From examining the issue from the perspective of "should we add a table for Ammon's indicators?", I think it is reasonably clear that adding a table with any sort of quantitative data would not be a terribly good idea. TompaDompa (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It took me two days to ponder your arguments, but now I think you're perfectly right. — At present we have a "See also" section with links to List of languages by number of native speakers and List of languages by total number of speakers. Do you guys think we should remove those links as not quite on topic, or p'r'aps add other Wikipedia lists of languages in order to show this isn't just an issue of speaker numbers? Or maybe only link to our lists of languages? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Lili and Tompa - I would be quite happy to include all those links.... But I still think we should remove Dutch, despite what Anne-Marie de Mejía says. --DLMcN (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Those links are not quite on topic, but it seems like a reasonable assumption that people who come to this article might find those articles interesting, so I'd say keep them. I think List of lingua francas is more relevant to this article than the lists of languages by speakers, so that should probably also be added. Linking to Lists of languages also seems reasonable as a navigational aid.

About Dutch, considering it a world language might be such a tiny minority viewpoint that its inclusion would be WP:UNDUE, but I don't think we can say that based on the small sample of sources that we have. TompaDompa (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Tompa - I looked at Adolfo Garcia's article "Neurocognitive determinants of performance variability among world-language users" - at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21698252.2014.893671 - [mainly because I was interested to see whether and how he also mentioned Spanish, Russian, and Arabic] - but this particular link does not seem to discuss Dutch (nor Portuguese) in the way you describe? --DLMcN (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

See Figure 1. TompaDompa (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort to find sources, several sources used are very weak. For example, the one source that was used in favour of including Mandarin was a minor academic article dedicated to discussing the language situation in Algeria, not about defining world languages. Such references in passing, without a proper methodology behind, are not really of any value from an academic point of view. As for Mario Pei, his definitions date back to 1968, so they are more than 50 years old. That makes it dubious how relevant they are today; the world looks rather different in 2021 as compared to the 1960s. In short, I already mentioned that the sources feel a bit cherrypicked. That's not the ideal word, as cherrypicking usually indicates selecting sources to fit a certain narrative. I don't feel that that is the case here, there is no bad intent behind the choices. Having said that, we will need more rigour and look in particular at whether the sources are (1) academically relevant; (2) dedicated to defining what a world language is (ie. not just using the phrase in passing); and (3) sufficiently recent to be relevant to today's world. Jeppiz (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with the general point you're making, I think you're way off about Benrabah. Benrabah not only dedicates more time and goes into greater depth about the concept of world languages than any of the other sources apart from Ammon (and possibly Mufwene), it is also the only source to attempt to describe the WP:Academic consensus (as I said back in February, it's not a review article outright, but it does devote several pages to serving that purpose). To my eye, the most stringent approach to deciding which sources to use would end up with only Benrabah and Ammon. I will say that Pei is rather a poor source, albeit not just because it is an old one—indeed, might not the history of the concept be a valuable addition to the article?—but rather because Pei talks about world languages rather prescriptively, as opposed to descriptively. The same thing can be said for Mazrui. TompaDompa (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I've made a WP:BOLD to remove all examples from the article, as they are what all the endless bickering is about. The concept of 'World language' is notable and should be kept. Examples are rather irrelevant, certainly not relevant enough to warrant all the months of fighting. Whether linguist A says that language X is a world language and linguist B says that language Y is a world language is utterly trivial and we do not need it. As with any bold edit, any user can of course revert it and I won't reinstate it in that case if it fails to gain consensus - though I would very strongly urge the users who have fought back and forth here for months not to be the user reverting it (see WP:OWN for details. The concept section would still need to improve, right now it's little more than a mash of name-dropping with little or nothing for a coherent concept. Jeppiz (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It is going too far to have absolutely no examples. Right now, English is the dominant international language. It is relevant to at least discuss certain others which do not quite "make the grade" - say, French, Spanish, Russian, Standard Arabic (and possibly Mandarin Chinese and Portuguese). --DLMcN (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I also believe we should have some examples, along the lines you suggest. Jeppiz (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Why those particular ones? I don't mean to come off as confrontational, but we have to come up with a method for determining what languages to include based on the sources, otherwise we are just arbitrarily picking and choosing which viewpoints to represent in the article—in clear violation of WP:NPOV. TompaDompa (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Tompa - some source-references are extremely weak, such that there is no real need to let them dictate what we do. For example, Dutch has just a one-word mention - as part of Anne-Marie de Mejía's list... [Adolfo Garcia's Figure 1 cannot be construed as support for Dutch's claim to world-language status].

And I noticed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_language_system#Supercentral_languages that de Swaan includes Turkish - but you [correctly] decided to leave that out of your revised Wiki-article.

So, perhaps we are occasionally justified in bending the Wiki-rules slightly by exercising judgement in certain areas - particularly if secondary or low-level issues are involved? - (here: it is nothing more than the question of which languages should be mentioned at the "bottom" end of the scale).

I do see, though, that this may still provoke a few arguments (but your version also led to disputes). Certainly, I am prepared to be flexible: [if, for example, someone insisted that German should be re-inserted, then I would not stand in their way ... I would, however, question the wisdom of putting Swahili back in].

Indeed, it is interesting to see that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_language#Much_more_rigorous_use_of_sources_needed acknowledges or implies that not all sources are 100% reliable. --DLMcN (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason I didn't add Turkish isn't that I personally thought it shouldn't be included, but rather that we had no source calling it a world language. I didn't cite de Swaan's list of supercentral languages, I cited Benrabah who in turn cites de Swaan. Benrabah equates world languages to supercentral ones and lists them (These languages are: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Hindi, Japanese, Malay, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, and Swahili.), but does not include Turkish, for whatever reason. It's a question of strictly adhering to what the sources actually say without engaging in WP:SYNTH.

That there are degrees of WP:RELIABILITY is a point I made back in September, and again in February. It's not controversial, on this talk page or elsewhere. What I'm wary of is editors deciding which languages they think should be included based on their personal assessment of the matter and then making post-hoc case-by-case rationalizations for it. We should be able to come up with standards (for what we assess about the sourcing to determine if a language should be included or not) that we can apply consistently to all languages. TompaDompa (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Tompa - Regarding your recent edit in "Arabic" (with your question/comment: "Does any source make the case that Arabic should be discounted as a world language due to the different varieties? I'll note that Mufwene acknowledges "variation across nations" when it comes to Arabic, but considers that to be something that can be overlooked) -

The only variety which is capable of fulfilling the role of a World Language (or even a lingua franca) - is Modern Standard Arabic. That is self evident: we do not need a specific source to point that out to us.

However, I am not going to engage in an edit war about this. I have better things to do. --DLMcN (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I do think it's relevant to point out the varieties, as DLMcN did and TompaDomba removed. Let's keep in mind that the different varieties of Arabic are far more divergent than Spanish, Portuguese and Italian are to each other (and this fact is of course easily sourced). I think Arabic should be included in the article, but it is a bit different. Virtually all English speakers or Spanish speakers or French speakers can speak with each other. That is not the case for Arabic (lots of Arabs are not conversant in Modern Standard Arabic, and there's no way a Moroccan, a Tunisian, a Syrian and a Yemenite could sit down and talk in their respective varieties the way an American, an Englishman, an Australian and a South African could). Jeppiz (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

What I removed was a disclaimer that implied—rather forcefully—that the different varieties of Arabic are a reason to discount it as a world language. But we have a source that says overlooking variation across nations, Arabic counts as a 'world language'. We can note the existence of different varieties of Arabic, but then we have to present Mufwene's position that this may be overlooked when assessing it as a world language. If we imply the opposite (without sourcing making that case), we are expressing our own opinions counter to those of the sources we cite—which would obviously not be compliant with our WP:Core content policies. TompaDompa (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear wikipedia editors. This article is heavily biased towards one particular language being the global language - here being English. The entire content of this article is from one single user, TompaDoma, while he removed and deleted all contributions by every previous editor who worked on this article. I have previously disputed his editing of this article before, but I have been threatened to be blocked from edits from TompaDoma and one other editor. (see my talk page section named 'February 2021'). This whole article uses sources found and accepted by one singular user TompaDoma. Since I was threatened with block, I have withdrawn from active editing this article. But I voice my protest here. The sources I used for my view on the world language are the official and working languages of the United nations. https://ask.un.org/faq/14463. This source lists English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian and Chinese as the official and working languages of the United Nations, with English and French being the working languages of the United Nations Secretariat. But this source was dismissed by the above mentioned editor, being labelled as a violation of Wikipedia policy on original research.

According to this source https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/international-organization/ United nations is the largest, most familiar, most internationally represented and most powerful intergovernmental organization in the world. . The official and working languages of the united nations, which are the lingua francas used within the organization's departments constitute the definition of World Language. But somehow it was disregarded as original research by TompaDoma. English and French are used as working languages in every department, whereas the other 4 are used in most departments.

If this is disagreed, because languages of international institutions are not the criteria because those sources are irrelevant based on wikipedia orginal research policies, there is other criteria to find what constitutes world language - the language on the Passports and international travel documents. According to this source https://www.legallanguage.com/legal-articles/passport-translation/

:In 1920, a meeting of the League of Nations — the precursor to the United Nations — decided that all passports should be issued in French and one other language, depending on the country. French was chosen as the primary passport language since the League agreed that it was traditionally “the language of diplomacy.”

Many passports are still issued in French, but others are not. Some are issued in several languages, eliminating the need for passport translation. In some countries, you can even choose the language of your passport.

A quick reminder the official and working languages of the League of Nations were French and English, but this is for your interest. Source: page 22 of this book https://digitalcollections.graduateinstitute.ch/records/item/1273-essential-facts-about-the-league-of-nations-1935?offset=1

There are major issues with this article. I would like to draw attention to Wikipedia dispute resolution policies WP:DISPUTE and wikipedia policy on Third opinion (3O) WP:THIRD

1. Deletion of every contribution by every other previous editor of the article. Goes against Wikipedia policy on consensus. refer WP:CONS
2. 100 percentage of the article is contributions by one single editor TompaDoma, with sources handpicked by TompaDoma. It seems to goes against Wikipedia policies on collaborative editing WP:EDITING
3. The sources used seems to be biased, and I believe the information from these sources has been literally interpreted. please refer to Wikipedia:Guide to addressing bias WP:FIXBIAS
4. The quality of the sources TompaDoma uses are questionable See wikipedia policy on Reliable sources WP:RELIABILITY

This most concerning problem of this article is that, it gives not any value or importance to the French language, as any uninformed reader may find that the French language may be of only as important in the world as a global language as Japanese, Malay or Hindi. This article, with the sole exception of English, gives equal weight or importance to other languages, to aggravate this problem, the order of all languages without English is randomly placed in the Latin-script alphabetical order in the introduction section.

Like I previously mentioned, I have withdrawn from editing due to previous edit wars I had with the said user TompaDoma, so i would like other editors to look at my concerns and bring this article to a understandable and accepted state.

As many of the protests on this talk page have already fell upon deaf ears or being addressed by the editor in question, I will look at other avenues to resolve the issues with this article.

Thank you Dajo767 (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If you have sufficient sources you can start the articles Specially important languages, UN working languages, and Languages in which passports are issued, or perhaps Working languages in outer space about English, Russian, and Mandarin, or Languages in which over 100,000 books with an ISBN are published annually about English, German, Russian, and Spanish. However, the topic of this article is world language, and that's a different term and a different notion that academics have cared and dared to publish on. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Saying that those languages are world languages just because they're UN languages would indeed be original research. National Geographic isn't an authority on linguistics, so that source is insufficient and unnecessary. We need linguistics sources that explicitly talk about the concept of world languages and which ones count as such. The Global language system of De Swaan is the only one that comes to my mind, but maybe you can find another one.--Megaman en m (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe De Swan's Global Language does not have consensus with many academicians. It is a theory developed by person De Swan but not widely accepted. See wikipedia policy on Scientific consensus WP:SCICON. I will find sources to back this up. This why we must use reliable sources or use biased sources in the right way rather than literally interpreting them. WP:RELIABILITY WP:FIXBIAS WP:CONS Dajo767 (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Michael Morris argued that while it is clear that there is language hierarchy from the "ongoing interstate competition and power politics", there is little evidence provided that shows that the "global language interaction is so intense and systematic that it constitutes a global language system, and that the entire system is held together by one global language, English" In his book : https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-in-society/article/abs/publications-received/1897F454CBE7B0C02751C0C024682CA7 Dajo767 (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

the official languages of the United nations are being treated as Wikipedia original research information in the context of the article on World Language, but according to Wikipedia original research policy WP:ORIGINAL, The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is so easily verifiable that no one is likely to object to it; we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed. And I do believe that United nations languages have wider acceptance than the views of one man - De Swan. Dajo767 (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

UN diplomats, passport-issuing authorities, and National Geographic journalists are not independent authors of encyclopaedic sources. Please understand that we are compelled to disregard their work here. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

But it defies basic common sense to place the French language on the same category as Hindi, Japanese, or Malay. You don't need an expert to know this. All I ask is that French need a position that does justice to it's status. Please refer WP:IAR. Since wikipedia has called on editors to be bold WP:BOLD, I will ensure that French language rightfully deserves it's proper place. Dajo767 (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I do hope we can come to an agreement atleast on the French language having higher status than every other language except English? TompaDompa DLMcN LiliCharlie Megaman en m . But I am afraid I will be refused because I will be asked to prove that French language has higher status as a World Language than every other language except English - and thereby refused. Dajo767 (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Nobody's asking you to prove anything. As an encyclopaedia we report what experts have hypothesized rather than reveal and spread the gospel truth. To "grant" languages their "true" status is not the purpose of this article. We go by reliable sources, voilà tout. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on reliable sources. If something isn't reported in reliable sources, then it isn't mentionable, even if it's obvious to you. If all the reliable sources say that the world is a square, then Wikipedia will say the world is a square. I recommend that you stop trying to make something happen despite the lack of reliable sources or consensus, you're beginning to enter WP:POV pushing territory. I personally couldn't care less whether Wikipedia says that French is the least important language in the world or that it's above English or something in between; all I want is reliable sources, preferably from a linguist.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop removing the template. Until relevant editors with more knowledge of this article take note of this page and rectify the article, template must be in place Dajo767 (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

If one source says that earth is flat, but there are no sources to say that earth is round, then wikipedia must record that earth is flat because the only source existing states earth is flat. Great logic (sarcasm intended) Dajo767 (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you also realise that the sources this vandaliser TompaDoma used are from a few individuals of so called 'scholars'. Their opinions cannot be considered as consensus among majority of the scholars. Opinions of of individual scholars cannot constitute consensus. I suggest that we find a source that clearly shows a scholarly consensus before we decide on rectifying this article (and removing the template). Until then the template must stay. Dajo767 (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The global language system is a theory invented by one individual linguist with obvious biased opinion. His theory has not been accepted by other linguists nor does it have a consensus among majority of the scholars. TompaDoma used this source as his major reference to rearticulate this topic. Dajo767 (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The challenge at this point is to find a source that speaks the truth, a secondary source that has the information that is accepted in consensus among the relevant authorities. The source that clearly states that both English and French have equal status as World Languages, and Spanish, Arabic, Russian and Standard Chinese have secondary position among every other language (excluding English and French of course). This is better that blindly just adhering to a view of some individual scholar(s). Nazis also had these scientists who practised racial eugenics to prove the inferiority of Jews, their opinions cannot be considered fact. This is an example of why it is necessary to keep sources in alignment with the truth and not sources that spread false information. It is dangerous and disservice to readers. Dajo767 (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Dajo - You wrote:

1 - This most concerning problem of this article is that, it gives not any value or importance to the French language.

and 2 - I do hope we can come to an agreement at least on the French language having higher status than every other language except English?

However, if you read the present text carefully, you will see that its description of French does give it more importance than Spanish, Russian, Chinese or Arabic. --DLMcN (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but it still does not give French the same primacy as it does to English as a world language. In this article, the sole language ascertained as a foremost world language is English, which I believe French equally also deserves. French cannot occupy a position below English when it has co-equal status with English. I am searching for a solid reference to support this. Dajo767 (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Dajo767, we already have a source describing the WP:Academic consensus—Benrabah 2014. The academic consensus described in that source is that English is the foremost world language. It also notes that academics are split on whether there are any other world languages at all (that is to say, there is no academic consensus about any other language being a world language). There is no indication in any of the sources that have been located so far that Benrabah's assessment of the academic consensus is incorrect—on the contrary. You are of course welcome to locate other sources that describe the academic consensus, especially if those sources are more recent and/or go into more detail about what the academic consensus is.

Two months ago, I said Perhaps you can point us in the direction of the sociolinguistic sources you think demonstrate that academic consensus is that English and French are on equal footing when it comes to being world languages? You have repeatedly stated your conviction that French is equal to English from a world language perspective, but you have provided no sources whatsoever backing that up. Now, you say that The challenge at this point is to find a source that speaks the truth, a secondary source that has the information that is accepted in consensus among the relevant authorities. The source that clearly states that both English and French have equal status as World Languages, and Spanish, Arabic, Russian and Standard Chinese have secondary position among every other language (excluding English and French of course). This makes it sound like you're trying to find sources that support a conclusion you have already decided upon rather than reaching your conclusion based on what the sources say.

Beyond English, we don't describe the academic consensus. We describe the opinions of individual scholars as such, and for the most part provide WP:INTEXT attribution. In that way, the article is WP:YESPOV-compliant—it avoids stating opinions as facts. Your criticism of how this article treats de Swaan's global language system makes me think that you didn't read the cited source, and moreover didn't even look at the citation itself; we don't cite de Swaan—we cite Benrabah, who in turn cites de Swaan.

Finally, please read WP:CIVIL. TompaDompa (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

STOP REMOVING THIS TEMPLATE. CONSENSUS HAS NOT BEEN REACHED. NEXT TIME YOU DELETE THIS TEMPLATE, I AM GOING TO REVERT YOUR EDIT. Dajo767 (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC) 100 percent of this article's content is TompaDoma's contributions. 100 percent! And now he wants to remove the template. Wikipedia is about collaborative editing. So this template must remain because no other editor's contributions are present - they were replaced by TompaDoma with his own edit's and other edits that followed by other contributors were reverted by TompaDoma. Dajo767 (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC).

TompaDoma is intentionally reverting every editor's contributions. You can check the history. And TompaDoma have edited out other contributors edits, reverted other's contributions and completely replaced everything with his/her own. What makes tompadoma, think that he can own this. Until tompadoma completely retire from this page, TompaDoma, I am going to allow that template to remain. So long as tompadoma keep reverting other editor's contributions, maintain the article only with his/her edits, it is right that this template must be in place. I suggest that tompaDoma stop being active on this page, and allow other edits. Once I am convinced that tompadoma is not authoritatively controlling this article, the template must be in place. I suggest that tompaDoma retire from this article and let other's to contribute, edit or revert. Then this template can removed afterward. Dajo767 (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Dajo767: The conditions for when to remove the template are clearly outlined at Template:POV check/doc#When to remove, and they are met. I suggested that you take this to WP:NPOVN rather than re-add this template; I have now done this for you, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#World language.
If you think another editor's WP:CONDUCT is disruptive, the place to raise that issue is at WP:ANI. As I said in February however, I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG before posting there. TompaDompa (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Dajo767 and TompaDompa, first of all, please tone down the personal rhetoric, both of you. Second, the article remains a mess. Third, please do not mistake exhaustion over the endless arguments here as consensus one way or another. It gets tiring when the same arguments go round in circle and some of us may take a step back from it all; that does not mean we have suddenly agreed. Please note that Wikipedia is not at all about wearing others down until nobody has the stamina to keep discussion going, and then claim a "win". Jeppiz (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Dajo767 - We could change the name "Arabic" to "Modern Standard Arabic", such that the alphabetic listing would then [fortuitously !] leave French in second place after English... Would that help to satisfy you? - looking too at the comments in the text which do put French above the others? --DLMcN (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

DLMcN Yes, I think that is good move. Soon perhaps a consensus maybe reached to place French on equal level with English, perhaps. But this suggestion is a good start. Dajo767 (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Calling it "Modern Standard Arabic" would be misrepresenting the sources. They're not talking about Modern Standard Arabic, they're talking about Arabic. Mufwene says Arabic counts as a 'world language' to the extent that it is used as a religious/ritual language wherever Islam is practiced and Arabic has prevailed primarily as a vernacular language in parts of the Middle East and in North Africa, since the settlement colonization of the region by the Arabs from the seventh century onwards. Benrabah says of this Such classification of Arabic is of course questionable. The ecclesiastical power of this language overshadows one basic principle of modern linguistics: natural languages are spoken and speech is primary. Rote learning and reciting Koranic verses for daily prayers does not necessarily yield spoken proficiency in Arabic. I think it's rather obvious that neither distinguishes between Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic in this context. TompaDompa (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the article has become much neater and cleaner, thanks to TompaDompa's latest rounds of edits. Perhaps we could remove the tag? For my part, I see no issues with the current format of the article. Jeppiz (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no objections, but then I didn't think there was a WP:NPOV problem back when the {{POV check}} template was added in the first place. TompaDompa (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, the latest round of horrible edit has brought the article right back to nonsense, so I struck my suggestion. To the three people involved for months get a grip, seriously! This ludicrous back and forth, back and forth is downright ridiculous. You really need to first gain a consensus here on talk, then edit article. While the intentions are no doubt good, the practice editing is, quite honestly, starting to approach disruptive territory. Jeppiz (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's now similar to how it was when you made your suggestion again. Everything is properly sourced now, and we apply a consistent standard to all the languages. I have to say that I don't quite understand your addition of the {{Original research}} template—you say in your edit summary that if they keep changing the examples every day, then by definition the examples are original research, but that's not even remotely what WP:Original research means. The version of the article you added the template to had no material that wasn't properly sourced—no "Modern Standard Arabic" misrepresentation of Mufwene and Benrabah, no Sanskrit, and so on. TompaDompa (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, you seem to misunderstand sources and believe if we have a source all is good. In your edit summary you claim "if we include Chinese—where the only source classifying it as a world language is Benrabah—then we also have to include German, Hindi, Japanese, Malay, Portuguese and Swahili in order to be consistent, since they are also classified as world languages by Benrabah. The alternative is not including any of them, which would mean removing Chinese. I think both alternatives are acceptable". That is not correct, these are not alternative, equally good options. You say yourself that Benrabah is the only source to make that classification - and you then proceed to insert that exact fringe-view as the accepted version. What makes you think that Benrabah's largely unnoticed article in a very minor academic journal is the classification of world languages? That is exactly the kind of cherrypicking I've already mentioned - finding one single source and going full in to impose the POV of that source despite no academic consensus for it. Jeppiz (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say they were equally good options, I said both are acceptable—as opposed to applying different standards to different languages, which is unacceptable. I'm not trying to make an authoritative list of world languages here (but if I were, I could—it would consist only of English since that is the only language about which there is WP:Academic consensus), and indeed the article makes it clear that it isn't one since the WP:LEAD says English is the foremost—and by some accounts only—world language. Beyond that, there is no academic consensus about which languages qualify. What I'm trying to do is accurately represent the disagreements between sources in accordance with WP:YESPOV—i.e. note that they disagree and indicate the relative prominence of each viewpoint. The problem is that we have really few sources to work with here (for the examples, we now have three—Ammon, Benrabah, and Mufwene—after removing the questionable ones), which makes assigning WP:Due weight rather difficult. As I said back in February, I worry that we might inadvertently misrepresent the prevalence and prominence of the various viewpoints by basing the article on what might be an unrepresentative sample of sources simply because we've missed other sources, and as I said back in March (about something different, but the same logic applies): [it] might be such a tiny minority viewpoint that its inclusion would be WP:UNDUE, but I don't think we can say that based on the small sample of sources that we have. That's why I've tried to find as many sources on the topic as possible—to be able to assess and assign WP:Due weight. I think it's rather a strong statement to call Benrabah's classification of Chinese as a world language a WP:FRINGE view based on the sources we have located so far. TompaDompa (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's a table summarizing the sources that have been located thus far, regarding which languages they consider to be world languages.

My suggestion follows. I'm open to changing my mind about pretty much all of these points.

• We should not take Mazrui or Pei into consideration. These sources are both rather old (Cold War-era) and thus likely outdated, and moreover they both take more of a prescriptive stance than a descriptive one.
• We should not take García into consideration. If I understand the source correctly, the features of world languages described therein are non-defining ones, i.e. consequences of being a world language rather than what makes something one. I could be wrong about this interpretation, however.
• We should not take de Mejía into consideration. The source rather nebulously says that these languages are "generally recognised" as world languages, without really going into more detail about it. This does admittedly follow a possible definition, but the phrasing makes it a bit unclear if this is the definition by which these languages may be considered world languages. It all seems to me pretty fuzzy, for lack of a better word.
• We should not take Lu into consideration for English, Spanish, or French. The source discusses a whole bunch of different criteria for being a world language in the context of Chinese (and concludes that Chinese isn't a world language), but for the other three languages it merely mentions that they can be considered world languages by one of the criteria.
• We should not take Wright into consideration for the modern languages. The source starts off by saying "For the purposes of this chapter", before going into their proposed definition and examples. The chapter in question—"Convergence and Divergence in World Languages"—is about how languages change over time, which seems to me to be qualitatively quite different from the contexts other sources consider. It seems to be talking about something different than the other sources using the same term, in other words.
• We should add Latin as a former world language, and cite Wright as well as Mufwene for this. Perhaps a single sentence along the lines of some authors consider Latin to have formerly been a world language would suffice.
• When it comes to Benrabah:
  • I think we should definitely cite Benrabah for the languages whose status as world languages are backed up by other sources we cite. In particular, Benrabah's comments on Arabic and English add a lot of value—and if we cite Benrabah for those, we should be consistent and cite Benrabah for the others as well.
  • As for the languages where Benrabah would be the only source we would cite for their status as world languages, I'm a bit torn.
    • On the one hand, Benrabah's definition of "world language" as being synonymous with "supercentral language" is evidently rather a broad one compared to other proposed definitions (see the table above), which might perhaps indicate that it would be WP:UNDUE to include languages where that is the only definition by which they qualify.
    • On the other hand, we have rather few sources to work with and can't be sure that the ones we do have make up a representative sample of the literature on the topic of world languages. Assessing and assigning WP:Due weight under these circumstances is not altogether easy, and the risk of getting it wrong is fairly substantial. Thus, it might be considered a safer bet not to attempt to assign WP:Due weight at all in order to be sure not to actively misrepresent the prevalence and prominence of the various viewpoints, but rather simply report what the sources say, and note where they disagree.
    • Jeppiz has gone a step further and suggested that Benrabah's assessments constitute WP:FRINGE views when they are not corroborated by other sources. I personally think that's way too strong a statement to make based on the sources we have.
• Finally, I suggest that we remove the orange tags (i.e. {{POV check}} and {{Original research}}—and come to think of it maybe also {{Controversial}}) when this discussion has concluded.

What say you? TompaDompa (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

TompaDompa, thank you for this helpful review. One could say that the only languages for which there is anything resembling consensus as a world language are English, French and Spanish. In all honesty, I can see some merit in that argument. Russian and Arabic are certainly spoken [well, at least 'written' in the case of MSA] in many countries (and both of them across continents) but they are still both limited to one continuous region each. Virtually no country outside the former USSR or outside the Arab League learn these languages learn these languages to the extent that an important part of the population become conversant. They are even further undermined by Russian detracting (no longer actively learnt in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova and also retreating elsewhere in the former USSR) and by the spoken Arabic being every bit as different as Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and Romanian and Modern Standard Arabic not being mastered by large parts of the population even in many Arabic countries. All of my arguments above can of course be sourced quite easily. Chinese even less of a World language, instead a regional one. As for languages like Malay, Dutch, Hindi... I'm surprised we even waste time talking about them in the context of world languages. Given the state of the sources, is there an argument to include any other language than English, French and Spanish (currently) and Latin, Ancient Greek and Persian (formerly), with the former ones confined to one sentence. Jeppiz (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Personally, I don't necessarily disagree with your arguments against Russian and Arabic being world languages, and I'm sure they can be backed up with reliable sources. But as far as being arguments against Russian and Arabic being considered world languages, they are your arguments, not arguments made by the sources. We must take care not to engage in WP:SYNTH here. This includes that any statement about WP:Academic consensus needs to be sourced to a WP:Reliable source which explicitly states that that is indeed the academic consensus.

I think the fact that Mufwene—one of our more in-depth sources—explicitly labels both Russian and Arabic as world languages (and elaborates a bit on why) is a good reason to include them. Moreover, if we accept my points about which sources we should take into consideration, we end up with the table below—which paints a rather different picture, in my opinion.

Finally, I'm not quite sure where you got Ancient Greek and Persian from. Is there something I have missed in my summary of the sources above? TompaDompa (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Just as Latin covered only a portion of the globe, the same was true for Ancient Greek, Aramaic, Quechua, Sanskrit and Ottoman Turkish...There are of course many sources which confirm that - [but which probably do not use the description "World languages"]

2. It would certainly be interesting and illuminating to mention Chinese - and perhaps German and Portuguese - whilst explaining why they "do not quite make the grade" - so they would not then be included in the list in the opening paragraph; [i.e., some readers might well wonder whether Chinese was also considered]. --DLMcN (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to your suggestion number 2 in theory, but in practice I think it would be difficult to do that while still abiding by WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV as well as being consistent in how we treat the languages and apply the sources. For instance, we can't say that WP:Academic consensus is that Chinese isn't a world language (even though it certainly looks that way) since we don't have any source explicitly verifying that. I suppose we could say something along the lines of an oft-repeated argument against Chinese being a world language is that it is too regional since Pei, Mazrui, and Mufwene make that argument (and for good measure, here's David Northrup making a similar argument in his 2013 book How English Became the Global Language (p. 158)), but then we would have to re-assess how we feel about citing Pei and Mazrui. To my eye, the easiest ways to abide by Wikipedia's policies about this would be to either not say anything at all (omitting the language entirely because it isn't WP:DUE is way better than presenting a one-sided argument where disagreement exists) or to use clear WP:INTEXT attribution for the various different viewpoints. Maybe we can workshop something, but I don't think we have the sourcing we would need to make the kinds of assertions we would like to make. TompaDompa (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Dajo767 has recently re-added the tables. I propose that they be removed again, for several reasons. One is that the division between the two "levels" is rather arbitrary and not supported by sources (see previous discussion at Talk:World language#Two categories?) – I have no idea where anyone got the idea for the languages in the second table that stricter sources list them only as supra-regional languages; the only source which is cited for that statement doesn't, and none of the other sources cited in the article do either. Another is that the choice of parameters is rather arbitrary and not supported by sources, who tend to focus more on qualitative aspects that do not lend themselves readily to being included in a table like this (see previous discussion at Talk:World language#Two categories?, again). A third is that the tables take up a lot of visual space which is way out of proportion to the focus that these aspects get in the available literature. @Jeppiz, DLMcN, and LiliCharlie: what do you think? TompaDompa (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with the argument above. I think Dajo767 is right (English and French are the only two languages learnt at a large scale in numerous countries across several continents for international communication) but I believe quite strongly in verification above "truth" and wouldn't want us to make up our own claims. Jeppiz (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that "division" will lead to more disputes (indeed, it has already, yesterday!) and even edit-warring. --DLMcN (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I propose the following changes:

1. Remove the reason examples of the World languages have to reach consensus before being included. from the {{Original research}} template at the top. That is not a WP:Original research issue.
2. Change

   English and French are the foremost—and by some accounts only—world languages. Beyond that, there is no academic consensus about which languages qualify; Spanish, Arabic, Russian, and Chinese are other possible world languages.

   in the WP:LEAD to

   English is the foremost—and by some accounts only—world language. Beyond that, there is no academic consensus about which languages qualify; Arabic, French, Russian, and Spanish are other possible world languages.

   There are several reasons for this:
   • The sources quite clearly say that English is the foremost world language. There are no sources that say this about French, or even about English and French together.
   • There are some sources that say that English is the only world language. There are no sources that say this about French, or about English and French together.
   • Chinese is unsourced in the body (see also point 3 below). The WP:LEAD is meant to summarize the body.
   • The list of potential languages should be ordered alphabetically to be as neutral as possible. We—as editors—shouldn't be making assessments about their relative importance/prominence.
3. Remove the empty section about Chinese. An alternative could be to add text and sources, but we can't have an empty and unsourced section.
4. Remove the section with the tables per the arguments put forth above in the section #The tables and the apparent consensus to do so.
5. Remove the {{Original research}} template at the top entirely, if points 2 through 4 are carried out first. Those are the only WP:OR issues I see that warrant a template at the top (as opposed to inline templates or section templates).
6. Remove the {{POV check}} template at the top. I think it's rather clear that the conditions at Template:POV check/doc#When to remove are met.

If there are no objections, I'll carry this out in a few days' time. TompaDompa (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that Russian has experienced a significant setback since the collapse of communism and the breakup of the USSR? [I recall that a comment of this nature was included before]. There are of course numerous sources to back this up - but perhaps it will be regarded as unacceptable "Original Research"?

Russian used to be the compulsory second language taught in schools in Poland, East Germany and elsewhere in eastern Europe. In those countries, and indeed in the Baltic states, Russian is now being displaced by English (and French and German to some extent).

Russian is, however, still the second language in many central Asian and west-Asian countries. --DLMcN (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Only if we can find a WP:RELIABLE source which makes this point in connection to an assessment of the Russian language's status as a world language, I'd say. I'll note that while Ammon says Comparison of the numbers for 2005 with those for 1989 shows that the following languages have risen in economic strength: Chinese and Italian (2 ranks), Portuguese and Spanish (1 rank). Russian has declined (4 ranks), while English, Japanese, German, French, Arabic, and Hindi and Urdu have maintained the same rank. Bengali and Indonesian cannot be judged, the latter being a special case, for which the method of counting speakers seems to have changed in the source. For Chinese, Portuguese, and Spanish, the function of international languages has probably increased, and for Russian it has decreased, in line with the economic rank. (p. 111, section "Economic Strength") and In recent times, access to virtually all countries world-wide, the political prerequisite of 'globalization,' gave an additional push to the predominance of English, since regions of special protection for other languages were eliminated (for instance eastern Europe for German and Russian). (p. 117, section "The Rise and Stabilization of a Single, World Lingua Franca"), he also notes that Graddol foresees the growing importance of Chinese, Russian, [...] (p. 119, section "The Rise of New and the Continuation of Traditional Subordinate and Bilateral World Languages"). I don't think that is sufficient sourcing. For one thing, the 2005 figures are now just as out of date as the 1989 figures were in 2005. For another, we could only make very weak/heavily qualified statements about this based on this sourcing, and those statements would almost certainly not be WP:DUE. I don't think the statement "Following the end of the Cold War, the Russian language's relative position as a world language declined" would be controversial among scholars, but at present it's not attributable. TompaDompa (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Looking at this article, I find there are too many World Languages. To improve the quality of this page, and to allow branching off into new articles, I suggest that the number of world languages be limited to 4 instead of the current 5. Since there is consensus of the nature of English, French, Spanish, and Arabic as world languages, I suggest we trim out Russian. 89.159.31.182 (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how that could be justified based on the sources we have. TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest TompaDompa to check this article in other languages, to see how Chinese language is classified and perceived by non-English speakers. In most cases, Chinese is considered one of several world languages, and I believe most of English speakers would agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.113.112.230 (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I have in fact checked the corresponding articles in several other languages. I did this some months ago in an effort to find additional useful sources. I have no objections to the inclusion of Chinese per se, but we need to have proper sourcing for it. The outcome of the discussion that has been held on this talk page thus far has been that we should be fairly stringent when it comes to the sourcing. We could decide to be somewhat less strict with our sourcing requirements—see previous discussions about this at e.g. #A summary of the sources located so far, and a suggestion—in order to lower the threshold for inclusion sufficiently to include Chinese, but then we would also have to include German and Portuguese in order to be consistent about it. The other option if Chinese is to be included is to locate additional sources that meet our current, stricter sourcing requirements. TompaDompa (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

122.53.185.84: "... world language - it is used when two or more countr[ies] which speak differently, converse [with each] other".

TompaDompa: "Not quite sure what this^ was meant to say".

- . - . - . -

Tompa - That^ (now deleted) edit is, if nothing else, an interesting way of looking at the concept: i.e., "What examples can we think of, where people from different countries find that they can easily converse in a language which is not official in their own country?"... Certainly, English does often fulfill that role, and perhaps French occasionally...

Russian? - not really, (or rarely)? - because it still carries official status throughout central and west Asia ... [Perhaps, however, we might be able to find a Polish octogenarian and a Mongol who could share that language?]

German? - probably yes, [even today] in eastern Europe.

I am doubtful, however, whether it applies much to Arabic (obviously excluding people who used to speak it as their native language, and who are now living [say] in Britain or France).

I am of course aware that we cannot introduce this new criterion unless we follow Wikipedia guidelines! --DLMcN (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Russian is widely spoken in Mongolia. But it's a neighboring country. — kwami (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)