Talk:Languages of the United Kingdom

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Punjabi

According to the article at this point in time, Punjabi is the UK's second language, with 1.3 million speakers. The reference given for this is a speech given in the House of Commons by John McDonnell, MP for Hayes and Harlington [1].

However, 1.3 million seems an implausibly large number for an immigrant community. They would make up over 2% of the UK's population! The Ethnologue report on Laguages of the United Kingdom gives a total figure of 573,000 Punjabi speakers [2]. The Joshua Project gives the total number of the Punjabi community in the UK as 573,000 [3]. This number is roughly equal to the number of Welsh speakers in the UK.

I will e-mail John McDonnell and try to discover where his figure of 1.3 million comes from. --Akiyama 08:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi and Urdu

According to the Ethnologue report on Languages of the United Kingdom Hindi has 243,000 speakers and Urdu 400,000 speakers [4]. If they are considered as being the same language, they have a total of 643,000 speakers, which I believe would put them above Welsh as the UK's second most commonly spoken native language. --Akiyama 09:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC) The other thing overlooked is that many speakers of Punjabi and Kashmiri are also able to speak Urdu/Hindi, since they are the national languages of India/Pakistan, and widely spoken in Punjab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.248.220 (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

The statistics I have added to the article are partly from the BBC. Anyone care to list alternate sources? —Gabbe 22:15, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

The Beeb's source is the 2001 census, so I reckon that's good enough. An anonymous user had put in a statement about Welsh which felt a bit POV (well, it put my back up a little, which is prolly an adequate sign), so I've tried to neutralise it a little. Still not entirely comfortable with it, but I'm most certainly not NPOV on the issue of Yr Iaith, so I guess that I shouldn't be too comfortable with it ;o) — OwenBlacker 12:01, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

"Spoken monolingually by 95% of the population" can't be right. Many English-speakers are bilingual or multilingual. Evertype 11:20, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Swardle

In the Yorkshire Dales, Swaledale to be precise, there's another dialect/language - well, whichever, as the line blurs.

A friend of mine from over t'dale near Semer Water can speak it and my word he comes out with some odd phrases. 'I'm bassarking today' - meaning, I'm not doing much. I've no idea where this comes from.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/455618.stm

Celtic Languages are Native

How can anyone say that the Celtic languages of Britain are not "Native" when Welsh was used before English came into being. Some people may be going over the top with the NPOV. I'm refering to the language listings below "Languages in United Kingdom".

The Celtic and Sign language sections are subheadings of the native section - so the article lists them as native. For consistency, it might be an idea to put the native Germanic languages in a similar subheading. Man vyi 21:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are THREE indigenous sign languages (British, Irish, NI) - all of which get used in NI. --MacRusgail 10:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeaxysch

As a conlang, Zeaxysch seems not to belong comfortably in the list of languages, so I've moved it here. Comments welcome. Man vyi 17:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeaxysch, ( New West Saxon, see West Country dialects, i.e. Wessex dialect, see also William Barnes, the Dorset poet).

European Charter

The UK government has ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in respect of:

Cornish (in England)
Irish and Ulster Scots (in Northern Ireland)
Scots and Scottish Gaelic (in Scotland)
Welsh (in Wales)

Detailed submissions regarding the status of the UK's qualifying languages are contained in UK's 2nd Periodical Report 2005. Man vyi 08:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Though never having been in Britain, I have seen images of British signboards which often put on an official sign or warning in both English and French. It is hereby requested to include the status of French in the U.K. as to why it is often included in public signs. Cygnus_hansa 20:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived here all my life and have never seen a public sign written in French. Welsh and Scots Gaelic, but never French. Are you sure you're not thinking of Canada? Yorkshire Phoenix

11:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although... places like Dover and London where Francophones may turn up have some examples of bilingual signage (see pic). Man vyi 12:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French can be found in some places on the south coast, and road signs, usually "priorite a gauche/droit" type things. However, French can be found in legal terms, in mottos ("Honi soit que mal y pense" to Aberdeen's "Bon Accord") and even in a few placenames - Beaumaris and the bizarre Ashby de la Zouche. MacRusgail 18:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immigrant languages

Obviously there are dozens, if not hundreds of non-indigenous languages in the UK. Perhaps we could set a threshold for numbers of speakers if they are to be listed. Indigenous languages are different as there are a limited number anyway. -MacRusgail 18:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Native

There is a blank, empty section called 'Native', although the prospect of news on the Native language is quite exciting i'm guessing it should probably be removed as i'm fairly sure there is zero notable information about it. Gazh 10:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw i meant 'euskara' not 'eureka' lol. Gazh 10:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section isnt blank, it lists in great detail the various language and sub-languages of the Germanic and Celtic groupings. 80.80.176.20 21:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i misunderstood, i thought Native was being reserved for the language of the Indiginous peoples, which is a bit daft thinking about it now. Gazh 23:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autochthonous 79.197.52.107 (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scots

Yeah I don't know how to say it then. A lot more then 30% of the people in Scotland speak Scots. There aren't that many people from outside of Scotland who live there.--Josquius 13:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for a reliable statistic that differs from the General Register Office for Scotland figure? Man vyi 16:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly not. I don't understand how they could have guessed at that 30%, Scots by definition is the Scotish dialects of English which of course are spoken by most Scottish people.--Josquius 11:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless of course one defines Scots and Scottish English as two different things (as did the UK government by ratifying the European Charter). Man vyi 11:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you call Lowland Scots. Many people who claim to speak it are speaking a form of Scottish English rather than Lallans. You have to go to rural areas to hear the real thing, especially in the north east. I personally don't trust the statistics on Lallans for a variety of reasons. --MacRusgail 12:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't trust any language statistics based on subjective self-declaration - they might be informative as regards attitudes towards a language but in terms of establishing numbers of speakers they are notoriously unreliable. Man vyi 12:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. They are particularly dangerous in the instance of something that not everyone considers a separate language from English. Hence fluent speakers may say they're using English, but very weak ones might think that they're using "Scots". Most of what I hear in the Central Belt - from the working class, by the way - is English with a strong accent, but it often gets referred to as "Scots" or "Scottish". --MacRusgail 15:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names are tricky things. For 700 years until around 1500 the inhabitants of what would eventually become south east lowland Scotland called their language English. The reason was simple enough - they were Anglo-Saxon or 'English' people and not 'Scots' in the original sense. In the 16th century it became fashionable to call the language Scots, though the new name was used interchangably with English. By the 18th century however 'Scots' was being used mainly for the name of Scottish dialects whilst the overarching name for the language had reverted to English. Cassandra

English as official language

A recent change to the List of official languages by state cited this page at the Commonwealth Secretariat website which does, in fact, name English as the official language of the UK. The cited page does not cite a supporting source for that. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This government published page states English to be the UK's official language. Tklink (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICS, the UK has no officially designated official language. Public Information departments in various governmental agencies will from time to time publish websites without checking whether or not what the websites assert as truth is actually true in fact. I've misplaced the results of past research I've done on this but, from what I recall, I was able to dig out primary sources designating English as an official language in some components of the UK (perhaps Scotland and Wales), but not for the UK as a whole, and not for England. A number of citeable sources exist which assert that English is ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9]—which also asserts, incorrectly, that English is the official language of the U.S.—, etc.), and also that English is not ([10], [11], [12], [13] etc.) the (or an) official language of the UK. Due weight considerations should be observed here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English isn't an official language of England or any other country in the UK - it's the de facto language. Neither is it the official language of Wales. The only current official language of Wales, as recognised by law, is Welsh. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 13:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dug around a bit, and came up with Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 on the National Assembly for Wales website. That page has a link to Proposed Welsh Language (Wales) Measure, as passed (PDF, 974KB). That measure says, in part,

4. Promoting and facilitating use of Welsh and treating Welsh no less favourably than English
(1) The Commissioner may do anything that he or she thinks appropriate—
(a) to promote the use of the Welsh language,
(b) to facilitate the use of the Welsh language, or
(c) to work towards ensuring that the Welsh language is treated no less
favourably than the English language

Also, there's 'Historic' assembly vote for new Welsh language law, December 7, 2010, BBC News Wales, which says in part, "[First Minister Carwyn Jones] said: 'Although legislation alone is not enough, this measure provides us with some of the tools we need to ensure that the Welsh language can continue to prosper into the 21st Century, alongside the English language.'"

I infer from these and other sources that the English language has some sort of official status in Wales. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, even though Wales is subject to English law, the Welsh Language Act 1993 put the Welsh language on an equal footing with the English language in Wales with regard to the public sector. At least that is what the article says. Welsh may also be spoken in Welsh courts. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make English an official language of Wales. There's no legislation anywhere in the UK stating that English is an official language of X, Y, or Z, and there's certainly nothing here in Wales along those lines. The reason for this is that English is the de facto language used throughout the British Isles, and does not need law to make it so. Wales and Ireland, on other hand, have appointed Welsh and Irish as official languages within each of the countries. Notice that they're not the official languages of the country - for that to happen, they would have to be spoken by all according to law. Welsh is an official language (as opposed to 'the' official language) because English will always continue to be spoken here, and as such, the law doesn't need to be amended. Carwyn Jones is stating that with these new powers, Welsh will be promoted alongside English - it doesn't say that both languages will be promoted. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 21:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Directgov site says in plain language, "English is the official language of the United Kingdom", it's not really the role of any editors here to argue otherwise. We might wish we could put a {{cn}} tag on that statement, but we can't - and it is clearly a reliable source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, it says it on there, but can you find any law? Directgov, for all purposes, is just another website. Unless there's a law that's been past stating "... the official language of the UK, England, Ireland (ect) is English," then nothing should be said apart from the fact that English is the de facto language. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 21:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That presupposes that it needs to be enshrined in statute to be deemed "official". I don't believe it does - but in any case it's not up to us to argue the point. If a site like Directgov - a reliable source on the UK, not "just another website" - says it's official, WP should say it's official. Ours is not to reason why - verifiability not truth. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What if that information is verifiable but not true? I've just visited the site and seen what it says, but that doesn't make it true or official - law and statue does. This article currently first states English as the official language, then goes onto say is that official de facto language. There's a difference between a language being official by receiving royal assent through law, and a language which is deemed official though the de facto loophole. Again, do we go along with just what Directgov says, or do we back it up with a verifiable law? -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 21:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That cries out for a quote of the initial paragraph of Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the words "de facto" anywhere on the Directgov page - am I missing something? Anyway, we should go with what Directgov says. If other reliable sources (not opinions) take a different view, we can refer to them as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because many people confuse the words "de facto" and "official;" just because many people speak it does not give it official status, it gives it 'de facto' status, i.e., in practice but not necessarily ordained by law. This describes the English language in the UK. As I've stated, just because Directgov says it's official, without citing UK law, does not make it so. This needs to be written into the article. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 21:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., There's also information about this here: List of countries where English is an official language, though there's no citable references. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 21:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign languages spoken in UK

The infobox currently shows "French 23%,Spanish 15%". The cited EU document claims that these figures are for percentages of the population able to hold a conversation in these languages. Frankly, I find these figures unbelieveable - I can accept them possibly as the proportion of the population who passed O Level/GCSE in these languages, but I cannot conceive of that many people being able to hold a conversation! -- Arwel (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the infobox to say "French 23%, German 9%, Spanish 8%", since that's what the cited supporting source says. Please note WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." If there is some other reliable source which contradicts the currently-cited source, info about the contradiction should be repurted in the article and a citation of that other source should be added. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the percentages for claim as there is no supporting quote. The idea that 1/4 Britons can speak French and 10% of the population can speak Spanish is ludicrous. As for German, not even the German teachers can speak that.

Boynamedsue (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Native" and "Immigrant"

Why does the article need to differentiate in this way? It strikes me as inconsistent and verging on offensive. As I understand it, Celtic languages are not "native", in that they came into the islands from elsewhere - admittedly a long time ago, indeed perhaps before there were 'islands' - as, later, did the antecedents of the English language. French (Norman) came in next, followed by Romani, and then at various times all the other so-called "immigrant" languages listed. What benefit, if any, is given by the differentiation set out in the article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Celtic languages and Norman French are VERY different. Think of all the placenames that these have provided and long established families. They are in quite a different position to languages which have only really gained much of a population in the UK from 100-10 years ago.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One can clearly distinguish between languages that developed their modern forms within the territory of the UK and those that did not. For example, although the Germanic and Celtic languages were imported, English, Scots, Welsh, Cornish, Scots Gaelic and Irish developed as identifiable languages nowhere else and are therefore indigenous in a way that, say, Punjabi isn't. I think it's consistent to state which languages are indigenous and which aren't. Man vyi (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the point that the languages you list (other than Irish - mainly not in the UK) developed nowhere else. However I would suggest that - if the consensus is that such languages need to be differentiated at all in this article - the word "endemic", or possibly "indigenous", would be preferable to "native". I'm still not happy with the word "immigrant" at all - it is a word which (at least in the UK) is used pejoratively by those with certain political agendas to differentiate and discriminate between people because of their origin or ethnicity, and in any case is not sufficiently specific - it is used here to refer to people who have migrated within a relatively recent, but undefined, period. If there is a need to differentiate at all (and I remain to be convinced), I'd suggest the words "endemic" and "non-endemic" (or even "other") as being clearer and less potentially contentious than "native" and "immigrant". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are indigenous since they have been there for hundreds of years. Another point, the newly introduced languages, don't often persist for too long. Yiddish used to be very prevalent in parts of London, but it's now either present in Cockney loanwords, or in a handful of families. Much of the time these languages disappear within three generations. --MacRusgail (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source of numbers

Approximately 400,000 Dutch/Afrikaans speakers in the UK? Interesting, but seems a bit on the high side. Where do these numbers come from? --Hooiwind (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, a hell of a lot of white South Africans have moved to the UK, not to mention British people who have lived in South Africa, and picked it up, and black South Africans who know the language (possibly the majority of Afrikaans speakers).--MacRusgail (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar

Even though Gibraltarians are British citizens, Gibraltar does not form part of the United Kingdom and should therefore be excluded from this article. Otherwise it would have to include the other 13 British overseas territories and at the same time make it very clear that they are not part of the UK (which seems silly as this is an article about the UK, as the title suggests). --Gibmetal 77 ^talk 01:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a brief mention at - Languages of the United Kingdom#Languages of British Overseas Territories, with a note regarding Gibraltar's status.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

The sentence in the section on Cornwall is rather misleading. It says:

"The Cornish were officially recognised as an indigenous national minority of the United Kingdom the last United Kingdom Census 2001"

There was no "official recognition" of this status. All that happened was a certain number of people stated Cornish as their ethnicity in the 2001 census. An official recognition has to come from the United Kingdom government (which as the following sentence correctly says, recognised the language later). Getting a sorting code by the body responsible for the census is not "official recognition". For example in the same year [14] enough people said they were Jedi Knights to get it a religious code. Clear sources are needed to back up this official recognition claim. To be honest the whole sentence is not needed anyway, this is about languages, not national minorities. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a news article from 2010 [15] THe United Kingdom government does not nor should it recognise Cornish as an ethnic minority. The people of Cornwall are English/British. This area is very controversial, which is why removing the sentence on that status of cornish people all together may be the best idea, this article is about Language, the status of the language is all that needs to be covered. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will simply delete the sentence i have concerns about as no one has responded. It doesnt belong in this article anyway for reasons stated above. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do the words "nor should it" and "The people of Cornwall are English/British" in the above post help develop this article? Who's fanning the "controversy"? But you're right to remove the sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to highlight just how controversial it is. I am glad we agree on the solution. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"nor should it" - Pushing an agenda here then? Why exactly are English people so loathe to recognise the Cornish? They are not equivalent to "Jedi knights". True, their language is revived, but your opposition to any kind of self-determination is pretty blatantly obvious. The Cornish-as-nation idea is not a new arrival, it has over a thousand years of precedents. It also has European recognition.

Oh, I forgot, the British only recognise self-determination when the self-determinants wish to be British, e.g. Gibraltar and the Falklands. Or when they wish to dump certain colonies.--MacRusgail (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a forum. Obviously there is evidence for a minority of Cornish people considering themselves not to be English, and to an even lower degree, not to be BRITISH. But there has been no official recognition of Cornwall as a nation by any official body, and so:

"The Cornish were officially recognised as an indigenous national minority of the United Kingdom the last United Kingdom Census 2001" is false.

Although Cornish has been spoken in the British parliament (and good on the guy that did it) politically speaking Cornish Nationalism is pretty much what Jedi is religiously speaking, only less popular.

Boynamedsue (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. Cornish is a living language in the UK only in the same sense that Latin is. The last native speaker died long ago; it is now only kept 'alive' by artificial means, and only by a relatively few enthusiasts. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.3.41 (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh second most spoken language in UK

This sounds great to me, being a Welsh speaker, but how was that conclusion reached from the given reference? Can someone explain it to me? -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 23:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table of language - update

After updating the table to include current statistics and references, can we discuss the inclusion of Jersey Legal French, Jèrriais, Guernésiais, and Sercquiais; their respective countries/islands aren't technically part of the UK, are they? I'd also like to hear other people's opinions on Angloromani - I've never heard of it being spoken anywhere in the UK, nor have I ever heard mention of it! -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 23:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angloromani has quite an extensive literature on it, it's really been reduced to a core of a few hundred words which are used by romani travellers in various parts of England and Scotland, which are now used in an entirely English grammar and syntax. Up to about 80 years ago it retained some grammar from Romany proper. In areas where gypsies settled angloromani words are often used quite extensively by settled people, the Seacroft area of Leeds is an example.

Boynamedsue (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English not native to Great Britain?

Glenn has noted on the table that English is not nativ to Britain. The table now implies that English is foreign but Scots and the Celtic languages arn't. In truth, they'r all nativ to Britain. Old English became Modern English and Scots in Britain. Likewize, Old Brythonic became Modern Welsh and Cornish in Britain. These languages didn't change from "old" to "modern" before coming to Britain; that change happend in Britain. Therfor, they'r all nativ. We need not be language historians to work that out.

Also, this needless repetition has been re-added above the table. It says exactly what the table says, altho it wrongly includes the Republic of Ireland and Mann (which arn't within the UK). Why does this paragraf need to be here? ~Asarlaí 03:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English is a West Germamic language that is not native/indigenous to the British Isles nor the UK. The Celtic languages are the native/indigenous languages of the British Isles - English was the foreign language. The paragraph also explains the native languages of the British Isles, which isn't done in the article or the table. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 14:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just explaind to you why English is nativ to Britain. Please explain to me why it isn't ("beacuse it's Germanic" isn't an answer).

By your logic, if English isn't nativ then neither is Scots. Both ar Germanic and both came from Old English. Yet you'v left it untoucht.

As for the paragraf: what info does it hav that the table doesn't?

~Asarlaí 14:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left them in as they *are* languages of the UK, though the point I am making is that eventhough they are languages of the UK, some aren't native. I've explained already that the paragraph tells the reader which languages are native and those that aren't. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 20:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still havn't given me an explanation and you still havn't shown me a source, so I'll be undoing your changes until I see one. ~Asarlaí 20:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Celtic languages were once an import as well. They do not appear to be the earliest languages of these islands. While I understand why people would say English is "not indigenous", I'd suggest that it has been here long enough to qualify, i.e. nearly 2000 years. (Gwynfor Evans and various others have suggested its origins in Roman military settlements with German mercenaries.) It also gained most of its distinct features in these islands, at that time, including certain features which are not to be found in other Germanic languages (such as three present tense forms), and which may be influenced by underlying Celtic factors. -MacRusgail (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this silliness! Of course English is native to the UK, it evolved here after being brought by immigrants, as did the Celtic languages and Anglo-Romani.

Boynamedsue (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing one could argue is that English is a relatively recent import to some areas, mostly the western fringes of the Celtic countries. In the West Highlands, English only became properly established in the 19th century.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shelta

Can anyone explain why Shelta has been excised from the table of languages? It partially evolved within the current territory of the UK (Northern Ireland) and has native speakers in both Gret Britain and Northern Ireland.

Boynamedsue (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any need for Shelta to be included? As it currently stands, the statistic heading is "Rank: no. of speakers in the UK" and the current reference for Shelta doesn't mention the UK at all, just worldwide. For that reason, I don't think it should be included unless a UK source can be provided. I'll take it out if there's no objection in three days. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 02:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taken out today. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 16:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added Shelta, the reason it should be present in a table of living languages native to the UK is that it is a living language native to the UK, its article states it has speakers in both Northern Ireland and England. Its presence in the UK is sourced in the ethnologue citation. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Cornish

Anglo-Cornish is classified as a West Country dialect, despite the peculiarities that stem from its Celtic substrata and its partial origin in the emmerging Standard English of the 16th-18th centuries. The West Country English article includes it in its scope, and given English speakers were present in Eastern Cornwall in 1066 (there were also Cornish speakers in Devon at this point, but that's by the by), it's clear that its origins are partially found in the Western dialect group.

Therefore I've returned it to a sub-section of West Country in the Anglic dialect listing, rather than a separate English on its own account.

Boynamedsue (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table of languages

I can't see at a glance what way the table of languages was sorted initially. Why Welsh before Scots, for instance? A second problem was that, although the table is sortable, the fourth column - No. of speakers - was sorted by ASCII code, so that 125,000 came before 2,000, which was followed by 55 million. So I have changed the fourth column to "Rank: no. of speakers" so that clicking on that heading will rank the languages according to number of speakers, and I have also changed the order they first appear in so that it is ranked by number of speakers as well. Scolaire (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implied reason for under-representation of Welsh speakers' numbers

The following sentance is quite bizzare, quite offensive and probably an incorrect use of punctuation:

Conversely, some first-language speakers may choose not to report themselves as such; unlike Scottish Gaelic, which is sometimes viewed as a regional language even in Scotland itself, Welsh has long been strongly associated with nationalism.

Its first of all absurd to claim that 'Welsh speaking=nationalist'. I doubt very much that any first language Welsh speaker whould hold that view, let alone fill in their census form incorrectly in case, well, in case of what exactly? I'm removing this from the article, and who ever wrote it in the first place can reinstate it if there is any evidence of this taking place. I do know (but won't add this as it's original research) Welsh speakers, both first-language and second- language, who do not put down that they speak Welsh as they don't consider their Welsh 'good enough' - people who I've spoken nothing but Welsh with them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.245.247.100 (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Plaid Cymru and nationalists have pushed the language. Glenys Kinnock, Rhodri Morgan etc are examples of non-nationalist speakers, but the 1950s/60s impetus for Welsh language activism was largely nationalist. Plaid is tied to the language issue in a way that the SNP is not.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but it's still a long strech to then suggest that non-nationalist or non-PC members who speak Welsh would then declare that they don't speak Welsh on the census.--92.245.247.100 (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they spoke a form of diluted Welsh (especially true in the east and the south) then they might not register themselves. Nationalistic learners on the other hand, who were not proficient would do the opposite.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malayalam

According to Ethnologue, it's 21,000, but in this article it's 200,000 - unsourced. I'm not disputing it, as ethnologue is known for major errors, but can someone please find a source for that? Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't English a de jure official language in Wales?

If so, the lead is incorrect in asserting Welsh as the only official language in any part of the UK. Rob (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Welsh is the only de jure official language in the UK; English is de facto "official". -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 11:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manx

Shouldn't the Manx language be on here? Asarelah (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Isle of Man is not in the United Kingdom so it is not within the scope of this article. M.T.S.W.A. (talk)

Trouble archiving links on the article

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/Commun/ListeDeclarations.asp?NT=148&CM=1&DF=&CL=ENG&VL=1

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Languages of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120119212305/http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/947445_751311283_746335513.pdf to http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/947445_751311283_746335513.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Romany

What about Romany which has been recorded in England for at least 500 years. That must be long enough to be considered native surely? The form of Romany spoken in Britian is not spoken in Europe so it is a native British language surely? Why is it missing from this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChilternGiant (talk • contribs) 01:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point!

Can you suggest some authoritative sources we can use to rectify this deficiency? BushelCandle (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Languages of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100108190250/http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk:80/uk-languages/south-west to http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/uk-languages/south-west

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Welsh and Polish speakers

Polish is not the second most spoken language in the UK (neither is Scots come to that, as experts cannot agree whether it is a dialect of English or not), Welsh is: there are 562,000 speakers of Welsh in Wales ALONE (2011 census, more than Polish on its own); 150,000 in England (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,463af2212,488f25df2,49749c8cc,0.html) = 712,000 in England and Wales = more than 546,000 Polish speakers. Come to that, where did the Polish number come from? We have to remember that 562,000 speakers of Welsh in Wales alone compare to the 546,000 Polish speakers of the whole of the UK. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 12:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted, and again, because you have not cited a reliable source in the article. The link you provided here returns "Document Not Found". Please just cite the source correctly in the article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Rob984 (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number for Polish, 546,000, is from the 2011 census which is cited under Languages of the United Kingdom#Immigrant languages. Rob984 (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So yes, Welsh does surpass Polish based on data for England and Wales only. We should probably look at data for Northern Ireland and Scotland too however. Rob984 (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link given is the same available on the Welsh language page of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the data for Welsh speakers in other parts of Wales is scarce. I don't see what your problem is. From the data, Welsh is the second language spoken in the UK - I don't know why you can't accept that. On the data I've give, the lead should be changed AGAIN. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 17:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem: stats on Welsh were only collected from Wales. Stats about other languages (not Welsh or English) were collected from the whole of the UK. In 2011, there were 562,016 Welsh speakers in Wales ALONE, and of Polish speakers there were 546,000 in the WHOLE OF THE UK - data is not comparative. Either way, there were more Welsh speakers than Polish speakers. Please stop editing the lead. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 21:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Are you kidding me? My problem is that you have absolutely no fucking idea what that source actually states, do you? You expect be to accept that it cites that figure and is up to date and relevant, despite the fact that it fails WP:Verification? Because of your disruptive editing behaviour and laziness, I put the URL into archive.org. In actual fact, the source is referencing the 2001 census. So for a start, it is out of date. On top of this, it is actually published by Minority Rights Group International, and states "This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher". So it is an interpretation of the 2001 census by Minority Rights Group International. How can we know what "usable knowledge of the Welsh language" means? It's not even clear if it is referring to data for Wales or the whole of the UK. I have no idea if the 2001 census has a figure for the whole of the UK, but I doubt it. Rob984 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? All I have done is reverted your edit to add unverified (and now evidently inappropriate) content. I have no opposition to your most recent edit. ~~However, we still don't know for sure Welsh or Polish have more speakers. For instance, Scotland has a lot of Polish speakers, but probably fewer Welsh.~~ [Strike that, Polish data is for the whole of the UK...] Rob984 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need to swear. Looks like it's all be sorted to an extent. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 22:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, please be civil. The source actually states “There are another estimated 150,000 Welsh-speakers in England.” It does not say “in 2001”. The sentence was written in the present tense, indicating the estimate was as at the report's publication date, 2008.

The 2001 census showed 582,000 Welsh speakers in Wales. The 2011 census showed 562,000 Welsh speakers in Wales. This paper (Bwrdd yr Iaith Gymraeg, A statistical overview of the Welsh language, by Hywel M Jones, page 115, 13.5.1.6, England) published February 2012, notes a 2001 estimate of 110,000. Minority Rights Group International estimated Welsh speakers in England in 2008 as 150,000. The Hywel Jones paper estimated a thousand Welsh speakers living in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so that gives a UK-wide Welsh speaking population of 693,000 in 2001 and 713,000 in 2011 (assuming no change between 2008 and 2011). Either way it is significantly higher than the number of Polish speakers. Daicaregos (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You put it so much better than myself, Daicaregos. Can THAT ^^^ be written into the lead and article?

Aw shucks, thank you. We could add something similar to the above in the body text and summarise it in the Lead. Perhaps something like: The UK has around 700,000 Welsh speakers, over half a million of whom live in Wales. Thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with adding the figure for UK-wide speakers. I don't think we need to specify how many speakers live in Wales in the introduction, given the overall scope of this article. Also would be on the condition of mentioning the number of Scots speakers also. Rob984 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scots second language?

The lead is very misleading at the moment. Scots is not a language in and of itself, but variety (a specific form of a language) of English spoken in Scotland. There is a different between a variation of the spoken language and the language itself. Taking this into account, Welsh is the second biggest language spoken in the UK. Can we please discuss this? -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 21:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the Scots language Wikipedia page: "A 2010 Scottish Government study of "public attitudes towards the Scots language" found that 64% of respondents (around 1,000 individuals being a representative sample of Scotland's adult population) "don't really think of Scots as a language", but it also found that "the most frequent speakers are least likely to agree that it is not a language (58%) and those never speaking Scots most likely to do so (72%)".[10] In the 2011 Scottish census, a question on Scots language ability was featured." -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 21:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better option would be to simply mention that Scots is sometimes considered a dialect of English. I don't personal think Scots is a language in its own right but it wouldn't be WP:NPOV to exclude it outright. As the Scottish Government study suggests, some do consider it a language, and it is disputed within academia.

Eg, "In 2011, the second-most spoken language in the United Kingdom was Scots, although this is considered by many as a dialect of English. The third most-spoken language was Welsh..."

Rob984 (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we mention that Scots is sometimes considered a language, then it's still open to interpretation. I think it'd be better to say that Welsh is the second biggest LANGUAGE but Scots is the biggest variation of English. Yes? -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 22:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be simply pushing one POV. It's open to interpretation in the sense that the reader would be aware of both views... which is a good thing. I also have no idea how you could determine it is the biggest variation of English. What about the variations the English speak? Rob984 (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scots is a language variant of English, as noted in Wikipedia's article, and therefore not considere a language in and of itself. It's not a distinct language from English (ad Welsh or Irish Gaelic is), and can be understood by "non-speakers" too. Welsh is the second most common distinct language spoken, Scots is not. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 17:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Addition: Scots is the Germanic language variety spoken in Lowland Scotland and parts of Ulster (where the local dialect is known as Ulster Scots). Variety = a specific form of a language (in this case, English) or a range of dialects that are spoken across some geographical areas (in this case, Scotland) that differ only slightly between neighboring areas. This may include languages, dialects, registers, styles or other forms of language, as well as a standard variety. The use of the word "variety" to refer to these different forms avoids the use of the term language, which many people associate only with the standard language. Welsh is the second most spoken language in the UK and this should be reflected in the article. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 17:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Welsh should be noted as the second most spoken language in the UK. Daicaregos (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, nothing you said refutes my comment. The UK government recognises Scots as a "regional language" and some academics consider Scots a language due to its distinct orthography. Scots literature wouldn't be considered poor English for example. Scots is the only variety of English that has its own distinct written form.

We could just avoid ranking the languages explicitly? There are now sourced figures for the total number of both Scots and Welsh speakers, so we could just state these and mention that Scots is considered a language variety of English?

Rob984 (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to where it says that the UK Government recognises Scots as a regional language, please? You've said yourself that Scots is a variety of English above! It looks like, despite what I've said above, that we won't agree, and any edits to (rightfully) say that Welsh is the second largest language in the UK will be turned back by Rob. Pitty, as people will start to spout the article off and just teach wrong information. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 11:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The UK Government signed the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in respect of Welsh, Gaelic, Irish, Scots, Ulster Scots, Cornish and Manx.

This report specifically refers Scots and Ulster Scots as "languages":

Since its last report under the Framework Convention the Government has ratified the Charter on Regional or Minority Languages. The Government has to date recognised seven languages under the Charter: Welsh, Gaelic, Irish, Scots, Ulster Scots, Cornish and Manx.

Also the Scottish Government:

The Scottish Executive recognises, respects and celebrates the Scots language as an integral part of our cultural heritage. Scots is a living language and is still widely spoken across Scotland today in a variety of forms such as Scots, Doric and Lallans.

I have proposed that we do not comment on the rankings explicitly to avoid giving POV information, and instead allow the reader to make up there own mind. Do you agree this would be a step forward? Or would you rather the article stay as it is until a consensus deems otherwise?

Rob984 (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the consensus as it currently stands is 2 against 1 in favour of stating that Welsh is the second largest spoken language, but I am willing to take out any rankings as long as a note is added about Scots ref: it is debatable as to whether Scots is a language in its own rights or a variation of English. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 21:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see your reply until today. Consensus generally infers overwhelming agreement with a change. Now, I am certainly not in favour of stating Scots is the second most-spoken language. And there is not exactly consensus for your proposal to state Welsh is the second most-spoken language. So I have edited the article, which I think you will find an improvement? I only wish the article be worded neutrally. Rob984 (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording is POV, as it states unequivocally that Scots is a dialect of English, thus endorsing that position. Since the Scottish, Northern Irish and London governments all clearly explicitly recognise "the Scots language", and since a significant percentage of the Scottish population (though not the majority) consider it as such, I feel it would be inappropriate for the article to take a position either way, and instead present both arguments equally in order to reflect this divide in public opinion. Therefore, I'm rewritting the sentence to reflect the two positions without endorsing either. As far as the second largest language question goes, I feel like it would probably be easiest to just add a qualification in parenthesis (e.g. "Welsh is the second most-spoken language (or third after Scots, if considered as a language"), and that way neither position is directly advocated over the other, reflecting the major divergence of opinion, in line with WP:NPOV. 92.3.122.135 (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin and Cantonese excluded?

I'm struggling to comprehend - in context - the expression in the 2011 census "All other Chinese excludes Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese Chinese" for the entry for Chinese under immigrant languages. Surely the majority of Chinese speakers in the UK speak Cantonese, yet this wording suggests that "all other Chinese" refers to forms of Chinese that are not Cantonese or Mandarin. That is, neither Cantonese nor Mandarin are in the top 19 non-indigenous languages spoken, but "other Chinese" taken as a unit is. I have plausibility issues with this. Can someone clear this up? OsFish (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication

Re Languages of the British Isles see [16] Rwood128 (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been comment re correcting the name of this article, to take account of the inclusion of places outside of the UK. Rwood128 (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2011 census

The population of the United Kingdom is given as 63,181,775 by that article. I'm tired but this doesn't match the figures given here "According to the 2011 census, 53,098,301 people in England and Wales, 5,044,683 people in Scotland, and 1,681,210 people in Northern Ireland can speak English "well" or "very well"; totalling 59,824,194. Therefore, out of the 60,815,385 residents of the UK over the age of three, 98% can speak English "well" or "very well"."

Presumably the difference is the number of children under three? If so it should be made clear (even though it is obvious). Statistics in this subject seem especially tricky/unreliable! Thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Languages of the United Kingdom and Crown Dependencies

OsFish has suggested, in connection with the merge proposal, that the name of this article should be changed to Languages of the United Kingdom and Crown Dependencies, so that the languages of Jersey, Guernsey, and theIsle of Man, can be included.[17]. In fact this article already mentions them, but also includes "Languages of British Overseas Territories".

Is the following acceptable?

(1)I That the "Languages of British Overseas Territories" doesn't belong here and should, therefore, be removed, and moved to the main article for the Territories.
(2) That the title be changed.
(3) That some reference to the use of the languages in other parts of the world, i.e. Welsh in Patagonia, the Irish language in Newfoundland, can be included.

Rwood128 (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are we waiting on a consensus forming here? _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no objections, I have already acted on the above – prior to implementing the merge. The name can be changed anytime. I think it should stay as is, and there seems to be a consensus on that. Rwood128 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Languages of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Languages of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Languages of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map

The map used at the beginning of this article doesn't seem to be correct. For a start it misses out some languages, like Irish in Northern Ireland. Then there are inconsistencies between the languages shown, Welsh appears to only be shown in areas where over 15% speak it, whereas Scottish Gaelic is shown in areas where over 2% speak it. If it showed the same for Welsh as Scottish Gaelic then pretty much all of Wales would be highlighted. Ditto for Irish in Northern Ireland. To top this off whilst most areas of Wales where over 15% speak Welsh are shown, there are large areas of Pembrokeshire, Ceredigion and Carmarthenshire left out. See the 2011 Census maps for each of the languages. Bodrugan (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into correcting it in line with the census data. I think I'll use 10% as the cut off to get a decent distribution for Irish. Rob984 (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Languages of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://webarchive.proni.gov.uk/20110829151357/http://www.byig-wlb.org.uk/English/publications/Publications/4068.pdf to http://www.byig-wlb.org.uk/English/publications/Publications/4068.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Languages of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531072241/http://wales.gov.uk/topics/welshlanguage/policy/?lang=en to http://wales.gov.uk/topics/welshlanguage/policy/?lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish

I have just rearranged the infobox slightly. There is constant confusion in various article pages about Cornish. It is extinct so should not be treated in the same way as Scots or Welsh. It is recognised under the EU charter, and by the UK govt, as an historical regional language (making an important contribution to the cultural life in Cornwall), not as a minority living language. The people speaking the revived version are not L1 speakers. The citations to show this are already being used, but they are being misread. Even the charter name says regional OR minority. Somewhere someone has latched on to the word 'minority' and it has stuck, causing some illogical assumptions about the language's position. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a number of changes today to iron out article contradictions that refer to Cornish as both living and extinct. Neither description is ideal but it is more extinct than living -- the citations used make clear its cultural status that includes the revival efforts. The reference I removed (EU Charter) to confirm Cornish as a living minority language does not do that and is being misused here and elsewhere. Census data that does the same is also misused as it is a primary source. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger 8 Roger: I found a few sources that describe Cornish as a minority language:

The Oxford Handbook of Endangered Languages (9780190610029): "However, there are a growing number of initiatives to support the maintenance and revival of minority languages, such as the Cornish and Manx revivals, the Ro mani language revitalization movement, and Saami language and culture activism"
Cross-Cultural Communication: Theory and Practice (9781349351480): Such concerns are seen in modern Britain with, for example, the successful attempt to retain a knowledge of Kernuak, the Cornish language, which was preserved from extinction by the government in 2002 when it was declared an official minority language in Britain.
BBC: Cornish, a minority language spoken by fewer than a thousand people
WP:OR: It is extinct so should not be treated in the same way as Scots or Welsh

I could quite probably find more, but why waste everyone's time? Let's just treat Cornish like the other minority languages, as supported by the above HQRS? Tewdar 08:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead map is wrong

The lead map is wrong, as it shows SW Wales is English-speaking, whereas it should be Welsh/English hatched, as the rest of Wales. Perhaps someone who knows about maps can correct it. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The whole map is nothing more than a pretty rough guide. South Pembrokeshire is traditionally known for being an [18] English language enclave which probably explains the issue you highlight in the lead map. As a rough guide I see no reason to change it, but if change is needed I would remove the map entirely. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2011 Census Data suggest Pembrokeshire is 18.8% Welsh-speaking, which is just above the average for the whole country. It would perhaps be better to have it Welsh/English. For what it's worth, the map now doesn't have ALL of the rest of Wales as Welsh-speaking. The South East is depicted as English speaking. OsFish (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't support removing the map entirely. It seems an obvious graphic to have in an article on this topic.OsFish (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The map seems to be based on this map [19], which is based on percentages, and can be misleading. Cardiff, for instance, is not shown as Welsh speaking at all, having a low percentage of Welsh speakers (estimated by the Office of National Statistics in 2018 at 21.8%), but that's some 75,600 people, a not insignificant figure. Newport, too, has some 30,000 Welsh speakers. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The census questions are table 4 here [20]. All these options translate on wikipedia and in the media as people who can speak Welsh. There seems only one question dealing with people who are L1 or competant L2 speakers (ie read, write, speak Welsh). That comes in at 14.6% nationwide. The 75,600 Welsh speakers in Cardiff seems to include everyone with a spattering of Welsh language knowledge and not just those who can actually speak or use the language, to the level that most of us here are using English. It is not unreasonable to say that if you tried spending a week in Cardiff doing usual day to day tasks such as mall shopping, you would not get very far using only Welsh. That would not be true if 21.8% of Cardiff residents really did speak Welsh properly. In summary, before using any census or statistical data, we must look at the questions being asked, or just treat the figures as what they really are, a rough overview (that give statisticians countless hours of fun playing around with numbers) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead map should reflect the Landsker line - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsker_Line — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.26.10 (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Speakers

The UK total for Welsh speakers is given as: 1,123,500. This adds fully sourced figures as follows:

1,012,500 - Welsh speakers in Wales (all skills)
8,200 - UK Census, residents of England using Welsh as a first language in the hime
1,000 - estimated number of speakers in Scotland
1,000 - estimated number of speakers in Northern Ireland.

The combined figure is WP:SYNTH and needs to be replaced. We are not adding like with like. As per the page, the estimated number of Welsh speakers in England is much higher (over 100,000), whereas first language speakers in Wales are much lower than this number (and there is another number on the page), and it is not clear what the other numbers estimate.

I am putting this section here before deleting the number in case anyone has an improved, sourced, UK wide figure to put up. Otherwise I suggest we remove the UK wide figure and let the other numbers stand on their own. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing statement of the number of languages in the British-Irish Isles.

The article states "There are 14 indigenous languages used across the British Isles: 5 Celtic, 3 Germanic, 3 Romance, and 3 sign languages." I tried to reverse-engineer their calculation.

There are two possibilities for the 11 non-Romance languages considered:

Either

5 Celtic: (Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Manx, Shelta); 3 Germanic: (English, Scots, Angloromani); 3 sign: (BSL, ISL, NISL)

or

5 Celtic: (Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Manx, Cornish); 3 Germanic: (English, Shelta, Angloromani); 3 sign: (BSL, ISL, NISL)

I wasn't able to come up with three indigenous Romance languages as stated in the article. The Channel Islands have Guernésiais and Jèrriais, however these are said to be mutually intelligible, so should probably be counted as one.

More explanation of all of these numbers should be added, or a citation given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.248.243.12 (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q&A

To clarify this thread, it addresses this edit summarised "Remove adjectival "UK"" and my reversion of that edit, requesting an expalanation for its basis. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mutt Lunker at a basic level because it sounds weird and unnatural and because it's not really correct. You wouldn't say "there are xmillion France speakers" in an article dealing with French language. "United Kingdom" isn't an adjective or a demonym, properly speaking. It's also used a lot in the article already in the noun form, so it's repetitious as well. GPinkerton (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird and unnatural and not really correct according to whom? It's in very widespread currency, including in government publications and websites ([21], [22] (link twice corrected, per remarks in posts below) and other random examples in reliable sources such as RFE, The Guardian, Sky, VOA, The Times, these books. None of theses strike me as weird. Trawling through Wikipedia to expunge valid terminology purely on your own personal preference is not a justifiable endeavour, particularly if you are spuriously claiming them as "corrections". Cf "US citizen", also not weird ("American citizen" is certainly less statisfactory in this instance). Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mutt Lunker What is that Zoom link for? According to the OED the "U.K." is defined thus:

U.K. n. United Kingdom.

While I hesitate to resort to argumentum ex silentio, I think if it were "really correct" to use it is an adjective it would say so in the dictionary. Similarly, under, "United Kingdom" the dictionary only lists the noun usage:

United Kingdom n. ...

The style guide of The Guardian compromises with:

Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Used as adjectives, therefore, British and UK mean the same.

while the style guide of The Daily Telegraph is more emphatic,

the abbreviation UK is to be avoided whether as a noun or an adjective unless the story has a specific relevance to Northern Ireland that would make the use of "Britain" or "British" wrong.

As I say, there's no reason to insist on awkward phrasing like "UK-speakers" when "English-speakers in the UK" is meant, and certainly no need to insert adjectival "UK" when "British", a natural word and not an initialism, can be used instead. "US citizen" is quite weird to me and I can't see any reason why it would be "less satisfactory" in this or any other instance. GPinkerton (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Dictionary "belonging to or relating to the United Kingdom or its people the UK ambassador to Sweden".

Some style guides support usage, some do not. I'm not sure how the Guardian's equation of the terms supports the necessary avoidance of one. We are not in the employ of the Telegraph. I am aware of no deprecation in our own WP:MOS/insistence on its removal. None of these reputable publications find it weird or awkward. Not the merest justification for your campaign of eradication.

A digression but US does not equal American. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mutt Lunker, US does not equal American is there really a category of people who are "American citizens" and not "US citizens" or vice versa? We are not in the employ of any news agency, so there no reason to discount the Guardian and Telegraph both simply because they, like Britain's best known and most authoritative dictionary, do not use "UK" in preference to "British" in adjectival senses. The link you have furnished to the Cambridge dictionary deals with "the UK" not "UK" on its own, so that doesn't help establish validity of the plain initialism either, and it certainly doesn't recommend it, as style guides recommend "British". Why would you object to "British" and insist on "UK"? Is there any style guide that favours that usage or is there another reason to do that? GPinkerton (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mutt Lunker, thanks for correcting the link, but what is use of appending that .gov webpage? It nowhere uses "UK" as an adjective, and uses "British" as the demonym. I don't see how that supports your argument. GPinkerton (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I misremembered the site in my first correction, now re-corrected. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mutt Lunker, the same website deals with "British citizenship" on the page dealing with citizenship, the phrase "UK" does not appear as an adjective. GPinkerton (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not an objection to "British", it is your forcing of that term over another on the baseless assertion that it is incorrect. I would be contesting you no less if you were making the reverse assertion and campaign. To paraphrase you "Why would you object to "UK" and insist on "British"? The government sites use both terms, including "UK citizens" and "UK citizenship". I can't fathom your points claiming these are not adjectival usage. This is plainly evident in the examples I give, the dictionary one even subtitled "adjective". Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is now covered at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_Kingdom#Indiscriminate_changes_of_"UK_citizen"_to_"British_citizen" and, unless there are any aspects specific to this article alone, probably best pursued there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect title or Incorrect content

This article is about the Languages of the United Kingdom and has irrelevant inclusions of languages of areas outside the United Kingdom in the "Languages of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man". Either these parts should be deleted (my preference), or the article should be renamed to Languages of the British Islands. Tumericiangovernment (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, but I understand it has been decided to include the IoM and Channel Islands, for the sake of practicality. To omit them would be a little odd. Including the CI is IMO more questionable that the IoM, due to their geographical seperation from the British Isles, but that is another issue. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh and English, recent edits

Below is copied from my talk page - it better belongs here.

I appear to have linked to the wrong portion of the act -- it is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/anaw/2012/1/section/1

I will be replacing my edit with the correct link. I will leave in the original citation; I apologize as I had believed it to be outdated, but it is from the UK general assembly, not the Welsh one. Both links state that Welsh is an official language in Wales, *and* that English is as well -- your edit states that Welsh is the *only* de jure official language in any part of the UK, and this is not true, as English is also official in at least Wales and possibly also in Scotland and Northern Ireland though I am less convinced by the citations I found for those on the page List of territorial entities where English is an official language. Again, I admit fault in removing the link that was there -- but that is no excuse for throwing out my entire edit. PsyMar (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

PsyMar, this type of discussion has happened countless times on WP. English is taken as de facto official in the UK because of its universal acceptance in all aspects of society. Legislation is not needed to confirm that. Welsh is de jure official in Wales because an act says it is. The level of 'officialness' is what the act describes, which means Welsh has the same statess as English in limited clearly defined situations, such as in the Welsh Assembly. That means its official status is not as universal as English. Your edit saying they are 'co-official' is therefore misleading. Incidentally, if possible it is better not to use legislation as a reference to back a statement because that involves the editor interpreting what the legislation means. This is best treated on a case by case basis though. Other country articles take a different view on whether a de facto official language can exist, because it has no legislationto confirm it is official. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are both de jure official. English is also de facto official. To say that Welsh is the only de jure official language is even more false and misleading, in my opinion, than to say that they are co-official.PsyMar (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is English de jure official? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the Welsh language is official and legislation (eg 1993 Act, 2011 Measure) states that Welsh and English must be treated equally in public bodies (not only the National Assembly),and if the courts and tribunals service describes Welsh and English as both "official", doesn't that mean English is de jure official? It sounds reasonable to say co-official.OsFish (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the acts in front of me but my strong guess is the they simply make Welsh as equal as English in those defined situations, and that for practical reasons of law in the context of the act in question, English needs to be meantioned as being official. It is unlikely the act reduces the status of English from being universally de facto official to limited de jure official. But, I have not read the statute at this late hour, and even if I did I would not presume to say with certainty what it means - I'd leave that to a RSS. Just because and act says 'English is official', does not mean that English is de jure official. To reinforce - those acts deal with the official status of Welsh in Wales, not English. What you are doing is treating your own original research as a secondary source - you are interpreting a primary source (the statute). As I said earlier, it is best to avoid that if possible, even if something looks obvious. The law is not obvious which is why we have judges to say what it means. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the Courts and Tribunals service specifically described English as official. OsFish (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except what? Co-official implies, if not means, equality in all respects, which Welsh and English are not. Your links do not prove the point you seem to be trying to make. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add Sylheti language

Sylheti language and speakers of UK:

(1) UNITED KINGDOM REGIONAL REPORT No. 3, Older Sylheti Immigrants in Birmingham. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08d08e5274a27b20015b1/R7655SylhetiUKreport.pdf Slake000 (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Simard, Candide; Dopierala, Sarah M; Thaut, E Marie (2020). "Introducing the Sylheti language and its speakers, and the SOAS Sylheti project" (PDF). Language Documentation and Description. http://www.elpublishing.org/docs/1/18/ldd18_01.pdf Slake000 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(3) The new Covid strains explained in Sylheti - BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-55750376 Slake000 (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Sylhetti - Joshua Project UK. https://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/15151/UK Slake000 (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(5) 400,000 Speakers in UK (2018)

Ref [84] of this page. Comanaru, Ruxandra; D'Ardenne, Jo (2018). The Development of Research Programme to Translate and Test the Personal well-being Questions in Sylheti and Urdu. pp.16. Köln: GESIS - Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften. Retrieved on 30 June 2020.

(6) 400,000 speakers (current)

http://languagelandscape.org/project/Sylheti_Project

(7) NHS, BBC group South Asian Languages (based on UK speakers) on this formation: Gujarati, Punjabi, Sylheti, Tamil and Urdu https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55561526

(8) Sylheti language is used officially in Uk. School, University (University of London, SOAS Sylheti project and other University, colleges), TV channel (BBC, STv), Mayoral reports, Official Ambassy documemts in Dhaka and Translation services in United Kingdom.

(9) Great Britain Parliament discussion on Sylheti Language. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=EtPsZQsFqAMC&pg=PA986

Att: User:Mutt Lunker Slake000 (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partick?

In the article, Partick train station signage is seemingly used to highlight bilingualism in Scotland - but there is an implication that many people speak Gaelic in Partick/Glasgow. Partick, and Glasgow more generally, does not currently nor ever really has had a large Gaelic speaking population. The signage is more tokenistic - a bit like airport signs in Britain having French translations. Just because there is French in our passports and signage, doesn't mean that there is a particular prevalence of French speakers in Luton or Gatwick. Ditto Gaelic to Glasgow. --EcheveriaJ (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible map

The map at the top of the page is seriously misleading, a user reading the map would take away the following info:

Wales is bilingual in English and Welsh except for Gwent, most of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire and some sections of the border, where Welsh is not spoken.

In Scotland, Gaelic is currently spoken in all the area west of the Highland Line, as formulated around 1880, except a tiny sliver near (but not including) the city of Inverness (English-speaking since the 17th century).

In reality, Pembrokeshire is nearly 20% Welsh speaking, as are cities like Cardiff, Newport and Swansea. No areas of Scotland except Skye and the Outer Hebrides reach those figures. The Highland council area, which includes the stronghold of Skye (31% Gaelic), has 12,000 Gaelic speakers out of a population of 235,340, about 7.4%. The majority of this area is coloured as Gaelic-speaking on the map, when large areas of it must be as low as 1 or 2% Gaelic-speaking. In Argyll and Bute, 4.3% of the population can "EITHER speak, read OR write" Gaelic, but this includes Tiree, which is a genuinely bilingual area, and Islay where the oldest generations remember Gaelic but no longer use it.

There is no area in Wales, not even English Maelor, where as few people speak Welsh as speak Gaelic in the mainland areas of the Highland and Argyll and Bute councils. If we applied the same standards for being "bilingual" for Welsh as for Gaelic, then the whole of Wales would be cross-hatched, along with Oswestry and possibly Chester and other border areas as well as South Liverpool and the university district of Bristol!

The map is really not fit to purpose and seems to be based on the kind of map that used to be published in linguistic atlases in the mid-20th century. The map reflects the situation before the final collapse of mainland Gaelic and the recolonisation of English-speaking areas by Welsh. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have never liked that map; creating it doubtless gave a geek something to do - bin it say I! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me, what could go in its place as an image though? Boynamedsue (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Official status

Francish7 has been trying to change a long standing consensus that a language can be official without there being anything in writing to confirm that: the de facto-de jure difference. He has chosen not to use this talk page when reverted so I have started done that instead. Is English the official language of the UK and if not why not? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look back through this talk page you will exactly the discusdion that you are treating as new. It was started in 2008 and continued in 2011. The consensus was that English is not the official language of The United Kingdom 8f Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not of England. Francis Hannaway (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nor if England Francis Hannaway (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox - Cornish is "regional" while all the others are "minority"?

The infobox gives Cornish as a "regional" language and Welsh, Irish, Scottish Gaelic, etc are all "minority". The official status of Cornish is that it is an extinct language with its last native speaker passing away. Any attempts at a revival have not yet yielded any L1 speakers. The other Celtic languages and Scots are all regional languages with a few speakers outside of those regions. - 51.149.249.35 (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "official" status of Cornish, according to UNESCO anyway, is currently "critically endangered", not extinct. There are a few L1 speakers actually. ~~I have no idea why Cornish is treated~~ I can probably guess why Cornish is treated differently from other minority languages in this article. There are Cornish speakers in Wales, London, Hawaii... Tewdar 08:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I changed it to minority language. It's fucking ridiculous and WP:POINTY WP:OR to segregate Cornish in this manner. Tewdar 08:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead dispute

With this revert, Roger 8 Roger (talk · contribs) has reinserted two inaccurate statements. One, that English is the Official Language of the United Kingdom. It is not. It is the de facto national language but does not have official legal status. See here p.103 and here p.21. The other inaccurate statement is that Scots is a dialect of English. It is not. It is an Anglic language that historically developed alongside modern English. His edit summary read "I suggest your next step is to use the talk page. Your changes are not an improvement and are based on opinion. If you have a case then use the talk page." Here I am: my changes were factually based. OsFish (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that Roger 8 Roger has tried to insert the claim that English is the official language of the UK before and been told it is against consensus.OsFish (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work backwards. Consensus on WP doesn't mean we can add personal opinion. I didn't say Scots was a dialect of English, I said it was a variant, which was intentionally to avoid being specific. Although not a source, look at the WP article on Scots and the lead says that academic opinion differs on how to characterise Scots. That does at least clarify that the status of Scots is not as black and white as you seem to think. However, I accept that another phrase could be used to describe Scots and Ulster Scots, but it must be short. If none can be found though it's best to leave as I wrote it. Now, you are confused, like many editors and many sources, about the term 'official language'. It means the language used in an official capacity in a country, such as in a parliament of in a courtroom. That means your claim that English is not the official language of the UK or the US is laughable, (not you personally) and to some, offensive. You are justifying your claim by saying there is no piece of paper that says English is official, so English is therefore not official. Umm?...an interesting conclusion. You also say that some countries do have pieces of paper that say that a certain language, such as English, is official, and so, you conclude that if there is no piece of paper the language used in the business of running the country cannot be official. Once again, umm?... Finally, you are misreading many sources and therefore drawing incorrect conclusions from what they say, which means what you add to WP is original research. Your first source above is written by non-experts about what an official language is, so they make the same mistake many WP editors make. I don't have time to go through the source step by step though. A better source would be one written by a lawyer, not sociolinguists, or whatever else your authors are. There are reasons for having a language noted as 'official' on a piece of paper, but what you think those reasons are is your personal opinion. The same mistake is made by many sources whose authors are invariably not experts in the law. About the lead, any lead in fact, please keep it as a simple, readable, summary of the article below, that is correctly wp:weighted. Having half this lead full of stuff about all sorts of minor and immigrant languages is totally out of proportion to the reality that English is overwhelmingly the UK's primary language. Oh, and filler terms such as national, de facto and de jure add nothing but confusion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that your argument that English is an official language of the United Kingdom is WP:OR and contradicts WP:RS on the topic, as well as going against the established WP:Consensus on this page, something you have been told in the past. That's three clear strikes against.

If you can find evidence in reliable sources that many people consider the notion that English is not an official UK language "offensive" such that Wikipedia should suppress mention of it, you should provide it. But that may require a higher level policy decision.

Your argument that a term like national language is confusing simply doesn't hold water. It's not a difficult idea. Moreover, the difference between de facto and de jure national languages is something the RS mentions. ("De facto official" is kind of an oxymoron. "Official" does not simply mean "used by officials".)

I also don't follow why the lead should not mention all the main minority languages. I'm genuinely mystified why languages associated with immigrant communities should be excluded. What's the relevant difference between them and indigenous languages?

Finally, I should also point out that it should have been you that brought the matter to the talkpage after I reverted your change, rather than edit warring and insisting that your change should stand. I didn't kick up a fuss about that in order to indicate WP:Good faith. Please be careful to avoid WP:OWN.

Anyway, I've laid out the policy and source-based reasons why my changes should stand.OsFish (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead shouldn't be filled with a list of five or six immigrant languages because it is undue weight to list a handful of many more in what is meant to be a summary. That sort of detail can go in the body of the article. An exception would be if one immigrant language was particularly notable, such as being spoken by 20 percent of the population for example. The indigenous celtic languages might have a small core of speakers (excl Welsh) but they have greater notability because they are indigenous with a long history in Britain. That's why Cornish gets a mention. You, and many non-expert sources, are interpreting a sentence that you are not qualified to interpret. If an act says "English is an official language in England", lawyers and/or the courts can tell us what that means, not you or a WP editor of a linguist. If it isn't written in an act/constitution then it means what everybody thinks it means, which is that it is the language by which the country functions. There's no need to have a law saying English is the official language of the UK, or US, because it is. Putting it into legislation would add unnecessary and possibly unwanted complications. Consider that many sources will say 'official language' when they mean piece of paper official, which then leads to the misleading conclusion that countries like the UK don't have an official language. Finally, why do you think English is the national language of England? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"There's no need to have a law saying English is the official language of the UK". So you concede that it doesn't have formal official status. I don't see what there is to argue about here. Welsh does have formal legal status, which disproves your WP:OR argument that English couldn't. (You mention the US: there are in fact attempts to make English the official language of the US, again, showing that this argument does not hold water.)

WP:notability is a policy about whether articles should exist, not about which content should be in the lead. There is a whole section called "immigrant languages". The lead should reflect that by mentioning the chief ones. As for how long the languages have been spoken in the UK, I don't think it's feasible to argue WP:Recentism on immigrant languages like Punjabi or Polish. They're not going to disappear tomorrow.

Please could you bring forward some arguments based in policy rather than your own original research. I have no idea what your qualifications are in real life, but you cannot simply assert that you are an expert as a way of justifying content inclusion. If you are an expert, you will have the relevant sources to hand. OsFish (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh is official only in the context described in the act that says it's official. That's all. It isn't official when you are talking to the corner shop owner in Machynlleth. So saying Welsh and English are equally official in Wales is misleading. Welsh was made official in the legislation to allow it's use in certain defined situations where it would otherwise not happen, such as in courts. It was a way of promoting the language. It is a quite different concept from the official status of English in Wales. Next, just because something isn't written in statute law doesn't mean it isn't the law - see common law. As I said, English being official doesn't need legislation to make it official. Lastly, I've never said I'm an expert, here I'm just a WP editor. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If your claim is based in common law, please provide the RS secondary legal commentary on case law that supports your suggestion. Thank you.OsFish (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our United Kingdom article describes English as official, with these as the sources for that:[23][24]. The first source is not brilliant but the second is interesting. That seems clear. DeCausa (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, many thanks for bringing some sourcing to the table. The Mac Sithigh article probably causes more headaches than anything! In its conclusion, it says:

A simple statement that the UK has no official language or recognises English as its only de facto official language, and that Ireland is a fully bilingual state with constitutional priority given to Irish, cannot accurately reflect the current position of language status and language rights across these islands."

The other one I really don't like as a source; it's an archived website. If you google <site:.gov.uk "English is the official language of the"> nothing comes up now, so the text doesn't seem to be lurking anywhere else on the site now. We don't know why it was taken down, but it has been.

The thing is, while I was looking for some formulation that might be an update of that archived article, I came across this from the government website, which says:

Note that the English language does not have official status anywhere in the United Kingdom, though it is certainly a national language throughout the United Kingdom and can also be regarded as a de facto official language throughout.

My suggestion therefore is

describe English as the national language in the lead, as this is beyond dispute.
in the Languages_of_the_United_Kingdom#Status section, add content about the issue of "de facto" official status. In this way, we can represent various RS that contend English is or isn't an official language. It's not our business to decide which RS is correct, but to present both sides. (Which, on my reading, differ on how strictly they want to use the designation "official", particularly when comparing countries and considering official language status around the world - see the two sources I gave at the top of this section in my first comment.)
if we can find an economical form of words, refer to this ambiguous status in the lead as a way of directing those interested in the issue to further down the article.
Restore to the lead brief mention of the main immigrant languages in the UK, and describe Scots appropriately as a sister language rather than a variety (ie dialect) of English.

How does that sound? OsFish (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would unintentially making things worse. There is no realistic dispute in good sources that English is the official language of the UK. For the lead that is all that is required. A closer anaysis of the status of English in the UK can be dealt with lower down, but not is excessive depth. The Mac Sithigh article is likely to be the best available and it just shows how detailed the topic is. There's always a risk in trying to reproduce a whole article in a few sentences because it's easy to get it wrong, such as quoting sentences out of context. That's why it's safer IMO to stick just with 'English is the official language of the uk' in the lead. We also have to remember to keep this in proportion within the article, which deals with much more than the type of official status of English. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“ There is no realistic dispute in good sources that English is the official language of the UK.”

This is simply false. You’re editing tendentiously. I am not the first person to use this phrase about you on this topic in the past 24 hours.OsFish (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OsFish: you are distorting Mac Síthigh. He's crystal clear: Although scholars take different positions on the degree to which recognition should be given to languages other than English in the UK, there has been broad agreement on the actual position. 'English is the de facto official language' [Dunbar, 2007: 112] This is a high quality scholarly source describing scholarly consensus. It doesn't get more conclusive than that. You are the one behaving tendentiously and I advise you to quit now. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]