This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Languages Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

The US Senate passed an amendment to the Immigration Law making English the official language of the United States in the summer of 2006.

It says there are 16,000 speakers in the US, but on the page Dakota_language it says there are 1,000 in the World!!! 72.160.238.109 ( talk) 01:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC) reply

@ 2003:C7:5F00:C100:A885:571A:DFCB:3E3E ( talk) 14:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

the labelling of 'foreign' languages is a bit complicated? In what sense is Spanish 'foreign' and English 'domestic'? Spanish has been spoken longer than English in parts of the US. -- Soman ( talk) 01:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Good point. There's a hidden comment clarifying that as, "Languages primarily LEARNED by Americans as a foreign language", but that is only visible to editors; perhaps that should be made more visible by creating a Notes section in the infobox using the available extralabel and extra parameters. Alternatively, perhaps there's a better solution using the available minority and immigrant fields. See Template:Languages_of. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree that this makes no sense. First of all, Spanish and French and no more 'foreign' in the US than English. All 3 languages are non-native and all have been spoken as primary languages in the U.S. since its founding. Secondly, as Wtmitchell points out, this is not a list of 'foreign languages', but an original list of the non-English non-signing languages that are most commonly taught in American universities. Not only is this original research (the list at the cited source includes signed languages), but it is hardly important enough to include in the infobox. For most people this entry is just going to cause confusion, as there is no way to know that it is something completely different than the label without seeing the HTML comment. I'm going to remove it for now. Kaldari ( talk) 22:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Greetings all. I've been going through the section on states that do and do not have English as an official language. I've added several sources, a little text, etc. However, I noticed that the map included in the section, where states are shaded different colors, incorrectly identifies Massachusetts as a state with official English. I've removed the image until someone with better image-editing skills than I can fix that error. Regards, ClovisPt ( talk) 17:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

According to http://www.us-english.org/view/364?state=MA, Massachusetts enacted official English legislation in 1975. a link on that page points to http://www.us-english.org/view/394, which says "Recognized by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in Commonwealth v. Olivo (1975)". I see info about that case at http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=MACASE&cite=337+N.E.2d+904, which includes

An official order to vacate written in English only and received by a Spanish-speaking occupant of an apartment unable to read English, served in hand by a constable, was constitutionally sufficient [70]; a statement in the order that noncompliance would result in penalties as provided by law gave fair warning of criminal penalties,

and

A governmental policy of sending notices in English only, placing the burden of having the notice translated on persons not literate in English, and conviction of such a person for failure to comply with an English-only notice, do not violate the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [72-73]

and

2. The first question reported by the judge asks whether a Spanish-speaking person who is unable to read English can be convicted of the crime of refusing to comply with a written order, where that order is written entirely in English. In light of the fact that the second question addresses the constitutional issues raised, we construe this question to ask whether the statute, G.L.c. 185B, § 20, allows a conviction in these circumstances.[fn3] We believe it does.

[...]

3. The second question asks whether it would violate the due process and equal protection provisions of the United States Constitution to convict a Spanish-speaking person who is unable to read English of the crime of failing to comply with a notice written entirely in English. We think it would not.

I'm not a lawyer, but that reads to me as if the Mass SC has judicially legislated approval of English as an official language of government in the state. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi. This issue was discussed at the Massachusetts article, where it was decided to list the official language as "None, English de facto." The discussion can be found here, it's worth taking a look at. Cheers, ClovisPt ( talk) 00:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC) reply

It looks to me as if the actual situation here is too complicated to be expressed without distortion by asserting that English is or is not official in Massechussets. See footnote 11 on pages 14-15 here -- the bit about Mass. is on p. 15). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC) reply

One reason for this decline of German language was the perception during both World Wars that speaking the language of the enemy was unpatriotic; foreign language instruction was banned in places during the First World War.

There is no citation for saying German was largely spoken in Pennsylvania and the Midwest until this time. The Amish spoke it back then and still do and thy are in Pennsylvania most. They generally get categorized as an ethnic/cultural group separate than Americans of German ancestry though. If the perception of it being an enemy language - and it was for those who still spoke the language, the language would have likely diminished before the 1950's. The Germanophobia against Germans began in WWII and education and newspapers in German were shut down. Still though, many Americans of German ancestry lost the language naturally prior to and about the time of WWI because they had generations there and they lived in communities with Americans who weren't of their background.

Also, how is saying the demise of agricultural sociologically explaining the diminishing of a language? The person didn't even try to elaborate and there is obviously no citation. Why would it matter if it were pre-WWII or postwar farming techniques? Many of these areas like Nebraska are still agriculturally dominated.

However, in recent years, immigration of highly skilled Germans to the US has picked up to some degree.

Where'd this information come from? Someone's dream? Please give an article of some sort. The only people I ever met from Germany in this country were those married to American soldiers or tourists. I'm not saying there aren't a few. But to say it has picked up without citation is a leap of a statement. Especially considering the US is in a bad recession.

There is also no citation to claiming there was a third wave of German immigration. This wave couldn't have existed because the National Origins Act of 1924 restricted the number of immigrant arrivals so tightly that it would have been impossible to categorize as a wave. Unless of course people want to revise history and pretend that the act never existed which would be typical thing for Wikipedia writers to do.

How are you going to say the German language is being taught less and less? The language was literally at a near zero point during the two-world war's and the anti-German sentiment carried after WWII. If anything, the language has slightly increased in popularity with universities offering more options and Rosetta Stone and Live Mocha via the internet making it so accessible to learn.

Tom 65.32.185.72 ( talk) 04:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Can anyone verify the status of English and Spanish in New Mexico? The New Mexico article appears conflicted on this: the infobox says English and Spanish, but the article text says it has no official language but provided for bilingual government briefly. Looking through the state constitution on Wikisource and elsewhere on the Internet (did they get a new one in 2007? that's what it looks like. anyway...), there's no mention of an official language; I don't know if it was legislation rather than part of the constitution. The PDF that's linked as a source specifically says that neither language is official, and I would question the admissibility of the NMCTE page(it says New Mexico is "the only state in the USA that is officially bilingual") and the "All About New Mexico" page (it's just kind of sketchy). Sectori ( talk) 23:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I have searched the New Mexico laws and constitution, and there is NO official language in New Mexico. The myth that English and Spanish are state official language stems from the fact that as a condition for statehood, New Mexico demanded and got a provision that Spanish be given the status of a temporarily protected language for a limited period of time, which has since expired.

I don't know how to change the table, but someone who does should change the New Mexico entry to remove English and Spanish as official languages. That will make it conform to remarks on the rest of the page, which clearly state that the state has no official language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jquinn77 ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply

How many languages spoke in new mexico 47.145.113.54 ( talk) 15:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

An image used in this article, File:Speak American WWII.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 23:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

• Rodriguez, Lori. " TRANSLATING A NEED / Language barriers / Immigrants see English as vital, but work, family limit time to learn." Houston Chronicle. Monday September 18, 2006. A1. Retrieved on December 30, 2011.

Here is info from the 2000 census:

• Speak English only: 216,176,111
• Top foreign languages (no. of speakers, % of them who say they speak English "very level)
  • Spanish (32,184,293, 52%)
  • Chinese (2,300,467, 45%)
  • French including Cajun and Patois (1,383,432, 78%)
  • Tagalog (1,376,632, 67%)
  • Vietnamese (1,142,328, 38%)

WhisperToMe ( talk) 10:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC) reply

"United States holds the world's fifth largest Spanish-speaking population, outnumbered only by Spain, Mexico, Colombia and Ecuador. "

Oh really ? So Ecuador ( pop 15 million ) has more Spanish speakers than Argentina ( pop 40 million ) ? Doubtful ! Eregli bob ( talk) 15:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Languages of the United States or languages spoken by people resident in the United States? Unless the languages in question enjoy continued usage as a community language through intergenerational transmission they can hardly be considered Languages of the United States. What about Latin, Old English and Klingon? Someone somewhere in the United States can speak those too. 79.236.209.60 ( talk) 12:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I think the article is pretty clear about what it covers. It's not going to be changed; it could be moved, if you had a proposal on where to move it that others agreed with. Your definition is pretty limiting. Yes, Latin, Old English and Klingon can be spoken somewhere in the US, but not as a language at home (which is what most of our data covers) and I'm sure by any means of counting Old English and Klingon are not on the charts. If you have information on fluent Latin speakers in the US, it would make an interesting addition to the article.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 22:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC) reply

It's frankly silly that there is a section for common keyboard layout in the information box for this article.Some might debate whether writing is itself a language, or merely a means to record language... but none could reasonably maintain that a keyboard layout is a language. If this is included, we should by extension include:

• Most popular brand of pen
• Commonly used computer programming languages
• Fonts
• Duck whistles

zadignose ( talk) 23:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

True. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Introductory text, "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific." I realize that the usual definition style (e.g. "The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution...") might not be quite appropriate here ("Languages of the United States are several human systems of communication that exist in a federal republic between Canada and Mexico..."), but it should be possible to define in the first paragraph what the scope of this article is. In particular, since the article is not (only) about English and US official language policy, those should not be the first two sentences and virtually all of of the first paragraph of the lead section.

The MOS also suggests that lead sections should generally be only about four paragraphs, but with such a broad topic, this article may well need something a bit longer. Cnilep ( talk) 03:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I was going to copy edit this paragraph, as something has clearly gone wrong in the grammar, but then I could find no support for some of the assertions in the paragraph, and I could find no relevance in the end of the paragraph, so I will simply cut it:

"From the 1920s to the early 1950s, a dozen radio stations broadcast in immigrant languages (notably Yiddish for European Jewish immigrants in the Eastern seaboard), but was curtailed by the Great Depression (1930s), then the US government during World War II and came to an end in the late 1940s. Global radio waves on shortwave radio can broadcast in any language and today the internet offers a wide variety of media streamlinked in every major language to the USA and everywhere.[citation needed]"

Problems:

1. ... but was curtailed... (there's no clear subject... perhaps "this practice" was curtailed).
2. ... then the US government... (extends the problem... probably meant to say that the broadcasting of immigrant languages was curtailed by the US government).
3. facts: apparently the 1930's to the 1950's has been referred to as "the Golden Age of Yiddish Radio," and this is precisely the time period that our article claims that this broadcasting was in decline, was curtailed, and came to an end.
4. I can't find any source relating to government efforts to curtail immigrant language radio broadcasts, though it wouldn't surprise me if there were restrictions on Japanese and German broadcasts... that's not clearly indicated here, nor is it relevant to a general discussion of Languages of the US
5. The final assertion about the wide variety of internet radio stations from around the world which are available in the USA and everywhere is not supported and is not relevant to the article.

zadignose ( talk) 00:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

There is a problem with the citation about the Cambodian/Khmer language link (citation 34). Can anyone fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.207.109 ( talk) 15:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC) reply

No key is provided, nor any clue as to what the data displayed actually is.

Does an indigo section mean that the majority of people speak language x in that state? A larger proportion than in other states? A majority of the United States speakers of said language are found there? What? I have no clue. Better maps may help an awful lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.10.2 ( talk) 16:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Without citing supporting sources, the article speaks of "... English-only laws that, for example, illegalized church services, telephone conversations, and even conversations in the street or on railway platforms in any language other than English, until the first of these laws was ruled unconstitutional in 1923 ( Meyer v. Nebraska)." The linked WP article says, "Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), ^{[IL 1]} was a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that a 1919 Nebraska law restricting foreign-language education violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." The assertion that church services, telephone conversations, and even conversations in the street or on railway platforms in any language other than English were illegalized, and that the illegalizing laws have been repealed or otherwise rendered inoperative needs to be either supported or removed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC) reply

This edit caught my eye. The edit summary said, "Official language status: On English First, it's written that Louisiana adopted English in 1811, same thing for 3 more states. http://englishfirst.org/d/states". The edit changed content prior to the table saying "out of 50 states, 28 had established English as the official language" to say 31 instead of 28.

No supporting source was cited and I wasn't sure what "On English First" referred to. Some googling turned up this web page on http://englishfirst.org which says, "30 States Have Made English Official (28 Still Have Laws in Effect)", so I reverted that edit.

Having done that, I looked at the table and noted that it asserts that 31 states with English as an official language. The three states listed differently are

• Alaska, which the table lists as Yes even though noting "1998 law ruled unconstitutional in 2008." The English First list (call that "EF" here) says, "Alaska (overturned)".
• Kentucky, not listed by EF. The table cites [1998 law ruled unconstitutional in 2008. this] 2011 source in support. I got a 504 error trying to access that URL but found a recently archived copy here (call that "LP" here) which says that FKentucky has a 1984 Official English statute. Some further digging turned up KRS 2.013 State language (current through the 2014 Regular Session [1]) which confirmed that English is the official state language of Kentucky.
• Massachusetts, which the table lists as Yes even though noting "Since 2002, 1975 law ruled unconstitutional." without citing a supporting (and, one would hope, clarifying) source. EF says, "Massachusetts (overturned)". LP doesn't list it.
• Oklahoma, which the table lists as YES while noting "since 2010 ..." and citing several supporting sources. EF doesn't list it. LP says, "Oklahoma (2010) – constitutional amendment"

At this point, I am a bit confused. I see that the table in this section is maintained separately, as {{ Official languages of U.S. states and territories}} and that it is transcluded by the English-only movement and List of official languages by state articles in addition to this one.

I may or may not try to do some editing in the table template. Whether I do or not, though, I suggest that a note be added to this article disclaiming that the table which it presents here is maintained separately from this article and may differ in detail with parts of the article outside of the table. Alternatively (perhaps better) a disclaimer to that effect could be placed in the table template. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Taken not by government fiat by an act declaring it so. But by common practice and having virtually all it's founding documents written in English, English is indeed the official language. -- 196.210.235.212 ( talk) 16:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply

But that sounds decidedly *un*-official, since it is not *officially* declared so, and bills to declare it one have been presented but never passed. There is no universally agreed definition of ‘official language’ which agrees with this. As such, Wikipedia can’t take sides. Of course, elsewhere Wikipedia certainly does describe the overwhelming extent to which English is used in the US, but it can’t say that the language is official, even if this is a technicality. Wikipedia runs on technicalities. Harsimaja ( talk) 17:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Languages of the United States. 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/20140901154308/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IPTable?_bm=y&-reg=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201:535;ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201PR:535;ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201T:535;ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201TPR:535&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201PR&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201T&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201TPR&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-TABLE_NAMEX=&-ci_type=A&-redoLog=false&-charIterations=047&-geo_id=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IPTable?_bm=y&-reg=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201:535;ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201PR:535;ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201T:535;ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201TPR:535&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201PR&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201T&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0201TPR&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-TABLE_NAMEX=&-ci_type=A&-redoLog=false&-charIterations=047&-geo_id=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090325111513/http://www.apiahf.org/resources/pdf/Cambodians_in_the_United_States.pdf to http://www.apiahf.org/resources/pdf/Cambodians_in_the_United_States.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 18:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The Subsection titled 'English' under the 'Main Languages' section says "all but 57,097,826 of U.S. residents speak English 'well' or 'very well'" and claims the U.S. Census as the source. At best, this is misleading. The Census only asks about people > age 5, yet this seems to be including *all* of the people below age 5 among the 57 million. What the U.S. Census actually says ( https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf, Table 1) is that 230.9 M out of 291.5 M over age 5 speak *only* English at home and 77.6% of the remaining 60.6 million speak English either 'well' or 'very well'. That leaves only 0.224 * 60,577,020 = 13,569,252 residents over age 5 who don't speak English 'well', 'very well', or exclusively. 13.57 million is a very long way from 57.10 million. Vbscript2 ( talk) 21:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

That section reads that large numbers of non-Hispanics are learning Spanish due to its presence in the US. That assertion, being partly right, is also simplistic. Sure there are other reasons to learn Spanish. Spanish is not only spoken widely is the US. It is also a world language. In fact it is the most spoken language in the entire Western Hemisphere and the second most spoken language in the world after Chinese in terms of native speakers. It is about time that Americans begin to realize that simple fact with the full perspective. If you add to that that Portuguese and Spanish are two extremely similar languages, with communication being relatively easy among speakers of both languages, the resulting Portuguese-Spanish supra-linguistic community begins to even threaten Chinese supremacy. In sum, the importance of Spanish goes far beyond the US number of Hispanics and so it should be indicated in the article and the fact that Spanish is being learned more and more in the US and anywhere else because it is also a world language: /info/en/?search=List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:50B4:F449:9CAF:80A ( talk) 02:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I've removed your additions to the article as Original Research and Synthesis. You need to find published reliable sources that actually make the claims, not just provide unrelated facts from which you draw your own conclusions. Also, Vandalism has a specific meaning on WP, (such as this edit made by an IP from the same location as you) and labeling edits made in good faith as vandalism is making personal attacks, which is not allowed. - BilCat ( talk) 22:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Your conduct can be regarded as vandalism. I have provided sources, one from Fl. University. That is my two pennies for the article. With bad faith users like you Wiki is a loss of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.103.222 ( talk) 16:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

This is English WP. I know it's currently the largest WP by several million articles, but since Spanish is a growing World Language, it should catch up to En.wp eventually. Spanish WP is less strict about using reliable sources that actually support the points being added, and about sources in general, so you should enjoy it there. Hopefully your Spanish is better than your English. - BilCat ( talk) 17:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

My Spanish is perfect and my English, German, French, Italian and Portuguese probably better than your English. Someone who can see sources and deny them at the same time with lame excuses, someone who probably only knows English while using infantile linguistic ad hominem attacks, describes him or herself. Enjoy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.103.222 ( talk) 17:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm not denying your sources, but they don't support you conclusions. Find a reliable published source that actually says that students in the US are learning Spanish because it is growing world language. I'm not sure what you think were "infantile linguistic ad hominem attacks", but it's irrelevant to your following English Wikipedia guidelines. - BilCat ( talk) 18:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I have provided sources. You still insist with childish arguments. Spanish is the most popular second language in American schools and colleges, it is the most spoken language in the Western Hemisphere and the second most spoken language in the world in terms of native speakers, after Chinese. Everyone with some linguistic education knows that, even the British: https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/languages-for-the-future-report.pdf And you insist that Spanish is not popular in the US Education System because it is not a world language! As said, enjoy your pyrrhic victory, genius! I have a life. Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.103.222 ( talk) 19:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Again, that's Synthesis, because you are taking two facts to make a new conclusion not stated in those sources. It's far more likely that Spanish is popular as a second language in schools, as it has been for many years, because of the close location of Mexico and the fairly large number of Spanish speakers living in the US. Does the fact that Spanish is a "world language" have an effect? Probably, but we can't state that as a major reason without citing a specific source that actually states that conclusion. That's not a "childish argument", but Wikipedia policy. - BilCat ( talk) 19:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carissaw921.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

According to source 4 on the notes list, which is the ethnologue.com website, Grimes 2000, their are 430 living languages in the United States, found on table 7. Carissaw921 ( talk) 01:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Sign language varies depending on where a person is in the world, should be added to the sign language section. Carissaw921 ( talk) 01:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

That's because there are different sign languages in the world. It's not really a point that needs to be made here, as the article is not about sign languages in general. Also, please post new topics at the bottom of the talk page, not the top. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 02:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

number 7 in notes section does not work, needs updating Carissaw921 ( talk) 01:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I've tagged it. In the future, you can just add {{ dead link}} at the end of the reference, inside the closing ref tag. - BilCat ( talk) 02:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Languages of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090425163238/http://factfinder.census.gov:80/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_DP2&-context=adp&-ds_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_&-tree_id=306&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format= to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_DP2&-context=adp&-ds_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_&-tree_id=306&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format=

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 02:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Languages of the United States. 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/20090805183103/http://factfinder.census.gov:80/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_QTP13&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_QTP13&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731133121/http://www.eac.gov/News/press/eac-issues-glossaries-of-election-terms-in-five-asian-languages/ to http://www.eac.gov/News/press/eac-issues-glossaries-of-election-terms-in-five-asian-languages/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130124062620/https://www.ncmuseumofhistory.org:80/collateral/articles/F05.Cherokee.language.pdf to http://www.ncmuseumofhistory.org/collateral/articles/f05.cherokee.language.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724032322/https://www.yiddishkaytla.org/index.html to http://yiddishkaytla.org/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101027163310/https://www.bayareatamilmanram.org:80/eng/introduction.php to http://www.bayareatamilmanram.org/eng/introduction.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604191021/https://www.ncdhhs.gov/mhddsas/deafservices/ASL_Users.pdf to http://www.ncdhhs.gov/mhddsas/deafservices/ASL_Users.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130322023259/https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ICLDC/2013/ to http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/icldc/2013/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040116115338/http://extensionenespanol.net:80/articles.cfm?articleid=19 to http://extensionenespanol.net/articles.cfm?articleid=19

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply

I've reverted this edit, which added an item reading

11. Bengali – 800,000 ^{[BO 1] [BO 2] [BO 3]}

below "Other Indic Languages", which is entry number 10 on the list. This additions moved all the following entries down one notch.

I have not checked the various sources cited in support of the addition, having noted that the list in the article is introduced as, "According to the American Community Survey 2011, [...]. I note that that cited source ( [2]) says at one point, "'Other Indic languages' ((languages such as Punjabi, Bengali, and Marathi) [...]"

Perhaps some rewriting is indicated here; or perhaps not. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree that some rewriting is needed. It is confusing to list "other" before specific alternatives. Punjabi, Bengali, Marathi have their own places, and therefore should not be examples of "Other Indic languages" - I assume that what was meant that they are meant as examples of "Indic languages", not as "Others". TomS TDotO ( talk) 14:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Can we come to an understanding on what is the official language of the US? This has been changing in this article without end. Is it English, American English, none, none except in some states, or ...? TomS TDotO ( talk) 11:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Changes to the article related to this continue to be made ( one recent change by me). I suggest that the article's "Official language status" section should lead off with an assertion about what the official language status is. Perhaps with a lead sentence in the section something like, "There is no official language at the federal level for the United States. Although the most commonly used language is English.", perhaps citing this in support. Mention might be made in that section (with an appropriately dated {{ as of}} template) about the history and the status of legislative efforts to change this (e.g., [3] and [4]). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

My comment came before your change. As far as I am concerned, your change is the best solution, but I realize that others may differ. But whatever decision is made, can we try to put an end to it, by putting a comment to the effect that "this represents the consensus, and don't change it without first discussing it on Talk." TomS TDotO ( talk) 01:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Are there significant numbers of immigrants who speak English? TomS TDotO ( talk) 22:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Probably many. Note that some will speak it as a second language and some as a primary language (for the latter just count the number of immigrants from mostly English speaking countries such as Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, etc.). There may be some statistics somewhere if you want to find and add them. What are the most common immigrant languages changes over time. -- Erp ( talk) 04:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC) reply

That is what I am thinking. But, given the lack of information, we should not be saying that English is not among the "Main immmigrant languages". I propose adding "other than English". TomS TDotO ( talk) 06:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC) reply

There is a US census news item ^{[MIL 1]} which indicates half speak English well. I'll note this includes immigrants and also people temporarily residing in the US such as students. The full report ^{[MIL 2]} indicates about 15% of those who are foreign born speak English at home and 50% speak English at least "very well". -- Erp ( talk) 16:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I am going with this to add English as the first language in "Main immigrant languages". It says that about 15% of the immingrants speak English at home, which is certainly more than the proportion which speak Mandarin (Chinese). TomS TDotO ( talk) 17:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC) reply

English, Spanish and French are already listed in a section above "Immigrant languages" there is no need to repeat it again below. All three are also colonial languages so they count as "indigenous." Shhhhwwww!! ( talk) 17:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I note that you have "compromised" by accepting English, and adding Spanish and French, so there is nothing under dispute here. I just wanted to note that German, which has been in this list, is also a language which was spoken in the area which was to become the USA, so it would also count as "indigenous". But I want to make it clear that I am in full agreement with the present wording. Thank you. TomS TDotO ( talk) 19:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Actually we seem to have a cacophony of items in the info box whose definitions might not be clear. I might suggest under "Main Languages" listing only those with at least 1% of the population speaking it. Main Immigrant Languages should probably be Main Current Immigrant Languages. I would also probably drop the keyboard bit. Regional Languages looks a bit confusing. Some of these are languages of US controlled lands that are not part of the 50 states (plus DC) such as Puerto Rico, the Caroline Islands, etc. Some are the languages of reservations. I'm also inclined to drop everything from the info box except Official Languages, Main languages, and Main sign languages. In the body have tables detailing languages plus numbers and indigenous languages plus numbers (or extinct) and where they are primarily spoken, current immigrant languages plus numbers. -- Erp ( talk) 19:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC) reply

All 20+ official languages of Alaska and the Hawaiian language qualify in the strictest sense as regional languages. The others are debatable. Putting only languages with over 1% of the population would leave only English, Spanish and Chinese. With the size of the U.S. even 1 million speakers is just 0.3%. Shhhhwwww!! ( talk) 05:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Languages of the United States. 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/20140407084751/http://www.wcu.edu/academics/departments-schools-colleges/cas/casdepts/anthsoc/cherokee-studies/cherokeelanguagerevitalizationproject.asp to http://www.wcu.edu/academics/departments-schools-colleges/cas/casdepts/anthsoc/cherokee-studies/cherokeelanguagerevitalizationproject.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116211514/http://www.fetna.org/index.php/2011-12-22-02-18-20/2011-12-22-02-21-42 to http://www.fetna.org/index.php/2011-12-22-02-18-20/2011-12-22-02-21-42

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Languages of the United States. 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/20071225193634/http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/ancestry_language_spoken_at_home.html to http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/ancestry_language_spoken_at_home.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://apps.mla.org/map_data_results%26SRVY_YEAR%3D2000%26geo%3D%26state_id%3D2%26county_id%3D%26mode%3Dplace%26lang_id%3D%26zip%3D%26place_id%3D54085%26cty_id%3D%26region_id%3D%26division_id%3D%26ll%3D%26ea%3Dy%26order%3D%26a%3Dy%26pc%3D1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usaweekend.com/05_issues/050515/050515travel_diverse.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

This edit is a fairly clear violation of WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR -- no source at all. Please review the difference between de jure and de facto. "Official" connotes de jure. Not de facto. Not that hard. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 08:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jeremyr55. Peer reviewers: Pgdotts.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

As long as this claims that Nepali and Welsh are "Main languages" of the United States, and Cherokee is not indigenous but has a whole section while Navajo is barely mentioned, there is no way this mess is NPOV. 184.101.141.29 ( talk) 01:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Those are valid points. Why not make those edits/removals (with full edit summary) of POV material? An "NPOV" designation must come from an admin, however. Mason.Jones ( talk) 17:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

No it doesn't. Every time someone tries to make the changes, it is reverted with "go to talkpage". So -- here I am. Tag stays. 71.223.15.74 ( talk) 05:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply

What you did was place an "NPOV" on the entire article rather than the statement you're disputing. That's lazy and it's over the line. If the other editor's factoid is not sourced, you revert it or add a "Needs citation" or "NPOV" tag at the end of that factoid. You don't "NPOV" the entire article. Also, others can't ask you to "go to Talk Page" unless what you are removing is sourced material. Mason.Jones ( talk) 14:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply

If it was brought to America by certain people who immigrated here than it isn't an indiginous language, right? SuperZ1776 ( talk) 15:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Hmm... I see that this article uses {{ infobox country languages}} and that that infobox has parameters named for various categories of languages, and that the infobox does not explain the difference between those parameters or their intended usage. I'm guessing that all of the languages mentioned in the heading of this section, and lots of other languages used in the U.S., would be appropriately categorized as immigrant languages. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Cherokee is listed as indigenous in the quick facts at the top of the page but then is placed under the sub heading "African, Asian and European languages". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.100.109 ( talk) 23:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The section on Hawaiian Pidgin says it is not to be confused with Hawaiian English, providing a separate link. However, "Hawaiian English" simply redirects to the page for Hawaiian Pidgin, the same page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.62.253 ( talk) 00:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC) reply

 Done Removed. (CC) Tbhotch ^™ 03:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC) reply

(1) Sylheti Ministry Leader NYC https://globalgates.info/long-term-missions/sylheti-ministry-leader-metro-new-york/ Slake000 ( talk) 05:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC) reply

(2) Sylhetis were the pioneers in crossing the sea in the Age of Empire. In their voyages, they worked as crewmen on merchant ships, and then began to settle abroad, mainly in Britain and the USA.

The world of the Sylheti seamen in the Age of Empire, from the late eighteenth century to 1947.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-global-history/article/abs/world-of-the-sylheti-seamen-in-the-age-of-empire-from-the-late-eighteenth-century-to-1947/961C8BCA36DD04AE2CC386509BF2C48B Slake000 ( talk) 05:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC) reply

(3) Ref [50] Christine, Gambino (2016). "American Community Survey Redesign of Language-Spoken-at-Home Data, 2016" (PDF). U.S. Census Bureau: 25. Slake000 ( talk) 00:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I replaced the PNG map with its SVG equivalent, which hasn't been updated as recently. But the most recent edit to the PNG was to add AK, which from what I read above may not be accurate. Could someone update the SVG map, or ping me with instructions if you'd prefer me to do it? — kwami ( talk) 00:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

New Mexico has no official language and was not part of the English-only movement. The information in the article reflects this but the map is incorrect. Desertambition ( talk) 03:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The map caption mentions that New Mexico has “de facto” official language status. Going by the article text, this seems to refer to the law giving Spanish equal special protections to equal English, which (by omission) makes those two languages "more official" than other languages, even if not totally official? — Octavo ( talk) 19:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I noticed that the section on Hawaiian says, "Hawaiian has 1,000 native speakers." No source is cited, and it goes on to say that around 27,000 "can speak and understand it" today, which seems to imply non-native speakers. However, looking at the article on the Hawaiian language, it numbers native speakers at about 24,000. So, something needs to be clarified here. Should the line about 1,000 native speakers simply be removed? Should it be clarified as a past number, on the timeline leading to the present 24,000+? Or is it the Hawaiian language article that is in error? 67.127.41.1 ( talk) 13:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I assume the IP editor means well and may be a native English speaker (I confess I'm not). Still, their proposal to fix the 'unacceptable' leads to a much less than accurate wording of the lead section. The word 'immigration', in my view, assumes that languages arrived in the current territory of the U.S. solely after the country was created in 1776. But there were several other historical processes at play (Spanish and French were widely spoken in much of the territory before it became part of the U.S., not to mention that several languages were brought in by forced movements such as the African slave trade). I wonder whether some sort of compromise could be reached. Ladril ( talk) 17:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply