Talk:Spanish language/Archive 3

Why Peru and not USA?

See this. This question was not settled by the earlier discussion and it seems to me that someone included their pet country despite the discussion. The USA is clearly one of the leading hispanophone countries and it makes no sense not to include it. It is a purely NPOV way of listing the countries to simply list them in order of number of speakers. That way, no one gets their favourite country to come first, second or anywhere unless they can convince ten million migrants to make it their home and start speaking Spanish. Clair de Lune 02:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

And please make a case here on talk before changing the box again. It could be considered "POV" to make any selection of countries whatsoever: particularly if you make your choice in a way that deliberately excludes the United States, which is notably hispanophone. We cannot accommodate every POV. We know that. This is one of the cases where the POVs are exclusive. I don't strongly favour one or the other, but I'd like to see a reasoned case for what we put. Please don't just revert it. The selection I have opted for is in order of number of speakers. This is quite neutral. It doesn't judge the countries. If you wanted more included, that would be okay. It's also apparent to the reader why the nations are listed, and why they are in the order given. SqueakBox, your selection is, I'm afraid, inherently POV. It's your decision whether Spanish is the "dominant" language in one or another place -- you're not referring to a source (I did, you'll note, in the above). I'd have had more sympathy if you'd listed countries where it is an "official" language, but you did not. It's not apparent to the reader why you have made the choice you've made. Leaving out the States makes a strong implication that it is not a legitimate language in the States, where many services are delivered in Spanish and there is some impetus for Spanish to be made an official language. By leaving it out, you seem to be pushing the POV that it should not (I doubt you are but that's the impression a reader will walk away with). With my list, the reader can see that plainly the countries are listed in order of number of speakers. None is left out, none has been preferred. Clair de Lune 02:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Less than 10% of Americans speak Sp as a first language. Prejudice against small countries like Honduras is blatant POV, SqueakBox 02:17, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

30 million Americans speak Spanish as a first language. Prejudice against hispanic Americans is blatant POV. Clair de Lune 03:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

With the exceptions of Paraguay and (if you count all the Maya dialects together) Guatemala, Spanish is the plurality language in all the countries mentioned. It is also, I think, the majority language of all the countries listed save Paraguay, Guatemala, and Bolivia. It is certainly the majority language of Peru, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there - Paraguay would be a much better example of unequal treatment. That said, all of the countries listed have Spanish as the official language, and as the principal language of government and inter-ethnic communication. (One would imagine that even in the countries that have high Indian populations, the vast majority of the population has at least some command of Spanish, although I obviously don't have any numbers to back this up) In the United States, Spanish is a minority language, and, except for in certain areas of the southwest, essentially a diaspora language. There are about 2 million speakers of Chinese in the United States. This is rather similar to the number of Chinese speakers in Singapore. But Singapore is a country where Chinese is the principal language, and the United States is one where Chinese is the language of a minuscule minority (0.78%). Are you saying that, just because the United States is such a big country compared to Singapore, we should list it before Singapore in a list of countries where people speak Chinese? john k 05:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Are you saying that Chinese speakers in the States are not really speaking Chinese? You are taking what might be called a nationalist view of language. You are saying that country X is Spanish-speaking, while country Y is not. There's a lot of baggage comes with that POV. Also, you might like to look up "diaspora", John. There's no applicable definition of "diaspora" that would apply to Spanish in the United States without also applying to English. Unless you are labouring under the misconception that English was born in the States? If you had chosen to write a list of countries where Spanish is the "official" language, we would be having a different discussion (I noted this above). But you did not (and rightly so).Clair de Lune 04:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with John. Even in Guatemala the Mayan languages are in retreat and Spanish becoming more important and dominant every day (this is what they have told me, and what I have seen) whereas many Hispanics who stay in the US end up, or their children end up, just speaking English. Wikipedia tends to have a systemic bias towards big countries, and towards the US, which I do not believe is justified, hence my adding the small countries where Spanish is dominant and not just the big ones, SqueakBox 16:38, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

You just aren't taking the point, SqueakBox, which is that you are pushing a chauvinist line. You are saying that the United States is not allowed to be considered Spanish-speaking, even though it contains far more Spanish speakers than the countries you want to include in its place. I agree that Wikipedia has a systemic bias towards big countries, but this is not in effect here. The only bias being indulged is anti-Americanism. An article that says "Spanish is spoken in..." and then pointedly omits one of the countries in which it is most spoken is indeed biased.

The solution now is ridiculous. It has no upside and solely the downside of the anti-American bias. Spanish is a second language for many in the countries you list (including Spain!). You further showed your bias in not listing Equatorial Guinea, where Spanish is an official language. I'm content with your solution of listing all nations where Spanish is widely spoken as a first language but that must include the United States. Many Hispanics may well stop speaking Spanish, SqueakBox, but maybe 30 million have not. That's a lot of people who you think don't count. Clair de Lune 04:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The point is, Honduras and El Salvador, and even Guatemala and Bolivia (maybe not Paraguay, though...at least for first language speakers) have a much higher percentage of Spanish-speakers than the United States does. john k 05:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Is that the point? It looks like a new point. John, I'll concede this if you like, and you can reorder the countries in the order of percentage of first-language speakers, so long as it's clearly labelled as that. What I won't agree to is a list that tries to downplay the importance of Spanish speakers in the States. This reflects a POV and an attitude that I think are unacceptable in an encyclopaedia that tries to be neutral. Clair de Lune 01:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You might as well say the UK is an Urdu speaking country. The number of speakers of only Spanish in the US is not that great, as I am sure that many of those 30 million (only 11%) also speak English and use it a lot in their daily lives, and Spanish can in no way be considered in the same way as south of the border. Again Spain does not compare to the US. Anyone who knows any of these countries understands the difference, and it is a greaty divide, SqueakBox 05:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The UK is an Urdu-speaking country. Only a downright racist would deny it; actually, not even them because it's the kind of thing they like to whine about. It has the third-highest population of Urdu speakers in the world, although to be honest most of them have Panjabi as their first language, and speak Urdu as a second. Of course, many of the Urdu speakers can also speak English. By your lights, that means they are simply not Urdu speakers. Their culture and language are extinguished because they also speak the majority language.

It is not racist to say that the UK is not "an Urdu-speaking country." Because it is not. It is a country that has a significant Urdu-speaking minority. But that's not the same thing at all. BtW, the fact that most of the Urdu speakers have Punjabi as their first language does mean, by most standards, that they are not Urdu speakers - they are Punjabi speakers. And it is not a terrifically high honor to have the "third-highest population of Urdu speakers in the world," since the vast majority of Urdu speakers live in the countries with the two-highest populations of Urdu speakers, India and Pakistan. This is like saying that Bangladesh is a Burmese-speaking country because it has the second highest population of Burmese-speakers in the world. john k 05:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is. You are taking the line that a nation can only speak one language, which is utter nonsense, it should go without saying. The strict identification of nation and language is indeed a tenet of most racist philosophies. You are tout court arguing that Urdu speakers in the UK are not really Urdu speakers because Urdu speakers live in Pakistan or India and cannot be in the UK. But they are, and the UK is an Urdu-speaking country, just as it is a Welsh-speaking country. Bangladesh is a Burmese-speaking country by any standards, except if one argues that only those people in Myanmar speak Burmese (this is slightly complicated by the Bangladeshi Burmese having their own dialect).

Your argument is incredibly flimsy. By your lights, you would have to deny that Belgium is francophone, because most French speakers live in France. You would certainly have to deny Switzerland is Italian-speaking, because Italian speakers are something of a minority there (a smaller minority in Switzerland than hispanophones in the US, actually). You might even have to deny that the UK is English-speaking, because most English-speakers live outside the UK, very much outnumbering the English-speaking UK population.

Next you will have to argue that there is some utterly arbitrary limit at which a nation can be considered to speak a particular language. What will it be? You will have to set it so that it excludes Urdu from the UK and Spanish from Spain, but does not exclude Italian from Switzerland, where it is an official language, or French from Canada, or Fula from Guinea, or any of the myriad languages that have a majority in one place and minorities of various sizes in others. Grace Note 06:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, SqueakBox, that your argument seems to be based purely in chauvinism and does not reflect the world as it is today. It's true that people who are members of a minority culture do tend to surrender their language in time (particularly in places such as the States where use of it is deprecated and even more so where it is not a language of instruction). But that doesn't mean that they don't exist or don't speak it. Percentagewise, more Americans speak Spanish than Britons speak Welsh, and of the latter, all or nearly all speak English too. Would you suggest that there are no Welsh-speakers in the UK? (Take care in thinking about your answer, because it won't do to say "Yes, but England conquered Wales and it remains the Welsh homeland" because of course the western United States and even parts of the east were hispanophone before the anglophones arrived, and the notion of Wales as a "homeland" for culturally Welsh people is problematic.) We won't talk about Gaelic in either Scotland or Ireland. I'm sure you're taking the point by now. Although these places had different histories, the same processes happen. Clair de Lune 01:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Welsh, at least, is the language of a distinct geographical area. This is not the case for Spanish in the United States, except in a few parts of South Texas, perhaps. Furthermore, Welsh is only spoken in Wales, so a listing of where it is spoken would have to mention it being spoken in Wales. Spanish is spoken in a lot of places, and listing the United States gives perhaps undue prominence to the diaspora population of Spanish-speakers in the United States. john k 05:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Claire it is 2 against 1 right now. The percentages speaking Spanish are clearly as high in Belize as in the states and no higher in the Sahara. There is simply no justification for calling the US a Spanish speaking country and it seem to just be promoting a jingoistic pro US view, SqueakBox 00:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

What a silly thing to say! I'm not even American. And I'm not swayed by its being "2 against 1". We're not having a fistfight. Clair de Lune 01:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I tried to avoid this stupid USA or not discussion for months, but it's taking longer than I thought to get settled by itself. I'm against USA being here. Why? For the same reason India is not on the English language article language box.

India has 2-4% of English speakers [1] [2] (that's 19 - 38 million people. According to wikipedia itself, the figure is between 50 million and 250 million (List of Indian languages by total speakers). Taking the 250 million figure (debatable), that's around 84% of the third most populated country in the world: United States. According to Languages in the United States, 82% of USA's population speak English as first language. So, theres a probability that there are more (second language) speakers of English in India than first language speakers of English in USA. Even the lowest figures (19 million) is more than double the population than Australia, and Australia is on the box, yet India is barely mentioned on the English language article. If India is not in the English language article's {{language}} box, I don't see why USA should be here.

Mexicans pursuing the american dream don't make USA a spanish speaking country, just a country with lots of spanish speaking immigrants. SpiceMan (??) 19:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Another thought, by 1914 in Argentina, which had a population of 7,900,000, 43% where immigrants (3,397,000), of which 50.1% where Italians (1,701,897) — Study on immigrants from the University of Buenos Aires (spanish). Nowadays if you hear someone speaking Italian, it's because you either accidentally changed to RAI on your cable TV, or some Italian tourist is around. The same will happen in USA, Spanish speakers are immigrants, or they offspring... by the 3rd and 4th generation the numbers will certainly be way lower (just as italian, irish, etc. descents now speak english and just a couple words in their ancesters language in USA). Is it worth it to discuss such a brief phenomenom this hotly? SpiceMan (??) 20:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Problem is: there are Spanish-speaking people in U.S.A. who are not immigrants: their ancestors lived in present-day U.S.A. speaking Spanish before integration of those territories in U.S.A. They never switched languages and will keep speaking Spanish for many generations. U.S.A. has an official Academia de Lengua Española (which is considered by Real Academia de la Lengua in Spain as equal to other American Academias). So, I guess U.S.A. can be considered a Spanish-speaking country, although the main language is, of course, English. It's the same with Spain: Spain is, for instances, a Catalan-speaking country, although the main language is, of course, Spanish. This is not a question I think deserves much discussion, since both sides are, in a way, right. Marco Neves

unless you could back your claim, i won't believe tht 11% of the US speaks Spanish as a first language. And if that is so, Brazil should be a japanese speaking country, because it has the largest Jap. pop out of Japan, and the US should be a chinese speaking country because 2 million speak chinese. It is merely a country which speaks a certain language, other than its official language.

India should be in the English-speaking box. It's crazy that it isn't. Whoever left it out clearly has never been there! Grace Note 06:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't go round Spain saying it is a Catalan speaking country, as outside of Cataluna and Valencia people would be very hostile to the idea, and Catalan is not spoken. Language is a very hot subject in Spain, much more, I imagine, than in the States. Do we have any idea how many people's families have spoken Spanish for generations?

I am quite acquainted with Spain's situation regarding languages. The fact that most Spaniards are hostile to Catalans does not mean Spain is not a Catalan-speaking country (despite the fact that Catalan is spoken in a closed area)... Regarding USA, as far as I know, many regions in the South have a large parte of population speaking Spanish since before U.S.A. integrated those regions. In fact, in New Mexico, Spanish is official (see for your self: New Mexico, even the name of the state is also in Spanish). Marco Neves 23:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. There is a movement in the States to have Spanish made an official language, and of course, a countermovement to prevent that. But this article need not take either side. It should simply state honestly that the US has one of the larger Hispanophone populations on earth. Why pretend it doesn't? Why tolerate even for one second that the inhabitants of the US are not really speaking Spanish, or don't have a "Hispanic culture" or any other nonsense that simply pushes a particular POV? Grace Note 06:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but you can't say a country is a Spanish speaking country (meaning Spanish is widely used by population(40% maybe?)unless its officially titled a Spanish speaking country. But since the US has no official languages, i would agree that it is a "Spanish" speaking country, along with an Urdu speaking country, a french speaking country, a native american country, etc.

Belize

Sorry, Belize is just part of the fallout. I have no problem with including it. Please revert to my version with any nations included that you feel should be. You simply haven't substantiated your version, SqueakBox. Read through my discussion and I think if you put aside your bias you'll see it's reasonable. Yours is directed, it seems, solely at making out that the US is not Spanish-speaking, which is unacceptably POV. I am trying to achieve a compromise with you but you have to ask yourself whether you're making the same effort. Clair de Lune 04:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention of reverting the article. That's why I asked you to do it. You simply have not made a case for your version, SqueakBox, and because you haven't done so, and will not discuss a compromise, we are stuck with an edit war. I have offered you and John two compromises: one, to include all Spanish-speaking nations in the box (I favour this solution and cannot understand why you want to exclude it); two, to list all nations by percentage of hispanophones, so long as that is clearly marked.

You are simply demanding to have your own way. Because we disagree over whether you are right, that's hardly likely to resolve the matter, is it?

So I think in fairness you ought to either give an argument for not including the United States that answers the points I made or voluntarily return the article to the version I made, with any additions you feel are necessary. A refusal to do either would certainly strike me as a declaration of your unwillingness to work with me towards a compromise. Clair de Lune 04:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll take your message point by point:

My point, in response to your message which I have now read, is that it is not the same in the US.

Not the same as what? The article is about Spanish language and the list gives places where people speak Spanish. You have to be arguing that people in the States don't really speak Spanish.

That is where we disagree. can you source your claim.

I sourced my claim that people speak Spanish in the United States. Are you seriously asking for another source? What would be acceptable to you?

I want sources that it is used in the judicial system, the schools and the army? SqueakBox 04:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Why would I need to source that? I've never said it was. I need only source that it is spoken in the United States, because that is the limit to what I have claimed. Clair de Lune 05:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Is Spanish an official language in the US?

The list is not a list of places that have Spanish as an official language. Given that there is a campaign to make it one in the US, which many chauvinists strongly oppose, it's a contentious issue. To make a list of countries where it is an official language would be unacceptably POV for that reason, if not any other. Whether it is official or not has no bearing on whether people speak it, which they do. Thirty million of them do! Would you argue that we should not have articles on other languages that are spoken but are not official? That would mean deleting all of our articles on Native American languages of the USA. Are you suggesting that?

In other words, no it isn't.

I have not claimed it is. Perhaps you could answer my other points. Do you suggest deleting articles on other languages spoken in America that are not official? Clair de Lune 05:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

In how many places is it used as the first language, or equal with English, in the schools? in the legal system: etc.

So, because Spanish is officially suppressed in the US, you feel we should not say that people speak it? Is that your case? I couldn't accept it if it is. I suggest you consider the history of Welsh in thinking about that, not to mention other minority languages in countries that do not allow them to be used in schools etc.

Officially suppressed. Now that is POV, and insulting at the same time, SqueakBox 04:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, don't feel insulted. I'm sure you're not taking any part in it. I was in any case doing no more than responding to your point. Clair de Lune 05:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

As an English person I need to and feel duty bound to learn Spanish here.

Yes, but you are clearly an English speaker! You have not ceased to be one. If you spoke English in the home you would be entirely analogous with the people we are discussing, regardless what language you feel obliged to use in the courts.

Obviously I use English, as in right here, but that has no bearing on the fact that I conform and speak Spanish outside my computer, including with my partner.

Okay, so you might not consider yourself an "English speaker" and might not tick that box on a census form. That makes you different from the nearly 30 million people in the United States who self-identify as Spanish speakers. Clair de Lune

I just said I am an English speaker. My job is entirely English, etc.

So if there were another million like you, would you say Honduras was a place where English was spoken? Clair de Lune 05:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Many Hispanics feel the same when they are in the States, and want to integrate.

So what? Most immigrants in most places assimilate the dominant language. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that regardless of that, if they still speak their native language, then they still speak it! Thirty million people speak Spanish in the United States, quite regardless of what their grandchildren will speak.

i think your mixing up ethnicity and language. I could be of spanish decent, it wouldn't mean i actually speak Spanish. I doubt 11% of the US speak spanish, but rather are of SPanish decent. - K

Which is 10% speaking it some of the time, probably 3-5% all the time, SqueakBox 04:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ten per cent is clearly more than none at all. I am not saying it is a majority language, any more than Kurdish is a majority language in Turkey; but simply that it is spoken in the States, just as Kurdish is in Turkey. Clair de Lune 05:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I have provided figures that show that 3% of the population of the United States speak no or very little English. You are quite simply discounting them for no reason whatsoever that I can see. Far fewer than that percentage speak Welsh in the UK! Clair de Lune 05:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Far fewer speak Welsh. in Wales itself far more do, as you would know if you had spent time in a Welsh speaking area. But the diffference is that Welsh is an official language in wales, besides which I have never made an edit about Welsh, and find it unlikely I ever will.

Sorry, I don't understand the first part of that. Wales itself is part of the UK. Far more people speak Spanish in LA than in Boston but that is no part of this discussion. I am not even feeling the need to point to those places where Spanish is the majority language or close to it. Welsh is an official language in Wales, but I have comprehensively answered your contention that we should only list countries in which Spanish is an official language. This is an article about the Spanish language, not about government policies on it as such. Clair de Lune 05:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

If their kids are taught in English in the schools they will end up thinking in English. And this is what happens, as I know from friends who went there from here and switched to English. now they are back here they switch back

Yes, this is all true, but none of it changes the truth that the United States has an enormous hispanophone population. Many of them speak Spanish in the home. See this. They used the Census results for their figures: 38.5 million Hispanics, 27.5 million speaking Spanish in the home, 8.3 million of them Spanish dominant (that is, speaking only Spanish or little English). 8.3 million! What's the population of Honduras again?

Hola, ¿que tal?- I spoke spanish, therefore i am spanish. How much spanish does someone need to know in order to "Speak" spanish? How accurate are these stats?

Stop slagging Honduras off as it won't help your case. You just said less than 3% speak Spanish all the time in the US. I reckon it is 97% here, and its ion the schools, the judiciary, the army etc, SqueakBox 04:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't slagged Honduras off. Try not to take everything so personally. A smile would help. The point was that Honduras has a smaller population of Spanish speakers than the United States, which you are trying to remove from the list of countries where Spanish is spoken.

Yes but in Honduras almost everyone always speaks Spanish whereas in the US hardly anyone does, 3-10%, SqueakBox 05:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

This is the chauvinist argument that you keep making. The hispanophones in the States are not really speaking Spanish because they are a minority. But hang on! They actually far outnumber the hispanophones in Honduras. In a pie chart of world Spanish speakers, they would take a bigger slice. To say Spanish is not spoken in the States ignores that. Perhaps you could stop repeating the same stuff about "official languages" and answer that point. Clair de Lune 05:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not about percentages of speakers. I have been clear about that. It's about whether there is a Spanish-speaking population. Your argument has now become that you are not a Spanish-speaker unless you are in a country where Spanish is the majority language. This is pure chauvinism and you cannot hope for it to stand in an encyclopaedia based on neutral expression of the facts. Clair de Lune 05:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Says you, SqueakBox 05:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do say. It's quite clear that your argument boils down to pure chauvinism. You want to exclude hispanophones who live in the States because they don't live in a "Hispanic" country. All of your arguments that you are using to back that POV you do not feel can be applied to other languages in other countries. You only want them applied to Hispanics in the US. So I do say that that POV won't stand, because it is not based on rock but in the sands of your personal feelings about Hispanics in the US. Clair de Lune 05:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Now please, your argument is, I think, purely based in chauvinism. It boils down to "they're not Spanish-speakers because they're not really Hispanic now they live in an anglophone country". Please return the article to my version and make the inclusions you feel it needs. Clair de Lune 04:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think yours is the chauvinist and deeply flawed argument, and offensive to many Spanish speaking counbtries I would bet. As you say, Spanish is suppressed in the US, so we must change the encyclopedia to fight for it's freedom. no thanks, SqueakBox 04:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

My argument is the exact opposite of chauvinist. I am suggesting that people's right to their own language (and recognition that they are a speaker of it) has nothing to do with where they live or whether they form a majority. I say that the United States must be included in any list of places Spanish is spoken simply because many of its inhabitants -- a number far exceeding the populations of many of the countries you accept as "Spanish speaking" -- speak it! I am not looking to free Spanish from American suppression. But I'm equally not keen on Wikipedia's suppressing minority languages because its editors think only a majority language should get a mention. Clair de Lune 05:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Spanish a minority language. you have got to be kidding. you certainly haven't convinced me, (whoops didn't sign}SqueakBox 06:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't convinced you that it's a minority language? Are you joking? A bigger percentage of people in the States speak Spanish as their first or only language than do Welsh in the UK. Are you saying Welsh is not a minority language in the UK, or are you saying -- and this is precisely what I am suggesting you are saying -- that different standards must apply to the United States than apply to any other place? Clair de Lune 05:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

As John said, the issue doesn't arise as they only speak Welsh in Wales. I suggest reporting things as they are and not as individuals would like them to be, SqueakBox 06:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. So let's report that Spanish is spoken in the US. As it is, by thirty million people. I fail to see what Welsh only being spoken in Wales, which is not true, of course (I know several Welsh-speakers who live in England), would have to do with it. Do you not count as a language speaker if you move countries then? When we tot up the number of anglophones in the world, are you out because you live in Honduras? Clair de Lune 06:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Bad faith

I am not accusing you of bad faith because you won't do what I want. I am accusing you of not treating me with the courtesy one expects from another editor. You have not addressed my arguments for my version. Instead, you insist that the US should not be included because Spanish-speakers will "integrate" in due course. This is utterly spurious. I have given sources for very large numbers of hispanophones in the US, and for there being many people who speak Spanish not just at home, but exclusively or almost so. The only substance to your argument was that they did not (or more recently ought not! You don't need to be told that what people should do is not an argument applicable to NPOVing an article). I am accusing you of that lack of courtesy in repeatedly reverting an article without even trying to find a compromise, and in making a veiled threat to report me for breaching the 3RR, when you can clearly see that I am trying to discuss the issue with you and find a way to satisfy both of us. Clair de Lune 04:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No I haven't. I have give you masny good examples, such as that Spanish is not an official language in tha States, and it is spoken by a small minority of between 3 and 10%. I could equally accuse you of lack 0of courtesy in reverting me. I have attempted to make changes within the box, you just keep reverting to your fixed version withoput offering everything new, and then accusing me of doing what you are doing. por favor, basta ya. As a new user I was informing you of the 3RR rule. Where did I allegedly threaten to report you. Nowhere, of course, SqueakBox 05:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Let me discuss your "examples". 1/ Spanish is not an official language does not mean that it is not spoken. Kurdish is not, so far as I know, an official language of Turkey. However, it is very much spoken there. Do you seriously suggest rewriting every article that says "Language X is spoken in country Y" where country Y does not have language X as an official language? If you do not, your argument cannot stand. 2/ It is spoken by a minority, but that minority (more than 10% according to the Census, which I provided as a source) far outnumbers the populations of most Spanish-speaking nations. You see nations; I see people. 3/ I have not reverted you without comment or edit summary. I have directed you to talk, where I have explained my case fully. You reverted without doing that. 4/ You have made changes within the box that have entrenched your POV, rather than sought a compromise. 5/ I have given an argument for my version and answered yours point by point. You are yet to show that America does not house any Spanish speakers and the box still says "Spanish spoken in...". So your version is not just highly POV but it's wrong too. 6/ Okay, I read too much into your warning re the 3RR. My apologies.

Now please, you really do need to return the article to my version. By all means, add in any nation you feel is missing, and if you want to order the box by percentage of population speaking Spanish, do so but clearly label it. Clair de Lune 05:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me we are talking nations not people. so please stop seeing people and start seeing nations. ie stick to the point. Nation is about place, and nowhere in the US is like everywhere civilisation has reached in Spanish Latin America. You have responded but you have not convinced me at all, SqueakBox 05:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Erm. The article is about Spanish language, not Spanish civilisation in Spanish Latin America. I don't think anyone can convince you of what you are arguing against, because it quite simply has nothing to do with whether people speak Spanish in the States! Which they do. You have not shown that they do not. You have given no sources to suggest that the States cannot be considered a place where people speak Spanish. You have made spurious arguments about people not speaking it (I gave figures to show that they do), about the percentage of people who speak it (I showed that other places with smaller percentages are listed as containing language speakers), about people not having it as a first language (the Census shows there are many), about its not being an official language (I showed that other languages are not official but are still spoken in places around the world, including the States, where for instance Native American languages are not official), about it not being the language of the courts (I explained that the article is not about which languages are used in courts but about the Spanish language, with the box listing who speaks it). Now your argument is that there is nowhere in the United States that is like Latin America. I despair. If you have anything more to add to that, please do, but I think I've covered everything you've argued, and I've given sources for my side. Indeed, I only need one source, the US Census, which clearly shows that Spanish is spoken by a great number of Americans (the Census does not, so far as I know, even include illegals -- let's not go there, hey?). Clair de Lune 06:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You remain in a minority of 1 Claire. There is no reason to go back to your version, and I absolutely disagree about the POV as I believe yours is the POV politics pushing view (Spanish suppressed in the US et al) and that I am not promoting a POV view (its not as if I am not including the US in the list. I am and our only dispute is how the US is presented. I cannot give way and let you present that it is equal in the States as to in Honduras or Guatemala merely because the US is a big place with lots of people. If you are in any court in the US you will need a translator if you don't speak English. The same with Spanish in Honduras and most everywhere else in Latin America, (you can have Qechua in Peru, etc, but English nowhere, SqueakBox 06:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

My "POV" is that Spanish is spoken in the US. Yours is that it is not. My source is the US census, which records millions of Spanish speakers. Your source is? It's of absolutely no account whatsoever that you need a translator in court in the US if you don't speak English. You would need one in a Turkish court were you a monoglot Kurd. (Are you, I ask once more, arguing that we should not say Kurdish is spoken in Turkey? The Kurds don't even have a country. That means, by your reasoning, that Kurdish is not actually spoken anywhere on Earth.) The list is not of countries where Spanish is spoken in court. Clair de Lune 06:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

By your logic we should mention the 1000 languages spoken in London in London. We should also mention every country where Spanish speakers are to be found, which is most countries in the world. To copmpare the States with a real Spanish speaking country is pure POV, and you have failed to produce an argument to the contrary. To stick an English speaking country into the box is ridiculous and POV. It's of absolutely no account whatsoever that you need a translator in court in the US if you don't speak English. Well I think it counts for a lot, SqueakBox 16:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

If there were thirty million Spanish speakers in London, I'd agree that my "logic" dictated we should include the UK. I am not comparing the United States with a real Spanish-speaking country (although I note that yet again you imply that hispanophones in the States do not really speak Spanish. Is it equally ridiculous to stick a Turkish-speaking country into the box on the page for the Kurdish language? Your "logic" would have it that Kurdish is not spoken anywhere on Earth (at least until the new constitution of Iraq is implemented). You think it counts for a lot that you need a translator if you don't speak English in the States? Well, it only goes to show that English is the language of the courts in that country. This article is not about use of Spanish in courts, nor is the list a list of countries that use Spanish in their legal system. It is a list of countries where Spanish is spoken. I have demonstrated that Spanish is spoken in the United States. You have not provided a source that says that it is not. I suggest you do. Clair de Lune 07:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You are in a minority of one. Stop defying consensus and reverting. Who supports your argument? Nobody. Your claim just appears to be an obsession with promoting the US. Please desist as your arguments go nowhere and have been fully refuted. To put the US on a level with Spanish speaking countries merely deceives our readers. How can you stick an English speaking country in that list. Please can you accept the consensus and stop edit warring. I can source Spanish is spoken in India, must we include India as well, and Russia, Holland, Kenya, etc, must we include all these countries up to 180 different countries in the world where Spanish is spoken? SqueakBox 16:05, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think everybody needs to calm down. The thing is, for languages like Welsh and Kurdish, if one only included countries where they were a majority, or whatever, one couldn't list any place they were spoken at all. This is not true for Spanish, which is one of the most spoken languages of the world. In general, I think diaspora languages should not be mentioned as places where a language is spoken, simply because doing that would make the "where spoken" box practically useless. The only exception would be languages which are entirely Diaspora languages, like Roma. Obviously, though, the issue of Spanish in the United States is a special one, since there are a huge number of Spanish-speakers in the United States, and beyond the general diaspora population found over wide parts of the country, there are actual sizeable areas (especially in South Texas) that are mostly Spanish-speaking. Personally, I wouldn't mind some mention of the United States in the box, I just think it's problematic to just list it among the countries where Spanish is the main language. Why not just list it at the end, with some special text explaining it. On List of languages by number of speakers, we use the formulation "Significant communities in" for countries with large diaspora populations and the like. I don't know if that, specifically, is the right way to go, but something along those lines seems more appropriate than continuing to argue back and forth and accuse each other of acting in bad faith. (For instance, it is quite clear that Clair is not trying to glorify the US, whatever else s/he may be doing). john k 17:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

We do include the US in the box, merely at the end of it and flagged as being a second language, which I think is fair as the US clearly has a significant presence of Spanish speakers, and in that sense is very much like Belize, which is listed alongside it. To not include the US in the box would, I agree, be wrong. I would argue that while Clair is not trying to glorify the US her version still does so in the eyes of our readers by putting an English speaking nation before many Spanish speaking countries. I would argue Claire, that far from taking a chauvinistic line I am doing the exact opposite. I am a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, association and my work here is informed by a defence and promoting of the poor, third world Spanish countries within this emcyclopedia, of which I believe this case is a good example, SqueakBox 18:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Countries do not speak. At best, that construction is an metonymy for the people in those countries that speak this or that language. Spanish-speaking people in the US are poor and dispossed, as their brethren in their (original) countries; why do you think that they should be hidden? Ejrrjs | What? 19:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out, I don't think they should, and have included a mention of the US. Most people here think the hispanics in the States are rich because the wages are so much higher. Why do you think they are dispossessed? To say the people here in Latin America are poor and dispossessed is a generalisation. Plenty aren't poor or dispossessed, and the Spanish culture here is not either, SqueakBox 19:33, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, this issue is entirely out of hand with all kinds of innapropriate remarks both ways. Reverts certainly don't help anything, they just make people more mad. I think it's clear that Spanish in the US is a relatively special case. The fact that there are so many Spanish speakers in the US does merit its inclusion in some way in a list of places the language is spoken. The fact that it is such a small % of Americans tells us we shouldn't include it in a way that makes it look like the primary language, as simply putting it plain in the first list does. I'd say that's relatively easily fixed by putting it at the end of the list and explaining that it is a small minority language by percentage, but that the total number is large. But only noting that it is spoken as a second language is incorrect. There are plenty of Spanish only speakers in the US. I've been to practically whole towns in California like that. - Taxman ^Talk 22:29, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Why is Spanish in the US a "special case"? Because this is an anglophone encyclopaedia and there are no users to complain about other biases that are expressed? What on earth did you mean by that? No one has suggested it is the "primary language" of the States (because the article is not about the States). The list is a list of countries where Spanish is spoken. Why should the US be singled out from the others when it houses one of the larger populations of Spanish-speakers? How is *quick maths* 13% a "small" minority? That's a significant minority in my books. As pointed out elsewhere, Paraguay houses a rather small minority of speakers of Spanish as a first language. Should it also be placed last in the list. The criterion SqueakBox seems to be urging is one of linguistic purity, with nations penalised for not being sufficiently Hispanic. Taxman, you're a reasonable editor. Do you really need it pointing out why such a criterion is unacceptable? Grace Note 07:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Grace, while I agree with your point I urge you to read the talk page more carefully. There is no minority of spanish speaking people in Paraguay, the quoted stats are wrong. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

What I don't want is an English speaking country like the US to be put on a level with a Spanish speaking country like Honduras, SqueakBox 16:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you can say that the US is a non "Spanish speaking" country, just by sheer force of numbers. If you mean "Country where Spanish is not an official language", is a different thing. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It is the fact that the courts are in Spanish here (so speak it or have an interpreter) in Honduras and in English (so speak it or have an interpreter) in the States, the schools are in Spanish here, the bureaucracy is in Spanish here, etc, that makes Honduras so different from the States where these things are providedin English. English is on the decline here on the north coast and especially in the Bay Islands, mostly because Spanish is taught in the schools but also because that is what the governemnt wants and so all it's services (judiciary, bureaucracy, etc) are only offered in Spanish. My understanding of the States is that the reverse is the case and that Englishdominates through these factors all the time. I would also generally point out that there is no movement to preserve Spanish in the States (as far as I am aware) that can be compared to the preserving French in Quebec movement. I would much more compare the Hispanics in the US to the Asian (Indian subciontinent) immigrants to the UK while recognising that htere are pockets in states like Arizona where the situation is more mlike the French speakers in Quebec. So yes, Sebastian, my argument has always been that Spanish being the official language here, in Argentina, etc, is what makes the big diference, and which is why the US has, IMO, to stay out of the first cluster of copuntries in the first info box, SqueakBox 17:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I do agree with that, and like the fact that using a very clear definition (official language) helps draw a clear line between which countries to add and which ones not. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I have changed it according to your suggestion as I want to find a way out of this impasse. I am happy to see the wording I have added perhaps changed as long as it continues to reflect the reality of how things really are. Lets see what Clair thinks, SqueakBox 22:40, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think that is about as good as it can get. Though if the percentage (or range), and total number of speakers can be had from a pretty reliable source and are reasonably agreed upon, you could make the note shorter by saying In the US it is spoken by x% of the population which amounts to x. It's too much detail for one country which is not ideal, but as mentioned before, it is clearly misleading to list it as if it is the primary language. - Taxman ^Talk 01:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the timely intervention, Taxman. I agree with you wholeheartedly. john k 06:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course you do. He's supported your POV. He hasn't actually added an argument and every one you made was readily defeated.

Only slightly more people speak French in Canada than speak Spanish in the US! Would you suggest that we remove Canada from the list of French-speaking nations, place it at the end and say it is only a minority language? I'd like Taxman to answer that and to give a cogent answer if not why Canada is not considered a "special case". Grace Note 07:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)