Talk:List of countries by English-speaking population

Here are some Numbers for India:

Okay mates, we've been studying a lot about India, here is a Gov Institution link where you can check the ACTUAL (estimative) number of English speakers in India: http://www.languageinindia.com/may2003/annika.html

• Read it entirely. You'll find it is around 4%.

After researching a bit more and comparing several numbers, as well applying some formulas, we came up with the number 4,18% So, it is the best we can do after 2 weeks studying about it.

If the CIA numbers are right (what DOUBT a lot) the India population is 1,173,108,018 (July 2010 est.) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html

By the way, the Brazilian numbers are wrong by 10 millions there!!!

• The final number of English speakers in India may be of 49.035.915.

Note: In fact, nowadays there may be up to 4,67% of English speakers in India. As we need secure numbers for our project, we are making decisions based on 4,18%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.59.157.14 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Also, if someone want to update it, you could also include Brazil on that list:

• Population number is: 190.732.694 ( http://www.ibge.gov.br/english/presidencia/noticias/noticia_visualiza.php?id_noticia=1766&id_pagina=1 )
• English speakers: 5,29%
• Total English speakers in Brazil: 10.089.759

---

My my... World: 914,398,325 English speakers? Never. We are still studying it. We are doing the same with Spanish and Mandarin so we can implement a project in 11 countries. We didn't finish it, but we are sure that in the world there is no more than 650 or 750 million English speakers.

Thanks,

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.59.159.68 (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Lebanon?

The Lebanese numbers are obviously wrong. The American University of Beirut's teaching language is English and has around 7000 students. This number is already twice as high as the number that is shown in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.18.21 (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are the middle east countries?

There are very large english speaking populations in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, they are not on this list what happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.104.65 (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

By Percent?

Wouldn't it be better if it were sorted by percent rather than total number of people?

• I agree, but I also think that density of english-speaking population would also be useful. The question as to whether the density or the percentage is better was posed on the bottom of this talk page. I think that both should be implemented even if a new article must be created to do so.—User:r1ngu —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Total population?

I agree, the percentage would be useful. We could also add a column giving 'Total Population' (percentage can then easily be calculated) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.167.91 (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the figures in the table, China should be first instead of 19th. Bob Webster (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

EU in lists

DSuser and I have drafted a complete analysis of why it would be a good or a bad idea to include the EU in lists of countries in some form (either directly in the list or as a special note outside the list). We'd kindly invite all editors who are interested in the EU and/or lists of countries to take a look at Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries, read all of the arguments presented and then state their opinion on what a sensible compromise might look like. Thanks! —Nightstallion 09:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE!

This section needs an update; Philippines has a bigger population now and the Census was way back in 1995.

India's Exaggerated (Tripled) Numbers

I just became aware of this page, after someone tried to include the unlikely statistic about India having the largest number of English speakers on the planet to the India page itself and immediately got pounced upon. I have no idea how the "sources" mentioned in the India ranking managed to generate their numbers, but one thing I am sure of is that they are not only unreliable, but grossly inaccurate. Here is the quote from one of the sources, David Crystal, author of Stories of English, a popular book about the English language. Crystal is writing (here) in the British newspaper, The Guardian:

“

"The population of India passed a billion, that's a thousand million, a couple of years ago, and is increasing at the rate of three per cent per annum. In 1997 an India Today survey suggested that about a third of the population had the ability to carry on a conversation in English. This was an amazing increase over the estimates of the 1980s, when only about four per cent or five per cent of the population were thought to use the language."

”

• I fail to see how this would be possible ow this would be possible. Since most English speakers in India have learned the language and not picked it up, even if 100% of Indian children and teenagers were going to school in the 1990s (and we know that was hardly the case) and all were learning English, it wouldn't account for a jump from 5% of the population in the 80s to 33% in the 90s.
• In reality the statistic is even more startling: according to the 2001 Census of India, only 64.8% of the population was literate in any language. This means that in excess of 50% of the literate population was able to use English.
• While we are on the subject of numbers from the last Census of India (2001), some other numbers don't jibe with Crystal or India Today's numbers: The 2001 Census reports that a full 31.6% of the workers in India are cultivators, and another 26.5% are agricultural laborers, another 4.2% household industry workers, and finally the remaining 37.2%, "other workers." Since the cultivators and agricultural laborers live in rural India (which is not the bastion of English speakers) and account for 60% of the population, is it being suggested that the remaining 37.2 "other workers" and their families all speak English? Given that the "other workers" include, for example, the vast number of merchants and laborers of small-town India, which unlike their counterparts in big cities, don't speak English in great numbers, it is even more surprising.
• Besides David Crystal is loose with his other statistics. If the population of India were increasing at the rate of 3% per annum, we would be seeing major famines. The population of India never touched the 3% per year mark during the entire 20th century. Here are the statistics of the rate of population growth for the 20th century from the Census of India official website. (The rates are decadal, so you (more or less) have to divide by 10 to get the yearly rate of growth). As you can see, around the time Crystal was writing his book, the rate was more like 2%. That may not seem like much of a difference, but when there are a billion people, a difference of 1% is 10 million per year. If Crystal is so off-base for his population rate numbers, why should we believe his English speakers numbers?
• The only source that seems half-way reliable, is the Siemens report, which gave the numbers to be 64.6 million (English as a second language speakers) and 25.4 million (English as a third language speakers).

The bottom line for me is that the current state of this page is unacceptable. The page needs to be split into two pages: List of countries by population of speakers of English as a first language and b) List of countries by population of speakers of English as a second and third language. Such a division would give maximum information. (If people insist on having one page, then the statistics of India and other ESL countries, need to be revised.) I won't revert anything yet, but I want to hear from the people who have put this page together. In the meantime I will look up the academic sources on the subject. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Some sources that might be more reliable:

• From the Census of India's eCensusIndia, Issue 10, 2003, pp 8-10, (Feature: Languages of West Bengal in Census and Surveys, Bilingualism and Trilingualism). In the state of West Bengal, where the literacy rate is 4% points higher than the Indian national average, the total number of English as second language (or third language) speakers (based on the 1991 Census figures) were 8% of the population. The total population was approximately 67 million and of these approximately 5,600,000 spoke English as a second or third language. The Government of India census statistics are very rigorous. (India has had a long tradition of both superb statistical institutions, like the Indian Statistical Institute, and superb statisticians like P. C. Mahalanobis and C. R. Rao, who while not necessarily involved in census statistics, nonetheless set a standard of rigor for such statistics.) If those statistics give a number of 8% for the state of West Bengal, where the numbers are higher than the national average, why are we believing a rag like India Today which stands exactly halfway between Time Magazine and People's Magazine, in reliability and rigor (and Time itself is no paragon). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• The TESOL-India (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages)] site India: World's Second Largest English-Speaking Country specifically addresses this article and explains the difference between the 350 million number mentioned on this Wikpidedia page and the more plausible 100 million number:

“

"Wikipedia's India estimate of 350 million includes two categories - "English Speakers" and "English Users". The distinction between the Speakers and Users is that Users only know how to read English words while Speakers know how to read English, understand spoken English as well as form their own sentences to converse in English. The distinction becomes clear when you consider the China numbers. China has over 200~350 million users that can read English words but, as anyone can see on the streets of China, only handful of million who are English speakers."

”

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• From "India." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 15 Aug. 2007 India: The lingua francas: "English, a remnant of British colonial rule, is the most widely used lingua franca. It is, however, claimed as the mother tongue by only a small number of Indians and is spoken fluently by less than 5 percent of the population."

-- I can't comment on the statistics in general, I'm sure official census data is as accurate as any other measure available .. but I would like to comment that, I understand how estimates might vary widely. Like Crystal apparently said in the newspaper article, a whole lot of indians at least speak enough english to get by in an english conversation. Even mainstream indian newscasts have a surprising number of english words, phrases, sentences mixed in, especially in the interviews and other impromptu segments. Its a complete code-switching which is very common, -- At least the ones I've seen on Mhz Channel, and radio broadcasts I've heard. From personal experience it comes across the same to me as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.253.148 (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a rather silly argument in context. A person coming to this list isn't likely looking for information about people for whom english is a primary language - there's already a list for that. This list deals with the number of people who can understand english, not with those who choose to use english day-to-day. 24.18.198.220 (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time in India. The problem with these statistics is, as others have mentioned above, that the level of competency varies along the full continuum. Probably only about 5% speak, read, and write English fluently and are able to carry on a conversation about philosophy or negotiate a complex contract. On the other hand, an overwhelming majority (including rural Indians who cannot read or write in any language) speak enough English to give simple directions or buy/sell a tangible object at hand. Of those I know professionally or socially who have university educations, none speak English with their parents, about half speak English with their siblings, and most speak English with their children. Times are changing and the adoption of English in India is very rapid. Mcarling (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I do totally agree that India is probably the second largest not the largest and that the 350 million is definitely an exaggeration but i wanted to make some points: FIrst of all it is probably impossible to figure the number of people in india who can carry on a conversation in English. English is taught in most indian schools vernacular or otherwise. Vernacular schools have a much higher level of english teaching then china or other european countries. English Users in India are definitely much better of than english users in china. Vernacular indians who migrate to countries like the US are far more adept at using English then almost any other nation. If you watch TV's or even Bollywood...the amount of english that most such media outlets use is very high. And so a larger percentage of the population has the ability to speak understand read and write english then what the official sources say. Vernacular medium schools have been closing down to make way for english medium schools. And people do speak english in Rural India. Further your example of West Bengal is a very bad one because it is a very backward state. If you want an overall look at rural or even general stats also keep in mind other states like in the south, west or even the north west. West Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, Rajasthan and Eastern UP should not be treated as the norm. Further it is impossible to get jobs these days without knowledge of English unlike in any other country. If you dont speak english then be prepared for a substantial pay cut. So often people go to english learning centers to pick up the language with speaking skills. The effect of english learning centers should not be overlooked as they are a huge part of the learning process for people who get dont get the required linguistic skills thru a more formal education system

So the second position is probably apt though it does under estimate the numbers that use english in india. With a boost in primary education (due to the millenium goals) and the growing economy eventually the largest english speaking country will probably become india but thats a few decades away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.92.173 (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Needs an update

If you could see the Philippines, it has 45 mil English Speakers, 42 mil People who use it as a second language, but 27k native speakers? What? 45 mil-42 mil =3 mil. Please, you got the data of native speakers from 1995!

Have started the update

I have updated some of the positions in the table. As I have indicated above, the numbers of ESL speakers in India are around 100 million. The reliable sources, Britiannica, TESOL-India, and the Census of India give numbers around 100 million. The list is of "countries," so adding the European Union doesn't make sense; you could add it at the end, but not in the middle. Similarly, the list is of "speakers" and not "users" (which often refers to people who can read the alphabet, but not much more). I have therefore removed China from position 3 and moved it below Malaysia pending some reliable statistics on ESL speakers in China, which I estimate to be no more than 3 or 4 million. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Some questions:

• As far as I am aware, Nigerian Pidgin English, is not a dialect of English. Does someone have numbers for speakers of Nigerian Standard English? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Information sourcing, verifiability, reliability

The area of information sourcing, verifiability, and reliability is a difficult problem and that problem really comes to a head in list articles like this. I don't want to challenge this just now at e.g. WT:V, but I think that this article attempts to sidestep the WP:V guideline that, "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources." Two possible reactions to this are "never say never" and/or WP:IAR. IMHO, in this particular case neither of those reactions is unreasonable. Still.....

Without belaboring things, let me point to one example of a problem. The current version of this article puts the U.S. population at 251,388,301 in a table column footnoted The population figures are based on List of countries by population. The wikipedia article mentioned in the footnote currently puts the U.S. population at 302,495,015. How many other figures are out of sync? I dunno. Are there any serious disconnects between the two articles? I dunno.

One possible improvement might be to adopt a scheduled synchronization policy and add "as of {last sync date}" to the footnote pointing to the source. That's easy, but doesn't feel right to me. An enhancement to this possible improvement might be to remove the tables which rely on List of countries by population to templates, and to have a bot update the templates. The tables in the templates could each have a bot-updated footnote saying something like: "The information in this table was extracted from List of countries by population as of {date & time}. See that article for the latest figures and for citations of supporting sources."

Note: see related discussion here. Perhaps these discussions should be consolidated on WT:V.

Comments? -- Boracay Bill 02:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a bot updated footnote. Haven't read the discussion on WT:V and WP:V. Will do so when I can find some time. Thanks for initiating this discussion. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to tack on a request that we should put a column to show the percent of a country's population speaks English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.32.64 (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The criticisms of the Eurobarometer data are exaggerated. The data are not perfectly precise, but no such data ever are. The Eurobarometer data are sourced from scientifically correct surveys with statistically significant data sets and certainly better than the SWAGs that were there before. As for children under 15, in some countries they speak English better than the adult population and in some not so well. It all washes out to within a few percentage points. If someone has a better source, please provide it. On the other hand, using 1991 census data for India is very dubious. India has changed a lot since 1991. About half the current population hadn't been born yet in 1991. India also adopted English as the language of instruction in schools nationwide in the 1990s, so the portion of literate people in India who are literate in English is asymptotically approaching 100%. 213.226.153.27 (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of supporting sources for recent changes

I've reverted this change. If I have it wrong, re-revert and please explain how I've got it wrong.

I'm not an expert in the subject matter here, but I've been following recent discussions about source reliability at WT:V. One wonders how the supporting source reliability stacks up in support of the assertion that India has 350M English-speakers (I'm not arguing that this assertion is untrue, I'm questioning the reliability of the source cited in support of this assertion). Also, does not the source cited in support of the assertion that the U.S. has only 251,388,301 English-speakers actually say that the U.S. has that many people who speak English at home? -- Boracay Bill 11:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You did right to revert. Please see my post above here. The previous statistics for India and China were not accurate (as I explain there). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nigeria's Pidgin English

Should we be including Nigeria's population when they're speaking Pidgin English? Isn't that a bit misleading? --seav 10:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• How different is it from standard English, considering the other groups we call "English speakers"? WilyD 13:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware (and I'm sure I could find a reliable reference for this) Nigerian Pidgin is not a dialect of standard English. The numbers of speakers of Nigerian Standard English is less than 500 thousand, but I haven't been able to find a good source for it yet. See my query about it above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody really believe that there are more native speakers of English in Nigeria than there are in Ireland? "English as a first language, however, remains an exclusive preserve of a small minority of the country's urban elite, and is not spoken at all in some rural areas." The numbers are also suspiciously round. RandomCritic 19:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The comment in the table for Nigeria does say, "Figures are for speakers of Nigerian Pidgin.", a source for the figures is cited in the comment (per WP:V), the cited supporting source does support the figures and does appear to be a reliable source. There may or may not be a valid argument to be made on either side of the question, "Should speakers of Nigerian Pidgin should be considered part of Nigeria's English-speaking population?" -- Boracay Bill 00:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, that note is _not_ present in the "List in order of native speakers", which simply and without comment claims that there are four million native speakers of English in Nigeria. This is not true. Second, the source cited is quite clear in referring to Nigerian Pidgin, as used by its native speakers, as a creole -- that is, an independent language wholly distinct from English, with its own grammar and vocabulary, as distinct from English as Kreyol is from French. The argument not only "may or may not be... made" that the speakers of NP should not be enumerated among English speakers, but is correct and should prevail. RandomCritic 18:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is on my watchlist and I do keep an eye on it (hence this exchange), but I don't consider myself a primary contributer to it. Nevertheless, following WP:BB, I have removed the Rank column from the first table, made the table sortable by column, and removedthe second table entirely. I have also added a footnote to the table with a disclaimer about Nigerian pidgin. If there is strong feeling among watchers of this page that I have been too bold here, please revert the change and add a note to the second table that the data presented there comes from the source identified in the first table. -- Boracay Bill 02:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. Ordering them according to rank, but (simply) not mentioning the rank, doesn't make much sense to me; in addition, it creates the potential for more trouble down the road, if people (for reasons unbeknownst) decide to change ranks or introduce new countries in the table. This page has been riven in the past by edits motivated both by nationalism and by "one book expertise," (i.e. based on someone reading one book, and then footnoting it everywhere.) It needs more constraints (like the rank column), not less. Similarly, the native speakers table is important. In addition to providing information, it serves as a touchstone for some healthy skepticism with regards the first list. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowler&fowler (talk • contribs)

Native speakers in Germany & other non-ES nations

The figure for native speakers in Germany (272,000) is striking, especially since it doesn't include non-German NATO personnel, and it makes me think that similar proportions may be present in France, Italy, Netherlands, Japan, China and other major economies, for which we do not have comparable figures. It is possible counts are not done because of political sensitivities. Can anyone provide this data? Grant | Talk 11:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that what we actually have for Germany is the number of citizens of predominantly English-speaking countries (the UK, Ireland, Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand) registered in Germany, and that we are extrapolating from that the number of native English speakers. Since other countries aren't as obsessive about keeping track of who lives in them as Germany is, we're unlikely to have those statistics for other countries. —Angr 15:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To talk about other ES members:

I really do think that the estimate of France is to high, nothing bad to be said about the French but the knowledge of English with French citizens is virtually of non existance. I couldn't find a proof of what has been said on the EU website can anyone provide me with evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.35.4 (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Unranked EU entry

The introduction of the unranked EU entry in Wikipedia lists has been thoroughly discussed Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries.

The most significant arguments for it´s inclusion in lists are:

a) Country like characteristics: Common market, common policies, common institutions, bodies, agencies, common EU legislation, a single budget financing projects in all member states. Its own budget to fund common programmes such as the European Union's programmes in agriculture, research and education. A common fund for trans-country infrastructure projects and for regional development. Election every 5 years and a European parliament as well as a EU court of justice, common currency Euro, EU-Day (holiday), EU-Licenseplate , EU-Anthem, EU-Citizenship, Schengen agreement, one representation of all 27 member states in WTO, Permanent G8 participant, Permanent UN observer. Common Policy Examples in the city of Berlin: The EU is financing infrastructure, education, social projects etc. In official press conferences and gatherings the national flag stands next to the EU flag.

b) already ranked in several other media and statistics like CIA WorldFactBook, IMF data sheet, Wikipedia List of countries by GDP (PPP) etc.

c) The significant degree of integrated policies leads to the necessity of the inclusion for comparative reasons. Because of the sui generis status, the 27 member states will remain as single entry and the EU becomes unranked.

d) Note that the inclusion of the EU is granted to its advanced sui generis status and can not advocate the inclusion of Opec, Nato, African Union, UN, Commonwealth, Arab League, Mercosur, NAFTA, ASEAN and others. The degree of a state-like-entity and its characteristics make this a singular case.

Lear 21 (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The result of the the discussion you linked to was inconclusive. Please stop adding the EU to this list. This particular comment there is very telling: Perhaps if Lear would like to vandalise the pages again it might get people back. Otherwise there is no conclusion that can be drawn, except we disagree. - BillCJ (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

How about giving a nod to the EU like so in the lead in text:

• The European Union is a sui generis supranational and intergovernmental political body. The entity is composed of 27 member states. The total english speaking population of the territories of the 27 member states is 229,850,000 including 61,850,000 native speakers and 168,000,000 non native speakers. Crystal (2005), p. 109, UK and Ireland total. Non-native speakers: 2006 Eurobarometer survey. Covered EU citizens aged 15 years or more. EU is not ranked as it is not a country.

Zebulin (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Arguments a)-d) remain. The Quote of user:Jlogan is a singular provocative opinion. BTW JLogan has voted for the inclusion. The vast majority has voted AND argued for it as well. Lear 21 (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. This is the first time I've seen a no-consensus discussion with no outcome used to enforce a POV. It's obvious all you will do is revert war to get your way, and I've no inclination to endure an RFC or ARBCOM against you right now. I'll drop it here for now, but in no way I am conceeding to any of your points. - BillCJ (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Not my points for sure. The raised arguments are collected and approved by at least 13 editors. I´m rather re-enacting the decision. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've commented at Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries. Additionally, I'll remark that there's a similar discussion going on at Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area which mentions the CIA World Fact Book: Preliminary statement on EU entry, which gives the Factbook's rationale for including an EU entry in their list of countries. I'm not saying that this article should (or should not) necessarily follow their rationale, but it's something to consider.

Also, I'm a bit confused by

Rank	Country	Total	First language	As an additional language	Comment
—	European Union	229,850,000	61,850,000	168,000,000	Native speakers: Crystal (2005), p. 109, UK and Ireland total. Non-native speakers: 2006 Eurobarometer survey. Covered EU citizens aged 15 years or more. EU is not ranked as it is not a country.

I don't have access to Crystal (2005) and cannot check page 109 of that (though "UK and Ireland total" does make me wonder about it). I have checked Eurobarometer survey, and I can't find a figure in there for the number of First-language English speakers (I probably missed finding a figure which is in there somewhere). It does say that 38% of EUers listed English as a non-mother-tongue language known well enough to have a conversation. The CIA Factbook puts the EU population at 490,426,060, and original research computations based on that suggest that about (490,426,060 * 0.38 =) 186,361,903 EUers speak English in addition to a non-English mother tongue. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The EU figures seem to derive from the Eurobarometer poll. It is the base of most of the European country entries in this list. Lear 21 (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

China?

Where's China besides Hong Kong on this list? Sseballos ^{(Talk to Me)} 01:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of pidgin and creole varieties complicates the issue

The table correctly annotates where pidgin and creole varieties of English are included in the figures, but this makes the figures very hard to interpret. The case of Surinam is particularly misleading. The figure is attributed to Crystal (2005:109) but I am really not sure why Crystal included it. The creole in question, Sranan Tongo, has a historical connection with English but I dont think anyone, least of all its speakers, would call it a 'variety of English' or a 'dialect of English'. There is absolutely minimal mutual intelligibility with any variety of English, and English is really a foreign language in Surinam, though no doubt there are a few first language speakers and quite a lot of people will have learnt it at school (Dutch is the language of education). Counting Surinam as a country with a high proportion of English speakers is simply wrong in my view. The situation in Jamaica and Trinidad, for example (other countries where a creole is the vernacular) is more complex because in those countries, English is the language of education, and the creole speakers themselves in many cases regard themselves as speaking English, even though linguists might call that into question.

84.43.96.30 (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC) MarkS

Gordon Brown

Does he really know how many people speak English in China?--200.138.43.245 (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. Some speech writer who hurriedly grabbed a sentence from David Crystal's outdated (and highly inaccurate) book.

See my discussion India's exaggerated numbers above.

• This issue (and specifically this Wikipedia article) has been addressed by the organization, TESOL-India (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages)] site India: World's Second Largest English-Speaking Country. Their web site explains the difference between the 350 million number mentioned on this Wikpidedia page and the more plausible 100 million number:

“

"Wikipedia's India estimate of 350 million includes two categories - "English Speakers" and "English Users". The distinction between the Speakers and Users is that Users only know how to read English words while Speakers know how to read English, understand spoken English as well as form their own sentences to converse in English. The distinction becomes clear when you consider the China numbers. China has over 200~350 million users that can read English words but, as anyone can see on the streets of China, only handful of million who are English speakers."

”

• Here is also the article "India." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 20 February 2008 India: The lingua francas: "English, a remnant of British colonial rule, is the most widely used lingua franca. It is, however, claimed as the mother tongue by only a small number of Indians and is spoken fluently by less than 5 percent of the population."

I am reverting the edits by the IP editor to the last stable version of this article. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE!!!

Update the Philippines natives speakers.... It's so outdated...1995?....I'm a native speaker and was born in 1995....but I don't count because the poll was taken before my birthday

This should be updated when there is a reliable source of verifiable information to support the updated figure. The source cited in support of the current figure is supported by data from the Philippine census of 2000. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Map Colours?

• 
• 
• 

Thoughts?

It is hard to believe that China (with a larger population than India's) and with no history of British rule (unlike India's 200 years) can have a higher percentage of English speakers. It is actually not even close. Same with Russia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

PS It is probably best to include only countries that have some history of English use, where English has at least served as a lingua franca; otherwise, the comparisons, such as of Spain with South Africa, really don't provide much real information. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Err, the data for Russia is probably pretty good, and it has 4.8% of Russians with knowledge of English, compared to 8% of Indians. You can view the 2002 Russian census here: [1]. The Chinese data might be a little generous, but the source is solid - maybe a better thought is that the India data is a little stricter in terms of "who speaks English", but its the best I've found. If you know of better data, please provide it.

Beyond that, you'll need to elaborate on your second comment for me to make any sense of it. WilyD 00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, This page is about English speakers, not English users; see my post(s) above explaining the difference. China for example might have 350 million English users (for example, in David Crystal's highly optimistic estimates), but only a few (less than 10) million speakers.

I guess what I meant in my PS was that I don't see the value of comparing (a) countries with English-speaking traditions (like Canada, South Africa, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Trinidad, Jamaica, ..., where English is an official language) with (b) countries that have only recently (last 50 years) started teaching English as a foreign language and where English is not an official language (or even a language of limited everyday use). Spain and South Africa, for example, might show similar percentages in your map, but as anyone who has been to Spain and South Africa knows, there is no comparison between the two countries when it comes to the prevalence, cultural-value, and standards of English. South Africa has produced two Nobel laureates in English Nadine Gordimer and Whatshisname and many internationally known writers; Spain, on the other hand, has no literature in English. Same with India and China: India has produced one Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore, who wrote in Bengali, but translated his works himself into English, and in addition many internationally known English novelists Salman Rushdie, R. K. Narayan, Mulk Raj Anand, Arundhati Roy, Anita Desai, Kiran Desai, Ruth Prawer Jhabwala, ... ; China has nothing.

Not only are the comparisons between (a) and (b) not very informative as comparisons, but they will likely be inaccurate because the standards of determining who is an English speaker will be wildly different between groups (a) and (b). That's why, in my opinion, it is best to have different maps for groups (a) and (b). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Native speakers, anyhow.

Is Nigerian Pidgin really English?

Nigerian Pidgin may share some vocabulary with English but I think it is inaccurate to lump it together with English. Most English speakers would find it completely unintelligible. http://alt-usage-english.org/Distribution_English_speakers.shtml lists the speakers of actual English as 14 million, but as that number comes from the 1995 Encyclopedia Britannica I'm not sure it can be included, although I'm sure because it may not be copyrightable as a simple fact. I will try and find a different source for the number of English speakers in Nigeria but failing that I plan to remove the Nigerian entry completely because I feel it is inaccurate. -- Gudeldar (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really agree. I'm an Arabic learner who sees how widely different Arabic dialects can be from each other, but the only way to treat Arabic is as a single "macrolanguage". (I've been learning for 5 years now and have lived in the Arab world, and the differences are very, very strong.) I think the same should be done for English. I haven't been to Nigeria, but I understand Fela Kuti just fine... There are some different words like "yansh" for "ass" or "quench" for "die", and yes the grammar is different, but I find it intelligible. Agh.niyya (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Supporting sources for population figures

Shouldn't supporting sources be cited for the population figures? Perhaps something like the following (data and supporting source based on List of countries by population: -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Rank	Country	Total Population	Total English Speakers	As First Language	As an Additional Language	Comment
1	United States	304,963,7971	262,375,1522	215,423,5572	35,964,7442	1. Source: Official USA Population clock, projected to 2008-08-25 at 04:46 GMT (EST+5) 2. Source: US Census 2000: Language Use and English-Speaking Ability: 2000, Table 1. Figure for second language speakers are respondents who reported they do not speak English at home but know it "very well" or "well". Note: figures are for population age 5 and older

Percentage or Density?

Is a "density of English Speakers" more informative than "Percentage of Enlighs Speakers"? (On the right is anglophones, not English speakers.) WilyD 14:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Density again

Like this?

I think borderless is best - less confusing for the eye.

I see that the image description says "Log density of anglophones". To quote from the Logarithmic scale article, "Presentation of data on a logarithmic scale can be helpful when the data covers a large range of values – the logarithm reduces this to a more manageable range." For a range of 0 to 1 (e.g., density), a linear scale is probably more appropriate, more informative, and less misleading (see the quantiles 0, 0.25, 0.5 0.75, & 1.0 on the log scale graph on page 17 here). Beware of misuse of statistics; it is all too easy to unintentionally create a false impression with a dramatic graphic. Also, mention in the image description of the source of the data being illustrated would be useful—and might be necessary to avoid a {{fact}} challenge. If someone has the time and interest to do the work, a density chart on a linear scale for English alone and/or for English in comparison to other languages (differentiated by color? in an animated gif slideshow similar to the image here?) would probably be useful. A dot map similar to this showing number of speakers by location would probably also be useful if the data on which to base such a map is available from a reliable source. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The data sources are all listed here: Image talk:KnowledgeOfEnglishPercentOfPopulationWithSubdivisions.PNG and Image talk:PercentageOfThePopulationWhoSpeakEnglishAsTheirMotherTongue.PNG. I will say that without a log scale, I find the density data just looks like black, with a few values picked out (i.e. you see Washington D.C. and a few cities, but that's essentially all. This density goes from something like 10^(-5) - 10^3, hence the choice of logarythmic plotting. I haven't been able to find more finely resolved speaker data than what's plotted here - if you have it, I'm interested in seeing it. Anyways, I also have the "percent that speak english, percent native English speakers"

prepared.

U.S. state-by-state data from Census 2000 is here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I used http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf for state by sate data - seemed like a very reasonable source to me. I also have provincial and territorial data in Canada, State-by-state in South Africa and Territorial and State data for Australia. Constituant Country data for the UK or regions of New Zealand - here levels are high enough that you might see much. A lot more data would be nice for "knowledge of English", but very little of that just seems to be available. WilyD 10:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Reacting to your edit summary ("Eh?") I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just trying to provide what I hope might be useful responses. I'm not an expert in this area and I probably have fewer available research facilities than you (I'm located on Boracay island in the Philippines). If my responses are not useful to you, feel free to ignore them. BTW, re the particular .xls .pdf files mentioned, my recollection without looking at those files again is that they're alternative presentation formats for the same data. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably access to data is not what I'm looking for, although "ability to read data not written in English" would be a huge asset - I can halfway muddle through French language data, and am otherwise stuck with only English. Someone who could read census data from Spanish speaking countries not published in English would be a huge asset. But also, I mean, as the person creating these maps, are they badly laid out? Unclear? I'm colour-blind (actually, I have anomolous three colour vision, but I digress) so my choice of colours might be terrible ... these are all definite problems I have. WilyD 03:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm mostly looking for feedback on what people think is useful or isn't - I can doll one up once that's done. WilyD 03:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Looking at the maps above using black & yellow I had the belated realization that (I think) population density differences mask any significant impression I might take from the maps about english-speakers as a fraction of the population, or about english-speakers vs. non-english-speakers. I think it would be more useful to show shadings indicating the ratio of english-speakers to non-english speakers for particular areas. That's what you've done with the red-blue maps—I like those, but the colors don't work well for me (I've got good color vision - always fly through color-vision tests with a 100% score). I think the black-yellow shadings for 0%-100% would work better. Also, for the US, please note the section below this one— note the pretty significant difference between 82.44%, 89.33%, and 95.8%, depending on the answer to the question, "percentage of what?". Also, significant changes would be produced by choosing other gatings (e.g., age 18+ vs. age 5+ vs. any age, or an english speaker gating threshold of "very well" vs. a threshold of "well" or "very well". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The percentage plots are linear, only the density plots are logarythmic - this is a necessary case, I think. I've tried making the opposites and they're utterly unreadable shit, as far as I can see. Linear density means you see 5 or 6 tiny dots of English speakers, which're just consequences of the district size plotted (i.e. they're Washington, D.C., Gibraltar, maybe Singapore, and so forth). I can try a different colour choise for the percentage plots. For the U.S. data, I get a "surveyed population" with "number that speak English". There's probably some minimum age threshold, but I think it's reflective of the number of English speakers vs. total number elidgible under thesurvey's terms, which seems the most reasonable way to go (Most American states are ~99% knowledge of English and 95+% native English, which seems more representative). The "Knowledge of English" might not have a consistant threshold, which is problematic, but it's mostly gray anyways, I'm not sure it's terribly useful at this time. WilyD 10:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I swapped out the colours on the mother tongue percentage - my own impression is that it's absolute shit - South Africa is a total nonentity in the English language world, and Alaska is more prominent than California or New York - this does not seem to represent "English speaking population". Denisty of Anglophones, neglecting all others, seems a much more reasonable represetation to me. WilyD 14:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

U.S. figures

This explains significant changes which I have boldly made in the table entry for the U.S.

The entry said that the "% of English Speakers" for the U.S. was 82.44%. That's like saying 17.6% don't speak English. That's about one of every five or six people. That's a lot. That's also counter-intuitive.

The entry gave 304,952,000 for the "Total Population" figure, but used data from a report based on the year 2000 U.S. Census for the English speakers figures. I have changed the population figure to the 281,421,906 figure reported by Census 2000, sourced that figure, and explained its use in the comment. That brings the percentage figure up to 89.33%. The Census 2000 figure for U.S. population aged five and older was 262,375,152. If that figure were used in the percentage calculation, the result would be 95.8%. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldnt the same thing apply to India too ? The English speakers number is from 1991 census data, when India's population was 821 million not 1132 million. So the percent of English speakers would be 10.9 %. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If the situation is as you describe it, Yes. See WP:SYNTH: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Percentages. How are they being computed?

I am troubled by all these percentage columns. How are they being determined? Do we have reliable sources for these percentages? Or, are we dividing two quantities to obtain them? The latter instance will constitute original research or synthesis, I am afraid, simple though the computation might be. I have added a synthesis tag to the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of pretty random examples:

Rank	Country	% of English Speakers	Total Population	Total English Speakers	As First Language	As an Additional Language	Comment
43	Hungary	19.91%	10,043,000	2,000,000	2,000,000		2006 Eurobarometer survey.
78=	Israel		7,303,000	100,000	100,000		Source: Ethnologue (2005)[2]

• I took a quick look at the 2006 Eurobarometer survey, and could not find support for those figures for Hungary in that source.
• The supplied link to the supporting source for Israel points to a page which says, in part, "[eng] 100,000 in Israel (1993). Alternate names: Anglit. Classification: Indo-European, Germanic, West, English "

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:OR before trying to enforce it. It's not original research without some kind of synthesis. Straightforward transformations which cannot be honestly disputed (i.e. if a source says 1.01 parsecs I can write 3.29 lightyears and it's not original research). The sources I've used are all listed on the image pages. WilyD 19:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OR says, "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position, ..." OR can include SYNTH, but OR is not limited to cases which include SYNTH. In re the examples above I see no support for the claimed 7,303,000 population of Israel, nor do I recall (without looking back at the source to check this) support for any of the asserted figures for Hungary. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I can't speak to those. I was responding to the criticism of the maps (which I've made). Page 144 of http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_243_en.pdf has percentages for European Union (and prospoective EU) countries. Other numbers have other sources. For densities, most of the diciest numbers don't matter very much, because they're all very close to zero (the density of anglophones in Brazil is too low to show up on the map, for instance). WilyD 00:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(Added later: I apologize, I didn't mean densities, only the percentages. I have now corrected my posts. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

No, I don't think this is equivalent to conversion say between miles and kilometers (for which there are templates). What you are doing is actually producing a new statistic (viz. percentages) from data involving number of English language speakers and total populations. There is a secondary problem of whether the statistics are from the same years (and it appears that in some cases they are not), but even so, statisticians don't simply divide two columns to produce percentages, they also have to take the margin of error in each column into account. To give a simple example, if the population is 100 with a margin of error of 30% (say) and the estimate of English speakers is 30 with a margin of error of 33%, then the population can in fact range anywhere between 70 and 130, and the number of English speakers anywhere between 20 and 40. That means the percentages can range anywhere between a low of 20/130 and a high of 40/70. However, if you take the average of those two, you get 66/182 (=36.2%), which is not the same thing as 30/100 (which is what you would get by dividing the two columns). You will need actual percentages computed by a reliable source to construct such maps or columns. If you have such reliable data for the European Union countries (and some others), then fill only those in. Leave the others blank in your maps, or render them in a color which is linked to "data not available." Same with the columns; they should be left blank. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, as I've indicated to you before, the percentages themselves are not that informative, when the standards of determining who is an English speaker are not the same. Thus a number of European countries have higher percentages than South Africa, yet the latter has produced two Nobel laureates in English (Nadine Gordimer and JM Coetzee); similarly China has a higher percentage than India (based on the numbers for China being computed on the basis of English "users," ie. people who can read and write English sentences, but can't really speak it); however, India has produced five (if you count Ruth Prawer Jhabvala) Booker Prize winners. All this simply doesn't add up; in other words, the statistics, even when quoting reliable sources, become meaningless, since the criteria are not the same. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you have strong preconceptions of what's going on. I also understand their are other factors - such as historical rates (Europeans having a widespread command of English is fairly recent, whereas there have been a good number of Anglophones in South Africa for 200+ years - this is probably the source of the literature dichotomy) and whatnot. India has more native speakers, and a longer history, China has more people with a knowledge of English today. These aren't equivilent, and it's patently silly to think that historical production of literature should be a monotonically increasing function of current knowledge of English. If you have access to reams of historical data on the subject, we could, of course, produce some kind of animated map. Until that happens, there's only the current situation to represent. Which's what this article is about. Feel free to work on Spread of the English lnaguage or whatnot, if that's your interest; but that's not the subject of this article.

Miles and Kilometers is the same problem. I can't accurately translate 1 parsec into 3.26 lightyears, due to precision errors - but the math isn't that hard.

The Knowledge of English is mostly grey precisely because I can't get much data. I'm not sure it's even worth much. The density of Anglophones map is much more illuminating to me, of course, different readers find different presentations the most informative. WilyD 16:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) My preconceptions aside, I'm afraid you still haven't told me how you are calculating your statistics. You haven't answered my question posed in my first paragraph; this is not a problem of precision errors of the kind you might find in simple conversion of units. This has to do with using knowledge of statistical errors in all these estimates to accurately estimate percentages. I claim that by dividing two columns (if that is indeed what you are doing to compute percentages), you are not only synthesizing information, but also doing so inaccurately, since you don't have error estimates of the original numbers. If we allow what you are doing, then there would be no reason to refer to the IMF or World Bank for economic indicators like per capita income; we could compute those ourselves, given the GDP and population.

As for the numbers of English speakers in China being more than those in India, how did you come up with that information? What is your source? If you are using the 300 million number from David Crystal's book (see column 19 of the table), please note that it refers to the number of English "users," (i.e. learners) not "speakers;" otherwise, China would be in the number 1 position in that table? But then Crystal has India's numbers pegged at 350 million, so we should be pushing India even higher, as indeed it was, until I intervened a put a stop to the exaggerations (see here). The page name is : "List of countries by English speaking population." For the distinction between "English Speakers," and "English Users," please see: TESOL-India (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages)], India: World's Second Largest English-Speaking Country. Their article explains the difference between the 350 million number mentioned in a previous version of this Wikipedia article and a more plausible 90 (or perhaps now 100-110) million number:

“

"Wikipedia's India estimate of 350 million includes two categories - "English Speakers" and "English Users". The distinction between the Speakers and Users is that Users only know how to read English words while Speakers know how to read English, understand spoken English as well as form their own sentences to converse in English. The distinction becomes clear when you consider the China numbers. China has over 200~350 million users that can read English words but, as anyone can see on the streets of China, only handful of million who are English speakers."

”

 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

PS See China's numbers below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

PPS I just checked the Eurobarometer Survey, Europe and its languages (2006) (p. 144). Its percentages of English speakers for European Union (and prospective EU) countries are based on the self-description of respondents based on the answers to the question: "D48b Which languages do you speak well enough in order to be able to have a conversation, excluding your mother tongue?" I would be more comfortable if there were some secondary sources to back this up, like the 10 million estimate for China. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

These are many points - let me say at the least - it's almost impossible to represent the measurement uncertainty in a map like this - certainly I'm not sure how you would. The plotted densities are logarithmic anyhow, which'll wash out errors not of order unity anyhow.

Much as the list, the map necessarily has caveats - I'm not sure it's worthwhile to say "Well, we can't necessarily be exact, so we'll say nothing".

I don't really like the "knowledge of" map anyhow - it's just too much grey to be of much value - I'd been hoping it'd be more complete, but I'm starting to suspect I'll just never find sources for ~3/4 of the world anyhow.

It's patently silly to complain about the Eurobarometer being self-reported. Almost every number there is just self reported - I certainly could've lied when I filled out the census and claimed I didn't speak English or my native tongue was Latin or whatever and that'd be that. In some sense this is all consistent in this way. You can feel free to dig around for additional number estimates if you like - I'm happy to adapt things if better numbers can be found. WilyD 20:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you are right about the self-reporting. Census figure are self-reported. It would still be good to find some secondary sources for the European data (will look for the same). And when I have some time, I will move China to the right place in the table and use the 10 million figure from Yang's paper below. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The original issue about the percentages still seems unresolved. I have looked at the Eurobarometer survey, which is the cited source, and I think I see the problem. Take Hungary. On page 14 of the survey report, it says that 23% of respondents in Hungary know English (well enough to hold a conversation). On page 70, it lists the 15+ populations of the countries, giving 8.5 million people who are 15 and older in Hungary. It seems that somebody has taken 23% of 8.5 million and put 2 million as the number of "additional language speakers" for Hungary. Someone else has then taken 2 million as a percentage of the total population of Hungary - 10 million - to arrive at the stated figure of 19.91% English speakers in Hungary. So this assumes that people younger than 15 are bound to be incapable of holding a conversation in English if it's not their native language. Still, it's confusing if people see 19.91%, when the survey - which is the claimed source - actually says 23%. I've checked with France, Germany and Italy, and the same explanation seems to work, since the percentages are also wrong for these countries. --Baryonic Being (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is quite odd that everybody's talking about some Eurobarometer survey from around 2005. I've never been asked to answer any this kind survey. So I ask how many actually have answered this survey? (And, additionally also, to whom it posted to?) 82.141.73.48 (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Just checked the PDF, and the number of respondants seems to be little under 25,000. Current EU population is around 500 million, so it is about 1 person per 20,000 who have answered it. So the theoretical error of margin is very high, and real margin is thousands percents, because only about 0.005 percent of population is on the survey. 82.141.73.48 (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

China's numbers

Here a recent paper by Yang, Jian (2006), "Learners and users of English in China", English Today 22 (2): 3-10, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266078406002021  (requires subscription for full article). (Note: It uses "users" in a similar way as "speakers" in the TESOL post above.) It states at the outset:

“

"CHINA’S huge English-knowing population of 200–350 million is often cited as evidence of the language being nativized in the world’s most populous country. We may note, however, that the words user and learner are used interchangeably in reference to its speakers of English... it seems that only recent graduates from the more competitive universities can use the language in the four functions: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Learners of English in China are therefore rather different from users: most of the English-knowing population are only learners, and indeed ‘China English’ may still be in its infancy." (page 3)

”

It goes on first to compute an adjusted number of 70 million English users:

“

"My suggestion is that the number of learners should be deducted from the total of English users in China. Again, estimates of students, who make up the majority of English language learners, vary a great deal, from 165 million to 230 million in schools, and from six to eleven million in college (Jin & Cortazzi, 2003; L. J. Zhang, 2003)." (page 8)

”

and then reduces the above estimate further by 60 million to 10 million English users, concluding with:

“

"Given the functions that users of an institutionalized variety are able to perform (cf. Kachru, 1992), I consider that users in Expanding Circle countries should usually demonstrate a speaking proficiency level at least comparable to the following: Speakers at the Advanced-Low level are able to handle a variety of communicative tasks, although somewhat haltingly at times. They participate actively in most informal and a limited number of formal conversations on activities related to school, home, and leisure activities and, to a lesser degree, those related to events of work, current, public, and personal interest or individual relevance. (ACTFL,1999:4). Those who fall below this level should be considered learners. Which means, I am afraid, that many in the adjusted 70 million may not qualify as users either, most of them being in their 30s at least. As I have argued, on the whole their proficiency in English is most likely at a level lower than that of the recent graduates from high school and college. What this suggests, it seems, is that Yan’s (2004) ten million may after all be a more informed estimate of the actual regular users of English in China." (page 9)

”

So, what numbers were we using to compute the percentages for China? We have to be careful about not exaggerating the numbers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The number of English for an additional language spoken by Chinese is identical to the number of overseas students who studied in an English speaking countries such as USA,UK,Australia returned to the homeland China's mainland.The English knowledge among Chinese is very low actually due to the language for instruction is Chinese in China's mainland. 219.152.203.130 (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Article semi-protected

To discourage the silly vandalism warring, I have semi-protected this article. If it persists from registered accounts, they will be blocked and the article fully protected. --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD?

I would strongly recommend for this article to be deleted. All it consists of is table listing people who may speak English in different countries. All the relevant information, especially the list of countries by number of native speakers, is already included in English language. The rest of the information is both trivial, contradictory and unreliable. For most European countries, the results of a survey in 2006 are given. I would like to remind everybody that unlike censuses that count speakers of language, this survey was a rather limited survey and the figures are estimates. What is more, they do not define what is meant by speaking English. Is it being fluent, being able to communicate or just knowing some English? For most languages outside Europe, Crystal (2005) is the only source. David Crystal is a brilliant academic, but what he presented in this book is also rough estimates. Apart from not being representative, I fear that the table also infringes on his copyright as it rips off a few pages in his book. There are also many countries with no sources at all, suggesting that some Wikipedia editor just made the figures up. Last but not least, what's the purpose of the article? It does not present accurate figures, it does not define its main concepts and it does not tell us anything not already included in other articles.JdeJ (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, all the figures from the Eurobarometer are plain wrong and it appears that the person who inserted them did not read the report. The Eurobarometer made a number of very restricted surveys among adult respondents in EU countries, the sample was around 1000 respondents per country. That is all that the Eurobarometer presents. After that, some Wikipedia editor have taken the percentages given the Eurobarometer, calculated those percetages on the whole population and claimed that the resulting number equals the number of English speakers per country! This is a rather obvious breach of WP:OR, not to mention that it is wrong. First, the respondents in the study were all adults, so calculating the returns on the whole population is incorrect. It is highly likely than 100 Swedes aged 25-35 will speak English than that 100 Swedes aged 5-10 will speak English. This limitation has been disregarded in this article. Even if it were not, using the results of a restricted survey to try to claim the total number of English speakers based on one's own calculations is quite obviously not a proper used of sources.JdeJ (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why can't a survey be used as data? To be sure, the usage of these figures should be revised on the basis of what you say, but I don't think that makes the data unusable. I think this article makes a worthwhile effort to give some estimate of who speaks English in the world, and I wouldn't want to end that. Agh.niyya (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've taken the liberty of copying your comment across to the current deletion discussion, since it seemed relevant. -- Avenue (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe all the above concerns are content issues that would have been better raised here first, before resorting to an AfD nomination. Now that that process is underway, it is taking all the time I currently have available. I should have more time to make some substantive improvements in a week or so (assuming the list is still here). There seems to be unanimous agreement at the AfD that the "% English speakers" column should go, so I think deleting that should come first. I'd also like to remove the total population and ranking columns, and improve the citations for the Ethnologue and Eurobarameter figures. These changes seem fairly uncontroversial to me; please speak up if you disagree. There have been various other suggestions made at the AfD discussion, but I think these need further discussion here to reach consensus – again assuming the list is not deleted first. -- Avenue (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk about rushing to delete an article. As mentioned by others on the afd page the article needs a major clean up, with more reliable sources.. surveys should never be used but none of that justifies deletion. If we had a single table on the English language article as someone suggested it would damage that article and make it too long. A full table (well sourced) fully deserves its own article and i hope it isnt deleted because a couple of people rush to judgement BritishWatcher (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to be improved, not deleted. I don't think David Crystal's copyright is being violated either, given that most of his numbers are fantastic (as I've already indicated in my various posts above). The solution is to not use Crystal's numbers and find other sources (as I did for China). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

PS I do agree with the nominator that the numbers for European countries (and perhaps for non-Anglophone countries) are mostly unreliable and should be removed; however, I think that the table in the English page is too short. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am against the AfD nomination, as I find this a useful list, and I agree that "the article needs to be improved, not deleted". I think survey information has some value, so long as it's made clear that is all it is. One or two things on the page jarred with me. For an instance, when we get to Thailand English is called "secondary language of the elite", which is taken straight out of the CIA handbook, but it has such a vague meaning that it would be better left out. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel's numbers

Israel's numbers are odd, the first table says 100,000 for speakers total and 100,000 for first language speakers.
There is obviously a problem here, I'll try to get other numbers if I can find any. KimiNewt (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, English is taught in Israeli schools, and I can find figures mentioning 100% of the pupils study it at some point. The figure only mentions native speakers, so there are clearly many more people who speak it as a second language. I've looked for a better source to cite but couldn't find one, I just deleted the 100,000 total speakers figure, it is very misleading. Fdskjs (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The supporting source cited in the article says, "[eng] 100,000 in Israel (1993). Alternate names: Anglit. Classification: Indo-European, Germanic, West, English". Perhaps a better, more reliable, more timely source could be cited but such a source is not cited currently. I've restored the 100,000 figure to the Total English Speakers column and blanked the other columns. This now contradicts with the info for Israel in the List in order of native speakers table, which I haven't changed. I'm hoping that some info from a better source will turn up to allow all these figures to be updated. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand

I have changed the percentage on the New Zealand figures. 91.2 percent while high by world standards will seem strangely low to anyone who has any experience with the country. The census counts will reveal why. There were 4,027,947 responses to the census. 3,673,679 gave English as a response, 81,936 had no English but another language. The balance of 272,382 were; no language (too young) 75,195, no response 196,221, response unidentifiable 588, response outside scope 378 (no idea what this would entail, perhaps someone responding "I speak for the trees" and similar). Hence it is more accurate to express the English speaking per cent without including the figures for these 272,382, which inspite of what was said in the info box was not done. This gives 97.8% English-speaking, 2.2% non-English-speaking (3,673,679 and 81,936 divided by 3,755,565)

I have further removed the native English speakers number as it is patently ridiculous. It is the number of English monoglots and would exclude for example a native speaker who learns Malay as an adult. There is no way to extrapolate the number of native English speakers from the census data, it is best to go with the estimate quoted in the info box until and unless a more accurate measure w=can be found. Thecrystalcicero (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the comment about NZ to indicate that. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Japan

Would there be any objections to my removing the '<' from in front of the native figures speaker for Japan. It switches the sorting from numerical (0,1,2,3,4...9,10,11...99,100,101) to quasi-alphabetic (1,10,100, 101, 102, ...) --Neil (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

How about removing those numbers entirely? If nobody objects, that is. The citation used doesn't mention languages at all. It looks like that number might be an estimate derived from the citation, which seems like OR to me. Grayfell (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. I suspect the total number of English speakers globally used that number for its calculations, so maybe I should probably adjust that as well. It seems pretty silly, however, since many of the other countries are gross estimates that totally fail to account for ANY native speakers at all, and giving exact numbers falsely implies a level of authority and accuracy that this page simply doesn't have. Grayfell (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Were is Serbia?

Almost all learn as first language english so its possible that in Serbia, english can be speaken well over 50% of population —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.163.86 (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Jamaica, Nigeria

in both lists Jamaica is listed at 2.6 million people, or basically the entire population. At the same time, Trinidad and Tobbago are listed at 1.1ish million people, or about one in 4. The remaining 3 of the 4 speak creole. Jamaican Patois is about as mutually intelligible with english as the various Trinidad/Tobbago creoles and english dialect. One of the two figures should change - either 2 million less Jamaicans, or 4 million more Trinbagonians. The same is true of Nigerian Pidgin -- it is less intelligible than the Trinbagonian creoles and dialects, especially when heard rather than written, yet it is counted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.253.148 (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Total Sum of the speakers

The Total Sum of the speakers of the table is 914,398,325. It isn´t 1,186 million. It´s false. Maybe the figure is possible but it´s neccesary the sources.--Migang2g (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

False assumption in calculation of the total number of speakers

Some people wondered about the high percentage of 87% English speakers in the Netherlands. On page 70 of the document from which that percentage was taken, the last heading of the table reads "Population 15+". This suggests that the surveys did not include subjects under the age of 15. So applying this percentage to the total population is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonbr (talk • contribs) 08:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. We had the correct figure here from July 2006[3] to April 2009, calculated using the 15+ population figure given in the first annex to the Eurobarometer report. A series of compounding errors seems to have produced the current incorrect figure: someone added an irrelevant total population figure,[4] another person calculated a percentage incorrectly as the number of speakers aged 15+ over the total population,[5] and finally another person corrected the 15+ percentage but multiplied this by the total population figure to get the current incorrect number of speakers.[6] I suspect similar problems affect many of the figures shown here. -- Avenue (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

problematic statistics

I find some of these statistics highly problematic. English is a compulsory subject in all schools in South Korea and in Israel. Of course, not everybody who studies a language learns it fluently, but I can't believe that the blank box given for Korea and the infinitesimal figure given for Israel are accurate. Frankly, I've never met an Israeli who couldn't speak passable English - and I've met quite a few Israelis, believe me.

Fiji is another dubious case. English is the main language of instruction in most schools. Nearly all Fijian citizens have studied English, and most have studied IN English; though not all are completely fluent, the number is almost certainly a lot higher than the figures here would indicate.

I would speculate that the table uses inconsistent methods to measure language competence. 123.100.93.105 (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The table certainly uses inconsistent methods. The article disclaims, "Statistics on second language speakers are usually imprecise, in part because there is no widely agreed definition of second language speakers, and some numbers have been calculated by Wikipedia editors from data in other sources, so these figures are imprecise and should be treated with great caution."

No figure is given for South Korea probably because no interested WP editor has come across a relevant figure. Some figures in the table are unsourced, and these may be figments of the imaginations of some WP editors. For figures which are sourced, the article does not assert that the figures are true, but rather asserts that the cited sources have reported those figures. See WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Many countries missing----

The caribbean coast of Central America in Costa Rica (Limon province),Nicaragua (Costa Atlantica) and Guatemala (Livingstone) people speak english (a creole). Also in Colombia (San Andres Island). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.90.71.40 (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

English-speaking immigrants?

How are English-speaking immigrants addressed (if at all)? For example, in the table it appears that Spain has no people that speak English as a first language. However, judging by the British migration to Spain article, I'd guess that there must be more than half a million residents that speak English as a first language. --Frumpo (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• The table doesn't mean to imply that Spain has no first language speakers. It means to imply we have no data on the number of first language speakers. WilyD 22:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Finland

I question why Finland's percentage English speakers is as low as 63%. All Finns are taught English to a similar high level as other Nordic countries. I will look for some sources. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Exaggerated European numbers

The EU data comes from a survey that asked "Which languages do you speak well enough in order to be able to have a conversation, excluding your mother tongue?" Believing to be able to have a 'conversation' does not mean you are an English-speaker. Ideportal (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree. In Germany i would guess that about 10%-15% could speak English as good as native speaker not 56%. However, for Sweden and the Netherlands the figures might be right. Saying more than 80% are English-speaker seems to be realistic. --93.193.76.3 (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As the page itself says - 'This includes both native speakers and second-language speakers of English' - that doesn't imply to me that one needs to speak as well as a native speaker. And indeed the page itself highlights the nature of the figures and how these should be treated with caution! --Neil (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed. There are also many different definitions of who might count as an "English speaker", and I think the Eurobarometer question is not unusual. --Avenue (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Map needs update for Norway

The table is updated but the image needs updating for Norway, currently it's gray (no data). I don't know how to edit the SVG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.233.15 (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the map should be updated concerning Norway which I believe have quite a high number of English speakers. However, the percentage number for Norway in the table (91%) is somewhat puzzling to me as I cannot find that number, let alone the term "norway", in the source quoted (Eurobarometer 2005 Europeans and their Languages). In this regard, it actually makes sense that the Eurobarometer source does not include numbers for Norway as Norway is not a member of the EU! I have tried myself to find numbers for Norway in other sources but unfortunately without any luck. If anyone could find a number from a reliable source for Norway, it would be appreciated. Perhaps a native Norwegian could find a Norwegian government source online? In conclusion, the present percentage for Norway (91%) seems to be unsourced, and should be removed until a reliable source is found. 87.72.122.169 (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Native speakers list

In the section "List in order of native speakers", reads: Hong Kong if ranked separately.
However, it isn't actually ranked at all, because China is missing from that list. 82.141.93.47 (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And just noticed Dominican Republic either is ranked six places too low, or has too big figure. Someone probably cleverly updated the figure without updatting the ranking positions. 82.141.93.47 (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Philippines notes and figures don't match

According to Philippines, population was under 90 million in 2007 census, here the year is said to be 2000, population is as 97 million... Where that 92.58% comes? 3.4 million is about 3 percent, if you add 63.71 result is around 67%, if you add 75 result is around 78%. And then you have 46,373 + 3,427 equals 89,8 million. Exactly what? If that 89,8 figure is actually right (which any percent is not proving) then additional speakers would be around 86,4 million. The populations and percents from different years go "nicely" together here. At best, it's quite a mess. 85.217.35.24 (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Some others have more english speakers than they have population, at least according to this list. I we believe the Crystal study from 2005, then we should have populations from that study also. Because according to wikipedia, US Virgin Islands, Gibraltar and Nauru don't have that kind of population even now. Marshall Islands might've had just enough, but there is no figure from 2005 in it's article. 82.141.119.188 (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Percentage sorting error

The chart appears to be unable to distinguish significant digits. If you sort by "% English Speakers," it lists everything that starts with a certain numeral in order, regardless of where the decimal point lies. For example, Sri Lanka (9.9%) and Tanzania (9.89%) are listed near the top twenty, between Guyana (90.55%) and Sweden (89%). I'm not so good with wiki chartmaking, so I'm not sure how this would be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.236.176 (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I consider this article too sloppily put together, too inconsistent, and too poorly sourced to be worth the effort of fixing the problem. But if you want to give it a go, you could take a look at the "Deaths" column in List of events named massacres as an example of how to make the corrections. 19:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Honesty, I cannot think of a better way to be dismissive, ignore real problems reported about an article, discourage the improvement of articles, and decrease the collective sharing of knowledge that is the spirit that allows wikipedia to exist. The referred page for an example of how to fix it wraps everything with display:none tags which is a poor solution and requires editing each value and uses range values in the sorted column which is not recommended practice. The Help:Sorting page has a good recommendation for a hidden header and footer for the sorting. Unfortunately just adding the header and footer for this page does not produce the desired results as expr, selectively used, further complicates the sorting. The empty values do not help but it seems those are empty because there are more speakers than eligible speakers. Quelrod (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)