Talk:French language

Native speakers

Some of the African countries such as Cote d'Ivoire and Gabon should be listed as countries where native French speakers reside in the leading paragraph. They have way more native French speakers than New Brunswick, Maine and Louisiana. Native French speakers don't have to be white.Kraikk (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the lede should definitely be changed anyway because it currently gives a very high estimate and only a high estimate as if it were absolutely the case. Munci (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. All the people I know from these countries do not know any other dialect. They all speak french. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.102.53 (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You know african people who know only one language, err, it's a joke ? You don't know Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.195.91.198 (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous dispute

Why is someone so eager to only include a few countries in the infobox? It's really ridiculous to mention Monaco with a miniscule population, or the Channel Islands where French is practically dead as a native language, but not major French speaking countries in Africa. Why this eurocentrism? I think the solution is (like in the articles about other languages spoken in many countries e.g. English or Spanish) to link geographical distribution, both because it makes the layout more beautiful and because it's fairer. Aaker (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree. Those people who always revert the changes and neglect the African countries seem to be suffering from some racist tendencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.255.190 (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's leave questionable insinuations of eurocentrism and racism out of this. Admittedly, on the other hand, the following explanation could have come sooner. It's clear that the vast majority of Francophones in Africa are second-language speakers. Even within French territory in Africa, for about 80% of Réunionnais the mother tongue would actually be better said to be Réunion creole (la langue d’usage des Réunionnaises reste, à près de 80%, le créole (the most frequently spoken language of Réunionnais is still, about 80%, creole)). Also, Monaco might have a small population but the majority of its population do speak French. Excluding it from this infobox would mean excluding it from all language infoboxes bsed on its population size. In any case, the list of countries with it as an official language is already in the infobox further down. I'm fine with just linking to geographical distribution though.

For the statistics, the article that is tried to be added as source for the 500 figure says "Selon les estimations de 2005 de l'Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, il y aurait 139 millions de francophones (langue maternelle et langue seconde), auxquels il faut ajouter 39 millions de «francophones partiels», ceux dont le français est une langue étrangère." (According to the 2005 estimations by the Francophonie there is 139 million French speakers (mother tongue and second language), as well 39 million "partial francophones", those for whom French a foreign language). So the article itself supports a figure of 178 million, not 500 million. The 500 figure only comes into things as a projection of those "en contact avec la langue française" (in contact with the French language). The 2005 figure for contact is given as 250-300 million. Also, "French is the official global language of Canada," is patently false. And it's sourced to a blog and blogs aren't RSs. And the French version of this article has 125 native, 220 total. Munci (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"It's clear that the vast majority of Francophones in Africa are second-language speakers." => This is a fact that we all agree upon. "I'm fine with just linking to geographical distribution though." => Monegasque conflict solved. "500 million" => 500 million might be the total number of people in the whole world that have studied French. Anyway it not the number of speakers. "Also, 'French is the official global language of Canada,' is patently false." => Agreed! Aaker (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny edits...

So now there are 220 million native speakers. That's an estimation we haven't had before. We went from 125 to 75, then to 80-100, now we're at 220 million. What will the next edit be ? 50 million native, 40 million total ? :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.192.29 (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The latest edit was apparently due to a misinterpretation of the source provided. The current range between the 2 sources works fine. Munci (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency?

Below the little map of Western Europe, it is written that:

"Note that around 40% of Belgium's population are native French speakers,[19] totalling 88%[20] of the country's population."

This seems contradictory to me. Either 40% are native French Speakers, or 88% are. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.201.65 (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Minority language in ZA, EG?

The map in the infobox appears to show French as a minority language in South Africa and Egypt. Is this for real?--candyworm (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What is a Native speaker ?

There is a lot of discussion about how many native speakers there are but very few about the meaning of "native speaker" ? This kind of article should explicitly specify the definition of NS used here ? Then you can count them easier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.195.91.198 (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Native : belonging to one by birth. I think that it's just before the school. JackPotte (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Number of speakers in this article, compared to the List of languages by native speakers

• The list on that page speaks of 68 million native speakers and 120 million total speakers.
• This article claims 110 million native speakers and 270 million total speakers.

One of the two articles is blatantly wrong and should be corrected. 193.190.253.146 (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Every figure is an estimation because nobody knows how many they actually are. Aaker (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course, that makes sense. Nevertheless, this difference is way too big to be explained comme ça. Where do these 42mio additional native speakers come from? In which countries do they live? Why are they not included in other estimates? Morgengave (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess they come from different estimates about the French speaking population in Africa. Some sources include them, others don't. I guess this is because it's difficult to asses who is a native speaker and who is a second language speaker and who shouldn't be counted at all. At the end of the day... does it really matter? Aaker (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and hence should be as accurate as possible, so yes, it matters. If there's no certainty, then Wikipedia should mention this. Like e.g., the English language article does - it says that there are between 309 million and 400 million native speakers, and between 199mio and 1.4bio second language speakers. But apparently, only one source is cited for the 110mio native French-speakers and that's the website of the Francophonie. We should be careful - such sites could have a tendency to inflate their numbers greatly. On top, source [3] in the article does not support the claim of 265mio total speakers, and the 270mio (source [2]) again comes from the Francophonie website... It would be better to limit ourselves to sources of which we are certain they are neutral. Searching around on the web, I am not able to find any neutral sites supporting any figure that comes close to the Francophonie's one. Morgengave (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Morgengave's concerns should be taken seriously. Furthermore, Wikipedia should at least be consistent with itself, even for estimates. --seberle (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the Francophonie's estimation is inflated because they often base their estimation on how many people there are who are literate in French, although French is often more commonly known orally in many African countries. This being said, the Francophonie doesn't estimate the number of "native" French speakers nut rather the number of "real" French speakers. Honestly I'm not sure what they mean by this but I guess it means "daily user of French". When I asked whether it really matters, I did this because it's a matter of definition. Aaker (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, Aaker, but if The Francophonie website counts "daily speakers" instead of "native speakers", we should clearly not use their count as a source for the number of "native speakers". At most, we could use the site as a source for the number of "daily speakers". Still, I would prefer that we use sources that are certainly reliable (another encyclopedia?) - for native speakers, for second language speakers and for the number of daily speakers. Do not forget that also for the total speakers, there's a huge difference between The Francophonie and neutral sources. Morgengave (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The source that provides 67.8 million native speakers clearly doesn't factor in the population of Francophones in Africa, like the others pointed out. Also, the same website states that French only has roughly 8 million more native speakers than Italian, which is not only ridiculous, but wholly inaccurate. I've already stated that the La Francophonie source is the most reputable, and that the current figures do not provide a large enough discrepency to constitute an overhaul of the figures. English, for example has a discrepency of over 900 million speakers, compared to the French figure's meesly 5 million. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't. Most French-speaking Africans don't speak it as a native language. There was a lower limit of 75 million included but it was removed in the following edit:

[1]. I do not quite understand why. Munci (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"Most French-speaking Africans don't speak it as a native language" -> True, but those who do should be included! (The only problem is that nobody knows how many they are and who should be considered a native speaker). Aaker (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is the source that states 68 million native speakers and 120 million total speakers is grossly underestimated to the point of being laughable. It doesn't factor in Quebec/Canadian French, nor does it factor in African French, which should be included despite the aspect of alleged illiteracy in some communities. Furthermore, La Francophonie, a political and NGO which dedicates itself toward maintaining the French language and culture provides an abundance of comprehensive info on the varying demographics of the language, something which one obscure (and poorly constructed) source that was published six years ago doesn't do. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, BalticPat22, but Wikipedia needs to be build on reliable sources. Most likely many of you are confusing "native speakers" with "daily speakers". We talk here about native speakers - a chunk of the population of France, Wallonia/Brussels, Swiss and Quebec comprises immigrants or immigrant children (and historic minorities), whose mother tongue is not French. (The same for English with the large number of Hispanic (US) and Pakistani-Indian (UK) immigrants) The rest of the world has indeed a lot of daily speakers, mostly in Africa, but hardly any native speakers. If we look to the sources, there seems to be a consensus among neutral sources that there are about 68-72mio native speakers:

• Ethnologue: "Population total all countries: 67,838,450." This is the only neutral source as far as I know that gives a number of native speakers per African country. [2]
• The last version of Encarta 2009 mentioned 70mio native speakers. (Encarta is now discontinued/closed by Microsoft.)
• This is the division that the latest version of Yahoo encyclopedia gives: "spoken as a first language by more than 70 million people, chiefly in France (55 million speakers), Belgium (3 million), Switzerland (1.5 million), former French and Belgian colonies in Africa (5 million), and Canada (6.5 million)."[3]
• Merriam-Webster encyclopedia: "spoken as a first language by about 72 million people in France, Belgium, Switzerland, Canada (mainly Quebec), and many other countries and regions formerly governed by France."[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgengave (talk • contribs) 08:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So, basically the main issue is with the figure that states "native speakers," correct? If that is the core problem, then I do support a figure that states somewhere between 70 and 75 million native speakers. However, I also support the figure for "total speakers" to be untouched, because those sources are both reliable and can be corroborated from other references. I do not support the one that stated "500 million," because it is an overly inflated and frankly, ridiculous number. Additionally, the reason I had a qualm with the refs that stated 68 or 70 or 75 million native speakers is becase I believe them to be underestimated. However, I do appreciate the aspect that they come from reputable places. That said, I found a source from Berlitz that claims, "All told, it is the mother tongue of about 75 million people, with millions more familiar with it, to some degree, as a second language," here Lastly, I don't think the current source in place is "unreliable," per your statement. After all, I was one of the users that helped place together the sources/figures that you see in the article, today. Furthermore, if you believe that La Francophonie is an unreliable source, than practically every source provided is just as unreliable. Be careful not to mix-up reliable references with implicit ones. That said, I don't mind the "native speakers" figure to be revised, but I am highly against the "total speakers" figure being touched, per my explanations above. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Patrick, could you please elaborate on your reversal of my edit to 68-72mio native speakers: I really thought you expressed your support for it ("then I do support a figure that states somewhere between 70 and 75 million native speakers."), while also expressing your personal disbelief. (Just between brackers: I am not able to judge the reliability of Berlitz, because it's a language learning website, that's why I did not take the 75mio as an upper estimate; this was not mal-intended). I do not mean this in a derogatory way, but your personal belief on estimates is irrelevant if it's not backed up by reputed sources. On La Francophonie: it is neither an encyclopedia nor an academic source; it's an organisation openly promoting French, which is its full right, but as such it has good reasons to make French look more important than it is. Encyclopediae, like the ones I mentioned, on the other hand, do not have such an ulterior motive and indeed give a much lower figure. Morgengave (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I find no mention about descendants of French immigrants in Spanish-speaking Latin America, probably the French language didn't thrived in usage as much there. It's true that Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru and Venezuela has second language French instruction courses, and French language student academies sponsored by the French government. 19th century Corsican immigration to Puerto Rico was noted to introduce elements of French or in particular, Corsican culture into Puerto Rico. The French briefly occupied parts of Argentina and Chile, also known as the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia in the 1860s, a micronation with a self-claimed French citizen "king" and partly was from the region's French settlement at the time. 71.102.26.168 (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

POV on native speakers

As long as no reliable sources are provided that there are 110mio native speakers (remember that native speakers are different from daily speakers) and as long as the above reliable sources (Ethnologue, Yahoo encyclopedia, Encarta, Merriam-Webster) are ignored, I fear that there is some form of POV-pushing (POV is perhaps the wrong word, but how do we call the inclusion of incorrect data to further a view?). As a consequence, I had to put a POV-tag on the article. As the issue is on an infobox, I could not limit the tag to one section; my apologies for that. Morgengave (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the WP:NPOV tag because there is not basis for it all. There has never been an issue of a non-neutral POV on the subject, only on the issue of reliable sourcing. You just made that issue out of thin air above: "how do we call the inclusion of incorrect data to further a view?" That is not the correct way to go. If you have a specific gripe with the sourcing, that's another story, but since you went and added a tag where there was no visible basis to do so, I had no choice but to revert it. Also, there is no argument concerning the reliability of La Francophonie. It's an internationally-recongizned non-governmental organization and is more than a reputable source, per WP:IRS. Nor is there an issue with the Laval University source, again per WP:IRS. Just because you have a specific issue with the semantics or wording of what the reliable source says, does not mean you can paint the reference something it clearly is not. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you call completely ignoring *four encyclopedic sources* just because their numbers are lower? You revert my addition of their numbers because they are contrary to your personal ideas? For Christ's sake, that's POV and surely not the way to proceed on Wikipedia. And Eldamorie, since when it's reasonable to ignore encyclopedic sources and at the same time defend the numbers of a French-promoting organisation? Does not make sense *at all*. Morgengave (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, learn to be civil. I don't appreciate people using words like that to me. You can explain your case, but be respectful. First of all, this was never a question of having a specific POV. I suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on that before throwing the word around. Secondly, the source that has the "110 million speakers" was more than reputable, per my lengthy explanation above. Since you are extremely adamant in having the 68-72 million figure in the article, I won't argue, or risk being yelled at again. What I have done, however is edited the wording because it looks very sloppy. You'll also have to address what the words "real speakers" mean because to me, it doesn't mean anything, and if another user has an issue with that wording, you'll have to support your reasoning for it. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

BalticPat22, please do not make assumptions on my intentions. I did neither insult you nor yell to you. Rereading my comments, I can not find any insults, upper case words or exclamation marks. If you do feel insulted, please have good faith that this is not my intention. I do know Wikipedia's POV policy and I think it is appropriate in this case, as numbers that were backed up by reliable sources were immediately removed from the article and replaced by other numbers that did not have such sources. On the "real" in "real speakers": it was a translation of the "véritable" in "véritables francophones" used by La Francophonie. I am not happy with that wording as said in my edit comment, but it was the only way I could avoid misleading the reader. By the way, how does La Francophonie gets to the 75mio native speakers? They say: "En principe, la notion de français langue maternelle ne s'applique qu'à ceux qui le parlent en France (82 %), au Canada (23,2 %), en Belgique (41 %), en Suisse (18,4 %) et dans la principauté de Monaco (58 %). Avec ces seuls pays, on ne compterait que 75 millions de francophones." Translation: "In principle, the notion of French native speakers only applies to those that speak [French] in France (82%), Canada (23.2%), Belgium (41%), Switserland (18.4%) and the princedom of Monaco (58%). With only those countries, we would count only 75mio speakers." If we use *their* percentages per country and the highest pop estimates available per country, we can never get to the 75mio... (calculation: France: 54mio, Canada: 8mio, Belgium 4.3mio, Suisse: 1.4mio, Monaco: 20 000 --> total: roughly 67.7mio)... I rstrongly prefer to leave this source out. If we find a reliable source mentioning the 110mio (or more) as native speakers, I will not object at all. If the 110mio is a reliable figure, it shouldn't be hard to find this figure elsewhere. But if it's only used by an organisation with as sole purpose promoting French, that uses vague phrasing (do they really mean native speakers? I find their switch from native to real speakers a bit ambiguous) and contradictory numbers as a source (see my example), is not the best way to go. I do not want an edit war, or cause any impressions of incivility, so I rely on you and other people's common sense to see that La Francophonie could be a problematic source. Can't we just keep La Francophonie out and search for reliable / independent sources that would support the higher claim? Would make everyone happy. Morgengave (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's reasonable to ignore them because they are tertiary sources - and some of them (especially Encarta) are clearly out of date. Encyclopediae don't generally cite other encyclopediae because all that results is an incestuous circle of citations with no verification. I'm not defending the numbers themselves - I'm saying that the sopurces being used to justify them are fine should not be superseded by lower-quality sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldamorie (talk • contribs) 13:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Another consideration here is that the sources mentioned above, are all tertiary sources. Given the number of secondary sources available, it seems reasonable to ignore Encarta et al. in this case. eldamorie (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Those sources are all outdated. Just look at the Yahoo article, 55 million native speakers in France ? Seriously, that must have been like 20 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.207.73 (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's make a sense check. Seeing the large number of immigrant and immigrant children in France, the number of 55mio native speakers in France does not seem outdated. Even La Francophonie says that only 82% of France has French as a mother tongue, which would - using the latest population estimate of almost 66mio French - be around 54mio speakers. Ethnologue's estimate of 2005 is 53.2mio. Morgengave (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Knowing that there is a sizable immigrant population in France, the 55 million figure seems quite correct. Also, the statements are substantiated by the Columbia University Press, which is why I used that source ahead of the other two (one of which was a dictionary). The 110 million source also seems accurate, and is also substantiated by an extremely reputable institute of higher education, Laval University in Canada. I see no reason to alter the population figures. The two sources also provide a balance that was missing before. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Second or third place for number of students

The claim that Spanish is now second is reported in Spanish at the following link . http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/227910/0/espanol/estudia/extranjero/

Claimed by César Antonio Molina of the Instituto Cervantes. William Avery (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)