Talk:Association football/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

millions of people call it...

Block voting the entire population a country isn't very scientific. Such stats are only used to make a point and are not in themselves useful. The article in question is by an American journalist living in Berlin (note the spelling of 'traveled'). Oh and he forgot India. The Ethnologue page is hardly an accurate guide. The figures for English speakers in India is from a census in 1961. That's 46 years ago when the population of the USA was at 60% of its present level. Frankly these kind of suspicious stats should be avoided. Jooler 03:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edit initally because it came across as being done to make a point.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Jooler. Football it shall remain. --John 04:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I can prove anything by statistics except the truth Jooler 04:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed the edits were WP:POINT. However the article states the sport is known by a number of names throughout the English-speaking world. Really? What names other than football or soccer? It would make an interesting addition to the article if there are other names, otherwise this sentence should be corrected. --Michael Johnson 05:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is called "Calcio" in Italy, which means "to kick" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.17.221 (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2007

Well, I suppose three is a number. You have a point that the wording is a little infelicitous. --John 06:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, well the only other words I can think of are the slang word footy - which isn't a name for the sport of couse!! And the word futbol does seem to be used by some English speakers, though how many I don't know as I only know a few people personally (American friends) who use futbol and I won't be quoting any statistics either to back it up :) ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 06:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fitba? --Stormie 05:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Football it shall remain." Ooh... I don't see how anyone can seriously doubt that more people who speak English as a first langauge call the game "soccer". Or that the number of people who speak English as a first language in India is insignificant compared to those in the USA. This smacks of systemic bias, in the preponderance of UK-oriented editors editing this article. And before someone brings it up, soccer is only "slang" in the UK; elsewhere it is part of the language and is the official name of the sport in the USA and Canada (and probably Australia again one day, when the administrators come to their senses). Grant | Talk 08:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

<non sequitur> Well I speculate that more people call a teepee a wigwam than use the correct name, but so what. </non sequitur> Jooler 12:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Soccer is the correct name to a majority of native English speakers and in several countries, so WP:Don't be a dick. Grant | Talk 13:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW Jooler, what you said above was erroneous and seriously misleading. If you check List of countries by English-speaking population you will find that 178,598 people in India spoke English as a first language in 1991, not "1961" as you claimed above. Even if that number had doubled in the last 15 years, they would be equal to ~0.017% (i.e. less than 1/500th) of the people who speak English as a first language in the USA.

I would also like to know how experienced editors can justify deleting referenced material.

For the record, I would like the article to stay where it is, I am not campaigning for it to be moved to soccer. Cheers, Grant | Talk 13:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Grant. The 1961 date is from the Ethnologue page (http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=eng) that you used as a reference in the addition you made. This lists a moderate 11,021,610 second language speakers of English. I have no idea how much this might have increases in 46 years. India is rather special of course because English is used in everyday business by a very large number of people as a lingua-franca despite it not being their first language. Jooler 19:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your "referenced material" is just POV on behalf of yours. The material you have inserted is obviously just an opinion. Reginmund 15:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but nothing that has been said makes me think any less that this edit was WP:POINT which it clearly was. And stating that the official name of the sport is soccer in some countries and only slang in the UK is totally missing the point. Regardless of the sport being called soccer in some countries it is still a slang word as it is taken from the word association from association football. And this - "it is part of the language and is the official name of the sport in the USA and Canada (and probably Australia again one day, when the administrators come to their senses)." specifically the part in brackets proves beyond any doubt that the edits are being made from a POV and not NPOV from a user who wishes to push their POV about the name of the sport. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't push the slang thing too far. "Football" could easily be regarded as a shortened or slang version of "association football", just as "soccer" is. In any case words frequently move from slang into the language as "proper" words. --Michael Johnson 03:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There is though, a huge difference between the slang word soccer coming from the word association and football merely being a shortened version of association football, which is in no way slang at all.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 04:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've re-written this section removing the reference to multiple names for the game. The three names mentioned can easily be referenced. If anybody has referenced sources to other names used by English-speakers, by all means add them. --Michael Johnson 03:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the previous "multiple names" was somehow left in from a previous edit by mistake as there are surely only two words in common use, football and soccer. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 04:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Soccer does indeed have multiple names, including "Association football", (the archaic) "footer" and "footie". It is a common misconception that there is a hard line dividing "proper English" and slang. This is simply untrue and such views lack a historical perspective. Many slang words become formal English words (and the reverse is also true, albeit to a lesser extent). There are also many different varieties of English and soccer is not slang in American English, Canadian English (to such an extent that it is le soccer in Canadian French), Australian English, South African English (to such an extent that it is sokker in Afrikaans), New Zealand English, Irish English etc. It is the name of the game in those varieties of English. To say otherwise is simply wrong and reflective of pure anglocentric bias and non-NPOV. And if you think the fact that the article uses British English is a good enough reason to be biased in this way, then you are wrong for the same reason. To say that this article should reflect British prejudices about language is also wrong and against WP policy. I am sorry that some British people dislike the word soccer so much, but they are in the minority among native speakers of English and Wikipedia should not be censored because of the sensibilities/aesthetics of one nationality. That is political correctness of the most the most ludicrous form.

Reginmund, everything is "just an opinion" if you want to reduce it to that level of banality.

Jooler, the figure I cited for first language speakers is from the Indian Census of 1991. And I'm sorry, but second language usage is not significant in this context. Our usage stats show that people read Wikipedia articles in their native languages. Which is perfectly natural. And your reference to the source being an "American journalist" is an ad hominem and betrays national prejudice. The reference is from an English language article in the most respected German weekly magazine. What could be more non-NPOV than an English language article from a non-English speaking country?.

Tangerines, everyone has a POV. And you are pushing yours. I was merely attempting to bring this article into line with football (word), following a lengthy discussion of this very issue at talk:football (word). Grant | Talk 15:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Grant, yet you are wrong again. Not everything is "just an opinion". Obviously you havent read WP:NPOV. If you did, you wouldn't be so banal. Reginmund 15:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I have. And you don't seem the know the difference between POV, NPOV and non-NPOV. You seem to think it's just an "opinion" and "non-NPOV" if its material that you disagree with on the basis of your POV, regardless of references. Grant | Talk 22:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Grant: Jooler, the figure I cited for first language speakers is from the Indian Census of 1991. Yeah - The figure you just cited here in the talk page. But this is something you brought in to the discussion after the fact. My comment at the top of this heading was specifically about the Ethnologue site that you had referenced in the article. That site was used to back up some dodgy stats about the number of native English speakers. It could hardly be considered accurate if it used a 46 year-old census from India. I don't give a monkey's what the 1991 census figures were because it has nothing to do with the bit that I removed. Re: Second language speakers, please. The usage of English in India is somewhat different to say the usage of English in China, surely. As regards my comment about the journo that wrote the article, that was merely pointing out that he was writing from an American perspective, as opposed to a German one which some people might have believed given that the article was from a German publication. At the end of the day it was a journalists opinion pushing his POV and not a scholarly piece of research. Also I don't quite understand what you mean about the Alexa stats, perhaps I'm missing something here, but it says that 54% of people who visit the site go to en.wikipedia.org, and it says that 16.5% of people who visit wikipedia as a whole are from the USA, so if for the sake of argument everyone visiting from the USA goes to en.wikipedia.org that leaves another 37.5% of the 54% coming from other countries. So by my reckoning nearly 70% of people visiting English Wikipedia are not from the USA and we're left guessing how many of those are non-native English speakers. Of course this is just OR by me and another load of dodgy stats and probably a load of cobbler's too. Jooler 01:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Grant: Tangerines, everyone has a POV. And you are pushing yours. - totally missing the point. This is a discussion in which we all express a POV. Your edit though was quite clearly pushing your POV to make a point, and not a NPOV edit as is quite clear by your comments above. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Grant, you have not read WP:NPOV because I know the difference between NPOV, POV, and non-NPOV and you obviously do not. Everything you wrote on the article was POV, non-NPOV, and an opinion. It is material you have cited simply based on your POV, non-NPOV, and opinion. Such a tactic is as unoriginal as citing references defending Holocaust denial. Reginmund 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund & Tangerines: my edit pointed out that the name "soccer" is more commonly used by native English speakers than the name "football" for the code in question. This was supported in almost as many words by one reference from a respected source, dealing with that very subject: Michael Scott Moore, "Naming the Beautiful Game: It's Called Soccer" (Der Spiegel, June 7, 2006. It was further backed up by population/language statistics. What I say and do here is not what I do on the page, because this is not an article, it's a talk page. You can cry non-NPOV all you want, but in this case it will always be nonsense. Moreover, to cast aspersions on my article edits based on what I write here is against WP:AGF.

Furthermore, Reggie old son, your comparison with Holocaust denials is wrong-headed, since I'm not saying anything that flies in the face of logic or common knowledge (unless one is in denial about the preponderance of American English). It is also obnoxious.

Jooler, since you need me to break it down for you: my original edit concerned first language speakers. Anything that ethnologue.com says about second language speakers is irrelevant to that edit.

On the point of relevance of first languages, you have conveniently overlooked the breakdown of the Alexa stats:

"Wikipedia.org users come from these countries:

United States 16.1%
Japan 5.0%
Germany 4.3%
Poland 3.9%
France 3.4%
Mexico 3.3%
United Kingdom 3.3%
Chile 3.1%
Brazil 2.7%
Philippines 2.5%
Canada 2.5%
India 1.9%
[...]"

That is Wikipedia as a whole, not the English language Wikipedia. Furthermore:

Where people go on Wikipedia.org:

en.wikipedia.org - 54%
es.wikipedia.org - 18%
ja.wikipedia.org - 4%
de.wikipedia.org - 4%
fr.wikipedia.org - 3%
pl.wikipedia.org - 3%
pt.wikipedia.org - 2%
wikipedia.org - 2%
ru.wikipedia.org - 1%
zh.wikipedia.org - 1%

As GordyB commented when I put the above figures at talk:football (word): "the obvious conclusion is that, amazingly, most people use Wikipedia in their native language". Such as Hindi, Bengali, Telugu, Marathi, Tamil, et c.. All of which have more than 50 million native speakers and their own versions of Wikipedia, with several thousand articles each. Grant | Talk 10:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Grant: You added "... out of 309-380 million native speakers worldwide ([http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=eng ethnologue.com, 2007, "English"])." to the article. This source does not break down the numbers of native speakers per country, but it DOES give the number of second language speakers in India. However here it uses a 46 year old census. Presumably this figure is used to calculate the 508,000,000 of total speakers. It is impossible to says what source for India the page uses to calculate the 309,352,280 figure. There's absolutely nothing to suggest a 1991 census and everything to suggest it might be the same 1961 census. We can't be sure. But we can be sure that the figures for India that are shown are 46 years out of date. - Thus when I said The Ethnologue page is hardly an accurate guide. The figures for English speakers in India is from a census in 1961.. I was correct - the only figures shown for India are 46 years old. BTW where does the 380 million figure come from? 17:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooler (talk • contribs)

Grant This was supported in almost as many words by one reference from a respected source, dealing with that very subject - NO. What this was was a essay from an American journalist pushing his POV in a German magazine that is not beyond courting controversy by publishing polemic essays. It was not any kind of scholarly work. Jooler 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

conveniently overlooked the breakdown of the Alexa stats - WTF are you talking about? - I specifically referenced the breakdown when I said - 54% of people who visit the site go to en.wikipedia.org, and it says that 16.5% (that's the figure I got not 16.1%) of people who visit wikipedia as a whole are from the USA, so if for the sake of argument everyone visiting from the USA goes to en.wikipedia.org that leaves another 37.5% of the 54% coming from other countries. So by my reckoning nearly 70% of people visiting English Wikipedia are not from the USA and we're left guessing how many of those are non-native English speakers. to clarify there are not enough native English speakers in the breakdown above to make up that remaining 70% of the 54% that go to en.wikipedia.org not event close. The correlation of the figures for French visitors with fr.wikipedia.org German visitors with de.wikipedia.org is suggestive that visitors to these site are native French and German speakers but this cannot be said for en.wikipedia.org. You seem to be using an "all elephants are grey, a mouse is grey therefore a mouse is an elephant" type argument (which is a logical fallacy of a type that escapes me at the moment). Your assertion about Indian languages is quite frankly pure unadulterated nonsense. Remember we're talking about Wikipedia readers here not editors. People use this site because it is an encyclopaedia and they want to find out things, with a mere 12-14 thousand articles (English Wikipedia increases by that number of articles approximately every 10 days see Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia), a native Tamil speaker is going to be hard pressed to find out about cosmic rays or the sound barrier or penguins if they stick to their native language because these articles do not exist in Tamil Wikipedia. Even the football (soccer) article in Tamil is only about 150 words in length, hardly educational. Jooler 16:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blanked the last few offtopic comments. I know the naming issue is contentious, but turning it into a discussion about holocaust denial is ridiculous. Oldelpaso 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Jooler, you can rattle on as much as you like about second language speakers, but that was not the topic of the edit in question, and the source for first language speakers of English in India was the 1991 census. Grant | Talk 12:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, you brought up the 1991 census here on the talk page. That census has nothing to do with the edit you made or my comment on this talk page after removing it. Jooler 17:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Spiegel is a credible source which would be acceptable in any scholarly/academic writing. It is quoted relatively often in WP articles, as are the similarly-styled New Yorker, Spectator, New Statesman and Atlantic Monthly. The Spiegel reference was backed up with official language population states. Furthermore, I think you know the statement in question is true: more native English speakers do refer to the code as "soccer". Grant | Talk 12:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

To Mistress Grantie, (as you seem to have corrupted my name also). Assuming that I am "crying" NPOV is no excuse to use POV in any regards. Your post was pure POV in regards to your source and nothing of the sort should be taken seriously, just like Holocaust denial which I'm not surprised if you are disposed to do. FYI, "Reggie" is a shortening of "Reginald". However, "Reginmund" is just the cognate of my given name, "Raymond". Henceforth, using "Reggie" as a substitute for "Reginmund" is as incorrect as the cruft you have posted on this article. Reginmund 17:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, "Reggie" is affectionate rather than insulting and I think most people would see it that way. I have no response to the above.

Jooler, WTF are you talking about? The edit I made did not mention ESL/EFL speakers at all. It was you who brought them up, along with the Indian census of 1961. Grant | Talk 04:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Grant. This is getting rather silly here, and going round in circles, but what I said was "The Ethnologue page is hardly an accurate guide. The figures for English speakers in India is from a census in 1961." - because the figures that it shows for India are indeed from 1961. You then - said "BTW Jooler, what you said above was erroneous and seriously misleading. If you check List of countries by English-speaking population you will find that 178,598 people in India spoke English as a first language in 1991, not "1961" as you claimed above.". Now 1961 at least has some connection with the site. 1991 has none. I'll leave it at that. Jooler 23:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mistress Grantie, "Reggie" is a mere shortening of "Reginald", not Reginmund. But then I guess that you wouldn't mind if I corrupt your user name also. I see that you cannot make a response... is there a reason for this? Reginmund 05:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A response to what? Grant | Talk 06:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

To my post given at 5:09 p.m. GMT on 10 November 2007 Reginmund 07:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is contemptible, especially the insinuation that I am a Holocaust denier. It doesn't deserve any further response. Grant | Talk 15:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that you read the post correctly. I made an analogy to how you use the same arguments that Holocaust deniers do to prove a point. Hence insinuating that you might as well be a Holocuast denier with the tactical arguments that you give. Reginmund 19:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

FFS, was I supposed to write a bloody essay? It's a bit difficult when one is arguing against three or four people. Grant | Talk 05:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there have been no substantial or substatntiated objections, I assume that no-one will object to the reinstation of the wording in question. Grant | Talk 02:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you taking the piss? Jooler (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not if the best you can manage is a smokescreen/obfuscation related to ethnologue.com and 1961 census figures. Grant | Talk 02:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

About 4 people have commented that it was POV edit. It was also using a POV source and dodgy figures. Enough. Jooler (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Four people who did not offer any substantial/sustained objections. Consider once more the wording which you object to — "Today, the sport is known mostly by two names to people who speak English as a first language: soccer and football". I believe you know this to be a true statement and that soccer is the more common name among native English speakers. Far from being "dodgy", my sources were absolutely watertight: The Economist, Der Spiegel (which is both highly credible and similar in style to The Economist) and ethnologue.com (and before you erroneously claim otherwise again, their figure for native speakers of English in India is not derived from the 1961 census). Since you feel so strongly about those figures, perhaps you should take it up with the sources. Further support for my case can be found at List of countries by English-speaking population. I find it hard to escape the conclusion that it is your claims and motives which are "dodgy". Cheers, Grant | Talk 08:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"...their figure for native speakers of English in India is not derived from the 1961 census" - where is it from then? There's very little to choose between the wording above and what was there before. What was objectionable was the use of an opinion piece and some dodgy figures to back it up with a definite POV being displayed. At the end of the day it's up to the consensus and there is no consensus to have your bit with its dodgy citations in. I couldn't give too hoots about the exact wording as long as its accurate. Jooler (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The part of ethnologue.com that you are so exercised by deals with ESL/EFL in India. Not English as a first language. It's irrelevant anyway; why use the 1961 Census when data from the 1991 Census is readily available? In any case, the number of people with English as first language in India is so small as to make them statistically insignificant: 178,598 in 1991, or less than one percent of the world total.

It's an unfortunate fact that some Wikipedia editors believe (falsely) that they have the protection of policy, when they engage in gang tackles on passages in articles, not in terms of whether said passage is true/false, but in terms of specious/spurious/diversionary attacks, on perfectly logical statements, based on perfectly acceptable sources. Grant | Talk 02:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So thae answer to my question is "you don't know". Jooler (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer is: it is irrelevant. My purpose in citing the page from ethnologue.com was the number of first language speakers (309,352,280) worldwide. You are not questioning that figure, but a source for the (insignificant) number in India. I have shown you that the number of people with English as first language in India is so small as to be statistically irrelevant (178,598 in the 1991 Census), i.e. 0.00058 of the total, or 0.058% if you prefer.

"Play the ball and not the man"....as we say in Aussie rules circles ;-) Grant | Talk 01:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The point about this that you have singularly failed to recognise or address is that the site gives NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER for its figure for first language speakers. The only detailed figures it does give is for second language speakers and in that specific case the figure for India is from a 46 year old census. We can only guess at the source for first language speakers and so as per my original comment "The Ethnologue page is hardly an accurate guide.", and how did I come to that conclusion? Well parly by the fact that "The figures for English speakers in India is from a census in 1961.". Well they are! - and what was your response? "BTW Jooler, what you said above was erroneous and seriously misleading. - really why was that? "If you check List of countries by English-speaking population you will find that 178,598 people in India spoke English as a first language in 1991, not "1961" as you claimed above." I'm sorry? where did I make such a claim? I only stated that the figure for India on the ethnologue site are from are from 1961. I didn't say anything about first language speakers. So where did 1991 come from all of a sudden? It looks like you're suggesting it comes from the Ethnologue site. But there is no mention of 1991 on that site or another date for India apart from 1961. You might as well have chosen 2001 or 1981 or any other year you like. Furthermore you hark on about first language speakers consistently dismissing second language speakers. You then use Alexa stats to prove your point only to have them them thrown back at you to indicate that it actually suggests the opposite of what you were trying to prove. You can't give me one good reason why second language speakers should be ignored? Jooler (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You make me laugh. So we're back to the issue of 2nd language speakers are we, now that your various feint attacks on the key fact have failed?

"The opposite of what I were trying to prove?" That's a good one.

Are you are seriously questioning the 309 million first language speakers? That is a conservative figure. The real figure is probably closer to 400 million. Grant | Talk 02:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Right so you deny that the Alexa stats suggests that many people from non-English speaking countries use English Wikipedia (which is the opposite of what you were trying to suggest), you won't admit that you pulled the 1991 date out of a hat and that it has no known connection to the Ethnologue site that you were quoting, and you have no answer as to why second language speakers should be ignored. Fair enough that doesn't leave you with many legs left to stand on. I haven't got a clue what the figure for first language speakers is and neither do you. 300 million-400million is one hell of a margin of error. Basically you're just pulling figures out of the air (you quoted 380 million earler). Ethnologue's figures cannot be verified. But the most important thing which I kicked off this whole thread with was that it doesn't bloody matter what the figure is because "Block voting the entire population a country isn't very scientific." You're just bandying these figures about and trying to prove a WP:POINT. Jooler (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Your attempts to raise smokescreens and muddy the waters are becoming more and more obvious, and less and less effective. Your claim about Alexa is incomprehensible. You can bang on about the ethnologue.com figure for Indian speakers of English as first language as much as you like but (1) no figure is specifically mentioned there; (2) you don't know what the source is either and; (3) it is statistically insignificant. If you want to bring up EFL/ESL speakers in India again, then that is a quite different issue.

To return to the issue at hand, you know very well that my text was faultless; I provided references as a matter of good manners and to appease pedants and linguistic bigots. Regardless of whether there are 300 million or 400 million native speakers of English, an absolute majority of them live in the USA; you know that as well as I do. You also know that normal usage in American English is "football = American football". I referenced the latter fact with an article from a magazine (Spiegel) which would be accepted as a citation in a PhD thesis. Grant | Talk 05:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI I won't bother posting on this issue any more because I believe that you are just trolling on this issue now. Re:Alexa - Jesus its obvious, try actually looking at the figures again, I've spelt it out twice already. And yes you finally got it - I don't know where the Ethnologure first language figures come from and neither do you. How can we trust them as modern and accurate when dates it gives for are so out of date. I picked second language figures for India from 1961, but many of the dates given are also over 30 years old. I will finish off with the following: In relation to you saying "native speakers of English, an absolute majority of them live in the USA" This is the whole point that you are just not getting - firstly I have no idea whether this is true, if you add up every single little bit of the old Empire etc it may exceed it, I've no idea, I don't have the data, but I don't care. Even if it is true, it is irrelevant because football is an international game. For example about half of the players in the English Premier League come from countries where English is not the native language. The world is not made up of people who only speak one language and Wikipedia expressly treats all varieties of English, even what you might consider non-native like Indian English and Malaysian English, with equal measure. The 'Der Speigel' article was a comment/opinion piece which does not cite the source for its figures. The conclusions are merely the opinion of the author. It could be cited in this context but not as an authoritative source. End. Jooler (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The cry of "trolling" reeks of desperation. The statement "I've no idea, I don't have the data, but I don't care" says it all and reveals the purely ideological basis of your position.

Your "bush lawyer" standards of proof (as in neither official nor rational) for ethnologue.com and Der Spiegel are patently absurd and would be failed by thousands of WP sources/citations. Especially where they are merely reinforcing an axiom/commonplace.

"If you add up every single little bit of the old Empire etc it may exceed it..." No mate, it wouldn't, because the number of people who speak American English as a first language represents an absolute majority of people who speak English as a first langauge. I'm sorry that you don't like this, but it is a fact. I suggest you look up the concept of an "absolute majority", because your maths/statistics skills seem to be a bit shaky.

A prime example of your embarrassingly inadequate maths ability is your complete misreading of the Alexa stats, as shown by your analysis above. Oh dear. It's as if you were saying: "Beckham scored 54% of the goals for LA Galaxy; Beckham scored 16.5% of the league's goals, therefore other people scored 37.5% of the Galaxy's goals"!!! No wonder you are so cynical about stats. It also illustrates why you so dramatically underestimate the predominance of both American English and US usage of WP.

"The world is not made up of people who only speak one language", no but all of them have a first language, which they use to do things such as read encyclopedias

"Wikipedia expressly treats all varieties of English, even what you might consider non-native ... with equal measure." Yes and the number of people who speak American English as a first language represents an absolute majority of people who speak English as a first language. Grant | Talk 05:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)