Talk:English-only movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

the first English-only movement

The first English only movement was in the USA? What about the movement that saw English replace French in England? Perhaps it wasn't called the "english-only movement" back then but that 's surely what it was. Was the movement called "english-only movement" in 1800? - User:132.212.244.67

I remember hearing about that: the French invading England. However, I'm not an expert on this. Gringo300 14:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The movement being referred to isn't really an "English Only" type of movement. It's actually the beginning of the English language as we know it. The Normans invaded England in 1066 (I believe) and French and Old English combined to become what we now know as Middle English which evolved into Early Modern English which eventually led to the many different varieties of English we hear today. I believe it was Goeffrey Chaucer who was the first person to come out and start writing in English instead of French or Latin. So, Chaucer's movement wasn't really English Only, but instead it was more of a Respect for English because at the time, it was more of a minority language.

At least that's how I understand it!  :)

Indeed, a fascist movement ... USA is the most important country in the world because of its diversity..but not an English-speaking country any more... please, go to both LA or Miami and maybe those guys will realise about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.53.15 (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand

I don't understand this at all. the article starts by mentioning a handful of exceptions: states with English + another language. Then we're told that these are now English only. But then, 23 states are now english only. So what about the other 25 or so? -- Tarquin 21:42 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

The other states haven't made a decision one way or the other. -- Zoe

I thought English was the "official language" - there might need to be some explanation here. Im assuming that the US has no "official language" by the article's assertion - or that there are competing "official languages"? Huh? -&#35918&#30505

You thought wrong. The US has no official language. -- Zoe

Ah. Well, explain that. -&#35918&#30505

Well, that's what the article's for isn't it? --Brion 03:33 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

not a U.S. citizen

While I'm not a US citizen, I don't see why there shouldn't be two official languages in, for instance, Arizona, where there are parts of the Navajo Reservation where the Navajo don't (and in some cases, can't) speak English. Similarly for California - there are parts of lower California where you can't get by at all without knowing some Spanish. thefamouseccles 02:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Language is one of the unifying forces of the American experience, and with such a diverse country, English spoken by all generations back to 1776 has provided a source of unity, together with a common history, and common principles (Equal opportunity, liberty, democracy etc.) to build the American character and nationality - as German is indicative of German nationality, and French to French nationality - or Spanish for Mexican nationality (which is why they have that as their official language) - So to is English for American nationality. TO understand English is to understand the Declaration of Indpendence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution etc. - as a leading Senator has stated recently those of us who do speak other langauges realize that something is always lost in translation. --Northmeister 17:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no good reason why there shouldn't be two official languages in the regions you mention. There's also no good reason why there should be any official language at all. What this article only very indirectly hints at is the fact that the English-only movement is really just a manifestation of racist (even Barbara Bush once called it racist, according to the Nunberg article listed under "External links") anti-immigrant sentiment, dressed up as concern about preserving the English language. --Angr 15:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is the U.S., so it must be "racist". The U.S. isn't allowed to have an official language, yet it's just fine if France does (even though Breton, Occitan, and Alsatian are spoken there).

The article never says, nor even implies, that the "English-only" movement is racist. Remember, it's not our job as editors to decide if a cause is good, bad, or indifferent. We're just here to summarize the verifiable facts in an NPOV manner. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:20, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

My problem is with the above discussion, which dismisses the English-only movement as ignorant and racist. You can support English as our official language and still be educated and multilingual (I am).

You can also be educated and multilingual and still be ignorant and racist.

Agreed. And your point is?

Remember folks, the only purpose of talk pages is to discuss editing articles. If this discussion does not pertain directly to this article, please take it somewhere else, like your personal talk pages. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:57, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I definitely consider the English-only movement to be racist. However, I'm well aware of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

I won't add my opinion to the actual article itself, and I feel that no one else should either.

But I'll say that the English-only movement has inspired me to attempt to learn to read, write, and speak fluently as many languages as possible. Gringo300 03:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm multi-lingual and educated and an american citizen and i think the hispanics should learn english. Few of my ancestors came from england. Most came from germany, but they learned english, so should hispanics. I like hispanic people, but english should be the only language. There are more german-americans in the country than any other group, but they all learned english.

Cameron Nedland 00:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think everybody should learn as many languages as possible. By definition that INCLUDES Hispanics (or for that matter, whoever) learning English.

What I can't understand is: Why would anyone WANT to NOT learn English? Gringo300 15:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

There are reasons, good and bad, for people not wanting to learn a language. For example, Israelis do not typically want to learn Arabic, and why would they if most Arabic-language media is so hostile to them? I've heard Americans whose grandparents came from Russia say they're proud not to speak Russian, as if that makes them "more American". Usually, issues of wanting not to learn a language has to do with issues of pride or nationalism. It's really the same thing as why some people demand others speak their language, but in reverse. Identity0 11:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be WISE for Israelis to learn Arabic. It really comes in handy to be able to understand what your enemies and potential enemies are saying and writting. Gringo300 23:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody does, and that's not what anyone is really debating (or if they are they are confusing the issue). I think the question is whether or not immigrants today should be allowed to enjoy the benefits that my ancestors did when they moved to this country. That is, as my great-grandparents and their children were learning English they were allowed to have legal documents in their own language, they were allowed to be taught in public schools in their own language and so on. I think it's ironic and sad that people use the example of their own ancestors success in America to change the laws (the lack of an official language) which allowed them to have that success. Charles (Kznf) 23:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC) PS. Not that this is an appropriate debate for this page ;) Charles (Kznf) 23:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's racist to want to have English as the only acceptable language; I'd say it's exclusionist, and America is supposed to be a melting pot, not a homogenizer. User:Jesus geek

If we allow a group (say...Hispanics) to keep their language, than it will be a Quebec type situation where one group wants to seceed. Cameron Nedland 02:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but on this page let's focus on discussing the article, not the topic. -Will Beback 06:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, because speaking only English obviously kept the Virginians from seceding - oh wait, it didn't. Or maybe it was those dastardly French speakers in Louisiana that started the Civil War?

And for all the apparently non-fluent speakers of English who keep spouting things off like "Why don't those Hispanics learn English" - the subject of this article is the English-only movement. O-N-L-Y. only Adverb 1. without others or anything further; exclusively (from wiktionary). As in, they do not want hispanics to simply learn English, they want them to give up their native language and not use it in public, like it's a profanity or something. While they may have softened their approach in recent years, it's clear that they don't want any self-sufficent or thriving community around a non-English language. It's sad to see English speakers get this insecure and reactionary, at a time when English is booming overseas. Identity0 08:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That is absolute nonsense, Charles, Identity0 and Jesus. Sink or swim was the policy of the past and while the state government could not step in to curb instruction in one's native language, learning English was an absolute necessity. Other languages were never sucessfully banned from the workplace or schoolhouse, but in order to make it as an immigrant, you learned English; nobody was bending over backwards to help the immigrants "keep their culture intact" or "preserve their language". Ever wonder why so few Americans are fluent in German despite the fact that there are over 60 million descendents in the USA? How about French or Italian? Immigrants were Anglicanized to a degree (for one, they had their last names butchered) and although immigrants didn't completely abandon the cultures they brought with them, they eventually learned fluent English two or three generations in (often shedding native tongues). BTW, America is not a melting pot either...and a "homogenizer" would be the same thing as a "melting pot", no? Funny how the article has a "Criticism" section but certainly doesn't go to any extent to comment on what English-only really means -- especially in relation to the bill currently in the House, HR 997. Nobody ever said that the non-English speakers would find their language banned. How ignorant is the wikipublic? In reality, there would be immigration restrictions akin to those in 90% of the rest of the world, which require some degree of fluency before you get your citizenship...this article needs some serious attention.

"Right, because speaking only English obviously kept the Virginians from seceding..."

sniff, sniff...is that a red herring I smell?

"linguistic fascists...saying making English the official language of the United States of America is about as urgently called for as making hotdogs the official food at baseball games"

While this is a quoted source, such invalid reasoning should not be introduced as evidence to support "Criticism". Last time I checked, there were zero - 0 - baseball game venues in the United States where I couldn't find a hot dog. For that reason, legislation protecting their livelihood is hardly necessary. What a poor analogy, and of course, it includes the obligatory fascist reference. Where is the NPOV? --68.81.242.37 03:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to leave this reference in. It shows just how lunatic fringe the opposition to Official English is, and just how puerile their reasoning is. 68.239.90.103 19:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Lunatic fringe... I figured out a long time ago that the majority isn't always in the right. That's a point of view? Yes. But I'm not adding that point of view to Wikipedia articles- this is a talk page. Gringo300 09:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why making English the official language in America is racist while every other country has one. They must all be racist.Fentoro 06:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The post-world-war one xenophobia

I am surprised that this article doesn't mention the post-world-war-one xenophobia, where the US, becuase of our opposition to Germany, passed a number of laws making the use of non-Enlighs languages illegal. For example, one law said that you couldn't teach a foreign language until 9th grade. Samboy 07:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I've heard that during this time at least one person (apparently of German descent) was arrested because his PARROT was caught speaking German! Gringo300 14:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Angr/talk 06:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm suprised that there were no references to the fact that thousands of bilingual schools closed upon the arrival of WWI, the more so in that a few of my great-grandparents attended some of them. Maybe a bit of info about this situation can be gleaned from John Crawford's work on American bilingualism? -- CJ Withers 23:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There should be mention of post WWI or during WWI, when the 'hotdog' became a 'hotdog'. But, to call it xenophobia is extreme. It was a reaction to subversive activity by the German government in the United States, and the Zimmerman Note affair offering Mexico the whole Southwest if they would join Germany against the USA if we sided with Britain and France in WWI. --Northmeister 17:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Better "English-only movement"

I believe this article should be moved to "English-only movement", because this title describes much better what is all about. The aims of this approach is that the ballots, signs, schools, services etc. should be provided only in English and to this end, to promote this cause, English should be explicitly refered to, in constitution or by law, as the official language. So the article should be named after the end and not after the means that are used for this end. Is there any objection moving the article? --Michkalas 15:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This already is that article. Jmlk17 19:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Where can we verify the list of state-by-state official langauges, particularly that of New Mexico(!)?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, all this information seems taken from one gentleman's personal website: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/home.htm. This is a useful web page, and Crawford is a good reasearcher who lists a variety of primary and secondary sources, but we should probably do a better job inserting proper footnoted web citations, or real citations to the real documents Crawford lists as his sources.

Note: Personally I feel that these citation templates offer the most professional look to wikipedia articles (most Featured Articles and Good Articles seem to use them), and I would like to see this article make use of them. However, if no other editors feel this way, the formatting is of lesser importance, as long as the content gets cited somehow. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed some of the claims in the state-by-state list I temporarily deleted don't even correspond with what Crawford says (e.g., this article states French is the co-official languague of Lousisiana, whereas Crawford's research says Louisiana has no official language)

I'll gladly work on this when I have more time. But until I or someone else can properly cite sources for this list, it should be left out or, at the very least, still have an unsourced tag on top.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't dselete the list. It is sourced from the references at the end of the article. If you want to add state-by-state references then go for it. -Will Beback 19:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"References" are different from the list of external links. The "References" apply only to specific footnotes, none of which refer to the section in question. The only external link that applies is Crawford website. Which link, for example, says that French is the official language of Lousisiana? And why would an admin such as yourself disagree that an article needs to have specific citations, not just an unorganized list of "External Links."--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that more and better references are preferable. Please improve the referencing if you can. -Will Beback 19:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested name change back to Official English movement

Discuss. Puppy Mill 13:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? -Will Beback 18:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral, scholarly authorities on the subject such as Jeffrey Crawford use both terms interchangably. See here. Opponents of the movement also use both terms. See here. Since both terms are in common use, it would be appropriate to fall back on (1) what the groups in this movement refer to themselves, and (2) the term which most accurately describes their goals. All three of the primary groups -- U.S. English [1], Pro-English [2], and English First [3] -- refer to their goal as making English the official language of the United States. Never do they say anything about wanting to mandate the use of English "only", which would presumably mean the abolition of foreign language broadcasting, newspapers, and church services, no more foreign language classes in schools, or the suppression of endangered languages native to the United States such as Navajo and Hawai'ian. Their goal is the largely symbolic declaration of English as an official language. Wikipedia should use the accurate term in the interest of neutral reporting, refrain from casting judgment even as it reports controversies, and in the interest of assuming good faith should also give deference to what these groups call themselves. With this particular movement, this could best be accomplished by changing the name back to Official English movement. Puppy Mill 10:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I do see, in the links you provided, that removing multilingual programs is a goal:

• Eliminate costly and ineffective multilingual policies.[4]
• As the only pro-English group to testify against bilingual ballots in 1992 and the only pro-English group to lead the fight against bilingual education in 1994,...[5]
• But today, in segregated classrooms, so-called "bilingual education" keeps immigrant children from learning English, by teaching them in foreign languages. [6]
• WHEREAS, the use of multiple versions of government documents and services in several languages leads to misunderstandings due to mistranslation, represents an inefficient use of taxpayers' money, and promotes a sense of separation among residents; [7]

When they refer to "official English", what they apparently mean is that only English should be used in official documents, not that English should be official and other languages may also be used. Though the proponents may choose to frame the debate in one way, that doesn't mean we are required to use the same terms, especially since you point out that other terms are also used. -Will Beback 18:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback seems to have the best of this discussion so far. Accepting what organizations call themselves, whatever it may, is the road to WP:Sympathetic Point of View, which is not WP. There are forks which do adopt it. Septentrionalis 20:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If there's a poll on this RM then I support a move to Official English movement. I am not familiar with this movement but, from the Wikipedia article it appears that the goal of the movement is to make English the sole official language, not to proscribe use of other languages as "English only" implies. A single official language might be strange to Americans but it is quite common in other countries. France, Japan, etc. do not prohibit the speaking of other languages even though they have only one official language. —  AjaxSmack  00:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The movement appears to desire the banning of bilingual education. That appears to go beyond merely regulating the language of official government business. -Will Beback 21:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked on this and I don'k think any of these rules would ban use of another language. The "banning of bilingual education" would only apply to state schools, not private ones. Likely schools will continue to teach foreign languages in the school curriculum and private citizens and entities would be free to speak any language so this is not really what a ban means. This situation is normal in countries with one official language -- many of them only permit primary instruction in one language in state schools (e.g., France, Japan, Taiwan). But when the term "English only" is used, it sounds like an active prohibition of speaking of the language, similar to the situation before in Turkey where Kurdish was actively banned in all spheres (but with limited success?). Merely having one state language is the norm in much of the world and doesn't really force people to speak it. Calling it "English only" implies something entirely different. —  AjaxSmack  05:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#Steps for requesting a controversial page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for your time! -- tariqabjotu 01:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Official languages in New Mexico

I took the liberty of deleting New Mexico from any of the lists of official languages on this page to bring this page in line with the information on the other Wikipedia pages dealing with Spanish, official languages, and New Mexico. From what I can tell, New Mexico currently has no official language. Even the web page that was previously cited on this page indicated that the official language provisions in the original New Mexico State Constitution were temporary. JediScougale 20:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Official languages in Louisiana

I took the liberty of deleting Louisiana from any of the official language lists. As the Louisiana page itself indicates, Louisiana has no official language, but conducts business in English while recognizing the significance of Cajun French. JediScougale 07:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for move. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

English-only movement → Official English movement – The various movements described do not seek for English to be the only language spoken in the USA, but to make it the sole official language similar to French in France or Spanish in Mexico. Furthermore, the current title seems to be used by opponents to disparage the movement (see external links and WP:POV). The phrase "English Only" implies the prohibition or restriction of use of other languages in non-official settings. See above here and here for earlier arguments and original proposal by Puppy Mill. — AjaxSmack  18:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support as nominator. — AjaxSmack  18:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support the "spirit" of the move and the reason but I do not like the proposed new title. I do think the article should be moved from English-Only for NPOV reasons. As AjaxSmack alludes to, the phrase is most often used by opponents for POV effect (sort of like "anti-choice"/"pro-abortion"). It is also a mischaracterization of the entire movement. While a certain segment wants the elimination of multi-lingual programs, the broader scope of the program is just for the official recognition of english. The article title should relate to the broader scope of the movement, instead of a fragment. Unfortunately, I don't think the proposed new title is the best choice. It is vague and a bit awkard. Admittedly I don't really have a better option. Maybe U.S. Official Language Movement or have the article elaborate more on the conflict as a whole under the title U.S. Official Language Dispute. 205.157.110.11 03:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support, but see my comment below. The above poster has a very good compromise idea. Dragomiloff 00:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Neutral - on reflection I don't think the article should use either side's preffered name for the movement. NPOV means not taking a side in the debate. Using either name would violate the spirit of what Wikipedia is all about. See my comments below on suggested neutral/compromise naming for the article. Dragomiloff 21:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Support per 205.x.x.x. It's not necessarily the goal of the movement. This is much more NPOV. Part Deux 19:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. Much as I think this movement deserves to be disparaged, that doesn't need to happen in the title of the article itself. --Trovatore 19:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

Removing multilingual programs is a goal of the program:

• Eliminate costly and ineffective multilingual policies.[8]
• As the only pro-English group to testify against bilingual ballots in 1992 and the only pro-English group to lead the fight against bilingual education in 1994,...[9]
• But today, in segregated classrooms, so-called "bilingual education" keeps immigrant children from learning English, by teaching them in foreign languages. [10]
• WHEREAS, the use of multiple versions of government documents and services in several languages leads to misunderstandings due to mistranslation, represents an inefficient use of taxpayers' money, and promotes a sense of separation among residents; [11]

When they refer to "official English", what they apparently mean is that only English should be used in official documents, not that English should be official and other languages may also be used. Though the proponents may choose to frame the debate in one way, that doesn't mean we are required to use the same terms, especially since other terms are also used. The movement appears to desire the banning of bilingual education. That appears to go beyond merely regulating the language of official government business. -Will Beback · † · 19:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The English-only movement specifically aims at eliminating documents and services in other languages than English. This is something else than stating a language is official in a country. In fact it is very common around the world to provide at least some services and documents in non-official languages spoken by ethnic minorities and/or immigrants. BTW, even the claim that, unless there is a law or a provision in the constitution stating that English is the official, no language is official is wrong, because in many countries the official language is de facto official and not official by law or constitution. So, title is accurate. --Michkalas 16:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose English is, in law or practice, an official language in the several States; the movement seeks to change this. The proposed name is weasel-wording, which is deprecated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Not that Google is definitive, but ["Official English movement"] gets about 965 ghits, while ["English-only movement"] gets about 55,500. That's a significant difference. -Will Beback · † · 19:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What were your search criteria? When I googled, I added "United States" and omitted "Wikipedia". My results:

• ("English-only movement" "united states" -wikipedia) - 32,000[12]
• ("Official English movement" "united states" -wikipedia) - 649[13]

-SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 15:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My criteria were just as I listed them, without the "united states" or "wikipedia". Your results are similar. -Will Beback · † · 18:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I read your numbers backward. Mea cvlpa. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 18:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

All of which shows at best that the word "movement" is more likely to be used in the particular combination with "English-only" rather than with "official English". But part of that would be that English-only more clearly implies language; part of it is that other terms such as proposition, proposal, laws, and the like are used in these discussions. The "movement" part of it is actually the most awkward part of either name. Gene Nygaard 17:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note in particular that

" "English as the official language" -wikipedia 98,000 hits

Gene Nygaard 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• As a possible compromise the above anon (205.157.110.11) has a very good idea. I would suggest renaming the article something like "U.S. Official Language Debate" (or Dispute). This seems an issue - as with abortion - where the names are chosen as a way of framing the issue in a negative way. Not appearing to favor either side's term of choice would be best in the interest of NPOV. Dragomiloff 00:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a compromise. Your suggestion includes the key-phrase AjasSmack would like to see in the heading.--Michkalas 13:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Which key-phrase, "official"? What would be an acceptable compromise? Dragomiloff 21:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Articels should be titled with the name that most readers and editors would look for. "English-only movement" gets about 55,500 ghits, "Official English movement" gets about 965, and "U.S. Official Language Debate" gets 0. So it is the worst choice. Furthermore, most of the debate is at the state, not the federal level, so the title is somewhat misleading. -Will Beback · † · 22:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, except that the name of the article itself is taking a side when the name of the movement is in dispute. Whether it's in wider use or not this is taking a POV, which is against Wikipedia policy. Ideally the article should have a third, neutral name and report on the naming controversy within the article. I would direct your attention also to Christmas controversy and Neo-fascism and religion where this approach has worked well. Dragomiloff 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you expand on those examples? It's not clear what the other names for those articles had been, or how the new names were chosen. Since one side of this argument uses "official language" or "official English" as their descriptor, titles which include those terms would not be neutral. -Will Beback · † · 00:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure -- briefly, Christmas controversy is where the articles dealing with War on Christmas, The War Against Christmas, and Secularization of Christmas are redirected. This way the topics are covered in a NPOV way without necessarily giving Wikipedia's sanction to any of those phrases. Plus I believe there was actually a dispute over whether to call the article "War on Christmas" or "War on Christmas conspiracy theory". Neo-fascism and religion serves the same purpose with concepts such as and Christofascism, Judeofascism, and Christian fascism. Not the most common phrases in use, but for NPOV purposes and diffusing a contentious debate they do the trick. The difference of course between these and Holocaust denial is the fact of the Holocaust is not up for legitimate debate, whereas honest people do have differing opinions pro/con on multilingualism in the United States. I am striking through my "Conditional Support" comment above because, on reflection, I really don't think the article should have either name and should have a third, neutral name which everyone can agree on. If "Official" in the name isn't acceptable, maybe something else like "English language controversy (U.S.)" Dragomiloff 21:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the current heading is accurate and correct. I can't really see why there should be a "compromise" between the current title and the proposed misleading title. The key phrase is, of course, "official language". A heading naming exactly the subject is not POV. That's why we have in Wikipedia articles as Holocaust and Holocaust denial, and not articles as Holocaust debate or even Jews in Europe debate. As to political agenda of the English-only movement, all the proposed and passed laws, at federal and state level, are specifically aiming to restrict documents and services in other languages. The term "English-only" also covers campaigns like that of Geno's Steaks, where the official status of English is irrelevant. Geno wants his customers to order in English only, whether the language is official or not. The term also covers the debate on whether or not the national anthem should be in Spanish too, again something different from the official status of a language. Finally, it is also misleading to insist, as the English-only movement does, that, if there is no law or it is not written in the constitution, there is no official language in a country. --Michkalas 11:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly not accurate or correct. It is isolating a particular segment that is undoubtly the most polarizing and using that as a branding for the entire movement. The title is distinctly POV driven. In the battles of policies WP:NPOV trumps WP:COMMONNAME. 205.157.110.11 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

First Amendment

I see that no one has mentioned a potential First Amendment issue of the federal government adopting an official language. Freedom of speach is freedom of speach and if it can be extended to not even making a statement orally but only finacially as a form of sign language then it certainly could more easily be extended to mean that one is free to speak what ever language one chooses. Businesses in Louisiana can choose to conduct business in either French or English and can demand that court proceedings on such contracts be conducted in French if they desire it according to the civil code.--Billiot 10:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Lack of accents in US-English

Is the lack of accents in the typing of US-English related to this? I once tried sending a message to Paypal which included the word née (a normal English word derived from French). Paypal rejected my message completely saying that I wasn't allowed to use foreign stuff in communicating with them in English. --PeterR 13:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC) (a user of British English, which comes with accents where appropriate!)

I doubt it. That sounds more like a combination of laziness and poorly-written or implemented rules. This article refers to the political movement seeking to make English an official language and to stop bilingualism. It does not, to my knowledge, seek to remove foreign words from the English language in general (though a few extreme adherents may seek that). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Where's CT?

Hey people. Listen I was just wondering where Connecticut is on that long list on the bottom. Does CT have a law that states the people have to speak English or what? Just curious because I need to write a paper. Thanks. -CT RULES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.162.1 (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And Minnesota? What about MN? Calebrw (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither CT nor MN are listed. Neither CT nor MN have English as an official language. Check out the supporting cite for the list (It currently is numbered ^[13] in the article).

13. ^{^} The 50 states at a glance, proenglish.org, Retrieved on 12 April 2008

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Congress bill of 2007

Noticed a line "2006: The U.S. Senate voted on two separate amendments to make English the national language and to make it the common unifying language of the country" without sources or commentary. I searched THOMAS and came up with this – although this is from 2007, is it what the line is referring to? And isn't this kind of a major decision, the Congress actually saying that they want English to be officially acknowledged as the official language of the US? Of course, the Congress can't decide that on its own, but it seems like a fair guess that this will now actually happen (as far as the federation, but not the constituent states, is concerned). Or is it just that my unfamiliarity with American legislation procedure leads me to jump to conclusions drawn from thin air? -- Jao (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a bill to amend the Constitution to me--similar to the one they tried to pass in 2005. In order for the bill to be anything other than a bunch of paper, though, both houses of Congress need to pass it, the President has to sign it, and then, since it's a Constitutional amendment, 3/4 of the states have to pass it. Until the states vote on it, it isn't law. I haven't followed the progress of this new bill, but if it makes its way onto a ballot one day, we'll hear about it. 72.129.0.10 (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Implicit standardization of English in federal legislation

In this edit, Somedumbyankee reverted an assertion I had added saying that some federal legislation implicitly standardizes English. The edit summary of the reversion said, "If it's implicit, give a source for implicit. Otherwise, this is WP:OR". The word "implicit", as I used it in my reverted assertion, means, implied, rather than expressly stated. In support of the added assertion, I had supplied a footnote which read,

“ e.g. Section 1432(2) of the No Child Left Behind Act, which defines the term "AT-RISK":
"AT-RISK.—The term ‘at-risk’, when used with respect to a child, youth, or student, means a school aged individual who is at-risk of academic failure, has a drug or alcohol problem, is pregnant or is a parent, has come into contact with the juvenile justice system in the past, is at least 1 year behind the expected grade level for the age of the individual, has limited English proficiency, is a gang member, has dropped out of school in the past, or has a high absenteeism rate at school." (emphasis added) (see http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf). ”

I believe that footnote adequately supports the assertion that the section of the NCLB act quoted therein, by defining "limited English proficiency" to be an at-risk indicator on a par with having a drug or alcohol problem, being pregnant while a schoolchild, etc. implicitly standardizes English. This is not a hot-button issue for me, though, so rather than unreverting, I'll just raise the issue here for possible discussion. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

English is kind of important for functioning in American society. Recognizing that it is critical to participating in everyday life is very different from recognizing it as an official language. "Implicit" indicates that the source doesn't say it and it takes a logical step to get there. That's exactly what WP:OR and WP:SYN prohibit. If it's that obvious, someone will have said it straight and that can be cited. SDY (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Alaska?

According to the article, Alaska's English only law was struck down in 2002 by the state Supreme Court, but articles like this http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/rural/story/9426714p-9338862c.html indicate that the state Supreme Court allowed most of the law to stand in 2007. What's going on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.75.225 (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)