Talk:Official language
From Academic Kids
Proposals for better definitions
I believe the requirement that an official language be defined in the constitution is rather too strict. What's the source for that?
I'm pretty sure Germany wouldn't have an official language according to that definition (since I don't tihnk it's mentioned in the Grundgesetz (which is usually accepted as the constitution)) and I have no idea what the situation would be like for Iraq or Afghanistan.
So, should we remove those two examples or find a better definition?
80.134.93.224 00:27, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I think a better definition would be more useful. Perhaps it can be defined has the language used in the educational o legal system as the legal medium of communication. There is also the problem that sometimes it is an informal definition of what a national language is (e.g. UK). Perhaps its historical link with the ideas the nationalism of the last half of 19th in Europe can be mentioned. Look at the Spanish entry, that tries to link the above ideas. Jorge GG 02:25, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC).
I too opt for a better definition, since the phrase is used in many cases where there is no constitutionally defined official language.
In particular, the sentence about New Zealand is inconsistent with the definition, the country not even having a written constitution. And any source that talks about official languages of New Zealand anyway (including the CIAWF) lists English alongside Maori. So I'm removing that part. (And perhaps it would be interesting to know what definition the CIA is using for the term?)
Also, why does it state that France has several native languages, but not that, e.g., Germany does as well? (Apart from variants of German otherwise on Wikipedia referred to as separate languages, like Low Saxon, there is notably Sorbian.) -- Jao 01:33, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Germany does not have an official language according to its constitution -- I am removing it from the list. But I would agree that a less restrictive definition of official language would be more useful. How about: "a language which is by law required to be used for government business". By the way, the USA does have at least one federal law that requires the use of English: 8 USC 1423 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+8USC1423) -- Chl 06:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You have my vote too. The current definition is too restrictive and (IMHO) if we examined it from a legal sense just plain wrong. Many nations legislate their native language I believe. I'm Australian and I'm sure I have seen Australian govt documents listing English as the official language.
The article needs to be rewritten IMHO. Robertbrockway 20:36, Nov 19 2004 (UTC)
I was looking for a definition on the web and found this. The article http://www.free-definition.com/Official-language.html bears a resemblance to the Wikipedia article. I wonder which one came first. Robertbrockway 20:41, Nov 19 2004 (UTC)
Ok, so when Wikipedia released dodgy information the rest of the world just copies it: http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/o/of/official_language.html Robertbrockway 20:44, Nov 19 2004 (UTC)
- Yes - for better or worse, that's the nature of open content. Have a look at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks: free-definition.com is highly compliant and brainyencylopedia.com moderately compliant with our GFDL licence. --rbrwr± 21:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree that "...typically the language used in a nation's legislative bodies, though the law in many nations requires that government documents be produced in other languages as well." does not capture the ways in which official languages have been defined and promoted through the public education system, state media, laws regulating privately-owned media, as well as official languages of sub-national (e.g. official languages of Indian states) and supra-national entities (the EU), as well as quasi-supra-national organizations (the UN). A-giau 18:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
