Neither do you, apparently. C++ (the language, not the library) is the largest programming language in existence. Nothing is larger.
A clue: there is no citation because you're making it up.
So let's consider languages where actual formal specifications exist because they have to be written in excricuiating detail because the asusmption there is no reference implementation that people can refer to if in doubt.
So there you go, there are 4 standardised languages I've given you which have longer specifications than C++.
Well Done. Now, where exactly did I claim that the english-language specification for C++ is larger than the english-language specification for other languages? I claimed that the language "C++" is larger, but only a moron would use number of pages of english text as a measurement.
The C++ language, as defined by its grammar rules in BNF, is larger than any other programming language, as defined by their respective grammar rules in BNF. This is well-known and is taught in almost every introductory compiler class I've reviewed.
Go ahead - look it up. Here's the BNF rules for java, 48 general rules for the programmer to remember, very few depending on context. Here's the one for C++, 80+ rules for the programmer to remember, many of them depending on context.
I'm not going to do your homework and search for the grammar rules for the other languages which you claim are bigger than C++; just refuting the one you listed is enough for you to ask yourself "Whats a BNF and why does it determine the size of a language?" If you do not get the relationship between "this is how much language a programmer needs to keep in their head to program" and "this is how large the BNF for the language is" then I'm afraid you are beyond my (and most professional) help.
(Hint: maybe register for some CS course in programming languages and compiler design? Or write a compiler or two yourself? You would do yourself a favour and learn enough to not use "number of pages in spec" as a measurement of a languages size (and/or complexity, but I didn't even start on that))
Given your propensity to simply make shit up about C++ [citation: see above], your statements lack credibility.
Your nerdrage whenever you perceive an attack on "your" language is laudable, however I suggest you stop being so unreasonably attached to what is only a programming language (albeit a very large one). C++ is what it is. Your insults won't change that.