Talk:Spanish language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Sections and informations about the map, have to be collected into a separate talk page at the Wikimedia Commons – it can be viewed here.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Talk archives:
For a list of the archives and threads contained inside, see the directory.
Archive 01 (Aug 2002 to Mar 2005)
Archive 02 (April 2005 to Aug 2005)
Archive 03 (Aug 2005 to Sep 2005)
Archive 04 (Sep 2005 to Dec 2005)
Archive 05 (Dec 2005 to Feb 2007)
Archive 06 (Mar 2007 to May 2007)
Archive 07 (May 2007 to December 2007)

Contents

[edit] Colombia

I was wondering if I should mention that Colombians have the best Spanish in the region after Spaniards? Thanks Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that should not be mentioned. That is completely a subjective opinion, and I doubt you'd find legitimate sources to back it up. Kman543210 (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you are right, i shouldn't mention it so not to start debate. However it has been a widely known fact. Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USTEDES/VOSOTROS

In Andalusia "vosotros" is always used, except in formal contexts. I know a lot of peolple from almeria and i've been to sevilla more than once (part of my family works there) and they never say ustedes when addressing people they know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.232.73.213 (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


With the due respect, I ABSOLUTELY disagree. I am from Cadiz, and I always say USTEDES + the verb conjugated with the second person plural (ustedes tambien vais a venir? a mi me suena lo mas normal del mundo, picha). I have never, never said the word VOSOTROS when in my hometown. This is very useful for two main reasons: a) economy--you don't need any difference between formal and informal contexts anymore, and b) if you teach Spanish in the USA your students will not hate you for making them learn a pronoun only used by a small minority of speakers. German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.167.157 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish is not spoken by a significant part of the population of Morocco

According to the source provided over 20 000 people in Morocco are capable of speaking Spanish. I suggest you take a look at Morocco and look at how many people live there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.99.176.206 (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Not all that is cited stays there. I've read the citation and it was spoken by 20,000, hardly what you consider as "major". --Howard the Duck 03:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a good idea to put the number of speakers in brackets instead of just using the word significant. For example instead of saying

Thanks. I don't understand why people use the word significant. They should just put the number of speakers next to the country or the percentage of speakers that speak the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.99.176.206 (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox Language}}'s rules say that we should only add countries when it is a "major" language. Now of course everyone has differing conceptions with the word "major" but if the ratio is 20,000 ro 33 million and even the more laughable 2,700 to 80 million, we should just list all of the countries of the world, I bet every country has at least 1 Spanish speaker.
I suggest to use the 33% threshold for small to medium-sized countries, then using the 1 million minimum for really big countries whose populations are larger than 50 million. --Howard the Duck 02:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Popular foreign language in the anglosphere?

This article claims that Spanish is a popular foreign language in the anglosphere. To the contrary, Spanish is almost never learned as a second language outside of the United States.Alphador (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


That's true. In Australia Chinese and Japanese are more widespread —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.168.183.150 (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

US represents 80% of the Anglosphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.159.16.79 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

But the article refers to non-US anglosphere countries.124.187.228.209 (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And 80% is more than a bit of an exaggeration, according to List of countries by English-speaking population. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Vos" in Central America

  • Has Central America changed significantly in 10 years? I lived in El Salvador for a brief period of time in the early 90's and never heard "vos". Things change with time, of course, but it seems like an abrupt change to me if it's true. JuJube (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morocco. No.

The new hispanic map includes Morocco. Dumb. I don't think I need consensus to change it back. 121.223.136.161 (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The new map needs to be changed

Why has Morocco been coloured in? Morocco is not a country that has been heavily influenced by Spanish culture. The opposite is true. Large parts of Spain where influenced by arabic culture. Have you ever been to Cordoba or Granada????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Spain ruled over parts of morocco for a significant period of time, perhaps that is why. However I have no idea if any Moroccans speak Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.51.254 (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In Spain there are 600.000 legal inmigrants actually, and there are more than 1 million inmigrants with illegals aproximately. Many of these inmigrants come back to Morocco and another new people from Morocco go to Spain, then there are a lot of people that they lived in Spain, and There are many people studing spanish (almost 60.000 according to Instituto Cervantes). In the other hand, The North of Spain and other territories of Morocco were a colony of Spain in the XX Century. According to Ammadi, 2002, there are between 4 and 7 million people who speak spanish [1], mainly in the North of Morocco.

[edit] similarity to English

I was just wondering how Spanish is similar to English in the sense of evolved languages. The English article says it's a Germanic language, while Spanish is an Italic language. But there is a substantial syntactic similarity between the two languages. For example, the sentence "The shirt is red" is "La camisa es roja" in Spanish. This sentence is a essentially a word for word translation. Overall sentences I think are also word for word, with some differences, like possession ("John's house" becomes "la casa de John" but can be rewritten in English as "the house of John") and the use of direct and indirect objects. I'm actually just a student speaker, so I probably forgot some stuff, so don't get mad at my ignorance. But my point is, for two languages that are similar like that, how can they be of two different langauge categories? Eridani (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The classification has to do with historical origins. This is determined through cognate comparisons. While simple sentences are translated as you present (though es vs está is a distinction not made in English), it gets less so with more complicated utterances: te amaria sus consegros ('I would love the parents-in-law of your children'). — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 08:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
They have some similarities, as the one you mentioned, because Germanic languages and Romance languages are both part of the same linguistic family - the Indo-European languages. The Ogre (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The correct way is amaría a tus consuegros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.85.206 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Could we change the map to reflect the fact that Spanish is the lingua franca in the Americas?

I noticed that the map does not reflect the status of Spanish in the world today. I think it would be a good idea to colour in countries where say more than 50% of the population is learning Spanish at school or where Spanish is the most taught foreign language a different colour say yellow. I know that for example Trinidad and Tobago wants to become a bilingual English/Spanish speaking nation within a generation and that Spanish is the most taught foreign language in the US. This would reflect the state of Spanish more accurately. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would take a lot more work to reflect that accurately. The United States is not one homogeneous group and the students learning Spanish in North Dakota is likely less than in California. The rate of learning Spanish in the US is partially in reaction to the presence of native Spanish monolinguals, so it becomes a bit tautological. Also, why 50%? Why not 25 or 40? There's nothing special about half. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The map, as other maps of these tips of articles, primarilys reflect native speakers, not eventual speakers due to learning processes. If that was the case you would have to paint the world as English speaking. Furthermore, since when learning a language in school is the same as spaeking it? The levels of proficiency vary immensely. So, no, the map should not be changed because Spanish is not a Lingua Franca in the Americas. Most people north of Mexico do not speak as first language and it is not spoken at all in relevant numbers in Brazil. The Ogre (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


Once you go over 50% you enter majority territory. If the majority of the population is learning a certain language then that's pretty significant. Also, I understand that there is a difference between native speakers and learners and that's why I'd use a different colour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't need to be a majority to be significant. I don't support this proposal as I think it has some serious problems with its assumptions and is impossible to do reliably. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 16:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be that hard. All you have to do is look at how many people are learning Spanish in each country of the world. The US for example provides statistics that let you know how many people are studying a language. There's only one country in the world THE USA where Spanish is studied widely so I don't understand what's so difficult about colouring the US a different colour and then checking to see if there are other countries. Trinidad and Tobago is a good starting point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] It is estimated that the combined total of native and non-native Spanish speakers is approximately 500 million

This doesn't seem plausible. There aren't that many non-native Spanish speakers!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.... The lead sentence of WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (emphasis in original) The cited source is verifiable, and reports 446,648,991 as the "2007 Estimated World Population for the Language".
The remaining question is whether or not the cited source, Internet WorldStats—Usageand population Statistics is a [[WP:RS|reliable source]. General criteria: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
If other sources of comparable reliability contradict the figure from this source, it is not the job of WP to decide which source is more correct — the lead section in that case should probably mention a range of estimates, and a later article section should detail the contradiction, citing sources of comparable reliability for each contradictory figure mentioned. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish in Philippines

I think that is needed to paint Philippines, because there are 1,816,389 speakers as a second lenguage and 689,000 chavacano speakers (spanish creole). Total: 2.450.000 speakers. Fuente: Instituto Cervantes, 1997. Some sources says that there are more than 1 million chavacano speakers. Another figure is 2,900,000 spanish speakers Sí, Sain.

As has been repeatedly stated in the past, those figures are not reliable. --Chris S. (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Since I've recently changed the article to mention them and cite sources, I guess I ought to point out the lead sentence in WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (emphasis in original) -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The source they use is an Italian almanac. I consulted an Italian wikipedian who happened to have the source that Instituto Cervantes cites and that almanac didn't cite its source either. So I do not believe it's a reliable source. I mean, where did it come from? The census in this case would be the most reliable source. --Chris S. (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
But the point is that WP is not in the business of judging which source is the most reliable and reporting only what that particular source says. WP should report what (perhaps conflicting) assertions are made by sources which meet WP:RS guidelines, and should attribute whatever each source asserts to that particular source. If there are conflicts, WP should comment on the conflicts, but should not take a position about which source might be right and which other source might be wrong. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
And,has been repeatedly stated, "verifiability, not truth". OK, I'm not familiar with any of the sources in question here and I don't speak spanish, but the first cited source is http://cvc.cervantes.es/, which appears to me to be not ruled out by WP:RS, and the second one is from http://cvc.cervantes.es/, which doesn't really look flakey to me. Presuming that these sources fall within WP:RS guidelines, there should be no problem with the article reporting that sources A,B, and C say X, Y, and Z. --Boracay Bill (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that there are only 2,658 native speakers according to census 1990, but this census also says that there are only 32,802 native speakers of english [2], and in the map of english language, Philippines is with colour. The same happens with another countries like India. There are only around 200,000 native speakers. Then, I think that it´s necesary to paint colour to Philippines in the spanish map. --Migang2g (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that WP does not discuss sources - in fact that is one of the main discussion we can find here. The Cervantes Institute source is not a primary source (is is not even a secondary source!!), as it just quotes an Italian almanac (Calendario Atlante de Agostini 1997, Novara, Instituto Geográfico de Agostino, 1996, p. 315, that gives, without sources, 3% of the population speaking Spanish). To this the Cervantes Institute adds 689.000 speakers of Chavacano (not Spanish proper, but a Spanish creole, spoken mostly in Zamboanga City and in the provinces of Zamboanga del Sur, Zamboanga Sibugay, Zamboanga del Norte, and Basilan. It is also spoken in some areas of Cavite, Davao, and Cotabato), according to data from A. Quilis (La lengua española en cuatro mundos, Madrid, Mapfre, 1992, p. 82), without specifying if in the first estimate these Chavacano speakers were already counted or not (thus raising the total figure to 2.450.000). The Cervantes site does state that these estimate contradict the Census. One should also notice that English is an official language in the Philippines (as it is in India), unlike Spanish (see The Official Website of the Republic of the Philippines). Therefore, I believe that the Philippines should NOT be included in the Hispanosphere in any way, since there are no relevant numbers of Spanish spkeakers there, given that the Cervantes Institute is not, in this specific matter, a reliable source! The Ogre (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Chavacano is not Spanish. It would be the same as saying that there are more than 800 million Latin speakers in the world today! Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Romanian are no longer considered Latin so you can't use them!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree! That is way the Philippines should not be coloured as speaking Spanish. The Ogre (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Italian, French, Portuguese, Romanian aren´t spanish creole languages. Chabacano is a spanish creole as there are english creole in Africa or Asia. Chabacano is a spanish word that means "not much elegant" or "rude". This is because it was considered that chabacano was a spanish bad spoken, with mistakes, but spanish. --85.54.160.54 (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Chabacano is a language! It is not bad Spanish. Just like Spanish is not Latin bad spoken, with mistakes, but latin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change the bias racist map please

The Guaraní language is spoken by up to 90% of the population of Paraguay while Spanish is spoken by around 75% making Guarani more widespread. Why is Paraguay coloured in the same colour as every other Spanish speaking country when Spanish is not the dominant language. YOU CAN'T IGNORE GUARANI! You insist on colouring in US states but refuse to acknowledge that Guarani has survived. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk • contribs)

My friend... relax! The map is not biased or racist regarding this issue. The map merely states that Paraguay is a country were a majority of the population (not the majority) speaks Spanish and that Spanish is an official language of the country. It does not say anything about Guarani because it is not a map about the Guarani language! The present map does not deny the bigger importance of Guarani over Spanish in Paraguay, it just does not adress the fact because it is not about that, but a world map of the Spanish language. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that's what's wrong with map. Have a look at the English language map. It uses two colours to distinguish between countries such as England where English is a native language and Nigeria where it is official but not spoken by the majority. This shows the status of English more clearly. The Spanish map on the other just colours countries where Spanish is an official language in the same colour regardless of the language's actual status. Sounds a bit bias to me. All language maps should follow the same criteria.

I can't believe you're still on about this! You honestly need to reexamine your perspective. You recently suggested that we color in nearly the entire world to reflect English as a lingua franca here. But on all the other maps you want to either remove certain shadings or map them lighter. I personally love the English language, and have no problem admitting it's the lingua franca. But I see no point in this continued attempt to promote it to the detriment of all the other languages in the world. You've been doing this on nearly every language page for almost a year! We understand you love English, brother, but you've got to give it up. There are bigger and better things to be doing in this world. SpiderMMB (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. I had a look at the link you provided and can't find the part where I am supposed to suggest we colour in the entire world. Only parts where it is spoken should be coloured. If this means that large parts of the world may need to be coloured you can't refuse to consider the idea just because it doesn't fit your POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-Hispano.png it's what the map should be like! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morocco again!

Even if only 20,000 Moroccan speaks Spanish as their first language, but millions of people in north Morocco use it as a second language, and understand it very well, so I would say Morocco should be included, and by the way, Spanish has no official status in nether Morocco or Western Sahara. I'm sure people who says North Morocco should not be included in the map has never been there. Moroccan culture is really influenced by Spain, especially, in the north. I used to go there ever summer, and i stayed for months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koumed (talk • contribs) 05:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What the???? The fact the English is spoken by millions of people in China doesn't mean were gonna colour it in as English speaking. Please stop exaggerating the importance of Spanish.

[edit] Maps and the inclusion of certain areas/countries

Hello everyone. There are discussions going on at the Commons that may interest you all. They pertain to the following maps:

I have added the following comments about the map made by Migang2g: I persist in considering this map as a biased attempt to enhance the areas that supposedly speak Spanish or were a significante proportion of the population speaks Spanish. There are several errors:

  • Brazil - Portuñol is not a Spanish creole or dialect, it is mixed contact language between Portuguese and Spanish (generally spoken as a second language when in contact between Spanish and Portuguese speakers), and, as such, it should not be included in either a map of the Spanish language in the world, either a map of the Portuguese language in the world. Furthermore, in this map the supposed area of Portuñol wrongly includes:
    • all of the border of Brazil with Spanish speaking countries - without any source whatsoever, never mentioned anywhere, and a pure invention by user Migang2g;
    • the States of Rio Grande do Sul and, at least, parts of Santa Catarina - another pure invention by Migang2g, since Portuñol, even if it was to be included, is not sopken in such wide areas, but only in very specific localities, such as the border between Uruguay and Brazil, notably in the region of the twin cities of Rivera and Santana do Livramento, where the border is open and a street is the only line dividing the two countries. Notice that the entry for the minority languages in Rio Grande to Sul do not even mention Portuñol;
  • Aruba (according to Ethnologue Spanish is only spoken by less then 10,000 in a population of 103,484; and Papiamento is describe byt the Government of Aruba (Languages of Aruba - Government of Aruba (official site) - 2005) as an Afro-Portuguese Creole, not a Spanish one).
  • Netherlands Antilles, since Ethnologue does not even list Spanish as a language spoken there and Papiamento is describe as an Afro-Portuguese Creole, not a Spanish one; even if the Government does say, in Population and Housing Census 2001, that 6.1% do speak Spanish (10,699 speakers of Spanish out of 183,000), that is hardly a significative number ans is ranked 4th after Papiamento, English and Dutch.
  • Falklands - a pure Hispanophone invention, since no Spanish is basically spoken there, and English is universal in a population basically of British descent;
  • Philippines - verifiable data for the Philippines give a number of less than 3000 speakers! And the The Cervantes Institute source is not a primary source (is is not even a secondary source!!), as it just quotes an Italian almanac (Calendario Atlante de Agostini 1997, Novara, Instituto Geográfico de Agostino, 1996, p. 315, that gives, without sources, 3% of the population speaking Spanish). To this the Cervantes Institute adds 689.000 speakers of Chavacano (not Spanish proper, but a Spanish creole, spoken mostly in Zamboanga City and in the provinces of Zamboanga del Sur, Zamboanga Sibugay, Zamboanga del Norte, and Basilan. It is also spoken in some areas of Cavite, Davao, and Cotabato), according to data from A. Quilis (La lengua española en cuatro mundos, Madrid, Mapfre, 1992, p. 82), without specifying if in the first estimate these Chavacano speakers were already counted or not (thus raising the total figure to 2.450.000). The Cervantes site does state that these estimate contradict the Census. One should also notice that English is an official language in the Philippines (as it is in India), unlike Spanish (see The Official Website of the Republic of the Philippines). Therefore, I believe that the Philippines should NOT be included in the Hispanosphere in any way, since there are no relevant numbers of Spanish spkeakers there, given that the Cervantes Institute is not, in this specific matter, a reliable source;
  • USA - the source for this map is in fact better than the first source of the map, because in fact the old source (2000 Census) is about Hispanic population, and the present source (2006 Census) is about Spanish speakers over 5 years old who speak it at home. HOWEVER, the graphical representation in the map is somewhat biased since it colours states with about 3% of speakers in a shade of blue that gives the impression of a significate portion of the population being Hispanophone - the question here is one of graphical representation (compare with Image:Spanish USC2000 PHS.svg, dne with he 2000 Census data);
  • Canada - the source presented is not a direct one to the Canadian PMB Print Measurement Bureau, but a reference in an online Hispanic-Canadian magazine (Factor Hispano Online). Even if the numbers presented are true (909,000 Spanish-speaking people in a total universe of more than 30 millions, for 2000), Canada should not be ALL coloured and in such a strong shade of blue, which clearly aims to give the impression that Spanish is more spoken there then in fact it is. One should must, for a country where Spanish is clearly a minority language of migrants, acertain the exact geographical distribution of speakers, and not colour the whole country as being, in a way, Spanish speaking;
  • Morocco - Spanish is not soken in significant levels at all in any part of the country, and no source states that - even if Spanish is known to some degree (and what degree is that?) by a minority people as a second language, that should not be included since this is not a map about Spanish knowledge as a foreign language, but a map of speakers of Spanish as first language. The source presented, by the way, is not a primary source, but just quotes others sources without giving the specific methodologies that were used to obtain any tye of numbers;
  • Western Sahara (RASD and Tinduf) -I just quote what Migang2g say "There aren´t official sources because saharauis don´t have an official country" And, in fact, all that is said about the situation in that territory does make one believe that Spanish is not spoken at all in any significante level (see Western Sahara and Sahrawi - note that for these the English language article states that their languages are "Hassaniya, Modern Standard Arabic; a northern minority also speak Tachelhit (a Berber dialect)", not Spanish), even if some sources just state that Spanish is spoken (never giving numbers; and the numbers of the overall population are not relevant because they say nothing about the numbers of Spanish speakers), that seems more a political position than a description of actual reality.

Please particpate in the discussions, either here, or at Image talk:Map-Hispanophone World.png and Image talk:Map-Hispanophone World.PNG. Thank you! The Ogre (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Morocco

In north Morocco and western sahara, spanish is not spoken as a fist language as i said before, but it is understood by people who went to school, also Spanish channels are very popular in north Morocco , that means people there understand spanish very well, plus many schools, universities and administration use spanish, you can't just ignore all theses facts, and if you think north Morocco should not be included in Hispanophone world, then it shouldn't be included in francophone world also. I personnally think Migang2g map makes more sens about spanish in Morocco. Morocco's national portal inlude spanish too, http://www.maroc.ma/ it means even if its not official by Moroccan government, it recognized at some point. Koumed (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Spanish doesn t get you very far in Tangiers whereas French is clearly the second language there, understood in all the banks etc. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Even if ALL inhabitants of Morocco spoke Spanish as a second language (and notice that contrary to delirious numbers of millions capable of doing it, the Morocco article says that only 20,000, out og more than 30 million, speak as 2nd language...), still Morocco SHOULD NOT be included in the map, since this is a map on native speakers and not knowledge of Spanish as a foreign language (if you went this way for a different map, sourced, of course, you would have to define exact proficiency in the language, either in written or oral form). This is not a map about people who are able to somehow understand Spanish (you would have to include all of the Portuguese , then, since basically everyone in Portugal understands Spanish, but not the reverse, though)! The Ogre (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Government and State portal and site often have version in other languages (the Moroccan one also has French and English, I supposed that is not enough to include Morocco in the Anglosphere...), that means nothing. The Ogre (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, if it is a map of native speakers, then Morocco should not be included! At least you can add an other color or a lighter one for regions that used it in schools and business as second language like north Morocco. And of couses i have some sources, like popular Moroccan magazines.. [3] I just think you shouldn't ignore places where spanish is an important language. Koumed (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to ignore it, I'm just saying that that is an issue for another map, as the ones you can see at Proficiency of English, French, Spanish and German in EU. The Ogre (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I dont think it's the same case here. It's not just a matter of knowlege of Spanish, thoses people use spanish in their jobs and studies. I think you should do like the map of Francophonie, Anglophone world, and other languages. Or you can show the two versions of hispanophone map. One with native speakers and the other where spanish have influence. I just think people should know about north Morocco, you can do it in anyway you want, i can provide sources. About the 20,000 who use it as a second langauge, This is wrong, only Spaniards who lives in Morocco are more then that, and there's no sources that prove that, I think the number actually represent the number of native speakers not people who used it as a second language. Koumed (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Falklands

And to claim Spanish is spoken in the Falklands is about as far from the truth as you can get, there was a war over this very issue and this looks like pure POV pushing and thus unacceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! The Ogre (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North America

The new map should most certainly not be included in the article. As I mentioned above that I love English but see no need to promote it unnecessarily, the same is true of Spanish -- love it, no need for unnecessary promotion. I think a big plaque upon the language pages has been "language wars" to attempt to make one language appear more important than others. It's pure nonsense.

As for factual accuracy, I have never before heard the claim that Canada is Spanish-speaking. If there are enclaves they should be cited and shaded separately, but for certain not the entire country. As for the USA, I thought Chris S. had fixed this problem on the map not too long ago? The general agreement was that Spanish was obviously the most important second language in the United States, but that it was disproportionately important in certain states and almost unimportant in others. Thus, we agreed to reflect in the map only those states where 10-30% of the population spoke Spanish, as per an MLA census included as a citation, which I believe meant New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California. I think this is fair, and showcases the realistic importance of Spanish in certain American states. SpiderMMB (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly again! The Ogre (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Have a look at this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-Hispano.png it's what the map should be like! At the moment you seem to be happy with the fact that English is underpromoted while Spanish is overpromoted. All I want is for the two languages to follow the same criteria! If you want the Spanish map to only use one colour outside of the US fine as long as the English language map only uses one colour. Your obsessed with colouring in US states to show the percentage of Spanish speakers good for you. However, you have to be prepared to colour areas of the world were English is spoken by large immigrant communities too. It's about equality! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to be fair, and showcases the realistic importance of Spanish and English in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable to want one standard for all of the maps. In fact, I even support your idea to color Paraguay differently because it's official but not predominant (like Nigeria for English). But can't you see that accusing people of being "racist" and "biased" is not the best way to achieve that result? Also, you've been going to pages like German, Italian, French, and Spanish and talking about how certain places shouldn't be colored in, but at English you only ask that places should be colored in. That's not equality either. SpiderMMB (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have a look at this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-Hispano.png it's what the map should be like!

Could someone please add the map to the article. By showing people were Spanish is the sole official language and where it shares this status with another language you will be able to really reflect the importance of the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


O.K. I added it myself. I think the article is much better know as it reflects the realistic importance of Spanish now. One map shows where the language is actually official and the other shows it's use around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The new map is OK, but we still don't have one standard for all the map pages. For instance, English is actually co-official in New Brunswick, and is not official at all in Quebec (where it is co-official at the federal level, but French is the only official provincial language and the predominant language as well). Yet both are colored dark blue. Will you ask on English for that to be changed? I think that would go a long way in proving you are actually making a good faith effort towards "equality" and not just promoting English. SpiderMMB (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not think much of ther new mnap at all, peru, Bolivia and Paraguay should eb in blue too and I opose adding this map to the article for this reason, everyone knows they speak Spanish as much in Peru as in Guatemala etc and the officialness of other languages is utterly irrelevant to a map like this. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with use of the map per reasons stated by Squeakbox.--Jersey Devil (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why I propose keeping both maps. One map that shows where Spanish has official status and another showing it's use around the world. If a language has official status in a country it is in a totally different position. Are you O.K, with keeping both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For me personally it doesn't matter, but would you also insist they change Quebec on English if your interest is really in equality? SpiderMMB (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes Quebec should be a different colour as French is the language spoken by the majority. That's why two maps would be a good idea for the English page two. One that shows that English is not the sole official language of Canada and another that actually shows where English is used and where it isn't.

OK, that's fine then. What I'd recommend you do is go to all the language pages (including English) and recommend that they do a three-tier coloring system something like this:
  • Dark blue -- countries where it is official (either de jure or de facto) and predominant (i.e. UK for English, Mexico for Spanish).
  • Light blue -- countries where it is official but not predominant (Quebec for English, Paraguay for Spanish).
  • Lightest blue -- countries where it is unofficial but spoken by some sizeable population or has some administrative status (i.e. Netherlands for English, U.S. states for Spanish)
The trickest one will be the last category, but I don't think it should have too much difficulty. Most people know the only country where Spanish is unofficial and widely spoken is the US. English might get more complicated because it's so widely spoken, but as long as it's citable (like the Netherlands, 87%) then there shouldn't be a major problem. SpiderMMB (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it could work. I'd only make one change though. I probably wouldn't colour in entire countries. For example, all of Canada shouldn't be dark blue as Quebec is French speaking so I'd colour in Quebec light blue. Same with Spanish. There are parts of Paraguay that are predemonantly Spanish speaking like the capital Asuncion so you'd probably have it dark blue while having the rest of Paraguay light blue. I'm not sure if this would work though. What do you think?

It could work. Quebec used to be a different color, and different US states are still different colors. For Asunción, a dark blue dot could be placed over it indicating that it is predominantly Spanish speaking. SpiderMMB (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Spanish speakers too high?

I only mention this because a number of users have pointed out that there are many countries where Spanish is not spoken by the entire population. One user mentioned Guatemala where only 60% of the population speaks Spanish. Other countries include, Paraguay, Peru and Bolivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The numbers not speaking Spanish are decreasing all the time but it is true there are still many. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish has been described as the third most influential language in the world (after English and French).

I find this sentence extremely subjective and unhelpful. What does "influential" mean anyway? I would like to remove the sentence from the article, but thought I'd better seek opinions here first. SteveRwanda (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right that it is subjective, but if there is a reputable source/sources for this, then it can stay. Saying that English is the most influential language in the world is subjective in a way, but many people would agree. Personally, I think the only way it would add something to the article is if there were specific examples of how it's been influential. I don't think there's any argument that it's been influential in the U.S., but it needs to be expanded if it claims "in the world". Kman543210 (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish introduced in Equatorial Guinea

In the article it says that Spanish was introduced to Equatorial Guinea in the 20th century, but that's not true, Equatorial Guinea had been a Spanish colony for much more time, since 1774, I think. Now, it's true that it was introduced in Marroco and Western Sahara in the 20th century, but not in Equatorial Guinea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.58.56.122 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] nous autres

Nous autres n'est pas réservé au français du Québec. Cette expression existe aussi bien sûr en français "standard" (si tant est qu'il y a encore des gens qui le parlent à Paris). Il est plus logique de comparer l'espagnol nosotros (un mot composé) avec le français nous-autres qu'avec le mot "nous" tout court. stephane.jourdan gmail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.113.129 (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can anyone help to insert the consonant v (as an allophone) on the Spanish consonant chart?

You might be surprised, but this sound does exist in Spanish. Most Spanish speakers tend to voice unvoiced consonants before voiced consonants. For instance; mismo ("same") is pronounced ['mizmo̞] (speakers who do not aspirate "s"), juzgar ("to judge") is pronounced [xuð'ɣaɾ] (speakers who use the sound "θ", Castilian Spanish). Following the same pattern, it happens exactly the same when an "f" is followed by a voiced consonant (although this combination is not common in Spanish), it voices the "f" turning it into a v. For example; Dafne ("Daphne") is pronounced ['davne̞], rosbif de ternera ("veal roast beef") is pronounced [ro̞z'β̞iv ð̞e̞ t̪e̞ɾ'ne̞ɾa]. It is remarkable the popularity in Spain to pronounce the last "b" in the English loanword pub as f, [paf]. In contact with a voiced consonant will turn the "f" into a v, el pub de Marta ("Marta's pub") would be pronounced [e̞l pav ð̞e̞ 'maɾt̪a]. Would anyone who knows how to type that on wikipedia help to put that on the Spanish consonant chart to show the reality of the Spanish language?

Yes, it can be added if there is a source for it. Kman543210 (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
On the following document; Unit 3 (Tema 3), page 3.

http://www.uclm.es/profesorado/nmoreno/compren/material/2006apuntes_fonetica.pdf

Exercise of transcription /f/ turns into [v]:

http://plaza.ufl.edu/lmassery/Consonantes%20oclusivasreviewlaurie.doc The information is in Spanish. Afgano pronounced [av'ɣ̞ ano]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.161.94 (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone help to add it on the Spanish consonant chart, as I do not know how to add it?
I've linked to the source regarding /f/ at Spanish phonology but I don't know what the source is. Who is the author? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Catalan and Valencian

There has been several attempts to add Valencian in the list of language on this article and the Spanish People article to try and make it seem as if it's a completely different and independent language from Catalan. Virtually all sources say that they're the same language. The article already stated that it's called Valencian in Valencia officially. It can be confusing if it's listed as a completely separate language when the Spanish courts, linguists, and authoritative sources state it's a variety (vareties) of the same language spoken in Andorra, Catalonia, and the Belear Islands. Please stop with the edit warring in trying to insert a nationalistic point of view. Jabez2000 (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have several linguistic books, including some specifically on Romance languages, and they all list Valencian as one of the Catalan Varieties. I know that this is only anecdotal information, but I have a friend in Valencia who has told me too that it's the same language and that some try to separate themselves for political reasons or nationalism. But let's get back to facts and not opinions. The Spanish Supreme Court has basically ruled that Catalan and Valencian are varieties of the same language (just as Portuguese in Portugal and Brazil are both called Portuguese even though the pronunciation and orthography differ some). I agree that it's misleading to list them separately, and the text already acknowledges that the language is officially known in Valencia as Valencian. Kman543210 (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)