Talk:Name of the Spanish language

Castilian versus Spanish
The following debate was originally on the "Castilian" talk page

in Spain the language is called castilian castellano (but the term spanish español is understood).

Some communites don't have castilian as the historic language, but as the state language.

Not all countries in America use 'castilian' castellano

the RAE does not set the standards, but it works with other academic institutions

Thewikipedian 23 Mar 2004


 * Some of what you say is true, some is not. I have turned the Castilian stub into a long article which fully clarifies the use of the two terms. &mdash; Chameleon 10:49, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I think than the article on Español vs. Castellano should be in Spanish Language, because Castilian in English normally means "The Spanish dialect of Castile". An intermediate solution would be creating a special article, referenced both in Spanish language and in Castilian. Pablo.cl 03:49, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I fully understand why you feel the article should go under Spanish language rather than Castilian. However, here is why I did not do so:
 * There was already a stub article with some minimal content on the term; and, if I had wanted to transfer the material to Spanish language and turn Castilian into a redirect, I would have had to list the latter page on Votes for Deletion. I felt this would have then failed, because I doubt very much that there would be a consensus to delete this page on VfD.
 * Spanish language is already very long, and I had a lot to say on the matter. If I'd included it in that article, people would quite rightly have complained I was taking over the entire article with one relatively trivial subsection, and I would have risked them editing it down.  I felt a link to a separate article where I could go into the subject in great depth was the best solution.
 * To a great extent, it is useless to talk about how 'the term "Castilian" is used in English', because the fact is that the vast majority of English speakers have never heard this term, and certainly are not aware of the facts I presented in my article (I say 'I' because I wrote it from scratch, not because I claim ownership). So, rather than worrying about how a minority of people use the word, I decided to create this article that gives in-depth information on the implications of the two terms in the Spanish-speaking world, and therefore gives English-speakers the knowledge they need to decide for themselves how to use the two terms in English.   How does this relate to the choice of location for the article?  Well, it means that I believe most people who type Castilian into the search box are not quite sure what the term means, or what nuances exist between it and the term 'Spanish', and are consulting the article because they want to find out.  Those who are simply looking for information on the Spanish language will almost certainly type in "Spanish" and find the relevant article.  I believe that if we renamed the article Differences in meaning and usage between 'Spanish' and 'Castilian', it might be more explicit, but it would be less 'findable', and less useful.  Don't you think?
 * &mdash; Chameleon 10:49, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You are very eloquent, now I agree with you.
 * However:
 * You didn't say why a special article isn't a good idea.
 * Maybe the castellano/español issue is clouding the Castilian article.
 * Pablo.cl 22:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I think I did explain why I thought a special article (with a name such as 'Differences in meaning and usage between "Spanish" and "Castilian"') would be less advisable than the status quo. I'm not sure what you mean by 'clouding the article'.  As I see it, linguistically (though not politically, of course) 'Castilian' is a synonym of 'Spanish', with certain nuances.  General discussion of the language known as Spanish or Castilian is in the Spanish language article, so the only raison d'être for the Castilian article is to explain the use of the term.
 * OK, OK. If you insist, I'll create that special page for you.  It doesn't make much difference to me &mdash; it just seemed simpler to leave things as they were.
 * I'm going to create that page now. It will mean that people looking for info on the term 'Castilian' are going to do one more click, but I don't suppose it matters that much. &mdash; Chameleon 23:43, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

End of debate originally on the "Castilian" talk page

THE CASTILIAN LANGUAGE
Hello. First of all I have to tell you that I'm a professional liguistic and polyglot (Castilian, English, Tuscan, Portuguese, Russian, Arabic and Japanese) and I live in Buenos Aires City, Argentina.

The name of the official language of Spain, is Castilian castellano. This language was born in Castile, when Spain didn't even exist as a country. This language, Castilian (which wasn't a dialect) spread all across the territories that NOW form Spain.

All the people started to speak it, and when the Kingdom Of Spain was unificated, it was picked out as the official language of Spain. There are four recognized languages in Spain, which are Castilian, Catalan, Galician and Euskera. And each language has its own name.

All of them are official, but only Catalan, Galician and Euskera, in their respectives authonomous communities.

The Castilian Language was brought from Spain, to the American Continent by Christopher Colombus, spreading it out all over America.

It says that Castilian is the "historical" name, but that is a big big big mistake, because Castilian is the current name of the language.

Currently, in 2005, in all of our Constitutions, in Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Uruguay, Venezuela, El Salvador, Peru, Paraguay, Spain, etc. The language is Castilian castellano. That is what the Law says and also, the media, the church, the books, the dictionaries, etc.

The term 'Spanish' is just an adjective for the language. Castilian, is Spanish, but... not because its name is Spanish, but because it is a Spanish Language, among the four spoken in Spain.

It cannot be called 'Spanish' because there are three (3) more Spanish Languages. Castilian is as Spanish as Catalan, and Galician is as Spanish as Euskera.

In English, you always make a mistake by calling my language as Spanish. This is because you were taught wrongly at School, and that's the term you heard since you were very very little kids, to refer the Castilian Language.

You were also taught and believe that Castilian is the Spanish Language as spoken in Castile, but that is the biggest mistake in the whole word. The Language spoken in Castile, is Castilian, and it is the same language, spoken in the rest of Spain (even in the communities where Castilian is the second language).

You were also taught that Castilian is a dialect of Spanish spoken in Castile. Another mistake. The Castilian Language is the same, spoken in Spain and in all the countries that once Spain colonized.

In English, when you refer to the Castilian spoken in Spain you say "Castilian Spanish" (as it was Spanish with the Castilian Pronounciation) but that is wrong as well. Because the adjective must be Spanish for the language, ant not Castilian.

I mean, when you want to refer to my native language as spoken in Spain, it must be "Spanish Castilian" (because it is the Castilian Language as Spoken in Spain) and when you want to refer to what we speak in America, it is, depending the country, Argentine Castilian, Mexican Castilian, Cuban Castilian, etc. Even, when you speak about the language as spoken in Andalucía, it is Andalusian Castilian, and not Andalusian Spanish, and if spoken in Canary Islands (Where they don't pronounce the "C" and the "Z" as the English "TH", it is Canarian Castilian.

The Castilian Language is the same, of course, only that depending on the country it has different words, slangs, and idioms. But it's always the same.

To say Spanish to refer Castilian, sounds as illogical as calling British, the English Language. Because, English is the official Language of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, but there are also other languages there. And they are also British.

So, to say Castilian Spanish, is the same as saying "English British". When it is "Spanish Castilian" and "British English".

So, it's time to buclke down to use this term "Castilian" to refer to the official language of Spain and the countries in America, instead of the wrong word 'Spanish'.

I hope you have understood the real history of the language, as well as its real name, and the way it oughts to be called. I say this because there are lots of documents around the internet, and they are all wrong!!! I just don't know where did they get the information from.

It was a pleasure to explain you all about the Castilian Language.


 * Alvaro Palmieri.
 * This doesn't make sense. Even within England, we have had different languages, but we still call it "English".  It is normal for Spanish to be called "Spanish" in English.  In Spanish, it is accepted that the language has two names.  That's the end of it. Chamaeleon 11:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make sense to me too. And I was born in Spain, learnt that "Spanish" español term is above the "regional" variances. When we say Castilian castellano we (ok, me) mean "the Castilian variation of Spanish", as "Andalusian" is "the Spanish language spoken in Andalusia", etc. Anyway, he can talk about America, but I think I know my country better than him --80.103.134.9 17:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the phrase a very large, very vocal minority in Spain. because its meaning is completely ambiguous and adds nothing to the sentence it belonged to.

I must point out to Alvaro Palmiere, that this is English, not Spanish, and terms and conventions used in one language don't necessarily apply to another. This is shown even in your text where you use the term "Esukera" to mean the Basque language. English doesn't have this term and even in the language (Which in English is called Spanish) this form is shared with the traditional forms of "vasco" or "vascuence". The fact that you call it such shows that you are looking at this from the wrong point of view. The politically correct form used at the moment in Spanish speaking countries to refer to Basque don't apply to English. I notice in your text you don't call Galician, "galego" which it would be called in that language, nor Catalan, "catalá". This same idea for naming something can work both ways e.g.: most Spanish speakers call a tuxedo "esmoquín" and believe that it's name in English is "smoking", or a car park / parking lot is called "parking", and, one that particularly sticks in my craw, "coach" to refer to a "trainer" of some sort, when they really mean a "therapist". These differences occur because languages express themselves differently, and the use of words change from their original meaning, especially when used in a foreign language. My point is, you cannot refer to the usage of a word in one language to explain its use in another. Therefore for the majority of English speakers, "Spanish" refers to the language that originated in Castile, and "Castilian" is seen as the "prestigious" dialect as spoken within the Kingdom of Spain. Jayjase (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone place something to the effect that Castillian is, among linguistic and other circles, the proper name for the language we anglophones call "Spanish"? I think this is warranted because in many parts in Latin American and Spain, Castillian is called Castillian castellano, Catalán is called Catalán, Galician is called Galician gallego, etc.

Pozole 15:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not really. In Latin America, the language (let's not name it) is called español or castellano, not Spanish or Castilian. English is English and Spanish is Spanish. Discussing this with appeals to history is akin to arguing against the use of the word atom because the original Greek means "indivisible". Things get labeled arbitrarily or "wrongly" all the time. The name of this language in English is Spanish. I mean, really, get over it. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Those who insist on calling the language "Castilian" in English do so not out of "inability to grasp this complex linguistic distinction" as suggested by the Wikipedia article, but rather to make a deliberate political statement. That is actually a perfectly legitimate position in a free and democratic society and you are the one who should get over it ! 161.24.19.82 11:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with whatever political position you may hold, but Wikipedia is not a democracy or a forum for political statements. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"An Uruguayan"
There is currently a content conflict over the use of "a Uruguayan" vs. "an Uruguayan" with the user User:Reisio. I think this is silly, the correct English grammar is "a Uruguayan", in English the "oo" sound in Uruguayan doesn't exist like it does in the Spanish variation of the word "Uruguayo". Please stop reverting back to "an Uruguayan", it is incorrect.--Jersey Devil 03:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the dictionary lists both pronunciations, yoo-ruh and ooroo, as acceptable pronunciations. However, the most common one is by far the more-English pronunciation of the word and because most English-speakers are more likely to say "a Uruguayan" that should be used. Also, I ask everyone to be mindful of the three-revert rule since.  Thanks, guys, hopefully we can put this minor issue to rest. :-) --Chris S. 03:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A bit of ethnocentrism with the english example
"To understand how two terms can refer to the same language, imagine that the English language..."

I think this example in the introduction is a bit confusing and mostly ethnocentrist.

There are closer examples to Spain, as it would be Italy and its Tuscan-based Italian language, despite of other Italian languages and dialects; or even France with its langue d'oc (Occitan), Breton or the langue d'oil (later becoming French).

I personally would say also that there is a kind of bias always trying to extrapolate british-english reality to Spain nationalities issues when there are far more accurate examples (for and against) in other European or even Asian countries, but that's more a personal opinion of mine.80.26.84.138 23:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, when explaining to English-speaking audiences, it makes sense to build on what they know rather than more exotic examples. Are Australians or Singaporeans knowledgeable enough about Tuscan or Breton?
 * Of course, I expect the Italian Wikipedia does not compare in relation to English.
 * --Error 00:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

removed sentence from first paragraph
This was at the end of the first paragraph:
 * That is why referring to Spanish with the term castellano is not correct, and this is why in the Real Academia's Diccionario de Lengua Española the term 'Castellano' is no longer synonymous with 'Español'.

This is not NPOV. The second part of the sentence might be (although it is unsourced), but saying "X is incorrect" is not, especially when there are people who feel that it is not incorrect. Wikipedia is descriptivist, not prescriptivist. - furrykef (Talk at me) 17:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger
On the proposal to merge Castilian Spanish into this one, I approve. Unless someone else thinks it should be merged into Spanish language, then I'll get behind that. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  08:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not agree to merge Castilian Spanish or Spanish language into this one. This article is about a diferent subject. --Jlpinar83 (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is? Elaborate.  Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  21:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Spanish language should remain more or less as it is and read about the language as a whole; Castilian Spanish should read about the particularities of the Castilian accent, especially from a phonological point of view where differences are easy to spot; but this article should have more of a sociological or sociolinguistic approach, as it reads about the way speakers call their own language, and not about any purely linguistic issues. Thus, it's better to leave it out of the Castilian Spanish article; they treat different subjects. It's a pity this article is so badly sourced, but it should reflect the different nuances the choice of words brings in. Thanks for your cooperation ;-) Cvalda (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph is wrong concerning the origins and evolution of Castilian Spanish
Hi: I'm from Madrid, Castile. As far as i understand, paragraph 1 contains wrong informations. Here I suggest some changes as far: Castilian spanish and the other romance languages spoken in the Iberian Peninsula (e.g. Catalonian, Galician, Portuguese) were modified by evolved from spoken Latin. original Old Castilian is not spoken anymore as it has been evolving for centuries. Medieval Castilian can be read in texts such as "El cantar del Mio Cid". Then, the end of the paragraph does not make sense: This fact facilitated the expansion of Castilian to the rest of the kingdom, so Latin was the 'glue' that joined the different dialects at that time. The new language had similarities with the old Castilian, but was different enough to receive a new name when it became the national language. --Erich78 (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hyraxes or rabbits?
This is a very minor point, but I can't quite make sense of the statement, "The name [Hispania] was previously Canaanite [for] 'coast of hyraxes', named by Canaanite-speaking Phoenicians who mistook Spain's large rabbit population for hyraxes that roamed the Iberian Peninsula in ancient times...." "Mistook Spain's large rabbit population" implies that there were rabbits there at the time. "Hyraxes that roamed the Iberian Peninsula" implies that there were also hyraxes there. If the Phoenician settlers found both rabbits and hyraxes, why would you say that they named the land after the rabbits but mistakenly called the rabbits "hyraxes"? Why not just say that they named it for the hyraxes directly?

Unless there are ancient documents that say specifically, "We found a lot of rabbits, but we thought they were hyraxes, so we called the country 'hyrax coast'," I would reword the statement. Were there hyraxes in Spain in those days? If so, delete the words "who mistook Spain's large rabbit population." If not, either delete "that roamed the Iberian Peninsula in ancient times", or move that clause back to where it modifies "rabbit population". Gwil (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would remove it. Phoenician is not Canaanite, and this has no source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Geography
The zone between Galicia and Portugal, where, in addition to Galician and Castilian, Portuguese may also be spoken.

Which is the zone between Galicia and Portugal? Galicia borders Portugal, therefore there is not "a zone between" both territories. —Preceding --87.116.154.234 (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)unsigned comment added by 87.116.154.234 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Which came first, the language or the region?
This article states in no uncertain terms that the name of the language comes from the name of the region.

However, the first theory I'd read of the origin of the name (and I can't remember where, or I'd have already added it as an alternative theory) was that the language developed as "the language of the castles" -- essentially, that the Iberian, Celtic and Basque peasants and traders, merchants and entertainers attempted to use Latin as a common business language, but that they developed a pidgin which then Creolised and became a full language in its own right.

The country of Castilla would therefore have named itself after the language of its people -- Castellano (Castlese) => Castillia (Castleland).

The same would also follow for Catalan/Catalunya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Wrong (talk • contribs) 17:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Bold textTHERE IS NO SUCH A THING AS A "SPANISH LANGUAGE".
 * Please sign with your signature. In addition, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Alvaro is violating the policies with his Argentine views of the name of the Spanish language, just to let you all know. Hill Crest&#39;s WikiLaser (Boom). (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Alvaro Palminteri is 1000% correct. He knows what he is talking about. The correct name of the language spoken in Mexico,Argentina,etc,all those countries,is CASTILLIAN!! Spanish is highjacking the name of an entire country and giving it to one language out of 3 or 4 in that country. Castilian highjacked the name of Spain and assigned it to their language. Is something similar about how United States hijacked the name " America". There is a whole Wikipedia article about it, is the same argument. There isn't "one Spanish language", there are 3 SPANISH LANGUAGES(if you don't count Galician, which many say is not a language,but a dialect of Portuguese,but that's another article altogether). Catalan is a SPANISH LANGUAGE.


 * Stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox and please sign with your signature. Hill Crest&#39;s WikiLaser (Boom). (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Somebody mentioned the situation in France,with Occittan and others. Well,if you want to be politically correct with it, don't call it French, call it "Parisian,Gallic or something, I'm not familiar with lingusitics in France, that would be another article altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.168.21 (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

An huge mountain of nonsenses
All this article is a pure mountain of nonsenses, ending with the translation of "román paladino" as "plain romance". On the contrary, "román paladino" < romance palatino, the language of the court. In fact, Castilian/Spanish is an official language since XIIIth century, as the kings of Castile, by law, established so. The only difference of the term "Spanish" and "Castilian" is merely political: Castilian is an etymological term which states simply that the language was born there, in Castile, Spanish is a term stating it was the language of the Empire created around it. Election between one and other is also political, no more no less, and most of the "histories" quoted in the article are complete nonsenses.83.36.171.162 (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

False cognates
This article falls into the false cognate trap, by incorrectly implying that the English word "Spanish" is the same thing as the Spanish word "español" and that the English word "Castilian" is the same thing as the Spanish word "castellano". They are not, as can be seen by looking it up in a dictionary of the English language. The English word "Spanish" refers to the language that is spoken in parts of Spain, Latin America, and the US. It is correctly translated in Central America, Mexico, and the US as "español", and is correctly translated in much of South America as "castellano". The English word "Castilian" refers to the version of the language spoken in northern and central Spain and used as a broadcasting standard in Spain. It is correctly translated in Central America, Mexico, and the US as "castellano". Duoduoduo (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) "Castilian language" (as opposed to "Castilian Spanish", which certainly refers to a regional dialect) is not a false cognate. It is widely used in English language scholarship to signify the Spanish language: (a) almost always when it is contrasted to other Spanish langauges (Catalan, Galician) (b) very often in historical works dealing with the early stages of modern Spanish, and (c) it is also accepted as a valid alternative name for the Spanish language nowadays. For the academic works using the term, see: Scholar Google Search "Castilian language"; for the actual current use of "Castilian" meaning "Spanish language", see examples: 1, 2, 3, 4; other definitions: 1902 Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Castilian", and others (1, 2). There are tons of examples. These are just a few, but i think it is enough to demonstrate that this use for the term "Castilian" is actually used, so it is not a false cognate.


 * 2) In the whole Spanish speaking world both "Castellano" and "Español" are valid terms to designate the language. One or the other are often preferred in different contexts, countries and times; but both of them are valid in any place. It is a matter of custom and/or preference, not of different meanings here and there. Beacause the meaning of "Castellano" to designate a regional variant of Spanish is also valid -and actually used- all over the Spanish speaking world. Polysemy. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Out of dozens of references given above, I could only find one that says or implies that the language spoken outside of Spain can be called Castilian in English, and that one is by the Real Academia Español. See Talk: Spanish language for details. Let's just continue the discussion there.  Duoduoduo (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Simplicity vs. reality of the terms Castilian and Spanish (refering to languages)
The key of the problem is confusion, and things "given for garanted" do not help to the subject, plus the name of the country Spain and the use of spanish to refer from things from Spain make it worse, we are lucky people from spain is called spaniard and not spanish, so that is clear, even if some dont use it.

First of all i want to be clear about something The institution from Spain (that is not a official Academy to rule on most of the countries where the "subject language" we discus here is used at) called "Real Academia Española" may, or may not, mean the same as: Royal Academy of Spain / Royal Spanish Academy / Spanish Royal Academy / Spaniard Royal Academy / Royal Spaniard Academy...

All those may be correct or invalid translations even if any can make you understand what are you talking about, that is because unlike the english (that is a very simple language other language are more complicated/complete. so you should not translate word by word (even if it make sense), but the correct meaning should be translated, giving a note explainig that was translated the meaning and not the words.

the language at spain, or "the spanish language" is castilian (see what i did there?)

Acording to the constitution of Spain the castilian is the official language of Spain, and it states that all spaniards have the duty to know castilian and also have the right to use it. (because the constitution of Spain dont force spaniards to use the language, but since is the official, force them to know it. as you know the Catala language is spoken at cataluña and balearis islands, Galician language is spoken at Galicia, etc,... but all spaniards have the DUTY to know castilian language, and the RIGHT to use it.

the things are more dificult since Spanish and castilian may refer to something from Spain, or something from Castile, so the similar or exact same words make the confusion even bigger at english language.

then the "Castilian language" may refer to "idioma castellano" "lengua castellana"/"castilian tonge" and those in spanish can be Synonyms or not, becaues may refer to diferent things, that make it hard to english speakers.

because lengua castellana may refer to language spoken at castile (spain) or may refer to the language spoken at other areas (that is called idioma castellano wich translation to english is castilian language.) see? the problem is very deep, also to make things worse, let alone english translations and focus on spanish and castilian language, people that are at countries that speak castilian and spanish, often mix or confuse, or for simplisity use the wrong word to refer to the language. thats why you will find that lots argue about it on "spanish" wikipedia.

Example of wrong words used to simplify things for english speakers, the official website of the Argentine Republic (with official language is castilian, the one that is learned at any school there) it state on the english version of the portal that the language spoken at Argentina is spanish. so most people in the world will have a idea of wich language is spoken there, but still is not spanish. is castilian, and if we want to be more presise there is several deformations from castilian that are spoken there, for example at Buenos Aires City (Capital of Argentina) the language spoken there is "Castellano rioplatense" (wrong translated as Rioplatense Spanish at english wikipedia. (one of the big diference of it, is the use of voseo the same version of castilian that is spoken at Uruguay Republic. but of you travel trough Argentina big territory, you will find diferent local versions. even the sound of same words is diferent. so all this just make it more complicated. but still the real official language of the Argentin Republic is Castilian.

So the big problem is that lots of translations, take the word "castilian" and simplify it as "spanish" then all derivative work is not the real thing, even if is close to reality, so if someone want to be close to reality, can use the word spanish to replace any castellano word, but will be not the right thing if you want the truth.

the only thing left to say is, as many wikipedia articles, some of the castellano/spanish problems are because of simplification to make things easy to understand, instead of to show true, and that plus wikipedia show what the mayority of people with intereste of fixing improving wikipedia do not care enough so wikipedia just show what the predominant wikipedia users, or at least the ones that have more power at wikipedia feel is correct. even when things are not ruled by any "rule".

this is a clear example of why people like me even if do little contributions to wikipedia, feel that unless have enough time to fix things and go aganisth the flow trying to make the big "power" users or the massive amount of users that give for garanted something will make it imposible to fix it.

examples are already given. the words "America" and "Americans", or the definition of "Latin America" that include Paraguay but dont include Canada. and lots of other things. any reason to not include Canada to the term Latin America, are the same and less powerfull to include Paraguay (even the country name is on the other official language, paraguay official languages are guarani and "castellano/español". canada official languages are english and french, almost all paratuayan citizens speak guarani, on daily basis (somethimes mixing it with some spanish/castilian/whatever, on Canada just a part speak english as daily basis, and french is to latin the same as spanish is to latin, french is part of romance language as Spanish, Castilian, Italian, Romanian, Portuguese,... latin americans isnt a race, unlike African-American that can be described as "race" etc,... but when someone speak about "latin america" belive is talking about any country south from USA. and that isnt true, even if is given for garanted. so mistakes made by some, or things simplified by some, are taken as true when they arent. so if 9 out of 10 belive something, that does not make it true, just make it popular. and even if i could be wrong, afaik wikipedia search for the true not for the popular.

there is lots of examples like this ones. but i dont want to go ahead. since there is no castilian wikipedia, there is only spanish wikipedia because is EASY and more simple, so even that is popular. this problems can be traced at thousands of wikipedia articles, where wikipedia users, just end giving the simplification or the popular the final word on the mather, and maybe some foot note about the thing.

i know my english language may not be good. but i belive was enought to show my point. i didnt discuss the origin of words to try to change things, i just wanted to let you know how things are and how the castilian speakers like me, belive and feel about wikipedia at this so i can help you to make the choise the popular wikipedia users belive they want. as allways at wikipedia.

as a small fun but full of meaning to this discussion subject, i will leave a Youtube link ( external link to original video on "castilian/spanish" without subtitles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyp7xt-ygy0, with subtitles on english from the original autor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LjDe4sLER0 & with subtitles on spanish http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmeBt40yltw ), to a video that will make clear undesrtanding of what the "spanish" word usage to refer to diferent languages, is doing when people belive they are learning the same language spoken at Mexico, Spain, Argentina, etc,... this problem is big because the "spanish (a.k.a. castilian/other dialects from castilian and spanish" is the language that is third as most used at internet, and is first as the one that is used as official language on greater number of countries. and is second at number of native speakers, that increase the problem. (this rankings can be verified at any source, dont belive me, just search and you will come with this same result.

i hope this discussion help to make things more clear for the ones insterested on truth, even if will not change anything at how wikipedia reflect the issue. i will discuss all this with anyone that want to. to help him undesrtand (or show me im wrong)

as disclaimer, i will say that my english language skills are (as you verified) not very high. but my english read skills are way better than my write skills. since i can translate the very true meaning from english to my native/first language (Castilian) i can also translate word by word, but most of the time, word by word, will not be the right path. when you go to spanish wikipedia, remember that lots of rules are diferent there, the very basic example is the image usage rules, "fair-use" is not allowed there.

PS: i will try to fix all my spelling errors later, im going to bed right now. (still you can read my discussion with focus on meaning not on the word spelling) regards WiZaRd SaiLoR (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk
When is this article published? Ellen eaint (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

When is this article published?
When Ellen eaint (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Map dispute
Is there a reason why the map illustrating the use of “castellano” versus “español” doesn’t match what is written in the corresponding article? Chile and Peru are both designated as tending to use the latter more over the former—but the article contradicts that! For what it’s worth, my personal daily experience in Chile confirms that usage of “castellano” remains the most common. But it would be helpful to have some kind of survey, article, study, etc. that can actually verifiably prove this matter one way or another. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed the map illustrating the divide in usage between "español" and "castellano." Because it does not cite any verifiable sources, it gives the appearance that the designation of which countries use which term is dependent on the whims of whoever is tinkering with the map at the moment. In my personal experience, I have only rarely heard the use of the term "español" in Chile; in fact I've been corrected by not a few people the rare moments I slip and use it rather than "castellano." That this may be changing, especially among younger people because of increased influence from abroad I do not doubt. However, I will not post something as "fact" which I can only base on personal experience. Again, can anybody provide proof which countries use which terms, rather than baseless assertions? Without citing verifiable sources this map is useless. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I have attempted to engage other editors on this matter since June 2020, but to no avail. Even my recent entry on the talk page concerning removal of the map failed to get a response. Would like to get consensus on this matter and have solicited for help at Third Opinion. The map in question has been displayed on the page since 2007. However, it does not provide any sources for how the countries which use español/castellano were designated one way or other on the map. That article’s talk page has a handful of complaints, including from myself, from people who argue that the map contradicts what their personal observations of the language’s nomenclature in some of these countries. Furthermore, the for the map strongly suggests that these designations are determined according to the personal whims of whoever is editing it at the moment. Just to be clear, I am not against the idea of the map. However, if the map is based on conjecture and personal observation, rather than verifiable studies, then it has no place in an encyclopedia. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * There was a discussion in the Spanish wiki about this particular issue, a minor edit war ensued and in the end the map was kept afloat. [] Instead of deleting it, you should have just went in and find a reference, inserted a template, or update the map in Wikimedia Commons. You also deleted it without consensus instead of improving the listed map, see WP:RCD and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. I will revert it for now until a consensus has been reached, please do not start an edit-war. With regards, PyroFloe (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I’m not interested in triggering an edit war and having to warn me from starting one is neither polite nor indicative of my edits being received in good faith. Especially when I have sought to garner consensus since last year, then solicited third-party arbitration on this matter precisely to avoid the outcome you’re warning me against. Returning to the topic at hand, your point of view puts me in the unusual position of having to prove your assertion. After all, if this were a matter of “just going in and finding a reference,” why have neither you nor any other editor which prefers to keep the map not done this already? Wouldn’t it be incumbent upon yourself to find sources to verify the map? I should add that the map would qualify for removal based on WP:NOR. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in an edit war either, I see good faith in your edits as I understand your concern. You are trying to improve the article, and I get that. Let us just discuss this civilly, I am so sorry if I seemed impolite when I warned for an edit war, its just that you are deleting stuff which I think is substantial on proving a point about the use of either "castellano" or "español". I edited the file earlier to add 2 countries with citations from the academy itself. With Philippine Spanish and Judeo-Spanish which I cited with the official academy's website. Citations are definitely required as you said, previous editors of the map file didn't bother finding one. I just think that improving it is better than removing it, thats all. PyroFloe (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: This Commons map is used on about two dozen wikis, so centralized discussion may be better held at Commons:File talk:Castellano-Español-es.png (as initiated by CurryTime). I believe that sourcing information goes with the image rather than a reference in this article (though the caption might require a reference if it makes additional statements). The sourcing information with the image should have (1) the creators of the image who released it and (2) the sources used for the information represented in the image. The image summary at Commons describes itself (or rather its file-image at en.wiki) as its source, which is a circular reference. This is, frankly, original research. WP:No original research is policy, so I can understand editors wishing to remove it from the article without discussion. Another way to handle sourcing would be if all the information represented in the map is also in the accompanying article text and properly referenced there. However, the two can easily become out of synch. As mentioned, the image and text are in conflict, and that's another reason to remove the unsourced map image. It might be easier to start over with an SVG map and proper sourcing. I'm not sure about specific sources you could use. If possible, it's generally best to have a single source, to show that the map is a single "snapshot in time" and that such a collection of data is notable through the reliable source. (Incidentally, I found the image on the web here, without the required attribution by linking to Commons. Any of the authors of the image can feel free to petition the website to attribute their work, as required by law.) This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps. –  Reidgreg (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you Reidgreg for your helpful input. Very appreciated. And thank you PyroFloe for your edits and for working with me on this matter. Will bring this matter up at Commons and, in the meantime, see if I can find some kind of study which can be used as a reference for the map. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, since this image was used in a variety of wikis, it is best to discuss this in Commons instead. PyroFloe (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Philippines
I question if castellano is used in the translations (if any) of the 1935 and 1973 ones. Also, can't find article regarding official languages in the 1898 constitution (or maybe just missing it). Removed text from existing version as disputed:

"Philippines: The first two constitutions of the Philippines specify castellano, both in Spanish and Filipino (Kastilà), and the official Filipino version of the current 1987 Constitution uses Kastilà (castellano) when referring to the language. However, the term español (Espanyól) is also encountered in common speech and writing, and both terms are interchangeable in Philippine Spanish and other languages of the Philippines" TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Sky Harbor: As the one who contributed this wording, is "castellano" the one used in the Spanish translation of the 1935 and 1973 ones? The original (English) text says Spanish, so expecting "español". What about the Filipino translation (if any) of those as well? TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Reverting your edit(s), . I would have been more open to you adding a dispute tag instead of just removing the text wholesale since it's not like it's entirely false.


 * Now, moving on. In the 1898 Constitution, castellano is used in Section 93 as seen here:


 * El empleo de las lenguas usadas en Filipinas es potestativo. No puede regularse sino por la ley y solamente para los actos de la autoridad pública y los asuntos judiciales. Para estos actos se usará por ahora la lengua castellana.


 * I currently do not have an accessible copy of the 1935 Constitution on hand but the document is available online if you have institutional access. That blurb in the 1935 Constitution as written in this article predates me and has been in the article long before I started touching it, but I will say this: in the 1930s, Spanish-speaking Filipinos mostly called the language castellano instead of español. The name español started becoming predominant in Philippine Spanish in the years after World War II, where today (according to Antonio Quilis and Celia Casado-Fresnillo) 85% of Spanish speakers in the Philippines they studied and interviewed refer to the language as español, and the remaining 15% as castellano. From anecdotal experience in my interactions with Spanish speakers, those who say castellano more often than not are old Spanish-speaking families who have maintained Spanish as the language of their household, but as the data shows, not all. That said, I've asked Spanish-speaking Filipino groups for more information and will be glad to share them here. Google Books seems to suggest use of español, but I want to be sure.


 * The 1973 Constitution seems to mention "Kastila" (castellano), according to Google Books), while this is definitely the case for the 1987 Constitution. I do not know if a Spanish translation of the 1973 Constitution has been made but I also asked. For the 1987 Constitution, I received an answer from Guillermo Gómez Rivera, Director of the Philippine Academy of the Spanish Language, a while back where he said the government approached him for an official Spanish translation of the Constitution but he refused because of the decision to remove the language's official status, and as such no official version exists. (The only Spanish version of the 1987 Constitution, in fact, is the translation by the Cortes Generales of Spain, which for obvious reasons would use español.)


 * That said, I read your edit summary and I dispute the notion that we have to specifically use Spanish to mention Spanish. The Philippines, as you are very aware, is a unique case with respect to its relation to the Spanish language, and it merits mention even if the majority of Filipinos (including you) no longer speak it. Given that I still speak it, and I'm arguably one of only a handful of Filipino Wikipedians who speak it, I would argue that said perspective matters. --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)