Talk:Philippine Spanish

Pronunciation of ll

Pronunciation of caballo as kabayo and cebollas as sibuyas is not entirely correct. This pronunciation of ll as y is only found in Tagalog and Bisayan languages. In Ilokano, caballo is kabalyo and in Bikol and Ilokano, cebollas is sibulyas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.16.169 (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Contradictions

This page is a mess. Apparently the dialect of Spanish spoken in the Philippines is acquired by children by watching Dora the Explorer. Does that mean that it is really a 2nd language? My impression is that as of 2016 Spanish is virtually absent from the country and I see no evidence here to counter that, in fact the Elcano source seems to confirm this. Tell me what to do about this page. --Jotamar (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikepedia as you probably already know is at the mercy of its writers; many of its writers don’t have integrity in mind. Hispanophiles would do anything even at the expense of integrity. Same thing they did in Wikipedia Spanish Language in the Philippines --99.141.208.2 (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Celebrities?

Do Pilita Corrales, Ian Veneración and Marian Rivera speak Spanish? --Shanghaijim (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Pilia Corrales does speak Spanish; Jackie Lou,her daughter, does tooBuhayPinoy (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Close to disappearing

I've deleted the Citation needed tag which affected this statement: the dialect has lost most of its speakers and it might be now close to disappearing. My reasons to delete the tag are:

• It was added by an IP editor.
• I've been looking for such a citation and I've found nothing that explicitly says that; however, many sources seem to indirectly confirm the statement, and, even more important, what we really need is a source confirming that the dialect is still spoken, which doesn't seem to exist either.

If any editor is not happy about my deletion, please discuss it here. --Jotamar (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Merger

See discussion at Is this actually a separate variety of Chinese? which has the same reasoning as the merge done here. There are no reliable sources specifically describing "Philippine Spanish" as a separate variety of language. The sources only describe the use and education of Spanish in the Philippines. The claims of phonological differences were entirely unsourced. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Philippine Spanish is a regulated language. It is a recognized and distinct language officially regulated by the Academia Filipina de la Lengua Española. It is recognized as a Spanish dialect. It is distinct topic and cannot be merged until proven to the contrary. 98.153.5.170 (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

None of these sources say that this is a distinct dialect. They mention Spanish as a language spoken in the Philippines and give statistics for the number of Spanish speakers in the Philippines, which is thoroughly discussed at Spanish language in the Philippines and not the same. All of the material here is either WP:OR or about Spanish in the Philippines without distinction as a separate dialect.

We would need a reliable source that directly says something like It is recognized as a Spanish dialect for it to be separate from Spanish language in the Philippines. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Your contention is not valid. It is recognized by the experts at the Spanish Academy which you are not. Until you get a contrary opinion from other expertsI and the gathering of more sources and consensus this page should not never have be merged and the status quo should therefore be maintained. I will revert this page and do not falsely accuse me again of edit warring and abuse your authority. This page has existed a long time even before your assertions. 98.153.5.170 (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, you need a reliable source that says that this is a distinct variety of Spanish. The existence of a linguistic academy (unlicensed in this case) doesn't say that. Take for example, the North American Academy of the Spanish Language. It is an academy for the use of Spanish in the United States, but its existence does not assert that there is a dialect of Spanish unique to the United States. Similarly, the Philippine Academy of the Spanish Language is an academy for the use of Spanish language in the Philippines.

Your continued reverting of the page, even after the redirect was restored by other editors, is edit warring by definition. But my post on your talk page was a notice, alerting you and warning you about edit warring and the three revert rule, in case you were not already aware. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to recover this page

This page about the Philippine dialect of Spanish was turned into a redirect in November 2019, for reasons never really explained. Perhaps the rationale was that there are very few speakers left of this dialect, but we don't know. In any case, the dialect had at its heyday perhaps as many as several million regular speakers, and in my opinion it deserves its own page, especially since I don't see any part of the original page copied to the redirected page. --Jotamar (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The reasoning is described both in the section immediately above this, as well as in the same reasoning as Talk:Mandarin_Chinese_in_the_Philippines#Is this actually a separate variety of Chinese?. There are no reliable sources that say that Philippine Spanish is actually a separate dialect. All of the existing RSes only described the instruction and use of Spanish language in the Philippines, but not as a separate dialect. Here is some of the (actually referenced) material that was moved over.

If you can find RSes that actually document Philippine Spanish as a formally separate dialect, then by all means we should recreate this article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I missed the previous discussion. I was probably too busy at the time, and it didn't help that the redirection was carried out the same day in which the discussion was opened. I have found one source in English by John Lipski: Contemporary Philippine Spanish .... There should be at least some sources in Spanish too. --Jotamar (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that's a good one! I'll look for some too; we'll need more than one RS. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Several weeks have gone by, and nothing new appears. In my opinion, one single reliable source is enough to recover the page. If nobody is against it, I'll recover the original contents in a few days. --Jotamar (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jotamar: One RS is not typically enough, per WP:GNG. Most of the previous material wouldn’t be recovered anyways as it was entirely WP:OR. If a new RS is found, the article should only contain material actually from the RSes. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm quite sure there are more reliable sources about this, written in Spanish and in printed form. However, right now it's difficult for me to track them. I don't think postponing indefinitely the recovery of the page is a good idea. --Jotamar (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no deadline or rush. Once we find another reliable source, we can build an article from it.

A book here (End of note 2) actually discusses the study and potential distinction of non-creole Philippine Spanish, but the only source mentioned is the Lipski article that you already linked. The cited French-language Quilis source might say something about it as well though.

I found access to the Quilis source here, but one has to make sure that it is actually describing a non-Creole variety of Spanish that is also distinct from other varieties of Spanish. As the discussion on page 87 delineates between its focus on langues mixtes (mixed languages and creoles like Chavacano) and langues mélangées (which may include dialects and creoles as well). The latter would be the part to focus on. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, folks (tagging Jotamar and MarkH21). This proposal has been pretty dormant for the last three years, so I took the liberty of redoing the article as part of a long-running discussion on Commons over including the Philippines on linguistic maps of Spanish that we use on Wikipedia (discussion here). It's not done just yet (I intend to do some additional research once I return to Spain, including getting my hands on a copy of La lengua española en Filipinas by Antonio Quilis and Celia Casado-Fresnillo, which talks about Philippine Spanish extensively), but it's significantly more sourced than the previous version of the article, and I took pains to make sure that the sources in question specifically mention Philippine Spanish (the dialect) as opposed to Chavacano, though features of the two languages overlap. I look forward to continuing work on this article as time allows and as we encounter more sources. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Emilio Aguinaldo, President of the Philippines, delivering a speech in Spanish

• ... that estimates for the number of Philippine Spanish speakers vary widely from the thousands to the millions? Source: "El número de hispanoparlantes en Filipinas varía mucho, según las fuentes, y oscila entre los cuatro millones y unos pocos miles..." ("The number of Spanish speakers in the Philippines varies a lot, according to the sources, and oscillates between four million and a few thousand...") --Andrés Barrenechea, 2013
  • ALT1: ... that while Philippine Spanish has been described as moribund, a new generation of speakers has also emerged? Source: "Following the American occupation of the Philippines, the Spanish language has lost ground constantly, and what remains of Spanish is clearly a marginal and vestigial language, which has already embarked on the inexorable path ultimately leading to language death." --Lipski, 1986 / "Aunque existe una nueva generación de hispanistas, que a pesar de que no son hispanohablantes nativos, están enseñando a sus hijos dicho idioma en casa, pero es un número muy reducido." ("Although a new generation of Spanish speakers exists, despite not being native Spanish speakers, they are teaching said language to their children at home, but it is a very reduced number.") --Andrés Barrenechea, 2013
  • ALT2: ... that Philippine Spanish is a language and not a creole? Source: "The small number of native Spanish speakers in the Philippines has contributed to the lack of studies of contemporary Philippine Spanish [...] At times, the latter [Philippine Creole Spanish; Chavacano] dialects are mistakenly referred to as 'Philippine Spanish', as though there were no legitimate non-creolized variant of metropolitan Spanish currently available in the Philippines." --Lipski, 1986
  • Reviewed: Pimlico tube station
  • Comments: I am open to replacing the video with something else if it's not appropriate to have a video in this section.

Converted from a redirect by Sky Harbor (talk). Self-nominated at 23:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Philippine Spanish; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Approve all three hooks. I personally found ALT1 more interesting than others. BorgQueen (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@BorgQueen and Sky Harbor: Regarding ALT1 - specifically why are we piping Endangered language? It is more accessible as an un-piped link. I will promote it as Endangered language and discussion can continue on the DYK talk page. Bruxton (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• • ALT1a: ... that while Philippine Spanish has been described as an Endangered language, a new generation of speakers has emerged? Bruxton (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philippine Spanish/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sky Harbor (talk · contribs) 14:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: ThaesOfereode (talk · contribs) 01:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

A linguistics article! Love to see these crop up at GA (and FA)! This article is in great condition as is. I have made a few comments on prose and one on OR. Following fixes here, I will begin a source review and get this article promoted soon thereafter. Thanks for all the great work you did contributing to this article! ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See below for prose issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Solid use of {{sfn}} throughout.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Source review to follow.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See below. Will reevaluate after source review as well.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows a low number here and much of the source material is in Spanish so overlap is low anyway.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No complaints about coverage whatsoever. Excellent job.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Ut supra.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Ut supra.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Looks good.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Three images. Two public domain, one uploaded by nominator with appropriate license (thank you!).
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Absolutely.
	7. Overall assessment.	Excellent article. Minor fixes needed below.

Prose comments:

• Estimates as to the number of Spanish speakers in the Philippines vary widely, with estimates ranging from the thousands to the millions. – Well, just one million at the high end, right? Maybe try Estimates as to the number of Spanish speakers in the Philippines vary widely, with estimates ranging from the low thousands to about one million.
• in 2023 Maria Luisa Young, professor of Spanish and head of the Department of Modern Languages at the Ateneo de Manila University, estimated without confidence that around 500,000 people in the Philippines either speak or at least know Spanish. – This sounds like a professor eyeballing a random number. Is there some reason we should consider this accurate? In this case, what does "without confidence" mean, strictly speaking?
• though only counting Spaniards in the Philippines as native speakers – Ethnic Spanish Filipinos or Spanish citizens in the Philippines? I suspect the former, but it's unclear.
• various Chavacano dialects in the total [...] → various dialects of Chavacano, a Spanish-based creole, in the total [...]
• a 2020 estimate places the number of native speakers at around 4,000 people – By whom? By the Statistics Authority?
• complicated by the Philippine government's not keeping updated official statistics – Unless Philippine English.
• which would later become Filipino → which later became Filipino per WP:INTOTHEWOULDS
• Before close vowels (/i/ and /u/), – Can we get an example of post-/u/ palatalization? This would be a very odd change cross-linguistically.
• syllable-final S-dropping – Decapitalize "S".
• notably among older Zamboagueño speakers – What does "Zamboagueño" mean?
• even in situations where the polite pronoun usted would be used instead – Consider linking would be used instead to T–V distinction.
• various Chavacano dialects developed the use of voseo, this development is absent in Philippine Spanish, which is exclusively tuteante – What is tuteante? T use only?
• which is normally considered incorrect in standard Spanish – I don't think this source is carrying the weight of this claim. Consider which has been formally proscribed in standard Spanish or something similar.
• Because Spanish-speaking Filipinos are also fluent in English – Some? Most? All?

OR concerns:

• Lipski 1986a, p. 46 does not demonstrate the pronunciation of serbesa nor use it as an example at all; I don't see it on the page. Is it possible you have the wrong page?

Again, great work. Looking forward to seeing this pass GA shortly. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, ThaesOfereode, and thank you for taking the time to review the article. As I'm currently traveling I'll post a few responses clarifying some of the items you asked about, and will get back to the rest shortly.

• On estimates, a few points:
  • The estimates vary very widely. The upper end of the spectrum is actually around two million speakers, but some have noted (and I have come to this conclusion based on conversations I have with people, so I can't put this in the article) that said number, which is attested to Quilis, may in fact be too optimistic. The one million figure provided by El Mundo for me errs on the side of caution, as the issue here is while we shouldn't be overcounting Spanish speakers in the Philippines, we shouldn't be undercounting them either as is the case with the Instituto Cervantes' numbers.
  • Speaking of the IC numbers, "Spaniards in the Philippines" refers to the latter. In the aforementioned report, they rely on the estimate of Spanish citizens in the Philippines from the INE (the Instituto Nacional de Estadística), which in turn gets its numbers from the number of Spanish citizens registered with the Spanish Embassy in Manila. While this number ostensibly includes Spanish Filipinos, some of whom have either retained or reacquired Spanish citizenship, it also includes Spanish citizens who are recent migrants to the Philippines and thus are not considered Spanish Filipinos. Conversely, the number also excludes native Spanish speakers who aren't Spanish citizens, as in the case of people like Guillermo Gómez Rivera.
  • The COOLT article where the 4,000 figure comes from for native speakers does not directly say where it got that number from. I am inclined to believe it came from the AFLE, or if not from them then from Guillermo Gómez Rivera who is was its director at the time. (Side note: by 2023 he had been replaced by Daisy López, retired professor of Spanish at UP Diliman, as director.)
• Most (if not all) Spanish-speaking Filipinos are fluent in English, as it is the dominant foreign language in the Philippines today. That is actually addressed in the "Status and future" section, which is attributed to Lipski.
• I replaced the example of serbesa with sirko ("circus"), which has a source including the specific word as an example. In the previous example, the phenomenon was detailed but the example was implied.

I'll make the aforementioned requested stylistic changes and will note accordingly which ones have been made. Thank you for your review and your patience. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries about the traveling; I will keep the GAN open until you're able to finish working on it. Thanks for letting me know. Responding to your comments below:

• The highest estimate I see cited is four million (using Andrés Barrenechea 2013, p. 33), which I didn't look at before commenting. WP:THESIS recommends against the use of Master's theses unless they have had significant influence and it doesn't seem like the Gómez Rivera source cited in the thesis is better (online magazine, but it's not clear the general reliability). For what it's worth, if you can demonstrate Andrés Barrenechea published the thesis as a monograph with a scholarly press, I will allow it. The IC and El Mundo are better sources. I agree about neither overcounting nor undercounting, but we have duties to WP:V and WP:RS.
• Okay, this is not what I expected. There are almost half a million Spanish citizens living in the Philippines? Why would the IC only collect information about them and not other potential Spanish speakers? This feels very odd and potentially useless metric for guessing how many speakers live in the country at large.
• The COOLT number doesn't stand up to even mild scrutiny, unless I'm wildly misunderstanding something (which is totally possible). The source says: "En dos generaciones el idioma prácticamente se extinguió y en la actualidad lo mantienen vivo alrededor de 4.000 hablantes, un escaso 0,5 % del total de la población filipina." Now, my Spanish isn't good, but this number is not right. The Philippines has a population of roughly 117.3 million; 0.5% of that would be around 586,500 people, which is much more in line with what other sources are saying. Where did 4,000 come from? Where did 0.5% come from? Gómez Armas appears to be a fairly reliable author, but we need to clarify what this statement really is trying to say. Did she accidentally use the same number from the previous paragraph and the editor just didn't catch it?
• Okay, put "most" and cite Lipski. That should take care of it.
• Yeah, it's always better to have a cited example in linguistics. Other processes can often disrupt reasonable extrapolations in phonology.

I hope these comments are helpful. I look forward to getting this page to GA soon. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi again, ThaesOfereode, and greetings from Peru. To address some of the stylistic points you raised:

• I removed the "would" as requested from Tagalog becoming Filipino
• I linked Spanish-based creole languages for describing Chavacano
• "would be used instead" is linked to T-V distinction in the world's languages#Spanish. I will edit that article to include a reference to Philippine Spanish as over there it is not mentioned (but Equatoguinean Spanish, which exhibits the same trait, is).
• I removed tuteante (tuteante means using the pronoun tú) with something more explicit in English: "which exclusively uses tú"
• The phrase "which is normally considered incorrect in standard Spanish", which is what I was taught in school if you are wondering where that came from, has been replaced with your recommended "which has been formally proscribed in standard Spanish"

I will find an example of post-u palatalization (these would be words like diurético or ciudad) when I get a hold of La lengua española en Filipinas when I return to Spain. Now, to address the issue of numbers:

• First, I did some additional research to better contextualize this issue, so there are a few new sources cited in that section (namely: another Manila Times article by Jorge Mojarro, an Elcano report by Ángel Badillo Matos, a journal article by Claudia Pattinaro, and a chapter from Mauro Fernández who used to be the director of the IC in Manila). This partially serves to reduce the reliance on the Andrés Barrenechea thesis while making the same argument, and also to better clarify that getting to accurate numbers is, unfortunately, very hard.
• On the thesis specifically, I need to point out that there aren't that many outlets left that talk about Spanish in the Philippines that are written by Spanish Filipinos. The Revista Filipina is largely an academic publication, and is arguably the only major Spanish-language Philippine academic outlet left, which is why I would argue that the Andrés Barrenechea dissertation is valid given the dearth of scholarship on Spanish in the modern-day Philippines. That said, I am hoping that the additional sources I cited earlier helps reduce reliance on the thesis while still making the same points (and, hopefully, even explaining them better).
• With respect, you are misreading the IC's numbers, so allow me to clarify. The number you see there is the total number of speakers, counting first- (native) and second-language speakers. Of the ~465,000 people the report says exists, only 4,500 or so are first-language speakers, and the way the IC extrapolated that data is by counting only Spanish citizens in the Philippines as native speakers (of which there are 4,500; add on the numbers of Latin Americans and you get closer to 5,000, but they could be undercounting). Everyone else is considered to be second-language speakers, which is also unreliable in this case as they include Chavacano speakers. Chavacano speakers don't speak Spanish, although they have some command of it. To that end, I clarified this by using the IC's terminology: "native" and "limited competence" speakers.
• The COOLT number refers to native speakers. I imagine it was a mistake that was not caught by the editors, and that number corresponds to various estimates that are found in other sources. That said, I think this can be addressed by another source (Badillo Matos), who wrote that the actual number of native speakers may be impossible to determine.

Looking forward to any other thoughts that you may have. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

How fitting to be in a Spanish-speaking country as we work on this! I hope Peru treats you well; everyone I know who has gone there has had nothing short of wonderful things to say. New edits have improved the article. Comments below:

• Re: post-u palatalization, your two examples are post-i palatalizations. Ciudad's etymons all begin with ci- (Latin civitas and Old Spanish cibdat). For us to say post-u palatalization we should see something like /tu/ → /t͡ʃu/ or /su/ → /ʃu/ without any intermediaries between the consonant and vowel (except maybe /w/ or /ʷ/). What you are describing is not a post-u palatalization, but rather essentially a yod-coalescence or, as you have correctly identified in the article, affrication (though assibilation may be most appropriate for the motion from a palatal [cf. the description of assibiliation at Weise's law]).
• Re: thesis, I've been moved by the strength of the argument. I didn't see that it had been published in a scientific journal; that's entirely my bad. For what it's worth, I think the argument against (vetted) theses is overblown and the comment about having sources from Spanish Filipinos holds significant water with me.
• Re: IC's numbers, okay I'm following now. Is there any way we can make this more clear in the article?
• Re: COOLT, I'm inclined to remove their line from this section. The reliability of that statement has been rendered unintelligible by the editors; we cannot reasonably ascertain whether the editor should have kept the 0.5% number (in line with Ateneo de Manila University and the IC's full-count estimate) or the 4,000 number (in line with the number of Spanish citizens in the country). I think we should just say it's probably impossible to determine and move on.

New comments as I read through again:

• Found some WP:WEASELs:

• Philippine Spanish has been described by some as being
• though it has been said that within

• Quillis & Casado Fresnillo (2008) describe palatalization before /e/ ("El fonema /s/ se palataliza ante vocal palatal – más ante /i/ que ante /e/ –, siguiendo la tendencia de las mencionadas lenguas autóctonas", p. 90) which you haven't mentioned; might be worth adding.
• Similarly, Lipski (1986b) writes that "many speakers" of Philippine Spanish uses the apicoalveolar fricative [s̠] "though this is not uniform" (p. 40). I don't know why he uses [ś], but we should not use it here.
• From a technical perspective, final /s/ in Spanish is not aspirated; it's debuccalized (see more at Spanish dialects and varieties § Debuccalization of coda /s/). For the sake of precision, I think we should use the term debuccalization (/s/ → [h]) rather than aspiration ([sʰ]).

Hope this is helpful. ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, ThaesOfereode, and thank you for your inputs.

• In an attempt to better explain the IC's numbers, I've added a notes section which better explains how the groups came about and how they came up with the numbers in question.
• I am of the opinion that given the wide variance of numbers, it is important that we report on all of them while adding sufficient context. I am inclined to keep the COOLT article (and also the number cited by Maria Luisa Young, in fact) around because while the numbers may have been inappropriately handled by the outlet's editor(s), it is important that people be given as much information as possible and they be able to draw conclusions from what is presented, while we present the numbers in as objective a manner as possible. I think in this situation more information is better than less, so long as we treat the numbers with care and add as much information as possible. That said, if this number is an issue I can revert to the 2008 numbers (6,000, as cited in Abad Liñán) in the infobox and remove the sentence accordingly, or propose some other treatment.
• Weasel terms have been removed and the sentences in question made more declarative.
• As you're probably aware, debuccalization in Spanish is also called aspiration (and in Spanish, it is only called aspiración; the word desbucalización, which would be a literal translation from the English, does not exist). That said, I linked to debuccalization in that section and pointed it out accordingly.

For the more linguistic aspects of your review, I will try to get my hands on La lengua española en Filipinas to better explain what Quilis and Casado-Fresnillo were writing about, as the Google Books preview is limited. I appreciate your patience. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• IC explanation looks good. I hope you don't mind I took the liberty of fixing some {{lang}} issues.
• Fundamentally, I agree with your statement that "it is important that people be given as much information as possible". My issue is that, in the interest of WP:V, whether the 0.5% number or 4,000 number is correct is impossible to determine from the source alone; unfortunately for us, the editor(s) dropped the ball on this one. The ~4,000 native speakers number is effectively covered by the {{efn}}, so it doesn't really benefit us to keep that number. I think adding the 6,000 number, irrespective or the errors with the previous source, is a good idea.
• Yes, I know that Spanish calls this process aspiration and honestly, for GA it's probably fine to leave it as such. But in the interest of precision, I think it's in the best interest of careful readers use either debuccalization or lenition so as not to confuse linguistic terminology. Anyone interested in linguistics has to get over enough hurdles in words that are used in extremely different ways based on context.
• No worries for Quilis and Casado-Fresnillo; the appropriate page as cited above is in the Google Books preview, unless you believe you need something further.

Looks good. I will begin my source review shortly. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review

@Sky Harbor: courtesy ping. Using this diff as the benchmark, chosen citations generated by RNG:

• Cite 25 – Y Looks good
• Cite 49b, § [ɾ]–[l] shift – This page does discuss [ɾ] and [l], but it only discusses their realization (or elision, which I recommend you include) in syllable coda, and makes no references to the European Spanish varieties indicated other than a vague "southern"; we should not extrapolate precise dialects here unless I missed Lipski's defining it early.
• Cite 51 – Y Looks good
• Cite 52, § No debuccalization of /s/ – Discussion of debuccalization and example both check out, but there's nothing about the relationship to other varieties of Spanish (cf. cite 49b).
• Cite 81 – Y Looks good
• Cite 95 – Y Looks good
• Cite 100 –   Looks good, assuming the D in DRAE is "diccionario" or something similarly appropriate?

Let's start with that and do more checks as appropriate. Soft recommend to restructure Andrés Barrenechea (2013) as a journal article to ward off other editors questioning its validity as a master's thesis. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, ThaesOfereode. With respect to sources:

• On the [ɾ]–[l] shift, the phrase "dialects of southern Spain" usually refers to Andalusian Spanish, as Andalusia is in southern Spain. The only other dialect in southern Spain is Murcian Spanish, which is transitional between Andalusian and Castilian proper. If this is an issue, we can generalize it to "southern Peninsular dialects" or something of the sort.
• On /s/ debuccalization, Lipski mentions that later on in the source (p. 41). Specifically he mentions Mexican (both standard and the coastal dialect of Acapulco), Cuban, Castilian (Madrid), Andalusian (Seville), Extremaduran (Cáceres) and Canarian for comparison.
• The DRAE (Diccionario de la Real Academia Española) is an alternate name for the DLE, the Diccionario de la lengua española.
• The Andrés Barrenechea thesis has been reclassified as a journal article, with the pages being renumbered accordingly.

Please feel free to check and verify the other sources as needed. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)