Talk:Hispanic

The historial mistake.- Section

The section under the title "The historical mistake" is a dissaster. It is poorly written, in fact it seems to be an automatic translation of a text in Spanish. I consider that it is not accurate to include this discussion on the Hispatic Article, if the editor wants to keep it I suggest to move the sectionto an independen article about national identity in Spain since the discussion is only relevant to this region.

--Boboxford 00:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the section is necessary to explain the misunderstanding with the term Hispanic. If it is poorly written, you can rewrite it, but the article has to explain this issue somewhere.

It does not talk about the national identity of Spain. It talks about the origin of the term Hispanic, and why nowadays it has associated meanings that do not belong to it.

If such section does not exist, then we go back to the point we were months ago, this is, an article talking about the "Hispanos" and "Latinos" in the United States.

Therefore, the section is necessary.

Anyway, in case this discussion was only relevant "in the region of Spain", this would be its article, since Hispanic = Spain.

As I said, if you want you can reform it. Onofre Bouvila 14:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first comment. This section is not only a disaster, but a POV fest. FilipeS 11:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the section is POV nonsense. --Burgas00 11:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"dissaster", "poorly written", "automatic translation of a text in Spanish"... You "consider" many things, but you don't do much to change the situation.

All this has been discussed for long in this talk page (see the archive), and I think everybody agreed that until some substantial changes were introduced into the article, it talked only about the so-called "latinos" and "hispanics" from the United States, excluding the rest of the Hispanics from the world. With the changes that have been made in the late months, now all the Hispanics from the world are represented in the article. I don't really see what's wrong with that. The section "The historical mistake" aims to explain why there is so much confusion around the term Hispanic.

"Not only a disaster, but a POV fest". Tell me where do you see the POV. Mention examples, and prove that what this section says is not true.

Oh, hello Burgas, you had to appear soon or later. At least you have not deleted a half of the article, like you used to do. Thanks for that. "We all agree that the section is POV nonsense". Always with your great contributions. Since you seem to be unable to do positive contributions the article, you systematically try to discredit other people's contributions.

After all, the section can be better, or worst, but I honestly prefer the article like it is now, which talks about the history of the term Hispanic and its usage, and also about all the Hispanics from the world, than how it was before, which was just U.S. nonsense. THAT, was nonsense. When people proposed to merge this article with the Latino article. But now, it talks equitably about all the Hispanics in the world.

Back to the section The historical mistake, I'm bored of reading "this is pov nonsense", "this is poorly written", etc. Initially I wrote the section, because I thought that what there is explained had to be explained, because here everybody seemed, and still seem to be confused with the term Hispanic. But after me, many people also contributed there. You can contribute too if you want. But saying it's "POV nonsense" blablabla, or deleting entire sections like a "some people" used to do, does not help much.

Say what's wrong. Say where is the "POV nonsense". Maybe it false that the Castilians always excluded the Catalans, Basques, Galicians, etc, from being a part of Spain? That they always subjugated the other peoples from Spain? Maybe it is wrong that Hispanic has been associated to the "culture of Spain", being this a synonym of "Castilian culture" instead of "Culture of all the peoples from Spain"? Maybe it is wrong, that nowadays most people confuses the terms "Hispanic" and "Latino", and the same so-called "Latinos" do not even know what was "Hispania" and who are the Latin peoples? I don't see the "POV nonsense" anywhere. Maybe the article should talk only about the "Latinos" and "Latinas" from the United States, and the "Chicanos", and the "Mexican Americans", and all that stuff? Contribute to the section to make it better instead of criticizing. Onofre Bouvila 20:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Talking of "Eras of historical mistake" in which "people" do not "understand" the "true meaning" of hispanic is inherently pov. I think you dont properly comprehend the way wikipedia articles should be written. --Burgas00 19:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's expecting people from bygone centuries to conform to the ethnic peculiarities of the present. Not no mention that "Hispanic" isn't a term that Spaniards (or anyone else) ever really used much before the 20th century (the 19th, at most). They just said, and still say, "Spanish". Naturally.

Onofre, you ask me to say what's wrong. Here's one thing: the title of the section. "Historical mistake" should not be in it. When Spain was first named "Spain" and Spaniards were first named "Spaniards", they weren't trying to guess which term would be more appropriate in the 20th century. How could they predict the future? FilipeS 20:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's the title what is wrong, then change it, but don't blame the whole section. Onofre Bouvila 01:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I came here from the Luis Angel Firpo article, which called him a "Hispanic". Argentinians living in Argentina don't call themselves "hispanos": they're "argentinos". There's no "hispano-america", there's "America" or "America Latina". The whole notion of "Hispanic" is U.S.-POV, since Americans tend to lump all Spanish-speaking immigrants together, not realizing that people from Latin America self-identify with their individual nations. Artificially imposing the "Hispanic" label on countries where the word or its equivalent isn't even used doesn't fix POV, but adds factual error and comical anachronism, as in the case of Firpo. Djcastel 15:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree with this. Hispanic america is a factual reality. Those countries formerly under Spanish rule, with Spanish language, culture and heritage... --Burgas00 21:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

However, I still feel that Hispanic has various definitions. Djcastel is right in the sense that Argentinians would not fall into some of the US definitions of the term.

Onofre: The reason for which this article is plainly wrong is that the role of wikipedians is not to judge which definition is the correct one but to collect all the different possible definitions of the term. This exhaustive list of all the peoples in the world (Leonese?, Asturians???) with connections to Spain is completely unneccessary. I repeat once more, this article has to be revamped. It is not "the world according to Onofre". --Burgas00 21:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

About what Djcastel said, you are wrong: you must not regard the term Hispanic as something imported from the United States. The term Hispanic existed before, and it has been used by the Spaniards and the other Spanish-speaking peoples from the rest of the world to identify themselves into a same group.

This, has nothing to do with the racial and silly usage that the U.S. government has given to the term Hispanic.

The fact that they give a wrong usage to the term Hispanic, does not mean that the term itself is wrong, because it has another meaning, another usage, which is used in Spain and the Hispanic American countries, and that's the one that is right.

About what Burgas said, yeah, this article is not "The world according to Onofre". But who says that? Like if I had written the major part of the article! I just added three things: (1) a section to explain why nowadays Hispanic is related Spanish language and the Spanish-speaking peoples, when its "real meaning" (its former meaning) is or was "related to Hispania", (2) A History section, so people can see the origin of the term, and (3) A list of Hispanic peoples (before that, the article only talked about the "Latinos" of the U.S.).

The fact is that this article was all "Hispanic" and "Latino" U.S. stuff, and what I did was to introduce another point of view.

The article talked only about the Hispanics from the silly point of view of the United States, and like all we know, that was wrong.

This article is about the "Hispanic people", so like in all the articles of "ABCDEFGHIJK people", there must be sections explaining the reality of this people. What I did was to add sections in the article for all the groups of "Hispanics" that are spread all over the world. And that's the result. And I don't think that's wrong; I think it's good to explain that all the people that is now listed in the article: Leonese, Castilians, Filipino Criollos / Mestizos, etc, all these people are Hispanics, and not only those from the United States. Now the article explains the reality of all the Hispanics of the world, and since this is an article talking about the "Hispanic people" (if you type "Hispanic people" in the Wikipedia searcher, it redirects here), all the Hispanic peoples from the World have to be here.

I don't understand what do you propose, Burgas. You want to let this article to be monopolized by the "Hispanics" and "Latinos" from the United States? Or what?

Now the article explains all the Hispanics from the world, and this may surprise some people who are used to the U.S. definition of Hispanic. But this is the real one, and I don't say it, it's not my vision of the things, it's the facts. In the article Spanish people all the other peoples that are within the Spanish people are explained, right? Andalusians, Basques, Catalans, Galicians, etc. So in the article Hispanic people (this one), all the people that are within the "Hispanic nation" are explained too.

Seriously, what do you suggest? How would you structurate the article?

You would remove the History section, so anyone coming to this article would not be able to know what is the real origin of the term Hispanic? That would be cool I guess. Then we would have, again, people making posts in this talk page, saying that the term "Hispanic" was invented in the United States, and means "History + Spanish". LoL

Or you would remove the section for the peoples of Spain? then who would be the Hispanics? Then the Hispanics would be only the peoples from outside Spain? Only those from Hispanic America?

All of the peoples that are now in the article have the right to be there. And it is not my point of view. It is just a collection of all the articles that already exist in the Wikipedia talking about peoples that are inside what, both we agree, that are the Hispanic countries.

And remember that this article is not only about the term Hispanic. This article is about the Hispanics, the Hispanic peoples. The Hispanics as an "ethnic group", or whatever you wanna call it. A group that collects lots and lots of different peoples within. And what I did in the sections I added, is just to explain the reality of these peoples.

Make clear suggestions to improve the article. Onofre Bouvila 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Burgas, the Leonese and the Asturians don't have "connections to Spain". They are Spaniards. Don't know about "Hispanics", though. I've only ever heard that term in American films. Although Onofre insists otherwise, one does often get the impression that only the Anglosphere believes in it. FilipeS 11:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This section seriously needs to be rewritten for NPOV. It is taking sides on which definition of "Hispanic" is correct. What's more, it makes claims about the historical use of the word without providing any sources to support them. This needs to be dealt with. FilipeS 15:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is only one correct definition for Hispanic, and that definition is the historical one, the one used in Spain and the Hispanic American countries. Apart from this, I think it's good to explain that though Hispanic has historicaly been related to Castilian language, there are other languages in Spain that have participated in this "Hispanity", and that are inside Spain, although they have been displaced from the term Hispanic. That's the point of the section. About the historical use of the word, I think it's more than sourced. There is a whole history section that explains that. The Historical Mistake section just explains an obvious fact, and that fact is that there are Nationalities in Spain that have been excluded from the meaning of the term Hispanic. And that nowadays, even the same castilian-speaking Spaniards are becoming alienated from the term because of the monopolization of the term Hispanic in the U.S. by the so-called "latinos". Onofre Bouvila 21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing "Hispanic" with "Spanish". FilipeS 22:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And I think you should look at the dictionary because Hispanic means related to or derived from Spain, Spanish language or the Spaniards.

And what this section was trying to explain, is that although it is derived from Spain, Spanish language and the Spaniards, both Spain and the Spaniards have other stuff that is not Spanish language, such as different languages such as Catalan, Basque, etc. And these peoples have also contributed to the Hispanophone. Therefore, Hispanic should also reflect their reality, because they are also Spanish, they are also Hispanics, but they do not speak Spanish, they do not speak Castilian. That's the first point: Hispanic means Spanish, but the Spanish are not a single unity.

And the second point is that the south american mestizos are misappropiating the term Hispanic, and they are excluding the same Hispanics from Hispania. That's the second point.

And the third point is that in the United States, they consider Hispanic to be a race, and this definition excludes even more the same Hispanics from Hispania.

But what I am telling to you, if you did not even know that Hispanic means Spanish? Onofre Bouvila 14:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it's in the dictionary, and indeed the word can be used with the meaning of "Spanish". However, how many people actually speak like that in their everyday lives? Isn't the most common use of this word different? FilipeS 15:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel this is a "point-making article". It goes into excruciating detail of every hispanic people, down to the different provinces in Spain just to hammer in the point that not only Mexicans in the US are hispanic. There is no need to go to such extreme measures. --Burgas00 23:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There is, need to do this, because the Mexicans and the Mexicans living in the United States (Mexican-Americans, how they call themselves, although Mexican Americans are all the Mexicans since Mexico is in America), are as much Hispanics as the peoples from Spain. And an article talking about the Hispanic people, because do not forget that this article is about the Hispanic people, about all the Hispanics, must mention all the peoples that are into this wider group of people.

If Spain was today a federal republic that recognized the different states and nations that exist within, no one would doubt that the Catalans or the Basques were at the same level of the Castilians, Mexicans, or Equatorians in terms of Hispanity. Because they paper in the history of Spain would have been recognized. But the problem is that all the Spaniards tend to be grouped under the labels "Spain" and "Spanish-speaking", or what is more or less the same, "Castile" and "Castilian-speaking", when it's not so.

Catalans, Basques, etc, are different peoples who have contributed to the Hispanophone and to the creation of the Spanish Empire. In Argentina there are N millions of people of basque descent. The same in Mexico, and other places. In Cuba there are lots of people of Catalan descent. If this want to be encyclopedic, all these peoples cannot be grouped under the simple label of "Spanish people". The Hispanophone was created by many different peoples from Spain, and therefore all these peoples are explained in the article.

If this differentiation had been made before, maybe nowadays the Castilian-speaking Spaniards, Catalans, Basques, etc, would not be ashamed to mark "Hispanic" in the U.S. Census' survey. Because indeed they are Hispanics, but the "Latino" bias has monopolized the term. And if this article wants to be encyclopedic, it has to explain its real meaning. Onofre Bouvila 12:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, you are using this article to make a political point. I am not saying I disagree with your opinions. The problem is that you cannot make an article out of an argument. It is not NPOV. --Burgas00 15:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a neutral point of view. The article is just explaining the reality of Spain. Otherwise, ignoring this reality, would be lying. What would you add / remove, then ? Onofre Bouvila 19:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I took a shot at editing it, and removing some of the information included that seemed non-neutral. Of course, as there were no citations, I left in some of the claims that may not be entirely fact based. Anyway, I hope it is at least clearer to read. --James McBride 21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Spanish empire map-History section

User The Oger, a Portuguese, goes around deleting the Spanish Empire map that obviously includes Portugal and its empire because, as anyone knows versed in history, Portugal and its empire were part of the Spanish Empire from 1580 to 1640, when the Portuguese broke away with a fight. I am growing tired of lies and manipulation by some users for nationalistic or other issues or just plain ignorance. 65.11.70.234 14:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Look 65.11.70.234, I don't know who you are, and it's really anoying to have to be arguing with some anonimous guy who just thinks he owns the truth. Regarding the Map, it is a ma depicting the territories belonging to the Habsburg crowsn of Castile and Aragon all over the world. It is not a map depicting the Hasburg Portuguese possessions from 1580 to 1640. You see, Portugal and its empire were never part of the Spanish Empire. From 1580 to 1640 Portugal and Spain had the same king, in a personal union of the crowns, wich is very different since they remained independent countries from each other! So the Portuguese and the Spanish Empires were never the same, even if in a certain period of 60 years the two of them were ruled jointly by the Habsburgs - if you want to talk about the Habsburgs' Empire, that is another story! The Ogre 14:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

File:Iberian Union Empires.PNG

A map of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires in the period of their personal union (1581-1640)
Red/Pink - Spanish Empire
Blue/Light Blue - Portuguese Empire

---

I think this discussion should go to the description page of the Spanish Empire map in Wikimedia Commons. It is pointless to create new maps and modify them from the Englsh Wikipedia. All this stuff is done in commons, the consensus is obtained there, and then everyone from all the wikipedias export the maps from commons, to here. Apart from this, I don't think you have much knowledge about all this stuff. For example, I've read in the "edit summary", comments from Ramírez saying that the Western coast of the USA was never colonized. Hmmmm? And then what about the colonies and missions spread all over Oregon and California??? Anyway discuss this in commons, better. Because otherwise we will have one thousand different maps for the Spanish Empire. Onofre Bouvila 17:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Hello Onofre Bouvila! I am sorry to say but the present map, the one you've just added to Spanish Empire is completly POV! The Spanish Empire never included the Portuguese Empire! They were two different empires ruled by the same dinasty - the Habsburgs! And there is already another map showing the extent of both empires at the exact time of the Iberian Union. This map (Image:Spanish Empire.png) is wrong because it implies that the Portuguese Empire was Spanish, and because it mingles an anachronous view of the Spanish Empire with the Portuguese possessions between 1580-1640. I really am not disussing the details regarding the exact borders of the Spanish territories, but a map of this sort, and first of all the firts one to appear in the article, should not emply the communality of Spanish and Portuguese possessions. I'm not reverting you just now, but this needs to be discussed and changed. The Ogre 18:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this issue, but if you see the historical map that has been used in the wikipedia for these issues (the anachronous one), in its page of wikimedia commons, there is an extense "Summary" section that explains every frontier and every border. I am not saying that is right, but at least, it is justified. If one wants to change the map of the hispanophone, just go there and discuss it there, and give your own sources, and write in the talk page of the map, and write to the original makers of the map to improve it, but do not create new maps, and less from the English wikipedia, because then we have a thousand maps and when a random user wants to pick up a map to illustrate his article, does not know which one to take. So we have lots of maps now, but there is one, that has been always used, and that has an extense summary section that explains all the sources taken to make the map. So let's try to change that one, but don't take the direct way, and to impose your point of view (being right or not), create new maps, because that just increases the confusion around the issue. In addition, if you wanna create new maps, for each map, at least, make a section to explain the sources; creating a new map to illustrate your point of view and not providing verifiable sources in its commons page, is pointless. If you don't wanna lose the time getting the sources, don't create a map please. Anyway, as I said, I would not create any map, but modify the one that we already have, and that has enough sources. Discuss from that basis, trying to modify the existing one. Onofre Bouvila 21:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You can talk all you want to this user called The Oger. He will not listen. Just follow his history. He goes around Wiki deleting the consensus map from Wiki everywhere. 65.10.51.251 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• :Discussion moved to Talk:Spanish Empire#Map again.... The Ogre 12:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

does anyone have issue witht the fact that this section states that "low-class South Americans" and Amerindians are inherently ignorant???

etymology

You could at least mention what's at Hispania#Origin_of_the_name...--Ioshus ^(talk) 04:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Critique of the format

It's awkward to have footnotes redirecting the reader back to the same article. And in the introduction, to boot! FilipeS 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Flag

An unsourced comment from FOTW is not a reliable source alone. The section needs fleshing out with additional sources or be eliminated.--Cerejota 08:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Filipinos Are Hispanic??

I know they were colonised...but they dont speak spanish now and only 1% speak it now....so that makes the country a non spanish speaking country, infact no latin language is spoken,,..therefore not Hispanic right???...i think it should be taken out the British filipinos ..in the UK section..

Reply: Using some common knowledge and history I have learned from this particular ethnic group; Filipinos are considered Hispanics due to the fact that their culture has inherited a vast amount of Mexican-Spanish customs and tradtions. This is due to three centuries of Spanish colonial rule. If you take a good examination of their customs and traditions; Hispanic influences in Filipino culture are most visible in literature, folk dance, folk music, food, language, religion and history. These influences continues to be used and practise today by modern day Filipinos. Although the majority of it's inhabitants have not inherited Spanish ancestry or adopted the Spanish language as a major language, there are other Filipinos who have Spanish blood and speaks the language. This people are Filipinos of Spanish and Mexican descent, which are estimated to be at around 2% of the Philippine population. To answer your question?, yes! Filipinos are Hispanics in terms of it's Cultural production and identity, but not by it's ancestral identity this is because 90% of the population are predominantly of full blood Austronesian ancestry. As I said before only 2% of the Philippine population would qualify as Hispanics in terms of ancestry and these are mostly Filipino mestizos of Spanish origin. Thanks! -- Ramírez72 2:00 June 7 2007 (UTC)

I do understand what you say...abut the 2or even just 1% of pure spanish descent in the Philippines...are hispanic origin.....and to be honest its not about race..otherwise the whole of Bolivia wouldnt consider itserlf Latin let alone Hispanic...so not really arace thing...its purly based on the 21st centrury view of what a hispanic is....and even though they have many customs..form another country..doesnt always make them something into what we now consider a Hispanic...even though the true meaning is to be from Spain...

So basically.....i know it was colonised fro 300 years..but does it make them now a hispanic country.....i realy doubt it since how can you repfer to yourself not speaking spanish ...even though there are alof of words in teh philipine language now...it was also colonised by the USA ,does it make them a Anglo country because they speak english...i dont this so either....i think not have spanish a a primary language...is the really issue here.... spain21July 14 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is there any explanation as to why the Spanish get their own race, but not the descendants of other European countries, such as Italian, Irish, German, etc? Why are all these people considered white, but not the Spanish? (This is a legitimate historical question, not a political statement.) James Callahan 04:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

They are not another race..Its purly because ..before the USA only included Hispanic americans as Hispanics...even though i read that the term Hispanic was put into the census by a Spanish descendent...from New mexico... Later they Included spain since..they are including all countries that speak spanish or have a tie to the Spanish Empire .therefore leaving out the country where Hispanicity comes from seemed stupid....so they are included......its purly based on cultural link... spain21July 14 2007 (UTC)

Your question, James, is one that only American whites can answer. FilipeS 18:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

James, Hispanic is not a racial label anywhere but in the American culture, and even there it is not an official racial category, since in the census the question asked is if you are Hispanic, and then if you are white or other. The question is that, in Europe, Spanish are white. And that in the States you confused Spanish with Mexicans or others, who are essencialy native americans. This confusion makes many Americans believe Spanish look the same as Mexicans. This is a confusion! This racial confused use of the term Hispanic is only found in the States. In my country an Hispanic is someone who speaks Spanish, regardless of race! Cheers. The Ogre 20:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

James, have you read the article? The Ogre 20:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In defense of James, the article does not once explain what the term "hispanic" means. No, it's not a race, but saying that it is instead an "ethnicity" doesn't really mean anything. Whites from Spain are "Hispanic." Mixed-race individuals with Spanish blood are "Hispanic." So far, so good. But it also says that some pure-blood Native Americans are "Hispanic," as potentially are some pure-blood blacks. How does a Native American who grew up in America have "Hispanic" heritage? How do blacks who grew up, say, in the Dominican Republic, get lumped into the "Hispanic" category as well? Is speaking Spanish the only criterion? The reason people in America are so confused by "white Hispanic," "Hispanic non-white," the fact that "hispanic" does not mean "latino," etc. -- is that the concept is ill-defined and has little or nothing to do with Hispania. The article is terribly unclear about this, despite the fact that most people reading the article probably just want to know what the heck "Hispanic" means. -69.47.186.226 05:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You know people,
What i think is going to happen in the next 20+ years....all these Hispanics that claim to have Puerto Rican , cuban and any other people that choose their ancestors 'Nationality' in the "ANCESTRY" Question....is gonna change....since nationality is not a RACE even though most like to choose it..

And the term Hispanic (Hispania=España) usage will change or atleast decrease the poulation, since alot are gonna be Native American Indian or Black African instead of Hispanic-Hispano meaning Spanish..........and the Hispanics will be the people of only Spanish ancestry.....because thats what alot of cubans and others are of.. spain21 July 14 2007 (UTC)