Talk:Lusitanic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Lusitanic is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
|
Portugal To-do:
|
|
This article needs to be expanded, Brazil is a nation of some 190 million people and should have a larger article on Lusitanics. Molotov (talk) 
06:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. There is not enough information for such broad topic.
Contents |
[edit] /* Lusitanic*/
This article has come a long way in the last month since i originally edited January 30th. im now a registered user.
Thanks to everybody for your contributions.
--Lusitano Transmontano 10:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Adjectives are not encyclopedic
You really need to find a proper title for this article. Keeeping encyclopedic articles under adjective titles just won't cut it. As it stands it's a dictionary defintion with an extremely bloated (though interesting) etymology section and various more or less related information that actually belongs in a number of other articles such as Portuguese language, CPSC, Lusitania and a number of other Portugal- or Portuguese-related articles.
The info added is clearly interesting and isn't bad per se, but please stop creating more and more articles about the same subject instead of adding the information to already existing articles about more appropriate encyclopedic subjects.
Peter Isotalo 13:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I was really suprised!
I was really suprised to find out my parents who are Hispanic, have no such idea that there was a word to describe Portuguese speakers, which is Lusitanic. I suppose that many people are unaware that such a word exists.
Santos Martinez 21:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Santos Martinez:
Thats probably because "Lusitanic" began being used as an answer to "Hispanic/Hispano" and I had not heard of it myself until recently. If it has been around longer it eluded me. However, "Lusitano" I was aware of (which is sometimes used not just for the horse but for people also the way "Luso" is but im not sure if it's technically correct) and "Lusophone" which is not synonymous with portuguese but portuguese-speaker, "Lusitanian" and "Luso" also but these are used within portuguese speaking communities. "Hispanic" is in misuse as far as I am concerned. That word is synonymous with "Iberian" but because of the word's association with Spain and the ignorant application of the word mainly in the USA it has unfortunately come to mean something it does not. "Hispanic" is a US invention and Hispano/Hispania is not really synonymous with what we know to be Espanhol/Espanha today. "Hispanic" for "spanish" is not originally the eqivalent of "Lusitanic" for "portuguese". All Iberians; Castillians, Portuguese, Galicians, Catalans, etc., are "hispanos". Lusitano is the Portuguese equivalent of Castillian for those of Castille and Catalan for those of Catalunha, etc. Due to the connotation of Hispanic with things "spanish", lusophones, especially the Portuguese, prefer to use Luso/Lusitano etc., because of Portugal's national identity and independence from Spain (consisting of Castille, Galicia, Catalunha and so on but not Portugal anymore). Most people that don't know about our history think that Portugal and Spain are two countries that just happen to be similar and live next to eachother, similarly to how they are aware that Spanish and Italian, for example, have some similarities and this is easier for them to understand but Portugal and Spain is much more than that and these people are in error. You can find evidence of the dispute over the misuse, self-serving and ethnocentric "American" definitions as scripture on the Hispanic, Latino and Lusitanic article, discussion and history pages between types who will delete and edit points made that represent objective sections of the articles that represent valid opinions that exist in the real world because they have an agenda and those that know history, understand it and see the big picture and then everything inbetween. Although I do not agree that Latinos, for example, are only Latin Americans I would not delete a section that states this but would add my piece which expands on the definition which is valid and originally and widely used beyond the little bubble some of these vandals live in who think they know the "Our Father" better than the priest does. The terms Latino, Hispanic and Lusitanic as they have come to be used mostly only serve to satisfy big egos.
Lusitano Transmontano 17:39 - 20 de Maio, 2006
[edit] This article should be deleted
According to Portuguese language dictionaries, "lusitânico" is a synonym of "lusitano" which in turn refers exclusively to the country of Portugal, its culture and population. There is no precedent in the Portuguese language to call Brazilians or Angolans "Lusitanic". This article is not encyclopedic and should be simply deleted from the Wikipedia. 200.177.5.92 22:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: This article should be deleted
You are 100% correct. Lusitanic is no different from the terms castillian, galego, etc. These terms apply to the people of those regions and no one else. Hispanic/Hispano is another term that is misapplied. The definition of hispano in the Real Academia Española is first and foremost defined as, " 1. adj. Perteneciente o relativo a Hispania." The second definition is " 2. adj. español. Apl. a pers., u. t. c. s." and then the remaining definitions are as they have come to be applied in the U.S.A. The meaning has come to change due to pedantic error in usage and influence of U.S. application in other countries. The real meaning of hispano refers to those whose heritage comes from the ancient Hispania (known today as the Iberian peninsula). Although sometimes people from Spain, and in some cases people from Portugal, are referred to as hispanic in the U.S.A. often times people from Spain aren't even considered hispanic.
The original Lusitanic article on Wikipedia was taken from a webpage in which galicians were also included in the definition! I have little doubt lusitanic as it is was fabricated by one individual with an illinformed agenda just as hispanic was ignorantly applied not extremely long ago after a long period of history in which hispanic still rightly referred to people whose heritage comes from the Iberian peninsula. The definition of Lusitanic as it is here would best serve the lusophone article (I didn't suggest the merging of the two articles and I do not believe that anything other than the current lusitanic definition is appropriate for a merging). I don't believe the article should be deleted however I think the section containing the definition should be altered. I may do this soon and keep most of the remaining article.
Lusitanic, as you correctly point out, is synonymous to lusitano. Therefore the term applying to portuguese-speakers is lusophone just as hispanic does not refer to castillian-speakers but actually refers to ancient Hispania. The term for spanish/castillian-speakers should be castillophone.
I won't even get started on the latino crap.
Lusitano Transmontano 23:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Idiocy continues
I have looked at what has been altered and added in the last six months. you still fail to realize that hispanic is not the same as spanish. hispania is not the same as spain. lusitanic is not the portuguese equivalent of hispanic for spanish. under the hispanic umbrella is lusitanian, castilian, galician, catalan, etc. you want to rationalize how this is hispanic and that is not and you want to state dates yet this goes on and on and on and you keep going by what a stupid american president name nixon did when he called mexican immigrants hispanic and you go by this stupidity to base your arguments on. if you could go back in time to luis de camoes time, and you wouldnt even have to go that far you could go to a time much more recent than that, and tell an iberian or ptolemy or anyone back then that the portuguese are not a hispanic people, they would laugh in your face. hispanic is the same thing as saying iberian, and i dont accept the argument that terms change meaning especially since the change in meaning comes from misuse around an american ignorant habit. and some of these edits are from portuguese and that is very depressing. and i know its because of pride because you dont want to be hispanic, either because you associate it with spain or because you see how the hispanics are perceived in the usa and you dont want to be associated with that. but nobody is saying the portuguese are spanish. hispanic is not the same as spanish. hispanic does not mean castilian. hispanic means the same as iberian. for you to reject it because some anglo president decided to call castilian speaking latin americans hispanic and now you associate it with spanish because of that then you are accepting others, primarily an anglo nation and having nothing to do at all with the portuguese or portugal, to tell you who you are. i know you are intelligent but you really seem to have lack of reasoning on this. even many spaniards agree, but then i know the way portuguese are they might start thinking it is some spanish conspiracy to make portugal a part of spain. i think you have to realize first and foremost that hispanic does not mean spanish. maybe then once that is out of the way and your national pride isn't at risk then you can see things for what they really are. this isn't chess this checkers. it's straightforward and it's only complicated because you make it that way. hispanic is a word that refers to ancient hispania and shouldnt even be used anymore. but if spaniards and portuguese are not hispanic, then by default neither is any latin american. if the iberian peninsula were referred to as the hispanic peninsula instead, and those that are called hispanic now were labeled iberian instead, you would be saying you are hispanic and not iberian. and that is just stupid. it would be as if the mexicans did not speak spanish but were instead conquered by the polish, and then people saying that the mexicans are slavic but the polish are not slavic. if that example doesnt show you how ridiculous that would be then you are braindead. go check out a book that is not very old, it is from the early 19 hundreds called "the hispanic nations". you can find it on project gutenberg. look at it and see who it refers to. its not just the spanish. that is just one of many indicators as to what the portuguese and spaniards were perceived as when people still had common sense and it reflects the valid perceptions of the time. you know what, i think i dont give a damn anymore. theres nothing else i can say that i havent said before. some of you people are idiotic and refuse to learn, bound by your false concepts and national pride based on falsity. you will never learn. if that makes me a wikipedophile or whatever the heck the case is then so be it i really dont give a damn. im not going to stop calling it like i see it because there is some stupid name reserved for people who call dumbasses, dumbasses.
Lusitano Transmontano 16:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted
I deleted some comments from this page. Some people are making confusion between the HISTORICAL sense and the modern sense of the term Lusitanic, and are making confusion about the modern sense (USA meaning)and the HISTORICAL and ethymological sense of the word HISPANIC.
Lusitanic in the Historical sense refers to a pre-Roman and Roman people: the Lusitans. In a modern lingustic and cultural sense, Lusophone is a collective name used to refer to the Portuguese language community.
The "Hispanic" term, in the USA, refers to the Spanish speaking countries, etymologically, the term Hispanic (Hispano) derived from the Roman province Hispania. The people that lived in Hispania were called Hispanicus by the Romans (in Portuguese Hispanicos) and were Roman subjects.
Hispanic (USA term): "The term "Hispanic" was adopted by the adminstration of Richard Nixon. [1] [...] As used in the United States, Hispanic is one of several terms of ethnicity employed to categorize any person, of any racial background, of any country and of any religion who has at least one ancestor from the people of Spain or Spanish speaking countries in Latin America, whether or not the person has Spanish ancestry." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic
I think that, to avoid confusion, every time we used the Hispanic ethnic term adopted by the USA it should be refered as Hispanic (USA term) or Hispanic (USA ethnic). It is just an opinion open to debate.
The Historical Value discussed in the page should be about Lusitania not about Hispania because Lusitania was a part of Hispania just like the province of Hispania was a part of the Roman Empire.
The Latino term makes no sense to be discussed in this page.
[edit] Delete the whole thing if you want to...
The latino part was there as a basis for a comparison argument. If you didn't like it you could have modified it to reflect that opint better. Even the Luis de Camoes quote was deleted "portuguese or castilian - but we are all hispanic"- I supsect because it didn't do much to help the portuguese aren't hispanos argument, right? This whole thing is a load of crap. Keep trying to rewrite history and twisting facts, and quibbling about dates and pieces of land that were or were not considered "hispania" or what king dominated over what region and what not to suit your arguments. But the truth is the truth and can't be changed. And while I have a breath in my body I'll be an annoyance to anyone who calls the truth the lie and the lie the truth.
The only thing better than deleting this article would be to burn it.
Lusitano Transmontano 05:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted it. The sentence " 'Latino' is not an English word..." is particularly idiotic. Of course it's an English word (or I should say, It's an English word now). 71.100.181.6 18:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
