User talk:Gimferrer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Gimferrer, and welcome to Wikipedia.

When contributing to a talk page, it is a good idea to sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~~~~. This will autmatically add your username and a timestamp. Please do not add this signature to encyclopedia articles you may edit, even if you have created them. Wikipedia articles are owned by the community, not by any one person.

Above all, have fun!

TPK 11:36, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hi from Al-Andalus

Hi mate,

I thought I'd leave you a message. You have me interested in your opinions on the Spanish language in the Philippines. I noticed you 've made numerous changes to my edits. I would be very interested in being able to chat with you on the topic. I'd very much like to know what your views are on the subject and where you are getting your information from before I go back to revert or make changes to the articles in question. I'm always willing to learn new things, and I go into conversations with an open mind. I can only hope you do too. This way we can both have a civilized discussion on what i noticed we both have a passion for. If you'd like to chat sometime let me know so I can forward you my MSN address. As I said, I'm quite eager to find out more about your perception of the scope of Spanish in the Philippines.

Al-Andalus, Al-Andalus 16:07, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Gimferrer,

Filipinos are by no means considered hispanic. Hispanic is a term that applies to those hailing from Latin America, people of Spanish ancestry do not consider themselves Hispanic because it is a term that is only used and America and because it does not denote a person of Latino ancestry, but just those of Latin AMerican Ancestry. I myself am of latino ancestry, Spanish to be extact, and no not consider Filipinos to be Hispanic but Asian or Pacific Islander because genetically most Filipinos are. I have many Filipinos who consider themselves Hispanic just because they have a Spanish surname so I decided to research and see if they actually were. Prior to Spain ceding the Philippines to the U.S., it required all the citizens of the Philipinnes to change their name to Spanish surnames because it was easier for the government to keep track of all the citizens of the islands. Only about 2% of the population actually has some, mostly distant, Spanish ancestry. THe rest of the population is composed of Chinese, Malaysian and other native groups such as Tagalog, Cebuano and Llocano. Even though this is the case, many claim to have Spanish ancestry just by assuption or wanting to be, which I don't understand. You should be proud of your culture and the many facets it has to offer. It is beautiful and very fascinaating and you should not try to dilute it so much that it becomes so similiar to the Spanish culture.

I understand that Filipinos share many of the traditions of the Spanish due to the colonization of the islands. Filipinos are there own distinct people though with many of their own traditions that distinguish them.

Hey Gimferrer.

Before I go back and revert your editting of the Hispanic disambiguation page and the splitting of the Hispanic American article, I wanted to address a few of your changes.

I've noticed that most of what you change has to do with the way Hispanic is defined. On the Hispanic page you seem intent on including the Philippines as a nation of a Hispanic culture and people. But you must concede that the culture of the Philippines is not a Hispanic one, it is one which has Hispanic influences, among various other foreign elements of influence including Chinese, Arabic and Muslim through Indonesia and Indian Hindu through Malaysia, but which remains fundementally native. Likewise, since the Filipino culture is not Hispanic, neither are the Filipino people. Otherwise, the culture is as rightfully Muslim, or Arabic, or Hindu or Indian as it is suggested it is Hispanic. But it is none of these, not Hindu, not Indian, not Muslim, not Arabic, not Hispanic! In fact, even the main article on the Culture of the Philippines says, as well as being stated by the Filipino goverment website about the culture of the Philippines:

"The culture of the Philippines is one of the most unique and diverse among the nations in Southeast Asia. Throughout Filipino history, no distinct national cultural identity was formed. The reason for this was partly due to the existence of an exorbitant number of languages spoken throughout the country. It is for this reason that rather than being national in nature, the cultural development of the Philippines has been local. Despite this, and despite their variety, a common aspect that most Filipino cultural traditions share today is that they have all been enriched and influenced by various foreign elements from both the East and the West; from China, Malaysia and Indonesia to Spain, Mexico and the United States, and from Hinduism and Islam to Christianity."

So in fact, we must admit that the culture of the Philippines ins't really Filipino either; for it is a Tagalog culture for the Tagalogs, it is a Cebuano culture for the Cebuanos, it is Ilokano for the Ilokanos, it is Aeta for the Negritos, etc. All have one thing in common, they have foreign influeces, but are all nonetheless Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilokan, etc. One cannot say that these nationalities within the Philippines consider themselves to be of the one same culture and people. Much less could one suggest that they would be of a Hispanic culture or a Hispanic people, or Muslim, Indian, Arab, etc... You get the picture.

The only people in the Philippines who can be said to be practising a Hispanic culture (and would therefore in this context be regarded as Hispanic people) just happen to be the Spanish-mestizos. Spanish-mestizos are one of the country's tiniest minorities which must thefore not be considered the overall national identity of the Philippines.

The fact that only the Spanish-mestizos are the only Filipinos that are considered Hispanic isn't because of their ancestry, it's because of their culture, they practice a Hispanic culture. However, in the case of the Philippines it might seem that to be a Hispanic is intertwined with ancestral meaning as well, becayse in the Philippines it is only possible to practise the Hispanic culture if one is of Spanish-mestizo ancestry. Only these inherited the culture (culture being what makes one a Hispanic) because there is no other way of practising a Hispanic culture in the Philippines unless one inherited it, ie, if one is of Spanish-mestizo ancestry.

The other way one can be a Hispanic even if you're not of Spanish ancestry, is if you practice the Hispanic culture because it's the culture of the counrty's majority population, ie, if you practise the national culture. But as stated, there really is no national Philippine culture.

Such is the case of the Dominican Republic. One doesn't have to be of Spanish ancestry to be a Hispanic, the very reason for the definition of Hispanic as a cultural and not racial term. If one is a Black Dominican one may also be Hispanic, because the national identity of the Dominican Republic is Hispanic (due yto the larger Spanis descended mulattopopulation) and the common language spoken by all Dominicans is Spanish. Here, the unmixed Blacks have taken on the culture of the majority and are therefore Hispanic, because as mentioned numerous times, even by yourself, Hispanic is abnout culture, not race.

But even so, this isn't the case for the Philippines. The Hispanic culture in the Philippines was never the culture of a significant segement of the population, thefore it couldn't spread to the the entire population, regardless of race.

One cannot change the definitions of words to suite one's agendas. Also evident to this agenda is your vandalization of the Hispanic American article where you omitted and deleted the phrasing within a perfectly structured paragraph, in order to create confusion.

It went from this:

"Often the term Hispanic is used synonymously with the word Latino. However, a Hispanic specifically refers to people from Spain or the various Spanish-speaking nations of the Americas. Latinos, on the other hand, are only those from the countries of Latin American, whether Spanish or Portuguese-speaking. Thus, a Brazilian, Colombian and Mexican would all be Latinos, but the Brazilian would not be Hispanic (unless his or her European ancestry was also Spanish, rather than Portuguese). Conversly, a Spaniard, Chilean and Venezuelan would all be Hispanic, but the Spaniard would not be Latino, since Spain is not geographically situated in Latin America (Spanish; Latinoamérica, adj. latino, pl. latinos).

To this

"Often the term Hispanic American is used synonymously with the word Latino American. Latino Americans are only those from the countries of Latin American, whether Spanish or Portuguese-speaking. Thus, a Brazilian, Colombian and Mexican would all be Latino Americans, but the Brazilian would not be Hispanic American (unless his or her European ancestry was also Spanish, rather than Portuguese). Conversly, a Spaniard, Chilean and Venezuelan would all be Hispanic, but the Spaniard would not be Hispanic American, since Spain is not geographically situated in Latin America (Spanish; Latinoamérica, adj. latino, pl. latinos)."

In your edition it says Spaniards are not considered Hispanic American because they are from Spain, and not from Latin America. But this is the reason why they are not LATINO, not the reason why they are not Hispanic. Spaniards will always be Hispanic, and as long as the Spaniard resides in the USA he will be a Hispanic American, or a Spanish American. Much like a Mexican living in the USA will always be a Hispanic American or Mexican American, in addition to Latin American and Latino; same goes for Cubans residing in America, they will always be Hispanic Americans, Cuban Americans, Latin American and Latinos, etc.

Then you also totally deleted this part:

However, a Hispanic specifically refers to people from Spain or the various Spanish-speaking nations of the Americas.

What is wrong with that statement? It is the actual definition of the word! Did it not sound good to you because it made no mention of the Philippines, seem to be your agenda.

They don't speak Spanish in the Philippines! Neither do they practise a Hispanic culture! Hence they are not Hispanic! It has nothing to do with the fact that 95% are native Malays, and most of the rest are either Chinese or Chinese-mestizos, because as already mentioned, race hasn't anything do with being Hispanic, except for the case of a Brazilian, where the only time a Brazilian would be considered Hispanic in addition to Latino and Latin, is if he has Spanish blood regardless of the culture he practices or the language he speakes. Al-Andalus 02:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How can 95% of Filipinos be "native Malays" when it is cited that one out of 5 Filipinos have some Chinese ancestry?

To An-Andalus 95% is a doubtful percentage. You havent been to the Philippines, obviously. A lot of people have Chinese and Filipinized Chinese surnames. Obviously, Chinese surnames were NOT included in the Catalog of Surnames. And besides, not all Chinese family in the Philippines carry CHinese surnames, some do carry Spanish Surnames, although, ehtnically they are Chinese.

You see the Philippines not having Hispanic Culture because the natives have well blended their Hispanic culture to their Indigineuos culture. Same as the Chinese - FIlipinos, they have well-blended too their Chinese culture to the Filipino culture.

Now, it is OBVIOUS that you're turning trying to TURN YOUR opinion INTO facts. Man, you need to read your post above. You said only the Spanish Mestizos practice the Hispanic culture. If that was true, then all native Filipinos should have converted back to Islam and they should have not been celebrating fiestas. There may be separate culture for the different ethnic groups(Tagalogs, Cebuanos, etc) but they are unified by their HISPANIC Culture. The Philippines may not be as Hispanic as the countries in South and Central America, but still it is undeniable that the country has been partly influenced. It seems that you can't accept that the Philippines has been PARTLY Hispanized. It seems that your having a big problem with the Philippines and Filipinos, and obviously you are not a Filipino, what is it to do with you? Go straight to the POINT. Call that openmind?- 'I'm always willing to learn new things, and I go into conversations with an open mind

[edit] Gimferrer, are you Laloy?

Hello,

Gimferrer, You are acting exactly like Laloy did. This is about ethnicity. Not culture. By your point, it's like saying Japanese are all Chinese since many Chinese immigrants blended their culture into Japan. Are they? NO. There are still Chinese minority in Japan but Japanese aquired many Chinese culture.

Your explanation is that all Filipinos are Hispanic because culturally, they are. Guess what, it's not the case. I am half half and consider myself as Japanese Mestizo. The unfortunate people of the Philippines. Definitely, I am not Hispanic but I am Filipino. we are all Filipinos. All Filipinos did not mix with Spanish. I do have a Spanish Mestizo friends and they are very proud and do not wish to mix with the "natives" they call as a joke. Besides, if you are mixed with Spanish, it shows in the skin and the face.

don't be delusional. Peace!

[edit] Ethnicity is different from Culture.

So now I know that you are not Laloy which is good because he kept on vandalizing the articles which I was furious. Gimferr, the thing is, Culturally, Filipino is Filipino which is a unique blend of Negrito, Malay, Spanish, American, Chinese, Japanese and Islam. Filipino is not Hispanic but Filipino. There is a difference. Filipino is defenitely influenced strongly by Spain but not 100%. We may say it could be Hispanic, but I personally do not agree. It is just simply, Filipino. Ethnically, Filipinos are not Spanish. That is an unfortunate myth among some Filipinos. We were not slaughtered by the Spanish and intermarriage was rare. Actually, more Chinese intermarried with the Native Malays. It just angers me how some people are so delusional. Just look at your face and you can tell what race you are. That's all.

Peace!

[edit] Black Legend

Given your past good contributions to Black Legend, you might want to look in on what's been going on there. In the past two days I've reverted two efforts to drastically change the article for the worse. If this is someone acting in anything like good faith, then the addition of more citations, especially on the "white legend" side of things, would fend a lot of this off. Can you help? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Isabella to Isabel

Please go to Talk: Isabella of Castile and vote for name change. Thanks. Rodric the First 07:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 11-M

Por lo que yo sé, está bien...pero tampoco tengo una gran confianza en mi inglés.

Algún día habrá que crear el apartado de "teorías de la conspiración" explicando los "agujeros negros" del 11-M. ¿Conoces a algún angloparlante que te deba un favor?. Un saludo Randroide 19:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, buena idea. Ya me encargo de contactar con ellos. La Wiki se lee, luego pueden suplirnos con un texto "enciclopédico" correcto y ya nos encargamos nosotros luego de que la Policía del pensamiento no lo borre. Te sugiero que pongas 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings en tu lista de "vigilados", para que nos cubramos las espaldas mutuamente. Ya tuve una fenomenal "enganchada" con Burgas00 en la página de discusión. y las guerra de ediociones al final las gana el bando con más miembros. Un saludo. Randroide 19:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hola

En respuesta a tu nota en mi pagina de discusión, en efecto me pase los dias del 11 al 14 de Marzo dale que te pego con el articulo del 11-M, traduciendo los medios de comunicacion en castellano y organizando la informacion, pero como no vivo en España desde el 2000 la verdad es que la polemica en torno a la investigacion me pilla un poco a contrapié. Las guerras de ediciones las pierden todos, y como os descuidéis vais a acabar los de los dos bandos expulsados de la wikipedia, o con el articulo protegido frente a futuras ediciones. — Miguel 21:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Randroide

Utiliza por favor la opción E-mail this user en la columna izquierda. Acabo de habilitarla. Un saludo Randroide 12:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

He cambiado tu cajetín de "exiliado", porque el cajetín que te has pegado no era más que un prototipo.

En el futuro mejoraré el diseño y lo añadiré a lols userboxes. Ya te avisaré. Un saludo.Randroide 15:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Después del totalmente gratuito bloqueo de Galio, se me ha caido por completo la venda de los ojos, Gimferrer:
Bloqueo incorrecto, nadie te saca la cara, todos los biblios estan de acuerdo. Fin del asunto, pasamos a otra cosa.
¿Qué pinta uno ahí?. ¿Qué pinta uno en un concierto de los Rolling o en un bar Rockabilly si lo que le gusta a uno es la música del siglo XIX?. ¿Protestas?. No, te marchas mientras tocan "Satisfaction", porque te has equivocado de sitio.
No he "luchado contra un muro", Gimferrer. Simplemente he tratado de ser racional con los que han terminado por revelarse como irracionales. Es mejor que me bloqueen ahora que no dentro de varios años de trabajo wikipédico: Así me entero de en qué sitio estoy. Si los irracionales mandan en ese sitio y los dueños estan de acuerdo, es el momento de dejar de colaborar (a no ser que uno sea masoquista), lo mismo que uno no va a un restaurante donde esté prohibido fumar si quiere fumar.
La pregunta siempre es: ¿Qué dice el dueño?. Si el dueño decide que personas como Petronas, Galio, Dodo o Hispa (por citar algunos) tienen poderes ilimitados (que esa es la situación de facto en es:Wikipedia), es el momento de marcharse, o de reducir las colaboraciones a un mínimo absoluto. Yo no puedo ni debo obligar a Petronas o a Hispa a unirse a mi club de tiro, ni nadie me obliga a unirme a lo que, de facto, es su club privado: La Wikipedia en castellano.
En realidad los abusos no son totalmente culpa de ellos: Ellos hacen lo que está de acuerdo con su forma de ser. No dan para otra cosa. Es culpa también de los dueños del invento, que lo toleran.
Qué bueno es tener la guía del código ético de Ayn Rand para tomar este tipo de decisiones. Es muy simple: El dueño de una institución privada (hotel, bar, restaurante, o Wikipedia...) manda. Si no te gustan sus decisiones, nadie te obliga a tener tratos con esa institución. Me dan conmiseración los usuarios que se lo toma como algo personal o como un fracaso suyo: La única forma de no perder en un juego trucado es no jugar Última frase. Este sitio que nos acoje, es, me temo, un juego trucado. Hora de continuar con la propia vida en otra parte. ¡Hay tantas cosas estupendas por hacer!. Un cordial saludo. Randroide 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Respuesta

Hola Gimferrer. Muchas gracias para tus palabras felizes sobre mi trabajo. Pero no puedo tener mucho crédito — tengo fuentes buenisimas. Casi todas mis fuentes son de español, pero los artículos de inglés son nuevos, no son simplemente traducciones. Me gusta hacerlos, porque mucha información es nueva en inglés. Tambien escribí artículos sobre virreys de Perú, pero son más cortos y peores, porque no tengo fuentes tan buenas.

Bueno trabajo en el artículo New Spain. Tenía la intención cambiarlo, pero prefiero hacer biografías, y por eso no he empezado.

¿De donde estás?

Perdoname para mis errores de Español, pero puedo leer mejor que escribir.

Rbraunwa 14:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viceroyalty of Peru

Thanks for the great work on this long-neglected article! I had been waiting for it to be substantial enough to split off the list of viceroys, and now it is. Keep up the good work. Rigadoun (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What a lot of work you've put in. This is a big improvement. I'm made a few changes for style, but nothing important. I'm not finished yet, so there will probable be a few more minor changes. You might want to add a paragraph about the civil war at the beginning of the virreinato. That was mostly before the viceroyalty was founded, but not entirely.
Are you Peruvian?
Good job.
--Rbraunwa 22:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Más Randroide

Hola Gimferrer. No, no, ninguna molestia por tu parte. Qué menos que ayudarnos entre "exiliados".

Misconduct allegation in the Spanish Wikipedia.

El userbox que tienes es poco aconsejable (por lo "ofensivo"). Yo te aconsejo mejor este, que ahora no tengo en mi página por razones fáciles de suponer.

No añado el texto a mi página porque, terminada la discusión sobre ella, solicitaré su borrado. Otro usuario se ha ofrecido a subirla a Meta, o incluso a Wikia.

Te escribo un texto como el que creo que es el que me pides, en mi tampoco perfecto inglés. Cuéntame si te he entendido bien y si el texto es correcto y refleja realmente lo que sucedió, pues desconozco el caso y tus explicaciones no son muy explícitas:

This is the discussion about the deletion of a page by Visitante documenting alleged misconducts in the Spanish Wikipedia. Keep won over Delete 28 to 18. Nonetheless, days after the closing of the poll, Admin (at es:Wikipedia) Dodo blocked Visitante ad infinitum and deleted the page.

Un cordial saludo. Y a tu disposición para lo que pueda ayudarte. Randroide 15:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Arbitration for 2004 Madrid train bombings

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#2004_Madrid_train_bombings

...pensé que podría interesarte.

Un saludo. Randroide 20:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We Don't Consider ourselves Latino

Hi, I am from Northern Spain, I was raised in Spain but moved to the US, I visit home often, but I can tell you that we don't consider ourselves Latin or Latino. We consider ourselves to be Spanish, but before that we consider ourselves to be whatever community we live in example Galicia, Pais Vasco, Barcelona, Valencia. I think this is a very ignorant discussion, because if you've never been to my country you cannot claim to know what we really term ourselves as. Spain is a very diverse country made up of several different communities and cultures that came together as an entire country while maintaining their individual style. Spanish and other Latin based languages are not the only languages spoken in Spain. I did not even hear the term Latino used until I moved to the US, it was was when someone was talking on TV about Ricky Martin being some kind of hot Latino. singer.

[edit] Geographic Distribution

You need citations before you add information (WP:Cite). Some of your information might seem self-explanatory, but you need to back it up. For instance, the lexical similarity between Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese is explained in the article. You would assume that means it's popularly studied in Italy and Portugal, but I could find nothing that said so. Many people likewise assume that Spanish is spoken widely in Brazil, because they speak Portuguese and because they are close to Spanish-speaking Latin American countries. We've seen a lot of evidence that shows this is not true, including Brazilians appearing on the talk page to tell us as much.

This isn't any "obsession" of mine. It's just making sure that the information in the article is accurate. I've likewise been considering deleting Portuguese as co-official in Equatorial Guinea, because even though it's been repeated on Wikipedia over and over, I haven't seen a cite for it yet. Bring this up in discussion and make your case. I'm not against adding it if there's either a good cite or a good argument to back it up. SpiderMMB 02:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)