User talk:Danedouard00: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Danedouard00 (talk | contribs) so long |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
For me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_templates |
For me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_templates |
||
== |
==Bye== |
||
I'm quitting Wikipedia because of POV editors. Have a nice life.[[User:Danedouard00|danedouard00]] 01:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
How about we substitute this quote for the current OMB one. This one explains the rationale for equating the two terms: "Terminology for Hispanics.--OMB does not accept the recommendation to retain the single term "Hispanic." Instead, OMB has decided that the term should be "Hispanic or Latino." Because regional usage of the terms differs -- Hispanic is commonly used in the eastern portion of the United States, whereas Latino is commonly used in the western portion -- this change may contribute to improved response rates."[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/1997standards.html] [[User:SamEV|SamEV]] 20:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Oh wait. I didn't notice it's part of the same one. I'll just add the missing sentence. [[User:SamEV|SamEV]] 20:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==The article Hispanic== |
|||
I think we should discuss this not to create an "edits war". Well, tell me what's your problem with the sections I created to clarify the term "Hispanic", and we can try to find a solution. |
|||
For my part, I'll tell you what I do not like from your edits: mainly it is the fact that you add lots of nonesense "made in" the other side of the Atlantic, such as "latino", "chicano", "hispanic (as understood in the USA)", etc. I think all this stuff must be placed in its correct section: "Hispanics in the United States", which has a main article called [[Hispanics_in_the_United_States]], but it cannot be added, in any case, in the header of the article, because it responds to a bad usage of the term. I also disagree with all these subsections that you create of "related terms", which include "latino", "chicano", etc. In fact, when you reverted my edits, I was going to take these sections you made, and I was going to put them in a section below, that I had already created, called "Hispanics outside of Spain". Becuase that is its correct section. You cannot put all the sophistry generated around the term "hispanic" in the United States, in the header of the article, as I said above. If you put as "related terms to Hispanic", latino, chicano, and all these, I could also put "catalan", "galician", "asturian", etc, but I didn't do this: why I didn't do this? Because I created its specific section: "Hispanics of Spain". And that's what you must do too: place your stuff in its correct place. Now let's discuss this please. By the way si hablas castellano nos entenderemos mejor. |
|||
Oh and please, do not remove my section about the Historical Mistake. It is something that must be told. Thanks. |
|||
Oh, and now I've just read the thing about the "lack of organization". YOU are who are showing an enormous lack of organization, by adding nonesense "made in the USA" in the header of the article. I organized the article, putting the correct definition of "HISPANIC" in the header, according to the [[RAE]], and then, creating specific sections for every possible situation that the term Hispanic faces. Let me show you an example of your enormous organization: |
|||
1.1 Etymology |
|||
* 1.1.1 Usage in the United States |
|||
o 1.1.1.1 Ethnicity |
|||
o 1.1.1.2 Rejection of the term |
|||
1.2 Usage in Spanish-speaking countries |
|||
* 1.2.1 Geo-political device |
|||
* 1.2.2 Ethnicity |
|||
So by one hand, you have etimology with a subsection called "Usage in the united states", and at the same level of "etimology" you have another section called "usage in the spanish-speaking countries" (it should be at the same level than "usage in the united states", don't you see it). And by the way, if you add this, the "usage in the spanish-speaking countries" or "usage in Spain", should be placed BEFORE the "usage in the united states". The nonesense generated in the US cannot overcome the real meaning of the term. And anyway, I do not agree in putting the definitions of the term in the different countries in the header. Instead of this, I think that the header of the article should have the [[RAE]] definition, and then in each different section, which regards to a different country (spain, the US; etc), then, there we should put what these countries understand as "hispanic". But the header must be kept safe of any corruption, containing the [[RAE]] definition. |
|||
[[User:Onofre Bouvila|Onofre Bouvila]] 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
I saw you responded to my talk page, just to comment two things about it: |
|||
'''(1)''' I edited various times my comment in this talk page and I think you responded to an old one. In fact you did. |
|||
'''(2)''' You are talking about organizating but you are the one being disorganized. Please, put the sections you created in their correct sections. I mean, if we have a section for "hispanics in Spain" where I have put all the stuff about catalans, basques, etc, and another section about "hispanics outside Spain", which includes "hispanics in the US"; why do you write all the stuff regarding to "chicano" "latino" and all those, just after the header of the article? Put them in their correct section. And please, keep clean the header, and the etimology. What it is understood in the US of "Hispanic" must go in its section. The etimology of the word is something based in the history, and its meaning is regulated by the [[Real Academia Española]], not by what some people in some country think. I'm not going to delete anything you add about the term hispanic in the united states and all that stuff, but there are two things I want to keep safe: 1) The header, which includes etymology, meaning, etc, which is what it is, and not what others think it is, and 2) The differentiation between the Hispanics of Spain and ''the others'', and all what you wanna add, goes into ''the others'', don't mix the contents please. [[User:Onofre Bouvila|Onofre Bouvila]] 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
And by the way THE HISTORICAL MISTAKE is a fact, I'll try to find sources that explain it, about the alienation of the spanish nations, etc, but do not remove it. Anyway if you look at google you can see all what I explained in "the historical mistake" about the fact that the people confuss "spanish" with "mexican" with "latino" with "hispanic" and think in Spain we are some kind of native american indians or something like that, etc, etc, etc, etc, and about the fact that the catalans do not feel identified with the term "hispanic" because it includes only the castilian speaking peoples, etc. Since I created that section, several people has modified it and contributed to it. And people is tired of talking about this in the talk page. There is a big missunderstanding regarding to the real meaning of hispanic, and this section's purpose is to explain WHY this bad usage has produced and why it is still alive. It is generalized. I mean, you may live in the US and you don't see it, but here it's pretty obvious. I'll get sources in the following days and add them to the section. [[User:Onofre Bouvila|Onofre Bouvila]] 01:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:52, 19 March 2007
What bothers me about several Wiki editors (and by extension, articles) is their varying standards. several of them produce or defend various unsources statements that are laced with POV yet when they encounter a sourced statement that doesnt jive with their understanding/beliefs/agenda/values, they (move to) strike. These editors usually center around ethnic/nationalistic themes. Please examine yourselves and be consistent with your standards. danedouard00 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
For me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_templates
Bye
I'm quitting Wikipedia because of POV editors. Have a nice life.danedouard00 01:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)