Talk:Hispanophone

In the US

How true is it that "hispanophone" is used as a synonym for "Hispanic" in the U.S.? It seems to me (an American from the Northeast) that they mean subtly, but clearly, different things. "Hispanic" as used in the United States refers to someone whose recent ancestors are from the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America, and is used more or less interchangeably with "Latino" (although the former term is often taken to be somewhat patronizing). One does not have to actually speak Spanish to be considered Hispanic, just as a person whose ancestors are from Italy does not have to actually speak Italian in order to be considered "Italian" in an American context. In my view, "hispanophone" seems clearly to mean "speaker of Spanish", not just someone with family roots in Spanish-speaking culture. I rarely hear "hispanophone" used all that much, so perhaps it is used (in the Southwest, perhaps?) in the same sense as "Hispanic". I welcome any input on this point. --Skoosh 05:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're correct that they are different. A "Hispanophone" is a Spanish-speaking person, just as a "Francophone" is French-speaking and "Anglophone" English-speaking. "Hispanic origin" is an ethnic category. In the 2000 census, 12.5% of the population was of Hispanic origin, while 10.7% of the population spoke Spanish. Thus there are some people who are Hispanic but not Hispanophones (and there may well be Hispanophones who aren't Hispanic). Funnyhat 04:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

New Mexico

Should New Mexico be added to the map? Spanish is an official language there. BobbyAFC 20:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have an official name (not even English), no matter how commons is Spanish. See the New Mexico article. Mariano(t/c) 08:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Not if it is inside of the United States... But what kind of credibility do I have?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.85.4 (talk • contribs)

Western Sahara are 'not' Hispanics nor a Spanish speaking nation

There is a problem with the Hispanophone map. The problem is that the Western Sahara region is shaded green. The green shade needs to be erazed because the Majority of the people of Western Sahara are 'not' Hispanics nor a Spanish speaking population. The Majority of it's people are of Arabic and African descent. Arabic is the official language of Western Sahara and it remains the sole language of the country. The map needs to be change because it is giving out mis-leading information. thanks!--Cajamarca express 2:48 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well to be truthfull the really only Hispanics are Spaniards. Western Saharans have the same right to be "Hispanics" as Mexicans and Cubans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casey14 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Spanish is talked by the free saharauis (those who don't live in occupied territories) this is only thanks to Cuba and it's usually taught by Cuban teachers. http://www.lavozdegalicia.com/santiago/2008/03/04/0003_6622703.htm http://www.diagonalperiodico.net/spip.php?article6301

Morocco and Western Sahara

In the map Morocco and Western Sahara appear as Hispanophone (albeit stating that they are "Countries and regions where the Spanish language is spoken without official recognition, or where Spanish-based créole languages (Chamorro, Chavacano, Papiamento, Portuñol, etc) are spoken with or without official recognition, and areas with a strong Hispanic influence."). I believe that Spanish speaking populations outside Ceuta and Melila are neglectable. I'm raising this issue at the Commons. Thank you! The Ogre 13:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The text even states that Northern Morocco was a Spanish colony! if you read the article on Morocco, the situation was much more complex, it states "Successful Portuguese efforts to invade and control the Atlantic coast in the fifteenth century did not profoundly affect the Mediterranean heart of Morocco. After the Napoleonic Wars, Egypt and the North African maghreb became increasingly ungovernable from Istanbul, the resort of pirates under local beys, and as Europe industrialized, an increasingly prized potential for colonization. The Maghreb had far greater proven wealth than the unknown rest of Africa and a location of strategic importance affecting the exit from the Mediterranean. For the first time, Morocco became a state of some interest in itself to the European Powers. France showed a strong interest in Morocco as early as 1830. Recognition by the United Kingdom in 1904 of France's sphere of influence in Morocco provoked a German reaction; the crisis of June 1905 was resolved at the Algeciras Conference, Spain in 1906, which formalized France's "special position" and entrusted policing of Morocco to France and Spain jointly. A second Moroccan crisis provoked by Berlin, increased tensions between European powers. The Treaty of Fez (signed on March 30, 1912) made Morocco a protectorate of France. By the same treaty, Spain assumed the role of protecting power over the northern and southern Saharan zones on November 27 that year."!!! The Ogre 13:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Brazil

Hispanophone imperialism is just hilarious. There's no such thing as people speaking Spanish or Spanish based languages as first language in Brazil! That's completely erroneous and should be changed!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.155.244.18 (talk • contribs)

Hispanics in the United States - requested move

Hello everyone. There is at present a discussion going on at Hispanics in the United States, due to the request that the page be moved to Hispanic Americans. Would you like to comment please? Thank you. The Ogre 18:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Hispanic Culture

Dbachmann proposed this article should be merged with Hispanic culture. I desagree - the reason being Hispanic Culture is a redirect to just Hispanic (but not Talk:Hispanic culture though!). Is this what Dbachmann had in mind - for Hispanophone to be merged with Hispanic? Please clarify. Thanks! The Ogre (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I decided to merge Hispanic culture into Hispanic instead (which is why it is now a redirect). I don't suggest any further mergers. dab (𒁳) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

on second thoughts, there is nothing here that isn't also covered at Hispanic. So we should perhaps merge this stub there after all. But I don't insist. dab (𒁳) 19:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is now bloated with stuff that duplicates and belongs in the Hispanic articles. This article is now arguably a WP:POV fork. --JWB (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Neologism?

I've never actually seen this term used in English (as opposed to French), and [1] identifies it as a neologism. --JWB (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It gets 74k Google hits, which surprised me. (I filtered out Wikipedia and its mirrors, as Wikipedia itself recommends).

But this article desperately needs better sourcing. SamEV (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Blah blah blah about nations/subcultures in Spain

I see that the fringe regionalists from Spain have hijacked this page to try to "educate" with their propaganda the "true" reality of Spain. I don't understand why there is such a long section filled with such blatantly non-neutral points of views even most people from those opressed nations without states within the artificial Spanish state.

Enough wikipedia pages have been hijacked by this fringe. Does this page need to be as well?

This is an articule about the "Hispanophone world." To my knowledge, even without taking into account regionalist whining, Spain as a state is a Hispanophone country. I see it being very appropriate to note that there are other languages within the nation that are used by significant minorities of the population. But I don't understand this need to trash the article with this "nation/subculture" nonsense.

Eboracum (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am taking out all the aforementioned nonsense. It does not belong in this page to begin with and is hardly a NPOV Eboracum (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The article refers to Castile as THE economic territory of Spain. Politically, most definitely. Economic? The ports of Bilbao and Barcelona are critical and were historically a major reason for Spain's interest in them. Further, the Basque regions contain extremely important financial and industrial centers. This has historically made control of Basque areas critical to Spain. Further, in addition to cultural and political identity, economic independence has historically been an important tenent of Basque and Catalan seperatist movements. Perhaps a more neutral point of view would refer to Castile as the politically and culturally dominant territory. Dispite my comments about economic importance, modern Basque and Catalan areas are culturally dominated by Spain's central regions, dispite the efforts of many to maintain seperate identities. Just sayin'. Ingcupes (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong method for calculating Spanish-speaking population

I think it is very important to make a clear distinction between people who actually speak Spanish every day (active speakers), and people who are able to speak Spanish but actually don't speak it for several reasons (passive speakers).

The former are those who live countries, regions or cities where Spanish language is widely spoken everywhere, eg Madrid, Argentina, Mexico DF and so on. The latter are those people who know Spanish because they attend to Spanish accademies in non Spanish-speaking countries or regions, those who just attend to Spanish lessons at school since Spanish is a mandatory foreign language in their countries, those who have Spanish-speaking parents and so on.

To make things easier, in this group the following cases should be taken into account:

1) A Swede who is attending to a Spanish language accademy (eg Cervantes Institute).

2) A Mexican Indian who knows Spanish because it's official in the whole country but actually doesn't use it since his context is non Spanish-speaking.

3) A Spanish citizen who was born in the central Catalonia, where the 90% of total population speaks only Catalan in daily situations (Catalan-speaking context).

4) A Spanish citizen who was born in a Spanish-speaking context (eg Madrid) but who moved to a non Spanish-speaking country (eg China, where nobody speaks Spanish).

Note that it has nothing to do with Spanish being or not the official language. Indeed, in the 2nd and 3rd cases Spanish is an official language, but the context is non Spanish-speaking. It has neither anything to do with Spanish being mother tongue. Indeed, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd cases consist of people who don't have Spanish as mother tongue.

I think just in the way I explained before we'll be able to develop an accurate article. --Mreq (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Hispanosphere map

The world map of the section "Hispanosphere" has to be corrected. In the Spanish regions of Catalonia, Valencian Community, Balearic Islands, Basque Country and Galicia Spanish is not the sole official language, and thus these territories should be coloured in dark blue. --Mreq (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As the spanish is official language there i think it must appear as dark blue. Other way it would be a complete nonsense. i.e. Go to Barcelona, Valencia, Vigo, Mallorca and Bilbao and hear the voice of the street. iT is spanish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.0.43.16 spanish 7 (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with social use, I'm talking about shared officiality. In the regions I mentioned Spanish is not the sole official language, so it should be coloured in dark blue. The only nonsensical position is yours.

--Mreq (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Cities, regions or towns where spanish creoles are spoken such as Chavacano in The Philippines or Papiamentu in the Netherlands Antilles should be included in the hispanophone map being part of the speaking world as creoles are intelligible to native speakers. FiLoCo (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)