Jump to content

Talk:Lusitanic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Lusitanic" is not a word in any language

[edit]

"Lusitanic" is not a word in any language. (Y26Z3 (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

But "lusitánico" is a word in Spanish (see here: http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=lusit%C3%A1nico ) and "lusitano" is a word in Portuguese. It is, therefore, a word in Spanish and Portuguese. A Google search of "Lusitanic" turns up 267,000 results (see here: https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=Lusitanic ). Obviously a lot of English speakers use it too. It is a word, and there is no support for including text denying its status as a "real" word.Goodsdrew (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does lusitánico seem to be lusitanic to you? No, there is an accent on the a and there is an o at the end of the word. Does lusitano seem to be lusitanic to you? No, there is not an ic at the end of the word and there is an o at the end of the word. Therefore, lusitánico ≠ lusitanic and lusitano ≠ lusitanic. "Lusitanic" is not in the Oxford dictionary, the Cambridge Dictionary, American Heritage, Webster, or any other dictionary; furthermore, it has no etymology. I have provided you with nine sources in four languages, without an entry for lusitanic. It is therefore not a recognized word. (Y26Z3 (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
If a word isn't in a dictionary, all that means is that the word is not in that dictionary. For example, the word sudo isn't in Oxford, Cambridge, American Heritage Dictionary, or Webster. However, it most certainly is a word used by millions of people. You'd need a source specifically saying it isn't a word, assuming that lack of presentation in a dictionary means it isn't a word looks like WP:SYNTH. - SudoGhost 00:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When was "sudo" created? (Y26Z3 (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
That's irrelevant, the point here is that lack of X does not therefore equal Y. This is WP:SYNTH, and isn't allowed. - SudoGhost 10:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant. (207.70.152.4 (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)) Sockpuppet edit to give misleading impression of support.[reply]
No, "IP", it isn't. Simply saying otherwise isn't exactly the most convincing thing. When an unrelated word was first used is relevant to this article somehow? No, not in any way. - SudoGhost 13:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't dare to say "Lusitanic is not a word in any language ". I'm not sure, but I've seen it in a Provençal or other Occitan languages. I don't speak all languages of the world.

And just a reminder, English has not a regulating language body like French Academy, or the Royal Academy for Spanish Language. A word may exist (and indeed many does, like Sudo) without being listed in dictionaries. A published glossary compiled by a linguistic or ethnographer is scientifically valid for recording unlisted words.

I agree that "Lusitanic" is an original research in clear violation of Wikipedia policies. It certainly came out as parallel to Hispanic, and following the same logic, let's call the members of the Francophony "Gallic" and those living in the USA, "Gallic-American" (or perhaps "GaRlic-American"...)

--Brighella11 (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is original research. Granted that this article doesn't have much supporting evidence, but a simple search on Google shows that the word Lusitanic and Lusitania has had extensive use in many ways. We can easily find the sources to exactly explain what this word means, and it doesn't have to agree with what this article says. Even if the whole article has to be re-written for verifiability, so be it. But you can't say that the content is original research, thus the whole article has to go. There is no deadline. Optakeover(Talk) 21:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Optakeover. (207.70.152.4 (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)) Sockpuppet edit to give misleading impression of support.[reply]

Here is an English source from 1771 that uses the word "Lusitanic": http://books.google.com/books/about/An_Anglo_Lusitanic_discourse.html?id=CIsV1JSJnMoC . It seems like the word "Lusitanic" actually has a long history in the English language.Goodsdrew (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't change anything about the passage.
Have you read this book? The author is anonymous and the editor and publisher is J. Wilkie. Who/what is J. Wilkie?
Taking a look inside, the author refers to the "Portugueze". I'm sorry, but "Portugueze" is not a word. I'll keep reading it though.
(Y26Z3 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
It is a source from 1771 that uses the word. Whether the source is anonymous or not, it clearly shows that this word has a long and established etymology in the English language. SOMEONE was using it as far back as 1771. The word was not just "invented" by a Wikipedia editor, as you stated in one of your edits. (And whether the author of the 1771 book spells "Portugueze" with a "z" is irrelevant -- the spelling of words in the 18th century was not as standardized as it is now).Goodsdrew (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
207.70.152.4, you may disagree with me but you have not actually given any reasons why. Optakeover(Talk) 05:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just say something, I don't want to be part of the edit war any more. I'm just a vandal fighter, have no wish to be a sysop, and I have never said I was a great Wikipedian. But anyway, I believe that it could be mentioned in the article that the word isn't used much (if proven by sources) or that it is not an actual word in whatever language (proven with actual sources). However, dictionary definitions stringed like that are not good sources. Lack of definition just means not in dictionary, and it can't be used to say for sure, that the words are invalid. Optakeover(Talk) 18:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passage Consensus

[edit]

The latest passage, which states,

“Lusitanic” is not a word in the Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, or Macmillan dictionaries.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] It also does not have an entry in the Britannica, Columbia, or Oxford World encyclopedias.[8][9] In regard to its etymology, “lusitanic” has no entry in Klein's "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language" or "Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology". Furthermore, in regard to its use in American slang, it is not in Chapman's "Dictionary of American Slang".[10]

should be included in the article. (Y26Z3 (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Absolutely not, not without reliable sources directly supporting what you're saying. If a word is missing from a dictionary, that is only notable if a reliable source mentions it in some way. WP:SYNTH very much applies, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (emphasis added) Not a single source given as a reference explicitly says that lusitanic is not a word in their dictionary, or that this omission is due to being considered and then rejected as a word. There are a multitude of words that cannot be found in a given dictionary, but if a reliable source doesn't explicitly mention this, the absence of the word in a given dictionary is not worth mentioning per WP:UNDUE. - SudoGhost 19:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the first sentence it says that it is not in Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, or Macmillan dictionaries. If you click the little blue numbers after the period, it will take you to the references, where you can see evidence that that is true. The same goes for the other sentences. I hope that helps.
Also, the word is missing from dictionaries of any kind and encyclopedias, not just from a dictionary. If you could start saying that instead, we would all appreciate it.
There is no conclusion in that passage. To define conclusion for you, a conclusion is a reasoned deduction or inference. If you reread that passage, you will see that there is not a reasoned deduction or inference. Let me know if you need help understanding what a deduction or inference is.
Well, it is worth mentioning for professionals, people that want to use recognized words, among lots of others.
Again, let me know if you need any help.
All the best,
(Y26Z3 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
The issues of WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE however, have not been addressed and are the reason why the content does not belong. What would "help" is if you addressed that. What does not help your case however, is insulting the intelligence of other editors. For someone seeking a consensus for their edit, your method in dealing with other editors leaves much to be desired. - SudoGhost 19:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It passes WP:SYNTH because it does not join any two sources together to reach or imply a conclusion. For example, the first sentence could be broken up as follows:
“Lusitanic” is not a word in the Oxford dictionaries.
“Lusitanic” is not a word in the Cambridge dictionaries.
“Lusitanic” is not a word in the Merriam-Webster dictionaries.
“Lusitanic” is not a word in the American Heritage dictionaries.
“Lusitanic” is not a word in the Macmillan dictionaries.
When theses statements are placed in the same sentence, it does not reach or imply a conclusion. It says the same thing that was said when they were separated. Therefore, it passes WP:SYNTH.
It passes WP:UNDUE. Could you be more specific on where you think it fails? (Y26Z3 (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Because what you're saying isn't explicitly mentioned in any of these sources, which are effectively search results. You used the search results to reach/imply a conclusion. While it would be inappropriate to say it was a word in one of those dictionaries without verifying it, it is also inappropriate to say it is not a word without verifying it. Is it also undue because "Lusitanic is not a word in XYZ" is not a viewpoint given by any of the sources you gave. "These search results didn't return any hits" do not explicitly express "Lusitanic is not a word here", we would require a reliable sources to explicitly and clearly say this, not infer this information from an absence in a search. There are no reliable sources given that say "Lusitanic is not a word", so to state this in the article, and in the lede no less, is entirely WP:UNDUE. Lack of something in a database is only significant if a reliable source remarks upon this, that is why it is undue. "Your search result didn't return any hits" isn't significant in any way. - SudoGhost 21:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! They are not effectively search results, not at all. Take this for example,
"Most general English dictionaries are designed to include only those words that meet certain criteria of usage across wide areas and over extended periods of time. As a result, they may omit words that are still in the process of becoming established, those that are too highly specialized, or those that are so informal that they are rarely documented in professionally edited writing. The words left out are as real as those that gain entry; the former simply haven't met the criteria for dictionary entry – at least not yet (newer ones may ultimately gain admission to the dictionary's pages if they gain sufficient use).
In preparing your own writings, it is worth remembering that the dictionary encompasses the most widely used terms in English. Words that are left out may have usage limited to specific, isolated, or informal contexts, so they should be used carefully."
Hence, it is not WP:UNDUE.
WP:SYNTH regards two sources that are joined together to come to a separate conclusion. Which sources are joined together to come to a separate conclusion?
I apologize for my rash use of the word "word". What I mean is not a word used by any reliable source.
-(Y26Z3 (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Responding with a copy-pasted quote refutes nothing, especially because it doesn't even address anything that was said. A search result on a website is useless as a reliable source, and in no way demonstrates even the slightest bit of weight. Lack of something in a dictionary isn't notable unless something gives weight to it, searching for a word and not finding it isn't notable at all. - SudoGhost 22:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does address what you said. Editors scour sources for usage of words to put in dictionaries. Lacking an entry in a dictionary means that the word lacks the number and range of citations to be put in that dictionary. Stating that the word is not in dictionaries, etymological dictionaries, encyclopedias, or modern slang dictionaries, is of interest to those who are considering using the word. The majority of sources therefore indicate that the prevalent opinion is that "lusitanic" is not used enough to gain official recognition. This means that it passes WP:UNDUE and in fact, the rest of the article fails it. (Y26Z3 (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

No, that's not what that means at all, and each dictionary is done differently, and the ones you cited are certainly not the way you just described. Searching for a word and not finding it is not notable; simply stating over and over that it "passes WP:UNDUE" doesn't make this so. If you cannot find a source that explicitly and unambiguously says that lusitanic is not a word in a given dictionary, then it is undue for the article to state this; a website's internal search engine result is insufficient for this. This is the crux of why it was removed, and why it does not belong in the article. Unless this critical aspect is addressed you can respond all you'd like, you're not going to convince me otherwise. - SudoGhost 23:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with this passage. It implies that "Lusitanic" is not an English word, but we already have found an English language source from as far back as 1771 that uses it. There are hundreds of thousands of results from a google search of the word "Lusitanic." Clearly it is a real word.Goodsdrew (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By that source, you would also have to create a page called "Portugueze". Bottom line, the source is not verifiable. (Y26Z3 (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Of course you wouldn't have to create a separate article. There are plenty of different spellings between British and American English even today. We don't create separate articles for each word. What we do is just create a re-direct so that each variant spelling redirects to the same article. If "Portugueze" were still a variant spelling in wide use today, we would create a re-direct so that people looking up "Portugueze" in Wikipedia would be sent to "Portuguese."Goodsdrew (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=portugueze&searchmode=none. Versus, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=portuguese&searchmode=none. Portuguese was in use in the 1660s, Portugueze has never been in use anywhere, as a recognized word.
Who/what is J. Wilkie? The author of that thing is anonymous. (Y26Z3 (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://oxforddictionaries.com/spellcheck/?region=us&q=lusitanic
  2. ^ http://oxforddictionaries.com/spellcheck/?region=uk&q=lusitanic
  3. ^ http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/british/?q=lusitanic
  4. ^ http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/american-english/?q=Lusitanic
  5. ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lusitanic
  6. ^ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lusitanic?s=t
  7. ^ http://www.macmillandictionary.com/spellcheck/british/?q=lusitanic
  8. ^ http://www.britannica.com/search?query=lusitanic
  9. ^ http://www.encyclopedia.com/searchresults.aspx?q=lusitanic
  10. ^ http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=lusitanic&searchmode=none

Article Fails WP:UNDUE

[edit]

The majority viewpoint is that "lusitanic" does not have enough citations to be recognized as a widely used word and may have usage limited to specific, isolated, or informal contexts. This is the majority viewpoint and it should be held in the article.

Thank you, (Y26Z3 (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I think the discussion above pretty well establishes that no one else agrees with you on that.Goodsdrew (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just me, Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, and American Heritage. (Y26Z3 (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
The majority viewpoint must be held! (Y26Z3 (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
You've not demonstrated that Oxford et al. reflect what you're now saying. If this is the majority viewpoint, what reliable sources do you have that clearly and unambiguously demonstrates this? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when making a claim that this creates a "majority viewpoint". - SudoGhost 23:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sir. Okay, there is no et al... That implies research together, it's separate. This should answer all of your questions,
http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/how-do-you-decide-whether-a-new-word-should-be-included-in-an-oxford-dictionary , http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/how-do-you-decide-what-to-include-in-a-dictionary
(Y26Z3 (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
By the way, the last quote was from Merriam-Webster.
Majority viewpoint must be held ladies and gentlemen. (Y26Z3 (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Currently, the article fails WP:UNDUE. (Y26Z3 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I'm afraid your Latin is lacking. Et alii means "and others". The links you provided don't support your statements in the way needed. "Clearly and unambiguously" isn't a suggestion, and that is what needs to be addressed. You need something that actually says what you're suggesting, as opposed to using the lack of information in a source. You can say "majority viewpoint" 500 times and it doesn't mean anything; you need to demonstrate it, and so far this hasn't happened. - SudoGhost 00:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, saying Oxford et al implies research together if you've read a lot of research papers like me or are talking to educated folks. Here you go, http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/words_in.htm . (Y26Z3 (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
It "implies" nothing of the sort; I'm afraid you've inferred the meaning incorrectly, but I'd be happy to see some reliable source that says otherwise. Since you're continuing to post links that aren't addressing the issue with your statements, you seem to not be getting the point. Either that or you're grasping at straws for lack of actual evidence, but either way you've not demonstrated this "majority viewpoint", nor any reason for your preferred changes to be made to the article. - SudoGhost 00:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editors scour citations for words, if they have enough citations in number and range, then it is included in the dictionary. The absence of a word in a dictionary, for a word that apparently has been around for centuries, means (clearly and unambiguously) that the word does not have enough citations to be recognized as a widely used word and may have usage limited to specific, isolated, or informal contexts. Considering Oxford does not include it, it also means that according to Oxford dictionaries it may have usage limited to isolated contexts.
This does not mean that it is not real though. This may make you feel better, http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/real_words.htm
(Y26Z3 (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, you've said this already. You can repeat this in ad infinitum, but without clear and unambiguous content in a reliable source that directly supports what you're saying, you can't add content to an article as if it is directly supported, let alone relevant. A Wikipedia article is not a complete exposition of all possible details, and this level of detail is undue in this article. - SudoGhost 00:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a detail, it's a majority viewpoint. (Y26Z3 (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Which is exactly the point. If it was truly a majority viewpoint, you'd be able to clearly demonstrate that with multiple reliable sources that clearly demonstrate this, as it is you haven't given a single one. That the best you've been able to do is show some internal search engine results without the word included is a fair indicator that this is not a majority viewpoint by any means. Unless some reliable sources are discussed which directly address this, it's pretty clear there's no consensus for this, and as it stands has no place in the article (and no, "convienient IPs" coming along agreeing is not a consensus, consensus is given through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not as a vote, "I agree" gives nothing to a discussion). - SudoGhost 01:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I've provided you with a plethora of sources. This is racist and a lot of people are offended. The translation of lusitânico to English is "lusitanian" according to “A Portuguese-English Dictionary” revised by James L. Taylor and every other Portuguese-English dictionary. Therefore, the beginning two words of the article are not even correct. I'm going to let you digest all of this and then we'll come back in a day or two. (Y26Z3 (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You've provided not a single source that directly supports anything, not one. What you have provided is WP:UNDUE and under no circumstances does a lack of something directly support its opposite. Now all of a sudden it's somehow racist? Aside from the fact that that makes no sense whatsoever, you're grasping at straws now and failing miserably. Unless you can demonstrate what you're saying, you're not going to convince me that there's some "majority viewpoint" that somehow doesn't have a single direct reliable source that can be shown. - SudoGhost 01:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to convince you. You are insignificant. The majority viewpoint disagrees with you. Also, as explained by Brighella11, it comes across as an attempt to draw a parallel to a term used in racial contexts in the United States; use your brains cells a little. (Y26Z3 (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Well since you've dropped all the way down to personal attacks, I think we're done here. Your "majority viewpoint" does not exist, given that you have not presented even a single reliable source demonstrating so. You have no consensus, and have given no compelling reason why your preferred edits should be reintroduced into the article. Unless you can present proper sources or establish some new consensus that Wikipedia policies and guidelines somehow don't apply, your preferred version does not belong on the article, period.- SudoGhost 03:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a discussion of the term "Lusitania" and related terms:[1] It appears the term "Lusitanian" refers to an ancient people, whereas "Lusitanic" refers to a cultural heritage. To put it another way, there are no "Lusitanians" out there, but there are people of "Lusitanic" heritage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link, Baseball Bugs. What that link gives us is a dictionary definition that includes the word Lusitanic. Y26Z3, you simply don't have any support for your position. We have usage of this word going back to the 18th century. We have hundreds of thousands of results in Google. And now, we have a dictionary that lists the word "Lusitanic." I think your position has been thoroughly debunked.207.114.221.128 (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work SudoGhost. Sorry I got tired of quarreling with Y26Z3. And I agree with the majority viewpoint that multiple dictionary sources cannot account for a statement that a word doesn't exist. A word that isn't in the dictionary, doesn't mean it cannot be added in the future, and we still need actual proof that says word for word that 'Lusitanic' is an invalid word. Optakeover(Talk) 16:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Block-evading comment removed.
If you think the article shouldn't exist, then ask to start an AFD over it. Balancing what you think is unverifiable content with more unverifiable content is simply a non-starter. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Y26Z3 contacted me, asking a couple of unrelated things at first. He then explained to me his argument that "luistanic" is libelous because it is a portmanteau of "lucifer" and "satan". This appears to be a conclusion which he and he alone has drawn, as it is clear that the article does not imply or openly state this contention whatsoever, and to argue that it does strikes me as extremely tenuous.

I would like to note that the websters-dictionary-online link Baseball Bugs put forward above appears to be out of the realm of consideration, because it quite clearly states underneath that it was "adapted by the editor from Wikipedia", from this page.

I agree with Someguy1221 that the solution to unverifiable material is not more unverifiable material - what should be indicative of the name of this article is not what dictionaries don't say, but what they do say. I am an English student with full access to several resources, including the OED, so I had my own investigation. I found the following:

The prevalence of usage of a term is also relevant to its naming. Google Books can be used to demonstrate this, as is mentioned in article title policy.

  • Seaching "Lusitanic" gives approx 3,240 hits.
  • Searching "Lusitanian" gives approx 111,000 hits.

...as can Google Scholar:

  • Searching "Lusitanic" gives approx 191 hits.
  • Searching "Lusitanian" gives approx 7,000 hits.

As a previously uninvolved party, I would suggest that, in light of the entries in several pretty authoritative dictionaries (none of which have any entry for "Lusitanic", and the 97% dominance of "Lusitanian" via both Google Books and Google Scholar, this article on the adjective pertaining to the culture of Lusitania should be moved to "Lusitanian". WilliamH (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having been blocked for good, Y26Z3 is now attempting to "edit by proxy", which is totally against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He may indeed be attempting to edit using anonymous proxies, but the above section is entirely my own writing, contributed and researched entirely on my own volition. I felt that it will resolve a dispute which has achieved nothing more than an article fully protected: one which remains uninformed by reliable sources and actual usage of the word, as I have indicated. WilliamH (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you have looked into it had he not contacted you?
Meanwhile, sorry about the apparently bogus link. I didn't look at the fine print. Obviously not a valid source.
Meanwhile, some of your posted links don't work.
Meanwhile, my old Webster's lists neither term, which suggests some obscurity.
Meanwhile, I guess we had better call the term "Germanic" libelous as well, since it could be read as dangerous microbe + mental illness. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't have, but as I said - I am an English student, and it aroused my interest. At no point did Y26Z3 request me to make an edit of any nature. He merely reiterated his lucifer/portmanteau analaogy, which I personally think is stupid, as I have no doubt you do, given your "Germanic" analogy. As for my links, I'm assuming by "some" you mean "one", as the OED requires one to log in through the Athens authentication service, and I cannot comment on your Webster's lists for obvious reasons. Please comment on the content, not the contributor. WilliamH (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Please comment on content, not the contributor." Well, I commented on myself, and there's no rule against that. That term "Lusitania" seems to refer to an ancient region, and its citizens would have been "Lusitanians". There are no "Lusitanians" anymore, just as there are no "Celts" anymore. But there are people of Lusitanic or Celtic heritage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From a pedantic viewpoint, Lusitanic might be the better adjective for the sake of consistency, but it remains true that almost no one uses it. Looking through the sources in scholarly books and journals, "Lusitanic" seems to be used almost exclusively by a couple linguists and a some marine biologists. Lusitanian is mostly used in the same contexts, but far more frequently, and is occasionally used by writers to refer to people and other things of Portuguese origin. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I support the change, personally. I have also verified all four links (I have access to the OED? I had no idea!). As far as editing by proxy goes, while Y26Z3 was proposing completely untenable solutions and in an almost purely disruptive manner, the issue that set him off is indeed real (although not as dramatic as he perceived it to be). This change wasn't one that Y2 actually proposed, and he remains de facto banned, so I don't think that's a problem here. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find any living people that identify themselves as "Lusitanians"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, that's true, and the demonym for Lusitania and its historic inhabitants are correctly listed under Lusitanians. However, as indicated above, the prevailing adjective for things and people pertaining to Lusitania is lusitanian, not lusitanic. WilliamH (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)No, and I didn't find anyone who identifies themselves as "Lusitanic", either. Which is why I don't like either word. I think it really does seem like a poetic term that died out in the 19th century. As far as modern times go, the only common usage I find for either word is to refer to marine organisms that live off the coast of Portugal. Another alternative to renaming would be to merge/redirect the whole article to Portuguese people and make sure to note in there that "Lusitanian" is an archaic term that used to refer to the article's topic (in addition to also being the name of a tribe that lived in the region). Someguy1221 (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking about that, and I am inclined to agree. For example, German is simply a disambiguation page which points to specific things such as the German language or the German peoples. It does not describe German people or things related to Germany because German is ambiguous, in that it can be both a noun and an adjective. WilliamH (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about redirecting both "Lusitanic" and "Lusitanian" to "Lusitania" (the ancient region, not the steamship)? That's assuming you want to keep the "Lusitania" article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having studied a bit about Portuguese language and culture in college, my own personal experience is also that Lusitanic is not commonly used, but that the word "Lusitanian" would seem more "correct" to me. Certainly the prefix "Luso-" is frequently used to refer to things of Portuguese origin ("Lusophone" comes most to mind). I think moving making "Lusitanic" and "Lusitanian" redirect to "Portuguese People" may be the best option, with a note in the article explaining that lusitanian and lusitanic are sometimes used to refer to persons of Portuguese ancestry. I think changing the name of the current article to "Lusitanian" would also make sense. The current wikipedia article Lusitanians is about an ancient pre-Roman tribe from the Iberian Peninsula, though. The current article obviously is about a different subject matter and shouldn't be combined with Lusitanians, there would need to be two articles perhaps "Lusitanians (Ancient Tribe)" and "Lusitanians."Goodsdrew (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry at this article

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Y26Z3/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading information (and I'm not allowed to remove it!)

[edit]

This page contains misleading and non-relevant information; and it doesn't allow me to remove it, because when I do it, minutes later it all comes back. The part "Portuguese speaking countries and regions in the world" has no relation whatsoever with this, because this word refers to Portuguese people (people from Portugal) and it has nothing to do with former colonies of the country, Portugal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePortuguese (talk • contribs) 21:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reverting this, as I feel that it should be discussed by the many people who have created this page, rather than deleted by one person. You say that the word refers to only people from Portugal, however you've not provided any evidence of this. srushe (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although Lusitanic is rarely used, is relative to people of Portuguese descent throughout the world in various countries and has been used for Portuguese-speaking countries, although "Lusophone", "Luso-Countries... etc." "Lusophone nations" etc. and even Lusitanian (This one most commonly used in the strict sense for the Portuguese, but also sometimes for international People) are more used all over the world, very common and have the same broad meanings kind.--LuzoGraal (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lusitanic or the kind - Relative to people of Portuguese descent throughout the world in various countries (lusophone or not) and has been used for Portuguese-speaking countries (despite wide ancestry as Brazil, also for linguistic reasons) To make that sentence clearer. But with several sources: historical, journalistic, literary, etc.. the article would be more clearer.--LuzoGraal (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That information is incorrect. It says at the beginning of the page itself: "When the modern day country of Portugal was created in the 12th century, it inherited the term, and thus, since then, Lusitanic has also meant related to Portugal, its people and its culture. When only referring to the Portuguese language, the word Lusophone should be used." Just like what LuzoGraal said is wrong, exactly because of this. "Lusophone" and "Lusitanic" are not the same thing. You can read the talk part entitled "comment" and you'll see they're saying this word is related to Portugal and its people, not ex-colonies.ThePortuguese (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)ThePortuguese I agree with the other users that said this page should re-direct to "Portuguese people". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePortuguese (talk • contribs) 21:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, "Lusophone" and "Lusitanic" are not the same thing. (the following is written in Portuguese...): lusitano (latim lusitanus, -a, -um) adj. 1. Relativo à Lusitânia. 2. Relativo a Portugal. = PORTUGUÊS s. m. 3. Natural ou habitante da Lusitânia. 4. Natural, habitante ou cidadão de Portugal. = PORTUGUÊS adj. s. m. 5. Diz-se de ou raça portuguesa de cavalos.

Translation: (Lusitanic/Lusitanian: 1. Relative to Lusitania. 2. Relative to Portugal = PORTUGUESE

3. Natural or inhabitant of Lusitania (which doesn't exist anymore) 4. Natural, inhabitant or citizen of Portugal = PORTUGUESE

5. A breed of horses.)

Source: http://www.priberam.pt/DLPO/default.aspx?pal=lusitano


lusófono (luso- + -fono) adj. s. m. 1. Que ou quem fala português. adj. 2. Que tem o português como língua oficial ou dominante (ex.: país lusófono).

Sinónimo Geral: LUSOFALANTE

Lusophone: 1. One who is/speaks Portuguese. 2. Someone/something which official language is Portuguese.

http://www.priberam.pt/DLPO/default.aspx?pal=lus%C3%B3fono

Priberam is a very famous Portuguese dictionary. ThePortuguese (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC) - ThePortuguese[reply]

It is debatable whether in the U.S.A. and in other English-speaking countries is used more Lusophone or even in certain instances Lusitanic (or even Galician-Portuguese) for the language around the world. And the question of Lusophone and Lusitanic is already mentioned in the introduction to the article. Anyway, remember that this is the English-language Wikipedia (though also inspired by the Lusophone world in this matter, but not only). --LuzoGraal (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Like others said, people don't even use this word that often! And it's not debatable because lusófono is a direct translation to Lusophone and lusitano is a direct translation to Lusitanic/Lusitanian. The English words had their origin on the Portuguese words and the meaning of those words is explained above. "And the question of Lusophone and Lusitanic is already mentioned in the introduction to the article." It is! It is contradicting what you're saying, explaining the differences between the two words! ThePortuguese (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained the difference, but not always different, hence the need for more sources (perhaps) or explaining it better. --LuzoGraal (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you said doesn't make any sense and you're contradicting yourself! Tomorrow when I have the time, I'll elaborate more (on what is already very obvious...). As a Portuguese, you should know better! ThePortuguese (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, discussion and research illuminates and is good for the encyclopedia and for general knowledge. I am not contradicting. Lusophone is the adjective (or noun as subject) used most (but not the only one) and is more related, as the etymology indicates, with the use of the Portuguese language by Peoples around the world. But there are alternatives, including the portuguese language and not only in the international arena related to portuguese ancestry and/or culture or related culture, as Lusitanic etc. for the languaje and other subjects - parallel to Hispanic (mostly to the peoples using this language in strict sense but not only, also in ancestry or related culture - not much used the Hispanophone in language matters as you see, even if more stringent to Castillian/Spanish language and by that way, to its speaking peoples), to Anglo-Saxon, Anglican, British Commonwealth, Francophone, Gallic and others as the various subjects in which they are applied, language of course, but some also to other matters or even some only to other matters, unrelated or related to a common language or culture.--LuzoGraal (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, LuzoGraal, you are contradicting. You said the words are synonyms and that's not true. Lusophones are the Portuguese and every individual whose first language is Portuguese. That's not the case with the word Lusitanic.

You (srushe) talk about proof, but the fact is that everything points to me being right: I already explained the difference between the two words with proof and it's also explained in the Wikipedia article itself when it says “When the modern day country of Portugal was created in the 12th century, it inherited the term, and thus, since then, Lusitanic has also meant related to Portugal, its people and its culture. When only referring to the Portuguese language, the word Lusophone should be used.". The article its in contradiction with itself; because what I just quoted is exactly the reason why the part about countries where people speak Portuguese is misleading and non-relevant information.

LuzoGraal talks about the supposed many times where the words are used interchangeably, and yet provides no sources or documentation (naturally, because those don't exist since that's just not true).

You had said to me "Please discuss your extensive deletions on the talk page. Ideally explain why you feel they're justified, rather than simply deleting vast swathes of well-sourced content.". The fact that the content is "well-sourced" doesn't mean it's related to the topic in question. I could go on and on adding well-sourced documented information about cats on a page about chairs! What's the point on keep adding information to an article that's not related to it? The difference is that you don't know about this terms because people outside of Portugal rarely use them, but I'm telling you as a well educated Portuguese person the differences! And I've provided the proof you wanted. And you can read in this talk page the “comment” section and see people saying Lusitanic refers to people from Portugal. But I'll keep adding: the origin of this word comes from an ancient tribe that inhabited most of Portugal and a little part of Spain. The name of that tribe was the Lusitanians. They were said to be very brave, so when Luís Vaz de Camões wrote “The Lusiads”, he used their name to refer to the Portuguese people as a whole. On the Wikipedia article entitled “Os Lusíadas”, it reads “key concepts: the heroes: The heroes of the epic are the Lusiads (Lusíadas), the sons of Lusus or in other words, the Portuguese.” As you can see, the Portuguese! This series of poems was made with the intention of glorifying the Portuguese people for the discoveries of new lands and it talks about the Lusos/Lusitanians/Lusitanics/Portuguese. Those words became interchangeable because of that poem (it's one of our great classics). Nowadays, when referring to people of Portuguese origin born in another country, the suffix used is “Luso” because of that. Luso means Portuguese! Examples: Luso-American, Luso-Brazilian (can you see the distinction?). If calling Brazilians Lusos/Lusitanians/Lusitanic were right, it wouldn't make any sense to call a Brazilian person of Portuguese origin “Luso-Brazilian”, because that would be a repetition. But the obvious is that Luso means Portuguese, so that term is used. Here: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luso-brasileiros (the thing is, many of the sources are written in Portuguese, exactly because that word is not well known in the English language; but you can see without a translation that what's written on that page is “Luso-Brazilian”). Here, another source where the word is used, in English: https://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Elements/Academics-Research-Centers-Initiatives/Doctoral-Programs/Hispanic

You've got the definition of the words from the Portuguese dictionary “Priberam”, and now I'll add some more: Source: English Collins Dictionary - English Definition & Thesaurus “Lusitanian”: 1. Chiefly poetic: of or relating to Lusitania or Portugal 2. (Biology) denoting flora or fauna characteristically found only in the warm, moist, west-facing coastal regions of Portugal, Spain, France, and the west and southwest coasts of Great Britain and Ireland

Luso- : combining form: indicating Portugal or Portuguese (from Portuguese lusitano, from Latin, from Lusitania)

(this dictionary doesn't recognize “Lusitanic”)


Source: http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/lusitanian.htm

• LUSITANIAN (adjective)   The adjective LUSITANIAN has 2 senses: 1. of or relating to or characteristic of Portugal or the people of Portugal 2. of or relating to or characteristic of the region of Lusitania or its people or language   Familiarity information: LUSITANIAN used as an adjective is rare.

 Dictionary entry details 

• LUSITANIAN (adjective)

Sense 1

Meaning: Of or relating to or characteristic of Portugal or the people of Portugal Classified under: Relational adjectives (pertainyms) Synonyms: Lusitanian; Portuguese Context example: Portuguese wines

Sense 2

Meaning: Of or relating to or characteristic of the region of Lusitania or its people or language Classified under: Relational adjectives (pertainyms) Pertainym: Lusitania (ancient region and Roman province on the Iberian Peninsula; corresponds roughly to modern Portugal and parts of Spain)

As you can see here, when it talks about language, it talks about Lusitanian's ancient language, which was not Portuguese. The dictionaries don't even have a definition of “Lusitanic” (but Lusitanian is interchangeable with this word, just like Luso).

Source: http://www.infopedia.pt/pesquisa.jsp?qsFiltro=0&qsExpr=lusitano – this one is also a very popular Portuguese dictionary lusitano adjectivo 1. relativo ou pertencente aos Lusitanos (antigo povo pré-romano, estabelecido entre o Tejo e o Douro e as províncias espanholas de Cáceres e Badajoz); (Lusitan/Lusitanian – relative or belonging to the Lusitans (ancient pre-Roman peoples (then it says the location where they used to live)) 2. relativo ou pertencente à Lusitânia (antiga província romana) (relative or belonging to Lusitania (ancient pre-Roman province) 3. relativo ou pertencente a Portugal; português (relative or belonging to Portugal, Portuguese) nome masculino 1. membro dos Lusitanos (masculine name; a member of the Lusitans) 2. natural ou habitante da Lusitânia (natural or inhabitant of Lusitania) 3. natural ou habitante de Portugal; português (natural or inhabitant of Portugal, Portuguese) adjectivo e nome masculino designativo de ou raça de cavalos nascidos e criados em Portugal (adjective and masculine name; a breed of horses born and raised in Portugal) (Do latim lusitānu-, «idem»)


luso adjectivo e nome masculino ⇒ lusitano (Do latim Lusu-, «idem»)

(by writting “luso” it redirects to “lusitano” (lusitanian), meaning it's the same thing)

lusitânico adjectivo e nome masculino ⇒ lusitano (Do latim lusitanĭcu-, «idem»)

(by writting “lusitanic” it redirects to “lusitano” (lusitanian), meaning it's the same thing; just like it happened when I wrote “luso”)


Lusófono (lusophone) adjectivo 1. que fala português (who speaks Portuguese) 2. diz-se do país ou do povo cuja língua materna ou língua oficial é o português (people or country whose official language is Portuguese) nome masculino (masculine name) aquele que fala português (he who speaks Portuguese) (De luso-+-fono)


And now a Brazilian dictionary: Source: www.dicio.com.br Significado de Luso adj. e s.m. Da Lusitânia, de Portugal; lusitano. Sinônimos de Luso Sinônimo de luso: lusitano e português 

(Meaning of “luso”: from Lusitania, from Portugal, Lusitanian. Synomyms of Luso: Lusitanian and Portuguese)

Significado de Lusitânico adj. O mesmo que lusitano. 

(meaning of Lusitanic: the same as Lusitanian)


Significado de Lusitano adj. Relativo à Lusitânia ou aos seus habitantes.

  • Ext.

Relativo a Portugal ou aos Portugueses. M. Habitante da Lusitânia. (Lat. lusitanus) 

(meaning of Lusitanian: relative to Lusitania or its inhabitants; relative to Portugal or the Portuguese people; inhabitant of Lusitania)

(this one doesn't have a definition of Lusophone, although if you know Portuguese you can read by the examples where the word is used that this word is related to the Portuguese language, unlike the others that are only related to the Portuguese people, thus, excluding Brazilians and people from the ex-colonies)

One more example from a Brazilian dictionary: Source: http://michaelis.uol.com.br/moderno/portugues/index.php?lingua=portugues-portugues&palavra=lus%F3fono

lusófono lu.só.fo.no adj+sm (luso2+fono) 1 Diz-se do, ou o indivíduo que fala português. 2 Diz-se do, ou o indivíduo ou povo que, não tendo o português como seu vernáculo, fala-o por cultura ou por adoção como língua franca, tal como acontece em regiões africanas e asiáticas que sofreram influência dos antigos colonos portugueses. Var: lusófone. 

(lusophone: 1 It's say of, or the individual that speaks Portuguese. 2. It's said of the individual that speaks Portuguese as official language, even if it's not the native one, like in some African and Asian regions. Variation: lusófone (in English, it would be the same thing: Lusophone))

lusitano lu.si.ta.no1 adj (lat lusitanu) 1 Que diz respeito à Lusitânia ou aos seus habitantes. 2 Que se refere a Portugal ou aos portugueses; lusitânico. sm 1 Habitante ou natural da Lusitânia. 2 Português. Var: luso. (Lusitanian: 1. That's relative to Lusitania or its inhabitants. 2. That refers to Portugal or the Portuguese people, Lusitanic. Sm 1. Inhabitant or natural of Lusitania. 2. Portuguese. Variant: Luso) Here, see? The three words used as synonyms. Just like in the other reliable sources that I used. Michaelis is a very well known Brazilian dictionary.

As you can see, one thing is Luso/Lusitanian/Lusitanic: related with the ancient tribe and associated with the Portuguese people and a different thing is Lusophone, associated with the countries/peoples whose official language is Portuguese. Being the title of the article in question “Lusitanic”, it doesn't make any sense to talk about Portugal's ex-colonies because the people who live there are not Portuguese and thus, are not related to this article (the majority of the people of those countries is not Portuguese, and the one's of Portuguese ancestry are called Luso-Brazilians (for example)). Like I said, the fact that there's such a word as “Luso-Brazilian” says it all! Take “Luso-Angolan” as another example: http://www.ela.uevora.pt/ (reliable source, that's the website of the University of Évora, you can read “Luso-Angolano” (Angola was a Portuguese colony as well)).

From what I said, hopefully you can see the ridiculous it is, that on a page entitled “Lusitanics” it talks about Portugal's ex-colonies. It's misleading information and it's wrong. If someone finds out about the word and looks it up, the person who finds this information can't even make up their mind because first it says (correctly) the distinction between the words Lusitanic and Lusophone, and then it talks about Lusophone countries in a page entitled Lusitanic. The page it's in contradiction with itself!

What LuzoGraal said about this being the English language Wikipedia doesn't make any sense, simply because those words' origin are Portuguese. If they didn't exist in Portuguese, they wouldn't exist in English, so their meaning is the same as in Portuguese because they are simply direct translations. And of course English speaking people didn't create their own meaning to this words because the great majority doesn't even know they exist!

Further, you also don't let me edit the part on the article “Lusitanians” that also has incorrect information, and it was just 1 phrase, so what's your excuse? That information is wrong and misleading and you can't even say it was a major edit. Besides, aren't you claiming for sources? I've got mine, what's their source? None! A reliable source doesn't existing to support what they say because it's simply not true so it's impossible to have a reliable source on that!

It's not a matter of opinion what I'm saying; it's the truth so delete what I had deleted! ThePortuguese (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split the article

[edit]

Bear in mind that the Wikipedia in English is for the current word usage and not the original meanings in Portuguese, Latin, French, Kikongo or whatsoever.

There should be a disambiguation page about the following:

  • Lusitanian: Ancient people from Iberian, nowadays used to refer to the Portuguese people in a poetic sense, like the Gallican for the French (cf. Lusitanian Catholic Apostolic Evangelical Church and Gallican Church). A remainder, not all the current Portuguese territory correspond to the ancient Lusitania.
  • Lusitanic: Actually it is seems a neologism. There only is sporadic usage of it as adjective. Most what google give about this term is derived from wikipeadia.
  • Luso-: this prefix has a wide meaning. Notice you don't quite see the word "luso" used isolated in English like we do in Portuguese. In Malacca it means people of Catholic religion, Portuguese surname, Portuguese culture even though not necessarily being of Portuguese ancestry or having the abillity to speak Portuguese or Kristang. In Santa Catarina, Brazil, we use it to refer to "Luso-Brazilians" (everyone who speaks primarily Portuguese, doesn't matter if it is indigenous Guarani or of Azorean descent) to distinguish from German-Brazilians. Again, these are meanings employed in the Portuguese-speaking world, not necessarily in English.
  • Lusophone: the world of Portuguese-speaking language and heritage (and the related languages, like Gallician and the Creoles)
  • Jews of the Portuguese nation: I added it just to complicate the discussion; :P are they part of the Luso World?

Brighella11 (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about the past and the present meanings, though, not just the present... I said all of that to make my point more clear. Like I said before, since this word originated in the Portuguese language and it's only present in the English language because it is a direct translation, the meaning is the same! I know not all of Portugal was part of Lusitania, that's exactly why it is so ridiculous to say people from ex-Portuguese colonies are Lusitanic, because not even all Portuguese people are actually Lusitanic. About the wide meaning of the prefix "luso", if that information is correct, by all means, add it (with reliable sources), but split it into different articles. ThePortuguese (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I think the Authors should pay attention to your work. You put a lot of correct information, no doubt, but only in part. I think you are missing important points.
"What LuzoGraal said about this being the English language Wikipedia doesn't make any sense, simply because those words' origin are Portuguese. If they didn't exist in Portuguese, they wouldn't exist in English, so their meaning is the same as in Portuguese because they are simply direct translations. And of course English speaking people didn't create their own meaning to this words because the great majority doesn't even know they exist!" you said. Ok, Explain different meanings (sometimes they are very different yes - and we are not here talking about ancient Peninsular or diverse old geographic meanings - but within its current meaning itself) in USA and in Spain or other countries for "Hispanic" and the near absence of hispanophone etc. How about that?! And even if you had to restrict yourself to the jus sanguinis as you see dictionaries and their authors main meaning? How can you limit the field of interpretation at your convenience? And even if you can limit yourself to Juis sanguinis, how can you ignore (for very "narrow", rigid or "limited" interpretation you use) more than 60% to 70% of blood descendants, in whole or in part, in Brazil, white or Mixed, other descendants in North America and elsewhere?! maybe they are included?! Ok, good! And the other worldwide popular use of these words?!
About Lusitanic: The fact that adjectives like Luso-... have different meanings and contradictory uses, such as the use of Luso-Brazilian without redundancy, comes from an obvious fact that is not news to you. With the nearly four Spanish Viceroyalties divided into about 22 nations after the independence, soon the U.S.A., Spain and elsewhere have adopted the Hispanic term as a Linguistic characterizing word, even gaining some connotations to the mixing of races as Hispanic-Amerindian etc. later (because words evolve and adapt to the taste of human use and historical development, despite refusals to accept that fact as you), and others for keeping the standard exclusively linguistic or of the historical origin of the nation. Brazil for its part, maintained the unity and territorial unity of its continental federation.
For a long time Portugal and Brazil were the sole reference to the Portuguese common language (so there was no need for a common term, since Brazil was and is united in America). It is no accident that after the independence of African and Asian Countries of Portuguese language in 1975, immediately the words Lusofonia and Lusophone emerged in the universal lexicon. And even before that, and then continuing today, the names Portuguese America, Luso-American or Lusitanian America (América Lusitana) or Lusitanic America were already applied to Brazil and Grão-Pará-Maranhão - and to all Brazil before or after, unified as a whole, in a political context (before independence) and on purely ancestral or descent, national and cultural context (pre and post-independence), also applied by renowned historians and sociologists as Gilberto Freyre, Sérgio Buarque de Holanda and others. Asia Imperium Lusitanorum (past) were applied or Luso-African or Lusophone, Lusitanic or Lusitanian today are also used interchangeably in America, Asia, Africa or Oceania in a human, international or cultural context.
Invoking the Roman Lusitania also does not make much sense here. Lusitania was the general classic adopted name to Portugal by classic Portuguese Poets and writers on all their works and even by royalty in certain documents in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance (As in many European kingdoms and in the Vatican itself for Portugal at the time) like other classic alternative names for other European kingdoms, especially in use in Latin on those times. Could be Gallaecia or Lusitania etc.. The first one, altough its medieval origin (and apparently already on the historical roots of Portu-Gal´s name, by the way, through Cale/Galle and even the Gallaeci) was less central and lost due to maintenance and existence of the Kingdom of Galicia (one of its parts and as a name) in Leon and Castile (joined since before) and in Spain. While the Papacy was inspired in the Roman Lusitania for Portugal (Lusitaniae/ Lusitaniae et Vettoniae), the original Lusitania has almost nothing to do with the Roman Lusitania (The Roman Lusitaniae et Vetoniae, his first name). The current Spanish Extremadura was Vettonian in almost its current territory or at least in the major part of its territory, and the Lusitania (the original) in the western part, in Beiras and part of Alto Alentejo, not including the current Spain in almost anything (except a important border area adjacent to Cárceres in the western spanish Extremadura - see Jorge Alarcão and other Archelogists) and also not including the south of Portugal. The Roman Lusitania, i. e. the initial Lusitaniae et Vettoniae (changed after a first draft just in west Atlantic with the future "Gallaecia" included in a Western vast Lusitania from Tagus River to the Cantabrian Sea in north, under Augustus, that only lasted a year) , this new Roman Lusitania as we said, included all of Vettonian territory (almost today in Extremadura) and almost the whole of Vacceo territory (or its major part). Hence the no need for exaggerated or imposed references to Emerita Augusta, important capital roman city yes in Roman Lusitania, and a city of roman root and in Vetonian territory, people indeed different, but very close ethnically and culturally to Lusitanians.
I see you change all the introduction of the article. That was not the spirit of the article, since it is international and cultural (though debatable as you insist with arguments) but also included ancestry (but not exclusively) because was and it is regarding the spiritual and cultural (linguistic) connection development throughout the world (several nations), as written by the authors . And beware of Sockpuppet, is profoundly wrong and ethically reprehensible, and the Administrators of wikipedia are naturally harsh on this. If this is not your case, my apologies. Greetings. --LuzoGraal (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you are replying to the wrong section. It seems like you didn't actually read what I wrote! I don't like repeating myself. Like I said, this word is simply not known in the English speaking world! The reason it exists it's because it is a direct translation of the Portuguese word. For that, it's more than obvious that English speaking people don't have a different meaning to it. You make comparisons that are not valid. The great majority of English speaking people (specially Americans) use the word Hispanic on a daily basis, and that's not the case with the word in question here, not at all, like I said so many times before! Most people don't even know the word exists; this word only exists in English as a direct translation from the Portuguese language! Its meaning its not different because of that: it's just a direct translation that's not even included in most dictionaries!

To call Brazil "Lusitanian America" is to deny the independence of Brazil as a country, because it's like saying Brazil's still is part of Portugal! Of course those words were used before the independence, as at the time, Brazil was a colony of Portugal. That's not the case now and you're fantasizing the words are applied interchangeably when they're not even known to the majority of the world! Besides, if that were true, how come both Portuguese and Brazilian dictionaries do not agree with that definition you're inventing? The words are not synonyms. Simple as that!

I don't like repeating myself, if you actually read what I wrote, you'll find an answer to the other questions...

And... obviously, you just don't read what I write because no, I did not change the introduction, it's just you who's replying to the wrong section... And it was not even I who started this section... ThePortuguese (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I didn't even know what Sockpuppet was until just now. Are you trying to discredit me by saying that? ThePortuguese (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've recently done a lot of work to overhaul this (and tagged it in a few of many places where it needs more sources). WP:NOT#DICT; it is not our job to dwell on definitional differences between words. There are separate articles for Lusophone, Lusosphere/Lusophony, various other Luso- words, a Wiktionary article on the Luso- prefix, and more articles here (and over there) on Luso- words like Lusophilia, Lusophobia, etc., as well as Portuguese American, etc. We also have articles on the historical Lusitani/Lusitanians, and the Roman province of Lusitania. The lead, and the rest of the article, note what they need to note, in context, and link adequately. I have to say that what this article needs at this point is more sources not more hand-wringing about definitions and what is being defined where. It's been almost two years since any serious work was done in response to the above complaints and debates, so I trust that the work I've put into it will be well-received and that it will be productive of more constructive future work and less strife. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation of ThePortuguese and Bowlfisher

[edit]

I have started a sockpuppet investigation of ThePortuguese and Bowlfisher. The users' edits here appear very similar to a contentious editor, Y26Z3, who was permanently banned from wikipedia for making contentious edits, personal threats, and legal threats. If you'd like to weigh in, please feel free to visit the investigation page: [2]

Goodsdrew (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Did you even read what I wrote? That guy is trying to discredit me! Unbelievable. ThePortuguese (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just now saw the message of Goodsdrew. I do not like being moralistic with others and I'm sorry about that question and I do not like to harm you or others or making confusion here. And I want peace with everyone and with you. I was even thinking of withdrawing the question or put a stone on the subject below, since the thing is already writen and since you already answer below.
I saw only the succession of the two accounts and asked the question. So I ask forgiveness to you, ThePortuguese, if this was unfounded.
Discredit you? That even though I disagree with you, and taking into account the modern use of these words, although rarely, I stressed several right points of you and I pointed out here that you're right in the traditional meaning of the word, and the origin of the adjective (logically) in dictionaries, history etc., which I can not refute. And I emphasize this always; and that the Authors have to take into account also your contribution (see above - If you want I quote myself again), even if I disagree with you on several points about this. That's who is trying to discredit you?
You did not answer my questions about the Hispanic etc also.
Goodsdrew should be more informed on the management and use of wikipedia and about the history of this article than me - and he´s talking about Y26Z3, intervention of a User account that I not know until now (now I see above!), and you come here and accuse me that it's only for a discrete but clear question I made at the end of a message in a talk page that he move an investigation against you?
Change your behavior and attitude with us all, including we - your Countrymen or of Portuguese descent. Oh, and I hope that is not the case - and if it is - that they give you more opportunities with the account or IPs you use or your accounts whatever. (I say accounts without irony, because even I´m not very experienced in this, I know that there may be more than one account or using two accounts in a legitimate, open to all, and honest sense, if I'm right about what I think I have read somewhere here times ago) or to your account, as I said. --LuzoGraal (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Tribe of Lusus"

[edit]

This looks like pre-modern, 18th or 19th Century scholarship to me and therefore very doubtful. There's no Celtic word tanus meaning "tribe" and there's no god named Lus either - note the compositional vowel has been removed, too, which is a giveaway of the mentality of the writers of those times who envisioned the Celts as grunting primitives with a monosyllabic language. I suggest this derivation is misleading and should be removed. Paul S (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article presently makes it clear that this is dubious, pre-modern folk etymology (and I made it really, really clear, by linking to folk etymology. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lusitanic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lusitanic&oldid=1195359470"