Talk:Etiquette in Latin America

Brazil: Portuguese & Spanish

Brazilians speak Portuguese, not Spanish. Addressing a Brazilian in Spanish may be considered extremely offensive.

There are two sources given for this, although only one can be read online. Anyway, is this really considered so offensive? I can imagine it being offensive if the listener's impression is that the speaker thinks everybody in South America speaks Spanish and doesn't even know that they speak Portuguese in Brazil. (Although, of course, somebody who doesn't know they speak Portuguese in Brazil isn't going to know Portuguese anyway...) But one would hope that many listeners will also realize that many tourists will know Spanish and not Portuguese, and because these languages are somewhat mutually intelligible, it wouldn't seem unreasonable for such a tourist to try his luck with Spanish, especially if the tourist already tried and failed with English. All the poor tourist wants is to be understood, right? - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As a brazilian, I think there are much more english-speakers than spanish-ers here. If you cannot speak MY language, try speak in YOURS first. Starting with a third language is the faux pas, in my opinion. If its somehow clear that you don't think Spanish is our language, I think you will find no problems. Try to start with a excuse. ;) 200.255.9.38 11:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a Brazilian and I don't really mind about it. You can talk to me in Spanish as much you like. I have noticed some people used to address me in Spanish over internet, I never felt offended and I even replied them in Spanish too... However, now that I just read this article, I just started worrying if the goal of these people were to offend me, hence this belief Brazilians feel offended about that... Well if that was the case, they failed. Anyway, I have always heard other Brazilians talking about how much they feel annoyed about that but I never thought it was an insult or offence for them. Again, I never minded. Gargalos 09:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As a brazilian, I too dont really mind if someone try to speak to me in spanish thinking that brazilians talks spanish. Its not rude, its just a little annoying, its just a misunderstood. I think the oposite way - most of people dont know which country uses which language in the middle east. I too dont know, so why mind it? Probably the one who spoke in spanish will get an "sorry pal, we speak portuguese here in Brazil", and after 2 minutes no one will remember this (or maybe we brazilians will make an joke about this :D). After all, i dont think any brazilian would mind it too, its just something to remember. It would be a good idea writing about the brazilians/argentines "relations" :P. (sorry for my bad engRish, self learner here!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.47.5.165 (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The two gentlemen above are very polite people and not the average Brazilian. The average Brazilian, like me, gets really pissed when someone speaks in Spanish with him. Because, 99% of the times people do that because they think we speak Spanish (mostly English speakers think that) or because they THINK we should understand and speak Spanish (most SPanish speakers, especially in the USA< think that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.80.62.37 (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A mess!

People along the way have been adding unsourced material and wantonly deleting referenced material, with the result that there are some citations now that don't have their "home" reference- that is they're pointing to nothing. It's going to take some patience to dig through the history and recover those missing references.

I also suggest we start enforcing WP:V on this and the other associated pages that developed from the list of faux pas.08:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the very fact that there is a list of "generalizations" is a problem. This section should probably go. - AKeen 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Awkward sentence...

-"Dominicans LOVE to talk."- This must be satire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 545lljkr (talk • contribs) 23:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bellboys

As it appears on the article, is always a good idea to tip a bellboy, but is not "unpolite" not to do so. However, think in what you bought. If you bought a soda and a cookie you choose if tiping him or not, but if you bought a lot, you kind of must.

Do we like to be late in Brazil?

I don't think the fragment "Punctuality is not taken too seriously in Brazil" is correct. I personally take that as an insult. The example is correct though: for informal situations, yes, we don't really care about punctuality. However, in formal situations such as a job interview, a class or a dentist appointment, being on time is essential (just like everywhere else). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.80.214.160 (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusion about the words America and American

The article talks of the "confusion" that U.S. citizens create when they call themselves Americans. I have found this not to be confusion, but gentle chiding of U.S. citizens by Latin Americans, a veiled accusation of U.S. arrogance. If challenged on this, a person from the United States could chide back: "I meant America, the country. No other country in the world has the word America in its official title." Or answer, "I'm from the place where you go for the 'American Dream'. You figure it out."

The title 'Estadounidense' is greatly flawed. The official name of Mexico is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos," making 'Estadounidense' applicable to Mexico. 'Estados Unidos' doesn't appear in the United States' official name, but only in its Spanish translation. Why isn't that confusing? And of course, the continents are numbered differently, with 7 prevailing over 6 and 5. Most of the world thinks that North and South America are two continents. If the author of this section hears "me voy para América," he might possibly think Canada was intended, but not any country in Latin America. In short, if you are a United States citizen, you can rightfully call yourself an American. There will be no confusion.

Sadly, every time I have been chided or corrected on this, it was in a Latin American household as a guest. 11!!qqQQ22 (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What is a group wave?

Colombia, "Group waves are extremely unacceptable". Well, I'm not a native speaker, but quite close (I hope). I wasn't able to figure out what this sentence is about even after checking out a few dicts and googling. So wtf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.29.95.125 (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In soccer games and other sports spectator events, group waves are done by thousands of seated people to spread across a whole stadium. 71.102.21.238 (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In Mexico

The social rules concerning gender is known, like for women to discuss their personal issues on sexuality: the term for vagina (my apologies, but wikipedia is uncensored) is "Ahi Abajo" or "down there". I believe the gender stratified or specific social rules are about to change in Mexico like any other country went through a comparably more democratic industrialized stage in society. 71.102.21.238 (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In Chile

Many Chileans pride themselves as a country closely entering "first world" or fully developed status as the country experienced rapid economic growth in the late 20th century (the Miracle of Chile or Chilean economic miracle), and they will take offense to foreign (esp. European and North American) tourists commenting Chile is still "third world". Despite the high Amerindian racial admixture, there's a level of European cultural influence similar to their neighbor Argentina and the concept of "castizo" or less partial Amerindian identity, and the percentage of self-identified Caucasians made them more conscious of their developed nation status than their more Amerindian neighbors Peru and Bolivia to the North. Some Chileans emphasized they could be the "Europeans of the southern hemisphere" but not the "Western" due to North America (the USA and Canada) are European descendants, but there is Australia/New Zealand and Southern Africa with more European ethnocultural origins than Chileans, whom the majority are Mestizo and light-skinned with some Amerindian features. Therefore it is advised to avoid the topic on race, the status as a country and living standards in Chile among every other Latin American country. 71.102.21.238 (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced, unreferenced

I think I shall start taking action on what was proposed back in 2007: removing every piece of this article that does not satisfy WP:RS. Right now, it looks like a ton of original research; this article doesn't look like anything that belongs on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. SJ

Step 1: all sections with no references whatsoever gone. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Next: all unsourced statements removed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

disagree controversial changes discuss it to make consensus version--Caponterel (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If anyone cares, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gbgfbgfbgfb. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Page reinstated

This page had been substantially changed by User:Jpgordon disregarding community input. I have therefore reverted the changes. Although the concept of etiquette is subjective is important to understand that Latin America is a region of countries with very different costumes and cultures. However this page includes a lot of unsourced material. I request other editors to provide sources to the current content and remove unneeded or redundant etiquette mentions. Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 03:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• I fully support removing every sentence that does not satisfy wp:v; most of my edits to this page have been to that end. And it has been tagged as needing further RS refs for verification for nearly a year -- though the tags have been ignored by "the community." WP:V -- decided on by the community -- indicates deletion of such non-RS-supported material is perfectly appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Epeefleche. It hasn't improved with the tags for some time. What makes this time any different? The consensus was to remove edits that are not sourced that would hopefully force to contribute to sourcing. Camilo Sánchez, if you would like to reinstate the page, I would suggest that you help source some of this material. I've personally sourced one whole country so far. Savvyjack23 (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to remove all the unsourced material again real soon. This article is, in a word, garbage; it might be suitable for someone's travel blog, but it is not in any way consistent with Wikipedia standards. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not help improve the article by getting the sources instead? --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 15:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not have the same requirement for sourcing as every other article on Wikipedia? This thing has been mostly unsourced for seven years. It's gotten worse continually as more and more unsourced verbiage got added to the article. Bad entries attract more bad entries. How about this: remove everything unsourced to a subpage of this talk page; then you can work on the hundreds of unsourced items one at a time and insert them as appropriate. WP:V isn't negotiable. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I've moved much -- most -- of the unsourced material to Talk:Etiquette in Latin America/Unsourced material. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, now, there are a some that claim to be sourced but aren't. http://www.gate1travel.com/south-america-travel/South-America-travel-tips.htm is a 404 (used for times), which I've deadlinked. "culturecrossing.net", used in the Haiti section, is a wiki, and not usable, so those have to go. Likewise, "cornbreadandcremasse.wordpress.com" is just someone's blog. More later. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Blog

Where are the indicia that this blog is an RS? --Epeefleche (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPS makes it quite clear that the blog, and also the wiki, that I removed are not usable sources. "Self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." The blog in question is just two people of no particular expertise other than their personal experiences. The wiki in question is just that -- user generated content, just like Wikipedia, and as unacceptable a source as Wikipedia itself. I don't quite understand Savvyjack's point, which should have been made on this talk page first anyway. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Absent any acceptable contrary post on this point, I support re-deletion of the text in question. Epeefleche (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Jpgordon, who's citing wiki sources? I am sure not. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Savvy -- given the above, why do you think the blog is an RS? Epeefleche (talk) 05:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Savvy, you restored references to a wiki here. Perhaps an error? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hang on, I'm bit confused. So this site would not be reliable? [1] It has etiquette on almost every country. Although a "private website", here is the link to their about us [2] It looks a bit tacky, but the information provided is professional and not at all opinionated. If not, I'll try to look for additional sources. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it's not at all opinionated if it's not a reliable source. CultureCrossing.net is an evolving database of cross-cultural information about every country in the world. This user-built guide allows people from all walks of life to share essential tips with each other about how to navigate our increasingly borderless world with savvy and sensitivity.' You're right; it's not quite a wiki -- they claim the information is vetted -- but I don't seem to see much that indicates exactly what their own sources are. Perhaps this one should be brought to greater attention at WP:RSN; this source doesn't seem to fit neatly into the the WP:RS framework. (And if it is a WP:RS, then we may as well point to that website and not bother with this article at all. But that's another issue.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, understood. Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

So, are you going to remove that "cornbread and cremasse" blog that you re-inserted? Though the wiki-ish thing is questionable, there's nothing within policy about the cornbread blog as a source. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I am currently looking for additional sources. Savvyjack23 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the cornbread blog myself. It's simply not a WP:RS. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Etiquette in Latin America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090428024325/http://www.af.mil:80/news/airman/0406/top10.shtml to http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0406/top10.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Etiquette in Latin America. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205081049/http://www.getcustoms.com/2004GTC/Articles/oag_11.html to http://www.getcustoms.com/2004GTC/Articles/oag_11.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0406/top10.shtml

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) 07:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)