Talk:Criollo people

merge discussion
Since whoever tagged this did not start the discussion, so I will. The merge should actually go the other way, Criollo (people) should be merged into White Latin American, as this is the English-language Wikipedia, the English-language term should be used. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the English-language Wikipedia, but the word Criollo is widely used in historiographical literature. There's a reason for this, Criollos represent a specific phenomenon in Spanish America's colonial history, especially it's Casta system. (Again, we could use the word caste, but that would lose the particularities of the caste system that existed in Spanish America from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries.) Calling historical Criollos, White Latin Americans would dump them in together with modern descendants of more recent European (Irish, Portuguese to Hispanic America, Central and Easter European) migrations to Latin America, and would make for a needlessly long article. "White Latin American" should reference "Criollo people" and "Criollo people" should focus on the historical phenomenon, with some mention of how it impacts contemporary society (i.e., how the identity of being descendent from Spaniards or Portuguese is used by modern Latin Americans).TriniMuñoz (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, well I want to correct that reference about the criollo flag mixed with the aymara flag, The Bolivian flag is the one that's going to be merged with the aymara flag: Bolivan Flag has a totally different origin than the criollo flag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.246.73.42 (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

what is it
Wouldn't it be better to start a Lemma with a definition of what it actually is? I read the article and still dont know exactly what a Criollo is other than that they are some kind of class inferior to Iberians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.155.48 (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Criollo flag
Apart from the not-very-used (and ultimately inclusive of all Hispanics/Latinos) Bandera de la Raza I have never heard of a "Criollo" flag. It seems this needs more research. The phrase "criollo flag" in cited forum seems to have been misunderstood: "And there is a proposal for a new Bolivian flag. It won't be accepted at the end, but I like it mixing the former Inca banner with the traditional criollo flag." It doesn't mean that there is a "Criollo" flag, that is a flag that represents Criollos everywhere, but rather, the forum contributor was saying that the Bolivian flag was designed by Bolivian Criollos, and that the new addition was meant to represent the Indigenous population of the country. Nevertheless, I think that an off-handed reference in a forum is not a substantial reference to make the claim that there is a Criollo flag.TriniMuñoz (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your understanding seems spot on to me. There is almost certainly no such flag, and if there is, an offhand comment in some forum is not a reliable source. So I removed the section. SamEV (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge with "Creole class"
User:Pare Mo proposed that Creole class be merged into this article.
 * Support. Creole class is the more recent of the two (created five months ago) and is an obvious duplicate of this article. SamEV (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. For the same reasons stated above.TriniMuñoz (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Criollo is not an ethnich group but a class in the Casta system - obvious merger.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus seem clear enough. I have merged the two articles. Please help bring the article up to standards.  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Article is not a hoax
This article has recently been tagged as "hoax", "original research", and many other epiteths. Those labels are unwarranted. Most of the contents was gathered from many sources that are at least moderately trustworthy, filtered by prudence and good sense. It probably contains errors, but that is true of almost any WP article. The article has few references simply because most of it was written well before WP started to require (or allow) references. More references are surely needed, but they are easy to find by googling around. Please help by adding them, or at least by pointing out *specific* parts that you suspect are wrong. Merely tagging the whole article as "hoax" helps neither the editors nor the readers. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this article apply to Brazil/Portugal?
This article, and the "Criollo class" article that was merged into it, originally claimed that the casta system of the Spanish colonies existed in all of Latin America, hence including Brazil. It also claimed that peninsulares meant people born in Spain or Portugal, and criollo meant people with pure Spanish or Portuguese ancestry. I an uncertain about the fist part, and highly skeptical about the second. As for the first part, in my Brazilian history classes there was never any mentin of such a rigid caste system as the article describes. But, admittedy, that may be an instance of politically convenient amnesia on the part of textbook writers and teachers; or I may have slept through that particular class. 8-) In any case, the Portuguese word crioulo does not seem to have ever been associated with purity of Portuguese descent. Rather it seems to have retained its etymological sense of "born in the land but of foreign ancestry" -- 'any' foreign ancestry.  Then a  Brazilian-born person with African ancestry would be a crioulo too. As for the second point, given the intense rivalry between Spain and Portugal in the colonies, it seems quite unlikely that the Spanish crown would consider Portuguese nationals equivalent to Spanish ones for the purpose of caste classification.  Perhaps the editor (or his sources) took the word peninsulares in the literal sense "from the (Iberian) peninsula", that is, "from Spain or Portugal".  But in the Spanish colonies peninsulares may well have meant "native of Spain" only. Note that the top caste could not be called españoles ("Spanish"), because the criollos, being Spanish speakers and subjects to the Spanish crown, were españoles too. To distinguish the two classes of españoles, it would be quite natural to say españoles peninsulares and españoles criollos. Then the term espanõles, being quite redundant, would be omitted. So, I have removed every mention of Portugal and Brazil from this article. I am ready to restore those parts if someone can point me to sources that support them. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Is does not apply to Brazil/Portugal. I'm a History graduated form Universidade Federal do Parana, and can assert that this caste system never existed in Brazil and "criolo" kept the meaning of "born in foreign land", with the more recent meaning of a pejorative term for black people. There was, in fact, prejudice against natives and blacks during colonial times of course, but it was never officialize d like in the SPanish Americas. And mesticos were much more accepted too (most of the Bandeirantes were "mesticos"). On the contrary, every century the portuguese crowd would issue a "Decreto" re-affirming that a crowd subject was a crowd subject regardless of color skin (this was a necessity in the Portuguese empire, given the small number of portuguese).

This is whole article is typical american centrism in action, the stupid notion that "Latin America" means Spanish America (I live in San Francisco nowadays and I can attest that, in practical terms, that's what the term means for them). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.80.62.37 (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Basic errors in the structuring of the article
Sorry, but the definition of the input is not consistent with the development of much of the article, since "Criollo" (as the initial categorization stated) refers only to ethnically Spanish people born in America, and not the full range of White or European descent in Latin America.

1)* Or, change the title of the article, along with the official definition, preserving the basic structure.--Ccrazymann (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of "Criollos" in the article
Does anyone else find it unnecessary to have the pictures of people born in 20th century in the article? Even the picture of Jose Marti looks out of place in the article, from a historic perspective. --User:LoserTalent
 * Those were added by Special:Contributions/62.43.183.181 and then Gael Garcia Bernal was added by Special:Contributions/62.43.186.214. IP even added Cameron Diaz, who was later removed. No sources where they self-identify as "criollo". --John KB (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, to be clear about this, categorisation living persons by ethnicity is always a breach of WP:BLPCAT unless self-identified, and in any case, should only be done in cases where their ethnicity is of significance to their notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nunca ha existido tal sistema de castas
Las colonias ibéricas se caracterizan precisamente por la no existencia de un sistema de castas lo que favoreció el mestizaje.

Ni los observadores de dichas sociedades de la época ni los libertadores ni intelectuales posteriores mencionan tal sistema.

Las llamadas pinturas de castas (que son siempre las mismas tres pinturas) lo que muestran es precisamente que un sistema de castas al estilo de la india no existía. Todo el mundo se mezclaba con todo el mundo.

Es más que dudoso que puedan encontrar algo más que menciones muy de pasada e interpretadas fuera de contexto a tal sistema en documentos de la época.

(Quizás añadiendo bibliografía contrastada puedan convencer a alguien de que tal sistema existía) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.27.89.64 (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is the first time I ever read that Criollo were a "people" part of the caste system. Wish to know from which mind this pearl came from. 22:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinukin (talk • contribs)

Peninsulares
The article says that the peninsulares, who included the highest-ranking colonial officials in the Americas, were ‘high-born (yet [a] class of commoners)’. How can that be? Esszet (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't take seriously anything wrote on the article. It will hurt your brain. Vinukin (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of Criollo
I'm noting that across Wikipedia Criollos tend to be treated as second-class people, when in reality they are a class of landowners onn the highest anyone born in America could be, had immense latifundiuns and proprieties, dominated the local administration and surely were rich as hell. They are like Washington or Jefferson (but have more slaves) and made the independence when they privileges were at risk. Maybe this is beyond salvation after all. Vinukin (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 2 August 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

– Beyond the fact that this title is terrible and Criollos were never a "people" in any sense, it's by far the WP:PRIMARY and WP:COMMON topic, it has almost 500 wikilinks pointing to it while the others don't even have this combined. Google books also returns the expected results https://www.google.com/search?q=criollo&btnG=search+books&tbm=bks&tbo=1. Vinukin (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Criollo people → Criollo
 * Criollo → Criollo (disambiguation)
 * Oppose. No evidence provided that Criollo ("peoples") are the primary topic among the approximately 20 disambiguation liks on that page. Criollo can mean a myriad things, among them a traditional rural exhibition and traditional cooking. I don't see the problem with the title and disamb. page as they currently are. Obviously people familiar with the topic will be the ones looking for criollo in the first place, given the nature of the term. Giving them an extra means of differentiation such as people is a necessity as far as I can tell. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose . Many animal breeds called "criollo" plus the one type of cacao tree.  My dictionary defines the word for all three (humans, animal breeds and a type of cacao tree)  etymology (same dictionary) says the Spanish root means "native to the locality".  So I think we don't have as clearcut a WP:PRIMARY as it seems.   Montanabw (talk)  18:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rewrite needed
Much of this article needs attention from a proficient editor with some time to spend on it. That person would best be bilingual, English and Spanish. My Spanish isn't remotely up to the task. Thanks. Activist (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Criollo people
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Criollo people's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "MexicoRacista1": From New Spain:  From White people:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The claim in the article is not stated on page 86 of the above cited source. I removed it. The other source however is based on one study of 116 Spanish males in Acatzingo in 1792. This may not be enough to support the claim made, so I added an "additional citation needed" tag. Wakari07 (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The "Culture" section needs a comb through
About half of the "Culture" section of Criollo has either zero sources nor "citations needed" across the entire section.

Eventually the section gives way to a detour as it veers suddenly into talking about the nature of black slavery in Spanish colonies exclusively, in a way that seems particularly preoccupied(to me anyway) with downplaying it's severity. These portions don't carry an appropriate tone in their writing--beginning multiple paragraphs with "Also" and speaking less like a non-biased article and more like a blog post--with about half of the citations being used consisting of a single English language academic text as a source(not too bad), with quite a few of the rest being either Spanish language(fine though there are almost certainly English sources that could be cited instead), or news articles such as The BBC instead of more authoritative secondary sources or even non-linked sources entirely(pretty bad imo).

I'm only doing research into the topic personally, and I don't belong to a Hispanic/Latino/Latin-American culture nor am I an expert/academic so I don't feel qualified to edit this myself, but I feel that the section requires some attention from someone of good faith, highly fluent in both English and Spanish, and general knowledge considering the importance of the subject in discussing colonialism in Latin America. IntoDaDark (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)