Talk:Hispanicization

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I think Castilianization and Hispanicization cover the same ground. Since Wikipedia articles are about things, not words, having two separate articles is a form of content forkery. It seems from a cursory look through Google's Ngram viewer, as well as JSTOR and Google Scholar, that Hispanicization is the more common term. But if someone wants to make the case that the merge should go the other way, that's fine. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 03:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * IMHO I think that while Castilianization happens to communities of other West Iberian as well Basque, Aragonese, Occitano-Catalan and non-Romance-derived culture/language/religion, Hispanicization would be a better name for cultural assimilation outside actual Spanish metropolitan territory i.e. of Indigenous peoples, settlers of rivaling non-Hispanic nationalities (Europeans, Portuguese/Brazilians, U.S. Americans), foreign groups, the Reconquista "ideology"/sentiment and there goes, and of non-Imperialistic cultural/social/political influence in countries and regions such as Portugal, the Philippines, Southern Italy, Southern France and Southwestern United States, either in present or past. But I'm not particularly opposed to a merge, given the low development of both articles, so a section would not be a bad idea. Lguipontes (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, but I think that Castilianization should be a section of the Hispanicization article, for what Lguipontes exposes.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

…conquest and colonization…
Hispanicization in Latin America was a process that occurred over decades and centuries. From the outset the conquest of the native empires relied heavily on non-European contribution. Most of the armies that defeated the native empires comprised primarily of other native nations. In the subsequent years since European colonization began a large portion of the indigenous population was wiped out, including allies, due to a lack of immunity to introduced Old World diseases and not actual warfare. It was these circumstances that allowed Westernized biracials to thrive and prosper, a group who outnumbered those of mostly European heritage from early on in the colonization period, at the expense of those of mainly indigenous ancestry since they were less vulnerable to those diseases. So labeling Hispanicization as something carried out solely by people of predominantly Spanish descent isn’t entirely accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.48.183 (talk • contribs)