Talk:Spic

message: The line of argument to keep this claim is ridiculous. It has already been seen in this page that the term is of American origin. To say that just because some people in the UK use it, you might as well throw in China, Poland and whatever random country comes to mind where some subculture may have adopted it. I suggest at the least change it to "some have adopted this term in the UK."
I'm doubtful that it's ever been significant in the UK because we don't have a particularly visible spanish population at all (lots of Australians for some reason, but few spanish).  The only thing I could imagine is an american tourist using it. 81.187.26.106 (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: United Kingdom

message: Isn't spic simply a contraction of (hi)sp(an)ic? —optikos 20:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. That's what I thought too before I wrote the article.--Primetime 20:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "No speaka de English"?! What a ridiculous etymology. FilipeS (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: Spic, also spelled spik, spick, or spig, is an ethnic slur used in the U.S. for a Spanish American. It can also mean anyone of vaguely Spanish extraction, such as a Latin American, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Filipino; or any foreigner at all; or even anyone of apparently foreign ancestry.
This sentence gives three definitions for spic: (1) a Spanish person, (2) people of "vaguely Spanish extraction" (i.e., mestizo, criollo, etc.), and (3) any foreigner at all. Changing the "Spanish American" phrase to "Hispanic/Mestizo" would be repetitive, as "Hispanic/Mestizo" is already named in the second sentence. I wouldn't mind re-ordering the senses to put the primary meaning first, or clarifying that it mainly means Mestizo Hispanics, though.--Primetime 12:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The Spanish meaning is a bit out of date. I'm going to note this in the article. Let me know if it looks OK.--Primetime 12:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have not heard in any source that people call others who imitate Hispanic people "spics". Also, the new intro doesn't name the three senses I described earlier. It only names one, really. I think that changing "Hispanic descent" to "Hispanic culture" and linking Hispanic and Mestizo is OK, though.--Primetime 12:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose that we could add that sense to the intro. The other senses, though, aren't theoretical, just rarer. In any case, I tend to follow standard dictionary practice in laying out meanings historically, so the reader can understand the evolution of the word. They can also quickly see the core meaning that gave rise to the derived senses.--Primetime 12:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In any case, I kept most of your changes, compromising to a great degree. Also, another reason to keep the older and rarer meanings is because it helps people understand history and older texts. It also helps them understand dialectal speech. Also, know that I watched Jerry Springer occasionally when I was a teenager and I live in the United States, so I'm not too unfamiliar with what you're saying.--Primetime 12:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The word encyclopedia comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning "general education," or "well-rounded education." Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged defines an encyclopedia as "a work that treats comprehensively all the various branches of knowledge and that is usually composed of individual articles arranged alphabetically". In short, the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia is that a dictionary only deals with vocabulary, while an encyclopedia deals with everything. Thus, including word history actually makes it more encyclopedic, in my opinion.--Primetime 13:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No. It is Wikipedia form. (See Nigger#Etymology.) The Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary deals with excluding short definitions, not treatises on all aspects of a word.--Primetime 13:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Note also that I kept your unecessary See also links at the bottom in addition to the rewording of the intro. It's all in the spirit of the wiki (i.e., compromise). Even though I created this article, I'm willing to keep most of your changes. However, your most recent revision destroys a lot of helpful information, so I can't allow it in its present form. As for "Nigger", that article is much longer than this. We don't need seperate sections for something that is only one sentence long!--Primetime 13:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *There. I added "(cf. wigger)" to the intro. I think that that's all you're going to get from me, though.--Primetime 14:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By way of beginning to reach consensus, I'd like to comment on the preceding debate: The phrase "in public discourse" implies oral sources unless backed up by some publication. Secondly, I have never heard or read the word "spic" to mean someone who adopts hispanic culture, and I'd need a written source to believe it. Thirdly, "dominat[ing] the article with technical details about linguistics" makes it more encyclopedic, not less so. "Laypersons" be damned. Basically, I stand beside Primetime's version and highly respect his/her willingness to compromise in this debate.--Rockero 07:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First two sentences

message: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 23:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 revert rule warning 

message: Rather than blocking editors for WP:3RR, I have protected the article. Please discuss the edits and reach consensus on how to proceed. Once you feel ready to resume editing, please pace a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. Have a nice weekend. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 23:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should not stay protected, but I don't see any discussion between editors. Is there still a dispute? Are editors content with the current version? -Will Beback 11:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what more to say than I already have.  IP Address 08:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Never have i ever heard this word used here in britain and i've lived here my whole life. I have deleted the uncited claim.
Brit928293 19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you have haven't heard isn't relevant (and "my whole life" is meaningless unless we know how old you are). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original, sourced version of the article did not mention the U.K. You're English. If you've heard it used in the U.K., feel free to revert me. The quotes in the OED are all from the U.S., though.--Dungeon Keeper 22:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's interesting that this debate began now, as yesterday The Sun (a newspaper I detest in almost every respect) decided to run this on its front page. It contains usage of the word "spic", which I previously also had thought to be largely a US thing. I don't really want to add this to the article, in case it is not sufficient. And in any respect, I'm awful at doing proper citations anyway. --Dreaded Walrus 08:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you got a proper link for that?  The only reference that comes up on a site search is this and it appears to be just a headline (says 'click on the image' but there is no image).  From the headline it looks like it was an article specifically about racial slurs, and therefore it's as likely they picked up the word from wikipedia (or at least google) than it reflecting any common usage, as they had an article to write and the Sun isn't exactly known for verifying its sources. 81.187.26.106 (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I stand corrected. I did look it up in Oxford's slang dictionary, though, and it said it was a U.S. term, so I think that we should qualify the statement with "occasionally." I wouldn't be surpised that The Sun did that, though. They're actually the ones who coined the term Argie in the Falklands War.--Dungeon Keeper 22:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect, though sadly cant' cite a reliable source for this (yet), that the term came over with American troops during WWII. My paternal grandfather had a splendid collection of Giles annuals from the very early fifties through to the 1970s. They were an absolute mine of social observation and a fascinating potted history of how Middle England changed after the war. I recall several cartoons making mention of Spics, and it was a term my maternal grandfather (an unreconstructued 1940s East End spiv) was fond of using as well. It fell rapidly out of favor during the 1960s and I doubt its used much, if at all these, days. Gwernol 22:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have occasionally heard the term used by teenagers in this country, but it is very rare, and possibly influenced by the proliferation of US media. I would be all for the opening saying "occasionally". --Dreaded Walrus 07:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not used in UK 

message: I grew up in Liverpool, UK, and the word 'spic' was always used to refer to someone with Down's Syndrome, or any other sort of cerebral palsy, essentially the same as 'spaz'. Has anyone else heard it used in this context? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.234.4.10 (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different meaning of 'spic' 

message: All of the sources listed in this article relate to the etymology of Spic, but one section mentions Spic and Span as being a term for a mixed race couple(Puerto Rican/African). I can't find anything in the sources mentioning this, so I flagged that section as needing a citation. I'll check back in a week or so and if I see no sourcing for that particular statement, I'll remove it. --68.229.46.41 05:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last comment by 68.229.46.41 was posted by me, Visual77, but I often forget to log in. --Visual77 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from the Casell Dictionary of Slang. It was at the bottom, but wasn't mentioned directly in the text. So, I made it into an inline citation.--Dungeon Keeper 06:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely this section should say that the cleaning product presumably takes its name from the phrase "spick and span" (usually spelled with a k) which the OED dates back to 1665, meaning "Particularly neat, trim, or smart", (not to mention that "spick and span" itself is a shortening of a "spick and span new" that dates back to the late 1500s, etc). It currently sounds like someone randomly named a cleaning product "slur and word", then this phrase itself became a slur with a more narrow meaning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.65.154 (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spic and Span 

message: When I was in junior high, I was in a special school program where we had a college-level curriculum. One of the most astonishing things I came across while learning a more “honest” version of United States history was that the term “spic” was used as an acronym. The acronym was used in signage and in print in order to save on word space and print costs. In the U.S. History textbook, we saw images of signs soliciting for manual labor – but stated “SPIC’s need not apply”. In this particular instance, SPIC (capitalized) was representative of Spanish, Portuguese, Irish, and Colored. --Mespinola 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it was an ancronym for Spanish Indian and Colored, ie the people of Puerto Rico —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paleocon (talk • contribs) 19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPIC as an acronym 

message: Temporarily protected after a dispute ending with a user saying he would edit the page. Bovester 20:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Hello everyone. There is at present a discussion going on at Hispanics in the United States, due to the request that the page be moved to Hispanic Americans. Would you like to comment please? Thank you. The Ogre 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hispanics in the United States - requested move 

message: I am removing the connection of the derogatory term “spic” to Italians or Italian Americans.  The source cited is the Urban Dictionary.  However, if one goes to that source, there is no suggestion that this ethnic slur is used in common parlance to mean Italian or Italian American.  However, even if this was not true, I think it is ludicrous to suggest that  the Urban Dictionary is a legitimate source for an encyclopedic article.  Since “spic” does not apply to Italians or Italian Americans, all references to Italian or Italian American Wikipedia articles or derogatory terms have been deleted, since they are not relevant to this article.  Paraloco needs to justify his wish to broaden the term “spic” to Italians or Italian Americans in Talk.  Philantonia (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Derogatory Term "Spic" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Spic. 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/20081012234617/http://kpearson.faculty.tcnj.edu/Dictionary/spic.htm to http://kpearson.faculty.tcnj.edu/Dictionary/spic.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified