Talk:Paisa (region)

'Castilian sounding S' is an Apical S, the slushy S typical of Northern Spain. It is used by Paisas

What is the Castillian sounding s? Is it like an English th? Presumably there's no distinction between s and z/c? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.100.18 (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know a couple of people in Medellin, and a few more in bogotá. I don't think this generality holds, especially among people of the city. There is a little bit of a voiced pre-dental whistle /z/ sound in the s ... but not always. But that sound in spanish is voiceless (and common in the smoother accents of spain); I think the /s̺/. There is never a spanish-style /θ/.

Of all the places in latin america, the colombian accents I know are maybe the closest to antithetical to the northern spanish accent (Barcelona & accents more punctuated), and even pretty far from the supersmooth Madrid accent. I heard someone describe chileans as speaking as if they were swallowing their words ... which might be much more true for the chileans but I think I hear that in the paisas too (not bogotá).

About the z/c-s distinction, yes it is the same as all the surrounding countries. :

They also only sometimes use vos, and when they do, they don't use it like much like the argentineans (ie, it's not voseo conjugacion). They tend to drop it in, in place for tú, much like (at least western) venezuelans.

— robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paisa Region. 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) 18:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term Paisa is a colloquialism and not an official gentilic

As there is no Franchutte region, nor is there an Aussie region, nor anything like a Gringo-Land, there is no Paisa country or Paisa region or land.

Paisa is a colloquial term, a vulgarism. It is not an official gentilic of anything. The artice should be removed or at least renamed or rewritten into an old Antioquia region article, or even if I don't like the term: a coffee growing region article, or something of the likes. 2800:484:9684:8600:208D:46BF:D283:D098 (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. We use the most commonly used term not official names for article titles. See WP:COMMONNAME. DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is a dispute doesn't mean the tag should be removed. On the opposite, it redirects the reader to the relevant portion of the talk page. The fact that there is dispute means there is no consensus for tag removal.

The term is not a common name, it is a colloquialism. If there is an article about Paisa Region then there should be an article about Gringo-Land, or one about Aussie Land.

The term Paisa is not pejorative but it is not a common name either, albeit the fact that it is used on a daily basis as it is a popular name. The difference between common name and colloquialism is that a common name is recognized even on official documentation. In that regard, Football Association is an official name, the term Football is a common name, Footie is a colloquial name. You can make an article about Football not about footie, or about the "beautiful game".

for example, as per WP:COMMONNAME, Bill Clinton is a common name for William Jefferson Clinton as per official voting campaign for the US, and that was the name that perhaps was used to cast ballots for him during presidential elections. A voting ballot is an official document, Bill Clinton is a common name for an US president, not the official name. On the other hand, The term Paisa is never used in official documents thus it is not a recognized common name.

Paisa is by no means a common name for a gentilic of old Antioquia peoples and regions. If you wanted to prove that you'd need the documentation that officially states it as such. and no, press records making use of the term Paisa do not count, because there are press records making use of the term "Gringo" to refer to US peoples and we can agree that that one is not a common name either.Ctmv (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Gringo. You have no idea about Wikipedia policy apparently. "press records making use of the term Paisa do not count". Have a look at a few move discussions and you'll see how wrong you are. DeCausa (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gringo has become a term on its own. but the wikipedia Article about "Gringo" is not the article about United States of America People, nor is it considered a common name for them. If you want to make an article about "Paisa" you have to do it in the context of what it is, a Colloquial Term. Wikipedia has articles on colloquial terms, of course; The only thing is not to mistake a colloquialism with a common name of an official full name. The article is supposed to be about a region that is not clearly officially defined and a colloquialism is used to refer to it, and besides this article is more like a History of old Antioquia peoples article. It even has a DNA haplogroup analysis section, features that the article on the pejorative term used for US peoples does not.

If consensus cannot be reached then the tag should be just left there. Ctmv (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour was the reason for your TBAN. You're repeating that here. There are hundreds of thousands of articles on English Wikipedia that use what you think would be a "colloquialism" as titles for substantive articles, not on a "term". You think The Gherkin, Florida Panhandle or Rust Belt aren't "colloquial"? You don't understand how we name articles. I suggest that instead of ranting WP:WALLSOFTEXT you try listening. DeCausa (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paisa Colombiano

Rápido y suave 2806:108E:13:5967:6837:A839:E3B7:6F4F (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]