Talk:Sí se puede

The correct meaning of "Si se puede"?

Doesn't "Si, se puede" actually literally mean "Yes, it is possible" not "Yes, we can" (which would be "Si, podemos")?

I think your right. "Se puede" is a reflexive verb (the infinitive of "poder" which is "to be able") and "se puede" is the appropriate conjugation for a reflexive verb for a third party or object (hence it being "it" and not "we). If it were "yes, we can" it would be "Sì, nos podemos." --Tjss (Talk) 00:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, shouldn't the translation be closer to "Yes, it is itself possible." or "Yes, it is possible itself"? The translations in the article does not convey the reflexive pronoun properly. Danielgump (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this point on translation is explained in the text to the article. Because the English translation has been politicized in the media this discussion should be part of the article. NoraBG 20:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I would venture that a more true translation of the meaning of the phrase is "Yes, one can".
The verb "poder" defined, in the [1] WordReference.com Spanish-English translation site:
poder
verbo transitivo
1 (tener capacidad) to be able to, can: [no puedo evitarlo = I can't help it] [podías habernos avisado = you could/ might have warned us]
2 (tener derecho o autorización) may, might, can: [¿puedo repetir? = may I have a second helping?] [ no puede tomar carne de cerdo = he can't eat pork] [las mujeres ya pueden votar = women can already vote]
3 (uso impers) may, might: [puede que la vea luego = I might see her later] [puede que sí, puede que no = maybe, maybe not]

When used as a reflexive, generally it is in the context of requesting permission to do something: "¿Se puede pasar?" = may one pass?; "Se puede comer" = may one eat? It implies that one looks around for permission or authorization from others to act. When not used with the reflexive "se" (or "me", "le", etc.), it is more the meaning as shown above in wordreference.com. Tonyfv 05:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)tonyfv

Whenever I've seen this slogan it was "Si se puede," without an accent on the "Si," and without a comma. I've only taken Spanish one year at our university but IMHO that translates to "If it's possible."--TDKehoe (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are misspellings. [Ivan]

I think that there are enough people in America who speak both Spanish and English fluently that those of us who have to look these words up in a dictionary should leave the translation to them. There's more to words than the denotation and sometimes a literal translation is not best: connotation counts too. - The Talking Sock talk contribs 16:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sí se puede/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm afraid that this article does not fulfill the Good Article criteria at this time. While it's a good start and certainly heading in the right direction with several good sources, it simply isn't broad enough in its coverage of the subject matter. A majority of the article deals with Obama's campaign and their use of the phrase, but only a couple sentences are dedicated to the phrase's history, which spans over forty years. In short, what this article needs is more: more info, more history, more more! Here are some specific comments and concerns that may help with the expansion process:

• Per WP:LEAD, the lead section of an article must be a summary of the entire article. There are currently things mentioned in the lead that are not included in the body of the article. For example, since the United Farm Workers is mentioned in the lead, it should be detailed in full in the body of the article.
• In fact, the slogan's history should probably have its own section in which both its beginnings and effects are described in full. The lead says that Chavez and Huerta created the slogan, but why? Give context; what was the UFW? Why was Chavez fasting? How did they use the slogan? How did it infiltrate the media/press/etc?
• Now, take all of the above questions and apply them to the 2006 immigration reform protests, Obama's campaign, and others.
• The article's information as it is now needs to be reordered, perhaps in chronological order, for easier comprehension. Obama's campaign is currently under "English translation", which doesn't exactly fit, and the slogan's usage by Air Canada is under the trademark section.
• All references need to be consistently formatted. Current refs 10 and 11 are not, for example. It's also not necessary for every ref to include lengthy quotes of pertinent information; the links are there so the readers can find the info for themselves.
• The external link section looks like it's on the verge of becoming a linkfarm. A little pruning may be in order.

Hopefully these comments will incite some inspiration for how to better fulfill the GA criteria. This is certainly an important subject, so I would love to see the article improve over time. If there are any questions are comments, or if you feel this review was in error, please feel free to contact me via my talk page. María (habla conmigo) 03:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Dexter

"Sí Se Puede" is the title of a third season episode of Dexter. I think maybe there should be a disambig page. - 68.146.211.84 (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, that episode can happily reside at Sí Se Puede (Dexter) and a hatnote can say "for the Dexter episode see Sí Se Puede (Dexter)". It would be just silly to displace this topic because of a TV episode named after the phrase itself. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Alternativa" translation

Looks like User:MarshalN20 wants to remove the "Alternativa Sí se puede por Tenerife" mention. Can you explain why, please? To me, it seems a prominent use of the term (in the organization's name, no less), by a group that can be assumed to be fluent in Spanish. You disagree? I admit, I'm no expert on either Spanish or the organization, so I'm open to discussing it. --GRuban (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I explained it on my edit to it in the article. It is original research. You are basing the translation of the phrase to the English language based on how a company translates their slogan. There is nothing in that link that direcly states or explains what the meaning of "Si se puede" is; with that link you are simply implying the meaning, and that is original research. Wikipedia does not support original research, therefore the link (and, hence, the unreferenced sentence) should either be deleted (which is the easy option) or somehow incorporated into the article elsewhere and in another manner (which is the hard option). However, the option which is not available is keeping it the way it currently is.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I can manage that. I'll provide alternate sources that explicitly say that this is how it is translated, and merely keep this as one example of that. --GRuban (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Spanish language translation

So, let's make it quick. "Si se puede" is a Spanish phrase, correct? Right. Once that is established, next comes the time to evaluate the phrase for what it means. Correct? right. Having a deep knowledge of the Spanish language, I know that the translation of the word to English is: "Yes it can [be done]." Literal translations:

• If it were "Yes it can be done" it would have to be "Si se puede hacer". However, the "hacer" is implied in the "Si se puede."
• For it to be "Yes we can" or "Yes you can," the phrase would need to be "Si podemos" or "Si puedes."

Alright, got it? Good. So then you may ask yourself why exactly are people translating the phrase into English incorrectly. Are these people idiots or are they just completely ignorant about the Spanish language, or is this information I'm providing you wrong?

• Answers: Maybe. Yes. No.

If you want to know how ignorance develops, just scroll up a bit up and see how some of our fellow wikipedians struggle to get the right meaning. These people don't know Spanish (have taken perhaps a year of it in some university), and yet they are trying to impose an English meaning to it. We must assume that they are doing this in good faith (i.e., they don't know any better), but it is completely irrational to take their statements into account when they clearly do not know what they are talking about.

• So, then, how do we go about fixing this article?

I'm not sure really. I tried editing it but someone reverted my edits and told me to discuss it here in the talk page. My suggestion is to split the meaning into the correct literal translation, and into the incorrect political/propagandist/ignorant translation.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In English you would need a comma yes, we can. In Spanish you don't need that comma. It's wrong. Also, if you don't write sí with an accent mark, then it's wrong as well. Sí Sí Sí. Si without an accent mark means "if". --24.44.93.16 (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The "se" in the phrase

Responding the translations, it should be pointed out that the 'se' (reflexive particle) has usages in Spanish that cannot be approximated by English oneself/itself/yourself/etc.

Se alquila cuarto: Room for rent (lit. "Room rents itself")
Se vende carro: Car for sale (lit. "Car sells itself")
Ella se ve muy contenta: She looks happy (lit. "She sees herself happy"...more directly "She is seen happy")
Se publico' en marzo: It was published in March (lit. It published itself in March)
.
The second of the four examples above highlight the absence of the passive voice in all but the most academic and technical Spanish. The passive voice in English de-emphasizes the agent (the active participant or subject, hence passive).

So, literally we could read "se puede" as "one can oneself," or, as the above poster mentioned with the implication of the verb "hacer" (mandatory in English with modals, not in Spanish with 'poder') it could be "it can be (done)" (passive).

However, as those of us who have ever seen what Google translator does to a foreign language paragraph, a literal translation rarely serves meaning. Meaning is the only part of language that needs to be translated, everything else (the little words and how they are arranged and interconnected) are just the whimsy of a given language.

With all this in mind, the anonymous third person implied by "se puede" is actually the collective first person (I and you and probably others), akin to the meaning of "on" in French or "a gente" in Brazilian Portuguese - where "we" is implied by a third person pronoun.

Thus, I must insist that "we" is the correct meaning-bearing translation (which is the only kind of translation that is true) for the construction involved in "se puede." 74.233.115.23 (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Jim in Fort Lauderdale

wiki rules

this phrase has been common in the US for some time now, and it is ALWAYS rendered as "yes, we can". perhaps it is obama's influence, but i have never ONCE seen it as "yes, it is possible", "yes, you can", or any of the others listed.

as such, wiki rules require the COMMON EQUIVALENT be given priority. i.e. "translate" it as "yes we can" -- even if incorrect -- then put "lit. ---" in parentheses.

don't think of it as a translation, necessarily. think of it as a parallel, competing, slogan. there are more extreme examples ("coke adds life" becoming every manner of "happy life" in foreign langs); wiki follows actual usage on these. 66.30.47.138 (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)