This is an archive of past discussions about Hispanic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Not just "Hispanic": catalans? basques...?

There are two slopes about this topic: 1) The "Hispanics" from Spain:

I think it is WRONG to consideer the Hispanic people and the Hispanic culture as the "culture from Spain", because saying "culture from Spain" or "Spanish people" is like saying "culture of the World" or "people of the World": what is "culture of the World" and "people of the World"? It is the culture and the people of all the ethnic groups that exist on the Earth. So with Spain it IS the same, and it should be correctly specificated in this article.

The article should mention that when we are talking about "Hispanic" as coming from "Spain", this does not include, obviously, Portugal, but it neither includes the cultures of other peoples like Catalans, Basques and Galicians, which represent a huge percentage of the demographics of Spain. Well, in fact it includes all those people. It has traditionally included them, because those people have played a very important role in the History of Spain, but they have played that role as "Spaniards", when in fact, they spoke a different language and they had a different culture. It's hard to explain, but I think that this article should explain clearly that when we are talking about Hispanic we are talking about the people coming from Spain, that has traditionally included EVERYONE coming from that place, but has included them into a SINGLE CULTURE which is the castilian culture, which has traditionally been known as the "spanish culture"; but there is much more behind that, and that instead these other cultures that are also in spain have not been spreaded, and have been eclipsed by the "official spanish culture", they exist, and in some way these cultures and their peoples have played an important role in what the words "Spain" and "Spaniard" mean.

It is OFFENSIVE for many people living in Spain to consider this country and its culture as something homogenic. So as a result of my reasonaments about this topic, I think I can conclude that when we are talking about "Hispanic people", "Hispanic culture", etc, we must mention that there is an "standart culture" for Spain, that is the culture that has been spread over the Americas and that is known all over the world as the "Hispanic culture", but we must also mention that in the homeland of this culture, in Spain, in the Iberian Peninsula, there are also other cultures, other languages, other peoples, that with their own features and beliefs have contributed, sometimes being subordinated and alienated, to this bigger culture called the "spanish culture" that is the one that has been spread all over the world as something homogenic. All these cultures that, through the flag of Spain, have played their role in the evolution of our country.

The History has made the culture of spain as something homogenic, but we must show the world that it is not so.

In other countries like the UK this does not happen: it's amazing to see the King of the UK wearing scottish kilts, the royald guard wearing scottish kilts and playing bagpipes. You can see corps in the army that are exclusively Welsh, or Scottish, or from the Northern Ireland. This does not happen in Spain. The UK has known how to pick up all the nationalities that formed part of its territory and put them all into something bigger, the UK, that engloves them all. On the other side, Spain, always tryed to erase these cultures that have always existed inside its lands and show a homogenic image to the world. But I think that we, from this article (and also the Spanish People article) should show that this is not so.

2) The "Hispanics" from Latin America.

What about Catalans, Basques, Galicians, and other peoples from Spain who also conquered and settled in America? There are about 3 million people of basque descent in Argentina (most of the "spaniards" who conquered Argentina were basques); also lots of people with Galician and Asturian descent in Argentina from the migratons of the beginnings of the 20th century; and lots of people from catalan descent in many places of Latin America, specially in Cuba. And all these inmigrants have also contributed with the traditions of their homelands (which were A LOT different to the castilian or andalusian traditions) to form what today we call "Hispanic America".

The problem is that like always, everything that comes from Spain has been castilianizated, and today a day many people with Asturian, Basque, Catalan, Galician and other surnames whose ancesters came from Spain, or from other parts of the Spanish Empire but that were NOT Castilian (and when I say castilian I mean castilian-speakers) are considered simply as "hispanics".

So well, apart from the mention of the multiculturality existing in Spain I think that this article should mention the role that those peoples played specifically in the Americas.

04:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Onofre Bouvila

You should read the "Historical error on main page" discussion. The American government usage of Hispanic catagorises people by "Of or relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America". This word is used in many other ways in America other then its American government definition.

LoL... the "Historical error on main page" topic in this talk page says the following:

There is false information on this site. The word Hispanic does not derive from the word Hispania. For the person doing the maintenance on this site please correct this site's historical error. The word Hispanic derives from the words "history" and "Spanish" they were used together to form "Hispanic"

Which is quite delirious. I was talking about adding real stuff in the article that talks about the real historical mistake (which is not that the word Hispanic derives from "History" and "Spanish"...)

Anyway I already did it.

Onofre Bouvila 22:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is very centered on the bad usage of "Hispanic" in Latin America and the US

So that's it: this article focuses a lot the meaning of "Hispanic" and its bad usage on Latin America, the United States, etc. I think these kind of questions deserve another article. Hispanic should be exclusively an article that talks about the origin of the hispanophone, and the relations that exist among those who are called "hispanics" and that live all over the world, that have a common link which is a more or less similar culture and the castilian language.

As a person living in Spain (thus, a Hispanic), I honestly don't care about the ignorance the the people in the U.S. show at time to use the term "Hispanic" for their own issues. This article should refer exclusively to the term hispanic as what it truly means: with its pure meaning: the meaning it has when we are talking about the hispanophone world.

Things like the "flag" of the hispanics and the "hymn" are totally pointless. I am an authentic hispanic from Spain and I have never heard about that hymn. Look at this:

Argentina, Brasil y Bolivia, Colombia, Chile y Ecuador, Uruguay, Paraguay, Venezuela, Guatemala y El Salvador, Costa Rica, Haití y Nicaragua, Honduras y Panamá, Norteamérica, México y Perú, Cuba y Canadá

This hymn is the "Himno de las Américas" and it is sang on the Pan-American Union day in the spanish-speaking countries, but it's not the hymn of the spanish-speaking countries (the hispanic countries).

Anyway, Like the title of this topic says, this article is very centered on what "hispanic" means in Latin America and the U.S., which is the result of the bad usage of the term hispanic. And wikipedia should contribute to DESTROY this stereotype and show what the real meaning of HISPANIC is.

As a hispanic living in Spain I feel alienated with all that stuff talking about the U.S. and the self-proclaimed "latinos" who do not even know what is the real meaning of "latin".

What would you think, you, "anglos", if the culture of the english-speaking africans, the culture of the people of Jamaica (Bob Marley and stuff like that), the culture of Singapore, of Hong Kong, etc, was considered English culture? British culture? What would you think then? So that's it: hispanic is what it is, and not what some people who must learn a lot of history say it is.

p.s.: God save the Queen and the voodoo, let's smoke weed ---> This is British Culture? NO

p.s.: A mi me gutta la gasolinah lattinos del mundo! viva la revolusión latina! latin kings al poder! ---> So this is NEITHER hispanic culture.

04:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Onofre Bouvila

As a result of my two contributions, I would say:

1) Remark the importance of the non-castilian speaking cultures in Spain in the process of the formation of the Hispanophone.

2) Remark the original meaning of Hispanic, placing in sepparate articles any interference of meaning coming from the ignorant point of view of (1) the "anglo" world and (2) the world of the "latinos" who are giving a new name to the terms "hispanic", "spaniard", "spanish people", etc.

By the way I think it should be removed the Hymn because it's false that is the hymn of the hispanic people. You can check what it really is here: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himno_de_las_Am%C3%A9ricas

04:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Onofre Bouvila

As no one did anything I've added a new section called THE HISTORICAL MISTAKE. I hope everyone who wants to change it discuss it here before doing anything.

Onofre Bouvila 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the map of the hispanophone

The map of the Hispanophone was wrong; I changed it. Several countries had not been included. In fact, the Hispanophone article shows a different map which is much better. I have imported it to this article.

Here you have a list of the most important countries that were not on the old map but that can be found on the new one. I have divided the countries that this new map includes between two lists of countries:

The first list is a list of countries where Spanish is the official language or it is widely spoken. I don't think this admits any kind of discussion: the countries of this list had to be included in the Hispanophone map.

The second list is a list of countries where the Spanish language has been official for centuries and, instead it has been replaced by the English and other local languages as official languages of the state, it is still a very important factor because it has left a huge impression on the local languages; in fact, some of the official languages of these countries are Spanish-based creole languages.

And not only this: remember that when we are talking about the hispanophone we are mainly talking about the language, but not just about this: also about the culture, the traditions. And the Spanish culture has left a big impression on this second list of countries.

First list of countries:

1. Equatorial Guinea: a small country in the Atlantic coast of Africa that obtained its independence from Spain in 1968. The Spanish Language is widely spoken there and it is also official.

2. Western Sahara: this country was relinquished by Spain on 1975 and since then the United Nations administrate it. Due to the spanish occupation of the country for almost a century and the large amount of spanish NGOs that operate there, the Spanish language is widely spoken in the Western Sahara.

3. Belize: this country is entirely surrounded by spanish-speaking countries and the Spanish language is the second language for many people.

Second list of countries:

1. Philippines: I have seen some comments about the country on this talk page, but no one mentioned that it is not included in the map. The Filipino language, which is the official language of the Philippines (an Ex-Spanish Colony, like everybody knows) is a dialect of the Tagalog language (the most spoken language in the Philippines) and it has a very strong substratum of Spanish. The modern Filipino cannot be understood without 400 years of cultural and, in less grade, racial mixure between the Spaniards and the native people living in the Philippines. One just has to read the Filipino language or the Tagalog language articles to check this fact. In addition to this, until some years ago, the Spanish was still the cultural and educational language in the Philippines. The Philippines cannot be understood without Spain.

2. Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands: like the Philippines, until the Spanish-American War, these territories belonged to Spain. Today a day, the official language of Guam is the Chamorro together with English. The Chamorro language is a Spanish-based creole language.

06:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Onofre Bouvila

This is quite cool, really, because I change the map of the Hispanophone and make an entire post in this talk page to explain why did I change it, and I come 3 months and a half later, and someone has changed the map again and has put a new one, without commenting anything in the talk page. Such big changes like changing the map and stuff so, should ALWAYS be discussed here before!

Onofre Bouvila 22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

"As used in the United States, Hispanic is one of several terms of ethnicity employed to categorize any person, of any racial background, of any country and of any religion who has at least one ancestor from the people of Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America, whether or not the person has Spanish ancestry."

This is a contradiction.

The term / definition Hispanic as I was taught, is a Spaniard, born of Aribic origin. hence the differentation of the Spanish ethinic diversity in the reigons of Catlonia, Castile, Galatia, Navarre/Basque, etc, from the Arab bloodlines integrated in reigons of Spain.... The recent American definitions describing people, i.e., Hispanic, Latino, etc, inhabiting the Americas, have been esoterically catorigized in eclectic groups without any consideration or interest in the understanding of any cultural or racial ancestory. This propagates from a basic innate British trait, interested only in the racial purity of Royal Nordic bloodlines traced to the upper crust....every thing else is secondary and not equivelently important.... DonDeigo 19:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you, but that's the way it's used in the United States; I'd like to know more about your definition and its etymology because I'm unfamiliar with it. For example, please elaborate on the differentiation regarding the different regions and how they relate to the word Hispanic. Maybe there is a web page or even a wiki article to illustrate what you mean. As I was taught, the strictest definition is the descendant of a Spaniard, thus mixed people in Mexico or Peru would be Hispanic; though this is always implied and universally understood, so the word is used rarely to describe oneself even if one is a descendant of Spaniards. Deepstratagem 22:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've created few sections to explain all this confusion.

The term Hispanic originally relates to Hispania and has nothing to do with the Arab "bloodlines" -

Argentinian and Uruguayan population

"""Even in the cases of Argentines and Uruguayans, most do posess some Spanish ancestry, as the waves of European immigrants to these two countries tended to quickly assimilate, intermarrying with the local population which at the times was of Spanish descent in its majority."""

I removed the part where it said that Argentinian and Uruguayan immigrants mixed with mestizos and mulattos, because is a fact than most of the immigrants came with their families, besides there were a huge racism at that times. The black population in Argentina at the begining of the massive immigration (about 1870) was almost exterminated, if there were ANY mix withing european immigrants with blacks that on the other hand were less everyday due to the epidemics (yellow flu), they were used in the civil wars, and eventually most of them emigrated to Brazil because of the racism, it was the esception to the rule.

while the mestizos were mostly gauchos from the rural areas working for land lords, they don't mixed with immigrats.

In short, Immigrants (mostly their children because they came in family) mixed with Spanish people descendent, or with other immigrants.

In Argentina at the beggining of the immigration in 1869 there were 1 million of persons in Argentina (50% of the of pure Spanish descendent) the other half were black and mixed people. There was 6 million of immigrants, hence most of them for this and for the reasons I cited before, did nt mix with. If many Argentinian have Spanish blood is mostly becasuse of the mixes between Spanish immigrants of that time with other Italian, German, Polish etc immigrants. Not because of mixed with mestizos and less with mulattos. Some of them married with the old Spanish people but that wasn't usual because there was a discrimination between old population and immigrants.

I'm Argentinian historian most of the sources are in the argentinian and uruguayan section but if you want them let me know.

What is the point of this, anyway?

puting people in the same group because they speak the same language? Should the french speakers of Africa be in the same group as the French?

and why is it being used racialy? the majority of mexico is Amerindian while the people of spain are Nordic and Mediterranean which are all European/white groups. Robwi 14:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I know and most of Argentinians and uruguayans are of Italian, Basque,and German ancestrues, while almost all dominican republic of purely or almost pure black/African heritage. And they don't share the same CULTURE AT ALL!!. So I don't know WHAT IS THE POINT? IT'S an American confusing term imo.

Trelew Girl 1:2, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What you just wrote is quite inaccurate. 60% of the population of Mexico is thoroughly mixed. Why can't the French speakers of Africa be in the same group as the French? Francophone means French-speaking. --Deepstratagem 11:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't really just the spanish language, as there are also very strong social ties. I am Colombian and I usually refer to myself as hispanic.

It's all about MONEY in the United States. The creation of a group banner brings in capital via advertising contracts and services marketed in Castillian. It also creates (however false) a voting bloc so politicans can seek out the Hispanic vote. The irony is more than 60% of this group is of Meztizo-Mexican origin so they are the table setters for the most part. Now this group has taken over use of the word "Latino" even though Latino really means everyone that speaks a Latin based language. Go figure. United States citizens also call themselves "Americans" to the exclusion of everyone else in the Hempisphere. More U.S. arrogance and stupidity. How one nation make have so many dumb citizens is beyond me.Kiskeyano 16:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Kiskeyano

Historical error on main page

There is false information on this site. The word Hispanic does not derive from the word Hispania. For the person doing the maintenance on this site please correct this site's historical error. The word Hispanic derives from the words "history" and "Spanish" they were used together to form "Hispanic". So if the person doing maintenance to this site cannot find the origin of how the word was made or cannot find a quote from the person responsible for making the word it would be responsible to take the etymology section out of the article. Please provide proof of the word origin, if not you are providing a made up history to the article. Marcelo

My friend... Your etymology is delirious! The word Hispanic derives from the word Hispania, as can be attested in an enormous multitude of sources and texts since 200 BC. The meaning the word Hispanic has in modern American-English is, however, quite a different issue. The Ogre 12:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The word was created by the United states government. You still do not have any quotes from the American government. The origin has been said on TV many times. Now if you dont provide proof the etymology section then the information you have provided is fiction. Please provide proof. And by getting proof I mean quoting someone from the American government who knows this word's origin. You are calling the actual etymology of this word delirious? Anyone can state a words origin without providing facts of the origin. And that is what was done on the main page of this article. Marcelo

Just because it is on TV, it doesn't mean it's right. You are right in that someone should produce some proof of the etymology. Here is one English online source link. This one has the etymology right, but only the U.S. definition link. The definition from the Spanish Academy that regulates the Spanish language in Spain agrees: link(enter hispano). Of all the dictionaries, this one should be right - and as it turns out, is consistent with the other two. All dictionaries say the etymology is from from latin Hispānus or Hispania. Since Hispania is derived from Hispānus (latin for Spaniard,) the article is correct. Deepstratagem 06:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, I think the problem is that in the United States, Hispanic has a lot of negative connotations, while in Latin American countries it has very many positive connotations. For example, in the United States you hear about illegal immigration by Hispanics, while in Latin American countries being Hispanic (having Spanish roots) is considered an honor. So if you live in the United States, I can see why you don't like the way the word is used. I don't either. Deepstratagem 07:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

All of that is wrong. I know because I have seen it on TV many times. We need a quote from the American government. We need a quote from the person who made this word for the census or someone from the American government to make a statement. I'm obviously defending what I am saying for a reason. Marcelo

Marcelo, the burden of evidence is now on you. The word has been around for centuries, so the U.S. government didn't "create" it. They did give it a new meaning, but the etymology remains the same. Deepstratagem 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the proof would have to be on the person who created the etymology section. This person wrote Hispanic is derived from Hispania. That's just stating argument without substance backing it up. I could state etymologys like this all day. The word hook comes from the word hooker. No one would know and just believe this as fact. That's why you need proof. If this person has the proof of where he has got the etymology then fine, of course I would respect it. But he writes Hispanic is derived from Hispania. You see what I mean? Where did he get this etymology from?

This is what I have seen on the History channel. They interviewed the man from the government who created the word Hispanic for the census. The History channel even made the same mistake. They made these nice graphics, zoomed in on an old map of Spain and Portugal and it said Hispania describing that land. Then when asked why he used that word to describe Hispanics he replied I put the words history and Spanish together because that's what Hispanic has to mean, someone whos history derives from a Spanish speaking country. And the guys from the History channel were stumped because they thought it came from the word Hispania. So you see, I see this on the history channel I am reacting from what I see.

So if the word was used before this that's ok. That is not my point. My point is that the American government's etymology of the word is different then the civilian's etymology. I'll accept the fact that there may be a civilian's etymology. Hopfully someone can get the etymology of this one as well. Because right now we only have an argument stated on the front page. Where did the front page's etymology come from? We also need the etymology from the American government. If someone could provide information of who created these two words and why he or she used the word Hispanic it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Marcelo.

I just presented the proof. That's why it is your turn to present some proof. If someone in the government thinks they created a word, it doesn't mean anything. What is that a proof of? It's proof that he invented a word that already existed or that he/she didn't know what he/she was doing. If the United States has a different etymology for the word Hispanic, then prove it, but just because the United States government invented a word, doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to acknowledge it. There are many people on Wikipedia who speak English from other countries: Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, France, Germany, Spain, U.K, Liberia, Canada, Belize, Guyana, Jamaica, Aruba, New Zealand, etc... So why is the etymology that you claim the census uses so important? Even if it was true, it got made up in the last 10 years, where the historical definition from Hispania has been around for centuries. Deepstratagem 19:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You did not present proof. You provided argument. The government didn't "think" they created this word. An Individual from the government created this word for the census. I found a etymology dictionary dating back to 1957 it does not have the word Hispanic. Proof has not been given. This is stated on the front page "Hispanic is derived from Hispania". This is vague. Where did this person get this etymology? It would be nice to know where this person got this etymology from. Also from your first link it states that this word has been applied since 1972.

No more argument please. Just provide facts. There shouldnt have been argument in the first place. We should have been trying to fix the problem. Not arguing. Arguing makes things worse. Now just provide the information. Where did you get the imformation that the word Hispanic came from Hispania? I seriously doubt that there is a civilian word and government word. I am sure that this word only comes from the American government. If you prove me wrong I will be even more happy because I will know the facts. Marcelo

I already did prove you wrong. Look at the third link presented above. If you type hispano, you'll see the etymology by the Royal Spanish Academy. The word is derived from Hispania. If what you are trying to say is that the word isn't used very much in Latin America and Spain, then I agree with you. But if you are claiming that the U.S. government created the word, alone, and that it had never existed before, then give us a link to a dictionary or a journal article that agrees with you. Deepstratagem 23:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Marcelo is just talking for fun, which is anyway a kind of vandalism. As long as he doesn't change the article, why answer? Velho 23:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't take the time to consider that. Good point. Deepstratagem 23:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hispano and Hispanic are two different words. Velho is just stating an assumption about me. An assumption is not fact so obviously take his assumption with a grain of salt. I could also make an assumption of him, but this obviously would not be true. I'm looking for the etymology of Hispanic which is obviously the complete opposite of vandalism because I am looking for the truth.

Provide proof of Hispanic's origin. Just one shread of proof that the person who made the word and derived it from Hispania is good enough evidence for me. I am obviously stating this for a reason. Velho did make a good point though, do not answer if you cannot provide evidence to the article (we don't need any argument in the article). But keep what I have written in mind to modivate you to find if this word's origin and what it derives from. If you think i'm typing this for fun youre mistaken. This is pissing me off. If you are someone who respects etymology please look into this. This will be my last entry so please do not argue with it. That is not my intention. (Note; I am speaking of the census etymology of the word Hispanic only.) Marcelo

A note from Robert

What difference does it make? Spanish, Hispanic, Latino. Who cares? This is 2006 not 1506! These labels just go to show that racism is alive and well in the United States of America. What a shame! The Spanish word for Latin is Latín or Latino when used to identify countries wherer Latin-derived languages are used (as in Latinoamerica). That includes the Spanish, Portuguese and French speaking parts of the Americas and (to get technical) Portugal, Spain, Andorra, France, Italy and Romania. The word "Hispanic" means of or relating to Spain, it's people and or it's culture. Let's not forget the "Latins" were the ancestors of the Roman civilization! Finally we come to the word Spanish. It's an English word meaning the people of Spain collectively, their language and customs. No where do these words have racial connotations. They never have and they never should. Yes, race-mixing occurred and continues to occur south of the US border, but it also happens around the world. I came to the US from the Canary Islands 23 years ago and I am considered a Spaniard. My wife is an American of Puerto Rican descent. Physically, there's no difference between us to distinguish one nationality from the other. We even speak Spanish with very similar accents. I will tell you that in the Canary Islands we have remnants of the Guanches who where the aboriginals of the Canaries before the Spanish came. The Guanche heritage is in the rural parts but in the cities too. Many are indistinguishable from the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. After all, the Guanches were Berbers and they are in our blood. For the most part we have descendants of the Spanish colonists as well as Portuguese, French and recent British, Moroccan, Latin American and sub-Saharan African immigrants. Many of these people have intermarried with locals and obtain citizenship or go to other parts of Europe. Yes, there is some racism, but not to the level that exists in the United States. In the Canary Islands and most of Spain, there exist strong bonds between many Latin Americans not only by blood, but by culture, music, religion and language. Even if there is mixture with Indians or black Africans, we share a common link. The Spanish are not a pure race either. Anyway, I think that Americans should do away with racial and ethnic classification to end the stereotype and discrimination that so many people have to suffer. Besides, I have met many Americans who call themselves white and have Indian blood. How many white Americans have African blood and don't want to admit it? That shows how racist the American society is, even among the educated class. I hope that the young people of today can change the America of tomorrow so all can live together as one people. - Robert

People are so ignorant. Hispanic and Latino are terms that have evolved to mean anyone with entire or partial ancestry from a Spanish-speaking country, or someone born in a Spanish-speaking country, regardless of prior ancestry. Of course Hispanic and Latino once meant something different... so did the word "gay." Hispanics are not a race. We come in all shapes, colors, and sizes. What binds us is our language. Believe it or not, Spanish is a very unifying language. Even though I speak English and Spanish, I always feel "at home" when I'm around Spanish-speaking people, whether they're of Mexican, Cuban, Spanish, or Puerto Rican ancestry.

Why do you think the Latin Grammy's has celebrities from all the Spanish-speaking countries? There are black, white, mestizo, Asian, and Indian Hispanics. Why do you think Spanish celebrities feel "at home" in Mexico? And Mexican celebrities in Spain? On the other hand, the only English-speaking country I've ever felt "at home" in is the United States.

Enough with the ignorance!

Yes I agree with you in some points. I don't aprove this ghetto thing, "latino grammy award" for instance, i mean, it's all music, this is one of things that really ensickens me, always putting in a lower, different level, you only will be successful if you're american (as i see thousands of artists in brazil playing for 50 years and only known in here, and americans teens that badly play guitar been sold around the world like a drug, but that's not the point). i don't understand the census qualifying in WHITE/HISPANIC. there are WHITE HISPANICS, as matter of fact, spaniards ARE white, it should be qualified as ANGLO-SAXON/HISPANIC, then it would make sense. here in brazil there is no such thing (even if you think it's a laughable sentence if you believe everyone here is black and plays soccer). If you have spanish, portuguese, german or italian origins you're WHITE. if you're mixed you're mixed if you're black you're black and so on. but then if some brazilian or any other from iberian america (like people from uruguay, more than 90% are white) decides to give up helping the country and go to the USA live in a ghetto and work washing dishes you all of sudden are not WHITE anymore, you're HISPANIC, the anglo-saxons are white, even considering both of you are from european descent with no mix with other race. sadly even Heinrich Himmler knew the difference (though calling 'hispanics' Romans) but the USA does not. (yeah portuguese can be called hispanic cause portugual was inside Hispania, right?)

Please add that Portuguese is Hispanic in the "Hispanic" article. Thank you. I do not speak alone, as the Portuguese Foundation supports this concept. http://www.portuguesefoundation.org/gp_portuguese_americans.htm

Please keep Hispanic and Latinos as separate, because they are! Now, separation does not mean discrimination. If you wish to not participate in separating yourselves from others, then don't inform others of your ethnicity. But for some people, it is important to separate ourselves and be proud of our genetic and cultural heritage. No one assigns your ethnicity except yourself. If you grew up in a predominantly Asian community in Latin America, then you may feel and tell others you are Asian and not Latino. So feel free to assign your own ethnicity, or not at all if you don't want to. Now, Latinos refer to people who are identified culturally and/or genetically as people from Latin America (which by classic assignment, is parts of Central and South America including Brazil). Latinos do not include Spanish, Portuguese. Hispanics include Latinos, Spanish, and Portuguese. That's the difference. Some Filipinos are offended because they are classified as Asians instead of Pacific Islanders. Classification is not to assign or discriminate, but to help others identify the culture you belong. A Filipino is traditionally classified as both Asian and Pacific Islander. If you don't want to be assigned, then we respect you to withhold your identification: "I'm an individual human being that is culturally diverse." But please return the respect we give you when we wish to separate ourselves by proudly announcing our identification under certain traditional classifications. I am Portuguese; I am Hispanic; and although I am proud that many countries uniquely contributed to this world/society, I still stand proud that my country has contributed in ways that others countries would not have without the existance of Portugal. I am a proud Hispanic!

you are right. you are hispanic. but you are latino also.

Lusitano Transmontano 06:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Easier to encase everybody under one category. There is no such a thing as hispanics, latinos, latin-americans or anything of that sort. First of all; the language spoken in the Americas, North (such as Mexico), Central (Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, etc.) and South (Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Peru, etc.) is Castillian; not SPANISH, neither LATIN. If, either one of those languages was spoken in the Americas, then, and only then,the adjective Hispanic or Latin could be applied to the already given name. The American countries have legally, worlwide known and accepted names. THERE ARE several countries in the American Continent, not only one as to generalize and encase under on adjective. People from these countries deserve respect and individuality, why not call somebody that's from Mexico, Mexican? from Salvador, Salvadorian? or from Chile, Chilean, from Argentina, Argentinean, and so and so forth? Why is it that in the United States people is called American? The Continent is the one that's called America! Not just one country among the many located throughout the continent! I am sure Americans would not like to be called English, Continental English or any other adjective of this sort. Let's just respect each other and be aware that individuals are that; INDIVIDUALS!

I would like to add my comment since we are doing research about mestiso for our class here in Philippines. My name is Isabella Monteaverde "Spanish-FilipinO" from Manila i think third generation. I do not consider myself Spanish or Hispanic I don't even speak Spanish but my dad and grandparents from dad side who still lives in Mallorca, SP speaks it fluently and I agree in Philippines hispanic means culture related to Espana.

Hispanic as a physical description

I'm a Filipino and honestly "Hispanic" means Culturally related to Spain. I just can't believe in the US they use this for racial statistics or whatever you call it. Filipinos may not be physically "Hispanic" with the exemption of some Filipino-Spanish yet "CULTURALLY" speaking ( we celebrate fiestas, catholic tradition, dia del muerte "day of the dead", processions, novenas, fiestas etc the lists goes on) majority of us are Hispanic. That is my understanding of this. Same situation with Latino-Blacks or mulattos from Dominican Rep. or Panama or Whites from Argentina and Spain,are they considered hispanic in the US? I bet not. they are considered black or white although culturally they are Hispanic. Finally, just because Filipinos have Spanish lastnames that doesn't mean we have "Iberian blood" TRUE! but isn't the same thing happened to the Indians in Bolivia, in Peru, Guatemala and Honduras?

The US doesn't use Hipanic in a racial sense; the Census assumes Hispanics are white. That's why it asks if you are a non-Hispanic white, or Hispanic. It's asking for ethnic (read: cultural) reasons, NOT racial ones.

Hispanic people

What means Hispanic race?, Are we the people from Spain Hispanic?. What is the physical difference between Italians, Spanish and French for example?.

The Hispanic physical and cultural description is too much general. You can not put in the same place Spanish from Spain, and Hispanic from Latin America countries. It is like to speak about English speakers in Hong Kong and United Kingdom.

I think it would be good for this article to include some information about the controversial use of hispanic as a physical description for police and news. Since it is an ethnic (cultural) description and contains no information about the physical (racial) appearance of someone.

Actually, a small minority of Filipinos are of Spanish or part Spanish descent, and would probably identify as "Hispanic". Interestingly, not all Spanish descended people would identify as such, especially the Basque Nationalists.

Saying that people from Spain are not Hispanics is a non-sense. "Hispanic" is a word that means "coming or related to Spain and Spanish culture". Every language uses that word that way. ex: in French "les cultures hispaniques" means "the Spanish or Spanish related cultures.", not related to Mexican or Guatemaltec cultures which are mostly native indian !!

It would be like excluding english people from "anglo-saxon" culture and considering Jamaican or Australian aboriginal culture as the anglo-saxon culture!!

It is the same for "latin" or "latino", these words mean "related and descent to roman culture", not "from South and Central America". Of course Central and South America are included in the "latin" group because they have a Spanish, Portuguese and French heritage; but they don't represent all latins or latinos by themselves !!!!!!...

American people usually forget that the "original" latins or latinos are Italians, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalans, Romanians, and some Belgians and Swiss people...

It has nothing to do with any race or any "physical" description of people.

I live in a neighborhood that was once all upper middle-class whites, but now it's predominantly working-class Hispanic. As a long-time resident of my city, I'm seeing the neighborhood detioriating quickly. It's scary. And I'm also a complete sell out.

It seems to me that better terms for minority status would be Meso-American and South American not Hispanic or Latino. I agree with the article about Spanish people being classified as European Americans (or Europeans) not as a protected underclass. How is a Spanish person any more deserving of protection than say an Italian or Swede?

Hey, if hispanic means spanish, how come Mexicans and puerto ricans are considered Hispanic? that would be like me saying that I'm anglo just because I speak english,even though I am an American Indian, just goes to show you, what we consider politically correct, isn't always correct....

Mexicans and Puerto Ricans generally consider themselves Hispanic because most are related to Spain by ancestry, regardless of whether they are also partly native American as well. In fact, the majority of Mexicans are mixed one way or another, and by technicality would be Hispanic. -ic turns nouns into relational adjectives. Hispanic is a relational adjective. You might say you are Anglic if you speak English and be technically correct. --Deepstratagem 11:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hispanic has always been defined in older dictionaries as a person born in the USA of Latin descent. This was to distinguish among Latinos born outside of the United States, and to help avoid confusion amongst the many United States citizens who are treated like foreigners in their own country. One was only considered Hispanic if born in the USA according to Webster’s Dictionary. Later it was defined by Merriam-Webster as any person of Latin American descent living in the USA. Is this necessary? Probably not, because Americans should be proud to be called Americans regardless of their ancestral heritage.

In much older dictionaries it simply meant someone from Spain, period. (Webster’s Universal Dictionary of 1936) No Latin Americans were included. I think that since the word had no real meaning back then, which is still does not among most Latin American countries, the US used it for certain Americans.

Adding further confusion, Chicano also has a specific definition in most, if not all dictionaries, which means natural-born United States citizen of Mexican descent, or first-generation Mexican-American. Why this came about I have no idea. But this definition must have had some merit, as least in Miami where I was born, because no one was confused when Chicano, a Hispanic, and a Latino were used. The first two were born in the USA but one was of Mexican descent, and the last was born outside the USA of unknown nationality, but there were no ethnic differences whatsoever when I went to public schools there.

But I will say this. All these names probably came about because most of the Hispanics I grew up with did not care for the attitudes Latin Americans had in the USA, and that still holds true in New Mexico where I moved to. Hispanics have generally been in the USA for many generations, and have come to be very proud of being Americans who enjoy freedom and property right. Freedom does not exist in most Latin American countries (except Chile), and most of these countries have a very small middle-class populations, and very large populations living in poverty. Not so with Hispanics, most of who are middle-class over a large spectrum, who can afford to show of proudly their low-riders and their beautiful woman. The differences I think are far more political than ethnic. Hispanics in New Mexico are even more prejudice I have noticed than whites against Mexicans. I also witnessed the same thing with USA-born Cubans and immigrant Cubans in Miami. Against these are probably for political reasons, and the way people of the same core culture evolve differently in the USA and other poorer countries. After all, you don’t hear about Hispanics rushing across the Rio Grande to escape civil war and rebellion. Jcchat66 04:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Jcchat66:

LOL Jcchat66 you are the typical country american hahaha! Apart of your magistral class about the usage of the words 'latin', 'chicano' and 'hispanic', you said something that called my attention:

"Hispanics have generally been in the USA for many generations, and have come to be very proud of being Americans who enjoy freedom and property right. Freedom does not exist in most Latin American countries (except Chile), and most of these countries have a very small middle-class populations, and very large populations living in poverty."

You show a great amount of ignorance. Yeah sure, America is the land of the brave and the free people blablabla. All that is just american propaganda. And what the hell are you talking about South America? I bet you have never been there lol!!! "Freedom does not exist in most Latin American countries (except Chile)". I'm not sure about how many but I think that almost all Latin American countries are DEMOCRACIES today a day. And there's much more freedom than what you think there is; much more freedom than what FOX news and other manipulated media shows you in your "great" country. Probably much more freedom than in many places of the US, where being communist is prosecuted by the law, and the freedom of expression is totally controlled by the governament; and not to talk about your super-über democracy where only TWO parties have the possibility to have representation in the national parliament. So stop saying lies about South America because you know nothing about it, and stop saying stuff like that the US is the best because everyone in the world except the US citizens themselves seem to realize that (being polite) the "freedom" of your country is not something to be proud of.

About corruption: It is truth that Latin America has big problems with the corruption and other stuff, but in great measure all that ******** is caused by the USA. For example, what about all the dictatorships in South America? What about Pinochet in Chile (30,000 people were KILLED, and there was NO democracy, NO freedom of expression. If the democracy exists today in Chile it is NOT thanks to the military dictatorship, supported by the US. Thus, it is NOT thanks to the US. It is, in fact, thanks to the people of Chile that fought against all that north american ********). And what about many other dictators in Panama, etc, etc, etc, that were supported by the US? Yours is not a country that supports the freedom: yours is a country that supports the great corporations and does anything to gain more and more power. And this means helping to reach the power corrupt dictators, who kill hundreds of thousands of people, the US does not have any problem with it. They just make it up like if it was a freedom operation, and no problem, lol.

Bah, I am not going to waste more of my time with an obtuse person like you. You should read more and travel abroad. Then maybe you realize that your country is not as "free" as you think and that many other places in South America that you think that are "oppressed, corrupt and poor" are not so. And if some of them are so, it is, in great measure, because of the negative influence of the United States of America.

Oh, and THANKS GOD for the new leaders that are raising in South America like Evo Morales, and that hopefully will definately stop the expoliation of the natural resources by the US, and stop other abuses that the US are doing in their homelands. They are not the corrupt ones; they are the ones who have come to STOP the real corrupt ones: those who reached the power thanks to the US.

02:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Onofre Bouvila

Portuguese

Where do Portuguese speakers, like those from Brazil fit in? jengod 20:41, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

The Portuguese should not be confused with Hispanics, the old name of Portugal was Lusitania as Spain was Hispania, therefore the Portuguese are Lusos.

You are wrong. Hispania refered to the whole Iberian Peninsula. Lusitania was a province of Hispania. By the way, Lusitania comprised part of Spain and Portugal, the capital being Emerita Augusta, present-day Merida, in South-Western Spain.

Wrong.The governments usage of the word "Hispanic" is "Of or relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America".Portuguese are not Hispanic.

Most Spanish-Mestizos in the Philippines consider themselves as Filipinos(Asians) and not Hispanics.

If Brazilians don't speak Spanish, Brazilians are not hispanic. The same for Portuguese. That is the language criteria that appears to be the one adopted by American officials.

RIGHT AND WRONG. RIGHT that it may be the case but it is WRONG. IBERO=HISPANO. The USA is ignorant and WRONG.

Lusitano Transmontano 06:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the world isn`t just USA.

Filipino Roots

People usually do not understand what the term Hispanic means. It means that you are from a country that speaks Spanish as an official language. Hope that clears your confusion.

Wikipedia is full of ignorance. Wikipedia's definition of Hispanic is bascially saying that to be Hispanich your ancestry must hail from Spain. After a couple lines down, it then goes to say that Filippinos are not Hispanic. Filippinos have been invaded by Spain just as most of Latin America and the Carribean has. How can you say that Filippinos are not Hispanic?? We are a mixture of Asian and Hispanic heritage. To deny us of our Hispanic culture, is an offense to us all.

--(Originally Unsigned).69.123.237.225 03:28, 7 November 2005

I agree regarding regarding Filipino roots... The word Hispanic should make it self-evident that it is an adjective relating to Spain and has historically been used to refer to Spanish ancestry regardless of nationality. That makes some Filipinos Hispanic, it makes some Caucassians Hispanic, it makes some Africans Hispanic and it makes some Jews, Muslims and Christians Hispanic. I also sympathize with those who suffer from identity mislabeling from others. Fortunately, some of us are better informed. --Deepstratagem 12:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

HISPANIC does not just relate to SPAIN it relates to the whole of the IBERIAN PENINSULA.

Lusitano Transmontano 06:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure Filipinos may have some cultural similarities with people of SPanish cultures, but that does not make them hispanic. Hispanic is not even a term that exists in Europe, meaning it does not exist in Spain which is the place that colonized the Philippines. The term Hispanic refers to those from Latin America. I myself am of Spanish origin and do not consider myself to be Hispanic because it denotes someone of Spanish and American origin, which I am not of.

Yes HISPANO/HISPANICO does exist in Europe but it is used mostly when discussing history. the new meaning in the USA that has infected some dictionaries in other countries is BS.

Lusitano Transmontano 06:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, many Filipinos think of themselves as being Spanish or closely related by blood. That is not the case at all. According to statistics done by the Philippines, only about 2% of the population has a distant amount of Spanish blood. Just because the majority of Filipinos have Spanish surnames does not mean they all have Spanish blood. Back in the late 1800's before Spain lost control of the Philippines, it required that all the citizens of the island change their sunames from indigenous sounding to Spanish sounding so that it would be easier for them to keep track of the citizens. I am surprised to find many Filipinos do not know this, a part of their history, and just assume.

--(Originally Unsigned).

69.209.203.126 21:54, 10 January 2006

The term Hispanic is used widely in Latin America and even as remotely as Singapore and the Phillipines where many celebrate their Spanish ancestry/culture. You are contradicting yourself. "I myself am of Spanish origin... it denotes someone of Spanish...origin which I am not of". In the U.S. the connotations are different, so if you are a U.S. American speaking U.S. English you could arguably be correct in saying that you are not Hispanic, especially if you don't feel strong ties to the culture or language. --Deepstratagem 07:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Term "Hispanic"

I very much disagree with the term Hispanic. I was sitting on the bus on day, and a lady asked a Spanish-speaking boy, who was clearly non-White. Are you Spanish? she asked. "No, the boy replied, I am Mexican". The woman then says: "I thought you were Spanish."

This is true and it goes to show that people cannot distinguish the difference between the Spain Spanish and the Mexican Spanish who are Native/white mixed. Also, Germans from Paraguay, Italians from Argentina, and Chinese from Costa Rica are considered Hispanic by the US. What a distorted image. Therefore, Hispanics cannot be the largest minority since they can be white/black/mulatto/asian. People cant consider a linguistic group a racial minority. --(Originally Unsigned).24.226.10.98 17:44, 30 November 2005

Clearly non-white? How can you tell? If the boy says he is Mexican, statistically speaking, he is probably Hispanic. The question, "Are you Spanish?" is clearly ambiguous. Spanish can refer to the nationality or the ancestry. Again, most Mexicans are mixed, and would therefore mean that the boy was probably Hispanic. But you are correct in saying a linguistic group isn't a racial minority except as questionably defined by some people in the U.S. --Deepstratagem 06:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hispanic ethnic group

I deleted the references of Hispanics being the second largest and fastest growing ethnic group, because an ethnic group cannot be compared with a race. The US Census Bureau only measures one ethnic group, the Hispanic. The only valid comparison would be between Hispanics and non-Hispanics. --Lupitaº 05:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually the terms hispanic or latino are rather considered ignorant by the vast majority of people in latin america for several reasons.

1. latin america is extremely diverse, it has huge differences from country to country, and inside these countries the cultures vary from region to region, with different accents, different cultural influences and different ethnic origins, saying some one is hispanic or latino is like saying some one is from the planet earth, is a blanket term that doesn't really fit latin america, but the USA

2. the use of these two terms (hispanic/latino) are for the most American, and usually when Americans say hispanic they think of a chicano (sorry but I am not chicana). In south america (PLEASE AMERICANS NOTE MEXICO IS NOT IN SOUTH AMERICA), people do not refer to themselves as hispanics or latinos, but rather as citizens of X or Y country, in my country I AM COLOMBIAN, PEOPLE DO NOT CONSIDER THEMSELVES THESE TERMS, why? because is not part of our culture to say we are these things; hispanic latino are AMERICAN TERMS, not colombian terms, therefore we don't use them on us, plus our country like the rest of the countries in latin america are culturally and ethnically diverse, we have white, black, indian, asian, middle eastern, mixed people as well, and no one goes around saying they are hispanics.

4. As far as Spaniards, I don't know why Americans so ignorantly try to make them chicanos, it seems to me the US associates speaking spanish with being mexican-american, if americans bother to look on a world map they would realize that Spain is a European country, and that the people there are Europeans, I have been to Spain and the people there feel and associates with europe, not with mexican-americans, or puerto ricans etc or with this imaginary hispanic world created in the US, most spaniards consider themselves white people and they indeed are.

3. IT MAKES ME ANGRY YET AMAZED AT HOW IGNORANT AMERICANS ARE.

There seems to be some gross inconsistency, since my colleagues and friends in the Republic of Panama refer to themselves as Panamenos (or Panamenas) and as Latinos (or Latinas). I think it's a gross generalization to say that all citizens of Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries would never refer to themselves in these terms. Surely, terms like "Hispanic" or "Latino" are too broad and meaningless (and perhaps even derogatory in modern connotation), but they are used by people other than myopic Americans.

The word "hispano" in Spanish has two main uses:

1.-A very formal word to refer to something related to Spain, usually used only in journalism or in international legal documents: e.g: "Cumbre Hispano-Germana" tr.: Hispanic-Germanic Submitt, or "Acuerdo Hispano-Francés", Tr.: Hispanic-French Agreement, and so on. Normally it is only used in the head lines.

2.-Direct translation of the scripts of american movies of the word Hispanic as used in the U.S.

Look, this page is not a place to bash "ignorant americans." We need the definition because it is used in US census documents. If you look, much of the page deals with criticism of the term. BTW, if you think about it, it is not only the white ignorant Americans you imagine who have adopted this term. It also functions as a way for certain organizations and groups to claim that they represent a community. Second, while the term is clearly irrational in Latin America, it does have a bit of legitimacy in the United States. Countries in Latin American and Spain for that matter do share cultural traits (and some ethnic proportions) that they do not share with the United States. The United States and Latin America have distinct histories and cultural evolutions that some social scientists would attribute to their respective origins in British or Spanish culture. For this reason, it is also an important task of the social sciences and the Census to determine the number of people of Latin American origin residing in the United States and measuring their economic and social status. It's not a perfect term, but it not something that was just cooked up by "ignorant Americans". In fact, much of the related academic fields in the US are dominated by 'Hispanics' (or people from the countries of Mexico, Cuba, Columbia, Argentina, Peru, etc.) themselves. Your ranting is outrageous and out of place. Tfine80 15:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever, I agree that this is not a place to "bash ignorant americans" but what would you expect would happen if the US census bureau decided to list Jamaicans, Nigerians, Maoris and Indians as British and decided that English people are non-white? All this based on some perceived "shared cultural traits". Such stupidity would be denounced everywhere as the stupidity regarding the "hispanic" classification is being denounced here. May be what all this people is trying to point out is that the article should include something about this.

"what would you expect would happen if the US census bureau decided to list Jamaicans, Nigerians, Maoris and Indians as British and decided that English people are non-white? All this based on some perceived "shared cultural traits". Such stupidity would be denounced everywhere as the stupidity regarding the "hispanic" classification is being denounced here." Your analogy is flawed. While the US Census Bureau does list Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Colombians, Peruvians, Uruguayans, Dominicans, etc. as Hispanic (and although "Hispanic" ultimately means derrived from Spain, and thus includes Spaniards), it has not decided that Spanish people (I'm assuming Spaniards are the ones you implied in the comparison to the English) are non-white. Hispanic origin is seperate from race. The idea that Hispanic means "brown", non-white or anything else is incorrect. Hispanics may be of any race. The only denouncing that ought to be made is not on the stupidity regarding the "hispanic" classification , but on your and other people's incorrect usage of the term Hispanic in the first place (ie. the misconceived idea that it denotes race). Al-Andalus 20:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC).

Disambiguation in census data

This page is easily the most linked-to disambiguation page in the whole wikipedia, and the reason is that there are a large number of articles on places in the United States that include information from the United States Census Bureau that all refer to the number of 'Hispanic' inhabitants. See http://wiki.riteme.site/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Hispanic for many, many examples.

Would it be possible to:

add a new topic for, well, whatever is the proper term for an Hispanic person living in the United States,
refer to this in the disambiguation page; and
get a bot to replace all links from census data to Hispanic to the new page?

m.e. 07:57, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That would be Hispanic American. We should stick to US Census terms, meaning we use [[Hispanic American|Hispanic]]. --Jia ng 08:19, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

looks good m.e. 09:01, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

An automatic bot would be easy to write since the census data is always essentially in the same format. You know, "... of the population are Hispanic or Latino of any race". No need to manually accept every modification -- the possibility of errors is slim. Wipe 01:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Two diferentes articles would be better, in my opinion.

Hispanic American

Hispanic American in the United States or Hispanic American person living in the United States

User:Gimferrer

Yes, that was YOUR opinion. But it had already been solved here, yet you decided to go ahead and vandalize the article anyway. You split it unnecessarily and changing the value and context of the entire article from describing what hispanic american is into a stub describing the terms latino and latin, which has nothing to do with the title of the article. The you attempted to change it forthermore by omitting the true definition of the word. I've already discussed this in length on your user page at User:Gimferrer. Al-Andalus 12:58, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, most Americans are just a bunch of racists and ignorant monkeys (just take a look at their 'democratic' political system, it is so funny to see those meetings of politicians screaming as those idiots wave their American flaggies). Of course, I am aware that there are some American people that have some brain, especially in NYC, but I just wanted to criticize their society as a whole.

It's impossible to make them understand something not related to their so-called 'pop culture', that is: burgers, baseball and TV. Just leave that country and come back to Spain.

Proudly signed by: --GTubio 21:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interesting sentiment. As an American, I'm wondering how you reconcile the fact that without the United States you would have had no forum on which to voice your opinion? You should complain less and start proposing solutions to governmental problems, just like many Americans are doing.

Discrimination

spanish protection

I'm half Spanish and live in Texas. My last name is Fernandez. I have green eyes. My skin is probably lighter than 90 percent of most white peoples'. I'm listed as white on all govt. documents. I'm all for trying to teach people the difference between Spanish and South American. Pop culture defines latino as dark skinned, but that's not because of the spanish part, it's the native american part, of which I have little or no common ancestry. However, I still think that Spanish people should be given special consideration when it comes to minority protection. Why? Because I have suffered, first hand, the effects of racism against "hispanics". Because my last name is Fernandez, people always assume I'm mexican. Living in Texas, that might be a natural assumption. But this has hurt me several times. My father owns a small business, and on more than one occasion, stupid, ignorant rednecks have actually turned down business deals with him because they don't wanna do business with "a mezzican". This racism is bad enough, but it's also misplaced! My dad is as white as any of them and speaks perfect english (probably better than those rednecks). Even though my family never had to overcome financial barriers, we have had to overcome social barriers. If we are going to solve anything though, it won't be with affirmative action or such similar programs. It will take proper education for the youth for the future generations to truly understand race and racism.

why do you care about what people call you. you have spanish blood as does a latino. if you look at the situation some people in america are racist towards a latino because he or she has a spanish name. also most spaniards are dark haired and have brown eyes and could be easily mistaken for mexican or a puerto rican. im from liverpool,england and my grandad was from tenerife. i have black hair and blue eyes. what i am trying to tell you is be proud of your blood and stick by hispanic people whether they are spanish, mexican or any other spanish speaking place.

Don't stay in that country, if people is so ignorant. Come back to Europe. Spain is the better place to live in Europe (maybe in the world), and, in contrary with the US opinion it is a rich, modern, westerner and "white" country. It is a latin country because you have roman/mediteranean cultural like the Italian, French and Portuguese, not because we come from Mexicans ! In spanish "latin" is "latino", (latino doesn't mean latino america!) hehehe... and an hispanic country because hispanic relates to Spain.

If racism against white hispanics is "misplaced", racism against non-white hispanics would be better "placed"? The point is not white hispanic v. mixed hispanic, but hispanic v. non-hispanic. Spanish people should be hispanic. And nobody deserves racism, indian, mestizo or white.

Page edits

Deleted two paragraphs

I deleted the two paragraphs that describe how the term "hispano" is used in Latin America because it simply is not true. "Hispano" in Spanish is used in reference to Spain. The part that said that Latin Americans of Chinese ancestry are not considered "Hispanic" is nonsense because absolutely nobody considers him/herself "hispanic". The term is simply not used. It's a term used in the US and only in the US and this is very important to note in order to understand the issue.

Brazilians and Filipinos do not consider themselves either Hispanic or non-Hispanic. The term is not used. It's a US thing and can only be understood as such.

--Lupitaº 17:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Al-Andalus and section organization

Why would would we want to put the section on criticism of the term before we describe its history and use in the United States? This seems a bit odd. Tfine80 16:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Latino

Even though the terms may sometimes overlap in meaning, they are [b]not completely synonymous[/b]. So they're what? 99% synonymous? That sounds like a subsection not a whole seperate page. Ewlyahoocom 06:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Throughout the Americas Latino is used in reference to Latino-American "nationality" whereas Hispanic is used in reference to the Spanish language or Spanish ancestry (which many - but not all - citizens of the Americas associate themselves with.) In the U.S. the words are used synonymously, but U.S. Americans are not the only English speakers in the world and it's unfair to propagate ill-defined words through Wikipedia by merging Latino and Hispanic. --Deepstratagem 12:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Religious Diversity

The section on religious diversity leaves much to be desired. The existence of Hispanics who are different religions does not indicate diversity. Some statistics are needed to bolster the section, if it is worthy to remain in the article.

-- Originally Unsigned [165.91.104.220] 09:32, 27 October 2005

Poor

This page is extremely poorly written and should be tagged.

I agree. Take the following paragraph as an example:

A very good example of classic Hispanic features are the Latin Asians or Filipinos, having brown and olive skin, Spanish speaking, and Latin in both culture and demeanor. The Americans through political machinations, military intervention, and, propaganda tried to eradicate Latin influence in Las Islas Filipinas (Philippine Islands) but failed. The Philippines (Filipinas) was a bastion of the Spanish Empire in the Far East, and it would be foolish to assume that more than three centuries of Spanish/Hispanic influence can be eradicated by the Americans in 45 years. At present there is a strong Hispanic orientation in Filipinas specially among the younger generations of Filipinos, rediscovering their Latin roots.To this day, Spanish, Hispanic, or, Latin influence is strong in Filipinas, and no one can refute the fact that Filipinas is a member of Union Latina (www.unilat.org) the international organisation for all Latin people.

I'm not an expert on this subject at all. I came here for information and found an awkward and ungrammatical article dripping with self-righteous anger and indignation. For all I know, there may be some truth to these claims, but it's all so mired in hyperbole that I can't sort it out. I realize that this is an emotional topic for some, but is there someone out there with knowledge of this subject who could take it in hand and dispassionately craft it into a useful article? CKA3KA (Skazka) 23:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"A very good example of classic Hispanic features are the Latin Asians or Filipinos, having brown and olive skin, Spanish speaking, and Latin in both culture and demeanor" hahaha, this is hilarious. Obviously this is another try hard filipino that most people on the web have come across. Check out the Filipino people page and see the pics in the top right corner. Do they look like spanish people to you? haha FILIPINOS ARE ASIAN deal with it, your not pacific islanders you are Asians most people know of the Filipino antics that they try to lie and mislead people who never even cared about Philippines and therefore are ignorant to the history of Philippines, by trying to convince them that the Philippines is just as latino as Mexico haha, out of 80 million filipinos only 200,000 speak spanish. There are more people in Australia that speak it. NOBODY BELIEVES YOU ANYMORE! YOU ARE ASIANS. I understand that it is frustrating to be categorized in the same category as the east asia countries (China,Korea,Japan) , but other malay stock people who are actually less "asiany" in they're physical features than filipinos. accept the reality that they are in asia. They are secure enough with they're culture that they dont need to try to convince the west with lies that they are not as oriental as they think. CHECK OUT THIS PAGE FOR ALL OF YOU WHO HAVENT DEALT WITH FILIPINOS BEFORE IMSCF Syndrome before all the flips call me a racist and a liar they should know I AM A FILIPINO MYSELF --Jandela 13:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect line #1

Before rewriting the first line, I wanted to discuss it.

Hispanic, as used in the United States, is one of several terms used to categorize U.S. citizens, permanent residents and illegal aliens whose ancestry hails either from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America (Hispanic America), or the original settlers of the traditionally Spanish-held Southwestern United States.

That's just not true. My proposed new line is:

Hispanic, as used in the United States, is an ethnic label used to categorize people whose ancestry hails from the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America (Hispanic America) or the original settlers of the traditionally Spanish-held Southwestern United States.

The part about US citizens / residents / aliens is false; a Mexican citizen living in Mexico would be described as "Hispanic".
Spaniards aren't called Hispanic in common usage.
It's an ethnic label.

Tempshill 22:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC) posted by GOTHAMNEWSSALVADOR at 4:39 AM 1 comments

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 PLEASE STOP! Please stop calling these peoples HisPanics, they are NOT, "Evil minded Casper Weinberger came up with the idea of forming a board of appointed persons to sit down and come up with a name for all the different peoples native to the American continental landmass I mean pre Anglo invasion an appointed easely guided board came up with the denomination of Hispanic meaning that most of all these different peoples seemed to share among themselves was Spanish Cultural roots of lenguage, religion or race so the reference to Hispania SPAIN and it's Culture to whatever degree might have been absorbed or manifested by Spain's worldwide progeny" so, that kangooroo census bureau board and a Congress now fully engaged in dictating race and Ethnicity back in 1776 most if not all of the colonists occupiyng the original 13 colonies were of english-scottish origins so they declared themselves to be the epicenter of whiteness from then on until 1820 when the millions of german inmigrants were also accepted as white by the census bureau another 40 years would have to pass before the Irish would enter the ranks of the whites in 1860 it was not until the turn of the 20th century when the millions of southern and estern european inmigrants where finally allowed into the country 1940 marked the year when the Jews became white citizens also so most likely Casper Weinberger was not born white but like the others became white by edict kind of PORK rewards for service rendered all this time I was white since I was born but by 1980 I had become Hispanic which only exists in the United States OF America there is no Hispanic Land anywhere one reason is because H the letter H At the beginning of a word is MUTE so "Ispan" would be correct without the ending " IC " which is not Spanish and rhymes with "spIC ", so, the correct manner would be ISPANO or ISPANA without the H and without the IC but then you would have to also find the cultural root of other multiethnic, multiracial societies outside the Spanish influenced ones, such as Teutonic anglo and anglo saxons and so on ..that way you would then compare items of the same value white is a colors so is black there used to be RED and Yellow also are they still in Vogue? so if we going to call some people by the name of a color then i want to choose the color I am or the color I feel like being but it is up to me not the bureaucracy that decides to make a mockery of basic education by confucing apples and oranges and counting them together those apples don't add up apples" so that plyable board mayve with good pleasing intentions recommended in an oblique demonic manner the passing of these semi-laws rubbered stamped them into law and into the 1980 census forms afterwards came the promotional campaing they.the census bureau,et,al, came up with that demeaning terminology back in the 1980 census forms this terminologyis now being parroted and widely used as a racial category, look it up, white (not hispanic) black (not hispanic) hispanic white (not white) hispanic black (not black) the emphasis is in NOT-HISPANIC always Back way then in elementary school we were told do not mix apples and oranges when counting, unless you are counting fruits, the census bureau calls whites some people, but they look pink, it calls blacks other people when they are dark brown and then call others hispanics, which rhyms with SPICS, Europeans come from Europe, many Hispanics came from Europe originally Africans came from Africa the called catch all word Asians came from Asia except some say that Asia begins in Turkey but now Turkey is to be European so inside this so called Asians there are Chinese types Hindu Types European Types but that is their problem to sort in the future most likely they will do their darnest to recreate a distorted image of the thing they left behind, so be it We come from here we come from America which is a Continent, just look it up, this American Continent streches from Pole to Pole and from sea to shining sea is in spite of your willfull ignorance, since you seem bent in calling the United States (OF) America, America it is as if Germany would call itself Europe and the other Europeans would be something other than Europeans above in your own website information request forms when one gets to choose country it says United States OF America. I wonder do you know what OF means? do you even care what the histories of America might be like,other than your own of course,of course look up any dollar bill, it says United States OF America, it does not say AMERICA, you are doing what the Africaaners tried to do which is name something and appropiated it, this Continent has been called America for more than 500 years the United States OF America is only existing since 1776, I am sure you can count. This is a great country why are you ruining it with this useless lies. Our name is AMERICANOS AMERICANOS AMERICANOS not Hispanics, I proudly served in the Armed Forces defending you, others and also the likes of the bastards that are slandering at least me and I am sure others as well I wonder how many of those people did serve this country? few and far in between I am sure of that...... I live you with a little poem of my making it is called...... ...............

PANIC

I PANIC YOU PANIC THEY PANIC WE PANIC US PANIC YOUR PANIC IT PANIC SHE PANIC HIS PANIC thank you museum salvador rosillo '05

posted by GOTHAMNEWSSALVADOR at 5:20 PM http://americanos.blogharbor.com

What is the point of this, anyway?

puting people in the same group because they speak the same language? Should the french speakers of Africa be in the same group as the French?

and why is it being used racialy? the majority of mexico is Amerindian while the people of spain are Nordic and Mediterranean which are all European/white groups. Robwi 14:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I know and most of Argentinians and uruguayans are of Italian, Basque,and German ancestrues, while almost all dominican republic of purely or almost pure black/African heritage. And they don't share the same CULTURE AT ALL!!. So I don't know WHAT IS THE POINT? IT'S an American confusing term imo.

Trelew Girl 1:2, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What you just wrote is quite inaccurate. 60% of the population of Mexico is thoroughly mixed. Why can't the French speakers of Africa be in the same group as the French? Francophone means French-speaking. --Deepstratagem 11:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Deragatory Terms?

I hate to bring this up, but what exactly is the point of this section? I have nothing against this information being on the wikipedia, but I do feel that it is slightly off topic and could be placed in a better section. Perhaps the ethnic slurs page would make a better home for this content?

response

I believe that, since the information is towards the end, and is factual, it does not harm the article. --HomerJay603 17:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel that in order to adhere to the highest standard of quality possible, Wikipedia articles should be clear and concise. Extraneous information, regardless of its validity, is detrimental to the quality of an article as it makes the article less concise, more cluttered, and far more convoluted. The deragatory terms section of this article seems to be pretty extraneous to me. This page on the term "Hispanic" exists to discuss the definition of Hispanic and to explore "Hispanic Culture." The blurb on racial slurs contributes to neither discussion -- It's off-topic. I'm not saying information on racial slurs shouldn't be on the Wikipedia, I'm just saying it would be far more appropriate on another page. --Jsaxton86 18:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that to be incorrect. This article is about hispanic people, not hispanic culture, nor the definition of hispanic, at least not specifically. You will notice that hispanic culture and the definition of the word "hispanic" are each subheadings under the article.

You will also notice a section directly preceeding mine entitled "symbols", which discusses 2 major symbols of the hispanic people. Are not derogatory terms a symbol of hispanics? Albeit vulgar, this section does pertian to the stated topic of the article. It is neither off topic, nor is it clutter, as it is confined towards the end of the article, allowing one to easily either ignore it, or to switch gears to absorb it.

There is a fine line between the conciseness of which you speak and, what I believe to be the goal of wikipedia, which is the encompassing of as much information as possible. This section is factual. No one has disputed that. When I chose to I will expound upon this section and add such sections to pages about other ethnicities. --HomerJay603 21:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I also brought this up with HomerJay603 on his talk page. Following is a copy of that message.

"Your contribution:

'Derogatory terms

There are many derogatory, or "racist" terms to describe those of hispanic descent. Most of the time, these terms are used by caucasians or african americans to deride hispanics, but occasionally one may find a hispanic using these terms to deride another.

These include, but are not limited to:

Beaner, bean burrito, taco nigger, chilli-shitter, nacho or pepperbelly; which are all used due to stereotypes about hispanic eating habits.

Berry Picker, orange picker and drywaller; which are all used due to stereotypes about common hispanic employment.

Border Nigger, Border Bunny, border-hopper, and hot footer; which are all used because many hispanics are known to have crossed the mexican-american border illegally, or sailed from cuba illegally.'

Homer, I don't find anything particularly incorrect with your contribution (apart from the fact that it's poorly written). Many of those terms are indeed in use, although confined to certain circles (ie. not mainstream), in addition to the usage of most of them being universally condemned. As stated by you own admission, they are of a derogatory nature. The section doesn't contribute to the article in any way, as it does not address anything about the definition of Hispanic, "Hispanic" history, statistics, etc. The section serves no purpose, apart from perhaps questionable insulting motives.

Maybe you could add all those terms to the Ethnic slurs page. It would be just as irrelevant and inappropriate to make a section in the Arabs article, with no other reason than to specify that derogatory words such as "Sand niggers" may also be used to insult Arabs, or adding a section in Koreans that derogatory words such as "Block-heads" are used to insult Koreans. We're trying to build an encyclopaedia here, remember that.Al-Andalus 09:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)'."

To my post, Homer replied that I wasn't an administrator, and warned me to stay clear from his input. I would like to remind the user that while I am not an administrator, administrators enjoy no extra privelage or status than any other Wikipedian (as stipulated in Wikipedia's rules). Furthermore, it is encouraged that every user act in the mode of an administrator, again, because administrators are not above anyone (anyone may apply to become an administrator), and merely have a few extra editting options and responsabilities (not rights) which may be stripped at any time if abused (in effect, they operate under the same rules as every other Wikipedian).

Finally, the user implied that I was insulted by the inclusion of the terms. I would like to clarify that the question of the inclusion of that questionable section is based on relevance, and in keeping with the format of other articles. Should we add a "Derogatory terms" section in every article on "ethnic groups". I gave the example of Arabs and Koreans. I find no offense in any of those terms, it is about relevance, and trying to build a credible encylopaedia. Al-Andalus 18:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

Merge

I too beleive that this article should be merged with "latino". Within common vernacular, they are synonyms. Perhaps within the new merged article, a section could be devoted to the symantic difference between the terms "hispanic" and "latino". --HomerJay603 17:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

i disagree. this is NOT USA WIKI but Wikipedia in the English language.

Lusitano Transmontano 06:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Within common U.S. vernacular, they are nearly synonyms, elsewhere they are not. See my response to Ewlyahoocom in the section "Merge with Latino". --Deepstratagem 08:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's still confusing and your response to me above isn't particularly elucidative. If anything, merging the pages would give us a better chance to highlight the differences between the terms. So by my count that's 2 votes for a merge and 1 against. Ewlyahoocom 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes on merging. It will reduce the confusion. Rjensen 19:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

They are not the same terms, Brazilians are latinos but are not Hispanic. --Vizcarra 23:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct, most Brazilians are not Hispanic, furthermore, Filipinos and many Spanish influenced cultures in SE Asia consider themselves Hispanic and not Latino, for example in Singapore. Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean you need to stereotype it and cluster it into a neat package. --Deepstratagem 08:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you understand these terms so well, why don't you edit these pages so the rest of us can understand it, too? Or do you just understand it, but can't explain it? In which case, are you sure you really understand it? Ewlyahoocom 12:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The differences have adequately been addressed both in this discussion page and the article. Latino in this context refers to a relation to geographical "Latin America" and Hispanic in relation to Spain whether by ancestry or language. --Deepstratagem 00:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How about merging with Hispano since there is already a paragraph here explaining "Hispano"? I mean create a section with this article explaning the difference due to the direct translation of the word Hispanic(Hispano). The article hispano is already eclipsed by this article. JMejia7704 23:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Hispano" is very distinct from Hispanic, and deserves its own article. There are school in New Mexico, USA with "Hispano Studies Departments", not Hispanic Studies Departments. There should be a section in Hispanic explaining the translation issue, but it should also link to this article. Hopefully it can be expanded as well. --Bfraga 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A poll and article about this topic

'HISPANIC' VS 'LATINO' CaribDigita 18:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is about confusion between Spanish and Hispanic

Is there any Laiinos or Hispanics from Canada? Have you ever noticed that a lot of Canadian youths think the Spanish and Hispanics are the exact same thing? That really hurts. In addition because of that they think that I am white. Some Jamaican kid I know was suprised to find out I was white, black and brown.

User:Santos Martinez 22:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was Latin

I am myself from Spain (reading this article, I think I should point out that it is in Europe. I´ve always regarded myself as of Latin culture (because of Roman heritage in my mother tongue, asturian). But now I´m rather confused. Am I Latin? Are our French and Portuguese neighbours Latin? Because of the US influence, nowadays we call latinos the inmigrant people coming mainly from South America (Andin countries). HERE, you can hear the typical commonplaces that latinos dance better than Spaniards, and stupidities like those. It doestn´t make any sense.

Please, give us back our "latinness". People from Spanish speaking countries should be called after their nacionality.Xareu bs 08:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course you are Latin. Do not let ignorant Americans impose their stupid ideas on what you are. At the end of the day, let them use language however they want if they are happy. We, people in Europe, have nothing to do with them, thanks God. The only truth is that we must fight and oppose their harmful cultural infiltration that is rotting our European homelands.

I think an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, wich is by essence international an multicultural should be a tool to clarify concepts. When speaking about "latin"/"latin", or "Hispanic", the modern USA-based use of those words made it terribly confuse for everyone in the world, due to worldwide diffusion of the American vision of the world. If the USA consider themselves to be a politically correct country, why do they let in official documents spreding such wrong ideas such as defining "latin"/"Hispanic" to be racial terms (non-white people) wich exclude to true hispanic and latin peoples. You are reason, in latin Europe, we are proud of being latin, but we almost can't say it, without being confronted to this whole "latino" misconceptions.

In US usage, "Latin" and "Latino" don't mean the same thing. I might refer to a Spanish person as Latin, (though I'd really just say Spainard), but not Latino. Spaltavian 05:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Use in Canada

Hispanic is used mainly by adults, but the term is not very commonly used amonngst youths in Canada. The term is "Hispanic is usually confused with "Spanish", which of course is inaccurate as there is very wide gap seperating Hispanic and Spanish culture. This creates a misconception among Canadian youth that all HIspanics are White when in fact more that half of them are White. It is also very common to find people of Caribbean and South or Central American descent confuse this term with "Spanish."

Santos Martinez 13:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Lack of use in Canada

I am very disturbed at how ignorant Canadian youth are of Hispanic people. The Wikipedia people will not allow me to put that content in there. I know that an editor cannot put biographical accounts in the encyclopedia, so I need support to prove it is not just me. I am Hispanic of African, native and European descent and it is very annoying that I have to explain my background to every single Canadian youth I meet and then have arguments with them on my colour. Many other Hispanic-Canadians can tell you that they have had similar experiences. The only way I can get this posted is if I can get some support. I always hear Canadian youth critisizing Americans (whom I find to be very friendly people) and yet they are very ignorant people themselves and are not complete angels either. Please give me your support on adding an article like this into the encyclopedia. If the article does get posted, this will help to raise awareness. Please feel free to give your opinions on the subject, good or bad.

Well THAT BECAUSE PEOPLE IN CANDA HAS BRAINS HISPANIC IS AN STUPID AMERICAN LABEL. NOT USED IN THE REST OF THE WORLD. It has no sense grouped toguether in an ethnicity Native american Mexicans, Dominican blacks and Germans Argentinians.....

On Brazilians being called Hispanic

For all practical purposes, Brazilians living in the U.S. are normally considered Hispanic regardless of their ancestry (which, given the ethnic diversity of the Brazilian population_ see immigration in Brazil _ may actually be African, Portuguese, Italian, German, Jewish, Syrian-Lebanese or Japanese, as well as Spanish properly). The fact that Brazilians speak Portuguese rather than Spanish is also of little relevance as most Anglo-Americans cannot differentiate between the two languages. Spanish and Portuguese are so close anyway that one could even argue that they are two different dialects of the same Ibero-Romance language.

Spanish and POrtuguese are so close??? Just ridiculous!!!

Yes, they are my friend. Fewer languages are so similar. 65.10.182.9 02:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Latino template

Please help with the Latino template. --JuanMuslim ^1m 18:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I edited the part of racial diversity

It was very, A LOT inaccurate. and it was a mix up.

""The presence of these mentioned races and race-mixes are not country-specific, since they can be found in every Latin American country, whether as larger of smaller proportions of their respective populations."""

That is not true, there countries without black population at all (e.g. Bolivia, Argentina), countries without not pure native population (Cuba and Uruguay, while Argentina's natives are around 4% the same that percentage than in the US).

""Even in Spain, the European motherland of Hispanicity, there is a slowly growing population of mestizos and mulattos due to the reversal of the historic Old World-to-New World migration pattern.""

A small amount of central americans emigrating to Spain, doesn't mean that the country is not European, this fact is not threatened with this samll immigration. the central American collectivity in Sapin is not bigger than the Moroccan, or the Eastern European collectivity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.126.218.25 (talk • contribs)

Useage by American official

This is my case in Los Angeles, California. When I was enlisted in U.S. Army in the year 2000, all applicants were announced "If you are a Hispanic or a Latino, cercle White at the ethnicty". I was ??? ......still remember, Jose Jamirez 00:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hispanic, Spain, White People, Race?

Often I have to see how the term Hispanic is used in the US with non-white/non-European connotations or as if Hispanics were just newly arrived aliens in the country. In fact they were there much before and have been there much longer than the rest of Americans.

Then we have the following:

1. Hispanic refers obviousy to a huge group of people from different countries.

2. These peoples are bonded together by their language and culture.

3. These peoples come from countries with very diverse racial make-ups and which derive from the Spanish Empire, which by the way included almost the entire US, which was for centuries part of this Empire under the name of New Spain. Yes, very funny, is it not? Almost the entire US were part of New Spain!.

But the most funny thing is the following:

Hispanics are not considered white as a rule of thumb in the US, as if the US was a country whiter than some Hispanic American Countries like Argentina or Uruguay, which is not.

Then we have the mother country for all Hispanics, Spain.

So, what is up with Spaniards, are they Hispanic or not?. Are they white or not?.

Well, they are Hispanic all right, in the same way that the English are Anglos.

So, we have a group of Hispanics, who are responsible for the name itself (Hispanic comes from Hispania and Hispania is Latin for Spain) who were the colonial power in the US for centuries and who happen to be white/European. White? Well, some people say that Southern Europeans are not that white. Let us see:

In fact, according to new genetic research they happen to be the whitest/most genuine European nation in Europe. See the following:

1

If you are not familiar with genetic anthropology note that R1b is the oldest and most common genetic family in Europe, and where does it show the highest concentration? In Spain.

But if you do not have enough with Haplogroups, and want more genetic loci tested, let us see:

2 3 4

Well, this Oxford article takes into acount 8 genetic loci, quite complete indeed. Spain is refered to as IberiaS.

What is the result? Again, Spain has the highest concentration of Native European genes, called Basque genes in this study and Iberian genes in other studies, followed closely by the Britons, the Portuguese and the North Italians.

Conclusion:

The fathers of all Hispanics happen to be the whitest/most European people in Europe. As a result, there are a lot of Hispanics that are whiter than those who think themselves as the genuine white people/European-Americans in the US. And all this according to serious, rigorous genetic science, not to concepts and ideas that are sometimes close to mental retardation. Veritas et Severitas 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for combating ignorance with scientific evidence. It's interesting, though, that even without rigorous evidence, this should be fairly obvious from reading historical texts or just a little bit of thinking. Deepstratagem 05:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's actually the Basques specifically that have the highest rate of paleolithic European genes; Spain as a whole does not because of the contribution of Arab and Berber genes. But I'm not sure why this is big deal; most Americans do consider Spanish people white. Spaniards share obvious Celtic traits with Britons, the Irish and the French. (I'm entirely Irish and German, and bear an uncanny resemblance to a Spainard friend of mine.) Why are so many people on this talk page using the views of red neck, racist Americans as accurate examples of what Americans at large think? It makes me sure they don't really know Americans very well at all. Spaltavian 05:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"most Americans do consider Spanish people white", yes, but they don't know where to place Hispanic people. Deepstratagem 07:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Spaltavian, you seem to draw your own conclusions without even reading the links. Basques, who are Spanish in their majority, have the highest percentage of Native European genes, over 90%, then come the rest of the Spanish before the other Europeans, with more than 70% (intriguingly the 70% mark is only surpassed in Spain and the British Isles, the percentage being slightly higher in Spain). As to the Berber and Arab genes, serve yourself, I am sure that you can read (they are included under North African and Near Eastern in link 2 for Spaniards (IberiaS)(IberiaP is Portugal) and for other Europeans. I understand that genetics is causing a lot of big surprises). As to Hispanics, they have a lot of Spanish blood. In some cases 100 per cent, in other cases other important percentages, and we the Spanish consider them our blood brothers. Fortunately we use the one-drop-rule just the other way around. One drop of Spanish blood makes you Spanish. We love our kind, even the smallest drop.

Anyway, this is just a careful consideration of the racial nature of Hispanics and their position in race-minded US America, in the light of the ever more important discoveries of 21st century genetic anthropopology and in the framework of the historical context of the US themselves. Veritas et Severitas 18:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

LSLM: It seems to me that you are much more "Race-minded" than any American. Talk about being complexed!! Spaniards may be the "whitest" people in Europe as you say. They also happen to be the blackest!:D Have a look at this! http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/06/origin-of-african-mtdna-in-iberia.html Anyways you should give it a break on bombarding wikipedia with your opinions on the racial purity of spaniards! --217.125.175.70 00:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah,sure, use individual articles to please yourself and ignore the big picture. Sub-Saharan African influence is in Spain and in the rest of Europe, that is not in contradiction with the fact that Spaniards are still the most characteristically European people in Europe as a whole and the Spanish Basques even more. You do not like it? I have said most characteristically European and therefore "whitest" not 100% pure. Just look at this article for Sub-Saharan influence in Europe and continue your Education:http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sub-Saharan_DNA_admixture_in_Europe Genetics is demonstrating many things, not only that Spaniards are the most European but also that all Europeans, including Spaniards, are a hybrid people. You did not know that? Anyway, I understand that for some people, some of them in the US, to find out that genetics is demonstrating that people who carry the family name "Spanish" are more characteristically European than they are, must hurt. And use a user name if you want to be taken more seriously. Veritas et Severitas 17:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems that article you have pointed me to also claims that iberians have the most black admixture in Europe. Also according to this study: 1

(1) North African sequences (haplogroup U6) present an overall frequency of 2.39%, and sub-Saharan sequences reach 3.83%, values that are, in both cases, much higher than those generally observed in Europe; and (2) there is a substantial geographic heterogeneity in the distribution of these lineages (haplogroup L being the most frequent in the south, whereas haplogroup U6 is generally more common in the north). The analysis of the observed diversity within each haplogroup strongly suggests that both were recently introduced (in historical times).

How terrible for you Spanish racists!! But Spanish people are still the whitest of them all right? Not like those swarthy British and Scandinavians!! You only have to look at famous spaniards like Rafael Nadal, Penelope Cruz, Antonio Banderas, Raul Gonzalez. Typical tall, blonde blue-eyed types - with freckles and all!! Give me a break please! --83.36.193.145 18:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Here you got yourself uncovered. White people have to be blond, blue-eyed and with freckles!. You must be suffering a lot with Genetic Antropology, Cavalli Sforza, National Geographic and all those Spanish Racists. HA, HA, HA!. Go to other places with your rigorous and scientific contributions, like Stormfront and the like, looking for this picture here and for that picture there. This is a different place.

Anyway, if you were a bit more intelligent, you would realize that I am just laughing at the term white itself. At how it has been traditionally used, full of racist connotations, and how Genetics is turnig on those people full of wishfull thinking who attributed to the term "white" and "European" the very characteristics that you are mentioning. By the way, using your very puerile concept of "whiteness" tell me, what are these people, white, multi-coloured or just red? Maybe we can come up here with a new race. That would be quite a feat for Wiki!:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-08/15/xinsrc_5a2d383fcf1e11d7b21c0001030784d9_haryr.jpg

http://ginevra.typepad.com/photos/so_this_is_the_new_year/pc300096.jpg

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c317/captain_morgan_m/IMG_5461.jpg

http://www.anglicantas.org.au/glenorchy/images/show1.jpg

And then some "white" people have the guts to call African Americans coloured!

Veritas et Severitas 03:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

New section proposal.

I propose a new section in the article:

Historical presence of Hispanics in the United States of America. Veritas et Severitas 17:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be a lot more important than the "Political trends" U.S. subsection, which basically says nothing of consequence. I think an introductory History of Hispanics (in general) would be important, too. Deepstratagem 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, then we both agree. Maybe you are up to it and want to write that part. Otherwise I can try in the future when I have more time.

In any case, I have already introduced the New Spain link, that could later be elaborated onto Mexico's independence from Spain and how those territories were then Mexican (California, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, etc) until taken away by the US in 1848. How US American immigration overwhelmed those territories while being still Mexican, until making Mexicans aliens in their own land, etc, or how the Cubans have been part of the Florida landscape for centuries, only that they were called Spanish before Cuba's independence from Spain. The base for the Spanish in the Caribbean and therefore for Florida was in Habana. Actually a lot of the people who settled in Spanish Florida much before it became part of the US in 1821 were already born Cubans, etc. Just giving some ideas. Veritas et Severitas 21:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hispanic-American Redirect

I was surprised to see that Hispanic-American redirected here. I support a split on this page from any content regarding Hispanics living in the U.S. to a seperate page titled "Hispanic-American".--Jersey Devil 22:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. You could do it. Veritas et Severitas 13:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Hispanics would be more politically correct, as all other Hispanics in the Americas are also American and proud of it. Deepstratagem 17:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There you nailed it. I also like to stress how US Americans have appropriated the name America, although the Name was applied to the continent much before the US ever existed. It is a characteristic of their culture, they tend to appropriate concepts. The same has happened with the term "white". Do not get me wrong. I am not Anti-American. I think The US is a great country and most ot its people nice, like in most places, but like all countries they also have defects. I am just stressing some that are of relevance here. Veritas et Severitas 19:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Dichotomy white (Anglo)/non-white (Hispanic)' connotations.

More interesting stuff about the term Hispanic. As I have already expressed, the term Hispanic comes from Spain, and is related to Spanish people. In the US the term white has often been used with “anglo” connnotations, that is, coming from England, and then, from the British Isles.

OK, let us see further:

As I have already pointed out, in addition to the many studies that have been previously done pointing in the same direction, like the following one published by Oxford University Press, in which surprising genetic similarities can be seen between Britons and Spaniards (Spain is IberiaS) , in a genetic piece of research that takes inot account up to 8 genetic loci, including mitocondrial, autosomal and Y-Chromosome DNA. See:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

Now we have another Oxford book whose reference has been just published two days ago and is appearing all over the British Isles in different newspapers, in which the origins of most Britons seem to be getting clearer and clearer and astonishingly very different from what it was previously thought.

It is also interesting in relation to the similarities between the Celtic areas of Britain and England.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1621766.ece

I canot open the entire article from here, but it continues like this:

A team from Oxford University has discovered that the Celts, Britain's indigenous people, are descended from a tribe of Iberian fishermen who crossed the Bay of Biscay 6,000 years ago. DNA analysis reveals they have an almost identical genetic "fingerprint" to the inhabitants of coastal regions of Spain, whose own ancestors migrated north between 4,000 and 5,000BC.

The discovery, by Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, will herald a change in scientific understanding of Britishness.

People of Celtic ancestry were thought to have descended from tribes of central Europe. Professor Sykes, who is soon to publish the first DNA map of the British Isles, said: "About 6,000 years ago Iberians developed ocean-going boats that enabled them to push up the Channel. Before they arrived, there were some human inhabitants of Britain but only a few thousand in number. These people were later subsumed into a larger Celtic tribe... The majority of people in the British Isles are actually descended from the Spanish."

Professor Sykes spent five years taking DNA samples from 10,000 volunteers in Britain and Ireland, in an effort to produce a map of our genetic roots.

Research on their "Y" chromosome, which subjects inherit from their fathers, revealed that all but a tiny percentage of the volunteers were originally descended from one of six clans who arrived in the UK in several waves of immigration prior to the Norman conquest.

The most common genetic fingerprint belongs to the Celtic clan, which Professor Sykes has called "Oisin". After that, the next most widespread originally belonged to tribes of Danish and Norse Vikings. Small numbers of today's Britons are also descended from north African, Middle Eastern and Roman clans.

These DNA "fingerprints" have enabled Professor Sykes to create the first genetic maps of the British Isles, which are analysed in Blood of the Isles, a book published this week. The maps show that Celts are most dominant in areas of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. But, contrary to popular myth, the Celtic clan is also strongly represented elsewhere in the British Isles. "Although Celtic countries have previously thought of themselves as being genetically different from the English, this is emphatically not the case," Professor Sykes said.

You can also see these other newspapers:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1393742006

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=406108&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

In short, it seems that Spaniards had acquired a taste for boat bulding and ocean going much before they arrived in America.

It also seems that the term Hispanic, with the sense of relating to Spain or the Spanish, is in fact much broader than it was previously thought, and it actually should include the English and other Britons. Life is full of surprises, is it not? Veritas et Severitas 14:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Verita et Severitas, as interesting as the genetic data is that you provided this discussion with, the assumption that ancient Britons (which were Celtic tribes) are possibly descended from ancient Iberians (which were also Celtic tribes) does not make those ancient Britons "Hispanic". The usage of "Hispanic" on those ancient Britons would be an anachronism, and much more so if it were employed for the Britons of today (which now derive from Celts, Anglos, Saxons, and Jutes, among other smaller contributions).

In fact, the ancient Iberians (as stated, Celtic tribes) would themselves not have been "Hispanic" yet, since the political entity of Hispania and all the anthropological factors (culture, language, ethnicity, etc...) responsabile for its evolution (the evolution of the modern Spanish people and their descendants, who are together termed Hispanics), did not come into existance until after the Roman conquest of the Iberian Peninsula and the impact of Jews, Muslims, and Gypsies, etc. Al-Andalus 04:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that they are Hispanic, that is just kind of a joke. I just introduce a fundamental finding in population genetics that is rocking and is going to rock a lot of pre-conceived ideas in the Anglo-Saxon world. These findings can be found now in two recently published books. Blood of the Isles, by Dr. Brian Sykes, that is going to be for sale in the US under a different name from the next 12 of December, and Origins of Britons, by Dr. Oppenheimer. In fact these findings have been going on now for several years, but now leading population geneticists are beginning to publish material for the general public in which this issue is being treated with a lot of clarity. It is certainly a revolution that will affect a lot of fields and views on the origins of the so-called Anglo-Saxon and Celtic peoples. The basic ideas in this case are the following.

1. Britons are mainly of Spanish or Iberian origins, however you want to call it. 2. They are not mainly of Anglo-Saxon origins. They are of Anglo Saxon culture, which is different. 3. There is an obvious genetic relationship between Spaniards and Britons. That is the scientific base for this theory. Population geneticists are not testing people from 6000 years ago, as it is obvious. They are testing 21st century Spaniards and Britons. They have been doing it for a few years now, and they always come out with the continuous and surprising results mentioned. 4. Spaniards are also Hispanic. 5. Lots of Hispanics are indeed either of full or partial Spanish ancestry. 6. The American descendants of these populations, who often refer to themselves as Anglo-Saxon, share the same genetic markers with a lot of Hispanics. 7. All of this is extremely interesting in a section about Hispanics that speaks of race and should be known by both Hispanics and Anglo-Saxons. 8. I would not be surprised that some Racists would do everything in their power to try and hide this information, which is too bad for them, because this news is too big to be hidden. Veritas et Severitas 01:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case you will be hard pressed to find any two European populations which are more dissimilar physically than Spaniards and Britons. Why is this? Is it the weather, or the food maybe? xD --161.73.31.51 20:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on that. For me Spaniards look much closer to Italians and Greeks. In fact many Spaniards believe that their ancestors, apart from the Iberians, are mainly the Romans. But leading geneticists are stating all these facts and they say it is biological science. So, there it is for you to read it yourselves. Maybe they are sending people to jail using DNA to solve cases and they are wrong! Veritas et Severitas 22:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am English and like most English I neither have blonde hair nor do I have blue eyes, so I don't really understand some persons above statement way up there about white=blonde hair blue eyes, sounds like something Adolf Hitler would say really. Anglo-Saxons largely don’t have blonde hair, but we do largely have blue eyes (even if I don’t :p)

The Americans often use the term Anglo-Saxon to refer to any white person which is total miss-use of the term as it only applies to the English, not to those of Irish, welsh, Scottish, or any other European ancestry.

As for the ancient Britons having a Spanish connection that isn’t that hard to believe, just look at Catharine zeta Jones, black hair, brown eyes, and there are other examples too, Imogen Thomas winner of miss Wales back in 2003 I think … don’t quote me though.

First segment

The first segment has some unaccurate information, also words like Unfortunately, as we all in Wikipedia feel its unfortunate.

Much of the article will be reverted. If any of the content which will be reverted is to be reinserted, put them in the appropriate sections in the main body, with appropriate sources. Also, as the anonnymous user has mention, words like "Unfortunately", or any of the other such unencyclopaedic phrasing that is currently littering the article must be avoided. All they do is reinforce that the content is an opinion of an author. We can cite opinions of accredited people if it is relevant to the article, but we cannot cite our own views. Al-Andalus 03:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Americans are Idiots

yeah, so from now a person from Jamaica will be an anglosaxon, just like a chinese from Singapour. It never stops to amaze me his stupidity

BTW, a Black from Guinea Ecuatorial is a hispanic? and what about a moor born in Ceuta? is it? and a blonde argentinian?

Several problems with this article...

This article (and the one on "Latino" states that Spaniards from Spain consider themselves Hispanics and Latinos, yet almost all the Spaniards I have met stress their European heritage and tend to distance themselves from Latin American culture and identities. Call it some sort of snobbery or even racism, but many do and as such this article is inaccurate in this respect.

The graph in this article is wrong- being from Florida, I can tell you higlighting the entire state green as being >40 Hispanic is not correct. Miami-Dade, Broward, Osceola and some rural counties such as Hardee are 40% or more but that's it. Certainly not the panhandle of Florida.

Are the following people "Hispanic" ? (1) A Basque immigrant who speaks no Spanish (2) A Catalan whose language is closer than French than Castillian (3) A Galician whose language is closer to Portuguese (4) An Argentinian who is of 100% non-Spanish descent(German or Italian). Jcam 21:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

1, 2 and 3 - technically speaking (geographically) yes, though they may trivialize the concept because Hispanicity is usually associated with descendants of Spaniards. 4 - For the latter reason yes, if this person is influenced by Spanish culture and considers himself/herself Hispanic. However, this is clearly a gray area, and is paramount to Mexican Americans considering themselves Mexican, where Mexican nationals generally do not consider Mexican Americans and Chicanos Mexican and distance themselves. Deepstratagem 04:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

About some comments about Spaniards and Hispanics. Spaniards are Hispanic, if Hispanic means of Spanish culture, language and descend. If Hispanic is short for Hispanic American, then they would not be. I think that that is easy to understand. As to Spaniards feeling closer to Europeans than to Hispanics, that is not a big problem, because Spaniards are both, European and Hispanic themselves, in the same way as the French are both, French and European. Anyhow, although I do not like expressing personal opinions, I am a Spaniard myself, and I can assure most people here that most Spaniards would identify much more easily with any Hispanic community than with any non-Hispanic community, for obvious reasons of language and culture. But of course they are from Spain. If someone told a Cuban that he is from Chile, he would simply clarify that he is not from Chile, and would certainly show surprise at such a weird statement.

In short, Spaniards are Hispanic and are proud of it and most of them think of their Hispanic American brothers with affection (there are always some stupid racist people everywhere). Then they are not of European heritage. A person from the Americas or from anywhere in the world can be of European heritage. Spaniards are Europeans themselves and it seems that they are among the oldest ones in the old continent: it appears that most of them have been there for about 40.000 years and their ancestors happen to be the ancestors of most Western Europeans who migrated north from Iberia in different waves during different time-frames.

The 12 of october Spaniards celebrate the day of Hispanicity, and it is the biggest celebration in Spain. Before it was called the day of the Race, as it is still called in some Hispanic American countries. Personally I like to call it the day of the race, because it has nothing to do with narrow and stupid racial concepts. It encompasses all the peoples of Spanish language and culture, regardless of their actual racial make-ups and origins and Hispanics maybe a minory it the US, but they belong to one of the largest communities in the world, probably the third largest after the Chinese and Indian ones, and certainly the largest in the American continent. Veritas et Severitas 17:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This article indicates that Amerindians are not hispanic. There are alot of Amerindian Mexicans in the U.S. who self identify as Amerindian and are yet labled hispanic in the United States. Is this labelization incorrect?69.112.103.196 06:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hispanics can be of Amerindian, African, European and Asian origins and any admixture thereof. Of course, people have the right to self-identify however they want. 72.153.214.250 00:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way some some Argintines are of spanish decent, mostly mixed with Ameridians and other ethnic groups. Unknown User 19:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a topic that i personaliy think that should be mentioned in this artical

Attempts to unify Hispanic Americans under a single one mushy ball of Wonder Bread dough have often created tensions among the varied Hispanic American subgroups. For Cuban Americans, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans to have little in common is not uncommon. Some Hispanic Americans find it easier to ally with other minorities rather than with members of other Hispanic groups.

Cuban Americans have often allied themselves politically with Jewish Americans. Puerto Ricans have built similar alliances with African Americans.[1]

Even apparent similarities sometimes mask profound differences. Although most Hispanics speak Spanish, each subgroup adapts the pronunciation and slang of its homeland to its unique circumstances in the United States. Likewise, while most Hispanic Americans are members of the Roman Catholic Church, they have inherited different religious traditions from their homelands. In the Spanish-speaking nations of the Caribbean, Catholic religious practices reflect strong African influences as a result of the slave trade that took place in the region. In Central and South America, the most significant influences on the Catholic Church are the religious traditions of pre-Colombian civilizations of Native Americans (see Pre-Columbian Religions).[2] Unknown User 19:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

History section about the presence of Hispanics in America

Here you have an interesting article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/opinion/09horwitz.html?ex=1310097600&en=713eb1dd87fa4796&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I have nothing else to add. Just that a section should be added on the historic presence of Hispanics in the US. Hispanics are not aliens in the US. That is what a lot of people and their institutions have been trying to sell, but fewer and fewer people are buying it.

I will start this section soon myself, but I welcome help and contributions.

Veritas et Severitas 01:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well here is my proposal for this new section:

Most Americans associate the early Spanish in this hemisphere with Cortés in Mexico and Pizarro in Peru. But Spaniards pioneered the present-day United States, too. The first confirmed landing in the continental US was by a Spaniard, Juan Ponce de León, who landed in 1513 at a lush shore he christened La Florida. Within three decades of Ponce de León's landing, the Spanish became the first Europeans to reach the Appalachians, the Mississippi, the Grand Canyon and the Great Plains. Spanish ships sailed along the East Coast, penetrating to present-day Bangor, Me., and up the Pacific Coast as far as Oregon. From 1528 to 1536, four castaways from a Spanish expedition, including a "black" Moor, journeyed all the way from Florida to the Gulf of California — 267 years before Lewis and Clark embarked on their much more renowned and far less arduous trek. In 1540, Francisco Vázquez de Coronado led 2,000 Spaniards and Mexican Indians across today's Arizona-Mexico border and traveled as far as central Kansas, close to the exact geographic center of what is now the continental United States. In all, Spaniards probed half of today's lower 48 states before the first English tried to colonize, at Roanoke Island, N.C. The Spanish didn't just explore, they settled, creating the first permanent European settlement in the continental United States at St. Augustine, Fla., in 1565. Santa Fe, N.M., also predates Plymouth: later came Spanish settlements in San Antonio, Tucson, San Diego and San Francisco. The Spanish even established a Jesuit mission in Virginia's Chesapeake Bay 37 years before the founding of Jamestown in 1607. Two iconic American stories have Spanish antecedents, too. Almost 80 years before John Smith's alleged rescue by Pocahontas, a man by the name of Juan Ortiz told of his remarkably similar rescue from execution by an Indian girl. Spaniards also held a thanksgiving, 56 years before the Pilgrims, when they feasted near St. Augustine with Florida Indians, probably on stewed pork and garbanzo beans. As late as 1783, at the end of the Revolutionary War, Spain held claim to roughly half of today's continental United States (in 1775, Spanish ships even reached Alaska). From 1819 to 1848, the United States and its army increased the nation's area by roughly a third at Spanish and Mexican expense, including three of today's four most populous states: California, Texas and Florida. Hispanics became the first American citizens in the newly acquired Southwest territory and remained a majority in several states until the 20th century. This national amnesia about the historic presence of Hispanics in the US is not new. Until well into the 20th century this fact was barely mentioned in history books. Now, more and more often, if Americans hit the books, they'd find what Al Gore would call an inconvenient truth. The early history of what is now the United States was Spanish, not English, and the denial of this heritage is rooted in age-old stereotypes that still entangle today's immigration debate.

As said I welcome contributions to improve it.

Veritas et Severitas 22:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Uruguayans and Argentinians aren't considered Hispanic (most of them)

It seems to be a misconception about what Hispanic means nowadays. Technically every person that's Spanish descendant is Hispanic, but de facto, it's not. I'm Uruguayan and I'm 1/2 Italian, 1/4 Spanish and 1/4 Jewish. All the times that I've been in America I was never considered Hispanic, when they write in the passport the racial profile I've always been regarded of as White. Every single one of my friends that were in America the same, no Hispanic in the racial profile. The same happens too with my Argentinian friends and relatives. So, it makes me wonder, what's that the look at when they say "you're hispanic?". Notice that I'm blonde, I have blue eyes and I look WASPy, so does everyone in my family, maybe that's why.

Hispanics are a ethnicity, not a race. they are bonded toguether mainly by language, and also ancestry, but they many be of very diverse ancestries. That is already in the article. 72.144.50.7 00:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In the race category, you would be White, which is correct, but in the ethnicity category you would be Hispanic. For example, I'm of Spanish and Portuguese descent, (jewish - jewish is not a race by the way) but I was raised speaking spanish as my main language, my family being from El Salvador. In our US resident documents and on the census my race is White, my ethnicity is Hispanic. --Daniel Romero Cruz 18:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Uruguayans and Argentinians are as Hispanic as anyone from El Salvaror, the Dominican Republic, or Spain.

I was born in the United States, my parents were born in Puerto Rico Of Spanish and French Descent, I have Jewish and German family members. On all official Paperwork, including birth certificates they are white, as I am in all my official paperwork. However we are also Hispanic.68.245.121.10 16:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK so, it's well-known by most of the Latin Americans that Argentnians and Uruguayans are mostly White and of Italian heritage. If Hispanic means that you're of Spanish origins, then the term doesn't apply for those Argentinians and Uruguayans (and every other Latin American for that matter) that aren't of Spanish origins, right?

In the first place the majority of Argentinians and Uruguayans are of Spanish and Italian descend, not of Italian descend and those countries were explored and colonized by the Spanish and were part of the Spanish crown until the 19th century and they all speak Spanish and Spanish is their official language. In the second place Hispanics can be of very diverse descend. Hispanic is applied to them because they are mainly of Spanish language and culture, as diverse as they may be. Veritas et Severitas 16:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Why Hispanics are the only 'group' not classified by race?

Most Mexicans and South Americans which are classified as(Hispanics, Latinos) are racially Native Americans (Amerindians). The Media and others would like them to believe that they are the foreigners, and treat them as aliens in the land (The American Continent)that was taken from them. They are portrayed as the aliens and newcomers as if they were just arriving. Click especially on the 3rd picture video link "Old Way and New". [[3]] 69.112.103.196

Because Hispanics are not a race, they are a group of people which are bound together by a common hispanic (as in Spanish) cultural (and, to a large degree, ethnic) heritage. Most Mexicans have partial Amerindian ancestry (although 10 million of them have none at all) and they constitute the majority of Hispanic immigrants in the US. That is why many Americans make the mistake of viewing Hispanics in racial terms. But then again, race seems to be a very important issue in Anglo Saxon societies.--Burgas00 15:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I'm sorry, this might be a little off topic but it's not only the Anglo Saxon societies that make a big deal out of race. I don't know where you're from but, let me tell you something and trust me, where I come from race means a lot (I'm Uruguayan). People pay a lot of attention to the race, and discrimination is very common, a good example, I don't know a single person here (and any Argentinian too, for that matter) that hasn't ever called "negro" (i.e. nigger for the ones that don't speak Spanish) a homeless, even if they're White (not quite likely as the minorities are proven to be paid 20% less in the jobs than Whites and that over 90% of the minorities are below the line of poverty). I guess it means a lot everywhere that there's an overwhelming majority, we the Whites are 88% here, and everywhere in Europe (renowned for the racism against Arabs and north Africans) Whites are majority. It's just a guess but I'm pretty sure that in Africa the White minorities are discriminated against as well.

But then again, race seems to be a very important issue in Anglo Saxon societies.--Burgas00 15:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Such a broad statement like that is tinged with racism, its unfair to single out Anglo-Saxon societies its not like French, or Spanish as examples, don’t have their own race relations problem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4405620.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/4018421.stm

Just as a side note, negro isn't necessarily demeaning when used in Spanish; it's not quite as close to nigger as it is to just black. In fact the diminutive suffix, -ito, as in negrito implies a feeling of endearment for the subject. Additionally, in Brazil, the white<->black continuum isn't a descriptor of race, but rather, of social status. Race is often associated with social status, but is not necessarily the case.

In response to the original question, it would be good to point out that Asian isn't really a good descriptor of race either, for there are Malay, Hokkien, Tai, Philippino people who differ dramatically in genotype, phenotype, culture and language. Asian is better employed as a geographical marker. It seems that our constructions of race are deeply flawed. For example, a Fillipino can easily be Asian and Hispanic without reducing the importance of each heritage. So to answer your question, Hispanics are not the only group that is not classified strictly as a race, and, ideally, none should be because these labels are not discerning enough nor are they exclusive of other relevant non-racial factors. Deepstratagem 06:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think there is a reason. This is not about Anglo-Saxons being more or less racist. Unfortunately racism occurs in many societies, but there is a concept called degree. Racism does not occur with the same degree in all societies. In the US it has played a more important role than in most other societies. But going back to the main question, racial classification, which is considered in itself offensive by many people in many countries, still is an important part of US society. Why? I think that racial classification has always played a major role in creating social and psycological barriers. In fact it originated to keep people apart and continue to help maintain people apart. As I have said, it is embarrassing that some countries continue to use them. In the US it is deeply embedded in the psyche of the population, and is officially embraced. That is a good example that race matters more in the US than in most other places in the world, and this does not mean that it does not matter in other places of the world. Veritas et Severitas 16:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hispanic flag??

Really? This OBSCURE image is now primary in all wikis involving Hispanics? That's ridiculous and should be removed immediately. And, at the very least, where's the reference for: "all the states of Latin America during La Conferencia Panamericana." --Mcmachete 03:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added a citation substanting the description and orign of the flag. While I agree that the image maybe a bit obscure, what subsitite image would you suggest to use? What general image would you select that would be acceptable to all Hispanics? This image at least has the virtue of being neutral. --2much 06:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the flag is that it is being used to promote the Hispanics and Latinos in the United States "side-bar". It's as if this flag represented U.S. Hispanics and Latinos, which is NOT the case; there is no consensus for that. Additionally, La Raza takes on different meanings in Latin American countries and in the United States. In the United States La Raza is used as a term of racial pride, and an alignment with politics of race, which has nothing to do with the identity of all Latinos or all Hispanics. In Latin American countries it is used as a symbol of shared culture or ethnicity. Last but not least, I've never seen it flown in Mexico, so I'm confused about it's relevance or legitimacy in this article other than as a trivial historical factoid. Deepstratagem 06:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Who I Am

i'm wondering, if i have mostly Amerindian (Native American) ancestry and i have Irish ancestry, can i adopt a new Hispanic identity ? what exactly do i have to do in order to be Hispano,Latino,Chicano,latin, or whatever? do i have to look a certain way in order for my latin-american friends and others to respect and know me as Latino? What can I do???? can anyone help me?

It doesn't matter what you look like. You could learn Spanish, and you could travel to a Latin American country and adopt the culture to the point of understanding. Additionally, you don't have to lose your identity to do this; just be able to relate to the people you want to get close to. You wouldn't have to be fluent in Spanish or Tagalog; but the framework of a particular language (and of course experience) appears to influence how you might see the world, and would help develop common ground and relate.

Muchas Gracias,amigo.Now I know what to do.

Extracted out-of-scope text

I extracted the following text from the article and placed it here. This should be listed in some other article like new spain but not here. Is this article meant to list all achivements made by spanish conquistadors, explorers, and settlers? I think not...

The Hispanic presence in the United States is the second longest, after the Native American. Most Americans associate the early Spanish in this hemisphere with Hernán Cortés in Mexico and Francisco Pizarro in Peru,‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} but Spaniards pioneered the present-day United States, too.

The first confirmed landing in the continental US was by a Spaniard, Juan Ponce de León, who landed in 1513 at a lush shore he christened La Florida. Within three decades of Ponce de León's landing, the Spanish became the first Europeans to reach the Appalachian Mountains, the Mississippi River, the Grand Canyon and the Great Plains. Spanish ships sailed along the East Coast, penetrating to present-day Bangor, Maine, and up the Pacific Coast as far as Oregon.

From 1528 to 1536, four castaways from a Spanish expedition, including a "black" Moor, journeyed all the way from Florida to the Gulf of California, 267 years before Lewis and Clark embarked on their much more renowned and far less arduous trek.

In 1540 De Soto undertook an extensive exploration of the present US and in the same year, Francisco Vázquez de Coronado led 2,000 Spaniards and Mexican Indians across today's Arizona-Mexico border and traveled as far as central Kansas, close to the exact geographic center of what is now the continental United States. Other Spanish explorers of the US make up a long list that includes among others, Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón, Pánfilo de Narváez, Sebastián Vizcaíno, Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, Gaspar de Portolà, Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, Tristán de Luna y Arellano and Juan de Oñate. In all, Spaniards probed half of today's lower 48 states before the first English tried to colonize, at Roanoke Island.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}

The Spanish didn't just explore, they settled, creating the first permanent European settlement in the continental United States at St. Augustine, Florida, in 1565. Santa Fe, New Mexico also predates Jamestown, Virginia and Plymouth Colony (of Mayflower and Pilgrims fame). Later came Spanish settlements in San Antonio, Tucson, San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco, to name just a few. The Spanish even established a Jesuit mission in Virginia's Chesapeake Bay 37 years before the founding of Jamestown in 1607.

Two iconic American stories have Spanish antecedents, too. Almost 80 years before John Smith's alleged rescue by Pocahontas, a man by the name of Juan Ortiz told of his remarkably similar rescue from execution by an Indian girl. Spaniards also held a thanksgiving, 56 years before the Pilgrims, when they feasted near St. Augustine with Florida Indians, probably on stewed pork and garbanzo beans. As late as 1783, at the end of the American Revolutionary War, Spain held claim to roughly half of today's continental United States (in 1775, Spanish ships even reached Alaska). From 1819 to 1848, the United States and its army increased the nation's area by roughly a third at Spanish and Mexican expense, including three of today's four most populous states: California, Texas and Florida.

danedouard00 03:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is somewhat out of scope, but absolutely relevant. It should be transformed into a small section that links to History of Hispanic people in the United States or ...the Americas. Otherwise it renders the article out of balance, as it is a common assumption that Hispanics are new to the U.S. when in reality the descendants of Spaniards (Hispanic people) have been around longer than any other European descendants. Deepstratagem 06:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Stratagem. If it is considered too long, it can be arranged like you say, but it is fundamental. Some people try to separate Hispanic history from Spanish history in America, but they are one and the same thing. Obviously history is long and continuous along new paths, but one constant in US history has been not only to underplay, but often even hide Spanish-Hispanic history in the US. We cannot separate them. The fact that an important proportion of Hispanics have been in the US for hundreds of years and that were actually a majority in important areas of the US until the 20th century cannot be denied and hidden and its causes need to be analysed. The attempts at trying to present Hispanics as aliens in a land in which many of them have lived much longer than Anglos is one of the most hideous ideological manoeuvers in US history. Veritas et Severitas 16:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

i think it's a good idea to put it in History of Hispanic people in the United States. go for it.danedouard00 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I will be expanding the article History of Hispanic people in the United States. I will deal mainly with the Spanish and Mexican period, other people may be interested in contributing and expanding it until the present time. Veritas et Severitas 15:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating

This observation might be totally irrelevant to the process of editing this article, but as a Colombian now living in Europe I regard the material contained in this talk page a small gold-mine of anthropological material. I can recognize so many familiar attitudes in these editorial comments! Gatodeunkilo 23:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Filipino Mestizos

Filipino Mestizos refer to generally those of mixed Spanish and Filipino descent. Wouldn't these people be considered Hispanic too? --203.15.122.35 03:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are hispanic also Noviscum 15:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is up to each individual to decide, but I think that they can be considered Hispanic as well. 72.144.247.71 18:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, it makes no sense to me. I don't see why a White American of Spanish or Mexican descent would have to label themselves as that particular Ethnic group, when peoples of Irish and German descent don't have to 209.133.132.70 00:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC

You are right. But it is the American racialist or just plain racist approach to people, which is an embarrassment for the rest of the world. I see nothing wrong in identifying with Hispanic, whatever one's "race" actually is. It is a cultural concept. What is funny is to see how those same Americans do not call African Americans, Asian Americans, etc, Anglos, even if following the same principles applied to Hispanics they should be called Anglos. You must take into account that American society is a profoundly racist society. Just a few decades ago some minorities were segregated and even today, when senator Obama (see: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Obama), who runs for president and who obviously stands no chance in racist America, is referred to just as African American, when her mother was a white American. In fact he is even an Anglo, if the Hispanic rationale is applied. But t seems that the moment her mother married a "black" man she and her ancestors died. It is as if Obamas's white ancestry does not exist, in the mind of the extremely simple and profoundly racist American spirit. Veritas et Severitas 17:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir or madame I happened to be an American of mixed European and Indian blood, and I am not a racist

-- And what are you considered? White, Indian or Anglo? What about Senator Obama. Is he considered Anglo? As much black as white?, or just black by his compatriots? Veritas et Severitas 20:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am usually considered Indian and Anglo, I am of Spanish descent, though I rarely ever mention it, it is actually in a very small amount. I honestly believe everyone on this earth has at least some racial mixture. this is another thing, I may be of a very small amount of spanish descent, but I still not I am only two races, not three(for the last time Hispanic never is, never was, and never will be a race, by the way I consider myself an Anglo, and all of my friends whom may also be of Hispanic descent, I consider Anglo as well. Just because thier ancestors spoke Spanish, doesn't mean they do. I would consider myself to be Swedish, or Spanish, or Creek just because that's what my ancestors were. I am American, and just American, and I happen to be of a mixed racial background.

Well, you are a person who knows what he/she is speaking about. I do not know if we could say the same of most people in your country. Veritas et Severitas 00:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you see, this is what I aim to change. I really think it is important for people to be educated on what is a race, and what is now. My ultimate goal is to get rid of the term Hispanic, as being used to define Americans of some sort of Spanish speaking backgroud.

Hispanic American section

That section is too LARGE to be a section. I'm mving it to its own article.--23prootie 01:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As a Portuguese I am offended...

As americans we are stupid, and our stupid interpretations and giving new meanings to words, especially terms that are not derived and have nothing to do with anglo-america and are not part of anglo heritage, is something we have no right to do.

I even stopped correcting the "lusitanic" article (thats a stupid made up word) because it's a losing battle arguing with these intellectual idiots.

These articles must be written by the morons who write the oxford english dictionary.

There is no such real thing as "hispanic". It's a stupid made up "gringo" term and even I am more hispanic in the tip of my pinky than a german descended puerto rican whose ancestors got off a plane 50 years ago and I am just as hispanic as a spaniard. I am also american, but that doesn't make me an anglo. Why should I care how americans have come to define these terms? It holds no water, carries no weight with me because it comes from arrogance and ignorance.

If you tell a portuguese that a brazilian is "lusitanic" they will laugh in your face if not want to smack it. Not all brazilians are, only those with portuguese ancestry at best. Lusophone yes, not lusitano. Castilian speaking north and south americans, "castilophone" yes, not "hispanic".

It's offensive that matters pertaining to my heritage are prostituted and twisted by the stupid masses. Like calling the Iberian Peninsula, Spain. The Anglo world does that a lot. What if I were to call the UK, Ireland? Have the name "Ireland", "Wales" or "Scotland" in nice big letters across a map of the UK? Wouldn't that be nice. Even Hispania is not the same as Spain.

What gets me the most is not that people don't know. What's to be expected when this crap has been pushed and taught as truth for so long? I'm not going to argue with some Chinese about chinese things I don't know about or how they perceive themselves. What gets me is that people who don't know act like they do and treat people who know better as if they are the ones who are stupid.

I hope people that come to wikipedia have the sense to take everything they read with some reservation.

These articles are riddled with so much bulls__t it makes me want to puke over the dumbasses that write them.

Lusitano Transmontano 04:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Hi there! Mr. Lusitano!, It's alright... your intitled to your opinion. That's fair enough.. You Just need to Relax and Take It Easy .. You sound like your so upset. There is no need to... Besides facts are there to support the statements...Thanks! #) --Cajamarca express 12:15 pm 16 February, 2007

Reply: Mr. Lusitano or what ever he's name is, sounds like his having a menopausal and a heart attack...hehehehe.. Just Relax.. Ese! :) -- Ramírez 07:55 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Easy does it big guy, and lay off the Ricans, or I may have to deny green cards to your family members trying to come to this good ol' country...

Western Sahara are 'not' Hispanics nor a Spanish Speaking Nation

There is a problem with the Hispanophone World Map!. The problem is that the Western Sahara region is shaded green. The green shade needs to be erazed because the majority of the people in Western Sahara are 'not' Hispanic nor a Spanish speaking population. The majority of it's people 'do not' speak Spanish and are 'not' hispanic in terms of ancestry and culture. The majority of it's people are of Arabic and African descent. The majority of it's population speaks Arabic and it also remains the dominant and sole language of the country. The map needs to be change because it is giving out a mis-leading information. thanks! --Cajamarca express 2:27 February 27 2007 (UTC)

That territory was part of Spain or the Spanish Empire, as you wish, until as recently as 1975. A lot of people in that area also speak Spanish and have close links to Spain. Still I agree that it could be colored a lighter shade, because the official language is Arabic. 70.156.157.40 16:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Your wrong, sorry but the current census does 'not mentions' the people of Western Sahara as being hispanics nor a Spanish speaking nation. Only a tiny minority speaks Spanish in that region and that 'does not constitute' the majority of the population. Who speaks Spanish in that region as a majority? do you have facts to back up your statement? So what if they were part of the Spanish Empire, that does not give them the previledge of being hispanics. The Philippines, Guam and the Mariana islands were part of the Spanish Empire to, for over 4 centuries, still, they are not shaded in the map as being hispanics. That is because the majority of the population are not of Spanish ancestry. Only 3.6% of the Population of the Philippines would qualify as Hispanics by ancestry. Let me tell you this, the culture of the Philippines is considerably more hispanic or possesed hispanic elements, than the culture of Western Sahara. I have a question for you? "What is so hispanic about Western Sahara, when in fact the majority of the people are of Arabic descents and the majority of the population practised Arabic culture". -- Cajamarca express 11:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What census? The US? Who cares? The US census is just a reflection of US ignorance, nothing else. Hispanic is a very broad term and it is not restricted to America. W. Sahara has definitely a long and recent relationship with Spain. They are mainly Arab in culture, but the culture of Hispanic America is also very diverse. They are not "so" Hispanic as Hispanic Americans, of course, but still they have a relationship with Spain, which is by the way a very recent one. I also consider Philipinos to fall under the Hispanic umbrella, although most of them have lost the Spanish language. We are not speaking here only about what US citizens think a Hispanic is, the US does not dictate anything. As to the language, here you have one if you know Spanish:

http://www.aprendemas.com/Noticias/html/N1960_F17012007.HTML

As you can see about 150.000-200.000 people speak the language. If you take into account that the population of this area is only about 340.000, half or more than half of the population speak the language. See: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Western_Sahara. Veritas. 70.156.157.40 00:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[

Questions

Alright, I have a question to everyone. I'm sure everyone here is quite aware that the term Hispanic pertains to the Iberian Peninsula(for give me if my spelling is questionable, so why does Merriam Webster's Standard American English dictionary say that the word Hispanic comes from the word "Hispania" but is A Latin American? Have Americans become so arrogant that they've completely changed the definition of a word? Just because that is who it is used most to commonly refer too, does not make that the definition, I personally think that it does not need to be used as a legal term. Speaking of wrongly using the term, does anyone recall the mother and father that sold their child? Well, I was watching MSNBC and not only did they put the child that was born to Brazalian parents as Hispanic, they also put Hispanic as a race as well. And here's another one, when a thirteen year old boy was kidnapped, CNN said that they were "90 percent sure that he was Caucasian, but may have been Hispanic". And there lies the problem, given that he was in Florida(and yes I know this is a stereotype) wouldn't it be most likely he was Cuban? And if that's so, aren't most Cubans that arent's Black or Mulatto, Caucasian? I mean honestly, why do they not educate people about these types of things?

Well, that is a very complicated problem. Americans are too ignorant to be fixed. 70.156.157.40 16:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Racial/genetic update

I have made this racial/genetic update, from this 2007 article (page 5):

http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/journal/preprints/AJHG44466.preprint.pdf

In fact, in accordance with other genetic studies, a recent genetic piece of research from 2007 claims: "The Spanish and Basque groups are the furthest away from other continental groups, which is consistent with the suggestions that the Iberian peninsula holds the most ancient European genetic ancestry" [4].

It is most relevant, especially since we all know that "Anglos", influenced by Nordicist theories, have always thought of themselves to be more European in terms of ancestry than the Spanish. Population genetics is really making incredible discoveries. Veritas et Severitas 18:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Veritas, I appreciate your sources are very interesting and useful for the "Spanish people" article, but this is not the right place for it. I understand that you, who I assume live in the US, have personal issues probably as a result of dealing with some extremely ignorant Americans, but the general misconception regarding hispanic ethnicity in the US (i.e. that Hispanics are a race) does not include European Spaniards. There is no need to defend the "whiteness" or "Europeaness" of Spaniards on this article. You should not be engaging with marginal neo-nazi groups nor listening to their arguments, much less attempting to counter them on wikipedia articles which are not directly related to this issue which interests you. Surely you know the expression "Excusatio non petita...":-) --Burgas00 23:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Spaniards are as Hispanic as any other and that is well covered in the article. Read well. In any case, stop deleting verifiable information because of your personal and subjective points of view, please. Veritas et Severitas 00:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But you must agree that Spaniards are not considered Hispanics in the US (by the average American). The misconception on hispanics is that it is a race, thus excluding Spaniards who are largely white. The correct meaning is that Hispanics are an ethnicity not a race, which evidently includes Spaniards. The section is trying to explain this, that hispanics are an ethnicity not a race. Then going on to argue the supposed racial purity of Spaniards is counterproductive and frankly also a little bit silly. We do not want this article to become another forum of debate on how much african ancestry Spaniards have because it is in no way relevant to the article, especially since Hispanic ethnicity is blind to race.--Burgas00 01:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic ethnicity? Come on, it's just a cultural group!! When we are talking about the Francophone, we don't say that a guy from Haiti has the same ethnicity as a guy living in France! They are of a different race, and also of a different ethnicity. They just share a common link through the history of their countries, and their mother tongue. So not only the belief of a "hispanic race" must be excluded form this article, but also the belief of a "hispanic ethnicity". Both are wrong, Burgas. Hispanic is only meant in a cultural sense.

By the way, as the Spaniards are now well represented in this article through the section I made ("The Hispanics from Hispania"), I think it's good to add this information that talks about the genetic origins of the Spaniards, since they are Hispanics, and this article must include information from all the Hispanics. And the article must ignore the way the US government see the Spaniards (only talk about it in its section), I mean, these issues about the genetic origins must be put here because they show the ancestral background of the Spaniards, who are a part of the Hispanics, regardless what people think about them in the US. And anyway, this information will help to will help to demystify these topics, because don't forget that, indeed, the Spaniards are confused with the south americans, not only in the US, but also in other parts of the western world. Just go some day to Barcelona and see how the tourists buy Mexican hats, thinking that they are the typical costume of the region. The same US census bureau asks people to identify themselves as Hispanics Latinos or Spaniards, like if all were part of the same. So this information will help to demystify these issues. Onofre Bouvila 16:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not forget either that in Hispanic America, although a huge and very diverse area, millions of people are descended from Spaniards, so this information also concerns them. Veritas et Severitas 20:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Onufre, in my opinion, the word ethnicity doesnt have exactly the same meaning as "etnia" in Spanish (which is what you are thinking of), it is a much wider concept and Hispanics are indeed an ethnicity. Although they are not an ethnic group.--Burgas00 22:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

who is Hispanic? This is something I'm a bit confused about. I looked it up, and it says that Montoya started the term "Hispanic" becase he believed that people that did not have English as a first language were treated worse than those that did, or at least for job hirings or education. If this is the case, would it not mean Hispanophone? Where would I stand? My heritage is actually very little Spanish, but I grew up around the Spanish language. My mother, my grandparents(my grandmmother has no known spanish ancestry) all speak Spanish. Both my grandfather, as well as my mother, learned it simultaneously. So, my mother does not have a first language. She choose to teach us(her children) only English, even though she and my father were both bi-lingual. While, I don't consider myself Hispanic, I want to know what the rest of the world thinks. And not all Americans think Hispanic is a race, I'm probably one of the few Americans that actually argues with people about it. "Where's your genetic basis". I tell them there are Black Hispanics, White Hispanics, (American) Indian Hispanic, and even Hispanics of Asian descent. Not all Americans are stupid. At least not this one.

I'd say the Spaniards, the people of Spain herself (including Spanish emigrants) constitute the core of Hispanicness. (Seems obvious? Perhaps, but some might say that Spaniards and Hispanic Americans are equally Hispanic) From there, it goes on to include people in other countries who are of Spanish descent. The less Spanish ancestry and culture one has, i.e. the further one gets from the core, the more being Hispanic is a matter of personal choice/self-identification. I don't think it's possible to point to a definite point of demarcation, unfortunately. It's fuzzy. IMO, you're in that "choice" zone, since you're not primarily of Spanish descent or culture. Even within the US official definition (and be sure to take account of the fact that it is not the same as when Montoya first proposed it), I think you still have a choice. But you can still claim that you're part-Hispanic! :) Regards. SamEV 05:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just read this:
The ethnic label Hispanic was the result of efforts by a Hispanic New Mexican senator, Montoya, who wanted a label that could be used to quantify the Spanish-speaking population for the US Census. The label Hispanic was chosen in part because in New Mexico, well-to-do people of Spanish descent such as Montoya referred to themselves as Hispanos, and the transliteration of Hispano is Hispanic.[citation needed]
I didn't know that the Hispanic word had this weird origin in the US, but I think the idea of this guy is totally wrong, because Hispanic is not an ethnic label at the same level as "White" or "African-American" or "Asian" or "Pacific Islander". Hispanic would be at the same level than "Francophone" or "Anglo", so you can have a south american guy from the British Guyana being "Anglo" or a black guy from Haiti being "of French culture", or "Francophone", or however u wanna call it. But it's just a cultural indicator. It cannot be put at the same level as a race, because it's something much wider. So this missunderstanding must be told in the article, and the article must keep the original meaning of Hispanic given by the RAE. This weird idea of Hispanic as a racial indicator or an ethnic label must be kept inside the US section. All in all, the idea of this guy wasn't wrong at 100%, because yeah, indeed the mexicans who emigrated to the US and stuff were Hispanics, but using that as a racial indicator at the same level as "white" or "black" is senseless. That's it. Onofre Bouvila 23:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The government doesn't treat it as a race. It's the average person who does, even many Hispanics. But this article has long made it clear that that is incorrect. SamEV 00:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally, people are making sense on this issue. 129.252.215.119 20:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The historical mistake

I want to compliment the editors responsible for this section; It is very well written and resolves a lot of questions that linger on this talk page, thus tying the loose ends in the article. Typical traces of ignorance in the section are non-existent. Deepstratagem 17:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is the worst section of the article. it is orginal research and where are the fn references? I may be willing to clean it up if I find a couple of hours today. danedouard00 17:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is extremely poorly written and historically inaccurate. It seems to have been taken over by Catalan separatists who want to revise every article related to their stupid Castillian vs. Spanish debate. Get over it guys, if 400 million people want to call it Spanish, its called Spanish.

That apparently is not enough for these ignorant cultural racists that run these Hispanic/Latino pages on Wikipedia. Guinea Bassau in Africa is not hispanic enough for them because it doesn't fit their dream of a mostly meztizo and white hispanic cohiesive "Latino/Hispanic group that consitiutes a major voting block and consumer group in the USA. United Statesians; racist and stupid. Thats why the world will never respect respect you. Idiots.

Good going Lusito! About time someone with any intelligence makes a contribution to Wikipedia. Who writes these articles anyway? People in the USA sure are dumb.

This part is good. Style should be corrected, that is all. Hispanics are not only people from the Americas as we should all know. Veritas et Severitas 18:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The only encyclopedic content is that was there was that the term "hispanic" in Spain refers to the collective ethnicities/cultures of spain including, aranese, aragonese, asturian, basque, castilian, catalan, and galacian. (I put that under the appropriate section.) I tend to believe that in Spain it's used that way but I would like to see a citation from a reputable source. The rest of the content of the "historical mistake" read like a high-school/college term paper in that it was trying to establish a point, but without citations. The section blamed "low-class Latin Americans" for misuse of the term Hispanic--what reputable source says that? The section's content is not for Wikipedia. Encyclopedias summarize establish, accepted facts.danedouard00 19:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that particular phrase should be deleted. Veritas et Severitas 20:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, well, actually I created that section, and all the rest of sections talking about the peoples of Spain. I understand that this section may open new doors to many of you, and may destroy many schems you had created in your mind about the terms latino and all these nonesense.

Well, I obviously agree with all what I wrote, and I must say it is the truth. The only fault in what I wrote are the references, well, just give me some time, and I will add them. You can help me too.

For any minimally cult spaniard, and any other minimally cult hispanic, this section is like having removed a thorn stuck (dunno if this is the way to say it in English, but I guess you get the meaning).

All what I said are facts; facts that you can only see when you have lived all your life in Spain, and you have seen not only the alienation that have suffered the nations in Spain, but also when you see every and every day how the foreign people confuses you with the mexicans, and other peoples from South America that are not related to you except by the language and some other things. I mean, all we are hispanics, I agree with that, but that is in a meaning of fraternity, a link that all we share, but it cannot be mutilated with racial meanings, ethnic labels, and all that crap, because all that is artificial, and it is like a fire which is feed with lots and lots of ignorance.

As I said, the only thing that my section needs, are the references. And about the "low-class Latin Americans", that is absolutely truth, because most of them are alienated people, that arrive to a new country, and have nothing, absolutely nothing. Most of them can't even speak correctly the Castilian. So they create themselves a new identity, a new "nation", abroad. All this phenomenom wouldn't affect the rest of the hispanics, nor the spaniards, if it was something separate, apart from us. But it really does when they usurp, and misapropiate, a common identity that they share with other peoples, and they keep it for themselves, alienating the rest of the peoples who also belonged to this identity. And this must be told. This article cannot feed the ignorance. We can't feed the ignorance from an encyclopedia. I know my words may sound hard to some people, and maybe some are offended, because they may belong to this ficticious nation feed only by the ignorance, but it's the truth. I will try to add references in the following days, but anyway it's hard to find references in such matters. Mainly I think the references could be taken from articles talking about this, about the terms "latino", etc, and how they are alienating even the people from Spain, and how the spaniards are confused with the mexicans, and how all this ignorance is feed by the US (their own government feeds this!!!).

So well, that's it. I just could no longer suffer the article that defines me, being occupied in its 90% by the "Hispanics in the United States", even the case of the "United States" mentioned in the introduction, while the catalans or basques or asturians, weren't mentioned a single time. An encyclopedia must do pedagogy. And that's what I have done with my re-structuration of the article:

First of all, the definition, based on the RAE dictionary, which is the organism that sets what does Hispanic mean, and not anybody else.
Then, the etymology, and a section called "synonyms and antonyms" that someone created (I don't really agree with this section, I think the introduction, the header, should have ONLY the RAE meaning explained, but well..., that section is well-written and I think it doesn't harm the article, because thanks to the stuff I added, the concepts are now clear)
Then, a HISTORY SECTION that tells the origin of the term. It is VERY SAD that there wasn't a mere section explaining the history of the term, and how it originated. Many "latinos" and "chicanos", but let's learn history please.
And then, the two groups of Hispanics: those from Spain, ALL OF THEM (not only the castilians), and those from America. THE WHOLE CONTINENT!!! And in a sub-section, inside the Hispanics in America, the case of the United States. But that is just a sub-section, and it cannot monopolize the whole article.

And I repeat, about the references, I also mentioned the RAE, which is our most important weapon to clarify the real meaning of Hispanic against the foreign ignorance. Apart from this, we can try to find websites talking about this, or articles from politicians or experts in these issues that support what I said. And we shall find them, because what I told is just the truth, and the fact of the alienation is a real feeling that everybody minimally cult and worried for these kind of issues in Spain and the Hispanic countries understands (probably a normal guy from the street won't feel alienated by this, but well... Reggaeton exists).

Many people had expressed their discontent with this article and the ignorance of the US-based point of view, and I've cleared all of this with the sections I added.

Well that's all, I think I've explained all what I wanted to explain. Onofre Bouvila 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hispanophone map

Long time ago, I created a post to change the map of the hispanophone. As no one replied to my topic, I changed the map. Then I left this article, and few time ago I came back to do few changes. And my surprise was that ¡oh! ¡Someone had changed the map! ...by a map I think it's much worst. It doesn't include the Philippines nor Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, which are places of clearly Hispanic heritage. Apart from these, maybe Palau, the Caroline Island, or some others that also belonged to Spain contain people with spanish names and surnames, and spanish creole languages like the Chamorro, and might also be included. But the first ones I mentioned, MUST be included.

I don't know if all this stuff was discussed apart from the topic I created, somewhere in this vast talk page; I haven't found it. Anyway if I created a topic to change the map, I don't understand why the person who changed the map after I created the topic, didn't even reply in that same topic when he/she/it made the change.

All in all, I think it should be changed to include the stuff I said. I think I'm gonna change it some day of these, if no one discusses about it here.

Onofre Bouvila 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply: The person who removed the Philippines out of the Hispano map was User:Christopher Sundita. I don't know why?? Crazy!. I was wondering how do you put the Philippines back on, because i'm not really good at computer skills especially with graphic design. Are you able to create and add the Philippines back on the Hispanomap?. If so, can you please add it as soon as possible. Saludos! --Ramírez 24:12 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why Not?

Excluding the Brazilians and Portuguese from this article is ludicrous! Just because we don't speak Spanish, doesn't mean we aren't Hispanic. As a full-blooded Portuguese woman, I consider myself Hispanic or Latina. If you ask any other Portuguese/Brazilian they will tell you the same, we are Hispanic! I guess you should leave out the Galicians, and Castellanos too, since they speak their own language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.26.73.45 (talk • contribs)

Well, I'm Portuguese and I don't feel at all Hispanic/Latino. And in Portugal, Hispânico is only used in two senses: to denote something related with Ancient Hispania; to denote something related with Spanish speaking populations. I feel Portuguese and European - and of course a Latin European. As do the huge majority of my fellow countrymen. The United States social categories of Hispanic or Latino are not only irrelevant to us, but most of us would not like to be confused with Latin Americans. Nothing against them, mind you. They are just not us. And you shouldn't amalgamate Portuguese and Brazilians with that ease - it's like confusing English with people from the United States. By the way, you seem to be somewhat confused with the linguistic panorama in Spain, see Languages of Spain and Nationalities in Spain. The Ogre 01:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Each have their own opinion and that's fine...it would be reasonable to think that the Portuguese are Hispanic -it's not a huge stones throw......"they are just not us" ?...how about You are just not them?...it works both ways...feel what you feel, your writing shows plainly your disdain for them. Cali567 03:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ogre, you might be confusing "Latinos" for "Hispanics"; furthermore, Latinos and Hispanics are proper nouns; while the adjective Hispanic is much more technical. Latino as used in the United States is actually a corrupted contraction of latinoamericano; which means that someone who is Portuguese cannot possibly be latinoamericano unless they have some connection with a Latin American country. Deepstratagem 06:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cali567, it's not a huge stones throw?!? Come on! Do not lump together things that are completely different. And no, I have no disdain for them! As I have no disdain for Chinese, but Portuguese are not Chinese (as a whole, of course, there are some Portuguese-Chinese)! Im am Portuguese and from/in Portugal (even if in my ancestors, just in the last 500 years, you can find, besides Portuguese, French, Scotish, English, Italians and Spanish!). I am also a sociologist, and believe me when I say that categories such as those expressed in the American-English sense of Hispanic and Latino have no meaning for the Portuguese in general. Portuguese are Hispanic in the sense that they are from an area that used to be called Hispania, even if, however, most Portuguese would more quickly connect themselves with Lusitania. They are Latin in the sense they speak a Romance language. They are not Hispanic or Latino in the American sense (and no, Deepstratagem, I'm not confusing the two terms)! That is t say... maybe in the US there are some socio-cultural processes that tend to categorize the Portuguese as Hispanic or Latino (either from hetero or auto categorization), and so maybe you can say something similar to this for the US, but not for the Portuguese from Portugal! Please, people, do not confuse my sense of identity, and that of my countrymen, with disdain or discrimination of others. It's just that nobody likes to be confused with someone else! The Ogre 12:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Excluding the Brazilians and Portuguese from this article is ludicrous! Just because we don't speak Spanish, doesn't mean we aren't Hispanic. As a full-blooded Portuguese woman, I consider myself Hispanic or Latina. If you ask any other Portuguese/Brazilian they will tell you the same, we are Hispanic! I guess you should leave out the Galicians, and Castellanos too, since they speak their own language."

Since long, long time ago, as explained in the header of the article, the word Hispanic has been used to make reference to all that regarding to Spain. The Portuguese people have been excluded from the term, something which is, indeed, historically wrong; but instead of Hispanic they have adopted the term Lusitanic to refer themselves. All this is explained in the header of the article.

Now we have that, 500 years ago, Spain got the term Hispanic and Portugal got the term Lusitanic: that's the history, and you can't change it. So the article, explains very well this issue, gives enough credit to the Portuguese and does not exclude them, but one must understand that Hispanic is no longer associated with them. So, from this point, the article centers in the Hispanics, understood as the people living in Spain, and, more extensively, to the people that have in their identity a Spanish cultural or ancestral legacy:

The section Hispanic#The Hispanics from Hispania, explains the people that are included in the historical definition of Hispanic (since the 15th century, when Spain was created); a definition that today is still in force in Spain, in the Hispanic American countries, and everywhere in the normal World (Note: considering the United States of America as something apart from this normal World, whose especial meaning of Hispanic is explained in their own section). The people that are included in this historical definition are the Spanish people, who include the Castilians, Catalans, Basques, Galicians, and all those people who, from inside Spain, have developed this new meaning of Hispanic, understood as all that related to Spain (although subordinating the rest of their languages to the Castilian, and thus understanding Spain as a Castilian-speaking united nation, or an Spanish-speaking united nation).
The section Hispanic#The Hispanics from outside Hispania explains all the peoples that, because of their cultural or ancestral heritage, are related to the term Hispanic, understanding Hispanic, again, as all that related to Spain.

So, dear 204.26.73.45:

Excluding the Brazilians and Portuguese from this article is ludicrous! Just because we don't speak Spanish, doesn't mean we aren't Hispanic.

(1) I guess you now understand why neither the Portuguese nor the Brazilians are explained in the article: because the Portuguese were excluded from the modern definition of Hispanic in the 15th century, adopting the definition of Lusitanic instead. And when they discovered and conquered Brazil, they no longer used the definition of Hispanic to identify themselves, and therefore the Brazilians were never identified as "Hispanics".

As a full-blooded Portuguese woman, I consider myself Hispanic or Latina.

(2) You don't even seem to understand what Hispanic or Latino mean: as explained above, Hispanic may refer to the old Hispania, in which you, as a Portuguese woman are included, or, as treated in the article, it refers, since the 15th century as "all that related to Spain". That is why, in the section Hispanic#Modern day peoples of Hispania, the Portuguese are not mentioned. And about Latina, if you are really from Portugal, you've got a serious problem of identity: Latino is a contraction of Latinoamericano, which means "someone from Latin America". Therefore, you are not a "latina". You are a person of Latin ancestry, but not a "latina". Anyway all this is U.S.-nomenclature, and well, I guess that since they consider an Aboriginal guy from Australia as an "African-American", from their point of view, you can also be a "Latina". Be whatever you want :)

If you ask any other Portuguese/Brazilian they will tell you the same, we are Hispanic!

(3) I don't really think so. Anyway, if they did, they would consider themselves as Hispanic according to the definition that states that Hispanic is "all that related to the former Hispania"; but they could not consider themselves as Hispanic according to the modern definition, because the modern definition states that Hispanic is "all that related to Spain". Therefore, they are mentioned in the article, but the article does not focus on them.

I guess you should leave out the Galicians, and Castellanos too, since they speak their own language.

(4) I don't really know why do I bother to type all this if, in addition to the fact that you confuse the terms Hispanic and Latino, you don't even know who the Galicians and the Castilians are. The Galicians are from Spain, and therefore, according to the modern definition of Hispanic, they are pure Hispanics. And the Castilians are the core of the Hispanity, since the modern definition of Hispanic understands Hispanic as "all that related to Spain", and they are the core of Spain. So I don't really understand why do you want to remove them from the article, and add, instead, the Portuguese and the Brazilians. It seems to me stupid. And about the fact that "they speak their own language", I do not really understand what do you mean.

All in all, your reflection is senseless and in addition your concept of Hispanic is corrupted by the U.S. stupid point of view. I encourage you to read the article and to search for other non-U.S. sources of information about this subject, so you may clarify, not only your concept of Hispanic, but also your concept of yourself, because calling yourself "Latina", being from Portugal, and having no relation to Latin America, is just absurd. Onofre Bouvila 14:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! The Ogre 18:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The main problem is that the historical realities of Spain and Portugal (ancient Roman Hispania)are so related that it is not so easy a question. In fact, people here say that the Portuguese identify more with Lusitania. Lusitania is a territory that became also a Roman province and which occupied both part of Portugal and part of Spain and the capital was Merida, in Spain, current capital of the Spanish region of Extremadura (Estremadura is a Region in Portugal and includes Lisbon) and the people of Extremadura consider themselves Lusitanos and do not like that the Portuguese try and use the term as if wanting to monopolize it. And everyone who knows a bit of linguistics knows that Portuguese and Galician (Official language of Galicia, a province in Northwest Spain) are virtually the same language. Strictly speaking the Portuguese are Hispanic. To say otherwise is the same as to say that the Portuguese are not Iberian, since both Hispania and Iberia are ancient names to refer to both present-day Spain and Portugal. And as to the American usage, if people here are familiar with the language, Hispanic has traditionally refer to both communities, although it is true that the American usage is very centered around the Americas. In short, the issue is more complicated than it seems to be, in any case. Veritas et Severitas 03:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a section for the Hispanics in the Philippines

It's like this:

Europeans first arrived in the Philippine Islands with the Spanish expedition around the world led by Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan in 1521 March 16 (March 17, 1521 in real date; Magellan did not realize that they had crossed the International Date Line). Magellan landed on the island of Cebu, claiming the lands for Spain and naming them Islas de San Lázaro^[1]. Over the next several decades, other Spanish expeditions were dispatched to the islands. In 1543, Ruy López de Villalobos led an expedition to the islands and gave the name Las Islas Felipinas (after Philip II of Spain) to the islands of Samar and Leyte.^[2] The name would later be given to the entire archipelago. During the following five centuries, until Spain lost them to the United States in the Spanish-American War in 1898, the Philippines remained as a part of the Spanish Empire. Consequently, the aboriginal culture and Languages of the Philippines recieved a great influence from Spain and from other parts of the Empire, mainly Mexico. Although the Spanish language was not adopted as the mother tongue by the majority of the population, there was an important group of the population (though insignificant in number), composed mainly of Spanish and Filipinos of Spanish descent, who did speak it and who ruled the islands during the Spanish colonial period. Other Philippine languages, such as the Tagalog, were not entirely replaced, but recieved strong influences from the Spanish. New languages also originated, such as the Chavacano, a Spanish-based creole language, or the Filipino, a standardized version of the Tagalog that serves as the national language in the country (note that if the Spaniards had not conquered the islands and unified them under the same government, nowadays probably we could not be speaking of the Philippines as a single unity). Onofre Bouvila 11:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone has deleted it, but I've readded it again. Discuss it here before removing it and stuff. Onofre Bouvila 11:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with incorporating the Filipino section of Hispanic into an Asian section...and why must User:Onofre Bouvila insist that the philipines section be before all others (by his acts and not words). The philipines is only minutely Hispanic....only around 2% of the population is Hispanic (even if it might only be from one great-grandfather). The section on the U.S Hispanics should be first since this is what Hispanic usually means...people from the U.S. of Spanish or Latin American descent...many Spaniards don't like to use that word when describing themsleves (but that's neither here nor there). The Philipines don't need to mentioned as if they are somehow the epitome of Hispanicness. Besides I rather think that a section on Asia should mention Guam, Mariana Islands, etc...instead Onofre Bouvila erases it! Somehow he/she thinks the Philipines should somehow hold the first place in this article...as if it's a contest. What makes me laugh is that theres a section on the Philipine Islands...a non-Hispanic nation...and no section on Latin American countries such as Cuba, Mexico, Argentina, etc....and he/she can't part with the title "Hispanics in the Philipines" in favor of including other Asians of Hispanic descent! Let's try to work on this. 04:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And why is there no section on the different Latin American countries... This should go first. Then Hispanics in the US and other places (Canada etc...) and then Hispanic or "semi"-Hispanic peoples of the Phillipines and other regions...--Burgas00 14:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I also think this section focuses too much on Spain and its different regions, considering that Spaniards make up only a minority of Hispanics world wide...--Burgas00 14:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all I am moving this to the discussion that I opened about the Hispanics in the Philippines in this same talk page (before, this discussion was in a new topic at the bottom of the page; since we already have got this one, there's no need to open new ones). After this: the section Hispanic#The Hispanics from outside Hispania focuses on ALL the Hispanics from outside Hispania in alphabetical order: "a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Philippines q r s t UnitedStates v w x y z". That's to avoid discrimination. In the section Hispanic#The Hispanics from Hispania, the peoples from Spain are also mentioned in alphabetical order.

About adding a section for the "Hispanics in Asia-Pacific". I absolutely agree; but I do not think that must be in detriment of the Hispanics in the Philippines. The Philippines has been a part of Spain for 500 years and it's a very particular and unique example in the Hispanophone. I think that it must be mentioned. If you want, we can put it into a wider section called "Hispanics in Asia-Pacific", along with "Hispanics in Guam and the Mariana Islands" and others. But the problem here is that you, as a Filipino, seem to hate that "we want to associate your people with the Hispanophone", so you try to dissolute the section of the Hispanics in the Philippines into a wider section. Well, as I said, I agree with the wider section, we can make a header for this wider section to explain how did Spain get to that place of the World and how did all begin, but in addition, a list of the countries in that region (Philippines, Guam, the Marianas, and some others) should be added. Creating a wider section to incorporate them? Okey, but do not dissolute them in this wider section, to try to minimize their importance.

Finally, about that countries such as Cuba, Chile, etc, are "more important than the Philippines in terms of Hispanicity", well, in fact they are, and I agree that we should add them. But they are too many, so maybe they should be grouped into a section called "Hispanics in the Hispanic America", and there just briefly make a list of these countries, but that's all. The fact that I have not added it does not mean that it does not have to go there. It can go there. But I just have got no time. I preferred to add the section of the Hispanics in the Philippines because I thought that it was a very particular case and that it was not very known by the people in general, and that it was good to explain it here. But all the peoples from the Hispanophone should have a place in this article.

Anyway, at least, Cali, you have discussed this in this talk page before (or after) doing more changes, but at least you have posted something, after I had created two topics in this talk page, and three in your own talk page.

Oh about your comment Burgas, that this article is very focused on all the hispanics and explains the hispanics from Spain very extensively etc, well, I don't see what's the problem, if you look at it, in fact, it's not so long (the section for Hispanic#History of Hispania and Hispanic#The Hispanics from Hispania), and all the stuff in this article is necessary from my point of view. Thanks to all this, anyone who reads this article will truly realize what really is the Hispanophone and who are the Hispanics. Maybe you preferred it like it was like two months ago, when according to this article, the Hispanics were the "latinos" from the United States, and there were proposals to mix this article with the Latino... Onofre Bouvila 11:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And again, Cali, don't you see what are you doing? Do a preview before editing !!! You add the section of "Hispanics in the Pacific" in the middle of the section of the Hispanics in the United States. It's not so hard to do a preview!! look at this. Take a bit of care before editing please. Onofre Bouvila 11:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved!!! I created a section for the Hispanics in Asia-Pacific, which includes Hispanics in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands <and> Hispanics in the Philippines, and also added another section for Hispanics in Africa, which includes Spanish Guinea, and have put the Hispanics in the United States section into a wider section called "Hispanics in the Americas", so now we can add more countries from the Americas in this section, along with the United States.

Now it's like this:

Hispanic#The_Hispanics_from_outside_Hispania
- Hispanic#Hispanics in Africa
  - Hispanic#Spanish Guinea
- Hispanic#Hispanics in Asia-Pacific
  - Hispanic#Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands
  - Hispanic#The Philippines
- Hispanic#Hispanics in the Americas
  - Hispanic#Hispanics in the United States
  - Here more sections for other countries containing Hispanic populations in the Americas can be added (but I would group them all in "Hispanics in the Hispanic America" so it will be much shorter).

Onofre Bouvila 12:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing for User:Ramirez72. As far as I know, and according to this Wikipedia, the Marianas Islands comprise, mainly, the Northern Marianas Islands at the north, and Guam at the south. They are two sepparate administrative regions, and together they form the Marianas Islands. If you change the title of the section Hispanic#Guam_and_the_Northern_Mariana_Islands to Hispanic#Guam_and_the_Mariana_Islands, you are being redundant, since Guam is already in the Marianas Islands. And you are forgetting the region of the Northern Marianas Islands. It is like this: Marianas Islands = Northern Marianas Islands at the north + Guam at the south. And since we are talking about states or regions from the Hispanophone, I think we should leave it as Northern Marianas Islands && Guam. So I've reverted your change. Onofre Bouvila 20:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This whole article is a joke

It looks like a pile of garbage for people to add anything they know related to anything to do with Spain or Spanish speaking countries. The article should have a clear and limited scope, structure and purpose.--Burgas00 19:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what happened, but the last time I checked the article, all the sudden U.S. Hispanics (the U.S. version of,) are given more weight in the article than the Spanish descendants in the Philippines, and those of Latin American countries like Mexico, where Spanish culture had a great influence. So I agree that the article is a joke. Deepstratagem 03:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok it seems such of us users are being bold in our deleting. I think that no one is to blame for the lack of quality of this article, it is just users have to come to an agreement on the organisation of this article and what is and is not relevant and worth including. --Burgas00 16:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What lack of quality? If you want to improve it, like many people did in the historical mistake section, etc, just do it, but do not remove all the sections. You have removed the hispanics in the philippines without reason. It's a fact there were hispanics there, so if you want, improve the section, but do not remove it. And neither remove all the small sections for the Hispanics in Spain, nor the History Section, since many people contributed in it. IF you wanna delete something, discuss it here first.

If you read it, all the sections that have been added with the time, have been discussed before in this talk page. The scope of the article is very clear, it's the following: first of all the introduction, the header, that explains the meaning, etc, etymology, and the history of the term. With the section of the historical mistake, that tries to clarify the missunderstandings that exist with the term hispanic. And then, two separate sections: one for the hispanics in Hispania, and another to the hispanics from outside hispania. In the hispanics in Hispania you got a small section that explains the history of Hispania and the history of these hispanics, and then you have the different people that live in Las Españas. And then, in the section Hispanics outside Hispania, you have the Hispanics in the United States, in the Philippines, and I encourage you to add sections of Hispanics in other places of the world. Stop removing stuff just because you think it's wrong or not accurate. As you left it after your edits, the article talked only about the Hispanics in the United States, which is ridiculous. Onofre Bouvila 20:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally think the scope is too large. I definitely don't want the article to talk only about hispanics in the US but still there should be limits. It cannot turn into an article about every single aspect of the hispanic civilisation. Regarding all the "historical mistake" bit, there is no point trying to dispell myths in the US. Just state the meaning of what Hispanics are rather than what they are not... --Burgas00 00:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If we add a section about the Hispanics in the United States, a section for each one of the rest of the Hispanics must be added, because the Criollos of the Philippines, the Catalans or Basques from Spain or the Mexicans are all at the same level, and all form part from the Hispanic identity. Anyway now I have grouped some sections of the Hispanics in Spain, so there are no longer the sections for "the land" + "the people" + "the language". Now it's much shorter (in sections, not in content). If you see it well, the sections that you are trying to erase, are very short: just five 5-line long pharagraphs or so for the History of Hispania and a small section for each of the nationalities of Spain. I think it's a must to tell all this, because otherwise no one reading the article would realize the real wide of the term Hispanic. Burgas, if you definitely do not want the article to be centered in the Hispanics in the United States, why did you remove the History section, and the section that talks about the "real" Hispanics of Spain? These are the tools we have to teach the right meaning of the term. If you want to "state the meaning of what Hispanics are rather than what they are not", what about not deleting the History section and the sections that talk about the Hispanics from Spain?

You can think whatever you want from the article, and I encourage you to do positive contributions, but it is insane what you are doing. Please, reflect on your edits in the article:

You delete a whole section that has been here for months and where tens of users have contributed. It is full of references and it has been discussed for long in this talk page. You did not obtain any consensus to remove it: [5] → "Racial diversity - I think this section is useless. It is quite evident from the rest of the article that Hispanics are an ethnicity not a race. This section contributes nothing to the article"
I add the section you deleted about the racial diversity, and this time you delete a half of it (why not all of it? your edits seem to be random!). Someone re-added this piece of content that you had deleted, some time later: [6] → "Racial diversity - This bit is random, irrelevant and very lame. I think the whole section should go, but if not, at the very least this bit should dissapear"
You delete the whole history section where lots of users contributed, and all the small sections that talk about the Hispanics from Spain, again with sarcastic comments: [7] "Cutting down stuff which is not relevant to the article on hispanics. Whats all this stuff about "The historical mistake"?????"
You delete, again, the section of the racial diversity: [8] → "Racial diversity - I'm erasing this section which is just garbage.Someone please rewrite a short coherent section rather than this rambling collection of users' personal issues"

What about writting something positive instead of removing, removing and removing entire sections without having any consensus in the talk page?

Thanks.

Onofre Bouvila 12:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont want to get into a fight but look at the "racial diversity" section. It is ridiculous. It makes no sense and it seems to have been written by a collection ramblings written by Spanish/Hispanic white supremacists. Expressions like "pure European stock" among other examples and then going on to prove the "whiteness" of Spaniards using selected genetic studies... Its quite pathetic actually and is not related to the subject matter of the article.

Then going on to talk about the inhabitants of every province of Spain, section by section... This is too much for this article and exceeds the scope of "Hispanic". It would make sense on articles related to Spain and/or its people. The linguistic/ethnic diversity of modern Spain can be summarised here in a 2 or 3 paragraphs.

There are a number of criticisms I can make of this article but those two are the most blatant ones.

Regards --Burgas00 13:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is bloated and needs to be trimmed and rewritten. I'm willing to participate in a non-contentious effort to do just that. But in the meantime, wholesale deletions are not the answer. SamEV 01:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Burgas, like SamEV said, wholesale deletions are not the answer. If you do not stop that I will call an admin, this is too much. You've been deleting entire sections for weeks!

In addition, about the two "most blatant criticisms" that you mention:

1.- About the section Hispanic#Racial Diversity: it has been here for months, and tens of people have contributed on that section. You have no right to delete it. You can agree with it, you can disagree with it, you can improve it, or you can think whatever you want about it: but what you cannot do, is to delete it. Again, I ask you to stop doing that, please.

2.- About the section of Hispanic#The Hispanics from Hispania: you say that it is very long; well that is not true. It may seem to you very long, because when I created it some weeks ago, there were three micro-sections for each section of each ethnicity of Spain: Catalans, Basques, Castilians, etc, all of them had their "The Land" + "The People" + "The Language" sub-sections inside their own sections (here you can see it: [9]). So, in the content box, it looked very confusing, and it looked like if there was a lot of information about the Hispanics from Hispania in the article. But in fact, as I have said, each one of these sub-sections was very short, so all in all, the whole section of Hispanic#The Hispanics from Hispania was very short, compared to other ones. Recently, I have deleted the titles for all the sub-sections named "The Land" + "The People" + "The Language", so in the content box it really looks much more clear, while the amount of information is still the same (very few, as I said).

To prove you that the section Hispanic#The Hispanics from Hispania is very short, on the contrary of what you are saying (you are saying that it is very long), check this, please: take a look at the whole sub-section of Hispanic#Hispanics in the United States. This section talks about the Hispanics in the United States. It would be equivalent to the section Hispanic#Hispanics_in_the_Philippines, or to any Modern day peoples of Hispania's sub-section. And while the Hispanic#Hispanics_in_the_Philippines section, or any sub-section of the peoples of the Hispanic#Modern_day_peoples_of_Hispania (Catalans, Basques, etc) is just ONE pharagraph long, the section Hispanic#Hispanics in the United States is longer than all of them together, including the whole Hispanic#The_Hispanics_From_Hispania and the Hispanic#Hispanics_in_the_Philippines sections together. So what you are saying, is false and incoherent. A section like Hispanic#Hispanics in the United States is long: very long. Not the others. If you want to make the article shorter, delete some useless stuff from this section (it's just an expression, don't delete anything), but do not delete essential sections like the ones that explain the History of Hispania and the modern-day peoples that inhabit Hispania today.

Finally, let me tell you something about this subject: the sub-sections for each of the modern-day peoples of Hispania do not talk about mere provinces: they talk about groups of people with a national identity; they talk about ethnicities with their own language and culture, and all of them and their ancesters have contributed in the development of the History of Spain and in the creation of the whole Hispanophone: from Galician and Asturian emigrants to Argentina in the beginnings of the 20th century, to Extremaduran conquistadores defeating entire civilizations in the Americas, to Catalan soldiers and explorers in North California, Oregon and Alaska, sharing frontier with the Russian settlers in the 18th century ([10]). These Spanish Kingdoms, these peoples from "The Spains", deserve a place in this article. Perhaps even more than those "Latinos".

Onofre Bouvila 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for this user called Burgas. He seems to be a master manipulator of information regarding Spanish people, especially in the field of genetics. He seems to be obsessed with deleting some type of information while stressing the type of information that he likes to. He is well known in the Spanish people page. For example, he introduced the information about Subsaharan influence, which is fair. But the bias is clear when he does not give a damn about introducing it in other European peoples' articles: the genetic markers are all over Europe but only come up in the Spanish article and in the Spanish related articles (see: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sub-Saharan_DNA_admixture_in_Europe). In fact, the highest level is in Portugal, but he does not care about introducing it in thePortuguese people article, he does in in the Spanish article, which is very interesting. He has a long history of deleting the studies that link Spaniards to other European areas and stressing those that link them to other areas, especially North Africa. In fact he was responsible for versions some time ago that devoted most of the article to the North African influence, even though it is minor. Then you have seen him and his position deleting here just some kind of information. The same happened to him in the Spanish article. His constant behaviour can only be justified from either a Nordicist or a Afrocentrist biased position, in this case with an obsession with Spanish people. Just follow him a little bit and you will see it yourselves and be careful of him. He has been accused of his manipulation by several users already. He seems to be especially interested in downplaying and deleting all the new information provided by recent population genetics pointing to the Spanish as the most ancient population in Europe (largely) and as you have seen yourselves, or the information placing the ancestors of the Spanish or the Iberians as one of the important ancestor-populations for Western Europe, including the British Isles. 70.156.143.136 20:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the reason I think these issues of "race" should be avoided. They create conflict among users and attract "white supremacist" types. There is no need to go into the "ancestry" or genetic make up of hispanics, if it is a cultural community rather than an ethnic or "racial" group.--Burgas00 21:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

White Supremacism has never played an important role in Hispanic countries, and certainly not in Spain. It is in other places where all this kind of information is always dealt with with those connotations. 70.156.143.136 21:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have reported his edits here WP:ANI#User_vandalizing_the_Hispanic_article. I hope he stops doing it. Onofre Bouvila 16:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry? are you talking about me?--Burgas00 18:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that user Burgas00 is a very disruptive editor with a big agenda. Piece-here 15:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I´m not going to respond to the ramblings of frustrated, obsessive neonazis.... Onofre, since you are keeping the section of the Hispanic peoples of "Hispania" shouldnt you include Canary Islanders and people from the Balearics? --Burgas00 17:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Burgas, it seems that it is you who seem to have a lot of problems with some type of information everywhere, deleting or disrupting it everywhere. People already know you from the Spanish people article. Do not accuse others of what you ma be. 72.144.134.131 17:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Balearics are in fact Catalans, as explained in the Catalans section. And Canary Islanders would be cool. In fact there are other subgroups from the Canary Islanders such as the Isleños living in the US so it would be interesting. And they have played a crucial role in the colonization of the Americas. Half of the fleets that went there, passed for the Canary Islands. Onofre Bouvila 10:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure Isleños in Louisiana still speak Spanish? I went to a couple of Isleño sites and everything was in English... --Burgas00 13:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

God is Isleño and he spoke to me yesterday. Stop bugging. Onofre Bouvila 16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?

I also notice the section on Catalans seems to offer the perspective of Catalan nationalism (or expansionism). The vast majority of Valencians do not consider themselves to be "ethnic Catalans".

--Burgas00 16:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not nationalism, it is realism. The people who lives today in València (the non-castilian recent immigrants) are people whose origins can be tracked back to Catalonia, and the northern catalonia. The same for those living in the Balearic Islands. Ramon Llull wrote in Catalan, like Joanot Martorell, Ausiàs March, and many others (instead these two might call it with another name). It's like saying that the people from Castilla-La Mancha are not Castilians. Go from the northern Catalonia to Alacant and tell me where does Catalonia ends and Valencia begins. Anyway it's okey to add "Valencians and Balearic Islanders" next to Catalans.Onofre Bouvila 14:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually that is not true. Very few Catalans established themselves in Valencia after the conquest by the Kingdom of Aragon, and although modern Valencians speak a variety of Catalan, it would be wrong to say they trace their origins to Catalonia simply because they adopted the language at one point in history. As you are probably aware, the culture of Valencia is very different to that of Catalonia and it is offensive to most Valencians to be called Catalans. --Burgas00 23:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Awarding

I award this as the most stupid, misleading article.

Oh, so this is User:Mr roces, the smart one who kept removing the Hispanophone map long time ago. What about contributing instead of criticizing. Onofre Bouvila 20:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree. It definitely deserves this distinction...--Burgas00 08:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am contributing to this article by deleting picture. I would like to rewrite the page but I see that some Europeans are very ignorant. And Onofre, the map is seems ignorant since it should add some minorities.

The map is going to be replaced soon. We're working in a new one from Commons. Check this: [11]. When you say that it does not reflect the minorities, well, the map is not made to show all the languages that are spoken in the regions where Spanish is also spoken, just to show the places where Spanish and its créole languages are spoken, independently from other languages. By the way, I don't know what are u talking about "deleting picture", Mr Roces (why don't you sign?). And by the way, the map is not problem of this article. I didn't even make it, I dunno why do you say it to me. There is an extense discusion about it in its talk page and in its talk page of the commons page Onofre Bouvila 23:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Reduction of the section Hispanic#Hispanics_in_the_United_States

The whole section is a copy paste from its main article, Hispanics in the United States. I think that we should make a much shorter section, just like the sections for the other Hispanics in the rest of the World: in the Philippines, in Guam and the Marianas, Equatorial Guinea, Spain (Catalans, Canarians, etc), etc. All their sections are very short, but the one from Hispanics in the United States is kilometrical, and in addition, as I said, it's a copy paste from its main article. I'll go further with this, soon. Onofre Bouvila 20:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, since no one said anything, I have done it. Onofre Bouvila 21:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Latinos do include Spaniards, Italians, and even those from Mozambique...

According to this page the only "latinos" are those from Latin America. However according to an organization including Latin language nations, all the nations in the group are part of the "Union Latina", making any of those that people from nations with a latin language Latinos. See Latin Union. Casey14 22:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Latino is a contraction of Latinoamericano (Latin American), not to be confused with Latino (regarding to the old region of the Latium). All this stuff is explained in the article. Onofre Bouvila 23:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The article has no basis. Latino is a contraction of Latin America yes, but also of Latin Europe, Latin Asia, and Latin Africa. Just because the stereotype is of Latin America dosn't mean Latino refers to all of those in Latin America. If Latino would only refer to those in Latin America, I would be afraid that Quebecois would be included as well. Casey14 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Latino is used as a contraction of Latinoamérica, but it is true that it causes confusion since the root of the word (Latino) that they take to contract Latinoamericano, already has a meaning. Anyway, the article DOES have basis. All this stuff is explained. What about reading it? If you read it you will see that it is not like it was some months before (when some people even purposed to mix it with the article Latino). Now all the Hispanics from the World are represented in the article, and the real meaning of the word is explained. I don't see the point of the whines.

Anyway I think you are very confused with the term too. You say "if Latino would only refer to those in Latin America, I would be afraid that Quebecois would be included as well". Well, the Québécois are Latin Americans too. In fact, the term Latin America was invented by the French, in order to counter the "Anglo" America.

Latino is Latinoamericano, and both the those from the South, and those from the North (North Mexicans, Cajun, Isleños, Québécois, etc) are Latin Americans. The problem is that the word Latino is confused with Latin, because in fact it was a bad idea to contract the term Latinoamericano to Latino since Latino already has a meaning. And therefore it alienates the rest of the Latin peoples. But all this is explained in the article. Onofre Bouvila 23:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Archiving this talk page

I think this talk page is getting long, and there is too much stuff. I would archive it, but I guess we should discuss it here first. Here is the procedure to do it: Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page. Onofre Bouvila 01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely I am going to archive it. Onofre Bouvila 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

^ Lacsamana, Leodivico Cruz (1990). Philippines History and Government, Second Edition. Phoenix Publishing House, Inc. pp. p. 47. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^ Lacsamana, Philippine History and Government, p. 52

[lac47-1] Lacsamana, Leodivico Cruz (1990). Philippines History and Government, Second Edition. Phoenix Publishing House, Inc. pp. p. 47. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

[2] Lacsamana, Philippine History and Government, p. 52

[1]

[2]