Talk:Hispanic and Latino Americans/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Images in Infobox 2

I really think there needs to be some changes to the images on the infobox. Some are images of people who aren't really recognizable people (let alone recognizable hispanic/latino figures). Some ideas I've had of new images to put on the infobox are: Celia Cruz, Sonia Sotomayor, Desi Arnaz, Alex Rodriguez, etc...Any other ideas?--Jersey Devil (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the infobox so far, but I don't mind changes. I just don't want to change Cesar Chavez, and Franklin Chang-Diaz for well known "celebrities", but I do think Sonia Sotomayor is a good candidate for the infobox. --Jmundo (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree with the point about Chavez and Chang-Diaz. I didn't mean to imply that we should be replacing important scientific and social/political figures with celebrities. Just that I don't see why we have an image of say Zoe Saldana when there are far more recognizable important figures in the community. By the way, I would say that people like Desi Arnaz and Celia Cruz had a significant enough cultural impact to be regarded as something more than just "celebrities".--Jersey Devil (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

JD, how many images do you think there should be in the infobox?

Also, I wouldn't mind replacing Saldana with A-Rod. But then we'd have to change someone else to maintain gender balance. SamEV (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems good to me but I still want Sotomayor in the main infobox. You know originally I was opposed to the idea of adding more pictures on the infobox but I was looking at the African American article and it seems to work really well there. Perhaps we should consider doing something like that.--Jersey Devil (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't know that you were against expansion (if that's what you mean by "you know", which I don't think you do). Though I'm partial to the current minimalist look of our infobox, I think you're right to say that the African American infobox layout works out. We should also consider Hispanics in the United States Navy and Hispanics in the United States Marine Corps, which use what is certainly the less tedious system to work with.

OK, Sotomayor is first on the list for expansion. My first candidate is David Farragut. The other editors should put up candidates, too.

By the way: should we limit it to one picture per national origin? I think we should. SamEV (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I second the nomination of David Farragut. The info box smacks of Recentism. It implies Hispanics have just arrived fresh off the boat, or have only recently achieved success. That's not the case. Hispanics have been part of this country for centuries, and contributed in meaningful ways for centuries as well. We need to show that somehow in our infobox. Farragut was not the first Hispanic rear admiral, vice admiral, and full admiral of the United States Navy. He was the FIRST rear admiral, vice admiral, and full admiral of the United States Navy. AND he was Hispanic.--Work permit (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is recentist. Good call on that, and about Farragut's significance. SamEV (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, on that note then, I nominate Joseph Marion Hernandez, the first Hispanic member of Congress back in 1822 (non-voting delegate from the then-territory of Florida, but still a member).The Original Historygeek (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. We need more names still, because we may be adding six more, and it's possible that, depending on the layout method we decide to use, some of the images may not be usable. SamEV (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What about Romana Acosta Bañuelos- she may not be as far in the past as the other two already put forth, but still more than 30 years ago and the first major (high-ranking, high visibility) government appointment. 75.79.58.156 (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

She's a great nomination. What a story her life is! SamEV (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's find some examples of hispanics from the last century. David Farragut, Joseph Marion Hernandez are great examples. The African Americans can point to Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, and WEB DuBois in their inbox. We've been here longer. We can do just as good--Work permit (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more: Felix Varela- first Hispanic novel written in US, 1826, first high-ranking Hispanic religious figure (Catholic vicar of NY), 1837, and founder of first Spanish language newspaper in US; Mariano Vallejo- California pioneer, 1840's; Lorenzo de Zavala- Texas (Republic and state) pioneer, first (albeit, interim), Texas vice president, 1836; Juan Bandini- early San Diego, California pioneer, 1834-1850's; Juan Seguin- Texas pioneer, first Hispanic autobiography, 1858; Antonio Coronel- first Hispanic mayor of Los Angeles under US rule, 1853 (first Hispanic mayor of any US city?); Salvador Vallejo- commander of first Hispanic unit of US Army, 1863; Manuel Requena- elected to first LA county board of supervisors, 1852; Santos Benavides- highest ranking Hispanic in Confederate Army, 1860's; Philip Bazaar- first Hispanic Medal of Honor winner, 1865; Esteban Bellan- first Hispanic ballplayer, 1871; Romualdo Pacheco, first Hispanic governor in the US (California), 1875, also, first Hispanic US Congressman (from a state as opposed to Del. Marion Hernandez previously noted), 1877; Santiago Iglesias- first PR labor organizer, 1899; Lucy Parsons- first female Hispanic labor leader of note, 1883; Rafael Guastavino- first Hispanic architect of note, 1885. Some lack pictures, but I am looking into that now. The Original Historygeek (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I added photos to the Varela, Benavides, Bellan, Requena, and Guastavino articles. Still looking for Bazaar and S Vallejo (and a better one of Coronel). The rest already had useable images posted. The Original Historygeek (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, how many images are people looking at for the new imagebox? My top six pick (and what they represent) are: Marion Hernandez (politics); Farragut (military); Bellan (sports); Guastavino (architecture/science); Gonzales Parsons (labor/union rights); and Varela (religion). The Original Historygeek (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The African American article has 12. I don't think that looks bad--Work permit (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I added three for now, David Farragut • Joseph Marion Hernández • Lucy Parsons. Figure lets see how people like the smaller pictures. We can keep adding more. I think we need to crop/edit the Bellan photo, the stamp on varela could use some editing as well.--Work permit (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a better depiction of Varela out there- more religious-looking too, but I am having trouble tracking down the details of its creation before I can upload it. There is also another one of Bellan in his baseball uniform- a bit less clean-looking than the one I put up, but I am going to upload it nevertheless and add it to the article. The Original Historygeek (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Added another 3, Alex Rodriguez • Pacheco • Sonia Sotomayor. Getting the pictures lined up is a bit tricky, "square" pictures don't work too well--Work permit (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good mix now. The Original Historygeek (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys, you jumped the gun. Since it's clear that there's more than just the two of you actively involved in this, we have to decide the new composition of the infobox as a group. I'd like to hear at least one more time from JD and Jmundo before we proceed. All decisions should be made in advance by the group, including those about the number of images (12 does seem right to me) and the layout Wiki-method/-markup to use.

For instance: we have to decide in advance whether there should be a limit of one person of a given profession (there are two politicians right now, and most of the men have military connections). I'm also concerned that Parsons seems to be only incidentally Hispanic/Latino. And why are there two Dominican Americans, yet only person one of South American origin? SamEV (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Guastavino the architect seems like an excellent addition to me. I'll offer some more names of my own next time, too. SamEV (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we wanted to find more 19th century Hispanics- since I've exhausted my mental files, I'll let others chime in! (But it has been a week since we've heard from anyone else) The Original Historygeek (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I thought we had a consensus on expanding the infobox to 12 names. I added the names that seemed to be consensus, with a view that any particular name could be swapped out in the future. Adding 6 names and formatting them correctly was a lot of work. My carefully formatted additions were just reverted. I had thought if there was an issue with a specific name, that name would be swapped out, rather then the reverting the entire edit. But I'm not getting into a an edit war. After you decide what to do, go edit it yourself. I suggest you use a constant height scaling factor for each row, its easier to to do. Try to match "wide" and "narrow" pics in a row for best effect--Work permit (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

TOHg, we *do* want more pre-20th century Hispanics: not just 19th century ones, btw. But let's have people who'd at least be seen as Hispanic by most people who read about them. I doubt very much that Parsons would.

Work permit, thanks for contributing your time and effort, first of all.

I think your reasoning is solid; let's try it your way. So I'm dropping the idea of waiting for everyone to comment on every little detail first. I took your edit and made some changes to it, instead, and I ask you to critique what I did.

TOHg again, JD's a regular here, so when he comes back to WP I'm sure he'll visit this article and this talk page. But I'll message Jmundo and ask him to have a look when he gets back from Wikibreak.

Regarding the edits I just did, I added spaces between the pictures because the pictures don't align perfectly. It's a very useful trick to throw at that problem, and you can see it in the Hispanics in the United States Navy and Hispanics in the United States Marine Corps infoboxes. But just in case, I also made an edit with the no-spaces look so that you guys can look at it and tell me what you think. Which do you prefer? without spaces, with spaces. SamEV (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I just made it more tidy. How do people like it? The easiest way to deal with "pictures not lining up" is to use a constant height scaling (e.g. Use x100px rather then 100px for a scaling factor). Use the same scaling factor for each picture in a row. This way, each picture in a row is the same height. Then increase the scaling for each row until each row is the same width. SamEV, I'm not sure why but on my browser the pictures ran over, for example Caesar Chavez was in a row by himself.--Work permit (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I made on other change right now, I have farragut on the right corner rather then left. It's visually more appealing for the subjects not to look outside the frame. If you don't like it you can use my previous edit--Work permit (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, I cleaned up all the other hispanic info boxes. I kept the images that were there, added images to some boxes that had none.--Work permit (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I do make them the same height to begin with (through trial and error; I didn't know about the "x___" method); then, since that alone doesn't make them align, I proceed to adjust each picture's size.

About Chávez, I guess what you describe is some unintended consequence of the spaced method. So I like the changes you made even more now, having read that. Thanks, dude. SamEV (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry haven't been around in a while. So far it looks pretty good IMHO. I was thinking about Celia Cruz or Desi Arnez (some important cultural figures) but I guess we don't have the fair use photos for them. Regardless it looks way better than it did before.--Jersey Devil (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a fair use photo for Desi Arnaz, I added it to the Cuban American page a couple of days ago. There is a low rez photo of Celia Cruz [1], I just croped, resized, and added it to her page--Work permit (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Politics pic

I substituted Bill Richardson for Alberto Gonzales. Richardson served in congress, the cabinet, and as governor. I think that covers a pretty wide range in one picture.--Work permit (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How about moving the Sotomayor pic up to the main infobox and putting Gonzales where her pic is now in that section.--Jersey Devil (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Gonzales is just another former cabinet officer. Richardson has a stronger resume, Lauro Cavazoshas has a stronger claim then Gonzales at this point, as do a number of other politicians such as Herman Badillo.--Work permit (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about removing the Richardson pic just about moving Sotomayor's up to the infobox and replacing that with Gonzales. Being the first latino Attorney General of the United States is quite significant. If there aren't any serious objections to this I'll make the change in a little while.--Jersey Devil (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Who would you remove from the info box?--Work permit (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably Zoe Saldana.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine, I think some people may object to their being no "dark hispanics" in the infobox--Work permit (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I would object. But see my comment above re: an A-Rod for Saldana swap. SamEV (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Make sure the pictures are Hispanic people

Don't put pictures of people that are not really Hispanic/Latino. Some of these people might now want to be associated as "Hispanic" or "Latino" people. Make sure the pictures are 100% Hispanic and Latino. I don't know if David Farragut is a Hispanic person and he identified himself a Latino. Farragut don't sound like a Latino name. 97.124.255.168 (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

On Admiral Farragut, Here's a reference from the navy. He's also in the book 100 Hispanics You Should Know by Iván A. Castro. There are plenty of other references--Work permit (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"Smits" isn't an Hispanic name either- nor is Richardson, but I'm fairly certain that both Jimmy Smits and Bill Richardson consider themselves Hispanic. One should never go by name alone. The Original Historygeek (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Other Hispanics

Nina Tassler and Kenny Ortega

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.148.231 (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC) 

Other Profiles from the top Hispanics

• Corporate
• D. C. Power Brokers
• Education
• Health and Wellness
• Information Techonology
• Judges
• Legal/Finance/Insurance
• Media
• Politics
• Science —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.148.179 (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Poverty Rate

Where is the refference or citation to prove this statement about the diffrent poverty rates on the hispanic community? there is no proof of this. It seemed like somenbody just choosed to add there opinion of what they think of it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.56.116 (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Jersey_Devil

I refered admin Jersey Devil over blocking violation of user 24.9.96.166 over this dispute above without explaining reason for blocking on the user's page and reverting this article without explaination when there is heated discussion going on over the neutrality of this article with a NPOV tag. Do not remove

tag when the neutrality of this article is being fundamentally questioned and disputed Onetwo1 (talk)

07:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Title of the article

Given that the term "Latin American" is not used exclusively in relation with US citizenry, I think the title of this article should be improved to "Hispanic and Latino Americans (United States of America)". Otherwise, the tacit assumption could be misleading for most people. --IANVS (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There are no disambiguation issues and no one is going to search for that long title. The current title is fine in my opinion.--Jersey Devil (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Then I suppose it is at least necessary to add a link redirecting to "Latin americans" just below the title of the article. Or maybe we should create a disambiguation page. Salut, IANVS (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hold up. Latino American is no better than Latin American. Maybe "Latino and Hispanic Americans" would be slightly better - but I would say that "Latinos and Hispanic people in the United States" is a proper name - as opposed to the current and as opposed to the Hispanic American Latin or Latino American - (Please remember that Latino-americano means latin american in spanish and not Hispanic and from the United States).--Kiyarrlls-talk 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's true that Latino is Latin in the Spanish language, but Latino as a race refers to mestizos in the Americas. Latin can also mean French, Italian, etc. Spanish are European. This category refers to Hispanics from the Americas. Spain is in Europe. So Spanish Americans are just that. It's the terminology used. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

CreativeSoul, please tell me of a source from where I can learn that Latino is a racial definition in the US for mestizos of Latin American origins. As I understand it, this article is about United States citizens of Hispanic cultural heritage. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, this discussion is a clear demonstration that some kind of disambiguation has to be made between Hispanic and Latino in the US, Hispanic Americans and Latin Americans. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be in my honest opinion a terrible idea that would make it even more difficult for people to find this article. Wikipedia goes by the most commonly used terms not by terms that are necessarily 100% accurate. If the latter were true then we'd have the same discussion about African Americans since there do exist Afro-Colombians, Afro-Brazilians, etc.. yet that article refers only to "American" (U.S.) blacks. I really hope you don't turn this into an issue on this article.--Jersey Devil (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, JerseyDevil, I won't insist on this, but I'll add a disambiguation link below the title. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Thanks.--Jersey Devil (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

New York claim in intro sentence

The first sentence in this article begins: Hispanic and Latino Americans are Americans of origins in Hispanic countries of Latin America or in Spain; in New York, however, those with origins directly in Spain can be omitted from the definition, for certain purposes.

I believe that the mention of New York is completely unwarranted especially in the very first sentence in this article. It really brings nothing of value to the intro except for a NY court case where the result was that Spanish and Portuguese Americans were not considered minorities. It states: "New York Executive Law Article 15-A, New York's "affirmative action" statute for minority-owned businesses ...does not include in its definition of "Hispanic" people of Spanish or Portuguese descent unless they also come from Latin America."

It also cites a terrible tripod source which I had thought I got rid of a long time ago. Namely the commentary of a random person named F. Lennox Campello. [2] Using this as a source in an encyclopedia article is ridiculous.--Jersey Devil (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Set up automatic archive

I didn't think anyone would mind so I decided to "be bold" and set up an automatic archive for this article. It is already a very large 136kb and hasn't been archived since it was created. The archive will work by automatically archiving any threads older than 90 days (3 months old). Each archive will hold up to 100kb which seemed like a reasonable archive size to me. Just wanted to give you guys a heads up.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Origins" in Hispanic Countries

I'm somewhat confused about the nature of this description. This article seems to adhere to the view that the U.S.-born descendants of those with birth or citizenship origins in Hispanic countries are also "Hispanic"/"Latino." This seems inconsistent with the nature of the usage of other national identifications (since the terms refer to an amalgamation of nationalities based on common linguistic ties). I don't believe it would be appropriate to refer to the children of Canadian-Americans born in the U.S. as "Canadians," for example. Cochise the Restorer (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Cochise. But I disagree. This article adheres to the view that the U.S.-born descendants of those with birth or citizenship origins in Hispanic countries are "Hispanic"/"Latino" Americans. It's right there in the article's title. SamEV (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC); 13:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite right. Referring back to my mention of Canadians, Canadian Americans are generally considered Canadians that obtain American citizenship. The U.S.-born descendants of Canadians or Canadian-Americans are considered neither to begin with. The only rational basis for description of U.S. born-descendants with any label other than "American" is through application of an ethnonym, reference to their racial or ethnic background. Since the terms "Hispanic" and "Latino" are terms based on amalgamations of various national identities rather than racial/ethnic identities, there's an asymmetry there. Cochise the Restorer (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I think you've done a switcheroo on me. You began by suggesting that this article was applying labels that, you thought, belong to non-Americans. Now you seem to be merely observing that these labels are a departure from the norm, in that they apply to a set of national origin groups, instead of one. That's my interpretation. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Would it help if I pointed out that "Hispanic" and "Latino" are self-designations, not impositions? (In the aggregate; it may not be the case for each individual mentioned in the article. That's a work in progress.) I.e. the 47 million Hispanic and Latino Americans call themselves "Hispanic or Latino" in the Census and demographic surveys. SamEV (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it's related to the application of the "set" categorization. That is somewhat unusual, in that it's based on extremely broad linguistic criteria that aggregate heavily racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse societies and peoples together, but I'd say that we do have to acknowledge its existence nonetheless, as you mentioned.

While it's certainly important to seek and find popular consensus, common misconceptions could skew facts that we know to be accurate. The majority of U.S. citizens (and a substantial number of self-described Mexican-Americans with little actual exposure to Mexico), seem to think of the term "Mexican" as synonymous with "mestizo," for example, simply not conceiving of the existence and prominence of white Mexicans. So I'd say that we do have to consider objective fact (to the extent that that can be determined) even if it conflicts with popular subjective perception. Cochise the Restorer (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Switcheroo again, I'm afraid, even if I do agree with everything you said there. People like George Lopez, to name someone out of the blue (ha!), do use "Mexican" pretty much as synonymous with "non-white" "brown". He's not very—how do you say?... well informed, perhaps. Then again, comedy does thrive on gross simplification and stereotypes. SamEV (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC); 23:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And of course, you're right, as he's demonstrably wrong. It's inaccurate for him to describe himself as "Mexican" when he was born in Mission Hills, as nationality cannot be genealogically transmitted as race or ethnicity can. We know that he's prone to common errors as a result of his misconceptions; just quoting verbatim from memory, on his sitcom, he told his "Cuban" (actually American) wife that they had become "official owners of a white boy" when they temporarily took in their daughter's white boyfriend (implying that the wife was non-white when most Cuban-Americans are white), complained that he didn't understand "how Martin Sheen's a Latino" when the Spaniard is actually more "Latino" than he is in a sense, and on his late-night show, insisted that his DNA test results, which revealed that he was 55% European, demonstrated his "Latino" heritage even more since the "European" was Spanish, apparently not understanding that he is more white than anything else. That's why we can't simply accept popular understandings, and why depth and not breadth must be analyzed. Cochise the Restorer (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I give him a pass on "Mexican", because in casual language people often leave out "American" from the names of ancestries. An example: when Paul Walker says "I’m Irish and German" (as seen in List of German Americans), do you think he means that he was born in Ireland and Germany, or is somehow a citizen of both? Hardly. He means he's Irish American and German American; he's from Glendale California.

But as to the rest of your post: hear hear. SamEV (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There's the fundamental point. "Irish" and "German" are ethnonyms; they refer to the Irish people and (ethnic) German people in the context of his usage of them (which is appropriate). It's rare that a non-ethnic German citizen who moved to the U.S. would simply be described as a "German-American" without qualification, and it would be misleading and confusing to do so. Conversely, the introductory section of Mexican people, for example (and that is a recently created article; it long re-directed to demographics of Mexico) both initially describes Mexicans as an ethnic group and then contradictorily states that the Mexican population (as they are a national group, in fact) "consists of many, separate regional and ethnic groups." What would be appropriate is to modify that entry, the other pages concerning the Hispanic and Latino countries of America, and this page itself, to reflect the fact that we are referring to national rather than racial/ethnic groups. In the case of Canadian people, it is clearly specified that, "The people of Canada, or simply Canadians, are citizens of Canada. Canada is a multi-ethnic nation, home to people of many different ethnic and national backgrounds. As a result, some Canadians don't take their nationality as an ethnicity, but identify themselves with both their nationality and their ancestral origins." The other pages ought to run parallel to that one, including this article itself. Cochise the Restorer (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this article suffers from the problem you perceive. But why don't you post the precise wording with the modifications you have in mind? SamEV (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations do not support this statement

"As employed by the Census Bureau, Hispanic or Latino does not include Brazilian Americans,[3][4] and specifically refers to "Spanish culture or origin",[3][4] "

Neither of the citations (3 and 4) quoted to support the above statements even mention Brazil at all. They define "Hispanic or Latino" to be people with origins from Mexico or Cuba or Puerto Rico or Central America or South America or other Spanish heritage. This statement is highly ambiguous on the issue of Brazil. In neither of the quoted sources, is there any mention of Brazil or the fact that it is apparently not included in "South America". If, at some point, there has been some form of official clarification of the inclusion or exclusion of Brazil, then it should be possible to locate a proper citation for it, instead of these 2 bogus ones.Eregli bob (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say no... but there could be contradictory definitions. We should find proper sources mentioning Brazil and Brazilians. There might also be conflicting definitions of Hispanic versus Latino... The Ogre (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Distinction between "Hispanic" and "Latino"

The article says that Hispanics are all those people who have Spanish as their mother tongue, while Latinos are exclusivamete the inhabitants of Latin America and that that word "must" be an abbreviation of "Latin American." Here is an error. In the U.S., these concepts become confused and I do not know why. I am Spanish and Spain differ in terms Hispanic and Latino. We think that Hispanics are all those people who have Spanish as their mother tongue, while Latinos are all those people who have a language derived from Latin as a language, and this includes both Hispanics, as the Portuguese, Italians The French and the Romanians (a Hispanic, in fact, it is easier to learn one of the languages of these groups, especially the Italian and Portuguese, other languages). Hispanic Americans, so are the inhabitants of Hispanic America, while Latin Americans are the inhabitants of Latin America (Hispanic America, Brazil and officially, Haiti). I am Spanish and I know.--Isinbill (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Isinbill.

Unfortunately, if you think this article says those things, then you misread it, and I strongly recommend that you read it again. We also have policies that require us to write content that is supported or supportable by reliable sources (see WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS). That means we can't write just what we know or think we know. The article provides sources to the definitions, and a large paragraph from the American Heritage Dictionary that compares "Hispanic" and "Latino" to each other. SamEV (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The article says that Hispanics are people with origins in Latin America or Spain. But when I read that I took to be that Hispanics are all those people who have Spanish as their mother tongue (as the term uni its meaning) and I acknowledge that I'm wrong (not all Spanish-speaking Hispanic and many are natives of that region, even today, only speak their respective dialects). So, saying that the term "Latino" derives, in English of "Latin America" I meant the little quote I mentioned the article ("Terminology"). I agree that the article can not rectify the meaning of "Latino" because of the lack of sources in English on this subject. Only I was a little weird what I read in the article on this term, since I doubt devise Hispanic Latin America without Brazil and in Europe the meaning of the term "Latino" is different from the U.S. (I think "Latino" but not "Latin American "), but that was all. I know that if there are no reliable sources in English on the term that should not be changed in the article.--Isinbill (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Good luck. SamEV (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi SamEV and Isinbill, As an Italian American (several generations removed from the mother land), I always considered myself of Latino origins. This has been reinforced by growing up in AZ, where throughout my life, I have been identified as "Mexican" at least as often as white or any other categorization. I too feel that we need to modify the definition of Latino to cover all people who ethnically identify with the various cultures that speak Latin-derived languages. Certainly, when I consider our family traditions and our history in the U.S., I feel more akin to Latino/Hispanic groups than with those whose families are from northern Europe or elsewhere. Ever been to an Italian Christmas Eve dinner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.231.202 (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi.

We have to define this group as reliable sources do, per the policies of Wikipedia. The redefinition that you propose would be original research.

The term "Latin", not "Latino", better applies to you, as far as I know. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What you said was simply babyish. Latino is a romantic way of saying Latin, my friend. Latino should apply to everybody that has Latin European ancestry. Only because you speak a Latin derived Language should not make you Latino. Me being able to speak English does not make me British. All the USA did was redefine Latino so it should be considered original research. Secret killer (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Millions of Americans call themselves "Latino", the word is part of the English language with a meaning distinct from that of "Latin", it is used by the Census Bureau, and the Census Bureau is a reliable source. There is no original research whatsoever. So just drop it already. SamEV (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"Millions of Americans call themselves "Latino"

Your point is what? Most of those people probably don't even know what a Latino is. Millions of people call themselves "Italiano" but it doesn't mean that it's a separate meaning from Italian, It's just different language. Anybody with common sense can figure it out. How do you know if the census bureau is a reliable source? Just because something is put out by the government doesn't make it "reliable". Anyways, Latino and Latin are the same word just like Italiano and Italian are the same word that is the point I'm making.Secret killer (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Secret Killer, this article refers to he US use of the term, you like it or not. This is not about deciding ourselves if this terminology is adecuate. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 17:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. SamEV (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

IANVS: Your whole comment is unneeded. Secret killer (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hispanic-U.S

Because Hispanic Americans are the inhabitants of Hispanic America (all Spanish-speaking countries in the Americas), the term to refer to U.S. Hispanics should be "Hispanic-U.S", may be longer, but it is more accurate. --Isinbill (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The article's title conforms to the facts set out in the article; most of all, the group's official name being "Hispanic or Latino". SamEV (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not just take the Hispanic/Latino off the census

It's a pretty useless term. Hispanics are Spanish/Iberian people or people that have Spanish/Iberian ancestry. Speaking Spanish doesn't make a person Hispanic just like speaking English doesn't make a person British. People in countries FORMALLY ruled by Spain have different ethnicities also. It's a pretty useless term.

Anyways, the collage needs to be more varied and since my good friend SamEV is here it needs citations citing that these people identify as Hispanic or Latino Americans, since Hispanic/Latino is a SELF-IDENTIFYING American ethnicity. Secret killer (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case then the collage pictures of ALL American ethnic groups need qualifying citations.99.96.39.105 (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Listen to this! clip...How can these people not know what they are??. It's bizare..Denial, no education or what? Census 2010 question, clip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.65.119 (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I prefer the Census Bureau's definition of Hispanic/Latino, which they kindly make available here: [3]. Simply put, a Hispanic or Latino is whoever claims to be. (BTW, user Secret killer is being sarcastic about our being 'good friends'.)

Now on to the images. Well, it had to come to this, didn't it? In principle, your stance is reasonable. However...

You see, SK, if we insist on self-ID, we'll have a recentist infobox, because these terms are of such recent vintage. Gone would be Farragut, because he couldn't be Hispanic or Latino in the 19th century, could he? 'Juan Bandini, you're outta here!'

The trick is to understand that this article is not about the words "Hispanic" and "Latino". It is about the group, through the ages. Through the ages, the group has had different names, as detailed in the "Terminology" section. In comparison I offer African Americans. They used to be "Negroes", yet I find no severing of the history of today's "African Americans" from that of the "Negroes" of centuries past. Another example: "Asian American" is recent; for generations they were "Orientals". But there's no claim of discontinuity due to the name change.

So I propose this: that no person alive since the terms Hispanic and Latino have been used should be depicted unless we know them to self-ID as Hispanic or Latino or Spanish. And that for anyone who died before these terms came into use, we show that they were classified as members of a group now classified as Hispanic or Latino.

In the meantime, because so much good faith effort was expended in the creation of that collage, I'm restoring it. If you wish to contribute to a new infobox, please do. Really, that would be very nice. I can't promise much or any help, since I've yet to fully meet previous commitments I took on. SamEV (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

---

I am taking down the collage you've just created, SK, because I think there are too many entertainers in it. Look at the Notables section and Category:Hispanic American people for a greater variety of professions. SamEV (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

All the athletes in your collage are baseball players, SK. What's up with that? Replace one of them with de la Hoya, and another with a soccer player, maybe.
Try to add more pre-20th century people.
Did you notice that one of your rows consists entirely of women?
I think that 24 images is fine. 20 is also good. SamEV (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I was adding racial harmony to the collage but I'll do it again then.Secret killer (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Good. SamEV (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your new version again overrepresents entertainers.

Stop posting new versions straight to the article. The stable version involved much discussion about which names to include. As your comments here show, you know far too little about this subject to think you can create the list all by yourself, Secret killer. SamEV (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC); 18:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The pictures you have now under represents the so called Black race. It doesn't matter how long or hard giving the discussion for the so called stable version took. We have to come up with a new consensus over the pictures. And you are doing nothing but acting like a childish boy so I have to take it into my own hands. My comments don't show that. You didn't even know Latino was romantic way of saying Latin, so please... If you want to scream and shout about how the collage over reps. entertainers than do something called helping. If you aren't going to help then don't complain. Now since I have a life to get back to, I will give you three days to respond maybe more. Secret killer (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How about Cheech Marin's pic?99.96.39.105 (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

We all have lives, which is why I wasn't able to reply to your message immediately.

Yes, I'll help you draw up a new list. You go first; propose the first half. OR third, if IANVS wants to participate. (Do you, IANVS?) SamEV (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, SamEV, but I don't have much knowledge about US Latino personalities. Anyway, I can help you both into reaching some consensus on the selection. Just tell me. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 01:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's too bad. But OK, we'll turn to you to help settle disagreements, if any should arise. Not that I expect that, mind you... :-) SamEV (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

America equals U.S.A?

In the very beginning of the article it states that "Hispanic and Latino Americans are Americans" and Americans is redirected to the USA wikipage. The term American which refers to the inhabitants of America, does not refer to only the USA but also Canada, Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 00:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

... And Central America and South America, and the Caribbean Islands as well. This article deals with purely the population of the United States, not all of America, though that is not made very obvious in the introduction. For example, go here (Latin American Canadian) for information on the Hispanic population of Canada. Tha Pyngwyn (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of talkpage

All editors are reminded that the talkpage is WP:NOTAFORUM as per the talkheader and notaforum tags added. The talkpage should only be used to address issues concerning the article that will improve it or make necessary changes. The talkpage is not meant for chat, general questions about this topic. If an editor has a question like that, they should be referred to the appropriate help location as per the notaforum tag. Topics that are about improvement can and will be removed as per both tags. However, editors should take care in removing comments and should use edit summaries that are specific, i.e., "Comment removed (See WP:NOTAFORUM). ----moreno oso (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is desperately trying to make America Hispanic

In the history section, it is obvious that there is an extreme POV of Hispanic origins to everything American. The English are apparently evil bastards who have no right being here, after all, or they are just irrelevant, according to the one who deleted my edit for NPOV, which actually showed English partnership in the early colonial experience, through the diplomatic marriages made between a Catholic England with Spain. Furthermore, the title of this article is vague, as pointed out above and its character easily can fit other parts of the Americas. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Family

Add information and sources about family demographics here:

• customary unwed motherhood of females (2 x ref supplied)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuum (talk • contribs) 02:29, 15 August 2010

Edit warring and accusations of cover-up, huh? You're pushing the wrong buttons.

In case you didn't get it, let me say it clearly: I'm not absolutely opposed to the inclusion of that info. But just as an article needs to be balanced, so do sections. Your content gives undue weight to that piece of info so long as that's all it says about H/L American families. But it is you who needs to add the balancing content, because it is you who's adding the content that requires it. And since it is an individual choice what, where, when, how, etc we edit, you can't demand that others help you do your edit. SamEV (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Matter's resolved now with the tag designed for this situation having been added into the section.Spuum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC).

No, it's not. You have no WP:CONSENSUS for addition and have reverted more than three times. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The heading is narrowed and content broadened. Thus this is now resolved. Narrow the heading even further if the breadth of it is seen to make anything thereunder 'undue' in extent of coverage. There's important reasons we have tags inviting additional content for underdeveloped sections, also. They're not only for show. They're to be used where's there's content worth saving and relevant to a subject matter, although the same may be spare to begin with (as most things are in their beginnings!).Spuum (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Five editors have reverted you and yet you continue to post the same edit. Five editors is consensus. Because you chose to revert again, you have been referred to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I would recommend any other editors, who would like to comment on this editor, to visit that admin board. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

ON THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HISPANIC AND LATINO AMERICANS ETC.

This article is all wrong, I do not understand why Spain is always mixed in with South America, Spain is a country in Europe, not South America, although we share a language, we do not share an ethnicity, some South Americans are of Spanish origin, but not all, there are a lot of Italian origins, German origins and Portuguese in South America yet everybody seems to only include Spain which makes no sense since the very definition of ethnicity is "the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition" Spain only shares a language with most of south America. A lot of this is said in the article yet, when we come to the demographics chart, the article gets confusing, the chart on the side shows Hispanic demographics with every south American country and Spain randomly put in there. People from Spain are Spanish people of Spanish descent are Hispanic, not the same thing, if we are talking about language then we are all Latin, this would also include France, Italy, Portugal, Romania etc. Americans have mixed up all these definitions and now they are being misused in our daily vocabulary. This article only makes everything more confusing and it should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.30.250 (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be outraged because the USAmericans mix the Spanish in the charts along with the "South Americans". Should I say that every country in South America is different enough to each other as much as they are different from Spain? The same short-sightedness seems to exist on both shores of the North Atlantic, pues. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above commentary. The article is incorrect in stating "there are Hispanics of other European ancestries (e.g. Italian, German, Polish)". This is an absurdity. The term "Hispanic" means "related to Spain or what used to be "Spanish America". This excludes any country in Europe other than Spain, and any Latin American country which was not under Spanish rule at one time, and where Spanish is not spoken. True, most Latinos or Latin Americans have Spanish ancestry, but not all. Some don't even speak Spanish nor have Spanish surnames. Latin America includes one country in North America (Mexico), and those in Central America, South America, and the Caribbean except those originally British and Dutch colonies. Haiti and Brazil are considered Latin American countries as they evolved from territories colonized by France and Portugal, which along with Spain, Italy and Romania are countries whose languages, referred to as Romance languages, derived from Latin. 70.118.82.113 (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that, in the US, the word "Hispanic" nowadays means another thing than "related to Spain or what used to be Spanish America". It also (or alternatively) means "peoples with origins in the countries of Hispanic America or Spain" (whatever their genealogy). You'd have to discuss it with the USA agencies or the USAmericans to change that fact. At most, here in WP we can make it clear the original/alternative significance of the word (which is already stated in the Hispanic article, and discussed in the Hispanic/Latino naming dispute article). Salut, --IANVS (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Brazilians are Latino, but not Hispanic nor originating from Spain, They originate from Portugal. their is a difference indeed.--Gimelthedog (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not split the difference and replace Spain with Iberian Peninsula? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 03:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there are people who are confused about who's Hispanic/Latino and who isn't doesn't require us to change the reliably sourced definition to accomodate what they think "Hispanic or Latino" means or should mean. Neither the Portuguese nor Brazilians fall under the definition.

I'll change the statement "there are Hispanics of other European ancestries (e.g. Italian, German, Polish)" to "there are Hispanic or Latino Americans of other European ancestries (e.g. Italian, German, Polish)". That's consistent with the sources, and doesn't alter the basic meaning. People of "Hispanic or Latino origin" can be of absolutely any actual ancestry. It's just a self-ID pertaining to place of origin, and is not a matter of ancestry. I can explain this further is asked. SamEV (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

MMMM... HISPANICS ARE FROM HISPANIA = IBERIAN PENINSULA, HISPANIA IS PORTUGAL AND SPAIN, IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE AGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.159.25 (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Misleading info

This article is trying to play down the fact that Hispanics have the LOWEST rates of educational attainment. It is very TRUE that they drop out at the highest rates and that they are the LEAST likely to get a university degree. Saying that blacks score lower than "most" Hispanic groups is very misleading. The largest hispanic groups(Mexicans, puerto ricans, etc) score VERY low. Yes some of the groups do score quite high(Cubans Dominicans, etc) but they consist of very small groups.

See also here http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.146.74.177 (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

HISPANIC? NO, SPANISH OF EUROPE, SPAIN IS LATIN, YES, AS FRANCE, ITALY AND PORTUGAL!!

LATIN IS THE CULTURE OF THE SHOUTH OF EUROPE, OF ALL SOUTH EUROPE, SOUTH AMERICANS ARE INCAS, MAYAS AND AZTECS....

This article is made by Americans, Americans fail to understand that the Spanish are exactly the same country as France, with a border in the Pyrenees, but the cultural base is the same, we are white, not "Hispanic" Latinos are the Spanish, Italians, French and Portuguese, South Americans speak a Latin language, BUT ARE NOT LATINO ETHNIC, I'm sick of nobody knows who and what is my country, I am sick of the Spanish language relates with Mexico, taking the story has in Spain, I AM NOT HISPANIC, I AM SPANISH. EUROPEAN, AND EVEN THAT I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST OTHER RACES: I AM WHITE FUCK!, the same culture as EUROPE, i don't eat fajitas, i don't talk with the rare accent of the south, i'm from the country of cervantes, severo ochoa, ramon y cajal, ortega y gasset, im from the country who was founded the first universities, with the first national state of the world, and now, we are the 8º power of the world... with a GPD over Italy or Portugal... Spain, France, Germany and England are the pillars of European culture, and Spain is a key to understanding Europe is one of the oldest countries in the world, developed under our industrial government of the Netherlands, and northern of Italy, that I know? NO, all we know is that we are Hispanic, our culture does not exist for you, there is France and Germany, yes, but Spain did not, you have no clue what it really is Spain, and maybe you will not the wonderest for you (improbable, but...), but it is a piece of the continent's history, and not a part of the second ... please inform a bit about what is Spain before getting into the sack of the Aztecs Incas and Mayas, who was born in Europe, not the Machupichu...

Es que enfadais a cualquiera, que siempre igual con hispanos e hispanos... que mi cultura no tiene nada que ver con la sudamericana!!!

1st: Latin American culture (not only South American) was deeply influenced by three centuries of Spanish and Portuguese colonialism. This lenghty process in fact originated a greatly diverse, and rather original, culture, where the unifying element was the Latin European culture. Thus, when considered as a whole, these multiple cultures (of a region which is far more diverse than you probably imagine) are usually referred to as "Latin" and/or "Hispanic".

2nd: Mayan, Aztec and/or Inca culture only represent a part of Latin American identity (Mayas and Aztecs are/were North Americans, BTW)

3rd: The number of Spanish-speaking Mexicans are about three times Spanish-speakers Spaniards. The number of Hispanic American Spanish-speakers is nine times the population of Spain. You cannot deny the right of Hispanic Americans to the Spanish language (which was brought to the continent five centuries ago).

4th: There are no "ehtnic latins" since more than fifteen centuries ago.

5th: Go tell the French that Spain is the "exactly the same country" that theirs. Ho ho.

Salut, --IANVS (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I like fajitas. The Original Historygeek (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was deeply influenced by Spanish and Portuguese colonialism, so we speak Spanish, cook with oil, or playing the same sports, but the culture is more than what you eat? or what do you mean? have a completely different mentality from the Spanish, so yes, they are influenced by Spain, but no Spanish culture. to laugh at that Spain is equal to France merely prove the stereotype that you have the European culture, as if we were all very different and all, across southern Europe is almost the same, all come out of the Roman Empire one country, one culture, and spent much time remained virtually the same. Spanish culture is not "wide", there is no mixing of cultures, we in Southern Europe, and there is no mixing of different peoples, was yes, but everything is homogenized, we are Spanish, and I think an atrocity mix our culture that we speak the same language, Senegal and France are the same country? NO, REALLY? it took so long as Spanish French colonialism was South America, and nobody dares to say that the Senegalese have French culture. You have the cultural vision of Spain fully clouded, that Spain is just that flamenco and bullfighting is for you to come foreigners in summer!

I do not know if the U.S. educational system is studied more than geometry and U.S. presidents, but you should know that Spain and France are the countries like in Europe, France was ruled by Spanish, Spain was ruled by the French, and an easier way for you to understand, in Morocco there are Arabs in France are European, and in Spain there are also Europeans, have only been able to come from France, then what is Spain? one way or another, an extension of the history of France. Only Siena France very well, chanel number 5 and oh la la, sounds like South America and Spain ....

say one thing that surprises me a lot is that you say that the Mayans and Aztecs only part of the identity of the latin america ... Please, can you listen to me once, and understand that Mexico and Spain do not look ANYTHING?

I am not denying anyone's right to speak one language, I'm just differentiating my country of South America, because we put in the same boat and we do not seem cultural at all, Americans do you think that there is only the United States, France, Italy and England, and all others are either African or South American ... and my culture is so European, or more, if possible, than the Italian, for example.

TO SUM UP: THIS ARTICLE SUCKS:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.159.25 (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

translation by google... sorry...

ORIGINAL IN SPANISH:

Si, fue profundamente influida por el colonialismo español y portugues, por eso hablan español, cocinan con aceite, o juegan a los mismos deportes, pero la cultura es algo más que ¿que comes? o ¿que hablas? tienen una mentalidad completamente diferente de la española, por lo que sí, están influenciados por españa, pero no tienen la cultura española. que te rías por lo de que españa es igual a francia no hace más que demostrar lo estereotipada que teneis la cultura europea, como si todos fuesemos muy diferentes y total, todo el sur de europa es practicamente lo mismo, todos salimos del imperio romano, un solo país, una sola cultura, y por mucho tiempo que pasara seguimos siendo practicamente los mismos. la cultura española no es "variada", no hay ninguna mezcla de culturas, somos del sur de europa, y no hay ninguna mezcla de diferentes pueblos, la hubo si, pero ya está todo homogeneizado, somos españoles, y me parece una atrocidad mezclar nuestra cultura por que hablamos el mismo idioma, Senegal y Francia son el mismo país? NO, VERDAD? pues tuvo tanto tiempo de colonialismo francés como de español tuvo sudamérica, y nadie se atreve a decir que los Senegaleses tengan cultura Francesa. Tienes la visión cultural de España totalmente nublada, ¡¡que eso de que españa es solo flamenco y toros es solo para que vengais los extranjeros en verano!!

No sé, si en el sistema educativo estadounidense se estudia algo más que geometría y los presidentes estadounidenses, pero deberías saber que España y Francia son los países más parecidos de toda Europa, Francia estuvo gobernada por Españoles, España estuvo gobernada por Franceses, y de una forma más sencilla, para que lo entiendas, en Marruecos hay árabes, en francia hay europeos, y en españa también hay europeos, solo han podido entrar desde francia, luego ¿que es españa? de una forma o de otra, una prolongación de la historia de Francia. Solo que Francia siena muy bien, a chanel numero 5 y a oh la la, y españa suena a sudamerica....

una cosa que dices que me sorprende muchisimo es que digas que los mayas y aztecas solo forman parte de la identidad de la américa latina... Por Favor, puedes hacerme caso de una vez, y entender que Méjico y España no se parecen NADA??

yo no estoy denegando el derecho de nadie a hablar un idioma, solo estoy diferenciando mi país de sudamérica, por que nos ponen en el mismo saco cultural y no nos parecemos en nada, los estadounidenses pensais que solo existe Estados Unidos, Francia, Italia e Inglaterra, y que todos los demás o son africanos o sudamericanos... y mi cultura es tan europea, o más, si cabe que la italiana, por ejemplo.

TO SUM UP: THIS ARTICLE SUCKS :)

PLEASE, ENTER IN http://www.spain.info/en/ and compares a little, may seem to us something, but you should notice the difference.

the differences between French culture and Spanish culture (the original culture of the spanish nation in europe) are minimal

the truth is that it is outrageous that an American ignorant say that the Spanish are similar than Latin American, or even that we seem, is to go crazy for the ignorance they have. they think that what they say is the only truth, look kid, culture is more than the stereotype that is available on a country, in America there are people who think that Spain is a state of Mexico, so do not be so swagger as if you had known all, why you don't have fucking idea. sorry ;)

Search Google: "Cultura Francesa" and "cultura siglo de oro español" and see the "big difference" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.159.167 (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A] So you think the cultural influence of Spain in the Americas is only food, language and sports? I'm sorry to dissapoint you but the Spanish influence was far more pervading and includes most aspects of social and individual life. It is an integral part of Latin American culture. In fact, modern Latin American culture would be unthinkable of without reference to Spanish and Portuguese culture and colonial history. B] "Different mentality"? What are you talking about? Stereotype, anyone? C] "France is equal to Spain" All right, tell the French and then we talk about it. D] "There is no mixing of cultures in Spain" I beg you to learn about your own country History and present. E] The influence of French colonialism in Africa is not comparable to the Iberian influence in the Americas. At all. F] "Spain is more European than Italy" Oh well. Again, please tell the Italians about that and see what they think.

For your peace of mind, I'll recongnise the following: G] "Spain is in Europe, not in Latin America". You are right. H] "Spain is different from Latin America". Again, you are right. But you should consider thew diversity of Latin America, to avoid repeating the stereotyping you so ardorously attack. I mean, Do you think Spain is more different from -say- Mexico, than Argentina or Brazil are from Mexico itself? Well, it may be not. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

i support the mentioned above, Spain doesn't look like the stereotype of "flamenco and bulls" that they put abroad, we don't seem to almost nothing with South America, and yes in almost all the rest of Europe, unfortunately, almost countries no knows them (unknows?), and think that the social or political organization in South America is much like Spain, where it is very different in all the ways. the truth is that it is sad see the total ignorance they have all to our country, Spain. (and yes, Spain, seems a lot with France, Italy and Portugal in a lot of ways, We are the western roman empire at end..)--Zayuk (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

On America

SPANIARDS ARE NOT LATINOS - THEY ARE WHITE EUROPEANS. YES - HISPANIOLA IS THE IBERIAN PENINSULAR. TERM- HISPANIC, GIVEN TO PEOPLE OF NATIVE INDIAN MIXTURE ALONG WITH SPANISH ANCESTRY IS INCORRECT. THIS TERM WAS GIVEN IN THE USA IN 1980s FOR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS REASON. EUROPEAN SPANISH PEOPLE LOOK DIFFERENT THAN THE MEXICAN, EL SALVADOREAN AND GUATEMALAN IN COLOR AND MOST IDENTIFIABLY IN RACIAL FEATURES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.137.167 (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Europeans only have 6 continents to learn about, America being one continent, not 2. America has always been one continent, the USA wanted to separate from the South so they drilled up the Panama canal and decided there would be 7 continents, too bad they couldn't drill between themselves and Mexico, I'm sure they would have if they could have. So yes, USA, just because your country doesn't have a name doesn't mean you get to call yourselves Americans and leave everybody else out of a name which is also theirs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.30.250 (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Guys, this is not a forum for general discussion of the subject

I don't know how much longer your conversation can go on without being removed, but it's not much longer. This page is for suggesting improvements to the article, not for discussing Hispanic and Latino Americans, let alone Hispanicness, etc. SamEV (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

when your country is called "Latin" but wasn't, it affects you a bit, my stomach is scrambling for read drivel as large as who the Spanish born in America are Latino, what bunch of ignorant live in America? What you think that is "Spanish" is "Aztec", the Spanish thing is another thing.--Zayuk (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Assmilation?

I am having difficulty with the language of assimilation. I feel this section should be named "intermarriage," as this is really what it is addressing. Cultural assimilation can be caused by any number of factors, and the section makes no effort to connect intermarriage as the only obvious candidate for this terminology in practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.238.128 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Guys, this is not a forum for general discussion of the subject

I don't know how much longer your conversation can go on without being removed, but it's not much longer. This page is for suggesting improvements to the article, not for discussing Hispanic and Latino Americans, let alone Hispanicness, etc. SamEV (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

when your country is called "Latin" but wasn't, it affects you a bit, my stomach is scrambling for read drivel as large as who the Spanish born in America are Latino, what bunch of ignorant live in America? What you think that is "Spanish" is "Aztec", the Spanish thing is another thing.--Zayuk (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Assmilation?

I am having difficulty with the language of assimilation. I feel this section should be named "intermarriage," as this is really what it is addressing. Cultural assimilation can be caused by any number of factors, and the section makes no effort to connect intermarriage as the only obvious candidate for this terminology in practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.238.128 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

HIspanic and Latino fix

since latino is a U.S. construct word, latino has the same meaning as hispanic according to the U.S. census, therefore someone should change the frase "hispanic and latino" to "hispanic OR latino". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Gabriel Viljoen (talk • contribs) 20:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. Census has always maintained the term Hispanic OR Latino, with no differentiation of definition. In the body of the article the statement is made that “some authorities of American English The terms Hispanic and Latino are held to be mutually distinct by some authorities of American English, as seen in the following quotation:….. However the is no such quotation at the referenced source. Maybe it was there, I don’t know. Maybe dictionary.com (the referenced source) was contacted and they corrected. However if there is no legitimate source the quotation should be removed as encyclopedic content must be verifiable, and the title of the title corrected as you say. Tierraman (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Haity and Brazil

that article clearly show that near 200.000 Brazilian American do not count as Hispanic and Latino Americans, but say nothing about near 500.000 Haitian Americans, what about they?--Feroang (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll find the list of Hispanic or Latino peoples in the article, with links to the sources. SamEV (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a tiny error in this article, Spain is a country, so there's no such a thing like "the countries of Spain"--Cobretti124 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't find "the countries of Spain" anywhere in the article. SamEV (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

naming

assuming that the terms are synonyms, we should just pick one and be done with it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.170.229 (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC) They aren't quite...latino is the cultural group made up of an interbreeding of spaniards and american indian groups, hispanic is spanish speaking ancestry of that group. its like squares vs rectangles. I think hispanics are latino but not all latino are hispanic....unless I misunderstand the definitions which I very well might lol.

Y26Z3 's Edits

User Y26Z3 has recently made edits removing the article's characterization of "Hispanic" as being narrower than the term "Latino," and has also removed references to Latinos/Hispanics who trace their ethnic origins to places in Europe other than Spain. It seems like we need to flesh out the best way to approach these parts of the article. By my reckoning, Hispanic is narrower since it excludes Brazil while Latino does not. One-third of all Latin Americans are Brazilian (for example, there are more Portuguese speakers in South America than there are Spanish speakers). Even if you include people from Spain within the term "Hispanic," "Latino" is still a broader term since Brazil is bigger in terms of population, economy, and land area than Spain.

Regarding the removal of the section describing Hispanics and Latinos who have origins in Europe outside of Spain, the article text links to other wikipedia articles which back up the factual assertions being made. I don't see any justification for removing that text.

Y26Z3 has been frequently cited in the past for vandalizing other articles relating to Hispanics. Y26Z3: do you want to offer some rationale for your repeated reverts and edits here in this article? If not, I think we should assume that this is another case of Y26Z3 engaging in vandalism and we should reject Y26Z3's changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodsdrew (talk • contribs) 18:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I am going to show you why you are incorrect, although I think that you probably already know yourself that you are incorrect. However, I will humor you.

You have absolutely no source for it being a "narrower term"; the sources cited, refer to it as having a "broader reference". It is reasonable to simply have it read, "potentially encompasses". This is why that particular edit was made.

Second, the section which says "and there are Hispanic/Latino Americans who are primarily or entirely of European ancestries other than Spanish (e.g. Italian, French, German, Polish, Portuguese), and of Middle Eastern (e.g. Lebanese), African, Amerindian/Native American, and East or South Asian ancestries" is being removed because it is redundant. Prior to that it is said, "Although a large majority of Hispanic and Latino Americans have Spanish ancestry, most are not of direct, 'from-Spain-to-the-U.S.' Spanish descent; many are not primarily of Spanish descent; and some are not of Spanish descent at all. People whose ancestors or who themselves arrived in the United States directly from Spain are a tiny minority of the Hispanic or Latino population (see figures in this article)". Hence, the section being removed is redundant.

If you continue to undo the changes, I will report you for vandalism. Thank you, (Y26Z3 (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC))

"Latino" encompasses Brazilians and Spanish speaking Latin Americans; Hispanic encompasses Spanish-speaking Latin Americans and persons from Spain. The AP styleguide, which is one of the sources cited, makes this very clear. There are far more Brazilians than there are Spaniards. There are far more Brazilian-Americans than Spanish-Americans (there are about 100,000 Spanish Americans in the United States; there are between 400,000 and 1,100,000 Brazilian Americans in the United States). Latino thus obviously includes more people than does "Hispanic." I've added a further explanation of this reasoning to the article.

As far as the information about persons of other European ancestries living in Latin America, it is not redundant with the text you've left in. It provides further explanation not given by the meager text you've left in. Unless you can point to it being inaccurate, it provides further information about the subject and should be left in. Y26Z3 , please stop vandalizing this article. You've already been reprimanded before for similar behavior in other articles, and your aggressive, combative, and threatening behavior is not welcome here either.Goodsdrew (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

First, you are giving an incorrect definition of the Census Bureau’s definition of “Hispanic" or “Latino”. Please, refer to the citation I provided.

Second, do you really not understand that naming Middle Eastern, African, Ameridian/Native American, East or South Asian, and other European ancestry is redundant after explaining that many are not primarily of Spanish descent and some are not of Spanish descent at all? Do you need me to provide you a definition of redundant, or how else can explain this to you? Please, do tell me what you do not understand. Or, rather, what do you think that that part helps explain?

Third, please refer to Hispanic for more information regarding what the ethnonym encompasses. I think that you will find that that page can help individuals who do not understand it very well. The AP styleguide as cited does not make clear what you said it did. I understand that you may want to lie or provide false information in order to support what you did, but that is not acceptable here or elsewhere. American Heritage provides an entry in opposition to your opinion.

Finally, as of now, there are no citations for the part you added, so it will be completely removed.

I hope you learned your lesson, (Y26Z3 (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You didn't substantively address any of what I said. The parts I added cross-reference other Wikipedia articles that back up the new text. To avoid any potential for confusion, though, I've added in citations for everything that I've added to the introduction.

As far as referring to the ethnic backgrounds of Latin Americans, specifying specific places of origins is clearer than leaving it ambiguous. It is a big world. Just saying that they do not have origins in Spain does not tell us where their origins DO come from.

I'm reverting because you have not provided any substantive reasons for your edits. Please stop your vandalism.Goodsdrew (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Middle Eastern, African, Ameridian/Native American, East or South Asian, and other European ancestry = any ancestry.

not primarily of Spanish descent and some are not of Spanish descent at all = any ancestry.

Hence, there is an unnecessary repetition of an idea.

redundant means characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas.

Therefore, that part is redundant.

In addition, there is still not a citation for the argument you added. Please refer to Hispanic to begin your exploration of the term.

(Y26Z3 (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC))

There are sources backing up every edit you are undoing. Please stop your vandalism.Goodsdrew (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You could perhaps put those figures in the section on demographics; however, the argument is not backed up by any of those sources. What do you not understand about that? (Y26Z3 (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC))

Please read more carefully. There are three sources cited that explicitly state that Latino is a broader term :

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0825/is_n3_v62/ai_18771519/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/uselectionroadtrip/2008/oct/18/uselections2008-race-newmexico

http://etd.auburn.edu/etd/bitstream/handle/10415/88/VITALE_MICHELE_14.pdf?sequence=1

Please start reading the article and contributing to it, rather than vandalizing parts you don't like.Goodsdrew (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

First, you are giving the incorrect organization that defines "Hispanic" or "Latino" for the specific definition provided; it is the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, not the U.S. Government.

Second, please stop adding the redundant part; I realize you may be accidentally putting it back in, please be more careful.

American Heritage specifically says that Hispanic has a broader reference. The first article from the Journal of Rehabilitation is not an authority on the use of the terms hispanic and latino and is relatively irrelevant when considering an entry for an encyclopedia. The second article from The Guardian is also not an authority on the use of the terms hispanic and latino and also, just so you know, writers and editors for some newspapers make mistakes. The third article from a graduate student at Auburn University is actually potentially incorrect when it says that hispanic only refers to people whose native language is Spanish or who are descendants of Spanish-speaking ancestors. Furthermore, an article from a graduate student regarding a different topic is not criteria for an encyclopedia entry.(Y26Z3 (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC))

Total count of Latinos to include the residents of the US commonwealth of Puerto Rico

Need to include the 3.7 million US citizens that reside in Puerto Rico in the total number of Puerto Rican in the USA.

Puerto Rico (PR) is part of the USA and is covered by the census. They can move freely between PR and the main land. However, you used only the PR that reside in the states but the total of PR in the USA includes the US citizens in PR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.197.121.251 (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Corrections

As of 15:48 on July 2, 2012 the fourth and fifth sentences of the introduction are original research, which are contradicted by these sources and for these reasons:

· American Heritage Dictionary, an electronic version of their statement can be found here answers.com. It is said, "Though often used interchangeably in American English, Hispanic and Latino are not identical terms, and in certain contexts the choice between them can be significant. Hispanic, from the Latin word for "Spain," has the broader reference..." Hence, the statement that "Hispanic is a narrower term" is contradicted. This may mean that encompassment of the terms is not defined by population count or perhaps, there are in fact more people who are Hispanic. Furthermore, there is no source that directly says Hispanic is a narrower term, although it could be implied from the statement by the graduate student at Auburn University who says that Latino is broader. In any case, it doesn't make sense to underplay the importance of a reputable dictionary and emphasize the work of a graduate student who is writing about a different topic.

· The New York Times Company, about.com. This source says that how broad Hispanic is varies. This source also provides a different definition of Latino. It is said, "Latino generally refers to countries (or cultures) that were once under Roman rule. This includes Italy, France, Spain, etc. Brazilians are considered to be Latino..." Hence, as stated by an editor of Wikipedia, "Because Brazil's population of 191,000,000 is several times larger than Spain's population of 47,000,000... Latino is a broader term encompassing more people," is not necessarily correct and there are no cited sources that support the reasoning; thus, the statement is original research.

· "Hispanic" and "Latino": The Viability of Categories for Panethnic Unity by Jose Calderon. The author states “… the view of some academicians that ethnic groups are primarily political interest groups- united not just on the basis of culture but around common interests.” Hence, the statement “Latino is a broader term encompassing more people” (as is written by a wikipeida editor) is oversimplifying the issue at hand.

I propose that the fourth and fifth sentences of the introduction be deleted due to lack of sources and original research. I propose an edit so that the introduction states, “While the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, neither term perhaps substantively contain the same meaning and denotative qualities of the other (See Hispanic and Latino)” with citations to a selection of the sources (which each and every one directly indicate that the proposed edit is correct). (UnbiasedObjective (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC))

I disagree. The cited sources in the text as it is now completely support the two sentences, and the cited sources are highly reliable (there's no question they fulfill WP:RELIABLE -- the sources are from academia and a respected newspaper). The AP style guide clearly states that Hispanic refers to persons with a background from a Spanish-speaking country while "Latino" is defined as persons from a Spanish-speaking background or from Latin America -- those two definitions capture the common American usage of the two terms, and the definition of "Latino" is explicitly made broader by the AP style guide than the definition of Hispanic. There are three sources all explicitly stating that "Latino" is the broader term, one from the Guardian} newspaper and two from [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0825/is_n3_v62/ai_18771519/ peer-reviewed academic sources:

UnbiasedObjective's citation to the "New York Times Company" is disingenuous -- he is citing to an online-only About.com article (that was likely not fact-checked by anyone), not an NYT article. And that article was not written by a subject matter expert, but by an expert on "women in business." The citation to Jose Calderon does nothing to contradict what is currently in the article.

The fourth and fifth sentences should be retained as-is.Goodsdrew (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added three new academic citations that all state that Latino is a broader term because it includes Brazilians.Goodsdrew (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Spain=latin?

if you are spanish in USA you are a "latino"? but if you are italian in USA you aren't "latino"?

LAZIO=ITALY LATIN=OLD ITALIAN LANGUAGE

SPAIN, FRANCE, PORTUGAL, ITALY AND ROMANIA = LATIN COUNTRIES, NOT ONLY SPAIN.

CANADA ALSO IS A LATIN COUNTRY... LATIN ISN'T THE SAME AS AMERICAN INDIAN DESCENDENT

(yes... i dont speak english very well... as you don't speak spanish...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.11.187.135 (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The article clearly says that "Hispanic" includes persons from Spain or of Spanish descent, but that "Latino" does not ("Latino" only includes persons from Latin America). The changes you made to the article to remove references to "Spain" are not supported by the citations. Before making changes to articles, please verify that your edits are supported by citations. "Latino" in English is shorty for latinoamericano -- contrary to what you state, it does not refer to all persons whose descent can be traced to a romance language country.Goodsdrew (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Latinoamericanos are the Latin people of America, if you descend of a spanish you are latino, but if you descend of an italian you aren't latino... the problem is that you think that Spanish and Hispanic is the same... Mexico talk in spanish but they are Aztecs, Spanish are not latino in the way that you say... Spain as Italy Portugal France and Romania descend of the "Latin" Roman Empire, but WE AREN'T LATINOS OR LATINOAMERICANOS... but sorry... i can't fight against the US mentality... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.11.183.166 (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image

The infobox contains multiple political individuals, most of who are left leaning, as such I believe that having only one conservative and/or republican in the infobox gives undue weight to the liberal and/or democrat Hispanic and Latino American population at a disservice to the Hispanic and Latino conservative and or republican population. There are numerous historical Hispanic and Latino Republicans who can be added to fix the balance, such as Federico Degetau, Luis A. Ferré, Octaviano Ambrosio Larrazolo, or Romualdo Pacheco.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

An alternative would be to remove all politicians and political appointees in the infobox.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Catalan Americans

I am not the person to do this, but shouldn't there be some reference to Catalan Americans in this article? TomS TDotO (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

And why not a "people who are from Albacete and live in the USA Category"? And what are you populate it with? Baleareans and Valencians, like you always do? --81.35.1.92 (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"Part of a series of articles on Hispanic and Latino Americans"

Why is the series titled this way? Brazilian Americans aren't included, so why not just call it a series of articles on Hispanic Americans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.251.66 (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Link to this?

I dont know of this should be linked to from here, but its an interesting story. Mike Schennum, half Chinese, half European, was chosen by Time Magazine for a cover montage of Hispanic voters. An apology ensued. If not here, where could this be mentioned (this is an attempt to de-orphan).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

one question

About the racial classification in USA: White, Hispanic, Black, Asian, Native American and Other

Does this exist because of LANGUAGE: as Spanish is second most-spoken language in USA and even is state language in some states such as California. I just want to know. --178.235.177.159 (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hispanic is not a racial classification at all. It is shown as a separate option in the U.S. Census along with racial classifications.--Jersey Devil (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to accept racial categories as fact i.e. is POV

This article consistently uses United States definitions of race as though they are fact; there is no deeper discussion of the fallacies of race systems. It broadly proclaims, Hispanics are not a race. Sure, there are a couple references to make this kosher, but so what? They are hardly from neutral/hard science sources. In fact, the one source for this that is not the census bureau itself uses the census bureau as a source. It also cities "accepted social science" (i.e. what other people have said and is _regarded_ as true by a certain group of people irrespective of its actual truth value) as its source. There should at least be some hard science based on actual evidence in this article as opposed to the personal opinions of a few people that have come to be the party line.

I want to be clear I am not taking the position that Hispanic is a race category. I am saying that race itself is entirely a social construct masquerading as science and has been exposed as such. To say that something is or isn't a race presupposes that one can actually form a correct opinion which one can't. Theshibboleth (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

well it needs a line somewhere or the word doesn't mean anything, its like when do you stop calling a square a rectangle. ex is italian or irish a race? if not then hispanic wouldn't be either for the sake of the word being usable. nearly all of language is "artificial" or "contrived" because thats how words work. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.235.96 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Theshibboleth.

Regardless of whether races exist or not, or make sense or not (each has its internal logic), there do exist such constructs called "races", with specified memberships.

The OMB and Census Bureau define the racial and ethnic groups for use in US census-taking and define, one could say created, the group "Hispanic or Latino". Whenever races are spoken of in this article they're not spoken of as a metaphysical fact. Instead, the official races are being referred to, and hence the need to cite official sources directly. The statement that this group is not a race is referring very specifically to the OMB/CB definitions, in which this group is defined as an "ethnicity", and is clearly stated to not be a race.

If this article were to go deeper into a discussion of race, it wouldn't be of "race" in a general sense, but instead it would be that construct of the OMB and CB called "race". But that's, IMO, a moot point, because a deeper discussion of race seems out of scope in this article. Links are given to Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, a more appropriate venue for discussing what you term "the fallacies of race systems". Links are also found for Race and ethnicity in the United States, and Demographics of the United States, in this article.

All of that said, you seem like a good editor. If you'd like to help improve this article, you'd be very welcome to. SamEV (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I may end up being inconsistent here, but I don't see any reason to remain consistent for consistency's sake alone. So here it goes... If this article is about the Census Bureau's constructs of race, ethnicity and Hispanic or Latino, then it should clearly state that.

However as an American of European descent I am aware that many "white" Americans consider Hispanics and Latinos to be racially distinct from whites. On the other hand, it is my understanding that in Hispanic cultures one might consider oneself to be white while at the same time being Hispanic and one might even share the genetics of a person of a different race which is unusual (though not impossible) in the traditional American system.

I certainly don't want this article to take the "white" point of view on race, nor would I want it to take on any other view exclusively. In my own view it would ideally present the truth, but because of WP:NPOV for the purposes of Wikipedia it ought to instead make clear distinctions between the various conceptions of race. At present it seems to accept the Census definition as the definition. That would be fine if this article was strictly about the definition and the demographics of that specific group that chose to be listed under that definition. However, this article also talks about many other individuals who might not be considered Hispanic/Latino by certain groups or who might not even consider themselves Hispanic/Latino, specifically I am thinking of Charlie Sheen although there may be other examples. Theshibboleth (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is strictly a US group, one which has never been defined as a "race", and which is itself 'racially' diverse. How far one can get away with saying that it is a US Govt construct, I don't know. Fifty million Americans do perceive themselves as Hispanic/Latino by now.

The subject of inclusion of individuals is actually a separate matter and one which deserves further discussion.

BTW, don't hesitate to offer proposals for how to modify specific statements that you think could use editing (or edit them yourself, if you'd like). SamEV (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC); 07:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't want to put this too bluntly, but your comments are frankly stupid. The categories discussed in the article are a result of the Census. The Census asks people to state their race, and then asks a separate question about Hispanic ethnicity. These numbers come from the answers of Hispanic respondents. 53% of Hispanics in the U.S. consider themselves white. If you want to dispute that, you need to go to them and tell them they're not really white, even though they think they are (and even though they have primarily, or solely, Spanish ancestry). Which appears to be what you're doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.251.194.74 (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Is your comment really directed at me, or at user Theshibboleth? SamEV (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

To me, it looks like the comment was directed to Theshibboleth. 89.252.128.221 (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)