This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.62.148.231 (
talk)
20:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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 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)
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"
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)
IANVS: Your whole comment is unneeded. Secret killer ( talk) 03:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Add information and sources about family demographics here:
—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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!!!
PLEASE, ENTER IN
http://www.spain.info/en/ and compares a little, may seem to us something, but you should notice the difference.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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:
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))
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.62.148.231 (
talk)
20:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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 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)
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"
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)
IANVS: Your whole comment is unneeded. Secret killer ( talk) 03:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Add information and sources about family demographics here:
—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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!!!
PLEASE, ENTER IN
http://www.spain.info/en/ and compares a little, may seem to us something, but you should notice the difference.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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:
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))
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)