Talk:Hispanic and Latino Americans/Archive 1

American?
Exactly why is the term "Hispanic American" controversial? Gringo300 02:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the Use of the word American, the word American might mistakenly imply Hispanic American=Latin American. --23prootie 14:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The term is not controversial and as such has been removed.--Jersey Devil 19:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Soldiers
[Note. The article states that "Hispanic soldiers have fought in all the wars of the United States, and have earned the highest distinction of any US ethnic group." The assertion that Hispanics have earned the highest distinction of any U.S. ethnic group is usally based on the number of Medals of Honor awarded Hispanic soldiers; however Hispanics have won only 44 of the 3,400 medals awarded. This is less than one percent of the total awarded. The claim that Hsipanics have won more Medals of Honors that any other ethnic group probably grew out of an assertion that Hispanics won more medals as a percentage of population than any other ethnic group during Vietnam. Hispanic Americans won 17 of 240 Medals of Honor awarded during the Vietnam era, so this could be true; however, there are no statistics showing what precentage of Medal of Honor awards went to other ethnic groups. Any assertion that any one ethnic groups out performs others on the battlefield should be treated as suspect.]

Blair Case


 * A reliable source or more confirms it, which is why I posted that claim. And yes, that's what I thought it meant: that proportinately to their numbers, Hispanic/Latino soldiers have been the best decorated group. I've heard it said of WWII, not just Vietnam. SamEV 07:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
I have two questions: How are blacks a group related to Hispanics, as listed in the infobox? Their cultures are VERY different. Also, why isn't Chicago listed as a region where a significant number of Hispanics live? I think there's about 1,000,000 just in the city proper. DBQer 01:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I also have a question about the infobox. The percent of the total United States population that is identified as Hispanic is different in the infobox than in the opening paragraph. Should these figures be reconciled? Eggness 17:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I didn't notice that but have now updated it. The figure in the first paragraph was data from the 2000 Census (our last national census). The figure in the infobox was projected data by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Hispanic population in the U.S. in July 1, 2006. Hence it is more recent and should be used. Here is the source for the latest figures.--Jersey Devil 22:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * DBQer, Black and Hispanic are not mutually exclusive. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 07:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * that was an old post but just for the record, yep.--Jersey Devil (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

_______________________________

Your question is: "How are blacks a group related to Hispanics, as listed in the infobox? Their cultures are VERY different."

Answer: If you go to Cuba, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic and many Central and South American nations black African people make up much of the population. Look at Cuba, the majority of Cubans are black. It's just that when many Hispanics/Latinos come to the United States many of them will tend to mark "white on the Census forms". The same goes with many who are Amerindian and or mestizo, they too when they come to the United States will mark "white" on the Census forms. Many white Hispanics/Latinos tend to overlook and to dominate discussions relating to race and ethnicity of the groups that make up the Hispanic/Latino catagory. This is a problem because Hispanic and Latino is not an ethnic group. Blacks from Cuba are not the same ethnic group as whites from Cuba or Amerindians/mestizos or whites from Mexico. Black Dominicans are not the same ethnic group as whites from Chile.

This article seems to over look this fact and it needs to be very clear about this matter. But, yes look at the Atlantic slave trade. There were more black Africans taken to Latin American and the Caribbean than to the United States. This is why today there are more black people in Brazil than there are black people in the United States. These blacks in the US would typically be called black Latinos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlpedia (talk • contribs) 16:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning your first question. There is also a problem of concepts. Black is a race, hispanic is a group of people that speak the same language (spanish). Many black, white, native americans,....can be hispanic or english speakers for that mather and share a common cultural background. 83.49.198.239 (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Jordi Monroig83.49.198.239 (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Images in Infobox
The current images in the infobox of this article depict Romualdo Pacheco, Gloria Estefan, Martin Sheen and Cameron Diaz. With the possible exception of Pacheco, the rest depicted I believe do not portray an accurate and suitable portrayal of the hispanic community and most certainly play into "recentism". The following are my idea of some images of people who might be put up in the infobox: Desi Arnaz, César Chávez, Joseph M. Acaba, Celia Cruz, Richard E. Cavazos, etc... I'd also point out that since we are talking about "hispanics" in general as a group within the United States we should be careful not to highlight any hispanic subgroup (Mexican-American, Puerto Rican, Cuban-American, etc...) over any other. All your suggestions on who to put on the infobox are welcomed.--Jersey Devil 22:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Population by State
This needs to have WHAT the population is in each state... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.101.203 (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll try to look into it.--Jersey Devil 22:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Voluntary?
From what I understand, the term Hispanic is voluntary, and independent of race. So, why is that when someone is arrested, the police officer puts the race as Hispanic (I am quite aware that Hispanic is not a race). What if the person does not wish to be called Hispanic? Then what? I know that, in South Carolina (I live in Georgia), that a police officer has no right to tell you what your race is. How can your race be a non existent race anyways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.195.17 (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hispanic describes an ethnic group not a race. There are hispanics of European, indigenous, mestizo, African and even Asian origin. In the U.S. the term has more relevance because hispanics are united in a sense by a common language and an immigrant heritage in the country. In other parts of Latin America the idea of a united group is more foreign however.--Jersey Devil 22:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Data Used in Article
It appears that there is currently a disagreement on what data to use on the article between myself and another user. In the "2006 American Community Survey" the U.S. Census Bureau released estimates on the number of Hispanics by origin in the United States. I prefer this data because it is the most recent data I know exists. However another user wants to put in data from the 2000 census on the ancestry of Hispanic Americans. Though I naturally agree with the use of census data where possible I do not see why we should use data which could be outdated when we have newer data even if the newer data is an estimate. This is the data that the other user is reverting to from the 2000 Census (warning it is a PDF file). U.S. 2000 Census Data (PDF) Please give your two cents below on what should be done. Thanks.--Jersey Devil 00:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename
The name of this article should be "Hispanics and Latinos" (or, less likely, "Hispanics or Latinos"), per, , etc. If anyone objects, please say so and why before I make this move. Thank you. SamEV 07:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Im not sure if "Hispanics and Latinos" is the right title, i agree with changing it to 'Hispanic Americans', as this seems to be understood quite well by people as a term. With the title being 'Hispanics in the United States' seems clear but if the change happens to this one, this will include Brazilians which doesnt seem to be included as part of the Hispanic community since they speak Portuguese not spanish, although they're Latin....mmmm....Hispanics and Latinos is what it says on the census form but i guess the title doesnt say where it applies to, people will have to assume its in the United states....what you think. Hispania 20:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Hispanic Americans" would be ambiguous, as it is also/already used for the population of Hispanic America.
 * How about "Hispanics and Latinos in the United States"? SamEV 23:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i would go with that, long title though, but still if you think it be better then this one....Maybe shorten the United States to just U.S ..you want to change it to add the Brazilians or something?..or another reason? Hispania 06:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Shortening it to "U.S." would violate the manual of style, I'm sure (though I haven't checked; anyone know?). Anyway, no, it's not about Brazilians, b/c neither term officially applies to them, I'm more certain than not, from reading all those documents. It's just about the fact that it's the official name, and that some members of the group call themselves "Hispanic" but others do not, preferring "Latino", yet the latter are included in this article: in its definitions, historical facts, statistics... So the title should include them, too.
 * And what's with your date stamp? Is something wrong with Wikipedia's servers or are you entering the date manually? SamEV 06:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah it was my fault,, entered it manually.but anyway, ok seems ok to me, cause im not sure about the U.S issue but do what you thinks best, as long as all the links from other pages are redirected to this one should be ok.. Hispania 09:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.63.109 (talk)


 * All right. For the date stamp, just use four tildes: ~ . I fixed the dates of your comments, so others won't be confused when they see them. SamEV 17:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC) I suggest we move this to "Hispanic Americans" like European Americans that basically have the same concept. Hispanics in the United States sound just long and uncomfortable. Let's put it in the form like X Americans, Y Americans. This also could be seen POV of probably not acknowledging the "Americans" aspect of Hispanic Americans. Thoughts? Let's move it. Disambiguation page for Hispanic Americans is too small (only two) and that Hispanic America can be put as "see also" on the Hispanic American page once this is moved. This is highly POV name right now as "someone in the United States." 67.41.146.34 (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No. This discussion has happened already. America is not just the United States of America. There are many Americas! This article is specifically about people categorized as Hispanic in the United States of America. The title is correct. The Ogre (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see where the discussion happened? Where is it and please explain your unexplained "bad changes" revert? What is your argument?? Don't make those kind of edits again. 75.171.131.112 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the article should be moved to Hispanic-American as it is a suitable term which is used in the U.S. The Ogre's argument fails because at wikipedia we only care about what terms are more widely used to describe subjects. Were his argument valid all of the "X-American" articles would be subject to be removed.--Jersey Devil (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any citation for this usage? "Hispanics in the United States" is a descriptive title but "Hispanic-American" is a specific term (as evidenced by American-style hyphen usage) and some evidence of it being the most widespread term for this group should be given. —  AjaxSmack   05:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as the grammar goes, even in American English, "Hispanic American" is a noun form, and "Hispanic-American" is an adjective form. Dekimasu よ! 14:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am stongly against the move proposed. If such move were to happen, I believe the article would imediatly be tagged with a Globalize tag and many other user would want to move it back. You see, the present title, as has been already said, is a descriptive title, and a title that does not reduce the complexity of the label Hispanic, nor des it reduce it to the manner in which it's used in the US. Hispanic American or Hispanic-American is not a description but and identity category, and one that does not take into account that Hispanics all over the Americas may see themselves as such. The title should remain as is. The Ogre 17:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am against the move for a simple reason: The high levels of immigration from Latin America to the United States. This means that a large percentage of Hispanics currently residing in the US do not have American citizenship but are still considered Hispanics and are at every level the same people as those who do have citizenship.--Burgas00 19:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate some enlightment on the concept. Miguel López Alegría was born in Madrid, Spain (Europe). He is listed as a Hispanic American. Does that mean that he does not fit European American, then? I have been myself a Spanish (from Spain) in America for a long while and then I felt like I fitted better as an European American than a Hispanic one. Someone please enlighten me on my wikipedia status when in the States ;) Mountolive | Oh My God, Whatever, Etc. 20:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ogre, speaking of identity: this being a US population group, the US official name is "Hispanic or Latino". Such a title covers the bases nicely by using both names that the group itself most frequently employs to express its identity, other than specific nationalities. Look at this: "Terminology for Hispanics.--OMB does not accept the recommendation to retain the single term "Hispanic." Instead, OMB has decided that the term should be "Hispanic or Latino." Because regional usage of the terms differs -- Hispanic is commonly used in the eastern portion of the United States, whereas Latino is commonly used in the western portion -- this change may contribute to improved response rates." and this, the Census 2000 report. SamEV (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Discrimination against Mexican Americans" section
There is a part of the article which another user (Dreamcast88) keeps on inserting into this article which is directly c&ped from the Mexican American article see Mexican_American. I remind you that this is suppose to be an article about Hispanics as a whole not just Mexican Americans and that also there is a place for that type of section, namely in the Mexican American article. Regardless, I would like to hear outside opinions about this from other wikipedians. Thank you.--Jersey Devil (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Demographics" section
I just read something referring to "Castilians"; technically because Isabelle of Castille was the powerful regent, the language is "Castilian" (aka in the American continent as Spanish). However, to apply the term explaining ancestry is incorrect. The regions of Mexico known as Chihuahua and Durango, and at times also Sinaloa, Sonora, and Coahuila were known as Nueva Vizcaya. Why? Settlers from the region of Vizcaya (Spain, the Basque region) were possibly a dominant presence there--in terms of Spanish settlers. When you look to the central region of Mexico (Jalisco, Aguascalientes, Guanajuato, etc.) you are speaking of Nueva Galicia, perhaps because its settlers were from Galicia (which is also the more Celtic region of Spain, which helps to explain why the people of this region of Mexico who are of Spanish ancestry tend to be more white). So, to speak of people of "Castilian" ancestry is not necessarily correct. Also, you have to remember the French influence in Texas, Coahuila and the Center of the Mexican republic and the German presence in Nuevo León (all of which could be the ancestry of a Mexican-American). To speak of this and not mention all these possibilities is terribly flimsy, reductive, and all too essentializing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.147.241.132 (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename, again
It's time American became part of the title of this article, indeed. I already made the change to some related articles. (And received only one complaint in the two months since - and that turned out to be due to misunderstanding.) But just to be sure: I'm not going to lose my life if I rename this one too, will I? (Ogre? Anyone?) SamEV (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The current title seems fine to me.--Jersey Devil (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine because... SamEV (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you want to change the article's name to? I've seen some changes that you've made around wikipedia and much of it seems to be arguments about semantics. Article titles should be accurate but not overly complicated as to make them terms no one would search for.--Jersey Devil (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Semantics is a valid reason for renames, AFAIK; correct me if I'm wrong. Titles have to be accurate, including semantically. Nevertheless, yes, I forgot to say the title: Hispanic and Latino Americans. SamEV (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The purposed title seems reasonable. Would like to wait out a little bit and see if anyone has any objections to it.--Jersey Devil (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. SamEV (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, nothing so far. I'll go ahead then. Obviously any objectors can still make their views known here after the rename. SamEV (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "overview" :


 * Done. (Yes, I know that's a bot. Just informing other users who might chance by and wonder if it's been fixed or not.) :) SamEV (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

photos of hispanic or latino people
we should not have photos of such unkown hispanics maybe we should put jessica alba,mario lopez, salma hayek, carlos santana, ricky martin, christina aguilera, jennifer lopez, david archuleta, eva mendez put people that alot of people know —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis wyrick (talk • contribs) 14:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because you may not know them doesn't mean that they're not notable or that other people don't know them. Every single person you named is an entertainer, and I don't think we should have all the photos be of entertainers (by the way, Selma Hayeck is Mexican, so she wouldn't fit this category).  They should be notable, not famous person of the year. Kman543210 (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kman we should not pack the infobox with pictures of entertainers. Just because you don't know who a person is does not mean they are not historically important people. With that said perhaps we should add some more pictures to the infobox and remove a few others. For instance I think we have an overabundance of politicians in the infobox. I would say that Loretta Sanchez picture is not neccessary to have in the infobox especially since she is a sitting elected official and for that matter a congressperson representing a district rather than a Senator representing a state. With that said if we are going to have any entertainers they should be historically notable ones rather than contemporary pop icons. Some good examples would be people like Celia Cruz or Ray Barretto.--Jersey Devil (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why Exactly is Salma Hayek not Hispanic? This is a rhetorical question, by the way. Deepstratagem (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Salma Hayek is Hispanic, Mexican, and Latin American. I guess since she's a naturalized U.S. citizen (according to her wiki article), then technically she can be called a Hispanic American. This article is about Americans, U.S. citizens that is. I had originally said that Salma didn't fit this category because at the time of my comment, I didn't realize that she was a naturalized citizen of the U.S. The question to other editors is do we want to include just U.S.-born citizens or include naturalized citizens as well that came here later in life. Kman543210 (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Kman, WP articles about ethnic groups usually not only include naturalized immigrants, they include still-unnaturalized immigrants. I.e., they include residents regardless of citizenship status. Really, pick an article and I'll show how that's the case. SamEV (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's understandable why it would include naturalized immigrants, but are you sure that it also includes people who may not live here permanently? For example, David Beckham now has a home in California because of playing for an American team, so is he now automatically considered an English American even if he has no intention of staying here permanently or attaining citizenship?  There are many Latin American singers who live here for some time whilst recording or touring, so are they considered Hispanic and Latino Americans? Kman543210 (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "It's understandable why it would include naturalized immigrants, but are you sure that it also includes people who may not live here permanently?"
 * Kman, you're mixing up distinct concepts there. 'Unnaturalized foreign-born residents' is not the same as 'temporary foreign-born residents'. I made no mention whatsoever of 'permanent' or 'non-permanent' residency.
 * As I see it, this article is about all the 45 million Hispanic and Latino residents of the US: the native-born citizens and the foreign-born, the naturalized and the not-yet-naturalized. I think we should keep it that way, Kman.
 * Now if we were to exclude the foreign-born or the non-citizens, we have to start by using only the appropriate figure, such as from the Hispanic or Latino population profile. That means the 45 million figure (the total number of Hispanic and Latino Americans) would be out. There were 27 million native-born, and an additional 5 million naturalized. So it would be 27 million or 32 million.
 * As to "intention": The Census Bureau doesn't seem to make use of that criterion in determining who's a resident of the U.S. It's enough that they 'usually reside' in the U.S. So I don't think we should bother trying to find out who has the intention of staying, though I'm basically of the same view you are.
 * Changes should probably be pursued on a project-wide basis: what we practice in this article is not unique compared to other articles about US ethnic groups.
 * In conclusion: Let's not go there. SamEV (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC) and 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Globalize?
Deepstratagem, what do you mean? SamEV (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is all the information on Hispanic people and Latinoamericans?

All I see is Cesar Chavez who is hardly a Latinoamerican, and people from the United States. There are Hispanic people all over the world, including the Phillipines, Argentina, most Latin American countries, and obviously, Spain.

The only Hispanics and Latino Americans represented are from the United States. Where is everyone else?

That's what I mean by Globalize.

Deepstratagem (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article covers precisely the people it is intended to cover: the Hispanics and Latinos of the United States, and only the United States. SamEV (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Then the name ought to be changed to something less ambiguous. See references. Deepstratagem (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What name do you suggest? SamEV (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is more of POV-pushing from Deepstrategem. He likes to act surprised when people use the word "American" in the "United States" sense, as if his surprise will prevent that definition from being inarguable correct.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspected that's what it was about: use of the word "American". My position is that there's obvious divided usage of the word, and in English it usually refers to the U.S. "Usually", mind you, not always. And the POV-pushing comes from both sides. I don't know if you remember, but I have a problem with how the fact that (in English) "America" also means the entire Western Hemisphere is downplayed in the Americas article. SamEV (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't enjoy having you pretend to speak for me, Cuchullain. I also don't enjoy your intentional ignorance. The Globalize tag was invented so people like yourself would shut up.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861727807/hispanic.html

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/latinamerican?view=uk

http://www.askoxford.com/languages/es/toi_las/?view=uk

http://www.international.ucla.edu/lac/publications/las.asp

http://books.google.com/books?id=zQqtgpqvHL0C&pg=PR20&lpg=PR20&dq=%22mexicans+are+americans%22&source=web&ots=d0BhkYu2Ag&sig=auR8b5RYUdDt-JNuD0yI1FmhgwY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result

Deepstratagem (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, calm down. The globalize tags were invented to bring attention to problems with unbalanced article content, and this article is clearly about a US topic and thus can't be globalized. Your problem is with the title of the article, not with the actual content, so your tags are intentionally misplaced and are an attempt appropriate a major problem for your personal vendetta against word use. If you want to suggest a new title, go ahead, but those tags are thoroughly incorrect.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Revisions
Before I revert for a third time today, I am going to bring up the issue of the constant undoing of the section "Representation in the Media." Apparently the only basis for its removal is that it is a "C&P job." The content has apparently been taken from various other articles and introduced here. However, this information is a good contribution to the article and helps to clear the ambiguity of Hispanic and Latino identity. M5891 (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So rewrite/reword/rephrase it substantially. Put some art into it; Stop leaving it to others. This lazy C&P'ing doesn't help much. SamEV (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do consider just editing what is already there rather than outright removing it. That doesn't help much either. M5891 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can consider it for a couple of sentences, but you're abusing C&P. Your last edit is a joke. You must think all of this is a joke, and the glibness with which you approach my justifiable objection to your laziness makes it clear that you have no interest in compromising, a hallmark of Wikipedia. Your changes amounted to no more than changing "often" to "frequently" in one sentence and modifying "In general, Hispanics are assumed to have traits such as dark hair and eyes, and tan or brown skin. Many others are viewed as physically intermediate between whites, blacks and/or Amerindians" to "In general, Hispanics are assumed to have traits such as dark hair, dark eyes, and tan or brown skin, and are viewed as racially separate from whites, blacks and/or Amerindians". It's inexplicable. You rewrote much of Brazilian American, yet you refuse to do that here. One step forward, one step back. Amazing. SamEV (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's badly written and shouldn't be in the article. It is essentially an editorial from a Mexica Movement POV. Should also note that hispanic/latino != only mexican which alot of people seem to forget. Seriously that kind of thing has to end on this article. SamEV was correct in removing that and you need to refrain from revert warring.--Jersey Devil (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, if he wants me to, I'll do what I can to help him rewrite it and correct the errors you mention. SamEV (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you limited your insults to the content.

In all fairness, there is no ruling against transferring information from one Wikipedia article to another. The guidlines specifically prohibit using copyrighted or unsourced information but state no violation in "C&P"ing from other articles.

There are several paragraphs throughout this article which appear word-for-word in other Wikipedia articles. It is not exactly faithful to single out just one section, especially when there has been attempt to alter it.

If you do wish to assist in rewriting the section, however, I would be honored, but deleting the entire section based on a rather trivial issue is less than civil.

In answer to Jersey Devil, there is no proof in the references being unreliable aside from one's point of view.

Also, what is the meaning of "...hispanic/latino != only mexican..." This statement is cause for confusion. M5891 (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was commenting on the content and on your behavior. I remind you that you are in no position to speak about "insults".
 * In all fairness, nowhere have I read Wikipedia recommending the abundant use of copy&paste. It may be allowed, but it's not a preferred method. Some of those other C&P'd paragraphs of which you speak may come off within a week or two. I myself have yet to review half the edits from this summer.
 * I note that you once again failed to substantially alter the material in question. (If you want an idea of my humble opinion of "substantial" in this case, I'd say, roughly, every other sentence.) But I won't remove it this time. In fact, I'll leave it intact till Jersey Devil comments on it.
 * And I believe Jersey Devil wrote that "Hispanic or Latino" doesn't just mean "Mexican". SamEV (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at the Discrimination section. It is an exact copy from the Discrimination and stereotypes section of the Mexican American article, yet it is directly above the section in question and has gone unedited for several months.

Both sections are just as contributive to the article, regardless of how similar they may be to content in other articles. Anyhow, Wikipedia has no ruling against translating unprotected material within the site, and it is a commonly practiced procedure. M5891 (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * M, why not show some common sense and good faith? Wikipedia values consensus, and you have two editors repeatedly objecting to the section. Why not meet us half way? It's not as if you can point at specific policy that positively recommends your action; all you have is it's not forbidden anywhere I've read yet. That's a valid argument, but it's kind of a tie, you see? So get off the high horse, please.
 * For example, one of Jersey Devil's objections is that the article is badly written. Why don't you give a detailed explanation why that's not the case? (At least try.)
 * He objects to use of the Mexica Movement as a source. So do I. They're extremists, whom policy outright recommends should be ignored.(WP:V, WP:RS) So why not change the source? Aren't there more mainstream people who reject the terms "Hispanic" and "Latino"? I believe I've heard some of them. But you don't even seem interested in finding out.
 * And you know my other objection: all I ask is that you rewrite it some more; I'm willing to do the rest. I'm afraid that if we give in to you and let you get away with it here, you'll continue as if nothing had happened. You've shown yourself to be that kind of editor. SamEV (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A section's presentation is not a valid excuse for outright deletion. If you do not agree with the layout, then by all means rewrite as much as you feel is necessary. Do not just blank out the section. It is just the same as editing a new article; you fill in the information gaps, correct the mistakes in grammar, and reorganize the layout to fulfill smooth transition. You would delete an article because it lacks citation or informative material, not solely because of how it is written.

Concerning the sources, they provide well-documented information relating to the aspects of race and ethnic identity. The Mexica source, regardless of whatever it may state about other issues, provides a necessary point of view about racial identity worth documenting in this article. It is essentially an indigenous source to accompany a white source expressing similar concern.

There has been support for the revision from Titan012 and the section usually goes undisturbed by other editors. If you were familiar with the contributions I have made, then you would understand my intentions. I do not wish to sound overbearing, but you seem to have this sort of conflict quite often with other contributors. M5891 (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You've done nothing to improve the situation. Just more of the usual blame-shifting. Where's the rewriting? Nor is your pro-Mexica Movement argument convincing.
 * As to being familiar with your work, sadly, I am. You keep violating WP:BLP at an ethnic group article, copying and pasting content between articles without a care to how lazy it looks, generally refuse to communicate on talk pages (this article being one of two exceptions), and when confronted you respond petulantly and childishly, insisting on having your way. I, on the other hand, am prepared to accept your work if you make significant changes. It's up to you. SamEV (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am going to say it clear enough for even the most stubborn hypocrites to understand.

There is absolutely nothing disruptive about correcting grammar, updating statistics, tagging unsourced material, and adding new sections.

The only opposing arguments have been largely based on suspicion, sarcasm, libel, and arrogance. The fact that you straw-manned my position to your anti-Mexica sentiment, which has nothing to do with anything beyond the racial definition provided, shows something of a motive more towards your position.

What IS lazy is blanking out everything without a second thought; read ALL of the changes for once.

I constantly provide my reasons and answers and add new sources and facts, but am always met with insults and cynicism. That eventually gets exhausting.

Where is the civility? Where is the etiquette? Where is the good-faith? M5891 (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you merely reverting to an old version? You did do that for a time, so that I came to feel no need to give you the benefit of the doubt about anything. I'd look at the diff, notice the disputed section, and that was it. You were obviously using the other edits as a blind, it seemed to me.


 * Try this: pick out what you know to be the absolutely most inoffensive changes. Repeat them. Let Jersey Devil and I have a look at them in isolation from the material that we've already disputed on this page (re-read our reasons, if you must). Let's begin there. What do you say? SamEV (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How about you stop the senseless suspicions and just leave the rest of the article alone?

If you don't want that section there, then make it clear rather than just undermining the entire thing. Don't make up excuses; just admit that you disagree with the subject matter of that section.

Why should I be "civil" if I'm always going to be denied the same treatment?

By the way, I undid my own work seeing as how expansion of knowledge is forbidden here. Let ignorance thrive. You win. M5891 (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So this is how you respond when people reach out to you?
 * Nonetheless, the offer still stands. SamEV (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Mexica Movement is an indigenous movement and not a Hispanic one. It just goes to show that even those in charge regard all Hispanics as brown Mexicans. 65.67.229.71 (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Those in charge of what? SamEV (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

M5891, you seem to have misunderstood. I did not say that you could go ahead and restore the section in the same form you always have. You still haven't made the changes we requested. SamEV (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

TItle is wrong
The title of the article couldnt be more wrong, it should be renamed "Hispanic Americans" because in the current title it says "...Latinos Americans" well Latinomerican can also refer to the BRAZILIAN PEOPLE , HAITIAN PEOPLE, etc and these non-hispanic latinos people are not mentioned so please remane the article.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the name of the article is fine and "Hispanic or Latino" are the terms the U.S. Census Bureau uses. Here is the U.S. Census definition of the term. --Jersey Devil (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So brazilians and haitians and people from french guyanna are not latinamericans? is that what you are proving?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * He's saying what I said on your talk page; that this is how the Census Bureau designates the group.
 * But Brazilians certainly are Latin American. And the French-speaking peoples in the region usually are, as well. But this is a U.S. group, so that's beside the point... SamEV (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply add Brazilian Americans and other latin americans to the article. By placing them in the article we acknowledge that they are members of the latin america group and remove any error that may exit. This will make for an article that talks both of hispanic americans and latin americans as the title today shows ("Hispanic and Latino Americans"). Bringing two articles together as one that if separate would not stand for much. If not then this web page can help out the point that Jersey Devil made of the the title not being wrong. 76.235.128.240 (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read this list: . SamEV (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Most international definitions would identify all Latin Americans as Latino, including Brazilians, Haitians, French Guyanese, Martinicans, and sometimes Quebecers. However, the politically correct, and often politically slanted, U.S. definition, according to the government and media, recognizes only Hispanic Latinos as officially Latino.

This is apparently an issue which rises quite frequently and will hopefully be addressed soon-enough on a widescale.M5891 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mariah Carey
Can someone look into this. Is Mariah Carey of Irish and Afro-Venezuelan descent. Someone keeps on removing her from this article.76.235.128.240 (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If Mariah Carey is half Venezuelan (Hispanic) she has to be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.211.97 (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No one has to be included. Some people are included, and the vast majority of people are not. For people like Mariah Carey, and maybe for all Latinos, it would be best to provide cites that identify them as Hispanic or Latino, an identity which, at least in the census, is through self-ID. So it may not be as simple as 'she has Latin American ancestry therefore she's Latina'. This needs further clarification. A similar problem arises with whether to include Filipino Americans who have Spanish ancestry as Hispanic or Latino. SamEV (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course no one individual "has to be included" in this article or any other article for that matter. However, it could be argued that certain individuals base on their life trajectory and contributions to society disserve to have their names or stories mention. Not because this is the right or wrong thing to do but because its the sensible thing to do. I as an individual understand that there are certain conventions that most be fallow but also understand that the need for understanding is greater. I know there has not being any rules of inclusion mention and if I speak of rules or regulations is simply to point out that "perhaps" including a certain individual as notable as this one isn’t as cut trout as to say "No one has to be Included" with quotations on has.

Yes some people are included, and the vast majority of people are not, but no not exactly it is not that some people are included and some are not. It’s that the most notable people are included and the other people that are not included are not as notable. This is done to best represent the interest of the group being discussed here. With that said I feel that for the most part we can all agree that Mariah Carey is notable and in some instances even more notable then the other people in the article (no disrespect) and to simply say "Some people are included, and the vast majority of people are not" only cheapens the conversation.

I do agree that for "[certain individuals], and maybe for all Latinos, it would be best to provide cites that identify them as Hispanic or Latino, an identity which, at least in the census, is through self-ID. So it may not be as simple as 'she has Latin American ancestry therefore she's Latina'" and that this indeed needs further clarification that if SamEV could bring it would be vastly appreciated. Nonetheless removing a person name with out resents should not take place. I can see why there may be a problem with whether to include Filipino Americans that have Spanish ancestry as Hispanic or Latino. I’m sure you will or someone else will tell us to read this list:. However Mariah Carey if she is of Afro-Venezuelan descent belongs her base on the list you gave.76.235.128.240 (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Dara Torres should be included in Sports
Dara Torres is Hispanic like Cameron Diaz and should be included in Sports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.211.97 (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes Dara Torres should be included if she is Hispanic. Where is she a descent from? Is her family from Cuba?76.235.128.240 (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd welcome her addition because it would improve the gender balance. But please make sure she's indeed Hispanic: as the article explains, it's not automatic that people with Spanish surnames are Hispanic. SamEV (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

She is the daughter of Edward Torres, from Florida and Spain´s ancestry. So, yes, she is Hispanic European from Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.48.106 (talk) 07:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Cesar E. Chavez.jpg
The image File:Cesar E. Chavez.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Portrait of Cesar Chavez by Manuel Gregorio Acosta, 1969.jpg
 * File:Latino Public Broadcasting.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --12:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Is wikipedia only a US centred-encyclopedia?
==NO IT ISN'T ==

I think the title of the article is absurd to most people outside of USA.

You call that thinking?

Outside of US using, the meanings of these words change drastically for the rest of the world, which has not a US-centred view.

Bologna.

An hispanic-American, as well as a latino-American is not a US citizen for most of the world. An hispanic-American is an inhabitant of a country of America (north, south and central, not just the country called USA), whose culture (and sometimes its ancestry) is derived from Spanish culture (PS: meaning from Spain)- that is to say an "hispanic American" is someone coming from an American country who has been a Spanish colony and who inherited a big part of its culture: mainly Spanich language and catholic religion.

You just used twenty five (25) of the one hundred (100) brain cells you had left. Press the Nurse Call Button and say you want to go night-night. There there now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.76.39 (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The same way, A latino-American is an inhabitant of America (North, central and south) who is from a country with a latin-based culture, so it is a wider concept than "hispanic-Americans" since it includes also Portuguese and French languages and catholic religion)

As an former english colony The USA is a country based on English language, and mainly based on protestantism herency - the USA is an Anglo-American culture, not a latin-American one. US Americans, even if they have Hispanic-American origins are not latin-Americans for most people outside of the USA.

considering that latino-Americans and hispanic Americans are necesserally US citizen seems to most of us as absurd as saying that all black people are necesserally US American citizens... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You have serious problems. You mention "protestantism herency". Protestants are heretics? You have let your hatred of Americans (US Citizens) other than Blacks, Latinos, and Hispanics take over your life. I suggest Buddhism. My wife, daughter, son-in-law, and two grand children are active Buddhists. I have to admit I'm still a WASP, but of the most peaceful sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.76.39 (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that your real issue is with the use of the word "American". I suppose one solution, not just for this article but for all which use "American" in reference to U.S. groups, would be to add "(U.S.)" for disambiguation; for example: "Korean American (U.S.)". But I think that should be done across all of Wikipedia. I don't support giving this article a title that makes this group look any less U.S. American (irony, I know) than any other. So if it's ok to have "Korean American", and "French American", and a zillion other "X American" articles, then "Hispanic and Latino Americans" seems the most proper title for this article to me. SamEV (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand the issue that the IP user brings up but I do not believe that this should warrant a significant change in the article. The fact of the matter is that American citizens and residents of Latin American decent refer to themselves (ourselves) as hispanic or latino. It is a term that is widely used and just because someone objects to it on the basis of semantics that is not going to change the fact that it is and will be continue to be used to describe this ethnic group. With that said Sam brought up the possibility us putting (U.S.) to specify that this is a terminology mostly used within/associated with the United States but for the same reasons he stated I would object to it.--Jersey Devil (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll just use one example to further elaborate on this issue. The term "African-American" is not completely accurate either. The vast majority of blacks in the United States were not born in Africa and it does not take into consideration the fact that there are other black groups in the American continent (ex. Afro-Colombians, Afro-Brazilians, etc...). Does that mean we should change the title of African-American? No, because everyone knows that the term is widely used to identify that racial/ethnic group and those who identify as "African-American" aren't simply going to stop referring to themselves as such because someone disagrees with the term on the basis of semantics. Such is the case for the title of this article as well.--Jersey Devil (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Most international definitions would identify all Latin Americans as Latino, including Brazilians, Haitians, French Guyanese, Martinicans, and sometimes Quebecers. However, the politically correct, and often politically slanted, U.S. definition, according to the government and media, recognizes only Hispanic Latinos as officially Latino.

Thus Latino is too frequently and incorrectly given an ethnic label, or a racial label at worst, rather than an ancestral or national origins connotation.

In a similar situation, the international definition of African ancestry would include all people of African descent such as Berbers and North African Arabs as well as European-descended Afrikaners, Pied-noir, and Anglo Africans, in addition to indigenous black Africans. Much like the mainstream U.S. definition of Latino, however, African American largely refers only to black Americans descended from black African slaves. Thus recent African immigrants and their American born descendants are frequently excluded from this definition.

These are both sociopolitically distorted issues which arise in discussion all too frequently. Hopefully, they will both be addressed soon-enough on a widescale.

Given that Wikipedia was created in the United States, it is likely to imitate and uphold most of the nation's sociopolitically distorted definitions within its articles, or at least in the English-language ones anyway. M5891 (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The central problem of this is that "hispanic American" and "latino-American" doesn't relates to the USA. An "hispanic American" is an inhabitant of hispanic-America (=Spanish-speaking parts of America) and "latino-American" is an inhabitant of latin-America. The USA are not part of none of those groups (it is part of Anglo-America). That those words are used inside the USA to mean only US citizen is a neologism that have a usage close to a slangish one (even if it might be recognised by some official documents). The reality is that outside the USA, this is absolutly not the usage, even in English language (the english language is not only an US-American one...). Maybe the solution would be to separate the english-wikipedia in two section: An American one (in wich the meanings would systematically change from the original ones) and an international English one in which the definitions would keep what they mean outside of the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabb leb (talk • contribs) 16:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Biased and Weasel editing

 * The terms "Hispanic" and "Spanish" are not to be confused

Webster definitions of Spanish American is: 1. : a native or inhabitant of a Spanish-American country especially of Spanish descent -- compare latin american 2. : a resident of the United States whose native language is Spanish and whose culture is of Spanish origin Again a Websters definition of Hispanic is an American of Spanish or especially Latin-American descent Also the U.S. government census bureau uses the words Spanish/Hispanic/Latino interchangeably

''Previously, Hispanics were categorized as "Spanish-Americans," "Spanish-speaking Americans," and "Spanish-surnamed Americans". These terms, however, proved misleading or inaccurate,(I asked for an explanation months ago for this, but received not response) since''
 * Hispanics, are still referred to Spanish Americans. The article indicates that this proved to be misleading. Misleading to whom? Inaccurate in what way?

The terms "Hispanic" and "Spanish" are not to be confused. (author enters own value judgement and original research) The Spanish (or Spaniards) are the people who are native to or who have origins in Spain, located in mainland Europe. Previously, Hispanics were categorized as "Spanish-Americans," "Spanish-speaking Americans," and "Spanish-surnamed Americans". These terms, however, proved misleading or inaccurate,[citation needed] since: (I asked this to be sourced months ago but was it was neglected). Also the author states that referring to Hispanics as Spanish Americans proved misleading (not sourced, misleading to whom?)
 * Although a large majority of Hispanics have Spanish ancestry, most Hispanics are not of direct (non-Latin American) Spanish descent;

(This has not been proven to be relevant, as a mater of fact under new provisions by Spain many Latin Americans are now allowed to claim Spanish Citizenship). :Many are not primarily of Spanish descent; (This also applies to Spaniards as many have immigrated to Spain) :and some Hispanics are not of Spanish descent at all. (This again applies to many Spaniards as many have recently immigrated there). For example, there are Hispanics of other European ancestries (e.g. Italian, German, Polish), as well as Middle Eastern (e.g. Lebanese), Black, Amerindian/Native American, Asian, and mixed race ancestries (This again applies to peoples of Spain) — of the latter, Mestizo (White and Indigenous/Native American) and Mulatto (White and Black) are the most common.
 * On the other hand, descendants of Spaniards such as Hispanos and Islenos, both of whose American history extends back for centuries, identify solely with the United States rather than with Spain;[citation needed]

his last sentence need reputatable sources ''Most U.S. Hispanics can speak Spanish, not all; and most Spanish-speaking people are Hispanic, not all (e.g., many U.S. Hispanics by the fourth generation no longer speak Spanish, while there are some non-Hispanics who are fluent in the language);[citation needed] Most Hispanics have a Spanish surname, not all (a notable example of someone who does not is New Mexico governor Bill Richardson), and most Spanish-surnamed people are Hispanic, not all. For example, there are many Filipino Americans, Chamorros (Guamanians and Northern Mariana Islanders), Palauans, Micronesians (FSM), and Marshallese with Spanish surnames in the United States who, however, have their own, non-Hispanic ethnic identities. Likewise, while a number of Louisiana Creole people have Spanish surnames, they identify with the mixed Francophone and Spanish culture of the region. This last paragraph I’ll leave for later as the evidence of weasle words are abundant as it is. This is clearly biased written and only serves to remove Latin Americans from their Spanish heritage and is not relevant to the article.''
 * Weasel words is an informal term for words that are ambiguous and not supported by facts. They are typically used to create an illusion of clear, direct communication.

Weasel words are usually expressed with deliberate imprecision with the intention to mislead the listeners or readers into believing statements for which sources are not readily available. Tactics that are used include:

vague generalizations use of the passive voice non sequitur statements use of grammatical devices such as qualifiers and the subjunctive mood use of euphemisms (e.g., replacing "firing staff" with "streamlining the workforce") [] EDGARR (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I didn't add that content (I've modified it, though). What I ask for is good reasons for anyone to change it.


 * Secondly, the sentence is question is very specifically about the term "Spanish", not "Spanish American".


 * Thirdly, what's your source for the claim that the government uses "Spanish" synonymously with the other terms? I'm not necessarily disputing it (yet); I'm trying to remember the relevant information I've read about that in Census Bureau documents. So I'm hoping you'll help me by proving that claim you're advancing.


 * I agree that there needs to be a source for the "misleading" claim. I'm on it.


 * "as a matter of fact under new provisions by Spain many Latin Americans are now allowed to claim Spanish Citizenship"


 * That's neither here nor there. The same provision allows children of Spaniards elsewhere to claim Spanish citizenship. That means that those from the US are eligible, too. So you can't use that to push your POV that Spanish is synonymous with Latin American.


 * "Many are not primarily of Spanish descent; (This also applies to Spaniards as many have immigrated to Spain) :and some Hispanics are not of Spanish descent at all. (This again applies to many Spaniards as many have recently immigrated there). For example, there are Hispanics of other European ancestries (e.g. Italian, German, Polish), as well as Middle Eastern (e.g. Lebanese), Black, Amerindian/Native American, Asian, and mixed race ancestries (This again applies to peoples of Spain) "


 * That refers to ethnic Spanish origins, Edgar. I.e. origins in the established, age-old Spanish population.


 * The Isleno comment needs a source, certainly.


 * You're so off with your tag. It's not weasel-wording. The statements are clear enough about what they seek to convey. The tag you're looking for is good old or  . SamEV (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not claiming that Latin America is synonymous with Spain. But I am claiming that the same statements that are being used in the article to disqualify some Latin Americans from identifying as Spanish Americans also apply to some people of Spain who would identify as Spanish Americans.


 * "as a matter of fact under new provisions by Spain many Latin Americans are now allowed to claim Spanish Citizenship"

This means that these Latin Americans would also be Spanish Americans, and that therefore, even it is not a requirement to be DIRECTLY from Spain to self identify as Spanish or Spanish American, but to have Spanish Ancestry. I'm sorry sam this article clearly uses weasel wording, maybe you can clear it up and help what Hispanic and Latinos are, instead of what they are not. EDGARR (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of non-white Hispanics
I know that the words Hispanic and Latino do no refer to a race, but rather an ethnicity. However, the pictures at the beginning of the article only show white Hispanics (and a black one) and none that are mestizo. Could someone at least add one "brown" Hispanic (such as Mencia, Chavez, Longoria, etc). Again, I know that not all Hispanics and Latinos are brown, but it's pretty ignorant to not show any of them at the beginning of the article. Eric323 (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As the article demonstrates, most Hispanics and Latinos self-ID as white.
 * Secondly, there are three non-whites among the 8 people pictured: Chang-Diaz is of Asian ancestry and Allende says she's mestiza. And Saldana, though not "black" necessarily (how do you she's not mulata), seems to be at least part-black.
 * That said, I think that adding an obviously Mestizo or Amerindian Hispanic is a very good idea. Your help would be appreciated. Please consider resizing the images to make the rows match, also. I don't know when I'll try fixing it myself. Thanks, Eric. SamEV (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree and agree with Eric323. They can identify themselves as white, but they are most brown people. Changed the picture. SamEV you are overpowered by two people. 24.9.96.166 (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is worthy of inclusion on that list
Shouldn't we make sure that a celebrity who's great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents were the only bits of Hispanic heritage they may have had doesn't end up in the article just because? Unless they're descendants of notable Latinos? -- Wh ip it !  Now whip it good! 21:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. If you find any such people, remove them. SamEV (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

SamEV
I don't know what you are trying to do. Don't be reverting this article like it is yours. You have to explain your reverts. I can revert all of your edits back with no reason. Also, don't be including all white people pictures when hispanics are mostly brown. YOU HAVE TO DISCUSS and go by consensus. When more 2+ people disagree with you, you lose!!!24.9.96.166 (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you adjust your attitude. Please pass by Introduction, first of all. But I especially recommend WP:CIVIL.
 * This is not a place for "winning" or "losing". It's not a place for flaming, either. Such attitudes and behavior are sure to get you in trouble. This is a place for collaboratively writing an encyclopedia.
 * Regarding your edits, your replacing Pacheco with Hayek is senseless. They're both white, so you're not achiving your stated purpose of correcting the alleged racial imbalance; which imbalance is just in your head, because as the article and its sources make clear, the majority of this group is white (see Hispanic and Latino Americans). Your change would also overrepresent entertainers. Thirdly, it overrepresents women. Fouthly, it's presentist, i.e. overrepresents people alive today.
 * And could you explain to me the logic of your ordering of the "Notable personalities and contributions" subsections? Why is that better than an objective order, such as alphabetization, as currently? SamEV (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If Salma Hayek is white, why isn't she under White Hispanics or White Americans. If you remove Salma Hayek, you must include someone of non-European heritage that actually have brown skin like talked before. You are still not addressing the point. Hispanics are not white, you think Salma Hayek is white? Does she have white skin, blue eyes and light hair? You need to look at facts. Not a single white person will ever consider Salma Hayek white and replace her with a fair skinned women claiming that Pacheco and Hayek are of same race? Please. 97.118.116.7 (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * These people are called "white" White Hispanic and Latino Americans that actually have a fair skin that originate exclusively from Europe. If you think Salma Hayek is white, you must put her picture in this article White Hispanic and Latino Americans and see what kind of reaction you will get from others. If you can't tell the difference between whites and browns, let me help you with it:

This is a white Hispanics person looks like:

This is called a "non-white" hispanic looks like: 97.118.116.7 (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What does it matter that Salma Hayek is or isn't in those articles? There are 1000s and 1000s of other notable people. I'm pretty sure she's not there because no one has added her; likewise for the relevant categories. But she was in White Latin American, till someone decided that she wasn't Mexican enough. Go figure.
 * I gave you my reasons why it actually hurts the infobox to replace Pacheco with Hayek, the way things stand. If you want Hayek there, fine: Prove she's non-white, and propose other changes to retain the current gender balance and to maintain the modicum of occupational diversity. Three entertainers out of 6 images is not the way to go. You have failed to make a compelling case for the change you want.
 * Yes, I think reliable sources show that Salma Hayek is white. Yes, I think that reliable sources say that most Hispanic and Latino Americans are white. My opinion doesn't matter, and neither does yours. What matter is Verifiability, which demands sources. I don't give a hoot about the fact that you think it takes blue eyes to make someone white. You're not what WP considers a reliable source.
 * Go take your apparently racist Nordicist nonsense somewhere else. I won't waste time asking an admin to intervene here if you persist with your reverts.
 * Lastly, please do not make false accusations of vandalism. Read Vandalism so you can learn what really counts as such. SamEV (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not bring racism in here when you remove the only brown people and replace it with a white person and claim that white people are basically brown looking and brown people are like white looking and therefore they are all white. I never though Latin America was full of European looking people and not a single brown people. I never thought there were so many light skinned Europeans in Mexico for instance. I must be on another planet or something. Tragically you can't prove your assertion when the White Latin American template all has white European looking people and not a single brown people, while you argue that brown people are all Europeans. This is the most confusing argument. My proof is those two pictures. Let's have a roll call. If Salma Hayek and Christina Aguilera are both white people, which essentially means Europeans and they are from the same race. Latinos can claim they are white, I have no problem with it, but it is pretty ignorant to put 2-3 whites in the template when majority at least 60% of people are brown people specifically indigenous people of the Americas. In terms of neutrality we have to balance this from the white people standpoint and counter act the Latino notion that they are white while the white notion that Salma Hayek is not white. You are being very biased. There is a white person in Latino template already. 97.118.116.7 (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You also shouldn't threaten with admin when you start to lose legitimate argument and discussion, I can also call admin you know. Let's keep it civil and resolve this matter and don't remove that "npov" tag until this discussion is through 97.118.116.7 (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did mean racist; but since I think that would be difficult argument to get across, I changed it to Nordicist.
 * The rest of your comments are incoherent, so I can't really reply to them. SamEV (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't really understand your point either. Make a legitimate claim of your reverts. Don't do personal attacks. I'm not going away so you can revert all you want, I will just revert it back until you discuss your weak argument of whites and browns look a like issue. I suggest you read these articles thoroughly


 * White people
 * Brown people
 * non-white
 * interracial
 * multiracial
 * mixedand then somehow comment. If you are racist you should just stay away from this article in the first place. "Nordicist" also means racist if you read that article. I would appreciate if you know what you are doing about in the first place. 97.118.116.7 (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps "Nordicist" fits you to its very "t".
 * From your edit summaries, are you saying that you're reverting to an inferior version simply because you want Salma Hayek in the infobox?
 * And are you User:Atlpedia? Because I notice that you restored a poorly sourced section he keeps adding. SamEV (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You told Tony that I've been making unsourced additions. Point them out. I'll remove them at the same time I'll remove yours; unless you have a good reason against that course of action... SamEV (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I basically want someone of brown appearance first in the infobox and put at least 2 more brown looking people in the article like Alberto Gonzales and Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony. I have no problem putting Cameron Diaz in there, but the pictures are all tilted to white people. If you put Salma Hayek or anyone of brown looking appearance in front of the template, you can revert it back as long as a brown person is first picture in the template by removing one white person (there were 2 white person). You can put Pacheko in there, but remove another white person. My concern is pure racial imbalance of this article, and you can change the article however you want it as long as we have single new brown person picture first in the template. I'm glad we are getting somewhere and this will be resolved.


 * Another option is, leave Salma Hayek picture as is, and replace Alberto Gonzales (politics section) and Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony picture with white people like Cameron Diaz before. I have no problem with it. I also added sources for the 75% non-Cuban vote. I think there should be no argument about that. I also decreased the size of all the images and moved the latino template down because it is taking up a lot of space. I also think decreasing image size, adding 2 more sources and moving the latino template down should be no problem. Leave Salma Hayek as is and replace rest of the people with white looking people like Christina Aguilera and Cameron Diaz, etc. I have no problem with it. No I'm not User:Atlpedia, and his/her edits I didn't see or care. 24.9.96.166 (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Meantime, I think you would show that you have good intentions if you refrained from reverting again. SamEV (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC) The user was blocked indefinitely. I'll continue working to improve the article, alongside any good faith editors who have legitimate concerns and a good attitude. SamEV (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment
 * SamEV, came over to my "talk" page and asked me to take a look at what is going on here. What bothers more then what is going on here is the attitude and disrespectful way of User:97.118.116.7 who also came to my talk page and without knowing who I am, left this message:

"'Ok so you talk to a Hispanic admin to resolve this matter. No one is stalking you. You are making obnoxious unsourced edits when there is more than 1 person disagreeing with you and you change without talking first in the talk page. I'm not afraid of admin, I can report this admin if he does anything that violates the nature of wikipedia. SamEV, I suggest you stop accusing people of 'racist,' 'obnoxious' first. Let's talk 97.118.116.7 (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2009'"

To 97.118.116.7:

1. Yes, I am Hispanic, therefore explain yourself as to what is your problem with that. Do you have anything against an administrator being of Hispanic descent? Do you think that just because I am Hispanic, I am stupid and that I will not be able to make an unbiased judgment on an issue? Your comment sounded a little on the racist side.

2. Who are you and who do you think you are in coming to my talk page with threats? Do you think that you are going to intimidate me with your threats of reporting me if things do not go your way? You have never interacted with me and do not know who I am because if you did you would very well know that I don't give a damn if you report me or not.

3. You claim that a concessus was reached. Where did you get that? A proper consensus was not organized nor taken just because two users suggested a change. A consensus involves the community, if you want to know what a proper concessus is take a look at this example: Consensus before claming that a consensus was taken.

Now, getting back to the article. I like the article and I even found the "Ethnicity" interesting even though it lacked verifiable reliable sources as is required by Wikipedia policy. I don't know if User: 24.9.96.166 is a sockpuppet of User:97.118.116.7 or not, but one thing that I do believe and that is that the images in the infobox should be more balanced to represent the different races in the Hispanic community. It seems to me that there are some people who falsely stereotype Hispanics as mainly "brown" people (blame Hollywood, I guess) and who believe that in order to be a "White" person you have to be blond, blue-eyed and of fair complexion (how ignorant), so much for the majority of the people in the world who consider themselves "white", but do not fit the mentioned description. I want to point out that Selma Hayek is of Arabic descent. Now, getting back to the images, I suggest that the infobox be expanded to include 9 images which should be balanced in regard to gender and race (black, brown, white, Asian, purple and so on.). Tony the Marine (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tony, thank you.
 * I'm off to do the rounds of the articles on my watchlist, after which I'll begin remaking the infobox as you suggest. But please give me at least a day, since I've learned from experience that that cannot usually be done in one day. I'll also begin work on an ethnicity section. SamEV (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You know what, Tony, after spending a few hours each of the last couple of days on this, I wish I'd said 'give me a year'!
 * Finding images is the (relatively) easy part. The problem is finding the right images, so that there's balance regarding a host of variables: race, gender, geographic origin – with at least one person of these origins: Hispanic Caribbean (Cuban, Dominican, Puerto Rican), Central American, Mexican, South American, Spanish (Spain) – age, major time period (there have been Hispanics and Latinos in the territory of the present US for 4 1/2 centuries), living and dead, occupation (very important to have variety there; there are too many other professions than the usual four of entertainers, politicians, athletes, or even [please cover your eyes, Tony] military), immigrants and native–born (60% of Hispanics/Latinos are U.S.-born).
 * In my last edit I re-added Cesar Chavez, who is more visibly mestizo. (In fact, he was in the article until removed for copyright reasons in recent months.) But in the process I had to remove the one person born before the 20th century. I'll try to add Admiral Farragut, but only once I have the other images necessary so that there's balance as I just detailed, while keeping the look right (rows level with each other, about the same height, and without gaps between them).
 * I'm glad to do this, Tony, but can offer no predictions as to when I'll finish it. Only a promise that I'll keep working on it, sir. SamEV (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sam, don't worry too much about it. Personally I like it as is. It is a really good article, so take your time. I wouldn't even worry about adding people because of their national origin. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read your comment a few times and I'm still not sure how to reply; it's because of the last sentence. But my approach is, 'if we can have more diversity, why not?'. So I actually wanted to make some changes; it's just that I hadn't come across the right combination of images yet. I viewed the previous version as stable, not as 'finished'.
 * "It is a really good article" That's very nice of you to say. I've begun to consider a status review. But don't worry about me; I'm patient. SamEV (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In all, what I meant is that your dedication and contributions have made this truly a wonderful article. I am sure that because of you that this article will be among the best that Wikipedia has to offer. You have an important virtue that few people here in Wikipedia have and that is patience. What I meant by "I wouldn't even worry about adding people because of their national origin," is the following, When I created the infobox of Hispanics in the United States Navy and Hispanics in the United States Marine Corps, my main concern was first that it would represent notable Hispanics of different races and genders regardless of their of the origin of their Hispanic roots. After that I looked into their Hispanic origins to make sure that one nationality was not over-represented. You Sam, are an amazing person and I am glad to have befriended you. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ¡Hola, amigo! I almost took the whole day off, but I'm glad I dropped by.
 * I took a better look at the infobox style in those articles and rediscovered that I do like it – it's like I forgot in my next to last post. It basically eliminates the problem of having to precisely align the images, rows, and columns. So, although I'm not sure yet, there's a good chance I might use it.
 * And thanks for expanding about national origin. I understand.
 * Yeah, I like the article, but I do plan to do everything I'm capable to improve it much more.
 * Tony, I'm happy that you count me a friend. As for my being an amazing person, I think you may be cofusing me with someone else! :)
 * Enjoy your weekend! SamEV (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Jersey Devil, thank you
SamEV (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

angelina jolie
How does angelina jolie relate to this article? Her picture is on the right hand picture box column, along with other famous people. Please message me the answer. Sp0 (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Major overhaul of article
For a long time we have only had users coming onto this article to POV push and add nothing of value to the article. That is going to end now though since I'm back and planning a major overhaul of this article which I will begin today with some changes. Anyone who wishes to help rather than hurt this article for once is free to join in the effort.--Jersey Devil (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to slightly revise the opening sentence of the Terminology section which currently reads: "The term Hispanic was first adopted in the United States by the administration of Richard Nixon..." It should read instead: "The term Hispanic was first adopted by the United States government during the administration of Richard Nixon..."  The term was already in use in academia in the United States (as evidenced by such scholarly publications as The Hispanic American Historical Review published as early as 1918 and the series "The Hispanic World" published by the journal Hispania in the 1940's-1950's just to name a couple among many).The Original Historygeek (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I also think where it reads "Most Hispanics..."- while probably true, still lacks solid citation to prove it and therefore should be changed to the more open-ended "Many." The Original Historygeek (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no objections having being raised, I will go ahead and make those changes.The Original Historygeek (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph that originally claimed that there was a difference between Hispanics and Spaniards/Spanish due to various POV problems. It's an important point, but it was re-edited so many times that it became self-contradictory.The Original Historygeek (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at this I wish I had the time to do a real overhaul of the article. Looking for work and studying for actuarial exams has made it difficult. Thanks OH for keeping an eye on this article so that it doesn't get completely degraded by POV pushers.--Jersey Devil (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * JD, maybe you should post your ideas about the changes you'd like and I'll try to implement those on which we agree at least some of them. SamEV (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OTOH, I can't quite find the time to do the edits I want to do these days, :( ... SamEV (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems with race, ethnicity and culture
Hispanic in the US is a ethnicity.....defined by their language. Not all are catholic, not all are of native american origins, not all have spanish family names.

Now....most are catholic, that is a cultural fact due to the european influence. Most are of native american origins, that is a phisical fact due to that most part of America was "conquered" not colonised, Spaniards did not really emigrate to Latin America. Most have spanish last names, that is a historical fact due to baptism, Spaniards baptised millions of people in America with christian/spanish names and gave them the family name of the local lordland.

With centuries a culture was created. Today in America there are many countries with a common historical background, but with huge cultural differences. A Puerto Rican is culturally different from a Mexican or a Chilean. Racially most Central Americans are Native americans, while Caribbeans are either black or white because native americans were exterminated, and the people of Chile, Argentina and Uruguay are mostly white, due to a very small original population and huge inmigration waves in the XIX and XX centuries from Europe, mostly Italy, Spain, France, Ireland, Britain and Germany.

I hope this clarifies the matter of the question because the only and ONLY thing that Hispanic have in common is the Spanish-Castilian language.

Another question is what will happen with so many Hispanics in he US that through generations will lose the ability to speak Spanish.

Who would you consider hispanic. Somebody that looks native american, catholic, with a spanish last name that does not know spanish? or somebody white, agnostic, with a german last name from argentina?

I honestly think that US Americans consider wrongly hispanic as a race,...when it is not. Hispanic is an ethnicity defined by the Spanish language and historical background it has nothing to do with race.83.49.198.239 (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Jordi Monroig83.49.198.239 (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason for portraying the "Hispanic" as Arab or Amerindian looking is fabrication of British and Anglo American writers that have a hate agenda much the same way they tried to strip Germans of their Whiteness by calling them "Huns" during WWI propaganda caricatures. Spain fought many successful wars against England for over 200 years in her efforts to contain British hegemony encroachments against her American Empire. And these episodes left a very deep dislike of Spain and Spanish speaking peoples in Britain and Anglo America. These resentments manifest themselves in the manufacturing of a new racial category despite the lack of scientific data. Modern DNA genome studies have conclusively proved that the people of Spain have overwhelming European genetics and not North African ones, as many English speaking writers so vehemently try to claim most of the time. Another example are distortions and outright lying about history. For example, our school children are are always taught that England ruled the waves in the wake of the 1588 Armada battle. The fact is that Spain largely won that war that ended in 1604 with a peace treaty that was signed mostly on Spanish terms. It will be a very cold day in Hell indeed when Anglo America and Britain drop their own White racial category and replace it with the term "Anglic".--Scipio-62 04:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)
 * Please read the comment above yours. I think you are confusing race and ethicity.  There are "white" hispanics and "dark" hispanics.--Work permit (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Table Removed
I've removed this table from the "Race" section of the article. I had wanted to keep it but there were two tables in that section and it was just unmanageable. Also it is old data from the 2000 census so I thought that if I had to remove one table it might as well be the one with the older data. Just storing it here so that I can have it if I can find a way to put it back without messing up the article.--Jersey Devil (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

MAN, I am just sorry that table was removed. Really, it was really important as it provided real information about the stuff. And real information is what Wikipedia needs the most. I think it should continue on, not only because I was doing some resarch and it felt good to find real information with a source and hard data, as it does really complements the article. It's ashame it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.79.236 (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: cleanup
This was a sort of emergency intervention. I'm back from a three-month-long absence and find the article linked to from the main page, so it's going to be getting more eyes today. If I made any change with which anyone disagrees, just tell me about it. Thanks, everyone. SamEV (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

United States
The biggest part of the introductory text deals with the latinamericans in the United States of America and throughout the whole text one can critizise the excessive use of relating latinamericans to this state(=United States of America). As a reader from Europe I am not interested too much in the influence of latinamericans to the US and its history, so I would be pleased to see the article improve to the point where US-centered text is taken out (possibly put into another article, eg called "The influence/role of latinamericans to the statehood of the United States of America"). It is clear to me that there are relations between latinamericans and the US, but please include them in a quantity justifiable to the whole text, not in an excessive one. --87.167.101.7 (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You might be mistaken about the subject of this article, since you seem to suggest that the article should not discuss what it is actually supposed to discuss. SamEV (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It should discuss latinoamericans in general, not in respect to the United States of America. If there should be relations to a territory, it should mainly be the american continent as a whole, its climate, agriculture, infrastructure, etc., but not exaggerate in always relating latinoamericans to the US. The article's title is clear here "Hispanic and Latino Americans", instead of "Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States of America". I don't critizise mentioning of the history, culture, or society of the US, but not in such a massive/frequent usage as it is done throughout the article. The US is not that important in the history of the hispanics as some like it to be seen, it's just one of many states on the american continent. --87.167.124.232 (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me remind you that "American" has two main senses: adjectival and gentilic form of "America" the continent/the Americas, and adjectival and gentilic form of "United States of America". We're using the latter sense here. It's a valid use. SamEV (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just amended my answer, as it was incomplete. Merriam-Webster also lists the aborigenes of the Americas and American English as meanings for "American". SamEV (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This really just gets to the point where it is blatant POV pushing. The fact of the matter is that people in the U.S. call themselves Americans and terms such as "Hispanic American" and "Latino American" are growing in use to describe this growing population. No one would suggest we change the title of the article African American to the ridiculous title "African Americans in the United States" just because there also exist Afro-Colombians. Please just stop, what you are inadvertently doing is trying to whitewash the existence of a large demographic in the U.S. population and it gets to the point where one just has to say enough already (this has been discussed to death). The article title isn't going to be changed so please just use this talk page to talk about ways to improve this article rather then using it to POV push. Thanks.--Jersey Devil (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with everything you said there. SamEV (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)