Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 October 1

= October 1 =

Occupational Hazards
Different jobs carry different risks. Physical dangers are obvious like for soldiers, or people working in heavy industry. Less obvious is psychological damage. Teachers have been known to have breakdowns. But the psychological damage of being a country librarian must be very low. Is there an accredited ranking of jobs on the basis of psychological damage? In particular, where would spies rate? Are their any statistics revealing the percentage of spies who become permanently insane? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There probably is such a ranking in general. Workers' compensation insurance schemes have to be based on actuarial estimates of the risk of "injury" in various jobs, and psychological injury is one of many possibilities. Narrowing it down to spies, however, is problematic, since so much of their work is secret. The fact that someone IS a spy is obviously often a secret. That would make collecting data for spies rather difficult. HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You may find our article Occupational stress to be a good starting point. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to what HiLo said, there's also the matter of determining who is a "spy". If you simply can't tell anyone what you do and you work in a foreign country, does that automatically make you a spy even though you don't kill people, carry a gun, steal documents, or whatever.  Dismas |(talk) 12:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed - as this discussion of risk of suicide by profession points out, one of the problems in collecting data is the tiny sample size for many professions. Taknaran (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. What stimulated this question was Shayler recently reminding everyone that he is the Messiah. I wondered if he was showcasing his espionage trained expertise as an outrageous liar, or if he believed it, which would fit most peoples definition of insanity. Which led me to wonder was he insane to begin with and this was no barrier to recruitment or got this way as the result of his job. Most people would like to know the occupational hazards that go with a job before applying. 31.25.4.14 (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Real name suing Nom de Plume
Thou this will necessitate some answers in legalese/case law, I'm not seeking legal advice per se & not currently in any legal situation, that out of the way I'm wondering how pen names can be used with the certainty that there is not some real person out there who would sue you for everything for using their birth name. Especially with such controversial works from the likes of EL James, Andy McNab, Ibn Warraq etc. The only litigation I have found is a 100+ year old case of the opposite happening, the pen name Mark Twain being used by another firm, but yet no real life birth name "Mark Twain" suing Samuel Clemens. With the current litigious society that we have (such things as Lindsey Lohan suing E-Trade because the wild female baby was referred to as "Lindsey" and apparently damaged Lohan's reputation opening the door to such things as can I name my daughter Lindsey without getting Lohan's permission & all set on the backdrop of the much more lenient laws concerning "public figures" when it comes to such things as defamation).  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way  15:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how merely adopting a pen name that happens to be the name of someone else (and some names are very common) could be a basis for a lawsuit (q.v.), unless they can be shown to be impersonating that person or cause them some loss.--Shantavira|feed me 15:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response Shantavira, what you say makes sense and you're right in many nations any monetary finding would be based on actual damages. With the hundreds--or thousands--of instances thou I would think there are some cases where the birth name person actually has art/literature or even a business under that name, perhaps one that relies on a reputation opposite of what an author might be publishing.  Say a priest or family counselor who have blogs but with the birth name EL James etc.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   15:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no copyright in proper names. There is trademark, in which case the one suing would have to show he had a prior commercial interest which he had tried to protect and was harmed by dilution of his brand name.  I think our article mentions Apple Records not being able to sue Apple Computers. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks μηδείς that is very helpful. The only thing that would strike me as odd on that is the current case (thou not exactly similar as using ones birth name, it does get into the legal areas of "likeness" and "reputation/defamation") of the stock model used for the AIDS ad thou it has yet to be worked out if she even has a legit case.
 * Other thoughts or experiences are welcome on this topic.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way  01:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The law is going to vary by the jurisdiction and the relevant facts. You could be sued if you use someone's name or image to enrich yourself based on his reputation without his permission.  You can be sued for defamation if you cause people to associate a person with a crime or a disease.  Say, "Dexter Brand Rubber Gloves" which is only catchy because he might be a serial killer.  But the fact that some random person shows up in a picture you took of the Empire State Building is not going to be grounds for suit because they were not harmed and their image wasn't what was being sold, but the buildings. Stephen King didn't use the name Richard Bachman because he wanted to cash in on any real-world Bachman's fame.  If there was a Bachman who wrote kiddy stories though, he might have a case against King.  In the AIDS case you mention, the woman claims not to have signed a release, and to have had damage actually caused to her reputation--people might reasonably think she volunteered for the poster because she is in fact infected.  California has recently passed new law, see personality rights. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

How much does it cost the US government to run a website?
I note that several US government agency websites have been taken off line today. The obvious implication is that they have been taken off line due to the Government Shutdown. I am curious as to whether this is simply politics in action, or an actual cost issue. So, my question is... how much does it actually cost to keep a governmental website on line? Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * PubMed is still online, they are saying: "PubMed has been designated to be maintained with minimal staff during the lapse in government funding. The information on this website will be kept as up to date as possible, and the agency will attempt to respond to urgent operational inquiries during this period." Count Iblis (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does look like different agencies are doing different things... NASA's website is completely gone (replaced with a note about the shutdown) while the National Park Service's website lets you access their front page, but sub-pages are down. So is this simply politics, or is it an actual cost issue? Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blueboar I think your question is slightly off, you are attempting to distinguish between politics and cost (money) with something concerning Washington, D.C. To make a very long story short cost=politics=cost=politics when one is speaking about Congress or the White House (which supervise each of these websites).  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   16:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want to speak too much since I've been unable to find good sources but my understanding is generally speaking, it isn't a matter of the precise actual cost (edit: presuming it costs something), but rather whether it's an essential service and if it isn't whether money has already been allocated for it  United States federal government shutdown of 2013 . If the government is using external hosting then it's likely the hosting would already be paid at least for a few weeks beyond the shutdown. However I'm not sure how much the US government uses external hosting. I have come across some Akamai caches before but it may still be contigent on a government run front back end. In that case edit: of a government hosted site or back end, while the bandwidth and servers will generally be fully paid for, there will be ongoing costs including at a minimum electricity for the building, maintainence for the building and those responsible for the servers. Of course, some of this will still be required as long as you have some sort of server running (although it could be set up differently) but the cost could easily be a lot less with a limited website. In particular, for a government website I imagine there will be strong requirements that people are available to migate cyberattacks edit:and generally maintain security due to the risk to users if the website is compromised (not to mention embarassment to the government). And as suggested earlier, there's a fair chance you will need more staff available if your website is more complicated. I can imagine a case could be made that all of these costs for non essential websites are not essential therefore there is no funding for them unless it's already been allocated. In some cases a case could perhaps be made that to prevent confusion, you need to keep something running so that could become essential edit: or it won't cost anymore than you need to maintain essential services. I'm not denying of course that there's a lot of politics here, e.g.  is obviously fairly non neutral.
 * Edit: Although it's also worth remembering that it's not likely a simple situation either. Per the earlier sources, I think the Office of Management and Budget will provide guidance on what can and can't be done but it seems unlikely that each agency or organisation within the government is has held detailed consultation on what's they can and cannot do. They may have asked for guidance or perhaps there was even a process whereby they submitted their plans for approval but either way it's likely they had to come up with their own plans and particularly if they don't receive approval, the administrators involved will carry some risk if they are considered to have broken the law or misused funds even unintentionally. Perhaps there will also be some risk to staff in that they may find they aren't paid if it's held they shouldn't have been working.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just found   Nil Einne (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Prison deaths
My son died in a prison facility halfway house. I would like to add him to your list of names in the subject on prison deaths. He died on 4/20/13. I would also like to write an article about how I've had to fight everyone in the system to get answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.26.98 (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for your loss. First welcome to wikipedia!  You may wish to register a username.  Your question is better suited for the helpdesk & if you chose to move it you may have a greater diversity of response.  To answer your concerns you may find Your first article, Reliable Sources and Notability useful and adding his name to the already established wikilist should be simple enough if you have at least one citation.  In most cases however it appears that your son's case may not warrant a wikipedia article however Trayvon Martin and Mary Jo Kopechne seem to be tenuous exceptions so far.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   17:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. Neither Martin nor Kopechne died in a halfway house. On the face of it, unless there are extraordinary circumstances, neither topic appears to qualify for an article (see WP:NOTMEMORIAL). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the one I was thinking of Clarityfiend, it is on the discussion for both I believe. You are correct overall but the "extraordinary" thing is something I haven't heard before, but then those debates on NM become pretty subjective pretty fast.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   22:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The gentleman's son may not be notable (famous) enough for his own stand-alone-article. But if we do have an article or list on such deaths, his name could be added as an incident, as long as the case was published in reliable sources. He might also want to try writing about it in a blog outside of wikipedia.  You can set up free blogs through google and other hosts. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of yes or no -- it's tricky, because Wikipedia's purpose is to be an encyclopedia. Basically, Wikipedia doesn't publish new information - it summarizes what other people have published, usually relying on more comprehensive reviews.

So if your son wrote a letter describing some kind of prison condition, or someone wrote a letter describing an attack on him, you could take that letter and put it up on a private website for people to read. That would make it a "self-published primary source", which is pretty much the bottom of the totem pole for WP:RS. According to WP:BLP, we can't use a source like that to allege that any other living person did something bad.

The next step up is if some organization, even a small or partisan one, covered the incident, which would make it a primary source; but for most purposes this doesn't matter much.

The big step is if you can cite a newspaper or magazine article about it, or some other organization known for impartial and accurate coverage (Amnesty International, for example). This can be called a truly secondary source. This fully justifies coverage of all aspects of the case within an article about a larger topic.

Several secondary sources, independent of one another (not just copying each other), are enough to justify him having his own article. However, if these sources are all about his death, this will still (by WP:BLP1E) need to be written as an article about the event of his death rather than about him as a biography. You would need articles about other things he did to get to that point.

I should add that all of these steps are subject to hostile responses by people who are just plain dismissive of Wikipedia's mission, and I don't know why. Even the most notable and terrible events in the world get people trying to claim they don't matter and ought to be deleted (like Articles_for_deletion/Gujba_college_massacre). Wikipedia is a just plain nasty place sometimes - be warned, but know it isn't just for you.

The first step: Get an account. People can't correspond with you and keep track of how things are going without having a talk page to leave comments on. Also: get a free account on a site where you can upload images (Flickr is a common one that people use with Wikimedia Commons). In theory you could use Commons itself, but you will find yourself getting sniped at for angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin issues like whether a local coroner's report is public domain or just Fair Use and whether it should therefore be deleted.

You then want to get as much hard data out as possible. I don't know if you are prone to this, but some people in this very terrible position understandably take the approach of saying how unjust it is, going over the entire situation giving a little bit of detail about this and that and assuming that friendly listeners can ask for more information, but this doesn't work well online. People want to start at the bottom up - they want to see the actual reports, letters, sentencing documents, etc. are there, then check that the summary of a few of these is correct, then check that the argument made according to this is logically valid. This is the exact opposite order from how they read these things when they go to the website, but that really is how we think when it comes time to decide what we believe and what action we want to take!

Once you've laid out your case with as much hard evidence as possible, and explained it a little if only on a Wikipedia user page, the next step is to make sure we have articles on each of the entities involved. In particular --- who is the halfway house? Do we have an article about it? Then start one! And make sure any media reports about problems that occur there are represented. Check we have articles about the laws, about the state prison agencies ... nearly all of them are probably missing or incomplete; you'll have a huge amount of work to do, and some of that will help you better understand your own issue - and may provide names of reporters you can contact to try to get more coverage of the case that matters to you.

Think of this as a bridge-building exercise. You might want to see that span crossing the river, but you're going to spend a lot of time underwater pouring pilings and foundations first.

Of course I will say you have my condolences, though my words hang hollow in the empty air. May God bless and comfort you. Wnt (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Biblical family tree
Does anybody know the purpose behind the biblical family tree? It seems as if everyone is interrelated in the web, and all the conflicts are among family members. Some family members, according to the Bible, are founders of whole colonies of people; one may wonder about the anthropological reasoning or explanation behind the family tree. 140.254.136.167 (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the article is to show how, according to the text of the Bible, various persons in the Bible are related to one another. That's it.  There is no known connection between what Anthropologists know about the origins of various cultural groups and the stories in the Bible about the specific "founder" of those groups.  -- Jayron  32  00:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I interpret your Q as being why the Bible devotes so many pages to the genealogy. At the time it was written, it would have provided "proof" of how everyone was descended from Adam and Eve, as the family tree went right up to people they knew as their ancestors.  Of course, these days that link is broken, so it all seems rather dull and pointless.  A similar situation is how the Japanese emperors have a line of descent right back to mythical emperor/gods, to "prove" to the Japanese people that the Emperor was of divine origin.  Of course, the skeptics among us assume that the real lineage only goes back so far, in both cases, and the rest is just made up.  StuRat (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source or list of sources to support your reasoning, or is that primarily your opinion of what you think might have happened? 164.107.102.255 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As I am only stating what skeptics believe, my source would only need to show that many of them doubt that the Biblical lineage is factual back to Adam and Eve. Do you doubt that such skeptics exist ? StuRat (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I would like to see support on why you think the people-who-wrote-the-Bible thought that everyone was descended from Adam and Eve, and why. You didn't include the meanings, intentions, or possibly the origins of the genealogies (it had to come from somewhere, didn't it?). You merely described the genealogies: that everyone was descended from Adam and Eve. Even if the entire genealogy was made up, there must be a reason for putting it there in the first place. It might be that the genealogies were a way to give the authors-of-the-Bible a shared cultural identity. Still, one might wonder about "why those specific names?" or "how come the peoples of the genealogies shared the same names with real cultures?" or "what is this family tree supposed to represent?" 164.107.103.201 (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understood my point. If it was entirely made up, it would be meaningless.  In antiquity, it was quite common to mix fact with fiction.  Look at the Iliad, about the Trojan War.  We think the war actually happened, but obviously much of the Iliad is fiction, dealing with Greek gods and such.  Now, as for the Bible, the object of providing that genealogy would be to connect the "modern day" people (at that time) to creation.  They would start from the known genealogy, and work backwards from there.  When they went back as far as they could, they would then make up the rest.  If it was all a bunch of fictional names, that wouldn't have connected anyone with the family tree.  But seeing a tree that starts with Adam and Eve and ends with your grandpa is very powerful.  As for how they made up the names, the same as any fiction author, they picked names that sounded good.


 * To support that (at least some of) the authors of the Bible thought (or at least claimed) that everyone was descended from Adam and Eve, we have Genesis 3:20 "And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living" and Corinthians 15:45: "...The first man Adam became a living being...”. So, if Adam was the first man and Eve the first woman, then everyone would be their descendants, unless you believe they meant for there to be multiple, separate creations, and I see no evidence they meant that. StuRat (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So far as I know, the Israelite kings are generally said to be the first son of the first son of the ... all the way back to Adam, with a few peculiarities such as Jacob and Esau. And all of the famous figures of history are in their lineage.  This strikes me as very convenient for them. Wnt (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's as far as you know, you don't know much. Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) shows many breaks in primogeniture there, and Kingdom of Judah shows a more orderly primogeniture, there are several places where son does not succeed father, including Athaliah, a queen regnant who succeeded her own son, and who was succeeded by her grandson Jehoash of Judah; there are also cases where a younger brother was named king in passing over an older brother (see Jehoahaz of Judah).  -- Jayron  32  02:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * By "generally" I didn't mean to imply "without exception", but indeed I didn't recall some of these examples, so thanks. Wnt (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The premise is simply wrong. (of course, in the case of kings, it was (and is) the custom for the eldest son to succeed his father). But for the lineage before the kings, in most cases it's not mentioned whether someone was the eldest son, but in the cases where it's mentioned, they are generally not the eldest: Seth, Arfachsad, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Ram, David, Solomon are all not the eldest. The only cases I know of where brothers are mentioned and the 'ancestor' is the eldest are Peleg and Abraham. And as for "all of the famous figures of history are in their lineage": What about Joseph, Moses, Elijah, Aaron, Joshua, Gideon, Samson, Deborah, Samuel, Saul, Isaiah, Daniel, Job (and I could go on for while)? - Lindert (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I stand corrected! Though showing a noble family lineage still counts for something, first or otherwise. Wnt (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jehovah's Witnesses have published information about Biblical genealogy at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001646. It represents one point of view.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Vindication of national debt
Just to take the US as an example. Now if the US owes $5.6 trillion to foreign investors and one of them, say China, needs money (that is it can't wait anymore for the US collecting the required sum through austerity, increased taxes and other measures), could that investor, as a part of vindication, force the US through court or other way to return what the US owes? If the US is unable to pay, could a court or other appropriate institution put something in the US, even some part of its territory, on sale to redeem a particular amount owed (like speculations that Greece may be forced to sell some of its islands)?--93.174.25.12 (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I highly doubt anything going to court if it is inter-government. I can see certain "firms" and "private interests" going to court in small matters and maybe forcing the government to sell artifacts etc.  To answer your question in a better way though you may wish to rephrase it.
 * A lot of this hypothetical you present will both be ruled by and in turn affect the interest rate on the U.S. dollar, the "little people" would feel that in inflation or possibly even a devaluation. In short, like the Weimar Republic in Germany or Zimbabwe in the 1980s will feel the day to day effect of our government being forced to pay off its debt with the cost of meat, gas and other items going up by possibly "hyperinflation" (there was a story in Weimar that you would sit down for lunch and order on a menu printed just hours before and by the time you finished eating the inflation had already gone up to the point that the cafe charged you a higher price then you had agreed to when you ordered, that and the famous picture of a destitute family carting a wheel barrow full of currency (think 1-2 million dollars in a wheelbarrow) to be burned for heat that night since inflation had pretty much made burning it for heat the most valuable thing it could be used for).
 * Also the Chinese et. al. (they may be the largest creditor but only represent a fraction of the entire credit) are well aware of something Donald Trump told (I believe it was) Citibank in the 1980s when he went bankrupt. To paraphrase the Donald, when you are calling in debt as large as mine I stop being a borrower and become your biggest partner, basically when the largest overall "investment loan" your making is with just one party (the U.S. in this case) your basically married to us now, yeah we can fight and treat the debt without any respect but in the end we are in this pickle together.  The creditors understand its not as simple as just slapping a foreclosure sign on the front of the White House, they kind of need the US to succeed for any hope of not losing trillions.
 * Then again there's always "salt mine" slavery to pay it off ;-).  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way  22:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 93.174.25.12 -- see the Simpsons episode Bart to the Future for one idea of what form such debt-collection efforts might take... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, China can't force the US to sell off assets to pay the debt. The payments are strictly voluntary.  Of course, if the US defaults, then future lenders will be scarce, and/or will want extreme interest rates, which might be good for the US in the long run, if it stops them from spending like drunken sailors, and borrowing to pay the bill. StuRat (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

See Sovereign immunity. Basically, the United States, as an entity, cannot be taken to court, without its own consent. But what's said above by Stu is also true - if the US stops paying off its debts, it will be more expensive to borrow in the future. Greece, which you bring up, is not being forced by a court of law to go into austerity to cover its debts - rather, it is voluntarily going into austerity to keep the money flowing, and itself part of the Eurozone. If tomorrow Greece decided to flip its creditors the bird and cancel all debts, there's nothing anyone could do about it besides refusing to loan them money again. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Another nation could declare war on one that defaults on their debts, but that's not likely in this day, as, even if they could easily win, the cost of the war would still be likely to outweigh the debt. But I believe this did happen occasionally in antiquity, when wars were cheaper, for the victor, since they only required infantry. StuRat (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not just antiquity. The 1861 Convention of London was a plan by France, Spain, and the United Kingdom to seize some of Mexico's ports and use the customs income from those ports to pay off debts that Mexico had defaulted on.  (The plan fell apart when Spain and the UK discovered that France planned to conquer the entire country.) --Carnildo (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You have to be aware that sovereign immunity for the US government exists under the US constitution. However, that does not mean that the US could not be taken to court in some other country (most likely by institutional), seizing US government assets in that country. See how the government of Argentina was taken to court in US and some other countries over its default.129.178.88.81 (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The foreign debt is held mainly in the form of bonds, which have specified terms of repayment. There is no legal mechanism for demanding repayment of a bond before its term comes due.  Let me note that this is really a moot point anyway, because China's economy depends on selling stuff to the US.  If you had a flood of capital from the US to China, it would be impossible for the US to continue importing from China.  In short, this debt is more of a problem for them than for us, because the only thing they could use the money for is to buy stuff from us, and that's something we wish they would do anyway. Looie496 (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a little too optimistic - the Chinese can use the money, for example, to buy pieces of Ukraine to supply food, outbid the U.S. for fossil fuels, etc. But it is true that lendors usually can't just up and demand the money back early because they want it, except for predatory lending.  The poor, naturally, have no rights at all. Wnt (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * They have the inalienable right to remain poor. StuRat (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Question on determining Hispanic/Latino identity
So, my mother is from the Dominican Republic. My father is from New Orleans and so was his father, but my father’s mother is from El Salvador. Given that background, under maternal vs. paternal lineage customs, and under scientific and legal aspects, would I be considered a Hispanic/Latino? If so, under the same customs and aspects just mentioned, what kind of Hispanic/Latino nationality would I be? And what if, let’s say my father was born in El Salvador or had both parents born there? Then, what kind of Hispanic/Latino nationality would I be under that scenario

Also, how Hispanic/Latino would someone born in the U.S have to be minimally for him or her ideally to Speak Spanish? Someone who has one Hispanic/Latino parent born somewhere in Latin America and another non-Hispanic/Latino parent in the US, someone who has one Hispanic/Latino parent born somewhere in Latin America and another parent born in the U.S who has one Hispanic/Latino parent and the other one not, someone who has Hispanic/Latino parent born somewhere in Latin America and another parent born in the U.S who has both Hispanic/Latino parents, or someone with both Hispanic/Latino parents born somewhere in Latin America? Maternal vs. paternal lineage customs, and/or scientific and legal aspects could also apply.

Explain to me how all this would work out. Willminator (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There are no legal aspects to this. You are what you think you are.  The only time it comes up is on the U.S. census, and you self-select your own identity.  See Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, to wit "Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, defined by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the United States Census Bureau, are self-identification data items in which residents choose the race or races with which they most closely identify, and indicate whether or not they are of Hispanic or Latino origin (the only categories for ethnicity)."  If you consider yourself to be Hispanic, you check the box.  If you don't, then you don't check the box.  There is absolutely no scientific or legal aspects that apply here.  Ethnicity is about how you relate to others through culture.  No one can tell you how you relate to others, only you know that.  Also, you don't need to have any Hispanic/Latino heritage to speak Spanish.  My 7-year old son has no ancestors that come from a Spanish-speaking culture as far back as anyone knows.  He is learning Spanish in school.  There's no law against that.  -- Jayron  32  00:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It could come up in more circumstances than the census, such as when a student is registered in school, or enrolls in college, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It does, but there are often no legal ramifications for whatever you claim as your ethnicity, with the caveat that if an organization has a specific set of criteria (for example, a scholarship offered to Hispanic students, which would then define what THEY mean as Hispanic), you have to meet THEIR criteria. But those criteria vary on a case-by-case basis, and there's no universal definition for any ethnicity or race in the U.S. currently beyond "self-identification".  -- Jayron  32  02:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So are you saying that I don't even need to have any "Hispanic/Latino" family members in order for me to consider myself and check the box as "Hispanic/Latino?" Willminator (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That could be considered deceptive, but there are unlikely to be repercussions, unless you do so to increase your chances of receiving student aid or scholarships, or you enter the "Little Miss Hispanic Delaware" pageant [[Image:SFriendly.gif|20px]] -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Genetically, nope. You could, for example, be adopted by and raised by Hispanic parents.  You'd have no Hispanic ancestors, but you'd have every right to claim Hispanic culture.  -- Jayron  32  02:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So what about genetically in my case? Willminator (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Having ancestors from countries that spoke Spanish has no genetic component. Language is a learned, not inherited, trait.  -- Jayron  32  01:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify my question. If I were to describe my background to people in the U.S, Latin America, or even in other places around the world (Mother from the D.R, father from New Orleans like his father, a descendant of French Canadians, but my father's mother is from El Salvador), would I be considered a Hispanic/Latino in the eyes of society in general? Sociologically speaking, would I be considered a Hispanic/Latino and if so, of what nationality would I be considered that would make me so? How about if my father was born in El Salvador? Also, the other part of the question I asked was how much Hispanic/Latino would someone need to have in my family line for society to expect me to or ideally believe that I should speak Spanish (which I do, but I'm asking about society's perceptions)? Willminator (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It might come to down to how Hispanic you look to others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but there are people who are 100% Hispanic in terms of background who don't look Hispanic at all, Hispanics who are very white and have blonde hair and blue eyes for example. Willminator (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You describe yourself how you want to describe yourself. You can say you're "American", "Hispanic", "Hispanic-American", "Mongrel-that-has-some-Hispanic-background", whatever.  There's no rules or laws behind this thing.  -- Jayron  32  02:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are limits. Brooke Shields, for example, would have a lot of trouble convincing anyone she's African-American, should she decide to so self-identify. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But she doesn't self-identify as such. Self-identity doesn't mean "stuff I make up just to be a pain in the ass", it means "what I honestly assess my own ethnic and cultural background to be".  The former definition is not what the U.S. Census is looking for.  -- Jayron  32  05:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)