Talk:Hispanic and Latino Americans

United States: Hispanic and Latino Unassessed

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Hispanic and Latino Americans portal This article is supported by the Hispanic and Latino Americans task force.

American?

Exactly why is the term "Hispanic American" controversial? Gringo300 02:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The term is not controversial and as such has been removed.--Jersey Devil 19:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Poverty Rate

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [1] 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)[reply]

Rename

The name of this article should be "Hispanics and Latinos" (or, less likely, "Hispanics or Latinos"), per [2], [3], etc. If anyone objects, please say so and why before I make this move. Thank you. SamEV 07:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."[4] and this [5], the Census 2000 report. SamEV (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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#Discrimination_and_stereotypes. 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Fine because... SamEV (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you. SamEV (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 :)

"overview" :
- {{cite web |url=http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/cenbr01-1.pdf |title=Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2000 |last=Grieco |first=Elizabeth M. |coauthors=Rachel C. Cassidy |accessdate=2008-04-27 |format=[[Portable Document Format|PDF]] |publisher=U.S. Census Bureau}}
- {{Cite web |url=http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf |title=Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin |accessdate=2007-07-15 |author=United States Census Bureau |year=March 2001 |publisher=United States Census Bureau |format=PDF}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why Exactly is Salma Hayek not Hispanic? This is a rhetorical question, by the way. Deepstratagem (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]