Jump to content

Talk:Hispanic and Latino Americans/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Portuguese Hispanics

I have removed "Portugal" from the introduction's list of constituent Hispanic cultures, because none of the sources cited supported its inclusion and its not mentioned elsewhere in the article (aside from Brazil).theBOBbobato (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources cited later in the article do support the inclusion of persons of Portuguese ancestry within the definition of Hispanic. I've added the citations to the introductory paragraph to clarify this (and fixed some dead links in the previous citations).Goodsdrew (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The inclusion of Portuguese Americans is too uncommon to deserve inclusion mention in the opening sentence. I'll try to correct that soon. SamEV (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that they are too "uncommon" to deserve inclusion. Brazilians, who have a portuguese culture, make up more than 1/3 or Latin Americans and are defined in the cited sources as being Latino. There are nearly 400,000 Brazilian-Americans and they merit inclusion (especially since government definitions also include them).Goodsdrew (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:UNDUE. SamEV (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC); 08:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Please explain how that is relevant. There's no problems with that here.Goodsdrew (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
maybe just a case. But I have a Portuguese-American friend, who grew up in NYC. He has very little differences from Latino Americans, accent or behavior, maybe because he and other Portuguese guys lived among them. He identified himself as Portuguese-American but also Latino-American. As for Latino, the word may have different connotations, but even Portuguese in Portugal would identify as Latino due to linguistic and historical reasons. Do not forget that what is known in English wikipedia as "Romance language", is in fact known as Latin languages (i.e. latino). As for the word Hispanic it often is related with modern Spain, and for that reason, some people will reject the term. Although historically speaking it is correct.---Pedro (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sex

"According to a Gallup survey conducted from June to September 2012, it found that 4 percent of Hispanic and Latino Americans self identify as LGBT; this is greater than the estimated 3.4 percent of American adults that self identify as LGBT in the total population.[70]"

  • I would say that this sentence sounds somewhat offensive to Hispanic Americans and LGBT people alike. It sounds like Anglo-saxon American are stating that Hispanic Americans are gayer than them. It doesnt sound reasonable, and looks stupid by being presented in this way. And we all know these surveys are not even accurate.--Pedro (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Farragut

He was born in an English possession. In a catalan speaking territory. How can they be Hispanic? --79.155.192.58 (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Because he became a resident of the United States. SamEV (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I misunderstood the comment. (Though my response also worked--unintentionally--as a critique of how some people are categorized in the US.)
Farragut is Hispanic because as a Catalan he was a Spaniard, and he settled in the US. Minorca's being then an English possession doesn't change Jordi Farragut's ethnicity. SamEV (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Hispanics are the people who have Spanish as their first language, regardless of race. Catalonia speaks two languages: Catalan and Spanish. Most Catalans speak both languages​​. Therefore, the Catalans are considered as a part of the Hispanic population. --Isinbill (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Humble suggestion.

This article states that Hispanic and Latino Americans are citizens of the United States with origins in the countries of Latin America or the Iberian Peninsula. I think that, even though the U.S. Census considers Portuguese/Spanish people as Hispanic/Latinos, this article should indicate that Portuguese/Spanish people are in fact not like that. North American citizens usually think that just because someone speaks Spanish, that person is automatically Spanish. Well, North American people speak English and they are not English, just like people from Quebec speak French and they´re not French. People from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba [...] do speak Spanish, but their culture and lifestyle differ from those of the Spaniards. Actually, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans do not consider Spaniards as Latinos. I know that officially the term Latino does not apply to Spaniards, but let´s be honest, an average North American citizen uses the words `` Hispanic ´´ and `` Latino ´´ as synonyms. I do not mean to disturb/annoy/offend anyone. Unlike most people who complain about Spaniards being considered as Latinos, I do not dislike Latinos. Actually, `` Latino ´´ is a wrong concept, because people from Argentina are very different from people from Bolivia. To sum it up: -I do not dislke Latinos, it´s just that Spaniards are not Latinos. -I know that the Census considers Spanish and South American as the same ethnicity, but when something is wrong, it should be indicated that is wrong. So my suggestion is that the article states that the Census is wrong. 

JBlue96 (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC) JBlue96  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBlue96 (talk • contribs)

Recent edits - misquoting references

User:Cau7ion's recent edits simply misquote http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/49cfr26.htm , so desperate are they to expunge the Portugese (why?)

Suggest they be reverted. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Just added citation that proves Portuguese are not Hispanic and who is exactly is "Hispanic" and shows my edit is justified.

- Cau7ion (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

More accurately, you have removed one of the references you previously misquoted because it didn't suit you. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
In addition to that, the added reference shows nothing of the kind. It discusses "one approach", and does not discuss the meaning of Latino. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Think a border approach needs to be taken as the article is about "Hispanic's and Latino's". Is there a debate over the fact that the Portuguese are not a Latin group? or just Hispanic? Spanish, Portuguese & Latin American Studies -- Moxy (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think it is pretty clear that the article should not be edited to remove "Portugese" from a direct quote from one of the references. A direct quote from a reference should be accurate. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"more accurately you have removed one of the references you previous misquoted"

Replacing it with my source showing who is Hispanic and who isn't.

"does not discuss the meaning of Latino"

There are other sources who elaborated on that part.

@Moxy I'm stating that the Portuguese people are not Latinos or Hispanic.

The Census's definition of Hispanic/Latino is here as you can see it does not include the Portuguese at all.

Look, I hate to use dictionaries as sources but this a time when a dictionary is indeed a primary source.

Here is what a Latino is and here is what a Hispanic is as you can see Portuguese fit neither definitions and not by the governments that doesn't really go into detail.

Even on this same page (prior to my edits correcting a few things) states the same exact thing I did:

"While the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, Hispanic is a narrower term which mostly refers to persons of Spanish-speaking origin or ancestry, while Latino is more frequently used to refer more generally to anyone of Latin American origin or ancestry, including Brazilians.""

"Hispanic thus includes persons from Spain and Spanish-speaking Latin Americans excluding Brazilians (who speak Portuguese)while Latino excludes persons from Spain but includes both Spanish-speaking and Portuguese-speaking Latin Americans.

As you can see by the bolded it states the same exact thing I was stating, except I fixed a few mishaps.

So why were my edits reverted?

Not sure....

- Cau7ion (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I have seen this conversation before..not sure if here..but i do remember the book used as a source (as I have used it in other areas of Wikipedia) - As you have show above with the source you have quoted the article should be broad in its approach. More can be seen at the ref I was talking about please read over Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola; Thomas P. Gullotta (2009). Depression in Latinos: Assessment, Treatment, and Prevention. Springer. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-387-78512-7. . As for why the edits we reverted ...they are clearly disputed by the editor above and thus should be discussed before reimplementation. I personally see a narrow view trying to be implemented despite the sources used in the article including those on stats. -- Moxy (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not misquote me (yet again) as you have done above (and not for the first time). You also carefully avoid explaining there why you removed a reference that didn't suit you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans&action=historysubmit&diff=578270646&oldid=578269496 shows a much wider-ranging attempt to exclude Portuguese speakers from consideration.
Furthermore, I believe it is never appropriate to alter a direct quote from a reference so that it says something that the reference does not, in fact, say. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I think Latino (demonym) with its sources explains this best. I also just noticed the conversation at the noticeboard and will focus on the "white" part - we cant correct history here - not are fault that in the past this was a problem as seen at Carlos Teixeira; Victor M. P. Da Rosa (2009). The Portuguese in Canada: Diasporic Challenges and Adjustment. University of Toronto Press. pp. 178–. ISBN 978-0-8020-9833-7. -- Moxy (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree with you Moxy that the article right there says it best.

It's exactly what I was saying and it's obvious from that article you can see the Portuguese are not Hispanic/Latino and my post above with the bolded text from quotes in this article aka the one we're currently discussing evidently states the same thing in a part.

My edits fixing a false part (that possibly implies the Portuguese are Hispanic/Latino) and a couple other problems I've had with the article we're discussing (grammar, place of citation, a few mishaps) being reverted is confusing.

Yes, Pinkbeast it was an accident editing the quotes from the source as I thought that was apart of the article and wasn't aware it was actually a direct quote from a source, I apologize and just explained on the noticeboard it was an accident. - Cau7ion (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The misquotes or misinterpretation is a bit concerning here - Hispanic and Latino Americans clearly says " there are Hispanic/Latino Americans who are of other European ancestries in addition to Spanish (e.g. Portuguese..." Could we get you to read over Hispanic–Latino naming dispute this may help explain the problem. I agree Portuguese have had a problem with this classification, but never the less its there. Its a reality that we cant suppress here as all we can do is regurgitate what the sources say. We could add that many Portuguese do not see themselves as Hispanic–Latino with the "Carlos Teixeira" book above but we cant blank them from the page. -- Moxy (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


My man Moxy I sincerely believe you're confused about my edits (as I was confused about what Pinkbeasts problems with my edits was originally) as I accidentally edited the quotes from a source and didn't realize until later, it was a mistake and Pinkbeast had a problem with that.
As for the my edits Moxy it was simply fixing an error on the article that possibly implied the Portuguese were Hispanic/Latino with the statement "with origins in the countries of Latin America or the Iberian peninsula" as it could possibly imply that the Portuguese are Hispanic/Latino with the "Iberian peninsula" part.
It's obvious they aren't and the other parts of the article (like the ones I just bolded) conflict with that possible implication.
My other edits were fixing grammar errors and a few other mishaps. - Cau7ion (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
If that was your only aim, why remove "Portuguese: latino-americanos)" ? Why is it not OK to imply people living in Portugal qualify, but fine to leave material that equally implies people in Spain qualify? This retroactive account of things doesn't add up, as is clear from the diffs.
As far as I can see the only error fixed was the replacement of a comma with a full stop, which I have implemented after the reverts. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I actually left the ""Portuguese: latino-americanos)" on my last reversion because they do speak Portuguese in Brazil, so that's how they would say it in Brazil (and Brazilians are Latinos) and I left the Spanish part cause Spaniards are Hispanics -- whereas Portuguese are not either.

"As far as I can see the only error fixed was the replacement of a comma"

I actually fixed a few other grammar errors and mishaps (citation at wrong spot, not be confused with the one I edited by accident) making the definition of ""Hispanic"" and "Latino" more clear and a few other things.

I just edited the article again basically to what my above statement says and if you have a problem with this version, please elaborate. - Cau7ion (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

And we're just back to the vendetta against Portuguese speakers again. Why can it refer to Americans with origins in Spain but not Americans with origins in Portugal?
You mean the two you edited allegedly by accident, one of which you then removed. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Further, the other changes in https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans&diff=578321191&oldid=578295128 are to introduce a bogus comma after "Reflecting", the ungrammatical (in context) and pointlessly verbose phrase "the people consist of various" to replace "many", and some removal of words indicating that the common uses of the words "Hispanic" and "Latino" are not the only ones even though that is manifestly the case and what the references indicate. The entire edit is junk and should be reverted. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I have added the sources to the article so all should be ok now. Cau7ion we are going to require that you post your changes here instated of editing the article directly. It clear to me that your not researching the topic at hand. -- Moxy (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Brazilians are South Americans or simply Brazilians as Quebecois are Canadians. The people of these two countries are not Latinos, even though their languages have Latin as root. I've always heard that Brazilians are Latino, just not Hispanic. It makes no sense that Brazilians would not be Latino. WoundedWolfgirl (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"Indigenous beliefs", so-called

The Mayans are not indigenous to the United States. 99.247.1.157 (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese

Note that the lead has 10 citations to justify the fact that Brazilians, who speak Portuguese, are sometimes counted as Latinos. As I see it, any revision to the page must acknowledge that fact. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

these 10 citations will be analyzed, however the U.S. government does not recognize these inclusions in the term Hispanic or Latino. Brazilians, Portugese, Haitians, people from Belize are not included in any cultural, economic, population or any official survey. Some editors are giving undue weight of gigantic proportions to some definitions that do not include the requirement of the Spanish language or culture. These groups are not considered Hispanic or Latino neither officially nor in their communities. This article has become a laughing stock with people putting forth their own personal agendas. I'm reverting as much as I can to Joe Calders last edit. Moxy please correct the mess that you left. Tierraman (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed the mistake. As for your revisions you cant keep changing the quotes from the sources in the article... you would need to change the source not just change the quotes from the sources. Just because the US government does not have this classifications does not mean we can ignore the history and academic work on the topic. History or the academic community does not care that Latinos as a group are excluded for US coverage. The academic sources below (as does the 10 in the article) explains the problem. If you disagree with the terms and sources lets look for other sources that contradict the sources we have know. I agree there is a problem with the classification as stated before and in the article.. but we cant change history (click for source) ... all we can do is regurgitate what is out there. Also a good idea to read over Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle because some are asking for you to be blocked as per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing because of the WP:3RR rule. But I think we can solve this if we are to talk about the sources. -- Moxy (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Moxy to include the Portuguese in the definition of the term Latino, though this doesn't look the proper way to do it. If US government institutions don't include them within their definition, that should be treated as a NPOV issue and we should cover all definitions. I'm thinking that it would be useful to separate the term Hispanic from the term Latino within the article (other than in the lead), to make it more clear when the sources are talking about only those with Spanish origin and when about the group including all Latin ancestries. Diego (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Oops I agree that revert was not the best...hard to keep up with the weird edits. Do you think separating the articles would be best or just within the article? As for the US government they only have Hispanic has a term but that simply for stats nothing to do with research on the topic. Latino is considered an ethnicity by the government, not a race thus the Latino communities actually identify themselves. Hispanic is a term that was adopted by the U.S. government in the early 1970s to identify all persons from Latin America no matter how wrong. -- Moxy (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree we should discuss these issues here and not have this article damaged. I believe part of the problem is that the terms are being applied with different definitions. When the U.S. Census Bureau used the term "Hispanic" and later "Hispanic or Latino" it was meant to describe the Spanish movement into the Americas. The U.S. Census specifically stated that the concept as put forth by them applied to those of Spanish Culture or Origin. When the U.S. Census added the term Latino they did not intend it to be understood as Latin American. In fact, it was noted that they would used the term "Latin" in Spanish "Latino" so that it would be known that they were referring to Spanish speaking Latins (The Spanish) and of their descent so other Latin cultures like Italians would not be confused when answering the census questions. Both terms Hispanic or Latino point to Europe, Hence Hispanic or Latino is used interchangeably by the U.S. Census. This is not contradictory As Spanish people are both Hispanic (Hispano) and Latin (Latino). all the countries of Latin America that speak Portuguese or Spanish are Latin American. I'am definitely not in any way against the Portuguese nor Brazilians and have high regard for them. However I wanted to explain how the term is used in the Census bureau as many do not understand the concept or why they only use only Spanish speaking countries. Maybe they should only use the term Hispanic to denote the Spanish Speaking countries or use the term "Spanish Americas" but I'm sure even this may bring confusion to some and I'm only trying to bring clarity. I would like very much to hear the understanding of these issues of identification from you gentlemen. Tierraman (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Quick questions - why is the U.S. Census usage more important then the academic usage? We present both in the article so whats the problem them?-- Moxy (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The term Hispanic or Hispanic/Latino has been used by the U.S. government for over 40 years. In those forty years there have been thousands of academic studies and surveys done based on the concept of this umbrella group and its subcategories. As created by the Census bureau the category “Hispanic or Latino” and the subcategories (countries and people) that it consists of must have Spanish culture or origin i.e. Lineage, ancestry, language, etc. One consistency is that all Countries in this group have Spanish as their official language. A small amount of countries also have an American Indian (indigenous) languages included as official languages. Latino American is a relatively new term seems to be used as Latin American. This not the the same as used in the Census category "Hispanic or Latino" in which Hispanic is interchangeble with Latino (Latino meaning Latin in Spanish). Although there were immense Latin influences from the Portuguese and French in the Americas (Brazil, Canada, and certain Caribbean Islands) the Hispanic/Latino category focuses on the Spanish presence and cultures in the Americas. These terms unify Latin Europe and the Americas. You can see this with Spain’s relationship with the Spanish Latin Americas, where there are more people of Spanish descent than anywhere else in the Americas. There is a continuing sharing of culture, history, values and entertainment through the Spanish language. It is the unity of "Spanish Speaking Europe" and the "Spanish Speaking Americas". I believe it to be a tribute to Latin Europe that their influence and cultures are so far reaching and well accepted. Like Spain, Portugal has it's story and so does France. That being said, if there are government agencies that are beginning to include Portuguese and Brazilians in this category this should be mentioned but not given undue weight and evoking the impression that this is the official definition, or leading the readers to believe that Portugal/Brazilian groups were included in population reports, etc. Iam looking forward to reading your posted links. P.S. The AP Style book is a guide for journalists and of itself does not legally have the power to create or redefine racial definitions, ethnic groups or categories. However you can also read there how the terms are used interchangeably depending on the person’s preference.
 Tierraman (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

New suggestion: creation of a dab

I think for the time being there are some facts we should take into account when deciding. (1) There is a reliable source which states that the term "Latin peoples" covers Hispanic and Latino Americans. (2) There are reliable sources which incidentally use the "Latin" adjective in connection with some Romance-speaking people (such as Romanians, French). (3) For about two years, no reliable source has been presented which exclusively (not only incidentally) deals with the topic "Latin peoples". (4) For the time being, the article is based either on OR or on reliable sources which do not mention the term "Latin peoples". Consequently, I think we should create a disambiguation page named "Latin peoples" with two links (a) Peoples speaking a Romance language. (b) Hispanic and Latino Americans. Borsoka (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with this proposal. As long as we have articles called Germanic peoples and Finno-Ugric peoples, we should have one called Romance peoples or Latin peoples to deal with peoples speaking Romance languages.
There is a reliable source which states that the term "Latin peoples" covers Hispanic and Latino Americans -what source do you exactly refer to? 86.127.13.169 (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The source you deleted from the article Latin peoples. Would you refer to a reliable source which deals with this topic? I am afraid, that we cannot write an article based on books of AIDS in France or of Romanian historiography which only by the way mention that the French or the Romanians are or are claimed to be a Latin people. Borsoka (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
But that source does not state that "Latin peoples" covers only Hispanic and Latino Americans (and not also Europeans speaking Romance languages) 86.127.13.169 (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the reason I suggest a dab page: "Latin peoples" in certain context refers to the Hispanic and Latino Americans. Would you please refer to the reliable source based on which you would like to rewrite this article which, for the time being, contains OR or references to sources which do not mentione the term "Latin peoples". Borsoka (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
You must be kidding! The phrase "The Latin peoples of the Americas..." does not imply that all Latin peoples live in the Americas. The text refers to peoples which are Latin and live in the Americas 79.117.178.181 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I am serious: the word in certain context refers to the Hispanic and Latino Americans. What is the reliable sources based on which the article about Latin peoples could be written? Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Romance languages = Latin languages and Romance peoples = Latin peoples. I asked the admin User:Mr. Stradivarius for assistance 79.117.174.55 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
????? What is the reliable sources based on which the article about Latin peoples could be written?
Definitely the topic meets Wikipedia:Notability. If there aren't enough general information about Latin peoples. the article can take the form of a Wikipedia:List 79.117.174.55 (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of the same solution. If great minds meet each other... (it is a Hungarian saying) Borsoka (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Something like http://www.blacklisted_site.com/encyclopedia/Latin-peoples (with "nationmaster" instead of blacklisted_site) 79.117.174.55 (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus to merge. — Lfdder (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The article Latin peoples should be merged to this article, according to Wikipedia:CFORK. Borsoka (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Anon, please try to read the sources before citing them. (1) Albert Lindemann writes that "Nineteenth-century Romanians fancied themselves, as the name they chose for their new nation suggests, a Latin people..." - it is not Albert Lindemann who called the Romanians a Latin people, but - according to him - 19th-century Romanians "fancied themselves a Latin people" (=they had a desire to be mentioned as a Latin people). My desire for being titled King of Jerusalem does not mean that I am the King of Jerusalem. (2) Segesten writes that in the 1930s and 1940s Mircea Eliade "sought to underscore the role of the authochthonous element as a precious and distinguishing feature of the Romanians in comparison with other Latin peoples". She also refers to a 14th-century monk who used the term when referring to Roman Catholics. [4] Otherwise, she uses adjective between quotation marks: she writes of " "Latin" peoples " [5]. Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
In a phrase on the same page Albert Lindemann himself calls Romanians a Latin people: "Moreover, as a Latin people, speaking a Latin-based language, the Romanians claimed special affinities with western Europe"
"Romanians in comparison with other Latin peoples" - the word "other" implies that Romanians are a Latin people too 79.117.188.2 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Anon, please read the source carefully: he informs us of the opinion of 19th-century Romanians who "fancied themselves a Latin people". Borsoka (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Frederick Kellogg : "Latin peoples, such as the Romanians, Italians,...". 79.117.186.27 (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Anon, would you please name the book from which you cited the above sentence. Borsoka (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The Road to Romanian Independence. Also , according to Arthur Edward Romilly Boak, "Two Latin or Romance peoples also lived in the dual monarchy, the Italians of "unredeemed Italy" around Trieste and southern Tirol, and the more numerous Rumanians in Transylvania and other parts of eastern Hungary". It is affirmed that Latin peoples is the same with Romance peoples 79.117.186.27 (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Anon, thank for your above messages. Yes, they are reliable sources and they list the Romanians among the Latin peoples. Borsoka (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Dude, not all Latin peoples are Latino Americans. French people (source above), Romanians (source above) or Italians (source here) are Latin peoples living in Europ. Latino Americans represent only a subcategory of Latin peoples 79.117.165.109 (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
We are talking about a merger proposal to create one article for all (new-) Latin speaking peoples, the name of the article is secondary and can be changed...Fakirbakir (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
But why? It seems that there are enough information about Latino Americans alone to create a separate articles about them. There is no need to merge this into the more general article talking about all Latin peoples. I don't see any of the reasons from here Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons_for_merger being fulfilled 79.117.165.109 (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Because of content forking. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, but the two articles do not treat the same subject. Latino Americans are only a part of the Latin peoples, namely the ones living in America. Not all Latin peoples are Latino Americans. BTW, there is no article about Neo-Latin peoples (see the red colour of the link) 79.117.165.109 (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Why not create an article on the Romance-speaking/Latin world, then redirect Latin peoples to a section on that article? I agree that really, Latin peoples does not warrant its own article, since unlike Germanic peoples, it's not an ethnic group. However, I do think an article about both Latin America, and Romance-speaking Europe (and other Romance-speaking regions), and their relationship would be helpful, and I think there are sources discussing this. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 13:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
What are the reliable sources dealing with this topic ("Latin peoples") based on which the article could be written. For the time being, the only cited reliable source which writes of the "Latin peoples" identifies them as Hispanic and Latino Americans. Otherwise, the article is based on sources which do not use the term "Latin peoples". Borsoka (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I presented above some reliable source that label French people, Italians and Romanians as Latin peoples. 79.117.188.2 (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
If you want a merge target for Latin people, Pan-Latinism would make much more sense. It's got the reliable sources covering the concept, and it refers to the same group of people instead of just a subset. Diego (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
As I see now we have three articles about the nearly same subject...(Latin peoples, Latino Americans, Romance-speaking Europe)... Fakirbakir (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Romance-speaking Europe is about Romance-speaking people from Europe, while Latino Americans is about Romance-speaking people from America. But Latin peoples may be the same with Romance peoples 79.117.188.2 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I've added a redirect hatnote at the top of Romance peoples, to alert readers following that name. A more thorough fix would require updating the links to the redirect to point them directly to Romance-speaking Europe, and then change the redirect. Diego (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Afro-Eurasian, you cannot cite any remark I made which suggests that I am racist. Please refer to reliable sources when debating. Borsoka (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Afro-Eurasian's reaction is inappropriate, but I understand his exasperation. (For us) you seem to deny the obviousness. I wonder if you changed your view after the recently referred sources. 79.117.185.59 (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Why do you think there is a content fork? I presented above some specialists which state that French peoples, Italians and Romanians are Latin peoples (Frederick Kellogg, Thomas Bass, James Minahan, and Arthur Edward Romilly Boak). According to them not all Latin peoples live in Latin America 79.117.186.27 (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Ha, fantastic. We have yet another Hungarian involved... Afro-Eurasian (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Afro-Eurasian, please read WP:CV. I am sure that you can apply it. Borsoka (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

53 Million "Hispanics/Latinos" in the USA = 53 "Spanish Speakers"?

How did the Pew Research group conclude that every single US citizen of Latino/Hispanic heritage is a Spanish speaker?--108.0.215.194 (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It does? Surely it is a problem, not only for inaccuracy, but even because it might be offensive to the people who defected Franco's Spain for the United States for his persecution of the more "marginal" regionalities of the Peninsula. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand. Why might these people be offended? While some defected to United States, many more defected to the Latin Americas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tierraman (talk • contribs) 07:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
after a generation or two in the US the youngest generation rarely or never speaks Spanish. But in any case it's not their use of language but their culture that matters--for example complex strong family ties. Rjensen (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Is the implication that "Latins" should be ashamed to speak Spanish, a language derived from Latin? That does not make sense when dictionaries define a Latin person as a member of any of the Latin peoples, or those speaking chiefly Romance languages, especially a native of or émigré from Latin America. Also although some defected to the U.S., most of the people whom defected Franco's Spain, defected to the Latin Americas.Tierraman (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Hispanic, Latino or Spanish Americans

As of the most recent census the "Hispanic or Latino" ethnic category has been amended in 2010 to be "Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin". As such I believe it is only right that the wikipedia article should also reflect the Census' inclusion of Spanish Americans under the banner of the "Hispanic or Latino" ethnic group as an equal partner.96.231.17.247 (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Spanish Americans have always been included under the Hispanic or Latino banner since it was first created as the term Hispanic. However the term was modified to Hispanic or Latino because some people under the Hispanic term felt more comfortable using the term Latino. The groups of people and countries that the term covered did not change. It just gave the option of people to use the term they felt more comfortable with. It was not meant to divide the group by countries, hemispheres etc...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tierraman (talk • contribs) 09:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


This is in reference to the indigenous peoples, not Latin Americans (such a thing? surely just American?) ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.245.202 (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC) In Latin America if you call someone(indigenous person) latino is consider an insult. Latino is the Spanish for Latin in English. Is an adjective and refers to people who Speak a Latin Language. That is the reason why many people in the USA(Latinos) hate the word. THe meaning here(Latin America) is different.Latin Awards celebrated in Latin America, Spaniards are included.I hope this make people undersand where it is coming.From Latin America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.66.94.82 (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I can change this picture ?

In infobox

please Khalel122 (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Article requires name change

This article is about hispanic and Latin American people in the USA but the article title says Hispanic (which is a US word) and Latin Americans which is a pair of words used to describe people who live in Latin America and has no connection to the USA. This title smacks of "we think this is a US encyclopédia" and thus needs changing urgently, as we are very much NOT a US encyclopedia. Does anyone object? Something like Hispanic and Latino Americans in the USA. The article content looks okay but the title is not okay, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"Hispanics are the second fastest-growing ethnic group in the United States after Asian Americans"

"Hispanics are the second fastest-growing ethnic group in the United States after Asian Americans"

Don't y'all mean... pan-ethnic group? Neither Asian American nor Hispanic are "ethnicities"... Hispanic is a pan-ethnicity, Asian American is neither.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by B23Rich (talk • contribs) 05:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

What is their real ethnicity?

No, they are not studies.We have to many things to resolve to waste money in that. I live in Latin America and we have white(pure european descents), black, Jewish, Arbs, Chinese, Japanese and immigrants are still coming to many(not all) countries in Latin America. Most of the people who immigrate to the USA are poor and mixed. I you go(I went) to Argentina they are very white and very European looking. I am mixed but I know the white people in Latin American and many of them do have European passport. Latin American is a very complicated society so if you were not born in here is hard to understand. Indigenous people(pure indians) do exist and they speak another language . For example: Guarani, Aymara, Quechua but they consider themselves Indigineous not Latino. Latino have a different meaning in Latin America an for some it can be offensive. Are there any genetic studies on latinos? Are not latinos mostly ethnically celtic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.149.72 (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In Latin America, people's ethnic groups tend to be their own nationalities (don't be fooled by people saying their race/color in censuses, they are ethnically Puerto Rican, Argentine, Venezuelan, etc.) unless they retain Indigenous culture (I'd say that Garifuna is a "new" Indigenous group for sociological purposes) or are from an isolated community of non-Iberian European origins that retained their traditions and likely language.
Celtic is not a valid ethnicity I'm afraid. Hispanic and Latino Americans tend to be of mixed-race like Americans in general (both stricter and wider senses), but more often in the 20% Amerindian, 5% African fashion than the 1/256th Cherokee one. About half identify as white even if they know that they most likely have some racial admixture, just like Brazilians.
Iberians, the most likely European ancestors of all Latin American groups, are the [main] ancestors of the peoples of the Atlantic façade of Europe rather than the reverse. Admixing of these outsider Western European groups with Iberian does not lead to a particularly different population, because they are recent population drifts from an original Iberian diversity in themselves. That's why we often share R1a. :) Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Iberians, like Western Europeans, do not share mainly R1a, but R1b: http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf Pipo.

PiriLimPomPom said in 'Latin America, people's ethnic groups tend to be their own nationalities (don't be fooled by people saying their race/color in censuses, they are ethnically Puerto Rican, Argentine, Venezuelan, etc.)

Actually within the Puerto Rico, Argentina or Venezuelan "Countries" there are different ethnic groups within each. What you are saying is like saying in the United States there is really only 'the United States ethnic group'. Also making a blanket statement on Latin Americans on Dna is incorrect. There could be vast differences. In most countries of Latin America(excluding the Carribean)most people have not even seen someone of African descent.Tierraman (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


According to Family Tree DNA on the Genetic Diversity in the Iberian Peninsula Region

"The people living in the Iberian Penninsula region are fairly admixed, which means that when creating genetic ethnicity estimates for people native to this area, we see similarities to DNA profiles from other nearby regions. We’ve found that approximately 51% of the typical native’s (Spain and Portugal) DNA comes from this region." However the Iberian Penninsula region's Population includes DNA from many other Areas which are not Latin, including North Africa.Tierraman (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

We? Wo is we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question of who is we....The statements between the quotation marks were documented by Family Tree DNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.137.149 (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
A person of Native American descent is of Native American descent regardless of his culture and his DNA does not change because his culture changes.

Vandalism and Semi-Protection

This article has been vandalized numerous times and I think it needs a lock on the article asap!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spreadofknowledge (talk • contribs) 23:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 January 2015

This is an uncontroversial change to fix a common problem:

However, because of Cuba's communist atmosphere, the vast majority of people able to leave to the United States are the wealthier white Cubans (full whites not multiracials), unlike in Puerto Rico, where anybody can leave because of it's status as a US territory.

"It's" should be "its." DPRoberts534 (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Add in subsection Music Mariah Carey

I say this not only Mariah Carey (who also has Latino descent) but other than Wikipedia community knows they are Latinos and not added. Derekitou (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done, along with a little copy-editing for grammar and flow. —Molly-in-md (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Race issues

I respectfully request that all the race information on top be moved lower to the race section. This subject seems to have been given what I believe to be undue weight and contains much original research. Also I submit that some of the terms like tri-racial, Octaroons, Quadroons, Mullatos, Mestizos, have a good chance of perceived as derogatory to some people. They also serve not to clarify, but to lead readers astray as to subjects actual race or ancestry. I would like to edit these to reflect actual race or ancestries. Tierraman (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

no objections

I will commence 7 days from today unless I someone makes other suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tierraman (talk • contribs) 05:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Remove the picture of "young hispanic soccer fans"

That picture should be removed. They are not hispanic, but outright Spanish (So in European language they are just "normal white"). The details reveal that the picture was taken in Pamplona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.95.114.104 (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course Spaniards are normal white, they are also normal Latins and they are also normal Hispanics. Look up the origin of the word Hispanic and see for yourself. In fact the biggest parade in Spain is "El dia de Hispanidad" which means The day of hispanism and/or Day of Hispanics. Also not all Spaniards are white. Please do objective research.

Half a million more Spaniards?

According to the 2000 Census there were 100,135 Spaniards in the US. According to the 2010 Census there were 635,253 Spaniards in the US. That means 535,118 more Spaniards. Seriously? Is the US Census a reliable source? --86.30.135.172 (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Article is a mess

Without going into details, there needs to be a disclaimer that this article is a mess. It should be a fundamentally linguistic explanation and should not combine the terms Hispanic and Latino in the same article. They should have separate articles. Otherwise, you get a mess, which is what this article is. A good model for fixing it would be to start with something like "Hispanics" in Britannica Online. Godofredo29 (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The image montage in the infobox is overly political.

Five of the "famous Hispanic and Latino Americans" displayed in the side infobox are politicians (three in Congress, one as the Governor of New Mexico, and one as a former executive official). Furthermore, four of those five are Republicans. Could we please diversify the Hispanic and Latino cultural icons displayed in the infobox, perhaps by including even one musician, writer, film director, artist, scientist, inventor, or businessperson? Seriously, as a cross-section of important Hispanics and Latinos/Latinas, this is pretty lame. 128.84.125.132 (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I just want to agree with the above: the distribution is absurd. 86.129.188.88 (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you have suggestions on who to remove and replace with? MavsFan28 (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Spaniards and Hispanics or Latino.

Iberian people (Portuguese, Spanish, and Andorrans) should not be included in the article since they are not Hispanic or Latino but caucasian or white, according to the US census definition for Europeans. It is misleading because people with Spanish, Portuguese or even German, British and French ancestry born in Latin America are considered Hispanic or Latino (either white, black, native, asian, mixed or other). Hispanic or Latino is used for people from Latin America as a region and should not be applied for other people with origins directly in Europe, which the proper term should be European. Since Iberia is in Europe, Spaniards and Portuguese, or people born in Spain or Portugal should be considered Europeans (of any race) and not Hispanic or latino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.34.72.123 (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hispanic and Latino Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked Corrupt PDF capture now replaced with working capture. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Rename page

Change the name of Hispanic and Latino Americans to Hispanic Americans in United States because it does not leave Brazil. Do not include Brazil speaks Portuguese because I say so. --Derekitou (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 24 external links on Hispanic and Latino Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hispanic and Latino Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Portuguese and Portuguese-American incorrectly labeled as Hispanic or Latino American

Portuguese-American originate in Portugal which is in Europe and speak Portuguese, hence they cannot be labeled as "Hispanic" nor "Latino-American".

01:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindu5673 (talk • contribs)

inaccurate population count

I think the US Hispanic/Latino population count is inaccurate and overcounted. Here's why: For example, a person may be half Puerto Rican and half Dominican, and identifies as such on the census. This person may be counted towards both the Dominican American population estimate and the Puerto Rican American estimate. Now, for the total US Hispanic/Latino population to be counted, the population estimates of all individual Hispanic groups have to be combined in order to get the total US Hispanic Latino count, which ultimately means that person (and all other ppl who are half one hispanic nationality and half another hispanic nationality) are counted twice. Which leads to a over count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spreadofknowledge (talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Culture:Literature section missing

This page might benefit from an additional subsection from culture with some broad information about literature written by Hispanic & Latin Americans (both in Spanish and English). How this literature has influenced different people and groups is important as well.

I would suggest referring to the Wikipedia page "category: Hispanic and Latino American literature" for information, and then providing a brief overview. Windyrmt (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hispanics/Latinos : ultimate minority

This group is compared to other minorities in the US, parallels to Blacks or African-Americans (Hispanics/Latinos are called "people of color" even if there are white Hispanics/Latinos), Asian-Americans (the so-called "perpetual foreigners" if there are US-born Hispanics/Latinos), Jews (the anti-semitic "Alien race" canard, Hispanics/ Latinos are called "illegal aliens" which is a slur and stereotype), Native Americans (indigenous to parts of the USA, notably the Southwest, Mexican-Americans have partial Native American descent), French-Canadians (the Southwest may have a Spanish-speaking majority, similar to French spoken in Quebec in Canada), Middle Eastern/North African people (Hispanic/Latino immigrants appear to threaten society, due to differences in culture and religion, and "pose a security risk"), even Pacific Islanders ("colonial subjects" like the Southwest, Florida and Puerto Rico were "taken over by the US") and previous White ethnic groups arrived as immigrants in the 19th-early 20th century period (Central and South Americans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans' experience differ from many Mexican-Americans and Spanish-Americans, a.k.a. Hispanos in the Southwest). 67.49.89.214 (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Portuguese Americans

I'm not sure where this would fit in within this article, however, it has come to my knowledge that the US Department of Transportation's definition of Hispanic includes Portuguese-Americans and Brazilians. I'm not sure if this fits in this article or not, so I'm just posting this here with the source so we can discuss this.

Here is the source.[1]

Jp16103 03:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Terminology: Latinx

Has anyone thought of adding an individual section on the term latinx or latin@? One user in the terminology section stated that these terms are not widely used, but there has been a decent amount of literature/articles written on the topic within the last two years. I think there is potential for Latinx to have its own section and/or be its own article. --Belkauri (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Hispanic and Latino Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Pre spanish- or portuguese Ancestors

The history didn't start in the 15th century. Where do the spanish and portugues ancestors descend from? From the germanic or from arabic? Bringing light on this topic could clarify why in the U.S. the lations are considered as non white even if they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.34.76 (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Hispanic and Latino Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hispanic and Latino Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hispanic and Latino Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hispanic and Latino Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Americanos hispanos

Corrected "Americanos hispanos" with "Estadounidenses hispanos", since the Spanish word "americano" applies to any person from the American continent, from Canada to Argentina. The usage of "americano" to refer exclusively to US citizens is incorrect in Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.76.122.180 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Brazilian, Portuguese

An editor has deleted a number cited references to portuguese speakers as latino. We should discuss the issue and insure that the statements in the article are consistent with associated references before wholesale deletion of text. Work permit (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of sourced content

There has been spate of rollbacks by User:RichardWeiss to the articles Cuban Americans, Dominican Americans, Puerto Ricans in the United States, Brazilian Americans, Chilean Americans, Colombian Americans, Venezuelan Americans, White Hispanic and Latino Americans, Brown (racial classification), Race and ethnicity in Colombia, Discrimination based on skin color, Coloniality of power, Colonial mentality, Racial hierarchy, Racism in South America, and Hispanic and Latino Americans.
These have been undone, since:

If you wish to engage in constructive behavior (e.g. questioning the validity of sources), a good place to start would be on the talk pages of the respective articles. Resorting to random drive-by reverts is generally considered unhelpful. Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.4.106 (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The same highly controversial paragraph has been spammed into 16 different articles. I don't consider the encyclopedia.com source reliable, the article dabs are very poor and the whole paragraph bordering on racist. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Common Diseases

I am going to delete the section on common diseases. The entire section is unsourced. Futhermore, the subsections on diabetes and HIV are only on New York City. And there is nothing remarkable about the hispanics having fatty liver disease.Work permit (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Race and Hispanic Origin Research Working Group" (PDF). Census.Gov. Retrieved 15 February 2017.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans/Archive_3&oldid=1083515183"