Jump to content

Talk:Hispanic and Latino Americans/Archive 4

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dcorral4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did stage a remarkable victory in the primary, but is she notable enough to warrant an entry and a photo? Her most notable accomplishment is winning the biggest upset victory in the 2018 midterm-election. The other people, listed under government, would appear to be much more notable. I've removed her entry pending consensus on whether she should be included and if so where in the article. And if she is notable enough for a mention, is she prominent enough to warrent a photo as well? Lets discuss. Work permit (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Just saw your message on my Talk page now. Please don't blanket revert a series of edits, that is against Wikipedia policy. I don't think anyone would dispute that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria by any standard. Castncoot (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I certainly agree her victory is notable and she deserves her own Wikipedia page. I question whether her victory is notable enough to include her in this article. This is why I deleted her entry, and created this section so that we and other editors could discuss and reach a consensus. There are currently a total of 42 Hispanic Americans serving as U.S. Representatives[1], and while all of them meet probably the standards of notability not everyone of them is mentioned. If other editors do agree that she should be mentioned, another question would be where. I take it you think she belongs at the top of the article? I would imagine she belongs in the section on Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#Government_and_politics. Finally there is the question of whether we should include a photo of her. There is very limited room in the article for photos. There are roughly a couple of dozen house and senators mentioned in the section I mentioned. But we don't have space for a photo for all of them. Work permit (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Let me ask you- do you feel Zoe Saldana is more WP:NOTABLE than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Castncoot (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I don’t know how to compare a TV personality to a poliician. I imagine Zoe would have more broad name/face recognition and she has a longer wikipedia article, if that means anything. I think the better comparison would be to other politicians. I wouldn’t put Alexandria’s accomplishment up there with Sonia Sotomayor. Work permit (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

This smacks of Recentism. Yes, Ocasio-Cortez is notable; she has her own article. Yes, it's an important news item. But this just happened, she is young and has her whole career ahead of her. Perhaps her image could be placed in the body of the article in the #Politics section, for example in a new, 2018 election subsection.

In the meantime, hundreds of Hispanic Americans have long, illustrious careers or are otherwise more deserving of top billing in the lead section of the article, if anyone is. If I had to pick one person at that level of prominence, I'd probably pick Cesar Chavez; but it seems unfair to pick one person to fill that role above all others. I think the current treatment, with images sprinkled throughout, is the right approach. If any image is to grace the lead section, it should be one that does not focus on an individual, perhaps of a Hispanic association or an activist organization fighting for Latino rights. If there isn't a good group image of that nature, then there shouldn't be any image at the top. Mathglot (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

My question still hasn't been answered. When there are enough entertainer pictures on this page, why is Zoe Saldana's image (including a relatively non-notable caption) on this page? Why not replace her image with this Ocasio-Cortez's? Or perhaps extend the Politics section with a 2018 Election subsection and use this image there as Mathglot suggested Castncoot (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I thought I gave my answer. There would be many more hispanic politicians over the years who should go before her. The relative weight of entertainers vrs politicians seems to have been established by many editors over the years and isn’t really in scope for this more narrow discussion. Work permit (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Try my new edit on for size. I believe that the three of us are headed toward a consensus that resembles this, if not exactly this. Best, Castncoot (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
In your edit, her picture belongs in the section you created. And the caption should be a short one line statement saying who she is, since the needed information about the primary election is in the section. But I think this new section makes my point even more clear. We are talking a single congressional primary win. The other sections are discussing national elections, and national trends. Are we going to be talking about this single off cycle primary win a year from now? Work permit (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
An unqualified YES. Thank you for your contributions! Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The reliable sources are all agreed this is a major new event --it's an important "first" and always will be an important first. So we should keep her role. Rjensen (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
All gracefully expressed. Castncoot (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
She scored a major upset, but what what makes this a "first"? Work permit (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
first Hispanic (and perhaps the first woman) to upset a major party leader in a primary. It demonstrates for the first time that this large group suddenly is making a significant difference in Congress. USA Today headlines "Before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, here are 5 of the biggest U.S. political upsets" -- they list #6 = "Back in 1972, Holtzman unexpectedly defeated Celler in the primary for New York's 16th district. Celler had served in Congress for nearly 50 years and was then the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee." (Celler was not a party leader--he held the chairmanship solely because of seniority. In the 2018 case the defeated congressman was in line to replace Pelosi as #1 Dem leader. Rjensen (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe she was the first hispanic woman to score an upset victory. Back in 1992 Nydia Velazquez won an upset victory over representative Stephen Solarz, an influential nine-term Congressman. I imagine if I research this I could find more examples. Work permit (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I do agree her victory was a major upset. Work permit (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Let's also not forget that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's exceptionally youthful age for this position is the equally critical distinction here. While Ms. Velazquez was around age 40 when she scored her aforementioned notable victory—as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's wikipage states at this time, "At 28 years old, Ocasio-Cortez is one of the youngest nominees for Congress. If elected, she would be the youngest woman ever elected to the U.S. House Of Representatives. That distinction is currently held by New York Republican Elise Stefanik, who was elected at age 30 in 2014". Castncoot (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Good work on finding the 1972 Solarz case. However he was not a Dem party leader and he was not the favorite--he moved into a new largely Hispanic district because Dem Party leaders had gerrymandered him out of his old seat. Ocasio-Cortez first = beat a top national party leader in his own district and that had immediate national repercussions. Rjensen (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Castncoot (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I added the point that she will be the youngest woman (hispanic or not) ever elected. Work permit (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Now that it's been moved to its own section about 2018 events, the Recentism charge no longer applies, so I've removed the template. However, the section was unbalanced, with nothing about any other event except the NY‑14 Dem primary election; ignoring other things that have happened this year. So I've added a more generic H4 subsection title ("#2018 election") paralleling the other subsection titles, and replaced the old template with an {{Expand}} template. Also, keep in mind that political events affecting the Hispanic community aren't always the election of a Latino-American; for example in Florida, Little Havana elected Eileen Higgins to a county commission,[1] and that's a significant event there that deserves mention. Mathglot (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

All the other sections discuss primarily presidential elections. There are is only one mention of a midterm election, and only one other congressional election. That is why I felt a section on the 2018 election is recentism. If we fill this section with more results around the country, wouldn’t that mean doing the same for the 2014, 2010, 2006 etc? Are you suggested we add every notable election over the last 10 years where an Hispanic won a senate or congressional seat? Wouldn't that be an enormous list? Work permit (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I would prefer no tag to an expand tag. Expanding this section would require expanding all the others. And this article is already too big, close to 90k of prose. In defense of this single entry, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez‘s win has generated a lot of interest, from both right and left. Her election is unlike any other congressional election for a Latina. Work permit (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I’ve resectioned the Politics portion. She is now in a section covering 2014 to present. Work permit (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mazzei, Patricia (June 30, 2018). "'The Blue Wave Came': Win for Non-Hispanic Democrat Signals Big Shift in Miami". NY Times. Retrieved 20 August 2018. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

2017 census

2017 census data is available. An editor updated the numbers, but not the citation. We should update both. I'll get to it soon if no one else does-- Work permit (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. I noticed the previous table was incorrect. The row titled "Other Hispanic or Latino" is actually people who label themselves Spaniard, Spanish, or Spanish American. There was one entry in the previosu table for "Spaniard". I decided two include two entries, one for "Spaniard" and another for "Spanish". The "other" row in is now the sum of "Other Central American"+"Other South American"+"Spanish American". -- Work permit (talk) 02:44, 18 September 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) 03:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Income

The section on income was deleted by an editor. He complained it contains personal opinions. It is sourced from pew research, a reliable source. I restored it pending consensus.-- Work permit (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The title doesn't make any sense

«Latino» in the US is a contraction of the term «Latin American» to describe any US citizen whose background is from that region. Thus, the article should be renamed «Hispanic and Latin Americans». However, given that the article Latin Americans already exists, I propose this article to be moved to «Latin Americans in the United States», as the term «Latino» is very redundant, coming from a Latin-American myself. --Bankster (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Please can you include intermarriage of Hispanic in the interracial article of Wikipedia?

I know is not the place to put it but I do not know were I can put this.There is no information of Hispanics in Wikipedia Interrracial marriage article. According to them it does not exist. - signed by anon IP Hispanic is not a race, anglo.

--139.47.116.162 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent with Hispanic Article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic Says that Filipinos ARE Hispanic, this article says they generally are not. These two should be resolved. 71.114.105.52 (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Weird title?

Perhaps this article should be split into two: Hispanic Americans and Latino Americans. Barjimoa (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Too much overlap. Basically Latino = Hispanic+Brazil-Spain.---- Work permit (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Spanish people from Spain arent Hispanic or Latino Americans

According to the USA census definition, Spanish people from Spain should not be counted as Hispanic or Latino but as simply Whites (like German Americans, Italian Americans, French Americans, Swedish Americans and Portuguese Americans are just classified as White), since the definition clearly states people which origins lie in any European country, the Middle East and Nord-Africa are to be counted as White.

White Latin Americans with full or most ancestry coming from European countries such as Italy, Germany, Spain, France etc... are classified under the term "Hispanic Whites", while Italian American or German Americans are classified differently under the label of just "White", so I dont see why is different in the case of Spain and Spanish Americans. Latino People with European Ancestry that enter the USA through Latin America are labelled Hispanic Whites, while people that come to America Straight from Europe are classified otherwise.

Spain is in Europe, so Spanish Americans do classify as just White, while Hispanic or Latino Americans are people which origins are located in Latin America not in Europe. Hispanic is a term that takes culturally all of Latino America into one category due to the common Native American, Black, European and Mix peoples influences that have shaped the area culturally. Spain doesnt belong in that category since it is country that is mostly just European in culture and has no Black nor Native or mixed influences in their culture. The fact they share some ties and the same Language doesnt make Spain culturally Latin American but rather culturally European. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.47.164.30 (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

According to census.gov, "Hispanics or Latino refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race." This definition specifically includes "Spaniard" as a sub-category. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hispanic Americans → Hispanic and Latino Americans – Was moved to the current title with no evidence of prior discussion. The terms "Hispanic and Latino" are somewhat ambiguous, therefore, it is more accurate to include both terms in the title as a result. funplussmart (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The page is move-protected, so I have asked Anthony Appleyard to do the move at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Move Hispanic Americans to Hispanic and Latino Americans and Hispanic Americans (version 2) to Hispanic Americans. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: Is it too late to object to the move altogether? The current title is more WP:CONCISE and such. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I guess so.. lol –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: you could always open a new RM, given that this one had so little discussion. However, concision is but one article naming criterion. Clarity and precision may be more important here, following sources such as the US Census Bureau, which uses both terms. Plus you'd ideally want to move all other pages with Hispanic and Latino Americans in the title as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Sangdeboeuf: Yeah, it's probably not worth it. I mostly liked the old title because I come down pretty hard on one side of the naming dispute. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Replacing a photo

I think we should replace the photo of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with a Hispanic/Latino politican who is not (Redacted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19B:214D:C099:8F6C:CD71:29E4 (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The photo of Ocasio-Cortez is in the section on elections since 2014; what other recently elected official do you suggest we use? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
It's comfortable to choose only elected candidates from 2014, but I don't see why it has to be from 2014 specifically, other than pushing Cortez. Second, Why did you censor the word "extremist"? Just because someone doesn't agree with you is not a reason to silence people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:188:6FE0:B46C:2663:72F9:E38E (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy on material regarding living people; contentious statements, opinions, or accusations lacking a reliable source should be removed, including from talk pages. Whether anyone agrees with the material or not is irrelevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Would Portuguese be considered Hispanic or Latino?

Portuguese people do not fit under either of the categories because they don't speak Spanish, and they are based in Europe, unlike Brazilian people, who are based in South America. I believe that, in order to inform readers about this common misconception, it is necessary that a clarification be posted in the article. It has nothing to do with original research; it is an already-known fact that Portuguese people are Europeans who do not speak Spanish. Blacklister3000 (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Without a published, reliable source, it's original research or at the least unduly weighted – even if it's true and no one disagrees. How do we know it's a common misconception at all unless a source comments on it? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Historical Population

What do the percentages in the box to the right under Terminology refer to? Percent of the total US population? 79.9% of the 1960 US population were Hispanics? How can that be unless the census is utterly and totally wrong and useless. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Brazilians are not Hispanics

The classification of brazilians as "Spanish" or "Latino" is not correct: In Brazil, we use the principal of self afirmation: the individuals have the right to define theyselves - without any classification by a government. So, define the brazilian people as "hispanic" is an act of ethnical stereotyping, played by a biased agency (US Census). Bryard (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"Hispanic" and "Latino" don't mean the same thing. In any case, we go by what published, reliable sources state. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
If you said that, Sangdeboeuf. I'm just tired to answer to the WASPs why brazilians don't speak spanish. Bryard (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
That's unfortunate, but Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs. You're welcome to find a reliable source that says "Brazilians are not Hispanic" and add it to the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
If you say ... In any case and as far as I know, Brazilian citizenship is civic in nature - not ethnic. When I have time, I will do what you suggested. Bryard (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I did a bit more research on this topic and found this article from Pew Research that provides additional information. See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/15/who-is-hispanic/ and https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-hispanic-and-latino Jurisdicta (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


Including brazilians as hispanic and latino americans is inappropriate, for a lot of reasons:


1. The United States Census doesn't include brazilians in this category. It is explicit to people with roots in spanish-speaking countries. See https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/RHI725219 (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

2. Besides brazilians/portugueses share a lot of cultural proximity with hispanic countries, the both cultures has a lot of differences too, and it's unfair to mention the both as one cultural in general. This misrepresents people with portuguese-speaking roots and contributes for their invisibility.

3. 97% of brazilian americans doesn't define themselves as hispanic or latino. See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/15/who-is-hispanic/

4. In the Unites States, Latino is a term that is not necessarily applied for latin Americans, and frequently (and mostly) is used as synonym for hispanic and spanish-speaking in general, including the media and advertising at all. You don't see latino based TV channels including portuguese language in its schedule, for example.

5. In this page itself the term latino is used as a synonym as hispanic. Just in the first paragraph, that defines who is hispanic and latino, it is mentioned that 18% of american population is HISPANIC, and still includes the census data (that don't defines brazilians as hispanic or latinos). The whole page is plenty of assimilations of the terms hispanic and latino.

6. The vision of hispanic and latinos as people with spanish-speaking roots is so strong that the page almost doesn't mention brazilians in its content at all.

7. No one has the right to defines what another person is, because for race and ethinicity it is correct to use the self-affirmation system.

8. It is inappropriate that people from another culture, including many americans, hispanics in general and even portugueses use their personal views to define another people culture and self-affirmation. The majority of brazilian americans doesn't see themselves as hispanic or latino, so it must be respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributingfortruth (talk • contribs) 16:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

Latinx?

While latinx is hated by most Hispanics. We probably have to include it — Preceding unsigned comment added by AudmanOut (talk • contribs) 02:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Latinx should not be mentioned as a widely accepted term, if even need be mentioned at all

Latinx is NOT popular in Latin America outside of sociology departments at universities. RAE does not approve it, and people get bullied for even using it.

According to Pew Research Center, only 20% of latinos in the USA even know "latinx" is a word and not a misspelling. Out of said 20%, only 3% use it, and out of that 3% they are mostly 18-29 year olds, and only 1% of latino men ages 18-29 even use the word in the United States of America

Let me emphasize that means the number is much lower in Latin America, and it is even considered imperialism by most scholars, even those who tend to push for equality. As already mentioned, it is not welcomed by a majority of spanish speakers, a very large majority, so it should not be listed without that being mentioned, specially its controversy, and most definitely not used as if it was a correct word in the Wiki.

I am also going to point out that most people that use that monstrosity of a term are not of Latin American ancestry, or are so americanized they sound like Matthew Mcconaughey speak the language. Not only does the idea of imposing said word and change to the language that over 400 million call their native tongue sound ridiculous already, but then those people decided to choose a word that is nearly unpronounceable, and reminds people of a brand of condoms; Durex.

Almost every language is gendered, why not italianx? Because what?

The word should not be included, if it is included then not without being let be known that it is not a popular term, and it is not preferred by latinos. Much less in the first paragraph of the wiki without a citation, that's called agenda pushing.

Literally no one uses it, only 1/4 of latin americans in the USA (20%) even know of its existence and still 85% of the people that know of the word existing do not choose to use it. It literally says something. I am not making things up, this is backed by data.

Signed, a Latin American.

PS. When you use latinx, people do not think you are a progressive hero, they think you are either annoying or cannot spell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D01:76C0:6D08:C897:5FF9:A434 (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

[2] - Google new, useful sources for its use. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Spaniards are NOT Latino; Latino is NOT a federal ethnicity

Federal law establishes TWO ethnicities - Hispanic and Non-Hispanic.

Latino/Latina/Latinx is NOT an ethnicity in U.S. federal law. It is, however, an ethnicity or a race in some STATE laws.

Nota Bene: The federal United States has NO constitutional authority to establish national classifications of race or ethnicity. It can only establish definitions for its own purposes. The power to define race and ethnicity is a power reserved to the states.

"Hispanic" includes Spaniards but not Brazilians or Haitians,

"Latino," which is both a Spanish and a Portuguese word, includes all Latin Americans who are not Anglophones, Francophones, or Netherlandic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:c300:5120:bcdc:218a:7027:a9b1 (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The census groups in Latino with Hispanic (and Spanish), see https://2020census.gov/en/about-questions/hispanic-origin.html Erinius (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

French part's of Latin America

French parts of Latin America would include French Guiana, Haiti, the French overseas departments of Guadeloupe, and Martinique. Doremon764 (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, people forget about them, Quebec is also Latino L1948L (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of race and ethnicity pages

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States#Race_in_2020_Census_data for more. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dcorral4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Sexuality in World Civilizations I

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2022 and 10 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Starsn9 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Starsn9 (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Gender Roles Picture

Why is Genesis Rodriguez’s picture included in the gender roles section of the article? How does her picture represent the gender roles section or the information in the section? In my opinion, this picture needs to be changed.   Starsn9 (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sexuality section

What I have added to the sexuality section of this article isn't enough to cover the entire LGBTQ community, I hope that someone else can add more regarding on this topic, I am not too knowledge in the area and therefore didn't want to add any misinformation. Starsn9 (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:Requested move

{{subst:requested move|reason=(Disambiguation: Article is specifically about Hispanic and Latino Americans of the USA not about people of Hispanic countries or Latino America who are also referred to as Hispanic and Latino Americans).|current1=(Hispanic and Latino Americans)|new1=(Hispanic and Latino Americans (United-States)}} Icemoon2k (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Non-Spanish ancestors

Hundreds of millions of Latinamericans have ancestors who were NOT Spanish but Italian, Quechua, German, Bantu, French, Maya, Croatian, Lebanese, Aymara, Guarani etc, etc. Should their ancestors be considered "Hispanic" in the U.S. just because they arrived from Latinamerica? --88.12.248.187 (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"Hispanic" means that their first language or name is Spanish. For Example Whites, Blacks or Native Americans with British style names are "Anglo" by default. 31.40.131.100 (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Many Latin-Americans are of European descent, this still categorizes them as Hispanics if they themselves are from a Spanish speaking country. If you grew up in a country whose official language is Spanish or are a descendent, you are considered Hispanic. It should be of note that you can be Latin or Latino without being Hispanic. To my understanding, Latin America encompasses romance languages in the Americas as official languages, such as Spanish, Portuguese and French. Latino América or America Latina refers to countries that speak Spanish or Portuguese (since latino/a/e are correct in both languages). In the census the wording is Hispanic or Latino, so if either applies to you, you click it for yourself, do the same if it asks for ancestors. As Hispanic and Latino Americans are recognized to be multi-ethnic and multi-racial, it would make sense to assume that this would apply to ancestry, meaning there is no one correct answer/automatic answer. Icemoon2k (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing deleted from gender roles

I deleted this writing from the gender roles section, it is missing sources and some of the information seems inaccurate. If someone believes it needs to be added back, there has to be sources and some changes.

"along with the increase in independence amongst these young women, there is a diminution in the power of vergüenza("shame") in many of the relations between the two sexes. Although many Hispanic women in the homeland as well as older Hispanic women in the United States reinforce this dynamic by not wanting a man who is a sinvergüenza ("shameless one"), some Hispanic youth accept the label of sinvergüenza and now wear it proudly. Feeling caught between two distinct societies causes youth to "meditate between the two cultures and [instills] ambivalence toward feeling a lack of vergüenza",[1] resulting in a group of youth who celebrate being sinvergüenza wh[2]ile still acknowledging the concept of vergüenza within a part of their increasingly composite culture"

Starsn9 (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Eva Longoria

I'm really having a hard time trying to understand why my recovering Eva Longoria's picture, which had been in the section Race for years, is highlighting only her native heritage in order to reach a certain conclusion, while on the other hand the pictures of Alexis Bledel, Zoe Saldaña and Daniella Alonso are apparently quite neutral and justified for the section. All of them female celebrities by the way. I don't understand the cherokee princess part either. Anyway, I must congratulate Koire292 on having such detailed information about Eva Longoria's ancestry, that could be an interesting addition for the section. Jotamar (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I also think the all-female pictures are weird but it was already like that, i think three photos showcasing the different races under the “latino” category are enough. Eva Longoria isn’t needed as Alexis Bledel (another white hispanic) is already there. The original source (Faces of America) is where that DNA information is showcased.
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/facesofamerica/profiles/eva-longoria/8/
https://web.archive.org/web/20100401075119/http://www.latina.com/entertainment/celebrity/faces-america-reveals-eva-longoria-parkers-surprising-roots Koire292 (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
@Koire292: ok, three is the magic number, but why is Eva Longoria the odd one? Longoria's picture has been in the section since 15 September 2020‎, while for example Alonso's picture is a bit more recent. As this page has been in my watchlist for quite a while, I've noticed that Longoria's ancestry is sort of annoying for some editors, for reasons that I don't understand, but my instinct of editor is keep the picture. Let's review the 4 pictures: Bledel has obviously uncommon looks for a latina, so the point about her seems to be latinos can look (northern) European. Alonso's ancestry is quite uncommon too: Peruvian-Japanese, so again the point seems to be not all latinos look latino. Saldaña is probably a representation of latinos with African ancestry. And of course Longoria, a latina who looks more or less white but who has native American ancestry, is exceedingly unusual for a latino and is the one out! :D I'm perceiving here cultural insecurities of some sort. However I'm an outsider and I don't know the social milieus of Latino Americans, so I might be wrong. Please tell me where I'm wrong, and while we're at it, tell me about the cherokee princess too. --Jotamar (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
“three is the magic number, but why is Eva Longoria the odd one?”
i would actually switch out Bledel for Longoria, as Longoria is more representative of a white-latina. Three because of the most common ancestries among latinos being: indigenous, european and african. Alonso’s picture clearly looks to me to represent the indigenous-leaning latinos.
“As this page has been in my watchlist for quite a while, I've noticed that Longoria's ancestry is sort of annoying for some editors”
It’s mostly the fact that her picture shows a visibly white-latina but the text (filled with haplogroup jargon) highlights only her native ancestry and even goes as far as to say she is “possibly a direct descendant of a Maya woman” (hence the “cherokee princess” quip I made, usually used to describe a white person who claims some distant native ancestry despite having zero community attachment to any indigenous group, in this case the Maya people). But like you said, it could just be expanded to include her Spanish heritage as well. Koire292 (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
@Koire292: After reflecting about the discussion again, I've come to this conclusion: the best and most neutral change is to delete all the pictures. No matter which particular pictures we choose, they will always manipulate the reader in one direction or the other. Pigeonholing all latinos into three races is about the worst possible option. The second best solution could be to include just one image with a group of latinos (students, workmates, etc.) highlighting their diverse backgrounds. What do you think? --Jotamar (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I think your idea of deleting all the pictures would be best but I fear somebody would eventually edit in some pictures, so the second option seems more future-proof. Koire292 (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any problem at all with the images in the article. Using a picture of a group to highlight Hispanic Americans however would be a potential violation of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, which has been interpreted with a broad-brush consensus. Anyway, it's original research to say Eva Longoria is "visibly white". Eva Longoria has expressly stated that she is not visibly white and was not perceived as such. There's nothing wrong with describing her ancestral diversity where it has been reported in relation to Hispanic American origins, by reliable sources. 2600:100C:B00B:3792:0:51:D721:7101 (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Synthesis in the sexuality section

The sexuality section contains a lot of synthesis and OR, making it seem like Hispanic American culture is extremely homophobic. As if there were no openly LGBT people among Hispanics. As if gender relations in Hispanic American society were similar to those in Afghanistan.

But as I'll show you, a lot of the citations completely fail to say anything like what this section says, and some of them have been twisted to fit the very obviously non-NPOV slant in this section. Such as:

"In Hispanic culture it is expected for men to partake only in heterosexual relationships, some men often seek multiple female partners to further prove their sexuality and masculinity.[219]"

No way. There is absolutely nothing in 219 that says this. This is a random study about condom use and partner numbers among heterosexual Hispanics. This is completely bogus.

"Due to the homophobia present in the Hispanic community, gay men feel a high sense of shame and guilt which leads to risky sexual behavior, leaving them at a risk for HIV and other STDs.[221]"

Actually, citation 221 says nothing like that.

"Marianismo dictates the traditional role of a Hispanic women, a woman is expected to remain sexually pure, submissive, and is seen as an object of pleasure for men.[227]"

This is pointless without specifying that this belief is not prevalent in Hispanic citizens of the USA, and study 227 says states specifically in the limitations section that "generalizability may be limited due to the non-probability sampling technique and because the study used a community-based sample that only included Hispanic immigrant women who mostly emigrated from Mexico."

" All are to be straight and women are to be virgins.[225]"

This ridiculous notion is nowhere to be found in 225 to this effect. This article is about women in Chile and says nothing about their culture being anti-heterosexuality. It also doesn't say that all women are expected to be virgins, but that they are expected to not engage in infidelity. But since the study isn't even about Hispanics in the USA, that's a moot point.

"A woman must carry herself like Mary in order to receive respect and keep the family's honor.[226]"

Ok, this made me laugh hysterically. There is nothing in 226 that says this. Not a single hit for "Mary" in the entire article.

One thing this section is critically lacking is a demography of LGBT people among Hispanics. If you look at the sexuality sections of Asian Americans or African Americans, they have content explaining the rate of LGBT identities within those communities. Hispanic Americans should have that too.

"The poll found 11% of U.S. Latino adults said they identified as LGBTQ, nearly twice the rate of 6.2% of non-Hispanic white adults and 6.6% of Black adults who said they were queer. The percentage of queer Latino adults was even higher among Gen Zers — the cohort born between 1997 and 2012 — where more than 1 in 5 said they were LGBTQ, the report found."[3] - 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:F0DE:B39F:CFEA:7A53 (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

In addition to this, the gender roles section has a lot of poorly (and humorously) written OR, including using citations from the 1940s on villagers in the country of Mexico. Which is absurd. 71.78.218.194 (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans/Archive_4&oldid=1259523100"