Talk:Hispanic/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Question

Is there any explanation as to why the Spanish get their own race, but not the descendants of other European countries, such as Italian, Irish, German, etc? Why are all these people considered white, but not the Spanish? (This is a legitimate historical question, not a political statement.) James Callahan 04:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

They are not another race..Its purly because ..before the USA only included Hispanic americans as Hispanics...even though i read that the term Hispanic was put into the census by a Spanish descendent...from New mexico... Later they Included spain since..they are including all countries that speak spanish or have a tie to the Spanish Empire .therefore leaving out the country where Hispanicity comes from seemed stupid....so they are included......its purly based on cultural link... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spain21 (talk • contribs) , July 14 2007 (UTC)

Your question, James, is one that only American whites can answer. FilipeS 18:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

James, Hispanic is not a racial label anywhere but in the American culture, and even there it is not an official racial category, since in the census the question asked is if you are Hispanic, and then if you are white or other. The question is that, in Europe, Spanish are white. And that in the States you confused Spanish with Mexicans or others, who are essencialy native americans. This confusion makes many Americans believe Spanish look the same as Mexicans. This is a confusion! This racial confused use of the term Hispanic is only found in the States. In my country an Hispanic is someone who speaks Spanish, regardless of race! Cheers. The Ogre 20:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Mexicans aren't "essentially" Native Americans....Over 70% of the country of Mexico is of European descent....besides Mexico has a white popoulation of a small European country...and that doesn't include Mestizos who you claim are Indians...Cali567 18:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Cali567, I did not make myself understood. What I meant was that the average Mexican physical apperance denotes the contribution of Native American stock, and that that should not be confused with the average Spanish. When I said that Mexicans "are essencialy native americans", I meant that most Mexicans have Native American ancestors, as well as European. As it is said in the article about Mexico, "Mestizos (those of European and Amerindian ancestry) form the largest group, making up to 60%–75% of the total population." And it should be noted that "The second article of the Mexican Constitution defines the country to be a pluricultural nation originally founded upon the indigenous peoples", as it is said in Demography of Mexico. The Ogre 01:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't make yourself clear...but thank you for the explanation..."And that in the States you confused Spanish with Mexicans or others, who are essencialy native americans." I'll take the explanation, but I'm not sure that it was your original thought. I will add that I have seen many Spaniards and Mexicans who look identical, regardless of Native American admixture. Cali567 07:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cali567! I assure that that was my original though! And yes, I have also seen many Spaniards and Mexicans who look similar - and I could add many other nationalities or ethnic groups (namely Anglo-Americans). The Ogre 07:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I rest this case... =} Cali567 08:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

James, have you read the article? The Ogre 20:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In defense of James, the article does not once explain what the term "hispanic" means. No, it's not a race, but saying that it is instead an "ethnicity" doesn't really mean anything. Whites from Spain are "Hispanic." Mixed-race individuals with Spanish blood are "Hispanic." So far, so good. But it also says that some pure-blood Native Americans are "Hispanic," as potentially are some pure-blood blacks. How does a Native American who grew up in America have "Hispanic" heritage? How do blacks who grew up, say, in the Dominican Republic, get lumped into the "Hispanic" category as well? Is speaking Spanish the only criterion? The reason people in America are so confused by "white Hispanic," "Hispanic non-white," the fact that "hispanic" does not mean "latino," etc. -- is that the concept is ill-defined and has little or nothing to do with Hispania. The article is terribly unclear about this, despite the fact that most people reading the article probably just want to know what the heck "Hispanic" means. -69.47.186.226 05:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello 69.47.186.226. You must remember that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and, in this case, the definition of Hispanic can not be restricted to the one prevailing in the States. Now, regarding that specific issue (the definition in the States), I must say it is inherently dubious, as all ethnic/racial categories are. For me, as an European, it has no meaning whatsoever! I just looks like an American confusion! Even if I know it is indeed operative in American culture and social relations. The Ogre 14:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The article used to have a section called Historical Mistake that stated: "...this historical mistake is happening nowadays in the United States of America, where since the late 20th century the terms Hispanic and Latino have broken the cultural label to become an ethnic label, thus not only perpetuating but increasing the alienation, not only of the non-Castilian Hispanics from Spain (through the term Hispanic) and the other Latin peoples from the rest of the World, including those non-Castilian Spaniards (through the term Latino), but also reaching the same Castilian-speaking peoples of the Peninsula, because this time, the acceptance of the term Hispanic as an ethnic label implies the identification of the same Castilian-speaking Spaniards with the large majority of Castilian-speaking peoples of Amerindian and South American ethnicity. In this context, the Castilian-speaking peoples of Spain have become a minority, like once were the non-Castilian peoples of the Iberian Peninsula in front of the Castilians, and thus, many cultural and linguistic issues relating the Spaniards are often confused and mixed with those relating to Mexicans and other Hispanic American peoples. Today, although some people not only from the Hispanophone but also from other parts of the World are conscious of these issues, they are still very few in front of the, although young, deep-rooted tradition that the terms Hispanic and Latino have generated among the Latin American community. The majority of the so-called Latinos do not know the real meaning of the term Hispanic, and thus perpetuate the bad usage of the term and spread it over the Americas, reaching the United States of America, and leading to the appearance of the ethnic label. Nowadays, the same reasons that have provoked all this ignorance and confusion around the words Hispanic and Latino are still prevailing, and the so-called Latinos, among other people from all over the World, especially in the United States, keep the bad usage of the terms and, paradoxically, many of them support the ethnic label that surrounds these words, considering themselves as people of a different race, as Hispanics or Latinos, and thus establishing a common link among them, but at the same time, excluding and alienating more and more the other Hispanics from Spain (both the Castilian and the non-Castilian-speaking) and also the Latin peoples from the rest of the World, who are not included in this new definition they have given to the term Hispanic." I believe this sheds some light in this discussion... The Ogre 08:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You know people, What i think is going to happen in the next 20+ years....all these Hispanics that claim to have Puerto Rican , cuban and any other people that choose their ancestors 'Nationality' in the "ANCESTRY" Question....is gonna change....since nationality is not a RACE even though most like to choose it. And the term Hispanic (Hispania=España) usage will change or atleast decrease the poulation, since alot are gonna be Native American Indian or Black African instead of Hispanic-Hispano meaning Spanish..........and the Hispanics will be the people of only Spanish ancestry.....because thats what alot of cubans and others are of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.198.211 (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) - probably User:Spain21, that didn't sign properly.

Even more confused

I'm even more confused than before I read this:

In US usage (as seen on tv "The victim/suspect is a Latino/Hispanic male...") what is the difference between "Hispanic" and "Latino"? I've always assumed they are exact synonyms meaning Spanish speaking people of mixed European (Spanish) and Native American ancestry. Would a (white/caucasian/european) Spaniard actually refer to themself as "Hispanic"? I'd almost bet money that if anyone were to ask a random sample of natives of Spain if they are Hispanic the answer would almost always be "No, I'm Spanish not Hispanic". Roger 14:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

They ARE Hispanics. Only in the USA are they likely to not be regarded as such. And Latino doesn't mean mixed, although again many USonians think a latino has to be "brown". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.207.18.250 (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but Spaniards ARE white europeans, as much as an Italian, a French or a Portuguese. This classification sucks and your comment even more. Now Spain is the only country in Europe with a particular race? Come on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.190.45 (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I know many say that the term "Hispanic" is not meant as a racial classification, but the everyday governmental and media use of that term does not agree with any of you. That made up bogus term has it's roots in Anglo Saxon racial supremism. If one looks at the history of that propaganda garbage, its clear to see that propaganda illustrations portray Spaniards(not "Hispanics") as dark skinned and hawk nosed. Just read news paper caricatures that were printed during the Spanish American War.

These racial features that are common in the Middle East. See the purpose? Basically, because of the enmity that British society had for Spain, Spaniards are portrayed as racial bastards and less White as way to make them less human. Re-call that such nonsense was tried on the Germans during World War 1 with propaganda books by calling them "Huns". The shame of it is that this garbage is now accepted as true by Americans despite the fact that DNA genome studies conducted in the past few years have continuously proven this nonsense wrong. And for those "One Drop Rule" racial purists theologians, I say this; Its historical fact that Hunic tribes were once the dominant military force in Northern and Central Europe and its is known that they did indeed leave their Asiatic genes all over the place. Moreover, Britain, of all places, did have an empire and they imported a lot more non Whites into their country than Spain ever did. I am still waiting, but I have yet to hear or read about terms like "Britannic", Gaulic, "Scandinavic" and so on. --Charles A 16:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

James. According to the US Census most Hispanics in the US are White. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.212.61 (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Native americans

If "hispanic" is a cultural term, second generation hispanics in the U.S. who don't speak Spanish become native americans or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.35.2 (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

First, Hispanics can be from any race, not only Native-Americans. My guess is that second generation Native-Americans from Spanish-speaking countries would still be considered Hispanic, due to their surnames and their appearance being close to what is expected from Hispanics living in the US (at least for the average Joe). Keep in mind that the label was created by politicians and pressure groups and not by anthropologist, and simply assumes that all people from Spanish-speaking countries, from Honduras, Santo Domingo or Spain, shares not only the same language (which would be the correct way of using the Hispanic term), but the same "ethnicity", which is like saying that British, Australians, Singaporians Jamaicans and people from Nigeria are from the same ethnicity, since they are English-speakers. I'm lucky that I don't live In the US so I don't have to deal with such nonsense (I'm from Aragon, Spain). --81.32.170.190 (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The US Census actually asks people what is their race....most of the people that identified as 'some other race' in the 2000 census, idetified as Latino/Hispanic not to mention the wrong use of the world Spanish thrown in there....meaning non of the normal ones used were chosen...this means that they obviously didnt feel that they were Native american..or black etc......the last time mestizo or mulatto was used in the US census was 1930...the fact is that the native american population or people with native american (although not U.S teritory like navajo's) is alot more that the miniscule percentage people think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.37.210 (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont know why people are shocked when I say my race is white and my ethnecity is Mexican. People do not even know my family came from Mexico until they meet us. They assume we are a regular anglo family. I for one do not support the usage of Hispanic/Latino. They were originally ancient european tribes who evolved into modern day people. Hispanic is not a race its a cultural thats it. Its like saying Anglo is everyone who speaks English, that would include blacks, I dont think people would like saying african americans are English or Anglo. No one uses Anglo much often anymore and Hispanic should do the same. Not all Mexicans are brown. There is idealogy of the Spectrum in Mexico basically the farther left you are native and further right more European. I doubt whites number 10% its just another US thing trying to cover up its mistakes, I usually hear in Mexico around 40%-51%, think about it everyone in the government of mexico is white, its a country where whites hold power its a white country. I dont know why igornant people keep thinking Mexican is race. Mexicans can be black, white or asian. Youll find all types of europeans in Mexico that have been there for generations; italians spaniards, portuguese, english, germans, russians, french etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.133.56 (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 Census

2010 census form
Will the 2010 census really capture the native american population this time??...accorfding to this some people are.Youtube 2010 Census.
Also, i dont know why people find it hard to choose the mixed ancestry question..YOU are allowed to tick as many races as you like. identiying you are multiracial eg: native american and ??..etc.
Hopefully the census will get it right...because people of native american descent are big population now..not 1 or 2% of the United states. since identifying as Hispanic or latino is OPTIONAL!. Oh and i think the ancestry question isnt included anymore...only in the American community survey.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.93 (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Racist Country

Virtually all of the confusion surrounding this topic stems from the US racism. People in the US are conditioned to classify people by race despite the fact that racism was discredited in the rest of the world in the 1940s (Ever heard of Hitler?). This is a good example of how uneducated and ignorant people are in the US. The Spanish terms Hispanohablante (Spanish speaker) and Anglohablante (English speaker) give some insight into a different cultural perspective where the distinction is language and by extension culture. Please try to move beyond this fixation with whether someone is a "White European" or an exotic Indian. We are all human beings but we do speak different languages and have different religions, cuisines and other cultural characteristics. According the US Census Bureau, most Hispanics in the US are "White", whatever that outdated racist category means. Yet the majority of you seem obsessed with the idea that Hispanic means non-White. You are trapped in an outdated view of the world. Who is White? Is Barack Obama White? Is Sonia Sotomayor White? Does it really matter? Move on America! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.212.61 (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your data, but most "Hispanics" in the USA are not White, but a mixture of Whites with Indigenous and African roots. Even Dominican born baseball player Sammy Sosa could not pass for the stereotypical Arab looking Spaniard of bogus Anglo propaganda. But more to the point, why are you seemingly fixated embracing and accepting this stereotype when we have just proved this is all BS and there is no such thing as a "Hispanic" racial category? If you are wishing to embrace this stupid racial theory, then maybe you could convince your Anglo friends to drop their own "White" racial category and just call themselves "Anglics".

The next time you write an opinion, you need to make sure it is signed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As I stated: "According to the US Census Bureau..." This is not my data nor my category. I think White is an American cultural category. The fact that Americans still refer to this as a racial category reveals a lack of education. We are all members of the human race. Racism (the belief that humans can be divided into separate races) was scientifically discredited many decades ago. So I am not sure what stereotype you think I am embracing. By the way, the beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone can write and edit whatever they please without anyone even knowing who they are. The lack of authority is wonderful. This article is a great example of one unverifiable sentence after another.--Dr. Cali —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.193.38 (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you can you can back up your claim about there being no such thing as races with some references? Its my opinion that such beliefs are just matters of Liberal inspired politically correct opinion. Whether anyone believes in human races or not should not be be confused with racism. Moreover, the last time I read the census form, "Hispanics" were defined as people that are descended from any Spanish speaking country and Whites from any European country. Such a self contradicting notion is stupid and should not be included in any US government form.--Scipio-62 05:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

Please read the American Anthropological Association's Statement on "Race" at http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

I hope that a bit of elightenment will make clear that in fact racism is by definition the belief in distinct races within humans. As for your unenlightened opinions on US government forms, I don't see how those are relevant to the topic. My opinion is that only a racist country would ask every resident which race they come from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.231.143 (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You and others are entitled to your opinion when it comes to race. The idea one the "One Race Theory" is nothing new. This view has been around well before the advent of DNA genome studies. What I and others deeply resent are these manufactured race theories that are utilized to satisfy some desire for revenge that England could never achieve on the military battlefield. I will never deny my true heritage no matter how politically expedient it becomes. That is why no one has to answer the census form. "Hispanic" political groups are only interested in answering theses census forms because they are more interested in getting tax payer funds for illegal alien welfare. Its interesting to note that a documentary on the human genome on the Discovery Channel just yesterday featured a Puerto Rican woman. The geneticists traced her DNA to Native Americans and no mention of a "Hispanic" race was ever mentioned. What are these poor Anglocentists supposed to do when their Nazi est race theories are falling apart. --Scipio-62 16:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

What source would you suggest as more credible than the American Anthropological Association on the concept of human race? Do you discount this consensus of anthropologists as a theory? I am missing your reference to English revenge. I don't see the connection nor the relevance. You seem to have a political agenda that distracts you from a true interest in knowledge and understanding. Your line of discussion is losing its course and reverting to non-sequiturs.--Dr. Cali —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.208.226 (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a good question with regard to "English revenge". Its a historical fact that the Spanish had almost continual warfare with the English and later British empire for domination of the New World for about 200 years. Dispite what was written in English language history book, the Spanish were largely sucessful miltarily gainst Britain in defending there Empire more so than any other European colonial competitor, including France. The Armada battle of 1588 was a defeat for the Spanish, but it is a historical fact that the Spanish won that war which ended in 1604. Given what I've just explained. that 200 years of warfare left a very bad taste for the Spanish in the English and later Anglo American psyche. That is why English speaking historians and writters saw the need to invoke racial propaganda against the Spanish much like the term "Hun" was used in WW1 against the Germans. If you read newspaper caricatures from the past, they often portray the Spanish with hawk noses and very dark skin that is not truthfully characteristic of real Spanish people. By making up meaningless terms like "Hispanic", English speaking writers could bash the Spanish people as racial bastards as a way of making them less White and easier to hate. That is why I deeply disagree with you and I am indeed ON TOPIC. "Hispanic" is a reference that has no basis in fact no matter how hard you try. --Scipio-62 17:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted content

The following paragraph, repetedly inserted by User talk:67.190.125.143, was deleted for not complying with various WP editing policies, incluiding the fact that this is only a slightly related topic. I recommend the editor to look forward for the topic he wrote about through the following articles Hispanic and Latino Americans and Hispanic/Latino naming dispute.

Hispanic Creation: This word was created by the Reagan and Nixon Administration's. This is and was sociological labeling. This word was dormant until the Cuban community called themselves "Hispano's". However, Reagan and Nixon changed this word from "Hispano" to Hispanic. The new movement is "Latino" which is inclusive to all peoples of North America, South America, Central America and neighboring islands of European and Indigenous heritage. Another reason to consider Latino over Hispanic is Quetzalcoatl, a serpent like bird found in archaeological finds of North, Central, and South America, and neighboring islands. It is said there were four primary tribes that historically crossed the Beren Strait into North America, South America, Central America and neighboring islands. The four primary tribes were Iroquois, Navajo, Aztecs, and Incas. It is said as they migrated, families separated and more tribes were formed. The movement is "Latino" for peace, and to educate populations to prevent a "Latino" apartheid by 2050. This is continually removed from the website and can be verified that presidents declared this name and fact that "Quetzalcoatl" exists. It is sad, is there a bias?

Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Confusing article

What a confusing article. Are the Hispanics only Spanish descents? What about the Aztec, the Maya civilization the List of pre-Columbian cultures and the Indigenous peoples of the Americas? From what I read the Hispanic as an american concept is a mixture of pré-colombian native american people and spaniards. 89.214.117.45 (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, in the article it says "Still more recently, primarily in the United States, the term has also (or alternatively) been used to denote the culture and people of countries formerly ruled by Spain, usually with a majority of the population speaking the Spanish language. " It clearly says countries formely ruled by Spain. Although Texas, New mexico, Florida and California are today USA states they were formerly ruled by Spain and today mexican culture is every where from tortillas to music and spanish language in schools. Why isn´t the population of these places also hispanic and listed as so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.250.16.11 (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As to the last comment: the definition you consider is largely an informal usage so it is not to be expected strict logical coherence in its definition. Moreover, still more recently imply that -by then- those regions and its people were probably considered already too americanized (meaning U.S.-ized) to be culturally hispanic. Nevertheless, it is possible that many people from this regions not linked to relatively recent immigration from Mexico or other hispanic countries do consier themselves as Hispanics as they draw their lineage or heritage to pre-US settlement.

As for the previous comment: Hispanic is an ethnic term with mostly cultural implicance. It is unimportant then if ancestry is of native american, italian or russian origins. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Then what is the "culturaly hispanic" definition? My favority spanish music is from Ken Zazpi (a basque band):[1]; Luar na Lubre a (galician band):[2] and SAU ( a catalan band):[3]. It looks that many Spaniards are bilingual and they speak and sing in their local language. When you say "ethnic term" you mean which one in particular? In here it clearly says there is more than one ethnicity is Spain "Ethnic groups: Distinct ethnic groups within Spain include the Basques, Catalans, and Galicians"[4] Then if spaniards themselves are from different ethnic groups, speak different languages (thus are bilingual and do not speak castillian in their homes) and have distinct cultures what is hispanic? The latin american and north american hispanics derive from which spanish ethnic group and culture? I find this article very confusing. I really cannot understand the explanation of eating "latin food" what is this? If you eat tacos you become hispanic or if you participate in a spanish festival [5], [6]? Hispanic looks more like an umbrella term for castillian speaker, it has nothing to do with ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.34.72 (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I already mentioned that this definition is reflective of the largely informal US usage of the term, so it is not to be expected extreme coherence. However, even for the most solid definition ever possible, you are still looking for an impossible: denotation is inverse to the extension of the concept. You can find differential traits to define cultures at any level: from strictly local, to regional, national, supranational, global. Even basques are diverse. On the contrary, there are some cultural traits common to hispanic countries and peoples (Considering more than three centuries of shared developement has some meaning, I guess). Lastly, it is possible that you are equating Spanish (modern, contemporary Spanish peoples and cultures) with Hispanic (which, in the informal sense we are considering, do refer to a broader group of peoples and cultures). Salut, --IANVS (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The use of the informal term in the USA is a racial one [7] [8]. (Where did they find 18 races?) What is confusing in the wiki article is the "one culture" concept or one ethnicity concept, this is as wrong as the notion of "one hispanic race". "Even though Hispanics share the same language, their cultures may vary considerably"[9]As for the common culture, religion, family, they could be talking about Italians. "Hispanics are not just one culture of people; they are a multitude of different cultures with different political views, customs, religious, familial, and other conventions that make each group unique and at times similar to the others." [10]. Hispanics are of different races and of different cultures, although sharing one language, with several dialects, and many cultural traits. For the 2010 census Hispanic is an origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.29.77 (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You yourself are demonstrating the range of incoherent approaches and "definitions" for the term in the USA. Some of them, as you adecuately report, are impossible to substantiate, while others are merely problematic. In the end, all of them refer to, and try to explain, some existing and operative reality out there. That's why it is necessary to cope with it in the encyclopedia. As for the approach preferred in Wikipedia, it is certainly worth discussing so as to improve it, but you cannot deny the fact that there is something needed to be referred to. I encourage you to do this at Hispanic and Latino Americans and Hispanic/Latino naming dispute talkpages, which are exclusively dedicated to this subject. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hispanic and Latino issues is something else, and not what I am pointing out. The article does not clearly define what Hispanic means. It is confusing because it only approaches a few incoherent government concepts. The article takes more space explaning what hispanization is , which obviously is something different from the concept of Hispanic, and does not clarify the subject. There are other approaches that are not governamental: pg292.

"Most people still commonly known in the United States as Hispanic do not define themselves as such. The label hispanic is confusing because it forces people to identify themselves with conquistadors and settlers from Spain, who imposed their culture, language, and religion on indigenous people, and on the African people they enslaved"(just like happened in the USA), "For Latin Americans, who, like North Americans, fought hard to win their independence from European rule, identity is derived from their native lands and from the heterogeneous cultures that thrive within their borders"pg 237 The sociological point of view is quite interesting. The linguistic is another one:"The noun Hispanic was produced and promoted"by people who found it bureocratically or politically usefull to denote large, diverse aggregates of ethnic peoples in a few simple cathegories" There has been opposition to this collecting into a mass so many people of diverse origins. Signs exhibited in public places or in cars: Don´t call me Hispanic I am a Cuban, Mexican...."pg141. other strong oppinions:

[11]

Definitely it is not a Hispanic and Latino Americans and Hispanic/Latino naming dispute. This is one very poor article. I hope you can add useful information instead of leaving it so confusing. Also try to add the father of the confusion: "The ethnic label "Hispanic" was coined by a Hispanic New Mexican senator, Montoya, who wanted a label that could be used to quantify the Spanish-speaking population for the US Census." [12] The reason to invent the label was to count the people that spoke castilian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.79.154 (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question "What Hispanic is?" is precisely what we are trying to cope with in these articles. I'm positive about Hispanic cannot be a single thing, given the disproportionate weight of informal usages. That is the reason why considering various views and confronting them would probably be the best option for WP editors. In this sense, it is certainly possible that we know better what Hispanicization is than what Hispanic is, if I explain myself fine enough.

As for further editions, the article sections you are focused on (namely, "Definitions in the US" and "Hispanicization") are summaries of other discussions about the subject: the primary articles for this topic are Hispanic and Latino Americans and -in particular- Hispanic/Latino naming dispute. Take a look there. As for the current status of this article, well, Wikipedia is dinamic and anything here is ever "finished" for good. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 04:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I'm neither the author of this article, nor the person most familiar with the subject. Maybe you can discuss your concerns with SamEV, which is the editor most familiar with these definitions that I know around here. I'm sure he will take your argumentation in proper consideration. Salut, be well. --IANVS (talk | cont) 04:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Florida

"...Florida have been home to Hispanic peoples since the 16th century, long before the U.S. gained independence from Great Britain. These and other Spanish-speaking territories were part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, and later Mexico, before these regions joined or were taken by the United States in 1848. Some cities in the U.S. were founded by Spanish settlers in the 16th century, prior to the creation of the Thirteen Colonies. For example, San Miguel de Galdape, Pensacola and St. Augustine, Florida were founded in 1526, 1559 and 1565 respectively, Santa Fe, New Mexico was founded in 1604, and Albuquerque was established in 1660. Therefore, in some parts of the U.S., the Hispanic cultural legacy predates British influence. For this reason, many generations have largely maintained their cultural traditions and Spanish language."

Perhaps the best idea would be not to incorporate Florida in this made-up history. Florida was not part of the 13 colonies, British rule came between two periods of rule from Havana, and when it entered the US (1810 and 1819) that had nothing to do with Mexico. Florida was not ruled ever from Mexico but from Havana, West Florida and East Florida separately. While in northern New Mexico there are still a few people who claim heritage from the original Spanish conquistadores, and so the definition of "Hispanic" for them does not really include "from Mexico or Latin America", in Florida there have not been any residents descended from the early Spanish settlements since the two great evacuations of Spanish residents back to Havana, in 1769 and in 1821. Florida was mainly a military outpost not mining or plantation economy as elsewhere. In 1821 there were very few people living in Florida, certainly few "Hispanics," and most by far of mixed origin, as there was no sense of modern racism. For example, in St. Augustine, although the city has been occupied since its founding by Spanish in 1565, the longest-residing inhabitants are Minorcan. But Minorcans (from Minorca, Balearic Islands) are not Hispanic in the sense that they descended from the Spanish rulers. They spoke an Eastern Catalan dialect not Spanish and when they came to Florida in 1768 they were British indentured servants. I don't think any "Hispanic" culture in Florida actually dates back to continuous occupation since the Spanish rule, but has instead been re-imported from Cuba by different people, for example cigar workers in Key West and Tampa. So it is wrong in my opinion to include Florida in this blanket account of "Hispanic" deriving from some history centered on Mexico. Just because there was some Spanish occupation doesn't make the land or culture "Hispanic" any more than Indiana French, for "legacy" you have to have continuous history of occupation and culture, and you can't show that with Florida. I'm not going to edit it, though, it's up to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.137.97 (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"...in Florida there have not been any residents descended from the early Spanish settlements since the two great evacuations of Spanish residents back to Havana, in 1769 and in 1821. Florida was mainly a military outpost not mining or plantation economy as elsewhere. In 1821 there were very few people living in Florida, certainly few "Hispanics," and most by far of mixed origin, as there was no sense of modern racism. "

There have not been *any* residents descended from the early Spanish settlements? I have to wonder from whence your information comes, because frankly much of it is simply not true, at least as far as West Florida is concerned. It is true that such Hispanic heritage that carries forward from the 18th century has nothing to do with a "blanket account of "Hispanic" deriving from some history centered on Mexico," but as it has been pointed out, the Floridian colonies were never administered from Mexico, but from Cuba and with great influence from New Orleans and the Louisiana's "Florida parishes" from c. 1784 to 1801, during Spain's administration of that territory, and then until 1821. A substantial number of Spanish troops settled in and around Pensacola (Escambia County) following Galvez' victories at Mobile and Pensacola and there was additional migration from New Orleans after the Louisiana Purchase. Many of these people remained after 1821 because the US government ratified land grants made by the Spanish throne. So, yes, this was more than a military outpost; and there was a plantation, ranching, timber and even rudimentary manufacturing economy: several brick-making operations sold and shipped bricks back to New Orleans where they paved the streets of that city. Tejanoviejo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 29 September 2016

The hispanic paradox.

Should this interesting paradox be included in the article?

http://www.google.es/#hl=es&source=hp&q=hispanics+and+life+expectancy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CsA_QfPbJTPzFMZ3oiAOepvzlDwAAAKoEBU_QyNX3&fp=eb50ab1537c0719c —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.185.140 (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Antigua Catedral de Managua.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Antigua Catedral de Managua.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The introduction

I'm not an expert on the field, nor do I have any experience with writing proper encyclopedic texts, but that intro (ie. the text above the contents table) seems to me to be bloated and a terrible hodge-podge. Do any of you people 'in the know' know if my concerns are valid? As of now, I feel reluctant to read the article as I can virtually feel the bias excreting from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.251.22 (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The introduction to the term Hispanic in the English language Wikipedia should say something along the lines that it originally denoted a relationship to "Spain, especially ancient Spain, comprised of modern Andorra, Portugal, Spain, and the territory of Gibraltar" with citations to its etymology. The English language translation of the latin term Hispania is Spain. That can also be found here babylon and here latinphrasetranslation. The introduction to Hispanic is incorrect as it is; the English language term Hispanic was not originally used in Roman times, again please refer to the etymology. The term originally referred to Spain, especially ancient Spain. (Y26Z3 (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC))

While Hispania translates to Spain, Hispania itself is a proper term in english, it even has an article under its name: Hispania. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The article says that Hispania is the Latin name. Refer to Proper names.(Y26Z3 (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC))

"the English language term Hispanic was not originally used in Roman times". Thanks, (Y26Z3 (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC))

The introduction states this: "It was in the last five centuries that it assumed an universal definition of something pertaining to Spain, the Spanish language or the Spanish culture. When all the Kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula except for Portugal united under a single crown (a process finished in the 16th century), the term was associated with the new country created, Spain ("Spain" is actually a derivation of "Hispania"). Therefore, Portuguese and Brazilians are not Hispanic in the contemporary definition of the word." However, the term actually originated in the 1580s, when Spain and Portugal were united in the Iberian Union. Anyone disagree? (Y26Z3 (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2012

Does everyone agree with this?

"Hispanic (Spanish: hispano, hispánico) is a term that originally denoted a relationship to Spain, especially ancient Spain (Hispania), comprised of nowadays Andorra, Portugal, Spain and the territory of Gibraltar. Hispanic has sometimes taken on a different meaning, denoting Spanish speaking persons of Latin American descent living in the United States. Furthermore, it is common in the United States to associate the term with persons of mixed race who have a Spanish surname."(Y26Z3 (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC))

It is wrong. Very wrong. Where did you got that? Don't answer I really do not want to know.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.250.30.177 (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No! Ancient Spain = Hispania, and Hispania is the proper name and term. Yes it translates directly to Spain, but it itself is a Proper name used in English! Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I also do not agree. What you Write makes no sense. How could hispanic "originally" denoted a relationship to Spain ? What Spain? The Spains? The Spanish peninsula or hispanic peninsula? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.250.30.177 (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay:

"Hispanic (Spanish: hispano, hispánico) is a term that denotes a relationship to Spain and Latin America. Spain in this context refers to Hispania, comprised of modern day Andorra, Portugal, Spain and the territory of Gibraltar. Today, organizations use the term Hispanic to either denote a relationship to Spain or Spain and Portugal. Some organizations intend to encapsulate only the Spanish speaking population, limiting the definition to that subset. (Y26Z3 (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC))

No, it is confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.58.152.50 (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Look Y26Z3, the only page you have edited is Hispanic, you are the only person that favours the term "Spain" over "Hispania, and your reasoning mostly makes no sense. As such, the term Hispania will be used (for it is the term most used to denote Ancient Spain and Portugal, Roman Hispania, and so on). If you believe that the term "Spain" should be used, provide a list of credible sources that prefer the term Ancient Spain and such in context when discussing Hispania. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Cristiano. Perhaps I will contribute to Wikipedia more in the future. Please, let me explain my reasoning. Hispanic means "pertaining to Spain" etymology, or if you prefer Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, "Spanish". "Hispanic" must refer to Hispania in this context; we both agree on that. To disagree with that would be most probably through the use of wrong reason. It is formal, proper, common, and universal to use the word "Spain", as shown in both of the sources I cited. Hence, a proper way to describe the term is to say that it denotes a relationship to Spain and then to elaborate on what Spain refers to in this context for the purpose of constructing the introduction. In this context, Spain refers to Hispania; to that, we have already agreed. Please, do tell me what does not make sense. Cheers, (Y26Z3 (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC))

Since you will not listen to other arguments, allow me to say this simple one. When one properly discusses ancient Spain, one uses the term Hispania (not only because it is the proper name and the most common) as not to confuse with the modern state of Spain. The term Ancient Spain makes it seem that it is refering only to the ancient history of the modern Spanish state, while in fact it relates to Portugal and Andorra as well. It is quite simple, but perhaps I am not explaining my reasoning properly. I would also like to say that I hope you are not taking my previous response as an attack or insult, as it was not meant to be. I just want this page to use proper terms and such. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to listen to other arguments, thank you for presenting one. I want this page to be accurate as well. I hope we can all achieve that together. The vast majority of sources say Spain and then specify that it is Hispania. There has not been an argument presented against the proposed new beginning to the introduction, except for the specific word choice of Hispania, which is accommodated in the following sentence. (Y26Z3 (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC))

I will look up some sources and I hope that we can solve this and work cooperatively. I look forward to working with you, and should you require any help here on wiki, just ask me. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It should probably say Latin America instead of Hispanic America, unless someone could present the argument regarding why it should be changed and there is a consensus. (Y26Z3 (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC))

Latin America includes french speaking Haiti and creole. It would make no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.22.151.60 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Lusitanic is not a word. (Y26Z3 (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC))

Brazil could be included in Hispanic America. (Y26Z3 (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC))

Sockpuppet investigation

I suspect that an IP that has been making contentions edits on this article, 92.250.106.206, is a sockpuppet for a user who has been banned for abusive and unreasonable behavior similar to 92.250.106.206's behavior in this article. If you would like to comment on the sockpuppet investigation, please go here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Y26Z3. Goodsdrew (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Forced conversion is totally biased

Genetic studies on the (male) Y-chromosome conducted by the University of Leeds in 2008 appear to support the idea that the number of forced conversions have been previously underestimated significantly. They found that twenty percent of Spanish males have Y-chromosomes associated with Sephardic Jewish ancestry

How could anyone argue with blood samples after they live together for thousands of years, after all JESUS and his apostles are JEWS.

I request Wikipedia to remove this offensive arguments. The true intention of the author is to disgrace Catholic church citing irrelevant University studies. This kind of studies are doing by all universities final grade students. And it is regrettable to pull discussion of Forced conversion, Inquisition under HISPANIC.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.234.69.194 (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Abusive comments of user Goodsdrew

This is the message user goodsdrew leaves on my page:

"You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/casename. Thank you. Goodsdrew (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)"

On what grounds do you make such acusations? It seems you have been accusing everybody who do not agree with your poin of view of sockpuppetry. This is an abuse to force a view point which is clearly not used in other parts of the world , including Europe.

Anyone that comes to this page and does not agree with your view point is a sockpuppet? The hispanic page was seen 225862 times in the last 90 days and you assume everybody agrees with the nonsense you try to impose?

How many editors who do not agree with your view point have you accused already?

Let´s go to a portuguese forum with the date of 2008:

"A designação geográfica Hispánica ou Hespérica já não se utiliza nem faz sentido há muito tempo. Mais precisamente a partir do momento que Castela se apodera da designação geográfica para criar um estado imperial.

Na actualidade os hispânicos referem-se à Espanha e a quem tem por língua comum o castelhano. Como tal não temos nada a ver com essa designação!!!" [13]

Based of your assumption these people are obviously potential sockpuppets since 2008. They all belong to a conspiracy theory, they are all the same people: the same sockpuppet.

You actually think that the concept of hispanic, created in the 70's in the USA is used in Portugal or Spain and erases 2000 years of usage?

Why did you take the tags if there is a neutrality dispute? Why do you accuse everybody that does not agree with your concept of hispanic of being a sockpuppet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.10.36 (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Am I Hispanic?

Until some minutes ago I thought that the word "hispanic" was a racist word that the white americans used to treate other white people that had latinoamerican roots. NoW I discovered that the spanish people (OK that's the old meaning of the word) but also me, the other 10 million portuguese people and all the portuguese speakers are hispanic. Portuguese people do not speak spanish and Portugal is an independent country since the XII century. If you are looking for a word that joins portuguese and spanish people please use "iberian".Japf (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

wrong usage of the word

US people simply use hispanic wrong. you don't alter the meaning of the word that already has meaning. hispanic is reffered to people from iberian penninsula. just because central and southern americans are descendant of people from iberian penninsula doesn't mean you can use it to them. it's like south american people call US people English because they are originally from england... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.108.73 (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

People from Andorra and Portugal are not Hispanic. Hispanic does not refer to people from the Iberian Peninsula. People from the Iberian Peninsula are Iberians. Hispanic refers to Spain. I agree that in the United States the term is not used properly, but to say that it refers to the people of the Iberian Peninsula is also inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.79.73.25 (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Hispanic, if properly used, refers to the peoples of former Hispania. It is a shame that people have applied it just to Spain. It is crazy that they applied it to her colonies. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but the English translation of the latin term Hispania is Spain, correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y26Z3 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No. The translation of the latin term Hispania is Iberian Peninsula.Japf (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The same story again, in wikipedia, with separatism

There is no way in which Catalan spelling of the word "hispanic" is relevant for this article, other than satisfying Catalan separatists´ craving for worldwide publicity. Let´s keep English wikipedia out of political struggles, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.117.125 (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph about survey of Portuguese Americans

I removed a paragraph from the introduction about a survey of Portuguese Americans (link: [14]) claiming that a majority were against the US Census bureau including persons of Portuguese ancestry within its definition of Hispanic for the 2020 census. There are several problems with this paragraph.

1) There is no indication that this was a statistically valid survey taken with a representative sample of Portuguese Americans (indeed, the article seems to imply that the survey was taken of members of a interest group of Portuguese-American professionals).

2) There is no indication that the census bureau is actually considering including Portuguese-Americans within the definition of Hispanic: [15].

3) Any definition change, were it to happen, would also affect Brazilian Americans. The population of Brazil is orders of magnitude larger than the population of Portugal. The number of Brazilian Americans is much larger than the population of Portuguese Americans. The opinions from this survey, which appears to have been surveying the opinions of a subset of a subset of the relevant population does not tell us much about the opinions of the entire population that would be affected by this change and is not particularly or worthy of inclusion in the introduction.Goodsdrew (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Race or ethnicity

Are not race and ethnicity synonyms? Yet the implication here is that ethnicity is a sub-class of race. Is that view actually supported by scientific reasoning? Are Hispanic a sub-category of White? If that is the case, why are they listed as an option at all? If Hispanic is given as an option, shouldn't other White sub-categories also be given? How long has Hispanic alone been given as a choice in addition to White?203.184.41.226 (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, race and ethnicity are separate things. I'd suggest you read the articles on wikipedia about each subject for an introduction to what each term means. In Latin America, there are people of all of the following races: white, mestico, mulato, black, asian, indigeneous, etc. But all of those people would be able to claim an ethnic identity of being Latino. There is no "Latino" race. It is an ethnicity. Goodsdrew (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Pew study: Hispanic vs Latino

There is currently a dispute about the following sentence:

Fifty-one percent of respondents did not have a preference for either term, but among those who did, “'Hispanic' is preferred over 'Latino' by more than a two-to-one margin—33% versus 14%."

User Melvin toast prefers the following sentence instead:

Most don’t care—but among those who do, “Hispanic” is preferred.

His justification for this change is that "The majority opinion is key here, not a minority agenda. The gist of the article I originally posted states that most Spanish speakers DO NOT prefer the artificial "hispanic" and prefer to be identified by their COUNTRY OF ORIGIN."

I believe the first version of the sentence is better--it communicates the same information that Melvin Toast believes to be important (that the majority do not prefer either term), but also gives FAR more context by informing the reader about the relative proportions that do not like either term and the percentages that prefer each of the other terms. Melvin Toast's version gives no information about these proportions. The way it is written, the reader will have no idea if only 51% have expreseed no preference, or if 99% have not. The fact that only 51%--barely a majority--have expressed no preference means that there is not a widespread consensus among Hispanics and Latinos, and I think it important to provide more context to make that clear and to provide more information about the preferences of the 49% of Hispanics who DO prefer a certain term to refer to themselves.Goodsdrew (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, Melvin Toast's preferred sentence is poorly written and does not sound encyclopedic (for example, because it includes contractions and fails to quantify the proportion of people whose preferences are being described).Goodsdrew (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The dispute is not over the sentence but over its interpretation. The point of the article is that Spanish speakers in the United States, although or, indeed because most of them are from Mexico, prefer to have their ethnicity identified by their country of origin -- Mexican, Guatemalan, Costa Rican, etc. Here is a key quotation from the Pew poll "A majority (51%) say they most often identify themselves by their family’s country of origin; just 24% say they prefer a pan-ethnic label."

"Goodsdrew" maintains that the quotation from the article "Most don’t care—but among those who do 'Hispanic' is preferred." is "poorly written" [it's a quotation] and does not sound "encyclopedic" enough.

I am not certain that we have a true and justified definition of what the word "encyclopedic" means here, beyond "Goodsdrew's" apparent assertion that "encyclopedic" means multisyllabic Latinate. But I have withdrawn that quote from the article that I originally referenced and replaced it with another quote from the same article "A majority (51%) say they most often identify themselves by their family’s country of origin; just 24% say they prefer a pan-ethnic label."

This is what the majority feels. The majority. Only 24% prefer a "pan-ethnic label." And of this 24%, "most" appear to prefer "hispanic" over "latino" by a 2 to 1 margin -- 33% of 24% vs. 14% of 24%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvin toast (talk • contribs) 18:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I've kept your language, and just added a two sentences to give further information about what the most of the other 49% prefer (24 percent prefer a pan-ethnic label, and 21% prefer to be called "American."). I think that the way it is now addresses your concern about wanting to emphasize the preference of 51% for a country-specific label, while still providing information about the other 49%.Goodsdrew (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing Hispanic tag category from people of direct Spanish descent

I am going by this article for the term definition, and I am of direct Spanish descent (born in the US), up until fairly recently no one ever told me we were not Hispanic. Could someone keep a watch on the pages under the Hispanic category? I am getting very frustrated that people are confusing the term Hispanic with Mestizo. Thanks Iamanadam (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oldest Population?

Spaniards are descended from Romans. Basques are older. The following is false:

"Culturally, Spaniards are typically European and are believed to be the longest continuously established population in Europe"

AThousandYoung (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Basques are spaniards too. --83.42.235.69 (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The image montage in the infobox is overly political.

Five of the "famous Hispanic and Latino Americans" displayed in the side infobox are American 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) 01:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

My Edit

As a Hispanic person can literally be of any ethnicity (from Kenyan, Mongolian, Irish, Venezulan, Ethiopian, Iranian, Swedish, etc you name it), I've added "and ethnicity" to "regardless of race" in the introduction. Unless you can prove otherwise, please don't change it based on your limited understanding of this admittedly confusing word, which is exacerbated by its subjective meanings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.46.224 (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The current lead sentence of this article is unreadable. Kaldari (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted it since the 2nd sentence makes a much better (and understandable) lead. Kaldari (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not hispanic?

Hi, I am hispanic but do not speak Spanish. I do not listen to Spanish music or watch Spanish television. According to this wikipedia page, I am not hispanic. Also, it seems that the author of the page insists that Hispanics of any country all act the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan23456 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Cultural heritage according to UNESCO

The Hispanic world, according to the United Nations World Heritage Committee, has contributed substantially more than any other ethnicity to the cultural heritage of the world. A World Heritage Cultural Site is a place such as a building, city, complex, or monument that is listed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as being of special cultural significance. Of a total of 802 Cultural World Heritage Sites recognized by the United Nations as of July 2015, 114 are located in Hispanic countries. Spain alone has 39 cultural sites, only second in the world to Italy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_World_Heritage_Sites_by_country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:25EA:ACAC:8404:4F5B (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Definitions in the United States

Portugal should not be compared to France here. In general, there should not be opinionated commentary. Thank you, (Y26Z3 (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC))

Which organizations do not include people from Portugal or Spain, but do include Ibero-american countries? Furthermore, which organizations specify that this is because there is a distinct ethnic difference? (Y26Z3 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC))

I have checked out some hispanic surnames in this web www.jailbase.com Most of the sheriff's offices use 3 race labels: white, black or hispanic. My understanding is that when police say hispanic what they really mean is "brown people" or people with full or mostly amerindian ancestors. If a person's surname is Martinez, but looks european (or african), then police label as white (or black). If a person's surname is Martinez, but looks amerindian (with short hair), then police label as hispanic.--83.55.143.60 (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, that says more about the average Sheriff's office understanding of ethnicity and race than it does to accurately define "Hispanic," doesn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.222.185.4 (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

My understanding of the "Hispanic race" confusion

I've a deep insight of (atleast applicable to the US) some people's typical view of Hispanics racial-wise; the subconscious decision of whether or not one is Hispanic based on race, which is always: a)Native Americans like the Aztecs or Incas which could be your average Mexican, or even some Native American-looking people like ethnic South East Asians like indigenous Filipinos. b)Mixed Native American and "black" and/or "white" (or mestizo, a racial slur). c)"white", only of Southern European descent i.e. Spanish ethnicity, Greek ethnicity, Portuguese ethnicity, Italian ethnicity etc (Makes sense. There are loads of ethnic Spanish and Portuguese Hispanics in the Americas). d)Obviously mixed people i.e. Obama.

One will fall into one of these catagories should someone else deem them as Hispanic-looking. As for the stereotype of being mixed race, that's because racial mixing somehow prevails in many Hispanic countries. My observation leads me to believe it is ignorance of what exactly ethnicity and race are among hispanics that weakens racial barriers to allow for seamless racial admixture without the racism. I mean, just look at the number of hispanics choosing "some other race", which I feel helps prove my point. Many feel 'Hispanic' is their race and so the race question is seen as redundant as they've already identified as Hispanic. The Hispanic label (a special one at that; there are none like it, which I feel adds to its confusion in the US. Now imagine in all of Latin America [there are very poor educational systems in many Latin countries]). It supports racial mixing by giving Hispanics a name which they feel united by, often confusing it for an ethnicity or race even. Plenty assume their nationality is their ethnicity, and feel comfortable mating with whoever is born in their home country with the belief that they're of the same ethnicity, under the same race of Hispanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.46.224 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 13 April 2015‎

I want to hear what the wikI community thinks of this. Am I on the money? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.39.57 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 19 June 2015

I agree with you on this. There is often confusion and uncertainty about what race is in many Latin-American cultures (despite the fact that in some societies, at least the elites seem more conscious of this and classes often correspond somewhat to ethnic/racial divisions stemming back to the colonial era). Anyway, yes, it's evident that many labeled as "Hispanic" in the U.S. didn't know what to put on the census forms. That's why you have a disproportionately high amount of them identifying as "white", when clearly that's not the case. The majority are of mixed or mestizo origin; in fact,as you said, the primary identifier of a "Hispanic" person in the U.S. is the mixed native/Spanish appearance. Not saying that's right, but in reality that's often how it's seen (at the same time I don't even know if most Americans appreciate or recognize the Amerindian contribution to Latin Americans, ironically). There's a lot of ignorance on these things. Another place on the list on this page that seems off is Puerto Rico, where there should be a much higher amount of "mulatto" or mixed white/Spanish with African, but that category doesn't even seem to exist. In the end, it's largely based on personal self-identification rather than objective reality. And identity can be a complex thing. Word dewd544 (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Lusophones are not Hispanics

This whole article is biased, a typical Hispanic-American attempt to include Brazilians and Portuguese people into their numbers. In modern times, Hispanic DOES NOT relates to Portugal, Brazil or other Portuguese speaking countries. Portugal was known as "Lusitania" before the Iberian region was known as "Hispania". Even when the term Hispania was used to refer to the whole region, the Portuguese were still called "lusitanos" and the region "Lusitania". The usage of "Hispania" during the Rome Empire and the Middle Ages would be like "America" for the continent nowadays- in this sense a Brazilian is a "american" because lives in South American, but the term will be rarely used like this, because "American" normally relates to USA citizens. Likewise, a Portuguese would be likely called a "lusitano" then, not a Hispanic. And that was then, not now - it has been CENTURIES since the term "Hispania" was used for the Iberian Peninsula - Hispania/Spain relates to a country now, not the the region. The region is IBERIA now. People from Portugal and other former portuguese colonies like Brazil call themselves LUSOPHONES ("Lusofonos" in Portuguese) and NEVER Hispanics. This should be made clear in the article. As a Brazilian living in the USA I'm sick of being called Hispanic and it's sick to see that this article is helping with this misunderstanding and missrepresentation of my people.

I suggest a whole rewrite of the introduction paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.80.62.37 (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Your experience is similar to an Argentine from Argentina, many of them do not consider themselves Hispanic. Many Brazilians and Portuguese have had the experience of being Hispanic in the United States, perhaps especially those raised in the United States. At times there is a necessity to include Brazilians and Portuguese in the term Hispanic, such is the case in Florida. Do you disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y26Z3 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Lusophones (Portugueses, Brazilians, Angolans, Cape Verdeans among others) living in the US do not consider themselves Hispanics, nor do obvious Hispanics consider Lusophones Hispanics. This article is not only biased but is giving incorrect information. The introduction should be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.147.178 (talk) 07:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Your assertion is incorrect. I am a person of purely Portuguese heritage living in the US and I identify as Hispanic. I have found that referring to myself as "Hispanic", rather than plain "White" tells others much more about my cultural heritage. Though Portuguese culture is distinct from Spanish culture, so are the cultures of the various Hispanic and Latino regions of the world. There is no one, distinct, Hispanic culture, so there is no point picking nits like this. Distinctions like "Hispanic" and "Latino" attempt to oversimplify a broad and diverse group of peoples, and do so in regards to their deviation from "normal" white American and Northern European culture. As such, I find I have much more in common with your average self-identified Hispanic person than I do with your average self-identified White (and White only) person. Please refrain from making these broad generalizations in the future. If you must do so, at least cite your sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.182.195.86 (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with previous commenters. Portuguese people should not be included into the Hispanic classification since they massively do not identify as such. Also, it is important to note that "Hispanic" the way it is understood in the US is not an absolute concept. Furthermore, a vast majority of Lusophones feel being called "Hispanic" as an insult. Sindu5673 (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Are indian americans and nigerian americans Anglos?

Following this article, Anglos (of any race) should a cateogry as well, that should include anyone from any former British colony, aswell the UK. --37.14.44.65 (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hispanic: as immigration judgment

Hispanic has been used as a way to segregate immigration in United States. The term basically is used to distinguish between immigrants from south of Bravo River in the American continent and those coming from Europe and Asia — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutraLeIndependiente (talk • contribs) 14:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Areas with Hispanic cultural influence

In Africa, the country of Equatorial Guinea was a former Spanish colony until independence in 1965 and Spanish is still spoken there, but as a minority language. 2605:E000:100D:C32F:4914:D316:C422:8381 (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Spanish is the official language, not a minority language per CIA World Factbook. That's why I deleted it. Thanks.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Source reliable or not

I recently recovered in the References section a source that had been deleted by an IP editor. The editor left me a long message in my talk page claiming that the author is or was just a student and thererfore the source is not reliable. I can't make up my mind about it, could somebody help? The source is this one:

• Montalban-Anderssen, Romero Anton (1996). "What is a Hispanic? Legal Definition vs. Racist Definition". andrew.cmu.edu.

Thank you. --Jotamar (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The IP editor here. I can find no evidence that the author has any relevant academic expertise, or has published elsewhere on the topic. And as I pointed out at User talk:Jotamar there are reasons to suspect that the reference was added by the author himself. It was also added with a misleading edit summary, which read "added link to larger file that contains all references" [16] despite the fact that the piece cites no sources. Given the lack of citations, and the lack of evidence that the author has any expertise in the subject matter, I see no reason to give any weight to the fact that it is hosted on a university website - many universities routinely host undergraduate work. And reading the material itself certainly doesn't give me any confidence that this is anything more than undergraduate work, and to be frank, not very good work at that. It reads like a student essay, makes all sorts of dubious assertions, and goes off on multiple tangents about things which have nothing whatsoever to do with the supposed subject matter. It should be noted that WP:RS (Specifically WP:SCHOLARSHIP) states that even a doctoral thesis (which this clearly isn't) needs to be treated with caution as a source and should normally only be cited if "cited in the literature; supervised by recognised specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties". The reference is cited for nothing in the article, and adds nothing of consequence to the understanding of the subject matter. I see no reason either in policy nor in the interests of the readers why Wikipedia should include a link to it. 86.143.224.244 (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

To the IP editor, I agree with your assessment. Thanks for explaining. @Jotamar: Please check out WP:RS and WP:RSP for more info on Reliable Sources. Thanks.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with all the points the IP made. I read every word of Romero Anton Montalban-Anderssen's very casual essay, and it is a mess, especially the latter part, where, as the IP says, it "goes off on multiple tangents about things which have nothing whatsoever to do with the supposed subject matter." It's all over the place, almost to the point of incoherence. Certainly not a reliable source. Carlstak (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you all. --Jotamar (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Hispanic Sicily

Me again. I think the section about Sicily should be deleted. The claim about Spanish still being spoken in the island is obviously false, and the 2 sources don't really support the claim about Spanish and Sicilian being particularly close: if you take any random pair of Romance varieties, you're always going to find unexpected common points. --Jotamar (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Glad you saw that. That addition was made fairly recently and I would say it constitutes vandalism. No one caught it. Thank you. Yes, delete that.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I Agree. It's vandalism. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, now I'm embarrassed for having edited that, but of course you're right. It's got to go. Carlstak (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. I've deleted the section. Carlstak (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)