Talk:Hispanic and Latino (ethnic categories)

Opening paragraphs

Ok, so we have a disagreement over the opening paragraphs. I agree the beginning is better now than it was before. About the parts that were changed:

1. However some see Latino as the narrower term if it does not include Spain.

- The term latino, as used in the united states, does not include spain. The term hispanic does. Don`t know if it is narrower or not, we could just say "however the term Latino does not include Spain".

2. In that sense, Latino as a category used in the United States may be understood as a shorthand for the spanish word "latinomericano" and thus excluding latin peoples from Europe.

- Latin peoples from Europe is a simple enough idea, I guess, and can be checked on this very wikipedia. That latino may me understood as a shorthand for latinoamericano can also be checked on wikipedia.

3. This is probably the most important reason most Latinos of European descent in the U.S. object to the term Latino and instead choose to identify as Hispanic.

- Don`t know about that. The "probably" gives some indication of original research.

4. When the term Latino is used in its strict original meaning, which in Spanish and Portuguese means simply Latin, it is the broader term that includes the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Italians, the French and all Latin Americans.

- The etymology of the word does indicate that. Reading it now, i`m not happy with "strict original meaning", as that refers to the area around Rome. But the information provided should remain; as used in the u.s., latino is a loanword from spanish, and it`s important to explain that in that language (as in portuguese, italian and french) the term Latino includes european countries and peoples. I suggest "when the term Latino is used in Spanish, it means simply Latin; it is a broader term that includes the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Italians, the French and all Latin Americans.

5. Thus, both Hispanic and Latino are generally used to denote people living in the United States

-ok.

6. as outside the United States, one wouldn't speak of Latinos referring only to people of Latin American ancestry.

-As explained above. The idea that latin americans do not say "latinos" is just factually wrong. What the authors of the cited reference mean is that using latinos to refer to all latin americans living in the united states is not a term used by the latinos themselves. That does not mean that latin americans don`t use the term latino in its broader meaning, or that they don`t use the term latinoamericano to refer to latin americans. What they (we, I should say) don`t use is the word latino for "latin americans living in the united states", as the same word already has a different meaning in spanish and portuguese.

7. Also, among latin americans it is most common to speak directly of national identities: Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and so forth."

-Latinos in the united states refer to each other according to their national background, as pretty much any other immigrant community does. I could do without that sentence, but I guess it is valuable for someone who has no idea of this fact.

I will revert to the previous text as I believe it was better, but I hope we can discuss the new suggestions and work together to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 02:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

None of the newly added material is sourced. Please back up your edits with citations before you make changes, especially if your changes contradict the previous material which is backed up by citations.207.114.221.118 (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What part exactly is not sourced, could you be more specific? I state that everything (1-7) is in consonance with other articles in wikipedia, except for the parts clearly stated as dubious, which I corrected. I`m not interested in edit wars or putting biased text and would love to receive counterarguments that made the article better. But previous material backed by a misunderstood citation is not the same as material that is in agreement with the citation. If you understand the citation and expose your argument why is it I got it wrong, fine. If you have a real disagreement with anything I wrote and expose why is it wrong, fine. Please enlighten me and make the article better. But if one cite a book without perfectly understanding the statement made by the author, producing a wrong sentence, then the right thing to do is to correct it. --Marco.natalino (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If everything "is in consonance with other articles in wikipedia," then it shouldn't be hard to find the citations to back up your claims. Don't just refer generally to "articles on Wikipedia," but instead give us specific reliable sources. It is not our burden to find citations to back up your edits.Goodsdrew (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I left in most of your new edits. I just trimmed it down to make it more succinct and took out the weasel words about "some people" believing Hispanic to be more narrow. Brazil has a bigger population, economy, and territory than Spain. The term "Hispanic" covers fewer people than does "Latino" and is unambiguously narrower.Goodsdrew (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

@Marco.natalino: The idea that latin americans do not say "latinos" is just factually wrong. Nope, it is correct. Latin Americans don't use the term 'Latino' when referring to other Hispanic Americans, they use their actual denonyms, like 'Peruvian', 'Colombian', 'Argentine' and so forth. To say that there are Latin Americans using the word 'Latino' to refer to themselves is just blatantly lying, as no one does that. --Bankster (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Just passing through and - people do refer to themselves as latina or latino. I hear it all the time on TV, interviews, on NEWS clips etc. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - I live in Latin America and while it is also common to refer to people by their specific nationality, Latino/a is also common. In any case, this statement seems to be quite subjective as it stands and I came here to request/suggest a citation for the following statement (or its removal if one doesn't exist). I actually think the fact that the discussion around using gender-neutral adjectives 'latinx/latine' is happening throughout Latin America would be proof to the contrary...

In Latin America, the term latino is not a common endonym and its usage in Spanish as a demonym is restricted to the Latin American-descended population of the United States.

186.151.60.65 (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Article is rife with original research

Although this is an important article with a lot of good information, a lot of it is unsourced, poorly sourced, or has citations to sources which fail to verify the content. There is plenty of original research that may, or may not be accurate, but was simply placed there with no attempt at justification. Wikipedia's policy on verifiability is a key principle of the encyclopedia, and any material which is not justified with a citation to one or more independent, secondary, reliable sources may be challenged and removed.

If you happen to be Latino yourself and possibly new to writing for Wikipedia, there's a temptation to include material that you know to be true from you own, lived experience. Please don't don't do that. Everything in the article needs to be sourced with valid citations. Good places to find support include major newspapers, published books and reputable magazines, and scholarly articles in academic journals. (Sources may be in any language, but English is preferred, when available.) For help in creating citations for the sources you find, please see Help:Footnotes. Mathglot (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead needs work

The lead needs work to bring it up to par. The lead is there to MOS:INTRObriefly summarize the most important points covered in an article.]]. The lead is not the place to put details that are not already developed in greater detail in the body of the article. Because of this, The sequence in which you edit should usually be: first change the body, then update the lead to summarize the body.. In addition, the first sentence and lead paragraph have special functions which should be adhered to. For starters, unique information in the lead need to be moved to the body of the article. Footnotes are generally not required in the lead, because if the lead is done right, everything in it summarizes something in the body that is already cited to appropriate references.

Finally, the lead is confusing, and needs work to better identify what the crux of the dispute actually is, followed by lead content that serves as a better introduction. Wikpedia research shows that many people never get past the lead of an article, so it's like a "mini-article" all on it's own; per MOS:LEAD: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Other editors have noted the confusing state of affairs years ago (for example, here and here), and I'm not sure it's been much improved since then. I plan to make some improvements which hopefully will help do that. Mathglot (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What the article is about

Reading the lead, it isn't even clear what the article is specifically about: is there a disagreement over which term to use, with one faction arguing in favor of Latino and another arguing in favor of Hispanic? Are there multiple, overlapping terms all in use for the same thing? Are there multiple terms in use for different things? Is there simply disagreement over what each of the terms mean? This needs to be clarified in the lead. See also the next section about the article's title. Mathglot (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Article title: is there a "naming dispute"?

Is the term dispute too strong for the article title? Is there really no "dispute" at all, but merely a set of overlapping terms all in use at the same time, with meanings that are sometimes misunderstood? If that's the case, then the article title might need to be changed to something that better reflects reality.

According to WP:Article titles, "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." The first sentence and lead paragraph need to be cleaned up to clarify the stance of this article about the naming dispute, if it is one, and justify the article title. And if not, the title should be changed. Mathglot (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

My own opinion about this, is that in fact, there is no "dispute", or at least, that that is too strong, or inaccurate, a word to describe the situation in reality. It is more of a respectful, organic, and evolving discussion among in-group members about what the most appropriate word to use is in a given situation, which can sometimes be quite nuanced, as well as some history of the evolution of the terms over time, along with concomitant changes in usage by governmental or private associations which had to pick some word or other so they could go about their work, or identify themselves. I see no evidence of a "dispute", no boiling tempers, shouted conversations, protest marches, civil disobedience, harsh words; nothing that goes along with what I think of as a "dispute".

In my view, the title of the article should change to remove the word "dispute", but I'm not sure what to replace it with. Maybe something neutral with a weak connector like and (see WP:AND): "Hispanic and Latino terminology" (or just, "Hispanic and Latino terms"). Mathglot (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I've changed the title to Hispanic and Latino (ethnic categories) pending a thorough rewrite to fix the other problems such as original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Ethnicity, race, language, and religion

There needs to be a section, or some content that addresses the meaning of the terms Hispanic and latino with respect to ethnicity, race, language, and religion. The two terms are really mostly about ethnicity, partly about language, and not about race or religion at all, but this is not clear from reading the article.

For example, the lead currently refers to several things that might identify someone as being Hispanic, including being a "native speaker of Spanish". But I think this is wrong: would children of Norwegian diplomats growing up in Madrid and learning Spanish natively be "Hispanic"? I don't think so. I've tagged that statement as "Dubious", and it should be removed, unless someone can come up with a couple of solid references that really support it.

The language issue is complicated, because while it's clear that Spanish is very important to Hispanic and latino identity, research shows that most people believe you don't *have* to speak Spanish, to be considered latino. (Pew research, et al.; refs upon request.)

The terms are not about religion, either, as there are and always have been Latino and Hispanic Jews, and there are Latino and Hispanic Muslims as well. Both religions have a long history in Spain, both were expelled, leaving some conversos behind, and some who ended up in Latin America during the colonization and migration to the New World.

So, if the terms are not about language, and not about race, and not about religion, that leaves ethnicity, which is what I think they are both mostly about, and the sources reflect that, I believe. This should be made clear in the article. Mathglot (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Spanish Brazilian background

An interesting question about the difference between Latino and Hispanic that I have not seen discussed, is the designation of Americans of Spanish Brazilian background, with respect to these two terms. My gut instinct would be that they, and their descendants, are both Latino and Hispanic, whereas those stemming from Portuguese Brazilian background are Latino but not Hispanic. But we'd need references to disentangle that. Mathglot (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Other Romance-Americans

Something should be said about if the terms apply or not to Italian Americans or Haitian Americans, sizeable minorities whose ancestors spoke a Romance (or Romance-derived) language. --Error (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Latino in Spain

Something should be said about how the term is being adopted in Spain to blur the differences among immigrants from Spanish America (but Southern Cone can be a doubtful case), speaking about Latin Kings and Latin music and Electro-Latino. --Error (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)