Talk:White Hispanic and Latino Americans/Archive 2

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

Additions?

I am considering adding more Mexican-american's to the pictures... after all they represent half of all white hispanics. What do you all think? Romo, de la hoya, ted williams, jeff garcia, just to name a few.

Do it. Replace some Cuban Americans, or else we'll have one big gallery on our hands. But look beyond just Mexican Americans, too. SamEV 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
There is too much focus on Cuban Americans in this article. It would be nice to add more non-Cuban White Hispanics in this page. I already removed two Cubans and added the Spanish-American
Michael Lopez-Alegria and the Chilean-American Isabel Allende, and I also added the Argentine-American Julie Gonzalo. Cubans aren't the only White Hispanics in the US. Lehoiberri
22:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

i got some ideas on some other white hispanics beside cuban ones,shakira columbia,ricky martin puerto rican,jessica alba,ernesto che was from argentina i think not cuba , to name a few--

Mikmik2953
05:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Hispanic in the United States who have white ancestory. Shakira is not American, she lives in Colombia. Che Guevara is no way American, he hated America. Ricky Martin can be added because even though he was born in Puerto Rico, He currently lives in Miami, and Puerto Ricans have automatic US citizenship because it is a US territory. Jessica Alba can be considered White Hispanic, but her father is a Mexican-American mestizo, so she might be considered Castizo. Lehoiberri 06:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
sorry did not know it was only united states white hispnics thought it ment all from south north and central.but jessica alba i know her father is part indigenous indian but i did read in an article somewhere that she considers herself white,and me myself would percive her to be--
Mikmik2953
07:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
while you are 100% correct that Che does not belong on this page, the fact that he "hated america" is pretty irrelavent. You can find any number of people that hate or hated america but were/are american themselves. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Guess too much focus on Cuban Americans meant edit Migdia C. That sems a bit petty to me. Mig 05:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)--Mig 05:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Migdiachinea (talk • contribs)

Why is it petty? I don't understand why you'd call it that. Unless you know it to have been ill-intentioned (and I don't the person who did it, but here's the diff) you really shouldn't take it personally, Migdia. SamEV (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not adding Martin Sheen?--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin Sheen is tricky. The idea that European Spaniards are Hispanic is not unanimously accepted in America, and thus someone who is Spanish/Irish would probably just be considered white. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please add more Mexcan-americans pictures in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco (talk • contribs) 04:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This entire page is an embarrassement to Wikipedia, and should be eliminated. It is full of confusion or just plain ignorance. Before the Spaniard came to the New World, his lands were influenced and settled by Visigoths, Romans, Greeks, Phoenicians, Moors, Arabs, Sephardim, and Gypsies. Some of these groups are not considered "White" and yes, they were/are Spanish. The Iberian Peninsula, as part of the the Roman Empire, and previously in its history, was an old world melting pot. Later, Latin America was also the target of immigration and emmigration, as this also further dilutes the man made concept of race based on the color of skin. Figure this, I am of Cuban ancestry, with Eastern Mediterranean DNA, a Spanish surname, and a mulatto grandmother. I usually pass for someone of Middle Eastern ancestry, but as far as I know, most of my family came from somewhere in Spain or the Canary Islands. In terms of this White Hispanic and Latino Americans page I recommend that Wikipedia create a separate site for all of this subjective and oftentimes confusing and potentially incorrect opinions. References to topics that are not based on sound science, or actual historial evidence, should not be permitted or be legitimized as they are simply disturbances of mind, and negatively effect Wikipedia's reputation as a useful source of knowledge. Signed: Santiago Victor Rodriguez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.102.247 (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Alba?

OK this article is a joke. 76.237.14.47 (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


This entire page is an embarrassement to Wikipedia, and should be eliminated. It is full confusion or just plain ignorance. Before the Spaniard came to the New World, his lands were influenced and settled by Visigoths, Romans, Greeks, Phoenicians, Moors, Arabs, Jews, and Gypsies. Some of these groups are not considered "White" and yes, they were/are Spanish. The Iberian Peninsula, as part of the the Roman Empire, and previously in its history, was an old world melting pot. Later, Latin America was also the target of immigration and emmigration, as this also further dilutes the man made concept of race based on the color of skin. Figure this, I am of Cuban ancestry, with Eastern Mediterranean DNA, a Spanish surname, and a mulatto grandmother. I usually pass for someone of Middle Eastern ancestry, but as far as I know, most of my family came from somewhere in Spain or the Canary Islands. In terms of this White Hispanic and Latino Americans page I recommend that Wikipedia create a separate site for all of this subjective and oftentimes confusing and potentially incorrect opinions. References to topics that are not based on sound science, or actual historial evidence, should not be permitted or be legitimized as they are simply disturbances of mind, and negatively effect Wikipedia's reputation as a useful source of knowledge. 68.192.102.247 (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Alba again

I've seen her added and removed a couple of times. I don't have a strong position for or against, but before she's added back, let me say that I recall reading a quote from hers wherein she says she had some difficulty growing up mixed-race. So I'd be surprised if it turns out that she considers herself white. I think it's obvious that there's not much consensus for keeping her, so let's add someone else, please. SamEV (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think she represents a Castizo which refers to people of a European appearence which she has..although i do understand with the person above, also she's doing a movie called Sisters with Paz Vega and Eliska Amor who are both of Spanish or descent.(Bluesky) 017:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

so that would make her white if you look the part you are the part the majority of her hertiage is european she has some native ameridian from her father but so does johnny depp but he still white jessica alba would not be though of as another race if you took her and dropped her off in spain italy or greece etc,remeber hispanic or latino is not a race anyway so why a big deal.and yes i seen that article to but she was just playing on that sterotype in america that white means you have to be the color of snow to be white,white people skin varies.now put jessica alba next to an ameridian and than put her against lets say penelope cruz than tell me who she more resembles. there is a term for hispanic who look white but thet are really not is that not geting a liitle to subjective dont you think and i beliveve that was a term that was used in colonial latin america aint this 2007 not 1707 which was most likle a racistsystem--

Mikmik2953
14:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not whether we think she's white, but whether she does. If she does, she should be included. But it's clear that there's uncertainty about her. SamEV 20:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

i repeat if you look the part you are the part her father a meso it not like hes even 100% ameridan, you do not make up your own race you do not have that option --

Mikmik2953
20:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said what you think I said. Please read it more carefully. SamEV 21:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Alba should not be included in this article, she is an Anglo-Mestiza. Her father is clearly of strong indio or mestizo Mexican heritage and her mother is an Anglo European(non-Spanish) so she can not be classified as a White Hispanic. Her own features also resemble more of a mestizo mixture (lips, nose, dark hair and eyes, tan skin) than those of a white hispanic. I know everyone would love to claim her as one of their own, but come on people, use some common sense KurtJak (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, check the source on her wikipedia article. She states, "I was always [self-conscious] of my puffy lips and darker skin when I was a kid, because I felt like I didn't fit in."CubanOne (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I believe that an individual should only be featured in this article if their heritage can clearly be identified or if they self identify as White Hispanic. Looks can be very deceiving when you're dealing with the issue of race. Take Robert Rodriguez for example (who is featured), he may have lighter skin, but his cousin is actor Danny Trejo who is clearly of indio descent. Rodriguez may be a mestizo who just happens to have features that can be identified as white by some but he may identify as mestizo and not white.CubanOne (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hispanics in the United States - requested move

Hello everyone. There is at present a discussion going on at

Hispanics in the United States, due to the request that the page be moved to Hispanic Americans. Would you like to comment please? Thank you. The Ogre
18:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


This entire page is an embarrassement to Wikipedia, and should be eliminated. It is full confusion or just plain ignorance. Before the Spaniard came to the New World, his lands were influenced and settled by Visigoths, Romans, Greeks, Phoenicians, Moors, Arabs, Jews, and Gypsies. Some of these groups are not considered "White" and yes, they were/are Spanish. The Iberian Peninsula, as part of the the Roman Empire, and previously in its history, was an old world melting pot. Later, Latin America was also the target of immigration and emmigration, as this also further dilutes the man made concept of race based on the color of skin. Figure this, I am of Cuban ancestry, with Eastern Mediterranean DNA, a Spanish surname, and a mulatto grandmother. I usually pass for someone of Middle Eastern ancestry, but as far as I know, most of my family came from somewhere in Spain or the Canary Islands. In terms of this White Hispanic and Latino Americans page I recommend that Wikipedia create a separate site for all of this subjective and oftentimes confusing and potentially incorrect opinions. References to topics that are not based on sound science, or actual historial evidence, should not be permitted or be legitimized as they are simply disturbances of mind, and negatively effect Wikipedia's reputation as a useful source of knowledge. 68.192.102.247 (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What about Trini Alvarado?

She is white too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.1.135 (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


Oh yeah. I agree. She is like Alexis Bledel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.54.128 (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


This entire page is an embarrassement to Wikipedia, and should be eliminated. It is full of confusion or just plain ignorance. Before the Spaniard came to the New World, his lands were influenced and settled by Visigoths, Romans, Greeks, Phoenicians, Moors, Arabs, Sephardim, and Gypsies. Some of these groups are not considered "White" and yes, they were/are Spanish. The Iberian Peninsula, as part of the the Roman Empire, and previously in its history, was an old world melting pot. Later, Latin America was also the target of immigration and emmigration, as this also further dilutes the man made concept of race based on the color of skin. Figure this, I am of Cuban ancestry, with Eastern Mediterranean DNA, a Spanish surname, and a mulatto grandmother. I usually pass for someone of Middle Eastern ancestry, but as far as I know, most of my family came from somewhere in Spain or the Canary Islands. In terms of this White Hispanic and Latino Americans page I recommend that Wikipedia create a separate site for all of this subjective and oftentimes confusing and potentially incorrect opinions. References to topics that are not based on sound science, or actual historial evidence, should not be permitted or be legitimized as they are simply disturbances of mind, and negatively effect Wikipedia's reputation as a useful source of knowledge. Signed: Santiago Victor Rodriguez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.102.247 (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 68.192.102.247 (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

White Mexican Americans

Lehoiberri and everyone, try these names. You can find more at List of Mexican Americans. I took a look at it and these names jumped out at me:

SamEV (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that some of the people here are half White American and half Mexican American. The Mexican American side of the person is probably mestizo. Some people do not view people who are half White American and half Mestizo are not White Hispanic, take Jessica Alba for an example. In Latin America, we have term for half-White half-Mestizo people, that is Castizo. Castizo is not a word used in the United States. I can tell who is not White Hispanic. Bill Richardson is not White Hispanic because he is quarter white from the USA the rest is mestizo. Ritchie Valens is also Mestizo, and I do believe that Cruz Bustamante is also mestizo. I know that most Chicanos, Mexican Americans who can trace their ancestry to the time when the Southwest United States was part of Mexico, are mainly mestizos. I will try to do research on some of the people, but their should be a consensus in where people who are half-white half-mestizos should be considered as White Hispanics or not. Lehoiberri (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Consensus has a way of evolving from the fact, often. So if you add some pics, some of them can earn acceptance and stay in the article. Start with Ted Williams, an American hero - he fought in WWII, in addition to being one the all-time greatest on the diamond. He was treated as white by US society; why shouldn't we? Same with Gomez. See what I mean? This is the USA, so rules are a bit different: besides, in Latin America people who are not "simon-pure" in terms of whiteness are treated as white, and call themselves so, all the time and throughout history. This is mentioned in the White Latin American article, as you know. Remember that there are, to be exact, a zillion non-Hispanic Whites who acknowledge having Native American ancestry, and they're still considered white. So let's not hold White Hispanics to a higher standard. Also, keep in mind that the whole idea of racial purity is a myth, and always was.[1] SamEV (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Lehoiberri, one thing I read about is that Ritchie Valens' manager - who was a non-Hispanic white - did not realize Ritchie was Mexican when they first met, as Ritchie, who was blue-eyed, looked like an Anglo teenager to him. SamEV (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I still don't believe that we should take it upon ourselves to label someone as "white" or "non-white" because it's impossible to determine an individual's ethnicity solely based on their skin tone. As I said before, I believe that we should only include individuals who self identify as "white hispanic" because looks can be deceiving. Take Oscar De La Hoya for example, someone suggested we add him because he has lighter skin, however, his parents are both mestizo and if you examine his facial features you'll notice that he has very strong indio features as well. I also question whether we should add Anglo-Hispanics to the list because their white heritage primarily from an Anglo (non Hispanic) background and their Hispanic heritage may come from a primarily Mestizo or Indio background. Labeling someone who is half Anglo and mestizo as "White Hispanic" seems as ridiculous as labeling someone who is half European and half African as "White African". Other Anglo-Hispanics may not even identify with their Hispanic heritage at all and simply refer to themselves as "white" (like Ted Williams).
By the way, I do believe that Lefty Gomez belongs on the list, most people actually assumed he was Spanish when he played and he never went out of his way to correct them. Although, it may have been a lot more difficult for him if the public was aware of his Mexican heritage (that's also one of the reasons why Williams never discussed his Mexican heritage).CubanOne (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should be deciding who's white, either. I don't do it - I haven't added a single picture or a single name among those mentioned in the article text - but I don't remove the names and pictures others have posted, either. I'm just providing an opinion on how we might proceed on this matter. In the end, the goal should be to have only names and pictures of people who can be clearly sourced as self-identifying as white; but until then, I think we should tolerate the status quo. As we go forward, we should not be assuming a racial purist's, one-droppist stance; having mestizo ancestry should not be an automatic disqualifier. If it's not for say, Chuck Norris or Johnny Depp, why should it be for any white Hispanic? I'm not suggesting that all those names be included; only that among them there are probably many that will prove acceptable to most editors. By the way, if you agree that Williams was seen as white (which is why he, like Gomez and other Hispanics were allowed to play at all), and he called himself white, then why do you argue against including him? Also, Williams did discuss his ancestry. It's in his 1969 autobiography and he reportedly talked about it with Nomar.[2] He just didn't talk about it a whole lot, nor was it reported much. SamEV (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to accuse you of adding or removing pictures and names to this article. I was simply offering my opinion as you were. There's a big difference between someone who is one-eighth native american (johnny depp) and someone who's hispanic heritage is primarily of mestizo and indio descent. Hispanics who are only one-eighth indio would also be considered White in most Hispanic communities. You mentioned that Ted Williams and Lefty Gomez were perceived as White by American society, however, there's a difference between the two. Lefty Gomez's parents were both Mexican and he was seen as a White Hispanic (or sometimes mistakenly referred to as "Spanish")while Ted Williams was half Anglo and was seen as an Anglo white. Ted Williams avoided discussing his Mexican background while growing up and during his baseball career, "If I had had my mother's name, there is no doubt I would have run into problems in those days, the prejudices people had in southern California". However, he did acknowledge his Mexican background (albeit reluctantly) in his autobiography as you pointed out. He referred to his mother as "Mexican and French" even though only his great grandparents on his mother's side were of Basque descent (the rest were Mexican). Ted Williams was half Anglo and never referred to himself as Hispanic or Latino and he cut off ties with the Mexican side of his family after his mother's death(although he did pay college tuition for a Mexican American nephew). Most of the people I know who are a mixture of Anglo and Hispanic refer to themselves as "half Irish and half Salvadoran" for example, not "White Hispanic".CubanOne (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No, no, I didn't think you accused me of anything. I volunteered that info to clarify my stance. Ok. I'm reluctant to go too much into 'blood quantum' issues. But don't you think that 3/4 non-Hispanic white and 1/4 Native American people (castizos) are very often seen as white in the US, in our times? I believe so. The other issue you raise is that Williams didn't much publicly acknowledge his Hispanic ancestry, so he shouldn't be included. I think he should be, is spite of his choice ... We'll just have to disagree on that. A good case can be made either way, so I don't necessarily think you're "wrong". SamEV (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

SamEV, I hope you don't get the wrong idea of me, I am not looking at people skin color to claim their are White Hispanic or not. I was trying to look it some these people can trace their ancestry back to Europe or the Middle East. I also know many people who call themselves White Hispanic may have Indigenous or African blood. I knew a Salvadoran who claim to be pure Spanish white, I did not believe him because El Salvador was more than 90% Mestizo, and he had a dark skinned sister. I did not know Ritchie Valens had blue eyes, I saw the movie about him and he was played by a dark-skinned, dark-eyed Filipino. I am trying not to use skin color as a factor for White Hispanics because Middle Easterner, Southern Spaniards, and Southern Italians are dark-skinned and considered White. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ritchie was played by
Lou Diamond Philips, who is (I looked it up, b/c I couldn't remember all) of Hawaiian, Japanese, Spanish, Scotch Irish and Cherokee Indian, and of course, Filipino.[3]
I think he was great in the movie.
But it's all right. I do think that race, especially in Latin America, is mostly based on skin color. SamEV (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Isabel Allende and others...

These and related articles are an embarrassment to wikipedia for a series of reasons. First, many of the people named in the article may not identify as white per se, but rather as Hispanic or more specifically Mexican-American or Cuban-American etc... Secondly, what is the operative definition of "white" employed in this article? Thirdly, most if not all of the people mentioned have varied and diverse ancestries, a fact which is perhaps concealed by their more or less European appearance; Isabel Allende's father, for example, was mestizo both in ancestry and in appearance, she moreover has frequently defined herself as "mestiza," specifically mentioning her mapuche ancestry. Mario Vargas Llosa also is more or less European in appearance, yet, he likewise has defined himself as mestizo, or in his more crudely put words, as the son of a cholo, and has commented that he probably has African as well as Native American ancestry. Carlos Fuentes has also acknowledged his Native American ancestry, mentioning in one of his works that he had a Yaqui grandmother. The truth is that most of the people cited in the article as examples of White Hispanics have, in fact, varied and diverse ancestries, and can be described, at most, as "faux-Spaniards," in the sense of having a romanticized or novelized identity placed upon them by amateur sociologists and encyclopedists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.137.71.180 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no reason to dispute what you say about Allende, since I've never heard or read from her what race she considers herself. Nor do I contest that she, and some of the others, may have been added (none by me) based on skin color. But you seem to believe in the
one drop rule
. Having "pure" white ancestry cannot be a requirement, because no one could meet it if that were the case, as I already said above. You'd have to question everyone's right to call himself/herself "white," whether Hispanic or not. It's really that simple.
The problem of finding US Hispanic people who self-identify as white will continue because, although it is known that half of US Hispanics (an amazing 23 million) identify as white, it seems that few do so in public; other than Greg Giraldo, I can't think of another right now. Perhaps US Hispanics are used to being told they are exclusively a people of color, and few seem to dare to say in public what they write on questionaires. Public figures may be even more reluctant. Also, with the racist and Euro-centric crimes and excesses of the past so universally rejected now, it's more acceptable to express pride in non-white ancestry than white, isn't it? SamEV (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Isabel Allende is not Mestiza, she comes from a well-known Chilean family of Basque descent, the Allende Family. The Allendes, like majority of wealthy, prominent families in Latin America, are White. The upper class of Latin America is really racist, and they always want to stay purely White, and when these people get married, they only get married with other Whites. I don't know where this unknown person got its facts about Isabel Allende, but she is not mestiza.Lehoiberri (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"I am a mestiza. I am the product of the Spaniards and the Mapuche Indians, so I can understand both currents, both traditions, and I feel that I can write about it, because I feel it inside." Those are Isabel Allende's own words and this is the source[[4]]
I never knew she view her self as mestiza, but I am confused. Her father was the cousin of Salvador Allende, and Salvador Allende is white yet her father is mestizo. I am also confused how could someone from a rich prominent family can get married with an indigenous woman if upper class society of Chile, and Latin America in general, looked down in interracial marriage. I am not saying that you are wrong, but there could be a possibility Isabel Allende is, in a lack of better terms, a believer in "white guilt". There are many historical figures in Latin American history who claim they were one with the indigenous and the mestizos, but in fact they were white. A perfect example is Che Guevara, Che was a White Argentinian man with Basque, Spanish, and Irish descent, but he always claimed that he was mestizo even though his family tree debunked his claim. He constantly blamed Latin American Whites for all the problems of Latin America, yet he was white himself. Lehoiberri (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe you may be right, Lehoiberri.

William I of England and Afonso I of Portugal, for example[5]
. Of course that does not mean she may not have some Ameridian blood (still... according to US racial rules, in what quantum? Enough not to make her white?). Which one of these was Ameridian, does anyone konw (the question marks do not mean they are not konwn - it means I couldn't find them out; some of the others go much further back several centuries)?

16. José Gregorio Allende Garcés
8. José Ramón Allende Padín (Chile, 1845)
17. Salomé Padín Ruiz
4. Tomás Allende Castro
18. ?
9. Eugenia Castro del Fierro (Chile, 1860)
19. ?
2. Tomás Allende y Pesse de Villevert (Chile 1875)
20. Joseph Michel Pesse
10. Armand François Pesse de Villevert (France c. 1820)
21. Jeanne Puyo
5. Laura Pesse Guerra
22. José Segundo Guerra
11. Nieves Guerra (Chile, 1831)
23. Florentina Guerra
1. Isabel Allende
24.  ?
12. ?
25. ?
6. Agustín Llona Cuevas
26. ?
13. ?
27. ?
3. Francisca Llona Barros
28. Juan Agustín Barros Morán
14. Luis Barros Méndez
29. Carmen Méndez Urrejola
7. Isabel Barros Moreira
30. Agustín Moreira Merino
15. Teresa Moreira Urrejola
31. Rita Urrejola Unzuela

The Ogre (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, when Isabel Allende says she is a
mestiza, she may be speaking in a cultural sense, and not in a genealogical sense. Here (MSN Latino) she say: "Yo soy mestiza. Yo vengo de la cultura española y de la cultura indígena y el choque de ambas es muy interesante. Es un choque de amor, de odio, de lujuria, de poder, de gran violencia; y de ahí nacemos los latinoamericanos". Which translates as: "I am a mestiza. I came from the Spanish culture and the Indigenous culture and the clash between them is very interesting. It is a clash of love, hatred, power, of enormous violence; and from that we the Latin Americans were born." The Ogre (talk
) 01:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Good research, Ogre. It's quite possible she is indeed talking about culture. Also, Lehoiberri, her Amerindian ancestry - if true, that is - might have come from marriage by a wealthy Allende (or whatever surname) with a mestizo/a, not an Indian. That mestizo/a might have been similarly wealthy, perhaps. In her book, The House of the Spirits, which she said was based on her own ancestors, there's such a marriage. SamEV (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who started this thread and I let me say I was afraid people would try to interpret her words metaphorically, however so there's no doubt let me quote from another interview she gave: "Y sienten un sentimiento de culpa por la conquista, es algo delicado. Y yo les dije que estos pómulos no son de Ucrania, son mapuche, yo soy mestiza, así es que es fácil escribir sobre lo que resultó de la conquista."[6]

Which translates to: "And they feel guilty about the conquest, it's a sensitive topic. And I tell them these cheek bones are not from the Ukraine, they're mapuche, I'm mestiza, so it's easy [for me] to write about what came out of the conquest."

So basically she's saying: I look the way I do because I have mapuche ancestors, I have high cheek bones because I have amerindian traits, not Slavic or German.Nord1 (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Although Vargas Llosa self-identifies with Europe (he once said "Even if I didn't have Spanish citizen I would still consider myself European) he still doesn't deny that genetically he's mestizo. Here's a link to a picture of his youngest son Gonzalo, whose Amerindian traits are more pronounced than his father's[7] and here [8].

Just one thing, though: neither Vargas Llosa nor Carlos Fuentes are mentioned or shown in this article. SamEV (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's correct you don't mention Vargas Llosa or Carlos Fuentes, I mentioned them because many people consider them white but if asked they would describe themselves as mestizos. Also the case of Mario Vargas Llosa is somewhat similar to that of Isabel Allende, in the sense that both the Allende and Llosa names are storied and prestigious. But these facts shouldn't cause us to automatically assume that we know the full genetic history of these families or, more importantly, that we shouldn't make an effort to research what these people have themselves said about their own ethnicity or race, after all, shouldn't they have the last word on the matter? Also, while we're on the subject, Anthony Quinn is mestizo as well, see here[9]Nord1 (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Quinn would likely be classifiable as castizo, actually, I suppose Lehoiberri would tell you, based on the info given in that book. SamEV (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Ogre, you said "(still... according to US racial rules, in what quantum? Enough not to make her white?)", I don't know if you meant this seriously or were just sort of thinking out loud, but the US does not have any racial rules. whether or not Isabel Allende is white by US standards depends solely on what she decides to say she is. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Census Data for U.S States/Cities

There is data for the White Hispanic and all other ethnic groups in the U.S states and in some cities ..i found out that san diego city is 11% White Hispanic..for example.. here's an example of in 2006 California which has roughly 50% White of the Hispanic pop. shall we add it to article?..their useful stats i think.

2000 Census figures ,main states with white hispanics and California: 2006 estimates - Ethnic groups/Hispanic etc..

81.159.137.28 (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks good, but I think going down to the city level would be overkill. I'd rather add more states, but I think ten is enough to give readers an idea. SamEV (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

J-lo

Most people think she is mestizo,..but she clearly isnt..possibly Castizo, if anything..since her father is not and her mother is predominanly european etc...here's David lopez recently on YouTube —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.146.155 (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Mr Lopez is very white. J-Lo herself actually frequents the tanning booth, because her skin is pale. SamEV (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
yes she is very pale she is not mestizo, castizo yes but j lo definetly passes as white in my book you ever see her when she was a fly girl she is pale as heck people mistake tan people as not being white sometimes rember fair skin peole can change there skin color--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Funny... I always though she wasn't! From were I came from everybody would look at her and, if asked about her ethnicity, would say something like "she looks like a Mexican mixture between european and native american" (probably just saying white and indian...). Of course this is our bias! Just goes to show you - racial definitions and categories vary immensly from place to place! Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
When I first saw her, it was on a short-lived TV show circa 1994 (?), and I did notice that here was an unusually light-skinned 'Mexican' (she played a Mexican American, if I'm not mistaken), compared to most (obviously not all) US Latinos in real life and Hollywood. For years I'd seen her as an In Living Color Fly Girl, but I didn't remember her face or name, b/c in fact, I couldn't tell one FG from the next. SamEV (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

She's not "White" or Caucasian for that matter, a Castizo is just a lighter skinned Mestizo. --Pestilencia (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's assuming she is Castizo, as far as I can tell that was just conjecture by people above. Castizo is a pretty outdated term anyway, which historically WAS considered different from Mestizo. Given how much mixing has gone on since colonial times, it seems unlikely that Castizo is even a useful term. Funny, everyone considers the old race "rules" where any non-white blood made you non-white as ridiculous racism (and rightly so), yet many continue to use them. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Country of Orgin Chart

I find it odd that the percentage of Spaniards in lower than the percentage of Cubans. Last time I remember Spaniards were White, so shouldn't that percentage be 100%. That is my opinion. I believe that chart needs fact checking. Lehoiberri (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The answer is quite simple: not all those who indicate they're "Spanish" actually are. "Spanish" is a term many US Hispanics who are in fact not Spanish Americans use as their ethnicity (or even as their "race", showing a complete lack of understanding of the concept), especially in the East Coast. Many select non-white categories, hence the 76% for "Spanish". SamEV (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the entry for "Spanish". BTW, all US Hispanics used to be categorized under "Spanish origin", which almost certainly contributed to this problem. SamEV (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, in the 1980 census its all catagorized as spanish origin..should be spanish speaking.anyway...i think its worth adding the spanish-american population as mainly white ..since now i think the US totals up all of the people with only spanish origin to make up a total white population..for example im sure martin sheen it counted as half Irish ans half spanish.otherwise whats the point of asking to name your 2 main ancestries. I think the US census on who is of Hispanic origin, when i mean Hispanic i mean Spanish(spain)...ive heard quite a few afro cubans on TV call the white cubans 'Hispanic' as if they dont associate themselves as being of Hispanic descent because they are afro-cuban...which in fact is actually the correct meaning at the end of the day....the US census is starting to get more clarity i think...but its the people that need to answer properly also.Britannic1 (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think more clarity is coming in the 2010 census, indeed. SamEV (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you not think its worth adding anything of the spanish:2 million etc/Spaniard:299 thousand. stats.??..Britannic1 (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)....some has to be right..

Yes, on the article itself, not on that table, as I wrote in my last edit summary. But as you can see, it's not easy to get figures that can be relied upon as being truly about people of direct Spanish descent. SamEV (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this right, there are people who call themselves Spanish yet they are not technically Spanish. Now that's odd. Lehoiberri (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Members of all US Hispanic groups do it. It's most common among the younger people (20-somethings and teenagers), who apparently find the word "Hispanic" too difficult, I suppose. But even non-Hispanics do it. I don't watch Jay Leno much, but over the years I've heard him say to some guests who've said they're Latino 'oh, I didn't know you're Spanish'. I heard the same from Rosy O'Donnel, too. On Saturday Night Live Adam Sandler too, in a song he did in one of his skits; etc, etc. It's very common in New York, where all of them are from. SamEV (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Isabel Allende and Cote De Pablo

Although I would personally not contest her "whiteness", at least insofar as appearance or most recent and predominant ancestry, it has to be said that Isabel Allende herself identifies as a mestiza. "Se define como mestiza, hija de la confluencia india y española, y extranjera."[10] "Yo soy mestiza - se enorgullece -, producto de las dos corrientes, y tengo la capacidad de entender al español que fue y conquistó y al indio que fue conquistado" [11] So I don't know if it's just to put her as a White Hispanic.

Meanwhile, Cote De Pablo actually is a mestiza.

Al-Andalus (talk
) 11:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We were already debated about Allende, please look on top. Especially when she comes from a prominent White Chilean family. About Cote de Pablo, I don't know if she is mestiza, but she did start her career in Spanish language television, an industry that, to some, is racist toward non-white people. Maybe she is a light skinned mestiza, I don't know? Lehoiberri (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I just scrolled up and saw the detail of the debate. Two important things I would like to point out to those that were forwarding the position that in her case it is still appropriate to have her depicted as an example of the subject matter of an article entitled White Hispanics.
First and foremost, if she or any other person, does NOT identify as White or whatever else (race, religion, or other thing) and their personal identity is verified (ie. public statements) then she should NOT be put as a representative on an article of that very thing. It's just common sense and decency. I can tell you that as an Australian, the great majority of the Aboriginal population in this country (Australia) is mixed. In fact, of the Aboriginal people I have personally physically met, they all looked mixed or were mixed but looked white. Yet, every one of those people identify as Aboriginal. If a person's personal identity is that of an Aboriginal person, and given that belonging in the Aboriginal community and that Aboriginal identity is based on Aboriginal descent (be it unmixed or mixed), then by that very fact of Aboriginality that person IS an ABORIGINAL! He or she should not be represented as anything else. Perhaps the exception would be in a context of factuality, where one would say "such and such is a mixed-race person of Aboriginal descent and identity". In the present case, of course, it is not Aboriginal identity nor its logical counterpart (Amerindian identity). Instead, it is mestizo (mixed-race) identity. The premise is nonetheless the same.
Secondly, many of you are barking up the wrong tree when trying to pin point the birth-certificate verified amerindian or mestizo ancestor in her recent or even distant family tree. It is a fact of history that the first generation of mestizas (ie. a female of mixed Spanish and Amerindian descent) born in Latin America 5 centuries ago were not only the first mothers of today's mestizo population, but they were also the genesis the local-born colonial white population of all Latin America (except for Argentina and Uruguay). The colonial white population constitutes the founding population and principal element from which today's white Latin Americans descend. Only Argentina and Uruguay received European immigration of nuclear families that overwhelmed the colonial whites. But even there, the non-colonial majority soon mixed with the whites descended of colonial whites, thus, over 50% of their modern whites have Amerindian female genetic markers anyway.
The historical parting of the colonial white and mestizo population of Latin America lies in the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the first mestizos. Most of the first generation of mestizos of both genders were illegitimate. Of the few who were recognized by their fathers, all were raised as Spaniards, but it was only the females that went on to marry Spaniards. Few female Spaniards sailed over from Spain, so legitimate mestizas were available mostly to Spaniards only. The few female Spaniards available were available ONLY to Spaniards. Legitimate mestizos competed with Spaniards for legitimate mestizas, but got mostly illegitimate mestizas (bring them up the social ladder with them). From the unions of legitimate mestizas and Spaniards were born what would later (after the white colonial population had consolidated) be called castizos. These would then marry other Spaniards and thus at this point, the genesis of the white colonial population of Latin America was finally consolidated, nobles and all.
Those mestizos and mestizas that were illegitimate from the very beginning had in that time multiplied amongst themselves. Some male mestizos (from lack of illegitimate mestizas being taken by legitimate mestizos) had taken Amerindian females, and either joined that Amerindian community (and thus taken Spanish genes into Amerindian communities) or bringing the Amerindian female out of hers (bringing more Amerindian genes into his community).
Isabel Allende, being descended mostly from colonial white Chileans, would have Amerindian descent by the simple fact of how the colonial white populations of all Latin America was established, Chile included.
Al-Andalus (talk
) 10:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You are right that Isabel Allende does not view herself as white, yet in the same time Allende's father's cousin, Salvador Allende, was white. Since she doesn't view herself as white, like you said, she should be removed. But who would take her spot? Before we started to make a big deal about the pictures section, that section was overrepresented by Cubans (as you can read in the first discussion in this page). We need someone who is Hispanic-American, is white (European or Middle Eastern), and not Cuban. How about
Selma Hayek, she is Mexican of Spanish and Lebanese descent, and she lives here (but I don't know she has US citizenship though). Does anyone has ideas? Lehoiberri (talk
) 16:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed Allende, and three others: Bledel because her pic was deleted. I decided to remove two others so the rows would be complete, so I went with Diaz and Ramos because each of their subgroups (Cuban American and Spanish American) has other representatives. When you find two more pics to add, if you want to put these two back, go ahead, Lehoiberri. SamEV (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Latin America

I saw a problem hear.First hispanic america and latin america are two different things.Hispanic america was colonized by Spain and my country that is Brazil was colonized by Portugal the two regions together make the Latin america .Second i saw this "i am a mestiza. I came from the Spanish culture and the Indigenous culture and the clash between them is very interesting. It is a clash of love, hatred, power, of enormous violence; and from that we the Latin Americans were born." about isabel allende.My country that is brazil has a big black population so don't confuse latin america with hispanic america please.Normaylly here in brazil we say that we have many different kinds of people descent Brazil has the largest population of Italian origin outside of Italy, with over 25 million Italian Brazilians, the largest Japanese population outside of Japan, with 1.6 million Japanese Brazilians, as well the second largest German population outside of Germany, with 12 million German Brazilians(I got this in the page of Brazil). FontesAugusto (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Hispanics who are also white living in the United States, and it excludes Brazilians since they are not Hispanics, they are Lusitanics. So I don't know what is your problem of this article. This has nothing to do with Latin America. There is an article for
White Latin Americans. Lehoiberri (talk
) 19:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So, why is that article speak about latino-Americans??? if it is about Hispanic-Americans? by the way I don't think it is about hispanic-American either, but more about their descendants in the USA who are not latin-Americans anymore.

This entire page is an embarrassement to Wikipedia, and should be eliminated. It is full confusion or just plain ignorance. Before the Spaniard came to the New World, his lands were influenced and settled by Visigoths, Romans, Greeks, Phoenicians, Moors, Arabs, Sephardim, and Gypsies. Some of these groups are not considered "White" and yes, they were/are Spanish. The Iberian Peninsula, as part of the the Roman Empire, and previously in its history, was an old world melting pot. Later, Latin America was also the target of immigration and emmigration, as this also further dilutes the man made concept of race based on the color of skin. Figure this, I am of Cuban ancestry, with Eastern Mediterranean DNA, a Spanish surname, and a mulatto grandmother. I usually pass for someone of Middle Eastern ancestry, but as far as I know, most of my family came from somewhere in Spain or the Canary Islands. In terms of this White Hispanic and Latino Americans page I recommend that Wikipedia create a separate site for all of this subjective and oftentimes confusing and potentially incorrect opinions. References to topics that are not based on sound science, or actual historial evidence, should not be permitted or be legitimized as they are simply disturbances of mind, and negatively effect Wikipedia's reputation as a useful source of knowledge. 68.192.102.247 (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "white" please ?!?!?

This article is extremely subjective and unscientific as it does not give specific parameters for the definition of "white". It does not take into account the complex implications of labeling someone part of a single race. It also does not take into account that racial definitions and census data vary between different Latin American countries. What may be considered white in Venezuela may not be considered white in Argentina. Some countries determine race by appearance, thus you may have 3 siblings all being classified as different races.

Take note of the following......

WHITE AMERICANS vs. "WHITE" HISPANICS--- DNA has shown that White (Anglo) Americans have almost entirely white ancestry, about 95% of their DNA is white with small amounts of Native American, African and Asian ancestry. Light skinned (white) Hispanics have an average of 45%-65% European ancestry. There is a significant amount of non-white ancestry (black and/or Indian depending on the country). Genetically it is possible for someone to look white with as little as 40-50% white, depending on the other admixtures.

COLOR WITHIN FAMILIES--- In white (Anglo) American families all of the immediate family members are usually white. In Hispanic families the case is quite different. It is common for a "white" Hispanics to have siblings that are not white but look more African or Native American. This is due to heavy interracial admixture throughout the centuries. Although a "white" Hispanic may have white skin (phenotype), he or she is carrying a much larger amount of non-white genetic material (genotype) than his Anglo-American counterpart. Because "white" Hispanics are actually of very mixed ancestry, it is entirely possible for two "white" Hispanics to have a child who is black or Native American in appearance. This is not the case for Anglos. Two white Americans (Anglos) usually have white children. Furthermore, many Hispanics that have white skin may have non-European features, this is especially true in Mexico.

RACISM AND CLASSISM--- Racism and bias play a role in these definitions. Many people have an opinion one way or another. Those Hipanics who want to identify with being white, down play their non-white ancestry, they may keep their black grandma in the closet or not introduce their Maya looking grandpa to their friends. Hispanics who would rather not identify with being white do the same with their white ancestors. However, the majority of Hispanics in the U.S. consider Hispanic to be their race and are fully aware that they are a result of an admixture of European, African and/or Native American blood. Although term Hispanic has not traditionally been used as a race in most Latin American countries it is slowly falling into use in Mexico, Venezuela, the Dominican Republic and other countries probably due to the American influence. In many places in Latin America, nationality and race are one. For example, in Mexico, most people would consider their race (La Raza) to be Mexican

HISPANIC AS A RACIAL IDENTITY--- Although the four anthropogical races are white, black, Asian and Native American, there must be further debate and scientific research on whether "Hispanic or Latino" fits any or all of the criteria of a race and whether that criteria needs to be changed. What criteria were used to establish white, black, Asian and Native American as the four anthropological races when there are obvious inconsistencies. For example both Pakistanis and Chinese are classified as Asians yet they are quite different, Middle Easterners come in a variety of skin tones yet many classify them as Caucasian and Native Americans who originally came from Asia but are not considered Asian. Emphasis also needs to be placed on "self identification" as perceived race can depend on the individual's identification with a group.

EXISTENCE OF PURE WHITE HISPANICS--- There may be countries such as Uruguay or Argentina where the vast majority of the population is mainly of European ancestry. There also may be small pockets of people with pure European ancestry like the German areas of Brazil or the elites in some capitals. But these are exceptions and not the norm. And even in those cases, the non-white ancestry of those "white" Hispanics is significantly higher than the non-white ancestry of Anglo Americans in the U.S.

Please give a specific definition of "white" Hispanic whether it is the proportion of European blood vs. non-European blood within the individual or his or her own self identity. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dm2850 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Dm2850. The second sentence defines White, specifically, White American. It is, as stated, that given by the U.S. Census Bureau, which pertains to self-identity. Beyond that, it is outside this article's scope to debate the definition(s) of white, and even less so the other races and the implications of racial labels. Debate about the usage of the labels "Hispanic" and "Latino" doesn't belong here, either. All these have their own articles, q.v.
If you'd like, and if you can source it, you can add info on admixture, racism and classism. SamEV (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You cannot get a percentage of someone's "race" from DNA. You can test someone's Y-DNA (paternal) and also his MtDNA (mitochondrial/maternal). This will only tell you where the male line originiated from and where the female line originated from, so you cannot say somone has X% of "European" ancestry. You can say X% of Europeans have Y-DNA or MtDNA from X historical region. Race pretty much cannot solely be determined by testing DNA and is more of a social contruct based on physical features as well as perceptions. Generally, however, white/caucasian includes a broad range of people historically from Europe. Kman543210 (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well said, dm2850. All the geniuses who are obsessed with using the "s/he may have Indian heritage but so does Johnny Depp and he's white" or "drop 'em off in France/Spain/etc and they won't look out of place" arguments could learn a lot from your post. Though it's not as though people of that mindset are very likely to learn much even if they do. They aren't fans of neutrality when it comes to this topic. Shame that so many White Latinos have such a chip on their shoulder over this relatively obscure "false racial value" issue exclusive to the U.S., even though they have social advantages in every other way. 74.69.64.52 (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Philip of Calderon (aka
Felipe Calderon
)

I've got news for you folks,

Felipe Calderon is not white, not even self-identifed. He's mestizo. Another mis...take. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.92.223 (talk
) 23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify what this article is about to people like you who don't like to read. This ARTICLE is about HISPANIC AMERICANS (HISPANICS LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES) who are also WHITE because of their ANCESTRY! FELIPE CALDERON IS NOT HISPANIC AMERICAN!! Please take it to talk page of
White Latin American. And also, please read well next time before you post, Thank you. Lehoiberri (talk
) 18:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Felipe Calderon is a Hispanic American. He is Hispanic and he is American. 67.160.169.14 (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I shall echo what Lehoiberri said: this article is about Hispanic and Latino Americans, as in Hispanics in the United States, not Latin Americans. Last time I checked Felipe Calderon was a Mexican still living in Mexico; therefore, he is not American. It's a moot point whether he's white or not (for this particular article at least). Kman543210 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Felipe Calderon is a Hispanic American; and an American living in Latinoamerica, therefore he fits both descriptions under the given title. Perhaps this article needs a better title. Deepstratagem (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article is clearly on white Hispanics and Latinos in the United States. There's no better title for this in the English language.--Cúchullain t/c 18:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How about "white Hispanics and Latinos in the United States" as you just suggested? That's an unambiguous title. Deepstratagem (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but in the English language when the word "America" and "American" is applied to the United States. Because in the Spanish Language "America" and "American" refer to both North and South America, why should English Wikipedia fall under the standards of the Spanish Language. Actually, main other languages refer "America" to the United States, what I know French, German, Italian, Russian, and Japanese refer "America" as the US. This one thing I never understood of the Spanish Language. English Wikipedia follows English language standards. Also, Hispanics in the US also refer "America" and "American" to the United States, not to all of North and South America. Lehoiberri (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you're wrong. In french "America" is not a country, but the name of the wholecontinent from Alaska to tierra del fuego. The country you are talking about is known as the United states (Etats-unis). "America (Amerique)" used as meaning "united states" is normally used only in a familiar, colloquial or humoristical way.

I think the name of the article is very confusing, since "hispanic American" clearly means someone from America (continent) and whose is from a spanish-derived nation (by opposition with Spain, which is a Hispanic nation of Europe). If "America" would mean "USA", a latin-American would necesserally be an inhabitant of the US... Which would be ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's go to Wiktionary. Américain is the French word for American, and wiktionary's definition for Américain: someone born in, or a citizen or inhabitant of, the United States of America[12]. There is no mention of the "American continent" in that definition. Know your facts. Plus haven't you read all of my comment?! THIS IS ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA, SO WE FOLLOW ENGLISH LANGUAGE STANDARDS. Foolish anon! Lehoiberri (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I accept your apology. I'm not going to start another discussion on the word American. The fact that Hispanic and Latinoamerican have specific meanings already tied to Spain and "the Americas" makes the title ambiguous and this case, misleading.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861727807/hispanic.html

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/latinamerican?view=uk

http://www.askoxford.com/languages/es/toi_las/?view=uk

http://www.international.ucla.edu/lac/publications/las.asp

http://books.google.com/books?id=zQqtgpqvHL0C&pg=PR20&lpg=PR20&dq=%22mexicans+are+americans%22&source=web&ots=d0BhkYu2Ag&sig=auR8b5RYUdDt-JNuD0yI1FmhgwY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result

Deepstratagem (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Deepstratagem, shouldn't you get a Wikipedia-wide agreement on this, so that all U.S. ethnic group articles get similarly renamed? Thus, "Italian American" -> "Italians in the United States"? The problem with your proposal is it will have the effect of saddling Hispanic and Latino Americans with a title that leaves doubt as to their Americanness (U.S.-ness, we might say). The present title is inclusive, yours is not. SamEV (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if Felipe Calderón is not included as a white Hispanic and Latinoamerican, then the article is not inclusive. Since being Hispanic has little to do with nationality, and being Latin American has nothing to with race, by definition, there is no "saddling". On the other hand, being Italian has to do with nationality. The current title is being used as a neologism and it is currently both misleading and incorrectly exclusive.
http://www.nydailynews.com/latino/2008/10/09/2008-10-09_us_loses_popularity_in_latin_america_.html
Latin America's more than 550 million people now "have every reason to view the U.S. as a banana republic," says analyst Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington. "U.S. lectures to Latin Americans about excess greed and lack of accountability have long rung hollow, but today they sound even more ridiculous."
http://www.cubanews.ain.cu/2008/1006solidaridad.htm
Latin Americans in Australia Express Solidarity with Cuba
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2008/oct/10/festivals
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=756975
But some poor Latin Americans say they have it so bad, the crisis can't make their lives worse. "This only makes people who have money nervous," 60-year-old Jose Martinez said with a shrug outside a money-changing business in Mexico City. "I'm poor, so what?"
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2008/10/pokerstars-lapt-season-two-announced.htm
It will be the best time for Latin Americans, as well as North Americans, Europeans and players from across the globe to travel to these exotic destinations for live high-stakes championship poker."
http://www.sindhtoday.net/world/25668.htm
Crime-weary Latin Americans lose faith in state mechanism
The survey was carried out among 10,000 people over the age of 14 in several cities of Colombia, Brazil and Mexico, said Mockus, who was accompanied by Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard.
Verifiability is important. Deepstratagem (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This article starts out with “A White Hispanic or White Latino is a United States citizen or resident whose is classified as a White American of Hispanic or Latino descent.” It even states above that the following: For the white population of Latin America, see

White Latin Americans have an entire article. It seems that you already understand the scope of the article but that you just dispute the terminology used in the English language. Kman543210 (talk
) 01:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A "White Hispanic" is not a U.S. citizen and neither is a "White Latino". Who invented these narrow definitions? Deepstratagem (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deepstratagem, perhaps I used the wrong word. By "inclusive" I meant that this title treats Hispanic and Latino Americans like Americans; i.e. it is inclusive in the sense of including them as Americans. Your title sends a loud signal that they somehow are to be seen as non- or un-American, because of that missing word ("American") in their demonym. Why can't you just accept the fact that there are two definitions for this word? SamEV (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
"Your title sends a loud signal that they somehow are to be seen as non- or un-American, because of that missing word ("American") in their demonym." Not any more than your article sends a strong signal that White Latinoamericans and White Hispanics only exist in the United States.

"Why can't you just accept the fact that there are two definitions for this word?" I can. Why can't you? Deepstratagem (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"...your article sends a strong signal that White Latinoamericans and White Hispanics only exist in the United States.""
I changed the lead paragraph to make it even more purely descriptive. SamEV (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Like I said before Deepstratagem, English Wikipedia follows English Language standards. Anyways, if you go around the world and ask anyone who are the Americans, majority will say Americans are people who are citizens of the United States. I remember watching the news, the story was about the Arab world's view of United States, and I remember the people referred the US as America. It is fact around the world (execpt Latin America and the Iberian Peninsula) that America=United States.
Deepstratagem, let me get this straight, when you watch in the news about the crazy President of Iran (I don't want to spell his name) shouts "Death to America", do you think he is also talking about Canada, Latin America, the Caribbeans, too? Lehoiberri (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I don't think you are all that qualified to say what Hispanic means, since you think you don't look like one.
"English Wikipedia follows English Language standards." Right. Not neologisms. This article creates a narrow and misleading category. It's as if I decide to write an article titled Black Francophone and French Americans. If the article only refers to people from the United States, it's too narrow because it neglects a lot of people who identify as one or the other, and furthermore, there is no reason to clump a skin color/cultural-linguistic identity with two other ambiguous terms like Latino and American, or Latino American.
In other words, this is misleading at more than one level. This article, by focusing on a particular arbitrary combination is prescriptive and not descriptive. In fact, outside of Wikipedia clones, this ad hoc ethnic combination is non-existent. I acknowledge that there are white Hispanic people, I am one of them; I even acknowledge that there are US citizens who are white and Hispanic; I am one of them, too. In fact, most Hispanic people by ancestry are white. However, I do not consider myself Latino; but rather Latin-American which is geographical relation, and not a racial one. I am of the opinion that anybody who calls oneself "Latino" has never been to Latin America or speaks Spanish, which defeats the very intent of using the word.
So as you can see, I'm not arguing about the word "American", which I am in more than one way (independent of being a U.S. citizen, but also because of), but I'm arguing about the misuse and ambiguous juxtaposition of all these ambiguous terms, to mean something so narrow that there is no preexisting literature outside of Wikipedia to support this fabrication.
What's next? An article titled White Indians and Pacific Australians? Deepstratagem (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
"First of all, I don't think you are all that qualified to say what Hispanic means, since you think you don't look like one." Wow, I applaud you for going personal. Don't tell me you are part of the "Argentines are not Hispanic" persuasion, Something I heard alot from both other Hispanics and bigoted Argentines. Then maybe I should disqualify you out of this topic since Spanish is your maternal Language, and this is English Wikipedia.
You said that you weren't arguing about the word "American" but clearly looking at your first post in this talk page, you were claiming that Felipe Calderon is American. Now you are changing the subject to words Latino and Hispanic. Stop being erratic.
This article is about a group of people who list themselves in the US census as both White and Hispanic/Latino. This is why this article is called "White Hispanic and Latino American". Because you don't like the word Latino, the US government uses it to classify people who are from Spain and Latin America or people who are descendants of those countries. I know there used to be a radio station where I live that played reggeton (I don't know how to spell it), and there slogan was "Latino and Proud". Latino is a common word in the United States, especially with the American-born English-speaking Hispanics. This is why the government uses both Hispanic and Latino. Hispanic and Latino are mainly interchangeable, execpt the word Latino includes Brazilians while Hispanic excludes them (Hispanic comes from the old Roman name of Spain, Hispania).
Since you have issues with this article, I clearly want to know if you have issues with Black Hispanic and Latino Americans article, too? Lehoiberri (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Deepstratagem, you write: "However, I do not consider myself Latino"
Well, it so happens that if you live in the U.S. that is precisely how you are classified. In fact, if you participated in the last census, "Latino" may be how you identified yourself! Or did you actually answer 'No, not Hispanic/Spanish/Latino'? SamEV (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I specifically wrote 'yes, other' Hispanic/Mexican and Spanish/English/German for ancestry. Deepstratagem (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
"Don't tell me you are part of the 'Argentines are not Hispanic' persuasion, Something I heard alot from both other Hispanics and bigoted Argentines." I really don't know what that means in this context or its relevance. I simply question your understanding of Hispanic since you think there's a specific look that's exclusive with being white.
"Then maybe I should disqualify you out of this topic since Spanish is your maternal Language, and this is English Wikipedia." English and Spanish are my maternal languages, learned concurrently.
"You said that you weren't arguing about the word "American" but clearly looking at your first post in this talk page, you were claiming that Felipe Calderon is American."

Felipe Calderon is a Hispanic American; and an American living in Latinoamerica

"Now you are changing the subject to words Latino and Hispanic. Stop being erratic." The words were already there in my initial statement. It's deceptive to misrepresent what I actually said. Not to mention, Latino is a corrupted abbreviation of Latino American.

"This article is about a group of people who list themselves in the US census as both White and Hispanic/Latino." That may be the case, but the title can have many meanings. Besides, Hispanic and Latino can be mutually exclusive, and I haven't seen that addressed in the 15 or so articles created by the "Latino" Wikiproject. "I know there used to be a radio station where I live that played reggeton (I don't know how to spell it), and there slogan was 'Latino and Proud'. Latino is a common word in the United States, especially with the American-born English-speaking Hispanics." Latino is common amongst Chicanos and has connotations of political identity. That's one of the reasons why the title is so terrible; the ambiguous terms can be mutually exclusive or unrelated in more than one way.

"This is why the government uses both Hispanic and Latino. Hispanic and Latino are mainly interchangeable". Yes, to ignorant people who think these are racial terms. Another reason why it's a terrible title.

3 hours later

"Since you have issues with this article, I clearly want to know if you have issues with Black Hispanic and Latino Americans article, too?" I spent over 3 hours going over both articles and realized my real objection is that people use "Hispanic" and "Latino" as racial terms, but both articles clearly state neither is an indication of race, and they are pretty good if you can accept American has multiple meanings, so I guess the only remaining objection is that Latino is often associated with Chicano Nationalism and racial politics. But that's irrelevant to our current discussion and can be addressed if it comes up. My sincere apologies for the personal attacks. If anyone wants to pursue this further, or tear me apart, feel free to visit my talk page. Deepstratagem (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


I'm sorry but in most languages "America" refers to the continent: it is the original meaning. saying "America" just for the USA is a shortening of "united states of America" and has a different meaning than "America", the same way "Europe" might be wrongly used as "European union". Actually Europe is NOT the European union but much wider, the same way there are other countries in America than the USA; and a lot of them are populated by hispanic and latino Americans... who have never put the foot on the USA's ground.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%A9rica http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%A9rique http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americhe http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%A9rica http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika etc. you could spend your time to look at all languages and realise that "America" is a continent, not the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's replace most of these entertainers

Let's each replace one of these images with that of someone in a profession other than acting, singing, or modeling, whenever we can. Little by little we'll get it done. SamEV (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is a joke, Anthony Quinn is NOT white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.56.140 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Although calling the article a joke isn't constructive at all, I did check Anthony Quinn's page, and it states his mother was of Aztec ancestry. His grandfather on his father's side was Irish, but should he still be included? Kman543210 (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I myself wouldn't have added him, and would not protest his replacement. SamEV (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object to me removing it right away without replacing it yet? If we agree that it might not be the the most appropriate, I think it would be best to just remove it, but I don't have any ideas on what to replace it with. Kman543210 (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not sure if you should, for style reasons, as it would leave a hole. But why don't you try and find a replacement at List of Mexican Americans (I started a topic and named names above), or List of Hispanic and Latino Americans, in case you can't find a Mexican American? SamEV (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

i agree anthony quinn is not white hispanic his mother is of 100% aztec ancestry which makes him half white and half native american so he belongs in the mestizo article not here--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed his picture. I didn't know what picture could replace him, so feel free to add someone if you think another one needs to be there. Kman543210 (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

i guess we could use this chance to find a non entertainer white hispanic for quinn's spot--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Music to my ears. Or eyes, rather. :) SamEV (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

im trying to look for somebody non entertainer american from Uruguay decent because they are not represented on here or the white latin american page i think, and they have a very large white majority of 88% they are only second in that deptpartment to agentina so there has got to be a noteable white hispanic with roots from that country--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out Commons' Uruguay category.
But there is an Uruguayan model in
White Latin American
.

SamEV (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If there are only entertainers available for some Hispanic groups, then all the entertainer pics will have to come from those groups, while all the non-entertainers will be from the other groups. SamEV (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry my mistake there is a uruguyan desent in the white latin american article i see about her very sad story--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I see SamEV want to change the images in this page. I disagree with this because it is hard to find White Hispanics who are not in the field of entertainment. Let me remind you first that this page has to do with Hispanics in the United States so I don't know why are you all mentioning Uruguay. Let me go back to my reason of opposing this change. Most White Hispanics that are not in the entertainment field are predominantly Cubans. There was agruments when this page use to be filled with Cubans, I too did not like that overrepresentation of Cubans. I say just leave this page as is. Since it was I who place most of the images in the "Notable White Hispanic" section, it was difficult to find White Hispanics from separate nationalities. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

no you have misunderstood what i have said i said i would like to see a noteable uruguyan-american somebody with roots from there and i thought there was not one on the white latin american but samev has pointed out there is one ,i just thought it important that country be represented being it has almost 90% white population,But i agree with you with cubans it hard because cubans have very deep roots in america--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Lehoi, `no, because it's difficult` is not really a valid reason to oppose diversifying these pictures. You can opt out of the effort if you want (please don't). Besides, there's no rush; it's just something we should undertake going forward - it doesn't have to be done this month or this season (summer). My suggestion was and is that whenever we happen to come across a non-entertainer white Hispanic's image, we should add it here. That's all. SamEV (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rita Moreno?

Really? SamEV (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

i dont get it--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I mean, do we really have evidence of her self-ID, ancestry, or classification to put her in this article? She's in the gallery. SamEV (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

i mean she looks like an everyday white person but as far as i know there is no source for her so im not going to argue to keep her in the gallery--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

EVERY non-black Latino apparently looks like a white person to you. You don't even know what the hell you're talking about. "Everyday white person"...what the hell ? Someone hasn't watched West Side Story. Stop passing off your fantasies as facts. 74.69.64.52 (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The reason I put her there because I was having problem with an anon who placed her and removed Julie Gonzalo (before her picture was deleted in Commons) [13]. I put her and other three people to give a balance in the gallery [14].
If you can find anyone better to replace her, I have no problems with that. But looking in Moreno's Filmography, she was cast in White roles. Lehoiberri (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to start verifying these people starting tomorrow. Either of you want to help? I'll start with Rita Moreno. I'll do some searches for info about her self-ID or about her ancestry. I propose a one-week time limit, after which we'll keep only the people we've verified, but only if there's enough for at least one row (i.e. 4 pictures). If we don't have enough, we eliminate the gallery until we have enough verified people. If either of you or anyone else wants to help me, just choose a name and post it here. And whether you're for or against, let me know. SamEV (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

i mean i get what your saying and you are right but i believe we will run into problems trying to verify everybody's ancestry(for a matter of fact verifying anybody's ancestry regardless ethnic background is hard) and even harder to catch people proclaiming they are white the only real way is to come to a consenusus on phenotype by editors, i don't think people could challenge people like christina aguilera or alexis bledel being white with a straight face but if not that get rid of pics all together and there would be no problems with this--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, self-ID is the difficult one to come by. But we read about people's ancestry fairly often. For example, a source might say '
Spanish American. SamEV (talk
) 04:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Another example: you've probably read that Martin Sheen is of Irish and Spanish parentage. If that's in a reliable source, that's all we need to verify him. Both are categorized as European/Caucasian/White ethnicities. SamEV (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow, it's been 11 days already... I've postponed action on the gallery until next month. I want to use my Wikitime on other articles and issues that I think are more pressing for now. SamEV (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

While this article is BS and shows that some people are very desperate to be white thinking that it wil give them a better position in life, the best way to go about this to list the one's who are regarded as white - by whites. The best way to find out is if they are actors who play the roles of whites. If they are famous people who are mentioned with whites and not hispanics. People who in interviews, are never talked about or asked questions from a hispanic point of view AND if they dod not mention it themselves. The only problem, if they did not mention it themselves, it may mean that they want to be white. Lastly, if they are mentioned as hispanics on hispanic TV - then they are not white! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.233.203 (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In the United States...

I agree with the first part of this edit by M5891: In the United States...

The Black Hispanic and Latino Americans article starts the same way and sets the tone for the page, whereas Latino Americans in the title, while legitimate, has the potential to be confused as Latin Americans.

Deepstratagem (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am unhappy with the current name and propose we try to fond a better one for the reason you describe. Thanks,
SqueakBox
00:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
"whereas Latino Americans in the title, while legitimate, has the potential to be confused as Latin Americans."
The potentiality for confusion exists for a lot of things. This article even starts with a dab link directing people to the
White Latin American article if that's what they're looking for. Did you notice? SamEV (talk
) 03:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Let us consider that every article of this content, that is, an article about a group of people, begins with a rather formal and explanatory introduction to clearly let the reader know just what the article is about.

Also realize that not all people who could be identified as White would use that particular label, perhaps preferring the term Caucasian for instance. That is why it is necessary to indicate that such people are classified as such by Census taking organizations.

Also be aware that there is really no such thing as a monolithic Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, since many nations of the Hispanophone Americas are composed of people of different ethnic backgrounds. That is why it is also necessary to indicate that this ethnic label is used by the Census taking organizations.

One a final note, the links White and Hispanic and Latino should redirect to the articles about those categories. Thank you. M5891 (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You write: "Let us consider that every article of this content, that is, an article about a group of people, begins with a rather formal and explanatory introduction to clearly let the reader know just what the article is about."
Actually, every article must begin that way, per
WP:LS
.
You write: "Also realize that not all people who could be identified as White would use that particular label, perhaps preferring the term Caucasian for instance. That is why it is necessary to indicate that such people are classified as such by Census taking organizations. [] Also be aware that there is really no such thing as a monolithic Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, since many nations of the Hispanophone Americas are composed of people of different ethnic backgrounds. That is why it is also necessary to indicate that this ethnic label is used by the Census taking organizations."
Good points. Let's work on adding mention of the US Govt origins of those labels.
You write: "One a final note, the links White and Hispanic and Latino should redirect to the articles about those categories."
Yes, and their article is
White American, Hispanic, and Latino
are not as strictly about Census categories as are those articles.
Also, saying that they 'are officially classified' is incorrect, since the way it works is through self-identification — Which means people classify themselves. Your formulation would only apply to the people who are re-categorized from "some other race" to white, who don't compose the majority of WHLAs (White Hispanic and Latino Americans). SamEV (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I meant that the links should lead to the respective articles, that is White should preferably link to
White American and Hispanic and Latino should lead to Hispanic and Latino Americans. M5891 (talk
) 22:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
First, there's something I have to explain to you. You're making non-trivial changes to the article's disputed content in the middle of the discussion. That's a no-no around here. I don't know if you're trying to prove something, but I'm betting that such behavior will prove counterproductive. Negotiations are suppose to take place on the talk page, not the article.
About your clarification, I understand it, and I guess I can accept such a change. But I'd like to hear your reply to my reply to your other concerns first. SamEV (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding, "Also, saying that they 'are officially classified' is incorrect, since the way it works is through self-identification — Which means people classify themselves." That's not strictly true if you are referring to the U.S. census, because the options provided form a false multilemma. Thus, if you select Hispanic, you are grouped with "Latinos", since they are classified as a group. And regardless of your choice, you can't specify whether you consider yourself Hispanic by ancestry, culture, or language. Furthermore, Latino is grammatically incorrect in Spanish (when used to refer to women), and a neologism when it doesn't relate to Latin America. Deepstratagem (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
"You're making non-trivial changes to the article's disputed content in the middle of the discussion."
You have been doing just that.
I have provided clear explanation for the change to the first paragraph but rather than clearly explain the reasoning behind your changes, you have made mostly critical comments about my statements. Please provide a rational explanation for your persistent revisions. M5891 (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
You know, I have an innocent question: are you two by any chance one and the same editor, with two accounts? It's not illegal, so I hope you don't get all indignant on me. A mere "yes" or "no" should do.
No, but it's nice to see other people agree with me.
"Thus, if you select Hispanic, you are grouped with "Latinos", since they are classified as a group."
And? You the respondent still have to mark the box. Hence you're classifying yourself.
Sort of like voting on a butterfly ballot. You selected an unwanted category, but it was still you who selected it.
One could say that, yes.
"And regardless of your choice, you can't specify whether you consider yourself Hispanic by ancestry, culture, or language."
Please... What's the point of that? What? We're discussing the narrow subject of SELF-ID. The words appear on the form. You have the option of marking or not marking them if, based on whatever your idea of what they mean, whether or not you did your homework and looked up the Census Bureau's definition, you think they apply to you or not. That's what we're discussing. Please stay on topic.
I'm just saying the word means different things to different people. I remember filling out forms that give you the options: Hispanic, White (non-Hispanic), etc. By the government's definition you couldn't be Hispanic and White, so what do you choose if you are not allowed to select both? You could select both, which might delay processing your information, or you could select Other, which is misleading and inaccurate if it excludes you from either category.
You say that "By the government's definition you couldn't be Hispanic and White" When was that?! You may have misremembered. The label Hispanic only began to be used in the 1970s and from the get-go it has been made clear that it is NOT a race, and therefore Hispanic respondents have always been allowed the option to also mark a race, any race. Maybe those weren't govt forms you're describing.
Surveys given to me in schools, DMV licensing, etc... Some may not have been government forms; you are right. Deepstratagem (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
"Furthermore, Latino is grammatically incorrect in Spanish (when used to refer to women)..."
This word is used as a borrowing into the English language, Deepstratagem. You do know that borrowing happens, right? It's an English word, I'll say it again.
Borrowing words is not an excuse for laziness, ignorance, and inaccuracy.
But whose laziness, etc are you referring to? I hope not mine. I've put in a lot of time wading through many a Census Bureau document so I can bring as much clarity as I can to these articles. But of course, maybe it's the govt you're accusing of laziness? Is that the case?
Mostly that of self-proclaimed Latinos. Deepstratagem (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I resent that comment. :( SamEV (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
and a neologism when it doesn't relate to Latin America."
Then don't relate it to Latin America! Who's asking you to? The word is used in the US, by the Census Bureau, and is applied to inhabitants of the US.
Nobody is asking me to, except even in English it has multiple meanings, one of which is to be understood as an adjectivization for Latin American.
And another thing: WP's anti-neologism policy is directed at editors, not against outside sources. The govt uses "Latino"; no WP editor made up the word. So there's no neologism as far as WP is concerned.
I see your point. You are right. Deepstratagem (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: editing the lead as we discuss, Deepstratagem, I certainly have made changes to the lead (and I'm not even counting revertions). But show me the diff of any change which was not trivial. I changed "White Hispanic" and "White Latino" to the article's title, exactly as recommended in
WP:LEAD
. So please, show me the money.
I'm not sure what this is in reference to, so I'll assume it was intended for M5891. I'm not complaining about your changes; in fact, I haven't been monitoring the article. Deepstratagem (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
You're quite correct, it should have been directed at M5891.
And thanks for fixing those typos. And thanks for discussing like a civilized human being, on the talk page. SamEV (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
You, too. Deepstratagem (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
M5891, I ask you again to respond to my reply to you. You have no reply, is that it? You're trying to evade it, is that it? SamEV (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Here's the definition of "Hispanic or Latino" from the Census Bureau[15]: "Hispanic or Latino origin: For Census 2000, American Community Survey: People who identify with the terms "Hispanic" or "Latino" are those who classify themselves in one of the specific Hispanic or Latino categories listed on the Census 2000 or ACS questionnaire - "Mexican," "Puerto Rican," or "Cuban" - as well as those who indicate that they are "other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino." Origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person's parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. People who identify their origin as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino may be of any race." I put a couple of words in boldface which you might find interesting. SamEV (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Deepstratagem is at it again. Like I told you last time this is Wikipedia English. Latino is a word in the United States to describe people who is from Latin America, or people of Latin American descent. It is used in the census. I don't know what is your problem with the word Latino, Deepstratagem, but Wikipedia is not a forum to speak out against your opinion on the word Latino. See:

WP:NOTFORUM. Like I told you before, this word is common among the American-born English-speaking Hispanics. Funny though, I do hear the word Latino in alot of Spanish music, and these musicians are Latin American-born and raised. Lehoiberri (talk
) 23:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Common and in official use, no less. SamEV (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
All I said was that I agree with the edit by M5891. "Latino in alot of Spanish music, and these musicians are Latin American-born and raised" They wouldn't say Latino. They would say Latina and it would be short for Latinoamericana as in Música Latinoamericana. Deepstratagem (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
No you are wrong, they do not say Latina, they say Latino. In Spanish, when being gender neutral, the masculine version is used. So its Latino, not Latina. They only use Latina when they are talking about a woman. I thought you probably should know that already. Lehoiberri (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm taking the liberty of discussing this tangential issue on your talk page. Deepstratagem (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

So rather than present any intelligent, clear rationale, the one contributor has chosen to hyperventilate immature nonsense.

As I have stated, both White Hispanic and White Latino Americans are, simply put, White Americans whose ancestry or national origins can be traced to Spain or the Hispanophone Americas. You can't get any more clear than that. Besides, the revision which I have presented is, according to other contributors of this discussion, preferred over the one defended by the opposing editor.

However, that same opposing revision has remained since my last revision nearly two weeks ago, implying either that other editors are waiting for me to change it back again or that it is not a very important issue to other editors and readers. I would like to see a different editor present opposing rationale in order to be convinced that the opposing revision is more valid.

I unfortunately cannot be on Wikipedia every waking moment of the day so it may take a while for me to respond to questions and comments. M5891 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's too bad you seem allergic to civilized discussion.
As you might have expected, I undid your edit.
When you adjust your attitude and are ready to engage us in mature discussion I, for one, will be here.
BTW, accusing me and the others of bad faith behavior without proof violates
WP:CIVIL. SamEV (talk
) 22:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not too keen on your hypocritical behavior. It seems to have gotten to where you undo my contributions without any validity and then accuse me of the same bad faith. Please follow your own advise. Thank you. M5891 (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Still not discussing civilly, nor civilezedly.
Personal attacks won't achieve your desired results. SamEV (talk
) 22:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

False accusations in addition to personal attacks help no one.

I shall attempt to once again explain the appropriateness of the proposed revision as opposed to the inadequacies of the current one.

Linking both "White" and "Hispanic and Latino" to the same article when they are in the same sentence is redundant. Also, the linked article is about Race and ethnicity in general, as opposed to the respective articles each providing in-depth descriptions of White Americans, Hispanic, and Latino, although the last two could both alternatively link to the Hispanic and Latino Americans article.

As previously stated by Deepstratagem, running "Latino Americans" immediately after "White Hispanic" in the introductory may cause confusion among readers. Other articles often dissect the main title in the introductory to provide simplified or expanded or other alternative titles or terms. Hence, breaking down the main title White Hispanic and Latino Americans into White Hispanic Americans and White Latino Americans in the opening sentence would be acceptable.

Also, beginning with "White Hispanic and Latino Americans describes..." makes the article appear to focus more on the label rather than the people it is referring to.

I must also mention that at least two other editors in this discussion,

SqueakBox
, have shown approval of the proposed revision.

If I was lazy as it has falsely and ardently been insisted, I would not be researching or sourcing new or missing information, or partaking in this or any discussion, much less opening new discussions or authoring new articles.

Nay, I am here to improve Wikipedia, not overthrow it. Thank you once again. M5891 (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"False accusations in addition to personal attacks help no one."
Exactly. Please heed your own advice there.
"Linking both "White" and "Hispanic and Latino" to the same article when they are in the same sentence is redundant."
They have to link to the articles that define them, and it so happens that there is one article that defines them both.
"Also, the linked article is about Race and ethnicity in general, as opposed to the respective articles each providing in-depth descriptions of White Americans, Hispanic, and Latino, although the last two could both alternatively link to the Hispanic and Latino Americans article."
The linked article is not about "Race and ethnicity in general". It is about
Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, so it best explains what "white" and "Hispanic or Latino" mean in the United States. That's why I think it a better choice than Hispanic and even Latino
, even though the latter does deal mostly with usage in the U.S. This article is very specifically about a United States ethnic grouping.
"Hence, breaking down the main title White Hispanic and Latino Americans into White Hispanic Americans and White Latino Americans..."
My main objection to using "White Hispanic American" and "White Latino American" is that they are prescriptive. (Prescription was one of Deepstratagem's concerns, too.) Google "White Hispanic American" and you'll get very few actual hits for the exact expression; most of the 361 hits are for similar juxtapositions of the terms, but with intervening commas, or dashes/hyphens, whatever. (For example: "[...] White, Hispanic American, [...]") "White Latino American" will return just one (yes, one) true hit out of a grand total of 26.[16] By contrast, we can't go wrong by just repeating the article's title in the first sentence. The title is merely descriptive: "White Hispanic and Latino Americans" = Hispanic and Latino Americans who are white. So if you agree to leave the first paragraph as it currently is, I agree to link "Hispanic and Latino" to "Hispanic and Latino Americans". Deal?
"Also, beginning with "White Hispanic and Latino Americans describes..." makes the article appear to focus more on the label rather than the people it is referring to."
I understand. But it's a price worth paying in order to avoid those other pitfalls. SamEV (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"The linked article is not about "Race and ethnicity in general". It is about

Race and ethnicity in the United States Census
."

That is what I meant.

If leaving the full title in the first sentence is what is currently preferred, then so be it, but this issue will likely rise again later.

However, a more summarized version still is necessary. The following paragraph explains the ambiguity of Race and ethnicity as it is perceived in the United States, therefore, making it unnecessary in the first paragraph. M5891 (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity? Maybe "complexity" is more apt.
But anyway, that's a good edit. SamEV (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

On the images

I've started verifying these people's ancestry, so if anyone has any sources, please, post them. SamEV (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

i got rid of the gallery added more to the info box, many are sourced now, the rest in the info box i will try and find mores sources and pick out a few more from where i can find sources to even out the info box photos also if i screwd up the formatting can somebody fix it please im not good at that--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

one more thing the couple that are still in the info box without a source ,i left them because those i believe wont be to hard in the future to find a source about them being white but if i cant find soon i will remove though--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Mexican American's and Chileans Americans more White?

The paragraphs regarding Mexicans and Chileans being more white if they are from the U.S can be a bit misleading given the fact that the US census considers everyone who checks the Mexican box in the 2000 U.S census box or that they are from Chile will be automatically counted as White, even if they are not. In reality for example, a Mexican or Chilean Mestizo would technically have to check the both the White and Asian/Native American box, but the average person when asked about their ethnicity claim a Nationality like Mexican, so its really a case of Ignorance which causes many numbers to be misinterpreted. It would be important to note that fact or delete the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco (talk • contribs) 08:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

They are not automatically counted as white. They are counted as whatever race(s) they select, except that: if they select the race called "Some other race", then, in many official figures they'll be reassigned a new race; this new race is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the white race. Compare this with that. The same goes for non-Hispanics/Latinos who select "Some other race". People who only indicate a nationality go in the "Some other race" category,[17] and can subsequently be reassigned as indicated. See
Ethnic groups in the United States and Hispanic and Latino Americans#Race, which provide more sources. But this reassigning doesn't take place in the American Community Survey (the first link I gave). SamEV (talk
) 02:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no "Mexican Box" on the US census. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cuban and Chileans who emigrated to America used to belong to the white elite of their nations. The same is happening in Venezuela as the ones emigrating to the U.S. are mostly part of the white elite. Also American Arabs are overwhelmingly Christian as the majority of those who emigrated to the U.S. were Christian Maronite Lebanese, or Koptic Egyptians ore Orthodox Syrians. So, yes, the majority of Arabs who emigrated to America were part of their Christian minority. --88.24.243.32 (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Definition of White

You are actually pretty wrong I know bunch of Mexicans who look like they are from England! This is because we are Mexicans who's ancestors came from Europe and DID NOT MIX. My family is one of them. We are SPanish Mexican and all of our inmediate family members ARE white, In Latin America if your white its b/c your white. You swear like all of us mixed not every Spaniard enjoyed indian women, usually Spanish men liked the milky complexioned women. I am a light brown haird, green eyed Mexican while my mom also a Spanish Italian Mexican is blonde and green eyed as well, my father is a Portuguese-Spanish-German-French Mexican who also has brown hair and blue eyed. In Jalisco, at least the white mexicans' intermediate family is always white, get educated please. Also the person who wrote in wikipedia being in Mexico the white% is not between 9-16%, that is just the actuall full Spanish Mexicans, please add all the other European Mexicans, ie German Mexican, English Mexican, Italian Mexican French Mexicans, Danish Mexicans, Russian Mexicans. Plus the castizos who are mostly white, the white % of Mexicano should really be around 61% or so. I know in Jalisco people of color are a minority. This is the same trend in almost 9 states so how can it only be 9-16% the numbers dont add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.183.241 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

HMMMM...

First off in Mexico each person is classified as either white, black, mestizo, castizo, native american etc, now why people and even organisations claim there is no such racial breakdown is a lie, because its specifically in the census. Did you know there parts of Mexico that is whiter than Argentina? If you ask someone in Europe lets say England and say what is a Mexican persons race? They will respond: It depends, what they are, ie of the Spanish (white)....etc. All of my grandparents are European, the Spanish families have a complete genealogy from their arrival to the present day so we can easily check if we do have "indian blood" In Mexico to clear it off, whites tend to marry whites because in Mexico the more white you are the better you are. I look way whiter than the average anglo kid down the street, thats pretty white. Ive been told I look swedish but thats a weird one. Im not saying all of Mexico is white b/c its not, but Im tired of hearing "oh mexicans arent even close to being white" My Dna is the same as an anglo". People of England originally came from either two places, present day Spain (Iberia) or Germany. Same thing with Spaniards we originally come from Germany, hence why all Europeans have the same DNA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.183.241 (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


In the above diatribe the author is bitterly trying to explain that as a Non-Indian, he or she does not want to be classified as anything but rather a person of European ancestry. Apparently, the author opts to remain as Mexican because somehow this plays into some imaginary sense of superiority to the indigenous population. This whole argument and its author are worthy of pitty, and I am saddened by the ignorance, as it reflects the many years of imaginary and forcibly imposed sense of white supremacy. The fact of the matter is that if you take the time to research history you will find that all of this is unfounded idiocy. I am of Cuban ancestry, most people don't always readily assume that I am Hispanic, however my Y DNA is of Eastern Mediterranean origin....and perhaps "NOT WHITE"...I am simply a human being of Cuban ancestry, and my culture is reflective of the very important contributions of the people that make up the fabric of the Cuban people, and yes, this includes the Africans and the Chinese...68.192.102.247 (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.102.247 (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Jennifer Lopez White?

If she's not white, what race is she? 201.42.211.180 (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

How about mixed? If you find yurslf asking what someone is, the answer is - they are mixed. Believe it or not, it is the most common thing amongst Latin Americans next to baby-making, which kind of goes together... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.233.203 (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

judge

yeah that new court judge looks pretty white Sonia Sotomayor is she a white hispanic????--Sitinginapark (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

She's a very light-skinned Afro-Latina.--Marenach (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think her mother is a Spanish Puerto Rican and her father might be a Black Puerto Rican. The white skin has to come obviously from European. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caminosoto (talk • contribs) 02:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

How about those eyse? What about her mother's nose? Are those European? Clealry her thinking is not of from a white perspective or famouc comments would not have been made...

This entire page is an embarrassement to Wikipedia, and should be eliminated. It is full of confusion or just plain ignorance. Before the Spaniard came to the New World, his lands were influenced and settled by Visigoths, Romans, Greeks, Phoenicians, Moors, Arabs, Sephardim, and Gypsies. Some of these groups are not considered "White" and yes, they were/are Spanish. The Iberian Peninsula, as part of the the Roman Empire, and previously in its history, was an old world melting pot. Later, Latin America was also the target of immigration and emmigration, as this also further dilutes the man made concept of race based on the color of skin. Figure this, I am of Cuban ancestry, with Eastern Mediterranean DNA, a Spanish surname, and a mulatto grandmother. I usually pass for someone of Middle Eastern ancestry, but as far as I know, most of my family came from somewhere in Spain or the Canary Islands. In terms of this White Hispanic and Latino Americans page I recommend that Wikipedia create a separate site for all of this subjective and oftentimes confusing and potentially incorrect opinions. References to topics that are not based on sound science, or actual historial evidence, should not be permitted or be legitimized as they are simply disturbances of mind, and negatively effect Wikipedia's reputation as a useful source of knowledge. 68.192.102.247 (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.102.247 (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(Stavans and Florian)

Why does it say a picture of Ilan Stavans is kenny florian in the picture to the right of the heading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.40.18 (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

kenny florian

looks like hes from moroco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.36.29 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Cuban Guy

Eastern mediterreans are white im not sure why people keep arguing. All Europeans are white thats it. From Armenia to England from Norway to Italy, from Portugal to Greece. People dont even know what Hispanic or latino really means they do not exist anymore. Hispanics were the original people of Spain but when the goths came they wiped them out. Latinos are from Latinus in Italy and were wiped out with the romans though their cultrue and language survived. Hispanic is not even a race, its like saying all english speakers are Anglo. I know white english speakers will dislike calling blacks anglo or indians. Same thing with hispanic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.189.170 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when is Salma Hayek White?

My God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.158.246.151 (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Spaniards and White Hispanics are the same

Ethnically, the Spaniards and White Hispanics are the same, because the White Hispanics are pure or mostly Spanish ancestry. As Italians and Italian Americans or English people and English Americans are the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paracelso86 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hispanic whites are of diverse ancestries, incluiding Italian, Slavic, Middle Eastern and Caucasian. That's why your stance is incorrect. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 01:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And that is why the Hispanic term is flawed badly. Because the real Hispanics are the Spaniards or Iberian. And not everybody from Latin America or a country formally ruled by Spain has Spaniard or Iberian ancestry. So how are they Hispanic? Because Language? Well than everybody who speaks English is British. The USA should abolish the ethnicity from the census. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret killer (talk • contribs) 04:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

To the above contributor, the term "Hispanic" is indeed flawed, but so is your reasoning. "Hispanic" means more than just language, it also means culture and national origin (or national origin of one's parents or ancestors). As such, anyone whose primary language is Spanish OR whose forbears came from a Spanish-speaking country could theoretically identify or be identified as Hispanic. Your British analogy is wrong because Spanish and Hispanic are different. An English-speaking group analogous to Hispanics would be comprised of the entire populations of the UK, US, Canada (with the exception of Quebec), Australia, and every other Anglophone country, regardless of race or other factors. But you wouldn't call all these people British, because most of them are not actually from Britain, just as most Hispanics aren't from Spain. Hispanic Americans could therefore identify as part of both groups (from an English-speaking country yet in some way Hispanic in ancestry). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.168.77.113 (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Selma Hayek

Selma Hayek is not a white Latina. Where did this assumption come from? She doesn't eve look white at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.171.40 (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Selma Hayek has more indigenous blood if anything. This whole thing about Middle Easterners being white is flawed. Many of them don't even see themselves as white people. That's like saying that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.171.40 (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

How is Selma Hayek not White? Not all White people are pale. Many are tan just go to any nation along the Med. Sea. Also she is half Lebonese and even considering that Lebonese/Arab is not a race either. She's White with Med. features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.45.60 (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What indigenous are you talking about? She doesn't have indigenous Mexican blood. Her father is Lebanese and her mother is a Spaniard. Please enlighten us how she has indigenous Mexican blood? Not every body in Mexico that has olive skin and is not pale have indigenous blood. I can give you a picture test and I bet you wouldn't know which are indigenous and which are not. I bet you think Don Fransisco is indigenous but both of his parents were German Jewish immigrants. Secret killer (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

  • in latin america, mestizos are "whites".. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.202.63 (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In Latin American mestizos are white?..dont think so..otherwise they would be seen as the same as argentines which most arnt. Salma is Mediteranean..wheather born in Mexico or not... look at these photos of her looking natural.Picture, Picture 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.175.247 (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a very honest question (no trolling, I swear): as far as I understand, if somebody was of White-WASP descent, except for only one ancestor in their family tree being, say, indigenous or black or you name it, they're automatically labeled as indigenous or black, right? (Like when they say that Bill Richardson is Latino or that Halle Berry is Black). However if you're of 99% Black or Indigenous descent except for a tiny 1% white, that doesn't make you white, does it? Why is that?--Superflicka (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a clash between the American understanding of race and the Latin-American and European one. For Americans one drop of non-white blood theoretically excludes an individual from being white, whereas in Latin America and Europe appearance is the key. Also Europeans consider Arabs to be white if they are white-skinned and show no sub-saharan facial features. In answer to a question above, most Europeans if asked whether Saddam Hussain was white would say "yes", whereas they might think a bit longer about OBL, many would still say yes.

Boynamedsue (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Bill Richardson is LATINO because LATINO and HISPANIC is an ethnicity, this damn article even says you can be WHITE and LATINO. I'm getting tired of idiot foreigners thinking anyone in America cares about the one drop law. Next you'll tell me that all Americans are prohibitionists or something moronic. Halle Berry is not white because she does not look white, at all, and she is half-black which makes her a black. Go complain elsewhere if you're a latin american mulatto desperate to be considered white. Arabs are also considered white in the USA, and because of our assimilation they also act like whites. In the age of being minority= getting free stuff from government some arabs want to be reclassified as a middle eastern race, but there's simply no support for it. 76.78.244.111 (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that angry person, and well done for taking caps lock off before typing. No personal attacks please. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If it were about ethnicity as you say, which are the criteria to split hispanic from the other white? Why not to classify white in germanic, slavic, celtic, mediterranian (i.e. French, Italian, Greek, Albanian, Spaniard and Portuguese), baltic and fino-ugrian? Most hispanic don't look nordic, however some white from the USA looks like average middle class South American, for instance, Sheldon, Leonard, Howard and Raj of Big Bang theory Hlnodovic (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not all Hispanics are 100 percent

Some of these White Hispanics have a parent of non-Spanish (i.e. English, German, Irish, etc. ancestry). For example, Martin Sheen(he was born Ramon Estevez) had a Spanish father and Irish mother. God bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.115.152 (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have many friends with multi-racial backgrounds, and often families. This article seems to focus too much on the issue of color, an important issue to many people for sure but not the only thing to talk about in an article on such a large group of people. BigJim707 (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see big jim just wanted to make a post because he wanted his words to appear on his screen, since he added nothing to the conversation. Irish and Spanish is not multiracial, you dumb hick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.244.111 (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Hispanic-Americans.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hispanic-Americans.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 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 --

talk
) 23:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Religion

I noticed that religion is not mentioned in the article itself, although it is in the info box. I am sure that this must be a factor in the discussion of intermarriage. That is most Catholics would tend to marry other Catholics, that being another important factor besides race or skin color which the article focuses on. BigJim707 (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

56% of Mexican Americans Are White?

56% of Mexican Americans white? Get out of here. California & Texas both have the majority of America's hispanics. They are mostly Mestizos from Mexico NOT WHITE or from Spain. Mestizos are mixed and often look much closer to their native side than they do their Spaniards. Selecting pictures of white people will not change the truth. The majority of Mexican-Americans ARE NOT WHITE. The whites in America are Germans, English, Irish, Scottish, Spaniards (if there are even any left), French, Scandinavians, Russians, Polish, Italian and the list goes on NOT MEXICANS. Whites don't even make a large dent in Mexico's population. This page just further proves to me, that America as a whole is losing its idea of race. It's already bad enough people ignorantly call Hispanic a race, although Hispania is in Spain which is in Europe, making the Spaniards still white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:211E:22A4:E7E8:32B3 (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 90% of Mexicans have White ancestors (mostly from Spain) Not only white ancestors, but ALSO white ancestors, so I don´t know why you want to deny that reality. Most Mexicans have white and Native ancestors. In Northern Mexico, in fact, the white side is bigger than in Southern Mexico. In the U.S. many Mexican immigrants arrived from Northern Mexico where there is an important proportion of whites. What is wrong is saying "Some Other Race" as almost half of Mexican Americans say, denying their White and Native ancestry. In most cases, those who answer "Some Other Race" look more Indian while those who answer "White" look more European...the degree of mixture is different. Also in the article about White Brazilians you can read that most white Brazilians have some black ancestors while most black Brazilians have some white ancestors even if on average the ethnic composition of Brazilians is over 80% white.--88.8.210.171 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Has it occurred to both of you illustrious morons that you don't see the white Mexicans because they are white and you in fact cannot pick them out of a crowd of white people based on looks alone? OH MAN WHY ARE ALL THESE WHITE PEOPLE IN SPAIN WHERE ARE ALL THE MEXICANS? Also one drop rule is outdated and stupid and anyone who still adheres to it is free to go back to youroup. Also white Mexicans are in fact as much of Mexico's population as black Americans are of America's population, so I guess according to you geniuses black Americans are now irrelevant. 64.189.66.167 (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Rita Hayworth

People really need to check terminology before putting information like the follow up "American movie legend Rita Hayworth, born Margarita Carmen Cansino, was Hispanic via her father, flamenco dancer Eduardo Cansino, Sr., from Seville;"

Someone from spain is NOT hispanic, they are Spanish. Rita Hayworth's father would not be a "white hispanic" he would be White, period. He was from Spain, which is Europe, not Latin America. Fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.43.255.2 (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course people from Spain are hispanic, both from a historical point of view and according to the US Census Bureau. 83.165.204.154 (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe there are people who don't understand "HISPANIC, LATINO OR SPANISH" that appears on the census. White people from spain are hispanic, they invented hispanic. This article is pretty much pointless anyway, because as the number of hispanics eligible for free stuff from the government increases the pressure will increase until the government is forced to abolish hispanic as an ethnicity and replace it with mestizo as a race, leading to all the white hispanics becoming "just white". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.244.111 (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hispanic is a racist term invented for those who consider people of Spanish or Portuguese lastname as second class white. It is ridiculous to classify people of germanic, nordic, slavic, Italian, Greek, Albanian and French origin as white and exclude people from Spain and Portugal Hlnodovic (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)(UTC)

While one could consider hispanic a racist invented term since LBJ only created hispanic because he wanted to get more minorities to vote Democrat but didn't have minorities on hand, so decided to invent one I'd say its more just stupid right now. 64.189.66.167 (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The english word Hispanic derive from the spanish term "Hispano America" (Hispanic America), but the meaning is not the same in ordinary usage. For a spanish spoken person, hispanic is sinonimous of hispanic american in ordinary usage, and hispanic american are those american countries that were spanish colonies and the people who are from those countries and speak spanish. So a Hispanic is not a spanish (spaniard) in ordinary usage, hispanic is a person who was born in a country that was a colony of spain and spanish (spaniard) is a person who was born in Spain. This term (hispanic) means another thing in english and this is why there is some confusion with the term. If you call hispanic to a person that was born in Spain, in ordinary usage it is the same that if you call american to a person that was born in england. — Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures comment added by 87.223.123.186 (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Predominant Languages: American English and Spanglish?

Why is American English listed as the predominant language?

Firstly, what makes us Hispanic/Latino is that we come from a Spanish-speaking country. Secondly, if English is listed, why not German, French, Italian, Swedish, Portuguese, etc etc as well? I feel that this is the typical American bias/ego, making US center of the world and the only place we live in and move to. We're spread out all over the world, and our heritage is predominantly Spanish and Portuguese, as well as French, Italian, and German. Mine, personally, is Spanish, Swedish, and French.

Our predominant language, by the pure definition of "Hispanic" is Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.229.160 (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a demographic group within the United States. We speak English in the United States, not German, Swedish, etc. This article discusses ancestry, not language. Besides, there is no rule or law declaring that you automatically have to speak whatever language your ancestors did.
Furthermore, Latino is not exclusive for Spanish-speaking. That is just the sociopolitical definition unique to the U.S. media and Census. Brazilians and Haitians are also Latino. 2600:100C:B103:DA58:D8F8:9647:C69:EAC6 (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Original Research Template

This article appears to be largely comprised of

WP:original research, which is extremely problematic. From my understanding, "White Hispanic" is somewhat of an informal neologism. Wouldn't this article be more appropriately titled something like "Hispanics of European descent"? Plot Spoiler (talk
) 00:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No, because wikipedia does not have a page entitled "Americans of European descent". The term European does not exist in the United States for racial purposes, only white.96.231.17.247 (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Ethnicity 2000 census
  2. ^ Ethnicity City 2000 census
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans/Archive_2&oldid=1038274024"