Talk:Hispanic and Latin American Australians

message: :Dear User:LatinoAussie: As it turned out you were a suckpuppet of Cazique. It's not a surprise after all. Yet I'd like to work out some issues in order to stop this silly arguments once and for all. First your claim that I made the Hispanic/Latino naming dispute article to favour the term Hispanic is a libelous one and completely out of touch with reality. Here in Europe we don't use self-imposed apartheid words like Hispanic or Latino so it's useless for me to champion one word and reject another. The article is critical of both. Also I have anything to do with the Native American name controversy article. You can check my history. I haven't done any single edit to that page and if I mentioned it in the talk page of the former Criticism of the term Latino it was to show that such articles are not arbitrary made to push a POV. Second, I'd like to put all data as clear as possible. Here are thee points to show why the name "Latino Australian" is not a proper one for an encyclopedia.
*The term "Latino", as an English word was first used in the US. It is true that some specific set of people use the term in Spanish as a contraction of Latino-americano but its inclusion into English dictionaries started in the United States. The Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even have an entry of that word.
Sources to back up this point:
*to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. Federal Register Notice October 30, 1997
*Historical Census Statistics on Population Totals By Race, 1790 to 1990, and By Hispanic Origin, 1970 to 1990, For The United States, Regions, Divisions, and States
*American Heritage Dictionary
*A Like Affair With Words
*Latino is a U.S. construct
*The concept of “Latino” is an American concept
*Being Latino is an American identity 
*Even in the US itself the term "Latino" has been target of a vast amount of criticism. But let us not start arguments and soapboxes. Let's look up at the hard facts. The Hispanic Trends poll showed that 65 percent of the registered voters preferred Hispanic while 30 percent chose to be referred as Latinos. Also the Pew Hispanic Center poll showed that 53 percent of voters don't use either term and the rest "had a slight preference for "Hispanic" over "Latino"." Even the people involved in the 1992 Latino National Political Survey were honest enough to stand the fact that, according to their poll, 57 to 86 of the voters don't use either term.
Sources to back up this point:
*Usability for Latinos
*Hispanic spaces, Latino places: community and cultural diversity in contemporary America
*The 1992 Latino National Political Survey revealed that the majority of Hispanics actually identify themselves by national origin, i.e. Mexican, Cuban, etc. 
*In Texas, a Pew Hispanic Center poll found that 45% of Latinos prefer the term Hispanic and 8% prefer Latino. Note this leaves 47% of Latinos in Texas who prefer neither term
*Review: Other Immigrants: The Global Origins of the American People - A poll in 2000 revealed that 'Latinos' and 'Latinas' use neither term to describe themselves
*And last but very important, "Latino" is an OPTIONAL, SELF-DESCRIBING TERM. There's no official status of Latino as an umbrella term to refer to every single people from Latin America. Even its official status in the US limites to people of Latin American descent living in the US. The fact that some Latin Americans living in, say, Australia use the term to describe themselves is not an excuse to stick that tag to every Latin American on earth. There certainly may be hundreds of people who call themselves Aussi Americans or Kiwi Canadians but we all know that such terms are lightyears apart from being used as official ones, let alone encyclopedic terms. Not because some Germans nationalists  called themselves Aryans we should play their game and do the same. So please, stop your Latino propaganda.
Sources to back up this point:
*For the U.S. government and others, Hispanic or Latino identity is voluntary, as in the United States Census, and in some market research See: Hispanic and Latino Americans
*Having a Latino name, and willful and voluntary participation in Latino culture are necessary and jointly sufficient conditions of Latino identity
*“Latino” is a self-designated term by members of different subgroups
*Spanish/Hispanic/Latino is a self-designated classification
*'Latino' is a self-chosen word which has come to refer to American- born peoples of Spanish/Portuguese and/or American-Indian descent
*Latino is a self-identifying ethno-racial category
 
So User:LatinoAussie, User:TeePee-20.7 or User:Cazique or whatever you wish to be called I challenge you to debunk all these points with real sources. I have checked your history(ies) and I've found that you are a (group of) problematic user(s) who try to impose your views over other people's. I honestly don't know where this Latino nationalism comes from but it is agressive and unnecessary. We, people from the Americas, have always been target of arbitrary cultural imperialism. We have already lost the right to be called Americans due to the "American" hegemony, the Monroe doctrine, etc. Our land has been whimsically divided up in North America (to refer to the US and Canada exclusively) and Latin America (a term that originally included French-speaking Québec); and now (thanks to people like you) we are under the threat of Latino fundamentalism. Please, read some social history, cultural studies, anthropology, ethnology and sociology and stop imposing your own views.--Scandza (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please believe me, I have tried to explain these matters with TeePee, but his skull seems impervious to reason.  Kransky (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Hello Ollech, in regards to your questions, no I am not the same person who made Hispanic Australian, and before you mentioned this article I wasn't even aware of it's existence. This also striked me as odd as you have been actively making contributions to that article for a while now, but as you seem to be a new member you may not know all the little helpful features of wikipedia. By checking the history of a page you can see who created it and can verify I wasn't the user who created this page. Also from the follow up questions you have asked it seems to me you have an issue with the use of the word Latino. All these questions I will try to answer for you.
*Spaniards and Italians are not Latinos because they are European and not from Latin America.
*I can't give you the exact reference, as I no longer have access to it.
*I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this so I will leave it unanswered.
*In regards to a link there is actually a site called latinoaustralia.
*No, there is absolutely no reference of him being Latino or identifying as Latino, and I don't think anyone will ever find one judging from what was said in that article. The reason he was added is because he is from Chile, but on further revision he could be easily removed from this page.
TeePee-20.7 (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Due the debate referring to the use of the term Latino, that is explicit divided, and also respecting the page's  name, I adjusted the term Latino Australian to Latin American Australian in the first paragraph and also in the box See Also. 
Gowriter96 (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further information and end of the argument 

message: Hello TeePee-20.7, are you the same guy that made up 'Hispanic Australian'? Can you please answer, 
*why are only Latin Americans 'Latino' and why not Spaniards and Italians?
*What is the exact reference from the Census? It seems to me that you simply added up all the Latin American groups because there is no reference to 'Latino Australians'.
*Is Latino used in this page simply an extension of the American usage of Latino?
*Can you find any link that uses the term 'Latino Australians'?
*Finally, The former Prime Minister Chris Watson was born in Chile but he was of German and New Zealand descent and didn't identify himself as a Chilean and certainly not 'Latino Australian'. Do you have a reference of him being 'Latino' and or identifying as one?  
-Ollech (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Ollech, in regards to your questions, no I am not the same person who made Hispanic Australian, and before you mentioned this article I wasn't even aware of it's existence. This also striked me as odd as you have been actively making contributions to that article for a while now, but as you seem to be a new member you may not know all the little helpful features of wikipedia. By checking the history of a page you can see who created it and can verify I wasn't the user who created this page. Also from the follow up questions you have asked it seems to me you have an issue with the use of the word Latino. All these questions I will try to answer for you.
*Spaniards and Italians are not Latinos because they are European and not from Latin America.
*I can't give you the exact reference, as I no longer have access to it.
*I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this so I will leave it unanswered.
*In regards to a link there is actually a site called latinoaustralia.
*No, there is absolutely no reference of him being Latino or identifying as Latino, and I don't think anyone will ever find one judging from what was said in that article. The reason he was added is because he is from Chile, but on further revision he could be easily removed from this page.
TeePee-20.7 (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Due the debate referring to the use of the term Latino, that is explicit divided, and also respecting the page's  name, I adjusted the term Latino Australian to Latin American Australian in the first paragraph and also in the box See Also. 
Gowriter96 (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Latino Australian?

message: The term "Latino Australian" is not used - a Google search reveals websites that either have copied this or use the keywords in a different context.  Instead I propose using the term "Latin Australian", which is used in several publications found on many websites.  Comments? Kransky (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A google search reveals 439 000 hits and 616 hits with "". Even though in spanish this is maculine form I don't think we should change this to the term "Latin Australian" as this term is more controversial and would lead to further debate and less clarity on the purpose/definition of the page. Another example of, if it's not broken then don't fix it. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is "broken".  The definition "Latino Australian" does not exist, therefore a Wikipedia article should not exist in this name.  I don't understand the point you are trying to make with the 439000/616 hits - can you elaborate please?  What is controversial about "Latin Australian"? - we have Latin American Britons without any fuss and "Latin Australian" means exactly the same thing as "Latino Australian" without being gender-specific and half Spanish/half English.  And "Latin Australian" is used in a variety of writing, including academic thesises, forums and magazines (worth reading if you are interested in this subject)! Kransky (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point I'm trying to make is that it does exist and if you want to use google as a basis for your idealogy I thought I would tell you those statistics. The controversial problems that could arise due to a name change is what I alluded to in my previous comment, it would lead to less clarity on the definition. It is true the term Latin is used to refer to Latinos as a short english form not being gender specific, and that it is used in reference to Latinos such as Latin Music, Latin Dance and so on. But if we change this to "Latin" then many of the debates already associated with the use of Latin to refer to Latinos exclusively will arise. Because Latin is a language it is associated with the romance countries of Europe (Spain, Portugal, Italy, France and Romania) the clarity will be disorted and many Europeans may feel they are also Latin and might feel they are Latin Australians. "Latino Australian" is also used in a variety of writing, including academic thesises, TASA and forums (worth reading if you are interested in this subject)! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to Latin Australian? 

message: This is maximally clear, does get comparable usage according to Google, and both Latino and Latin are abbreviations of Latin American. The other terms will still work as redirects to this article. --JWB (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: We've now discussed this at Latino Canadian and moved it to Latin American Canadian. This also matches Latin American Briton. --JWB (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why complicate things? What is wrong with the current naming? To me it seems there is nothing wrong with it so why do you want it changed? TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: support rename.  Nobody says "Latino American Australian" in Australia, especially not the community itself.  In Australia we have the Latin American Association of WA Inc, the Latin American Dance Association, the Latin American Cultural Association, theSydney Latin American Film Festival, theLatin American Association and the NSW Spanish and Latin American Association for Social Assistance.     Kransky (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to Latin American Australian? 

message: ::You guys should note this: "Latino" is a 100 percent US-manufactured word. Many self-proclaimed "Latinos" simply take it for granted that we, people from Latin America, accept that arbitrary and whimsical label. As a Mexican living in Europe I have always detested the way people start using American words like "Latino" to tag people. LATINO IS A WORD USED TO DESCRIBE A SPECIFIC SET OF PEOPLE: This is "People of Latin American descent living in the US who happen to share such and such cultural patterns and identities". Beyond that "Latino" is an abusive term. You User:LatinoAussie says that this guy has labelled your "community". What an irony!!! You people, boosters and fosterers of "Latino" are the ones who, irrespectable of what people think, promote your stereotype-loaded terms. See: Hispanic/Latino naming dispute--Scandza (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latino is a US trend 

message: *Comment - Totally neutral party here, never edited this article, never even considered the subject before.  Google hits: 
*Latin American Australian - 2,660 2,330
*Latin Australian - 526 508
*Latino Australian - 226 184
*Hispanic Australian - 365 270
Judging by this it would seem that Latin American Australian might be the best choice.  There are different ways to interpret "Latin" so "Latin Australian" is ambiguous, while "Latino" is better, but if no one uses it in Australia...This label covers, at most, a couple hundred thousand people, less than 1% of the Australian population, so it hardly seems worth a lot of tusseling over. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-ran the Google counts using "-Wikipedia". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It might not seem worthwile to you, but it does indeed seem worth correcting to myself, especially when it is labelling and representing my people with no one but myself to provide a voice on our behalf. Google is hardly a basis to judge upon as "a Google search reveals websites that either have copied this or use the keywords in a different context" and at 17:37, on the 27th of April 2008 a google search for "Latino Australian" revealed more than three times the amount of hits with 616 counts. I am Latino and I am Australian and I can quite rightly tell you no one in Australia ever uses the term "Latin American Australian" and this is just Kransky enforcing his own personal preference representing my people to the world through wikipedia. On the other hand I have heard the term "Latino Australian" used on more than once occasion by fellow aussies, even just recently hearing Kyle Sandilands use the term on his radio show. If you were aussie and living in Sydney you would know the name of the show I am referring to. And if you were aussie you would most certainly know who Kyle Sandilands is. LatinoAussie (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am Australian and I know who Kyle Sandilands is (not that I pay much attention to his opinions).  The community may call itself Latino - that is not in contention.  However here in Wikipedia there are guidelines about how we name things.  Please visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions and read carefully what is written about precision and use of foreign loan words.  Google is also used as a guide, though not definitively, to measure usage patterns.  Kransky (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop trying to use propaganda labelling Latino as a non-english word in an attempt to fall back on policy and guidelines for your POV. LatinoAussie (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text: This travel article in the New York Times on "What's Doing in Melbourne" cites the existence of "the Italo- , Greek- and Hispanic-Australian IRAA Theater", but whether the theater's website gives no clue about whether the description is the Times' writer's or the theater's. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Being Latino and Aussie, I would assume this is the Yankee's description. LatinoAussie (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text: There's also the possibility that there is no general usage to determine this.  A search of the website of The Australian, Australia's largest national daily newspaper, get 0 hits for "Latin Australian", 0 for "Latino Australian", 0 for "Hispanic Australian" and 1 hit for "Latin American Australian", for the "World Latin and Australian Dancesport Championships", which isn't relevant. In that case, the article should be moved back to where it was, which was Latin American Australian as the most unambiguous term.  That's my !vote. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-think your very contentious vote for me and my community. "World Latin and Australian Dancesport Championships" has absolutely no bearing or relevance to the term "Latin American Australian". I am both Latino and Australian and I can guarantee you that the most unambiguous term for my community is "Latino Australian". My people would always choose to self identify with Latino Australian over Latin American Australian, and Kransky is enforcing his own POV to label my people to the world. LatinoAussie (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't get personal, this has nothing whatsoever to do with you.  If it's so clear-cut that "Latino" is the only possible description, then go find some reliable sources that say so -- that will carry some weight, not whining about being dissed when you have not been. (And BTW, complaining about what others call your group while calling an American a "Yankee" ain't exactly kosher.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me Fitzy, but this has everything to do with me as it is labeling me and my community. What exactly is your problem and what is with your attitude? If it is because you have taken offence to the word yankee, then quit your whinging and ask Kransky for yourself, that word is not derogatory. We aussies use that word to call you americans in the same way we call the british poms or pommies. Your comment says enough, you have no clue on the subject. Do yourself a favour and learn not to be so touchy and involve your emotions in something which you have no reason to be getting worked up over. LatinoAussie (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that personal attacks are going to do very little to attract support to your position. I've asked you here, and on your talk page, to post some evidence to support your contention that "Latino Australian" is the term of choice, and the comment above is your response.  That's a shame, because the evidence in support of "Latin American Australian" is extremely tentative, and could easily have been overwhelmed by even the tiniest bit of factual support for your choice.  Since you have disdained supplying that, or can't supply it because it doesn't exist (I don't know which is true), I have no choice but for support "Latin American Australian" and oppose "Latino Australian."Should you decide to change tactics, stop attacking people and playing your (very weak) ethnicity card, I'm open to changing my !vote, which is based entirely on the available evidence, not personalities. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry Fitzy, but without evidence of personal attacks you are breaking policy. If you are going to accuse me of attacking you then you must provide diffs for you accusations. I do not need to provide evidence nor do I need to convince you because you have a clear bias against me. Kransky had not provided any evidence at all when you chose to take his side, and only now has provided the one reference, multiple times to one persons use of the term. Evidence has already been supplied by a previous user TeePee-20.7 which you would see if you bothered to look. But selectively looking motivated by bias can make people not see what is in front of them. So I will now repost these links and bold them to make them clearer, "Latino Australian" is also used in a variety of writing, including academic thesises, TASA, forums and self-identification. LatinoAussie (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DNFTT Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Latino is a US word, this is the brutal truth. That some people use it to identify itself is a different thing. This doesn't give you the right to label Latin Americans as "Latinos". Dozens of millions of Latin American reject that artificial and simplistic tag. Have you asked every single Latin American in Australia what they think of these labels???? If you and your community are happy using the label good for you. But please, don't try to impose your points of views and assumptions. LATINO IS A US WORD AND AS SUCH IT SHOULDNT BE IMPLEMENTED IN OTHER COUNTRIES, especially when people are critical of them--Scandza (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Scandza keep your highly critical POV off this page! You created an article for no other purpose than to push your own POV because you prefer the US government made word "Hispanic" over the people made word "Latino". Then when this WP:SYN was merged back into the page you took the sources from "Latino", you were not happy with this. Because you insist your POV pushing have it's own page, to enforce it on a greater audience. So you decided to make a carbon copy of the sourced and published, much debated, on-going subject, "Native American name controversy", and made up your own subject as if it to be truth and published by media. "Hispanic/Latino name controversy". Except you made this up and would be hard pressed to find any newspaper article with that name, the way you can with "Native American naming controversy". Answer me this, why is there not such an article for African Americans or Asian Americans. Something like "African/Afro/Black name controversy", etc. The reason is there is no one else enforcing their view like you on those subjects. I remember a time not long ago when the socially correct, accepted word was not African American. Latino is an english word, not just an american so deal with it Scandza! LatinoAussie (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I've reverted a page move to Latin Australian, because the move to Latin American Australian was agreed on in the section above in June. Please try to get consensus for the page title instead of moving the page back unilaterally. Thank you. Jafeluv (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved back 

message: The article on Mexicans in Australia was deleted last year, it had some worthy information on the subject and it had resources came from demographic studies from the Australian Census board and the Mexican Embassy in Australia. It's been deleted and the data can't be found or restored, but any mentions on Mexican Australians contributes to the Latin American Australian article. The number of Australians of Mexican descent range in the thousands (1,000 to 2,000), but instead I find Wikipedia has articles about Colombian Australians and Salvadoran Australians from El Salvador. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Australian Burueau of Statistics estimates there were 1,802 persons resident in Australia who were born in Mexico, at the time of the 2006 Censusof Birth of Person (full classification list) by Sex&producttype=Census Tables&method=Place of Usual Residence&areacode=0 ABS Census - Country of Birth, 2006.  Kransky (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mexican Australian]]s 

message: The term Latin American is politically incorect and racially divisive. In South America they do not speak Latin, Latin was spoken hundreds of years ago, its simply a religious stamp which simply typecasts people from the region. I was born in South America, when people watch the weather, they see South America and North America. It's like calling North America protestant America? South America was settled before North America, so I believe the term in Australia should be South American Australian without the type cast latin religious bit.
Maronias (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called Latin America because we (I say we because I am Argentine) speak latin languages (Spanish (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Peru, Mexico, etc), Portuguese (Brazil), French (French Guiana), etc) and not for a religious stamp. Romance languages are derived from Latin, that's why we are Latin America. Latin Europe would be Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, Romania, and some other countries where there is an official romance language. Delotrooladoo (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin American 

message: the percentage of the total latino population of australia is wrong it is not 0.63% it is about 1%
Bigmacc1995 (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 22 August 2013 

message: A simple request - the number given is 147,509, while the number on the Brazilian Australians page is 14,509.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javage (talk • contribs) 11:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: Number of Brazilian-born Australians 

message: I would suggest adding Pia Miller to the list of notable Latin American Australians, her wiki page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pia_Miller
HangMan (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: - thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Latin American Australians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131118204449/http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/comm-summ/textversion/brazil.htm to http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/comm-summ/textversion/brazil.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Look.
I really have a question about the term "Hispanic".
Does Hispanic count Spaniards and Portuguese?
What about Brazilians?
Mostly the word "Hispanics" are applied to the United States, cause in Canada for example, they have a separate term Latin Americans for people from Mexico to Chile.
But we are talking about Australia.
Does it even make sense? 2marco4 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that the concept of Hispanic, while originally from the US, must be common in all the English-speaking countries, and in many others too. We would need some sort of specific source about Australia to settle the question. --Jotamar (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hispanic question