Template talk:Hispanic and Latino Americans

message: I'm adding the current code for the Latino template.--JuanMuslim  1m 19:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latino Template 1.0 

message: Thank you for helping out with the   Latino template. What do you think should be the image at the top of the template? And, what colors do you think should be used?--JuanMuslim  1m 20:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image and colors 

message: === Rockero ===
(Portuguese people is the article about the diaspora, Lusa Americans refers to US people) 
So what? Please explain why it's not allowed in the template. And no, portuguese people is not necessarily diaspora. Portuguese people is portuguese people. You may be thinking of portuguese american/luso american.
Casey, there has been lengthy discussion on the talkpage of the Latino article as to just who is a "Latino", with the consensus that in English, "Latino" refers to the inhabitants of Latin America and their descendants.--Rockero 17:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We decided earlier that this template was going to be for Latinos in the US. The article you had placed in the template, Portuguese people is about the diaspora, whereas Luso Americans is about Portuguese and Portuguese-descended people in the U.S. If you have more information about the use of the word "Latino" outside the US, please add it to the Latino article. Please continue to add your input. Thanks, --Rockero 20:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: diaspora is only a part of it. luso americans are part of the diaspora. maybe Portuguese people is too inclusive for this template which is intended to be exclusive and thats what you meant. as for the rest, ok, thanks for the explanation. take care.  
--Lusitano Transmontano 00:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You're to kind, actually. After having read the Latino and Hispanic talk page I'm going to remove the exlusively Portuguese references in the infobox. I doubt that whomever put it there actually knew the terms being used. --Bellum sine bello 20:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've reverted multiple succesive edits by an IP user which amongst other things also changed this. The above reasons should be discussed, I think, before altering things... --Bellum sine bello 05:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hispanic - Spanish language. Latinos - Spanish language and Portuguese language. --JuanMuslim  1m 15:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think it would be better to keep it the way it was for consistency sake. Many people define those people from a Latin American country and those living in the USA differently. For example, a Mexican lives in Mexico whereas a Mexican-American lives in the USA. --JuanMuslim  1m 13:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consitency is inferior to NPOV. Sorry, but even if it has been longstanding it much change. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Juan. But I support your edit because it prevents a redirect, since the article is currently titled Puerto Ricans in the United States. SamEV (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And there is a reason why the article is named that way, which that it is a non-controversial NPOV title, unlike Puerto Rican-Americans. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

text:  I have given the reasons above, and I'm afraid I don't quite follow your comment... you seem to object to the removal but then more or less give the reason why it was removed :) It might be that I'm not reading it well... I understand the confusion though, this is what one gets when some culture redefined words that actually had a meaning to mean something different and difuse. The Luso-Americans were removed because they aren't Hispanic - see the Hispanic article, but the condensed version is that Hispanic related exclusively to Spain since the XV century - or "Latinos" (they are "Latin", which is different). The most "Latinos" of them all would be the Italians, but I don't think  you will find that they will actually agree with that term in a US usage. So, Latinos != Latins. As for the Brazilian-Americans, it's another mess: if you define the categories as racial, meaning "some kind of triracial mixture from South America", then perhaps (and then again, not all of them of course).If you define it as cultural, then if you consider them "Latinos" what about Quebeque? Unless one or the other definition actually means "someone with some kind of non-white admixture coming from former Iberian domains in the Americas and that speaks some kind of neo-latin language I can't understand". Sounds silly? It is. The worst is it's probably close to the mark--Bellum sine bello 23:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groups 

message: (Portuguese people is the article about the diaspora, Lusa Americans refers to US people) 
So what? Please explain why it's not allowed in the template. And no, portuguese people is not necessarily diaspora. Portuguese people is portuguese people. You may be thinking of portuguese american/luso american.
Casey, there has been lengthy discussion on the talkpage of the Latino article as to just who is a "Latino", with the consensus that in English, "Latino" refers to the inhabitants of Latin America and their descendants.--Rockero 17:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We decided earlier that this template was going to be for Latinos in the US. The article you had placed in the template, Portuguese people is about the diaspora, whereas Luso Americans is about Portuguese and Portuguese-descended people in the U.S. If you have more information about the use of the word "Latino" outside the US, please add it to the Latino article. Please continue to add your input. Thanks, --Rockero 20:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: diaspora is only a part of it. luso americans are part of the diaspora. maybe Portuguese people is too inclusive for this template which is intended to be exclusive and thats what you meant. as for the rest, ok, thanks for the explanation. take care.  
--Lusitano Transmontano 00:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Rockero''' 

message: Greetings,
I have read the "Latino" Wikipedia page and the "Hispanic" wikipedia page. Both of them say more or less the same, the "Latino" one even specifically stating that European-born speakers of latin languages are not included:
"Persons of Portuguese, Italian, or French heritage, while being European, Caucasian and "Latin" in the European sense of the word, are speakers of the worlds romance languages, "Latinos" as used in the United States, but are not considered latinos."
Hispanic even less so, for all the reasons that are known. It even has a map in the article showing the "Hispanic World", with Portugal ommited of course.
With that in mind, I fail to understand why are "Luso-americans" and "Portuguese Americans" included in a group of articles about "Latinos and Hispanics". Even more ridiculous is that "Spanish Americans" are nowhere to be seen in the info box. The info box contradicts the Wikipedia definitions and the definitions of the linked articles and can even be considered offensive due to historical reasons.
I'm waiting for some kind of feedback on this, otherwise I'll change the infobox. I'll wait one day since the incongruency is really ridiculous, even considering that were using the "american" redifinitions of terms that are vague, misleading and more or less useless.. Greetings, Fred --195.245.185.32 16:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're to kind, actually. After having read the Latino and Hispanic talk page I'm going to remove the exlusively Portuguese references in the infobox. I doubt that whomever put it there actually knew the terms being used. --Bellum sine bello 20:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've reverted multiple succesive edits by an IP user which amongst other things also changed this. The above reasons should be discussed, I think, before altering things... --Bellum sine bello 05:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hispanic - Spanish language. Latinos - Spanish language and Portuguese language. --JuanMuslim  1m 15:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kindly explain the inclusion of portuguese 

message: That is a controversial use in the Puerto Rican community, usually used by those who support anexing Puerto Rico to the USA and not used by those who seek other relationships. Its use violates WP:NPOV, I am changing.--Cerejota 05:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it would be better to keep it the way it was for consistency sake. Many people define those people from a Latin American country and those living in the USA differently. For example, a Mexican lives in Mexico whereas a Mexican-American lives in the USA. --JuanMuslim  1m 13:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consitency is inferior to NPOV. Sorry, but even if it has been longstanding it much change. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Juan. But I support your edit because it prevents a redirect, since the article is currently titled Puerto Ricans in the United States. SamEV (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And there is a reason why the article is named that way, which that it is a non-controversial NPOV title, unlike Puerto Rican-Americans. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puerto Rican Americans? 

message: There are 20 countries with Spanish-speaking people in Latin America, plus Brazil made up of Portuguese-speaking people. I don't understand why the removal of Luso-Americans and Portuguese Americans, because there was an assumption of Portuguese people are not Latino. Well...the Brazilians are Latin American, but not quite Portuguese Americans whom are represented in the European American or white "racial" category (so are Hispanics of European origin, since Hispanic isn't a racial but cultural category). + 63.3.14.1 09:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have given the reasons above, and I'm afraid I don't quite follow your comment... you seem to object to the removal but then more or less give the reason why it was removed :) It might be that I'm not reading it well... I understand the confusion though, this is what one gets when some culture redefined words that actually had a meaning to mean something different and difuse. The Luso-Americans were removed because they aren't Hispanic - see the Hispanic article, but the condensed version is that Hispanic related exclusively to Spain since the XV century - or "Latinos" (they are "Latin", which is different). The most "Latinos" of them all would be the Italians, but I don't think  you will find that they will actually agree with that term in a US usage. So, Latinos != Latins. As for the Brazilian-Americans, it's another mess: if you define the categories as racial, meaning "some kind of triracial mixture from South America", then perhaps (and then again, not all of them of course).If you define it as cultural, then if you consider them "Latinos" what about Quebeque? Unless one or the other definition actually means "someone with some kind of non-white admixture coming from former Iberian domains in the Americas and that speaks some kind of neo-latin language I can't understand". Sounds silly? It is. The worst is it's probably close to the mark--Bellum sine bello 23:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Latin American groups in template? 

message: Within the groups section, should we have each row state two groups, such as the first line would be Argentine Americans and Bolivian Americans? --JuanMuslim  1m 21:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two per line? 

message: Can someone please explain why Brazilian Americans are listed in this template? I understand that in some definitions Brazilians and Portuguese might count as "Hispanic" or "Latino", but, as it says in the Hispanic and Latino Americans article, that is highly controversial, and definitely not what the most common usage is. The Hispanic article doesn't even mention Brazil at all. And while I know this isn't trustworthy, I know quite a few Hispanic Americans that don't think Brazilians and Portuguese belong to the same group as them. I seriously don't see why Brazilian Americans would be added to the template but not Portuguese Americans. The best option would be to keep both out of it, considering the terms "Hispanic" and "Latino" are both used to refer to Spanish heritage in the US. And they are used as synonyms as well. Even the Census Bureau excludes Brazilians and Portuguese from their definition of Hispanic or Latino. Smertios (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazilians 

message: Do you think that the Ladino language should be listed on the template ?--JuanMuslim  1m 04:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so Juan. No significant number of U.S. speakers.--Rockero 01:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --JuanMuslim  1m 23:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no preference, but please look at Template:Chicano Language for additional languages. Joaquin Murietta 23:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The Ladino page itself has no significant speakers in the US especially. Jmlk17 20:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: The template looks pretty good, but beware making one too long for the articles on which you place it. For example, try paging to modern times from Hugh Capet up through Louis_VII_of_France and beyond and watch the page bottom. Something like that would be well if it were broken into shorter templates that could be included at need, or a bottom across width where it doesn't force unfortunate formating effects on other things on the article bottom. We're having a little discussion on such presentation problems, for a little more on the issue. Best wishes! // <B>Fra</B>nkB 02:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still is pretty long. Jmlk17 20:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a cautionary note 

message: === Religion ===
I removed the Hispanics and Religion link from the template.  It was red highlighted and a deadlink, so why keep it? 04:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may try removing the dead links in a few days if I get no response here. Jmlk17 09:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest starting articles on those that are missing. Categorize the article as a stub. Those articles need to be at least 3 sentences long. I mean - shouldn't there be articles on literature and art among latinos/hispanics? This seems common sense. --JuanMuslim  1m 15:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh I agree, I was hoping I wasn't the only one. Jmlk17 22:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Links 

message: I removed the Hispanics and Religion link from the template.  It was red highlighted and a deadlink, so why keep it? 04:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: There are numerous red/dead links on the template.  It seriously makes the template look less concise and appealing...at least to me.  Jmlk17 21:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may try removing the dead links in a few days if I get no response here. Jmlk17 09:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest starting articles on those that are missing. Categorize the article as a stub. Those articles need to be at least 3 sentences long. I mean - shouldn't there be articles on literature and art among latinos/hispanics? This seems common sense. --JuanMuslim  1m 15:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh I agree, I was hoping I wasn't the only one. Jmlk17 22:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About dead links 

message: What is the source of this flag? I have never seen this flag in real life, and I think it is rather strange being used as a symbol for "Latinos in the United States".--Cerejota 06:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. There is no comment and it is an ugly, vaguely religious, possibly POV and non-existent in real life. I cringe at it as my symbol.--Cerejota 08:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I had to remove it again. The flag symbolizes the three ships of Christopher Columbus, bringing the Christian faith and the rising sun, see Flag_of_the_Hispanic_People. Hardly a symbol for all Latinos. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag? 

message: I've just added another block for Portal. Should I another called Category or is the one called List good enough? I was thinking that it might be a good idea considering all the articles found in the categories pertaining to Latinos and Hispanics. --JuanMuslim  1m 13:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposed new categories on other Latinos in the US is needed to expand the study of the rising influence and prevalence of Hispanic peoples in the US: Guatemalan Americans, Honduran Americans, Panamanian Americans, Uruguayan Americans and Venezuelan Americans. Already there are large concentrations of these national groups: Guatemalans in Los Angeles and southern Cal., Hondurans in New Orleans, Panamanians in New York city, Uruguayans in the Washington DC area and Venezuelans in Miami since the Hugo Chavez regime took power in 1999. 
The Wikipedia Latinos in the US project should include more small subcultures in the Hispanic population: Punjabi Mexican Americans in California had descended from East Indians who arrived in the 1920's but accepted into the Mexican community, Filipinos of Mexican descent whose ancestors of Asian origins came from the Philippines into Mexico or are products of intermarriage between the two linked groups, and the Cherokee in Mexico whom also are migrating to the US, where the Cherokee people originally came from in the late 1800's. + Mike D 26 14:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New categories 

message: Hello. I've written an article entitled Mexicans in Omaha, Nebraska that might be of interest for this template. Please consider including it, and taking a look at the talk page where there is a concern about having an article about this specific topic. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 12:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would have really make the template big considering all the cities in the U.S. --JuanMuslim  1m 21:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Populations in individual cities?

message: Please refer to the talk page of History of Latinos and Hispanics. --JuanMuslim  1m 21:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I propose to include New Mexican Spanish under language, as there is still a significant population of speakers, and it ties to the unique history of this area of the nation and to the speakers themselves.Kehkou (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Mexican language

message: Because whether the Casta system existed is not universally supported by academia and because racially categorizing latin americans is racist. Php2000 (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed the Casta System