Talk:List of Hispanic and Latino Americans

message: As I wrote in the List of Hispanics talk page, I edited a list of Latin Americans and a list of hispanophones. So now Notable Hispanics and List of Hispanics can be merged. But, to avoid confusions, I think it would be better to make redirections to a List of Hispanic Americans. --Zaqarbal 12:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And well...? Any suggestions? --Zaqarbal 12:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New lists

message: I think it ought to be either List of Hispanic Americans or Notable Hispanic Americans, because "famous" is so subjective.--Rockero 21:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Notable works for me --Bfraga 23:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I'm going to remove all the people who are already under another list and then link to that list (no need to list twice). Mad Jack O'Lantern 02:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: I created sub-categories for this section. Please feel free to reorder if you spot any mistakes.
Morlesg 15:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Arts 

message: ...have substituted at least one NN name but I don't know who rightly belongs on the list; maybe somebody could take a look.  -CliffC 02:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandals at IP 147.31.184.40, Widener University and the School Districts of Delaware County, Pennsylvania

message: This article is for "notable" Hispanics.  It should not have any redlinks.  If a person is not notable enough to have his/her own Wikipedia article, then the person is not "notable" (see WP:BIO).  This list had a number of additions of redlink names that do not show up on any Google searches.  — ERcheck (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notability" 

message: :Note:  I moved this discussion to the bottom of the page to maintain chronological order of discussion, as is usual practice. — ERcheck (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW, I left a note on the Latinos WikiProject talk page concerning this discussion. Any moves should wait until folks have a chance to weigh in on this.  — ERcheck (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move the page

message: I could have sworn she was Mexican, not Puerto Rican. Is there any proof of where she's from? 74.229.215.99 20:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cristina Coria 

message: Please consider contributing to the article entitled History of Latinos and Hispanics. Thank you! --JuanMuslim  1m 02:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Latinos and Hispanics 

message: 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 18:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hispanics in the United States - requested move 

message: I see the comment that we generally do not include redlinks on list pages like this. I suggest that these lists are the best place to include redlinks, to make it easier for people to find pages that need to be created. Since people with no current page cannot be listed in the category pages, it makes sense that they be left on these list pages. Yes? No?  Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about having a separate list of redlinks, either on the article or on the talk page? SamEV (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Desired articles should be listed at the relevant project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Latinos, or at Wikipedia:Requested articles, but not here, where the potential for hoaxes and "my cousin who's a really great artist" abuse is too great. Pairadox (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes. Somehow I misunderstood Aristophanes as meaning (also) that including redlinks would provide readers an extra set of names that would otherwise not be on the list. Maybe it's because I do find redlinks occassionally useful that way myself; I can then go find out more about the subject, including right here on Wikipedia, in articles that mention them. SamEV (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I meant, Sam. I find the redlinks useful for knowing what articles need to be created, and having them in the lists is more useful than having them sequestered in a list of needed pages that I never think about examining (and may not even have the redlinked name on them). However, I see Pairadox's point about the potential for hoaxes. Perhaps a compromise would be to include redlinked names, but only when they are accompanied by a summary of their importance and/or a link to an external site. I know I've seen lists that have numerous redlinks with outside pages connected to them....  Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason that I (and many others) take a hard line on redlinks in lists is because of notability issues. To continue with the example of an artist, it's really easy to set up a website to showcase one's own artwork. That would provide a link to an external site, but that individual could still fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines horribly. Similarly, a summary of their importance doesn't meet verifiabiltity requirements. If, on the other hand, an article exists, then that person either meets notability and verifiability guidelines or the article will soon be deleted. I think a better compromise is to use Wikipedia:WikiProject Latinos as a collection point. It allows for a wider range of like-minded individuals to see redlinks and create articles. I'd be interested in knowing what lists you've seen that include numerous redlinks. Pairadox (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. But a summary and an external link do at least provide instant means for judging importance. If it's done as you recommend, Pairadox, then please make sure that each list article such as this one contains a very visible link to the redlinks list in the WikiProject. SamEV (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  redlinks 

message: The apropriate term is Latin American. There is no Latino America. It is not in a legitimate dictionary or anywhere else legitimate. People from the Latin Americas are Latin Americans. Whoever put up the title to this page, please change this. How do you justify taking the name of a very large part of a continent, where the legitimate term is known all over the world, and with a slight of hand change it to something which only serves to obscure the reality of the peoples origen. Latino was adopted from the Spanish language in which, the meaning is Latin. This is also the case in English, see the Merriam webster dictionary. Sometimes for short Latino was used for Latino Americano, which is Spanish for Latin American. The English term is Latin Americans and that is what should be used as this is the English Wikipedia. The question is, why would someone knowing this, That the part of this continent where these people come from is and has been known officialy as Latin America, choose to use a term (that will be used by others in the perception of this group) that is not in the dictionary or any government forms. A term that attempts to illegitimize and disassociate the many individuals of this group from the correct English term 'Latin' and 'Latin America(n)s.' EDGARR (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's just one key detail you're missing: this is not about Latin Americans. It's about citizens and residents of the United States (Americans) who are of Hispanic and Latino ethnicity; ergo, Hispanic and Latino Americans. SamEV (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't disagree. But it isn't a relevant detail. SamEV (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the term Latino Americans is an erroneous term.  

message: I've added Voices Of Theory to the "groups" section.  The article exists in Wikipedia but needs to be linked.
22:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. SamEV (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link this group 

message: Over half of these people were not even born ina Spainish-speaking country and they do not even have Spanish names!  On top of that, they either have on parent who is Spanish-speaking or PART, but it does not make these people "latinos."  Most of them did not even go as "latino."  Tatiana Ali never talked about being a "latina" and he name is clearly far from a "latino" name.
I am not sure the point of the article or is it to claim people who you really cannot claim.  Latino is no race anyways, so anyone with a partial ancestry related to ONE parent or someone who is from a Spanish-speaking country BUT IS NOT of Spanish-speaking origins should not be on such a list.  It's like calling a "latino" an American (in the US) when you know they come from another country.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.233.203 (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus Aritcle 

message: ** First of all Brazil is not part of Hispania. Ibero-America would include Brazil. See Hispanic America. 
Second of all, Spanish people and people who are European who happen to live in Latin or Central America are NOT Hispanic. Knowing many people who are "Mexican", but who's whole families recently came from Spain or other European countries, they are considered white, not hispanic. The term Latin can refer to people of Spain, Italy, France, etc. People who are mestizo can also be called Latin, but the term "Latino" is used more; which is also used interchangeably with "Hispanic" to describe race. "Latino" and "Hispanic" are used to describe people of mixed ethnicity - Spanish (European) mixed with Native or Native and African. "Hispanic" also refers to the region, culture and language of Spanish-speaking countries, but when referring to race, hispanic is not used. A person from Spain is a Spaniard and a white European. There were many white cubans and chileans on the list who's family came from Spain. I removed them. I left those on the list who were native Cubans, who's grandparents did not come from Spain directly. So a Chilean who's family was all European was deleted. I personally have a friend born and raised in Chile, whose parents came from Spain (mother is Galician and from a region where Celts settled). She's pretty much Gaelic. So her parents are Spanish, and she's not Hispanic. 
Another example is Alexis Bledel, a white European, and not Mestizo, and therefore NOT Hispanic either. Her mother's nationality is Mexican, but her background is French and German (maiden name Dozier) . The actress who's father is white Argentinian (with a full Danish background) and a mother who is French and German, obviously isn't Hispanic. I left her under the Mexican American since her mother was raised in Mexico, and that category is enough to establish that cultural background. 
I have no idea why so many Brazilians were added to this list. White Brazilians or mixed. They speak Portuguese, not Spanish.  So . . . all Brazilian entries were deleted, and anyone who is Spanish Cuban without native mixture (according to their background), Argentinian (non-native, white), Spanish, or other recent Europeans who immigrated to South America were deleted. I thought to delete Guillermo del Toro, since he seems to be white from Guadalajara, but since I can't verify his background as having a family who is just Spanish, I left him on the list. My friend's father is from Guadalajara and came from Spain - but that is verifiable. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Spanish and Brazilian entertainers, as well as white Europeans who recently immigrated to places like Argentina, Chile, Cuba, few from Mexico 

message: I think it would be best to replace the flags with the names of Hispanic or Latino subgroup(s). For example, instead of:
"* [country flag] Juan Z.X. Smithez, symbologist", let's have:
"* Juan Z.X. Smithez, symbologist; Fooian American".
The flags may be unfair to [native-born] US citizens. When looking at a name, the flag next to it can give the impression that the person is an immigrant from the country represented by the flag, which most H/L Americans are not. SamEV (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The flags 

message: It seems that somehow the page that is visible only lists the sports figures.  Obviously, a complete list of Hispanic and Latino American (impliedly the prominent ones) should include academics, artists, politicians, etc.  The implication is that Hispanics are famous only for their roles in sports.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.47.164.2 (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is quite simple. Contrary to well-established policy, the list was almost entirely devoid of sources, as the discussion above noted. It seems that there are those who wish the list to exist, but won't however do the necessary work to ensure that those on the list should be on it. Given the potential size of the list, this is perhaps not surprising.. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? None of those actors could be verified as Hispanic or Latino? Now, there are no actors listed, which is probably quite a misinformation. 212.50.203.198 (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the web page only sports?   

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion