Talk:Hispanic and Latino Americans

Synthesis in the sexuality section

The sexuality section contains a lot of synthesis and OR, making it seem like Hispanic American culture is extremely homophobic. As if there were no openly LGBT people among Hispanics. As if gender relations in Hispanic American society were similar to those in Afghanistan.

But as I'll show you, a lot of the citations completely fail to say anything like what this section says, and some of them have been twisted to fit the very obviously non-NPOV slant in this section. Such as:

"In Hispanic culture it is expected for men to partake only in heterosexual relationships, some men often seek multiple female partners to further prove their sexuality and masculinity.[219]"

No way. There is absolutely nothing in 219 that says this. This is a random study about condom use and partner numbers among heterosexual Hispanics. This is completely bogus.

"Due to the homophobia present in the Hispanic community, gay men feel a high sense of shame and guilt which leads to risky sexual behavior, leaving them at a risk for HIV and other STDs.[221]"

Actually, citation 221 says nothing like that.

"Marianismo dictates the traditional role of a Hispanic women, a woman is expected to remain sexually pure, submissive, and is seen as an object of pleasure for men.[227]"

This is pointless without specifying that this belief is not prevalent in Hispanic citizens of the USA, and study 227 says states specifically in the limitations section that "generalizability may be limited due to the non-probability sampling technique and because the study used a community-based sample that only included Hispanic immigrant women who mostly emigrated from Mexico."

" All are to be straight and women are to be virgins.[225]"

This ridiculous notion is nowhere to be found in 225 to this effect. This article is about women in Chile and says nothing about their culture being anti-heterosexuality. It also doesn't say that all women are expected to be virgins, but that they are expected to not engage in infidelity. But since the study isn't even about Hispanics in the USA, that's a moot point.

"A woman must carry herself like Mary in order to receive respect and keep the family's honor.[226]"

Ok, this made me laugh hysterically. There is nothing in 226 that says this. Not a single hit for "Mary" in the entire article.

One thing this section is critically lacking is a demography of LGBT people among Hispanics. If you look at the sexuality sections of Asian Americans or African Americans, they have content explaining the rate of LGBT identities within those communities. Hispanic Americans should have that too.

"The poll found 11% of U.S. Latino adults said they identified as LGBTQ, nearly twice the rate of 6.2% of non-Hispanic white adults and 6.6% of Black adults who said they were queer. The percentage of queer Latino adults was even higher among Gen Zers — the cohort born between 1997 and 2012 — where more than 1 in 5 said they were LGBTQ, the report found."[1] - 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:F0DE:B39F:CFEA:7A53 (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

In addition to this, the gender roles section has a lot of poorly (and humorously) written OR, including using citations from the 1940s on villagers in the country of Mexico. Which is absurd. 71.78.218.194 (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Eva Longoria

I'm really having a hard time trying to understand why my recovering Eva Longoria's picture, which had been in the section Race for years, is highlighting only her native heritage in order to reach a certain conclusion, while on the other hand the pictures of Alexis Bledel, Zoe Saldaña and Daniella Alonso are apparently quite neutral and justified for the section. All of them female celebrities by the way. I don't understand the cherokee princess part either. Anyway, I must congratulate Koire292 on having such detailed information about Eva Longoria's ancestry, that could be an interesting addition for the section. Jotamar (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I also think the all-female pictures are weird but it was already like that, i think three photos showcasing the different races under the “latino” category are enough. Eva Longoria isn’t needed as Alexis Bledel (another white hispanic) is already there. The original source (Faces of America) is where that DNA information is showcased.

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/facesofamerica/profiles/eva-longoria/8/

https://web.archive.org/web/20100401075119/http://www.latina.com/entertainment/celebrity/faces-america-reveals-eva-longoria-parkers-surprising-roots Koire292 (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Koire292: ok, three is the magic number, but why is Eva Longoria the odd one? Longoria's picture has been in the section since 15 September 2020‎, while for example Alonso's picture is a bit more recent. As this page has been in my watchlist for quite a while, I've noticed that Longoria's ancestry is sort of annoying for some editors, for reasons that I don't understand, but my instinct of editor is keep the picture. Let's review the 4 pictures: Bledel has obviously uncommon looks for a latina, so the point about her seems to be latinos can look (northern) European. Alonso's ancestry is quite uncommon too: Peruvian-Japanese, so again the point seems to be not all latinos look latino. Saldaña is probably a representation of latinos with African ancestry. And of course Longoria, a latina who looks more or less white but who has native American ancestry, is exceedingly unusual for a latino and is the one out! :D I'm perceiving here cultural insecurities of some sort. However I'm an outsider and I don't know the social milieus of Latino Americans, so I might be wrong. Please tell me where I'm wrong, and while we're at it, tell me about the cherokee princess too. --Jotamar (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

“three is the magic number, but why is Eva Longoria the odd one?”

i would actually switch out Bledel for Longoria, as Longoria is more representative of a white-latina. Three because of the most common ancestries among latinos being: indigenous, european and african. Alonso’s picture clearly looks to me to represent the indigenous-leaning latinos.

“As this page has been in my watchlist for quite a while, I've noticed that Longoria's ancestry is sort of annoying for some editors”

It’s mostly the fact that her picture shows a visibly white-latina but the text (filled with haplogroup jargon) highlights only her native ancestry and even goes as far as to say she is “possibly a direct descendant of a Maya woman” (hence the “cherokee princess” quip I made, usually used to describe a white person who claims some distant native ancestry despite having zero community attachment to any indigenous group, in this case the Maya people). But like you said, it could just be expanded to include her Spanish heritage as well. Koire292 (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Koire292: After reflecting about the discussion again, I've come to this conclusion: the best and most neutral change is to delete all the pictures. No matter which particular pictures we choose, they will always manipulate the reader in one direction or the other. Pigeonholing all latinos into three races is about the worst possible option. The second best solution could be to include just one image with a group of latinos (students, workmates, etc.) highlighting their diverse backgrounds. What do you think? --Jotamar (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I think your idea of deleting all the pictures would be best but I fear somebody would eventually edit in some pictures, so the second option seems more future-proof. Koire292 (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any problem at all with the images in the article. Using a picture of a group to highlight Hispanic Americans however would be a potential violation of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, which has been interpreted with a broad-brush consensus. Anyway, it's original research to say Eva Longoria is "visibly white". Eva Longoria has expressly stated that she is not visibly white and was not perceived as such. There's nothing wrong with describing her ancestral diversity where it has been reported in relation to Hispanic American origins, by reliable sources. 2600:100C:B00B:3792:0:51:D721:7101 (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writ 2 - Academic Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 1 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexandra784 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Icecream209 (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Italians not considerd Latino in USA?

In the terminology section of this article, it states, "Italian Americans are not cosidered Latino..." Could this bit of misinformation be further from the truth? Latino is the language of Ancient Rome. The ancient Latino people of Rome named their eponyous king "Latinus" (King of the Latino people.). The way to say "Latin" (language) in Italian is "Latino". In English, French and Spanish it's "Latin". In Portuguese, it's "Latim". Rome invented the alfabeto Latino we're using today, our calendar, our year, court system, etc. The continent of America is named after an Italian, Amerigo Vespucci. His given name is derived from the Ancient Latino name "Americus". "Latino" and its Italian plural "Latini" have been Italian given names and surnnames before the American continent got its name. www.houseofnames.com/latino-family-crest. Claudio di Roma (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Latino is the short version of Latin American in Spanish which is; latinoamericano, in most sentences in Spanish it is lowercase except if it is done at the beginning, there it is done with a capital "L", this is left open, greetings. 186.11.106.142 (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly - the origins of the word and its relation to Latin Europe are not the subject of this article. Latino in this context refers exclusively to those of Latinamerican descent, so no Italians are not Latino within this context. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@ Cristiano Tomas. There's only one Latino country in Europe (and the world). It's called Italy. The term "Latin American" ("Latinoamericano") is a 1850s Mexican sham word. "Latino" is not a Spanish word that's short for "latinoamericano". On the contrary, the term "latinoamericano" is an expansion of the pre-existing Italian word "latino". Truthfully, the Italians are the only Latin people who live on the American continent. The Al-Andalus Muslims of Iberia who conquered the Visgoths of Spain and Portugal in the 8th century, lasting until 1492, did not give the world Latin culture. Italy gave the world Latin culture (cultura latina). Spaniards and Portuguese had the total unentitlement to call themselves and their enslaved Native Americans and black people "latinoamericanos" in the 1850s. Now, with all the Native Americans of former Muslim Iberian colonies on the American continent being shuttled by planes, buses, trains, and walking into the US, the face of the US is mostly Native American again with some black Africans. The American continent is beginning to look like The Philippines and the world is embracing it. Claudio di Roma (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@ The no-name person who commented that "latino" is a Spanish word that is a short version for "latinoamericano", you're so wrong. If you look at the Spanish Wikipedia, you'll see all the kudos for "Latino" goes to Italy. The 1850s Mexican misnomer "latinoamericano" is an expansion of the already pre-existing Italian word "latino". Latino people and Latin culture come from Ancient Rome. "Roma" ("Rome") is such an old word that it's not even an Italian word. It's a Latino (Latin) word. Roma got its name in 753 BC. Madrid didn't get its name until the 9th century AD. You didn't need to tell me about the use of the lower case and upper case "L" in the word "latino". The Spaniards, French, Portuguese, etc are copying the Italians. The origin of the surname "Latino" is from Firenze, Italia (Florence, Italy) of the 1200s. The surname has an upper case "L". Italy is a cultural superpower. Culturally, virtually nothing has been done since the Roman Empire. The world uses Italy's alfabeto latino (Latin alphabet) which was derived from the Etruscan alphabet, from the Greek alphabet, from the Phoenician alphabet, from Egyptian hieroglyphs. If you have Al-Andalus Muslim Spanish or Muslim Portuguese ancestry, you get a nod for the Arabic alphabet. Claudio di Roma (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the most common definition used here in the United States and in this article. If you don't like it, deal with it. Take your racist rants to someone who cares to hear them. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm a non-American who has been watching this debate with amusement. Where I come from, we have no official racial labels, and I have been trying for decades to comprehend how so many Americans can be so certain about their views on something that the rest of the world doesn't even try to define. In your mind, is Latino even a race? HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cristiano Tomas. The racist rants were made against my race by you. I'm Italian. We are the Latino race. By all means, feel free not to use Rome's alfabeto Latino (Latin alphabet) here, and start using your Arabic alphabet as more exploited Native Americans make their way into the US after the Muslims of Al-Andalus Iberia screwed them (and blacks) for centuries and dumped them. And, of course, Spanish and Portuguese surnames are racist surnames owing to the former Muslim Iberian colonies on the American continent. You've got one of those surnames...you own it. It looks like a few Muslims of Iberia and Anglo-Saxons are loitering in the US as larger amounts of Native American caravans are making their way to the US border. Everyone worldside of stateside is enjoying this transition. Caught in it? Too bad, so sad! Claudio di Roma (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow, you went too far my friend, first, there is no such thing as a Latino race and second, the majority of Latinos are of mixed race of Native Americans, Europeans (Spanish) and Africans, now tell me who the racist is huh. 186.11.103.67 (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@ The no-name person who said, "Wow, you went too far.." No, I did not. You did. Mixed race Native Americans, Spanish and Africans did not give the world Latin culture. Italy did. Spain, like other Old World countries, was a recipient of Latin culture owing to the Roman Empire.

Italy gave the world the alfabeto Latino (Latin alphabet), Latino (Latin), Roman numerals, Latin people (e.g. Julius Caesar), the Gregorian calendar, the given names and surnames "Latino" (Latin) and "Latini" (Latins), etc. Italy is a cultural superpower. World culture came to a virtual standstill after the Roman Empire.

One cannot be racist towards the mixed race Native Americans, Spanish and Africans on the American continent. We have had mixed races of Asians, Europeans, Black people, Middle Easterners, and the people of North Africa here on the Afro-Eurasian continent for millenniums. It's old news in the Old World.

Spain has gone through many changes since Rome colonized it. The Visigoths had their Visigothic Kingdom (418-720) and, ultimately, the Muslims had Al-Andalus (8th century-1492). The American continent is named after a Latin, the Italian Amerigo Vespucci. Italy did no colonizing on the American continent. It was enjoying its Italian Renaissance. Claudio di Roma (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)