This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Latino and Hispanic heritage This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Latino and Hispanic heritage, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related toHispanic and Latino Americans on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latino and Hispanic heritageWikipedia:WikiProject Latino and Hispanic heritageTemplate:WikiProject Latino and Hispanic heritageLatino and Hispanic heritage United States This template is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Please help with the Latino template. --JuanMuslim^1m03:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. This does not need to be made unless all Latinos are included, meaning the Spaniards, Portuguese, French, Italians, Moldovans, Romanians, and other Europeans, not just South and Central Americans.Casey1417:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casey, there has been lengthy discussion on the talkpage of theLatino article as to justwho is a "Latino", with the consensus that in English, "Latino" refers to the inhabitants ofLatin America and their descendants.--Rockero17:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the term Hispanic is one devised by the US Census Bureau to describe people of Latin American descent who live in the United States. This is also how the people of academia use the term as well. That's why you won't hear Mexicans, for example, refer to themselves as Hispanic or Latino. However, some people disagree about including all of Latin America within the definition because Latin America includes non-Spanish speaking countries. Today, the terms Latino and Hispanic are essentually synonymous though some people prefer one term over another. --JuanMuslim^1m19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting:French people,Italians andRomanians (inRomania or historic "Rumania" andMoldova, the former Soviet republic that wishes to unify with Romania) share a common "Latin"/Romance-language heritage with the Spanish and Portuguese in both Europe and Latin America. Latins andGreeks are theorized to be closely related and a long history between each other is evident in theRoman Empire andancient Greece. I can fret for awhile on how or why the Latins are part of theIndo-European language family likeCelts,Germans,Indians,Iranians andSlavs...or the cultural similarity of Latin/Mediteranean peoples withJews (other than a religious group),Arabs,North Africans and theMiddle East. I don't wanna stray off the subject, but the ethnolinguistic and anthropological links of these peoples with Latin(o)s are there. Would you includeFilipinos whom are former Spanish subjects on the list ofHispanic peoples, but are variousMalayanAsian peoples from thePhilippines? It's a moot point, but for one group to be labeled "Hispanic" and "Latino" takes careful research. If you're an advanced expert, the Hispanic/Latino peoples could well be direct descendants ofNative American peoples of thewestern hemisphere, because the majority of them aremestizos or highly aware of their ancestry came from indigenous peoples long ago. +63.3.14.1 09:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Mike D 2614:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good argument in the end.Jmlk1721:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding the current code for the Latino template.--JuanMuslim^1m19:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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^1m20:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the questions of colors and images are secondary at this point. Right now we should be trying to determine whether or not the template is merited. Are there enough articles to add into it to make it useful? What articles should it be placed on? What benefit will it provide to readers of the encyclopedia? What are its parameters? Will it apply to all of Latin America or just Latinos in the United States? These are the questions we should be discussing right now. And to be frank, it doesn't seem like it will do much good at this point. Once the parameters are determined, then we can get started on writing articles that pertain to Latinos as a whole. The template should be like a finishing touch to enhance to a body of articles, not an outline to determine what needs to be written.--Rockero20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any project, such as this template, can be broken down into a number of smaller projects – the presentation and the content or substance, but yes, how it looks is less important than the content. I would love to see a template for Latino/Hispanic topics that is as eye appealing and as useful as the template for African-American topics, especially with the growing number of Latinos within the United States. The purpose of a Wikipedia template is to make navigation easier, and certainly there needs be an effective way to navigate through the complex web of Latino related articles, and I think that in time the template will achieve that goal.

The template should be about Latinos living in the United States. If you ask a Venezuelan off the street of Venezuela if he’s a Latino, he’ll say he’s Venezuelan or Latin American. The terms Hispanic and Latino aren’t used by most Latin Americans. A separate template could also be created for Latin Americans if someone desires to make one. I’d like to focus on seeing a Latino template. The Latino/Hispanic template could state “Latinos / Hispanics in the U.S” below the image that will be selected.

For our own purposes, whether the Latinos are descendents or immigrants to the U.S. is less important. There needs to be a template that represents all these people who are Latinos and Hispanics. Therefore, when discussing Latino history, the article would include the history of all Latinos including Mexican-Americans, Cuban-Americans, Puerto Rican Americans, etc. The history article might include bits and interesting facts about the various Latin American countries. We, Mexican-Americans, make up over 75% of the Latino population, and thus, the history, etc about us will dominate many Latino related articles, but that doesn’t mean that our Mexican-American history is synonymous with Latino history.

I think that the Latino template can give us a bit of a direction. Unfortunately, the template reveals the important articles that Wikipedia needs about Latinos. The Latino / Hispanic template needs to be tweaked that is for sure. There could be a link to the article about Latin America, links to articles about the major subgroups of Latinos, such asMexican American andCuban American and the possibilities are endless.--JuanMuslim^1m23:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orale pues, that's the reason we made the Mexican-American/Chicano templates{{Chicano2}} and{{Mexican-American}}. However, I think your idea of a navigational template for all the Latinos in the U.S. is actually probably a better idea since many of our organizations are inclusive of Latinos from all nationalities. If we make a template that is more inclusive, maybe we could make separate navigational templates for specific topics such as the Chicano Movement and Chicano Art, for example. What you are asking for, however, is a major reorganization. And here in conservative Wikipedia, you are bound to encounter opposition. So let's get it together before we start adding it to articles.

Here's my recommendation: we reorganize the Latino template to accomodate articles that already exist. One header will be "Nationalities", and underneath,Cuban American,Mexican American, etc. That's the only idea I have for now, and when I get back I'll help with getting it together. PAZ carnal, --Rockero03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure we'll get some opposition, but all we can do is explain ourselves. The best approach right now is as you stated, that is, to use what already exists. And, your help is essentual because you are more familiar with what Latino related articles already exist on Wikipedia. Then, we'd also have a better idea of what needs to be written or perhaps reorganized. For example, the article on Puerto Rico includes info about Puerto Rican Americans which would be good for an article entitled Puerto Rican Americans or Puerto Rican American. And, some links on the template could point to sections within various Latino related articles. --JuanMuslim^1m12:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I saw in the template not found in the talk page,Afro-Latin American was included in the template in January 2007. But are also found inAfrican American and other articles dealing with theAfrican diaspora or the African race (Africans). The template on the above is old and not the official template used in the Wikipedia project. +63.3.14.1 09:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Mike D 2614:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saludos y Asalamalaykim, Juan Muslim! I notice you signed on as a participant in theMexican-American/Chicano WikiProject, and I want to extend you a warm welcome. I also notice you started{{Latino}}. What were you planning on doing with that? That is, what is your vision for it? What do you want it to accomplish? The project members and I may be able to help you with it, but I need to know in what direction you want to take it.

I also notice that you have been editing Islam-related articles. If there way you can share your knowledge about Islam in the Mexican American community, it would be greatly appreciated. Most of our religious articles have been focused on Roman Catholicism, and some diversity in the religious experiences of Mexican Americans needs to be represented. There are many articles that need to be written (see the tasks list), and a long-term project goal is to elevateChicano Movement tofeatured article status. If you'd like to help with these or any other projects, please dig in. Also, if you have any questions or suggestions, please discuss them on the Project talkpage or on my talkpage.

Good to have you aboard, --Rockero16:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been as active on Wikipedia recently. I am however floored by the fact there is no template for latino/hispanic, so I just wanted to start something and get some dialogue. The template definitely needs lots of work. But at the same time its definitely needed. The template called AfricanAmerican is excellent, and that's kinda like what I'd like to see for the Latino template. As for Latinos and Islam, that's my specialty. lol. I recently started theLatino Muslims article. You can help with that. The link to HispanicMuslims.com/articles has plenty of reference material. --JuanMuslim^1m17:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One issue with the template is that several articles that should exist (example:Latino history orHispanic history )don't or are essentually part of other articles.

I'm open to discussion on this issue. If books can be written on various subjects pertaining to Latinos in the United States then surely we can write articles with similar subjects, too. One solution when possible is linking a section within an article to the template and giving a title to the section on the template. --JuanMuslim^1m15:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(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)

No, not English per se, but mainly in the USA. is this USA wiki? and just how do you come to the conclusion that an agreement has been reached? maybe i just am not fully aware of the rules for this template. i just want to know.

--Lusitano Transmontano19:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We decided earlier that this template was going to be for Latinos in the US. The article you had placed in the template,Portuguese peopleis about the diaspora, whereasLuso 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 theLatino article. Please continue to add your input. Thanks, --Rockero20:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

diaspora is only a part of it. luso americans are part of the diaspora. maybePortuguese 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 Transmontano00:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 --195.245.185.3216:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 bello20:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 bello05:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic - Spanish language. Latinos - Spanish language and Portuguese language. --JuanMuslim^1m15:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 violatesWP:NPOV, I am changing.--Cerejota05:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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^1m13:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree with Juan. But I support your edit because it prevents a redirect, since the article is currently titledPuerto Ricans in the United States.SamEV (talk)20:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 theEuropean American or white "racial" category (so are Hispanics of European origin, since Hispanic isn't a racial but cultural category). +63.3.14.109:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 bello23:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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^1m21:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 theHispanic and Latino Americans article, that is highly controversial, and definitely not what the most common usage is. TheHispanic 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)[reply]

Do you think that theLadino language should be listed on the template ?--JuanMuslim^1m04:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so Juan. No significant number of U.S. speakers.--Rockero01:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --JuanMuslim^1m23:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no preference, but please look atTemplate:Chicano Language for additional languages.Joaquin Murietta23:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ladino page itself has no significant speakers in the US especially.Jmlk1720:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ShouldHispanic Student Association be added? --JuanMuslim^1m23:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well we should probably take this opportunity to decide what orgs should be included. Political? Cultural? Business and professional associations? Student groups? Only National organizations? Or regional ones too? And only orgs that are specifically Latino? Or ones that are composed of/serve specific sub groups (like Puerto Ricans or Mexican Americans)?

I think we whould move toward including the major national political, cultural, professional, and student groups, and including smaller, regional, or more focused groups in a larger category or a list, which we can link to from the lists/categories section.--Rockero23:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be best. And, a list would help ensure most organizations are mentioned.--JuanMuslim^1m14:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 fromHugh Capet up throughLouis_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 suchpresentation problems, for a little more on the issue. Best wishes! //FrankB02:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still is pretty long.Jmlk1720:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are numerous red/dead links on the template. It seriously makes the template look less concise and appealing...at least to me.Jmlk1721:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may try removing the dead links in a few days if I get no response here.Jmlk1709:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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^1m15:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree, I was hoping I wasn't the only one.Jmlk1722:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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".--Cerejota06:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Cerejota08:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I had to remove it again. The flag symbolizes the three ships ofChristopher Columbus, bringing the Christian faith and the rising sun, seeFlag_of_the_Hispanic_People. Hardly a symbol for all Latinos. --Rsk6400 (talk)19:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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^1m13:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 andVenezuelan Americans. Already there are large concentrations of these national groups: Guatemalans inLos Angeles and southern Cal., Hondurans inNew Orleans, Panamanians inNew York city, Uruguayans in theWashington DC area and Venezuelans inMiami since theHugo 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 thePhilippines into Mexico or are products of intermarriage between the two linked groups, and theCherokee in Mexico whom also are migrating to the US, where the Cherokee people originally came from in the late 1800's. +Mike D 2614:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've written an article entitledMexicans 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)[reply]

That would have really make the template big considering all the cities in the U.S. --JuanMuslim^1m21:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the talk page ofHistory of Latinos and Hispanics. --JuanMuslim^1m21:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to includeNew 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 thespeakers themselves.Kehkou (talk)15:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will precede to add bothNew Mexican Spanish andPuerto Rican Spanish to the template on the 21st (one week) unless someone objects.Kehkou (talk)00:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Template-Class Latino and Hispanic heritage pages
• NA-importance Latino and Hispanic heritage pages
• Latino and Hispanic heritage articles
• Template-Class United States pages
• NA-importance United States pages
• WikiProject United States articles