Talk:Latin American Australian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Demographics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Latin American Australian is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Demographics of Australia.
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.


DBC Pierre[edit]

I just added DBC Pierre to the list of Latin American Australians. His biography is a mess: Born to British Australian parents in South Australia but lived in Mexico for most of his childhood and youth before moving back to Australia for a couple of years. Then moved to the UK and acquired British citizenship and later on moved to Ireland where he has lived since 2000.

He calls himself a Mexican Australian or simply Mexican: The Independent Tribune So I think he fits in the list, if there's any objection please let me know. P.S. Check his documentary The Last Aztec: YouTube - The Last Aztec--Scandza (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined not to include DBC as a Latin American Australian. I do not believe he or his parents ever acquired citizenship of a Latin American country. Nor am I certain that he identifies himself as Latin American Australian, or Latin American Australians consider him as one of their own. In these articles there should be some threshold to meet before we arbitarily consider somebody as belonging to a particular group. Kransky (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response: Precisely because of our tendency to create continental ethnic identities like Latin American we get into problems of categorisations when it comes to people like DBC. As far as he's concerned he calls himself Mexican Australian and virtually all the press identifies him as such:
And according to the Sydney Morning Herald his parents moved permanently to Mexico where he was raised:
"He spent most of his formative years in the cauldron of Mexico City, and for the past decade has been based in unglamorous Balham, south London. Australia, however, has its pull and has left its mark, especially in the person of his girlfriend, Jennie. "She was born at the other end of the same street I was born in. We didn't meet until we were adults, and there's seven years between us. But I think that is kind of strange."
His father, Keith Finlay, was a West Australian, a man, his son says, of great artistic talent who turned to science as a breadwinner. Keith was teaching at an agricultural institute just outside Adelaide when Pierre/Peter came along in 1962. "But by the time I was 18 months, he was lecturing in the States, and then we moved permanently to Mexico."

Sydney Morning Herald - Pierre pressure

I'm sure he doesn't call himself a Latin American Australian but he does consider himself a Mexican Australian which is, in my opinion, enough to include him. However, let's see what other users think.--Scandza (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
If he is a Mexican Australian then he is a Latin American Australian. Kransky (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Further information and end of the argument[edit]

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:

Sources to back up this point:

Sources to back up this point:

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)

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)

Latino Australian?[edit]

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)

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)

Reliable Reference[edit]

Also why did you add this reference tag to my article? The census is a reliable reference. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect, this is not your article. There is no reference in the Australian Census about 'Latinos' and the rest of the page has no references or citations at all. The Census states the numbers of respective South American immigrant groups but does not group them as Latino. There are in fact other sites as you indicated using Latino but some include Spaniards and others are sites from overseas in particular the Americas with reference to Australia. Latino is a common word throughout Latin America. I'm not saying that your entirely wrong but I think it's dubious to list people because they're of Latin American descent all down as 'Latino Australian' when they are in fact of different ancestral, ethnic and national backgrounds. -Ollech (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware that there is no reference in the Australian Census about Latinos but this is trivial, there does not need to be any reference. You seemed to be confused on who actually is Latino and this seems to be your main point of debate. Going by your logic the pages Anglo-Celtic Australian and Black Australian should be drawn into question as they are also not referenced in the Australian Census. The rest of the page shouldn't need citations and references as no more information than what is available in the census is really given. And how exactly am I wrong? "I'm not saying that your entirely wrong" Again this opinion seems to me, to have come from your belief that I am not aware of what or who a Latino is, and in my opinion, no offense intended, is due to yourself not grasping the concept of a Latino. My view is further strengethed by your comment: "I think it's dubious to list people because they're of Latin American descent all down as 'Latino Australian' when they are in fact of different ancestral, ethnic and national backgrounds."

This is exactly what Latinos are, of different ancestral, ethnic and national backgrounds. This is the great and unique thing about Latinos is that they can be White, Black, American Indian, Asian, Multiracial and of all different nationalities. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

'Latino' is an Americanism so the ethnic group 'Latino Australians' makes no sense. For the most, Latin American immigrants refer to their nationality as their ethnicity or simply consider themselves Australian. These hyphenated ethnic names are basically Wikipedia bullshit. No one would ever call themselves 'Latino Australian' unless they are an ignorant aping American culture.
The term 'Latino' has currency in the United States due mostly to the fact that Mexicans are such a large minority. There is a definite 'Latino' culture there made up largely of Mexican Americans and to a lesser extent Puerto Ricans who are usually more American than anything but nevertheless ostrocised from mainstream White American society.
These ethnic labels like Latino, Hispanic and even White have little currency in Australia because Australians prefer integration of immigrants rather than the segregation into different castes based on race and socio economic status.
Also, "Census is reliable" is not good enough if there is nothing in the Census referring to 'Latino Australians' or even 'Latinos'. -Ollech (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you been living under a rock? Half of Australian english is based on "Americanism" as you call it nowadays. Who are you to say they refer to their nationality as their ethnicity? You don't know this. If you have a problem with all the articles with hyphenated ethnic names, then take it up with wikipedia and make a complaint and state your reasons. They will listen to you and if they feel that it is also bullshit, although I doubt this as there are a whole heap of these articles, they will delete them. No one would call themselves Anglo-Celtic Australian either, so what's your point?
Why are you trying to debate culture now as a reason for your opposition against this article?
Again your opinion and I am not sure what relevance this has.
Did you even read my reply to you? "Yes, I am aware that there is no reference in the Australian Census about Latinos but this is trivial, there does not need to be any reference. You seemed to be confused on who actually is Latino and this seems to be your main point of debate. Going by your logic the pages Anglo-Celtic Australian and Black Australian should be drawn into question as they are also not referenced in the Australian Census.". I am reverting your edit, and if your truly feel additional citations are needed and choose to revert my revert, then you can be the asshole who sticks this same template on those two pages as I am not going to. And you need to be fair. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris Watson was simply an Australian. He wasn't 'Latino' or even even Chilean therefore I've removed his picture from this article. If he was anything other than ethnically Australian he would not have been Prime Minister. See White Australia Policy.

I've added a 'citation needed' as the definition is unsourced and please don't be a Pussy and call me an arsehole because you cannot find a source. The Census as I have previously stated does not categorise anyone as 'Latino' or 'Latino Australian'. Also, the overwhelming majority of Caribbean descendants are not Latin Americans, speak Spanish or identify as Latino.

You have decided for yourself that various nationalities and ethnicities are all called 'Latino Australians' similar to the US official ethnic category of Hispanic/Latino without providing a single source. The Australian Bureau of Statistics is very clear as to how ethnicity is listed and goes to great detail to explain it's methods which differs to those of the US Census.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/1249.02005-06?OpenDocument

What is at issue is your obvious misrepresentation in interpreting official Australian Census data and not whether I oppose this article. I've also removed various names and who were or are considered mainstream Australians, or simply are not well known enough to be included. -Ollech (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow Ollech I see you have crawled out from under that rock you have been living! Sigh, you see this is one of the major flaws of wikipedia, which is letting ignorant, close-minded people such as yourself edit articles. Chris Watson was simply an Australian I agree and a great one at that too. But something that seems to be a reoccurent issue with you is that you do not READ. I will now make quote myself "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." I do not need to "see White Australia Policy" as I am quite aware of this and was in fact one of the things I was alluding to in my reply from last year! He maintained his father was a British seaman called George Watson due to this racist policy. And this is one of the reasons no one will ever find a reference. I will keep his image removed from the article due to that reason but will reinsert his name and if you choose to remove it once again I will not revert your edit. You really should see Chris Watson
I have not and never will be a "Pussy" because I cannot find a source and call you an arsehole. You didn't seem to comprehend what I was saying to you in my reply. So once again understand that this little fact is trivial and if you want to add a 'citation needed' or tempelate over this issue then you must do the same to similar articles such as Anglo-Celtic Australian and Black Australian out of fairness. Sigh, as I have already previously stated stated I am well aware of this fact. Yeh, says you. You do not know this, this is just your opinion. There is no overwhelming majority of carribeans who are not Latin American or identify as Latino, this is just your opinion. Latinos do not need to speak spanish to be Latino.
No I have not decided this, this is just fact. Your problem is you do not agree with the fact on who Latinos are so you wish to debate this on an article you think you may be able to change to suit your own views. This is the issue wether you admit it or not! I am reverting your unproductive edits to improve this article, as you do not even want this article to be improved and you are against the whole thing! Please just go back to your rock and stop being so ignorant. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename to Latin Australian?[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

Rename to Latin American Australian?[edit]

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)

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)K
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)
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)

Name[edit]

Hi Latino Aussie,

You made a change to the content of this article, and renamed it to "Latin Australian". As a reason you stated that "No one uses the term Latin American Australian in Australia".

This issue had been debated earlier before, with the view being that "Latin American Australian" was the appropriate term. In these articles we try to categorise according to their country or region of origin. "Latin American Australian" makes this clear cut as we know we are referring to persons with ancestral ties to Latin America. With "Latin(o) American Australian" it is less clear cut. Do we include people from Spain, Japanese Brazilians or Hispanic Canadians? I don't belive this degree of simplicity comprimises the integrity of the article.

Please note other arguments above, and the consensus that has evolved. If you wish to challenge this, by all means do so, but do not repeat the mistake of one young contributor who was abusive and incoherent. Cheers! Kransky (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi Kransky,
I infact tried to move it to Latino Australian but for some reason it would not work which is why I tried to see if it would work moving it to Latin Australian
I'm sorry, but I was not even aware this issue had been debated before which is my mistake for not checking. But I have now finished reading this entire talkpage and there does not seem to be any concensus or view that "Latin American Australian" is the appropriate term. Sorry to say this, but this sounds completely idiotic and I am both Latino and Australian and have never heard anyone in my entire life use this phrase which you seem to have made up. "Latino Australian" is a far more appropriate term and is clear cut enough. Latino refers to Latin Americans making for no error of confusion. Spaniards are not Latino.
I read the discussions above and there was not any concensus at all and it just seems like you did as you pleased, labelling me and my people to your own personal preference. Are you even aussie? I find what you have done as distasteful and disapointing, because I don't know how long this article has remained like this but the reason it has I now know is all because of one single person in the world, yourself. Please don't take my comments as personal, I'm am merely expressing my honest opinion. Cheers, LatinoAussie (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi LatinoAussie,
If you look upwards you will see the debate which took place over the naming of this article. Also you may wish to look on the talk pages of some of the editors where the debate took place.
You have every right to suggest changes, and if your reasons are sound enough I may support them. But I would ask you to assume good faith.
So what is my motivation for wanting "Latin American Australian" to be used?
  • as Ed Fitzgerald below demonstrates, "Latin American Australian" is by far more commonly used term on the internet than "Latino Australian", "Latin Australian" or "Hispanic Australian"
  • while you and others may call yourselves "Latino Australian", Wikipedia articles are named by whatever is sufficiently formal. We say American Australian, not "Yank Australian"
  • also on Wikipedia we stick to the English terms. We say Vietnamese Australian, rather than Viet Kieu Australian.
  • "Latin" is an ambiguous term (see Latins). By itself it suggests a reference to the ethnic group with its origins in Southern Europe, rather than people from the Latin American continent. For the Latino article there are 6 definitions of what is Latino
  • For these articles we try to define people according to the homeland of their ancestors, rather than their ethnicity directly. "Latin American" is clearly understood to be Central and South America, and the Caribbean.
  • The term "latino" is partially controversial (see Criticiqsm of the term Latino - but I note I do not think it has been controversial in australia).

Cheers,

Kransky (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kransky,
If will direct you to my previous reply that you have either chosen to ignore or somehow did not read: "But I have now finished reading this entire talkpage and there does not seem to be any concensus or view that "Latin American Australian" is the appropriate term. Sorry to say this, but this sounds completely idiotic and I am both Latino and Australian and have never heard anyone in my entire life use this phrase which you seem to have made up." So as anyone can quite clearly see I have looked upwards and seen the debate which I have now mentioned twice.
I know I have every right but thankyou for the reminder, but note I do not need your support as I honestly as of yet have not found your reasons labelling my people to be sound enough (no offence). I have based my opinions on what I have read and have expressed to you my comments are not meant to be personal or for offence to be taken. I am just blatantly expressing my honest opinion so please don't get touchy, and if you are aussie you will know most aussies don't like whingers.
  • Stick to the facts. Casting judgements about editors is not helpful to anyoneKransky (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Reply
  • Let me quote you as to the reason of this Kransky: "a Google search reveals websites that either have copied this or use the keywords in a different context".
  • It is not precise (and I said it was not definitive earlier), but there are still overwhelmingly more references to 'Latin American Australian' than 'Latino Australian'.18:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • There is nothing overwhelming about it in the slightest, and just like the Australian came up with 1 hit for something with nil bearing on "Latin American Australian" google has come up with it's results. Oh and how convinient we could not do this same search back in April 2008 when 'Latino Australian' would have most certainly yielded more results, of course there is no proof of this now is there.
  • Please don't speak on behalf of the worldwide wikipedia community as a basis for your POV. Latino Australian is sufficiently formal.
  • WP:AGF. I have not heard the word used in a formal context. Is there a government website that refers to "Latino Australian"? Kransky (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:AGF. I have never heard the word Latin American Australian used in any context. Is there a government website that refers to your made up word "Latin American Australian"? LatinoAussie (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Latino is an english word borrowed from spanish, so don't try and confuse the matter.
  • Except that there is a perfectly acceptable English word that can be used in its place - 'Latin American Australian'. Kransky (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I am a Latino Australian and I reject your made up label. LatinoAussie (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Please don't use "Latin" as a springboard for your debate. I am Latino I am well aware of this point. It's like me commenting on your background patronising you by assuming you have no idea about your heritage or the origins of the specific name to describe your ethnic background.
  • No offense is intended, but not being of a particular ethncity does not forbid somebody from making comment. Kransky (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Latino" is clearly understood.
  • No it is not. See the link I showed you. Nor as mentioned below is it gender neutral. For the record I don't have an opinion on the use of the term. Instead I prefer consistency in naming standards and practices. Kransky (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Latino refers to Latin Americans, clearly understood by anyone who knows the word. It is not a word which is needed to be gender neutral like the word Filipino. LatinoAussie (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • LMAO, that article was created a few weeks ago and was up for deletion and concensous was to delete or merge it, but the closing administrator chose not to follow the clear concensous to merge or delete the article and instead the admin chose to act on POV. I counted 5 deletes, 3 keeps (None to keep the article under its current name, even by it's creator), and 2 (written) merges.
LatinoAussie (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, clearly this debate is going nowhere. So let me ask you this question. For articles about ethnicity in Australia you see they are name as Chinese Australian, African Australian, German Australian etc. Could you please tell me why you find "Latin American Australian" objectionable? Is there any reason why Australians with links to this continent should be treated any differently? (actually that is two questions...) Kransky (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Because no one uses the term and you have made it up to label my whole community. You have made up a label for your own POV. LatinoAussie (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
You said in the change history that a comment of yours was moved and you find this interesting (understandable). However I did a check on compare versions here and I couldn't see any evidence that I had refactored your comments earlier.
  • What are you talking about?!
I have also asked you to show good faith - this is something you clearly are not exhibiting, so I will have to ask you to be more careful with your comments.
  • I am plenty careful and I have explained myself so deal with it. I would love to see you in a pub mate, lmao.
Do I have a POV? Did I wake up this morning wanting to annoy people like yourself? No - my "agenda" is to ensure consistency amongst articles about migrant groups in Australia. We do not mix languages in the names, and we refer to countries/continents of origin, not ethnic groups per se. This is a remarkably simple concept and I am surprised that you still find it objectionable.
  • I'm surprised you cannot deal with an actual Latino Australian telling you not to make up your own words to represent him and his community. I am surprised how arrogant some people can be in this world.
You claim that nobody uses to term, and that i have "made it up" to label your whole community. On your first charge, I would refer you to a number of instances where "Latin American Australian" appears in official correspondence see here, here and [www.eccli.org.au/attachments/10th_agm_report_2005.pdf here]. I am not denying that Latino Australian is also used. However lets use a term that refers to geographical origins.
  • This number of instances is not a number at all, it is a copy of the one instance where Dr Criss Jones Díaz used the word you made up, I am not denying that someone else can also think up this word, however lets not kid ourselves, this is about ego isn't it?
I have repeated myself a number of times on the issue. I also believe I have demonstrated to you evidence that "Latin American Australian" is used, and this should overturn your objection to its use. I will consider the matter closed unless you can identify a flaw in my judgement, or can introduce anything compelling. I have also asked for comments from others regarding this matter. Kransky (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • LMAO, matter closed. Like as if you have some authority over the matter and your opinion is more valued. I have refuted all your points, showed how flawed your POV is, and now let me remind you if anyone's opinion has greater bearing on this matter it is surely mine, that of a proud Latino and proud Australian, to offer the honest truth representing my community. LatinoAussie (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm....well I suppose I am labelling persons of Latin American origin as ... persons of Latin American origin.

Let's not try to be clever Kransky, this is not a game, to me this is completely serious as you have single handedly labelled my community and seem not to care a single bit about the truth, if not your truth. LatinoAussie (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Latino is a US trend[edit]

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)


Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Latin American Australian. Aervanath (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


Latin AustralianLatino Australian — Name of the article prior to it being renamed to suit an editor's POV. LatinoAussie (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose for these reasons:
  • There are many definitions of what is a Latino, however the definition of Latin American Australian is much clearer cut
  • The term is a colloquialism.
  • The term in a foreign language term in which an English equivalent (Latin) freely exists.
  • The term is sexist (excludes Latinas).
  • The term is controversial in and of itself (see Criticism of the term Latino)
  • The names of articles about ethnic groups in Australia tend to be based about the region they come from, not their ethnicities per se. Kransky (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Latino is clear cut and the many definitions all basically say the same thing.
  • The term is not a colloquialism.
  • The term is an english language term.
  • The term is not sexist and Latina is merely a feminime form of the word, the same way Filipina is.
  • A biased article created a few weeks ago which was up for deletion with clear concensous to have it deleted or merged.
  • Latino Australian is far more common especially with my community itself, the label Kransky has made up is not. LatinoAussie (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Because the nominator refuses (or cannot) provide evidence in support of his nomination, the available evidence (which is admittedly quite thin) points to "Latin American Australian" as the best available term. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. In American English, Latino or Hispanic means someone from Latin America. Latin means something completely different, someone from Latin Europe. Latin is rarely used in America, though, and Hispanic, though interchangeable, is preferred over Latino. American English does not recognize Latino as being gender specific. To me, however, Hispanic refers more to speaking Spanish, Latino more to being from Latin America. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Latino", like it or not, is an American fad that shouldn't be used in other countries. There is no Latino Britons articles and, certainly, millions of Latin Americans, like myself, oppose to, or don't use that label. Even in the US there are millions of people critical of the term See: Hispanic/Latino naming dispute.

--Scandza (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternate request[edit]

Latin AustralianLatin American Australian — Name of the article prior to it being renamed (against previous consensus, see above and User talk:TeePee-20.7) to Latino Australian and Latin Australian. Kransky (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • 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)

Re-ran the Google counts using "-Wikipedia". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Being Latino and Aussie, I would assume this is the Yankee's description. LatinoAussie (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)
WP:DNFTT Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
{out) To all concerned: User:LatinoAussie has been determined to be a sockpuppet of User:Cazique, whose other sockpuppets included User:TeePee-20.7. As such, LatinoAussie has been indefinitely blocked. All of LatinoAussie's comments have been the block evasions of a blocked user, and as such are subject to removal without regard to 3RR. I don't plan to remove LatinoAussie's extensive commentary here, but it certainly can be ignored. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Support, as per my comments above Kransky (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Your comments have been refuted and are invalid. Take it from a Latino Australian. LatinoAussie (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support At this time, the available evidence points to "Latin American Australian" as the best available term. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The available evidence does not point to this term at all, and there was not even evidence provided by Kransky when you first used this term. And if you want to argue this I can provide the timestamps to when you chose to use bias with no evidence provided. LatinoAussie (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Doesn't seem particuarly controversial. YeshuaDavidTalk • 20:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeh to you because you are not a Latino Australian. If it does not seem so controversial then why have you sided? LatinoAussie (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to be the most common name. Also, the current title is potentially confusing since the article doesn't include Australians originally from Latin Europe. Jafeluv (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not the most common name and I am the one with the most knowledge on this being a Latino Australian. But because there are so little of us in Australia, especially in comparison to the population as a whole, Kransky is able to get away with deciet. There is absolutely no confusion with the term "Latino" and jealous Europeans wanting to be Latino are the only ones who have brought up issues with this name. Everyone in Australia knows Latino to mean Latin American, as do people worldwide when using the word in english form. Please do not enforce your POV over the term Latino on an article you think you can influence. If you have issues with the term, then Latino is the page to bring it up. LatinoAussie (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I get it, "Latino Australian" is the best name because You say so!. I'm so glad you explained that, I thought we were looking for a rational explanation, evidence, citations in reliable sources, something. Now that I know that the whole thing rides on your say-so, well, I'm heading off to change my votes! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
So, you're saying that "African-American" is meaningless for a American whose heritage is from Africa, or "Asian-American" for an American with Asian heritage? "Latin American" means "of the region Latin America", just as "African" means "of the region Africa", and "Asian" mean "of the region Asia". "Latin American" is a single semantic unit, absolutely equivalent to "African" and and "Asian", and if they can be used in combining forms, then so can "Latin American". The expression is meaningful, and is not in any respect contradictory. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As for Latin Australian it's not bad but it's prone to generate misunderstandings such as the one mentioned by User:Jafeluv. Latin American Australian is the proper term.--Scandza (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved back[edit]

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)

Mexican Australians[edit]

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)

Australian Burueau of Statistics estimates there were 1,802 persons resident in Australia who were born in Mexico, at the time of the 2006 Census[1]. Kransky (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Latin American[edit]

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)

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)

Edit request on 22 August 2013[edit]

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)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)