Talk:Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Unclear[edit]

"The Census Bureau defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race."

Does this include Brazil ?Eregli bob (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say no... but there could be contradictory definitions. We should find proper sources mentioning Brazil and Brazilians. There might also be conflicting definitions of Hispanic versus Latino... The Ogre (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Its not unclear. Brazil is part of a Geo-political region known as Latin America. Latin America is all the Countries south of the United states border. Legally a Hispanic is a person who comes from a Spanish speaking country. A Latin can actual be from both Portuguese or Spanish speaking this is because both languages had derived from the Latin Language. Although to be fare all of the languages derived from Latin could be called the romance languages (meaning comes from Rome). such as Italian or french. but for some reason in the United states Census the Spanish and the Portuguese speaking people are considered the Latin Americans. Thing about Latin Americans is that its not a racial group its just merely a grouping meant to signify a regional origin in general. 99.45.130.77 (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Definition of race[edit]

I'd like to see something a little more definitive about the word Race. I don't think there's a clear understanding of whether there is or isn't such a thing at all. Personally, I don't know. But I'd like to find out. Or at least I would like to get some more scientific opinion about the matter. Maybe it could take the form of genetics, now that we know more about it. Or is it just a social construct. But before Wikipedia starts spouting off about all the different races why don't we first try to figure out if there scientifically is considered to be such a thing in the first place? wgoetsch (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that's explored on other articles, but this article is more concerned with race as defined by the U.S. census, not as defined by science... AnonMoos (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Very dubious sentence[edit]

" Thus, in addition to their race or races, all respondents are categorized by membership in one of two ethnicities, which are "Hispanic or Latino" and "Not Hispanic or Latino". "

This does not make sense. "Not hispanic or Latino" is not an "ethnicity". It may be reasonably be considered to be a ethnic category, containing all people whose ethnicity is "not hispanic or latino", but that does not make the set of all people who are not hispanic or latino into an ethnicity. Even the proposition that people who are Hispanic and/or Latino constitute an "ethnicity", is a very dubious proposition.

I've therefore changed it to "ethnic categories", a more general formulation which allows for the fact that either, or both, of the two categories can contain people of one, or more, ethnicities.Eregli bob (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Map for 2000 census[edit]

File:800px-US Census 2000 race definitions Australia Sudan Afghan.PNG
The race of people based on their ancestral country of origin. This is the country race categorization that was used for the 2000 U.S. Census.
The countries from which White Americans claim their ancestry.

I've removed both maps for now (see at right). Top one was the one originally on the article and the bottom is the one that was being used to replace it. They seem to be WP:OR and poorly sourced in both cases, but the top one has better sources on the file page. I am unfamiliar with the image policies on original research. Looking for comments on the maps, their veracity, etc. Or do we even need a map? If there's a problem with the original one, why not just fix it? Other discussions of these maps can be found here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)