Talk:Mexican Americans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Political affiliation

To suggest Mexican-Americans usually support the Democratic party, is a misleading fact. if your defination of usually is over 50% then this statement is false -according the U.S. elections — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.180.48.28 (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

statement is true and article has 2004 actual voting data. Rjensen 19:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely misleading, since there are Mexican-Americans vote in the Republican party. Texas was one example as two-thirds of the state's Latino vote went to incumbent president George W. Bush in 2004. Bush's appeal to Latinos from both personal experiences and the growing political base in his home states, Bush swayed many traditionally Democrat voters of all races and classes. Please this isn't a POV, but a fact you can find in state (Texas) and federal (U.S.) election results. --Mike D 26 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Name

Would this not be better at Mexican American, in line with for example Chinese American, German American, Indian American, and so on? — Pekinensis 00:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'll start moving. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

O.K., I'll start putting this into action. {{move}} template attached here. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Support for above reason. --Taejo 11:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the [age. Paul August ☎ 04:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I changed the first line to be "Americans of Mexican ancestry" which mirrors the format of such similar articles as Irish American, German American, Chinese American, etc. Saying that a Mexican American is a "citizen and/or resident of the USA" is not only wrong, it is biased in favor of classifying illegal immigrants as Americans due to their residential status. Saying so is not racist; it is a statement of fact. Residence in a particular country does not automatically classify you as a part of that country's national identity. Mirroring this article's name to similar articles' formats is only logical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batman428 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguably Accurate but Doesn't Belong

I don't see a reason to enumerate illegal immigrants in the first paragraph. While illegal immigrants are a sizable population they are not numerically representative of the whole. The article is a bit non-NPOV and you are perpetuating a stereotype if you leave it this way. The article is about Mexican-Americans, not illegal immigrants.

This is like writing in an article about U.S. Americans: "Of the 300 million Americans, 215 million are obese and an estimated 50 million are ignorant. Most unhealthily obese Americans reside in Florida, South Carolina and Colorado. Of the ignorant Americans, most don't know if Canada resides on the northern border or the southern border. Additionally, in scholastic aptitude tests, most high school freshmen score at a 65 pecentile when measured against their Singaporean, English, Australian and other Anglophone counterparts. Low scores and their gradual decreases are attributed to obesity and lack of exercise, and cultural complacence due to individualistic values."

It's frighteningly accurate, but it doesn't belong in an introductory paragraph. --Deepstratagem 09:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Meaningless term?

All Mexican's are American, as are all Brazilians, Canadians etc. This is a meaningless term surely? Markb 11:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No that is not how people talk, They use the term "Mexican American" millions of times every day to refer to a real group of 20+ million people. They are NEVER talking about Brazilians. Rjensen 05:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an encylopedia, not a dictonary (try http://en.wiktionary.org). Just because 'people' use the phrase doesn't mean it is accurate. The Xxxx American usage appears to specify a group of people who have moved from Xxxx to live in America. In the case of Mexico, they already were/are America, it would be more accurate to describe them as 'American Americans'. Markb 13:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That also striked me. It makes no sence. Most Mexicans can either be called Spanish-, or native Americans - or, more oftenly, both. Mexican American is an Oxymoron in that context, since it makes me, as an Unamerican think of citizens of Mexico living in Mexico (In contrast to US-Americans) 84.167.231.27 15:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Under the culture section, only the arts are highlighted. I would like to see some information on religion as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.76.106.4 (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Mexican Americans are for one thing, predominantly Roman Catholic as this goes back 500 years, after the Spanish introduced this kind of Christianity into what's now Mexico and Latin America. There's quite a heavy folk segment in Mexican Catholic practices, mainly of Amerindian origin as well localized mythology like the story of the Virgin Mary sightings in Guadalupe, Mexico (1543). Also we need to indicate there are Protestants in the Mexican American community, along with an increase of Spanish-speaking Protestant denominations in the U.S. since 1990. Jews of Spanish origin settled in Mexico (new Spain) since the 1600's and today, only 34,000 estimated Mexican Jews continue to practice Judaism in the country. --Mike D 26 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should put more information on religion. Although not all Mexican Americans are catholic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.142.3 (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy of term "Mexican American"?

The section on the redundancy of the term "Mexican American" should probably be removed. The way American is used in Latin America is to mean more or less from the Americas. In the phrase Mexican American, at least in US English, it is used to describe a person of Mexican descent who lives in the US. The term is only redundant in Spanish and Portugese as spoken in Latin America. Theshibboleth 06:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the term is actually used in the U.S.A. doesn't make the term any less redundant. For example "PIN Number" is widely used but it is still redundant.
--Deepstratagem 06:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

_ _ The Shib is right, and the analogy is absurd.

_ _ It is a fact that "number" is part of what PIN abbreviates (though the PIN number article creates a controversy where there is none: all it needs to say is that strictly speaking there is redundancy; any sensible reader knows that that implies some people will draw attention to the fact. (But that is off-topic in that article, bcz drawing attention to it is not about PIN numbers, but about a matter of psychology and sociology -- about what underlies drawing attention to

• such redundant expressions,
• the "nucular" and "artic" and "Febuary" pronunciations of the corresponding words,
• whether it's ever accurate to write a zero in a box that asks for a "number",
• whether Caucasians should write "white" or "pink" in boxes asking for race, and,
• oh yes, now i remember, about how concieted it is to write the first person singular pronoun in upper case, as if i were a monarch entitled to violate plain logic in My personal grammar.)

_ _ This is not about a fact of redundancy, but about the fact that some people object to the primary meaning in English of the word "American"; they want to use it only in a way that would make it redundant to use it in the phrase the article is about. The mention in the article is simply hijacking users' attention in order to harangue them about something they are not interested in.
--Jerzy•t 05:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Jerzy; the analogy only goes so far. However, since the people who object to the meaning in the U.S. of the word "American" happen to be the people described in the article, and since the redundancy exists as a recognized socio-cultural phenomenon it is more relevant than you make it out to be. --Deepstratagem 06:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If the person of Mexican descent is born and raised in the U.S., and are naturalized citizens, you're totally right. But as long racial stereotypes and anti-immigration attitudes exist, the perception of Mexican Americans is going to release the kind of discrimination and intimidation. There are jokes and slurs that described Mexican Americans and other Latinos that I don't see as funny...and I'm not a Latino. You still have Anglos referred Mexicans as a backward, docile or "stupid" people unable to assimilate, but only want to work and get money to send home, a generally offensive statement. In movies and T.V. shows in the 1960's, Mexican Americans are depicted as bandits and field workers, always sleeping on the job or violently attacks white people, and spoke in accents: "ey speek no eengles". Most people in today's society don't find it real or funny, just like age-old racial portrayals of African Americans, Chinese, Arabs, etc. won't bother to get transmitted today. --Mike D 26 20:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression you didn't read the article. Mexico is in America, like Germany is in Europe, and therefore Mexicans are Americans, just like Germans are Europeans. Deepstratagem 08:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence that others consider the term Mexican American redundant and the reasoning behind it. Deepstratagem 21:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, do we need to compartmentalize everyone down to the smallest group we can come up with? Mexican American is like saying caucasian white guy. It's that redundant. How about we all be Americans instead of Mexican American, Irish American, African American, Italian American, British American. How come I never hear Canadian American? Why not be unified instead of divided. If you were born in America and reside in America, then you're and American. It's just getting down right rediculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.87.187 (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, partially. Some people - i.e. born in another country or with parents or parent from another country, can be or clearly are "X-American". However, certainly not everyone with a drop of X ancestry is "X-American", as some Wikipedia editors seem to errnoneously believe. Mad Jack 06:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You really shouldn't blame wiki editors for this. The debate over Mexican-Americans being white Americans has been going on way before wikipedia came along. I suggest you look up LULAC and get more aquainted with this topic since it might be assumed you are cluttering up the talk page. Mosquito-001 13:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"American" is reference to the United States of America. In English language, the word "American" usually refers to this. Peoplesunionpro 03:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm with Deepstratagem on this one. Yes, "American" in the English language only refers to a resident of the United States. However, as a United States citizen, I've never considered this a proper term at all; for one, it's not reliable, your average American out of central or south America can hardly ever relate to what you're describing; and two, the name of my country is the United States of America, as in every resident of the western hemisphere is an American, I am just a US citizen. So when you add it all up, the term just doesn't fit. However, sometime in the near future, I'd like to see someone casually make an impact on the world to separate the two. 74.128.210.169 04:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"American" is labeled as anyone that comes from America. "Mexican" is anyone that comes from Mexico. And by coming from means that you were born there. I live in Europe and they always ask me where I am from. I always respond I am from Texas. They never bother to ask me if I am Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican. They don't care. You know where they do care? That's right, in the US. And why does it matter? Because we are still Stereotyping people! Only in "America" do you care what color your skin is and who speaks what language. In Europe people here speak 3-4 languages, that is normal. The question was can you tell if someone is Mexican or American? The answer is why does this matter, they are human just like the rest of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.142.3 (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why argue over the definition of the word American? Mexican American is only redundant if the primary definition of American is of or pertaining to North and South America. But if you just look it up you see; A⋅mer⋅i⋅can    /əˈmɛrɪkən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-mer-i-kuhn] –adjective 1. of or pertaining to the United States of America or its inhabitants: an American citizen. 2. of or pertaining to North or South America; of the Western Hemisphere: the American continents.

So the primary definition of American is pertaining to the USA therefore Mexican American is not redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.173.177 (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias?

The Economic issues portion states that Mexican Americans almost exclusively are blue collar workers in places such as California, Texas, Arizona, ect. It seems to draw the conclusion that there are no Mexican Americans in White Collar fields. I find this to be untrue. I hope someone will rewrite the entire paragraph to reflect a more truthful picture.

Also, most of the information tends to lean towards ethnic Mexican and not Mexican Americans. As if to say there is little difference in the cultural, economic and social standing of Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants. There is a difference! Sgarza 17:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I changed "Economic Issues". It's short and sweet. And more precise. Sgarza — Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 13 February 2006

Here we go again! Why does this article emphasize Mexican American poverty and not our social mobility? If anything we have the greatest mobility of all! If we emphasize one, it only fair to emphasize the other! Sgarza 16:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Greatest mobility? Add to the article if you can find any sources that confirm this idea. Another topic that is missing in the article is crime. IIRC, Mexican Americans have crime rates twice the American (USA) average. This is significant and worth adding to the article if proper sources are found and added. Peoplesunionpro 03:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been my experince that MOST Mexican Americans are not White Collar. Only until recently have we seen some change in that field. Mexican American's are doing a Cross Over. Remember not too long ago that we got our freedoms. White males were the only ones that could vote. Women didn't even have rights, including white women. It will take some time for the world to change and realize that we do exist, we do have a voice and we will use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.142.3 (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Latino template

Please help with the Latino template. --JuanMuslim ^1m 18:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed edit below is appropriate for articles on Latino and Hispanic people, but not in Mexican American, and Vicente Fox-Quesada is the former president of Mexico relevant to the article. Bachelet and Chile are the other side of the coin, the same coin but let's put this edit on sections dealing with racial categories and what North Americans assume Vicente Fox is "white" or treated like a "Mexican". I mean, he's from Mexico (yes, Mexican) but of mainly European background (in the eyes of some horribly narrow-minded white Americans, he's another white guy in the street). It would be the same for a customs officer examined Michele Bachelet's ethnicity and get confused on whether she's a "Latina" (Chilean) or a Frenchwoman (not Canadian, Ok?).

<< Many prominent "white" Latin Americans who "don't look" like a stereotypical "brown" Latino, for example, Chilean president Michelle Bachelet would be called a "white Anglo" due to her heavy European (French-German-Greek) background, despite she originally came from a Spanish speaking country in South America, not a Mexican. >> -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.14.129 (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell someone is Mexican from American?

Whoever said you can tell a Mexican is an American not an immigrant across the border is a recent practice of discrimination and stereotypes. There are plenty of ethnic jokes of what an American "Mexican" (Chicano) looks like: Knows english but speaks "spanglish", has a bandana, wears a shirt with Aztec calendars, a "Raiders" cap or jersey, has tattoos of gothic letters on arms or back, drives low-rider customized '76 Cutlasses, the radio is on "Art LaBoe smooth rock oldies" and has a shaved head (men) or dyed blond hair (women). I'm afraid this is a result of American society took notice of Mexican immigrants dress, acts, talks or appears not exactly like what longer descriptions of "Mexicans" or Chicanos are. But the level of racial hate crimes against Latinos is feed by two different, but equally harmful images of what a "Mexican" or "Chicano" looks like, and I'm surprised with the media attention on hate crimes, the record on how much Mexican Americans or Latinos are targeted never carried weight. --Mike D 26 06:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Mexicans ARE Americans. See Use of the word American. Deepstratagem 07:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If the person of Mexican descent is born and raised in the U.S., and are naturalized citizens, you're totally right. But as long racial stereotypes and anti-immigration attitudes exist, the perception of Mexican Americans is going to release the kind of discrimination and intimidation. There are jokes and slurs that described Mexican Americans and other Latinos that I don't see as funny...and I'm not a Latino. You still have Anglos referred Mexicans as a backward, docile or "stupid" people unable to assimilate, but only want to work and get money to send home, a generally offensive statement. In movies and T.V. shows in the 1960's, Mexican Americans are depicted as bandits and field workers, always sleeping on the job or violently attacks white people, and spoke in accents: "ey speek no eengles". Most people in today's society don't find it real or funny, just like age-old racial portrayals of African Americans, Chinese, Arabs, etc. won't bother to get transmitted today. --Mike D 26 20:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No mention on intermarriage rates

There is a rising rate of racial or cultural intermarriage between whites/ Anglos and Latinos/Mexican Americans. Although not entirely common at this time, but I said this is on the rise and indicates the rate of assimilation is happening when a Latino/a is comfortable to marry a white Anglo...or outside their ethnicity. Anyone has an opinion on this and what it means for Mexican Americans, some have strong ties to Mexican heritage and insist on preservation of that? Personally, I've knew "white Americans" or those with blonde hair, blue eyes and light skin said they are Mexican or have a parent/grandparent who was. It's not yet a trend for anyone to say "I'm part Mexican" alike to say "part Indian" (not tribal) or "part Chinese" (not from China) or "part Jewish" (not religious). In the past when prejudice against Latinos was worse, it was considered miscegenation to some Anglos to marry outside their race or color, sometimes included with Hispanics. Today, most people aren't afraid of intermarriage and this silly fear of what their children look like or identify with. But if the trend of intermarriage does become common, will the Mexican American group blend in not socially, but genetically, with Anglos or white people? --Mike D 26 06:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Mexican relates to nationality and not race. Nothing prevents a "white" or a "black" person from being Mexican, if they have the ancestry, culture or nationality. 70% of the Mexican population has European roots. See Demographics of Mexico. Now, whether "Mexican American" is considered a race (provincially speaking, in the United States) that's an interesting question, but technically, the answer is no. Deepstratagem 07:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to insult or degrade people of Mexican ancestry, but I'm saying a trend gain notice in the U.S. Census and Hispanic political groups. This is a shared experience with all immigrant ethnic groups in the U.S. as more children or/and grand-children of immigrants would marry someone from another culture. True, state laws blocked intermarriage of white and African Americans, and in California, white and Asian Americans. Hispanics (in the case of Mexican Americans) are exempt because they qualified as "white" or European racial descent, unless they are declared "other" or appeared more African or American Indian on past Census documents. --Mike D 26 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

We are in such a hurry to be accepted into the "All American Dream" that we are blindsided by racism. I am married to a white man. His family dates back to England, all white. I am the third person of this generation to marry into the family.(African-American, Iranian, Mexican American) They still do not accept me, but they don't have to. My sister and cousin both married white men as well. We are not scared of losing our heritage, our culture, our roots. It's with every person to decide if they want to take that with them and share it with their children. To make their children aware of who they are and where they come from. To remind them of the past and see that they have a better future. I think that America was and still is a melting pot of sorts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.142.3 (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

When more Mexican-Americans have the opportunity and further contact with other ethnic groups and cultures, they will further become blended in and less homogenous in the next generation or two. In California, the large Mexican-American intermarriage rate with Filipino Americans and Indian Americans are well documented for quite some time, with some degree of intermarriage with other Asian Americans and fewer with African Americans although the U.S.' metro areas have higher percentages of Blacks, where Latinos live in close proximity to. The first-generation immigrants in any ethnic group in U.S. history have usually married within their group, but the ratio decreased in their American-born children (the second generation) and even less in the grand-children (third-generation) who appear more "Americanized" and racially mixed of both "Mexican" and "other" American in many cases. +71.102.2.206 (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

long list of Mexican American communities

What is the fn value in listing all these cities? danedouard00 07:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to replace the long list with an overlayed map of the US from the census bureau... please discuss danedouard00 06:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

im pretty sure that in DC its adams morgan with the high mexican population not just DC its self. im gonna do some research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.175.107 (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, the Washington DC article might have info. on these matters, most major city articles have sections on featured neighborhoods and how they vary from one another. I believe some of the list of Mexican-American communities are skeptical and not throughly researched, some may be more Puerto Ricans, Guatemalans, Salvadorans, Dominicians and Cubans than Mexicans et al. + 63.3.14.129 06:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also on the long list they didnt put redwood city, ca (bay area) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.206.140 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

new material, citations

this article tends to get a lot of edits that end up in questionable or unsourced material. a lot of it hints at being first hand experience or understanding by the editor, which doesn't really contribute to a good encyclopedia article.

there's already lots of clean-up that's required and i would suggest that new edits be reverted unless they have accompanying citatiosn or summarize already-sourced material. i've already done that with a long series of edits that were done today with no backup. danedouard00 02:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Mexican American vs. illegal Mexican alien

Folks, we need to keep these terms straight.

I cleaned up the article a little under "Economic and Social issues" but there is more work to be done. According to the very first sentence, Mexican Americans are legitimate US Citizens - not illegal aliens. Therefore the article should not dwell on any perceived plight of the illegal Mexican alien, difficulty finding employers willing to break the law to hire them, illegals receiving or not receiving government benefits, etc.

In addition, articles referring here (such as Santa Ana) probably need to reference illegal immigrant as well.

The "Discrimination and stereotypes" section is poorly written and should probably be removed altogether. --Da Cubs 04:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Please remove. I hate reading unencyclopedic junk. Be prepared to get unexplained restores from persons with variable quality standards... they'll make themselves known.danedouard00 05:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Some editors keep making it worse. danedouard00 21:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The section was rewritten and cleaned to anyone's liking...but no reliable sources and "citation needed" captions everywhere. I observe what goes on in the Mexican American community about the issue of stereotypes. There wasn't enough mention on today, there is less overt discrimination against Mexican Americans. But, the main problems affecting the ethnic group are immigration problems (legality and status) and the impact of large sources of "Mexican" cheap labor. The Mexican cultural niche is stronger because of millions of Mexicans straight out of the rural interior states, carried much of their culture over the border and not the same culture you may find in Mexico city, the beach resorts or in east Los Angeles. Not all Mexicans are the same and most older generation Mexican Americans think of themselves as Americans of Mexican descent...not "Mexicans" happen to live in another country. + 63.3.14.129 05:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job on cleaning up... Looks a lot more factual and less stereotypical. Deepstratagem 07:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous bias. TOTALLY DISPUTED

Sorry, but you don't get to write screeds attractive to your particular form of victimology on Wikipedia. Referring to the Minutemen and SOS as "nativist" and "extremist" groups which target Mexican-Americans is about as far from NPOV as it gets. And how about a source here and there to support some of the more absurd claims in the 'Racism' section?

I found out about this article by following a vandal who likes to make silly little modifications to immigration reform groups' entries. I see he has been hard at work on this page. BulldogPete 02:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

allegations of racism are funny

Mexican is not, has never been and will never be a race. I have cousins in Mexico City that are completely White (although I am not) they have not a single (known) drop of Indian blood. As a matter of fact, if they came to the states, you'd probably think they were Americans with Speech problems. Mestizo Mexicans may be Indian, but they're White too. There is no some other race. Most Mexican Americans should probably claim themselves as "Two or more races" because that is what most of them are. I'm White. I'm American Indian. I have enough sense to acknowledge I'm both. I really don't think It's fair that the BIA won't let them classify themselves as Indian, but they should at least classify themselves as White, considering most of them do have White ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.222.13 (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's go back to ancient times and explain where the term of "white" came from...The "white" people are from Europe. Germans, English, French, Greek, and Russian are all "white." Spaniards and Portugual are African from the Moors and Italians. Italians are from Egypt and Mesopotania area. They did alot of trading back in the day and alot of people moved into Europe from Mesopotania and Egypt area. If you ever come to Europe you can even see their facial features are so different. Russians are white like snow, and blond hair. English are white thin and brown hair. French are almost like the Italians with a little color, but the French women are a bit rounder in the face. Italians have their glow from the sun and the prodominant nose. Germans are white some brown some blond haired, deep voice and mainly medium build. The German men are quite strait and their hair is always quite thick. So eventhough they are "white" they are all different.

Indian in fact is a person that is native to that country. So unless your family dates back hundreds of years in America you shouldn't label yourself as an Indian

If you are not white then why are you American Indian? If you were born in the US you are a US Citizen, your race depends on where your ethnicity comes from. If your family comes from Latin America, then it is specified as such. I was born in the US but my family comes from Mexico and Spain. My family that still lives in Monterrey is also white skined, but they are Mestizos. I on the other hand am a Mexican American, or Latina. (Hispanic is someone from Hispanola, Cuban, Puerto Rican decendance or African decendence.)

In the future I see the government making "other" selection invalid. There will be many choices to choose from, especially if more and more minority get into the congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.142.3 (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

do you know something? You have no right to tell me I'm not Indian. I have an Indian grandfather and an Indian grandmother. So, yes, I am Indian. But. I'm still White. Don't tell be otherwise. That by they way, was a personal attack on me. Iamanadam 15:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Mestizo is a race and if they are Mestizo, they are not white. I am Mestizo because I have Native Mexican blood in me but I also have Spaniard blood in me so I am Mestizo but not white. There are people in my family who are dark skinned and light skinned but the ones who are light skinned do not have european features. Me, I'm not white, my race is technically Mestizo not white despite me having European blood in me that I got it from hundreds of years ago when the Spaniards conquered our anscestors. People like me should put "other" when talking about race and not white unless they have prodominantly european blood.German16rs 14:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Mestizo isn't a 'race', but it doesn't matter because there is only one human race and different groupings. It seems that you're trying to say that you are Native American with European blood that isn't a part of you. "our ancestors" (meaning Native Americans in Mexico) are not our ONLY ancestors...the Europeans are as well. Just because you think you're not white, doesn't mean it's correct. Mestizo's are both, not Native Americans just raped by Europeans as people put it, rather grotesquely I think. Cali567 00:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge List of notable Chicanos into List of Mexican Americans

See discussion at Talk:List of notable Chicanos. Pairadox 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

History of Latinos and Hispanics

Please consider contributing to the article entitled History of Latinos and Hispanics. Thank you! --JuanMuslim ^1m 02:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Politics and Entertainment

This article really needs a section that discusses politics. The fact that the current attorney general, governor of new mexico, and mayor of the second largest city in the US are all Mexican American isn't even mentioned.

There should also be a sports and entertainment section. Again, it should be mentioned that three starting NFL quarterbacks are of Mexican descent. There are also quite a few Mexican American entertainers such as Robert Rodriguez, Eva Langoria and Jennifer Alba that have achieved international fame. ComputerChess 01:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

cities....

Other cities in the Upper Midwest with thriving Mexican American communities are Detroit; Indianapolis; Kansas City, Missouri; St. Louis; Milwaukee; and Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. WHAT ABOUT THE LARGE MEX-AM POPULATION IN CHICAGO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.90.161 (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Mexican-Americans are widely scattered across the U.S. beyond the four border states (Cal., Tex., Ariz. & New Mex.). The city of Chicago has over 1.5 million Mexicans, perhaps has the title of the largest Mexican-American community outside the Southwest or Western U.S. states. There are largely Mexican-American neighborhoods in several towns in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and more recently, North and South Dakota. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

True, the Midwest U.S. along with the Southeast U.S. and the Northeast seen a dramatic increase of Mexican-Americans, Mexican immigration and other Hispanics in the 1990's and again the 2000's, a major demographic phenomenon across the U.S. including the states of Alaska and Hawaii had seen Hispanics grew several times by percentages. You can visit Syracuse, NY; Pittsburgh, PA; Tulsa, OK and Louisville, KY to find Mexican and other Hispanic neighborhoods appeared within 5 years time; whole blocks have stores, mama y papa-owned shops, restaurants and butcher shops (carnicerias) cater to their Hispanic customer base; and the presence of Spanish-language radio or TV stations. +71.102.2.206 (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition, states like Montana and Wyoming are over 5 percent Hispanic with the majority of that subsection being of Mexican ancestry. Half the population of several Idaho towns or cities with red links to indicate there are no articles or were deleted (or restored): Ada County, Idaho, Bannock County, Idaho, Caldwell, Nampa and Nyassa, Idaho/Nyassa, Oregon area seem to be seasonal/temporary-resident migrant laborers of Mexican or other Hispanic nationality. I came to notice someone corrected the percentages of Mexican-born and Mexican descent in the top 25 communities lists, perhaps to indicate the singular or "in addition to" ancestry by personal details who said "I'm completely" or "partially" Mexican-American in these places. Mecca, California is said to be 90% Hispanic, but only 20% are Mexican and over 55% are born in Mexico often of Central American nationality when their parents temporarily stayed in Mexico en route to the USA. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A separate article: The List of Mexican-American communities was deleted as of May 1st, due to inaccurate edits and poor amount of resources to back up the entries, and the flexibility of the Mexican populations in several communities by economic conditions in both Mexico and the U.S. during the current global recession. There was a general decrease of the Hispanic population in the Hazleton, Pennsylvania area, a hotbed of anti-illegal immigration laws and sentiment by residents and city council officials in the mid 2000s. Mexican-Americans and other Latino ethnic groups are found in all 50 states, both are viewed as a major factor of demographic change in the first decade of the 21st century. The main reason for sudden appearance and high growth of Mexicans in the U.S. was from economic booms of the late 20th century, whenever Mexico has a serious economic crisis brought by the devaluation of the peso and the inability to create more good-paid jobs for the fast-growing national population. The nomadic influx of Mexican and Latino labor being seasonal, like a group of construction workers or farm laborers may be in Farmingville, New York in one month but can drive down to Manassas, Virginia or Belle Glade, Florida the next month. + Mike D 26 (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The original separate article had a list of them (U.S. cities and counties known for large Mexican populations) but ended up deleted off record. I always believed it could been reedited and reorganized, added more verifiable resources to back up claims (i.e. web sites by the US Census and Mexican-American/Hispanic organizations are good places to start). No similar issues and problems arisen from articles with similar lists for other ethnic groups: List of African American neighborhoods for example. + Mike D 26 (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The impact of Mexican immigration is being felt across the USA, in all 50 states and DC. The US census found Hispanics are now the largest minority group in nearly all 50 states, including the far north ones like Vermont and North Dakota, and even Hispanic immigrants made themselves at home in Alaska. The demographic change in the last 10-20 years since 1990, although the trend began in the late 1970's and 1980's when the economies in Latin America was in terrible shape caused a "push-and-pull" effect to the USA. Hispanics, such as Cubans and Puerto Ricans are in all 50 states along side with Mexican-Americans moving into areas away from the Mexican border and not traditionally known for having a Hispanic cultural influence have created new enclaves & communities in them. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Images of America" book series has several books on Mexican-American and Latino communities. http://www.arcadiapublishing.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=arcadia&Category_Code=Mexican-American 71.102.1.95 (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Racial Classification

I really believe the racial classification sections should be shortened, nearly a third of this article is related to that one issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamcast88 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this is really out of balance.Parkwells (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Make better and more comprehensive

Someone should really consider and make an effort to make the Mexican American reference a lot more robust. This version of the page has been like this for so long and really only touches on the obvious issues of immigration and discrimination. What about traditions? What about holidays? What about contributions? There is absolutely a whole lot more to the Mexican American. I suggest one reference the Chinese American and the Filipino American. Now those are fine and quality references of a culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.59.176 (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I had not noticed that. I hope those who edit this article regularly take your advice to heart. SamEV (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe information in the History of Mexican-Americans articles should be integrated into this article. It seems to address more contemporary issues than this main article. KayoRu (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has included a section on ethnic "segregation" of Mexican Americans, it's well informative and has in-depth information. How about one section on educational issues affecting this ethnic group? In the 1970s, the California Dept. of Education studies has found in special education classes across the state, there were unusually high numbers of Mexican American students were wrongly labeled as mentally "retarded". But the study confirms these students misplaced in special education classes had lacked enough proficiency in the English language and came from households with little resources to boost academic performance. If given tests in their native language (Spanish) or had more resources for them available, they would have about the same level of academic performance. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Start from scratch

I'm often amazed at Wikipedia's informative and balanced articles. Of course, being an open encyclopedia, one might encounter an article reminiscent of a generous C- high school Social Studies paper. Even this talk page is nothing more than a fleshed out "Rants and Raves" section of Craiglist. In other words, someone shit the bath on this one. I'm pretty sure the self appointed victims who wrote this article contribute greatly to the low opinion of Wikipedia that many adhere too. This article is biased, inaccurate and inarticulate. I really hope the contributers of the article "Mexico" (an excellent example of what Wikipedia's content should be) are up to do the research of Mexican Americans. Then we might have something here. BTW 'Anglo' is not a synonym for white or Caucasian. To use such a loaded term seriously (and constantly) reveals a possibly racist and definitely ignorant mind at work here. Select All, Delete, start from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.26.33 (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. I made the statement above about the comparison with this poorly fragmented and unbalanced article and other fine examples such as the article on Chinese Americans or Mexico. Way too much opinion and not enough facts to inform others of the Mexican American culture. It's almost embarrassing to know that people have referenced this when wanting to learn about my culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.50.9 (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Mexican" American pictures

Is all the "Mexican" people picture a white people or what. There is no really brown Mexican person. What is going on? Mexicans hate their ethnicity? and everyone is white, which they are not about 99% of them. Mexicans are brown people not some mixed Spanish people. They are not white people and the Mexican template almost all of them are white Spanish in there. 71.237.70.49 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mexicans are mostly of European and Indian descent. Mexico has one of Latin America's largest White populations... Mexican Americans account for most of all the White Hispanics in the U.S. The pictures represent Mexicans, Mestizo, White and Indian... Your reasoning isn't correct that all Mexicans are non-white. It was never stated Mexicans were Spaniards, although most/many descend from places in Spain, France, Italy, etc I understand your "concern" that Mexicans look "brown"... You may not have had the chance to travel the world and see for yourself things that you may think as fact are not always so. (Millions of people have wrong assumption about Mexico/Latin America Many of the new immigrants are Indians from Southern Mexico. But, Populations of immigrants from other countries do not always mirror the ethnic make up of the majority of the people in that country. Example: Most Cuban Americans are White, yet Cuba is a Mulatto nation. Please read more for your sake. Cali567 (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mexicans are predominantly of Indigenous descent. Hence the slogans of "Brown Pride" in the 70s. You never see Mexicans joining "White Pride" movements. But some people here are so obsessed with the "white blood" race ideology that they see whiteness everywhere, like someone from the Aryan Nation. Why are white people so OBSESSED with the racial characteristics of Mexicans? They sound like Nazis from the 1930's who were obsessed with dissecting and scrutinizing "The Jewish blood" of people. These people need to get a life and confront their own racism. I'll bet they never obsess like this over African-Americans or White Americans' blood composition. Dropmeoff (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll tell you why so many white people here are obsessed with the "white race ideology" and Mexicans...to have 30+ million "Indians" in America is a numerical threat to them.Dropmeoff (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Any Mexican who thinks of him/herself "white" is not "white" in actually "white people"s views. Saying that "most" Mexicans are from Europe can be the most ridiculous self hatred. When I see Mexicans outside none of these people look white to me. They are all indigenious peoples of North America. They don't look like anything like European. You can say that "some" are descended from Europe, but to say that most of 60 million people are white people will mean that more than 31 million white people live in Mexico. You can say that Europeans and indigenious people mixed (interracial), but to state that 31 million white European descended Mexicans live in Mexico, that is ridicilous to any person. My problem with your statement is the word "most." That just seems fantastic misstatement. Anyone agree? I want to ask anyone, especially Americans who see many white Mexicans in the United States? I think I have seem handful of white Mexicans and most 99% of Mexicans are indigenious peoples of North America that built the Mayan and Aztec civilizations.

Also please specify what line in your sources says that "most" Mexicans are white people, or delete that line with the sources since you cannot pinpoint exactly where it says that 31 million Mexicans are white. Also Cuban Americans are not white, they are Cuban. They all look browner to me. White in the United States is twisted term. There are also "non-Hispanic" white which would the European descendants, but "white" in general includes the Mexicans in the US census, however in common US conversation Mexican is not "white." Ask any white American people. I think you are totally confused about it.

Please specify the source or remove that ridicilous 31 million white Mexican statement. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me backup my claim with numbers. Mexican population is around 106 million, White Mexican is around 16 million, which would be around 15 million. That is not the "most" of Mexicans. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Mexican Americans and Mexicans are not the same group of people when talking statistically, so you might want to start reading about them as seperate groups. You are misreading most of the introduction. The word "most" is not just before "Mexicans are White", if you see that, then please change it. However, Most Mexicans do descend from Europeans and also the Indigenous population of Mexico. Mexico's ethnic make-up is mostly Mestizo (Part Amerindian and part White), also it has a large European Population and a (somewhat) larger Amerindian Population. Therefore most Mexicans descend from Europe, as you can say most descend from Mexico itself (Meaning Indegenous People). In the Intro it must be stated that Mexicans, in general, are descendants of both groups... that's why Europe is added. You seem to be the one who is confused about this.By the Way, you may want to get familiar with the Census classifications. Example, Whites are people from Europe, the Middle East, and Northern Africa.

About the "Any Mexican who thinks of him/herself "white" is not "white" in actually "white people"s views" issue, this is a matter of opinion. It is not the right, or business of people to say whether or not someone is a particular race/ethnicity/culture. Many groups such as the Irish, Germans, Italians, etc. were not considered White by some. This means nothing.

Why are you so obsessed with people's "racial purity"? Doesn't this type of talk belong on the Stormfront.org web site? Do you also talk like this on the Jews page? You sound like a Nazi obsessed with "race purity" pseudoscience. I don't think this racial purity nonsense belongs in an encyclopedia in the year 2010. it belongs in an encyclopedia from the year 1938. Dropmeoff (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are the one who is carrying the tone of racism. If you have any constructive activity to persue, by all means, do it. C.Kent87 (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is hilarious. So in people's opinion, one must be Native Indian looking to be Mexican? Mexico is a racially diverse nation. They have different versions and colors of people just like the United States. Why can't people recognize this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.43.69 (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, it is not the same the Northern states of Mexico and the Southern states. In Southern states, home of the old Aztec and Maya Empires, there is a large Native American minority and the Indian percentage is much larger than average. Meanwhile, in the North of Mexico (from Baja California to Tamaulipas) there is a large percentage of Whites, as these states were colonized by Spaniards and other European immigrants being sparcely populated. According to the last racial census in Mexico (1921) more than 30% of the population in states like Sonora were White. Anyway, it is evident a majority of Mexicans are mestizo (Euro-Indian) both in Mexico and in the U.S., but in the U.S. the percentage of White Mexicans is higher as there was a large population of Spanish European immigrants in Western states like New Mexico, Texas and California and a large immigration from next door Mexican Northern states like Nueveo Leon and Sonora with a large White minority...--83.53.111.12 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Bill Richardson, Eva Longoria and Cesar Chávez wouldn´t be considered whites in Spain but mestizos (Euro-Indian)--88.18.148.134 (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)::

Actually, these people would be thrown together with the "Indians". Mestizo just means "mixed" in Spanish. "Mestizo" is racist European pseudoscience that was discredited back in the 1960's after the Nazis were defeated. The whole world is "mestizo" in one way or another. Your presumption assumes that the white race is somehow "racially pure". Dropmeoff (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There are many Spaniards themselves who are as dark as those mentioned here. Do not use blanket observations in your quest for - whatever it is. C.Kent87 (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My problem with the photo is that Salma Hayek, for example, is not Mexican-American; she's Mexican, born and raised in Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomás E. Burgos. (talk • contribs) 04:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ellen Ochoa Mexican?

Is she really Mexican? It states that she is Hispanic? Not necessarily Mexican? 71.237.70.49 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is stated that she is a Mexican-American born in Los Angeles. Cali567 (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Economic Force

Is their any info. of Mexican-American GDP as a nationality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.47.151 (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gabbysolis12.jpg

The image Image:Gabbysolis12.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Cesar E. Chavez.jpg
• Image:UFW logo.jpg
• Image:RubenSalazar.jpg
• Image:MangoStreet.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Improved Article

Very, very happy to see that this entry has come a long way in terms of content, length and facts. Although it still has some problems with editing and the flow of the article. Specifically, the "Mexican-American communities" section is much too long. Find a way to keep it relevant, but shorten it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.50.223 (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Follow up: The last half of the article focuses way too much on the political and social issues. I count about 3-5 different sections with huge paragraphs dedicated to these topics. Lets summarize, clean these up and add more about the contributions of Mexican Americans and culture to American society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.50.223 (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree, most articles on other ethnic groups do not have nearly as much information on these topics. Also, what is the reason for the 'Mexican-Americans in Pro sports' section? Mexican Americans are a part of dozens of other, more important, occupations such as politics, entertainment, music, etc. Why only sports? C.Kent87 (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Photos = Obsession with whiteness?

Who is selecting the photos for this page? The KKK? What's with the obsession with whiteness here? Go down to the border and look at the color of the people crossing. You don't see masses of blonde hair (not even fake blonde). You see distinctly INDIGENOUS-looking people. I have a strong feeling this page is frequented by white males with an anti-Indigenous axe to grind. Why do white people HATE admitting that Mexicans are predominantly Indigenous-blooded people? Because it would pose a numerical threat of having so many "Indians" here. This is a very pro-White page. I notice that many of the "defenders of whiteness" in this discussion are obssessed with pushing the "European-descent" race ideology. It's like they can't stand to say that Mexicans are mainly brown (indigenous blood) people. Dropmeoff (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no one person "selecting" the photos for this page. Your false accusations in issues such as race and ethnicity are not constructive. Have you done any real research on this topic? Have you been to more than 5 cities in Mexico other than border towns? Or to Mexico at all? Many used as examples in the article are indeed "brown" and all are very much Mexican-American. The many shades of Mexican-Americans are prented very well.

Mexicans are indeed a people group consisting of three main "ethnic" groups: Indians, Europeans, and Mestizos. THAT is a fact. It is also a fact that those with ancestry from both groups (Europeans AND Indians) are the majority. What you must also consider is Phenotype. Phenotype DOES NOT have to reflect a person's ancestral make up. The fact that you might see a group of "brown people" sitting in a room does means only that their skin is brown (And what constitutes "brown skin" is clearly subjective). If you researched their ancestry, you could very well find that they have ancestors from Ireland, Germany, etc. Many Europeans themselves have brown skin, with no admxture.

Your thought process, which you have shown us by stating, "Go down to the border and look at the color of the people crossing" is missing much. This article should not be Pro-anything, it should be facts and only facts. I understand your concern about people degrading Indigernous peoples and being Eurocentric, it is in many places. However, I don't believe it is here. You seem to think that by letting people know the fact that millions of Mexicans are full or part European, we are somehow promoting "whiteness" and downgrading our "Indian status". That is simply unfounded. It is a fact that Mexico is represented by three cultures (listed above), as stated in the Mexican constitution. C.Kent87 (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Who picked out the photos? Some Mexican PR firm? How about adding someone like Ángel Maturino Reséndiz, a criminal just like all the other millions of Mexican illegal aliens. DarienBrewer (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We do not have a photo of Ángel Maturino Reséndiz. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't see picture of Al Capone on the Italian American page, do you?? Your ignorance blossoms very well. Nice try though. B575 (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Illegal population

How many of this 30 million are illegal? Technically they are not Americans. The article should make note of the number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.108.42 (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent additions

Ok Fernirm you must read and understand this pages --->Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Moxy (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see how removing two ungrammatical and highly debatable sentences count as original research or NPOV. If my reading of the history page is correct, Fernirm didn't write anything--he was deleting information. So I don't understand your complaint. Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct my mistake....just trying to fix all the damage he has done ....was wrong here Moxy (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see from the user's history how this happened. Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

All the damage I have done? This Moxy guy stalks me wherver I edit (out of good faith) and always reverts my edits. Please stop Moxy, or I will report you.--Fernirm (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Pls yes bring your actions to admin ...Because we can not i repeat can not let you change things at will because you think your right as you have done here, here, here..just in the past few days ...if you not sure what a nationality is pls don't make them up. With that said you are correct in the Mexican American indecent....and i am sorry for that...just normally your edits are not constructive and your POV so i though jeff was right here. Moxy (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but those are not vandalism, perhaps those are POV edits, and I am sorry if they are such, and regarding the Cuban Asian edit, it's just that most articles on Wikipedia that use the term "Asian" use it in a US-centric form and not a more worldly form per se. And by the way, white and Asian do not constitute nationalities. BUT, what I highly dislike is the fact that you said that I "tricked" you, how can I "trick" you into doing an edit? Explain to me how is that possible?--Fernirm (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I simply though you did an edit...but it was actually me that added the info...Again i am sorry for saying that...Moxy (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Family Values paragraph in the article was removed and deleted, because the wikipedian (or was it an anon editor) claim it perpetuates stereotypes and claims there was no factual research data to back up the belief on "Mexican Americans have strong family connections". Mike D 26 (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Are the Photo's accurate?

It seems like there is an agenda to only pick white/Caucasian Mexicans to put in the photos. Most on the streets are brown lets be realistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.108.42 (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

How would YOU know which whites "on the Streets" are of Mexican origin or not? grow up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.109.230 (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What is inaccurate about the pictures? Are the people in the pictures not of famous or historically important Mexican Americans?? You do not make any sense whatsoever. B575 (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

THE NEW MEXICAN AMERICAN PICTURES

The pictures are okay, except for Carlos Santana, Jessica Alba, and Selena Gomez. Santana was born in Mexico and spent a significant amount of time there. Alba and Gomez are only half Mexican, I suggest that whoever made the picture montage remove Alba and put Damian Chapa in her place, and remove Santana and put Mark Sanchez in his place, and finally, remove Gomez and replace her with Richard E. Cavazos or George Lopez (best would probably be the latter just to represent Mexican diversity). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.14.44 (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Pena instead of Selena Quintanilla? WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.147.153 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Do people not understand the concept of copyright? From Selena09.jpg "This work is copyrighted..." "...Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." hence Pena. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.1.206 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please someone put a picture of Selena Quintanilla on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejanorules (talk • contribs) 20:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to ban user-created montages from Infoboxes

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Infobox_Images_for_Ethnic_Groups. Bulldog123 09:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Mexican Americans

America is a big place. It goes from Argentina up through Greenland. All Mexicans are Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.205.169 (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In the English language, "America" refers to the United States WhisperToMe (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry your education system failed you, but you are north americans not americans. Americans are from the USA, North Americans are from the continent of north america and south americans from the continent of south america.71.241.250.239 (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not true. The entire hemisphere is America. We're all Americans, not just the folks in the USA. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear anonymous IP. I don't know why you believe that America is the name of a country. It might be the affectionate name or short name of a country (long form name United States of America, short name America), but America is the name of an entire continent too; "The Americas" in the 7 continents model. You should take a look here -> America and at the article ->Americas. The demonym for any person living in America/Americas is American. Karnifro (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

But that's not the usage established in the English language. In English "American" refers to someone from the United States. This is not how it's used in Spanish, but we aren't on the Spanish Wikipedia. This debate will not be productive, because the preferred English form is clearly "Mexican American" WhisperToMe (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

How many legal Mexican citizens live in the US?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.93.197 (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this is a question motivated by the darker impulses of mankind. However I will answer it. No government agency keeps such statistics. There are plenty of them and one should never assume that someone here is Illegal. The vast vast majority of Mexican Americans are people who's families came here legally, have been here for many generations, and in many cases were on the land before we conquered it from Mexico. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If you factor in the Reagan amnesty of the 1980s, which legalized almost 5 million [mostly] Mexican illegal aliens. And then factor in the 12 million + illegal aliens present in the nation today [again mostly mexican] - Those two figures combined equals out to some 17 million illegal aliens, so nearly half of the 35 million strong Mexican-American population is or was, illegal aliens. Also that is not counting the children of illegal aliens born in the USA, if you add them in then logically the vast majority of the Mexican-American population is descended from illegal aliens, either from a parent or both parents, or from their grandparents. 107.222.205.242 (talk)

Terminology "Anglo" Problematic

The use of the term "Anglo" is problematic. I am suggesting an edit to American or Anglo-American. The term is racially polarizing, and possibly derogatory. The use of the term arises from the need to contrast Spanish and English speakers in the U.S. The problem is that, while Spanish speakers, and persons of Hispanic descent very likely to relate to the term "Latino/a", English speakers, of Caucasian descent or otherwise, of British Isles descent or otherwise, are not at all likely to relate to the term "Anglo". It is a projection outward upon them. While for example, an understanding and usage of terms such as "la cultura hispana/la cultura sajona" (Hispanic culture/"Saxon" (English speaking) culture) has been known since before the era of American colonization in the Spanish speaking world, no such equivilant exists in English. (U.S.) Americans do not consider themselves culturally tied in the same way Latin Americans themselves do to Spain, or as perhaps Latin Americans imagine (U.S.) Americans do.

Furthermore, the term is confusing. Americans may be properly called Americans, or U.S. citizens - and, colloquially, Yankees, however that would be innapropriate historically and problematic in this particular case. The settlers who arrived in the 19th century in Texas, were Americans, largely from the Southern States. They would not have called themselves Anglo, and have never been called Anglo. Using the term Anglo might suggest to some readers that the U.S. citizen settlers to Texas were instead English.

I understand the opposite reasoning. Mexicans (along with 19th century Tejano settlers) are also Americans in one sense, as are all the people of all the nations on the American continent. Spanish speakers today instead use the terms "norteamericano" (North American) or "estadounidense" (United States' citizen), to refer to (U.S.) Americans - using the term "americano" (American) as it is used in the U.S., to refer to U.S. citizesns, only colloquially. Ultimately though, the article is in English, and will follow the established norms of use for that language, even while discussing issues relating to another.

If the need is felt to articulate the complexities surrounding this issue, and the paucity of terminology on the English language side of the equation, I invite fellow contributors to insert material into the article or linked pages. Best wishes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattDiClemente (talk • contribs) 10:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Have changed references to European Americans. Agree that Anglo is jarring, and "Anglo-Saxon culture" had already changed through enormous immigration and other demographic changes in the 20th c. Other influences were at hand.Parkwells (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Anglo is a term that actually was used widely by English speakers in the Southwest in the 20th century in contrast to Spanish etc. - I suspect MattDiClemente may not be from the region or is younger.

The Canadian terms are Anglophone, Francophone, Allophone. I haven’t seen the forms Anglophone, Hispanophone used in the Southwest, perhaps because US-born Hispanic people may not speak Spanish well or at all. --JWB (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mexican American

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mexican American's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "2010 Census":

• From Demographics of Virginia: Resident Population Data. United States Census Bureau. 23 December 2010. Retrieved 2011-03-25.
• From Puerto Ricans in the United States: "2010 Census". Medgar Evers College. Retrieved 2010-04-13.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This Wiki Page is a bunch of crap

56% of Mexican Americans white? Get out of here. California & Texas both have the majority of America's hispanics. They are mostly Mestizos from Mexico NOT WHITE or from Spain. Mestizos are mixed and often look much closer to their native side than they do their Spaniards. Selecting pictures of white people will not change the truth. The majority of Mexican-Americans ARE NOT WHITE. The whites in America are Germans, English, Irish, Scottish, Spaniards (if there are even any left), French, Scandinavians, Russians, Polish, Italian and the list goes on NOT MEXICANS. Whites don't even make a large dent in Mexico's population. This page just further proves to me, that America has a whole is losing its idea of race. It's already bad enough people ignorantly call Hispanic a race, although Hispania is in Spain which is in Europe, making the Spaniards still white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:211E:22A4:E7E8:32B3 (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image POV

I am concerned that the infobox image that is used as of this time stamp, which is current as of my posting, does not abide by WP:NPOV. It is heavily weighted, and thus gives undue weight, to one political party (the Democrat Party) in the United States, and improperly excludes notable Mexican Americans who maybe of other political parties. Therefore, I will tag the article accordingly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

You need to take off the pictures of Demi Lovato and Jessica Alba. This is a page talking about Mexican Americans. Demi and Jessica are only part Mexican. They are mostly white, so therefore, they should not be included in this article. Replace their pictures with Selena Quintanilla and Joe Lopez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejanorules (talk • contribs) 04:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Both Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato are 50% Mexican ancestry, where do you suggest we put them? The German-American or Italian-American section?? B575 (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Selena Quintanilla should definitely be on the picture gallery. She represents the American Dream. Zedhead22 (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The pic we have of her, File:Selena Quintanilla-Pérez.jpg, is marked non-free. It would not be acceptable for use in the gallery for this page. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

How are they any more or any less Mexican than somebody who is a mestizo Mexican of 25% Mexican Indian ancestry and 75% Spanish ancestry? In both instances, they are part Mexican Indian and part European, therefore equally mestizo and equally Mexican. People of mestizo ancestry in Mexico itself are more than just a combination of Mexican Indian and Spanish. Some are Mexican Indian and Italian (which is also Latin). Some are Mexican Indian and Irish (like actor Anthony Quinn). Some are Mexican Indian and German. Some are Mexican Indian and all of those things, plus other things. You get my point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calendar2014 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, too many White Mexicans (Criollos) or half-white Mexicans in the infobox. The average Mexican-American is a mestizo (just like the average Mexican from Mexico) yet all you see in the infobox is an inaccurate representation of the general Mexican-American population and not a reflection of its diversity too. Surprising? Nope, Wikipedia is known for white-washing and being Eurocentric.NativeandProsperous (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Terminology "Intermarriage" Problematic

Here is what has been on the "Intermarriage" section for quite some time:

"Intermarriage[edit]

According to 2000 census data, US-born ethnic Mexicans have a high degree of intermarriage with non-Hispanic Whites. Based on a sample size of 38,911 U.S.-born Mexican husbands and 43,527 U.S.-born Mexican wives:[69] 50.6% of US-born Mexican men and 45.3% of US-born Mexican women married US-born Mexicans;[69] 26.7% of US-born Mexican men and 28.1% of US-born Mexican women married non-Hispanic Whites; and[69] 13.6% of US-born Mexican men and 17.4% of US-born Mexican women married Mexico-born Mexicans.[69]"

However, the term "intermarriage" here assumes that all "interracial" or "interethnic" relationships are marriages. This is problematic and could be misleading. I added,

"However, there are many other things to take into consideration when it comes to ethnic "intermarriage". First, the data from this particular study are from more than a decade and a half ago. Second, as acknowledged in the study, the data only shows marriages that existed in a given point in time. Furthermore, the data is from only 62,734 such marriages,[69] when the total U.S. Mexican American population is estimated at 35,320,579 according to the U.S. Census Bureau 2014 American Community Survey.[1] Additionally, it is very important to consider that many unions are not or do not result in marriages. According to the study "Hispanics and the Future of America" by Landale, Oropesa and Bradatan,

"... exogamous cohabiting unions are generally less likely to involve a non-Hispanic white partner and more likely to involve a Hispanic partner or a black partner than are exogamous marriages. The figures for black partners are especially striking. Among Mexican American women, for example, about 4 percent (.7/15.7) of exogamous marriages involve a black spouse, while 9 percent (2.4/26.2) of exogamous cohabiting unions involve a black partner."[70]

A survey done in the study showed that amongst births to unmarried mothers of Mexican ancestry who were either first-generation or native born, 5.3% were born to a white, non-Hispanic father, 2.5% were born to a black, non-Hispanic father and 29.7%, or close to a third, had missing information as to the father's ethnicity "since missing information on fathers is problematic in birth certificate data."[71] In addition, reflecting U.S families in general, the authors state, "more than 40 percent of births to Hispanic mothers take place outside marriage...".[72] The specific percentage of out-of-wedlock births for Mexican American mothers, however, was not given. Finally, the results may vary greatly depending on where the samples were taken. In addition, based on 2000 data, there is a significant amount of ethnic absorption of ethnic Mexicans into the mainstream population with 16% of the children of mixed marriages not being identified in the census as Mexican.[73]"

This was taken down because I was notified that it violated the WP:SYNTHESIS rule. I do not feel that I violated this rule because I did not reach or imply a conclusion. I simply offered other things to take into consideration, while providing another, reliable source. Any suggestions on how I can change this without [apparently] violating that rule? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calendar2014 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It violates WP:SYNTHESIS because it introduces issues not in evidence in the sources. It notes study being older, criticizes 64k and implies this is insufficient, advocates that other things are very important to consider, then draws disfavorable comparisons to a different study. This is not encyclopedic tone, and is original research. Find reliable secondary sources to support comments. Do not develop your own language based on your own analysis of the data. That's why it fails SYNTH. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

These are all valid things to consider. Furthermore, if the source isn't a reliable source, why are you allowing it to be a source for the page on Stateside Puerto Ricans? On that page, under "Identity", the source is used for the statement, "Puerto Ricans are more likely to be proficient in English than any other Hispanic group, and Puerto Ricans are also more likely to intermarry other ethnic groups, and far more likely to intermarry or "intermingle" specifically with blacks than any other Hispanic group." Isn't the use of the word "far" in the phrase "far more likely" an example of language that was developed based on their own analysis of the data? Also, in the 2000 census data for intermarriage amongst U.S. born ethnic Mexicans, isn't the usage of the phrase "US-born ethnic Mexicans have a high degree of intermarriage with non-Hispanic Whites" a matter of personal interpretation as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calendar2014 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

If it's a valid thing to consider, then provide the reliable secondary sources that show it's valid to consider. It's not our job to conduct original research, nor it is allowed. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer my other questions. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The point descends from that. One you start synthesizing results you're conducting original research. The rest of it builds on that. If you want to modify the language to fix things, fine but do so based on the available sources not on your conclusions. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There. I got rid of any suggestive language and re-posted it. Sources are provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calendar2014 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding WP:SYNTHESIS. Your edits have been reverted by someone who reached the same conclusions I did. Please, don't try again. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

And I don't think that you are understanding the points that I have made on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calendar2014 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, so convinced of your rightness, you edit war to your preferred version. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Mexican American Intermarriage

I am petitioning here to have the intermarriage statistics here on the Mexican Americans page removed. My reasoning:

1. The study only surveyed a relatively small group of people.
2. We don't know where this survey was done (Was it nationwide or in a small, selected area?).
3. Not all unions between people, whether they have children together or not, are marriages.
4. The study was done over 17 years ago and these kinds of things can change quickly, especially in that amount of time. Calendar2014 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Mexican American Intermarriage

More reasons why the Census 2000 data on Mexican American "intermarriage" should be deleted from this page:

According to the Pew Research Center on Hispanics of Mexican Origin, 2013:

"Marital status. Mexicans ages 18 and older are slightly more likely (48%) to be married than Hispanics overall (46%) but less likely than the U.S. population overall (50%). Among Mexicans ages 18 and older, the foreign born are more likely to be married than U.S.-born Mexicans—60% vs. 37%." And...

"Fertility. Fewer than one-in-ten (7%) Mexican women ages 15 to 44 gave birth in the 12 months prior to this survey. That was equal to the rate for all Hispanic women and similar to the overall rate for U.S. women (6%). More than four-in-ten (44%) Mexican women ages 15 to 44 who gave birth in the 12 months prior to the survey were unmarried. That was similar to the 45% rate for all Hispanic women and greater than the 38% overall rate for U.S. women."

Source: Pew Research Center. Hispanic Trends. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/15/hispanics-of-mexican-origin-in-the-united-states-2013/ Retrieved July 16, 2017.

This means that when the intermarriage survey was done in 2000 and likely even more-so in 2013, there were a whole lot of U.S.-born Mexican origin people that were with a partner and/or with a child/children of their own that were not married and thus wouldn't have been counted in the survey. Evidence seems to strongly indicate that the vast majority of those unreported for non-married unions between U.S.-born Mexican origin females and non-Mexican origin males were and are between Mexican American females and Black/African American non-Hispanic males. Calendar2014 (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

As with anything on Wikipedia, if you can properly source updated information in an article, then by all means do so. The one caveat I would throw in here is when you say "seems to strongly indicate". Unless a primary or secondary source indicates that, it shouldn't be included. Have a read through WP:SYNTHESIS for more explanation of why this is important. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Hammersoft. I have read through WP:SYNTHESIS again and I believe I understand what it is saying. I do not wish to vandalize in any way, so before posting, I will ask your opinion. I obtained permission from the National Academies Press to cite a study published by them in 2006 entitled "Hispanics and the Future of America", featured on the NCBI web site, as long as I am using 500 words or less of their material. Here is what I would like to add to the intermarriage section for the Mexican Americans page:

   A study done by the National Research Council (US) Panel on Hispanics in the United States published in 2006 looked at not only marriages, but also non-marriage unions.  It found that since at least 1980, marriage for females across all Hispanic ethnic groups, including Mexican Americans, has been in a steady decline. [source citation]  In addition, the percentage of births to unmarried mothers increased for females of Mexican descent from 20.3% in 1980 to 40.8% in 2000, more than doubling in that time frame. [source citation]  The study also found that for females of all Hispanic ethnicities, including Mexican origin, "considerably fewer births to unmarried Hispanic mothers involve partnerships with non-Hispanic white males than is the case for married Hispanic mothers.  Second, births outside marriage are more likely to involve a non-Hispanic black father than births within marriage." [source citation]  Additionally, "Unions among partners from different Hispanic origins or between Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks are considerably more evident in cohabitation and parenthood than they are in marriage.  In particular, unions between Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks are prominent in parenthood, especially non-marital births."  [source citation]  Furthermore, for 29.7% of unmarried births to native-born females of Mexican origin and 40% of unmarried births to females of "Other Hispanic" origin, which may include Mexican American, information on the father's ethnicity was missing.  [source citation]  The study was supported by the U.S. Census Bureau, amongst other sources.  [source citation]

Source: Landale NS, Oropesa RS, Bradatan C. Hispanic Families in the United States: Family Structure and Process in an Era of Family Change. In: National Research Council (US) Panel on Hispanics in the United States; Tienda M, Mitchell F, editors. Hispanics and the Future of America. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2006. 5. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19902/

I would like this discussion to be as civil as possible, so your input would be highly appreciated. If you believe that this does not violate WP:SYNTHESIS, I will post it. If, however, you feel that it is in violation, please let me know why. Thanks. Calendar2014 (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mexican Americans

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mexican Americans's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bio":

• From Mississippi: Mikko Saikku (January 28, 2010). "Bioregional Approach to Southern History: The Yazoo-Mississippi Delta". Southern Spaces. Retrieved September 9, 2015.
• From Hope Sandoval: "The Official Website of Hope Sandoval". HopeSandoval.com. Retrieved 2010-05-01.
• From Dave Navarro: RJ-viewer Added September 24, 2005 All my reviews (September 24, 2005). "Dave Navarro bio". Tv.com. Archived from the original on January 23, 2010. Retrieved 2010-09-17. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
• From Pancho Gonzales: Cy Rice (1959). Man with a Racket, The Autobiography of Pancho Gonzales. A S Barnes and Co. p. 26. ASIN B000F79V9Y.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BerkeleyanEditor, Carinaocarina.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Why isn’t Donald Trump mentioned in this article?

Donald Trump can’t stand Mexicans especially the illegal ones and is against Mexican immigration to the United States. Donald Trump said he opposes Mexican Americans during his campaign speech in 2016. Donald Trump also built a large wall on the Mexican border which is already under construction. Illegal immigration and Donald Trump is the most important topic about Mexican Americans.

• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-outrageous-comments-mexicans-article-1.2773214
• https://huffpost.com/us/entry/us_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b
• https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/donald-trump-build-wall-immigration-executive-orders/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by I wish I was Canadian and from Toronto (talk • contribs) 11:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Health/Diabetes

I hide a long section on diabetes, only keeping the main part. Details on diabetes should rather be in another/new article. It might improve the article to add other facts about health issues, for instance that they seem to have longer longevity than the average American, the so-called Hispanic paradox, though most sources seem to at an Hispanic level, rather than solely dealing with Mexican-Americans. Iselilja (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Gallery of notable people

The gallery of notable people has grown to over 100 images. Images are being added indiscriminately. We already have List of Mexican Americans, and do not need to add everyone on that list to this article. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup should be removed ....image spam with little to no sources.--Moxy 🍁 01:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Larry Hockett:, @Hmains:, @B575:, @Patapsco913:, @Work permit:, @Elevatorrailfan:, @Carlstak:, @Plumber: @Geraldo Perez:, @Detroitboy1985: - Pinging all of you as, in addition to Moxy, you are the most prevalent editors on this article in 2018/2019. Your opinions please? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Agree. Per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members. See also this RfC.---- Work permit (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Agree per User:Work permit. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Agree It is always a battle to determine who should be included. I always thought that the gallery should be on a separate page.Patapsco913 (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Agree The list has become too large.B575 (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Agree per User Work permit. Carlstak (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Agree - Remove the gallery. --Phospheros (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's been a week without further comment, and there's unanimity here against the galleries. I've removed it, leaving the link to the List of Mexican Americans article. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Exact translation: estadounidenses = Uni-Stateians

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4123:ab00:3476:da28:693:76d5 (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)