Talk:Latin Europe/Archive 3

Contradictions
1. Between Latin Europe and Latin Union articles:

In Latin Europe article: "Romania and Moldova ... also Romance-speaking European countries ... are rarely considered part of Latin Europe"

On the other hand, in the Latin Union article it is stated that "only countries which meet specific Linguistic/Cultural Criteria, can be member of the organization", with the following countries from Europe as members: Andorra, France, Italy, Moldova, Monaco, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Spain.

Romanian is, also, one of the six official languages!

Some criteria considered:
 * Official language derived from Latin;
 * Latin-derived language used in education;
 * Latin-derived language commonly used in the mass media or in daily life;
 * Existence of significant literature in a Latin-derived language;
 * Direct or indirect inheritance of the legacy of Ancient Rome.

So, Romania and Moldova (also European countries) are officialy considered latin countries!

2. Contradiction inside the article:

Contradiction about the modern-day definition of the Latin Europe. The introduction claims "the native use of a Romance language being a key determining factor" in determining the countries part of nowadays Latin Europe, in contradiction with the same statement: "Romania and Moldova ... also Romance-speaking European countries ... are rarely considered part of Latin Europe".

(Rgvis (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC))


 * For the first objection: so? Other editors rant in other articles (as they tried to do here), but what's that got to do with anything? The "criteria considered" list is entirely WP:OR - what is considered is what researchers say is considered, and it has long been established that there are virtually none who include either Romania or Moldova in their otherwise quite loose definitions of Latin Europe (I'm saying "virtually none" because not one citation from any source that would extend the definition to cover these two countries was ever produced by any editor of this page, you included). To state what the inclusion criteria are for a Latin Union country really has no relevancy here: this is not an exact science, but rather folklore, and the two terms only seem to have something in commons to users who start with a preconception that they must (simply because of the word "Latin").
 * For the second: though I do see something questionable in that phraseology used in the article, note that it is not actually a contradiction. Not according to the rules of logic. It just says that, for those countries included in such definitions, a Romance language may be a key factor. It obviously isn't for those countries speaking a Romance language that are not included in such definitions, simply because those, presumably for other reasons, are not included in such definitions! It really is that simple. As for my objection to that tidbit: it may prove a valid criterion for categorizations that include only the Romance-speaking areas of Western Europe; however, as I have shown in the archived discussion, plenty of definitions of Latin Europe are simply not tied to that criterion - they explicitly include countries from England (not Romance-speaking) to Israel (not Romance-speaking, not in Europe).
 * Let me add: this article, which is in exceptionally poor state, could do with less speculative thinking and ideological repertoire, and would certainly need more decent (and honest) sourcing than it has been allowed to have so far. My interventions have mostly touched the removal of persistent absurdities about Romania and Moldova being "part of Latin Europe", something which I have been doing not on the basis of preconceptions, but on the basis of sound sources. The rest of the article may well contradict itself on whatever other matters, it is simply not within the scope of my edits to attend to that huge matter, at least not for now. The simple job of curbing Romanian ethno-nationalist absurdities, as they make their way into this article, is, was and will still be a priority for me. Dahn (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't know what we are talking about in this article, but we are in the trenches defending against an attack of "Romanian ethno-nationalist" :-) Congratulations! :-) :-) Welcome to the Theatre of the Absurd!!

With only one reference, this article is in big trouble (WP:OR)! The reference to a book written (by North and South American authors) in the context of relations between Latin America and "so-called", Latin Europe (relations between former Empires and colonies, or inside the "Latin Commonwealth of Nations"), is simply not enough (WP:NPOV).

We are talking about definition, but what definition, by whose definition? Is there a confusion (or misunderstanding) of the latinos and latinity terms, especially for the North and South American editors?

Is "Latin Europe" a reality (of 21st Century) or only (in our imagination) a historical term?

Were the Huguenots part of Latin Europe?

Is France still part of Latin Europe, as long as half of French people would not identify themselves as Roman-Catholics?

"Latin Europe" has different meanings in different particular contexts (from this point of view, at least two): there should be a clear and specifically definition for historically term of (Western) Latin Europe (with references at Middle Ages, etc.) and another for what, nowadays, "Latin Europe" means, with references to ethno-linguistic aspects (similar to Slavic Europe article).

Regarding the Latin Union article, and the presumption of WP:OR:
 * http://www.unilat.org/SG/index.fr.asp
 * http://dpel.unilat.org/DPEL/index.fr.asp
 * http://dtil.unilat.org/

"L’Union Latine est une organisation internationale fondée en 1954 par la Convention de Madrid pour mettre en valeur et diffuser l’héritage culturel et les identités du monde latin.

.......

L’Union Latine s’attache à faire prendre conscience de l’importance des cultures et des langues latines en agissant dans trois domaines :

Culture et communication: La mise en valeur et la diffusion du patrimoine latin, Le soutien à la création et aux échanges culturels, La promotion et l’approfondissement de l’idée de la latinité;

........

Promotion et enseignement des langues: Les actions menées par la Direction de la Promotion et de l’Enseignement des Langues visent à valoriser l’enseignement et l’apprentissage de l’espagnol, du français, de l’italien, du portugais et du roumain par leur présence dans l’offre de langues des systèmes éducatifs et par le développement de ressources pédagogiques innovantes. La participation des pays de langue romane à des communautés économiques et politiques à grande échelle doit s’accompagner parallèlement d’une évolution sur le plan éducatif qui conduise les citoyens à partager leurs identités linguistiques et culturelles;

........

Terminologie et industries de la langue: La Direction terminologie et industries de la langue de l’Union Latine a pour but d'enrichir les terminologies scientifiques et techniques des langues latines, de contribuer au développement de la coopération en matière de terminologie, de néologie et des industries de la langue dans les pays latins, et de favoriser le multilinguisme dans la Société de l’Information."

(Rgvis (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC))


 * Sigh. Here's what you do: you click this link, and you read it. Then you look through the history of the article, and note that I did not actually author any part of it, just removed info that was blatantly false. Then you read again my message above, where I tell you why it is completely irrelevant what speculations you make about between this term and the supposed or real criteria for admission into the Latin Union (yes, Rgvis, your persistence in citing that criteria in reference to this article is WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH). Then you also take a look at where I challenge you to provide any source that would use the "Latin Europe" term in reference to the criteria you think are relevant, i.e. that actually includes Ro and Md into Latin Europe (no, not the Latin Union; no, not "Latin countries"). Then you will perhaps spare me the willy-nilly comments about the Theater of the Absurd, revisit my actual points, and either spend some time addressing them or admit that you have still not managed to challenge anything. Dahn (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no argumentation here, but assumptions, suppositions, presumptions!

It is interesting to notice how many times is the personal pronoun "You" used in the last message: 12 times!!! (WP:CALM) Might be a matter of culture or education or .....

Anyway, take it easy! (WP:ATAEW) :-)

(Rgvis (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC))


 * First of all, the above does look like trolling - please don't tempt me to ask admins what they make of it. Now, I gave you the sources and what they say (read them in the link). It should now follow that you find yourself one source that says "Latin Europe" was ever used to include Romania and Moldova. We will then have something to talk about, other than your extended rant above.
 * That said, I have absolutely no reason to discuss with you how you think another wikipedia article can source info in this one, about how you imagine I actually wrote this article, about your theories about how the use of the pronoun "you" implies incivility, or, hey, about my culture and education. Are we clear? Good. Dahn (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bai Dahn. Du-te te rog si sugei pula lu Stalin. --79.246.33.193 (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)