Talk:Latino (demonym)/Archive 4

Moving
Hello, everyone. It's been a while.

The use of "Latino" in reference to U.S. Hispanics/Latinos constitutes an absolutely overwhelming majority of the term's use. This article already acknowledges that, somewhat. But Google leaves no doubt, as upwards of 85% of uses of "Latino" are about the U.S. ethnic group, per a search of ["latino" -wikipedia ]. Within Wikipedia the ratio is only greater. Special:WhatLinksHere shows that the virtual totality of the incoming wikilinks are about Hispanic and Latino Americans. That's no typo: I sampled at least 20 links, randomly, and all were about U.S. Hispanics/Latinos. So, it being clear that this group is the primary topic for "Latino", I'm moving this page (back) to "Latino (demonym)" and making this title redirect to Hispanic and Latino Americans, with a hatnote at the latter linking to "Latino (disambiguation)". SamEV (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Italian dictionaries?
In the "Definitions in other languages" section of this article, it gives the on-line Italian dictionary (Sapero.it) as source # 36. The article claims that the Italian dictionary defines "latino" as "the ancient Latins and Romans, and their language, as well as the neo-Latin nations". This is simply not true. For those who read Italian, the Sapero.it dictionary defines "latino" not only as the ancient Latins and Romans, and their language...but also modern Italians and other people from Romance language-speaking European countries. Sapero.it has a separate definition for Latin Americans called "latino-americano". Why does Wikipedia bother giving references if it doesn't tell the truth about what those references mean in English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.217.237 (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, ok... If you bothered with explaining your edits in the edit summary, you would not have been reverted! Oh! And you are, of course, invited to [ create an account]!! Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Demonym?
"Demonym" is an extremely vernacular word. It is not found in commonly used dictionaries. It is derived from an old Greek word. Now, credit has been given to a Merriam-Webster editor. Let's face it, Merriam-Webster is not an accurate source. It claims that the first known use of the word "latino" was in 1946. Bah! The words "latino" and "americano" were joined together for the word "latinoamericano" when two Frenchmen proposed the idea of a Latin America in the 19th Century. Merriam-Webster also claims that the first known use of "latina" was in 1983. Bah, again! The word "latina" has been in use since Ancient Roman times! First known use 1983, indeed!

Now then, "demonym" means (sic!) "a resident of a locality and is derived from the locality's name". In which case, the demonym for "latino" should be a person of Latium, and a person of the Latin European or Latin American countries where Romance languages are spoken.

The article's "Defintion in other languages" section does not carefully describe the definitions of the word "latino" as provided in the dictionaries used for citations. The article picks and chooses the meanings it wants so, ultimately, it does not show much clarity for the word "latino" --

The first Portuguese dictionary (citation 30) says, in effect, a person of Lazio, Italy (formally, Latium), the Mediterranean languages formed from ancient Imperial Italy, a person whose country speaks a language derived from Latin, a region of Central Italy. The second Portuguese dictionary (citation 31) says, in effect, belonging or related to Lazio, the latin people, written or spoken in Latin, Western Roman Catholic church. There are seperate listings in each dictionary for "latino-americano".

The first Italian dictionary (citation 32) does not give any information at all. The second Italian dictionary (citation 33) says, in effect, Latin People, Latin America, Latin Cross. There is a seperate listing for "latino-americano" (Wikipedia is, tellingly, very choosy with which skimpy Italian dictionaries it uses!)

The Spanish dictionary (citation 34) says, in effect, a native of Lazio, belonging or related to the people of Lazio, spoken in the Western church seperate from the Greek, a person of Europe and America whose language is derived from Latin.

(French dictionaries say the same things using "latin/e". There are seperate listings for Latin Americans in French dictionaries called "latino-américain/e".)

The Anglo-Saxon misuse of "latino/a" will probably come to an end when certain English-speaking countries find themselves speaking a Romance language as their official language and, also, find their country is a member of the Latin Union. Quo vadis? Semper ad meliora? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer  (talk • contribs)  01:06, 3 March 2012‎  (UTC)


 * You are being a bit paranoid and pedantic. The article deals with the term "Latino" as it is understood in the modern sense which were indeed very recent. The word which virtually all people would be looking for when looking it up in the English Wikipedia.


 * Yes there are multiple meanings of the word, some of them archaic, some of them extinct. However, we can not deal with all of them in one article as there needs to be an actual scope if the article is to be coherent. But those other meanings are actually all dealt with. At the very top of the article is a message you can't miss: "Latina" redirects here. For other uses, see Latina (disambiguation).


 * I suggest clicking it.


 * The scope of this article, meanwhile, deals with the "Latino" demonym as is most widely understood, the peoples of Latin America and Romance-language speaking Europe. That's it. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  12:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Funny enough, I find it is you who are being a bit parnoid (perhaps with good reason) and pedantic. I also find you somewhat petulant. The article deals with "latino" in the USA sense and should say so in its first sentence.

In the USA, the Spanish language is quickly usurping the English language. Most public information is written in Spanish first and, nowadays, pressing "2" for English has become fashionable as a telephone option. Spanish is simultaneously gaining strength in English-speaking Canada. I suggest you read the "Latin American Canadian" article.

Many feel that soon enough there will be no need to differentiate between Latin America and Anglo America. The entire continent will be speaking Romance languages (Portuguese, Spanish, French). Hence, the loss of the terms "Latin America" and "Anglo America". Ergo, the proper use of the word "America" will commence worldwide.

(The USA, Puerto Rico and Canada are not in the Latin Union yet.)

I strongly disagree with your second to last sentence. Most people in Latin Europe (Romance-language speaking European countries in the Latin Union) and Latin America have never heard of the word "demonym". That is the truth!

OMNES VIAE ROMAN DUCUNT or SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI (depending on your POV). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 16:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Errr... what exactly are you going on about? Demonym is a technical term that accurately describes the subject. We even have an article on it - demonym. Same with autonym (endonym) and exonym, etc. Anthropologists, ethnologists, sociologists, etc. use it. Unless you propose to replace it with something else, it's irrelevant whether you have ever heard of it.


 * As for your uh... predictions, I have some Latin for ya: non sequitur. I don't even understand why you're bringing that up. This is Wikipedia, not the Wikiprophecies. Until then, please read WP:CRYSTALBALL.


 * And quit it with the Latin showboating, you're not impressing anyone. *rolls eyes* Just say what you wanted to change with the article. Quit it with the rants and opinion, this is not a forum.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  07:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

More aptly put, what exactly are YOU going on about? I had already known about the "demonym" article. I never said that I had not heard of the word. And I did not make any predictions. I said in my previous post "Many feel that soon enough..." This is not my prediction. (It is what many people feel.) It would be nice if you could learn to comprehend what you read.

If you have no clue that the Hispanic community is the most rapidly growing community in the USA and Canada then you should call it a day. The USA demonym "latino" (a Spanish-speaking immigrant or a person from Latin America) is incorrect as Brazil and Haiti, for example, are geographically in Latin America. The USA term "latino" should become obsolete when Romance languages are officially spoken all over America. Britons are already calling the USA "Estados Unidos de América".

Now, I wish you would realize that this site is meant to be an online encyclopedia. If you want to be taken seriously then you have some growing up to do. This is not a comic book (see "The Archies" and "Peanuts"). Yet, you have displayed a remarkably comic book-like mentality with your use of "Err", "uh", "ya" "*rolls eyes*" AD NAUSEAM! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 10:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me say this again in bold, in case you somehow missed it: Just say what you wanted to change with the article. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  11:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. It's Estados not Estabos. What should be is not what Wikipedia is about, but what is.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  11:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, what you think you have had to say to me again, in bold, is something you had never said to me in the first place. Earlier on, you had asked me if I wanted to change the word "demonym'. Learn to understand what you have written.

Typing error fixed. And I find it amusing that you did not bother to pooh-pooh the use of "Estados Unidos de América" by Britons. This is a "Talk" page and one does not only have to talk about what is, but also what should (and in all likehood) will be concerning the article.

Any changes that will come to "latino (demonym)" will come in due time. That is progress! It is true that many people see the changes coming. If you do not have the foresight to see this -- it is not my problem. One is far better off asking you...How's Jughead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 13:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me do the honors of bolding the things I said twice. And thank you, as well, for the clarification. You actually didn't want anything done to the article, you just wanted to talk about the future. So forgive me if I have to repeat myself again: talk pages are not forums, and we do not write about things that has not happened yet. And I prefer xkcd, thank you very much.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  14:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think you should switch to "Little Orphan Annie"! Anyway, your English is atrocious and you might want to start practicing English as a second language. "Let me take the honors of bolding things I've said twice". The latter was already in bold print. "honors" should have been "honor". Still further, "we do not write about things that has not happened yet". "has" should have been "have". And I'm glad to see that you concur that the change will eventually happen.

I have tried to edit the article, but the edits were taken away. I guess I added too much common sense. I do not have a problem with the word "demonym". I understand its meaning is "a resident of a locality and is derived from the locality's name". eg: Italy/Italian, Spain/Spaniard, Romania/Romanian. Therefore, Latin America/Latin American. "Latin American" should not have beeen shortened in the USA to "latino/a". There is no locality in Spanish America called "latina". "Latina" is in Italy. (Guess what the demonyms of a male and female person from Latina would be.)

In the USA, "latino/a" is defined as an immigrant from the Spanish-speaking countries or a person who lives in these countries. Therefore, Jennifer Lopez and George Lopez are not latina/o. They were both born in the United States and each one's demonym would be "United Statian" (United States/United Statian). The terms "latino/a" neglect to respect the French-speaking American localities and Brazil (and the people of the USA with an ancestry from Europe's Romance language-speaking countries).

There was a time, prior to 1997, when American dictionaries defined "latin" as the language of the Ancient Romans, a person of or a descendant of Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, etc. Now, if you remind an American that Italian, French and Portuguese people are latins -- the American will give you a look of consternation. The USA has misused the words "latin" and "latino/a" in recent years and now it is recoiling in an overwhelming way.

Many see how things are progressing in the USA. The common thought is that the USA (and English-speaking Canada) will eventually become a Spanish-speaking localities. It seems inevitable. The largest immigrant population in the USA is from Spanish America. Hispanics are also increasing the population by high birth rates while others are having very low birth rates.

There is a bit of charm in all this. The USA has mistreated the Italian people's Latin ethnicity. Now, many feel the people in United States will soon find themselves using the Italian people's Latin ethnicity. Those who disrespect something will soon become it. Confucious could have said it but, unfortunately, he is no longer around. By the way, if you see "Daddy" Warbucks in the comics, please give him a nod for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 17:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're hilarious, and you don't even realize why. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  19:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"You're hilarious, and you don't even realize why." < Typical response from a cornered person at wits' end!

In fact, I am hilarious and I DO know why! I am often complimented on my wittiness. (And I can easily see why!)

I find YOU hilarious because you are a grownup who busibodies around on an online encyclopedia yet has confessed a preferance to xkcd (a webcomic!)

Seriously, there is Adult Children Anonymous if you are feeling frustrated by certain realistic happenings at the present time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 21:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "I am often complimented on my wittiness. (And I can easily see why!)" LMAO! -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  09:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"LMAO!" How flat is your "A"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User Truelatinamerican's comments
I am from Latin American and is the first time I sign. Latinos and latinoamericans are different terms in Spanish. Latinos have ten meanings in Spanish. One of them even mean the Pope because he Speak latinos. I am thankful that someone who knows Spanish(its seems) decided to correct that. Here in Latin American every word needs to be approve by the Association of Spanish Academies. If not I could wright my own dictionary. The American Heritage Dictionary is a Chicano dictionary and the person but that put they were American Scholar. In that case my 15 year old kid is an American scholar.I thought they were more serious.--Truelatinamerican (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is about the meaning of the term Latino as used in the English language. It's meaning in Spanish is only relevant inasmuch as it informs the etymology of the English use of the word Latino. In English, the term "Latino" is a shortening of the word "Latinoamericano" and refers to persons from Latin America of Spanish or Portuguese speaking heritage, if you don't like, then your argument is with the English language, not with this article. Please stop your vandalism of this article and sockpuppetry. If you want to write articles about the meaning of the term Latino in the Spanish language, then you should be editing on the Spanish wikipedia.Goodsdrew (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Responding to what Goodsdrew
 * if is about the USA then you should read what I just wrote. The USA will follow the term use by the Association of North American Academy which belongs to the Association of the Spanish language of Academies. What are you going to do when they start teaching the definition of latinos in a different way than yours. For you to read:New York, NY, April 2013 – The North American Academy of the Spanish Language (ANLE per its Spanish acronym) and the General Services Administration (GSA) have completed the first important project under a 2009 collaboration agreement, ratified in 2012: the Official Directory of Federal Agency Names in Spanish. As part of the commitment to the GSA, ANLE also responds to inquiries about Spanish from diverse federal agencies.
 * The directory responds to the need to standardize the many Spanish translations of federal agency names so as to establish clear, unequivocal communication for the entire country. Thanks to the ANLE-GSA agreement, a framework and criteria now exist that allow the resolution of terminology problems in accordance with two areas of focus: 1) reducing the multiple translations of the name of an agency to a uniform, standard version; and 2) correcting translations that do not reflect the English name and the mission of the agency.


 * The project was undertaken by the “ANLE-GobiernoUSA” committee under the joint leadership of Laura Godfrey, Manager of GobiernoUSA.gov and a corresponding member of ANLE, and Leticia Molinero, a full member of ANLE. It entailed researching and verifying the mission and functions of federal agencies to arrive at a clear and meaningful Spanish translation to serve Spanish-speaking Americans. --Truelatinamerican (talk)


 * There is no official body, in the United States or elsewhere, that is in charge of assigning definitions to English words. The activities of a private body somehow involved in the Spanish language has no authority to set rules for English usage. Indeed, there is no such body in the English speaking world. This article is in the English-language Wikipedia and is about the usage and meaning of an English word. The etymological origins of the word "latino" are from Spanish, but its meaning in English does not have to conform to its original meaning in Spanish. Your citation to Spanish definitions of the word are irrelevant, because that is not how the word is used in English. Goodsdrew (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I notify Wikipedia about the inaccuracies of this page and also that the author have many links that are not true.Also in Spanish the word Latino have ten meaning and the meaning of word latinoamerica is different.is not a shorthand for latinoamerican By the way I am also sending a letter notifying this to the the North American Aacdemy of Spanish Language. Remember that this person may have its own personal Agenda which it have make feel terrified. In case the author do not know read the following: New York, NY, April 2013 – The North American Academy of the Spanish Language (ANLE per its Spanish acronym) and the General Services Administration (GSA) have completed the first important project under a 2009 collaboration agreement, ratified in 2012: the Official Directory of Federal Agency Names in Spanish. As part of the commitment to the GSA, ANLE also responds to inquiries about Spanish from diverse federal agencies. The directory responds to the need to standardize the many Spanish translations of federal agency names so as to establish clear, unequivocal communication for the entire country. Thanks to the ANLE-GSA agreement, a framework and criteria now exist that allow the resolution of terminology problems in accordance with two areas of focus: 1) reducing the multiple translations of the name of an agency to a uniform, standard version; and 2) correcting translations that do not reflect the English name and the mission of the agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truelatinamerican (talk • contribs) 19:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

--Truelatinamerican (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)I am also terrified because of the so many inacurracies and dead links in this article. The person who wrote the article refer to american scholar and is a (American Heritage Dictionary)chicano ditionary. In Spanish the word latinos have ten meanings and latinoamerica only one meaning.In Spanish, the people from Spain are consider latinos and the US is going to adopt the Spanish definition.You should read this:I notify Wikipedia about the inaccuracies of this page and also that the author have many links that are not true.By the way I am also sending a letter notifying this to the the North American Academy of Spanish Language. What is the author going to do when the kids in the US schools learn a different definition of latino and is not the same as his.For anyone interested go to www.anle.us.In case the author do not know this I suggest you the read the following(only part of the article here): New York, NY, April 2013 – The North American Academy of the Spanish Language (ANLE per its Spanish acronym) and the General Services Administration (GSA) have completed the first important project under a 2009 collaboration agreement, ratified in 2012: the Official Directory of Federal Agency Names in Spanish. As part of the commitment to the GSA, ANLE also responds to inquiries about Spanish from diverse federal agencies. The directory responds to the need to standardize the many Spanish translations of federal agency names so as to establish clear, unequivocal communication for the entire country. Thanks to the ANLE-GSA agreement, a framework and criteria now exist that allow the resolution of terminology problems in accordance with two areas of focus: 1) reducing the multiple translations of the name of an agency to a uniform, standard version; and 2) correcting translations that do not reflect the English name and the mission of the agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truelatinamerican (talk • contribs) 19:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

US Census definition
User Tierraman (talk) has made several edits that are premised on the notion that the US Census's definition o the word "Latino" is the controlling definition. This article is about the meaning of the term Latino as used in the English language. How the government defines the word's meaning for use in the census is only relevant inasmuch as it provides one source among many for a definition of the word. The census has particular needs for its categories which can often differ from how the word is used in normal English usage. The US Census Bureau is not empowered to define words in the English language (indeed, there is no such body at all in the English-speaking world). The article cites numerous other English-language definitions of the word "Latino" as well, and these all indicate that in English, the term "Latino" is a shortening of the word "Latinoamericano" and refers to persons from Latin America of Spanish or Portuguese speaking heritage. For those who want to edit articles about the census's definition of the term Latino, then I recommend you should be editing the article Race and ethnicity in the United States Census.Goodsdrew (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Latino in the Official Spanish Dictionary
Some paradoxical facts about this word.

A query [|for "latino"] in the Real Academia Española's dictionary (the reference dictionary for spanish) reports

on Definition 7: "Natural de los pueblos de Europa y América en que se hablan lenguas derivadas del latín.", which means "originating from the countries in Europe and America where tongues derived from Latin are spoken".

So under this official definition, anywhere where Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese, or Romanian is spoken, should be then considered latinos. That may well include a big part of Africa where French is the official language, as well as Brazil, and even arguably Macau for Portuguese coexist with Cantonese.

But as "latino" in Spain was a term nearly unheard-of until these very recent years, probably because of the popularity of social networks and the connected world we're in, the American definition is gaining traction, up to the point that many Latin Americans living in Spain use the term theirselves, differentiating between "latino" and "español" (spanish).

I think this article could be enriched with some of these points :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.132.56 (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree that the terms "latino" and ("latina") are terms nearly unheard of until very recent years in Spain. I speak French and Italian fluently and I studied Spanish many years ago in school. The words "latino" and "latina" and the French cognates "latin" and "latine" were in these Romance language dictionaries ages ago and still remain.

The French created the terms "latinoamericano" and "latina americana" in the late 19th century. The Spanish established the Latin Union (French: Union latine, Italian: Unione Latina, Spanish: Union Latina, Romanian: Uniunea Latina) back in 1954. So, it's safe to say the Spaniards have known about the terms "latino" and "latina" for a long time. After all, the terms have been around since ancient Rome. The USA, which I'd like to clarify is not America itself, but just an American country, adapted the words "latino" and "latina" as shortened forms of "latinoamericano" and "latina americana" in 1999.

With the Latin American community growing so rapidly in the USA, it's likely to become a Latin country itself like the countries of Latin Europe and Latin America as the terms "latino" and "latina" are gaining traction within the USA and the term "Anglo-American" is losing traction. Of course, the French, the Spaniards, the Portuguese, the Romanians, the Corsicans, the Croatians, the Monégasques, and especially the Italian people are "latino(a)" people. The first five letters of "Romance" spell "Roman", don't they? The Italians are the original Latins as Rome is the capital of Italy, and Romance languages are derived from Latin, the language of Ancient Rome and its empire. Moreover, the Romance languages are called the "Italic languages" (languages from the Italian branch of the European family) and the "Latin languages" indicating they are languages derived from the Ancient Italian language, Latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 23:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

LATINOITALIANO
I can not good english sorry

but I am very sad and angry, what America has done to our word latino.

I'm italian and the word latino is original Italian. we share a lot with the word Latino, more than you can imagine.

a look what you've done to her in other european countries. for example Germany https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino

they think we have nothing to do with latino ....

for many countries is America, the number one, and everything America says is correct. they always go to American wipikedia and trust them.

I hate you for that, I hate you

Look at the letters exactly and shapes them to you -> LATINOITALIANO

I want to say much more, but can not speak English

non sono cretino neanch'un bambino parlo latino

--Marcolinobiancino (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Bravo, Marcolinobiancino! The words "Latino" and "Latina" are certainly Italian words. Italians have been using these words since ancient times. The English word "Latin" was derived from these two Italian words. A man in modern Italy would refer to himself as a "Latino" and an Italian woman would refer to herself as a "Latina".

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary and Thesaurus (www.merriam-webster.com), Anglo-Americans think that the word "Latino" was first used in 1946 and the word "Latina" was first used in 1983. Yet, these two word have been commonly used in Italy and in Italian dictionaries for ages.

Anglo-Americans are not going to be satisfied until they get to be called "Latino" and "Latina", themselves. It makes one think of the old expression "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." Or, in the case of the USA "When not in Rome, do as the Romans do." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 23:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The whole word is confusing. Why do they use Latino when they are of Hispanic American descent. Latino should only be used for things related to Italy, because that's what it meant in the end didn't it? Hispanic does not include Brazil at all, nor should they be considered Latinos. Brazilians and Haitians do not share anything with the Spanish speaking countries, except in some way religion. Latin America is a French imperialist term to justify their colonization of the Hispanic America. Never did France include Brazil as part of Latin America. Brazil never saw itself as part of "Latin"/Hispanic America, because they saw themselves as superior. It is not until recently that for some reason they are group with Spanish-speakers. They don't speak Spanish. How did a term form Italy end up referring to Spanish speakers in the United States. Viller the Great (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Latinoamericano/latinoamericana is the origin of the term. It is oftentimes used by Americans of Latin American descent in the sense of a common cultural, linguistic and historic identity, as in, "we have a common root and a common experience in this country". It's pretty fringe of you to ascertain that Brazilians have a superiority complex, too. It's not unilateral: it comes from white supremacist ideology from other countries that is reproduced by people who would be just as oppressed.


 * Just like anti-Semitism, Orientalism, anti-Indigenous genocide and anti-Blackness are ideologies that are elements in which people who are oppressed in the present world structure harm their fellows in a way that doesn't benefit them, Brazilians espousing Hispanophobic views are not doing anything that consequently strengthen themselves in a world dominated by the richer northern traditionally white-majority countries. Au contraire, they are going to be just "silly brown people with nationalistic backwardness".


 * Yes, some (less than 20%, maybe less than 10%) Brazilians are white enough to the point they would be accepted as such in the northern hemisphere, but this isn't a project from Brazilians to Brazilians, to dismiss our cognates as inferior to us can only be a project shaped by racial whitening ideology. Everybody with a modicum of intelligence and common sense knows and accepts Brazil is an oppressed underdeveloped country that is very low on the hierarchy known as international division of labor, and we should ally with our neighbors in order to try to change our collective situation in such a system (or its very existence). The idea of us as a powerful imperialist country is as derailed as [any other form of] fascism – Eurasianist Russians are already ridiculed, and it's a much more historically central and self-sufficient country than we are.


 * Portuguese and Spanish colonizations and cultures don't differ that much, our historic bonds are plenty, and I laugh at the thought of Mexicans, Central Americans, Cubans and Dominicans as more of cognates to Chileans, Bolivians, Paraguayans, Argentines and Uruguayans than us, but I digress. Of course this "Brazil isn't really Latin America!!!" view is going to be eternally repeated, even though it is nonsense. For now, Wikipedia is not a forum, and one should get used to respecting how people self-identify and are seen by their fellows. Americans aren't appropriating this specific European identity, because if it is perceived as shitting on your heads, then you should have thought better before acquiring the collective privilege you all developed through colonization. Complain to the Conquistadors. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for contributing. What we are trying to state here is that the term "Latin America" has no resonance with this description. We are Hispanic. Not some Latin word. Latin America was promoted by the French because they saw that Spanish and French are linguistically related, so this was there way of justifying their imperialism in Hispanic America (which is the correct term). Remember that Napoleon III wanted to expand his empire, which is why he set up a plan were he would seek joint British and French recognition of the Confederacy. Napoleon III wanted influence in Hispanic America, which is the term for all the Spanish-speaking countries in the Americas. This is where Latin America came into play, but take in mind Latin America even in French usage only included Hispanic America! Never was Brazil included, because it was historically tied with Europe and Africa, it had transatlantic ties. Brazil has always tried to mimic the United States. Remember at one time it was called the United States of Brazil. Just as the United States wants influence over all of North America, Brazil wants influence over all of South America. Look at Mercosur and Unasur. Back to Napoleon III, in order to tie his "Latin American" empire with the Confederacy, he installed Maximilian I of Mexico. Mexico would have been a buffer state. Hispanic America and Brazil have never seen each other as related. It should not surprise you that Mexico, Central America, the Spanish Caribbean are more similar to the South American Spanish-speaking countries. All of these countries formed an integral part of Spain, which unlike Brazil, which was part of the Portuguese Empire. There will always be those people that try to distance Mexico from the rest of Spanish-speaking South America, because Brazil wants to impose its will on South America. Let me state that there will always be ties between all of Hispanic America, in fact they from a nation than with Brazil, because Hispanic America shares one culture, religion, and language. Something Brazil will never be. This cannot be denied. Geography does not mean anything, South America as a whole does not share many characteristics. There is no complaint to the conquistadors, for thanks to Spain, Hispanic America exists, you can fly from Mexico City to Buenos Aires and still speak the same language. Not even the "colonization" was the same. Spain promoted mestizaje, while the Portuguese displaced the Amerindians and imported Europeans and Africans, which explains what you said above that Brazil felt European and they could fit in the Northern Hemisphere, well at least that segment of the population. Just because Spanish and Portuguese are "similar" doesn't mean they form a nation. The funniest thing is the Hispanic/Latino definition does not include Brazilians! So that disproves any notion of "Latin America." If such place exists, it is a synonym for Hispanic America, not including Brazil. Since so many people are so eager to include Brazil in Latin America, why not include the United States, which is just as foreign in comparison? In fact one could argue the United States is more similar to Hispanic America than Brazil is, because the United States has lands that were historically Spanish or Mexican, which explains there are some any Spanish-derived place names. Why is Canada never included in this so-called "Latin America", since French is a co-official language? The list goes on and on. Viller the Great (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Cet article
est un tissu de mensonges — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalel122 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ca c'est la verité! Bien sure! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 16:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"Related national groups" section?
According to the 1999 United States' census, the United States adapted the Old World terms "Latino" and "Latina" as (bizarre!) shortened forms of the late 19th Century terms "latinoamericano" and "latina americana" (which were created by the French!)

Yet, in Wikipedia's "Latino (demonym)" article, just to the left of the "Usage in the United States" section, there is a box titled "Hispanic and Latino Groups". It has a "Related national groups" section which includes:

Belizean Americans (Belize is a country where English is the official language).

Brazilian Americans

Filipino Americans (The Philippines are isles where Filipino and English are the official languages).

Guyanese Americans (Guyana is a country where English is the official language).

Hatian Americans (Haiti is a country where French and Hatian Creole are the official languages).

Portuguese Americans

Surinamese Americans (Suriname is a country where Dutch is the official language).

Now then, the word "Latina" has been used in Italy for 4 milleniums. The word "Latino" supplanted the Ancient Roman word "Latinus" milleniums ago when Italian was spoken in Italy in place of Latin. Why are Italian Americans not included here? After all, Italians created Latin culture and the Romance languages (AKA: the Italic languages and the Latin languages) such as Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Maltese, Corsican, etc.

For the United States to include people from European countries such as Spain and Portugal, and leave Italians, French, Romanians, Maltese, Corsicans, Monégesques, etc out is a pointed insult. I mean, Hatians get included for speaking French. Yet, the French themselves don't get included? Nor do the French Canadians and the French Americans? The United States' system regarding Latin people is incorrect and utterly preposterous.

Something governmental needs to be done to correct the United States' at sixes and sevens usage of the words "Latino" and "Latina". If the United States needs to become a Latin country, itself, before mostly WASP presidents realize how insulting they are...so be it. The United States is rapidly becoming a Spanish speaking country. That leaves Anglo Canada which has Italian, Portuguese, French and Spanish communities that are growing faster than the Anglo-Saxon community.

Before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons to America, Latins were living there peacefully speaking 3 of the many Romance languages. With English losing traction at a rapid pace in the United States and Canada, the terms "Latin America" and "Anglo America" will become passé. Americans on both American continents will be called "Americans" once again. And Latin Europeans will once again be acknowledged as "Latino" and "Latina" on both sides of the pond. After all, fair is fair and rightfully so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 17:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we should just remove the "related groups", since they are unsourced and there is no good criteria for exclusion or inclusion. The etymological connection to "latin" is a red herring. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * All of the reasoning above is flawed. Italians since the Renaissance are not called 'Latins' in Western languages, and modern usage always reserves 'latino' for Spanish people of Latin America. Indeed in modern usage the terms are used in opposition:'The Italians and the Latinos showed relatively little interest in politics.' (Michael Barone, The New Americans: How the Melting Pot Can Work Again, Regnery Publishing, 2012 p.119, and hundreds of other sources) The etymology section after a few lines is largely useless. The correct citation for 'Latino' should be The Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2nd edition vol.8 p.689 col.3:'Latino: A Latin-American inhabitant of the United States.'Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Nishidani, no offense, but you are ignorant to the fact that Italians have, indeed, been called Latins since the Renaissance. In Webster's and Oxford dictionaries throughout my lifetime, "Latin" was defined as the language of Ancient Rome, and a person of or descended from a Romance speaking country such as Italy, Spain, France, Portugal. I have a paperback Webster's dictionary from this millennium that says so. Moreover, the term "Latin Lover" was invented for Italy's Rudolph Valentino during the silent films period of the 1920s. Guess what? The 1920s came way after the Renaissance. Italian actor Marcello Mastroianni was a Latin Lover in films of the 1950s and 1960s. And, I recently saw on YouTube a 1959 episode of the TV series "One Step Beyond" called "The Aerialist" which was about Italians and a reference was made to the Italian character's Latin eyes. For your own good, you ought to stop believing the Oxford dictionary's definition of "Latino". It's incorrect.

You've said Italians haven't been called Latins in Western languages since the Renaissance. Yet, in the Western Romance languages spoken in Italy, France, Iberia and Switzerland, Italians are certainly Latins ("Latino" and "Latina"). So are the Spanish and Portuguese. The Italian and French speaking Swiss people are "Latino(a)" and "Latin(e)". Educate yourself! The words "Latino" and "Latina" have been used in Italy for milleniums. An Italian man says "Io sono Latino" ("I am a Latin man") and an Italian woman says "Io sono Latina" ("I am a Latin woman"). You're living in a fool's paradise if you think Anglo-Saxons in the US and the UK are ultimately going to get anywhere (except the possibility of becoming Latins, themselves) with their "new" rival usage of Latin people's words. Let it be known, Anglo-Saxons don't own, control and operate Latin people.

I'm from Rome, Italy. I know my people have been Latino for milleniums. We created the Romance languages from our language Latin. If you bothered visiting Europe, you would see evidence of the Roman civilization such as mini Colliseums, Roman guard bridges and Roman senate buildings throughout France, Spain, Portugal, and many other areas of Latin Europe. If you think we're giving up millenniums of Latin culture and history so the US can keep track of Latin American people who live in the US for its census, you're crazy. When I go visit family in Latin America, naturally I'm considered a Latina. (Many Latin Americans self-identify as Italian, French, Spanish and Portuguese in ancestry.) We Latins tell the truth regarding who Latin people are. The US and the UK like to think their rival usage of "Latino" is correct. Believe me, it's not. It's a foolish temporary usage. (As "Nordic" would be if the US adapted the word specifically for Nordics who come to live in the US.) The US is going Latin. In all probability the UK could as well. Several years ago, I read the Latin American community in the UK were stunned and unhappy that the UK wouldn't allow "Latino" on the UK's census. Queen Elizabeth pooh-poohed the proposal and said she didn't want the UK to turn into a carbon copy of the US. The UK insisted the Latin American community self-identify as "white" for the UK's census. This angered Latin Americans of Indian and mixed ancestry because they simply don't want to self-identify as white. Now, with so many Latin Americans seeking asylum in Canada from the US, it will open the doors for more Latin Americans to have the right to live in Canada's Commonwealth, the UK.

With Canadian passports, the Latin American community may see a huge rise in the UK. And "Latino" could finally make its way to the UK census. This would be nice considering there are many Indians (called "Asians") living in the UK. For some bizarre reason, the UK adapted the word "Asian" for its census specifically for Indians from Asia while the Chinese and Japanese that live in UK are not considered Asians. Offbeat Anglo-Saxon mentality! Anglo-Saxon people just can't keep things straight regarding Latin people and Asian people. Yet, they're pros at burying their heads in the sand over the blunders. A look at the US and Canada should tell you they're both going Latin. And Britain normaly follows whatever the US does. Oxford and Webster's definitions of "Latino" are going to be short lived. Soon enough, you might not have to be in Rome to do as the Romans do. In time to come, Anglo-Saxons in the US and UK might find themselves self-identifying as "Latino" and "Latina". Questa è la vita, bambino(a)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 12:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A couple of things. One is that I don't know if you have ever looked at your talk page, which is at User talk:Lauracerffer. If you haven't, you need to read it as you've been left a couple of warnings by another Administrator. Secondly, these pages are not forums to discuss the subject of the article, they are meant to be used to make suggestions to improve the article, so all of your comments about the future, etc are off-topic on Wikipedia. Whether the current usage of Latino is going to last is irrelevant and this article should not be used to try to change it. You are also conflating the English language uses of 'Latino' and 'Latin' - remember this is the English language version of Wikipedia. I don't think you'll find a source for Romans creating Romance languages, by the way. If you do, please add it to Romance languages, not here. Right now that article doesn't agree with you. You are also making ethnic attacks even if not personal attacks. Drop that please. And stop the personal attacks. For instance, "If you bothered to visit Europe" is clearly a personal attack and an odd assumption.


 * And please don't revert the recent edits, discuss them here and get WP:CONSENSUS. You've got some 260+ edits over all, the three of us have over 250,000 between us.

Doug Weller, don't you dare try to condescend to me in that haughty tone again. Do you understand me, you fresh thing? Romans did create the Romance languages by way of Romans ordering Italians to branch out and create with the language Latin. That's why these languages are similar and are called the Romance languages. Don't you see "Roma" (the Italian word for "Rome") and "Roman" in the word "Romance"? These languages are also called the Latin languages. Didn't you know Latin was the language of the Roman Empire? Also, these languages are called the Italic languages. "Italic" means of the Italians. How stupid can you be? This stuff is self-explanatory if you bothered to look at the words. And don't you dare accuse me of making ethnic attacks. This article is about Latino people. I'm a Latino person. We women of Rome are Latina and our men are Latino. The ethnic attacks have been made against me. How dare you try to put the ethnic and personal attacks "thing" on my doorstep? I'm putting it right back on your doorstep where it belongs. Since you're not a Latino yet, I hope you soon will be. It'll serve you right! Also, I don't care about how many edits you three have here on Wikipedia. Regarding your "Latino" edits, you three are totally inept. I have a feeling you're just as incompetent in your other edits. So guess what, Doug Weller? I'm not at all impressed with you three stooges. You've clearly been learning a lot of things about Latino people and history from me here on Wikipedia recently. And you seem to be simultaneously awed and embarrassed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 13:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * And finally, I envy you. Rome is a beautiful, marvellous city. I hope to get back there sometime. Doug Weller  talk 12:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, if and when you get back to Rome, kindly remember it's the city where Latino man and culture originate from. I've met people from the US in both Italy and France who don't even know the names of the presidents of the countries they're visiting. I mean, how dare one be visiting a country and not know who its president is? Typical dumb...something or the other! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 14:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * And that's the sort of ethnic slur I've asked you to drop. I have no idea why a tourist should know the name of the Prime Minister, president, whatever of every country they visit. Not knowing their name isn't being dumb. I don't know what "Latino man" is, I do know that there is no single Latino or Latin culture. What Maunus says below is of course correct. We go by what the sources say. And try not to confuse words that look the same but have different meanings. Doug Weller  talk 16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This article is about the American concept "latino", the Italian latini are described at Latins (Italic tribe). In Wikipedia we privilege the way a word is defined in the majority of reliable sources, and the majority of sources about the concept and word "Latino" are about the American ethnic-category, not the Italic tribe.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "Nishidani, no offense, but you are ignorant to the fact that Italians have, indeed, been called Latins since the Renaissance. In Webster's and Oxford dictionaries throughout my lifetime,"


 * Sti cazzi! A sta gente che cerca er pel nell'ovo, dico, Ego quoque civis romanus sum. E mo' vuoi imparà a tu nonno comme si succhieno l'ovi? Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I am Italian woman. I am shock at the language used above here. The man, Nishidani, has written such terrible obscenities in Italian language. He has written Sti cazzi which is very explicit ways to say penis, feces, and F Bomb. He then quote Italian philosopher Cicero speaking Latin "I am Roman citizen". He then say something like learn to suck eggs like your grandfather. But his Italian not so good. He make many spelling error but is quite rude in what he say. Sorry my English no so good. Somebody in charge should remove the foul things Nishidani write here is very bad words and does no belong on encyclopedia. Please consider take away his bad things he write here. Thank you, Maria
 * There are no spelling errors. 'Sti cazzi' means 'giood grief'. The rest is in impeccable Roman dialect.Nishidani (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Maria, I've explained below that you are wrong, it's a common Italian phrase. It doesn't translate literally to good grief but it's used that way in colloquial Italian. Please don't call other editors liars. See WP:AGF. I'm not sure who are the 'bad editors here'. Me? Maunus? And don't assume we don't know any Italian. Mine's dreadful but even so it's easy enough to look it up, which I did.


 * It was a colloquial dialect, not standard Italian. The bit about sucking eggs is an English saying: Teaching grandmother to suck eggs. It means you are trying to tell an expert what they should do. Lauracerffer is doing just that. Thank you for telling us about the Italian meanings, but this article isn't about the word in any other language but only about its use as a concept in America (and now to a bit elsewhere). There are a log of of books written by Americans on Latino cultural identity and there are courses in Latino studies. The use of the word in other languages really has or should have nothing to do with this article. Doug Weller  talk 09:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, Doug. Grandmother in Italian language is "nonna". "Nonno" is grandfather. Nishidani have use improper use of sti cazzi here. "Good grief" in Italain language is "Santo cielo". It something nice to say. What Nishidani have use here "sti cazzi" means cock, prick, shit, fucking. He taking advantage of you naiveness of Italian language to deceive you. I think this disgraceful way to conduct online encyclopedia.


 * Hi. I know the difference, even if I hadn't known some Italian Americans I know that 'Nonna' is used on the cooking programs I watch. It's just another variation of teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. And I already told you that at worst it could be considered the F word. So not "F off" but "For F's sake" would be a possible translation. Not an insult. However, I have to disagree with you about the phrase. The Urban Dictionary says "Typical italian slang expression, it could assume different meanings in different regions. Predominantly used in Rome (Lazio) to manifest complete indifference regarding a certain issue. In other regions (such as Emilia-Romagna) it is generally used to express rather opposite feelings, such as astonishment or stupefaction. Guy from Lombardia: "Amici, devo darvi una triste notizia. Silvio Berlusconi è morto la scorsa notte" ("Dear friends, I am sad to announce that Silvio Berlusconi died last night") Guy from Emilia-Romagna: Sticazzi! Era ora! (Really? It was high time!) Guy from Lazio: E sticazzi! (I don't give a fuck!) So it's not an unusual Italian expression. Here's an Italian site. It's meaning varies with the context of the discussion and regionally. But please, let's not use this page to discuss it further, we can do that at your talk page or mine. It's nothing to do with the article.  Doug Weller  talk 12:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Etmology
The etymology/definition of the word is confusing and mentioned in at least two sections. These need combining and better sourcing. Doug Weller talk 08:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There are good sources for the etymological history of "latino" which should be used (of course the word goes back to Latium, but then interesting part is how it was adopted in the US). I will look at those sources later, meanwhile there is no reason to include unsourced statements.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Why nothing on issues of ethnic identification?
I think the article is a bit of a trainwreck as it stands. It concentrates on issues discussed elsewhere and ignores virtually completely the academic literature on ethnic identifcation. Except perhaps for a copyvio uncited statement which is ref 30 saying " The very term Latino has meaning only in reference to the U.S. experience. Outside the United States, we don't speak of Latinos; we speak of Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and so forth. Latinos are made in latin america." in Wikipedia's voice. This is actually from Latinos: Remaking Americaedited by Marcelo M. Suárez-Orozco, Mariela Páez.. Another academic press book we should be using is Race, Racism, and Reparations By J. Angelo Corlett.

And how in hell does this article ignore the works pof Jorge J. E. Gracia? And Debating Race, Ethnicity, and Latino Identity: Jorge J. E. Gracia and His Critic by Iván Jaksic.

The article even starts "Latino is a term" - it's an ethnic identity yet the article is mainly about the word (and it's use in the US which is better covered in Hispanic–Latino naming dispute.

There are of course other sources. Unfortunately, I'm not the best person to do this, it's not a field I know that much about. It's interesting to me as I was brought up in Miami and my mother had a lot of Cuban friends, but I don't have the time. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Latino vs Latin
The article seems to confuse the terms. The Relationship Among Ethnic Identity, Psychological Well-being, Academic Achievement, and Intergroup Competence of School-age Hispanic/Latino Youth by Cartlos Dejud{The Relationship Among Ethnic Identity, Psychological Well-being, Academic Achievement, and Intergroup Competence of School-age Hispanic/Latino Youth]/

"In regards to the term Latin, in this context it refers to the conception of "Latin America" as a region, a concept which was introduced by the French in the 1860s when they dreamed of building an empire based in Mexico. This concept of a “Latin” America was closely connected to the introduction of French positivism into the region's intellectual circles. The French understood “Latin” to include themselves and other continental European Romance speaking nations, to the exclusion of their “Anglo-Saxon” colonial rivals in the United States (in the Americas) and the United Kingdom, as well as the Germanic and Scandinavian peoples (in Europe). Latinos, meanwhile, is a contraction of “Latinoamericanos” and refers only to those from Spanish or Portuguese-speaking countries of Latin America, regardless of ancestry in all contexts. Those from French Canada like Haiti arc very rarely included. In the cases where they are, along with residents of French Guiana, it is with some ambiguities. The confusion that arises is from the similarity between the words latino and Latin, and between the concept of Hispanic and Latino. Latino is a shortened version of the noun Latinoamericano (Latin American). In the Spanish language, “Latin” (Latin) is the name of the language of the Romans. This means that “Latin” is not confined solely to Hispanics. Latin Americans, or Latinos, but has always included such European peoples as the Italians, French, Romanians, Portuguese, etc" Doug Weller  talk 10:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Doug, in a word...NO! The terms "Latino" and "Latina" are millenniums old in Italy. They are not contractions of "latinoamericano" and "latina americana". Both "latinoamericano" and "latina americana" are expansions of the Old World terms "Latino" and "Latina" which originated in Italy. In case you don't know what "expansion" is, it's the exact opposite of "contraction". The US and UK have their inflammatory rival words "Latino" and "Latina". But it's not going to last long. There are many Latin European and Latin American countries where people love and embrace their Latin ethnicity and culture. We don't have a waning interest in them. Seemingly, Anglo-Americans and the Anglo-Saxons in the UK have a waning interest in their own ethnicity and culture. If you look at the maps of Latin Europe and Latin America on Wikipedia, you'll see the enormity of our Latin countries. There are many more Latins living in the US than the US census would like to admit. By that I mean the Latins of all Latin European, and other Latin American countries (French and Portuguese speakers). And the Latin American community is growing rapidly in the US. French Canadians are Latins. (After Italian, French is the closest language to pure Latin.) In Anglo-Canada there are many people of Latin descent; Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Latin American. It's only a matter of time before the US and Anglo-Canada go Latin. Just think, Doug Weller...you'll be a Latino. (Which is what my proud Roman husband is. We're both from very old Latin families of Rome.) Buon fortuna! One last thing, in Spanish the word for the language Latin is usually "latino" or "latin" with an accent on the "i". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Buon fortuna! Just a tip, that should be 'buona fortuna'.Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure I know what contraction and expansion means. But you see, I actually am quoting a source. That's what we do on Wikipedia. You aren't doing that. You are however misinterpreting the source. It is sayting that "Latino" in English, at least North American English, is a contraction of the term "latinoamericanos" (not an English word). Whether that word is an expansion of something else isn't really relevant. The timeline must have been someting like "Latino" or "Latin", then the phrase "latinoamericanos" (as I said, not English), then the contraction to Latino. Doug Weller  talk 16:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Note on sockpuppetry by Lauracerffer
After her block she seems to have created a sockpuppet to carry on her complaints. Both are now checkuser blocked indefinitely by another Checkuser. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Copying some deleted text here for discussion
The term "Latino", was implemented in the U.S. to refer to what is a group of people composed of immigrants and residents,   Also, a Spaniard, for example, though a "Latino" by some definitions, is not a Latin American. The term "Latin American", in turn, though normally applied to inhabitants of Latin America, is nevertheless preferred by some individuals and organizations in the United States.

Is any of this salvageable? Doug Weller talk 09:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I am afraid not for the simple reason that these concepts and information were already expressed in the second and third paras of the page in more or less the same terms. Ref at (2) is broken. Ref at (3) can be read verbatim at the end of 2nd para and in note (10). If you think something is worthwhile keeping please add it to these initial paras. Otherwise, if you want to store these info in an internal chapter, you ought to reduce drastically the lede. Carlotm (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Title
I'm thinking the title must be edited to clarify it. Should be "Latino (USA)" or wharever. To make people not confuse.

Also because this article is about the spanish word "latino" of the meaning USA gives to that word.

Since the english of this word is "Latin"

Latin(x)?
Seeing someone attempt to fix article Air pollution in the United States I went back and found the start of the confusion. One user decided 'Latino' needed to be 'Latin(x)'. Then another user copied/extended that to more instances (my fix). I can only think they were attempting something like a fusion of Latino/Latina. Has anyone seen anything like this? Shenme (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

== Acroterion and CluBot NG (Part One) ==

In the Etomology section, it says "The oldest use of this term has been used in the United States since at least 1946 and means "a Latin male in the United States" (more aptly put, "a Latin-American male living in the United States"). The current Wikipedia meaning is totally inaccurate. The oldest use of the term "Latino" was used by the Latino-Faliscan people of Rome in the 2nd-millenium BC. The Latino people Latinized Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, Romania and many other European countries. For Wikipedia to say the oldest use of the term has been used in the United States (Anglo-America!!!) is just plain daft. The language used by Julius Caesar, milleniums before, was called "Latino" and "La lingua latina". The people of Italy and Romance Europe eventually adopted these terms as the Italians arrived in other European nations and derived languages from Latin such as French, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian. Naturally, the Italian language is the closest language to Italy's older language Latino. This needs to be embraced by Anglo-Saxons. You don't fiddle with Anglo-Saxons, Nordics, Slavics, etc. Why fiddle with people of Latin European countries? It's most disrespectful. Especially since the Lion's Share of your culture comes from Italy; alfabeto latino, la croce latina, religion, your legal system... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa samonetta (talk • contribs) 03:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Blocked by another editor as an obvious sock of Lauracerffer (see edits above). As normal practice, striking the edits of the block evader. I could delete them as they've had no reply but I'll leave them so others can see them if another sock appears. Doug Weller  talk 10:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

== Acroterion and CluBot NG (Part Two) ==

Yes, your legal system. The Jews had early courts. The Greeks updated them by having underpaid laymen listening to cases and making snap decisions. The Romans decided protracted trials were needed, a jury of 12 men, and a judge to rule over the proceedings. Of course, Latino was the language used at that time since the Romance-languages weren't around yet. Latino is still used in Italian courts as well as the Italian language. Latino (Latin, as it's called in the US) is still used in US courts as well as the English language. Moreover, most Latin-Americans have Italian ancestry. 60% of Argentines self-identify as having Italian ancestry. The royal family of Argentina is half-Italian and half-Spanish. Brazil has a population that self-identifies as being of 50% Italian ancestry. Italians, French, Spanish, Portuguese figure prominently in Latin-America. In these countries and the Latin countries of Europe, "Latino" and "Latina" indicate the Roman Empire, the Italians, the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Romanians and other EU states. It's folly and insensitive for Anglo-Saxons to missuse the words "Latino" and "Latina" as they do. If you want there to be "one world" and "world peace" (as you say you do), you're going to have to start respecting other cultures. Tunnel vision-mentality is not the way for a young country like the US to conduct itself. Take it from someone who comes from an ancient civilization. Learn to respect people of other and older cultures. Oh, Acroterion, I used a valid citation from the Italian dictionary sapero in my edit on the "Latino" page. You deleted my edit and sent me a private message telling me I must use a valid citation. Well, I did. It isn't nice to delete a valid citation and then give double-talk about it. You should learn how to behave yourself, follow the rules and, by all means, avoid useless double-talk. Cheers!


 * As above. Doug Weller  talk 10:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Etymology section was inappropriate as this article is not about the word but a particular use of the word as a term
This is about the term Latino, a specialised use of the word in a particular context. The word's actual etymology is not relevant to this article simply because it's used in a particular way that only indirectly links to its etymology. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Teresa samonetta: To echo Doug Weller, the article is about the informal demonym. As the lead sentence states, "Latino is a term often used in the United States to refer to people with cultural ties to Latin America, in contrast to Hispanic which is a demonym that includes Spaniards and other speakers of the Spanish language. If you want to write about the word latino (which outside of the demonym/endonym is not an English word), that would be a separate article concerning that specific Italian word and its broader usage. By the way, ClueBot is a bot, a program. I am a person, and I am concerned that you're editing the article without understanding the specific subject and its context, and that you're trying to change the article into a narrowly-specialized discussion of language rather than of people. You are confusing an Italian word with an English term, its false cognate - they aren't the same thing.   Acroterion   (talk)   21:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller has sided with me by removing the Etymology section for being inappropriate. The article claimed that the first known use of the word "Latino" was used at least since 1946 in the USA. I already know that the US misuses the word "Latino" and the word "America" (just about eveyone worldwide knows this.) I gave a valid citation (an Italian dictionary) for my etymology edit, and you deleted my edit and sent me a message telling me I didn't use a valid citation. When it comes to which dictionary has the valid citation for the etymology of the word "Latino" (between an Italian dictionary and a US English dictionary), the Italian dictionary is always going to be the winner. Doug Weller removed the Etomolgy section here because he knew I was right and the Etyomolgy section was inappropriate as it only indirectly linked the US usage of the word to its original and proper origin. I'm sure you're a real person and I know what a bot is. I received a message from a bot telling me I had vandalized the article (by giving a valid citation!!!) So, I wanted it recorded and shown to everyone here that you and a bot sent me unnecessary messages and I did no vandalism whatsoever. And, finally, I am not trying to change the article into "a narrowly-specialized dicussion of language rather than people". I have family in Argentina and other parts of non-USA America. They understand that we people from Italy and other parts of Latin Europe are Latino people, and we understand that they are. There's no need for you to get preachy here. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa samonetta (talk • contribs) 22:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This is the English Wikipedia - please do not use Italian definitions for English terms, and please do not mix unrelated topics. Argentinian Italians are not normally considered "Latino" in the sense employed in North America, which generally assumes Spanish speakers with significant non-European/native American heritage. Italian-Argentians are just Argentinian, Spanish-speaking people of Italian heritage are not "Latino" in English usage. I don't think you've quite understood the point of the article, and please assume good faith - I am certain you're editing in good faith, as am I. Please reconsider your approach to interactions with other editors. You appear to be making a common mistake in assuming that these words mean the same things in different languages, and you don't appear to be familiar with the particular manner in which "Latino" is employed in English. "Latino" in English usage is completely unrelated to Italy or Italian people.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if it's possible to make you understand, Acroterion. When something is wrong, like the Etymology section, it needs to be fixed or deleted. You've said "Argentinian Italians are not normally considered "Latino" in the sense employed in North America, which generally assumes Spanish speakers with significant non-European/native American heritage." Huh? 97% of Argentinians self-identify as being white. It's mostly Italian and Spanish people there. If an Argentinian moves to the US, he gets counted as a "Latino" on the US census. Many Latin Americans self-identify as being white and are considered "Latino" on the US census. Puerto Rico's performer Ricky Martin self-identifies as being white, as does Puerto Rico's actor Benicio Del Toro (Italian and Spanish). Cuba's actor Andy Garcia self-identifies as being white. They are considered Latino for residing in the US by the US census. You thought I wasn't familiar with the particular manner in which "Latino" is employed in English. Actually, YOU'RE the one who isn't familiar with it. Instead of making me angry, you've made me laugh. I'll have to alert family in Argentina who are of Italian ancestry, and Argentinian friends who are of Spanish, and Italian-Spanish ancestries that Wikipedia's Acroterion won't consider them "Latino" if they go to live in the US. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa samonetta (talk • contribs) 00:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The US Census uses a very broad definition that is similar to the one you have described, formulated for its own convenience - essentially everybody from central and South America, which has commonly been, for better or worse, called "Latin America" in the English-speaking parts of North America. The term "Latino" is not necessarily employed by those who self-identify as Latino in the same way the Census Bureau, which uses Latino as shorthand for everywhere but the US, Canada and the non-Spanish speaking Caribbean islands. As you note, it's a lot more complicated than the way the Census Bureau forms are arranged, and I completely agree that most Spanish-speaking South Americans of European descent would not describe themselves as "Latino," as opposed to what the Census Bureau would call them. In common usage, it involves many more elements of race than of language. None of this has anything to do with the Italian language, Italy, Italians or the Latin language.
 * Please stop trying to personalize the discussion - it really doesn't help for you to approach a discussion with a single individual who must be denounced: "that Wikipedia's Acroterion won't consider them "Latino" if they go to live in the US." I wouldn't, and the European-descent Argentinians, Peruvians, Colombians, and other South Americans I've known wouldn't either, unless they're filling out a form. And maybe not even then.   Acroterion   (talk)   00:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, you don't know what you're talking about, Acroterion. These are the Latino European countries: Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Romania, Monaco, San Marino, Andorra, the Vatican City. (Many consider Malta, which has Maltese and English as its official languages and almost 70% of the population which speaks Italian, a Latino European country.) The dictionaries in our languages identify us as "latino" and "latina". Do we run around all day telling our fellow countrymen "I'm Latino" and "I'm Latina"? No, of course not. When you're comfortable with your ethnicity, you don't broadcast it 24/7. The Nordics don't do it in their countries. The Anglo-Saxons don't do it in Britain. The Celtics don't do it in Ireland. If we feel the need to refer to our Latin ethnic backgrounds and histories, we do. Just as Nordics, Anglo-Saxons and Celtics do.

The same thing in Latin America. There are 26 countries there. I count Puerto Rico even though it's got English and Spanish as its official languages and its president is the US president. It's like Malta in the sense it uses a Romance language (actually Malta uses two) and the English language. The people of Latin America don't run around all day telling their fellow countrymen "I'm Latino" and "I'm Latina". It would be pointless. This only happens in the US, where things have become BLACK, WHITE, LATIN (over and over and over again). It's become really tedious from a worldwide point of view. You may not be aware of this if you're conditioned to the mentality of the US and, these days, its cousin Britain.

I have to disagree with you when you hint that Latin America has nothing to do with Italy, Italians, or the Latin language. For starters, America is named after the Italian scholar and navigator Amerigo Vespucci. Napolean III is generally given the credit for coining the term "Latinoamerica" ("Latin America"). Napolean was Italian in ancestry. The people of Latin European countries were colonizing America since 1492. They were speaking the Italic languages created by the Italians from their ancient language Latin. They were just calling America "America" and giving country after country different names. When the Pilgrims arrived in North America, two hundred years later, they called it Anglo-America because they considered Anglo-Saxons the only white ones in America. This infuriated the Latins because there was nothing Anglo-Saxon about Amerigo Vespucci. He was an Italian. A Latino. So, the Latins retaliated by calling the rest "Latin America".

Now, I'm not trying to personalize the discussion at all, as you've accused me of. You clearly don't seem to be of a Latin background. Yet, you feel the entitlement to play a sort of traffic cop as to who gets to be Latino and who doesn't. Stop doing that. It's not your place nor your business. From what you've said here, you're not an expert and you clearly have no feelings towards the mood, imagery and magic of Latin people and countries. I don't like to blow my own horn, we Italians are known for our warmth and generosity, but you are using my alphabet (alfabeto latino) when you are writing to me. Show some respect. I know I would if I were writing in someone else's alphabet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa samonetta (talk • contribs) 01:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * All this discussion is simply proving to me that the words Latino, Hispanic, and White mean very different things to different people, and any attempt Wikipedia makes to pin them down with any precision at all is doomed. The other related fact is that an awful lot of people think they know exactly what they mean, but can't actually agree on it. I actually like the discussion, because it hopefully shows to rational people how stupid racial labelling really is. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is. But what Teresa samonetta doesn't grasp is that this article is not about the word "Latino" per se, but a specific use of the word in the United States. No one is insulting a group of people. Teresa, please stop personalising this. In fact, I see no evidence that you are now unhappy with the article, so most of the discussion above is about an editor and thus inappropriate. Doug Weller  talk 10:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This particular term that attempts a broad racial label for a diverse group of people has always been problematic, and is subject to a great deal of misunderstanding, as the conversation above indicates. I'm not going to engage with Teresa samonetta further, since the discussion doesn't appear to be about the encyclopedia article anymore, at least as far as she is concerned. I do think that the article can address the broad-brush "latino" pigeonhole in greater detail - the Census categorization is fairly widely reported and criticized as overly simplistic.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "This article is not about the word "Latino" per se, but a specific use of the word in the United States." Then bloody well say so! In 100% clear words. Right at the beginning of the article. Make it clear that it's a US centric article, written by Americans, about what some of them think this much more broadly and globally used words mean to them alone. Mention that it also means lots of other things, but that's not what this article is about. Make it clear what it DOESN'T cover. At the moment we have a wishy-washy sentence that could mean anything. And that's what's causing your problems in discussion. Don't do the common US thing of assuming that everyone else in the world will simply accept the US definition of something as the primary one. Language doesn't work like that. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The original question was more about Italian etymology than about the nominal subject of this article. Certainly, the article should be more specific about the term's geographic application and regional views. In the UK, it appears to be more inclusive of Spanish ethnicity, but I'm not sure of its prevalence and common use. By far the largest concentration of Spanish-speaking people in an English-speaking nation is in the US, so that sourcing tends to dominate. Please do not confuse the discussion above, which started from a misunderstanding about the word, with parochialism, and please turn down the rhetoric.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A person "misunderstood" what you acknowledge "could be more specific" about what its owner's think it's actually all about, and got attacked. If the article must maintain its narrow US bias, then fix the bloody lead and stop criticising those with a broader outlook on life, and stop attacking me for pointing out the US ownership and attitude here. And look at the title! It's a single word. It means many things to many people. If you want it to have a very narrow meaning, maybe the title needs to change. The United States cannot own a word. Maybe I'll propose a move to "The word Latino in the USA", because that's what some of you already claim the article is about. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, the discussion appears to be straying away from the subject into commentary about editors, apparently based on perceptions of their nationality. The article could and should be broadened, bearing in mind that the term has probably been misused by the US government as a handy coatrack for a diverse group of people, and against a usage by a more narrowly self-defined ethnic identity, widespread in North America. This has been in the news, and this  analysis in the Washington Post is what I'm describing. I wouldn't use them as sources, they're opinion pieces, but it covers the mess that exists in the US. I thin a great deal of the content in this article that talks about the US could be deferred to Hispanic and Latino Americans, which gives a more nuanced discussion of the US situation, not to mention Hispanic/Latino naming dispute. Then there are the politics of Latinx. Given all that, this article does focus excessively on the US, probably reflecting participation bias, and some text just seems to have been copied between articles.   Acroterion   (talk)   11:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it was always about the US usage. Perhaps User:Jayjg might be willing to comment since they were one of the first active editors. They may be away as they haven't edited for 4 days. Note I removed a reply to you as it was very much a forum style post. Doug Weller  talk 18:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "I think it was always about the US usage." Then it needs a different title, one that says just that. The US doesn't own the word. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * No one said it did. No objection to either a title change or just maybe, although it would make a longer article, a new lead and restructuring of the article. Remembering of course that we aren't a dictionary.  Doug Weller  talk 12:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)