Talk:Latino (demonym)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archival of talk page

I archived the talk page and added the contents to the archive box to the top right. The conversations present on this page were getting quite cluttered and confusing, and quite a lot of them were basically saying the same thing. Let's work on keeping arguments under one section heading. Thanks! Cowman109^Talk 19:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

French Notion of Latin America

I noticed that the entry on "Hispanic" mentions the concept of Latin America "was introduced by the French in the 1860s when they dreamed of building an empire based in Mexico." If this is accurate, it seems like it would be a relevant part of an entry on Latino, especially if this is the basis for the spanish term latinoamericano. This would also provide information to those with the same question as the author of the "Political Correctionism" comment, i.e. how places tens of thousands of miles from Rome got to be named "Latin." Any thoughts?HardCider 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a Race/Misnomer

Seeing as around over half of Latin America are non-mixed natives and share no lineage with "latin" europeans, isn't calling them latins wrong out of pure logic? It is silly to lump people spanning an entire continent with many different heritages into the same race. Also, Spaniards and Portugese are white europeans and can't be classified as the same race as south americans simply because of related languages. Language has absolutely nothing to do with heredity. Usage is also illogically exclusive; only spaniards and portugese are considered latin when people such as the French and particularly Italians are not considered latin? Contemporary usages of the words "latino" and "latin" make no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.104.111.66 (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Latino template

Please help with the Latino template. --JuanMuslim ^1m 18:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Hm, I just realized there are no citations and lists of sources on this article.. that is a problem and may be a source of all the dispute that this article has had in the past. Cowman109^Talk 03:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of US usage

Recently, 71.146.32.150 removed the Mexica Movement's lengthy criticisms of the use of the word "Latino". I think we were allowing the group to have too much of a platform in this article (Wikipedia is not a soapbox). They may have "a strong internet presence" and be active on the LA protest scene, but they are not a major group. Surely there must be other critics of the use of the term. At any rate, I think that the removal was largely justified.--Rockero 15:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Specially as an overwhelming majority of hispanics in the US consider themselves latino. This group is clearly marginal.--Guzman ramirez 22:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a reasonable amount of academic criticism of the term, which could be researched more and cited. From memory, various criticisms have included:

• Like "Hispanic", it puts too much emphasis on colonial rather than New-World origin. The Mexica Movement does argue something like that, but they aren't the only ones.
• Also like "Hispanic", its use in the U.S. is designed to weaken immigrants' ties to a specific home country by genericizing their ancestry away from a specific one like "Guatemalan", thereby blunting opposition to U.S. foreign policy in Central and South America (Ofelia Schutte argued this I believe)
• Genericizing ancestry insensitively papers over huge differences between those of different origins, e.g. Cuban versus Mexican.

Of course references should be found before adding specific criticisms, but there is a huge debate on this in the literature and plenty such references exist. They have even had enough impact that many organizations try to use generic or multiple terms; for example, most southern-California organizations use the slashed "Latino/Chicano" to accomodate those who prefer to identify with Chicano.--Delirium 23:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly criticisms are most welcome. As I mentioned, I just feared that WP was being used to further an agenda. I preliminary search of Schutte does not reveal any obvious criticism of the term, but if I turn anything up, I'll be sure to add it.--Rockero 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We could add...

Hello there. I read the article, and I can`t find anything related to France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Romania as Latin countries or Latinos. They are only in the See Also section, and the article doesn`t explain why they are Latinos. Also, it says that Latino refers to the inhabitants of Latin America. True, but also to the inhabitants of Latin Europe. Wikipedia should clear peoples mind about this word and what it truly means, where it started, and not only as used in the USA.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.17.79 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-14T19:35:31

The Romance-language-speaking peoples of Europe are called Latin peoples in English. They may be called "Latinos" in Spanish and Italian, but they called "Peuples latins" in French, "Popoare latine" in Romanian, etc. Are we going to mention this in the article just because the word has a different meaning in another language? While Wikipedia should include all regional variations of words, we cannot include every word that sounds like another word in another language. Are we going to put that kite is pronounced "taco" in language on the taco article? This is the English-language Wikipedia, and regional/temporal differences in the meanings of words should generally only include those used by English speakers or writers.

But since this seems to be a recurrent complaint, (the repeated reversions of HenryMark being an example thereof), maybe we should mention that in some Romance languages the word "Latino" is used to refer to the Latin peoples? It might serve to abate some of the criticism...--Rockero 02:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, outside of Latin America, Latino can apply just as well to those of Ibero-Spain, Southern Italy, & Latin Influenced North African Areas.--INO Exodus 15:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

We could say at least that latino-americanos are latinos because they were latinized by spain, portugal and france.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.244.232 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-15T15:34:28

The issue I see that is that the claims by Henrymark are unsourced (and he puts unneeded emphasis that Latino is an Italian word, not an English word). If we can find a citation that clearly states that Latino can apply to those of Ibero-Spain, Southern Italy, & the Latin Influenced North African Areas as INO Exodus says, then this matter could be nicely settled in the body of the article, in my opinion. Cowman109^Talk 15:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem, Cowman. Notice that he or she says, "in my opinion". I have never seen the Latin peoples referred to as "Latinos" in English. Which is not to say that it has never occurred, but people keep bringing their opinions into this discussion that should only be about facts. I think the best we can do is make the amendment I suggest above and revert any additions/changes as vandalism, blocking when necessary. If anyone else thinks this is a viable idea, then we can go ahead with it. But I don't want to make any edits without any corroboration from the community, since the subject has been so touchy.--Rockero 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wonderfully said :). I admit I've never heard of Latino used to refer to people from southern Europe until I came to this article, either. Since Wikipedia is based on verifiability, the key here is sources that confirm the arguments brought by each party. Cowman109^Talk 01:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Latin is the mother language of many other languages like: Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, etc. thus countries where those languages are spoken are called latin countries, then, their people are latin people. Latinoamericans does not mean you are born in 'America USA' .. America is North, Central and South America. maggieven —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.246.25.218 (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Introduction

The introduction to this article was in poor shape. I have tried to make it clearer. I think one of the problems with this artile is that it is trying to include too much information that is already written in articles like Latin (disambiguation) (which incidentally, looks very similar to es:Latino) or Latin America (which covers Portugal and Francophones, and analogies to Latin Europe). The term, as used in English, seems to be a US-specific thing primarily for describing Hispanics. We have terms like Latin and Latin American for other usages. – Andyluciano 19:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert to previous version by me (Burgas)

Cowman: I reverted because this version is silly. The different meanings of latino in Spanish (someone from lazio???) are irrelevent since the english word comes from latinoamericano. Giving the meaning of latinoamericano is enough. The previous version was much better and more straightforward. --Burgas00 16:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was a bit concerned because you also reverted the removal of some whitespace and some helpful rewording outside of the intro - but I think it is clear that the intro needs some sort of rewrite (the past version had some issues too, I believe). If you'd like to revert the intro, it would be best to revert just that and not the other changes made to the article. Other than that, it's probably best to see what other people think about what should be done with the itnroduction. It seems much longer than it needs to be and could probably be broken up into sections anyway. Cowman109^Talk 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

When I found this article [1] the introduction was confused in terms of sources and didn't seem to make much sense. I re-ordered the source citations (the same link to an M-W entry was repeated as sources for unrelated claims not found in said source) and I introduced the RAE as a source. I wanted to highlight that the term in Spanish has all the ambiguity as the English term "Latin", which causes some confusion among folk etymologists, as clearly shown in earlier editions of this article which seemed to have gotten it confused. I thought that the definition of latino by the Real Academia Española was relevant here, and the first entry in that dictionary says: "natural of Lazio". –Andyluciano 21:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point now. Made the intro more like yours and moved part about latino in Spanish further down. –Andyluciano 22:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Italian word?

I have reverted the edits by User:Wrefren, as they seemed very similar to the edits by User:Henrymark and put unneeded emphasis that Latino is also an Italian word. Latino is a word in many languages, as has been discussed several times, and we need discussion before putting that in the article. Henrymark has not responded to any of our requests for him to comment, but should Wrefren be another user, could you please respond here why you are changing that information in the article? Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of ridiculous to say the word was borrowed from Italian. Of course in both languages it derives from the Latin latinus. –Andyluciano 19:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also note that Wiktionary:Latino is being repeatedly vandalized the same way, claiming its origin to be from Italian. –Andyluciano 19:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of word Anglo and Anglo-American

The term Anglo-American is being used incorrectly here, essentially referring to all people who are 'white' or of European descent. Anglo would actually refer to a very specific group of people of European descent; those from England and certain parts of western Europe. In America there are plenty of Dutch, Celts, Slavs, Swedes, Greeks, Danes, and so forth that would probably resent being called Anglo-Americans.70.189.98.191 17:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of people in Latin America, for example, who are of Italian, Portuguese, German, Amerindian, African, etc. descent, and they are still called "Hispanic". I think by "Anglo" it is meant to be a linguistic description rather than about race, ethnicity or heritage. –Andyluciano 15:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that I am late on this, but when hispanics call someone an Anglo, they are subliminally saying "your type of white as opposed to my type of white." This is why they call them Anglos instead of simply white people.--71.235.81.39 16:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Latin(o) edits

Sorry about what might be have been seen as 'independent edits, I wasn't aware of discussion resource. User: EdgarR

Let me know what you think

The two chief problems I tried to correct, as I saw them, was the confusion of "Latino" with "Latin American", on one hand, and with "Latin" on the other. But if you disagree with what I've done, please, let's talk about it. SamEV 14:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Addition to Latino

Read the additional section and click on the links, see video, get back to me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdgarR (talk • contribs) on 2006-09-18

calling the use of the term "incorrect"

There is something that itches me funny about saying, in English, calling a woman Latino is incorrect. Yes, it would be incorrect in Spanish. But English is not Spanish. Step outside some time in an English speaking community, and you will hear lots of people call women Latino instead of Latina. Yes, some people say this is incorrect in English, but, I do not think linguistic prescription should be endorsed on Wikipedia. As the article says, The English language does not distinguish between the male and female genders. Our goal should be to accurately describe the term as common people do, without endorsing the ideas of people who would rather English follow Spanish grammar. The way I see it, Latina is an accepted term, but so is something like Latino woman, the latter of which gets 67,200 hits on google. –Andyluciano 16:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect term usage confirmed

Calling a woman latino is incorrect and she would probably feel offended because you would be referring her to her as being male. Latino is a 'borrowed' word from Spanish so is Latina. Latina refers a Latin female. The English does differentiate between sexes at times i.e. remmember (actor/actress) but not with the suffixes a or o as Spanish commonly does. You say that our goal is to accurately describe the term "as common people do". even if the certain people you refer to are using it incorrectly because of the lack of education or experience with the subject at hand. Type in the words Latin women and you will get about 65,500,000 hits [[2]] type in Latina women and you get 13,900,000 hits. [[3]], much more than the absurd 'Latino women' combination. I don't believe the purpose of Wikipedia is to perpetrate erroneous information and promote division. Please do not attempt to divide the Latin community, it transcends race and lines drawn on a map. The use (in the U.S.) of the terms Latino/Latin are well exemplified by the links I posted, which were removed without any stated reason. They should be studied to see how the term latino, latina and latin are correctly being used by the Mayor of New York. (I will post them again so they can be read at a time of leisure.) You are correct, English is not Spanish therefore I urge you to not use the term latino or latino unless you learn how to use them appropriately.( Latino is obviously a Spanish which was in existence far longer then when it began being used in the U.S., Some who use the word are trying to bend out of shape the meaning to something else and then use it in English. I sense you have an issue accepting that latin(os) are latin? You can also acknowledge that many Spanish and Italian and other direct Latin(o) descendants living in Latin America and the Carribean have been on the forefront of living and promoting positive Latin culture throughtout the world. Please, most Latin people are proud of their heritage and ancestry. Again please do not try to marginalize, negate, or otherwise divide the latin people here in the U.S. nor abroad. – EdgarR 22:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to read up on the difference between prescriptive linguistics and descriptive linguistics, and what it means for a term or grammar to be "correct" in linguistic terms. Wikipedia in keeping with NPOV should not endorse one term over another if there is linguistic variance, which there is for this. I am not trying to "marginalize, negate, or divide" Latin people in any country, I am only making the point that it is wrong to call it "incorrect" if thousands of people are out there using it in the real world and being understood. Language is defined by usage, and Wikipedia should present an accurate picture of how people use the term, whether or not it is "correct". Should the article on ain't say that saying ain't is wrong? Of course it shouldn't. To say so is to misunderstand how languages work. –Andyluciano 06:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Politically correct but grammatically incorrect

What is the "correct" grammatical usage? It's hard to be a purist when we are dealing with a term borrowed from one language and being used in another language with a different set of grammatical rules.

If "Latino" were an English word, English rules would apply.
-First, being a gentilic word, Latino is capitalized as such, and that's fine.
-Secondly, in English, some nouns can take masculine and feminine forms: lion/lioness, actor/actress, duke/duchess, so Latino/Latina would be possible.
-Thirdly, adjectives do not inflect in gender or number in English, as they do in Spanish, and here we have a problem. If "Latino" were an English adjective, the correct form would be "Latino woman". Thus, "My neighbor is a Latina" (noun) or "My neighbor is a Latino woman" (adjective).

But there are those who want to apply Spanish-language rules to "Latino", since it is a borrowed word, thus "Latino man" and "Latina woman". This approach lacks consistensy, because the plural of those forms should be "Latinos men" (hombres latinos) and "Latinas women" (mujeres latinas), according to Spanish-language rules, but almost nobody uses the plural forms. Moreover, in Spanish, gentilics should not be capitalized.

In conclusion, the politically-correct use of "Latina" as an adjective (as in "Latina woman" and "Latina women") is grammatically incorrect (or, at least, inconsistent), both in English and in Spanish. My two cents. --HYC 07:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I am only making the point that it is wrong to call it "incorrect" if thousands of people are out there using it in the real world and being understood. Language is defined by usage, and Wikipedia should present an accurate picture of how people use the term, whether or not it is "correct". Should the article on ain't say that saying ain't is wrong? Of course it shouldn't. To say so is to misunderstand how languages work. –Andyluciano 06:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Many more people are using the term 'Latina' (as shown by google hits), much more still used Latin women, yet you choose to promote something that was used least, will insult millions of people and cause mass confusion. Why didn't you just use Latin women, this is in English, therefore it is a perfect fit with the english language, does not provide inconsistensies (HYC mentioned)and does not cause injury. It also has the further benefit of not excluding other Latins of other languages (like Brazilians). Most people already use this, i.e. (google hits), and it is understood by the large majority. Some use the term 'pig' (and it was understood by thousands) to described our our hero police officers in uniform, does this mean you're going to promote this and say it is correct as far removed from reality and offensive as it is? These confusions and inconsistancies are born out of attempting to make a Spanish word in the English language. Why twist the identity of these human beings? EdgarR]] 14:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Most people also do not say ain't. Does that make the word ain't any less valid? The answer is it shouldn't. I am not talking about what I use. I am talking about what people use and what is understood by an English speaker when he or she hears something. What I am saying is that Wikipedia not say that either is incorrect, but acknowledge that people commonly use both.

I looked at latina on dictionary.com. Their "usage note" section cites newspaper articles with "Latino Woman" in the headline, and basically says that both forms are acceptable, although one may be considered substandard.

The idea that I somehow am twisting the identity of anyone by making this observation is also ridiculous.

–Andyluciano 15:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

---

It is obvious the the use of the word ain't is not comparable with a label that afffects on the lives of living individuals. These labels will be used in the perception of these individuals, therefore affects their identity. A closer example would be the example of the police officers which you avoided. You also avoid to disclose that when you did a search on 'Latino women' to google, most of the 167,000 results were 'Latin women'which is most widely used. EdgarR 16:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Wikipedia article Pig (disambiguation) says: pig is slang for a member of the police force.

Look, I don't want to start a two-man flame war over this. I think I've made my case fairly well. I don't think this is a personal attack against Latinos. I have lived amongst Latinos. I highly value and respect Latino and Hispanophone cultures. I find it a bit unusual that you accuse me of "avoiding to disclose" things. I honestly don't know to what you are referring. But. I do know that people, when speaking English, often say "Latino" even when it is feminine. Yes, it does often come off as ignorant. Maybe these days it's less common. But, what I am doing is describing the term as I have heard it used by English speakers. That is what descriptive linguists do. The ain't example is apt because it describes something that is non-standard but also very common. —Andyluciano 19:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

---

At least you agree that the term is non-standard. However, you still say it is very common. If you do a comparison of the phrases 1-Latino women, 2-Latina women and 3-Latin woman, you will find that Latin and Latina women will be used far more and will find that the term Latino women is very uncommon. Of course you might find some that will attempt to standardize an uncommon term (even wrongly used term)even if will offend others. But then again aren't we supposed to be operating in good faith in Wikipedia? EdgarR 00:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but the fact that (2) and (3) are more common does not mean that (1) is not common. It's just less common. As I stated above, though, for example dictionary.com cites newspapers as saying "Latino woman" right in the headline. If it's good enough for the editors of the Los Angeles Times[4] that's probably enough to say that yes, people do use it that way. —Andyluciano 00:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

very uncommon, maybe even a typo. The definition at dictionary.com indicates the term refers to the feminine form. If they are Latin Americans then they obviously should be called what they are, in English. After all from what I understand isn't this one of the more common complaints of Americans in the U.S. that they, (Latin Americans) do not want to assimilate, that they should speak English? Trying very hard, no matter the twisting and bending out of shape, there are still problems fitting and using these foreign terms in the English language. So I say to my fellow Americans, speak English. Stop trying to borrow words from another language and pasting them on people which serves to perpetrate a perception of them as being foreign. I.G.F. EdgarR 03:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

American English = in USA

Take note that the article relates to the actual, common usage of the term "Latino" in the United States. Much of this article and discussion deviates from this premise because the term is inherently incorrect. Nonetheless, it is accepted in the US and, therefore, it has a specific meaning. As much as I hate the term, the article needs to reflect and clarify this.

Latino comes from "Latin America" and not "Latin" (i.e. NOT the ancient Roman language and European heritage). In Europe, pretty much all speakers of Romance languages consider themselves to be Latin. This is also true in Quebec and other parts of French Canada. None of these people, however, can correctly be considered "latino" by the American usage of the term. A "Latino" (or "latino"- it really doesn't matter) is simply a very, very broad term meaning someone from Latin America (Spanish or Portuguese-speaking only). It is not the same meaning as Hispanic, Latin or anything connected to the European Romance speakers. It is also NOT a racial term, since people from Latin America are as racially diverse as Americans themselves. Because of the prevalence of Mexicans in many parts of the US, the term is also incorrectly used to mean Mexican or, more specifically, Mestizo.

As a non-American, it seems to me that many people in the US confuse Latino with Hispanic. Hispanic may include people with origins in Spain and Portugal, as well as Latin America, since the term is a linguistic one. Also, in the US many people incorrectly substitute "Latino" with "Latin". This is clearly incorrect, even in the US. 207.6.233.239 19:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Latino synonymous with Latin

Latino is the Spanish word for "a Latin Person" here in Europe and in Latin America". [5]. it is widely used interchangeably in large metropolitan cities, this is accepted as correct. See the section and links I posted in the Usage in the United States (Past and Present) section.EdgarR 03:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Latino is an Italian world and has the same meaning as the world Latin. Obviously it depends on who pronounces it. The Italians say Latino referring to a male and Latina referring to a female. Spaniards and Romanians who inherited the Latin language from the ancient Italians, the Romans, say Latino and Latina too. Latin is the English and French version of Latino-Latina. I believe that most of the contributors here are just fishing in the desert without having any notion of what being a Latino/Latina really means and where the Latin language and civilization originated from. Perhaps, if they took some time studying some Roman History they would educate themselves. Well, while I'm here I get a start for all to know: Italians are the only really Latins. That is Latinos and Latinas. It all started in Italy,not in Spain,not in Portugal and not certainly in Latin America. While is true that the first Latins (In plural Italian "Latini" lived in the region of Latium (now Lazio), they were incorporated into the Roman life after having been defeated by the same Romans and become Roman citizens. The Romans with the Latins (Latini) now embarked as a unified unit in the total conquest of all the different regional groups living in Italy. The Romans adopted the Latins language as the official language of all Italy. All Italia become Roman and all Italia became Latina. One Country and one united people. Subsequently, they embarked in the conquest of other territories outside of Italy (Italia)and one by one fell to the Romans: France,Spain,Portugal,England,Germany,Romania and other European areas. Then expanded and colonized all of Northern Africa and the Middle East. In France,Spain,Portugal,Germany,Romania they remained more than seven centuries and imposed their Latin Language,Roman Laws and Christianity. After the fall of the Roman Empire the Latin Languages evolved into the now known modern languages based on the old Latin. When the French,the Spaniards and the Portuguese colonised the "Americas" they brought with them their Latin based Languages. This, however, cannot be even remotely understood as creating a new breed of Latin people. The French, had NO rights to call their colonized territories of the Americas "Amerique Latine" because they in turn had become Latins through Italian/Roman colonization of their countries. Italia (Italy) alone has the monopoly of the Latin heritage. As for those so-called Latin-Americans who call themselves "Latinos" or "Latins" I tell them that they're just dreaming and defaming the great Language,Culture and Identity of millions of Italians and in lesser way they are degrading the cultural background of the Spaniards,Portuguese and Romanians. Latin American can never be changed into "Latino" or "Latina".In fact it ceased to exist when the colonizers left. Being a Latino and a Latina is more than speaking a Latin Language: is having inherited the Roman culture,Roman Laws, Roman Christianity, Roman moral character of the Italians. Those from the so-called Latin America do not possess these prerequisites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.192.52 (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Those from the "so-called" Latin America are not latin or latino because most of them are indigenous people who's ancestors were raped enslaved and murdered by latins and latinos. I myself and half Italian (although culturally not very italian and rather american) so really I am latino although I'd be laughed at if I ever said that in this country. It just makes me absolutley enraged that such terrible things could happen to one people and then these people could be forced to take the name of those who did this to them and not there true ancestors. Everyone has a right to an identity. People who's ancestory can be traced back to the original people of Latin Europe are the only Latinos/latins. People who's ancestory can be traced back to the original people of the Americas are Native American or indigenous American. The US needs to end this abominable usage of Latino because it is hurting both indigenous people and real latin people. No one should have to have the wrong identity or share an identity with someone else.24.126.115.119 (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Political Correctionism

I'm an Italian, yet I see this term "latino", what is this? South Americans? LOL That is a direct insult to my Roman ancestry! And remember, without Rome, there would be no Spain, that means that the south americans would've never been colonized. I still see no case on how they're "latino", they are south americans, or do we advocate political correctionism? How about we tell it the way it is for once? They are south Americans, furthermore they are mexicans (not considered s. america), argentinians, brazilians, etc etc There is nothing "latin" about them, their ancient language was destroyed by Spain, they were forced to learn spanish, so how does that somehow make them "latinos"?

This reminds me of "african americans" LOL This is crazy! I never saw any "Mr. Johnson" in Africa, they don't even have any cultural relations with Africans, they are as much black as white people are white in America, they are both American, isn't that enough? Why must politicians divide the people for political gain? Why must special interest activist groups divide the people to keep in business?

Let us do this: Create a "Critic" section that says that some people believe this is political correctionism, that Italian could only truly be considered "Latin", that the Italian culture has been belittled by Americans and europeans alike. OK, maybe not the last part, but you get the point LOL It is true, the majority of Roman blood remained on the Italian peninsula, 95% of the "Roman" military in foreign territories comprised on non-romans.

The world knows nothing about Italian culture, I don't even celebrate columbus day, maybe the spaniards should! If not for Spain, South Americans might haven't had been conquered, raped, and had their culture pillaged, so why embrace them? Why not be original and investigate your own ancient linguistics??? Don't steal mine! Crud3w4re 07:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The European descendents(of those who actually left the coziness of their homes and ventured westward to the "Americas")are just as proud of their Latin roots as you seem to be. In fact it is they that made the history that we now speak of. As far as the original peoples (before the expeditions), these are of Amerindian descent and many would agree with you that they are not Latin. It seems in order not to classify these peoples by race (Amerindian or Native American)which would be an indication that these people were actually here first, some in position to do so in the good ol U.S. may be employing the use of the hispanic and Latino terms in order to give them (these Amerindians), well, sort of a Johnny come lately aura. As a 'white' 'Hispanic,' or in reality as an American, like you mentioned, I took to this area of wiki because of the discriminations white Hispanics face. However I have come to understand that the Hispanics of Amerindian descent may face a bigger challenge, in a place where their ancestry is being camouflaged, possibly like you stated, "for political gain", or possibly just to be relieved of guilt. etc, etc.69.112.103.196 04:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is again digressing from the point of the article. See above (American English=in USA). The term Latino is very common in the USA and it has a specific meaning, in spite of the fact that it is incorrect. The term does not, in American English, mean latin. Maybe someone will modify the article and take away all the crap about right and wrong. This article is NOT about race. By the way, I too am Italian and I do not feel the only true "latins" are Italians. This is very myopic...The Italian peninsula has witnessed waves and waves of peoples, and the ethnic composition is today generally very similar to the French and, to a lesser degree, the Spaniards. This is not the forum to start a debate, but we are all "Latins" in Europe in that we have direct lineage to Rome through our culture and language. Before you start ranting, remember that many Italians (especially in the south) can trace some of their roots to ancient Greece. If you wish to pick up this discussion, I suggest adding to Latin Europe and save this page for discussion regarding the Latino article.

In the U.S. Latin is interchangeable with Latino, read the article. Also see the definition of Latin @ Merriam Webster [6] I live in NY and its commonly used here interchangeably, and has been for many years.

69.112.103.196 05:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK- I'm trying to put some international perspective on this... The article is about is the term "Latino" (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/latino). This term has a specific meaning in the US and the term "Latin" is much broader and, perhaps, more international (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/latin). OK- I agree that in the US the term is often used interchangeably with Latin and the distiction is somewhat muddled. Even the references I cite show some overlap (it's a US website, after all); however, this is wrong. The article needs to be modified and the term "Latin" clarified and separated. See the discussion above... To give an example, out of a group of Italians, Spaniards, French Canadians, Mexicans and Cubans they can all be be categorized as "Latin"- but only the Cubans and Mexicans can be a "Latino" (as the term should be applied in the US). There is a lot of confusion over this, especially in popular US culture. The term Latino is not about race, it is about origin- the origin being Spanish-speaking Latin America 207.6.233.239 17:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as international perspective- When a person from Latin America states he is Latino, he does not mean he is Latin American. If he wanted to say he is Latin American he would say he is a Latino Americano. If he wanted to say he is American, he would say Americano, when he wants to say he is Latin he'll say he is Latino. When person from Spain says he is Latino, he means he is Latin, If a person from Italy says he is Latino, he means he is Latin. It's the same internationally. If a 50 year old person from Spain arrives in the U.S., and at home in Spain, he considers himself Latino, (meaning Latin), cannot we respect this? Do we tell him he is not, and has been wrong for 50 years? That his children are not because they were born in the U.S.? That his parents who taught him and ancestors were all wrong? Who are we to judge them all wrong? If a man of European descent, born in Latin America or in the U.S., and says he is Latino (meaning Latin), is it any different than the man from Spain? Latin’s include people from Europe, U.S. and the rest of the Americas.EdgarR 04:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

EdgarR: you are absolutely 100% correct. However, by international perspective I meant how an outsider sees use of the term in the US, not how it's used internationally. I totally disagree with the term's use in the US, but it exists as such... In the U.S. the term "latino" (as it is used by the general public in American English) does NOT mean the same thing as "latino" in Spanish and, generally, the rest of the world. Someone from Mexico is "a latino" as well as "a latin". Someone from Italy is NOT "a latino", but is definitely "a latin". The application of the foreign word into US English appears to me to be wrong but generally accepted there...That is what I am trying to clarify. In addition, to make matters more complicated, in the US there is now a tendency to use "latin" and "latino" interchangeably to mean only "latino". In popular U.S. culture, for example, when they talk about "latin culture" they usually mean latinoamericano. 207.6.233.239 18:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In his book "Heritage Hispanic-American Style' Leon J. Radomile (an Italian author)who also wrote "Heritage Italian-American Stlye" wrote that he is Latino (Latin), an Italo Latino . He wrote that the term 'Hispanic' differentiates those Latinos (Latins)of Spanish origin from all other Latinos (Latins). (The word Hispanic is derived from the Latin term Hispanicus, from Hispania). People from Spain also consider themselves Latinos. People from Latin America also consider themselves Latinos (Latin). The term in Italy, Spain and Latin America meant the same thing, "Latin". This was the correct usage Internationally, before the term was ever used in the United States. The Latin Grammies were performed in New York this year, an International event. There was representation from Italy, Spain, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Columbia, etc...The term Latino means Latin, period. Latin music groups have heavily used the word 'Latino' in their music, singing about the goodness or the happiness of 'being' (Latino)Latin. This self identification was in their poetry, literature, and in the media. So the English Media and the English speaking public began to refer to these people as Latinos(Latin, in Spanish) as well. Because of the large Latin American population in the U.S.,and the constant reference, some now misunderstand Latino to mean 'a Latin American'. However as shown in the Latin Grammies, Latinos (Latins) are much more than just from the America's, and they include those countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, Brazil, and the others.69.112.103.196 00:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Latino is THE SAME THING as latin. Latino is just Spanish for latin. They are exactly the same. People with indigenous ancestory from the Spanish speaking countries of the Americas and other romance language countries (sorry I just don't like the term latin america) are NOT latin. They have their own ancestors and culture and history that they should be proud of and not identify with their oppressors. That is why I hate the way latino is used. It is ethnocide, no more and no less. What is next? Are indigenous people of the United States going to be called germanic for speaking English, a germanic language? Why don't we say French Canadians are latino too for speaking a romance language and being from a country in the Americas? Why aren't black people germanic as well? I'll tell you why. This "latino" term is just a way of hiding the world from what happened to advanced pre-columbian civilizations. It needs to stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.115.119 (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Racial usage

In 'Use in Spain and Latin America' section it is said The term Latino does not refer to race.. Does this imply it is used to refer to race elsewhere? If so, this should be mentioned in appopriate sections, otherwise this is confusing.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Latino and Hispanic are mostly used in the US

Not in Latin America. It's important to emphasize that these terms refer not so much to Latin Americans, but to "Latin American Americans," so to speak. SamEV 06:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right. But we also use the term Hispanic, to describe countries like Mexico. Thats how we see it because the term means relating to Spain, and Mexico is related to sSpian. They speak a dialect of their language, Mexico was conquered by Spanish, and they use a lot of Spanish Customs. DLWDWFreek (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And you are right, too. In my defense, though, I didn't say these terms are used 'exclusively' in the US. And the usage in Latin America is markedly different from its usage for an ethnic group in the US. SamEV (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

YupDLWDWFreek (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Latino infobox

Was the infobox removed for a reason, or was it a mistaken edit? I'll put it back up. If it was an intended edit, please state the reasoning. Taco325i 00:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Taco325i, I just now saw that it was me. I'm sorry about that, it was an accident. SamEV 20:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Latin American American

Latin American American is not and never has been a term in use. Nor is it in any authoritive dictionary/encyclopedia, A person of Latin America if a united States citizen sometimes are called Hispanic American, Latin Americans, Latin, Latino or just plain American. This should be corrected. The people mentioned like Irish Americans and Middle Eastern Americans are labeled as such because of the different continents involved, while these latins are already from the Americas, hence the term Latin Americans! Also the author implies that Latino was a shortened version of Latin American American which is not the case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EDGARR (talk • contribs) 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Latino and the issue of race

I believe that some people trying to separate so called Latin(os) from Latin or Latin Americans from Latin European because Latins in Latin America include not only whites who migrated to the Americas from Europe (and their descendants), but people of American Indian descent and to a lesser extent some African mixes. However the official meaning of Latino/Latin is clear in Webster-Merriam's dictionary and is as follows.-- Main Entry: 1Lat•in Pronunciation: 'la-t&n Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Old English, from Latin Latinus, from Latium, ancient country of Italy 1 a : of, relating to, or composed in Latin b : ROMANCE 2 : of or relating to Latium or the Latins 3 : of or relating to the part of the Catholic Church that until recently used a Latin rite and forms the patriarchate of the pope. '''4 : of or relating to the peoples or countries using Romance languages; specifically : of or relating to the peoples or countries of Latin America''' Latin Americans are Latin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EDGARR (talk • contribs) 06:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

I just translate a very interesting comment from the discussion page in Spanish Wikipedia:

It's incredible to see how Spanish-speakers (especially in America) have appropriated the word "Latino" only for themselves, and spread it arrogantly throughout the world. Now we (French, Italian, Portuguese , Romanian, Brazilian) are excluded from our name. Lots of people with latin identity (or identities) from 2500 years ago are now changed for a caricature of Central-American culture. Being Latino means now dancing Salsa, eating tacos, having dark skin, being mestizo... while we, first latins on the Mediterranean Sea, are incited to refuse to our latin identity. Obviously true "latinity" comes from the latin Europe. We must see everywhere "Latin music", "Latin bomb", or even worse "Latin race", totally excluding Europeans. What do you think about this problem? What can we do to recover our name?

And I add: Would you say that someone from Louisiana or Québec is Latin-American?

Maybe because they are from the Americas and they speak a Latin language. That is what a Latin American is after all. The fact is that they are latino and you are not but you are latin and they are not. Brown hispanics are not of "Latin Race". They are actually Native Americans. It doesn't matter if they have some European blood. Saying brown hispanics are mestizos is like saying African Americans are mulattos, Filipinos are Eurasians, Native Americans from the US are mestizo aswell, and Spaniards are Middle Eastern. None of that made sense, so why is Jennifer Lopez a mestizo. I know I'm completely off topic but I was trying to prove a point. Also that proves they are not latin.69.143.182.220 (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

also latino and latin are very similar but not the same. Latin is being from a European romance speaking country. Latino is being from an American country and speaking a romance language. I don't know why its like that but it is.69.143.182.220 (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all you would be hard-pressed to find anywhere where the Spanish-speakers, including those of America are saying that they are the ONLY "Latinos" or Latin’s. Secondly, being a Caucasian Latin(o),/ Hispanic, of Spanish descent, your stereotyping of Latin(o)s sounds offensive at best. No one (Spanish speaking) is asking you to give up your Latin(o)ness. (If they did I would disagree with them). Celebrate it, enjoy it and tell others about it. If anything, it is the Anglo American established social pressures, that say if you are European here in the U.S. you must subject yourself to their ideology and terms, and of course you must also denounce your culture and history.EDGARR 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: recent edits

Please read and make sure you understand the entire article before you edit it. Your concerns are already covered. The article already contrasts "Latino", which is an English term (borrowed from Spanish, it appears), to other languages' "Latino/latino". As for Haiti, the US Census Bureau classifies Haitians with "African American or Black". If Haitians want to be categorized with Latinos, they need to first lobby the government to make that change. SamEV 23:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Appropriation?

Some people can't seem to get it through their heads that Latinos have appropriated nothing. French, Italians, Portuguese, Romanians, Spaniards, etc, are all still known as LATINS in English. So where's the appropriation? This is already explained in the article. So we have the two terms in English: Latin and Latino, co-existing, with different definitions. SamEV 15:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry the two terms cannot be separated, but it goes to show that your agenda is to separate these people from their identity. You cannot take the Latin out of Latin-America.

The Latino word used in English came from the Spanish word which means Latin. It means the same to Spaniards as it means to Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and they all consider themselves 'Latin'.... If in American Spanish they only mention that it applies to someone from Latin America, that does not mean that Latin Americans are not Latin. By the very hyphenated term Latin-American, you can easily see that Latin is the first word. Look up Latin in the dictionary and what do you get...Latin - 4 a : of or relating to the peoples, nationalities, or countries whose chief or official languages are Romance <the sister Latin nations have drawn closer -- Thomas Okey>; specifically : LATIN-AMERICAN. This includes the Latin-Europeans as well as the Latin-Americans. The Latin Americans have contributed much that has the label Latin written all over it. (Latin music, Latin dance, Latin Jazz, Latin culture and more...) you seem to have an agenda of trying to separate Latinos from Latin and it cannot be done because the terms are one and the same. Not only is this but stealing and trying to distort the identity of Latin Americans and their contributions, but by consciously doing so with disregard for the facts and truth and the psycological health of these people in spite of the evidence, bring serious questions to your motives. After your comments and clear disregard for the facts in your changes to the article I can't help feel you are discriminating against these peoples. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EDGARR (talk • contribs) 05:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

You're being silly. My only agenda is to help write a better article. Define me as you see fit.

I also notice you've managed to see a hyphen in "Latin America". Wonderful.

There are various definitions of Latin and Latino, and in due time, they'll fitted in the article if they aren't already.

Btw, Edgarr, you don't know me. I joined Wikipedia mostly in order to help improve Latin America related articles that I felt were terribly neglected. SamEV 05:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

Apparently this article needs a rewrite. I've begun to do that and will continue it later today and in the days ahead. Now please leave it alone so I can enjoy my tennis. Thank you. SamEV 21:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Much better. thank you.66.183.217.31 19:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Danedouard did most of the work, though. (Can't ever be too late to give credit to whom it's due, right?) SamEV (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Accurate usage and special agendas

The very recent adaptation of hispanic usage of the term Latino is not accurate from a world perspective. The English version of Wikipedia does not equate with United States setting the litmus test. More than 2,000 years of historical worldwide usage does not get erased because of a recent adaptation by a specific group in a particular part of the world.

Please do not attempt to frame this as an English usage definition, because it is not true. Not to say that the US governments definition should not be addressed at all, but it should be an afterthought and it has been addressed within. The US Hispanic use of the word should not be the dominant theme of the page. US or English definitions do not dominiate the world nor do Hispanics have ownership of the word. We do not want to give incorrect information to anyone that uses the English language to surf this site.

Please to not use this as a form for promotion of a Hispanic voting and economic block agenda. Hispanics are part of Latinos but do not set the bar as to who is Latino and who is not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HHFTB (talk • contribs) 22:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

But this is exactly the point... it is only in the USA where in ENGLISH one uses the term "latino". Anywhere else, the term Latin would be used in the context you suggest. Of course, in Spanish, or Italian, latino would mean Latin and not "Latino" (English meaning). You yourself seem to equate "Hispanic" with Latino and this too is completely incorrect. Unfortunately, for better of for worse the term Latino is very common in the USA and it has a specific meaning, in spite of the fact that it is incorrect. 64.180.167.172 00:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The word Latino is not an English word. It is a Spanish word that means 'a latin person'. Furthermore the main author is biased and is contradicting NPOV by erasing others contributions with a different point of view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EDGARR (talk • contribs) 01:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Edgarr you are wrong. "Latino" probably was borrowed from Spanish, but it's become part of the American English lexicon. SamEV 05:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

poor editors => poor article

too many fn opinions and original research in this article. tons of edits and few citations... referencing a dictionary offers very little value here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danedouard00 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Incorrect Definitions of Latino in English

This article has remained accurate for several years until one NY College student (HHFTB) modified it to support his edits to other articles on this site. This is the English version of Wikipedia, we're providing an encyclopedic explanation of what countries with English as their dominant language define as a "Latino" (not Latin, not Latin America, just the word Latino).

The following is what is can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Merriam Webster dictionary defines a Latino as "a native or inhabitant of Latin America" or "a person of Latin-American origin living in the United States" and then defines Latin America as "Spanish America & Brazil" or "all of the Americas South of the United States".

2. (So as not to get America-Specific) Cambridge University in the UK defines a Latino as "Someone who lives in the US and who comes from or whose family comes from Latin America"

3. The governments of England and Ireland do not consider French, Italians and Romanians to be "Latino"

4. The government of the United States does not classify French, Italians, Romanians, Haitians as "Latino"

5. The Haitian embassy does not refer to the citizens of Haiti as "Latinos" (send them an email or call them)

6. While some argue that "Latin" may be used to refer to those people who speak a Romance language (French, Romanians), the word "Latino" as historically and popularly used in English does not.

7. Every United States and UK university which offers a "Latino" scholarship excludes applicants that are French, Romanian, Italian and Haitian as colleges do not consider these groups to be "Latino". If speakers of Romance languages were Latino, applicants (as well as the ACLU) would have sued every philanthropic organization and every university for discrimination. In a country enamored with lawsuits, this has never happened.

8. No "Latino" actor or actress awards ceremony has ever nominated a French, Romanian, Italian or Haitian, and no one has ever sued such a ceremony for discrimination against "Romanian Latinos" etc.

9. No "Latino" music awards ceremony has ever nominated a French, Romanian, Italian or Haitian, and no one has ever sued such a ceremony for discrimination.

10. The media (newspaper, TV, radio) of the English speaking countries of the United States, the UK and Australia do not refer to French, Italians, Romanians or Haitians as "Latinos"

11. No book, magazine, or newspaper written in English in the world have referred to the following as "Latinos" by virtue of them speaking a romance language: Robert Deniro, Al Pacino, Hulk Hogan (Italian), Rocky Marciano, Stan Lee (Romanian), Lauren Bacall, Jacques Cousteau, Wyclef Jean (Haitian).

12. English language media worldwide have referred to Bill Richardson as the first and only "Latino" candidate for president, Rudy Giuliani (an Italian candidate) has never been referred to as "Latino".

In closing, this isn't a debate over what "Latin American" or "Latin" refers to or who it refers to, this is about what the word "Latino" is generally accepted as by English speakers and how that word is popularly used in the English language. If someone feels inclined to edit the "Latino" article on other language wikis, so be it, but it is incorrect to refer to French, Italians, Romanians and Haitians as "Latinos" in the English language. BreadLand 01:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Latin Grammy awards which is the most aknowledged music awards of Latins, held in New York, Italians, Spaniards, Brasilians, Latin Americans from different countries are all termed Latinos and Latins interchangeably. These are terms that they accept willingly when referring to themselves and each other, in English and in Spanish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EDGARR (talk • contribs) 01:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Breadland, Thanks for the edit summary. I agree with you 100%--this article should be limited in scope.danedouard00 05:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to say, I have family members directly from Spain who regard themselves as Latino in the sense that any other Latino does. (Latin). Also if someone self identifies himself as such, why is it anyone else's business. He must really be arrogant who practices his right to self-identification, and at the same time attempt to deny this right to others.....EDGARR 06:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Portugal

"Before 1640 Portugal, was also known as an Hispanic country. When Portugal achieved independence from Spain, Portuguese people came to be known as "Lusitanics"

Portugal actual exists as a country since 1143. Portugal's independence was interrupted between 1580 and 1640. Because the heirless King Sebastian died in battle in Morocco, Philip II of Spain claimed his throne and so became Philip I of Portugal. Although Portugal did not lose its formal independence, it was governed by the same monarch who governed Spain, briefly forming a union of kingdoms; in 1640, John IV spearheaded an uprising backed by disgruntled nobles and was proclaimed king. --viriatus 11:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please study Roman History before coming here in a forum seen by millions of confused people. Italians don't need to identify that the're Latinos (latini) because it's already in their own culture and identity. Same for the French, the Spaniards and the Romanians. Read my previous insert referring to the word Latino. Latin and Latino mean the same thing. It all depends who is talking about it.

Despite your oratory and Dictionary citations the fact remains that the real Latinos are: The Italians, the French,the Portuguese and the Romanians.There are no Latins in the so-called Latin America with the exception of the descendands of the European Latins who have retained their Latin Heritage.

This lie has to come to end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.192.52 (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Race

I am editing the following sentence out because it falsely uses race as a scientific category:

In cases where medical conditions or diseases may be more prone to a particular race, to use the generic term Hispanic/Latino without regard for race may lead to confusion and very costly errors.

Should you have any doubts, please read http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm Gdeleuze 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic agenda

Breadland I have seen you use the same arguement with someone from Hunter College on another page under another name. After reading all of your posts it seems like you have an agenda to corner the market on the term Latino. I agree with the former poster, your viewpoint is very limited. Like another poster pointed out you cannot deny Italians that they are Latino. I say you cannot do that for everyone else. Citing Anglo-American and British publications does not consititue authority. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dee rock the master (talk • contribs) 02:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Mistake made by EDGARR in the "Related terms in other languages" section on Sept. 23, 2007.

After it says that it was Napoleon III's idea for creating a "Latin America", EDGARR made an erroneous edit claiming that there is evidence of authors in America calling themselves "Latin Americans", before Napoleon III's time, by referring to themselves as "Latin(o)". (EDGARR doesn't give any citations as to whom these authors are or to what the titles of there books are.) Let's just say that EDGARR inadvertently gave garbled information. The fact is, "Latino" and "Latin American" ("latinoamericano") would have meant two totally different things in Napoleon III's time had they been used simultaneously. In those days, an Italian or Spanish male, whether living in Europe, America, Asia, et al, would have referred to himself as a "Latino" in his writings. This did not indicate a "Latin American". Nor would it have indicated today's American shortened form of "Latin American": "Latino". Yes, Napoleon III introduced the idea of having a "Latin America" ("l'Amérique latine") in the 1850's. It wasn't until Mexico's only full-blooded Indian president, Benito Juarez, had overthrown the French on May 5, 1862 (Cinco de Mayo) that Mexicans started using the term "latinoamericano" to refer to themselves. It was shortened by the Americans to "Latino" only a decade ago for official use to describe Latin Americans for the United States' annual census. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrefren (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not make and erroneous edit indicating there were authors who had Identified themselves as Latinos, however by the time I read your comment here, the idea that Napoleon came up with this idea and it 'caught fire' among the Spanish empires had been removed. Your statement that "It wasn't until Mexico's only full-blooded Indian president, Benito Juarez, had overthrown the French on May 5, 1862 (Cinco de Mayo) that Mexicans started using the term "latinoamericano" to refer to themselves" Is not correct. The Indian Mexicans always considered themselves indigenous, and still do. The Latinos who called themselves such were first the Europeans. Their descendants continued to call themselves Latinos, meaning, Latin. EDGARR 00:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Breadline's and dadedouard00's callous comments!

I think that the World has had enough of the Anglo-American people's callous misuse of the words "Latino" and "Latin". It's extremely inflammatory that Anglo-Americans haven't been considerate to the many Latins who live within Europe and the United States (e.g. Italians, Spaniards, French, et al). Anglo-Americans have callously pushed Latin Europeans (both in Europe and in the United States) out of their rightful Latin ethnic designations. It's appalling that Anglo-Americans cannot conceive that there are Latin Europeans as well as Latin Americans. It's very normal for Latin Europeans and Latin Americans to differentiate between the Anglo-Saxons of Britain and the Anglo-Saxons of Anglo-America, Australia, New Zealand, etc. But, for example, if the people of Latin Europe and Latin America started using the term "Anglo-Saxon" specifically for the Irish, you could well believe that the other Anglo-Saxons would be angered by it. The word "Latino" has been used in Europe by the Italians and later by the Spaniards for centuries. It's really rude that English-speaking people think that they have the right to poorly use a word that wasn't designed by them or for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrefren (talk • contribs) 20:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, but...The inherent problem is that some editors try to distinguish between what is "correct" and what is "de facto" (at least in the USA). As a Latin European recently living, working and travelling in Anglo America, I have seen first hand evidence of how the term is used there. Latino (in english language, in the US and sometimes English Canada) generally means Latin American. Period. Barring all stereotypes- and there are many- this is incorrect but the way it is in the USA. To make matters worse, Americans tend to substitute "Latino" with "Latin", "Hispanic" and even "Spanish", and often treat these phrases as synonyms. I have no problem with the article stating that "Latino" means Latin American in the American English language- this is a fact even though I think it is unfortunate. Nonetheless, the article should be clear that "Latin" is a much broader term and that latino in other languages means "Latin", not "Latino". I don't think a European Latin, or an Italian American for that matter, can be considered a "Latino" unless you are speaking in Spanish (or any other romance language). Mariokempes 21:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Article needs clarity

I've just re-read the article and must say it is, again, a mess. It has no order to it and is trying to say too much in the first paragraph. I think it should be re-organized as follows: (1) the article should have a short definition of the word as generally accepted (In the US Latino=latin American; in romance languages Latino=Latin, etc.); (2) explain all of the plausible variations (i.e. Latino=Latin, etc.); (3) give the history and origins of the phrase (i.e. Ancient Latins---> Spanish/ Portuguese/ French/ Italians, Napoleon III, etc.; (4) explain the problems with the term. The way the article reads right now it comes across as POV... and the ancient Latins of Latium somehow went to the Americas as morphed Spaniards (???). Mariokempes 18:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• there are many variations of the term, see this taken from a latino(spaniard?) forum:

4. latino 62 up, 40 down

A confusing term created by confused people who think you can classify a race by a language. Residents of "latin" American countries refer to themselves as latino because of their descendants from Spain. Little do they realize that most of said countries had next to zero interbreeding with Spaniards and a vast majority of those who refer to themselves as latin have zero Spanish blood. Countries and people who should obviously not be called latino are somehow lumped under this category simply because they speak Spanish. Blacks born in the Dominican Republic are somehow latino, as are white europeans from Spain. Blacks and Spaniards racially and ethnically have NOTHING in common with residents of the Latin Americas but call themselves the same race. Somehow, under this theory, a Spaniard is latin, but an Italian is not, despite the fact that pretty much everything Latin really came from Rome.

Latino is an overly vague, catch-all term and a misnomer that attributes a culture to people that don't belong to it, at the same time depriving one of their actual heritage. A Mexican is a Mexican. A Spaniard is a Spaniard. A Puerto Rican is a Puerto Rican.

(what goes through a Spaniard's mind when filling out a form...)

Manuel: Hmmm, race? What to choose, what to choose... well, I AM white, so I should probably choose caucasian... Wait, never mind! I speak Spanish! Therefore, THIS is my race! (checks the "latino" box)

---

(example of the obvious flaws in using the term "latin" to describe a Spanish-speaking person)

Cesar: I'm from Mexico and I have REAL latin culture, something whites could only dream of.

Antonio: Well, I'm Italian, I'm white, and I ACTUALLY come from REAL latins. You know, the ones who lived in Europe, not Central America. Your ancestors come from Native Indians.

Cesar: (goes ballistic and calls Antonio a racist gringo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.123.156 (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You are so right! Latin culture consists of these cultural tools... the ROMAN Catholic religion, the ROMAN language Latin (or modern Italian and other languages which have been derived from Latin), the ROMAN alphabet (Of course, Americans have renamed it the Latin Alphabet), ROMAN numerals (it's still necessary to understand them). It's shocking that Americans cannot see that Latin culture is an Italian thing and has been used in Italy for over 2000 years. It's a disgrace that they say that Latin culture comes from Latin America. Also, Americans and Latin Americans are wrong by insisting that "Latino" is a Spanish word. The word "Latino" has been used in Italy long before the Italians invaded the Iberian Penninsula and taught Latin culture to the Sephardic Jews who would later become the Spaniards and the Portuguese. I mean seriously, how do Americans think that Italians would have taught Latin culture to the Sephardic Jewish people without using the word "Latino"? It's the Italian word for "Latin". Simultaneously, Americans think that "Latina" is a Spanish word. Not so! It's the Italian word for the language Latin, an Italian woman, Latin culture (Cultura Latina), a woman from the Italian region Latina, Italy. Spaniards are not the original Latins. They are late Latins. In other words, they were taught Latin culture later on by the Italians. Spanish vocabulary borrows tremendously from Italian vocabulary. The languages are extremely close, but obviously the Italians were Latins first. Other late latin countries like France and Portugal have languages that are somewhat simular to Italian, but not as much as the Spanish language is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrefren (talk • contribs) 19:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

SamEV: Latino, Hispanic etc, etc

With the respect to the Office of Management and Budget they are not an authority on the the English language (not even American English). The Merriam Webster is the most respected American dictionary and their definitions of Hispanic and Latino are entirely different. The Oxford dictionary also has different definitions. Basically, Latino refers to Latin Americans and Hispanic refers to Spanish speakers.

The terms Hispanic and Latino are used interchangeably in that particular Census report which is incorrect but that's beside the point. If you read the report it states the (census) question on Hispanic origin asked respondents if they were Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino. In fact it even has a copy of the actual question as printed in the Census. If Brazilians are not Hispanic in the US Census then obviously Latino and Hispanic are not synonyms. It's as simple as that.

I'm not going to get into an edit war because you clearly feel very strongly about this and see it as your patch. it seems though I'm not the only one who has noticed this error so I suggest though you find some stronger references than Dictionary.com and an obscure US census report. -Redhairedguy (talk)

We agree that OMB is not the authority on English. But here's the part relating to the official synonymy of these terms and the reason given by OMB: "OMB has decided that the term should be "Hispanic or Latino." Because regional usage of the terms differs -- Hispanic is commonly used in the eastern portion of the United States, whereas Latino is commonly used in the western portion -- this change may contribute to improved response rates." [7] There is no denying that the two terms are used interchangeably, as you saw in that Census report. Btw, there's nothing obscure about the Census report "Overview of race and Hispanic origin)"; it's quoted all over Wikipedia in articles about US demographics and on the internet. Those documents are the best sources for the official usage of the terms in the US. And as I wrote you before, you can discuss the matter here and try to get consensus for the changes you want to make. No one owns these articles. But we do have to abide by Wikipedia policies. SamEV (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Red, if you notice, the article now mentions the exclusion of Brazilian Americans. It's not exactly what you want, but at least it's something. Btw, I do think that most Brazilian Americans are fine with the status quo. Otherwise, the definition would probably have been changed to include them. SamEV (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The census form says Hispanics or Latinos. not Hispanics that the terms are synonymous. Hispanic as you well know refers to Spain and it's descendants. Latin(o) refers to any of the countries using romance languages which includes, but is not limited to Spanish, portuguese, Italian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.140.240 (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Template: British Latinos

User Stevvvv4444 (Talk) created and is the sole author of the following Template:British Latinos (the OR tag is my addition): {{British Latinos}} I believe this is a completely OR template. Does anyone wish to comment at Template talk:British Latinos? Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:British Latinos

Template:British Latinos has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — The Ogre (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

there are other articles simpler Latin American Britons or spanish Britons etc.. so yea no need for that article to be made really it will just be the same as thoughs above unlike the american hispanic latino article this article though is really all latina hispanic culture not Americans of hispanic descent cause if your from like mexico your nationlity is mexican your not consided american —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggiegirl (talk • contribs) 12:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

WTF HAPPENED TO THE LATINO PAGE?

WTF, when did this get changed I remember coming he before and it had a whole page on latinos now why is it this disambiguation page for? TeePee-20.7 (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediterranean people in Europe count as Latino

[8]

They are of latin origins... coming from the actual latin area of europe... and the Hispanics and Lusitanics are simply classifications of Spanish and Poruguese origined people from within the Latino race. Even I count as an example, as I am of mediterranean origins, and reside in Europe, and I have been called Latino all my life, even though I have no latin-american blood in me. Therefore, although yes, Hispanic and Lusitanic people (even though Lusitanics wernt even menioned on this page for some reason) are Latino, Mediteranean people are as well, and in fact the Hispanics and Lusitanics are just a division of that Mediteranean Latino group that moved to what is now called Latin America. I will edit the page accordingly, and then you could discuss what you think? Sorry if im going about this the wrong way... Im only a few days old as a user... but I have researched this particular case thoroughly.

Iamandrewrice (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules against using blogs. See reliable sources, a core policy. Also, talk of Mediterranean race/people is considered archaic; it won't fly here. Also, "Latino" is not a race. Any editor will revert that. Trust me, so far you ARE going about it the wrong way. Most of us Wikipedians are reasonable, so give discussion a chance. You can get blocked if you keep doing what you're doing. Also, Wikipedia does not allow original research, so what matters is not just what we "know" or have discovered, but what we can source. See WP:OR. SamEV (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand... how is it archaic? you have a whole page about the meditteranean race. And how can i get blocked?! i havent done anything wrong at all! Anyway... if I can find a source that says the mediterranean races are latino... will part of what I am suggesting be allowed? and also, if I can find a source which says that lusitanic people are latino, will that be allowed? Iamandrewrice (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Iamandrewrice, please read the policy about reliable sources. There it clearly says blogs may not be used. having said that, any talk about blocking this user is unnecessarily escalating this misunderstanding. Iamandrewrice is a very new user who is under adoption and still learning our policies. Please cut him some slack, people. Jeffpw (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, "Mediterranean race" belongs to an outmoded concept of race. There's an article about it because it's a notable concept, but that's all. You could get blocked for doing too much of that kind of editing, disregarding rules and advice like that. But don't worry about it. Just talk about it here. And yes, if you can source those claims from reliable sources (just any source won't do), then yes, they belong in this or a related article. But Lusitanics are "Latino". It's just that this is about the use of the word "Latino" in the English language, wherein the meaning is more restricted. Read the whole article and you'll see. If you still don't, read this talk page for all previous discussions. SamEV (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I opened this window and after a few minutes typed my response to Andrew before refreshing and seeing your post. At first I thought my answer covered your concerns too, but just in case: I only told him that this was the wrong course to follow. He should discuss more. This article has proven quite contentious, so it behooves us all to be as careful in editing it as possible. SamEV (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ive tried again with a different source. I still misunderstand the bit where you said about how Mediteraneans and Latinos arent a race. They surely are...? And they are once race... not two separate ones, which is why I put that bit in. Latino is the umbrella term for anyone who is originally of Mediterranean descent. Hispanics are the Latino people of Spain who moved to Latin America, and Lusitanics are the Latino people of Portugal who moved to Latin America. They are not separate from mediteraneans... they are just a division of them that moved to another part of the world. In the same way, we do not call the caucasions who moved from northern europe to the USA a different race. They are all still caucasion. It is just that there is a special term referring to those latino peopl(mediteranean) who no longer live in the mediteranean. The idea of a mediterranean race is not extinct, instead it refers to the idea of the Caucasion people inhabiting the mediterreanean, as opposed to the Nordic or Alpine Caucasions. It is not the racial classification that has gone extinct if you read the article thouroughly, it is Hitlers idea that the Mediterranean race was an impure Nordic race, with Nordics being the purest caucasions, followed by Alpines, and then Mediterraneans(Latinos). This idea has obviously gone out now, but the idea of the three separate classifications still remains. Iamandrewrice (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Although the mediterranean page mentions how the terming fell out of favour as a 'mediterranean race,' (this is true, and i have during no point in this discussion disagreed with this), but there is instead a division of caucasions throughout the mediterranean who share 'mediterranean characteristics,' as is also mentioned on the page. Iamandrewrice (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you think they're a race and if I don't. Our opinions don't really count. You have to source it properly. That's too contentious, especially in this article. Source it well, and it will find a place in the appropriate article, which btw, might not even be this one. But we'll see. And I'll remind you, this is about how "Latino" is used in English, not in Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Catalan, etc. Look at the sources given in the article. (Please do). I'll repeat it: source it properly. And look at yet another policy, WP:NPOV. Together with the other two, these are the core of Wikipedia policy. SamEV (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

But i wasnt basing this on my opinions or giving an unneutral point of view... the Caucasions in the mediterranean area are noted as Mediterraneans... and Latinos are the people that have origins in the Mediterranean areas of Europe. Hispanics and Lusitanics are therefore just divisions of this. I will look for more reliable sources on this. Iamandrewrice (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, provide better sources; that one's hidden behind some subscription requirement, whereas the policies here ask for sources that allow any Wikipedian to verify them as easily as possible. If I were you, I'd remove that edit until you can find those better sources. SamEV (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Latino_Australian I think this person would agree who that the Mediterranean people in Europe are classifyably Latino as well, and not just the Latinos in Latin America. However, the TEE-PEE user disagreed, and he/she does not seem to be editing constructively as far as my experience from the Latino page, and from looking at that article's talk page goes. I have also received racist remarks from the TEEPEE user on my talkpage regarding the difference between Latinos and Mediterraneans. Therefore I will re-put up what he/she undid, and if another more trusted user takes it off with a valid reason, I will be more than happy to discuss it; however, TEEPEE seems unaible to discuss anything calmly and sensibly without making personal attacks and racist edits, so I am not going to trust the undo of the edit that he/she made. Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What is said on another article's talk page is not germane to this article. If you want to see your assertion kept in the article, be prepared to use a solid reliable source to back it up. Jeffpw (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I left a couple of suggestions for references on Jeffpw's page... have a look? the first one i think was a blog, so didnt count... but Jeffpw and I differed on oppinions with regard to the second one.
Some research has led me to believe that Latino, if reffering to the Latinos of the Americas, is simply a shortened form of 'Latino-Americano', or 'Latin American'. This therefore brings me to the conclusion that if you can get an 'american latino'... what is a 'latino' by itself? My answer is that it is the people of the Mediterranean in Europe, who in fact gave birth to the Latin American populations. Therefore, Latino can be applied to people who are not of Latin-American origins... Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, by that logic, French people living in Normandy are English, as are Danes and people living in Saxony. Latinos are people from Latin America. Latino is a Spanish newspaper aimed at Latino immigrants living in Spain. The only Latinos in Europe are those who have moved from Latin America. There is a vast difference between Latinos and Latin Europeans Whitstable (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

All the searches I have done leads me to support Whitstable's conclusion in this matter. If you can find a scholarly source which supports your view, please bring it to be viewed. Jeffpw (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Racial classificaton is very difficult. However, it is usually determined from what i gather on where the native population resides for the majoritive part of your genetics. The Latin-Americans are therefore in fact genetically the same (as far as racial identity goes) as their Mediterranean couterparts back in Europe. Therefore, the term 'Latino' is applicable to both... while the terms 'Hispanic' and 'Lusitanic' are the only things that distinguish between Latin-Europeans and Latin-Americans... although even then, 'Hispanic' refers to any latino of spanish origins... therefore including those in Spain itself... and with 'Lusitanic' being the equivalent for Portugal'. From this, I can assume only that using the term 'Latin-American' is therefore the only term that entirely refers solely to the latinos in america. and I suggest that both 'Latin-American' and 'Latin-European' are referenced on the page. What is your oppinion on this? Iamandrewrice (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that this [9] shows considerable worth. "Latino is very general. That is a problem for some and a justification for others. While it might technically include French and Italian people, it seldom takes that form in every day life. It also tends to be American-centric, favoring Latinoamericano. So it might include too many Europeans at times, but is often seen as excluding Spain from Latin America"... I think this shows that although in everyday speech, people may not always include Latin-Europeans with the term 'Latino,' but technically, they do come under the umbrella... but are less well known as this. They therefore deserve at least some mentioning as this. Iamandrewrice (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

All the research I have done has led me to the conclusion that Latin Americans and Latin Europeans are distinct groups and Latino only refers to Latin Americans - people from Latin America. Germans and English could be argued to come under the same umbrella, but that does not mean Germans are English or English are Germans. Whitstable (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree... but Germans and English do come under the same umbrella, even if they are not the same thing. Just as Latin-Americans and Latin-Europeans come under the same umbrella - Latino, even if they are not the same thing. Did you read the reference I gave? i dont think it should be ignored... it seems reliable enough to me... Iamandrewrice (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Iamandrewrice, reliable enough to you and reliable enough according to wikipedia policy are two different things. Have you read the policy? the verifiability policy is also good reading when you're looking for sources. Jeffpw (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, here are my replies:

1) The English term for the Spanish, Italians, Portuguese, French, Romanians, etc, i.e. the Latin Europeans, is "Latins". Any statements you want to make about them would best be made in the Latin Europe or Latin peoples articles, not here.

2) This article's focus is on the word "Latino" in the English language; that's why English dictionary definitions are given right off the bat. Yet at the end of the article there is a section about that similar word in other languages, including in the presumed language of origin, Spanish. But this being the English language Wikipedia, the English word is the most important here.

3) You seem to equate "Latin(o)" with "Mediterranean". There are various other peoples in that region who were grouped as Mediterraneans, such as the Greeks, the Syrians, Albanians, Egyptians, etc, so there's only partial overlap.

4) The Latin Europeans group by language; they're not a "race" unto themselves. The southern Europeans are now simply referred to as white people. That old subdivision of the white race into Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, Dinaric, yadda, yadda, yadda, isn't much used except by hard-core racists, AFAIK, and you don't seem to be one of those. Moreover, the dominant modern thinking considers "race" to be a mere sociological construct. Considering that the "Mediterranean race" is a widely rejected concept, it frankly baffles me that you insist on it.

5) You say Latin Americans and Latin Europeans are genetically the same. Find the genetic studies that say so. Do not forget how diverse the Latin American population is, coming from all the continents.

6) You ask 'what is a Latino by itself?' It's not hard to find answers: Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, YourDictionary. Here's the US government's answer: [10]. (While you're at it, look up Latin in those dictionaries.) That's all for now. SamEV (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No I am not suggesting anything racist. Everyone of european origin is of caucasion descent. However, although of one 'race,' subcategories are still used. The idea of a 'mediterranean race' as a separate race has fallen out of favour. However, it still stands as an ideology (which can be seen by looking at the end of the article on mediterranean race)) of features in common around the mediterranean basin within the caucasion umbrella. For instance, a person of northern italian descent will in fact have more genetically in common with a person of British descent, than he/she would with someone of southern italian descent. The northern italians and southern italians are very very different, with the southern italians being like the Spanish, portuguese, southern french, and maltese. Therefore, if one is going to say that these people are reffered to as Latins, it would suggestively be a good idea to create this page and discussion for it on wikipedia. Therefore, there will be less confusion between that and 'latino,' which, as far as my investigations have led me to believe, are 'latins' that inhabited the americas. Am I correct in assumptions here? Iamandrewrice (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Iamandrewrice, you are so off the mark here--- and on so many levels--- I wouldn't even know where to begin. Nonetheless, that is not necessary as SamEV and others have already stated views with which I agree. What I do take offence to, however, is your statement "northern italians and southern italians are very very different...". You cannot be serious!!! This statement alone hilights how your genetic analyses are completely misinformed (which is funny because "latino" is not about race). Mariokempes 22:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, Andrew. So you want to write that the Latins live in southern Europe, in the Mediterranean area, and resemble each other physically but are no longer considered to be a separate race? Ok. I fail to see how that is such a valuable addition to this article, but at least that's factual info. I recommend against such an edit, and other editors will likely object as well.

Because the Mediterranean race idea is outmoded, anything you want to write about whatever influence it has left on modern thinking should probably go in the Mediterranean race article. I remind you (Mario just did, but it may bear repeating): this article is NOT about a racial group (it's on people grouped mostly on language, culture, history), so please stop insisting on race.

And yes, most Latin Americans and their US descendants are indeed of Latin European ancestry. Some are entirely (a relative term, of course) of Latin European ancestry, others only slightly so. The claim that they are a race is even less supportable than the claim that Latin Europeans are a race, and either claim requires genetics studies as support.

You already know of the Latin Europe article. There's also one called Latin peoples.

As for the meaning of Latino, I refer you to this article and its sources. There are various definitions, which are included in the article. Read them and decide for yourself, Andrew. SamEV 01:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether latino is a race or not, I would like to address a coment made by mario. He seems to think that the northern and southern italians are 'the same' or something... if you seriously believe this, then I strongly suggest you go research this. Yes, you will get those in southern italy that bare features of northern italian descent, and vice versa... and the two groups will share similarities of course. However, anyone who understands anything about this matter will realise that an average northern italian is more similar to the central europeans than he/she is to an average southern italian. The two are very different! If you would like an explanation of this... it is because the northern italians were simply the celts that inhabited much of europe initially... before the roman empire forced much of these upwards. The mediterraneans filled southern spain, southern italy, and surrounding areas... the fact that both the descendants of the ancient celts and mediterranean people now come classified under one country - italy - does not in any way make them the same. Over time yes, the two have mixed, and the differences are not so pronounced as they would have been years ago. However, it will be centuries away before the two groups are mixed enough to be regarded as one ethnicity by any scientific group. Please do your research before suggesting my arguement is false next time. Iamandrewrice 20:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this, and I resist responding because I know this will create another meaningless thread of "discussion"... but I am tired of these narrow minded "let's put things in a neat box" types of comments- especially when it comes to Italians. I am Italian (from the north, by the way) and I am European. Your comments show a lack of maturity and understanding of the rich fabric of European peoples and history. There is no point to explain this to you as I refuse to be pulled into a stupid debate. Addio. Mariokempes 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Latino Meaning In the US.

I latino la'tē(.)nō, lə'- noun -s often capitalized Etymology: American Spanish, from Spanish latino, adjective, Latin, from Latin latinus

latin american

II latino noun usually capitalized : a person of Latin-American origin living in the United States latino adjective usually capitalized

This includes Brazilian

Isn't it simpler to just say that according to some definitions the term includes Brazilians, and according to others it doesn't? FilipeS (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Citing the Census Bureau

It's a pain to have to wade through long pdf files to find the relevant definitions. I strongly suggest that in the future a quote of the specific passage, or at the very least a page number, be provided along with the link to the file. FilipeS (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I provided some of the quotes in the main body of the article and others in the footnotes. When you go to these sites to verify, don't forget to use your search function, including in the pdf documents. SamEV (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

EDGARR & BTNCOURT edits

These guys are really POV and don't seem to understand it or are ill intended. I wonder if they are not the same guy...? The Ogre (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

All three of them, including the anon. SamEV (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes!! I have just reported BTNCOURT for violating 3RR at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I believe he should be reported for sockpuppetry and POV pushing. The Ogre (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked BTNCOURT per the AN3 report. BTNCOURT (talk · contribs) seems to self-identify as 69.114.140.240 (talk · contribs) (see this edit summary where he refers to the IP's edit as "my research). 68.247.23.93 (talk · contribs) / EDGARR (talk · contribs) I would think are probably the same person based on contributions, but it had no bearing on my decision (in other words, this is not an accusation of wrongdoing, merely an assumption devoid of value judgment.) The 69.114.140.240 IP interests me. Again, this had no bearing on the block and I didn't even look at it until after the block. Whois links this to a range I've encountered before in doing 3RR issues. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/UnclePaco. The checkuser found the range to be unrelated to UnclePaco (and, UnclePaco edits from Atlanta, GA, so he obviously doesn't edit from New York too), but 67.87.197.9 (talk · contribs) is pretty obviously him. So I wonder if this range is used by private proxies or something like that. This is purely thinking out loud ... and I'm going way out on a limb so I'm possibly wrong. I just find it interesting and in the "something to keep an eye on" category. --B (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

--It must be you with more than one user name, however I read the information provided which had links to official U.S. government documents, which disclose Latino rights and I see your attempts of reverting this as ill willed and censoring...This is a peoples encyclopedia not your own political soapbox, I may look into legal action, in good faith...Edgar , —Preceding unsigned comment added by EDGARR (talk • contribs) 13:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/EDGARR may be of interest. BTNCOURT is a confirmed sock of EDGARR. --B (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And are they 69.114.140.240?

I think the other IP, 68.247.23.93 is also connected to them. It edited on the 13th, and restored edits by 69.114.140.240.

About UnclePaco, there's something strange. First, I'm not so sure UnclePaco doesn't edit from New York. According to him he's been there or works there, because he said he's a photojournalist and tookthis picture last August at the Dominican Day Parade. I think he uses these NY IPs: 67.87.197.9 and 68.199.204.86. You mention the Hicksville connection. But there's also the Virginia connection. 68.175.26.54 was his main IP until last June. Then he stopped using it completely, and replaced it, literally the next day, with "UnclePaco". (Should have said: he was editing with the IP 68.175.26.54, then created the UnclePaco user.) I noticed that 68.175.26.54 was also suspected to be Mykungfu. The IP is traced to an address in Herndon, Virginia. The aforementioned IP 68.247.23.93 (EDGARR?) is traced to just a stone's throw away, in Reston, with the two addresses being jsut 2.5 miles (5 minutes) apart.[11] So again, we have a possible EDGARR-UnclePaco link. What do you think?

Anyway, I was intrigued by the info you presented and just ran with it. SamEV (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the IPs are all from New York. Go to dnsstuff.com and use it to do the whois. Some of the ISPs have their office in Virginia, but the IP actually maps to New York ... including the one I had thought was in Atlanta. UnclePaco and some of Mykungfu's socks sound alike - they make their internal links using external URLs instead of wikilinks, they use Google books a lot, and they edit articles on Dominicanism and African American fraternities. I really think EDGARR/BTNCOURT and UnclePaco are two different people editing from the same set of ranges ... my curiosity is what that range comes from. I could be wrong, though ... but there is no similarity in editing interests whatsoever. --B (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the ISPs have their office in Virginia, but the IP actually maps to New York

I didn't know nor imagine that. I'd say it explains it all, then, and you're probably right that there's no connection. I did have trouble finding any similarity in the articles they edit. These guys edit almost exclusively here.

And yes, 68.175.26.54 is from New York according to dnsstuff. However, dnsstuff gave me the same result (Sprint Wireless, in Reston, Va) as samspade for 68.247.23.93([12], [13]).

Well, at least we now know UnclePaco is indeed in New York.

Btw, are you able to disclose anything about 69.114.140.240? I reported it for vandalism, but was declined. SamEV (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything to disclose - I'm not a checkuser. ;) At Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/EDGARR, Alison said of CNQSTDR, "he was caught in an autoblock of the mentioned IP above and has since moved on to another" so I'm taking that to mean that 69.114.140.240 = EDGARR = BTNCOURT is  Confirmed, but that this individual is no longer on that IP. --B (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I didn't know it had been blocked because I saw nothing indicating it on its user pages. SamEV (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

1 more thing the really latinos are the european latinos .latinos are portuguese italian sapnish and others these people are white .So if they are not madonna should be racially latino because she is french and italian ancestry.the governament of the usa created this term latin american and people think now that the really latino european are not white this is ridiculous is like to say that black shouth african are anglo because they speak english this is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Augusto f. arruda fontes (talk • contribs) 06:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

this articley means nothing first of all latino people was used to say people from portugal , french , romanian , spain and italy that are the real latino that are white. when you say that a mexican of mixed indian and white is latino you changed the mean of the word.this exemple that i gave the mexican in this case is not latino.but the government of usa use it to say about a person of Latin-American or Spanish-speaking descent ,A Latin American , A person of Hispanic, especially Latin-American, descent, often one living in the United States, Latin inhabitant of the United States, a usually Spanish-speaking person of Latin American birth or descent who lives in the U.S, someone who lives in the US and who comes from or whose family comes from Latin America.so this article means nothing .because you can be a indian mexican goes to the usa and now you are latino.this article is ridiculous.so pele,he that is black, now is latino?alberto fujimori descent of japanese parents latino?shakira who is descent of arabic she is latina?gisele bundchen of is descent of german is latina?this article only show one thing usa wants to keep the "latinos" that i really don't know now what is separate from the other ethnic groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Augusto f. arruda fontes (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is how it's defined in the sources, so we have to go with that. Also, please sign your comments, by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. SamEV (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Latinos can be of any race

the OMB is clear that Latinos can be of any race. The official U.S. position is that they can be White (Those of European ancestry), Native American (Those whose ancestry is derived predominately from the people who inhabited the Americas before the Europeans arrived. Asian (those of Asian descent) and African American, (those who have part African American race in their history). The REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA does not use race as a limiting factor. Their #7 definition is "Natural de los pueblos de Europa y América en que se hablan lenguas derivadas del latín". This gives the vital element in determining Latin(o)ness on Language spoken. None of the ten meanings indicate anything about race. As a white Latino of European descent (because I'm White my ancestry is from the people of Europe (as officially stated in the OMB)I understand some of your concerns. However, when the The REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA included the Americas in their meaning they understood that the Native Americans were not white, but of another, i.e. (Indian) race. Most Whites that come from Latin America are descendants of the original Spaniards, and other Europeans who first came to the Americas, and their history cannot be denied. As well, there are Latin(os) who are predominately Indian who feel that their identity and history is being distorted, just as White's (whether Europeans or Latin Americans)feel. Most who self identify as of Native American descent and those of PREDOMINATELY Native American descent are being denied their true history also. The term Mestizo indicates a person of White and American Indian descent. Who knows how many people have two races in their background history and are unaware or in denial of this fact! We will recognize immediately someone who is perdominately White and call him white. We will see someone who is predominately black or even just a little black and call him black or African American. We see an Asian person who is Asian and call him Asian. However when we see a Mexican or someone who is a matter of fact predominatly American Indian, we downplay the roll of race and deny whats in front of our faces.... That they are of Native American Heritage. Can you just imagine the injustice, they are the only race who somehow must have maintained 'Tribal Affiliation'. Could you imagine if that was asked of any other race? Since when do we go around calling African Americans mulatto if they are not as dark as an African from Africa, because they may be somewhat mixed with Whites or White Hispanics. Since when, do we look for signs that a perceivably White person may be mixed somewhat. Everyone wants to claim their race, but deny this to Native American Hispanics who may be proud of their Inca, Aztec or Mayan, etc..roots. Also, it is attempted to informally deny White Hispanics or White Latin(os) that they are White. As if we are supposed to somehow provide some DNA proof, but are to take for granted that others are what they claim, without any proof provided.EDGARR (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are back, and already commencing wit h the insults. Please refrain yourself or someone may ask that you be blocked for the 3rd time. I assume good faith, and if you have constructive contributions they are welcome. Remember that wikipedia is not the place for political stuggles but the place for discribing what people say the world is in a neutral stance (NPOV). Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What insults, Sounds like you are threatening me, and making false accusations against me. I may report you. Believe me I'am not going away. I was here before you working on the latino project and will probably will be here after you. You take down my work without debating first which is against policy. next time I will report you. I hope you are dealing in good faith, and not pushing your view of how you want Latinos to be perceived. You put up a partial quote, and I put the rest of it up, so people can know the quote in context. You keep removing the part I put. Who do you think you are expecting people to keep your edits when you continously disrespect the work of others. You do not know me to talk to me like that and I definitly will not tolerate disrespect from you, at all. The quote will be in it's entirety so readers get the whole picture and balance view or take down the piece with the POV you are trying to push. Now tell me what insult you are referring to, let's see if you can deal or are dealing in good faith. I can deal, try me!!! If you do not answer and deal in good faith I will ask for mediation or take steps to tag the article. And stop spreading false information about me, that is definetly not in good faith. EDGARR (talk)

please explain

someone wrote: "Latin American" may also not mean the same as "Latino", depending on which definition of the latter is used. It is defined as: "A native or inhabitant of Latin America." "A person of Latin-American descent could whoever stated this please explain it seems to me that a Latin(o) is both a native or inhabitant of Latin America and also a person of Latin-American descent. Both are valid definitions of a Latin(o).....EDGARR (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand it to mean (I preface it that way because I didn't write it; Filipe did, but he's not here to defend himself, so I'll try it), and I think it's relatively clear that it means, that some of the definitions given say "Latino" = "Latin American", whereas some do not. SamEV (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I still do not understand, maybe Filipe will clarify. In what definition of Latino does not mean Latin American. Are you referring to Latin Europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EDGARR (talk • contribs) 06:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not referring to Latin Europe. Look at the lead again. Only the second definition says explicitly that Latino = Latin American in English. Now Edgar, here's another example: to be of German descent is not the same as to be German. Get it? Nearly all the definitions say 'Latino = people of Latin American descent', while only one definition says explicitly 'Latino = Latin American'. But if you still don't understand, then yes, I hope Filipe can explain it to you.

Details

Edgar, you wrote:
"With all the semantic twists and turns however, it is important know the authentic, correct definition... A Latin person, esp. A Latin American Person."
As Ogre has told you, that's known as normative. We're simply not allowed to write stuff like that, telling readers this is the "correct" or "authentic" this or that. We cannot speak for ourselves; we must say what sources say. Those words I quoted are your own, Edgar, not the words of authorities on matters like this.

"Some prefer to use the term Latin American because it is inclusive and refers to all of the Latin romance language based countries of the Latin Americas, and find the term Latino as devisive to the Latin Americas."
What are you saying there? Who are you talking about? The Hispanics/Latinos of the US? Or Latin Americans? That section is about usage in the United States. And most importantly, where's the citation for that, Edgar? I don't find it.

"However racial and ethnic identities in the United States are those with which the person self-identifies."
It's already in the article.

"The OMB terms are not written in stone and changes are made regularly to identification terms by what that community chooses to self-identify."
True. Maybe I can be convinced this belongs, but I consider it utterly unnecessary and obvious info.

"Dignity and respect of all is key in their policy."
No go. We're not here to sing the praises of OMB, the Census Bureau, or whomever. That's just not encyclopedic.

"The most recent changes where the changes to add the African-American term as well as the Native American term. The Native American term (as a race) includes the original peoples of the Latin Americas."
Irrelevant. The second sentence is also obvious. SamEV (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I was explaining the comments you made when I experienced a computer malfunction and my remarks were lost. I don't have much time now so let me just hit on a couple of points. 1) There is a lot in this article without citations, one is the statement Felipe wrote. I noted that I would like a citation but none has been put up to date. I didn't remove his work as maybe he has a point and just needs to clarify. Secondly what might seem obvious to one person might not be obvious to others. I feel that what I put was important for the controvesy section. I will restate and do by my best not to be normative. Also I will clarify the divisive comment. But for now I would like it if we can get on the same page on one thing. when you wrote "Who are you talking about? The Hispanics/Latinos of the US? Or Latin Americans? The way the question is phrased I got the impression that you feel Hispanics/Latinos are not Latin Americans, as you divided the categories and asked to choose me one over the other. Latinos are Latin, more specifically they are Latin Americans. Some of the terms that these people are referred to are Latins, Latinos, Hispanics, and Latin Americans. They are all of these and all are valid. I do not know if you are from the states, but certainly in my part of the U.S. this is the way it is. I agree on certain comments you made and I will make adjustments. I also found the constructive criticism helpful. See citations [[14]]. [[15]]. [[16]] I hope to hear from you soon.EDGARR (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"There is a lot in this article without citations"

"a lot"? I beg to differ, sir. I count at most 8 statements that could conceivably qualify as uncited. I say could because most appear easily to follow from earlier or succeeding, sourced statements. But I'll tell you what, why don't you tag ANYTHING you find that is uncited? I'll then either source it or remove it forthwith if that is what you want.

"one is the statement Felipe wrote"

It is sourced: just look in the lead! His statement follows naturally from the definitions there. I just explained this in the topic just above this one.

"Secondly what might seem obvious to one person might not be obvious to others."

That is very true! Thank you for reminding me of that.

"I got the impression that you feel Hispanics/Latinos are not Latin Americans"

BINGO!!! You got the right impression, my friend. Latin Americans are Latin Americans, and US Hispanics/Latinos are US Hispanics/Latinos (Hispanic and Latino Americans). For you to insist that Latino = Latin American, *in the English language*, when that is not how most *English language dictionaries* define it is (forgive me for the caps, dear Edgar) EXAMPLE NUMBER ONE OF YOUR CONTINUAL NORMATIVENESS.

"Latinos are Latin, more specifically they are Latin Americans."

Yes, I know you feel that way; you've told me a million times. But it's normative how you insist on stating it in the article. My way was simple: I showed what the dictionaries say, verbatim, so readers could decide on their own what definition they prefer. Why can't you leave it at that?

"Some of the terms that these people are referred to are Latins, Latinos, Hispanics, and Latin Americans. They are all of these and all are valid."

As noted in the article, Edgar. Also, your links prove exactly what the article already states. Two of the refs are given in the article to support your very statements here! And one more thing: the "C" in NAACP stands for "Colored"; but few African Americans call themselves that nowadays. Point: organizations sometimes bear names that don't exactly match reality the best way. Wouldn't you agree? (I'm referring to the 3rd link you just gave, which is for LULAC, League of United Latin American Citizens, a US organization.) SamEV (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I Will be answering these points shortly, but as far as the NAACP, I know very many still use the term 'of color' which I believe most see as synonymous. As far as LULAC I don;t understand what you are implying, could you elaborate. It seems that they self identify as not only Latin but also as Latin Ammericans. If a person of Jewish descent self identifies with being Jewish or identifies as being Jewish American isn't that o.k.? If a Italian person identifies with being Italian or Italian American is he wrong? This is the way most people self identify and it is the same with Latin Americans, no diffference. EDGARR (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind whether "of color" and "colored" are seen as synonymous; the point is that the overwhelming majority of "colored" people nowadays prefer "African American", yet "colored" is retained by the NAACP. But enough with the NAACP. It may not be such an apt analogy anyway.

Maybe the LULAC people call themselves "Latin Americans" - there's not a thing wrong with that. But you have to source your claim that most Hispanic and Latino Americans do as LULAC does. Census Bureau reports don't support your claim. SamEV (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

yes I agree and this is one of my precisely one of my points. Like the example you gave of African-Americans. There are different terms used to self identify, such as 'of color, or black, or African American. Some may pick or choose depending on who they are relating to, or some may prefer to use certain terms over others. It is the same with 'Latinos' some will use Latino, others hispanic, others Latin and/or Latin American. The use of the term Latino does not nullify the other terms or somehow indicate that they are not valid. In fact the term Latino via Merriam-Websters dictionary and others is 1. a native or inhabitant of Latin America 2. a person of Latin-American origin living in the United States. 3. a shortening of the term Latino Americano. (it's not about MY feelings but definitions and the way it is actually used by the Latin(o) community to self-identify.) The census Bureau does not contradict this on any level. Some here in the U.S. use Latin and/or Latin American to self-identify (primarily those whose primary language is English). When speaking with older folk in Spanish they may use the term Latino, and if speaking in English they will use the term Latin. Which brings us to the divisiveness point. When the term Latino is used by the English speaking population, (probably because it was a Spanish term of self-identification, though it was not meant to be used this way in Spanish) it sometimes excludes the other romance speaking populations of other romance languages, such as Brazil. This serves to divide Latin America by language, instead of unifying them by these Latin based Romance languages. This error in translation does not happen when one uses the English term 'Latin-Americans'. Also I wasn't just singing praises to the OMB, it is stated in their policy and I quote "that Respect for individual dignity should guide the processes and methods for collecting data on race and ethnicity; ideally, respondent self-identification should be facilitated to the greatest extent possible". Also the definitions that I stated for Latino were also from the reputable dictionaries. Some internet dictionaries as you may know, will use definitions and articles directly from wikipedia. I found a I found one of these online dictionary/Encyclopedias referencing my work and other editors from wikipedia in their articles online. This means, if I were to reference them, I would be referencing myself. These types of dictionaries should not be used. Later I will say more about Felipe's reference, let me just say for now that it seems to be incorrect usage EDGARR (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever wondered whether you're trying to fix a problem that this article doesn't have? The Merriam Webster definitions are in the article and have been for a year. This article doesn't tell anyone it's incorrect to use this or that term, or that definition. The article concerns itself with the term Latino, provides definitions from reliable sources (not Wikipedia self-references; verify them, please); and explains the official (government) usage. That's all. I asked you to source your claim that most Hispanic and Latino Americans prefer the "Latin American" ethnonym. So where is that source? "Latino" is the subject of this article. We don't have to go into any sort of detail into how OMB operates or what motivates them. SamEV (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said most but some do, In the article's controversy section, it is noted that Some Native American group or groups do not like the term Latino for the reasons noted. I was just noting that still others prefer the English term Latin Americans as opposed to Latino. However, most use the term interchangebly as the most understood meaning of the two terms is that they are fundamentally the same. Felipe's article cites dictionary.com which along with reference.com is not an authoritive site on language and reference facts, it has cited and cites opinions of and copies articles of Wikipedia Editors. Some of these edits have been removed from Wikipedia for various reasons and are still posted at these sites. If you really care about factual information, the information on this site is not individually researched for truthfullness, but merely copied from other sites. The Felipe reference is confusing at best and needs to be clarifed. He states "Latin American" may also not mean the same as "Latino", depending on which definition of the latter is used. He provides the following as evidence:

Latin American - A native or inhabitant of Latin America. A person of Latin-American descent

Latino - A Latin American. A person of Hispanic, especially Latin-American, descent, often one living in the United States.

Both are from the same reference source that he used. (I entered the Latino definition from the same source for comparison) His statement is taking things way out of proportion. EDGARR (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"I was just noting that still others prefer the English term Latin Americans as opposed to Latino."

OK. I can see how it wouldn't hurt the article to note that. But I'll remind you that "Latino" is also an English word now, borrowed from Spanish.

I reformatted the references for even greater clarity. Take a look. You'll see that all the sources are established dictionaries: Random House, American Heritage, Merriam Webster, and Cambridge University. You'll see contrary to what you just claimed, there are no Wikipedia self-references.

You make the flat statement that most Hispanic and Latino Americans use "Latin American" and "Latino" interchangeably "(However, most use the term interchangebly as the most understood meaning of the two terms is that they are fundamentally the same.") I only ask: source, please.

And you continue to be wrong about what Filipe wrote. Take another look. I made a few changes to that paragraph that might help you, also. SamEV (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, I see that that the ref's are improved. I did not mean that you were referencing yourself, just that some sites do reference wikipedia and sometimes, those articles in wikipedia have not been check out by more experienced users. As far as my sources I referenced the source of LULAC as you already know. There is also The Latin American Association[[17]], there's the Latin American Association of Anthropology [[18]], Latin American Youth Center [[19]] and many more. You see the meaning of Latino itself indicates it is a shortening of Latino Americano, which is of course Latin American in English. Thanks for having an open mind and understanding that this would not hurt the article. I believe it will actually improve it. EDGARR (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the links. I didn't use the anthropology one because that's not a US organization, actually.

Btw, reasoning from "Latino" is short for "Latinoamericano", to therefore, people who self-ID as "Latino" are self-ID'ing as "Latin Americans" is not permitted; see the policy on original research, new analysis, synthesis and the like. SamEV (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Latinos are Latin and Latin American there is no original thought in that, it has been that way for many, many years. In fact the first Latinos were the Spaniards to set foot here in the Americas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EDGARR (talk • contribs) 11:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point: it is of no consequence whether you (or me, either) see it that way; you can't impute that intention to their self-identification. In other words, the only thing you can claim with certainly about someone who self-IDs as Latino is that they self-ID as Latino. Period. Not Latin, not Latin American, not Martian, or whatever else. SamEV (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as definitions are concerned and this article they are either identifying as either

"a person of Latin-American or Spanish-speaking descent."[1] "A Latin American."[2] "A person of Hispanic, especially Latin-American, descent, often one living in the United States."[2] "a native or inhabitant of Latin America"[3] "a person of Latin-American origin living in the United States"[3] "someone who lives in the US and who comes from or whose family comes from Latin America" [4]

So this means that Latino in all definitions, are all having to do with either being Latin American or of Latin American descent. Its one and the same. This is common sense as these are the so called usages in the U.S. What else do you have in mind that they would they be referring to? If a person refers to as 'Latino' looking at the definitions above it all points and (refers) back to Latin America(n). Certainly this could not be clearer. As far as the reasoning comment you made it is like saying that a person because he indicated he is a citizen of the United States, it should not be reasoned that he may be a citizen of the United States of America. Wether you say United States of America or just plain United States they refer to the same place. Also returning to Felipe's statement, in which definition of Latino, would Latino not mean or refer to Latin America(ns) or of Latin America(ns)? EDGARR (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"being Latin American or of Latin American descent. Its one and the same."

Ask a hundred German Americans if being German and German American is the same thing. I'm done trying to explain to you how wrong you are. I hope someone else can. SamEV (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

the same for self-identification purposes.

a closer example would be to ask one hundred Germans if being German or of German descent is the same thing, or close enough so that the person can self identify as german. The answer is yes, look in the dictionary. Its the same with Latino or Latin Americans who live in the U.S. Attempting to dis-associate Latino from Latin America is attempting to divide Latin(o)s from their history, and detach them from their place of origen. It serves to confuse, illegitamize and dis-orientate as to identity and sense of belonging. Also serves to confuse the masses who read the articles. This is why I ask for a clarification in the Felipe comment. In which definition of Latino, would Latino not mean or refer to Latin America(ns) or of Latin America(ns)? Have Felipe clarify potentially damaging remark 08:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)EDGARR (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Edgar, most people, and that includes Latinos (not you, clearly), make a distinction between terms such as "Hungarian" and "American of Hungarian descent". The fact that you either can't or refuse to do so in no way changes that. SamEV (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem acknowledging that there are Americans of Latin American descent. You misunderstand me.

I'am only stating that they have the right to self identify as Latin Americans, and that many do. EDGARR (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree: if that had been all you'd been asserting all the while, we wouldn't have had such a contentious time. But I'm glad we seem to have resolved all this. SamEV (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

if Latin Americans in the United States cannot refer to Latin America then it would follow that an African-American could not identify as such. Are you saying that a person or organization of Jewish descent cannot self identify as Jewish or Jewish American or an Italian cannot self identify as Italian or Italian American? Or are you saying that they are wrong also? Or are you using a double standard perhaps?

You are also disagreeing with the most authoritive and trusted dictionary (Merriam-Websters) which defines Latino as 1) latino

Etymology: American Spanish, from Spanish latino, adjective, Latin, from Latin latinus

latin american

2): a person of Latin-American origin living in the United States. and defines Latin as : of or relating to the peoples or countries using Romance languages; specifically : of or relating to the peoples or countries of Latin America (This includes Italians and Spanish as well as other European countries who use romance languages.)EDGARR (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Each individual can self-ID however s/he chooses. And I'm not disagreeing with any dictionary. SamEV (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry sam but when the dictionary says one definition of Latino is a person of Latin-American origin living in the United States" and you say you disagree that a Latino may not identify as a Latin American it sure sounds as if you are disagreeing with the dictionary. Unless I'm mistaken and this is not what you meant. Maybe you can clarify...EDGARR (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Edgar. I wasn't disagreeing with the dictionary. I was disagreeing with you. You kept insisting that 'this is what Latino means, never mind the other definitions'. SamEV (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said never mind the other definitions. I used the merriam-webster dictionary as it is the most trusted and authentic dictionary. There are dictionaries with agendas even putting webster in their web address to try to legitimaze and push their propaganda and agendas. We already went over the definitions, 1 : a native or inhabitant of Latin America

2 : a person of Latin-American origin living in the United States.In American Spanish, Latino means Latin, Latino Americano means Latin American. very simple identification process. Again my point is that Latinos are Latin. and can self identify and do self identify as Latin Americans. Websters makes this very clear that they are one and the same. Since, you seem to have a bias against them doing so as you pointed out earlier , you definitely contradict the basis of what merriam-webster definitions of Latinos is stating. You never answered my question.."if Latin Americans in the United States cannot refer to Latin America then it would follow it that an African-American could not identify as such. Are you saying that a person or organization of Jewish descent cannot self identify as Jewish or Jewish American or an Italian cannot self identify as Italian or Italian American? Or are you saying that they are wrong also? Or are you using a double standard perhaps? You are the one, by the way that is engaging in original thought when in your edits when you use the term Latino American. This is against policy. We'll talk soonEDGARR (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who insisted on including all those various definitions, remember? So you're quite out of line calling me biased.

And I already answered your question: I told you that people can self-identify however they wish. And unlike you, I don't see it as my business to impute something else to that self-ID. The double standard is in your head.

"We'll talk soon"" Take your time... SamEV (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that that Latinos can self identify as Latin and/or Latin American. After all when a Latino says or sings as in many songs that he is "Latino" this translates to 'Latin' in English, when he says he is 'Latino Americano' the translation is 'Latin American'. If he says Americano this means American. This can easily be seen by the similar spelling if even if the reader is not fluent in both English and Spanish. The confusion came because a few paragraphs before I stated that..."I'am only stating that they have the right to self identify as Latin Americans, and that many do". You then stated ...."I disagree: if that had been all you'd been asserting all the while, we wouldn't have had such a contentious time." EDGARR (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose we leave it there. (There is some ambiguity when a person says "soy Latino", in the US. But I won't go into it, as I kind of value my sanity...) Is there any other issue related to the article's improvement that you'd like to discuss? SamEV (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes descent?

New conversation: Let's take a person like Andy Garcia. Now Andy is a Cuban of European descent (since he is caucasion). If he is considered of European descent in Cuba, but now enters and lives in the U.S., Some would say that he is still of European descent as this is where his ancestors were from. However some might say he is of Latin American descent. I would like to understand how others think about the idea of descent and what they understand these concepts to entail. EDGARR (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That question doesn't actually belong on this talk page, which is for discussion related to the article. But I'd say Andy is "all of the above." SamEV (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and the question of descent and a clear understanding of the term as applied to Latin(o)s definitely affects the article. I feel its better to discuss it here than to potentially have someone have an edit 'disagreement' in the future. EDGARR (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Any edit disagreements will be dealt with appropriately. Edits which try to inflict irrelevant nonsense on articles are often removed on sight. SamEV (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and again you need to be reminded that that because something may seem irrelevant (or obvious as we spoke of earlier) to you, does not make it irrelevant or obvious to others. It would seem that anyone who attempts to halt a discussion of such an important concept to this topic and calling it irrelevant, could not be striving for truth and clarity on the subject, but for the censorship of the truths that will arise.EDGARR (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Spare me. SamEV (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

THE POWER OF THE WORDS

It's interesting how the words can change of meaning.Hispanic was someone from spain. Now is someone form latin america. Its obvious that the spanish people and the white people in latin america wants to change the meaning of this word because in fact today this is very unfair.The governament of usa says that latinos or hispanics can be of any race.But the media shows to the world this word meaning a person with a dark skin sometimes looks like a native american or is only a person with a dark skin but never black and never white.I saw a movie called spanglish.A mexican woman goes to usa with her daughter.In the middle of the movie the mexican girl says something like that : "You are the best white person that i ever know".Something in the steriotype, very normal.But if you see the cast the mexican woman is in fact a spanish person so you think how a spanish white woman can work like a non white mexican?This is very ridiculous and almost funny , A NATIVE WHITE EUROPEAN WOMAN IS A NON WHITE MEXICAN but adam sandler a jewish man ,who looks like the jews native from middle east with a skin more dark than white, is a white american only because he is jewish?Hey americans you consider native people and black people from your country anglo only because he or she is american?No you probably consider them native american and black what they really are.But how a native or mixed (white and indian blood) mexican can be latino?the white mexican is but for him is boring to use this term because today means non white people.This discussion will never end and the media will always change the mean of the words.I know that someone will say that i am wrong because everybody use this word(latino and hispanic) like the media way.But whatever i still didn't give up.FontesAugusto (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You are 100% correct about the media and the way they discriminate (see wikipedia's 'White Hispanics'). You are also absolutely right about the power of words and how people change the meaning of words. The sad part is that most of the time it is done to disassociate/divide people from their histories and/or other humans, defame/discredit and disorient/disempower them. I saw Spanglish and enjoyed the positive way they portrayed the Mexican mother and daughter, although you are right when the little girl told Sandler's wife that she was the best white person she ever met...(in other words, like if her own mother was not white or she never met a white person in Mexico. I saw something like this in a T.V. series called Monk, where the script writers had a white mexican woman tell Monk " You think just because you're American and white you can come here and tell us what to do." This has the affect of communicating to the masses who were watching... 1) that White Mexicans, even if they ARE Caucasion, should not be viewed as such. 2) It also served to "Officially" put the white stamp of approval on Monk. (as if character and qualities such as honesty and good will weren't more important).You see the viewers had questions of his 'Whiteness' due to certain characteristics, (dark skin and short, coarse and curly hair.) As far as signing in, if you type in 4 tilde's your user name will automatically be put in for you. EDGARR (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Official, etc

The US government doesn't have to state that its is the official definition, as people with normal English language ability would know that.

You cited [20] and wrote: "The majority of white Latinos, regardless of country, are direct descendants of the early European explorers."

1. The cite doesn't make that claim
2. You've failed to explain why the article needs that info. The factoid looks like someone tacked it on randomly in order to push a pet POV.

You wrote: "For instance, White Latin(o)s from Puerto Rico, (85% of the population) are descendants of the first Latin(o)s,(mostly Spanish) who arrived to the Americas from Europe."

Here you are confusing the words again, as you always have. It's clear that you still haven't figured out what this article is about, after all this time and despite the effort of many editors. This article is about a word: an English word, and it behooves us to stick to its definition and use in the English language. And once again, your cite is completely silent on your claim. The cite says only that Puerto Ricans are "white (mostly Spanish origin) 80.5%" (not 85%). It says nothing more on that score. It doesn't claim that they're of early explorer ancestry instead of 19th and 20th century Spanish immigrants, or Corsican immigrants, or German immigrants, etc. The claim you make you pulled out of thin air; it's an unsupported claim and I've challenged it. Besides, there's still the matter of relevance, as serious as any.

Then there is the matter of your editing style. I see that you're back to your old ways. The talk page is the place to resolve disputes, not the articles themselves. I invited you to come here and talk it over, twice, and you refused. You were the one inserting info, and thus the burden was on you to explain your edit on talk if another editor challenged it, which I did: the burden is on the person adding info, always. I'm asking you again to come here and discuss. SamEV (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to talk this out, as in the past I'm always glad to discuss matters openly. However, I don't have the time to go into length of why my insertions into the article are not ony correct, but necessary. As for the matter of relevance of history and origen, it is relevant for people to have a clear understanding (after all, isn't this the purpose of an encyclopedia) of the origins of Latin Americans or the term Latino to fully understand them and their diversity and also to understand why this is one of the terms that Latin Americans in the states choose to use. To act as if Latinos and the Latino term just appeared out of nowhere without any history so people cannot comprehend the full weight of it's meaning is a perversion of truth. Would you make an encyclopedic article of Jewish people with discussing their history? Or how about an aricle of the United States without some history. Your attempt to censure the history in this article is effect harmful and demeaning to the identity of Latin Americans who reside in the United States, many who have been patriotic citizens. Whether they are of Latin European descent or Native American descent or other, It affects how many will perceive themselves and how the the masses from around the world will perceive them.EDGARR (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"I don't have the time to go into length of why my insertions into the article are not ony correct, but necessary."

Well, when you do we'll discuss at length then.

The English term comes from latinoamericano, some sources say. Readers are already informed of that in the article. Anyone who comes to this article looking for genealogical information about Latinos came to the wrong place. This article is not about Latinos: it's about the word Latino. More in-depth information about the group is found in the article Hispanic and Latino Americans. SamEV (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, This is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. Of course this is not Family Tree, but the "origen" of the term does not imply someone trying to connect with their great grand parents. Spaniards and Italians consider themselves Latinos in their Homelands. The fact is that there would be no Latinos in the United States if they first did not come to the Americas from Europe. Stop trying to be divisive. It is a testiment to the European Latins of which I am evidence of, and proud of (as are many others), that they changed and contributed much to the history and culture of the Americas. Do you think my father died in vain? Not to be acknowledged? EDGARR (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a dictionary indeed, which is why this article is more than just definitions. There's actual prose in it. But there's also something called scope, a concept with which I suggest you get better acquainted. There's a mini-essay, WP:Scope, to get you started

I'm sorry about your dad, but please stick to the issue. And don't respond to trolls. I removed that topic. SamEV (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop being a kidder, the father line is a saying, my dad is o.k. What I'm geeting act is that your agenda is to remove from the term 'Latino', any historical significance that naturally is needed for people to have a full understanding of the term. This censorship only serves for people to have only a biased and partial understanding of Latinos and what the term Latino entails. I will be reposting my factual information with references. Do not censure just because YOU FEEL it goes against your Point Of View or falls outside of what you want people to believe about Latinos and the term Latinos. EDGARR (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't kidding, I was sincere. I thought your father had died, and it seemed to explain your behavior here. But now I don't have to feel sorry for you, then.

And once again, in case I wasn't clear enough before, the main issue is relevance. And you don't have to tell me about the origins of any Latin American peoples. I happen to be well-versed in that. Nor does the article need that information in order to explain this word to the readers. More important is the etymology, which starts with latino or latinoamericano. From there it's on to Latin Latinus. If you want to take it further, you add the Indo-European root of Latinus, finally. If people want to explore the use of "Latin" in "Latin America", they had better head for the namesake article. We don't have to deliver that information here. It's a matter of, again, scope. SamEV (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As I stated and you agreed to before, just because YOU think something is not relevant, does not make it not relevant. As in our last conversation you accuse me of behaviour problems only to at the end admit your wrongdoings. Anything that falls outside your POV, You consider outside the scope of the article. This is the encyclopedia that people can edit, not the encyclopedia censored by SamEv.It is your behavior that is in question as you as you attempt to censor the racial aspects and history that make up the census bureau statement that 'Latinos can be of any race'. Ths is relevant, Like I said I will re-enter my remarks,EDGARR (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC) EDGARR (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What wrongdoings? Remind me, please.

Also, why are you right and I wrong? Because you say it? SamEV (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I did write the wrong edit summary in a revert minutes ago, though. But somehow I don't think that's what you were referring to. SamEV (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well for one you admitted that Latinos can self ID as Latin Americans after denying this for some time. However, in the article you continously try to drive a wedge between Latins, you continously drive a wedge between Latin Americans. You attempt to break and deny their unity, This is not helpful, but just the opposite. It is harmful, if you do not know I'm letting you know now. Also who said historians cannot referenced in wikipedia? People reference Historians and History books all the time. That may just be the problem. You are trying to chop off all the history from Latin(o)s. Chop them off from other Latins, chop them of from the European Latin(o)s, which is from where the term was derived. Chop them from their Spanish ancestry or Italian ancestry. Chop the ones who have native American blood from their histories and make them unrecognizable. Chop off the head, legs, arms and and any resemblence of authenticity. Just leave a chopped up mess an unrecognizable mass, that you can linquistically define as you wishEDGARR (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Well for one you admitted that Latinos can self ID as Latin Americans after denying this for some time."

Really, I said they cannot, as opposed to saying that you cannot label them so if they don't? I'm afraid you'll have to show me a quote before I admit to that one.

"However, in the article you continously try to drive a wedge between Latins, you continously drive a wedge between Latin Americans."

It's not about trying to drive a "wedge", Edgar. It's about defining the term as the most reliable sources do, not as you wish it were defined. If these sources distinguish between someone in Latin America and someone in the US who is of Latin American origin, that's what this article will do as well. If they distinguish between someone in "Latin Europe" and someone in the US who is of Latin American origin, so will this article. If reliable sources state that they're all one and the same, this article will state as much. (In fact, it does: every kind of definition is given.) I have no say in that, and neither do you.

"You attempt to break and deny their unity, This is not helpful, but just the opposite."

This is it, the crux: you're here to push that POV, and you won't let the most reliable of sources get in your way.

Well, know this: this article is not a soapbox for you to enlighten the world about the "unity" of "Latins". You're editing tendentiously, and numerous editors have pointed that out going back a year, at least. (You may have been at this since 2006, with different user names.)

"if you do not know I'm letting you know now."

Thank you.

"Also who said historians cannot referenced in wikipedia?"

Actually, they cannot, if material they wrote is not used in a history article and is challenged. Wikipedia says we should use experts in the relevant field: here that happens to be linguistics, specifically English. I'm sure the man is intelligent, but he's not a linguist.

"You are trying to chop off all the history from Latin(o)s."

This is not a history article. SamEV (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

again I do not have as much time as I wished to address this issue but for now theses are quotes from our previus discussions.

I said I'am only stating that they have the right to self identify as Latin Americans, and that many do. EDGARR (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

you said I disagree: if that had been all you'd been asserting all the while, we wouldn't have had such a contentious time. But I'm glad we seem to have resolved all this. SamEV (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote- a person of Latin-American origin living in the United States.In American Spanish, Latino means Latin, Latino Americano means Latin American. very simple identification process. Again my point is that Latinos are Latin. and can self identify and do self identify as Latin Americans. Websters makes this very clear that they are one and the same. Since, you seem to have a bias against them doing so as you pointed out earlier , you definitely contradict the basis of what merriam-webster definitions of Latinos is stating. You never answered my question.."if Latin Americans in the United States cannot refer to Latin America then it would follow it that an African-American could not identify as such. Are you saying that a person or organization of Jewish descent cannot self identify as Jewish or Jewish American or an Italian cannot self identify as Italian or Italian American? Or are you saying that they are wrong also? Or are you using a double standard perhaps? You are the one, by the way that is engaging in original thought when in your edits when you use the term Latino American. This is against policy. We'll talk soonEDGARR (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You wrote-- I'm the one who insisted on including all those various definitions, remember? So you're quite out of line calling me biased. And I already answered your question: I told you that people can self-identify however they wish.

You misunderstand me and my motives, of why I persist in this debate. It is so obvious you are trying to project Latn(o)s as not Latin that I feel the artcles view is unbalanced and biased. The vast majority of Latin(o)s know that the term they use, Latino is originally a Spanish word that means Latin in English. If you were Latino you would know this. This is not a pet POV of mine like you mentioned, however freedom of speech and truth is, and when I read what you contribute and the order that you place the contents, it is obvious your purpose is to divide 'Latinos' from 'Latin' and have 'Latino' mean something else. This is your fear of history, because you want to reinvent the term to have mean something else. You revert and censure anyone and anything, who goes against your POV.

you say--we should use experts in the relevant field: here that happens to be linguistics, specifically English. I'm sure the man is intelligent, but he's not a linguist.

You are very mistaken, he does not have to be a linguist. This is not an article about linquistics. This is an encyclopedic article about understanding not only a term and terms that are used for the identification and understanding of real live human beings, that cannot be accomplished without historic and geographic background information of the term, and people that the term identifies. On another note, There are certain statements in the article that istead of bringing understanding and clarity to the subject, serves instead to bring vagueness and guesswork to the readers. I will be addressing these shortly.

The goaols of the Latino project is to

To ensure articles accurately depict Latinos and/or Hispanics in the United States. To ensure articles are a comprehensive source by including the voices of all Latino and/or Hispanics people. To ensure standardize in the use of Spanish-language terms, names, and translations into English.

I am going to renter the definition from where you had it before, but I'am going to ask someone to look into the handling of this article, which I believe is being handled inappropriatelyEDGARR (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I want to let you know that I amended my last comment by adding a couple of sentences.

OK, so help me understand this: you quote this exchange, wherein I supposedly (in fact, you miscomprehended, Edgar) stated that Latinos can't self-ID just any way they want: (Edgar) "I'am only stating that they have the right to self identify as Latin Americans, and that many do". (SamEV) "I disagree: if that had been all you'd been asserting all the while, we wouldn't have had such a contentious time." But then you quote me saying this: "And I already answered your question: I told you that people can self-identify however they wish." So Edgar, doesn't that prove the opposite of your charge?

" It is so obvious you are trying to project Latn(o)s as not Latin that I feel the artcles view is unbalanced and biased."

You're wrong about my intentions: absolutely wrong, actually. But there's no use trying to convince you, so I'll just recommend that you try to fix what you perceive to be my bias by adding the appropriate, balancing material, from the appropriate sources. Otherwise, your efforts are one big waste of time.

"... If you were Latino ..."

How do you know I'm not?

"...freedom of speech and truth... fear of history ... revert ... censure ..."

Lay off the hyperbole, please.

"I am going to renter the definition from where you had it before"

Go ahead.

"but I'am going to ask someone to look into the handling of this article, which I believe is being handled inappropriately"

I hope it redounds to the benefit of the article. And by the way, the goals of the Latino project are my goals, too.

SamEV (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"...freedom of speech and truth... fear of history ... revert ... censure ..."

No Hyperbole SamEv, this is an accurate statement.

...I'll just recommend that you try to fix what you perceive to be my bias by adding the appropriate, balancing material, from the appropriate sources. Otherwise, your efforts are one big waste of time..."

I will add the balancing material::EDGARR (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)