Talk:Latino (demonym)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leeamarie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Latino is a USA construct word

The "latino" term was originated in the USA to identify spanish speaking americans with origins in spanish speaking countries in central and south america, it was adopted in 1997 by th U.S census, it has the same meaning as hispanic, so i removed the "A latin american" part because it's wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.149.152 (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The quality of this wikipage is pretty weak, for a much more informative page, please consult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans. For those who can read Spanish, the conceptualisation of the term "Latino" in US society is much better explained here, which includes this description: “Este neologismo se basa en el concepto estadounidense de Latinoamérica”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:A87:6000:F999:AD75:F54B:CA03 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

2A01:CB04:A87:6000:F999:AD75:F54B:CA03, It is simply not accurate to call Latino a neologism, as it's been around for half a century, and appears in countless dictionaries, style manuals, and thousands or tens of thousands of reliable sources. If you have a suggestion how to improve the article, this is the page to do it on. Do you have one? Mathglot (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I think it is also important to explain the introduction in the late 1960's and evolution of "Latino" in this wikipage. It must have coincided with the rise of the Chicano Civil Rights movement in the 1960's. It can hardly be coincidence that the rise of an ethnonym/demonym "Latino", is pretty much parallel to the incipient use of the other geographical prefix "Afro" that would later become a demonym (for any US citizen with noticeable "black" features), too. The popularization of the term "Latino" in the US is generally attributed to LA Times journalist Frank del Olmo, who seemed to have in mind, in the first place, (often US-born) US citizens whose heritage was principally Mexican or Puerto-Rican: some kind of acknowledgment of his contribution is in order here.

As for the evolution of the term "Latino", I have noticed that especially from the 2000's onwards, many US academics, intellectuals and in fact, those from the second (if not third, fourth) generation with roots in Spanish-speaking America, have also started to include under this blanket term "Latino" anyone with blood ties to Cuba, the Dominican Republic and in fact, to any Spanish-speaking, Latin-American country, if not also Portuguese-speaking Brazil. Correct me, if I'm wrong, this broadened terminology appears not to be readily accepted by many (well-off) immigrants or expats from Spanish-American or Portuguese-speaking countries with (largely) white European ancestry. The portrayal of the "Latino" in the US media is often condescending (in the liberal media), if not just negative (think of Fox News, Breitbart): being associated with crime, poverty and immigration etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:cb04:a87:6000:89d4:27c0:430b:f44c (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Argumentative sock blocked

Note: I've blocked Teresa samonetta as an obvious sock of Lauracerffer, who previously disrupted this page. Feel free to remove this section if you wish, I just thought you'd all like to know. Bishonen | talk 09:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC).

Adding convenience link for the above: Teresa samonetta (talk · contribs).

Though Bishonen's comment is from a year ago, please don't remove it. It's highly relevant just now, as there is some incandescently similar stuff going on lately, both at this article, and at Latinx. Still investigating... Mathglot (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

For the record: this ended with a CU-indef block of user GiannaZarelli (talk · contribs) on 6 August 2019. Mathglot (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead needs rewrite

The lead is way too long, currently more than half the size of the body text, excluding appendices. Contrary to the guideline WP:LEAD, it's full of unique information not contained in the body, and doesn't adequately summarize what is there. It also has some information

When things are this bad with a lead, often the easiest thing to do to improve the situation, is to do it in stages. I propose to do the following:

• Move the entire lead, except the defining WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, to the body, and call it section "Introduction".
• Analyze and triage the new "Introduction":
  • move bits of it out into existing body sections, if they fit better there.
  • remove portions that aren't relevant to the article topic, or into footnotes if peripherally relevant
  • move any good summary info back up into the lead.
• Finally, augment the lead with new content, summarizing information from the body, as needed.

That's the plan. Mathglot (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of this, which means the lead right now is *way* too short. That's to be expected, but because WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, it may be a little while before the lead is the way it should be. Please help me fix up the body of the article, and then when it's in decent shape we can turn to building a decent lead. I may try to fill the lead out just a little bit, just to avoid inopportune, drive-by patches to the lead just because it appears (and is) so brief. Mathglot (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the body of the article, which certainly could use a good deal more change. But it seemed like a good point to adjust the lead, which was down to a sentence, so I've done that now, and it seemed a good time to remove the {{Rewrite lead}} template. Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Since the "Introduction" section was almost entirely about usage, I've moved that text to the relevant "Usage" section. If we need any additional introductory text, some can be added back to the lead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Usage in the United States

Section Usage in the United States is long, and is almost entirely about the contrast between Latino and Hispanic. There is virtually nothing about the usage of Latino itself, except for that contrast. The section has a {{Main}} article link to Hispanic and Latino Americans, which has more about it. The article Hispanic–Latino naming dispute, not mentioned there, is entirely about this subject. The Latino article therefore, stands as a parent article to either (or both) of those child articles and need only be a brief summary of the two.

The section should be rewritten to be a brief summary of the detailed information found at the other two articles. And it should probably be retitled or have a new subsection header "Contrast with Hispanic" or similar. Missing from this section, is any specific information about the term Latino itself. Mathglot (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The section on OMB vs census is confusing. It says hence they are using the terms differently, without any clear differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.171.109.147 (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Similar and related terms

Most of the content of this section appears to be a sort of mini-version of a disambig page. It seems out of place in the article to list every other possible use of the word Latino. We can leave the mention of the origin from Ancient Rome, maybe the use in Latin America (although that is covered earlier in the article body). Moving this section here, in case we want to discuss it.

content of section #Similar and related terms

Latino is also an Italian, Sicilian, Sardinian, Spanish, and Portuguese word, which has its roots in Latin. As an English demonym "Latin" has other meanings such as: an ancient Italic people entering the Italian peninsula around 1200 BCE in ancient Rome an inhabitant of Old Latium (Latium vetus), later extended to New Latium (Latium adiectum) as well a member of any population of the Roman Empire engaging in Roman culture and speaking Latin, regardless of their ethnicity the language of Ancient Rome and the Roman Empire denoting or pertaining to Italians, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanians, etc., using the Italic languages (Romance languages) that derive from Latin a member of the Latin Church, or Roman Catholic Church. References

This was the content of section "Similar and related terms" as of revision 909809979. Mathglot (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The expanded discussion of Latinx does not belong here. --evrik ^(talk) 01:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"Latinas" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Latinas. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Note: This RfD encompasses both Latinas and Latinos. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed, with Latino (disambiguation) moved to the base page name. Supporters of this move, @Zxcvbnm, Soumya-8974, and Andrewa: please address the incoming links. BD2412 T 05:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Latino → Latino (demonym) – The page was previously moved to the base name without discussion. However, when readers search for or follow a link to Latina or Latino, they can reasonably expect to land at Hispanic and Latino Americans, that is, the people rather than the terminology. Therefore the latter page seems like the primary topic for both terms. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 7#Latinos. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support But only if Latino (disambiguation) is moved to Latino, because I don't see a clear primary topic here. Both articles get similar amounts of pageviews._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  The question is, what are those readers looking for under Latino? If many are looking for an article about the people called Latinos, as seems likely to be the case, then that article should be primary. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  Some seem to be looking for one, some seem to be looking for the other. Given the pageview comparison I don't see an obvious primary topic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see how it's possible to know which use of Latino people are looking for from just the page traffic alone. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Did you know that Latinos are Latinos even if they don't live in America? Strong oppose Red Slash 20:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  Then maybe the first sentence of the article is a bit misleading when it says "to refer to people in the United States". HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  Woof. That is a BRUTAL first sentence. Yes, this article desperately needs a rewrite. Red Slash 19:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  One of the sources used in the article says the term applies "only in reference to the U.S. experience". Where are the sources that indicate otherwise? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Red Slash: are you opposing just the proposed redirect, or the move away from the base name as well? If both, what leads you to conclude that this page is the primary topic? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Red Slash. And make it more WP:WORLDWIDE. The United States isn't the only places where Latinos live.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  Comment – totally agree with making it a more worldwide view. cookie monster (2020) 755 16:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: I already gave a source from an academic publisher saying the term only applies to the United States. Which sources state otherwise? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Sangdeboeuf: a dictionary would be one such source. Meaning 1: "a native or inhabitant of Latin America". And would an American visiting Mexico or Argentina not think of the inhabitants there as Latinos? Plus there are Latinos in Canada too. Even some here in the UK: "nestled away in one of south London's many Latino haunts". It doesn't seem like a concept that is unique to just one country. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  Still, this article is specifically about the term as used in the U.S. I note that no one who has opposed the move so far has attempted to broaden the scope of the article. And I fail to see what usage of the term has to do with whether or not it should be disambiguated as proposed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  If that's the focus you want, then the sentence should begin, "In discussions of US ethnic groups ..." rather than implying the more limited use of the word. 2601:2C6:4380:46B0:A486:D8BD:6AD3:C0DE (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)KM

  Something like that would work for me. Whatever we do we shouldn't abandon the fact that this article is specifically about the term as used in the US. Doug Weller talk 09:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Zxcvbnm. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Undiscussed move should certainly be reverted, as it has probably broken a great many links. Agree that there is no Primary Topic, and even if there were, it is of cource my opinion that it would be better for all concerned to have the DAB as the base name destination. Andrewa (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mislinkings

Good point, BD2412, I'll fix the mislinkings this whole business has created as I find time. There are somewhere between one and two thousand to look at by my quick look. Of course, if we had deprecated Primary Topic as I have long suggested, we'd avoid all problems of this sort, at very little cost. Andrewa (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, well, well... I have only done two but those two went to two different destinations, one to Latino (demonym) as one would naively expect but the other to Latin America, a destination not even listed at the DAB until I just added it. So that particular article was already mislinked before the recent move, and particularly badly mislinked.

I'll say it again, to deliberately create an article at, or move an article to, an ambiguous article name is just asking for trouble. That we ever allow it is somewhat bizarre.

I've set up a very rudimentary toolkit at User:Andrewa/latino, feel free to use and/or add to it. Andrewa (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, well, well, well... and the third wikilink I look at, from Lusitanic#Relation to Hispanic and Latino, actually appears to be correct now. It was previously a mislinking but was corrected by the recent move. Andrewa (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think that one should link to Latino (demonym) rather than the DAB page. I've fixed it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Arguable IMO but not a big issue... "The broader term Latino more often encompasses both Hispanic and Lusitanic, and has sometimes been used even more widely, to include other speakers of Latinate languages (French, Italians, Romanians) or their descendants." The point being simply that had the base name of this ambiguous term been a DAB when the link was first created, the original author would have received a warning and could have been expected to have fixed it then.

But thanks for fixng it... feel free to do any of the others! Andrewa (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I've done about 40 so far. Many of the rest seemed to be census data boilerplate, as in "Hispanic or Latino of any race were X.X% of the population" of a given place, which didn't seem too urgent. But it looks like many have since been fixed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Another example of one that might be best left pointing to the DAB is Arts and Industries Building. Interested in other opinions. Andrewa (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

"...a possible site for a national Latino museum" would imply Hispanic and Latino Americans. See "Baird's Dream: History of the Arts and Industries Building": "It will also be considered for a Smithsonian Latino American Museum". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Omega Phi Chi is now listed as linking to the DAB but I cannot see how... what am I missing? Andrewa (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

There was a piped link in the lead paragraph; I've fixed it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Brazil?

I've removed the mention of usage in Brazil. The BBC source only makes a passing reference to Latinos as people; the statement that inhabitants of Brazil "do not want free movement of Latinos across its borders" is referring to people from Hispanic America. Note that the term itself is being used in reference to something else (use-mention distinction). Therefore it's not actually about the topic of this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

"Latin race"

Martinez (2009) Talks about colonizers in the Americas of "Latin descent", meaning Southern Europeans generally. The closest topic we have an article on would be Romance languages. The so-called Latin race doesn't seem to exist, not on Wikipedia anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Latinx

Thread retitled from "Latinx should not be mentioned as a widely accepted term, if even need be mentioned at all".

Latinx is NOT popular in Latin America outside of sociology departments at universities. RAE does not approve it, and people get bullied for even using it.

According to Pew Research Center, only 20% of latinos in the USA even know "latinx" is a word and not a misspelling. Out of said 20%, only 3% use it, and out of that 3% they are mostly 18-29 year olds, and only 1% of latino men ages 18-29 even use the word in the United States of America

Let me emphasize that means the number is much lower in Latin America, and it is even considered imperialism by most scholars, even those who tend to push for equality. As already mentioned, it is not welcomed by a majority of spanish speakers, a very large majority, so it should not be listed without that being mentioned, specially its controversy, and most definitely in the first paragraph of the Wiki without citations.

I am also going to point out that most people that use that monstrosity of a term are not of Latin American ancestry, and do not speak the language. Not only does the idea of imposing said word and change to the language that over 400 million call their native tongue sound ridiculous already, but then those people decided to choose a word that is nearly unpronounceable, and reminds people of a brand of condoms; Durex.

Almost every language is gendered, why not italianx? Because what?

The word should not be included, if it is included then not without being let be known that it is not a popular term, and it is not preferred by latinos. Much less in the first paragraph of the wiki without a citation, that's called agenda pushing.

Signed, a Latin American.

PS. When you uses latinx, people do not think you are this progressive hero, they think you are either annoying or cannot spell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D01:76C0:6D08:C897:5FF9:A434 (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

[1] - Google new, useful sources for its use. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

There are absolutely no uses for it, it is not widely accepted by large numbers of latinos, nor is it something necessary at all. I cited Pew Research Center with the statistics, an actual relevant and respected source. If you choose to ignore it, you are part of the problem.

As I said, latinos assume you are either a weird person with pink hair that does not shave your armpits and reads the communist manifesto like a bible, or that you cannot spell.

If you choose to ignore data, then the answer is not that you wish to use the correct word, but that you simply are being annoying.

Signed, me again. An actual latin american. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:d01:76c0:944c:f49:232d:739b (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Pues, yo tambien soy latinoamericano. And I not only know what Latinx is, so does my community -- and we use it. (And no, I'm not in the age demographic you mentioned.) I would of course expect that in my native country insisting on using "Latinx" would be seen as imperialism -- because in my native country *they speak Spanish*. Why would they use an English demonym?

It is, similarly, perfectly simple for both myself and the fellow bilinguals in my peer group to understand the difference between the English loanword "Latino" and the Spanish word "Latino" (and the total and complete irrelevance that RAE's opinion would hold upon a word in the English language -- no matter how hard some try to force it, English prescriptivism *doesn't exist*.)

Frankly, though, I'm not interested in some "battle of anecdotes." The fact is, the article mentioned with stats on recognition of the term Latinx among "U.S. Hispanics" actually *validates* the mention of it here. A demonym (or any other term) doesn't need to have majority usage to be notable as far as Wikipedia goes; the fact that nearly half of young Hispanics in the US and nearly 40% of them with a college degree recognize the term is more than enough to meet WP:N guidelines, and in fact the existence of a nationally-administered Pew poll taken to gauge the uptake of the term in the first place and an article announcing its results would have likely been sufficient on its own. And given that the notability requirements are met, opinions that the term is a "monstrosity" is just editorializing, and claiming there is a "controversy" in the Latino community about its use (which the article would seem to imply *against*; how can people who don't know of the existence of a term find it controversial?) would require some independent source citation to be an appropriate addition.

As an aside, "Italianx" isn't used because there isn't an English word "Italiano." That should be pretty obvious. Gnassar (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Origins

@R. Martiello: the Martinez 2009 source doesn't appear to say anything about "Latino" as a term for the Latin alphabet, citizens of Italy, etc. This article is specifically about the term used in the US for people with ties to Latin America. I've removed your addition as off-topic and improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: The Martinez 2009 source is from a 12 year old book called "Hispanic American Religious Cultures" which has a total of 8 extremely overpriced new and used copies available on Amazon and not a single Amazon review of the book. It does not have to mention Rome's alfabeto latino (Latin alphabet) because it is written in the Latin alphabet. Nor, does it have to mention Citizens of Italy, etc. as being Latins. As you know, we Italians have been Latino/a for 3 millenniums. If you Google "Origins of surname Latino", you will see that it is an Italian surname with a family crest and coat of arms. We Italians are the original Latin race followed by French, Romanians, Portuguese and Spanish. You already know there are Germanic races, Nordic races and Slavic races. Please, do not hide your head in the sand over this.

The mid-19th century Latin Americans, and Romance-speaking people of Africa are not Latin races. They are products of Pan-Latinism. Latin Americans are a fusion of 17 millenniums of New Word Asians, Europeans and black African races and cultures. It is specifically American culture. Like the culture in the USA. It is not European culture at all. Mind you, America is not a country, as Anglo-Saxons think it is. It is a continent as we Latino people know it is. America is named after a Latino; the Italian scholar and navigator Amerigo Vespucci. Now, with the much-discussed Spanish language rapidly supplanting the English language in the USA, the term America will mean all of the continent, not just personalized for the USA (like the words latino and latina are over there). The term Latin America should become obsolete and the word America will mean all of the American countries in total. Which is what it meant before the arrival of the Puritans.

When there is a flow of Hispanic presidents in the USA, they are not going to be able to tell the presidents of other American countries that the US president is "President of America" because the presidents of the other American countries will not be going for it. Mind you, the term Latin America was instigated by Anglo-Saxons who just could not stand the idea of living on a continent named after an Italian. So, they called the United States Anglo-Saxon America and considered themselves the only white people on the continent. This and the loss of California owing to the Mexican-American War caused the Romance-speaking people in America to call their countries Latin America. Well, the United States, as you may or may not know, is growing up. It is changing. Soon, no more hoarding the terms America, Latino and Latina for the USA. It never should have been that way in the first place. You use the French Sangedeboeuf (Blood of beef) here. If you are not a Latin (French) living in the USA, just think...you will be considered a product of Pan-Latinism when a Romance language is spoken in the USA. So, enjoy your country's transition into a Pan-Latinism affair. Do not say you have not been forewarned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Martiello (talk • contribs) 01:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The above has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia that I can see. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sangedeboeuf: Oh, but it does have everything to do with writing an encyclopedia. A trustworthy one, that is. And it has much to do with the United States' transition (and your own) into Pan-Latinism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Martiello (talk • contribs) 02:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Then please provide a reliable source that supports the content you want to include, in the context of this article. –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sangedeboeuf: You must be joking. I had linked Wikipedia's own articles on il latino (Latin), lingua latina (Latin-language), alfabeto latino (Latin alphabet), Latino Malabranca Orsini, Latino Orsini, Latino Latini, Latino Galasso and Joseph Nunzio Latino and you took them away. Are you saying that Wikipedia's articles are not reliable sources that support the content I wish to include? Hmmm? Moreover, you created a topic on the Latino talk page called Latin race and claimed Latin races do not exist on Wikipedia. There should be an article on Wikipedia called Latin races which refers to Italians, French, Romanians, Portuguese and Spaniards. Latin American should be a separate article. And, if need be, another article for Latin Americans living in the United States.

Now, since yesterday, the Latino article has been changed (by you, the one who claimed there were no Latin race(s)) to say that by late 1858 Californians began identifying themselves as latinos for their "hemispheric membership in la raza latina" which brings you to an article called La Raza. In the History section of that article, there is a citation 6 from Ramon A. Guierrez' 2016 book "The New Latino Studies Reader" (only 1 Amazon review of the book) which says back in the 1860s "two rival races are competing with each other...the Anglo Saxon and the Latin one." Just because one of the Latin races was competing with the Anglo Saxon race does not mean we other Latin races (Italians, French, Portuguese, Romanians) were.

Moreover, if you look at the article La Raza closely, you will see many Latin Americans reject the term latino and have replaced it with Hispanidad. Mexicans, who live in Mexico, do not use Latino. They use Mexicano/a and, some, Mexicanx. As well, in Mexico and Central America, la raza emphasizes Amerindian people or mestizo. They reject the European label Latino from Rome, Italy. As much as the US Census would like to believe that Native Americans only live in the USA and are down to 1% of the population, and all other Indians from American countries must be called Latino, it is looking like the Indians are taking their land back from those Yankee Doodle boys. NYC, Florida, Boston, California (from sea to shining sea), a trip to the USA shows American Indians speaking Spanish (and Portuguese).

It is said frequently in the EU, especially since Brexit, that the Anglo Saxons are fascinated by their demise in Britain. This mirrors the Anglo Saxons demise in the USA. The white Anglo Saxon people are diminishing rapidly. Both Britain and the USA are looking like Asia and black Africa. Colonization, anyone? 47 presidents in the USA and finally a president with some Latin ancestry. Joe Biden is part French. A country with racist intentions that foolishly adopted the word Latino in 1997 and the stubborn belief that the word America belongs solely to the USA are two of that country's candles in the wind. Welcome to Pan-Latinism, Sangedeboeuf. (I want to say LeSilencedesagneaux is a better French Wikipedia name for you...but I won't;)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Martiello (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article is not a reliable source, and in any case La Raza is about a (mostly obsolete) synonym for Hispanidad, not an actual "race" of people. The book The New Latino Studies Reader mentions an opinion piece in a newspaper from 1858. That neither proves the existence of any "Latin race", nor does it have anything to do with the content you added. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Variations in usage, "explanation needed" tag

In response to an Explain tag in the lede, I added a source which gave more detail on the topic of the breadth of variety in which the term is used within the Latino community. In doing so, and to align with the source material, I changed the line "...refers to United States inhabitants who have cultural ties to Latin America" to "...most commonly refers to...", and added a bit of text explaining that. As this Wikipedia entry *already* acknowledged that there was some variation, I thought this would be uncontroversial and that the single source would be sufficient. The edit was then reverted by another editor, claiming that the source was "unreliable."

As I mentioned, it's not a particularly controversial fact, meaning there is actually a large amount of source material available to back that statement. I did a quick search and found a half-dozen or so; I plan to re-introduce the same edits with all those sources, which should really be sufficient validation for anyone that it's at very least clearly a common enough usage to be noteworthy. If I were just doing this, I probably wouldn't even mention it here.

As of right now, I also plan to retain the original source that I cited when re-introducing my edit. I *did* want to mention that here, to discuss the potential bias in that source and the editor's objection to it.

---

For those not interested in that discussion, the tl;dr: Perhaps the source *should* be removed, and if common consensus thinks it should I certainly won't stand in its way. Whether it should or shouldn't basically revolves around the answer to this question: Is a source whose most relevant portions constitute a high-quality source, but which when read in its totality including its less relevant portions becomes lower in quality, in the end considered "high-quality" or "low-quality" as a source for a Wikipedia entry?

---

The source in question is, "Ask a Scholar: What is the True Definition of Latino?" The edit that criticized the source and removed my edit reads in full, "Advocacy org, not reliable -- legitimate academic sources usually don't purport to offer the 'true definition' of something."

I can understand why the editor would have that misconception just from the title of the text, but I do wish he'd read the article, as the confusion would have been cleared up pretty immediately. The article is a question/answer format, where the question asked is by a reader (in this case a college student) and the answer is written by a professor with a particular expertise in the subject. The answer the professor gives actually pretty explicitly clarifies that there is *no* "true definition" of the term, and gives a breadth of definitions over a variety of different eras and cultures. The editor basically treated a "Dear Abby" column titled, "My teenager is pregnant, what should I do?" and mistakenly concluded that Abby condones teenage pregnancy. The fact that the article's title is based on the student's question, not the professor's answer, is obviously very common in articles in that question/answer format, and I'm sure the editor would have noticed if he had read the article itself that his complaint about it "purporting to offer the 'true definition'" accused it of something it never did in the first place.

I did, however, mention potential bias in that article -- so what am I referring to? Well, the article is on the blog of the National Association of Scholars website, which (as I only found out later) has historically leaned conservative and could certainly be considered an advocacy organization; and although the author of the article does not seem to have any obvious ties to the organization other than having been requested to write the answer to the student's question, he has himself been accused on other occasions of interweaving conservative editorializing into his otherwise fairly credible and well-reputed academic research. You can see some of that editorializing yourself at the end of the source article I used, where he goes off on a thinly veiled tangent about academic departments focusing on ethnic studies. But outside of that, the article and in particular its first two or three paragraphs which are most relevant to this topic do tend to stick to historical (and verifiable) statements and don't stray far from that, and they do summarize the historical transition of the term pretty well in my opinion -- which is what I cited it for in the first place.

Like I said earlier, from there I leave it to the community -- if that source should be removed, it should be removed. It doesn't affect the edit itself; if it needs even more sources than I'm adding I am sure I can find even more, as the differing meaning of the word in its Spanish usage within the bilingual Latino community is pretty well understood at this point and it would take an exceptional level of evidence to suggest that the sort of linguistic bleed-through from one language to the other that has proven itself basically inevitable over the course of time and history was *not* occurring here. Gnassar (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I should also note that the meaning of the term in Spanish being different is, aside from the sources I cite, also confirmed by Wikipedia itself -- in the Spanish Wikipedia, that is: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino_(Estados_Unidos) Again, it would seem like the opinion that that secondary meaning is not sufficiently notable, let alone nonexistent or rare, would require an exceptional level of evidence to validate, rather than the other way around. Gnassar (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Brazilians are "Lusos" not Latinos.

I don't know why there's all this reference of "Including Brazil", "Excluding Brazil" it sounds arrogant and racist. IF Brazil is going to be included, you can equally include French Guyana as well. Sense French is a Latin based language. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)