Talk:Latino (demonym)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The term "latino(a)" is used in the United States to denote any person of Latin American origin living in the United States but is not used elsewhere, save by American influence. It is rejected by many Latin American immigrants as offensive, but especially by Brazilians who consider it offensive due to its imprecision.

Moreover, the term is confusing and yields prejudice. It ignores the specificities of the several Latin American countries, which are somewhat deeper than the differences between United States and Canada.

The use of the term in a scientific environment is not recommended because the very notion of "Latin America" is being disputed nowadays as simplification.

latinos latins

The way this word is used in USA is completely inapropriate.

In Spanish "latino" means "latin", not Latin American. "Latin" relates to cultures and languages coming from Italy, Spain, Portugal, France or Romania and their former colonies in America or Africa...

In the USA the term "latino" is often applied only to Spanish speaking people and sometimes used to describe a race (mestizos).

A lot of people in USA also use "latin" as equivalent of "latino"(in the American meaning). In this case, the Italians, French or Portuguese are excluded of their own designation while pure native indians are considered as the typical "latins"...

---

The SECRET is... Arab blood-Pre Islamic- A Latino has Gitano/Roma,Shephardi(Jewish Arab),Morisco(Arabs of Portugal) If a Hispanic has white/anglo blood from Italy, Spain, Portugal, France or Romania than he/she isn't Latino/a They have North African blood or Semitic blood not to be confused with Persians.

---

What are you saying? That a Latino has a specific blood? No. They can if they have Roman ancestors, but "Latin" is a linguistic group. Even Romans gave "latin right" to converts who became "latinized". THIS IS WHAT MAKES ANYBODY ABLE TO BE LATIN. An Iberian that has White/Anglo blood is not Latin? You mean they have to be 100% nordic to not be latin or it's enough to have a drop of nordic blood to not be latin?

Your "secret" is just made up. According to you a gypsy, jew, arab, moor is needed to be latin? none of those is latin and probably further removed from the latins of Rome than nordics are. Please spare me. the confusion comes from too much ignorance in the USA and how it was never challenged and so people are used to saying things the wrong way, are set in their ways, desire for own identity and basically just an unchallenged perpetuation of ignorance that has becomed too ingrained making it difficult for people to see a different way because "you can't teach an old dog new tricks". i am 100% portuguese and have some moor, roman, pheonician, celtic, iberian (that's saying more than one thing right there), sephardic jewish and god knows what else. people have different opinions on what's white and what isn't but if arabs and semites etc., are not white then i am mostly not white by that way of thinking. BUT in my individual case my hair, for example, is not as dark as the rest of my family that i know of in my direct blood line going back (parents, grandparents, etc.) and my skin is not as dark as some and my eyes are hazel/brown. but clearly many in my family are ambiguous and some of us look like different things even though we're totally related. i have pictures online to prove it. so, i am NOT LATIN because i inherited some stupid recessive hair gene from some viking from 500 years ago and this makes me not Latin? i got news, i AM LATIN and i AM HISPANIC. 100% portuguese with a diverse background and i come from nobility to last settle in northern portugal where "PORTUGAL" was born.

Latin Americans are latin because they were latinized by Spain and Portugal mainly. it didnt fall from the sky. The language, part of the culture and part of the blood comes from there and that's what makes it latin. in the USA the Latino comes from "Latin America". it's not "BAD" to call castillian speakers in the USA Latinos but you cant exclude other groups. braizilians are latinos too and more often than not they will consider themselves such until to their shock those that reach the USA discover they are not classified as such the way that their castillian-speaking neighbors are back in south america. and there goes the USA again thinking they know better than anybody else and has as much or more right and knowledge to tell other people what they are!

i don't really care that we are not considered Hispanic because of the stigma that comes with it (Spain - nothing against Spaniards but the sentiment is that the Portuguese want to be recognized and not be in the shadow of Spain because when people think "hispanic" they always think Spain and not from where it came from "Hispania" and the term is used ignorantly) even though on the Lusitanic article that i was mainly responsible for expanding greatly i attempt to show historical and common sense reasoning why we are, but there are people going there and instead of making points they delete entire paragraphs or large parts and write to suit their agendas only, which is contrary to the wikipedia ethic. As Portugal is independent from Spain it is suitable, that if Castillian speakers are "hispanic" and the portuguese want their own identity, that they opt for something like "Lusitanic" for differentiation but in reality the portuguese are hispanic and lusitanic IS NOT the the equivalent of saying hispanic but it is the same as saying 'galego', 'catalan', 'castillian' etc. this is the truth whether some like it or not.

this LATINO (as short for latino-americano) being confused for LATIN is ridiculous. i don't understand how a cultural classification could become the same as saying "european" or "asian". either we in the usa should stop being lazy and messing with etymology of words from languages that do not belong to us and aren't even english and just say "latin american" instead of "latin" or "latino", or it should stop being used as to classify race or sub race, or it should not be such an exclusive word because truthfully it is not, or better than all of these why can't we just call colombians colombian, mexicans mexican, cubans cuban, etc.??? people don't call austrians german (except those who don't know better) even though they are germanic (this is a good example of how the portuguese ARE hispanic in every way except that it is not part of SPAIN).

the whole thing is just stupid and too many people have ill informed, ignorant arguments prsented like they know what they are talking about which makes them look even dumber.

i do not think latino should be merged with hispanic because they are NOT one and the same, Lusitanic should not be merged with Lusophone because hispanic is not merged with Hispanophone either and they may not necessarily be one and the same and hispanic encompasses all of the iberian peninsula. hispano-americano, ibero-americano its all the same except in the minds and hearts of those who hold contempt for others and want to rationalize seperation from others.

you can look at the very FIRST definition of the word Hispano in the academia de la lengua espanola and right there you will see it is to do in its roots and mainly with "hispania" first and foremost. when i say "latino" i dont care what anglo america or people from latin american origins think it means. to me it means what it's always meant. arguments such as "oh well the french would never consider themselves latin either" are so utterly ridiculous to me that i dont know whether to laugh or cry. what convoluted logic. they are latin, just as the italians, romanians, etc., they have to admit it even linguistically and if they or any of them think not because they associate it with indian or mestiço mexicans and central and south americans then that's their problem. i am portuguese and i speak for myself and not even other portuguese, but i sincerely believe that those who insist on the ignorance do so out of that same ignorance and continue to perpetuate it and i will not conform to "let's go with what's easiest for me to digest because it hurts my brain to much to learn things the right way" or whatever rationalization there is. but what im saying is that all latin peoples i would like them to not conform to the ignorant masses, but if they do then i am concerned first and foremost with my kind and my culture including the spaniards because although latin encompasses many countries WE are the IBERIANS and to not let it go and have a fate doomed and altered by ignorance. if its going to get messed up let it get messed up by our hands and not anglo-america! shoot, imagine if jamaicans were called britanic or bretons or whatever and in the USA people said "well words change with time, you are not Britons, Britons apply to the english speakers in south america and islands"--- the british would go absolutely nuts!!!

those in latin america that consider themselves and relate to their indiginous side who don't want to be considered hispanic or latino, they are in their right. but dont think others dont understand or that it's just an aztec thing or whatever other group, dont think the Lusitans didnt know the feeling wehn romans were coming and goths etc. let people identify themselves.

phenotypes are not good to base something like latin, and possibly not even hispanic, or socio-economic situations, etc., these are not determiners for "hispanic", but the truth is iberians are mixed by being conquered the way the americas were and a "pure" iberian is many times darker and mistaken as what people in general consider "latin american" by looks alone. it is not my intention to put anyone down but when i am in a mexican household or something like that for example i feel more comfortable BY DEFAULT despite any negligible differences, and latin american cultures differ among themselves, than i do in a "white american" home with their food, and their customs. it's just natural! and i dont say this for validation, i dont need validation and iberians are the original hispanics as the romans called us, but my point is not even all europeans are the same, there are differences, no better no worse this is just truth telling, and it's not healthy for us to deny who we are, let some other culture dictate our culture and heritage if we can help it and we are for whatever it's worth out own people whether joined by language, culture, blood or any combination and we are not anglo-american, we shouldnt try to appease to the anglo-american desire, we define ourselves and the truth is what it is.

my rant is about to end. this is all a real pet peeve of mine.

i hate it when the portuguese try to say we are descendants of vikings and stuff, or the asturians in spain are so high up on their mountain (certain ones not all) and believe to be pure goths or whatever (and maybe unbeknownst to themselves they may not be nearly as pure as they think) and think they are better than those swarthy andalusians, that the portuguese have to jump on the anglo bandwagon and fight extra hard for the 'privilege' to be considered 'white' by the nordic europeans and anglo americans because we generally look like mutts and some of us are as dark as indians. we just are what we are and we dont need to be good enough by jumping onto somebody else's bandwagon because what we are is good enough with plenty to spare.

peace

Lusitano Transmontano 22:16 am 13 de Maio, 2006

---

"latino" shouldn't be used this way...

I agree with you. in Italian, as in spanish, "latino" always meant "latin". the word "latino-americano" is a concept that means the peoples from America who are linguistically latins. If you pu off the word "americano" from this term the meaning is completely changed. the americans are wrong to use the term "latino" this way. For us, who are the original latins it is a lack of respect of being stolen of our designation.

If you read any Dictionary it refers to us the latinoamericano the word exits because of us

This is pointless whining. An encyclopedia, even moreso than a dictionary, should be descriptive, not prescriptive. When the article describes how the word is used in English, its doing so is completely appropriate. It might be appropriate to discuss the origin of the term, and perhaps to even include a section about how its use might be viewed as inappropriate or controversial, but to label the page "potentially factually inaccurate" just because the word happens to be used differently in English from how it is used in the languages from which it might have been taken is completely unencyclopedic. Tomer ^TALK 00:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

The True Latinos

If you read any Dictionary it refers to Hispanic Americans the latinoamericano the word exists because of Hispanic Americansus.

1 A Latin American. 2 A person of Hispanic, especially Latin-American, descent, often one living in the United States. See Usage Note at Hispanic.

Short for Spanish latinoamericano, Latin-American, from latino, Latin, from Latin Latnus. See Latin

---

you should have said "If you read any ENGLISH/AMERICAN Dictionary". quoting from a dictionary is not necessarily a good way to prove anything. its definition only reflects the usage and opinion of the group that wrote it. Not all that different from wikipedia. the only difference from wikipedia is that here no one gets the final word. i could also show you definitions of other dictionaries to refute you. the word DOES NOT exist BECAUSE OF "Hispanic Americans" it only entered into the anglo world BY WAY OF the Spanish (Castillian) language. More people who think they know the Our Father better than the priests.

Lusitano Transmontano 20:00 - 20 de Maio, 2006

Also True Latinos

Belief in Miscegenation

The interbreeding of different races or of persons of different racial backgrounds. Cohabitation, sexual relations, or marriage involving persons of different races. A mixture or hybridization: “There was musical miscegenation at a time when segregation was the common rule” (Don McLeese).

Disputed

I believe a "{{disputed}}" tag should be added to this article, since there's too much discussion over this on this talk page. I don't agree with that article either. For me, latinos are and always were Latin Americans. Nothing else. Someone who was born in Latin America. That's what a latino is in Spanish, and that's what a latino is in Portuguese. Isn't that the way it works in the United States? I really didn't know this. If that's really used in the US to refer to Latin Americans who live in the US, I think the article should also talk about the use this word has in the rest of America, for example. This doesn't sound right to me.

By the way, I've never heard of "latino" as being offensive or anything. I am Brazilian, and for us, a latino is, again, a Latin American. Nothing else. No offensive connotations.--Kaonashi 17:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anything written in the article is inaccurate. In the United States, people of Latin American descent *are* called "Latinos" (or "Hispanics"). Whether that's fair or unfair is a separate issue.

MY GOSH PEOPLE its really clear..the word LATIN and its derivitive in america LATINO..when defining a people belong to the lands of ITALY, SPAIN, FRANCE..these truly are a LATIN people. THe word LATINO in SPAIN and ITALY refers to these people. Its cracks me up to think that an american born in LATIN AMERICA could define themselves as LATIN or LATINO...when they in fact may not have any LATIN blood in them . Perhaps all their blood is indian(originating in Asia/Siberia). A true ITALIAN AND SPANIARD are LATIN and EURO LATINO...and a Spaniard is the true HISPANO. THe word LATINO should not be placed upon Latin Americans, due to the fact many have no latin or spanish blood in them, and are indian or another european extraction.

Spaniards, Italians, Portuguese...

Fantastic. I love how English-speakers come here and claim to know what the word "latino" means in Spanish. They're probably Spanglish speakers.

In SPANISH, "latino" refers to posessing the quality of being Latin. And Latin refers to the language of the Roman Empire. If you ask any EUROPEAN what the "Latin Countries" are, the first ones that come to mind are Italy, Spain, Portugal--and sometimes even Greece, out of cultural similarity, though naturally their linguistic roots differ.

Now, WHY are Central and South America considered "Latin" America when North America isn't? Is it because the original inhabitants of Central and Southern America aren't also of evolved Mongoloid (classical physical anthropology terminology--four main ethnic groups: Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoide) descent? No, of course not. Is it because Latin was originally spoken in Central and South America and then the language evolved into Spanish, which was later brought to Spain? No, of course not. Yet somehow many fools still use this term incorrectly despite the absence of reason.

Mostly due to the effects of language (most Latin Americans, especially in Central America, have mostly native indigenous "Indian" blood, with some traces of Spanish, Italian or Portuguese blood--which themselves are NOT homogenous--thanks again to the Americans who think that they belong to a "national" European ethnic group), the Americas were "latin-ised"--they inherited a language that evolved from Latin (Portuguese and Castilian) and, in much less measure, some of the culture that was brought over.

Now, Indians are being called Latins. The Latin countries are mostly in the Mediterranean basin, but by the HAIR-BRAINED definitions used here, the Romans--the very people who began use of the Latin language--would not be considered Latins.

Idiotic. Latinoeuropa 08:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It' unbelivible how much the american english languages takes pleasure to change the meanings of words; To take one people's name to apply only to another... Exemple "American" wich defines the inhabitants of the american continents is only badly applied to the united-statians (who strongly believe that they are the only ones to be americans... It is the same for the word "latin" (latino in spanish or italian), to apply only to the south and central americans, and especially to those who are not latin (white mediterranean people from south-west Europe) If you're interested to this discussion I incitate you to see this very interesting discussion : http://www.confusedkid.com/primer/archives/2003/09/latino_vs_hispanic.php And to those who continue to think that latin/latino means central and south americans only, I invite them to come and see the site of the union latine/union latina, the intergovernental organisation that associates all the latin countries : www.unilat.org

Gracias por el enlace a la discusión aquella (voy a suponer que eres español, però se sei italiano, dímelo, vai). Ya dejé un comentario allí en la lengua de los guiris estos, que ya me están sacando de mis casillas. La confusión que existe en las Américas no tiene nombre. Latinoeuropa 08:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, no soy ni italiano, ni Espanol. Soy frances. I have a solution to stop the confusion. It is a new word that would be created and applied only to describe things and people from latin-america. Latin-americans like to call themselves "latino" because they say that "latinoamericano" is too long. the problem is that "latino" (wich means latin) already refers to countries of south-west Europe (since more than 2000 years). The word I propose instead of "latino" is "LATICANO". this word is short, could have a feminin form "LATICANA" and an english form "LATICAN". While "latino" (without "americano") his just a reference to latin Europe, the word "LATICANO" is clearly including "latino" and "americano" in the same word. So all the components of latin american culture could be included (the european one and the american one) I hope that this new word would find a developement in the USA because it is much much more accurate than "latino" to speak only about people of South and Central America. in this case "latino" will be used the way it always have been used to refer to latin-languages speaking countries.

Pardonnez-moi. France is a marvelously diverse country and some elements of it are Latin to the core, while others are pure Deustche or Celtic. I have found as a result that some French resent being considered Latin while others do identify themselves as such. "Latican" is a fine contribution and I´ll personally make a point to using it with people. You should start a wikipedia article! Latinoeuropa 21:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whee! This is meant to be only at least as much a reprimand to those English-speakers who claim knowledge of the Spanish meaning of "latino" as it is tho User:Latinoeuropa and his/her anonymous co-insultant of English-speakers for the definition of "latino". Wikipedia is DESCRIPTIVE, not PRESCRIPTIVE. American English usage has as its PRIMARY usage of the term "latino", the meaning "a Latin American", i.e. an inhabitant of Latin America, which is described as "That part of the Western Hemisphere south of the U.S., in Mexico, Central America, the West Indies and South America, where Spanish, Portuguese & French are the official languages." (Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language. The World Publishing Company, New York and Cleveland, 1968.) Just because you object to the confiscation of the word "latino" by English does not make you authorities on the subject of how it is used, NOR HOW IT SHOULD BE USED. The word is an ENGLISH word, and any description of it in the ENGLISH Wikipedia should be constrained ONLY by its use in English, NOT by how you feel it SHOULD be used, based on its origin. Please keep this in mind, in conjunction with the Wikipedia policy of NPOV ONLY articles, when editing this or any other articles in the ENGLISH Wikipedia. Tomer ^TALK 09:53, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Allo Tomer. If you´re going to reprimand anyone, please write more coherently. EMPHASIZING THE SAME THING TWICE ("how it should be used") isn´t going to make you more "right". By the way, when you say that "latino" is an "ENGLISH word"--are you referring to the country known as England? Or the language? You´re not very specific. This isn´t an "English word"--it is a word that English-speakers of American nationality have misappropriated. Several European countries have used the word "birra" from Italian, and when using it in plural, they use their own grammatical rules (often "birras" instead of "birre"), yet nobody is arrogant enough to claim the word as their own, and not an Italian word. If you believe that Wikipedia should limit itself to merely reproducing the most basic sort of definitions, then why don´t you alter the entire Latino article to satisfy the Webster definition? Not everything is neatly etched in stone and an issue may have several dimensions and conflicting contexts. The word "latino" is one of them. Naturally there are differing point of views--what you suggest is the American one should be imposed upon all other points of views by mere virtue of this page being written in the ENGLISH (not American) language. In addition, your reasoning is entirely flawed: does knowledge when language changes? If so, I wouldn´t want to hear you quoting anyone who didn´t write in English (so say goodbye to Kant, Confucius, Leibniz, Homer, Seneca, etc). What some of us wish to do here is to clarify blatant misinformation ("latino" meaning "latinamerican" in Spanish) and to offer an alternative point of view--NOT IN LIEU OF THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE, BUT IN TANDEM. Perhaps you see this as somehow unfair, and you think it gives you the right to reprimand others and PRESCRIBE your own narrow pointn of view while we were DESCRIBING the true complexity of the issue. Pretending disagreement doesn´t exist isn´t going to negate its existence. Plenty of us from the Eastern side of the pond are fed up with the ridiculous categories your US Census invents and the stereotypes we have to deal with from your ketchup-ordering tourists. And as I said before, we are exposing an issue via writing a different point of view ALONGSIDE the American one--not replacing it. And need I remind you that what you seem to wish to for is for your point of view to replace ours. Do we have the same standards or do we not? Latinoeuropa 23:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the use of the word "latino"

The word latino should not be used to describe any group of people in america because it is grossly inacurate. Most people in the United States use "Latino" to define the brown/bronze/medium skinned race. Sometimes it can sounds as a derrogatory statement because its not a concrete name. Compared to the other races who call them selves simply by their chosen color, bronze/brown individuals should be called the same. Just because the dictionary says one thing doesnt mean its true forever. Many words in the dictionary are slang, and are only added because alot of people use it. But this doesnt mean that it is true, or that it is not racist, or that it is a good definition. Everyone knows that latin is the language of old rome, all the way across the atlantic ocean. The only reason that many people in south america use the word latino is because it has become a popular term, and the majority of them dont concern themselves to the origins of the word. There are black people and white people in south america defining them selves as "latino," just because they live in south america. I find this very confusing for everyone, and should not be teached as a definition because it causes more chaos. Also, there are asian people in south america as well. Should they be called latinos? yes or no? there would be some argument of this question. So the term "latino" does more good than harm, it alienates brown/bronze people living in the united states, and it also alianates asians living in south america, because i dont think anyone would call asians latinos. More people should use definitions that work for all races.

Greeks

Speaking of how not to use the word Latino or Latin, it emphatically does not refer to Greeks. During the time of the Roman Empire, the Greek and Latin cultural traditions remained strongly distinct, indeed occasionally hostile. As much as the Romans were influenced by Greeks, they were always the Greeks' rivals. After the fall of the Western Empire, differences between language and civilization led to the Great Schism between Roman Catholics (who spoke Latin in their church services, and were sometimes iconoclasts) and Eastern Orthodox (who spoke Greek, and made lavish use of icons). For several centuries, there were actually wars between the Venetians, who promoted a 'Latin Empire' in the Balkans, and the Greeks, on whom this quasi crusader state was imposed. Greeks today are not members of the Latin Union. Greek diasporas abroad do not consider themselves Latin-American or Latin-Australian. For all these reasons, I'm removing the wholly spurious mention of Greeks as being Latino. QuartierLatin1968 14:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC) _____

Woa, not all the Greeks agree with that. One of the official name for the Modern Greek language is ROMAIC - Not only Romans, but also Venetians, Italians, Dalmatians, etc dominated many Greek islands for centuries, leaving their cultural inprint.

And Yes, the Roman domination left some etho-linguistic presence in Greece: The Greeks are not an homogeneous people, and some of the groups are the ROMANIOTE (meaning ROMAN jews); AROMOUNIANS; VLASH; MACEDO-ROMANS, and I am happy to say that every people of these groups that I 've been in contact, are PROUD to be LATIN-GREEKS, or Helleno-Romano.

Likewise the Greci-Italiani from Calabria, that struggles to keep their Greek-Italian identity.

--Leonardo Alves 1 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)

What this article is about

This article is about what the word "Latino" is used to mean, not about what it should mean. Wikipedia is not here to create reality, or to fix improper usages; rather, it just reports on reality and usage. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)

---

it is NOT creating reality. there is a reality beyond the USA. its not about what it should mean but what it DOES mean beyond the American bubble. This is not USA WIKI it is Wikipedia in the English language.

Lusitano Transmontano 20:10 - 20 de Maio, 2006

---

I agree that this article have to express first : what the word originally mean (until a very recent time), and secondly to mention what are it usage in the reality. But the fact I want to point is that the world is not limited to the USA. American english is not either the international english. the fact that in USA, the word "latino" or "latin" become recently used to mean only hispanphones from south and central America should not change the meaning that still have this word in a lot of other countries who continue to refer to the original meaning : linked to the latin-based cultures of Europe and their former colonies. "latino" in th US english is just a regional slang that should stay a slang. American medias, mostly ignorant of the cultures of Europe and of the original meaning of "latino" are spreading their conception of latinity to Europe; It is difficult to accept for us to see in the satellite or cable chanels such TV like "latina TV" that ignore reject southern european of latinity.

Are they using it that way in English? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

If i may contibute something. In México, in public schools, in the class of human geography were are teached to considered the latin countries, those which speak a romance language, because it is asumed this countries have a common background. I found obvious that in the US they took the spanish word and used to refer to the most common inmigrant they found, hispanics. I doubt the term have the same meaning in England and other english speaking countries. The article should have the correct meaning, the meaning used in the US and the meaning used in other english speaking countries. As an english enciclopedia, maybe it's ok to be english-centric, but it should not be US-centric. Nanahuatzin 17:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that the word is used in common English parlance outside the US to mean something different? Tomer ^TALK 06:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Why can't you understand that "latino" just means "latin" ?! For english people (PS : from england) the latin people are of course the french, italians, spanish and other latin europeans... and their former colonies were they emigrate in important number like Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, or even Cuba or Mexico, even if in these countries the latin influence is also mixed with the african and native indian one. We are fed up to hear such ignorance in American movies, American-influenced medias (most of them in the world are now...), pop culture, etc.. like "latin music" "musica latina", "latin bomb", "latina tv", "grammy latin awards", etc. applied only to caribean countries/central American countries ! Please open your eyes to the world ! This is not because there is a lot of emigrants from these regions in USA that the latin culture should be limited to these people... America in not the only continent in the world ! Latin/latino/latina is a term that is coming from and applies firstly to southern EUROPE !

Do I have to repeat myself? Or will you actually read what I asked and respond to it? Tomer ^TALK 21:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

MISNOMER

Why is this insistence to write this article as USA-centered, I believe it is the ENGLISH version of wikipedia and NOT USAWIKI. Why it cannot contain other aproaches for the term LATINO, except by that which many use errouneously in U.S.A?

Can you demonstrate that the word is used differently in English as spoken in other countries? Tomer ^TALK 07:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

ENDLESS DISPUTE

• Who is Latino?
• Would it be all the Latin-descendents?
• The term should it be used as it is in the original Latin languages?
• Should apply it only for American context?
• Should it be used as same as Hispanic?
• How to neglect Non-Latin cultures in Latin America?
• How to neglect non-Hispanic Latin cultures in the U.S.?
• A Cajun, a chicano, a Spanish-speaking Sephardi Ladino from Turkey or Greece, a Brazilian, an Azorean-American, a German-speaking Paraguayan Mennonite, a Mexican, a Filipino, a guy from Macao, an Indian-Portuguese-American (like Dinesh D'Souza), a (Neo-Latin based) Papiamentu speaker from Dutch Aruba; a Spaniard, a non-Spanish Speaker Mayan from Guatemala... who on earth is a Latino?

I believe that we cannot answer those questions and come to a satisfactory conclusion on Wikipeadia, since its principle of not publishing new scientific discovery or conventions to-be verified, but only mainline-accepted information. On my opinion this article should have:

• Etimology
• Usage in other languages; (check the wiki in those Latin versions)
• U.S. Census use;
  • Critique of US use; Since even the dispute is a point of attention
• What it should mean;

--Leonardo Alves 02:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

What people fail to realize is that this article can easily explain the meaning in the United States (even if it's incorrect in other countries) and then shortly thereafter explain how it is by definition incorrect in other countries. It's as simple as this - no need to simply completely undo what the word means in the United States. Cowman 20:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Leonardo: Except perhaps as an example of recommendations forwarded by griping prescriptivists within the "Critique of US use" section, the article specifically should not discuss what the word "should mean". Please review WP:NOT. Tomer ^TALK 23:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, the revert war has ended.. now what?

The IP constantly reverting this page appears to have left us, so it might be a good idea to finally add what Latino means in other countries down at the sad lonely subject title at the bottom of the page. Cowman109 15:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess I spoke too soon. I'm still trying to figure out what we can do about this revert war. Cowman^Talk 00:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the IP is blocked for now, let's see if it comes back in a while. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Guess what? They came back. Cowman^Talk 01:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Continuation of disputed text

The unsupported business about "Latino" having some usage other than the much-discussed (in the article) US usage has been sitting in the article for far too long again, now even with my citation request sitting in it. I'm taking the whole section out again, and at this point, think it safe to consider its uncited reinsertion as vandalism. Tomer^talk 16:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Systematic reverts by IP's beginning with 207.62.70.XX

Could some admin look into this? There is no argumentation or explanation provided at all for these reverts, simply the comment "(rv)", so I don't know what to make of it. Maybe someone is being lazy rather than an outright vandal? --Big Adamsky 22:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

And as for the usage disputes above, I think it would reasonable to include alternative hypothetical meanings as a matter of trivia or in order to quickly exhaust the subject and direct other meanings to other articles. Clearly, there is a connection between the linguistic descendants of Latin and the etymology of the word Latino as used in U.S. discourse on society and ethnicity. And so, it should be adressed. --Big Adamsky 22:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Write it up. The problem is, that the anons (and others), keep inserting all manner of assertions that the US usage is wrong, as well as unsupported assertions that the term is used [in English] to mean something other than the US usage, in other parts of the world. As for the simple comment "rv" and the reverts themselves, that it's POV pushing not laziness, has been pretty well established at this point. Tomer^talk 22:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for another week. With any luck he/she will eventually come to the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why an Aztec Calendar?

I find it schoking and completly unappropriate to show a native indian symbol to represent the term "latino". We have to remind to the people who choose to put this symbol that in the term "latino-american", "latino" is especially what refers to Europe, while "American" refers to the American continents. Pre-colombian culture may be present in some latin-american countries (as well as in USA and Canada by the way), but is far to be applied in all latin-american countries. Anyway, because "latino" comes from "latin" it refers to the Spanish, Portuguese and French parts of latin-american cultures but not native indian one (wich doesn't exists in Argentina, Cuba or Uruguay for exemple) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk • contribs)

I, too, find it odd that the Latino page contains a template referring to Aztecs and Mexican-Americans. According to Chicano, Chicano only refers to Mexicans from what I understand, and as such I don't see why Latino should have one template that only refers it to Mexicans. I'll see if I can find the person who added this template and ask them to see the talkpage. Cowman^Talk 19:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

These points should be discussed and I will put a pointer to this discussion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexican-Americans/Chicanos talk page, also I will remove the template from this article while we discuss this. c/s Joaquin Murietta 05:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• • And I have revised the infobox as it appears here to {{Chicano3}} Joaquin Murietta 05:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Copied from the Project talkpage:

I don't think it was just the image they were objecting to, bandit. It's just that-- with a few exceptions, everything on the template has to do with Mexican Americans, and among the articles linked, there is a heavy emphasis on Chicano stuff. While in theory, the template should appear on every article it links to, I too wonder about its appropriateness on this article. Just because the U.S. Census calls Mexican Americans "Latinos" doesn't mean that we all identify as such, nor does it mean we should try to monopolize the term to refer only to us.--Rockero 06:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Apparently we are having an argument about stating what languages Latino is a word in. In my opinion, as I stated in my edit summary, Latino is a word in many languages, and listing each language (at first only Italian was listed) that Latino is a word in is redundant and unnecessary. Instead, further in the article it can easily be explained that in Italian, for example, Latino means Latin. Also, looking at (possibly biased) American Dictionaries, theories point out that Latino may be short for the Spanish word Latinoamericano, meaning those who live in Latin America. If anyone disagrees with my by all means let's discuss this, but at this rate us reverting eachother won't solve anything. Cowman109^Talk 02:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Imaglang has nicely settled this issue by stating that the word Latino occurs in Romance languages. Hopefully that will settle this issue. Cowman109^Talk 02:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

...or not. Now bringing this to the Mediation Cabal - see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-04-18_Latino_Etymology. If you feel you're involved, feel free to add your name. Cowman109^Talk 17:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Is mediation necessary? Have you tried alternatives aside from attempting to reach the user in question? WP:3O For example? It seems to be only one editor who insists on placing the "Italian" info in...I agree with you btw Cowman...--Rockero 17:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well at first I thought I was the only one involved with that, so I went out to the informal mediation to get another opinion (I suppose WP:3O would have made more sense), but it seems more seem to agree with my point of view. I'll remove the mediation request. I did see Wikipedia:Three-revert rule but apparently his edits did not fit the criteria. I'll look into other alternatives. Cowman109^Talk 23:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Italian???

Please, who is putting that absolutely wrong phrase in the etymology section? First, the word in spanish is "latino" (I'm a native speaker), not "latin". The word is not italian, it's romance: all languages derived from latin have this word.

Etymologically: lat. latinus > (loss of -s and 'softening' of unstressed -u > -o) it. latino. Then, lat. latinum (in accusative!) > sp. latino (loss of -m and 'softening' of unstressed -u > -o). From the same accusative form latinum, fr. latin (stress on the last syllable shows loss of the ending -um or maybe -o). And so on. I don't know which is the process that gave por. latim, but I think it can be the loss of the medial -u- from the accusative (*latinm > latim), but it's only an inference. --Neigel von Teighen 22:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

About latim in portuguese. That's not "latino", but "latin" (the language). "Latino" in portuguese is also "latino". If you want to know, the etym of "latim" is lt. latinem (accusative of latin) > (loss of medial -e- with assimilation of -nm > -m) por. latim. lt. latine (a fosilized ablative meaning "in latin") > latin (loss of final -e) > por. latim (-n > -m). Hope this helps and sorry for all the mistakeful etym I gave. --Neigel von Teighen 21:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look above at Talk:Latino#Etymology, we also agree with you that Latino should not be listed as only Italian. We're looking into our options to settle this, as the user Henrymark is unresponsive. Cowman109^Talk 23:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh - is it over?

Henrymark has changed it to simply not mentioning where the language occurs at all... is everyone happy? I'm baffled myself. Cowman109^Talk 21:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No, he has transferred the link to romance languages in the Usage in the United States section. It's a good idea to stop this finally. --Neigel von Teighen 20:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I believe the mention of Latino more widely being associated with those who speak Romance languages has always been there. He simply removed the word occasionally, of which personally I see no problem with. The statement simply says that in the United States, Latino refers to some people, but elsewhere (more widely) it means something else. Cowman109^Talk 22:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Then, let's say this is over. --Neigel von Teighen 18:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the Henrymark issue is over. But wasn't there a lead at some point that said something like "Latino is a demonym for the inhabitants of Latin America and their descendents..."? If so, we should restore it. If not, we should write one. It is the standard format for wiki articles. Secondly, if we have the history of the Napoleonic origin, then we don't really need the entire etymology. That can go under Latin if it's not there already. How do others feel about this?--Rockero 00:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No way to put the etym under Latin. The words "latino" and "latin" have different origins (but obviously related). About the lead that you talk about, it seems to be much encyclopaedic-like, isn't it? I like it. --Neigel von Teighen 23:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, it appears this isn't over afterwards. I have looked to WP:3RR to deal with this in the past but the edits by the users in question, including Henrymark, are not exact reverts. I'm not quite sure what procedure to follow for this, myself. I was thinking along the lines of request for page protection, but this would inevitably come back again. Cowman109^Talk 18:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange pathological vandalism by "Henry Mark"

He insists in writing that Latino (from Spanish "Latinoamericano) is an Italian word. He also wants the word Latin to appear as much as often in the article to the point that Latin Americans no longer speak Spanish but Latin. He also wants it to be made clear that Canadian Quebecois are as "Latin" as anyone... This all seems pretty childish and pathological. When he is done editing can someone please revert his modifications to the article? --Burgas00 18:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern for the quality of the article but please be careful. Accusing someone of "pathological vandalism" could be construed as a personal attack. The concern is valid - if Latino is defined as a speaker of a Romance language, which it may be or may have been at some place at some time. That needs to be determined through research rather than affirmation, however. I think our friend is just having a hard time figuring out how to constructively contribute. Let's assume good faith as long as we can, shall we?--Rockero 08:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree with Rockero, HenryMark was clearly acting out of bad faith and rejecting any attempts to establish communication with him. As for the etymology of the word, it is important, in my opinion, so that the word Latino is clearly distinguished from the word latin. They are 2 completely different words with different meaning and different origin.--Guzman ramirez 11:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at some of Henrymark's earlier edits, he clearly tries to explain his edits by making slight additions to each revert he did. We must be careful in calling someone a vandal, as in his eyes we're likely people who are simply disagreeing with him. And it's just that - we have a content disagreement here, though it appears Henrymark is not familiar with Wiki policy. Cowman109^Talk 14:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it is quite clear that the English word Latino stems (only) from Spanish. That the word Latino exists in Italian, Romanian or Mongolian is irrelevant to the etymology of the English word.--Burgas00 18:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow! that was fast! Wikipedia DOES work!--Burgas00 18:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

After asking William M. Connolley about what we should do about this situation, Henrymark has been temporarily blocked for violating the Three Revert Rule. Hopefully this will make him aware of the controversy he is creating so that he will come speak with us. Cowman109^Talk 23:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

On the use of the word Latino

I've always found odd to refer to Romance-language speakers as "latinos". Latin was spoken by the ancient Romans and has been a dead language since the early Middle Ages. The modern Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, Catalan, etc...) have evolved from Latin (which forms the basis for their vocabulary), but are clearly no longer Latin. In fact, a modern Romance speaker cannot even ordinarily understand Latin . In particular, the grammar of most Romance languages is far simpler than Latin grammar (no noun or adjective inflection for case, only two grammatical genders as opposed to three, fewer tenses and irregular verbs, etc...). Calling Spaniards, Lusos, Italians or Frenchmen "Latin" as if the Roman empire had never fallen and they all still spoke Cicero's language is a complete nonsense. Using the same criteria, should Englishmen, Dutchmen, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, Prussians, Saxons, Bavarians, etc... be all generically called "German" for speaking languages that belong to the Germanic branch of the Indo-European family ? 200.177.8.146 00:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be true that the modern-day use of the word Latino is odd, but the languages are based on Latin, and so it seems logical. Nobody thinks, from the word "Latin" used in that context, that people in Latin countries are actually speaking the language Latin. ConDem^Talk 01:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There is also a fundamental difference between latins-- which include all latin-speaking peoples)¡-- ,and latinos --which only include Spanish-speaking latin americans(and sometimes Spaniards).--Guzman ramirez 12:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Or rather, a difference between people who speak a Latin-based language and Spanish-speaking Latin Americans. ConDem^Talk 17:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

" I've always found odd to refer to Romance-language speakers as "latinos". " That is your opinion, but it doesn't prevent the fact that the People of romance languages are called wuth the adjective "latin". anyone knows that it doesn't mean they are Roman citizens, but just that they are part of these nations of southern Europe who still shows common point that doesn't share the people of Germanic or Slavic culture. Nobody is claiming with "latin" to be superior or inferior to anyone. And by the way in Europe no one is offended to call the people of northern European culture as "Germanic". Because the germanic societies have common points that the latin ones doesn't have; that's just the way it is.

You are still mistaking the words Latino and Latin.

There is no problem in English wikipedia since we can distinguish the two:

Latin= People from European Latin countries (Spain, Portugal, Italy etc...)+ South Americans of Spanish/latin descent/language or Culture.

Latino=Latin Americans since its etymology is derived solely from this word. Some definitions include Spaniards since Spaniards are within the Latin American cultural sphere. But they never include Italians or French (and should normally not include Spaniards either.)

In Spanish this distinction does not exist. You call both groups "latinos". But since we are writing in English this is not a problem. In English, the Spanish word Latino has been borrowed ONLY in the sense of Latin Americans.

Its quite easy to understand.... if you think about it.

--Burgas00 14:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)