Talk:Latino (demonym)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Latinos and language

Latinos are Latin because they are speakers of Romance languages, which is the criteria. Also by their very identity as Latin Americans. As in: What kind of Americans are Latinos? They are Latin Americans.EDGARR (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Latinos speak Spanish, this is the official language of their respective countries. The second most popular language in the U.S. is Spanish. When Latinos and Non-Latinos alike learn a second language here, Spanish and French are probably the most learned in U.S. Public and private learning institutions. There is no language as American Spanish.EDGARR (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mm... I'm not sure what the relevance of that is. Anyway, what I want to tell you is that we should work out, here on talk, the precise phrasing for the edit you've been attempting lately. SamEV (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sam can you tell me what it is that you meant , I did not understand. How would you rephrase the edits so that it may be satifactory to both...EDGARR (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. I just rephrased it. SamEV (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK SAM, what now? More blackout of facts, so as to discriminate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EDGARR (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell the world SAM why you want to remove these facts.EDGARR (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed. You managed to conduct an edit war and get the article protected all by yourself!

And um, don't talk about me: I invited you to discuss, didn't I? SamEV (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

EVERY ROMANCE LANGUAGE SPEAKERS ARE CALLED "LATINE". IT INCLUDES SPANISH, FRENCH, ITALIAN, PORTUGUESE AND ROMANIAN PEOPLE. LATINO IS THE WORD TO "LATINE PERSON" IN SPANISH, SO IT IS HOW SPANISH PEOPLE IDENTIFY THEMSELVES IN U.S.A..

SPANIC IS EVERY PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPANISH LANGUAGE AS THEIR MOTHER TONGUE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.149.59.98 (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

HISPANIC = SPEAKS SPANISH. OF CAUCASIAN SPANIERD ANCESTORS.

LATIN OR "LATINO" = SPEAKS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: SPANISH, PORTUGUESE, FRENCH, ITALIAN, ROMANIAN, CATALAN, ETC.

LATIN AMERICAN = SPEAKS SPANISH OR PORTUGUESE

GOT IT???

DIZC

Comment

I was asked by User:EDGARR to take a look at the current discussion. Mind you that I have never inter-acted with Edgar before and that I have decided to take a look despite the fact that I haven't been feeling well lately and that I have never read the article until now.

I fail to see where Edgarr's edits to the article have created such a big fuzz. They have added to the understanding of article's subject and have not harmed it in anyway. I believe that well intended edits within the established policies of Wikipedia are acceptable.

Now Sam and Edgar, let me make myself clear that I am not taking sides on the issue, I am only expressing my opinion on the subject. I do agree with the protection placed by User:Caribbean H.Q. as a cooling-off period and that a consensus be set up. When we have a topic where various parties disagree, policy permits those involved to seek a mediator who can organize a consensus where the majority decide what is acceptable in an article. I myself will not mediate because of my health problems, but I can recommend User:Mindspillage, who is a fair person, in the event that any of you decide to continue with this issue.

I think that you are both good editors and that this shouldn't be such a big deal. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony. I'll do my part to achieve a compromise, but if a reasonable amount of time has passed without success, then we'll go to mediation. SamEV (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much Tony for looking into this and for your comments. It is my hope that we can now proceed in the Latino article in harmony, presenting an honest article of what being Latino entails, in a whole and complete manner. Get well soon...EDGARR (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"as one definition of ‘Latino’ in some dictionaries is described as a shortening of the term Latin American."

Yes, it's in the article earlier, and there's no need to repeat it in such a short article.

"Another term that Latinos use to self-identify is Latin, as Latin is also defined as "a member of any of the Latin peoples, or those speaking chiefly Romance languages, esp. a native of or émigré from Latin America."

Again, unnecessary, it is stated in the article elsewhere.

"Latinos are distinguished as Spanish speaking Latins, in contrast to Italian speaking or portuguese speaking Latins, etc. (However, all are Latins.)"

Are you kidding? That's normative nonsense! SamEV (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

HISPANIC = SPEAKS SPANISH. OF CAUCASIAN SPANIERD ANCESTORS.

LATIN OR "LATINO" = SPEAKS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: SPANISH, PORTUGUESE, FRENCH, ITALIAN, ROMANIAN, CATALAN, ETC.

LATIN AMERICAN = SPEAKS SPANISH OR PORTUGUESE

got it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizc net (talk • contribs) 23:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Case of Inclusion: There are real cases of Middle Easterners Being Regarded as or Being Latin, like singer/song writer Shakira

I have to interject and must mention that there are very real cases of Persians and Arabs having to turn up as Latin, since they ascribe to and speak the language of either Portuguese or Spanish fluently and hail from a Latin nation. I feel that this is an unfortunate lack of mention, even though how minute the minority, deserves mention. Please include as follows "Latino may incompass one or a mixture of any possible race, which includes Caucasian, African, Native American, Pacific Islander, Asian-Indian, Arab, or Persian decent." As this would be a much more fair and balanced entry. As a point, Shakira's family originally hail from Lebonan, an obvious Arab dominant nation - before immigrating to Columbia (correct me if I had the wrong country). Thank you for reading this entry. I hope we can come to a consensus and make the necessary changes. Psypho (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I made the following changes due entirely on the grammatical structure of the sentence. There were too many "or"'s for anyone person in their right mind to accept. So I corrected it. I also included the needed changes of including Arabs, Persians, and Asian-Indian's (Indians from India) into the entry. I doubt that anyone could contest me that they do exist amongst the Latin population and would then have to be included into this entry. If you feel otherwise, that they aren't real or not present in Latin populations, make an argument with facts, numbers, and references as to how that works. I'm skeptical it would be a very good argument. If it were to be left in, then be sure I'll hyperlink an entry for each new ethnic group, but right now, I have to leave. Sorry. But be sure I'll correct it later tonight.

" Like non-Latinos, a Latino can be White/Caucasian, Black/African American, Asian, Native American, Arab, Persian, Asian-Indian, or Pacific Islander. Again like non-Latinos, some may identify with more than one race, such as Mestizo (a bi-racial person of White/Caucasian and Native American descent), Mulatto (a person of White/Caucasian and Black/African American descent), Zambo (a person of Native American and Black/African American descent) or any other race or combination."

Psypho (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that Arabs, Persians and Asian Indians are categorized as races in the U.S.Maybe ethnic groups? Maybe you can write a section on ethnic groups of Latinos under the Paragraph on the racial aspects of Latinos if you want.EDGARR (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with your definition of race, as Arabs are somewhat physically different from Caucasians, and Arabs are noticeably different from Persians (the later look more European, but a bit more hairier - sorry for mentioning that, but they are), and Asian-Indians - well, of course, they aren't nothing like the Native Americans, and to clump them together with Asian is rather ridiculous in notion. India, in of itself, as myriad races that are different to the next, with features that are indicative to each. For simplification, it's my own personal arbitrary decision to unilaterally refer to them as Asian-Indian, for expressed purpose of simplification. Ethnic, I believe is a term used only to refer to culture at the basis level, such as Albanian versus Serbian (both of the Caucasian race, I believe). Psypho (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize as I removed your edit before I saw your comment here. I didn't mean to be disrespectful and have reinserted your entries.However I have to state that the races I entered are not my definition of race, I'm going by what the U.S. Census Bureau defines as the races in the U.S. I agree with you that some groups look somewhat different than others, that alone does not make them of another race. We can say that Irish and Italians look somewhat different and so on. However I stated the main races that make up the Latino population, someone added Pacific Islander race which probably make up the fewest of Latinos.(at least I don't know of any). I thought that they were including it because it is another race acknowledged by the U.S. Census Bureau and the government position is that a Latino can be of any race. So I did not question it. Maybe we should research the race issue further if you wish.EDGARR (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

here is a link with information of the recognized races from OMB [[1]], I don't want confusion in the paragraph which is about race. If you like feel free to begin another section. EDGARR (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Can a person who indentifies as Latino in the U.S. choose African American as a race? The following is an excerpt from the official OMB document on how to answer the race question for Hispanics/Latinos.

How Should Hispanics or Latinos Answer the Race Question? People of Hispanic origin may be of any race and should answer the question on race by marking one or more race categories shown on the questionnaire, including White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and Some Other Race. Hispanics are asked to indicate their origin in the question on Hispanic origin, not in the question on race, because in the federal statistical system ethnic origin is considered to be a separate concept from race.

Also in the United States there probably is a higher percentage of Latinos with African or African American blood, because of marriages or mixing with African-Americans, —Preceding unsigned comment added by EDGARR (talk • contribs) 01:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

987a123

Aside from the fact you're replacing more reliable sources with less reliable ones, the sources being cited don't even appear to support the claims being made -- the dictionary definition being cited is not for the word "Latino," for example. Please explain yourself, and make note of Wikipedia's policies regarding verifiability and original research. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Europeans are not Latinos.

French, spanish, portuguese, Italian or rumananian aren't Latinos. All they speak a romance language (derived fron latin languaje), but they aren't what americans consider Latino. Latinos are latin-Americans. In Europe (I'm European) the word latino doesn't exist, we call people from southAmerica southamericans, and people from central America centralAmerican.

You are correct that in the most strict definition, Latino is a term used in the U.S. referring to people of Latin American descent, especially those from Spanish-Speaking countries; however, the term is usually used interchangeably with Hispanic which does include Spaniards. Here are some dictionary definitions of Latino: [2] (indicates "of Spanish-speaking descent" too). Latino should not be confused with the term Latin, even though they both derive from the same word, because their usage in the U.S. in English is distinct. Because the U.S. Census Bureau uses the category Hispanic and Latino Americans as one, they are usually lumped into one, although some people still maintain the distinction. Bottom line is that some people include Spaniards as Latinos and some do not; however, there isn't much dispute that Spaniards are Hispanic (by scholarly definition and U.S. Census Bureau definition). Confusion arises when people start to incorrectly use Hispanic/Latino as a racial category, which it is not. Kman543210 (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

THE term we Latin Americans use to identify ourselves is LATIN, Latino is an artificially US-manufactured word that has many misleading overtones. Many people in the US seem to have problems accepting there are other "Americans" (latin or otherwise) outside the US and therefore make up silly terms such as latino. Also Kman543210 you say that in Europe you guys call people from South America South Americans and people from Central America Central Americans, but what about Mexicans???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.102.254.253 (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

actually your all wrong THE ONLY REASON SOUTH AMERICAN SPEAKS SPANISH IS CAUSE THEY OVER TOOK IT IN SLAVE ERA THATS WHY BRAZIL SPEAKS PORTUGUESE if your of spanish descent of spanish your hispanic end of stop been thick and look it up half of south amercian are european descent you said " we call people from southAmerica southamericans, and people from central America centralAmerican" if thats true then why used latino/latina all together then why have this article made we might aswell delete it if south american didn't naturally speak spanish spanish people took it like portugal took brazil spanish is what we called spanish people but its also there navie lanauge if tyour spanish or of spanish descent your "Hispanic" without question latino is not the best type and it is a word to use for people of a romance language derived fron latin language which is spoken in countries anymore so it can be italian french portguese spanish really but it isn't the way it is used or ever was. Hispanic or Latino (both terms mean the same thing) are people from or descendants of latin amercia or spain (AKA spanish speaking countries)Veggiegirl (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The word latino exists in Europe check out the link [[3]]. In fact it came to the Americas from Europe from people who considered themselves "Latinos" (Meaning Latins). In the United States, it has become popular to say that latino is short for latin American, (Since most of the visibly spanish speaking peoples are from Latin America.) however the original and authentic translation is "Latin" Anyone who watches Spanish news which originates here in the U.S. will hear the newscasters many times over identify themselves and the viewers as Latin. European Latin(o)s have assimilated more with the Anglo culture in the U.S. and are not usually seen as Latinos. (Speakers of Romance languages)EDGARR (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, EDGARR: let's discuss it here

We won't get anywhere otherwise. You're choosing to ignore my invitation to discuss, so I'm going to revert you again. If you put back your edit rather than talk, I'm seeking admin help. SamEV (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You chose to take down my factual contributions without talking first. Why did you remove I contributions. Your complete opposal and direspect not only to my contribution, but to those of others is against wikipedia's rules. The history of the talk page and the article is indeed evidence of your censuring anyone who does not further the point of view you are trying to push, even if is truthful and factual. There was no freedom of speech while you were a contributer to the Latino article as you reverted everyones contributions without regard to the truth.EDGARR (talk) 14:46, 19

October 2008 (UTC)Please discuss issues in the talk page before removing items that others have worked hard to research and edit. Do not disrespect others work!EDGARR (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Edgar, would be so kind as to explain why the article needs this? I helpfully underlined it so you know what I'm referring to: "The term "Latin American", in turn, though normally applied to inhabitants of Latin America, is nevertheless preferred by some individuals and organizations in the United States, as Latino, as well as meaning Latin, can be used is as a shortening of the term Latin American. As, such, Another term that Latinos are defined by [4] and use to self-identify is Latin, as Latino also means Latin.[5] [6][7], Latin is also defined as "a member of any of the Latin peoples, or those speaking chiefly Romance languages, esp. a native of or émigré from Latin America."?

Are you at all aware of the fact that those statements just don't make sense together, Edgar? Will you ever be? SamEV (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

yes sam, I will explain more later as I do not have the time needed time to explain completely. I have noticed that the way the article is written attempts to have Latinos not perceived as Latins. 2)attempts to disconnect European (mostly Spanish) Latinos from their European heritage. these are major issues. If you can edit this in a clear way in the article, (if you don't like the way I wrote it)I would not object....thank you

Why don't you try an altogether new approach? You could start by ceasing to call my edits "vandalism" (diff), how 'bout that? It's both a wrong and an uncivil charge.

I'd also like to remind you that it's recommended for editors to work out disputes on the talk page, not the article. So I have a request: leave the darn article alone. Stop re-inserting your edits. It's here where the task of working out a new version should be carried out, where we're free to add and subtract content at our discretion without harm to the article.

So below I pasted a copy of your last revision and made my modifications.

I removed "(e.g. "Latin Cuisine",1 [17] "Latin music", "Latin Grammy Awards")" because of lack of proof that there's notable use of "Latino cuisine", "Latino music" and "Latino Grammy Awards", and that if there is, we would need proof that they are used in the same sense that "Latin Cuisine", "Latin music", and "Latin Grammy Awards" are used, respectively. It seems original research for us to assume they're being used to mean the same thing. What do you think, Edgar?

Notice that I kept mention of the fact that some prefer to call themselves "Latin".

I removed "Latin is also defined as "a member of any of the Latin peoples, or those speaking chiefly Romance languages,esp. a native of or émigré from Latin America.[22][23][24]" because that's just a repetition of a dictionary definition given literally just nine lines earlier.

So those are my changes, Edgar. If you don't like them, relax. Just modify them and explain as I did. But do it here, not by reverting the article. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Similar and related terms

In many instances "Latino" is used interchangeably with the terms "Latin" and "Latin American",[18] as Latino is also defined in the English language as a "Latin inhabitant of the United States".[19] As a demonym, though, "Latin" can have other meanings:[20][21]

• "a native or inhabitant of Latium; an ancient Roman."
• "a member of any of the Latin peoples, or those speaking chiefly Romance languages, esp. a native of or émigré from Latin America."
• "a member of the Latin Church; a Roman Catholic, as distinguished from a member of the Greek Church."
• "A Latino or Latina."

"Latin American" may also not mean the same as "Latino," depending on which definition of the latter is used. A Spaniard, for example, though a "Latino" by some definitions, is not a Latin American. The term "Latin American", in turn, is normally applied to inhabitants of Latin America; nevertheless, some individuals and organizations in the United States do prefer to identify as "Latin American", while others prefer "Latin". "Latin American" is defined as:

• "A native or inhabitant of Latin America."[25]
• "A person of Latin-American descent."[25]

because of lack of proof that there's notable use of "Latino cuisine", "Latino music" and "Latino Grammy Awards", and that if there is, we would need proof that they are used in the same sense that "Latin Cuisine", "Latin music", and "Latin Grammy Awards" are used, respectively. It seems original research for us to assume they're being used to mean the same thing. What do you think, Edgar?

the paragraph I wrote has been in the article for over a year and describes how Latino is interchangeable with Latin

hence Latin Cuisine","Latin music", and "Latin Grammy Awards among others. 1. first on Latin Cuisine - the links provided, if read used the terms synonymously consistently. 2. Who plays Latin music, who listens to latin music. Salsa is considered one form of latin music. Eddie Palmieri, Tito Puente, Ray Barreto. It is obvious what is referred to, and the links are abundently available. 3. Again with the Latin Grammy Awards, I had provided links which were removed with the mayor of New York speaking on the Latin Grammy's and referring to the participants as Latino and Latin interchangeably. The participants are Latin(os) mostly from the the United States, Latin Americas, Spain, and even Italy participated. the dictionaries define latino as : A person of Hispanic, especially Latin-American, descent, often one living in the United States. and also either meaning "Latin", or possibly a clipped form of latinoamericano, "Latin American".....I don't understand what the confusion is. The definition itself indicates one of the ways Latino is used is as 'Latin'. There are abundant instances of this in the real world. These are just 3. I believe the paragraph needs to be reinserted as examples of how Latino and Latin are used interchangeably.—Preceding unsigned comment added by EDGARR (talk • contribs) 03:49, 23 October, 2008 (UTC)

This link checks out. It uses "Latin cuisine" several times, including the story's title, and on one occassion uses "Latino dishes", in all cases referring to Latin American cuisine (not US Latino cuisine). But the article already provides definitions that equate "Latino" with "Latin American" (the second definition in the lead), and that equate "Latin" with "Latin American" (the second definition in the section we're editing, "Similar and related terms"). So what's the use of repeating it? Having said that, I'm not absolutely opposed to including that info.

Re: "Latin music" you write: "Who plays Latin music, who listens to latin music. Salsa is considered one form of latin music. Eddie Palmieri, Tito Puente, Ray Barreto. It is obvious what is referred to, and the links are abundently available."

What is being referred to? The bottom line is you have to provide reliable sources that call the same type of music both "Latin music" and "Latino music". Don't waste time arguing; just cite sources, Edgar.

Re: the Latin Grammy you write: "Again with the Latin Grammy Awards, I had provided links which were removed with the mayor of New York speaking on the Latin Grammy's and referring to the participants as Latino and Latin interchangeably."

No, no. It's the name of the award itself we're talking about. You're citing the name, in quotations ("Latin Grammy Awards") and saying that it is ALSO called the "Latino Grammy Awards": "In many instances "Latino" is used interchangeably with the terms "Latin" (e.g. "Latin jazz", "Latin Cuisine",1 [17] "Latin music", "Latin Grammy Awards")..." So you have to provide sources that call them the "Latino Grammy Awards". Don't tell me that the participants are interchangeably referred to as "Latino" and "Latin", and that therefore the award is, too. That's OR. Again, you're quoting the awards own name, not the ethnonym of the participants. I already know that the participants are referred to by any and all of these terms, so you don't have to educate me about it. Just give me reliable sources that call it the "Latino Grammy Awards". SamEV (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I'm not saying its also called the Latino-Grammy award. Its called the Latin Grammys because people Latin people participate in it, because it is of Latin culture and entertainment. The participants are Latinos. Latinos both from the Americas and Europe understand that Latino is synonymous with Latin, (the dictionary states this as one meaning, but little attention is given to this meaning by the anglo community), this is why the sponsors named it Latin Grammys. The same with Latin music. Latins play latin music, (or as you would say Latinos play latin music). They named the music Latin Music because latinos originated it. (However some sites as aol call it latino music, though). Latin Music musicians play the music, they self identify as Latin music players, so they call the music Latin Music. You seem to want them to self identify themselves as Latino Music players. You can't say they can't claim the music they play as theirs, unless, they call it Latino Music and call themselves Latino music players. Italian food is Italian because Italians cook it via their recipe's. Can you say, no way Giada, its not Italian because you have to find where it says Italo or italiano food? Or no way, because it was cooked in New York and not Rome? If you wish to call the people at the Latin-Grammies Latino instead of Latin, so be it, however you can't force these Latin(o) people to call their show what you want them to call it. My point (again) is that the participants (those you call Latino use the term Latino and Latin interchangeably.) It is their (these Latinos)show, they call it the Latin Grammies. As for the cusine- O.K. now we already know that latinos identify as Latin American and also as Latin. it's almost as if you wish U.S. Latin(o)s have the obligation to invent a whole new different culture just because they are here in the U.S., invent new foods so we may claim some ownership and history to it. We brought our history and culture, our 'Latin Cusine' with us (like the italians) We don't have to prove it originated in the U.S. for it to be Latino or Latin, we don't have to call it Latin and also call it Latino in the same sentence all the time, (just understand that these terms are used interchangeably.) We do not have to keep reiventing the wheel so to speak. Don't misunderstand, I am not trying to argue at all. I'am trying to get you to understand how the terms are used here in the U.S. esp. the east coast, and his is how is it is widely understood by Latin Europeans and Latin Americans. I will repost with refs. soon. Let me know either here or on my talk page what you think so we can cooperate....EDGARR (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"You misunderstand, I'm not saying its also called the Latino-Grammy award.[] Its called the Latin Grammys because people Latin people participate in it, because it is of Latin culture and entertainment. The participants are Latinos."

Then there's no misunderstanding, Edgar, because you're confirming what I wrote in my last reply.

Edgar, have you never seen people of a different ethnic group receiving an award that is named for a different group? For instance, some of the African American awards may give awards to certain White people who've contributed positively to the Af-Am community. I've seen non-Hispanic Whites receive Latino awards, too. So, if a White person receives an award from, say, the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), does that mean then that "White" is synonymous with "Colored"?

I honestly don't know what your answer to that one will be... SamEV (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

To put it simply, Edgar, you are guilty of a logical fallacy that can be summarized like this: if "a" is sometimes synonymous with "b", then calling something "a" is proof that one is also calling it "b". So if you say your friend is "Asian", are you therefore using "Asian" synonymously with "Oriental", since the latter is also applied to Asians sometimes ("was applied" is more like it, though)? Wouldn't you actually have to use the term "Oriental"? Or, when you say "Asian", are you also saying one of those negative epithets applied to Asians?

But, I remind you that you are the one trying to add disputed content. You need to cite sources, Edgar. SamEV (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Or, sticking strictly to your argument: if Carlos Mencia receives a Latin Grammy Award for a comedy CD, does that mean that "Latin" is being used synomously with "beaner", just b/c Mencia often refers to himself this way? (And don't tell me it's just comedy. I've seen him defend his use of that word in interviews. He embraces it.)

So as you can see, Edgar, I have some arguments of my own against your example(s). I suggest that the way out is for you to find examples of synonymous use of "Latin" and "Latino" that are more clear-cut, where you don't have to infer synonymy, because it is explicit, and I wouln't be able to dispute it. Shouldn't be too difficult if there's so much of it, right? SamEV (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all let me state that I'am not trying to add disputed content. You are attempting to remove content that has been in the article for over a year, and to which you had no objection earlier. Being objective, the weight of the evidence is that the Latin/Latinos who every year present themselves with these grammies are self identifying as latin. The same applies with the Latin Musicians. It's common sense Sam. Look up the meaning of latin and you will find that it applies to Latinos, More than one dictionary also defines Latinos as Latin. Be that as it may I will add links to the comments which convey this. The burden of proof would rest with you to prove that this somehow is not what is meant. Please add sources & references. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EDGARR (talk • contribs) 01:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The way I remember it, I did object about 1 1/2 years ago when you added it, but decided to let it go. Eventually, the reference was removed because it didn't support the claim. Therefore it is now unsourced in an otherwise fully sourced article. No can do. The only hope of a stable article, at long last, is for EVERYTHING to be sourced, as it once was. So I insist on that.

The burden of proof is for you to show me how your inference is not applicable to the "beaner" analogy, which you did not address. How about it, Edgar? SamEV (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember also, you objected. I provided valid links, you still objected. I had someone look at the article who said there was nothing wrong with my edits, you then left it alone. It is only NOW that the paragraph was removed by you. Now, the analogy of the NAACP given a one time award to a caucasion certaintly does not apply to people who call themselves Latin and have been for generations. That the dictionaries say they are Latin. That have been using the term Latin to describe their music and grammy show year after year after year. (Man, how old is Latin Jazz.) The sources did support the claim in fact anyone can see that. To have someone who is against and fighting hard to censure such truths is a different story. However I will re enter the articles with the sources. Any censure of that information will go through a review process. And may I say Sam that much of your work in Wikipedia is not only not sourced, but your own original thought. I expect that you respect the facts and the references I source, so we can get to the process of improving this article for the understanding of the Latin(o)people, you are discrediting. EDGARR (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"However I will re enter the articles with the sources."

Do you mean that you're going to break off discussion and begin edit warring instead of finding the source so we can re-examine it (relatively) calmly and settle the issue? Please clarify.

I notice you're showing similar behaviour at Hispanic and Latino Americans, Edgar. Doesn't look like you're learning from your mistakes, unfortunately.

"And may I say Sam that much of your work in Wikipedia is not only not sourced, but your own original thought."

I would hope you'd help me identify my mistakes. I try to be perfect (how silly, right?), but I fall well short of it. So by all means, point them out. I mean it, too.

"...the Latin(o)people, you are discrediting."

I'll overlook that typical, irrational charge by you. Just find sources so we can get done with this. Bring them here and let's examine them. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it has been taking a while but I've had other matters to attend to. I'll be reposting my paragraph to the Latino article with refs. If you then want to discuss you can post here at this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.4.139.236 (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sam you not only took down perfectly valid statement with refs. and added your own material without taking it to the talk page, but then sort of "demand" that others first take the material they want to add to the talk page. What kind of a double standard is that?! If you really want to cooperate then things must be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EDGARR (talk • contribs) 00:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

EDGARR, please bring your proposed changes to the talk page rather than engage in an edit war. I understand that both of you are reverting each other, but you should recognize that so many of your edits have been previously reverted by different editors other than SamEV. Just because something is sourced, doesn't mean that it's relevant, reliable, or written well. Kman543210 (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Edgar, do you see that box 2 1/2 screenfuls below the headline? If you do, PLEASE, I'm begging you, please, just enter that supposedly reliable info into that box. Make whatever changes you want. If your info checks out, IT CHECKS OUT. We'll put it back in the article. But don't try and sneak around, changing what we agreed. Quit bellyaching and modify that box. The sooner you do that the sooner will finish with this tediousness. SamEV (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What box are you referring to Sam? Also Kman remember when you edited my comments that Latinos can put African American as a racial category and you said that did not make sense. You cited the domincan community who may be considered black but not necessarily African American. I gave you the benefit of the doubt because you because you made a point even though I'm aware that black Puerto Ricans in some cases refer themselves to African Americans and have every right to as they are Americans at birth. I am not unreasonable. Now Sam tell me what problem you have with Latinos being Latin, that Latinos and non-Latins have been referring to this populationl as Latin for years upon years. This is very relevant as it is a large part of their identity. Even their products are known by the term Latin. As we discussed Latin jazz, Latin music, even Latin cuisine, even Latin America! There must be a reason behind your behaviour.EDGARR (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The box below. SamEV (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Edgar, you're not playing ball. The reason I asked you to enter your edits in the quotation box on this page is to avoid edit warring. For example, your last edit needs modifications. But I don't want to modify it on the article, because you're almost certain to restore your version, no matter what you say -- it's the way it's been for nearly two years, so I speak from experience. That's why I decided that we should leave the article alone and instead work it all out here. I showed you what my changes were and explained them (you can read the explanation again at the top of this very thread; but I'll paste it below for you if you can't see it either) and asked you to make whatever proposed changes you want in that same box. It is meant to avoid this back and forth nonsense in the article. I'll also remind you that your claim that that stuff was there for a long time doesn't preclude it from being challenged. I'm challenging it. And it's not been there such a long time: you inserted it a just a few months ago after I took a wikibreak. SamEV (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I now see that you did enter changes in the Q box. I'll reply a bit later. SamEV (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, Edgar. I propose these changes:

1. "In many instances "Latino" is used interchangeably with the terms "Latin" and "Latin American",[18] as Latino is also defined in the English language as a "Latin inhabitant of the United States".[19]"

I changed "many instances" to "some instances" and rearranged the clauses in the sentence.

2. "The term "Latin American", in turn, though it is applied to inhabitants of Latin America, is also preferred by some Latino individuals and organizations in the United States,[21][22][23] as one of ways ‘Latino’ can be used is as a shortening of the term Latin American."

I changed "Latino" to "Hispanic" (more below), modified "though it is applied" to "though it is most often applied", and took out "as one of ways ‘Latino’ can be used is as a shortening of the term Latin American" because I think that clause implies we know what their reasons are, which would be OR. It should be enough to say that they use it, and to leave it at that.

3. Another term that Latinos are defined by 1 and use to self-identify is Latin, as Latino also means Latin."

You should avoid using the term "Latino" in an unqualified way in the very article that discusses its multiple definitions and uses. For example: when you say "Latinos", what precise people are you referring to? People in Spain? Or just those in the U.S.? So I propose something like this: "Some (or many) Americans of Hispanic origin also identify themselves as "Latin"."

4. "Latin is also defined as "a member of any of the Latin peoples, or those speaking chiefly Romance languages, esp. a native of or émigré from Latin America."

As I already explained, that whole sentence is unnecessary, because all it does is repeat a definition from about 9 lines earlier. I bolded it for you below so you can see what I'm talking about. SamEV (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sam, I won't have but the time to go over until this Wed. But don't forget the relationships where Latino and their associated products are known by the term Latin. As we discussed Latin jazz, Latin music, Latin Grammy, Latin cuisine etc.

"Latin cuisine"? Yes. You provided a source. "Latin jazz", "Latin music", "Latin Grammys"? You provided no source for verifying that by "Latin" they also mean "Latino". That's the difference. SamEV (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

HISPANIC = SPEAKS SPANISH. OF CAUCASIAN SPANIERD ANCESTORS.

LATIN OR "LATINO" = SPEAKS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: SPANISH, PORTUGUESE, FRENCH, ITALIAN, ROMANIAN, CATALAN, ETC.

LATIN AMERICAN = SPEAKS SPANISH OR PORTUGUESE

"LATINO" AS USED IN THE USA, REFERING TO SPANISH SPEAKERS ONLY, IS WRONG. Italians are as "Latinos" as Mexicans and they´re not called that in USA

GOT IT??? DIZC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizc net (talk • contribs) 23:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hispanic/Latino

If you want to make changes to the words I chose from Latino to Hispanic, first you have to define clearly and precisely what you are defining those terms. I see that there is an unbalanced quote where it tries to seperate the terms Hispanic and Latino so as to say they are not the same, but the second part of the quote is omitted as it states that the different Latin American people have differences over to which one they identify with. Also Latin music is Latin because the folks who created the music self identify as Latin. YOU are choosing to call them Latinos. Latin Americans self identify as Latins and they named their music is known as Latin music. the Latin grammies was created by a Mexican American (Your may choose to call him Latino). Anyhow here's a link to a pairing of the terms as used by Latinos/Latins for the Grammy and music [[8]] , see where it say Latino music and Latin interchangeabley. However be aware that the most used term by far is Latin Music. Also see [[9]] And also see a magazine which was very popular and whose name reflects to the people you call Latino [[10]]. If you go through these you will see the that the 'Latinos' you speak of self identify as Latin, Hispanic and Latin American and use these interchangeably or in a synonymous manner. Latin music, Latin Jazz these are terms the people you call 'Latinos' use to identify their music. They do do use Latino Jazz or Latino music. The following is an excerpt from the editors of Latin N.Y. Magazine as an example: "The Vision of LNY Magazine in 1967 was to have a Latin Magazine written in English for the Latin American community of New York City. The plan was to assemble a group of unpaid freelance writers, entertainers, community activist, family friends and those who had a strong conviction and involvement in the community to help launch a magazine geared for the Latin community of New York City. It was a monumental task, a total commitment of volunteers who had a strong belief in the success of the magazine. Unfortunately due to lack of finances and corporate advertising the magazine was an overwhelming success for our readers for the short time that it was in existence. LATIN NY pioneered the way Latin Magazines are written today". -end- If you can't understand this SAM you are not Latino and really do not understand much about the people you refer to as Latino. Also see [[11]]and [[12]] I would like to believe that you are working in good faith, and not trying to help genocide a culture. EDGARR (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"If you want to make changes to the words I chose from Latino to Hispanic, first you have to define clearly and precisely what you are defining those terms."

Well, as I explained, if a word can be understood to mean different things and a default definition is not indicated, all it will do is confuse readers. But somehow I failed to notice that using "Hispanic" instead of "Latino" does not remove the ambiguity, so I undid those changes. S

"see where it say Latino music and Latin interchangeabley"

No, I do not. Nowhere did I find "Latino music" on that page. I did find "Latino música"! But I hope you're not trying to use that as evidence of the use of "Latino music" (they're different languages). Meanwhile, this other link never uses the word "Latino" at all, so it's irrelevant. S

The music of the people you refer to in English, as 'Latinos', use the English term Latin and 'Latin Music'to identify themselves and their music. You will find this in their in their CD's and band names. They do not use the term Latino, You are the one that is attempting to force this name on them. I will find band names, and CD titles with the term Latin, so you can see that the people YOU identify as Latino use Latin as self identification. And by the way, I don not have to find where Latino music is used. Just the fact that "Latino" composers, musicians etc... call their music Latin suffices. (E)

"Also Latin music is Latin because the folks ......."

Edgar, you're wasting your time trying to convince me of how you think people ought to be identified here. I'll only believe reliable sources. S

I linked you to some reliable sources, Latin NY magazine clearly indicates the Latin American Community in NY (the Latino folks you speak about) and as you can see this is not new, we have been referring ourselves this way for years upon years. (E)

"If you can't understand this SAM you are not Latino"

OK, let's suppose I'm not Latino? So what? And again, so what? S

because you have no knowledge of the Latin (American) population and culture, especially in NY. And you are making it impossible for us to express our culture in this article. The music issue is a perfect example. Our music is known as Latin Music and Latin Jazz is called that because of the Latino influence in the jazz. You keep censoring this information. Like I said earlier I will provide refs. And if you are not Latino why what motivates your persistant refusal to publish that "Latinos" are known as Latins, and have been self identifying that way for years. After all, the word they consistently use in spanish to self identify is "Latino" which in English means Latin. (E)

Now on to "Latin Week NY, The Latino Alternative Newspaper". Look, though you may think it clearly equates Latin and Latino, just substitute another word for "Latin" in the name. Go ahead. For example, suppose its name were "XYZ Week NY, The Latino Alternative Newspaper". Given such a name, and per your reasoning, we'd be every bit as justified in saying that they're using "XYZ" as a synonym of "Latino". Tell me why we wouldn't? And "Latinnews" proves nothing, as the "Latin" in the title is clearly just a shortening of "Latin American" (they write: "Since 1967, Latinnews (Latin American Newsletters) has..."). Keep in mind that the word "Latin" exists in its own right, and refers to nations in Europe, not just Latin America. S

I understand that Latin also refer to Nations in Europe and I in no way deny that, neither I believe are the authors of Latin Week NY. However Latin Americans also have the right to refer to themselves as Latin, and do. The Latin Week NY 'The Latino Alternative Newspaper' is a valid reference. Whether you want to admit it is a different issue. This is the bias I am speaking about. Your refusal to admit that the people you call Latinos refer to themselves as Latin, and have been for years. I will also add that they have every right to self identify as such. (E)

"I would like to believe that you are working in good faith, and not trying to help genocide a culture."

Edgar, what the hell is your problem?! I'm going to report you next time you violate WP:NPA, do you understand? For now, I'll just put a final warning on your talk page. S

But to deliberately end on a positive note, LNY Magazine does provide a reliable, if somewhat dated, example wherein "Latin" = "Latin American". SamEV (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

By saying that "I would like to believe that you are working in good faith, and not trying to help genocide a culture," I am not attacking you, (please reread WP:NPA so your "final warning is erroneous and I ask you to remove it" also, if you want we can mediate this with the person Tony the Marine suggested. (E)

You mean there's hope after all. Not only does he equate Latin with Latin American, but those living in new York. (which is in the U.S.) If you are not really trying to censure information, all I ask is that you keep an open mind. You may be from far away and honestly do not really understand Latin(o)s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EDGARR (talk • contribs)

"The music of the people you refer to in English, as 'Latinos', use the English term Latin and 'Latin Music'to identify themselves and their music." (E)

True. But I also have three words for you: reliable sources, please. S

"Just the fact that "Latino" composers, musicians etc... call their music Latin suffices." (E)

You know what suffices? Reliable sources. S

What I mean is that when I source albums or record labels with the term Latin, Latin music, Latin Jazz it suffices as a reliable reference of itself. (If the source is the people that dictionaries describe as Latinos.) (E)

That's a confused response, but I think I know what you're driving at. You're saying that if a musician produces a work of "Latin music", and that musician is what reliable sources call a "Latino" (but wasn't it I who was calling them that, according to you?), then just like that, the musician is "Latin" too!

Not exactly (E)

Problem is, that's synthesis. And utterly unnecessary. Edgar, you're all about redundance. Let me let you in on a secret: what you're doing is completely unnecessary. Get a clue: Latino musicians are Latin: per some definitions of "Latin" and "Latino", not because they play Latin music. You're wasting your time with this cart-before-the-horse reasoning of yours. But because you've insisted on adding just that kind of nonsense, I've responded by insisting that you source it.

And the kicker: some of those definitions are already in the article and have been since at least last year! SamEV (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason Sam I first began writing these things is because when I would state it simply,you kept reverting it even though the dictonary definitions validated my writings, so I had to be redundant and find ways that you could see my point. However I don't believe the relations and productions of these arts ridiculous. (E)

They never validated the OR, normative stuff with which you keep accompanying the info you do source! SamEV (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"And you are making it impossible for us to express our culture in this article." (E)

Er, again, this article is not a soapbox. S

"Our music is known as Latin Music and Latin Jazz is called that because of the Latino influence in the jazz."

I've never said otherwise.

"And if you are not Latino why what motivates your persistant refusal to publish that "Latinos" are known as Latins..."

Maybe I'm just trying to keep you busy here so you won't have time to disrupt other articles? Just kidding.

Though it's mostly in your head now, I think it's a fair charge up to a point. I used to be of the sincere view that "Latin American" already existed for people in Latin America, "Latino" was used for those of Latin American origin in the U.S., so just plain "Latin" should best apply to those in Europe. There were some anti-Latin American editors writing worst things and you lumped me in with them. But do you remember Danedouard's rewrite? He began to make this a better sourced article (with both your help and mine), and the trolls began to leave the article alone. I learned from his example and began to insist on sources (and not just I, but also Ogre, and Filipe, and others then and now, like Kman). The problem is that you've persisted in adding completely normative and unsourced statements like "some Latinos call themselves Latin, which is correct because..." Well, you can't write that. You should state that they do, period. You're not the judge of "correct" use.

The reason I stated that is correct is because, you keep reverting when that Latinos self identify as Latin. So I wrote this in and followed it with defintions of Merriem-Webster dictionary that shows this. I was not being the judge, I was using the dictionary definitions (and sourced them) to show that by these definitions, it is correct usage, as at the time you did not seem to agree this was true. (E)

I reverted all unsourced statements, no matter what they said. I removed some of my own that I couldn't source. SamEV (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That was part of the problem, because you felt the term Latin should apply to a certain group, you tried to deny it to a group who also uses it. This in a sense was censorship of the truth, I hope that now we can work together to make this article better.

While there was anti-Latin American editors in the dicussion page, the only who kept reverting material, even sourced material was you. I hope this has now changed. I remember Felipe who I believe inserted a part of a quote, the part that implies Latin Americans should be called Latinos, but he left out the other part of the quote that states what part of the Latin American population prefers Hispanic, thisis unbalanced and the statements and points made in that half of the original quote needs to be put back in it's proper context. I don't think Kman contributed at back at that time, and I do not remember Danedouard, I will look back at my archives. However this could go on and on. So I will write some facts will refs. as there are people in the world who do not know these facts.

"the only who kept reverting material, even sourced material was you"

Are you sane? You've been reverted left and right by everyone and his mother! For the very reasons I've given!

And it's Filipe, not "Felipe"; I didn't say that Kman was around then, you just miscomprehended again; and stop bolding your replies. All you're doing is drawing attention to your awful writing ability. SamEV (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"I will also add that they have every right to self identify as such."

Unnecessarily, since you should know well by now that I agree.

" if you want we can mediate this with the person Tony the Marine suggested."

Not just yet. Mediation won't save you from having to provide -- sources.

"You may be from far away and honestly do not really understand Latin(o)s."

Wrong on both counts. SamEV (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The only material I reverted was unsourced anti Latin American writings that's sole purpose was to marginalize the United States Latin American community and give the public a vague and false understanding of them. However Let's begin by putting in the article the latino contributions of Latin Music, jazz, etc. and how they identify as Latin. We can begin with some of the links I provided like latin NY magazine [[13]] and "Latin Week NY, The Latino Alternative Newspaper". EDGARR (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's. The quotation box is still below.

And again, put new comments at the bottom, and stop misusing boldface. SamEV (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti Latin American propaganda

please people, we are trying to improve this article, no Latin American hate propaganda or agenda's please. This is most unhelpful and Wikipedia frowns against such things. EDGARR (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than a blanket statement, can you be more specific? I've noticed in many of your previous edit summaries, you accuse people of different things, but you've never been specific. Thanks. Kman543210 (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you could be more specific on my statement I may be able to go back to see to what I was referring to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EDGARR (talk • contribs)

I missed that comment. Hmm... looks like an attempt at a personal attack, Edgar... SamEV (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

SAM you just wrote "There were some anti-Latin American editors writing worst things". I'm asking for past editors not to begin damaging the article, or to attempt to influence the current editors to add false limitations or to censure factual information as they they have done in the past. I didn't understand the comment about an attempt at a personal attack. However I will join you and be strict with applying and asking for sources.EDGARR (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It seemed like an attack directed at me. I accept your explanation that it wasn't.

And again, our aim is to produce a version that we find satisfactory, checked and double-checked to avoid misunderstandings, and then to put that new version in the article. So modify the article section copied on this page as you see fit and reference the changes. SamEV (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

My first edit is (in italics) to add the explanation for the OMB'S change from the single term "Hispanic" to the term "Hispanic and Latino". "Latino" was officially adopted in 1997 by the United States Government in the ethnonym "Hispanic or Latino", which replaced the single term "Hispanic".[7] ." 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. U.S. official use of the term "Hispanic" has its origins in the 1970 census. The Census Bureau attempted to identify all Hispanics by use of the following criteria in sampled sets:[8] The source is section D OMB's Decisions under paragraph title "Terminology for Hispanics" [[14]]. This can be placed before or after the sentence "Latino" was officially adopted in 1997 by the United States Government in the ethnonym "Hispanic or Latino", which replaced the single term "Hispanic".[7] ." The complete paragraph states (in italics): Terminology for Hispanics.--OMB does not accept the recommendation to retain the single term "Hispanic." Instead, 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. talk) 14:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Spanish speakers and persons belonging to a household where Spanish was spoken Persons with Spanish heritage by birth location Persons who self-identify with Spanish ancestry or descent —Preceding unsigned comment added by EDGARR (talk • contribs) 13:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Knock yourself out, Edgar. We'll delete it when we're done. SamEV (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Moved to User:SamEV/Latinosandbox. No subpages in mainspace please, even temporarily... Fram (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I already replied on your talk page. Thanks again. SamEV (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Latinos/Latinosandbox. Fram (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you (for the 3rd or 4th time). SamEV (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean, please explain EDGARR (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean this: click here and edit. It's a copy of the entire article, so you'll be able to see your edits just as they'll appear on the real article.

And it seems to bear repeating: we're not editing the article, not even one iota, until we've settled it all. Editing before then will just return us to where we were before. SamEV (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It goes both ways sam, now however what do you mean until we've settled it all.? So far that is all I have until I do more research, gather sources and write material.

ALL. As in: you want to propose an edit? I want to propose an edit? We discuss it, show whatever sources we've got to support it, and when we're sure we agree on it, we go forward. Comprendes ahora? SamEV (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And just so you know, I have no issue with the info you just added. It's currently in the article anyway, in a footnote: which I added! But the matter is one of principle. We're not editing except in one, big edit. That's our deal, and you knew that already. SamEV (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

On the tag: fine. SamEV (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I challenge you to find where I agreed to ONE BIG EDIT. That is ridiculous, like I said this is the edit I have worked at this time. What are we supposed to do wait months until we work out all the details before this bias filled article is corrected. Fine but meanwhile I have to dispute its neutrality. I will now edit in the OMB's paragraph on the link you provided. However the OMB'S paragraph far removed from its relevant paragraph and body of the article sort of 'misplaces' it.EDGARR (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Really, Edgar? You never got that the whole purpose of my copying that section here, twice, was so we could negotiate a new version of the article? How many times did I say it on this page? How many times did you raise an objection? But I'm glad you agree now that you know. It's hands off for both of us. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

One edit at a time is good, but waiting for all edits to be done would be a waste of time while the article sits in it's current conditionEDGARR (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of these edits are closely connected, and besides, there's a chance it just might work. Let's try it. If it doesn't, we'll do a few edits, or even one (ugh!) at a time. SamEV (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I I will give it another try for a compromise in good faith and will revert my nominating this article to be checked for its neutrality. Earlier you asked me to indicated the page number/paragraph number of sources. I don't know how to do this without it being seen in the article, maybe you can tell me how or send a link with info. EDGARR (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. SamEV (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome Sam,... I'am signing off for tonight. EDGARR (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That was Filipe who added an invisible message. It's a good idea. One way to do it, say, if you're using the {{cite book}} template, is to add the field |pages= (without the ''') and indicate the page number after the equal sign, for example: |pages=p. 87 .

All right, man. SamEV (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The copy of the article was removed. EDGARR (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No, just moved, as the admin said above. Click on this link. SamEV (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: I put up the sandbox for deletion on February 7, 2010. We stopped using it in December 2008. SamEV (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Similar and related terms

In some instances "Latino", which is also defined in the English language as a "Latin inhabitant of the United States",[17] is used interchangeably with the terms "Latin" and "Latin American".[ref (latinopm.com)][18] As a demonym, though, "Latin" can have other meanings:[20][21]

• "a native or inhabitant of Latium; an ancient Roman."
• "a member of any of the Latin peoples, or those speaking chiefly Romance languages, esp. a native of or émigré from Latin America."
• "a member of the Latin Church; a Roman Catholic, as distinguished from a member of the Greek Church."
• "A Latino or Latina."

"Latin American" may also not mean the same as "Latino," depending on which definition of the latter is used. A Spaniard, for example, though a "Latino" by some definitions, is not a Latin American. The term "Latin American", in turn, though it is most often applied to inhabitants of Latin America, is also preferred by some Latino individuals and organizations in the United States.[21][22][23] Some Americans of Latino origin also identify themselves as "Latin".[ref] "Latin American" is defined as:

• "A native or inhabitant of Latin America."[25]
• "A person of Latin-American descent."[25]

spanish

hispanic/latino has the same meaning spanish are hispanic the only reason there is a thing called latin america is because of the spanish empire most of the popular hispanics are native americans (south) or mixed look up history spanish is where the latin/hispanic comes from wouldn't be latin america other wise please explain why spanish can't be added as the spanish lauage comes from spain and what makes latin americans countries latin then latin the launage was first done in italy and if spanish isn't condsider hispanic then name a reason why the term latin hisapanic is used there what other meanings does it have. This article is about latino/hispanics altogether not americans citzens there is another site about latin/hispanic american people so it needs to be changed this is site is kinda written the same way WHY HAVE TO ARTICLES WRITTEN THE SAME?, on the side it has mexican americans but what about mexicans not americans cut the amercian parts out just have a list of south americans coutries/ spain etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.207.236 (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2008

The article doesn't say that the Spanish are not Hispanic.

This article is not about "latino/hispanics altogether". It is a discussion of the word "Latino" as it is used in the English language, because this is the English-language Wikipedia. Note that there's a section "Definitions in other languages". Again, how it's used in other languages is not what the article should be, nor is, mainly about.

It is most certainly not about "hispanics". Look at the title, please. It's simply "Latino".

You raise the issue that the article seems to duplicate the Hispanic and Latino Americans article, and mention the template. But I point out that the article does collect the explicitly Hispanic and Latino American info in a section of its own titled "Use in the United States". So you can hardly say the article is structured to be solely about the U.S. If the article seems to be so overwhelmingly concerned with U.S. Latinos, it's because that's where the term "Latino" is used the most, in English; it is even used officially. If you'd like to write about how the term is used in other English-speaking countries, please do. Nevertheless, I'll move the template to the "Use in the United States" section. And thanks for your comment. SamEV (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

hispanic/latinos agian!!!!!

okay lets put an end to this hispanic and latino/latina thing they mean the same nowadays its has the same meaning but they don't have a article here that has it hispanicis about hispanic histroy not what it acutally means nowadays as an ethnic term so unless you make a new article (which will be the same as this one) then why not add "an hispanic person" to the top of the page where all the other popular terms/meaning of latinos is i added it so what do you think its not changing the title of the article but also showing latin can mean latino/latina or hispanic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggiegirl (talk • contribs) 09:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"okay lets put an end to this hispanic and latino/latina thing"...

I'm afraid that's a bit too ambitious, Veggiegirl. The terms also don't have the same meaning according to expert sources. One of them is in the article, in a huge block quote. You can't miss it.

I don't visit the Hispanic article much. But if it's true that it doesn't discuss what the term "Hispanic" means nowadays, then maybe you should consider adding information about that. If you do, please make sure to source your changes (see Wikipedia:Verifiability, if you haven't yet). Another user undid your edit here. I agree with him, because your edit did not obey that policy.

If you read this talk page and its archives, you'll see that practically every line of text in the article has been well discussed over the years. So I do hope that if you wish to pursue the issue further you'll continue to make use of this talk page, Veggiegirl. Thanks for your comment. SamEV (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

deleted contreversy section

I removed the “controversy” section for a variety of reasons. It appears to violate wikipedia’s policy on “unwarranted promotion of fringe theories,” and "original research," as the sources cited were garbage and it fails to mention who those are that are protesting the term “latino.” And the idea of the term Latino being racist is itself absurd, as it is what Latinos call themselves (Hispanic is the term that was devised by the US government). I looked up that Olin Tezcatlipoca, who wrote the sources, – he is not an academic or any kind of legit authority, he is just some nutty racist protestor from a hate group. And that other source is just some amateur hobbyist site (riddled with spelling errors), whose author likewise has no apparent credentials whatsoever. If this section is to be included it needs some proper-academic, reliable resources, because it was only supported by shoddy original research and was also an obvious NPOV/notibility violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hb353 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It was the next issue I was going to bring up with the other frequent editor here. He's fought for that section before, though I'm not sure why. Now I can at least show I'm not the only one who found the section unacceptable. I do quibble with your non-writing an edit summary, which should have at least read "see talk". SamEV (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Before removal, this has to studied further. Just to cite sources as "garbage" and "nutty" is not enough. We can discuss this here at the talk page if you'd like. Another issue is that when this segment of the population refer to themselves as Latinos, most of the time they are using Spanish, and in Spanish Latino has the more formal meaning of Latin. And VeggieGirl has a point in that they are mostly used interchangeably. The Census bureau uses the term Spanish/Hispanic/Latino interchangeably to refer to people of Spanish descendancy or origin. I think some of the conflicts and desires to assign different definitions occur because the people who are referred to in this umbrella term are of different ancestries, and both groups (European-(mostly Spanish), and Native Americans/Amerindians) are of strong opinion that their histories should kept intact.(as anyone else probably would be) The way we need to do this is in a respectables fashion that does not violate the personal histories and ancestrial integrity of each group of the peoples in question. EDGARR (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The resources were apparently amateur. One was riddled with spelling errors and provided no information about the author. The others led to some racist hate group called Mexica Movement. None of those resources are reliable by wikipedia standards. If there really is a controversy surrounding the use of term "Latino," and it is not just fringe theory held by a few, then where are the newspaper articles and scholarly papers about it? Include some reliable supporting resources if you want to include that section Hb353 (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)hb353

Edgar, cite better sources. I'm not opposed to having a similar section, and as you can see, neither is Hb353. Just find better sources, please. SamEV (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The authors of the indigineous websites are authors, educators who are referenced by education institutions and Native American organizations themselves. They have been presented with numerous awards by peers and others. It unequivocally qualifies as a source for wikipedia, any omission or erasure of information provided by them that was already in the article is considered vandalism by wikipedia rules. Furthermore the change was not first introduced at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latinos/Latinosandbox and this violated the edit rules for this article as agreed to by you,Sam. Also the editor is not allowed to edit this article because he is not an establised editor of the this Latino article. Even his oldest article in Wikipedia itself goes no further back than Jan. This raises serious questions. The editor is violating wikipedia rules, rules established for editing of this article, and you Sam are not questioning these violations? EDGARR (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

To what agreement are you referring? Is it the one you broke at the project page when you dishonored your word? You expect there to be an agreement still after that? Whom do you take me for? We can try negotiating a new agreement if you want, but you'll have to forgive me if I don't quite have the same enthusiasm for it this time.

I looked the other way long enough on those shoddy sources for that section. No more. You can have the exact same information in the article, but it must be sourced reliably. Those are not reliable sources.

Unless there's semi- or full protection automatically preventing it, the new editor is allowed to edit.

Please don't restore that stuff, Edgar, as I'll have to disturb Tony again if you do. SamEV (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC):

Iam the one who contacted Tony, and I did not violate the agreement, as you can see I only made 1 change since the agreement and I made it first on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latinos/Latinosandbox as we agreed. And you accepted the edits I made and then they were changed in the public article as agreed. You are in violation of the agreement and so is your sockpuppet —Preceding unsigned comment added by EDGARR (talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 January 2009

Look, I know you're a perpetual newby (vis a vis Wikipedia overall, but not at this article) because you barely edit. But please understand this: thoughtless accusations of sockpuppetry are very much frowned upon. You had better have very good reasons for making them. It is considered a personal attack to make such an unfounded accusation.

FYI, I have never used a sockpuppet in my life! NEVER.

Now, last time I spoke with Tony about this article, he instructed me to do what I think is "right" in my dealings with you here. He expressed complete exasperation with your actions/behavior. He might drop by on his own and read this and can correct me if I'm misrepresenting what he said. You can show him these comments, too.

Lastly, let me repeat: there is no agreement between you and me. It takes at least two to agree, and I don't agree with you. SamEV (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you have good evidence of sockpuppetry, drop by WP:RFCU. SamEV (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who reads the archive will see we had an agreement which you are breaking. Vandalism, censorhip is also frowned upon. Tony said he did not see why you were making a big fuss about my edits, he was exasperated by YOUR behavior. Later when you lied to him about certain actions you said I had taken and you said, (if I remember correctly) that you felt like taking it to mediation, he said to do what you thought was right. You then opted not to take the situation to mediation, because you knew you were in the wrong. You are misrepresenting the situation. We had an agreement and because I had not contributed recently, you thought you would get away violating it. The indigenous people website can be reference as per wikipedia rules, you have not proven otherwise. Therefore you are knowingly and willingly vandalizing.EDGARR (talk)

03:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only established users can edit it." This is clearly stated in the edit page and is protection for this article. User:Hb353 is NOT an established user of this article and can not edit it, never mind vandalize it. Iam going to AGAIN have someone look at this situation and your breaking of the agreement, as well as to why you are trying to protect this type of behavior which clearly violates wikipedia Rules&Regs EDGARR (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You're clearly misrepresenting what he said when he first gave his opinion, after you'd contacted him: he was non-committal, and said we were both good editors and that he saw nothing wrong with the content you wanted to add (he said nothing about a "big fuss". As you often do, you made it up.) But your subsequent behavior obviously didn't sit well with him. Look at my comments to him, and his response. They had nothing to do with mediation. Now show me where Tony ever expressed exasperation with my actions or behavior.

So, no, you do not remember correctly, Edgar.

I just realized why you may still believe that the agreement had survived: it's problably because I told Hb353 that I wanted to discuss the Controversy section with you.

The only reason I did is because before him there was just you and me; an even 1-1 split. It had nothing to do with the agreement we once had and which you broke. But now two editors want the sources changed. It behooves you to engage us in real dialogue, not the personal attack-riddled uncivility currently coming from you. Again, we've given you good reasons already, and are not opposed to the content, just the sources.

Hb353 can edit, according to the rules. See why at Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users. SamEV (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all Tony NEVER said he was exasperated with MY actions, maybe YOUR CONSTANT INVALID COMPLAINTS about me. Also he did say he did not know what the fuss was about my edits and that they the edits were educational. However I have copied the dialog and you are the one now breaking the agreement. Also to state that you are removing a part of the article IS NOT ENGAGING IN DIALOG. If thats the case I'm now engaging in dialog to let you know that I am restoring the vandalized article to its original formEDGARR (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If you say I broke the agreement back it up with proof for all to see. I have copied the dialogs which shows I did not break the agreement and I am willing to have mindspillage (whom Tony recommended) review them. Uncivil is vandalizing sourced material. Uncivil is breaking your agreement and then trying the person you have broken the agreement with. YOU ARE UNCIVIL.EDGARR (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC) YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE AGREEMENTEDGARR (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not cite the Mexica movement source and that could be up for discussion, however the Idigenous people web site is a valid source referred to by universities and Indian Educational groups and have won praise and awards from their peers. EDGARR (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the man's talk page history: [15]. Give me a count of that mountain of complaints by me, valid or invalid.

Nope. I think he might have been referring to this: [16]. Along with the article's history, it preserves a history of your constant, unconstructive 'editing' here, which even included vandalizing the article and earned you a block. Which is why it's particularly shameless of you to accuse anyone else of vandalism here.

I'm still waiting for a quotation for "fuss" or something like it.

The reason I did not want to try mediation is that, though I've never been in any mediation, my take on it from having seen it at work at another article where I was involved is that it is a long-drawn, tedious process, and that in the end both of us have to agree whether to accept or not the decision. So it comes full circle: we still have to agree anyway. So, since I had the idea of using a subpage, I thought we'd try it first, just in case. It was working. But you apparently got too excited after the first edit was completed and wanted it displayed right away, rather than waiting for me to propose my change, which would have been this very material in Controversy! Your decision broke the agreeement. The record of our discussion is here: [17]. But in case you don't get it: I consider the agreement to be off. Since it only involves you and me, that means it is useless for you to insist it's still on. You don't seem to understand that. The agreement's dead.

Next time, if you respect Hb353's and my position and leave the material out (rather than restoring it yet again), and give a civil response, I'll fully address what you said in that last paragraph, which looks promising. SamEV (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I will wait maybe a day and give you time to renter the statements that were relevant to the indigineous peoples website which was taken down against wiki rules. If not I will re-edit and tweak it a bit and enter it myself. Then we can discuss any issues. Since it was taken down without my opinion and concerns addressed. I then will not have to bother with concerning myself with your opinions and concerns before I alter the article. These are the rules you want to go by, isn't it.EDGARR (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You could do that. Or, you could go back over both Hb353's and my comments, notice that we're not against the info per se, and comprehend that we're good-faith editors who can be reasoned with. Your choice. SamEV (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me get the ball rolling: how would you tweak the secion, Edgar? Could you post a rewritten version here, or on the project subpage for us to see? SamEV (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your taking action on the article without consulting me, negates the agreement. Therefore I do not have to consult you as to how I am going to tweak the article. Further you have tampered and deleted parts of our previous communications. EDGARR (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreement or no agreement, you still have to deal with the other editors; you have to take their opinions into account.

What tampering are you referring to? Give proof, otherwise it's just another of your habitual, wild accusations.

I've deleted a few posts that were off-topic and misused the page as a forum. Are you referring to that? Whatever it is, I suggest you prove it. SamEV (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean you delete posts and evidence under the quise that they are off topic. And you are wrong that I have to deal with you as an editor. Did you consult me as an editor when you deleted information in the article, of course not, so why should I consult you. Furthermore this article was protected so that only established editors could edit it. That is established editors who had been contributing to it in the past. So your alter ego cannot contribute. I shortly will be adding balancing material as this article is biased in its presentation as to who should be called Latinos or Hispanics. Hopefully there will be no censorship of this information. You SAM have been going around and destroying many editors contributions, I am seriously thinking of reporting you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EDGARR (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You know what? You were actually right about something! Can you believe it? I thought that Tony thread had been archived. But it wasn't, and I just took a look up there and saw that Tony did say "I fail to see where Edgarr's edits to the article have created such a big fuzz." But again, he didn't side with either of us on that particular issue ("Now Sam and Edgar, let me make myself clear that I am not taking sides on the issue").

Now on to your last post. Aha, so you're talking about those off-topic threads. Have you noticed that I'm not the only one who's removed them? Kman has, too. You know why? Because Wikipedia is not a forum. Keep posting stuff like that and watch it be removed again and again, EDGARR.

I ignored the rest of your diatribe. It's either that, or report you for personal attacks. (Which would you prefer?) SamEV (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Here is part of it "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages." This is exactly what was being done resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages. I am not trying to "attack" you. I am bringing to your attention certain behaviors that you may not (hopefully) be aware of. Kman removed comments I made to either censorship, Anti-Latin American sentiment in the articles. Somehow I fail to understand how that is not relevant. Maybe he was he knew who the author was and was trying to protect him. I don't know. However, I at this point I really don't want to dwell on the past if it's not going to be constructive to the article. So I just want to say two things.

1- thanks for not deleting outright my last contribution,(instead you edited just a bit to make it flow a bit smoother.) 2- A question. Do you know who actually started this article? EDGARR (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You see, there you go again! Did you just call Kman anti-Latin American? You really have to stop. Do you understand that?

I'm quite self-aware, thank you. It's one of my strengths. :)

I find your last contribution to be of no real value to the article. But since it doesn't hurt it, either (if you discount the fact that you made an already huge block quote huger), I thought it wasn't worth the hassle of arguing over it.

Who started the article? I hope it wasn't you. Really, I do. But I'm afraid I'm about to be disappointed... Let's see... (checking article history; WP is sloooowwww today)... Yes! It wasn't you, but a bot: ([18]). Hallelujah. SamEV (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I just undid your last contribution. I've begun to edit Hispanic seriously again, after quitting it two years ago. (In that time I've only edited the lead and a few scattered sentences; mostly, I've reverted vandalism.) In the process, I looked at the material which is the source of the block quote in this article. I discovered that your latest addition is taken out of context. What you added ("While these views are strongly held by some, they are by no means universal...") is actually in reference to this: A more important distinction concerns the sociopolitical rift that has opened between Latino and Hispanic in American usage. For a certain segment of the Spanish-speaking population, Latino is a term of ethnic pride and Hispanic a label that borders on the offensive. According to this view, Hispanic lacks the authenticity and cultural resonance of Latino, with its Spanish sound and its ability to show the feminine form Latina when used of women. Furthermore, Hispanic—the term used by the U.S. Census Bureau and other government agencies—is said to bear the stamp of an Anglo establishment far removed from the concerns of the Spanish-speaking community. The disclaimer you added, therefore, refers to these statements of socio-politics, not what's in the blockquote.

I should have know better and verified it then... SamEV (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said that Kman was anti Latin-American. What I wrote was "Kman removed comments I made to either censorship, Anti-Latin American sentiment in the articles." "Maybe he was he knew who the author was and was trying to protect him" (the author). Secondly the quoted section communicates how, Spanairds should only be called Hispanics (a fringe theory), and how Latinos in general prefer to be called Latinos. (Whithout sourcing material). But the article also indicates that in reality some Latinos (in the eastern region prefer to be called Hispanic, which collaberated by the census bureau), you have chosen to omit that. Now this clearly balancing material and sourced by the same quote you are using! So do not chop up the quote to puch you POV. I await an apology for you false accusations of my calling Kman anti Latin-American.EDGARR (talk)

Go ask someone else to explain the blockquote to you. SamEV (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What about Haiti and other French west indian countries

They are technically latin american. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.165.38 (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The article explains that Latino as used in English is solely about Hispanic people. SamEV (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Latino is a cultural heritage

I have edited the intro of the wiki to reflect this. The previous version had it as "people of partial or full Latin American extraction. The problem with that is it would be an ethnoym in this case, which it clearly is not. As people of all races can be Latinos, so too can people of all ethnicities. If Latino were an ethnonym pertaining to people of Latin American extraction (extraction means ethnic origin; indigenous roots), only people of the "Native American race" from ethnicities in Latin America would be Latinos, which obviously isn't the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.39.57 (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A little bit of history

I am terrified with the content of this article. It will be very important to know the meaning of the term Latin in the world, to be able to understand its meaning in regard to Latin America, and its use in the USA. Latin is a very old concept used around the world. As a language and as a culture, it identifies those countries in Europe that were under the domain of the Roman Empire, and speak a Roman Language. These countries being Italy-Italian, France-French, Spain-Spanish, Portugal-Portuguese. The Latin American concept refers to the countries in America whose 1st language is Spanish, French or Portuguese. Latino refers to the male that speaks, while Latina refers to the female.

Latino does not mean the same as Hispanic. Hipanic refers to a language spoken in many contries, it does not refers to a culture. Example: People who come from Brazil are Latinos but they do not speak Spanish.

....

I guess that if Mexicans, Peruvians or Colombians are Latinos, Sitting Bull or the Australian Aborigines must be called Anglo-Saxon. Latino strictly speaking are Italy, Spain, France and Romania, where Romance Languages (i.e. derived form Latin) originated, not Native Americans and such, whatever language they speak. I'm aware that the current and accepted use is this of the article, but I'm tired of hearing Native Americans calling themselves Latinos... In Spain and to distinguish themselves from the only actual Latinos here, the Spaniards! Thanks to the English' careless use of etymology, Virgil is now turning over in his grave and Cicero dies again and again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.30.195 (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What can you expect? US citizens are mostly uneducated racist morons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.72.153 (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

I created the criticism section because the subject reallt deserves it. There are millions of Latin American people who utterly reject that artificial label.--Scandza (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Latin Americans who utterly diavow the term latino are in effect correct. People from Latin America are correctly hispanic and not latin because latin refers to French, Italian, and Spaniards from Spain. The correct term for a person from Latin American is Hispanic. 184.32.2.113 (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, what about the Brazilians and the Haitians? They`re not hispanic. Latino is a shorthand for latinoamericano. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 07:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Then it should be labeled as shorthand for latinoamericano. To use the term in isolation is to use it incorrectly as it means latin. The latin people are a very specific group of people who were from central Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusadinggoonie (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem

African Americans have a strong sense of community identity due to their shared history. There is a tendency for other groups to aspire to the same thing. I think this is part of the problem with people's unhappiness with "Latino." Just putting a label on a collection of people is not going to make it a strong group, be it Latin Americans, Asian Americans, or for that matter white Americans. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Merged from Talk:Criticism of the term Latino

I created this article because everyone thinks that all Latin Americans agree to be tagged under the label "Latino" while there is, indeed, a large amount of general and academic criticism. This view should be balanced and I hope there will be more contributions.

This page is a completely loaded, opinionated, point of view piece of writing done by an editor who prefers the racist term Hispanic over the encompassing term Latino. I feel like blanking this page but because he has provided sources I do not think I should do this. But what I did do is search for the articles "Praise of the term Latino", "Critisism of the word Hispanic". Praise of the term Hispanic" and similarly a quick search of other ethnic groups with related articles such as "Criticism of the word African American" and can you guess my findings? Yep no big surprise, I found nothing! The reason for this is because this is just a page used to enforce it's creators opinion on others and does not warrant it's own article. I feel both the praise and criticism for both term are effectively covered on pages such as Latino, Latin American, Hispanic, Latino American, Hispanic American. etc. Can someone please deleted this soapbox, thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CartelCacique (talk • contribs) 07:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you don't like the arguments of the critics but I really think they should be included in an article because, just like you find the term "Hispanic" derogatory, there are indeed MORE people who feel the same of the term "Latino". Don't get me wrong, I didn't write it to favour the word Hispanic, on the contrary, any tag stick to millions of people is quite insulting specially if the vast majority rejects it. Like I said I hope there would be more neutral and fruitful contributions from either side. And as for your search of "criticism of the word African American" of course there's none since this is not a label like "nigger". Nigger was used fifty or sixty years ago pritty much like the word Latino is used today by the mass media and now has evolved into a pejorative term. This is what happens with labels, they sepearate people instead of unite them. I wrote the article trying to present with facts and sources the disagreement (academic, civil, political and cultural) of millions of people who don't need to "belong" to any "identity" or things of the sort. If you read carefully I present statistics and data that can be consulted.--Scandza (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You say there are more but I think there are more who find hispanic offensive over latino. And are you trying to make me laugh? You are actually comparing latino to nigger?! WTF, no comparison at all. I'm proud to be Latino not Hispanic but I reject the racist word spic, which is like nigger. Latino is no way like nigger, spic is like nigger. This article is a soapbox for your opinion and as such should be deleted.

If you think it's my opinion you should look up at the sources I provide and at the hundreds of other sources easily found on the internet and in libraries. This is a real phenomenon that deserves an article, there are similar ones in wikipedia such as:

• American (word)
• Native American name controversy
• Northern Ireland naming dispute
• Origin of the name Eskimo

In the most strict sense the word "nigger" of course couldn't be compared to Latino but what many people don't happen to realise is that these labels often evolve into derogatory ones. The wikipedia entry of Nigger says:

The word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning "black".

The use and overuse of the term has rendered it an insult even though it just means black. Also in Canada and Greenland Eskimo is considered insulting while in other parts is not. The same is felt of Latino. You say Hispanic is racist but what about Latino??? What about the millions of indigenous people in Latin America who don't give a damn about European, Hispanic or Latin cultures?? Why should they be tagged under that term? Latino is a fad, a very californian trend to be precise, and as such it is not immune to the massive amount of criticism and objection.

This article should not exist as it is completely one-sided.143.231.249.138 (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as nobody presents actual proofs that this article is biased or mainly POV oriented it should stay. The people opposed to it are actually expressing their own points of view without any justification. Also, I recommend to check other articles such as ethnonym, Berberism, Arab Jew and Arab world to get a more global idea of what ethnic naming disputes really are.

In the article Arab world we read:

"Certain populations have expressed resentment towards the term "Arab World," and believe that their national and political rights have been unjustly brushed aside by modern governments' focus on Pan-Arabism and promoting an Arab identity. In some cases this has led to severe conflicts between the ethnic nationalism of these groups and the Arab nationalism promoted by governments lead by Arab leaders, which sometimes amounted to denying the existence of or forcibly suppressing non-Arab minorities within their borders".

To call every single person from Morocco or Argelia an "Arab" is the same thing as to call every single person from Latin America a "Latino". These are optional, self-describing terms and any use beyond that is abusive and politically incorrect. --Scandza (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge Proposal from Criticism of the term Latino

A merge has already beem started by CartelCacique (talk · contribs) but halted because consensus had not been reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the term Latino. I do not think there is enough standalone info at the source article but it would do fine in this article, which is essentially a definition page. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 12:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I started the Criticism of the term Latino article and as far as I see some people agreed to keep it and some others wanted it to be either deleted or merged. Now I think that the best option would be to merge it into a new article covering the criticism of both the Hispanic and Latino labels. I started to write it under the name Hispanic/Latino naming disputes--Scandza (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Voilà, here's the brand new article: Hispanic/Latino naming dispute; The bulk of the Criticism of the term Latino article is found there plus criticism of Hispanic.--Scandza (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright! There are a small handful fixes needed but there is no question that the article stands alone. Nice work. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 15:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Latino" is not the same as "Latin American"

Latino doesn't have anything to do with Latin American. That term refers to the alleged "common identity" of people of Latin American descent LIVING IN THE US. Check the following links:

• Latino is a U.S. construct
• The concept of “Latino” is an American concept
• Being Latino is an American identity
• "The very term Latino has meaning only in reference to the U.S. experience. Outside the United States, we don't speak of Latinos; we speak of Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and so forth. Latinos are made in the USA. Marcelo Suarez-Orozco, Mariela Páez, Latinos: Remaking America (University of California Press, 2008) ISBN 0520258274, p. 4.

So please don't use that arbitrary and stereotype-loaded term to refer to Latin Americans outside the US.--Scandza (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

First you say it has nothing to do with latin american and then on the next sentence you say it refers to people of latin american descent living in the us. So it has everything to do with latin american, since it is, by your own definition, a subgroup formed by the intersection of latin americans and people who live in the us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 08:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)