Talk:Latino

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Headline text

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Latino article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Archives
Archive1

[edit] Archival of talk page

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

[edit] French Notion of Latin America

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

[edit] Latino template

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

[edit] Sources

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

[edit] Criticism of US usage

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] We could add...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Introduction

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

[edit] Revert to previous version by me (Burgas)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Italian word?

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

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

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

[edit] Use of word Anglo and Anglo-American

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

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

[edit] Latin(o) edits

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

[edit] Let me know what you think

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

[edit] Addition to Latino

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

[edit] calling the use of the term "incorrect"

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

[edit] Incorrect term usage confirmed

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

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

Politically correct but grammatically incorrect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] American English = in USA

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

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

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

[edit] Latino synonymous with Latin

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

[edit] Political Correctionism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

69.112.103.196 05:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Racial usage

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

[edit] Latino and Hispanic are mostly used in the US

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

[edit] Latino infobox

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

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/t/Talk%7ELatino_69a9.html"