Talk:Latin European peoples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Latin European peoples article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] We still need

We still need actual articles for French, Spanish and the Portuguese. Plus link-fixing after the creation, since many links have been "disambiguated" (to France, Spain and Portugal, resp.) in the meantime. --Joy [shallot] 13:30, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Absolutely no necessity

There is absloutly no necessity to put appart "normans" or "occitans" since these former linguitic regions are part of France. Everyone who knows France knows that "norman" is not a used language (everyone in normandy speak only french and doesn't form an distinct people from the other french. the same for "occitans". Occitan is a language that is now limited to a "folkloric" role (unfortunally, but that's the way it is), absolutly not comprarable to galician or catalan in Spain, which still widely spoken. the people of the former "oc"(occitan) regions doesn't consitute a distinct people and are fully french, so no reason to be put apprt of "France". ON the other hand, Corsican, is still spoken and would be ligical to be cited appart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Romance peoples

I've also heard these peoples being referred to as "romance peoples". Gringo300 03:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

GRINGO300 IS SPOT ON THATS THE PROPER WORD FOR IT "ROMANCE SPEAKING NATIONS" AS "LATINS" SHOULD BE ACCURATELY USE TO DESCRIBE LAZIO REGION NATIVES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.16.170 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Spanish & Castilian

It is incorrect the entry spanish (castillian). Altough every castillian is spanish not every spaish is castillian the proper way would be to say just castillians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.52.103.70 (talk • contribs)

You mean "not every SPANIARD"? Gringo300 05:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Spaniard is a sort of archaic term, i personally would refer to someone as spaniard, either a spanish person, or a latino (but less often). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Australian Jezza (talk • contribs)
"Latino" is used to refer to the peoples in Latin America nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.179.243 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Sandertje

Stop intorducing your silly comment and leave an objective introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.59.254 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Explain it

We need to destroy the misconception that anything related to "latin" is about race. alright of course there is a romanic race or something like that, but people still think that "latinos" are mestizos who try to run thru the southern border, i think it's too hard to them to understand that "latino" is someone who speak an idiom based on latin, whatever it is a black, nordic or romanic person. this misconception it's in fact spread also by the own latin speaking communities who adopted it, as the ethnic nationalist movement from mexico. and that's stupid. we need to fix it. i speak a idiom derived from latin and i am from euro-romanic race and i don't like people using "latino" as a pejorative term, linking me to a clique they hate and consider inferior. damned anglo ignorance. no wonder why the roman empire kicked their asses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.66.168.119 (talk • contribs)

I agree. I think wikipedia, being an international encyclopedia is a tool to fight the ignorance and misconceptions. "Latin" is a linguistic-cultural classification which is more or less south-western Europe. "Racially", if such things as "races" exists, the archetype of latin would be a "mediterranean type", since that were it comes from (Italy) (Cf the common image of the "latin lover"). But a lot of mixings occured, and the term is basically cultural not racial.--Fabb leb 20:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The Latin peoples are those linguistic-cultural groups that speak one of the Romance languages; they are called that because they speak languages descended from Vulgar Latin, not because they supposably descend from the Latins (Ancient Romans). I dont agree with this sentence.The term 'Romanus' was used during the whole imperial age to describe the people who lived within the borders of the Empire, who spoke Latin and shared the roman citizenship. Actually, after the Edict of Caracalla(212 A.D.), all the free men could be called 'Romani', regardless with their origins(in Europe mainly Celts and Italics who were anyway bound by common cultural features;some scholars have suggested that Latin language and the Celtic languages belonged to a unique family). Thus the people who speak Romance languages are the direct descendants of the citizens of the Roman state, who were rightly called 'Romani'. The areas where the Romans were slain and sent away became mainly a Germanic countries(for example the Rhine and Danube valleys, or England) but there is no evidence that a similar fact happen in what nowadays we call Frence, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Romania and any other nation who can claim a roman heritage. Few Germans, just some thousands, entered deeply the Roman land. They were too few to substitute the original inhabitants of the Romania. Obviously we are not the descendants of the citizens of Rome, but the term Romanus was used more and more widely in Europe, my Saxon friends, till it was used to describe all the people who dwelt the Empire. To be fussy, even the Welshmen could be called Romans,despite they claim a Celtic legacy, and this term couldn't be absolutely used to describe the English men(descendants of Germanic peoples)!!!!Therefore i tell you all that all the Romance peoples must be considered descendants of the Romans(if the term is correctly used). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.52.85.95 (talk • contribs)

All right then, but any source for the use of "people" rather than speakers? 193.132.242.1 18:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heading

I have deleted a comment that I have already seen several times and have introduced the following one: Latins are of predominantly cultural Roman heritage. It is about time that people begin to realize the difference between culture and genetics. Latin peoples are culturally and linguistically Latin or Roman in the same way that Germanic people are culturally and linguistically Germanic, but not genetically. Genetics does not overlap with cultural areas, neither in Europe nor in the rest of the world, as anyone familiar with population genetics knows and which can be seen in the following links: [1], [2], [3], [4]. The comment that I have deleted to insert the new one has been introduced several times by user User:Rex Germanus. who goes by the name Rex Germanus (Latin for Germanic King) and that for some reason does not like the idea that Latins are actually Latin. He smells of Arthur Kemp's The March of the Titans folks. Watch out for him because he has been vandalizing the page.Veritas et Severitas 13:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you maintain a civil tone there LSLM and refrain from making personal attacks like calling my edits vandalism. Rex 15:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The very style of your contributions is ridiculous, like Latins not being able to claim this or that heritage. Stop introducing stupid comments. Latins are Latins because they inherited their language and culture from the Romans, and that is it. Anything else sounds like incredible resentment at the fact that Latins are what they are. 72.144.177.80 17:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's get this straight. You think (assuming you indentify with the term Latin) you decend from the ancient romans?! Because that's what my remark says, it doesn't deny partial cultural herritence or linguistic connections. Rex 17:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
My friend I do not know if I come from the ancient Romans or not, that is not the main point here. Things are defined by what they are, not by what they are not supposed to be. If I said, the Dutch are a Germanic People because they speak a Germanic language, but not because they can claim to be of that heritage, would sound exactly as stupid. Veritas et Severitas 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not your friend and by the looks of your attitude won't become your friend either. Btw, am I to understand you are the same person as 72.144.177.80? As you answered a question directed at him/her. Also, I know it must be tempting for you to want to include the glory and might of rome in your supposed ancestry but I advise you to stay realistic. The romans didn't give much to europe other than bits of their culture and mutations of their language. Rex 17:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rex's style

This person who calls himself Germanic King in Latin and who insists so much on defining Latins as not coming from the Romans should go with his style to other pages, not to an Encyclopeadia. It is sad that we have to put up with this type of people. He even claims that the Romans did not give much to Europe! Who did the Dutch? I will continue to revert your stupid contributions here. Are you jealous of Latins or what? Because you sound childish. Veritas et Severitas 17:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not the one behaving like a child here. It's sad you have to twist my words and make assumptions rather than use arguments. That's how we work on this Encyclopedia. Also, a new section just to out your frustrations wasn't necessary I was already discussing matters with you, if this is your way to evade questions it's pretty obvious. If you choose to revert I will have to warn you for breaking the 3RR. Rex 17:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
My dear friend, I know very well how Wiki works. I always make an incredible effort to stay civil, but sometimes it is just impossible. People are supposed to have a minimum of intellectual capacity to write in an Encyclopedia. Where have you ever seen that any people is defined the way you are trying to do? I you cannot grasp simple concepts it is impossible to discuss with you. Following your arguments we should add in all people's articles, in all nations' articles, in all culture's articles senseless remarks like yours Veritas et Severitas 17:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Again you say nothing.You make a lot of noise but you add nothing. You have been incivil ever since I knew you existed. Why don't you answer the questions at the previous section header? (ps, if your "My dear friend" remark was an attempt to irritate me, you failed) Rex 18:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germanic King's (rex) Vandalism

(Personal attack removed) Now go to the English peoples's page and say that they cannot claim Anglo-Saxon heritage, and so on and on. (Personal attack removed) Veritas et Severitas 01:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at yourself ... you just waste your time offending people by making personal attacks instead of making valuable contributions. I'm not even going to respond to this truly ridiculous comment. Rex 10:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Silly dispute. Of course it is true that not all present-day speakers of Romance languages are biologically descendants of ancient Romans. But that probably goes for more or less every large language family known on earth. I don't see why we need an explicit disclaimer here. If anybody has any reliable source stating that:
  1. The level of biological/genetic contribution of original Latin speakers to today's Romance populations in Europe is significantly lower than that of comparable linguistic ancestor populations in other language families (e.g. percentage of original Germanic ancestors among today's Germanic people; of original Old Slavic speakers among todays Slavic peoples); and
  2. That this fact is a significant factor in defining the present-day cultural identity of the "Latin peoples" in comparison with other groups
then let's have the disclaimer, otherwise it's OR and tendentious. And if you badly want one nevertheless, let's at least word it differently. "...can't claim such a heritage" sounds as if it was meant in a negative sense, as if to be able to "claim" such a heritage was something these people were desperately keen on and we are now denying them it.Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
If one only thinks about the Roman Empire one will see that the Romans conquered and romanized, which is somewhat different from replacing the entire population or mixing with it. Also the largest population of Romance language speakers live in South America and are often if not always mixed with about every "race" (I do not like to use the word but I think its the closest word to it) on earth. People will wonder why they are called Latins, I believe I initially added the remark because some nationalist actually did claim the reverse that the latins were in fact the contemporary romans (cuckoo cuckoo). We should add it because Latin apparently only refers to language and culture not herritage (Germanic, Greek and Slavic do tend to have this herritage/ancestry thingy). Rex 14:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Still OR. The passage without that sentence was carefully and accurately worded and neutral enough as it was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Still OR? Rex 14:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, nothing has changed since I last wrote that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Really? So you didn't see my reaction to your post? Rex 14:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Uhm, no, the last thing I see is this: [5]. What am I missing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I was refering to: "If one only thinks about the Roman Empire one will see that the Romans conquered and romanized, which is somewhat different from replacing the entire population or mixing with it. Also the largest population of Romance language speakers live in South America and are often if not always mixed with about every "race" (I do not like to use the word but I think its the closest word to it) on earth. People will wonder why they are called Latins, I believe I initially added the remark because some nationalist actually did claim the reverse that the latins were in fact the contemporary romans (cuckoo cuckoo). We should add it because Latin apparently only refers to language and culture not herritage (Germanic, Greek and Slavic do tend to have this herritage/ancestry thingy)." I don't care in what wording it says it, as long as it does. Rex 15:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but that was exactly the point I answered with "Still OR". And that still stands. I remind you of the two conditions I set out in my first post above. And BTW, I also remind you of 3RR. You've reverted 3 times in the last 24 hours, and a total of 6 times in just 3 days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I know about the 3RR alright, hence the 3 reverts in 24 hours. I have no idea what you "Still OR" remark is supposed to mean, nor your reference to a "point you've made somewhere which still stands". Rex 16:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll spell it out for you once again. "Still OR" means "What you say is still Original research". Your argument, viz. that the relation between modern "Latin" peoples and ancient Romans involves less direct biological heritage than that between e.g. modern Germanic peoples and ancient Germanic ancestors, is your personal speculation and, as such, OR. You can include it in the article if you fulfil the two conditions I outlined in my first post: Find a source stating (a) that there is this difference; and (b) that this difference is relevant to a description of the identity of the "Latin peoples" today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
And by the way, your remark about the 3RR smacks of "gaming the system" - I have half a mind of reporting you anyway, because your amount of revert warring is still pretty disruptive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The disclaimer is not necessary. It says "linguistic-cultural" group, not race or any other "biological" group. - FrancisTyers · 17:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that other people can understand the basic concepts that I have been trying to explain, losing my patience I admit. To go into a population genetic's discussion here is of no concern for the article. The article was already introduced stating cultural-linguistic concepts, no biological idea was even mentioned. I agree that Rex' comments are tendentious and I can see that other people see it too. Veritas et Severitas 18:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
LSLM do buzz off, you were not trying to explain any basic concepts, you were offending and insulting me (hence the (Personal attack removed)'s) you have no credit left with me. Rex 19:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Una piccola precisazione a voi tutti, amici germanici, specialmente a quell'imbelle del Re dei Vandali(Rex Vandalorum). Come diavolo potete sputare sentenze sulla nostra gente, che per tanti secoli avete perseguitato con le vostre scorrerie e saccheggi???Come può un idiota qualsiasi dire che i popoli latini non discendono dagli antichi abitanti dell'Impero(i Romani,n.d.r.)?E da chi dovrebbero discendere, di grazia???Dagli Zulu?Dai Turchi???Non mi pare...altrimenti perchè gli odierni popoli romanzi parlano delle lingue che sono tra loro piu' imparentate di quanto lo siano quelle germaniche??se noi non siamo i discendenti dei Romani, perchè parliamo lingue che sono una continuazione diretta ed ininterrotta del latino??Bo...chi sa, magari dall'alto della vostra ignoranza mi potrete dare una risposta; un'ultima cosa..se non conoscete ciò di cui pretendete argomentare, fareste meglio a stare zitti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.50.189.42 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Occitans and Normands

I deleted "occitans" and "normands", since they are french (and so included in "french people") - and do not represent different peoples/cultures, but just the inhabitants of some regions. By the way there have never been such a thing as a people called "occitans"... (and "Gauloise"(Gaulois?) because inacurate for refering to Breton people). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Title and "linguistic"

Somebody moved this from "Latin peoples" to "Latin peoples (linguistic)" some time ago. Sorry, but I think this move makes no sense at all. "People" isn't a linguistic concept. Linguistics doesn't talk about what is or isn't a Latin "people". The only concept about "Latin"-ness that is relevant to linguistics is that of Romance languages - and that includes, of course, all groups all over the world who speak Romance languages, regardless of culture or ancestry, including Latin America, Africa etc. If you want the historical / cultural concept, why not merge this whole page into Latin Europe? I don't really see why this separate page exists at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this page should be entitled "Romance languages speakers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.132.242.1 (talk) 18:42, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How about Vatican City?

It's mostly Latin- and Romance-speaking (Italian, especially). SamEV (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to desagree. Even if the majority of people in the Vatican speak Italian (the 2007 estimate is of a population of 800...), they are not a people/nation/ethnic group. The Vatican is a state, and given its particular nature, it's not even considere part of Latin Europe. The Ogre (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You're right. SamEV (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No he is in fact not. Vatican city is considered a part of Latin Europe. It is also a watcher, along with Malta, in the Latin Union. Please go and read the articles if you do not believe me. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Ogre that a Vaticanese "nation" or ethnicity may not exist in the way that other, established ones do. But you're certainly right about the Vatican participation in the Latin Union.http://www.unilat.org/SG/Organisation/Presentation/EtatsMembres/index.es.asp] Thank you. SamEV (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Then the Vatican should be in the article Latin Union! Not here! These is about peoples! There is no "Vaticanese" people! Remember that the Italian workers at the Vatican (about 3000) do not count as "Vaticanese"! The citizens of the Vatican are not an ethnic group or Nation - one can not even say that they "citizens"! They just hold Vatican passports but, in many cases, maintain their original citizenship (that is way a holder of such a passport, living in the Vatican for years, can be nominated as Bishop of a ancient Catholic country without any acceptance problems - many Bishops in Portugal have been, before their appointement in the Vatican for years and with its passport, but they're still Portuguese). Read the article: "As of 31 December 2005, there were 558 people with Vatican citizenship, of whom 246 are dual-citizens of other countries (the majority being Italian). ". Regarding the population residing in the Vatican(all 821 of them...!), they are from almost all the nationalities in the world, even if the Italians represent a big bulk (let's say 300) - you still about 300 other clergymen who are not Italians (even if they are from other Latin ethnicities - The Pope is German, for crying out loud) and about 134 Swiss Guards who are most of them Swiss German! For all these reaons and for the major reason that there are no "Vaticanese" (who invented that word?!?), I'm removing the Vatican from the list of Latin Peoples! Sorry for the excess of exclamatiom marks!!! ;) The Ogre (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, but this article is about the people included in Latin Europe, which the Vatican is. I am not sure what the correct demonym for the Vatican people is, so apparently "Vaticanese" may not be correct, but there should still be some mention. Also, what is happening to the merging of Latin (Demonym) and Latin European? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Vatican is already included in the Latin Union and Latin Europe articles (and it should, because it is a member of the first and it is in Europe, ergo...), however, since there is no Vatican nation, it should not be listed here - that does not mean it should not be mentioned, stating that it is a state member of the Latin Union and Latin Europe, but not an ethnic nationality (a "people"). Regarding the merge, you are confused, the merge proposal was between this article and Latin Europe - what happened here was a title change (move) made by SamEV (with my total agreement) to better reflect the content. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outside Europe

This article, however, just lists the European romance speaking nations - shouldn't new sections be made for the other continents? I believe so. If they speak a neo-latin language, they must be included, or shouldn't they? The Ogre (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thing with that is that the, shall we say, less racially-tolerant Latins won't much like it (they expressed at the Latino article, too) because it would include so many non-white people. I guess the way to avoid that (or am I exaggerating it? Hmmm...) is to rename to "Romance-speaking peoples" or such when adding those new sections. SamEV (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demonym?

Latin as a demonym means one comes from Latium, not that one speaks an Italic language. It's a geographical, not cultural/ethnic term.Rex (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whats the problem with azoreans?

Azores is different from Portugal, you know? More than 500 years of isolation make them different! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.2.211.25 (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Precisely! And if you would just look two sections above, you'll see where Ogre started a discussion about whether non-European people should be included; by extension, the question also is whether non-White people should be included. I'm an inclusionist and anti-racist, but I'd rather wait for consensus on this one. I think you should too, because I can tell you firsthand that this article only stabilized when the list was limited to European peoples. SamEV (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Azores and Azoreans are not different from Portugal or the Portuguese - they are part of Portugal and of the Portuguese people. The processess od regional differentiation that have occured in all Portuguese regions do not amount to national or ethnic differentiation in a strong sense. Even the very small and extinct independist movements of Madeira (FLAMA) and Azores (FLA) have never used that type of rationale in their reasonings. And the Azores have not been isolated in the last 500 years - the islands were isolated and unhabited prior to that! In the last 500 years the Azores have been in contact and are part of Portugal. The Azoreans are European Portuguese, and as such they are included in the list as Portuguese. Let us not dive into lunatic and unsourced nation building by some anon user with an unknown agenda. The Ogre (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
What? You think azorean people arent white? You fool! Azoreans are mostly southern portugueses with other european influences like dutch, french and spaniard... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.2.211.25 (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Ogre and Anononymous, I realized already (before seeing your messages) that I was confusing Azoreans with Cape Verdeans, most of whom are of mixed Portuguese and African origins. That's why I thought it necessary to discuss first, because of the possibility of an edit war. So I retract.
Anonymous, please avoid uncivil comments. They'll get you nowhere here. See WP:CIVIL. SamEV (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latin "peoples", no way

This list is not at all about peoples, but about independent states. As usual, people mixing up things. Andorrans are not a people, but a nationality. They're Catalans by ethnicity. So why are Catalans only within the Spanish group and not within the French, the Andorran and the Italian? The same could be said for the Monegasques and the Luxembourgers. On the other hand, we have the Vlachs and the Walloons. So why half the list is by nationality and half by ethnicity? A total mess. Frankly, instead of saying "the European Latin peoples" it should rather say "the European Latin nationalities". Otherwise it looks like a completely unreliable article. --Purplefire (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I notice they're organized by 'macro-ethnicity', mostly, followed by subdivisions of these. SamEV (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. However, "Andorrans" see themselves to be to some extent different. I've already put Andorrans under Catalans and Walloons under Catalan and French and added a cross and showing a note at the bottom that says that they are sometimes considered to be seperate. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro clarification

The Ogre, regarding your reversion

RV - this is motive for a very long debate - that has already taken place in many venues

I realize there has been debate surrounding the issues I brought out but, as it stands, this article is unacceptable. It implies a lot of things that simply aren't true (I would argue even what I wrote is not sufficient). If you have a better idea feel free to insert it but simply putting it back the way it was is not the solution. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My friend, regarding your comment (and yes, I should have explained it better...), after a long process it was decided that this article is about the modern Latin Europeans. What you are searching for is the article Latins. Please check the links in the see also section. If you have a proposal regarding this issues, I advise you to make it global, that is, to make a proposal regarding all the articles (including, but not exclusively, Latin (disambiguation) and Latino (demonym)). If you don't, people are going to reverse due to the long discussions on these subjects that produced the present forms and definitions. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
...after a long process it was decided that this article is about the modern Latin Europeans...
Well, I thought the current form had evolved naturally, and was merely temporary! Say no more. The article's title should unequivocally express what you stated, removing much ambiguity. SamEV (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
All right Ogre, what do you think? SamEV (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Well done!! The Ogre (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much!
And in case you're wondering: no, I'm not Mcorazao. :) SamEV (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't wondering at all! You both have completely different contribution profiles! Really... it never crossed my mind. :) The Ogre (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, OK.
Do you want to change it to 'Latin Europeans are the people of Latin Europe' or something like that? SamEV (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah... It's good as it is! Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! SamEV (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ogre, it's possible this article is redundant with Latin Europe. Do we merge them? Do we rewrite it? SamEV (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say Latin Europe is not the problem. You have a different page for Italy and Italians, a different one for Europe and Europeans, so why not one for Latin Europe and Latin Europeans. I would say that the problem is that Latins, Latin Europe, Latin European, Latin (demonym), Latin Arch, and (possibly others?) all seem to overlap and there have been a lot of issues with differen interests of merges between different ones of them. We need to decided which articles are the ones we need to keep and which ones are the ones we need to merge into them. I must say however that this article seems rather pointless as just repeats the countries that are on Latin Europe saying that Latin Europeans are the people that come from there. If this article is going to be kept, it needs to contain a little more than that. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
As you know, all articles are supposed to overlap with others, as they're supposed to form a web. You seem to be saying the overlap is too great. I think we should make comparisons with their analogs in order to decide on this. Review each article again, and you'll see they each covers a sufficiently distinct subject to merit retention, except Latin (demonym): it is, as Ogre told you, this same article, which I renamed two days ago.Diff So it no longer exists. Yesterday I redirected it to Latins. You already defended Latin Europe and Latin European. (Btw, I wasn't attacking Latin Europe in my question to Ogre; indeed, I was leaning towards merging Latin European into Latin Europe) Latins is broader than Latin European. It discusses the historical uses of the word "Latin", in ancient, medieval, and modern times; its use as a synonym for Roman Catholic, or West European or just European in certain places; its current use in Europe and America. Latin Arch covers the largest subdivision of Latin Europe. Now, it seems like you're advocating for improvement/rewriting of this article (Latin European). I am too. SamEV (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant with my previous comment. This article is supposed to deal, as mentioned in the first line, with the many Romance-speaking ethnic groups in Europe, not with nationalities of the Latin countries that already appear in the Latin Europe article. And the difference is important, because there are just about ten to fifteen Euro-Latin countries, but there are more than twenty Latin European ethnic groups. That doesn't make sense and that's why, as I said, you see here things like Catalans and Andorrans (when they're of different nationality but of the same ethnic group). This article really needs to be improved. --Purplefire (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltarians

Hi there, I was about to remove something from the article but I thought it would be best to let other editors know about it here first. Next to Gibraltarians it says:

"(disputed, since one of the major languages spoken is English)"

Even though English is the only official language, the majority of the population is bilingual together with Spanish, so Gibraltar is also considered part of Latin Europe. Furthermore, Gibraltarians are mainly of Italian, Maltese, Portuguese and Spanish descent. I just thought I would let everyone know why that comment should be removed. Thanks. --Gibmetal 77talk 21:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if it were removed, either. SamEV (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Y Done --Gibmetal 77talk 14:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)