Talk:Latino (demonym)

message: The "latino" term was originated in the USA to identify spanish speaking americans with origins in spanish speaking countries in central and south america, it was adopted in 1997 by th U.S census, it has the same meaning as hispanic, so i removed the "A latin american" part because it's wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.149.152 (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 2A01:CB04:A87:6000:F999:AD75:F54B:CA03, It is simply not accurate to call Latino a neologism, as it's been around for half a century, and appears in countless dictionaries, style manuals, and thousands or tens of thousands of reliable sources.  If you have a suggestion how to improve the article, this is the page to do it on.  Do you have one? Mathglot (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latino is a USA construct word 

message: The lead is way too long, currently more than half the size of the body text, excluding appendices. Contrary to the guideline WP:LEAD, it's full of unique information not contained in the body, and doesn't adequately summarize what is there. It also has some information 
When things are this bad with a lead, often the easiest thing to do to improve the situation, is to do it in stages. I propose to do the following:
* Move the entire lead, except the defining WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, to the body, and call it section "Introduction". 
* Analyze and triage the new "Introduction":
** move bits of it out into existing body sections, if they fit better there.
** remove portions that aren't relevant to the article topic, or into footnotes if peripherally relevant
** move any good summary info back up into the lead.
* Finally, augment the lead with new content, summarizing information from the body, as needed. 
That's the plan. Mathglot (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in the middle of this, which means the lead right now is *way* too short. That's to be expected, but because WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, it may be a little while before the lead is the way it should be. Please help me fix up the body of the article, and then when it's in decent shape we can turn to building a decent lead.  I may try to fill the lead out just a little bit, just to avoid inopportune, drive-by patches to the lead just because it appears (and is) so brief. Mathglot (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

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

message: Section Usage in the United States is long, and is almost entirely about the contrast between Latino and Hispanic.  There is virtually nothing about the usage of Latino itself, except for that contrast.  The section has a  article link to Hispanic and Latino Americans, which has more about it.  The article Hispanic–Latino naming dispute, not mentioned there, is entirely about this subject. The Latino article therefore, stands as a parent article to either (or both) of those child articles and need only be a brief summary of the two.
The section should be rewritten to be a brief summary of the detailed information found at the other two articles.  And it should probably be retitled or have a new subsection header "Contrast with Hispanic" or similar. Missing from this section, is any specific information about the term Latino itself.  Mathglot (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage in the United States 

message: Most of the content of this section appears to be a sort of mini-version of a disambig page.  It seems out of place in the article to list every other possible use of the word Latino.  We can leave the mention of the origin from Ancient Rome, maybe the use in Latin America (although that is covered earlier in the article body).  Moving this section here, in case we want to discuss it.
Latino is also an Italian, Sicilian, Sardinian, Spanish, and Portuguese word, which has its roots in Latin.
As an English demonym "Latin" has other meanings such as:
* an ancient Italic people entering the Italian peninsula around 1200 BCE
* in ancient Rome an inhabitant of Old Latium (Latium vetus), later extended to New Latium (Latium adiectum) as well
* a member of any population of the Roman Empire engaging in Roman culture and speaking Latin, regardless of their ethnicity
* the language of Ancient Rome and the Roman Empire
* denoting or pertaining to Italians, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanians, etc., using the Italic languages (Romance languages) that derive from Latin
* a member of the Latin Church, or Roman Catholic Church.
This was the content of section "Similar and related terms" as of revision 909809979. Mathglot (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar and related terms 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Latinas. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 08:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This RfD encompasses both  and . —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Latinas" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I've removed the mention of usage in Brazil. The BBC source only makes a passing reference to Latinos ; the statement that inhabitants of Brazil "do not want free movement of Latinos across its borders" is referring to people from Hispanic America. Note that the term itself is being used in reference to something else (use-mention distinction). Therefore it's not actually about the topic of this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your work on this. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazil? 

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

message: In response to an Explain tag in the lede, I added a source which gave more detail on the topic of the breadth of variety in which the term is used within the Latino community.  In doing so, and to align with the source material, I changed the line "...refers to United States inhabitants who have cultural ties to Latin America" to "...most commonly refers to...", and added a bit of text explaining that. As this Wikipedia entry *already* acknowledged that there was some variation, I thought this would be uncontroversial and that the single source would be sufficient.  The edit was then reverted by another editor, claiming that the source was "unreliable."
As I mentioned, it's not a particularly controversial fact, meaning there is actually a large amount of source material available to back that statement.  I did a quick search and found a half-dozen or so; I plan to re-introduce the same edits with all those sources, which should really be sufficient validation for anyone that it's at very least clearly a common enough usage to be noteworthy.  If I were just doing this, I probably wouldn't even mention it here.
As of right now, I also plan to retain the original source that I cited when re-introducing my edit. I *did* want to mention that here, to discuss the potential bias in that source and the editor's objection to it.
--------
For those not interested in that discussion, the tl;dr: Perhaps the source *should* be removed, and if common consensus thinks it should I certainly won't stand in its way.  Whether it should or shouldn't basically revolves around the answer to this question: Is a source whose most relevant portions constitute a high-quality source, but which when read in its totality including its less relevant portions becomes lower in quality, in the end considered "high-quality" or "low-quality" as a source for a Wikipedia entry?
--------
The source in question is, "Ask a Scholar: What is the True Definition of Latino?" The edit that criticized the source and removed my edit reads in full, "Advocacy org, not reliable -- legitimate academic sources usually don't purport to offer the 'true definition' of something."
I can understand why the editor would have that misconception just from the title of the text, but I do wish he'd read the article, as the confusion would have been cleared up pretty immediately.  The article is a question/answer format, where the question asked is by a reader (in this case a college student) and the answer is written by a professor with a particular expertise in the subject.  The answer the professor gives actually pretty explicitly clarifies that there is *no* "true definition" of the term, and gives a breadth of definitions over a variety of different eras and cultures.  The editor basically treated a "Dear Abby" column titled, "My teenager is pregnant, what should I do?" and mistakenly concluded that Abby condones teenage pregnancy.  The fact that the article's title is based on the student's question, not the professor's answer, is obviously very common in articles in that question/answer format, and I'm sure the editor would have noticed if he had read the article itself that his complaint about it "purporting to offer the 'true definition'" accused it of something it never did in the first place.
I did, however, mention potential bias in that article -- so what am I referring to?  Well, the article is on the blog of the National Association of Scholars website, which (as I only found out later) has historically leaned conservative and could certainly be considered an advocacy organization; and although the author of the article does not seem to have any obvious ties to the organization other than having been requested to write the answer to the student's question, he has himself been accused on other occasions of interweaving conservative editorializing into his otherwise fairly credible and well-reputed academic research.  You can see some of that editorializing yourself at the end of the source article I used, where he goes off on a thinly veiled tangent about academic departments focusing on ethnic studies.  But outside of that, the article and in particular its first two or three paragraphs which are most relevant to this topic do tend to stick to historical (and verifiable) statements and don't stray far from that, and they do summarize the historical transition of the term pretty well in my opinion -- which is what I cited it for in the first place.
Like I said earlier, from there I leave it to the community -- if that source should be removed, it should be removed.  It doesn't affect the edit itself; if it needs even more sources than I'm adding I am sure I can find even more, as the differing meaning of the word in its Spanish usage within the bilingual Latino community is pretty well understood at this point and it would take an exceptional level of evidence to suggest that the sort of linguistic bleed-through from one language to the other that has proven itself basically inevitable over the course of time and history was *not* occurring here. Gnassar (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I should also note that the meaning of the term in Spanish being different is, aside from the sources I cite, also confirmed by Wikipedia itself -- in the Spanish Wikipedia, that is: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino_(Estados_Unidos)  Again, it would seem like the opinion that that secondary meaning is not sufficiently notable, let alone nonexistent or rare, would require an exceptional level of evidence to validate, rather than the other way around. Gnassar (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variations in usage, "explanation needed" tag 

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