Talk:Latin America/Archive 1

message: Why retaining "Latino" is an irony? Somebody care to explain?
: yeah, is an irony because when france seize control of Mexico there where still many Mexicans that's just want them to go away, so they created the term expecting the whole population to accept them ("hey, look, we aren't that different from you, what are you so mad about?") to give legitimity to their authority. but, the Mexicans has already had an invasion form United States, which more them letting them with bitterness against the "americans" left them with a bitterness against foreign authority so even if Maxilian were able to prove he would had been a wonderful emperor he wouldn't had been accepted, laterly they expelled most of the frenchs out, and I supose killed the rest because don't know anyone with french last name but I know many wong's, the irony mostly lays in the fact that they didn't where willing to accept the frenchs but they accepted their term and made an effort to promote it. the term latin american is related most to a feeling of belonging and close cultural relations (altough not homogenized, of course!) than to the gramatically correct definition that's why Canada isn't normally counted in.
if the canadians start saying they are latin americans they will join the "family". I'm Mexican and personally I don't have anything against frenchs neither against "americans".
:Learn to paragraph, that was the most painful and spasmodic thing I've read in ages man. 202.173.202.189 13:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irony?

message: The article says that Latin Americ acovers South America, but the latter counts three more island states. Please clarify. Mikkalai 17:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:   vs. South America 

message: "latino" is a word that only reffers to the cultures with the native indian origins !!!!
Only the people with native indian origins can be said "latino".
That the reason why argentinians are not latins. Us, the people of Guatemala we are the true latinos (like Peruvians, Bolivians, Ecutorians, Mexicans...) because we have a few european blood.
I think we should exclude definitivly the people of argentina, Brazil or uruguay from the term "latin-america" because thay have nothing in common with our indian(latino) culture.  We should stop to speak spanish and stop being catholics because it is a european language and a european religion, AND NOT LATINO ONES !!
But I think we should include in "latin-america" all the native indian reservations of USA and Canada were are living our latin brothers !
I don't know why some Europeans that are not latinos at all want to be condidered as native indians like we are !!!  Please leave that label for the true latinos... The fact that people of spain and portugal colonized our latin countries doesn't make latinos of themselves !!  Those countries colonized some countries of Africa but nobody say that Spain and Portugal are African...
They stole our gold, but they won't stole our name !!! -- 172.210.87.127
ur a little bit stupid ain't u? latino is derived from latium a region in italy, from where the romans came from, and in that region they speak latin. when the roman empire spread across europe the influentiate the language spoken there that's why portuguese castillan, catalan, galician, french, romanian and italian are the latin(pure ones, specially italians) european countries. when spain and portugal colonised america they influentiate, and mixed (in some cases others not, and in different scales, for instance argentina and uruguay have the majority of the population white(arg-95% uruguay-85%) with the natives. and these new societies have a lot of latin or iberian influence speaking spanish or portuguese so they are latin americans, and if ur saying that 2 be latinos u must stop speaking spanish or being catholic, u'll not be a latino u would be aztec or mayan or so on, because the true latins r europeans. 
and i can't underdtand how the americans( ppl from united states, america is a continent, not a country) don't consider ( in some cases) portuguese and spaniards white saying they r hispanic. well, i thought hispanic was created to separate the ppl with mixed blood(amerindian and spaniard) from white. the ppl from us is more mixed than me for sure, cause they have a lot of indian and black mixing(not all of course but more than potuguese with moors or blacks for sure). when i'm in german or sweden, they won't say that i'm non-white or that i'm hispanic, they'll say im white(i'm portuguese) because ~i have a light skin but my eyes and hair is dark, so the usa ppl is really stupid and instead of trying to unite pll they kept ppl apart by dividing ppl by race.   
 
besides, aren't there fully indigenous Argentines...and Guatemalans of European descent?
:I'm sorry, but you're wrong. For your information, the word latino does not mean Native American Indian.
:Here's a definition from WordNet:
::Latino
:::adj
:::related to or derived from the people or culture of Spain;  "the Hispanic population of California is growing rapidly" [syn: Hispanic]
:::n
:::1: an American whose first language is Spanish [syn: Spanish American, Hispanic American, Hispanic]
:::2: an artificial language based on words common to the Romance languages
:Another definition from The American Heritage :
::Latino
::NOUN:
::1. A Latin American.
::2. A person of Hispanic, especially Latin-American, descent, often one living in the United States.
::ETYMOLOGY:
::Short for Spanish latinoamericano, Latin-American, from latino, Latin, from Latin Latinus.
:And a Usage Note from Hispanic, in the same dictionary:
::Though often used interchangeably in American English, <I>Hispanic</I> and <I>Latino</I> are not identical terms, and in certain contexts the choice between them can be significant. <I>Hispanic,</I> from the Latin word for “Spain,” has the broader reference, potentially encompassing all Spanish-speaking peoples in both hemispheres and emphasizing the common denominator of language among communities that sometimes have little else in common. <I>Latino</I>—which in Spanish means "Latin" but which as an English word is probably a shortening of the Spanish word <I>latinoamericano</I>—refers more exclusively to persons or communities of Latin American origin. Of the two, only <I>Hispanic</I> can be used in referring to Spain and its history and culture; a native of Spain residing in the United States is a <I>Hispanic,</I> not a <I>Latino,</I> and one cannot substitute <I>Latino</I> in the phrase <I>the Hispanic influence on native Mexican cultures</I> without garbling the meaning. In practice, however, this distinction is of little significance when referring to residents of the United States, most of whom are of Latin American origin and can theoretically be called by either word. •A more important distinction concerns the sociopolitical rift that has opened between <I>Latino</I> and <I>Hispanic</I> in American usage. For a certain segment of the Spanish-speaking population, <I>Latino</I> is a term of ethnic pride and <I>Hispanic</I> a label that borders on the offensive. According to this view, <I>Hispanic</I> lacks the authenticity and cultural resonance of <I>Latino,</I> with its Spanish sound and its ability to show the feminine form <I>Latina</I> when used of women. Furthermore, <I>Hispanic</I>—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. While these views are strongly held by some, they are by no means universal, and the division in usage seems as related to geography as it is to politics, with <I>Latino</I> widely preferred in California and <I>Hispanic</I> the more usual term in Florida and Texas. Even in these regions, however, usage is often mixed, and it is not uncommon to find both terms used by the same writer or speaker.
:--Cantus 19:25, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  GUATEMALTECS ARE THE TRUE LATINOS ! 

message: First, I consider the term Latin-America has incorrect. And the use of the word "Latino" has gross!
My experience: I worked at the same office (not very big) with latin heritage ppl, and we were all Portuguese, Spanish, Argentinians and Brazilians. Truthfully, our cultures are really very similar and so I understand the British and American point of view. There's no civilizational chock, no cultural chock, our social behaviour is very similar and conversations went very easily (often choose one language to speak (Port. or Spanish), there were 3-4 native languages - if you consider galician has one: Spanish, Catalan, Galician and Portuguese). What doesnt happen when a German or a British comes around, that are culturally completly different, but in the "Latin" point of view Germans and British have similar cultures.
I think the term Latin American is not fully correct. For me, really Latin cultures are in Portugal, Spain and Italy, and in not has big extent in France/ Belgium and  Romania. Greece (has many cultural similarities with latins). If you consider the Latin American countries has an all, with all its population, its not Latin (even if there are many people that are real Latinos). I find upsetting that Anglo-saxon people consider Latino has a mixed blood. Not that I dislike mix blooded people, in fact, by the contrary! But you cant name something with a name that has nothing to do with it. Latin is a culture that started in the centre of Italy and spread to some European countries in a cultural influence that toke centuries that even today pagan festivities and culture persist. My mother went it thounders uses to say "god is furious!" "Deus está furioso". She doesnt know but the Deus (dios) is not the Christian god, but Jupiter (aka Zeus or Dios or deus). Obviously, Latin culture is much more than this. BTW, I'm Portuguese.
A better term is Ibero-American (due to language and History and partially culture). I think Latin American is just a missconception. The Latins (aka Romans) didnt rule over the Americas... but over Europe and due to imigration/influence their culture prevailed in Iberia, French Riviera and Italy - Places of the Empire that were similar in weather to their original Place (central Italy). Portuguese and Spanish settlers in the Americas, they toke with them their particular Latin culture (Portuguese and Spanish), but they mixed it with African and Amerindian cultures. You register your Children (forgive me the term) after your name and not over your father's! While Latin culture completly overtook the real Latin countries (can easily be seen by the similar cultures of Portugal and Spain even thought both are seperated a thousand yrs), the Portuguese and Spanish culture overtook in some places in the Americas (it really did), but most South Americans have also a mixed culture, very far from the Latin one. Terms like "Latin American" has to be erased and wikipedia is not helping much, it is even spreading the missconception. -Pedro 02:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always found odd to refer to Romance-language speakers as "latinos". Latin was spoken by the ancient Romans and has been basically a dead language since the early Middle Ages. The modern Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, Catalan) have evolved from Latin (which forms the basis for their vocabulary), but are clearly no longer Latin. In fact, a modern Romance speaker cannot even ordinarily understand Latin. In particular, the grammar of most Romance languages is far simpler than Latin grammar (no noun or adjective inflection for case, only two grammatical genders as opposed to three, fewer tenses and irregular verbs, etc...). Calling Spaniards, Lusos, Italians or Frenchmen "Latin" as if the Roman empire still existed and they all still spoke Cicero's language is a complete nonsense. Using the same criteria, should Englishmen, Anglo-Americans, Dutchmen, Flemings, Afrikaners, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, and Austrians be all generically called "German" for speaking languages that belong to the Germanic branch of the Indo-European family ? Furthermore, referring to Brazilians, Argentinians, Mexicans, Quebeckers, or Haitians as "latinos" is even more ludicrous since their respective countries were never part of the Roman Empire (which actually had already fallen more than a thousand years before the Americas were settled by the Spaniards, the Portuguese, or the French). 161.24.19.82 12:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My experience 

message: Why do those from the U.S. have to put their ethnic and racial concepts on Latin America. Why not try and assume that there are more nuances in the demographic descriptions of groups. For example, the term Black is quite vague, but mostly because people will not recognize someone of mixed race background as Black, because Black means dark skinned. The U.S. concept of race in this instant does not work for Latin America. Chriscarlos
Isnt the expression "cono sur" misspelled? I believe the spanish equivalent would be "cone sur" since cono in spanish means... well, its a bad word for somethig nice! :) LtDoc 16:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong. In Spanish cone means nothing. And the "bad word" is coño, not cono. --Viktor 22:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He is probably confusing Spanish "cono sur" with the equivalent Portuguese expression "cone sul". Yet another example that knowledge of Portuguese does not necessarily imply being able to speak Spanish. Mbruno 14:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: Are the French-speaking islands of the Carribean generally considered part of Latin America? 
#No, Latin America refers to the mainland south of norteamerica, i.e. Mexico, Central America, and South America.
#No, same as above but let's not forget Cuba and the Dominican Republic.
#Yes, they have to go somewhere!
Parts of the Americas which currently speak French or were former French colonies, constitute part of Latin America. To suggest that the French somehow fall out side of the Latin category is absurd, certainly there are some major differences between Franco-American colonies/nations and Iberian-American colonies/nations they still remain Latin in a cultural-linguistic context. Also keep in mind that for the last hundred years of the Spanish Empire (roughly the 18th century) the kings of Spain were from the French Bourbon family!! Ultimately, to choose to separate the French from Latin Aemrica is absurd and completely ahistorical and acultural.
"  Certainly there are some major differences between Franco-American colonies/nations and Iberian-American colonies/nations they still remain Latin in a cultural-linguistic context.  "
I agree with that there are differences, but we have too notice that the same kind of major differences are existing inside Iberian-american ex-colonies too : differences between Bolivia and Républica Dominicana are bigger than between Quebec and Argentina.
:Keep in Mind there's a 1) geographic 'North America', there's a 2) geo-political 'North America'.  And there's now a 3) what I'd call 'North America' that is basically just to 'one-up on Europe'.  Geographic-- North America would be Canada/US/Mexico.  As they lie on the actual North American plate.
:Geo-political 'North America' if you will- changes.  It's about convenience in winning an argument.  Currently Geo-political North America includes Canada/US/Mexico.
:'One-up on Europe - North America' = Canada/US/Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean which are outside of the North America geographic plate.  But their economies are included in North America, just to ofset some of the large-ness of the European Union mostly.  This changes all the time.  The EU talks expansion so North America talks Free Trade Area of the Americas to offset the EU and so on. P.S. General comment to all: Caribbean = one 'r' two 'b's... CaribDigita 16:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like very much this objective distinction based on the tectonic plates. Actually there isn any region of the world where this is as simple: The North American plate which includes of course 95% of Mexico AND Belize, Bahamas AND... Cuba, which is plain north of the ridge , actually it is the range formed by it. Nicaragua is almost 50/50 but the main active region and its capital lies south of the ridge so one has almost surely to  place it in Central Amrica. And yes there is a Central American plate which include all the Caribbean, which in geophysical terms is indeed a pond. The Caribbean as we all know are the eastern internal side of the plate. And finally the South American plate is very well defined, just biting a good side of Northwest Colombia (say 10%). Again, very clearly Tobago is Central America and Trinidad just in the middle like Nicaragua,but then we have probably to stick with it belonging to CA . In this case geography goes in the same sense of history and culture and language (as for Curaçao and the Dutch isles, and even Panama). Actually I'm always surprised how this so simple and how difficult to agree. Of course Cuba being indeniably North America is a major issue ;-) 201.32.182.11 13:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What about the Carribean?

message: Anywhere that French is the official language and widely spoken in the new world should be included in the category: Latin America.
Anyone who has been to Brazil (Portuguese), Mexico (Spanish) and Quebec (French) and understands the meaning of the words: 'Latin' and 'America' will agree, Quebec is very 'Latin', culturally and linguistically and it is in the Americas.
*I've always seen Haiti and French Guiana defined as Carribean.  More akin to the British Carribean than Spanish central America.  I've been to Montreal, been to Mexico, and been to Miami and California, and Quebec is much more European (like London, from what I saw of it.  Besides which, we should be trying to stick to the normal definition.  I'm pretty sure the French areas aren't normally considered "Latin."  Wikipedia is about "is" not "should." --Quintucket 06:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  French speaking areas in the new world should be considered: Latin America 

message: Hm.. the more I click my way around on these pages, the more I come to realize that perspectives and understandnings on all these exotic regions and continents vary and are highly subjective and even biased. Perhaps the English usage is much more inconsistent, unprecise and overlapping than the native-speakers' usage. If so, this is similar to other vaguely-defined regions that are found in the minds of distant groups of people and mean different things to them. See also Talk:Siberia, Talk:Scandinavia, Talk:Middle East and Talk:Balkans, and also exonym versus autonym for similar discussions of namings and meanings. //Big Adamsky 18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining the extent and limits of an exotic [[region]]

message: As a historian I feel that Latin America refers to those parts of the Americas which were conquered and colonized by Europeans speaking Latin-based languages. This would include all areas and nation-states of the Americas which were previously Spanish, Portuguese, and French colonies. The distinction between Latin America and the rest of the Americas is not necessarily a North/South distinction although it certainly becomes one in popular conceptions of the Americas. The main distinction between Latin America and the rest of the Americas has to do with the imposition of European culture (including traditions of law, government, social institutions, relgion, etc.) and language. Spain, Portugal, and France all cultural traditions which were more similar to eachother than to English or Dutch traditions. For example, in terms of law all three of these imperial powers followed the codified Roman tradition where as the English followed a common law tradition. To reiterate, the use of "Latin" in "Latin American" highlights a general cultural-linguistic background imparted to the colonies of Spain, Portugal and France.
Is this term biased? Yes. Does this term overlook the important differences in the cultures of the Americas caused by indigenous cultural groups or African cultures? Yes. Is this term horribly flawed and in need of replacement? No
While certainly the term Latin America overlooks the presence and influence of Native American and African cultures on European colonies and later American nation-states, this term does serve a function in describing a large part of the Americas and making a distinction between regions conquered and colonized by "different" traditions of European culture. On the one hand, in this sense Latin America is euro-centric and devalues the history and culture of the Americas prior to 1492. Yet, this term has become so standard that it will be very hard to abandon it or replace it. On the other hand, the conquest and colonization of the Americas did affect every indigenous culture in this hemisphere. While many Native American cultures exist and flurish today, they cannot be seen as perfect recreations of a pre-European tradition. Every culture in the Americas changed as a result of Europeans. Some changed more than others and a different rates, but all indigenous cultures saw some changes. In this sense, the term Latin America can encompass the changes that European colonization brought to native cultures and the way in which modern cultures in Latin America have grown out of indigenous, European, and, in most places, African cultural traditions.
------
Although I am not a historian, I support your input on the definition of Latin America. Rather than searching for the exact meaning of the word "latin", and its correspondence to the phenomenon it is meant to describe, the notion of "Latin America" should be considered from the perspective of its use in History, Geography, Geopolitics etc. These are not natural sciences. Expressions are thus frequently perverted or imprecise (from a linguistic point of view). So is the case of the appropriation of the term "latin" to describe a region that includes also non-latin cultures and languages whithin the borders of nation-states (indigenous people, for example). But the colonization criteria should not be considered the only one to determine the boundaries between Latin America and non-Latin America. 
I think the current use of the term Latin America clearly excludes certain latin-colonized regions within the borders of other american States (the Québec case). In international affairs and diplomacy, the term might encompass some countries such as Belize, Suriname or Guyana. These are sovereign States that share with Ibero-American States not only the lands usually refered to as Latin America (geographic criteria), but also the developing-country aspect of the region (economic/political criteria). The opposition between developed and developing countries is, I tend to believe, one that should not be downplayed when defining Latin America. (it further explains why québecois do not consider themselves Latin Americans). By the same token, even though French Guyana, Guadaloupe and Martinique (departments of France) could be considered as part of Latin America geographically and culturally, they are not independent-developing States, a reason for possibly excluding them from the Latin America scope (technically they are part of the European Union). Haiti, a former French colony independent and underdeveloped, is usually considered as part of Latin America. 
On the other hand, take the case of Puerto Rico. It is a US territory, economically developed and politically dependent. And yet nobody will doubt that Puerto Rico is part of Latin America, in a certain sense at least. In the Puerto Rico case, culture and language seem to be the most determinant criteria. In the Québec case, quite the contrary.
The bottom line is that there is no exact formula to determine which countries or territories are part of Latin America and which are not. Geography, History, Politics, Economics, Culture, Language are elements to take into consideration. And these elements may apply differently for each case. Savvy words such as "usually" and "often" are very welcomed in the article. --- Adelius
:While not necessarily disagreeable, little of the above is sourced and should be treated accordingly.  As well, this ambiguity is discussed below and also treated in a dedicated article regarding terminology. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin America - A Historian's Perspective

message: This page is still listed on the list of featured articles Wikipedia should have as an article needing cleanup.  The  tag was removed without explanation by the anonymous IP User:86.131.132.163 at 02:10, 27 November 2005.  The article has come a long way since it was tagged with the original Cleanup request, but since this is said to be an essential topic (with the corresponding high standard of quality), and the requested Film section still isn't there, I think this article should still be tagged with a Cleanup template.  I'm adding .
<BR>--Mr. Billion 06:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree; arguably, there are still challenges in the lack of citations, etc., particularly regarding ethnocultural constituency.  Let's do what's necessary to improve it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the article still need cleanup?

message: Can the author of that section please give us a link to the sources? I've searched all through the IMF and World Bank's websites, and I could not find GDP per capita figures for 2005, not even with the link provided, which gives us data for 2004. The figures in this article seem to be taken ONLY from the CIA Factbook, which by the way are only "estimates" (since not all countries of the world have finished calculating last year's GDP; in fact, Mexico will announce this week the figure for 2005 and the growth rate, which means that whatever you find about Mexico's GDP for 2005 is only an estimate; remember, CIA does not calculate GDP, each country does that, CIA Factbook gives a report). The author of that section says he "calculated" himself (or so I understand) GDP per capita by taking GDP (from whatever source that I have not been able to corroborate), with the list of countries by population. Why would he have to do that? I mean, the last report of GDP made by the World Bank in 2005 for GDP 2004 gave you both GDP and GDP per capita, as well as GNI and GNI per capita. Why would the World Bank and/or FMI only report GDP so that we would have to make the appropriate calculations ourselves? In summary, could you please provide a link to the World Bank's and IMF reports of GDP 2005? I could use that information for 2005, if it does exists, in many other articles. --J.Alonso 18:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GDP

message: I'm positive that titling this article "Latin America" is a little politically incorrect, or at least an example of American dialect, the article should be named properly - it isn't too difficult to write a subheading "otherwise known as Latin America". Also, other pages referring to "Latin America" should be edited accordingly. It would be like having a Wikipedia page titled "Yanks" describing the americans - that's the British term for Americans btw.
:I don't agree with you.  Latin America, both in English and Spanish is neither pejorative nor a "nickname" to refer to a group of countries otherwise known as South Americans. It is not politically incorrect, since all presidents in Latin America use the term themselves, and it is almost (at least academically) universally accepted. Moreover, South America does not coincide with the definition of Latin America, unless you redefine the concept, and include Central America and Mexico into your own definition of South America, and exclude Surinam, Guyana and Belize. --J.Alonso 17:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a short question. Should we follow the United Nations' terminology that the Caribbean is not part of Latin America? If you see UN's website, they always use "Latin America and the Caribbean" as if the two aren't the same (or Caribbean is not part of Latin America). I know there's already some pretty heavy discussion above on whether we should define Latin America in terms of political correctness or cultural (linguistic) similarity, in which case somebody complained that French is not Latin. OK, all this is getting confusing. So what to do? Follow the UN?? Or leave it as it is? Heilme 07:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The UN language is not meant to oppose, in the same level, "Latin America" and "Caribbean". There is overlapping between the two terms (Dominican Republic, Cuba, etc), and some countries in the region may not fall within neither category (Guyana, Surinam, Belize). "Caribbean" is a concept based in geography; "Latin America" is not primarily based in geography, although geography can play a part to exclude or include countries, regions or dependencies (Quebec, for example). When used together, as in "Latin America and the Caribbean", the expression seems to be comprehensive of all the region south of the US, including Guyana, Surinam and Belize. That is the case for the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and other international institutions, such as the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (www.opanal.org). In both cases, "and the Caribbean" was added to the original institutions' denominations. I think the article addresses the ambiguous meaning of "Latin America" well enough. -- adelius 17:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin America / South America 

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm - You can watch the latest edition of Newsnight online at it's website, as it's a daily show, the latest is only online for 24 hours. This week, is "Latin America" week and will focus on a different aspect of Latin America in each show.  Monday's program covers the upcoming elections in Peru, Venezuelan oil and has interviews with many latin america commentators.  Keep an eye on these programs, they could help an upcoming AID. - Hahnchen 15:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch [[Newsnight]] this week 

message: IMO there's a high level of repetitevness in the article, and yet lack of actual content.<BR>
Languages spoken in LA has been discussed at three occasions in the article. At least information given in the second paragraph (introduction) of the article is redundant. This information should be moved into apropiate section(s).
The same goes for political definition of the LA. There should be a spearate section that should (try) to clear up what is and what is not LA. And my opinion is that Quebec IS NOT Latin America.
Speaking of politics and relating to history, I think that the article would benefit from more historical content and observation or two on current political situation in the region. It is ridiculous that economy section is lot bigger than history section, and all that because of a single table. I wonder if that table has a place in this article.
On the other hand culture section needs to be expanded and cleand up. List of painters should belong to ... list of painters. Or only notable painters should be mentioned with a sentence or two about their influence and significance. Other painters should be mentioned in their respective country's culture articles. And what about sculptors, modern artists that make instalations ...?
On the other other hand film section, although it bears "please expand" tag is quite good compared to other subsections.
I know it easier to criticize than to do actual work, but I don't have much knowledge about LA, and not too many time on my hands, and this points that I have made should be only taken as suggestions and are open for discussion.--RockyMM 13:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't necessarily disagree with assertions above, but I see nothing in this opinionating that is actually sourced.  That should determine the article content.  For instance, I've recently tweaked the definitions in the introduction to hark of those in common English compendiums (e.g., Oxford English Dictionary, also see Americas (terminology)); I will add references.  In any event: if any definitions are added, English or otherwise, they should be sourced ... something which this article largely lacks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO This article lacks focus. I would suggest framing the topics around the history of latin america because that is what makes the article's existence worthwhile. When opening the page I want to know how the region's language, culture and politics have been influenced by the region's "latinisation". If we don't have this as a reference point, all the sections will end up being copy and pasted from the south america and country pages. Andeggs 10:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't disagree with this assessment: the intro should be general (with defs, as above), while sxns below detail ethnocultural characteristics of the region. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual contenct of the article 

message: Do we need the long list of painters? Or does anyone know enough about the subject to trim the section? Maurreen 17:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Painters

message: The language is crude, at least in regards to the European conquest of Latin America. For example, the amount of people killed by small pox ranges wildly, even among the finest historians in the field. For example, there is not nearly enough evidence to justify that only 15% of the former population lived after the European conquest. Birth rates actually went up during colonialism, the sizes of cities grew--not because of European expansion, at least in Mexico and Central America--and archeological evidence points towards a large die off of people a few hundred years before the Europeans came in the 15th and 16th centuries. The European elites merely removed older elites from power. The Aztecs were also very despotic, so let's not try and moralize this thing to fit our 21st century ideologies. I agree that colonialism caused many wrongs, many of which exist today, but to be so partisan is rediculous. To publish in the form it was in would be horrible. Still, my edits might need a little grammar, as I am not trying to lay down the "law", but to remonstrate and correct as necessary.
The history section also has nothing about Latin American history after the independence movements.  As the Latin American History page itself has little to no information in English pertaining to this era, I think that more information here is especially needed considering the lack of it elsewhere.  CrashCart9 08:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rest of the History of Latin America article badly needs to be translated. If you want to bring this section of this article up to date, you could use material from History_of_South_America#Recent_history and History_of_Central_America#20th_century.-gadfium 18:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The French text at History of Latin America was supposed to be on the list of requests at Wikipedia:Translation/_fr, but the request was wrongly formatted so it did not appear. I've fixed that.-gadfium 18:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: What people "identify" with is up to each individual, of course, but sociologists find that broad classes of people tend to group themselves together.
Those who regard the term "Latin American" as describing them well may indeed feel a kinship or "identity" as "Latin Americans". Whether or not Brazilians apply the label "Latin American" to themselves or not can best be decided by sociologists or pollsters. Let's see some research on this, anyone want to google it up or (shudder) actually read a book?
As for Hyphenated Americans, if people use terms like "Mexican-American" to refer to U.S. citizens of Mexican heritage, then that's what the word means to them. Others, perhaps, may insist that the "American" part of "Mexican-American" ought to refer to America (continent) rather than America (country); so that term doesn't work for them.
We contributors ought not to prescribe what terms ought to mean - that would make us advocates. We should describe neutrally how people in general use these terms. --Uncle Ed 18:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Brazilians, I believe, identify themselves simply as "Brazilians" rather than "Latin-American". Except perhaps for some mild form of "third-world solidarity", I would also doubt  Brazilians in general feel any kind of "kinship" to their Spanish-speaking neighbors. Keep in mind that, although Brazil borders nearly all South American countries, the majority of the Brazilian population actually lives along (or near) the Atlantic coast , very far from the borders. Accordingly, Brazilians historically have had little or no contact on a regular basis with their Hispanic neighbors. The only exception perhaps is the southern border where contacts between Portuguese and Spanish settlers (e.g. Argentineans and Uruguayans) were (and still are) frequent. However, until recently, that relationship was one of rivalry (in colonial times, even confrontational rivalry), more so than "kinship". In many aspects though, Brazil is indeed quite similar to Hispanic America: its language (Portuguese) is very close to (although not always mutually intelligible with) Spanish; its legal system is based on Roman civil law; its economy, although quite big in absolute GDP terms (1.5 trillion US$), is nonetheless underdeveloped compared to the U.S. and Europe, and is characterized by large disparities in living standards between the poor and the middle/upper classes; and, finally, Roman Catholicism is still the dominant religion in Brazil, although the percentage of self-identified Catholics is somewhat lower than in Hispanic America (only slightly over 70 %). On the other hand, from other points of view, Brazil has some unique features that clearly set it apart from other so-called "Latin American" countries. In particular, Brazil has a far more multicultural and non-homogeneous society than most of the Hispanic countries. First of all, the native American/indigenous influence on modern Brazilian culture is insignificant compared to what one sees in Mexico, Central America, or the Andean countries. In fact, apart from numerous Tupian geographic toponyms and a few Tupian lexical borrowings into Brazilian Portuguese, indigenous culture in Brazil is now confined almost exclusively to a few remote and isolated regions in the Amazon and the center-West. Conversely,  Brazilian popular culture has a very strong and quite distinctive African component as people with some kind of African descent (generally mixed with European and, to a lesser extent, native American heritage) make up approximately half of the Brazilian population. One could argue that, in that respect, Brazil resembles somewhat the Hispanic Caribbean countries like Cuba, the Dominican Republic or Puerto Rico. However, alongside the Afro-Brazilian culture, there is also a fairly broad white middle-class culture (especially in São Paulo and in southern Brazil) which was originally mostly southern European/Mediterranean (Italian, Portuguese, Galician, Christian Lebanese) and, to a lesser extent, central/eastern European (German and Polish) in nature, but is now heavily influenced by Anglo-American culture. In that sense, Brazil, depending on your point of view, can be as "African" as Cuba or Puerto Rico, or as "European" as Argentina or southern Europe properly. There are also a few ethnic minorities in the country, like the Japanese-Brazilians (and, more recently, the Koreans and the Chinese), who are in turn a separate category in their own right . That sense of diversity and multiculturalism, combined with the aforementioned geographic isolation and differences in language (Portuguese in Brazil x Spanish in the neighboring countries), is what gives Brazilians their feeling of "distinctiveness" and make them reluctant to identify themselves with a generic, broad and somewhat artificial label such as "Latin America". Mbruno 13:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture and identity

message: As a native speaker of English and a student of both Latin and Ancient Greek, I protest the sentiment expressed in the beginning of this article that English is a Germanic language.  I will yield that English is not a true Romance language, as it did not descend directly from Latin, but it is likely made up of more Romance language derivations than Germanic, some would say a majority of English words are from Latin and Ancient Greek, and at very least it is not to be considered Germanic. DougOfDoom talk 23:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  American-English or British-English??? :-) *jokes* CaribDigita 01:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: * I disagree with your statement above that the structure of English is "almost 100 % Germanic". The fixed SVO word order in English for example is actually more similar to French (introduced by the Norman invaders) than to German, Dutch or Afrikaans, all of which have verbs in final position (i.e. 0-V order) in subordinate clauses and split auxiliary verbs from infinitives or past participles when the main verb requires an object.  Nevertheless, English still has some characteristic Germanic grammatical features such as the distinction between strong and weak verbs in the formation of the preterite and the past participle, and the formation of comparatives/superlatives of adjectives by adding the suffixes -er and -(e)st. Other elements of English grammar, e.g. the continuous tenses (I am working) are found  neither in German/Dutch/Afrikaans nor in French, but curiously also exist in Spanish/Portuguese. Finally, English grammar has a few idiossincracies of its own that are not found anywhere else either in Romance or Germanic languages, like the use of the auxiliary do in interrogative and negative statements in the present and simple past tenses overriding verb conjugation/inflection , e.g. I knew x I didn't know. Mbruno 15:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English isn't descended from Latin? 

message: I have included the names of Carlos Drummond de Andrade, Clarice Lispector, and Jorge Amado in the list of "other notable Latin American writers" to make the list more representative of Brazilian literature (there was no Brazilian author on the list before). 200.177.26.201 22:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin American Literature 

message: In the beginning the article says that 20 independant countries make up Latin America and in the picture caption. However, later on there is a listing of countries with 21. I also looked up links and found that most said 20+ countries. Someone should straighten this out, and preferably put up a couple refs for whichever choice is decided upon.
Strongfaithin1 22:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancy

message: Is Latin America a part of the western world? I'm asking this because at the western world page this issue became a very passionate discussion.
Yes it is part of the western world, because it derives its culture from Western European countries as much ae US and Canada. LAtin America is not a copy of Europe, but US and Canada are not either and had African an native influences too. some countries in Latin America, such as Argentina have more Population of European descent that the US, why it would be not western ?--Fabb leb 23:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the discussion in Talk:Western world we came to that European descent does not mean anything, for example, some European countries such as Belarus are never considered part of Western World.--Nixer 02:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Western World