Talk:Latino (demonym)

Archives
Archive1 Archive2

spanish

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

Latinos and language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

987a123

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

Europeans are not Latinos.

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

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

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

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

Yet again, EDGARR: let's discuss it here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similar and related terms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, Edgar. I propose these changes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hispanic/latinos agian!!!!!

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

Hispanic/Latino

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

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

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

"see where it say Latino music and Latin interchangeabley"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know what suffices? Reliable sources. S

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

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

Not exactly (E)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've never said otherwise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's. The quotation box is still below.

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

Anti Latin American propaganda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similar and related terms

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

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

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

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