Jump to content

Talk:Latin peoples/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

What is the subject of this article?

Sorry, I must have missed something. Taking into account that an article of the Romance languages exists, what is the separate topic of this article? Borsoka (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

peo·ple
ˈpēpəl/
noun
human beings in general or considered collectively.(1)

Afro-Eurasian (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source which defines the term "Latin people"? Borsoka (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CFORK

The only reliable source defining the term "Latin peoples" clearly refers to the Hispanic and Latino Americans. According to Wikipedia:CFORK, "redundant or conflicting articles ... are to be avoided". Merging this article into the latter is the best solution. Borsoka (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Not exactly. There is such a thing as Latin Europeans (a.k.a. Latin peoples), i.e., those who are or have been Romanized/Latinized (e.g., Portuguese, Spaniard, French, Italian, Romanian). Merging Latin peoples with an article regarding Americans of Latin descent is not appropriate. That would be like merging Slavs with Slavic Americans. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Would you please refer to at least one reliable source on which your above statement of the Latin peoples is made? Borsoka (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Afro-Eurasian, please use this Talk page (as it is proposed by the template at the top of the article). Please also try to find reliable sources which prove that the term "Latin peoples" is used when referring to all Romance-speaking peoples. Borsoka (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Latin peoples = Romance peoples

Source: http://books.google.ro/books?id=hosdAQAAMAAJ&q=%22latin+or+romance+peoples%22&dq=%22latin+or+romance+peoples%22&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=ok_5UrOUMcPWtQbx84DIBA&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA (author: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Edward_Romilly_Boak) 79.117.186.27 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Titles

There is such a mess here! Why do Latin people or Latins redirect here? Latin people is not the same with Latin peoples. Peoples means ethnic groups, while people means persons 79.117.186.27 (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Michel Chevalier

Identification of Latin people rose to prominence with Michel Chevalier contrasting the "Latin" peoples of the Americas with the "Anglo-Saxon" peoples there (text formerly existing in the article) is not the same with Chevalier contrasted the “Latin” peoples of the Americas with the “Anglo-Saxon” peoples (text from the source) 86.127.13.169 (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I can't find the "Identification of Latin people rose to prominence" part in the source 86.127.13.169 (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the above clarification. Borsoka (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Rename

Should "Latin peoples" be renamed "Romance peoples" or "Romantic peoples"? I believe "Latin peoples" is an inappropriate term. For example, there are Hellenic peoples, Celtic peoples, Germanic peoples, Balto-Slavic peoples, Finno-Ugric peoples, etc. And I noticed there seems to have been a debate regarding which nations are "Latin", which I assume means Romanized culturally and/or linguistically. If not, then I don't think "Latin peoples" should even be an article because it makes no sense. So here's what I would generally consider "Romance peoples":

  • Portuguese (Ibero-Roman)
  • Spaniards (Ibero-Roman)
  • Gibraltarians* (Ibero-Roman)
  • Andorrans
  • French (Gallo-Roman)
  • Corsicans
  • Monegasque
  • Belgians* (Gallo-Roman)
  • Swiss* (Gallo-Roman and Italo-Roman)
  • Italians (Italo-Roman)
  • Sardinians
  • Sammarinese
  • Sicilians
  • Romanians (Daco-Roman)
  • Moldovans (Daco-Roman)
  • Aromanians*
  • Istro-Romanians*
  • Magleno-Romanians*

Any thoughts? Original European (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Original European, would you please refer to the reliable source based on which the article could be written. Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
You're asking us to provide sources supporting the obviousness. I've presented here Talk:Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans some sources which label Romanians, Italians and French people (peoples who speak Romance languages) as Latin peoples. 79.117.174.165 (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
So reliable sources states that these are the Latin peoples. However, there is no reliable source defining all Romance-speaking peoples as "Latin peoples". Is there a reliable source which concentrates on the "Latin peoples"? My concern is that based on "by the way" remarks in books of the AIDS in France or of Romanian historiography we cannot write an article. I would be surprised if AIDS were one of the common features of the Latin peoples. Borsoka (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't you agree that "Romance peoples" = "peoples speaking a Romance language"? 82.79.214.57 (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not a reliable source: my own views are not relevant. I think the following questions are relevant, if we want to improve this article: (1) Which reliable source states that "Romance peoples" and "Latin peoples" are identical? (2) Which reliable source defines the terms "Latin peoples" and "Romance peoples"? (3) Is there any reliable source which writes not of the Romance languages, or of the French, Italians, or an other "Latin" or "Romance" (?) people, but of the "Latin"/"Romance" peoples. Borsoka (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Answer to question no. 1: According to Arthur Edward Romilly Boak, "Two Latin or Romance peoples also lived in the dual monarchy, the Italians of "unredeemed Italy" around Trieste and southern Tirol, and the more numerous Rumanians in Transylvania and other parts of eastern Hungary". It is affirmed that Latin peoples is the same with Romance peoples — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.127.21.105 (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this 60-year-old book states that Romanians and Italians are both Latin and Romance-speaking. What does it write of the Latin or Romance peoples? Based on this source can we write the article? Borsoka (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Definitely the topic meets Wikipedia:Notability. If there aren't enough general information about Latin peoples. the article can take the form of a Wikipedia:List. (my comment at Talk:Hispanic and Latino Americans) 79.117.162.137 (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
So, if my understanding correct, because a source written 60 years ago mentions that the Italians and the Romanians are both Latins and Romance, we write a list of the Romance-speaking or Latin peoples. What is the purpose of the list containing two peoples? Is there any common features of the two peoples other than the language? Borsoka (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
"What is the purpose of the list containing two peoples"? Copy-paste from my comment from a discussion where you participated: "Thomas Bass, professor in literature and history, states that "The French are a Latin people" [1]". Copy-paste from a comment of yours: " There is a reliable source which states that the term "Latin peoples" covers Hispanic and Latino Americans". 3 + no of Latino Americans > 2 82.79.214.207 (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I see. Although there is no reliable source dealing with the "Latin peoples" or "Romance-speaking" peoples, but this is such a notable topic, that we should create a list based on adjectives we find in books written of AIDS in France, of Romanian historiography or of certain aspects of the society in the USA. Borsoka (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
What's your proposal then? 82.79.214.207 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Instead of arguing about sources, let us first determine whether or not the article should be named "Latin peoples" or "Romance peoples". This article should definitely exist as there are other Indo-European articles regarding Celtic peoples, Germanic peoples, Slavic peoples, etc. But first let us determine the article's name. Original European (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. Before determining the article's name we should find a reliable source based on which an article can be written. The discussion above suggests that no source which deals with all the peoples claimed to be Latin or Romance exist. If we cannot add separate information under the title "Latin peoples", we should delete this page. Likewise, if we cannot write a separate article of Romance peoples, we should redirect this page to Romance languages. Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Borsoka. Yes, I read WP:NOR. This is why I am trying to determine the article's name. I believe it should be Romance peoples, not Latin peoples. "Latin" seems like it refers to, in the present-day, Latin Americans. That is why I am suggesting "Romance peoples". There should be an article in regards to the "Romance" or "Latin" peoples. This is why we have Celtic peoples, Germanic peoples, Baltic peoples, Slavic peoples, Finno-Ugric peoples, etc. Original European (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Afro-Eurasian, there is no Wikipedia policy prescribing that an article titled "Latin peoples" or "Romance peoples" should exist. On the other hand, WP:NOR is a well established policy of our community. So we need reliable sources if we want to write an article. Borsoka (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not interested nor am I concerned with this article, or any Indo-European article for that matter. I am just suggesting it should be renamed. Cheers, Original European (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Afro-Eurasian, please do not edit my messages on this Talk page. So, if my understanding is correct, you agree that no reliable sources exist based on which an article "Latin peoples" or "Romance peoples" could be written. Borsoka (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I sent you a message on your talk page. Yes, I agree. This page should be deleted if it can't be renamed "Romance peoples". Cheers, Original European (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've found several sources that refer to Latin peoples in general and I've added some text [2]. Possibly there are also other available sources too. 79.117.168.195 (talk) 06:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a term I use, but judging by the OED, "Latin peoples" seems to be well-established, while "Romance peoples" is hardly used. A "Latin" is "a member of any of the various communities in Europe (France, Italy, Spain, etc.) and Latin America whose language is derived from Latin." It certainly wouldn't be "Romantic", which means something else entirely. Another possibility would be "Romanic", but that's of the same era as "Teutonic". — kwami (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Kwamikagami, thanks for your comment. Do you think you can find the sources requested here? 79.117.185.96 (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The OED doesn't define "Romance peoples" directly, but it defines "Romanic" (no T) as "derived or descended from the Romans; belonging to the Romance peoples." I doubt anyone would consider it "an" ethno-linguistic group, except to the extent that "the Aryans of Europe are the Skipitar, Celts, Greeks, Latins, Germans of all branches, Lithuanians, or Letts and Slavs" (1876). — kwami (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
One of the problems in trying to find sources for this kind of thing is that it's mostly part of racial geography, which has generally been replaced with cultural geography. When you find sources, most talk about how advanced various races are, their physical, mental, and cultural characteristics, etc., and that kind of thing went out half a century ago. Farrell (2001) Latin Language and Latin Culture, for example, puts "Latin peoples" (in the modern sense) in scare quotes. Robertson (1885) Mind say "of the three chief peoples of modern times, the Germans, the Romance peoples and the Slavs," making it clear that Romance = Latin, but such usage is rare today and perhaps a bit obsolete. I don't see that we even need to mention it in the lead to our article, let alone move the article to that name. — kwami (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Kwamikagami, thanks for your post. What's your suggestion? Should we create a redirect to Romance languages? Another issue is with the titles Latins and Latin people, which redirect here but I think they have a different meaning (e.g. Roman Catholics or Latins (Italic tribe)) 79.117.177.226 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to advise to delete, since it's not fictional the way many reified linguistic classifications such as "Balto-Slavic peoples" or "Finno-Ugric peoples" are. There is, for example, the "Latin Union", and it's parallel to our articles on Slavs, Celts, and Germanic peoples. Deletion would deserve a separate discussion IMO. "Latins" is fine as a redirect, but "Latin people" could also refer to the citizens of Latium, so I'd either make it a dab or add a hatnote to this article. — kwami (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
We have a page for Slavs, the Germanic peoples, why not one for the Latins? It should include all the aforementioned people as given in the list above. Something similar to the Slavs. These are pan-ethnic groups, with similar linguistic heritage. This article should not be deleted. However I do believe there should be a big cleanup on all these linguistic groups and their articles. Viller the Great (talk) 06:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Merriam Webster

Seriously now User:Borsoka, aren't you able to read a source correctly or you are manipulating it on purpose? This dictionary entry http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/latin does not say that Latin peoples is the same with Roman Catholic peoples. It only says that Latin (and not Latin Peoples), in a certain context (for instance in this book), can be defined as of or relating to the part of the Catholic Church that until recently used a Latin rite and forms the patriarchate of the pope

On the other hand, I think that Latin people (Latins) can signify Roman Catholics. Latin people is not the same with Latin peoples. Peoples means ethnic groups, while people means persons 79.117.160.159 (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Anon, please read edit history, before accusing me. It was not me who used that source in order to substantiate the claim that "Latin peoples" = "Romance peoples". I only drew attention to the fact that the same source says that "Latin" = "Romance" or "Roman Catholic" or ..... Would you please add a reliable sources (1) defining the meaning of "Latin peoples", (2) stating that "Latin peoples" and "Romance peoples" are the same group (that is Latins cannot be listed among the Latin peoples, because they did not speak a Romance language), (3) providing information on the "Latin peoples" (what are their common features besides the language). Borsoka (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Answer to (2): "Latin or Romance peoples" [3] 79.117.185.96 (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. So, if my understanding correct Latin peoples are those who speak a Romance language and were considered as an inferior class of peoples by Germans. Is there any other data which could be added to this article based on reliable sources? (comment by User:Borsoka)
I dont' think outmoded ideas of racial geography and racial superiority are relevant except in articles on those subjects. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. However, if the only common feature of the Latin peoples / Romance peoples that they speak a Romance language, why do we need a separate article? Instead we could redirect this page to Romance languages. Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, a separate article is perhaps useful in documenting how the term's been used historically. However, I don't think we need a summary of Romance langs or Latium here. — Lfdder (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree, provided reliable sources can be used. However, based on books written of the French, Italians, ... we cannot write a book of the Romance-speaking peoples. If no reliable books exist which deals with all the Latin peoples, we should not create an article. Borsoka (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
"We should not create an article". A complete answer would be to also tell what you consider we should do. 86.127.24.200 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


you can not just something deleted from the history!

Latin peoples must remain.

LATINOITALIANO the letters do not lie.

' 'non sono cretino neanch'un bambino parlo latino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcolinobiancino (talk • contribs) 09:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

LATINOITALIANO

you can not just something deleted from the history!

Latin peoples must remain.

LATINOITALIANO the letters do not lie.

' 'non sono cretino neanch'un bambino parlo latino


--Marcolinobiancino (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Latin peoples

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Latin peoples's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":

  • From Latins: George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State
  • From Italians: La popolazione del Mondo Greco-Romano, Karl Julius Beloch

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latin peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the subject of the article?

After 4 years, I again have to raise the questions: what is the subject of the article and which reliable sources define its subject? If we cannot verify the article with inline citations to reliable sources, we should delete it, as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This article has major issues

Surprisingly there was no consensus on the previous discussion some years ago to delete this article. It certainly qualifies for deletion by several criteria.

  • The article does not treat a specific subject, but rather a variety of things called "Latin" throughout history. Information about Romance languages, Latins (Italic tribe) tribe and a variety of peoples referred to as Latin are treated separately without any coherence. As the subject is not treated in detail it struggles to pass WP:GNG.
  • The article has significant overlap with other articles, in particular Italic peoples, Latins (Italic tribe) and Romance-speaking world.
  • The primary contributor to this article is Afro-Eurasian and his sock Paleolithic Man. As per WP:BANREVERT content by banned users is not welcome at Wikipedia.
  • The article is a synthesis of information. Almost none of the sources deal with the subject of "Latin peoples", but are rather synthesized by Afro-Eurasian through original research. Original research is a reason for deletion.
  • Most of the article is forked content from Latins (Italic tribe) and the summaries of the articles about various Romance-speaking peoples in Europe. Forked content is another reason for deletion.

By merging this article elsewhere, we can solve the problems mentioned above without erasing the edit history. An excellent candidate for merger is Italic peoples, which essentially covers the same scope and is of better quality. Krakkos (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Since this has already been to AFD once, I think you need to go back before merging it. Note I'm not disagreeing with you're assessment of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latin_peoples/Archive_1&oldid=1222188268"