Talk:Latin Europe/Archive 1

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

Latin Europe & Latin America

I would say that latin america is the equivalent of latin europe in the american continent, not the inverse. Latin europe exist since 2000 years, while latin america had its latin influence since only 500 years (and the latin identity is only one part of latin america : we should not forget the native indian and african influences). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk • contribs)

" making the term Latin America diffult to be accepted by some Latin Europeans " I don't think that latin European have any difficulty to accept and use the term latin America, as long as it is used correctly. There is traditionally strong links between the two shores of the latin world, especially with countries like Brazil, Argentina or Mexico. What some latin Europeans have difficulties to accept is that the term "latin" would be applied ONLY to latin-Americans, as the present tendency (due to US/Cuban pop culture, Cf. "latino" stars, etc.) is slowly changing the meaning in this direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk • contribs)
Well... there is a further difficulty. You see, many in Portugal and Spain reject the name Latin America as a French invention, aiming at increasing French power and intervention at what many call Ibero-America. The Ogre 13:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant to speak about "core Latin Europe" or such things. Leave such stupid statements apart, they only reflect your prejudice and lack of education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.166.244.65 (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Latin Europe

Parts of Europe that are latin in influence are also Istria and Dalmatia. Many of these areas were Venetian and still speak it. Also, Slovenia has Italian as an official language especially in Pirano, Isola and Capodistria. I checked this on the internet a few days ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.217.216 (talk • contribs)

Yes, this should be included as "Italian-speaking municipalities of Slovenia". Ronline ✉ 13:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
"Some parts of the Italian region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia are Slovenian-speaking, with Slovenian having the status of official language alongside Italian and Friulian" I'm not sure this is correct. Can anyone confirm this? Also, there are very few native Italian speakers remaining in Istria and Dalmatia, since most native Italians were displaced immediately following world war II. The influence remains in the culture, architecture and cuisine- but the latin language is now virtually extinct. 207.6.233.239 19:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
In 2006 there are not only Italians in Slovenia, but even in Croatia. They are mainly concentrated in Istria, but even in small amounts in Dalmatia, Fiume (Rijeka) and Zara (Zadar). Furthermore, the article makes no reference to the Aromanians (Vlachs) living scatered in the southern Balkans (between Greece,Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey and Bulgaria). These Aromanians are a neolatin population of around 250000. The Vlachs are experiencing with the European Union an awakening revival that has allowed their recognition as a minority by the government of Macedonia. There are even communities of Romanians in the countries surrounding Romania, like Ukraine (that in the last census states that there are 325000 Moldovians/Romanians inside its borders). Brunodam (10/31/06). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunodam (talk • contribs)
Also, it is completely irrelevant and insultive to exclude Romania form the bunch of the so called "core Latin Europe" (??? the dude made the expression all by himself, nice). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veli Koskela (talk • contribs)
Dont worry, it reads better now... Iamandrewrice (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why can't folk just stop adding stuff like "core Latin Europe". In which way does that improve the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.232.138.137 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Celtic?

"Brittany in France, Galicia and Asturias in Spain show a Celtic flavour" This line is terrible, Breton IS a Celtic language, specifically, a Brythonic language related to Welsh and Cornish, it's not merely a 'flavour'. The Galician language and Astur-Leonese language on the other hand are completely Latin, saying they have a 'celtic flavour' is equivalent of saying German has a 'Celtic flavour' because Celts used to inhabit pre-Roman Germany. Semi-Lobster, 22:20, 30 March 2006

I think the expression "celtic flavour" in the case of Britanny is right since the number of speakers of Breton is so small that we canno't speak of Britanny as a "celtic nation" - for 99% of population of Britanny the "celtiness" is limited to a "identity feeling" more than a real celtic culture. The same for Galicia, where people feel close to a "celticness", even if basically they are latin : a romance-speaking people. That's why excluding those regions from latin Europe would be wrong, but saying that they are latin regions with a celtic flavour describe those region much better. being myself a Breton, I like "celticness", but basically I know that it is just a mark of the past that doesn't describe my actual identity as a French and romance speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk • contribs)
In that case, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall and the Isle of Man should be considered Germanic nations. But they are considered Celtic instead, the Celtic language in these countries is a cultrual issue rather than a tool of every day communication. Brittany makes no difference, it's rather a Celtic nation with a Latin flavour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veli Koskela (talk • contribs)
There is no 'Celticness' in Galacian or Asturian. The languages are thoroughly Latin. As for Brittany, Breton is spoken by 300,000 billingual, mostly elderly people, while the rest are monolingual French speakers. I never said these places should be excluded I was saying that comparing Galician and Asturian which have no Celtic influence to Brittany, which does have (an allbeit near extinct) Brythonic language was incorrect. I'm suggestion that the line about Brittany should be rewritten and speak of the billingualness of Brittany with an Oïl speaking majority and a historical autochthonous Breton language and that the mention of Galicia and Asturias as 'celtic' should be removed. Semi-Lobster, 15:43, 3 April 2006
"speak of the billingualness of Brittany". Being a Breton, I can assure you that the idea of "Britanny" as a bilingual region is false. The people who speak the language are a big minority (less than 10%), most of them know it only as a second or third language thanks to the écoles Diwan. Almost Nobody speaks Breton outside its home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk • contribs)

Indeed, Breton has almost gone the way of Cornish and Manx, and probably will be completely dead in a decade or two. And besides, Breton is not the only language of Brittany, there is also Gallo. Of course officially no language in the Republic of France recieves special treatment, but for a historical context it could be mentioned that before World War II Breton was once commonly spoken and now is spoken only by a shrinking, aged minority of people. I'm not disputing the 'Cetlicness' or the lack there of in Brittany, my main point is that there absolutely no Celtic influence linguistically on Galician and Asturian. Semi-Lobster 22:51, 3 April 2006

Huh?

I am the only one who find this sentence clunky and confunsing: " The use of the words Latin and latino as used in the United States and in the Americas to speak only about Latin-American things is considered ignorance-derived by Latin Europeans, and can be considered offensive." --chemica 06:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It means that "latin" and "latino" means all the languages derived from latin, not only spanish and portuguese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.219.102 (talk • contribs)

The English people and language are Romance

Rhode Islander 22:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I kind of agree The Language of English is a Combination Of French Latin German and other influences, but a significant proportion is definitely Romance Language derived many everyday words have there roots in French a Romance language - Maybe It needs to be mentioned , however I wouldn't suggest it was called a romance language or 'latin as it is obviously in the Germanic group --ARBAY (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

English wasn't influenced by French but by Norman, which doesn't amount to the same thing.--213.38.11.86(talk) 10:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It was influenced by Norman (a Romance language from Normandy, which is in France, therefore a French language, which shares origins with the modern French tongue) and other registers of French. Someone didn't just come over and say: here's Norman French, do something with it. Language moves in waves. Think of how we say Chandelier, Charles and character, we get tall these world from French (though they are not all of French origin, I know) but at different times and from different French so they are pronounced differently. Arthurian Legend (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
English is a Germanic language, firstly closely related to Frisian, in northern Netherlands. this region, with northern Germany is where are coming from the Angles and Saxons the Germanic tribes that founded the English people. Englsih language and people also recieved other Germanic languages influences, those of Scandinavians, norse people - this influence is really huge. In terms of culture, if we look at main dominant religion the English are also clearly northern Europeans, sharing Protestantims as well as Dutch, northern Germans and Scandinavians. Other cultural more superfical characteristics such as food or a lot of customs are common with the other Germanic nations.

The romance influence over English is limited to some vocabulary (especially the intellectual vacabulary (the less used)) and never affected the grammar of the core vocabulary. Having some latin vocabulary is not an English specificity, but is also found in the other germanic languages, and also in slavic ones. If you were form a romance-based culture it would be obvious for you that English-speaking world is a complete different world, both in linguistic and cultural terms. 82.224.59.166 (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that English is classified as Germanic, but your perception of English people is entirely wrong. The Angles and Saxons were just one more wave of invaders, and that's reflected in today's English customs. These customs are unique, but one can make as many (or as little) parallels with Latin culture as with Germanic. As to northern European influence, I don't know where you find it (binge drinking? that's probably a more recent global thing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.132.242.1 (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Some vocabulary?! Sixty percent of words are from Latin and (mostly) Latinized Greek words (Latin is about 44% and Greek is about 16%) Yes, English is a Germanic language, but don't assume that it's native speakers speakers (or specifically those in England) are more like the Dutch or the German simply because the language share origins or they share some similar religious views. There are millions of German-speaking and/or northern European Catholics, how do they fit into your inequation? I also think its a belittling view of Germanic cultures and Latin cultures to say that they are all generally the same because of language shifts and Martin Luther. Where do the Irish fit in that scheme (a Latinized Greek word) as rather Northern European Catholics? What about German Brazilians? I don't know if a high church Anglican/Anglo-Catholic would appreciate at your comparing him to a Calvinist churchgoer, nor would the Francophone Genevans. Arthurian Legend (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • English is a special case. When talking about the Romance languages, English is often also referred because of the large number of Latin-origin words. -Pedro (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously english is not a romance language, but germanic. Having some loan words from latin doesnt make itself romance descendant. --Jfarinhote (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  • English doesn't have "some" loan words. I'm not saying it is Latin, but influence in the language is very strong. It can be referred somewhere in the article. That is still incredibly poor. --Pedro (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


English without latin would be like swedish, dutch, etc. Blend & flexibility are characteristics of english, the greatness and misfortune of english language. An english strongly latin-influenced = literary english = cult, elegant & polished language An english heavely germanized = colloquial english = low-class, poor-quality language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.250.53 (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Latin cultures

Hello everyone! You may want to go to Latin cultures an participate in the article and discussion. There are a lot of disputed statements... The Ogre 12:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Expand the Article

I really think this article could be alot better...it needs to be compared to the amount of information on the Latin America article....Demographics-people...Ecomomy....History of the latin region etc......lets Try and make it alot better....! spain17 July 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.238.168 (talk • contribs)

Sections and tags

I have tagged the sections, Culture, Dance and Music, and the Gallery. The first two are anecdotical. The last is just wrong - Wikipedia is not a gallery (try the commons!). The Ogre 21:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Is afew photos of the countries that we are talking about really that wrong?...not many people actualy go to wikicommons to look at pictures anyway..unless they use them on wikipedia...thats why people uploaded them in the first place..i think. Have you seen other articles on other cities in wiki....obviously lots of other people think the same...check them out......or just add some writting yourself in the article where you think it needs different approach..... Spain21 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not against the pictures, what I think is that they should illustrate text, and not be a gallery in itself. The other two sections need a major re-write and expansion. The Ogre 12:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

oh ok, I understand but maybe if we just keep afew like that and obviously add others to when we expand the other sections of the article...Ive tried to add many sections recently just to quickly expand the article as a whole since i noticed it had just become alittle stale and thought it cold be longer..looking like the other aricles of the world....,.hopefully other people will contribute in the future. Spain21 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The flag of the Canary islands is missing on the territories table!--Burgas00 10:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Romania

So, would Romanians be classified as Latinos? Or what ethnic group do they belong to? By reading this article, I'm guessing that anyone from Latin Europe would be classified as Latino, right? Not just Spain and Portugal.

Well yes I agree that anyone from mediterranean europe is technically classified as Latino. However, I am having difficulty referencing this fact, and it seems that many people only interpret 'Latino' as the 'Latin-Americans', although yes, you are correct, Latino can also include 'Latin-Europeans'. Iamandrewrice (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"Latino" is a north American English term to describe South Americans of mixed Spanish and native background. The people of the Latin Arch could be described as Latin in the English language (no "o").. generally former Eastern Bloc hellholes aren't included with the scope of that, despite some Romance langauge been spoke there. - Gennarous (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Not even true. Latino is Spanish for Latin. Read this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.190.36 (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
We're speaking the English language, not Spanish. And in the English language, Europeans, Spanish or otherwise are not referred to as "Latinos", ever. Unlike in the United States where they call South Americans "latinos". - Gennarous (talk)

i have put a lot of effort into improving this article...

My main problem with it was that hardly any effort had been made about the smaller countries and states included in Latin Europe, with only France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Romania being predominantly discussed. Vatican City and Malta, I was extremely surprised at, had very insignificant mentioning. Vatican City's language is Italian however, which automatically qualifies it, and Malta, although unnoficially using Italian, has enough media outputs, such as TV, radio, documentations, use in everyday speech, and also input into own language, to be regarded. I have now ensured that Andorra, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City, all are given equal worth. I will continue to work on this article however, as I think there is still a lot to improve. Iamandrewrice (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont think Malta is part of Latin Europe..since there is no official language that is totally descended from Latin....even though there are many words borrowed from Italian, there are only Maltese and english which both have Latin language influences but sadly that doesnt make them bother Latin languages...therefore Malta cannot be in Latin europe..ive never thought of Malta being a Latin country...but i do think youve don a good job on most of the article.. Oh and Macedonia??...part of Latin Europe...i dont agree im affraid since in order to be part of Latin Europe the country needs to use a Latin descended language Officially...The United States has millions of Spanish speakers but is not a Latin country becuase the main de facto language (even though not official) is English in roots and culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.224.1 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Maltese is a Semitic language and over half its vocab is Romance. Malta has historically been (and still is) staunchly Catholic. Your thoughts on the matter aside, Italian was the lingua franca of the islands longer than English has been co-official and Maltese literature before Independence was mainly written in Italian. Maltese nationalism was largely a result of the Italian Risorgimento. 66% of the population speak it today. Research your opinions and you will find that many of your difficulties sort themselves out. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it's also irrelevant to the article if there are significant numbers of loan words or not.213.38.11.86 (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

flagicon - Luxembourg

Hello everyone. The flag icon of Luxembourg (Luxembourg) does not appear on the box - there seems to be a format problem. Could someone fix it? Thank you. The Ogre 15:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Ok. Just realised the problem is a line break! Sorry! The Ogre 15:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

New version

Did a lot of work in the article. It was full of contradictions, incorrections, duplications, strange selections, POV and OR - namely after all the edits done by now indefinitely banned user Iamandrewrice. Hope now it's better. The Ogre 17:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you did a swipe of alot of info, although what about the Balearic Islands, they are part of spain also...although both the canarys and Balearic people dont like to think of themselves as not Spanish or seperate.....and in know you dont like afew photos of latin europe but afew shouldnt be that bad since ive seen them of many other article but not too many as the other user did..Bluesky 18:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all you present yourselve as "Bluesky" whem you seem to be an anon IP adress user (81.154.224.1) - This is strange... Regarding your comments, I did not "swipe of alot of info"! The Balearic islands were not mentioned before, that I had noticed. They should be added, though, and I'll do that. Regarding your comments about what the Canarians and Balearic think, weel, that is disputed and we shouldn't get into a POV discussion. About the images, there is no problem with some images, if they do not constitute a gallery and if their have some relation with the article - I believe a bunch of turistical pictures of some cities do not. The Ogre 18:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Numerous Issues

  • Which exact regions of Slovenia speak Italian?
  • Is the Italian and Romanian spoken in Istria county official or non-official?
  • Is the Romanian spoken in Timočka Krajina (which = Bor District + Zaječar District put together) official?
  • Serbia has both co-official and non-official usage of Romanian. Therefore, in which list should it be mentioned in? or both? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Using Wikipedia itself as a source, here's what I got:
  1. Italian language in Slovenia says it's official in Piran, Izola and Koper.
  2. Italian language in Croatia says Italian is official in Istria County. Istro-Romanian language says Istro-Romanian is not official in Istria County.
  3. Vlach language in Serbia says Romanian is not official in Timojcka-Krajina
  4. Both.
SamEV (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that out, I have put it into the article. However, we still have various things that need discussing. If Serbia is put in both, then surely almost every single country will be? Switzerland has official (or co-official) areas speaking Romance Languages. However, there are almost undoubtedly going to be areas there where it is also un-officially spoken too? What should we do? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I vote for including mixed official/unofficial countries in the official list, but also stating that Romance languages are spoken unofficially in some regions. SamEV (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
that seems like a good idea. i will start on it now Crystalclearchanges (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. And, you want to merge Latin European with what article? SamEV (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
hmmm... i am not sure it is such a good idea to list them like that any more actually. If you check the current revision of that section, it doesn't work very well, and it means that the total areas in each section won't add up from the figures beneath them. I think perhaps we should just stick to listing them in both. Oh and I thought that merging Latin demonym and Latin European was advisable, or at least worth discussion. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

CCC, whichever way you decide to list them, that's fine. I must say, I'm not thrilled about the inclusion of land area; I think population figures should suffice. About Latin (demonym): it doesn't exist: Latin European is the article formerly known as Latin (demonym), per rename. SamEV (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am currently making some large changes to that bit of it. I think it should be a lot better afterwards, but I'm not that great with html, so we'll have to wait and see ;) 89.241.246.10 (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The map in the infobox is factually wrong. It shows as if Italian was official language in half of the country while it is in fact a co-official language (minority language) only in 3 coastal municipalities. Someone needs to take care of that. --Tone 15:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides, only Macedonia is coloured in red as the region where Aromanian is spoken while the article says it is spoken in Greece, Albania, Romania, Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria. --Tone 15:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm done! :) (I'm User:Crystalclearchanges by the way). We've been having problems categorizing different things, but now I've put the whole lot in a table. That is like the most complicated html I have done lol, so I'm quite proud. I think its much better now. It still needs work, but at least now we have a frame to build on.
Tone, that is not what the map says, please read the key. Regarding the map, according to the categorizations and the improvement of our understanding of smaller areas of covering, I will shortly have the colors and codes moved around and corrected, but for the moment, we need to make sure the article is ok. So what do you think guys? 89.241.246.10 (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I read the key. It says: yellow - Unofficial (regional) language. In Slovenia, it is a co-official minority language (in a region, considerably smaller than the map shows) so the colour is wrong. Presumably the same goes for Croatia. About Macedonia, in fact you're right, Aromanian is recognized as a minority language while in other regions it is not. Still, why tho colours (red and yellow)? --Tone 15:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes the map is wrong, but there is nothing we can do until we finish the table in the article, so that we can clearly see which parts should be and which parts should not be which colour on a map. If you would like to help us get the map done sooner, then one thing to do would be to help sort out the areas listed in the table itself and add as much information as you can to them. We have already been through 5 maps, each one being slightly wrong, so we don't want a repeat of last time, so we might as well just get clear on which areas should actually be in the map before we make it. Thanks 89.241.246.10 (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no problem with waiting a while :-) I would rather not involve in correcting the map myself because many editors mean a mess... May I just point out the gallery of notable latin Europeans? The selection is rather curious, out of 10 people there are 4 contemporary movie stars. The article would be better off without such a gallery. Otherwise, the article has developed quite nicely, good work. --Tone 16:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, ummm....for the map I just copied the areas coloured on the previous map, so I didn't know exactly what was what. so if you show me exactly what needs to be corrected I will correct it. nat.utoronto 19:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thats really nice of you Nat, but we're not quite ready to make a new map yet until we can actually complete the table. The map though, this time should have three colours. One for "Official", "Co-Official", and "Unofficial". 84.13.151.123 (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In the regional cases, maybe you should also add "Regional" or "Regionally" below the country name, because although you show the region names in the next column, that may still not totally convey the fact by itself. But except for all that space between the table of contents and the next section, so far so good. How about you Ogre, where do you stand on this? SamEV (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

84.13.151.123, I see you were working on just that as I wrote the above message. I moved some sections around to remove the white space. I'm done. SamEV (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

God i have been working hours on this and i'm still not there ¬_¬ I will try be done soon... :) If you're wondering why i'm not logging in by the way, its because I've kinda half retired so i dont really log in... 84.13.151.123 (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If anyone's got time... could they do the rest of the populations in the table? i'm really tired and i'm calling it a night. See you evryone x ciao 84.13.151.123 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll work on it a bit later. But don't be afraid to beat me to it, anyone else who's reading this! :) SamEV (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Another question: Germany during the Middle Ages would have been included due to religious reasons. Why's that? Because the language of the clergy was latin? I don't see this as a significant reason to include Germany as a latin-speaking country. If there's another reason, please make it clearer. And source it. --Tone 14:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the section on Religion be removed as was done with the one on Culture? It just seems out of place in the article. Also, why do the countries' GDP need to be included in the table? What exactly is this adding to the article? --Gibmetal 77talk 14:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I am going to merge the religion into the table. The religion is slightly more relevant than the culture because Latin Europe is regarded as sharing Latin religions as well as languages.
I agree about that German thing, I'm not exactly sure what that's meant to be.
Regarding the GDP, some of the countries had them listed in the infobox, and now that I have added the GDP to the table, it means we can add up a total GDP for the whole lot to include in the infobox as one figure, and not a list of some of the countries. 89.241.219.79 (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Besides, those numbers are weird (compare Portugal and Spain). And totally irrelevant for the article. Even the area is not needed, IMO. And I would like someone to comment on my remark about the gallery. --Tone 14:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
In my oppinion the area should definitely stay. The GDP i have to admit is slightly disputable, but we do need to sort out the figures for Portugal. I have asked on the Portugal talk page why the figure is so strange, and have as of yet received no reply.
I think that the best course of action for the gallery would be to include one person from each of the countries listed. That way we can satisfy everyone :) Crystalclearchanges (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I also think the area shoud stay. If the GDP is going to be added to add to the infobox and deleted from the table that would be fine. There is definitely something with the figures for Portugal!
As for the gallery, idealy it should include one person from each country/territory. However, that would be at least 22 images! So I'm not sure... --Gibmetal 77talk 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm indifferent on including GDP.
The sentence about Germany means that as a Catholic, western European nation, it once upon a time fit a definition of Latin. But I see no great reason for retaining that sentence.
Gibmetal and CCC, I think the religion and the culture sections both belong. This is not an article about a language or a language group, but about a region of Europe and its people.
Tone, please edit the gallery. I agree with CCC, one person from each country; don't worry about 22 little images, Gib. The gallery is by default hidden, anyway. SamEV (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok well done for finding those figures Sam ;) I will work on adding up the information to compile the infobox now. This article is really coming along well. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just put the legend of the languages map into 3 columms which helps the layout of the page. I hope that helps!
Just a note on the gallery... We have to aim to include people of varied proffessions and genrations. Has anyone taken a shot at it yet? --Gibmetal 77talk 14:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, CCC.

Gibmetal, that does look better. You're right again about the gallery, and I'm hoping Tone will fix it. SamEV (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How about removing the Status column and instead having status indicated in the Language column? This would narrow the size of the box. SamEV (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea that might be a good idea. Maybe even do the same with the area and population too. It sould free up a lot of space... --Gibmetal 77talk 18:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
All right. Take it away, CCC! I'm taking a break. SamEV (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
A well deserved one for you I might add ;) Ok, I will continue with the article, as hopefully will Gibmetal, and Tone. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Haha. Nah, I think we all agree you're the MVP. I'll continue on this article later or probably tomorrow. Do you agree about Gibmetal's and my suggestion? SamEV (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
hehe thank you, but we're all valuable :) And I think merging the language and language status collumns could be a good move. But I think merging the area and population wouldn't be such a good idea, as the two aren't really relevant to eachother... whereas language and the status of the language is. I don't mind either way whether the language and language status are merged. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't get some of the flags to work for some reason, does anyone know why they're not going? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really mind about the area being merged with population, it was just an idea to condense the table a little. I'm not too sure why, but it seems that you can't use the flagicon feature for all the flags on wiki. I've tried it before and it's very annoying! --Gibmetal 77talk 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've just checked and the ones that don't work don't have a flag (or at least not on wiki). I gues we just leave those without flags? --Gibmetal 77talk 20:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Piran and Koper articles show flags, but their titles are in German; should that matter?
As for the others, can you import flags from other wikis, such as the German? SamEV (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Those aren't flags Sam. They are their coats of arms. --Gibmetal 77talk 21:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh... I did suspect that at some point. SamEV (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that explains it lol. Can we just use the coat of arms? 84.13.13.169 (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparently not. :( SamEV (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo gallery

Hmmm... well shall we start discussing who should be in the photo-gallery? If someone could find the flags somewhere else and make a template in the meantime that would be an added bonus, but its not too much of a priorit :p I personally think Natalie Gauci could make a suitable candidate for the Maltese celebrity, to start off with, although having said that, she also has Italian roots. I think this would be a good thing anyway though, as the majority of people in Malta trace their roots to Italy at some point back anyway, and it would also represent the Italian spoken in Malta that allows them to be considered part of Latin Europe. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm excusing myself from the gallery discussion, as I have no strong position on it. I think you should just proceed and add whomever, then let Tone and Gibmetal modify it if they want. SamEV (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well if there's a celebrity you feel should be included, mention them :)
For Malta I'd support Natalie. Out of the ones that are there for Spain, I support Penélope Cruz. For Italy, I would support one of the founders of Prada, Gucci, Armani, Versace, Fendi, or Dolce & Gabbana, as Italy is mostly famous for its fashion designers, and these are the most popular brands. Gibmetal, your from Gibraltar? who do you think would be suitable from there? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Candidates

Candidates for countries' celebrity gallery. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Vote by entering {{vote-for}} ~~~ next to your candidate. The Ogre (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Andorra:
  • Croatia (only Italian speakers):
  • Jersey (only French speakers):
  • Moldova (excluding Gagauz, Russian and Ukrainian speakers):
  • San Marino:
  • Ukraine (only Romanian speakers):
  • No gallery at all, since it adds nothing to an understanding of the concept of Latin Europe and is purely arbitrary.

{{vote-for}} Fram (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC) {{vote-for}} --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

If I think of one, I'll mention that person. Don't limit it to celebs, though. Add scientists or doctors or scholars, etc, as well. SamEV (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The best known Gibraltarian is probably John Galliano and Albert Hammond second to that but unfortunately there are no images of either of them available. I've added them as candidates nevertheless, incase we can get some images. I'm reluctant about including politicians in the gallery but Peter Caruana is probably the next best thing if we can't obtain any free images of the first two.
I agree with Sam, we have to make this about notability and not celebrity status. I also have to say I do not agree with the inclusion of Natalie Gauci to represent Malta as she isn't Maltese strictly speaking but Australian as that is where she was born and has lived. Moreover, she has only been known for about a year. I would nominate Edward de Bono as I believe him to be much more notable. (Added him to candidates).
On Italy, I think any of those would be good but I'll also add a couple so we have some to choose from.
This might sound like a silly question, but are there any Vatican People as such??? Is anyone born there?
Also added a couple from Spain. I'm trying to choose people from diferent professions.
I also believe we should try and just choose living people, as I think it will be harder to pick from people who have already passed away. For example, for Spain, there were many world famous painters which are equally notable, Pablo Picasso Salvador Dalí, Diego Velázquez... The same happens with writers and a whole load of other professions. Opinions? --Gibmetal 77talk 02:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the best way that we can do this is if everyone puts down all the names for each country we think suitable. Then each person (anyone who views this) add one to the number in brackets (as i have done for my votes) next to the person of their selection. Each person can only vote for one person from each country, but may put as many as they want up for nomination. Sound like a good idea? if anyone has any better ideas for voting, please share them ;) Crystalclearchanges (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we pick the names of your choice in the list (remember they must have a free non-copyrighted picture available) and mark them with (just copy and paste next to the name) the following - {{vote-for}} ~~~. The 3 tildes will provide your username. In order to vote, you will need to log-in since an IP address can't be considered as valid given the possibilities of multiple votes from a same contributor. I believe this is less confusing. Thanks! The Ogre (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good idea :) I have marked my votes so far (note I may change them). I think that, as you say, there should be a variety of different types of notable people that are used. I think that this should be respective of the country however. So for example, Italy is notable for its fashion, Spain for its footballers, France for its cosmetics, etc... so i think the people we choose should be representative of the country. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well... those countries are notable for much more! Writers, philosophers, statesman, painters, cuisine chefs, gangsters, etc... And these is just speaking of modern present times! If we go into the past the list is endless... The Ogre (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes thats true, but if you think of Italy, you think of fashion designers (well i do anyway lol)... although it may also be famous for its cuisine... you don't really think of all the famous cooks there ;) Crystalclearchanges (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, maybe I'll participate after all, somewhat. I added a name and some votes. But I disagree with you, CCC. We shouldn't stereotype nationalities. Let everyone vote for individuals, whatever their occupations, and let the chips fall where they will. SamEV (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh don't worry i'm not trying to convince everyone to go for what I'm going... i'm just stating what i've been baring in mind ;) For example, I don't think it would be appropriate to use a Vaticanese (if thats the word?) model in the gallery (if there is one), as this would not be appropriate at all, as the Vatican is only really famous for its religious figures. That is all i'm saying Crystalclearchanges (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I got it. For the Vatican we could use a picture of a pope, the current one, for instance. SamEV (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to nominate the current pope, but then I realised that he was German, which would disqualify him from being Latin European, right? I think we would have to use one of the Italian ones. Correct me if I am wrong... as I certainly think that the current one would have otherwise been the most logical option. Also, Juan Carlos I of Spain has been nominated for Spain, but this could be rather ambiguous and controversial as from a quick glance at the article, he seems to have had more ties to Italy than to spain. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
More ties with Italy?!? What do you mean? The Ogre (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I see, because of the title two Sicilies and being born in Rome. That was an acident due to exile. He is completely Spanish! The Ogre (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

yeah, oh ok... well I'm not really an expert on Spanish history, so whatever you say :p Crystalclearchanges (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Ogre, saying he's "completely Spanish" does go too far. You know how international royalty is. His grandmother was British. His great-grandmother was Austrian. His great-gr... Well, you get the picture. SamEV (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well... that deppendes on the deffinition of "completely"! And partial ancestry is not the only criterion. He is Spanish culturally, nationaly, and a major player in Spain's internal affairs in the last 40 years at least. He is considered Spanish by Spaniards, and believes himself to be Spanish - ergo he's Spanish! ;) The Ogre (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he is Spanish. I only meant that "completely Spanish" is ambiguous. SamEV (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Countries

Do you all thinks we should find notable people for all the countries? I mean, finding a notable Latin Ukrainian is not going to be easy, just to give an example... Also, I know the Vatican is part of Latin Europe, but this section is about population and I don't know if we can consider anyone to be a "Vaticanese" as we already discussed somewhere else... The Ogre (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We should look for notables for all, and we can't find them, then we should vote to either leave their spot blank or fill it with someone from another country. On the Vatican question, since it seems (I read this somewhere, so this is not RS) that no one has ever been born in the Vatican, we're left to show only people who have Vatican citizenship, even if they can't be considered to be 'ethnic Vaticanese'. Or we could actually exclude the Vatican completely from this article; that would not be unreasonable. SamEV (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we're going fine the way we are. I highly doubt that there is not one single notable person in ukraine. Even the president or whatever will count. To be fair, avoid racism, and other controversies, we cannot select a few, and must include a representative amount of each. Taking one from each is the next best thing to this. Oh and I don't see why the pope is not a reasonable example of someone from Vatican... as long as they hold citizenship it does not matter imo.Crystalclearchanges (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course there are notable and famous Ukrainians, CCC. But it has to be a Latin Ukrainian, remember? SamEV (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah... sorry. :S well yeah i agree with sam... we should look for all of them, so at least to make sure. By the way Ogre, you're doing a great job of finding loads of them so far... its taking me ages to read about them all to make up my minds which ones ;) Crystalclearchanges (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Ogre you can't vote for more than one person per country... otherwise we'd never get anywhere lol Crystalclearchanges (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! Didn't realize! I'll trim my votes then. The Ogre (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

dont worry bout it ogre ;) Crystalclearchanges (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
None - Discussion about the existence of a gallery

This poll and the idea behind it strike me as absolute examples of a failure to approach issues rationally. For starters, the question that comes to mind is: why? Why even come up with a notion that it is up to wikipedia users to decide who is the best representative of a culture, and who is it that imagines the result would be pleasing, salvageable, or objective? I still don't understand why the idea imposed itself back when such galleries came to be used for articles on individual peoples, but now we are taking it to the supranational level? Where next? The world? The Universe?

Take a moment to consider what you'll end up with. 1) the fandom you're encouraging here is bound to be confronted by another fandom, and since only fandom was the reason for putting up the pictures in the first place, the content will be unstable and the gallery would only handicap this article. 2) the end result would look like anything other than an encyclopedic article (when it is already getting there without the gallery), and the images are bound to part this article with the WP:MOS requirements. 3) wikipedia is not a shrine: images are supposed to have informative quality, and the face of one poet/politician/street sweeper/acrobat will not provide any relevant information for the topic of this here article, and would be at best marginally (not intrinsically) relevant to the culture it claims to represent; since the informative value borders on zero, the only reason for providing such portraits is the celebration of these individuals - however pretty that may seem, it is trivial and stands in contrast with WP:NOT. Dahn (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus a technical issue. Looking over at the list of people you made, I note that a huge part of the portraits you propose cannot actually be used. I'm referring to the fair use images, which can only be used in one place, and only if they have a clear rationale attached to them. Dahn (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


Dahn, you ask "why"... but then I could ask "why" is there a gallery there at the moment? We are just updating it, thats all. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - I had not noticed it. The simple way out: remove it. Dahn (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, pictures of notable persons in a given population are common in wikipedia (a good example of a poll is Talk:French people/Vote). And I do believe the point it not to say that the persons chosen are representative of a given culture. But because of the problems you have mentioned, as well as to improve procedures of possible choice, I have left an invite regarding this poll in all the articles regarding the countries mentioned (and respective regional entities when relevant), their respective wikiprojects (or connected ones) and in some country portals also. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know you invited others for discussion: that's how I got here. I'm afraid you have not answered my objections, which referred to the rationale of this very exercise. What you are doing here is to call on people to vote for the person whose face they would like to see. Since subjective rubs on subjective, you'll end up with a gallery of people who were selected on the basis of some obscure criterion, who are likely to be replaced at any moment by people selected according to another obscure criterion, and whose presence does not add anything informative to the article, which I would picture is a situation that wikipedia would like to avoid. You say that the pictures should not, in fact, be understood as representatives of a culture. Then what would they be? I presume they would not show people "how the Belgians look" or "how the Italians look" - I simply cannot believe that that Victorian a frame of mind would motivate this selection. But then, what is it for? Because it looks nice? Ahem: WP:MOS, WP:NOT, WP:ILIKEIT. Dahn (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding copyright issues, you are right, they must be respected. The Ogre (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If not suited to this article, it will certainly do well in Latin European anyway... it doesnt matter about that at the moment though... just that we make it, as there is no doubt that it has destinations it can be used. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Latin European should simply be merged into this article. It is nothing other than an adjective formed on the basis of this word. And I cannot see how fair use images could be used in either. Dahn (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the article would be better-off without an arbitrary gallery. As for Slovenian citizens of Italian origin, I don't know if there is anyone with an article with a PD photo on English WP... --Tone 21:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I found Giuseppe Tartini. Born in Piran and has the main square named after him. --Tone 22:19,

27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Done Tone :) Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to highlight another set of complications: Tartini was a born in Piran when the city was part of the Republic of Venice. He lived his entire life when "Italy" was a vague geographical notion and "Italian" was mostly an exonym. In this context, he was not a Slovenian of Italian origin, and not even an Slovenian of Venetian origin: his Slovenian compatriots could be defined as "Slovenian citizens of Venice". (With all due respect, Tone, you did not answer your own query, since you did not actually find one of the "Slovenian citizens of Italian origin".) Dahn (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Dahn, if you have this issue, why not take it to the example above that Ogre gave. If no-one contested the original photo selection for this article, I see no reason to now. It is providing a visual assortment of famous people from the region, just in the same way that some articles list notable people... ours is just listing some notable people, but visually. I see no problem whatsoever with it, and if you stay opposed to it, then i suggest that you should also be opposed to all the (thousands) of articles which include a notable people section. Thank you Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1) How many people have actually visited this page and edited on it in accordance with the MOS? And, of those just visiting, how many have actually noticed the [hidden] gallery?
2) The fact that something is tolerated at the moment or not exposed for scrutiny is not an endorsement.
3) As I have said, I have problems with galleries for ethnic pages in general, based on the same reasoning (somewhere else, I have expanded on this issue). However, even if I were to admit that the galleries may have more chance of functioning there (and I frankly cannot), please note that this is another issue altogether: you are taking this "system" to an even higher level. Let's note the paradox: Ogre is spending time drafting a poll on which persons should be included in the French people gallery. Never mind that the vote will not establish anything, help the reader in any way, or even hold ground, but its very existence should bring in another issue for this supranational gallery: if I have to bring in people to decide on many faces to represent just one people, how could I possibly justify another poll at the end of which I will invariably have fewer faces for each of the peoples. What's this, the soccer World Cup? Not to mention that this "why not? it worked there" move from country to ubercountry is a slippery slope.
4) What does the visual assortment bring in in terms of info for this article? All it could ever be is a gallery of people wikipedians like, and completely irrelevant to what this article is about. Dahn (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You completely failed to address my point. Other articles make use of a notable people section. The only difference is that we are presenting them as a gallery rather than a list. Thank you. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, articles of this kind tend not to have lists if such lists would be unmanageable. Also note that the basic criterion for notability in lists is basically the same as that that validates the wikipedia article itself. For example, a list of notable English people would be a list of English people with articles (which is why the tendency is to completely replace such lists with categories); if the list does exist, it is certainly not in the article - unless it is manageable (in an article on 400 people, you can have a list on the notable 1 or 10 or 20 among them). Wikipedia has specific rules that tell editors not to create articles or lists according to some subjective criterion, which is why the list would include "English people", not "Notable English people" - if they're on wiki, they're notable.
This is besides the point, since your analogy is imperfect. What you.ve designed here is not a [supposedly] comprehensive list, but a Miss Universe- or World Cup-type selection. Which is not what wikipedia is about. Dahn (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying Dahn that there are no articles with lists of notable people relevant to them? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the goal of a list, any list, is to be comprehensive. For practical reasons, a list can easily be comprehensive. That is because the domain may be limited, and because words, unlike images, do not take up much space. If some people from a vast domain are randomly splattered into a list at the end of a vast article simply because (vote or not) someone decided they are "more notable than other", that article is not in compliance with wiki requirements.
But, again, your very analogy is flawed. Let me illustrate my point. I could picture a list of cha-cha-cha dancers on the cha-cha-cha page, but a list of bellet dancers would have to be separate from the ballet article, and would have to eventually include all ballet dancers that we have articles on (or, at the very least, most). That in itself could prove to be as large as an article. What you are proposing here is the equivalent of arbitrarily picking out some people who from a category of whom ballet dancers and dancers in general are just a small percentage, and collaging their faces (which add no information on their own) to an article that is not even about them or something they consciously stood for. Dahn (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
From looking over the policies you have listed so far, I see nothing which clearly shows this as being uncompliant. It simply gives a sample of the notable population throughout the region... just as, for example, a page on "cha-cha-cha dancing", would probably have a list of notable cha-cha-cha dancers... and a page on latin europe has a list (or in this case collage) of notable Latin Europeans. I think Dahn, that your problem is not with what we are doing itself, but instead with the general policies that all wikipedia follows... and if this is so, you should request it as a global change, and not use this article to push any kind of POV to regards of how you think this article should be formatted. If you point out clearly policies that clearly state what we are doing is incorrect then so be it, but so far you have proved none. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If you read my messages again, you will see the part where I point out that the analogy you have set up is not applicable. I have not said that this is overtly uncompliant, otherwise I would be discussing this on another page. It does seem, however, against the spirit of wikipedia policies such as WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Since I do not suppose we do things just because they are done elsewhere, since I have brought evidence that they are not actually done elsewhere, and since it is still subjective, non-informative and impractical (I note you have not yet answered these points), I simply expect these concerns to be taken into consideration instead of, or at least before all voters going Latin Eurovision on their computers. Dahn (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
"the tendency is to completely replace such lists with categories"
Dahn, do you think we should create a Category:Latin Europeans, instead? SamEV (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
No. I am saying that, when it comes to potentially endless lists, wikipedia turns them into categories (it may however have both, none, or just the list). This, if you read the rest of my message, was in answer to the analogy between galleries and lists - which, as I explain there, I find incorrect to begin with. The very thought of a list or a category on Latin Europeans is absurd, since the concept is vague (it mainly means "inhabitants of several possible ancestries from European countries/regions where a Latin language is spoken by some of the people"), since distinguishing between the categories involved is a futile and subjective and non-informative exercise, and since the number of lists and categories and articles and whatnots at a national and sub-national level is already expanded to the point where such an attempt would simply be a childish exercise in oversimplification. Dahn (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Latin European means "a member of a Romance-speaking European ethnic group". Is that vague? SamEV (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
At this moment, I fail to see any proof that the term is at all used as a demonym, which is why I provided that more complete definition (bound to be a vaguer definition). Terms such as "Latin race" applied to inhabitants of Europe are rarely used, and they were mostly popular with nationalist activists of the late 19th century (the Romance equivalents of Panslavists). The term would also apply to inhabitants of any ethnicity who live in a country having a Romance language for its language of culture. thus, it is not the equivalent of "Latino", but that of "Latin American".
Most of these two articles appears to be original research, including the info that presents itself as most "substantial". Who is that claims the Vatican or Macedonia or Ukraine are part of Latin Europe? In the references for Malta and Romanians in Israel, no mention of "Latin Europe(an)" is made - meaning that the addition of the sources, and probably that of the info itself, is in breach of WP:SYNTH. So it seems is the case for most countries cited in the list: one has to prove that sources explicitly consider a country to be included in Latin Europe (preferably regularly), not that a wikipedian can look up the number of Romance speakers in one region, then proceed to include it in Latin Europe because he or she can. Furthermore, from my google books search, there appears to be no use of "Latin European" as a demonym, but merely as something strictly related to "Latin Europe". One could say that the very concept of a "Latin European person" does not in fact exist. Dahn (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You may be right about how "Latin European" is used. Now, you wrote, "The term would also apply to inhabitants of any ethnicity who live in a country having a Romance language for its language of culture"
Says who? SamEV (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Says the fact that if the term is used as a demonym (and i find little or no evidence of that, depending on what you consider a demonym), there is certainly no proof that it is an ethnonym. That means that any person from a country that is considered part of Latin Europe, no matter what ethnicity, would be or would also be a Latin European. Dahn (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
"Demonym" can refer both to terms for nationality and terms for ethnicity, so it's somewhat ambiguous. Basically, I see Latin Europeans as a language group (at least). Anyway: do you think this article should exist, or not? SamEV (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Which article? If you mean "Latin Europe", yes, definitely, but it needs to be built up from what sources say. If you mean "Latin Europeans", I say merge to this one. The history of "Latin" as a racial term (understandably out of use nowadays) is only partly or vaguely connected with Latin Europe - meaning that the people using it may have meant "Latin peoples" in general or just a group of European nations. All that jazz could be detailed in the Latins article, starting from what sources say, and with editors being prepared to acknowledge that the very term may prove obsolete. Dahn (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I meant the Latin Europe article. Thanks. Perhaps you should start a thread about the merge, and maybe put merge tags in both articles. SamEV (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll consider it. I became far more involved in this debate than I had planned to originally, and the prospect of moving mountains on this issue is not that appealing to me at the moment - I have other things I want to contribute. I will support such a merger and speak in favor of it, but, if I have to be the one to start this process from scratch, I'd rather take my time with it. This is also because, given that the other article cites no source, and the notion does not appear to be used as a demonym (other than in contexts where it is dependent on a cultural or political, as opposed to ethnic, reference to "Latin Europe"), my main question is how come that article survives? In fact, if there is to be a discussion about the other article, I would rather direct it to WP:AfD. Dahn (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
"Latin European" started out as "Latin peoples".[1] Funny, I avoided this article for years until last week because I too did not want to get sucked into debates like this. Too late now! Well, this is as good a time as any to end our conversation for now, before we run out of space. :( SamEV (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, i remember the "Latin peoples" fiasco, and I avoided it myself for long, precisely because, if I remember correctly, it attracted contributions from some well-known Romanian trolls. The succession of moves to deal with that issue was good overall, and I think the current system is okay, but "Latin European" was one too many in the succession of articles, and it seems to only serve an obscure POV. I'll keep this page on my watchlist for further developments, and I'll comment some if the issue is to be brought up. Good night! Dahn (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have read the parts that you say, and none of them say a definite "no" to what we are doing. One thing that I have found so far says it is unadvisable to use voting over discussion, but it does not say it is not allowed. It says the voting system should not be taken as a consensus, and we are not taking it as one... we are just seeing which notable people from each country seem more suitable in people's minds to go into the article, and anyone could suggest something different at any time. There is no "conclusion"... the gallery updates whenever it needs updating. The only trouble is that it hasn't been getting updated with the rest of the article so far, and that is why we are having to do all this now. With regards to the fact that you don't like the idea of a gallery, as I have already told you countless times, it is the same principle as having a "notable people" section on any other page, but just in the form of a gallery. No one says that this gallery forms some kind of definition of race or anything... it just gives a few examples of some notable people from each country... just as a list on any other page would. Rather than arguing that you don't like us having a gallery (and so far not giving policies that back it up 100%), I think it would be a lot more productive for you to actually join in the discussion itself, as you are now wasting our valuable time, which could have been spent on further investigating for the gallery and article. Please do not continue this conversation unless you provide clear policies that back up your oppinions 100%, or just join in with the discussion. I have tried to be patient with your prolonged disrupting, but now it is actually infringing on my edits to what we actually need to get done. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of disruption when I am presenting my opinions on a talk page, especially when I came here as a result of this discussion being advertised elsewhere. You have so far not answered any of the issues I have raised, and you're telling me that just because wikipedia hasn't designed a rule specifically condemning this experiment, it can happen. I have given you several rationales why this is a bad idea, one of which was that, in my view, it breaks with the Wikipedia principles outlined there.
In the above message, you manage to accuse me of both imposing a conclusion and continuing to "disrupt" the manner by discussing it further ("disrupting" your edits, when I have so far never edited this article!). If I am wasting your valuable time, feel free not to reply - my answers here have been in connection with arguments I consider flawed, and I do not aim to force anybody's hand in accepting my perspective, but rather ask them to take it into consideration. If I cannot prevent this article turning into Eurovision, so be it. But let it be because my view is rejected by a majority, not because the host of Eurovision tells me to shut up. Dahn (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is getting no-where. Where was it that this article was advertised? And how have i not answered your questions? The community has been very patient with you, but you keep going back to the same already-answered points each time, which is stopping us from getting on with what we need to do in order to promote this article. No one is telling you to "shut up"... I am telling you that voicing your own oppinions does not have an effect on anything... if you want to influence things, come up with an alternative which is better to this. And also, reffering to someone as the "host of Eurovision" is apparently meant to mean that I am somehow in charge of this? Because no-one is in charge of this page, everyone is welcome to contribute, which is what I am asking you to do, rather than argue the same points over and over. Oh, and wait there is one last thing I have to address. One of the links you gave was to a rule about not using wikipedia as a "database" of images. I think you need to check that rule out, as that should not have been referred here, if you have understanding of it, as what we are doing is not a list of images without context, as the rule refers to... it is a visual depiction of a selection of notable celebrities. An example of a rule-break for that rule would be if someone put a whole list of every photo of a singer up on a page, even though they all represented the same thing... as one example. Please remember that this is not an arguement, and that no-one here is trying to push their views onto anyone... we are discussing this calmly. Also, if this collage is not used here, it will probably be used on Latin European anyway, but since the discussion has started here, we may as well continue it so. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
"Where was it that this article was advertised?" The discussion, as Ogre will tell you, was linked to in posts on several article talk pages on project talk pages - I for one saw it in two watchlisted places before posting here. "The community has been very patient with you, but you keep going back to the same already-answered points each time, which is stopping us from getting on with what we need to do in order to promote this article." Please don't threaten me, and please don't imply that I'm some disruptive punk - I, a respected editor, have confined myself to this discussion and made a series of objections - most of which remain unanswered. I also object to the notion that you are the barometer of the community. "Policies etc." Feel free not to agree with my interpretation, but do me the favor of rereading the part where I tell you on what grounds I invoke them. "Latin European" - not only should that article be merged here (since it is not even proven that it is a demonym, and is at most the overlap between this article and Latins), but the problems I raise be exactly the same there.
I also have no idea where you got the notion that I am not calm, and where it seemed to you that pointing out problems in the rationale invoked is the equivalent of imposing my view. I view such insinuations as subtle attempts to poison the well. And of course I personally would like for my perspective to persuade people - if that expectation means that I am "imposing" my perspective, then you must have a very distorted perspective on what a discussion is. I also have no idea of how much negative connotation you attach to the word "argument", but please note that, as long as I don't agree with you on principle, this is bound to be a debate of some sort. So far, I have almost always answered when confronted with an argument, and did not resort to any uncivil remark, so I have no idea what has affected you. Dahn (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea of merging Latin Europe and Latin Europeans has already been discussed and rejected. Yes, Latin European is a demonym of Latin Europe in the same way that Romanian is a demonym of Romania... it doesnt mean they should be merged does it?

If you have an alternative to the gallery, then please suggest it... and suggesting replacing it with nothing is no help at all, as what we are doing now is better than that anyway.

I also do not like the way in which you seem to accuse me of thinking of myself as better than the other editors here on this page. I have at no point ever said that I feel my contributions are better than others. In fact, I am only a recently newcomer to the article.

Please respond to the things which I have mentioned this time... don't just go off on a tangent of something completely irrelevant to what I am saying, as avoiding the issues and trying to tell me that I do not know the definition of the word "arguement" is not helping anyone.

I am not having a go at you if that is what you feel, and I certainly do not think in any way that you are a non-good faith editor... but unfortunately you are not conducting your ideas here in the most appropriate way. Look, if you want your ideas to be heard, tell us clearly (with policies) why what we are doing is "unnaceptable", and provide an alternative. ok? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the reason why Romania is a separate article from Romanians is only that the latter is [also] an ethnonym, and the article is about that ethnonym. If it were just "people coming from Romania", it would not need to be a separate article from, say, Romania or Demographics of Romania.
As I indicated above, I consider that adding no gallery or any such pointless illustration is actually the helpful thing here.
I don't recall ever having accused you of placing yourself higher than others. What I did was merely answer to your claim that, because I am in a disagreement with you, i am exhausting the community's patience. I never claimed that you do not know what an argument is, I pointed out that: a) if you mean it as a more negative and less civilized version of a dispute, I object to the implications (I have nothing personal against you, and I do not believe i have trespassed any boundaries); b) since I cannot agree with you, as you ask me, and since this is a discussion about a decision you want to make, a debate would have to occur.
And, again, I don't find the approach of "let's see the rules preventing me from doing this" to be a constructive one. As long as you have asked others to express an opinion on the basis of consensus, and as long as that implies that you expect users to agree with your idea and build consensus on that frame, I invoke the same chance for consensus on the basis of my objection to the very idea. Dahn (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dahn on this one. There is no logical benefit to having a collage of arbitrary figures in any article on peoples, let alone at a supranationalist level. In fact, this entire article has regressed into a collection of loose POVs without any coherent thread. We must ask ourselves 'what value do these things bring to an encyclopedic article?': A photo gallery, useless lists, economic data for each country, etc... why?? This looks more like the work of adolescents (all energy- no substance) than an encyclopedia. Theredapple (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I have changed my mind completely and now agree with pratically everything Dahn has said. I believe that Latin European should be merged here, no gallery should exist and this article needs better sourcing and not OR as has been the tendency. I let myself carry away before, but reason and ponderation have returned to me. Also, and if this is unfair to you Crystalclearchanges I appologise, but I believe everyone here should know that User:Crystalclearchanges is a suspected sockpuppet of banned User:Iamandrewrice. The Ogre (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What? And I put a lot of time and effort into this article... I know it is far from being finished, but you can't just call it all a bunch of rubbish :( I dedicated almost my whole edits to this, just to try and hopefully raise it eventually to Good Article status.Crystalclearchanges (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)The addition of Tartini to Slovenia means that Belgians can now add quite a number of pre-Treaty of Utrecht Northern Frenchmen to their list, provided they were not "Flemish" speakers of course, which some of them were - and the Treaty of Utrecht is not even a good cut-off, since the composer of the Internationale also qualifies Tartini-wise (except again if we think he is disqualified because he spoke Flemish when a little child). "Flemish speakers" (what about Dutch) is Latin POV, have a good look at Belgium's Nobel Prize winners. I also fiercely object to being a candidate myself, of course, so I am posting a protest vote against any gallery. This is not WP:POINT. WP:POINT would have been to nominate James Ensor. Note that the "Belgian" problem about how good someone's Flemish must be to get him/her excluded as too Flemish, also applies to the Guernsey nominees, as it sure looks most of them spoke English as their mother tongue.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Criteria

In fact we should discuss the criteria for people to include in the list. Namely given the fact the instead of the technical type of gallery we have now, we could just have a single composit image, mosaic type, such as the one seen belw and that can take as much as 30 individual (cropped) pictures. I propose these criteria:

  • At least 2 pictures per country, a man and a woman, and with different occupations (ex: if one's an actor, the other can't be), at least from the 6 main countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Spain).
  • Living notable individuals, except there aren't any available.
  • Notability should be inquestionable, that is to say one should not be guiled by passing fame (one should ask oneself: 20 years after the death of this specific persons is she or he going to be remembered?)
  • Avoid stereotypes at any cost.

The Ogre (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a really good idea. However, I do not agree with the fact that they have to be living, as in some cases we are limited. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Whenever possible I think they should be - if there aren't any notable living, then let's go for the dead ones! The Ogre (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
For luxembourg, how about Charly Gaul... the person we have at the moment doesnt have any pictures up, and i couldnt find any on google of them either. But google returns loads of them, so there's bound to be one that were allowed to use somewwhere. Its more likely than the other selection anyway. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

These criteria are subjective (whose view of notability now or in 20 years? whose stereotypes?) and allegorical (Noah's Ark-ish, even), and the end result would be too lyrical and non-informative for an encyclopedia article. Dahn (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

Could we add Jean-Paul Sartre or Eugène Ionesco to the list of candidates? nat.utoronto 05:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias

For some of the countries, not a single female candidate has been suggested. I find that surprising and deplorable. Needless to say, it gives a very poor picture of those countries. JdeJ (talk) 08:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

how bout Simone de Beauvoir? nat.utoronto 07:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Andorra corrected

Andorra's official language is Catalan, not Spanish. I have corrected that mistake.David (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Aromanian

Aromanian is co-official in the city of Kruševo in the Republic of Macedonia. It is also spoken (but not official at any level) in Greece. BalkanFever 11:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Religions

do people think that in the religions box, there should be a link to the "religion" of the country? so for example, in the box in the table for the religion in, belgium's religion figure could have a link to "religion in belgium"? Also its a shame about the gallery, but i suppose there are more pressing issues. The map is one of them. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree on all of the above.
Also, CCC, see my message to Ogre. If you'd like to respond (no need, really) you should do so on my talk page). SamEV (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok i will continue working on it... :) and no i havent seen them yet, ill check them in a min Crystalclearchanges (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be better than just a link to the religion as a whole. --Gibmetal 77talk 17:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well yes I have read them now Sam. This is lovely isnt it... i might get blocked ¬_¬ I don't even see why I bother/ed. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Since its obvious that none of you will bother helping me if I get blocked, I might as well just get as much as I can do now done. If you look at Latin America, it includes images of main cities etc... we will need to put things in like this in order to raise the value of the article. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
That's uncalled for. Yes, until proven guilty, you are innocent, and I intend to treat you so. But I was away for a couple of hours; nor did I get any summons to testify on your behalf, during that time. So take it easy. Besides, if you turn out to be Andrew, what can we do? You'll just have to accept the verdict and the penalties. Good luck, CCC. SamEV (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Error in § Countries (part on Switzerland)

The flag of the canton of Ticino is incorrect (subdiv. should be vertical not horizontal) - click on the name to get the article where it is correct - the image "Image:Flag of Canton of Tessin.svg" ist incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by UKe-CH (talk • contribs) 06:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing some relevant points - if you posted here in the past days, please read this

As we stand, several things have occurred, all of which are invariably of significance to the article and the vote. Since proof of this is currently spread all over the page, allow me to recapitulate here.

I have presented my arguments against having any form of gallery (as it turns out, another user had made similar objections in a more playful manner by the time I first posted on this page). You can find them detailed above, but they are basically that: the very notion of a "Latin European demonym" may be misleading; any proper form of image selection is subjective; the result of any such selection would be without encyclopedic interest and without informative value.

As we speak, this debate appears to be over: one of the vote's proponents has considered my objections valid, and has withdrawn his own proposal for a vote or a gallery; the other one was since banned for, if I got this right, being the sockpuppet of a previously blocked POV pusher. It is unclear to me whether they were the only original proponents, but all other early participants in the vote have not so far expressed any opinion in that section of the debate. The two other users who have participated in that part of the discussion have agreed with me. I apologize for not having a clear idea of where a third user stands on the issue, and I do not want to assume.

Although one of the users who proposed this vote has since crossed out his own statements and came to express opposition to the vote/gallery, and the other one was banned for what was in effect a deliberate attempt to have a POV pushed back into this article and others, several users have continued to comment on the vote as if it were ongoing and uncontested. The reason why I am posting this here is that, at the moment, it is unclear if there is a vote going on. Now, if there is, the above arguments may be good reasons to reflect and express an opinion on whether the very principle of this vote and its scope are in agreement with what wikipedia is about, and whether this should continue, rather than about how many women are included and how many more Frenchmen it could include.

An additional problem, guys, is that arguably most of the proposals cannot be included in any real or potential gallery, since there are no public domain images of them. Images that are under fair use cannot be used in more than place, and, yes, it is also explicitly forbidden to create new images such as collages using copyrighted media. Dahn (talk) 09:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree and support Dahn's position here. The Ogre (talk) 09:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
If that third user you talk about is me, then yes I do now agree. I just wanted to see were the discussion was heading towards before expressing my opinions. --Gibmetal 77talk 17:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I was actually referring to SamEV, who took part in the discussion but whose stance is not clear to me. But I'm glad to see you too agree with my approach. Dahn (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Er, no, Dahn. You can't say I'm holding up consensus anymore: I'm hereby adding my voice to the chorus; albeit with some doubts; same as it ever was, as I was never sure about the gallery. Out with the gallery, then. Carry on, gentlemen, please. SamEV (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that. Now, what do we do about the poll? Dahn (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
We toss it. No gallery = no poll for a gallery. SamEV (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense to me! People just keep adding to the list... --Gibmetal 77talk 16:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Before we look closer into other issues: the term and its outside definition

Well, I thought it a good idea to start from square one and see how the term is used by reliable sources. Definitions vary considerably, and all perspectives should be separately mentioned in the text, with none favored over the others, and without any attempt to add them together into one novel concept. Overall, it would seem that very little of what any definition says matches what the article currently says.

  • Jagdeep Singh Chhokar, Felix C. Brodbeck, Culture And Leadership Across the World: The Globe Book of In-depth Studies of 25 Societies, Routledge, 2007. The authors discuss sociological research into education, starting from GLOBE Program reports. Chapter IV is entirely about the "Latin European Cluster" (i.e.: Latin Europe as defined for the purpose of this research - which may or may not provide a definition of Latin Europe itself). The cluster is defined therein, p. 545: "The Latin European cluster in the GLOBE Research Program consisted of France, Israel, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland (French-speaking). In this volume, the cluster is represented by France, Portugal, and Spain."
  • Geoffrey A. Clark, Catherine M. Willermet, Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, Aldone Transaction, 1997, p.105. In reference to scholarly views on issues pertaining to the human evolution, the authors set aside room for a school of thought which they argue is defined "by the intellectual traditions of Latin Europe". This analysis includes "French, Spanish and Italian perspectives."
  • Thomas Ertman, Birth of the Leviathan: Building States and Regimes in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, Cambridge UP, 1997, p.35. "Latin Europe — an area comprising the Southern Netherlands, France, and the Iberian and Italian peninsulas"
  • Lawrence Meir Friedman, Rogelio Pérez Perdomo, Legal Culture in the Age of Globalization: Latin America and Latin Europe, Stanford UP, 2003. It is, of course, impossible to summarize the whole book (or the relevant half), but one can look at the case studies available in the google preview of the contents and the supporting tables. By removing the American countries from the list, we end up with France, Italy, and Spain. In the summary on the jacket of the book as rendered by google, we read "this book is a collection of essays that examine the legal systems of key countries in Latin America and Mediterranean Europe", which may lead one to conclude that the authors identify the bulk of Latin Europe with Latin countries in the Mediterranean region. The definition is not explicit enough and an exact definition of the term is not a goal set by the authors, but this could perhaps serve as additional proof of diversity. There is the possibility of this term having an exclusive nuance when the context refers to juridical issues, and that, here, "Latin Europe" means "countries that apply Roman law" - or, rather, "countries in Western Europe that apply Roman law". This definition appears to be in use elsewhere. For example Carlo Guarnieri, "Courts as an Instrument of Horizontal Accountability: The Case of Latin Europe", in Adam Przeworski, José María Maravall, Democracy and the Rule of Law, Cambridge UP, 2003. On p.224, one can read a listing of "countries belonging to the Latin tradition": "Italy, France, Spain and Portugal". A note to this phrase, on the same page, reads: "To this list we should add Belgium, whose juridical system straddles the divide between the Latin and Germanic worlds." The term "Latin European" is used in reference to those particular countries over the following pages.
  • Walter Mignolo, The Idea of Latin America, Blackwell, 2005, p.77-80. This involves the 19th century use of "Latin Europe" as opposed not just to other regions, but also to "Teutonic Europe" - which was supposedly no longer conceivable as Latin Europe, because it had dropped Catholicism. To illustrate this, the author cites French historians Michel Chevalier and Jules Michelet, both of whom wrote during the Romantic period. Mignolo notes that this definition of "Latin Europe" contributed to the birth of the term "Latin America", because, after the "Teutons" were subtracted from Latin Europe, the basic "Latin" characteristics applied to areas of both continents (the former European metropolis and the former American colony). He also connects it with a Romantic concept he indicates is deprecated, that of a "Latin race" straddling the ocean.
  • Hans Slomp, European Politics Into the Twenty-First Century: Integration and Division, Greenwood, 2000, p.4. "Most of Latin Europe speaks Latin (Roman) languages and has traditionally been Catholic." The region includes "France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece" (Romania is included by the author in Central Europe, subnational entities aren't included at all). In an earlier book that deals with more specific issues (Between Bargaining and Politics: An Introduction to European Labor Relations, Greenwood, 1998), it would appear that Slomp only applied the term to Spain, Portugal, Italy and France (p.53-55, 69-71). Here, I could not find an exact definition of what Latin Europe means in this context, and if, in 1998, Slomp only used it for the smaller group of countries or otherwise applied the same "broader" definition.
  • Kenneth R. Stow, Alienated Minority: The Jews of Medieval Latin Europe, Harvard UP, 1992, p.1. "This is a book about the Jews of medieval Latin Europe. By Latin Europe I mean much of the region which is today called Western Europe: principally England, France, parts of Germany, and Italy. The Jews of Spain—which admittedly was and is part of Latin Europe—will be mentioned, but only if their history intersects with that of Jews elsewhere."
  • Walter Ullmann, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, Routledge, 2003. The author sees Latin Europe as the cluster of the European concept and initially synonymous with Europe itself, depicting it as essentially Catholic and born around the Frankish-Carolingian expansion and the Papacy (p.91-96 sqq.). On p.96, in the chapter titled "The Papacy and Latin Europe", in reference to Charlemagne's crowning as a Roman emperor, he says: "The division of Europe into two halves now became concrete reality. One half was Latin; the other was Greek. And at once the conclusion was drawn that the Greek half had, so to speak, opted out of Europe because it was not Roman. Europe was Roman and Latin. What was outside the Latin precincts was no longer Europe." This exclusive focus on Latin Europe as a Western area brought into existence by the Carolingian and Catholic doctrines is commonplace among historians, as shown by Karl Leyser, Communications and Power in Medieval Europe, Continuum International, 1994, p.215-216 sqq. The talk there is about various interpretations of how Latin Europe achieved its cultural and political rise, and cites several works that describe Latin Europe using these terms. The same phenomenon is outlined in Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe: Documents in Translation, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980. On p.51, an early medieval Latin Europe is defined as Catholic and "Latin-speaking", whereas Byzantium is identified as Orthodox and "Greek-speaking" (note that this most likely refers to a linguistic preference in favor of Medieval Latin and Medieval Greek as languages of culture, and not to the Romance vernaculars). Definitions of Latin Europe as an exclusively Catholic area, from the birth of Catholicism to this day, are in abundance (I found so many books that state this in one way or another, that I had to stick to only those that provide some definition and more historical context for the term itself.)

There is probably much more to add, and many more definitions to list, but this is what I have for now. I hope you'll agree with me that this article needs to be rebuilt into something free of original research, POV and irrelevant material. Also, since definitions of the terms vary and since we should favor encyclopedic content over colorful boxes, the end result should be plain text, not a table (also see WP:MOS for more on that and other issues). Dahn (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I though it best if I were to summarize the above issues. Note that the following assessment bases itself on the sources listed above, so it is not intended to be exhaustive. It is also what I was able to read into these sources and the fragments cited, so you should perhaps verify if the summary gives them correct representation.

  • A. The geographical space defined is almost exclusively linked to the western half of Europe. In only separate assessments, the notion is extended to Greece and Israel respectively - none of which fit the criteria this article claims are needed. The narrowest definition common to most sources is France-Italy-Spain-Portugal.
  • B. According to context, the term refers to the legacy of the Roman Empire in countries where the main religion is Catholicism - with the two exceptions indicated under A. (both of which are not taken into account by works discussing religion) and areas of Germany (which seem to have been largely left out from the terminology because of Reformation). There does not appear to be an explicit connection between Western European areas once belonging to the Roman Empire and Latin Europe - meaning that the latter may be more than the former. However, a connection between the territories comprised in the Carolingian Empire and Latin Europe is explicitly made by many of the sources.
  • C. The term is not ethnic, let alone racial. At best, it is implicitly ethnic, when the outlined criteria for inclusion may also be said to apply to peoples speaking Romance languages. There is also some purely historiographic overlap with a racialist notion. However, the references to a supposed "Latin race" were not ever limited to the Romance-speaking peoples of Europe, but applied to the Romance-speaking peoples of the world.
  • D. The term is not linguistic. The one source who mentions a linguistic aspect does not do so in reference to Romance languages, but in reference to Medieval Latin as a language of culture across Catholic Europe (from Germany to Naples and, probably, from Hungary to England). Of course, as per point C., the narrowest definitions focus on Romance-speaking areas, but there is no indication of this being the defining criterion.
  • E. There appear to be various other aspects of the term in circulation. One is the juridical aspect, another the educational system (both of which may be linked to the Roman-Carolingian tradition, but are not applied so explicitly). Dahn (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! (There may ultimately be found a place for colorful boxes, though.) It's clear that inclusion of southwestern Europe is a constant in these sources, providing a strong rationale for the article.
That the contemporary term is not racial is clear enough. Ethnic is less so. But linguistic? If not that, then what is it? No, really, on what would you say are these sources basing the concept? What is essential in Latinness in Europe? SamEV (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to elaborate on a few issues. I would first like to expand on the term "contemporary" when applied to the concept of "Latin Europe". From what I can tell, all uses are contemporary, but they all seem to have a degree of retrospect at their core. That is to say they refer to checking a set of traits (of which the number varies) that are mostly historical legacy: Imperial Roman (or rather Western Imperial Roman), Carolingian, Catholic. It seems to me that the term "Latin Europe" was never used as such when those traits were evidently present - the term "Latin Europe" and its derivatives were not used in Roman times, in Carolingian times, or in times when Catholic presence was not contested by Protestantism. They rather seem to have been coined much later, by intellectuals who found a single name for all those traits.
Like "Western Europe" (or "Central Europe", or "Northern Europe" etc.), the term is abstract, and thus does not aim to define and consistently apply a single criteria beyond a common historical legacy. That is probably why, outside the common reference to Italy-France-Spain-Portugal, it is applied rather chaotically to countries that have little in common. In fact, it appears that, outside the said cluster, every author applies the term to define an ad-hoc entity that would simply facilitate communication or topical research. So far, in this process, no author appears to have taken into consideration the present-day linguistic criterion, nor to have implied that "Latin Europe" means "the Europe of Romance speakers", and not even "the Europe of southwestern Romance speakers" - though, incidentally, the countries in the omnipresent cluster are Romance-speaking.
To summarize, all the sources above who specifically refer to the common traits of countries in "Latin Europe" refer to some or all of the following: a generic location in Western/Mediterranean Europe (which excludes on principle any country in Central/Eastern Europe, or includes various countries in those regions on a case-by-case basis that is entirely defined by the author or by the period he or she is referring to: England, Israel, Greece, Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, Germany etc.), [Western] Roman cultural and political legacy (received directly or by proxy), Catholicism, Carolingian cultural and political legacy (received directly or by proxy), the use of Latin in medieval times (as you know, Latin was the language of choice for all Catholic and Western Europeans, and not just, so this too has nothing or very little to do with the Latin-based vernaculars in existence then and since).
To clarify further that, up to now, there does not appear to be any deterministic connection between Romance languages and "Latin Europe" (however one defines the latter). For one, as noted, we have the fact that various authors apply "Latin Europe" to a set of countries where Romance languages are not spoken at all, and do not ever apply it to some countries where Romance languages are spoken by a majority or a significant minority. Secondly, note that where Carolingian and post-Carolingian cultural traits are mentioned as defining traits, this is done in contrast to a "Byzantine" or "Greek" Europe. In the latter, Greek, like its classical Latin counterpart, is and was almost always in a minority, and did not produce an equivalent to "Romance languages" (where Greek would be the source). Rather, when it comes to a linguistic legacy which would parallel that of Latin (spoken or classical), Slavic is what comes to mind for the "Greek" Europe.
An additional note: I fully agree that there is "a strong rationale for [this] article". Indeed, the term, although it has many and arguably conflicting definitions (all of which should be included), is both used and relevant. I never debated that. I do not, however, see any reason for the Latin European article, which is entirely original research and not validated by sources, and I see a need to remove all countries that no source considers part of Latin Europe from the article/table - they too were added on the basis of assumptions, and the info presented to the reader appears to have parted with what sources say. At the risk of repeating myself, I think this article should list the definitions provided by sources, indicate the wide discrepancies between the various definitions, and refrain from deducing an "objective" and "universal" definition where no such definition appears to have been ever voiced. At the moment, it appears that the definition of "Latin Europe" as provided by this article is "attested" only on and by wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
One more detail concerning the supposed use of "Latin European" as a demonym. I tried a little experiment. Sine "Latin European nations" is ambiguous (its primary meaning is probably "states of Latin Europe"), and "Latin European" and its combinations could mean just anything depending on context, I tried a definite google books search that would lead me to specific results which could not be misinterpreted. I first searched "Latin European people", limiting my search to this exact succession of words. There were zero results. I then did the same to "Latin European peoples". This yielded two results, both of them snippets. One is a book from 1906 (The Life and Letters of Benjamin Morgan Palmer) where it appears to be part of a Victorian/Bible Belt/Dixie theory about the benefits of white colonization in "civilizing" the far corners of the Earth and creating, together with the other white races, an American superrace etc. The other is from a 1954 article in América Indígena, where they are defined as "so-called Latin European peoples". Dahn (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
To be more specific, by "contemporary" I meant mostly since WWII, especially since the idea of "Latin race" was abandoned. You couldn't have known that's what I meant, of course. I regret the misunderstanding.
We need more definitions. However, Mignolo relates how Teutonic Europe dropped out of Latin Europe by largely abandoning Catholicism. Hans Slomp gives us an apparent definition: "Most of Latin Europe speaks Latin (Roman) languages and has traditionally been Catholic." I can argue that Chhokar & Brodbeck (by including French-speaking Swiss areas) and Ullmann (if, as you note, he's speaking about language usage - Medieval Latin vs. Medieval Greek) hint at language as a basic element. Peters describes Latin Europe as Catholic and Latin-speaking. You've cited sources, and speak of how many more you encountered which you did not cite, which say that a basic element in Latinness is Catholicism. Thus, your sample of sources do provide some definitions or inklings thereof, which are basically in mutual agreement (and not much at variance with the basic idea in this article) about the centralness of Romance languages and Catholicism.
You wrote that most definitions are retrospective and refer to a historical legacy. So is it your position that Latin Europe is just a region with a common ("Latin") history, basically, and not a reality today?
Before we start removing countries, I'd just like to hear from the other principals here.
Regarding your search results, remember that the Latin Europeans used to be called simply "the Latins" or "the Latin race". SamEV (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding me. Yes, there appears to be a linguistic element involved in some definitions, but even there it is not essential.
Mignolo does not speak of linguistic elements at all, and the definitions he records for both Latin and Teutonic Europe only discuss the religious aspect. In other words, though the terms seem to refer to, respectively, a Romance-speaking population and a Germanic-speaking population, neither definition is explicitly linked to this in anything other than aspect, they both may be named after a core group, not after a dominant group. After all, many peoples of Catholic Europe were also "Teutonic" (Flemings, Austrians, Bavarians) and many other spoke Slavic or Celtic or whatnot languages. Similarly, Protestants included their share of non-"Teutonic" peoples. Also note that Mignolo discusses these issues as they appeared in 19th century historiography, without giving them credit.
Slomp's apparent definition is more a list of characteristics. It does not say "it's because they are Latin-speaking that we include them". Isn't it more relevant that his version of "Latin Europe" includes Greece?
In Chhokar & Brodbeck (who do not actually include Swiss areas themselves, just cite a study which does) other "Latin-speaking" areas of Western Europe are apparently not included at all, so I have to say it is not safe to assume that linguistic aspects are the criterion for inclusion. Most obviously in this exact case is "why not Italian-speaking and Rhaeto-Roman areas of Switzerland?" I could easily argue that the French areas may have been included because they share traits with France (not with "Latinness" at a higher level), and because several were part of France in still-modern times. (Incidentally, no part of Switzerland was ever in Italy.)[Seems I was somewhat wrong about that last one: an area of present-day Switzerland was at some point part of Piedmont-Sardinia]
As for Ullmann: as I mentioned before, he refers to the use of Latin throughout medieval Catholic Europe, just like he refers to the use of Greek throughout Byzantium and its peripheral culture. The central part of his narrative is the establishment of a new Roman Empire in 800, seen as the birth of Latin Europe - I remind you that the Carolingian Empire was built from a Germanic core, that its center was outside Romance-speaking areas, and that it extended down to Slovenia and Holland, but outside of Spain and southern Italy...
And how about those definitions where England (Catholic England, I presume) and Israel are included? Also, I'm still not sure what you mean by "contemporary" - if it means post-WWII sources on the realities of post-WWII Europe, the criteria vary just as much, even though a cluster of nations is more readily identified at the core; if it refers to post-WWII definitions regarding the term as applied in retrospect, the definition seems to differ according to context and author. If you have in mind an altogether different post-WWII definition of "Latin Europe" that would match what this article says and contradict the above sources, I'm afraid I am yet unable to find such.
On "the Latins" and "the Latin race". First of all, those are generic terms, which extend to what is admittedly a part of Latin Europe (in the broader definition) as well as to other parts of Europe (Romania) and other parts of the world (Latin America). I find no evidence that the people who use such terminology made a difference between "Latins in Europe" and other "Latins". Personally, I think the whole "Latin race" concept, global or local, is a stupid legacy of racialism, but I am not contesting the Latins article, where the info on peoples actually belongs. I would however like to see that article take on a more historiographic approach, see it discussing the pros and cons of this classification, and have part of it dedicated to its predilect use by various nationalist doctrines (from the romantic radicalism of 1848 revolutionaries to Mussolini's demagogy).
You asked: "So is it your position that Latin Europe is just a region with a common ("Latin") history, basically, and not a reality today?" I have to note first that I would like us not to discuss our positions on the terms, but how the outside sources allow us to conclude it was and is used. That said, and given the variety of definitions I provided, I think it stands as self-evident that, reality or not (whose to say?), "Latin Europe" is and was always an umbrella word, which is not to be discussed as a given, but as an element of discourse. Whether it describes a "real" situation or whether one version of the many is "more real" than another is irrelevant for this article: we are here to describe things as they are described, and to reproduce all relevant contradictions between various views that are recorded in the real world (by which I mean "outside of wikipedia"); we are not here to speculate about which of the equally reliable sources provides the best definition. If you still want my personal approach to the matter: I happen to think that, like all such abstractions, it never really applied to anything that was outside the eye of the beholder; to paraphrase what Metternich said about the concept of "Italy" at some point before 1848, I say "Latin Europe" is not a thing in itself, but something that surfaced so we do not waste our time listing some group of countries over and over again.
I do not ask that we start removing countries from the article, though they are clearly there due to POV-pushing and original research. At this point at least, my main interest here is to present on the talk page the definitions actually given in the real word. The tags will do, and there's no real rush AFAIC. I am open to any discussion, but I would like that other principal contributors (and all others, if they should want to) to refer to sources (reliable sources, that is) for any view they support. That would help get this article back to the beaten track, no matter how much we have to wait for that to happen. Dahn (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Dahn, I didn't say Mignolo counted language as essential, but Catholicism!
"Slomp's apparent definition is more a list of characteristics. It does not say "it's because they are Latin-speaking that we include them". Isn't it more relevant that his version of "Latin Europe" includes Greece? "
It is very relevant. Good point.
"In Chhokar & Brodbeck (who do not actually include Swiss areas themselves, just cite a study which does) other "Latin-speaking" areas of Western Europe are apparently not included at all, so I have to say it is not safe to assume that liguistic aspects are the criterion for inclusion."
But are they excluded? Their work focused on some, not all of them. After all, they were studying 25 societies, roughly 1/8 of the world's countries, if 1 society = 1 country.
On Ullmann, I was just reminding you of your stating that Ullmann depicted Latin Europe "as essentially Catholic", and that you pointed out what an abundance of authors do likewise.
I meant "contemporary" in the sense of recent/current, that's all. Sorry I was so imprecise.
"I find no evidence that the people who use such terminology made a difference between "Latins in Europe" and other "Latins"."
They didn't have to. The Latins outside of Europe were the descendants of European Latins, so they saw no important differences; indeed, that's why they grouped them together. And the term "Latin America" did not appear till around the mid-19th century, as an analogue of "Latin Europe".
Anyway, Dahn, I think you should definitely rewrite this article.
But how about this: shouldn't we attack the Latins article first? It is, after all, the parent article of this one. SamEV (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a fascinating discussion. It is far more interesting than the article! In fact, this would be more informative than tables of countries and their GDPs that may or may not belong to an existing or non-existing region. Jd2718 (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(Starting with new indent.)

To SamEV: It would seem we got some of the wire crossed earlier. I take full blame for that, as I should have been more explicit: I do not at all reject the notion that Catholicism (well, Roman Catholicism) is a defining trait for "Latin Europe" in most assessments that bother to mention it; I do however see little evidence yet of any direct and non-coincidental connection between the term and Romance-speaking peoples. In my previous replies, I was specifically addressing the parts where you argued for, or it seemed to me like you argued for, the latter characteristic as a constant feature.

There are still some details to address.

In respect to Chhokar & Brodbeck: I was actually able to find the original GLOBE study on google books (Robert J. House (ed.), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The Globe Study of 62 Societies, SAGE, 2004), but I could not find its exact definition of Latin Europe (those pages were not available for preview). I could, however, see that they analyze or at least mention all countries of the world: it basically divides the world into study regions, and no country is left out; meaning that all countries that could also have been in Latin Europe are included in other regions. Indeed, Chhokar & Brodbeck do not work with the same definition, and seem to have been sampling, but the wider definition still does not include other areas of Switzerland. On p.185 of the GLOBE study, non-French speaking Switzerland is mentioned among Germanic countries (alongside East and West Germany, the Netherlands, and Austria); the GLOBE authors do mention that previous studies left out Switzerland when discussing Germanic Europe.

You wrote: "The Latins outside of Europe were the descendants of European Latins, so they saw no important differences; indeed, that's why they grouped them together. And the term 'Latin America' did not appear till around the mid-19th century, as an analogue of 'Latin Europe'." For starters, I hope we agree that, no matter what meaning you attach to "Latins" (in fact, it would seem you substantiate that this is the case), "Latin Europeans" is not in any way distinct from either them or "nondescript inhabitants of countries in Latin Europe". Either definition would not validate a separate article for "Latin Europeans" (as is the case of "Latin American"). There are also some other details to cover: as per the one source mentioning this so far (Mignolo), both "Latin America" and "Latin Europe" are terms that have been introduced relatively recently, and have mirrored each other from the start; when it comes to "Latin peoples", the definition could not possibly predate the birth of nationalism, or at most the Age of Enlightenment - such concepts were simply not around before that time, or, if they were, they were marginal and usually displayed characteristics and meanings that nobody today would take seriously (like the Polish noblemen pretending to be Sarmatians). This is also consistent with what sources say about Latin Europe having been built on the basis of Carolingian areas and Catholicism - which crossed ethnic divides and proclaimed universalist doctrines.

To Jd: I too definitely believe that economic data has absolutely no relevancy in the article. The domain is vaguely defined for more than the core group of countries (meaning that it is almost the equivalent of a separate article comparing the GDPs of China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Argentina and Finland), the core countries are all EU members (I would think that their membership to an economic union would imply a more generic field and a more relevant economic criterion these countries have in common), and the data can easily be picked up from other articles that specifically deal with the issue.

Since we're on the subject: the map headlining the article may still have its uses, if placed more logically in the article (it is not a map of "Latin Europe" under any definition). I keep an open mind on this issue. It could perhaps help the unfamiliarized reader have a quick view of the areas that speak Romance languages in Europe - since, even if that may turn out to have nothing or little to do with "Latin Europe", a reference to "Romance languages" is bound to be kept somewhere in the rewritten text (per the apparent coincidence I mentioned above). However, it needs to be throughly reviewed for accuracy - I suspect that basis for inclusion of some territories was intentionally vague. It is unclear to me what the "Latin speaking minorities" mean for countries like Ukraine or Serbia, especially in areas where the Romance language in question is unofficial - if I follow the reasoning, will it turn out to be the equivalent of "there are two native Italian speakers in Trondheim, so Norway is part of Latin Europe"? also, why is it that, while two sections of Ukraine and Serbia are included, while Macedonia, with its one Aromanian-speaking town, is entirely covered in the beautiful color that is red? was that town hard to locate on the map?

As for saving the colorful boxes. What definition do we bear in mind when redesigning it? All? - which would lead to an immensity of no use. The Italy-France-Spain-Portugal cluster? - which I doubt would be of any use to anyone, as the same result can be achieved by a text with the necessary links to Italy, France, Spain and Portugal (just in case the reader does not know where these countries are - and, incidentally, just in case he or she does not know, it would help him little to find out how many square km they are, as opposed to doing what he or she is most likely to do, by which I mean clicking the link). If we drop the GDPs, areas and populations (which I say we should, since we are otherwise granting a meaning to a notion that may have no meaning, and applying a term to areas where it may never have been applied) we end up with nothing. Religion? In the restricted definition, they all have the same religion; the vaguer definitions may include countries with religions that have nothing to do with the Catholic-Orthodox divide. Languages? Restricted: 4 countries-4 languages; extended: god only knows. Also note that, unlike plain text, a table or chart is very hard to reference, and that a format that favors nuances over "plain" data is of much more use when dealing with a nuanced topic such as this. For all these reasons, I say let's drop it and do what the manual of style actually favors: write prose.

Thank you both for the encouragements. I am certainly considering reshaping several articles in this series, and I would also like to suggest another one on "Panlatinism", as a third "main article" from the Latins one. It would primarily cover a 19th century fad that apparently France encouraged and then put a stop to (and which was of more relevancy in Romania), but would also extend to other initiatives (such as reviving Latin as a spoken language) down to the present-day Latin Union. Alas, I tend to work my way from the detailed to the generic, and I generally stay away from "big" articles (a solo rewrite of "Latins" and "Latin Europe" is to me the equivalent of a solo rewrite of "Physics" and "Mathematics"), unless I'm sure I have explored where all or at most of its paths lead - in this case, for example, how Latin America should fit into Latinism and Panlatinism is still largely a mystery to me. I am also working on other articles in unrelated areas which, I must say, interest me even more than this. I would also like to give a chance for these topics to "distill", so that we all may have a general idea of where we're going with this. Dahn (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"For starters, I hope we agree that, no matter what meaning you attach to "Latins" (in fact, it would seem you substantiate that this is the case), "Latin Europeans" is not in any way distinct from either them"
I Agree.
"or "nondescript inhabitants of countries in Latin Europe"."
I do not agree with you there a priori: can we apply the label "Latins" or "Latin Europeans" to the ethnic Austrians in South Tyrol, Italy, for example? Are the Basques "Latin"? This is a key issue to resolve.
"Either definition would not validate a separate article for "Latin Europeans""
Agree.
" "there are two native Italian speakers in Trondheim, so Norway is part of Latin Europe"?"
Not at all. Inclusion is based on whether a Romance language is used by a "significant" minority at least. (Save it, Dahn. We could argue it for eons what "significant" means. I didn't write it. I'm fairly new at this article - my first edit was two weeks ago - and nearly all my contribs have been to the table of countries and the infobox. I've scarcely touched the text in any, er... significant way.)
About the colorful boxes, I was speaking generally. It's just that CCC put a lot of work into it and I thought I'd send a message that we'd be open-minded about it. I meant nothing more; no specifics. SamEV (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
On "nondescript" and the key issue. As long as Latin Europe is not defined ethnically (and I still see no proof that it is), "Latin European", if at all present, would mostly be a shortened variant for "inhabitant of Latin Europe" - which, for example, Basques are. I do not suppose that the authors who apply the term "Latin Europe" and "Latin European" as its derivative to places such as Israel, Greece, England, Holland, parts of Germany and whatever else even think of implying that the people in those countries are Latin (crypto-Latin?). Yes, the term could also potentially mean "a Latin in Europe" in some cases - but then it is not directly connected with this article, and we seem to agree that the distinction between various Latins is purely conjectural. So, you see, it is not actually a key issue, and I would say it is not an issue at all for this article.
I should clarify that I mean to accuse no one of anything - not even CCC, even though it's clear that we would not be having this conversation were it not for his interventions in the article. I don't mean to sound hostile in any way, and I'm not here to place blame. And I do assume good faith.
So my comments about the map and the table were meant to point the exact problems I see with them, no matter whose fault they were, and to have users agree or disagree with them.
Now, let me state again the core of my argument about the map. The point is not how I and you define "significant", but how the map defines it. If one has set a threshold for inclusion other than than official status, he or she should specify it, and we should check to see if it is actually met by those regions and is not in fact also met by other regions that are currently not highlighted.
It is also quite obvious that two apparently incompatible principles were applied on the same map. Whether they belong to statistics or map-making I don't know, but they lead to a distorted perception. If one wants to show regions were Romance languages are spoken, he creates a map such as this one, where the threshold is universally set at a region smaller than country, where languages are shown as cross-border areas of color, and where islands such as the Breton and Szekely one are clearly shown. That would be a map where "non-official use of Romance languages" could make it - though please note that the version I linked to shows no such Romance islands in either Ukraine or Macedonia (meaning that the respective patches are an exaggeration?). That map could perhaps also show rather quaint stuff such as Krusevo having Aromanian as its secondary language (or whatever it is) by clearly indicating the area, not by painting over an entire country. Browsing through Commons, I found to better and more relevant maps specifically for Romance languages, as they were in the 14th century and the 20th century.
The other system is to simply show countries where Romance languages are spoken by x% or more of the citizens (whatever it is decided that x% should be), and show the differences between countries with various shades of color. That would clearly indicate various more relevant stuff. For example, it would show that, while Romanians and Moldovans are more present in some areas of Ukraine, they account for no more than 0.8 of the country's total population when put together (here). Note that there is data showing that Romance language is use is smaller: 70 percent of Moldovans use Moldovan/Romanian as their mother tongue (let's say that the 1.7 percent who use languages other than Moldovan may comprise people who simply say they speak Romanian - that would make it as much as 72 percent or something); using the same assumption, this the case of about 91-92% of the Romanians - as seen here. For some reason that I cannot begin to fathom, we also have a [poor] article on the Ukrainian Census (2001). Dahn (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
A self-correction: the word "significant" is not itself in this article (perhaps it used to be...). It is instead in this same map's caption in the Latin Europeans article. I didn't mean to mislead you or anyone else, Dahn. I'm just far more used to editing that article than this one.
I agree about the need for clearly stated inclusion criteria for the map. But don't misunderstand me: I consider both the map and table to be ancillary issues, and as you showed, there are plenty of good options.
In any case, we don't actually have to agree on what "Latin Europe" means. As you already stated, let's write about what those authors wrote, period.
So what are you waiting for, Dahn? SamEV (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Just one more thing, though. What about other cultural traits? Several authors speak of the nations/peoples who follow "the Roman tradition" or "Latin tradition"? Do you think there is a Latin cultural community at all? SamEV (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay. Let me clarify my point about the map: it is a good idea to have the map, and it is indeed proper supporting material here whatever the definition of the term (i.e. the reader may find it helpful). I cannot say the same about the table, which would be redundant for a narrow definition and absolutely useless for an extended one (not to mention that an extended table would glue together several stances that may have little in common, nor that most of the data it lists, such as its mentions of the GDPs, is irrelevant to this article). I also do not believe the present map is informative, in that whoever contributed it does not appear to have researched it or start from a source. I think that the map presently in the article is perplexing, but I attribute that to mistake rather than manipulation, and I do not think, nor meant to suggest, that a person taking it for granted was misleading the reader.
Of the two other "Latin" traits specifically mentioned in the sources I quoted above, only one is actually cultural - the one referring to similar systems of education in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal (or some of them). The other is actually about the juridical system, which is Roman, Carolingian and Napoleonic. Now, both traits are objective, and their impact limited (i.e.: easily observable, and less prone to be valued from a sentimental perspective). They are also traits not limited to these countries, and have a lot to do with the countries influencing each other in recent times - or, rather, with France influencing all the others and many more countries. So, at this point, it seems that, of those researchers who actually refer to this aspect, most don't refer to cultural aspects that would be either more widespread or closer to the Roman source.
If you ask me about my opinion on this issue, I have to say I don't have any. Let's say I agree with what I usually don't - the type of ethnicist definition that would lead me to speak of "Latin peoples" as a necessary reality. Let's also say I agree that "cultural traits" is something other than what it usually stands for, i.e. "the place where we dump all things apparently hard to observe, determine and define, all of which may be entirely subjective." With that definition of "Latin cultural traits", the Latins of Europe seem to have a number of things in common at one or several levels. The Latinist ideologist would jump at the chance to note and advertise them, but he will fail to see how these have always coexisted with completely different issues that would seem to contradict his theory. Any of those cultures (and, indeed, just about any culture) keeps vivid memories of most cultures it came in contact with, and will recuperate them to serve various purposes - for example, French nationalism was based on large doses of Gallicism and Frankism. Also, the core area of "Latin Europe" (and this is probably most important), has been under a unified political-economic-religious-cultural system until the 16th century, and it may account for much, if not perhaps most of their supposed shared legacy (for example, the earliest traces of recorded folklore, that have set standards of folklore in all those lands, date back to that period and not earlier). It is also worthy to wonder whether, beyond political developments that turned into realities for one reason or another, those countries actually share something cultural with themselves. Consider that the level of language disparity in the Italian Peninsula is comparable with that in France, yet the latter was for long many countries, and the former was one (I'm simplifying the issue, as French unity came to be earlier, but much in the same way); consider that Belgium (Wallonia at least) advertises all traits that would otherwise make it a province of France, which is not the case of many regions that now are France. In short, and speaking for myself, there is little proof that the "Latin cultural traits", like all such concepts, are anything other than oversimplification. Dahn (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant. SamEV (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why "Spain including Balearic Islands, Catalonia etc"?

What is the rationale for that? Why not "France including Corsica and Normandy" or "Italy including Sardinia and Piedmont" then? --89.97.35.70 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. It seems by separating these autonomous communities out, it's pushing a separatist POV. I think it should just include the main nation states. Kman543210 (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This is because these regions have another official romance language which is different to that of the state. --Gibmetal 77talk 15:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point, but those regionally co-official languages are already mentioned in the box under Spain, so they get listed twice with the regions being listed separately. Kman543210 (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, In Equatorial Guinea the Official lenguage is spanish or castelian (is the same), no french. This country was territory of Spain since 1778 til 1975. Thank you.

Latin England

England should be considered an Latin Europe country, especially since there is so mmany french words in the language, and it was taken over by the French and the Romans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Roman Empire conquered many areas, but that doesn't automatically make them Latin. English is a Germanic language despite the abundance of Anglo-Norman and Latin influence. The building blocks and the majority of the most commonly used words are still Germanic. Kman543210 (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


Once again for this kind of pro-inluding-the-UK-in-the-latin-world troll, English is a germanic language. And, by the way the whole English-speaking culture is the opposite of latin cultures in almost all the points (religion, legal system, political economic ethics, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Latin Europe as a geographic term

The article originally was about Geographic, but it is now purely linguistic.

In an Atlas I've Europe divided in the following GEOGRAPHICAL regions:

  • Nordic Europe
  • British Isles. Central Europe.
  • Latin Europe
  • Danubian and Balkan Europe (where Romania is)

Other regions:

  • Silesia. Bohemia-Moravia
  • Turkish straits

this is a purely Geographical term based of course in linguistic/cultural/historical factor, which was like originally the article was, before all the non-sense and all these useless tables. -Pedro (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


It is not completly stupid to use it ASLO as a geographical term. Regional geographic groupings are most of the time arbitrary. What makes the unity of a region and that creates it as a geographical entity is most of the time a commun culture, especially language or religion. Latin America has became to be a geographic concepty while it was purely linguistic at the origin (Quebec is almost never considered part of it while it should be linguistically speaking). In Europe a geographical concept such as "nordic or Scandinavian countries" is in fact at the origin a linguistic-cultural one (Denmark should be associated more with Germany than with Sweden, from which it is geographically separated by water.) A lot of people use the expression "northern Europe" to speak only of Scandinavian countries, excluding the UK which is as much northern (at least Scotland) not for geographic reasons but linguistic-cultural ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The best part of Europe

Latin Europe represents without doubt the best of Europe by a large margin. Historically, Culturally, Climatically. There is Latin Europe, the real heart of Europe, and then the rest. Why is the unparalleled heritage associated with Latin Europe, Italy, France, Spain...barely mentioned in this article?. Just to mention one example Italy and Spain are the countries in the world with more monuments of artistic value and then France follows.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_World_Heritage_Sites_based_on_State_Parties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Total_WHS.png

And I think it is not necessary to mention the uncomparable history of this region. But one reads the article and it just mentions nothing. Walky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.37.46.133 (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Walky. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please take a look at Wikipedia's policy regarding neutral point of view before proceeding. Aramgar (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is not neutral in that it does not recognize what I have said. Shall we enummerate the history and legacy of this area. I have just provided an objective introduction with the links above, and I think that most people here know well what I mean: Birth of Western Civilization (along with Greece), Christianity and the role of Rome, Renaissance of Western Civilization after the Dark Ages, Birth of Capitalism, Discovery of the new world, First Circumnavigation of Earth, French revolution, and a very long etc that is objectively verified in the fact that Italy, Spain and France are the places in the world with the most World Heritage Sites oficially recognized by the international community, although I know that centuries of Nothern European progaganda have tried to downplay and ignore these facts: Most people think that Spain is just beaches and bullfights. Walky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


Nonsense

However, it is sometimes only those in the Latin Arch who are seen as Latin European.

  • What do you think about the Romanians and the Portuguese? --82.171.95.220 (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Regional languages of France and Italy

As for Spain, I think the regional romance languages which are recognized as co-official in some regions of France and Italy should be added too in the respective boxes. Check Languages of France and Languages of Italy for further details. --Fertuno (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Map of Latin Europe

Shouldn't that map of Latin European contries include also Switzerland and Belgium (but in light purple color)? Those two are federations in which Romance nations are one of main nations (other countries, for example Slovenia are not Federations and Romance nations make only minority in the population there... ).--Čeha (razgovor) 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Very astute observation. And in fact, Switzerland is a confederation, which justifies inclusion of its Romance-speaking cantons even more. At the least, the Romance-speaking polities in Belgium and Switzerland should be added, if not the whole countries. SamEV (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Language isn't the only factor of what constitutes Latin Europe. Religion, and to a certain extent, geography, are also important. I have no problem with the current map, but I wouldn't have any objection to updating it on the following:
  • Leaving the countries which meet most criteria (the ones colored in on the map already) as purple.
  • Adding the countries which meet only some of the factors (Linguistic: Switzerland, Belgium, Romania etc. Religious: Croatia, etc) in a lighter color - for e.g. pink/light purple. 78.149.170.5 (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you please provide independent, unbiased references pertaining to the importance of religion and geography to the definition of Latin Europe? Mentatus (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
You've already been given a reference Mentatus. Eukariota (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget, 78.149.170.5, that the French Swiss, Italian Swiss, and the Walloons of Belgium are all in the main Catholic as well as Romance-speaking.

I notice that your recent edits re-added Ireland and added Croatia. To that I added Austria. Other traditionally Catholic countries in Europe are Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland, Liechtenstein, and Lithuania. SamEV (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would rather say that French Swiss are mostly Protestant, not Catholic. See the religion map of Switzerland and the linguistic map. --Olahus (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That map shows that portions of the French cantons (half their territory) have protestant majorities. It does not show: a) that any French canton necessarily has an overall Protestant majority, nor b) that the French Swiss as a whole are majority Protestant.
For example, the religious distribution in the French cantons could be from a combination of a large minority of French Swiss Protestants and large enclaves of non-French Swiss Protestants, together outnumbering the Catholic French Swiss in those parts of the French cantons seen on the map.
Nevertheless, I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm saying that the info you presented is not conclusive. SamEV (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We have reasons to believe that most (or at least half) of the French-speaking Switzerlanders are Protestans. Wallis, the canton with a catholic french-speaking population has an extremely low density of the population and it cannot be compared with the canton Vaud. --Olahus (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing any of that, necessarily. But Čeha's idea, endorsed by me and at least in principle by 78.149.170.5 is to include cantons because of their great autonomy. So what we need is the religious breakdown of each Romance-speaking canton.
BTW, Olahus, I find your last revert inexplicable. I endeavored to accomodate the concerns of both of you. But in fact, I'm mostly in agreement with you. I think anonymous is wrong to so forthrightly assert that Romanians and Moldovans are not Latin. But anonymous did understand what I was trying to do and I thank him for reading those changes carefully. I urge both of you not to revert any of my changes lightly, as they are each carefully designed and made to resolve the particular dispute.
It seems that all of us agree that the religion map should only show Europe. I was going to ask someone else to do it, but I saw on your user page that you're a map-maker. So I think you should go ahead and fix that map, Olahus. SamEV (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, you've just put Romania and Moldova back in the lead map. But now the map and the lead itself don't match, since the lead doesn't mention either country. I'll await 78.149.170.5's comments before saying any more about that. SamEV (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

SamEV, please take a look also in the next topic discussed in this talk page. --Olahus (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I did. I also took a look at the article history and saw that you reverted again.
Sorry, but I won't be part of this nonsense. Good luck to all. SamEV (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

If you guys keep reverting each other I'm going to ask an admin with sufficient clue to at least semi-protect the page. Why don't you try dispute resolution instead? Try filing an RfC instead and stick to using this talk page for a while until consensus has been reached. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to recommence discussion above; hopefully it will help move things forward. 89.243.43.97 (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Map

After some thought, I've considered it may perhaps be in our interests to start the maps from scratch.

A map on Romance Europe should be made, which based on this map, would include:

This map could then be used in a Romance-speaking Europe article, similar to that of Romance-speaking African countries and Romance-speaking Asian countries (where there might actually be a use for the table)


A map on predominantly Roman Catholic countries should be made, which would include:

Such a map would also be of use here.


On the maps however, the Microstates need to be enlarged, for example as they are here - otherwise they hardly show up.89.243.33.170 (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Above comment: The Czech Republic is not pre. Catholic! Not now. The others seem correct. The map on the site page is wrong. French is the majority lang. in all of France. It is the majority language in Alsace and Lorraine. German dialect is the minority language and Breton is a minority tongue as well. Italian is a minortiy lang. in South Tirol so that part is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.148.179 (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Slavic Europe, Germanic Europe, Latin Europe

This discussion has been put into a collapsing box because it contains disruption from a banned user editing using various IP addresses. If editors wish to revisit the issues, please start a new section. BencherliteTalk 21:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Slavic Europe is a region of Europe where Slavic people live.
Germanic Europe is a region of Europe where Germanic people live.
Latin Europe is a region of Europe where Latin people live.
Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and what constitutes the Latin people is having heritage from the Latin Empire, based on language, religion, and culture. 78.147.242.10 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Not on language. --Olahus (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Latin Empire is as much latin as the Holy Roman Empire. The first was a Greek state, while se second a German state. But non of them two was a real Latin state and the population of those two states didn't speak Latin or any other Romance language.--Olahus (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop repeating this nonsense about Latin Europe being based on religion, culture and whatnot. It has to do just with language, nothing else. Latin countries are those countries where a language derived from Latin is predominant. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Right! --Olahus (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, my deepest thoughts are that Olahus is the IP address anyway. Secondly, your opinion doesn't count - reliable sources do, and the one in the text discounts what you're arguing. Your reverts are now undoing three editors - I'm advising you to stop. 78.146.54.72 (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Your edits are POV-ish. I don't delete reliable sources, but I do delete POV-ish edits with weasel words. As I alredy wrote above: Slavic Europe is a region of Europe where Slavic people live, Germanic Europe is a region of Europe where Germanic people live and Latin Europe is a region of Europe where Latin people live. --Olahus (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:NPA thanks. Have you even looked at the source in the text? It clearly shows that Latin Europe is both linguistically and religiously influenced. You're now calling 3 editors vandals. And no one is saying it isn't where Latin people live. 78.146.54.72 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Nobody deleted sourced information, but you must understand that weasel wording is on the wrong place here. --Olahus (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Then by all means discuss here to sort out the "weasel wording", but don't change the entire meaning of the page. 78.146.54.72 (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you reverted entire edits without explanation, for example you insisted to put in the map with the spread of Romance languages in the entire world. This article is about the Latin population in Europe, not about Brazil or Cuba. --Olahus (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
If you wish to crop the map to include only Europe, by all means do so, but I simply added in the best of what we had. The same goes for the religion map. Before sparking up another edit war, please discuss how you want to modify the consensus based page, so we can talk about it civilly and hopefully reach an agreeable outcome. Cheers 89.243.43.97 (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear 89.243.43.97 (or 78.146.54.72 or 89.97.35.70 or 78.147.242.10 etc), the world map isn't necessary since we already have enogh mapf of Europe (which you permanenty remove). --Olahus (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Stop reverting to your version, when no less than 5 editors have opposed you. If you cared to check, there is a discussion above this thread about that very map, yet you havn't even bothered to comment on it. 89.243.33.170 (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Who are the 5 editors? --Olahus (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
User talk:78.149.190.215, User talk:84.13.166.159, and User talk:89.243.33.170 are registered to Opal Telecom DSL Network. I will assume good faith thinking that maybe this ips are shared by multiple users. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
No the IPs are all me - I meant the actual registered users that have either:
  • stated elsewhere that they disapprove of his edits
  • stated on this talk page that they disapprove of his edits
  • or those involved who chose to build on the version I restored to, rather than revert to Olahus's. 84.13.166.159 (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. My humble suggestion is to find sources and build consensus in the talk page so we can stop this editing war. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course - you'll see in the above threads I've been trying to do that, but with no response. Hopefully you'll be able to continue to help the discussion. 84.13.166.159 (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Original research concern

This discussion has been put into a collapsing box because it contains disruption from a banned user editing using various IP addresses. If editors wish to revisit the issues, please start a new section. BencherliteTalk 21:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • My main concern is with this statement: "There is no clear definition on which countries or areas are included, but Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, and most of their culturally derived European Microstates always or nearly always are."
The first source provided to back up this claim is a power point cancer study that doesn't talk in depth about the concept of "Latin Europe". The second study is a neurosurgery lecture and only one page is available. WP:OR says that "article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided."
  • Additional statements with no sources to verify:
"The Greek language and religion do not fit in with the other characteristics of what constitutes the region however, so Greece is rarely grouped with it."
"Western European Luxembourg, whilst matching the religious and linguistic characteristics of most Latin European countries, is rarely included."
However, with Eastern Orthodox majorities rather than Roman Catholic, they are not always classed as Latin European.''
  • Question: Who decides which group or nation to include as "Latin Europe"? --J.Mundo (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for taking the time to look at the case. I don't have much of an opinion on how we should proceed with your first point. However, with regards to what factors are included, the first source explains that use of a Romance language and of Romanic Catholicism, are involved. 84.13.166.159 (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that this article has original research and questionable sources, even though the problems has been much reduced from previous levels (I thank the editors who did it). To answer some of the questions posed above, let me refer you to my earlier posts on this talk page, where I tried to find out what sources and agree and disagree on. It's hard to summarize beyond what I wrote there, but actually looking into proper sources shows that researchers (who should be cited one by one eventually) simply use "Latin Europe" arbitrarily, as an umbrella term for situations which serve a limited purpose. Thus, these definitions, although they sometimes speak of "Latin Europe" as being distinguished by the heritage of the High Roman Empire, medieval law, feudal tradition and Roman Catholicism, don't usually imply that even these characteristics carry weight.

They most certainly don't ever claim that Latin European counties are defined by either Romance languages or "Latin" ethnicity. Thus, no author of those I've cited ever speaks of Romania or Moldova as part of Latin Europe. The two countries' very inclusion in the notion started on wikipedia as an internet meme (it is still treated as such on the Romanian version of this article, which is utter fantasy). References to "Europa latină" are extremely vague and extremely rare in Romania itself (and presumably in Moldova). The only reliable Romanian-language source I was able to find on the matter is a 2006 article where a 19th century Romanian perception of belonging to is discussed as a mythological footnote.

Returning to the matter of my earlier posts and what sources cited there say. Well: Generally, the term is applied to a cluster of countries which, for no explicit reason, includes Spain, France, Portugal and Italy. Outside this cluster, you will note, definitions vary significantly: some authors I've cited stretch the notion to include Israel, Hungary, England, Greece, parts of Switzerland etc. This only enforces the idea that no general conclusion about what the term refers to can be drawn, and this article needs to cite and confront sources, without guessing or interpreting, before it goes anywhere. To conclude, we are dealing with a shape-shifting concept that does not address an absolute reality, and the article needs to be restructured around that. Dahn (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Dahn. I am in complete agreement with you. However, User:Olahus keeps reverting against consensus to push such a Romanian POV agenda, despite several users expressing their disapproval. In addition to this, his reverts bring back some of the very unsourced material you say has been reduced by the recent edits. 84.13.166.159 (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-post - pick up on this, it's important

Since the comments above have been collapsed, I am re-posting my earlier comment below, as I feel it's important considering what's been going on here lately. And may I add: while I do not approve of single-purpose accounts and never will, the IP user above (to whom I give the benefit of the doubt either way) made some pretty solid points. Anyway, here's what I want users to consider:

  • I'm also reposting my concerns about OR

My main concern is with this statement: "There is no clear definition on which countries or areas are included, but Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, and most of their culturally derived European Microstates always or nearly always are."

The first source provided to back up this claim is a power point cancer study that doesn't talk in depth about the concept of "Latin Europe". The second study is a neurosurgery lecture and only one page is available. WP:OR says that "article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided."
  • Additional statements with no sources to verify:
"The Greek language and religion do not fit in with the other characteristics of what constitutes the region however, so Greece is rarely grouped with it."
"Western European Luxembourg, whilst matching the religious and linguistic characteristics of most Latin European countries, is rarely included."
However, with Eastern Orthodox majorities rather than Roman Catholic, they are not always classed as Latin European.''
  • Question: Who decides which group or nation to include as "Latin Europe"? --J.Mundo (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)--J.Mundo (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree that this article has original research and questionable sources, even though the problems has been much reduced from previous levels (I thank the editors who did it). To answer some of the questions posed above, let me refer you to my earlier posts on this talk page, where I tried to find out what sources and agree and disagree on. It's hard to summarize beyond what I wrote there, but actually looking into proper sources shows that researchers (who should be cited one by one eventually) simply use "Latin Europe" arbitrarily, as an umbrella term for situations which serve a limited purpose. Thus, these definitions, although they sometimes speak of "Latin Europe" as being distinguished by the heritage of the High Roman Empire, medieval law, feudal tradition and Roman Catholicism, don't usually imply that even these characteristics carry weight.
They most certainly don't ever claim that Latin European counties are defined by either Romance languages or "Latin" ethnicity. Thus, no author of those I've cited ever speaks of Romania or Moldova as part of Latin Europe. The two countries' very inclusion in the notion started on wikipedia as an internet meme (it is still treated as such on the Romanian version of this article, which is utter fantasy). References to "Europa latină" are extremely vague and extremely rare in Romania itself (and presumably in Moldova). The only reliable Romanian-language source I was able to find on the matter is a 2006 article where a 19th century Romanian perception of belonging to is discussed as a mythological footnote.
Returning to the matter of my earlier posts and what sources cited there say. Well: Generally, the term is applied to a cluster of countries which, for no explicit reason, includes Spain, France, Portugal and Italy. Outside this cluster, you will note, definitions vary significantly: some authors I've cited stretch the notion to include Israel, Hungary, England, Greece, parts of Switzerland etc. This only enforces the idea that no general conclusion about what the term refers to can be drawn, and this article needs to cite and confront sources, without guessing or interpreting, before it goes anywhere. To conclude, we are dealing with a shape-shifting concept that does not address an absolute reality, and the article needs to be restructured around that. Dahn (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As I already wrote above:
Slavic Europe is a region of Europe where Slavic people live.
Germanic Europe is a region of Europe where Germanic people live.
Latin Europe is a region of Europe where Latin people live.
The problems with the article started on the 9. January 2009, when an ip-editor started to make extensive changes to the article. Besides, the article Latin European peoples was merged with Latin Europe. Romania and Moldova are a part of Latin Europe because they are members of the Latin Union and their language the proof of their Roman heritage. Around 80% of the Romance-speaking Europeans are roman-catholic. Therefore we can say that Latin Europe is predominantely roman-catholic. But does it mean now that the calvin French Switzerlanders and the orthox Romanians are not latin peoples?
I've seen a good definition here: Latin Europe is the part of Europe in which Romance languages are predominant. Countries or areas in which such language is officially recognized and/or de facto spoken as a minority language are sometimes included. Their languages share a common background, all being descendants of Vulgar Latin.
The heart of the Latin Europe is situated in southwestern Europe and comprises of four countries around the northwestern Mediterranean Basin (also known as the Latin Arch): Italy, France, Spain (including the Canary Islands) and Portugal (including the archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores).
So, if Romania and Moldova don't belong to the heart, but on the margin of Latin Europe, it doesn't mean that they are not a part of it. --Olahus (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bull. Cite a reliable source backing any of that. If you read this page, starting with ther section titled "Before we look closer into other issues: the term and its outside definition", you'll see that no definition of Latin Europe covers either Romania or Moldova, and that absolutely none relates to "Latin people". In fact, the only creditable Romanian source on offer at the time indicates that Romania is cut off from Latin Europe, under any definition of the term. Do spare us your personal theories. As for the urban dictionary - puh-leaze. That fails WP:RS by so much, it's not even funny. It's user-contributed (like wikipedia, and therefore unusable on wikipedia), and contributed by an internet user named Nico Persalino, who signs his name at the bottom of the page you cite. It could be just about any user, with just about any prejudice - that place is a forum (meaning not just that it could never make the cut on principle, WP:RS principle, but also that it's possible for a user to post there and then cite himself here).
Let me also note that your arguments lack not just verifiability, but also logic. You write: "Therefore we can say that Latin Europe is predominantely roman-catholic. But does it mean now that the calvin French Switzerlanders and the orthox Romanians are not latin peoples?" (I won't bother correcting your spelling, it's too much work). Let me highlight a very relevant part the third time around: under no definition other than Persolino's (whoever he is) and yours (whoever you are) does the term "Latin Europe" refer to the so-called "Latin peoples"; no reliable source makes any such claim, and some explicitly contradict it; therefore, there is nobody confirming or denying your ethnicist speculation about Romanians and Latin peoples, since, true or not, it has nothing to do with what this article is about. It is a false dilemma. Also, the notion that "it must because Slavic Europe and German Europe refer to certain ethnicities that Latin Europe should also", see post hoc ergo propter hoc.
And finally: the "Latin European peoples" article was nonsense for two reasons. 1. Those who refer to a "Latin race", "Latin ethnicity", "Latin culture" don't make any distinction between European and non-European "Latins" - either because their definition claims that all Latins are Latins or because they never refer to people on other continents as Latins. That whole, equally shifty, notion of "Latins" is should be perfectly covered by this article (which, for now, is in a poor state). 2. Under the (one and only) definition of "Latin Europe", "Latin European peoples" would simply mean "people from the countries of Latin Europe" (irrespective of ethnicity, language etc., be they in Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Belgium, or indeed Hungary and Israel - but, wouldn't you know it, never Romania and/or Moldova). Dahn (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read: Romania is unique in that it is the only Eastern Block country that speaks a Romance language. Alexandru Niculescu, in his book Outline History of the Romanian Language says, "Romanian is the only Romance language which has developed in the Eastern part of Latin Europe" Source. --Olahus (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. To clarify: What you've got there is a student paper, and its claim refers to a unilateral view (unilateral even in Romania) which, if true, is still extreme in that it contradicts all other definitions of "Latin Europe" per what I posted above (in fact, the supposed quote makes no claim to defining "Latin Europe" under any circumstance, but just uses the term in passing). Dahn (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Switzerland

There's a paragraph in the article that says:

Switzerland has three official languages, two of which are Latinate – French and Italian – while the third is Germanic – German. Thus, inclusion of Switzerland, and other multilingual countries, is often controversial.

As far as I know Switzerland has 4 official languages: German, French, Italian and Romansh. All except German being Romance languages. I have altered the article accordingly!

Scooter20 (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Religion

This article makes some very original claims, including the strong link between Catholicism and Latin Europe. The article even goes as far as claiming that Romania and Moldova aren't "Latin" since they are Orthodox. That's just unsourced nonsense, but that is of course true for the whole article. Unless some academic sources can be found for Latin Europe, the whole article could go to AfD. At the very least, it requires a major clean-up.JdeJ (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's not really clear what this article is supposed to be about since there really isn't anything cultural, political or historical that binds these countries together exclusive of the rest of Europe except that they were the nucleus of the Western Roman Empire. (Taivo (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
In the previous sections, I cited source over source. None of them cites Romania and Moldova as parts of Latin Europe. None of them discuss Latin Europe as "the European home of Latin peoples", and I have grown tired of having to explain this to every editor who thinks the terms must be related (because some obscure propaganda forums tell him/her they are). None of them makes any exception for Orthodoxy, and several discuss Catholicism as a definitive criterion of countries in Latin Europe. Furthermore, the claim that the info is "unreferenced" ignores the blatant fact that it was one of the few sections in the article to carry a reference.
As a Romanian, I can also tell you that, outside this tiresome and degrading internet meme, which abuses the very notion of reliability, no reliable Romanian source identifies Romania with Latin Europe, and some explicitly discuss it as separate. Why? Because, again, the term "Latin Europe" carries a distinct meaning, and its association with the old and boring mythology surrounding "Latin peoples" is a recent fantasy.
The option of revamping this article and sticking to proper sources (which it does desperately need) is an uphill struggle, precisely because of such unwillingness to verify a single fact before editing wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Now, let me address two issues in your posts which nag at me.
JdeJ, you write: "The article even goes as far as claiming that Romania and Moldova aren't 'Latin' since they are Orthodox." That's fallacious: what this very poorly written article does, to its credit, is to state that the two countries, Latin or un-Latin, are not included in definitions of Latin Europe, a verifiable fact. The whole racialist belief in "Latin peoples", beyond the factual existence of Romance languages, is another can of worms, but it has nothing to with this article.
Taivo, your entire post misses the point and creates a slippery slope. An article does not and should provide a "concrete" definition where the subject is, in reality, vague. Wikipedia does not manipulate reality to make readers think the world is more structured than it is, but reflects that lack of structure where it comes into play. In short: this article is about a vague concept, and it ought to be as vague as that concept. Dahn (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
But does this concept actually exist in the world outside Wikipedia? I've never seen the term "Latin Europe" in all my readings on history, geography, etc. That's my point. Does this concept really, truly exist? The term "Latin America" exists because that is the region of the Americas where the Latin language was used as a second language (the native languages being the first language) in the early years of colonization (and not because it is where "Latin languages" are now spoken). (Taivo (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
Have a look above, in the section "Before we look closer into other issues: the term and its outside definition". I believe that will answer your question. Dahn (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Dahn commits the typical mistake making Wikipedia-editing to be so tiresome: using a source that looks vaguely like it could support one's argument. The source Dahn is talking about discusses the Latin legal code. Dahn, just finding a source is not good enough, the source has to be credible as well and this source is not about identifying Latin Europe. Have a look at the corresponding pages Germanic Europe, Slavic Europe and Celtic Europe and you'll find that all of them uses language as the basis for including or excluding countries. If we start to confuse things by including religion, we have a lot of questions to answer. What about the French-speaking parts of Switzerland that are Protestant? And France is a secular state, not a Catholic state. I suggest we remove all references to religion as it is irrelevant, confusing, not included in corresponding pages and not sourced (despite what Dahn claims). And even if some source could be find for it, I would still say that the other reaons are strong enough for not including it.JdeJ (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about? I refer you to the "Before we look closer into other issues: the term and its outside definition" section, where you can read that plenty sources refer to Catholicism - not necessarily as a present situation, but as a tradition (i.e.: medieval Catholicism over more modern Protestantism and secularism). I also refer to other definitions, and will repeat it again if you missed it above: no single definition applies, and the term contains a lot of prejudice and contradictions in any definition; but religion does cover one of those definitions. If you also care to look again, maybe you'd notice that I did not edit the article other than cosmetically (and am therefore not the author of the text you removed - I just object to this "it appears to me" rationale for deleting info). Granted, the issue is much more complicated than the present article will let us know, but that is mainly because it was subject to a revert war, and because much of it was edited in bad faith (btw, censoring one valid definition because it does not comply with one's perception is also bad faith). And let me also repeat: I don't endorse any single definition from the existing ones, and they should all be included here somehow; any of those definitions, you will note, will contradict your assumption that Romania and Moldova should be discussed in this article (Orthodox or not, Latin or not). Are we clear? Dahn (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
And no "we" don't have "a lot of questions to answer". If the definition is a paradox, we render the paradox, not ignore it. Let me answer you with this reply to Taivo: "An article does not and should provide a "concrete" definition where the subject is, in reality, vague. Wikipedia does not manipulate reality to make readers think the world is more structured than it is, but reflects that lack of structure where it comes into play. In short: this article is about a vague concept, and it ought to be as vague as that concept."
As for the "corresponding pages" - I can't and won't validate the definitions there, but you're again pushing me into a false analogy. If those concepts are structured around race/ethnicity (and even they are so only to a certain degree), this one isn't; just because "it sounds the same" as, say, Celtic Europe, it doesn't mean it is the same. I have already answered to this ill-conceived notion when another user presented me with it, just some paragraphs above, and repeating the claim won't obscure the sources which, in their totality, ignore it. For more on this type of rationale, see post hoc ergo propter hoc and correlation does not imply causation. Dahn (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a quite simple issue. Every Wikipedia article on Latin Europe includes Moldova and Romania in Latin Europe. Every Wikipedia articles uses language and language only to identify Latin Europe. No difference is you read this article on Spanish Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, Italian Wikipedia or any other Wikipedia, this is what you will find. Religion is not an issue in any other Wikipedia so why should it be here? Same thing here on English Wikipedia, the corresponding articles on Slavic Europe, Germanic Europe and Celtic Europe again uses language as the defining factor, ignoring religion. So is there any reason why this article should contradict both all Wikipedia articles on Latin Europe in many other languages and all English Wikipedia articles on other parts of Europe? The existance of a few sources trying to link Latin Europe to Catholicism is irrelevant to the matter. I'll be glad to take the issue to WP:RfC.JdeJ (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source for wikipedia, and it's quite clear that the other articles were affected by some POV-pushers running amok. And those are not "a few sources" - they are the only reliable sources presented in this debate, whereas the only definition of "Latin Europe" that would include Romania and Moldova is only found on some forums and other user-contributed sites. The claim is repeated ad nauseam on this here talk page, without anything to substantiate it - I for one have replied to it in at least four separate sections above, and cited the aforementioned reliable sources (including Romanian sources). Opening section after section of the same basic sophistry, and ignoring rebuttals, doesn't help this article get anywhere. Dahn (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Empty threats do nothing JdeJ, for you know as well as we do that you'd have a very difficult case ahead of you. The reason that the other language wikipedias claim that Latin Europe is a linguistic region, is due to nothing more than a domino effect from the English Wikipedia during the time when we displayed the false information (for proof, even check the dates of editing), not due to referencing. Not only that, but your arguments are completely unfounded anyway - a quick look at Celtic Europe shows it is Celtic cultures in general which defines it, with a significant linguistic element - basically the same as here. 78.147.155.72 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The article itself states that Latin Europeans nations claim Roman heritage, speak a Romance language, and Roman Catholicism is only the "prevalent religion", not the only religion. It is plain ignorance to say that Romania, which is a member of the Latin Union, whose inhabitants have historically viewed themselves as Roman descendants and whose language is as close to Latin as it can be, is not part of Latin Europe just because of its religion, which is no longer a major influence in its society anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.144.178 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Jesus: i just love when they read nothing from the debate, don't inform themselves about either what sources use or how wikipedia works (WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V), but have takes on what "plain ignorance" is and isn't... Dahn (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, as a matter of fact i checked your sources and i know enough about how wikipedia works. The fact that Romania and Moldova are ignored in discussions about Latin Europe doesn't mean they are excluded. Moreover, the definition of Latin Europe is very subjective; most people don't know that we are of Latin origin, but that doesn't mean they deny it. And assuming we are not part of L.E., then what "Europe" are we supposed to be part of? Slavic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainFugu (talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it does mean they are excluded - some of the sources are vague on this, but others explicitly limit the definition to a specified number of countries (others still provide definitions that in themselves exclude Romania and Moldova). And let me make it simpler, because it seems to have eluded you when you read (claimed to read) the sections above: just because it says "Latin", it doesn't mean it has anything to do with the (an, oh, how questionable and myopic the concept itself is!) "Latin peoples", nor with Romance languages. Read up and you'll see what it refers to. Moreover, per what I said above: Correlation does not imply causation. Through it, I have also replied to the "where are they if not here?" argument - nowhere, everywhere, who cares? the assumption that Europe "must all be divided into smaller Europes, because other such Europes exist" is not only ridiculous in itself, but, as the IP who wrote in this section indicated, it abuses even the notion of what those "other Europes" are (themselves, like Latin Europe, form around vague concepts). And let's not forget that you haven't presented even a single source that would back anything in your interpretation.
As for your claim to be aware of how wikipedia works: given the practical evidence, allow me to doubt it. The equivocation whereby you substitute your opinion for a source and challenge the sources on principle is good evidence of that. So, unless there's anything else, I'm gonna move on from this conversation, trusting that whatever needed to be said was said. Dahn (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
And this audacious edit of yours is even more proof that your interest here is purely disruptive: you use the talk page to argue that if all the sources presented explicitly limit the definition to exclude Romania and Moldova, "maybe" some don't mean to, but you edit the page to say that the two countries are always included in definitions. I hereby let you know that such editing can get you blocked from editing wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, actually i said they are NOT always included in the hopes we could reach a consensus. But I guess that's useless. --CaptainFugu (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I skipped the "not" in my comment. Dahn (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Dahn, your comment in the edit summary reverting Captain Fugu's good faith edit was inappropriate. Keep it civil, sir. (Taivo (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, I'm calling a spade a spade. I've been active on this talk page for months now, I've looked into what scholarly sources, including Romanian and Moldovan, have to say, I've stated the case purely and simply: I had no preconception about this, but it emerged that "Latin Europe" has nothing to with the concept of "Latin peoples" in general as far as any scholarly definition is concerned. No reliable source saying otherwise was ever cited by the other camp, but the info spread like wildfire because of the same group of dedicated users (most of whom, I gather are my fellow Romanians). It's integrates an ideologized and obtuse internet meme, but it has nothing to do with what wikipedia is all about. I cannot but call such POV-pushing "a lie", especially when I notice how different points are made on the talk page and in the article by the same user! Dahn (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

JdeJ's last edit was the 24th of Feb, and now "CaptainFugu" comes out of nowhere whatsoever and starts editing on the 23rd of Feb. JdeJ was previously opposing page consensus, and it's interesting that a newly created account of a sudden comes to help fight the same battle, without appearing to have ever touched the article before. Very interesting indeed. If vandalism and POV keeps up on the page, I suggest protection. That'll stop 'em. 89.240.52.48 (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're insinuating that I am JdeJ, you're terribly mistaken.--CaptainFugu (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Given what the IP has now done on the article, it is safe to assume they are nothing more than a troll. And we all know they don't need to be fed any more... 89.241.154.54 (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

England Slovenia and even Germany

I have read all the threads on this page, and i believe there are many bright minds working to make this a good article. But I'd like to remind everyone what constituted latin europe from about 800 a.d to the late renassance roughly, and the idea shared by Byzantines and Turks for sure, was that all western europe was considered "latin europe" including the English, Germans, and Slovens..If we are going to go off the languge of a country to constitute what "latin" is then Slovenia should be on the list, since Italian is an offical languge, but there is pretty much an abundance of latin in english too, not to mention latin was an offical languge of the Holy Roman Empire. I wonder if some of the Romano-Germanic would be considered latin peoples by some wiki editors.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Article needs to be rewritten!

I'm sorry, but this article is terrible. It has various pieces of misinformation and keeps getting vandalized by a user named Dahn. I don't know what his motivations are and frankly speaking - I don't care at all - but we must face that the term Latin European is telling us something about the language and heritage of the people who are classified as such, not about the religious confession they have. Dahn keeps violating the article more and more and already flooded the discussion page with his weird theories that say that Romania is not beeing classified as Latin Europe, because the majority of the population is of Romanian-Orthodox and not of Catholic confession. Now this is just incorrect. The fact that Huguenots, Romanians and parts of the French and Italian population of Switzerland are or were Orthodox or Protestant, doesn't mean they're not classified as Latin European?! They are Latin because they are of Roman heritage and speak a Latin language. So once again: Beeing Catholic is not a condition that must be met by a people to be classified as a Latin country! So could we please just insert the one old map back into the article that shows us where in Europe Romance languages are officialy spoken and let's stop joking around now. --Pletet (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


Also, I forgot to mention that Dahn already got many feedbacks from some other users on his discussion page that state that he had already changed some articles in the Wikipedia before, without any reliable sources or real argumentation. --Pletet (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't feed the troll, who I presume is also a sockpuppet. If anyone is interested in the debate, I urge them to see the sections above, where several users indicate that the definition of "Latin Europe" pushed by this guy and his posse is abusive and contrary to all existing reliable sources. The rest of the rant about me "vandalizing" the article (which is even more evidently spurious when you consider that I have barely edited the article, and that I have refused to endorse this version - which is still mired with serious problems), the inverted argument about not citing sources (when I am the only one on this page to have cited sources) and the supposed precedents I won't dignify with an answer. Pletet, whoever you are, from this point on you may consider yourself informed about WP:NPA, WP:OR and WP:NOT. Dahn (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


I can't stand people who prefer to throw with shit around them rather than having even an attempt at a serious discussion about the real issue. And you didn't answer one thing I've asked for in my last post. So let's get it into nice and simple language, for nice and simple minded people like you: There is a Latin Europe, a Germanic Europe, a Slavic Europe, even a Finno-Ugric Europe. Every European country and nation are clearly classified as one of those in the English Wikipedia, re- and re- and reedited without any rellevant sources or reasonings at all (by that I underline this Latin Europe article) by self-proclaimed "experts" like you. So every country is classified as one of the above-mentioned - except for? Yes! The Goddamn Romanians! So do you get me now? Where the hell should they else be mentioned if not in the Latin Europe article? --Pletet (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The real issue is that your fantasy theory is not validated by any source whatsoever (while the cornerstone of wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, in this case verifiability not "truth"). Heck, it is not even validated by logic and common sense, and in fact reads like a political agenda doctoring data on what 'Latin Europe' and all related concepts mean, but those are too complex points to make in such a clear-cut case of WP:OR and WP:NPOV as your commentary is. As for what you can't stand, I really don't and shouldn't care, but I'm letting you know again that calls to harassment may result in a block. Continue like this and I'll ask for admin intervention. Dahn (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Harassment? Really? Where? In my first sentence? That was only a impulsive reaction to your false statements. But wait, I'll get to your sources later, I have to work on something else now. --Pletet (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's not clear, I am referring to your bogus and inflammatory claims addressed to readers of this page (especially were you grossly imply that I am a vandal and suggest that I should be stopped). The very statement about me being "simple minded" can get you blocked pronto if I were to complain, but I'm cutting you some slack (be warned: this is the final time I am doing so). Finally: I am not at all interested in what you have to say about "my" sources, since the very argument that you can wing some other argument is sophistry and (again!) contradicts the notion of "verifiability, not truth" (plus the "original research" policy in its entirety). I am also worn out by the many, many posts above by users who have tried to apply the same sophistry. At the moment, the only reason I'm replying to your posts is the insults and lies about my persons, all of which you still seem to stand by. Whatever else needed to be said about the issue at hand was said months ago. Dahn (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on Dahn, why bother with this user? They come out of nowhere with an immediate knowledge of the history of this page, and call you a vandal, having had no previous experience with you - they're blatantly a sockpuppet (or more likely the sockmaster). Just ignore them.
In response to "Pletlet", nothing you say is the truth. The Germanic and Slavic versions of this page are similar in setup with regard to lingo-religious cultural definitions. Also, not every country has to clearly fit into a specific "sphere" of culture. As the article itself states, several countries have aspects of both Germanic and Latin Europe.
On another note, will anyone add a short paragraph of "History" in the article (which a {{Main}} tag would link to The Roman Empire, and which the first image shown would be moved into). 78.147.138.214 (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Map of South Europe"

This map has to be changed. Switzerland south of Alps (Ticino and part of Grisons)is South Europe.

Mixed Languages

On my view English (as it is today and Maltese should be classified as mixed languages because too many words come from other origin (latin and celtic for English and Latin for Malta). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnaldo Mauri (talk • contribs) 17:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop calling me a sockpuppet, check my user page damn it, I also have an account in the German Wikipedia under the same name as here... all I want to do is to get this article on an objective point of view and out of the hands of this radically false interpretations of various other users here, including you, Dahn! The term Latin Europe as we know it today is 100% used linguistically and ethnically - religion does not have THAT much influence on the term. And those sockpuppet-insults are really stupid. I don't want this whole negative energy on the discussion pages... we should all contribute our points of view and discuss them in a calm state. And let's get rid of all this hatred towards each other here. OK? --Pletet (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Western Europe

There should be some information on when Western Europeans stopped being called Latins as a whole, and the title latin was given to only the speakers of romance languges , (although english is HEAVILY influenced by latin, and latin was and is widespread in Germany especially the Holy Roman Empire in many forms). I think its important to distinguish when countries where the offical languge is a romance languge became the qualification for the title Latin European. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Add Slovenia

I am going to add Slovenia because of these reasons. Slovenia is a Southern European country, whos populated is almost entirely Roman Catholic. The country was entirely under Roman rule, for many centuries, and many scholars in Slovenia and elsewhere even suggest the modern Slovens or Venitian decendants, rather then Slavic (Not saying thats my view, especially because the Slovene languge is Slavic) but the Venitian theory is definitaly a possiblilty, and its more then likely the modern people of Slovenia have mixures of Ventians and Italians in them. Parts of modern Slovenia have even been Italy at one time. So with all this said, I am going to add Slovenia (along with Romania) in the opening paragraph. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Lucius, please do me the favor of reading the sections above, and you'll perhaps notice the repeated arguments in favor of citing sources as opposed to what "makes sense" to editor x or editor y. This article is speculative enough, so let's start improving it by limiting the number of "deductions" as to what "should be in there". If you follow my advice and read the sections in question, you'll perhaps note that the countries most sources view as part of "Latin Europe" are included for no apparent reason (so no "common criteria" to be followed beyond that), that the definitions of "Latin Europe", if at all provided by said sources, vary significantly, and that not one quotable source mentions Slovenia or Romania (or indeed various other countries that various other users "guessed" should be mentioned in the article). Bottom line: this article should be as vague as the topic is, and all inclusions should be on the basis of solid sources. And please, gentlemen, stop treating this article like it's a club and we're a jury: it is not for us to validate what goes "in". Dahn (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If you talk about the Venetic theory, you should know that it's fringe science, so see WP:FRINGE. Anyway, "Veneti" (or Wends) is just another name for Slavs, it has nothing to do with the Venetians. bogdan (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Venetic Theory

Venetic Theory has not been debunked, and quasi-science/genetics has no place in wikipedia. Facts are its still a debateable subject. As far as this article goes, lets try to distinguish the time where western europeans stopped being Latin. I feel that that subject is relavent to the acticle, and appearntly its relavant to many scholars. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read our WP:OR page, and focus in particular on our WP:SYNTH policy. Thank you. Dahn (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting I am using original research? I am well aware of wiki rules. Thanks. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, first of all I'm having much trouble figuring put what your first message in this section says overall. Much of simply makes no sense to me, and I'm sure many readers are clueless as to the meaning of sentences such as "Venetic Theory has not been debunked, and quasi-science/genetics has no place in wikipedia" (are you saying that anything other than the Venetic Theory is "quasi-science/genetics" or the exact contrary?) or "Facts are its still a debateable subject" (huh?). I'm not trying to diss your writing style (though it admittedly could use some revamping), I'm saying that I honestly don't get your point.
But my comment was in reference to the other sentences: "As far as this article goes, lets try to distinguish the time where western europeans stopped being Latin. I feel that that subject is relavent to the acticle, and appearntly its relavant to many scholars." Wait up. If you say you are familiar with wiki rules, then you should reconsider the whole idea: as I have grown tired of saying, as butchered as this article is, and as far off topic as it has strayed, adding speculation about issues an editor feels are related will not be an improvement. Here's the approach this article should stick to: 1) finding reliable sources defining "Latin Europe" (the term, not a "sounds like"), and including as many definitions as possible (I have provided many on these talk page, conveniently ignored by the sets of edit warriors); 2) if those qualified sources provide histories of the term, trying to quote them, and, of course, attributing the claims to those who make them; 3) if, in the end, we have ourselves a vague text (there's a 99% chance of that), it's because the concept is vague - wikipedia does not promote a definition from many equally qualified ones, and it certainly does not allow editors to treat articles as their own essays about what "Latin Europe" should mean, or about what europeans are Latins and what Europeans stopped being Latin. This comment applies to the present article as well: it is still riddled with irrelevancies, guesses and unverifiable/unsourcable comments (including sentences which, if challenged, would call for denying a negative, and are thus simply toxic). Dahn (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I mean that venetic theory is quasi-science, but still hasnt been proved wrong, and using haplogroups i guess it can never be debunked. Pardon my english, sometime I write things wrong and such. I will be looking for relaible sources that define latin europe and will return. Thanks for the feedback. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


PARTIALLY LATIN COUNTRIES

I think that the paragraph titled Partially Latin Countries should be deleted. Romania and Moldova have strong non-latin minorities and in the romanian language around 25% of words are non-latin. But more of 50% of English words have non-german origin (mostly latin) and the same for Maltese language. Non-latin minorities are in Spain, France, Italy, but latin minorities are in Switzerland, Belgium, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Albania, Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Ukraine. Thanks. ARNALDO MAURI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.155.197 (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Consider also that "Latin Europe" is only a artificial classification, never used in Europe. From a linguistic point of view is only possible to define a Romance Europe (all the territories where Romance languages are spoken), or from a geographic point of view a Southern or a Mediterranean Europe. A swiss citizen from Sankt Moritz is a latin? A belgian from Bruxelles or a Luxembourger? A basque?
Today nobody defines themself as a latin in Europe. IMO here Latin Europe seems to be a copy of the term Latin America, where the term is related only to countries of spanish and portuguese language, always excluding French Canada, Louisiana and european immigrants. Am I wrong? --Dch (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree that the last section should be deleted, but not for the reason stated above. Rather because it only invites original research, and builds on the same nonsense of Latin Europe being called Latin because it is "the home of Latin peoples/languages" - not one definition I was able to find mentions that aspect. It is thus utterly irrelevant just how "Latin" Romanian is or isn't. I don't know if Dch is right about the term "Latin Europe" not being used in Europe (it is, but it's all a nuance of a nuance) - and it has nothing or very little to do with "Latin peoples", and more with more generous and less racialist but equally debatable concepts, such as "Latin Church", "Latin culture", "Latin Empire" etc. Aside from these inaccuracies, Dch's comment is, IMHO, very lucid. At the moment, this seems to be the only definition validated by sources - it's all been already discussed on this talk page. Dahn (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but for once, I actually have to disagree with you Dahn. It is indeed very important to discuss the cultural blends that have partially culturally Latin features, as Latin Europe is, as described above, a somewhat fluid concept that is difficult to pin down - and there are stages of "Latin-ness" as it were; not all fit neatly into one category or another. 78.149.185.131 (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Case of Malta

I have deleted this sentence from the text:
“Italian has a large presence of it in the media, and 66% of the population speak it”, accompanied by this reference: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_243_en.pdf.
As a matter of fact, the presence of Italian in Maltese media is rather scarce: In Malta there are 10 on-line newspapers available in English and 6 in Maltese, none in Italian [2]. Written daily and weekly press is roughly half in Maltese, half in English (cf. List of newspapers in Malta). And the same applies to radio [3] and television broadcasting (cf. Television in Malta).
On the other hand, that an important part of the population “speak it” is not at all supported by the reference given. Perhaps just the contrary.
Additionally, my own personal in situ experience is that both English and Maltese are nowadays the usual languages of Maltese people, while Italian just keeps on maintaining its historical and geographical relevance.
Regards, --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Partially latin?

I have noticed that at "Partially latin" subject, someone wrote that Romania and Moldova are only partially latin because they are orthodox countries. Since when can we make such a claim? Not to mention that the Orthodox christian religion kept the original christian religion. I request an revision!AlexanderXVI (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I back this up. IT is utterly unscientific, goes against all scientific definitions, against the feeling of Romanians and other europeans since the 1400s and is blatantly POV. Basing such an assertion, that Romanians are not latin because they are orthodox shows sings of POV, discrimination, refusal of the right to true history, and objecting to people's ideas because of religion. I am sick of the people who think that way. I will make it my personal mission to modify the page accordingly and against the people who go against HUNDREDS of years of knowledge and truth (and thousands of papers and studies) just because of stupidity, rasism and anti-romanianism.

You cannot deny our right and the other's right to know the truth!

24.130.19.175 (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Romania and Moldova may be "Latin" or "partially Latin" or whatnot, whatever that means, but the crux of the matter is here: regardless of repeated loud claims produced by various wikipedia users, no scholarly definition, none, ever sets out to include Romania and Moldova in "Latin Europe". The term "Latin Europe" simply doesn't mean what some persistent or terribly confused Romanains think it does mean or should mean. The claims about "how [all[ Romanians" feel", the wild accusations of racism and whatnot don't merit an answer, and they frankly disqualify whatever point being is being made. Dahn (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latin_Europe/Archive_1&oldid=1136895103"