Talk:Latin Europe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article a disaster

I think this article is simply beyond repair. Others have already commented upon the flimsy WP:OR nature of its criteria. The fact is, the influence of "Latin culture" is sucn an essential part of most aspects of what we today call "Western culture" that as you read these sentences written in Latin script and full of Latin derived words, you hardly notice, if at all, how thoroughly "Latinised" you really are, even merely speaking and reading this Latin drenched Germanic language as your native idiom. So, I think it would make more sense to explain the non-trivial uses of the "Latin label" in a historical manner, focusing on the varied way in which countries and people have been regarded as "Latin" (and by whom) and how this has changed down the centuries according to time and context. We should not be arguing which countries are "truly Latin" today but in the common and regular use of this "label". To put it another way, who called whom "Latins" down the ages and why. We need a broader article with a historical approach and a new title. Provocateur (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

→ Earnestly agree. This article is complete bedlam. How about restarting it from the very beginning by checking what renowned dictionaries and encyclopedias say about « Latin » ?

Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I wrote the above one huge problem has occurred to me: avoiding WP:OR. As the arguments above show, this article is really based on a definition taken from a single book and then uses WP:OR to substantiate that definition. It really should be about that book, not about "Latin Europe", provided the book is of great enough significance to warrant such an article. Provocateur (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've taken an axe to the article and just chopped out everything except the basic explanation at the start. All the rest was WP:OR and this drastic change is the only solution.Provocateur (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes Romania and Moldova

Why sometimes?! --Codrin.B (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they are never included, as I have demonstrated long ago on this very talk page. Dahn (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Romance people redirect

The Romance peoples article redirects here but is a broader term which clearly includes Romanians, Istro-Romanians, Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians. However, Latin Europe by contrast, wants to allow Latins by location and religion (only in Western Europe and only Catholic). BTW, they are quite a few Catholic Romanians as well. I think the article needs serious rework or consolidation into other articles. --Codrin.B (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've barged in again - as I agree that by the definition given, Moldovia and Romania are definitely "Latin" as is French speaking southern Belgium. But we need people to check this against the works of the authors cited and yes, I agree, this article is a real contender for merger as a subsection - but of which article? Latin Arch? Latin Union? Or just leave it as it is; a quick, easy explanation of this loose term.Provocateur (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think merging this with Romance-speaking Europe should do. Have a section for the ideas of this author in this article.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I stand by Provocateur's statement that we should follow what authors cited will follow, not our own speculations. For authors cited and what they say, see my attempt at a summary of scholarly opinions, linked in the section above this one. You will note that the definition of "Latin Europe", however marginal and vague, has nothing to do with either Romania or Moldova, and has very little to do with the concept of "Romance-speaking Europe". The few definitions available link "Latin Europe" with the Carolingian empire, Western Christianity, the French judicial system or other such notions; not with Romance languages, let alone the political discourse about Latin ethnic roots. What's more, I am yet to find a single Romanian-language claim (quotable, scholarly) that either Romania or Moldova are part of Latin Europe, so it is not even a marginal identification - the inclusion itself is an internet meme, an obsession of some Romanian internet users, and an attempt at circumventing basic facts. Dahn (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I accept your point and fixed the Romance peoples redirect accordingly. But I have to tell you, based on all your activity and attitude, you are proving a very DEEP hatred for Romanians, and you seem to be drawing your negative energy from seeking conflict and articles related to conflict. I suggest you focus on articles about Daisies and Disney to curb your Chauvinism and hate. Wikipedia is not a battleground.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As I have let you know on your talk page, this is the last time I tolerate such threats before reporting you to WP:AN/I. Have a nice day. Dahn (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Romanians...again

Not wanting to start another big argument, but really, Romanians should be included here. If anything, they have more reason to be included than the others (except maybe the Italians). Why? Because of all of these, the ethno-national identity of the Romanians places more emphasis than the others on that they are a "Latin people". If you ask a Romanian what they think of about Romanian heritage, aside from Romanian-history, they will probably tell you about being a Latin people with a Latin heritage (though you might run into a Romanian who likes to emphasize the "Dacian" part more, I concede). By contrast, if you ask a French person about their ethnic heritage, the words "Latin" or "Roman" probably won't come up. "Napoleon", "French Revolution", the French language and its worldwide prestige, and perhaps even the ancient Gauls- a Celtic people, not a Latin people!- might come up. Even with the Italians, while they might mention the Roman empire, the Italian national identity, and what their neighbors think of when they think of when they think of Italy, does not necessarily center around "Latin" the way the Romanian identity tends to. (and of course, I understand that individuals have different views of their nationality, and that views change over time, but still...)--Yalens (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Latin Europe is basically a false friend of the term "Latin": it was created with a purpose, and no reliable source (not even in Romania) has ever used it to mean "all European countries where they speak Latin languages", let alone "where they have Roman blood" - I won't even get into the messiness of that ideological construct. It is called "Latin" Europe for obscure traditional reasons; the same obscure reasons that, as I think I mentioned before, have led authors to include into "Latin Europe" countries that are neither Romance-speaking nor Catholic (England) or not even in Europe (Israel). Your argument is speculative and personal, and invites in original research. Dahn (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I will rove that the notion "Europa latină", which translates "Latin Europe" into Romanian, is also used in Romania to refer to regions other than Romania. In fact, in contexts other than the spamming which has been going on after the sham of an article on Romanian wikipedia, the term is virtually never used. It was used, however, in the 19th century - which, incidentally, shows you how relevant this idea is in 2011. Here, on page 57, you will find a mention of it in a lecture given by the Romanian Academy (in the ridiculously outdated lanuage of 1867). It reads: "nu va trece multu, si Europ'a latina se va petrunde si dens'a de necessitatea urginte in care se affla de a reinviia si a sustine cu taria, in interessulu cellu mare allu latinismului si allu civilizatiunei, coloni'a lui Traianu din Dacia." This means: "not long shall pass, and Latin Europe shall be infused by the urgent necessity in which it finds itself, that is of reviving and strongly supporting, in the greater interest of Latinism and civilization, Trajan's Dacian colony [that is, Romania]." This clearly shows that, not even in that obscure and unilateral context, not even in such racial terminology, did Romanian intellectuals concieve of Romania as being part of the "Latin Europe" they referenced.
I hope with this we've stopped flogging the poor dead horse. Now, if someone would only bring some common sense to Romanian wikipedia... but there, it's an uphill struggle against plain ignorance and, what's more scandalous, obscurantism. Dahn (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you don't have to use phrases like "uphill struggle against plain ignorance", I'm not trying to edit-war, I just want to discuss the issue with you (though I understand that phrases like that may come off as more aggressive than you might intend, and I understand that it wasn't necessarily leveled directly at me, but still)...

Well, I've heard of "Latin Europe" being used in the Middle Ages to mean something that has nothing to do with language, as you talk about. But it isn't what you were speaking of- this referred to (in the cases I have seen it used in) Christian areas of Europe that used Latin as their liturgical language (i.e. Catholic countries). It would apply to England, which WAS Catholic during the Middle Ages, but (you're right here) not to Romania. However, I've never seen it applied to Israel (which isn't of Latin heritage, and isn't even in Europe, so how can it be part of Latin Europe?), unless we're talking about the short-lived Crusader state. But this definition (Catholic areas of Europe in the Middle Ages) is not used on the page, which says:

“ There is no clear definition on which countries or areas are included, but Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Wallonia, French, Italian and Romansh-speaking parts of Switzerland and most of their culturally related European Microstates always or nearly always are. ”

This definition seems just to be "All the Romance-speaking areas of Europe [+Liechtenstein and Malta somehow?], except for Romania and Moldova." It would seem to be not Catholic Europe (which should have Poland, Ireland and so on today, as well as England, Norway and so on if we are talking historically) or Romance-speaking Europe (which would have Romania?), but rather the intersection of them. But even this definition doesn't work, since apparently Liechtenstein (which speaks German) and Malta (which speaks Maltese, a Semitic language, and English, a Germanic language). It seems to be rather confused with itself.

Lastly, on Romania's psychological position: I don't speak Romanian, and apparently you do fluently (as per your user page), so perhaps I am missing some subtlety here, but I don't see how this quote ("not long shall pass, and Latin Europe shall be infused by the urgent necessity in which it finds itself, that is of reviving and strongly supporting, in the greater interest of Latinism and civilization, Trajan's Dacian colony [that is, Romania].") separates Romania from Latin Europe. Around that time, it would be quite conceivable for a Serb or Bulgarian intellectual to state something along the lines of "Before long, the Slavic world will come to our aid [could refer to fighting off the Turks or Austrians, or to developing the country, or to whatever]." That doesn't mean that the given Serb or Bulgarian doesn't view themselves as part of "the Slavic world" (or Slavic Europe, etc.), all it means is that they are referring to the rest of the Slavic world. And I understand that its not a perfect analogy as Latin can be used in the religious/denominational sense, but you understand what I'm getting at. --Yalens (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As I think is clear from the context, I was not directing the comment at you, but at those who created the internet meme which we're all tackling here. Namely, the guys over at ro:wiki (and some permablocked/banned users on en:wiki). At the very least, the playground on en:wiki was moved to Romance-speaking Europe.

Any rationalization of ours is irrelevant: what matters is what the sources use. We also can't infer a post hoc ergo propter hoc on why they do it - they may even do it because they lack common sense, because they know something we don't, because they are looking at criteria that we never look at.

The definition is not "all of Romance-speaking Europe", because Romania is not included by one single reliable source. Never. Ever. (Trust me, I've run the check in all the languages I speak, and those who claim the contrary haven't yet been able to prove that one exists.)

Whatever that quote also means, it obviously refers to Latin Europe "over there" and Romania "over here". In the absence of any further identification from within ("we are Latin Europe"), I and you can only reasonably presume that no identification is being made in another potential context. You know about the tree falling in the forest... Dahn (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As for Israel's inclusion etc. Please look over the notes I left here. You will perhaps notice that Israel is included in there by standards of the GLOBE Program. Whether they do it because or the Crusades or not, I wouldn't know, and ultimately don't care. (In any case, do have a look over all that section, I think it covers the issue quite well.) Long story short: this article has to answer about why it hasn't made mention of Israel being included by some authors, not as to why Romania isn't included based on... well, nothing. Dahn (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Romance-speaking Europe

Is this really the main understanding of the term "Latin Europe". I always thought Latin Europe was a term similar to Latin America, that is areas of Europe where Romance languages are spoken. --Oddeivind (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Read the sections above before opening a new thread on the same topic. Thank you. Dahn (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

66.169.180.198 (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)WTF?

This article goes a long way toward making it entirely unclear as to what constitutes Latin Europe and its origins. As noted by other commenter, the article enjoys putting forth contradictions and appears to be less of a scholarly work than an attempt to populate the content of a particular topic. I would welcome someone with particular expertise in this topic to wipe the slate clean and replace it with a scholarly work that describes the topic chronologically beginning with its origin, its later influences and acceptances, and its decline into obsolescence. 66.169.180.198 (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No reason for this article

There is no basis for the definition of "Latin Europe" as given in this article, "regions of Europe currently or historically linked, linguistically or culturally, to the Romance-speaking or Roman Catholic people of the continent." This article has only a single reference (which is itself astonishing), and that reference -- where the phrase "Latin Europe" only appears once -- uses "Latin" in a completely different sense: "Their populations speak languages derived from the common language of the Empire, Latin." In other words, "Latin Europe" simply means "parts of Europe where Latin-derived languages (i.e. Romance languages) are spoken." For this sense there is already an article Romance-speaking Europe. There is not the slightest foundation for using "Latin Europe" in the sense of "Roman Catholic Europe" or other areas "culturally linked" to the same. Wikipedia cannot be used to propagate the use of terms in ways that have no support in the available literature. See WP:NFT. RandomCritic (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• this is not made up. the lack of development in the article doesnt mean there is nothing. I would scan a Latin Europe map just for you, but that would be Copyright violation. Is the word "Romance-speaking" used elsewhere than in wikipedia? No one speaks of Romance, except when speaking of novels. Most speakers use the word "Latin" for it. And in a simple 15 seconds google search a source in English http://www.ashgate.com/default.aspx?page=1638

I don't care whether it's called "Latin Europe" or "Romance-speaking Europe," just so long as there isn't a pointless content fork. And I note that your link doesn't use the term "Latin Europe," so what point is there to it?RandomCritic (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

moreover, Latin Europe is a bigger umbrella than Romance-speaking, despite the issue of Romania/Modova http://www-e.uni-magdeburg.de/evans/Journal%20Library/International%20Management%20Models/Latin%20Europe%20Cluster.pdf

--Pedro (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This article should be merged (or just redirected) to Romance-speaking Europe, at least for now. —Srnec (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I am tired of the number of times I have shown on this very page that the two terms are not in any way synonymous. There is an entire body of literature that clearly uses Latin Europe with a specific meaning, nothing to do with the Romance-speaking areas as a whole, and that body of literature was massacred and discarded by the trigger-happy move. The only reason why we are discussing the move as if it had some merit is because of some entirely unscholarly and very recent Romanian nationalist meme, which makes some editors seemingly incapable of understanding the issue at hand. Dahn (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• You will find plenty of references for the definition of Latin Europe as is, quoted on this very page, though for some reason not in the article. You will find NONE saying that Latin Europe is the same as Romance-speaking Europe. Let me stress this again: NONE. ZIP. ZERO. Dahn (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Here are the sources I cited before for the (loose but entirely operational) definitions of the term "Latin Europe": Talk:Latin Europe/Archive 1#Before we look closer into other issues: the term and its outside definition. Now let's say those gentlemen who think I'm being unreasonable after all this documentation bring out at least one source that says Latin Europe = the Europe where they speak Romance languages. One, and you've got yourself a conversation starter. One, let's see it. Dahn (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Latin Europe" is not a term of art. That's why almost every time it is used the author has to define it explicitly. That's why our article contains about four different ideas of what it means. Only one of them is sourced. Your claim that "there is an entire body of literature that clearly uses Latin Europe with a specific meaning" is false and your long list of sources shows it.
• D. C. Douglas, in William the Conqueror, writes "The Normans by linking England more straitly to Latin Europe helped what may be called the Romance-speaking peoples to achieve that dominance in western culture. . ." In The Norman Achievement he says the same thing, only that time uses "Romance-speaking lands". In Google Books, I easily find the term "Latin Europe" including Romania: "Was Romance-speaking Romania trying to take a leadership role in Latin Europe, infected with Eurocommunism?". Karl Leyser wrote a paper, "The Ascent of Latin Europe", in which the term is synonymous with Catholic Europe in the 9th and 10th centuries and thus includes all of Germany (his area of expertise) but excludes most of Spain. I don't care if this title does not redirect to Romance-speaking Europe, but its unsourced text ought to be immediately put out of its misery. Srnec (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

For starters, I don't see how your Douglas quote validates anything about *the* Romance-speaking peoples being identifiable with "Latin Europe" -- just that Latin Europe includes some Romance-speaking peoples, which it admittedly does (as per the definitions I provided, which *always* seem to include Italy, Spain and France). The notion that Douglas could be used for a definition as to how Romanians, let's say, were part of Latin Europe in the Norman age is, frankly, preposterous.

I want to wager you did not find that one-time awkward mention "easily", but had to disregard all the contrary evidence to do so. Incidentally, who is the voice supporting that definition, what is their status and expertise?

The Leyser definition is quite consistent with other sources which do include south Germany in the definition. The reason why most of Spain is not included, methinks, has something to with it being part of the Arabic world at the time. If one links Latin Europe to Catholicism, as most authors obviously do, it is common sense that they would exclude both al-Andalus and the Romanian lands (from the 1300s, that is, because they had not entered history up to that point).

There is no emergency to put the unsourced text "out of its misery" -- as I have shown at the very least, the term does exist and is used in plenty of works, independently from other concepts, and independent of fantasies by my fellow Romanian editors. It is a traditional, if vague, term in Anglophone literature. And this vague does not imply that it lacks an object, but just that different authors may extend it to cover areas that others do not. This is also in reference to your critique of how I did my sourcing.

Let me add something: I did not contribute an iota of text to this article, I only came here and presented sources, on this talk page, because the past versions, filled in by some weird pan-Latin lobby, were obscene. I do not necessarily stand by this version of the text, but I do reject the notion that it should be redirected in accordance with the exact whims of said pan-Latinists.

I would have developed the article myself and extended its sourcing, I would have mentioned that the terminology is not truly concrete, just traditional, and I would have certainly made it look much more decent than it does. But I did not have the time, especially since every opportunity for improvement was sabotaged in the manner described above.

That said, let's not turn this into another sterile debate about how this is supposedly the only wikipedia article left with problems. Dahn (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I searched "latin europe" + "romance speaking" -llc and it came up on the first page. That's how I found the Romania reference. This is all about Romania to you, isn't it? The Douglas quote was only to show you an example of an author using "Latin Europe" and "Romance-speaking lands" synonymously. I don't doubt that Douglas wasn't thinking of Romanians when he wrote it.

Leyser doesn't mention Spain. I know full well why Spain wouldn't be included. That's why I brought it up. The point is that you can find sources explicitly excluding Germany (on cultural, linguistic or legal grounds) and explicitly including it (on religious, historical or legal grounds). This is not a term in use, it's just a noun plus adjective used as the author wishes. If I PROD it would you remove the tag? If I turn into a disambiguation page, would you object? Srnec (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not "all about Romania with me", it is the mere fact that this article has a likely reason to exist as such, even if it defines a vague term in a vague way -- because that term is both significantly different and more traditional than "Romance-speaking Europe" (in fact, it is the latter article that could apply for a PROD, on just those grounds you state -- noun-and-adjective). Again, the Douglas mention is not synonymous -- it just appears to say that one of two Europes in contrast there has Latin peoples in it, whereas the other one doesn't; no mention of the other Latins being part of Latin Europe, and no mention that Latin Europe did not, in fact, include some non-Latin regions.

I would thank you if you weren't to PROD this -- a noisier debate with even more people that assess the issue for the very first time would not help the readers of this or any other related article. It also won't help me, since I would have to restate my case the umpteenth time in front of the more or less well-meaning crowd, when, as I see it, the issue is, and is destined to remain, complicated. This article as it is is not as catastrophic as you make it seem, and, again, it is consonant with what both of our sources say; it also does not in any way peddle the idea that Latin Europe should be seen as a working term for "all those Romance-speaking lands", but can easily trace the ambiguous history of an ambiguous term. It is its own disambiguation page.

What, pray tell, other than a subjective need for symmetry, prompts the need to merge or stub this page? Dahn (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

A PROD is not and AFD. There would be no debate. As long as the tag stays up long enough uncontested and with a good rationale on it, then an administrator can delete the article. That's why I asked what you thought: if you don't object, I don't really see who would.

I actually do think this article is pretty catastrophic. It states without sources that the term could mean A, B, C or D. This is as unhelpful and potentially misleading to the reader as it gets.

I don't know what symmetry has to do with anything. Who brought up symmetry? I think the article ought to go for the reason I've already stated: the term is not a term of art. There is no subject here for an article, just a two-word phrase that (unsurprisingly) has been used by many authors (usually in their own pet way). The closest it gets to a term of art appears to be as a term for medieval Latin Christendom. So Hungary is/was a part of Latin Europe! Srnec (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As I think it is clear from every source I cited, without my inferring anything, the term refers not to Latin Christendom, but to a part of it -- defined on grounds that vary, but always seem to include a Latinized region and regions around it. If there were actually a source telling us that Hungary is part of that construct, yes, I would cite it -- but you will note that it is not mentioned in the sources that do go into some detail about what Latin Europe is and isn't. You insist on saying that it is not a term of art (need it be?) but, in fact, several respectable sources use it and explain it. It is just as much a term of art as Scandinavia (with or without Finland and Iceland?) or Central Africa (with Zambia and Angola?) or Indochina (with or without Singapore and Burma?) and, hell, just about any other geographical term that claims to explain some elusive historical-cultural complex. All of that is potentially misleading to the reader (generally supposing that the reader is an idiot), but nothing is more misleading than redirecting one to the other on the basis of personal preferences and faux claims about how one is content-forking the other, and guesses about what the gazillion sources using one without meaning the other are somehow confused. Dahn (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Before I started this conversation I looked over all your citations here. I do not draw the same conclusions as you. It is not comparable to Scandinavia, Indochina or Central Africa.

It is easy to find a source referring to Hungary as a part of Latin Europe with Google Books. A Companion to the Classical Tradition refers to the two archbishoprics of Poland and Hungary as marking the eastern boundary of Latin Europe for centuries. In fact Ullmann, a fan of the term and, unsurprisingly, a medievalist, says the papacy always regarded Poland and Hungary as outposts of Latin Europe in the very book of his you cited. And then there's "As the accompanying map of Latin Europe in 1400 reveals, only Croatia and a large part of northern Romania formerly belonging to Hungary now remain outside the EU", found in William Monter's chapter in Cultural Exchange in Early Modern Europe, vol. 1. I stand by my assertion that the only meaning of this term which is more or less fixed is found among medievalists. Other uses fail notability. Srnec (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Merging?

I propose that Latin Europe be merged into Romance-speaking Europe. I think that the content in the Latin Europe article can easily be explained in the context of Romance-speaking Europe, and the Romance-speaking Europe article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Latin Europe will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand how Latin Europe, a cultural region, can be covered in a linguistic region's article. If the term is also used to describe Romance-speaking Europe, then it may be useful to disambiguate the term, and move this article to Latin Europe (cultural region). I think this article could definitely be expanded, and cover the origin of Latin culture, and it's expansion. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you read any of the previous debates? There is no consensus on what "Latin Europe" means. Why do you think it's a "cultural region"? Srnec (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Rob, you make a valid point. Now I'm not sure whether or not they should be merged since there would be no neutral name for the article, and since Romance-speaking Europe is about the linguistic region, not the cultural one. All I know is that the article Romance-speaking Europe is fine the way it is, while Latin Europe could definitely be expanded. If they were to be merged, there should be a section regarding its ethnic/cultural definition, but if it were merged, I could see how that would be confusing. Any thoughts? Afro-Eurasian (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think it's a cultural region? Srnec (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Focusing on the name of the article isn't constructive. Latin culture in Europe obviously exists, and should not be covered in an article about a linguistic region. Currently, there isn't even an article on Latin culture, which may be where the content on this article should belong. On the Spanish Wikipedia, there is this article (note: The title is incorrectly translated and should say "Latin culture (American-European)") about Latin culture in Europe and America (the landmass), provides a reasonable amount of information. I think an article on Latin culture should be created first, then the content of this article should either be moved there, or moved to a non-ambiguous title such as Latin culture in Europe. Latin Europe could then be disambiguated, with links to both the subsection/new-article and Romance-speaking Europe. Rob (talk | contribs) 12:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Who's focusing on the name of the article? And I can read Spanish; no need to link to Google Translator. That article is entirely unsourced. It actually says that "Latin culture has its origin in the ancient subtribes that inhabited the Italian peninsula, such as the Etruscans and the Latins." There is also a Spanish article on es:Europa latina, which begins, "The term Latin Europe is applied as a term [sic] imprecisely applied [sic] to regions of Europe where Romance languages predominate." That article seems to be a copy of this one, has only two sources and unambiguously considers Romania a part of Latin Europe. So where's the evidence this is a "cultural region"? And what are the characteristics of this shared culture? Srnec (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course Romania is a part of Latin Europe, let's not deny that. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know if Rob will affirm that. Srnec (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't care if you can read Spanish, I wasn't responding to you exclusively. And again, you're still focusing on the term "Latin Europe". There's no doubt that there are cultural links between regions that previous formed the Roman Empire. The obvious links are the Catholic Church and Romance languages. There are however, many other Roman/Latin traditions are still prevalent across southern and western Europe today, including:

• Roman Law
• Architecture
• Town planning
• Food/diet
• Political system
• Social behaviour

Even characteristics that developed later on are often correlative, such as:

• Strong trade links with other southern and western European countries
• Socialism/left politics

How does this cultural region not deserve its own article?

Rob (talk | contribs) 14:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Rob984, if your above statement is based on reliable source, the existence of this article is not a question. However, without proper sources we cannot write an article. Borsoka (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't merge articles without consensus. This discussion is still ongoing, and so it is completely absurd to delete this article. Rob (talk | contribs) 12:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Rob984, please add reliable sources before reverting. For the time being, this article does not exist: it is not an article, it is a long text containing OR. Borsoka (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Currently, there's an active discussion ongoing on this article's talk page which forbids deleting the article. Also, unless you are actually contending the content of this article, don't remove it. Most of Wikipedia's content is uncontested original research, so it's not an issue. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Rob, why don't you cite some sources to back you up? Or answer my question above, do you agree that Romania is a part of Latin Europe? Srnec (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I will do so as soon as I can. And I don't know, I haven't looked into it. What I will say however, is I don't think Latin Europe has a strict border, as the Roman's culture and traditions spread across Europe. Rob (talk | contribs) 02:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Rob984, we cannot discuss the content of an article which only contains original research without any references to reliable sources. WP is a community with well established rules, including WP:NOR and not a platform to express our own thoughts of various subjects. Please try to substantiate your statements by citing reliable sources, because without it we cannot take into account them. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There's an article at Legacy of the Roman Empire which may be worth merging this article into. There's also a few sources too. Rob (talk | contribs) 11:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Since there is only one sourced statement in this article, it's not really about merging, but about redirecting or deleting. Srnec (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I was more referring to potential content I've specified above. Anyway, I wouldn't redirect, since there's not a clear primary topic. I think we should probably disambiguate this term here, with links to both Legacy of the Roman Empire and Romance-speaking Europe. Thoughts?

That seems to be the most neutral option thus far. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be a definite improvement. Srnec (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

We cannot decide without proper references to reliable sources. In what context is the term "Latin Europe" used by reliable sources? And what are those reliable sources? Borsoka (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A Google search or Google Books search of the phrase "Latin Europe" shows usage related to both the linguistic and cultural region. Rob (talk | contribs) 11:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you please specify the reliable sources you are referring to. You may not know, but WP and its clones are not reliable sources for WP purposes. How do these reliable sources, if any, define "Latin Europe"? Borsoka (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's citing Wikipedia. From those searches, they're many examples of usage of the term. Some examples referring to the cultural region: [1][2][3]. And others to the linguistic region: [4][5][6]. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Rob984, the first work [7] you cite above is a non reliable source for WP purposes. It is published by iUniversity, an institution with the following philosophy: "We look forward to expanding the BK community by enabling more authors to challenge conventional thinking, introduce new ideas, and foster positive change." [8] For our community purposes only peer-reviewed works are acceptable. The second work you refer to above [9] does not mention Latin Europe: it writes of the Romance languages spoken all over the world. The third source [10] only cites a book published two hundred years ago whose title refers to the "languages of Latin Europe". Do you think that a book written in 1822 is a valid source for our purposes? Borsoka (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The second source definitely does mention 'Latin Europe' (use the 'Find' function on your browser). The first and second sources, I agree, aren't verifiable; not that this is usually a problem. I will see what else I can find. Rob (talk | contribs) 10:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the second source does mention of Latin Europe, but does not define it. Do we think that if we found a web page which uses a noun with an adjective (e. g. cold water), we should create an article? Borsoka (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure valuable contributors do not appreciate your tone. Perhaps English is not your first language, so maybe you don't understand when you sound condescending/insolent. Either way, instead of seeking an article to be deleted solely based on your prejudice, let's try to actually improve this article. Whether it be a disambiguation page or not. I'm fine with it being a disambiguation page for now until proper sources are found. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Afro-Eurasian, the article has not been substantiated by any reliable sources for about 2 years. I am pretty sure valuable editors make every effort to avoid OR. Please try to find reliable sources before editing an article in the future. Borsoka (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the "advice", but I am aware of how to edit articles. My style of editing does not revolve around finding sources, so you don't need to worry about telling me not to edit any more articles without reliable sources (again, your English is not very good, perhaps the Hungarian Wikipedia would suit you better). Would you care to help find some sources as you always mention? Or would you rather just delete any article you can that isn't about Hungary? Afro-Eurasian (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my English is terrible. That is why I always seek the assistance of the guild of copyeditors before nominating an article for GA status. Otherwise, if my understanding is correct, you are writing of my English knowledge, because you have not been able to find a reliable source proving that the term "Latin Europe" is used in the context you suggest. Please try to find a source instead of deleting templates. Borsoka (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOR

Which is the reliable source using the term "Latin Europe" when referring to the Romance-speaking countries of the continent? Borsoka (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Rob984, would you please refer to at least one reliable source proving that the term "Latin Europe" is used when referring to the Romance-speaking countries of Europe? Please take into account that this specific use of the term has been debated for more than one year on this Talk page. We should avoid OR. Borsoka (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please use WP:COMMONSENSE. You're disputing Wikipedia, citing it's policies, however, the fundamental principles of Wikipedia clearly states Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 15:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. However, if you read discussions on this Talk page, you will find that this specific use of the term ("Romance-speaking Europe") has been debated by more than one editors. Borsoka (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Well Google claims otherwise. Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia. Informal usage should still be covered on disambiguation pages. What is your problem? Rob (talk | contribs) 15:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither formal nor informal usage of the term in the debated context have so far been proven. Borsoka (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Google is a pretty firm source for informal usage. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Rob984, would you specifically refer to at least one of your finds. Remember, in the above discussions your specific references to Google Search have always proved to be based on this specific article or on books written centuries ago. Borsoka (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Romance-speaking Europe

Since many articles link to this page, Romance-speaking Europe will have to remain. Once those links have been corrected, its removal can be considered. Rob (talk | contribs) 22:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If the use of the term in the linguistic context is not based on reliable source, the relevant text are to be deleted, according to WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to remove the phrase, direct all the ambiguous links to articles dealing with the specific meaning intended first. Otherwise, we cannot be sure they aren't meaning Romance-speaking Europe. Rob (talk | contribs) 23:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No. OR can any time be removed from articles. Otherwise, the issue you raised above is not unique: all the articles that are for the time being linked to this article should be fixed. They will sooner or later be fixed. Borsoka (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's a reference, clearly using the term 'Latin Europe' to refer to a linguistic region (Romance-speaking Europe). Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 23:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Have you realised that you refer to a book published in 1842? Otherwise, even this book only uses the term in a specific historical context. Borsoka (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, apologies. How about this reference? Rob (talk | contribs) 00:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, stop wasting my time. (1) Why do you think it is a reliable source? (2) Otherwise, tt clearly states that only Italy, France, Spain, and Belgium are included. As far as I know Romance-speaking Europe also includes Romania. Therefore the two expressions do not have the same meaning. Borsoka (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This is also the case with some definitions of Romance-speaking Europe. I don't think it's black and white. You're demanding a reliable source, however Romance-speaking Europe is evidently the academic term, and therefore most usages of 'Latin Europe', referring to Romance-speaking Europe are informal, or unreliable. Regardless, the source clearly show usage of the term to refer to Romance-speaking Europe. Dab pages are not suppose to only include correct usages, but also incorrect usages. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

???? I have missed something: do you claim that Romania is not part of Romance-speaking Europe (since the source you cited clearly states that only the culturally Roman Catholic Romance-speaking countries are included in Latin Europe)? Is there any proof that "Latin Europe" is the informal (?) equivalent of Romance-speaking Europe? Please try not to create your own rules when editing. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

So you think there should be an entirely separate article covering the term 'Latin Europe', linguistically, with the only difference being it doesn't include Romania? What would be the point in that? Romance-speaking Europe could cover both 'Latin Europe' and 'Romance-speaking Europe', explaining that 'Latin Europe' often doesn't include Romania, if this is the case. You're not being logical. This a dab page. Any articles that the term may be referring to, should be listed. Rob (talk | contribs) 11:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not think so. I think that at least one reliable source should be provided in order to prove that the term "Latin Europe" is used when describing Romance-speaking Europe. Borsoka (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

A reliable source is not necessary to establish common usage. See this Google USA search query. The second result is Romance-speaking Europe. Please use common sense. This is why Wikipedia:Ignore all rules exists. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 15:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, based on this WP article. Borsoka (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"the area where Latin developed into the various Romance languages" http://books.google.ro/books?id=PhoMdAIfp-EC&pg=PA104&dq=%22latin+europe%22+romania&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=6aP3UsxO0ICEB7uogLgE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22latin%20europe%22%20romania&f=false a source 86.127.28.55 (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This good enough for you, Borsoka? Rob (talk | contribs) 16:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reliable source defining Latin Europe (although not as Romance-speaking Europe). Borsoka (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You're not getting the point of a dab page. Stop your shit please. I will inform an administrator if you don't. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Rob984, please read the above source carefully it clearly states what I propose. For instance, the Dalmatian language (an extint Romance language) was formed along the costs of modern Croatia - but Croatia is not part of Romance-speaking Europe. Otherwise, feel free to inform administrators, but do remember WP:boomerang. Borsoka (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Only the current Romance-speaking Europe doesn't contain Dalmatia, but in the past (when Dalmatian language was in use), Romance-speaking Europe contained Dalmatia too. We have Google Books sources that talk about medieval Romance Europe [11] . Even parts of Netherlands were once part of the Romance Europe [12] 79.117.165.182 (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Rfc: can Romance-speaking Europe be added?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Discussions above prove that no independent (reliable or "informal") source substantiates the use of the term "Latin Europe" when referring to "Romance-speaking Europe". Even so, can the latter term be mentioned on this page? Borsoka (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Borsoka is wrong. There is a source that describes Latin Europe as ""the area where Latin developed into the various Romance languages", which is the definition of "Romance-speaking Europe" 79.117.161.163 (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the source cited above the Croatia, Serbia and Bulgaria - three non-Romance speaking countries in Europe - belong to Latin Europe (because the extint Dalmatian language developed in Croatia, while the Romanian language, at least partially, developed in Serbia and Bulgaria). On the other hand, Moldova - a Romance-speaking country in Europe - is not part of Latin Europe (because it was never part of the Roman Empire, thus no Latin language could develop into a Romance language there). Consequently, the term "Latin Europe" does not refer to "Romance-speaking Europe", according to the cited reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Borsoka, you fool. Please, for the sake of our sanity, stop with your nonsense and hate. Stop with your filthy racist ways. Croatia, Serbia, and Bulgaria are not Romance-speaking, but Bulgarians are not Slavic either. Why are we concerned with these people? We are focusing on Romance-speaking Europe. And yes, Borsoka IS wrong. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Afro-Eurasian, I fully agree with you. Croatia, Bulgaria and Serbia are not Romance-speaking countries. That is why I said that "Romance-speaking Europe" is not identical with "Latin Europe" according to the o n l y reliable source cited in order to substantiate this claim. The cited source says: "Latin Europe is ... where Latin developed into various Romance languages" [13]. As I explained above, the extint Dalmatian language developed in the territory of (the non-Romance speaking) Croatia, while Romanian (at least partially) developed in Serbia and Bulgaria (two non-Romance speaking countries). Consequently, no reliable source proves that "Romance-speaking Europe" could be added to this disambiguation page. My only concern is if you think that "Latin Europe" as defined by the only reliable source is not identical with "Romance-speaking Europe" why are you reverting my edits? Do you like presenting false data in Wikipedia? Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've contacted an administrator about the current dispute, who says they will try to look into this. Refrain for edit-warring until then please. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think having an Rfc on the issue sounds like a good step forward. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I started looking at Google Books, and the sources don't seem to define the term "Latin Europe" based on language. Instead it seems to be a more loosely defined political/cultural term, in the same vein as "Western Europe". Of the first three sources I found, none included Romania or other eastern-European countries. Two included France, Spain, Portugal and Italy, and one included the same list minus France. (I've added the sources below, and I've since found that there are a lot more in the archives.) We shouldn't imply that the term is used in a purely linguistic sense unless we have evidence for that, and I haven't seen any presented just yet. I see that we used to have an article here that attempted to define the term, but unless there are any sources reviewing usage of the term "Latin Europe" itself, it would be hard (and was hard, it seems) to avoid original research. A better solution might be to make a disambiguation entry that avoids linking to the Romance-speaking Europe article. Perhaps something like "Latin Europe, a loosely defined term used to group some countries in Western Europe, often including Italy, Spain, Portugal and France". — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources defining "Latin Europe"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Latin Europe refers to France, the Iberian Peninsula (Portugal and Spain) and Italy." Hans Slomp, Between Bargaining and Politics, 1996. p. xiii.[14] The author refers to Italy, Spain and Portugal as "Latin Europe". The New Authoritarianism in Latin America. Collier, David. 1979. p335-336.[15] "The four countries of Latin Europe--France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain--are relatively homogeneous." "Judicial Independence in Latin Countries of Western Europe", in Juducial Independence in the Age of Democracy. Guarnieri, Carlo. Eds. Russell & O'Brien. 2001. p111.[16]

Now I agree that Romania should not be included. Maybe we should use the following definition: "The European nations that speak a Latin language, except for Romania; the countries are France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain" 79.117.185.59 (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think a more straightforward "The Latin countries of Italy, Spain, Portugal, and sometimes France" would be better. I'd also put it last, as the most recent meaning.

(As for why France isn't always included, I suspect it's because the French often see themselves not as Latins, at least not completely, but as Gauls.) — kwami (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

We have only one source so far that does not include France, I suspect it is a fringe view. We must check if there are more authors which exclude France from the club. Also, Latin countries is not defined yet on en.wp 79.117.185.59 (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There are more sources in the archives here that mention France. It doesn't seem to be fringe, but neither does it seem to always be included. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if there are other sources besides The New Authoritarianism in Latin America. Collier, David. 1979. p335-336. that do not include France. 79.117.179.227 (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You have a point there. Maybe it would be best to include France without any qualifiers. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

As this issue is solved, can you please take a look at Talk:Latin_peoples#Titles? 79.117.179.227 (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kwami: Yes, my attempt above is probably too wordy. I would avoid the phrase "Latin countries", though, as then we run into the problem of having to define it. Maybe we can get away with just "Latin Europe, the countries of Italy, Spain, Portugal, and sometimes France". — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Editors commenting here might also be interested in the Latin culture disambiguation page, which is suffering from some of the same problems as this page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• 79.117.161.163 is wrong to state so bluntly that Borsoka is wrong. Any such categorical assertion cannot be right, for it leaves no room for ambiguity or nuance. "Latin Europe" is a concept that partially overlaps with "Romance-speaking Europe." We must be leary of sources published prior to Romanian accession, too, since even "Europe" may by itself be ambiguous. Of course the page should have a link to "Romance-speaking Europe," though in such a way as to afford for difference of nuance in the lexical selection between "Latin Europe" and "Romance-speaking Europe." This debate really seems to me a bit of de lana caprina rixari, hot wool at that, but even on a disambiguation page an excess aversion to ambiguity would seem out of place, downright 'un-Latin,' is there a word for that... er, Teutonic? ;-) IMVHO - phi (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment What is the difference between the two terms? Do they overlap only partially? --Precision123 (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they overlap only partially, according to most sources. For instance, Croatia is part of "Latin Europe", according to one of the reliable sources cited, but it does not belong to "Romance-speaking Europe". On the other hand, Romania, a country of "Romance-speaking Europe", is rarely listed among the countries of "Latin Europe". Borsoka (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• I completely agree to the definition above. You all are missing the point. What it means by "Latin Europe" and by its true definition, is any country that is both linguistically Romance and has a Catholic majority. So, we have the main four, Portugal, Spain, France and Italy, which is the most common definition; along with a few micro states, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City, and portions of other states, such as Belgium (French-speaking), Switzerland (French, Italian, Romansh speaking) and Luxembourg (bilingual, French included). Malta historically had an Italian-speaking population, but it is not an official language now. These countries both speak a Romance language and have a Roman Catholic population. Romania and Moldova do speak Romance languages, but are not Catholic, since they are Eastern Orthodox. Viller the Great (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Viller the Great, sorry, but I must have again missed one important point. I have not found your reference to the reliable source on which you based your definition above. Borsoka (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I was building upon the sources shown above in the pinkish bar. It is commonly accepted as Spain, Portugal, France and Italy being the core of Latin Europe. As stated previously, several small European micro states could qualify for this definition. Also adjacent regions that have Romance-speaking populations are included in this definition. This does not mean Romania and Moldova are outright excluded from being Latin European, since they do speak a Romance language (Romanian). However, since they are geographically separate from the core of Latin Europe and are predominantly Orthodox as opposed to Catholic, it isn't always considered Latin European, but most certainly always part of Romance-speaking Europe. Viller the Great (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support- The effects of Latin on the world. There's the Legacy of the Roman Empire and it's spread after the fall. Romance-Speaking Europe is a direct result.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Romance-speaking Europe should be in this WP:POV-driven "disambiguation" page. But I would rather restore the article to what is was: Latin Europe, since it was abusively converted to a fake disambing page. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin peoples for other attempts to remove all articles related to Romance-speaking Europeans. --Codrin.B (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I completely agree. Isn't it ridiculous Romance-speaking Europe isn't even included in this fake page? We should revert returning Latin Europe, or merging it with Romance-speaking Europe. Latin Europe should refer to countries that are both Latin and Catholic, if we want separate linguistic and cultural articles. But I think this is confusing and it should be merged with Romance-speaking Europe. I have noticed that my friend, they want to remove anything that has to do with the Latins... Viller the Great (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.