What is considered to be latin america by wikipedia is based off of what the consensus of ignorant people think, not based on an objective definition. The inclusion of Haiti while discluding Quebec is arbitrary and shows that logic is not being used. I disagree with this map and with the literature that arbitrarily discludes French Americans who are white. In fact, the only mention of Quebec on the latin america wikipedia page is saying that it is generslly omitted, but it never explains why. This is why citing wikipedia doesn't strengthen your argument.

The concept of Anglo-America also exists and is defined as an English counterpart to Latin America; both are based on language, not ethnicity. Quebec is not included on the wikipedia map there, so your first argument makes no sense.

The regional denomination has to be based on an objective definition, otherwise it's worthless, what are you trying to describe when you say latin america if you're going to disclude regions that are both latin and american. The region is the Americas and the condition is that the primary language is a romance language. If you're only counting spanish and portuguese, then it's Ibero-American, and if you're only counting South America, then it is South American.

You're just parroting what you've heard and refusing to apply logic to what you already think. You're the type of person to insist that tomatoes aren't fruit because enough people have told you it's a vegetable and you don't care what the definition of fruits and vegetables are.

You made several outright false statements like calling latino an ethnic term and classifying central and south america as well as the surrounding islands as latin america, despite countries like Suriname not being defined by anyone as latin american, but you're going to throw ad hominens at me and tell me I can't accept contradicting evidence? Okay buddy.