Talk:White Latin Americans

Argentina - no mention of the Welsh in Patagonia

The Welsh were pioneers of the opening up of Argentine Patagonia in the 19th century and there are still Welsh speakers there today. This is not mentioned in this article even though there is a separate wikipage about it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=welsh+patagonia&oq=welsh+patagonia&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.5253j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.72.220 (talk) 6:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

One Drop rule in Argentina studies

The one drop rule establishes that even if one grand-grand parent was Amerindian, the person is considered Amerindian, regardless of the other seven grand-grand parents being pure white. Similarly, if one grand-grand parent was black, the person is black or mestizo, even when they may look striklingly European. People must have full European ancestry to be regarded as white in the forementioned studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:40:28:1155:31E3:7264:B813:41D1 (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

R 2804:29B8:50C5:D43F:502F:C4A:229D:47D6 (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The use of the racist and largely unscientific idea of the one drop rule does not apply to the Latin American context. In societies where Iberian colonization was prevalent, the phenotype has always been more important and considered in terms of racial classification. The concept of the one drop rule is completely contradictory if analyzed from a reverse perspective, as in the case of ethnic groups that have an African physical appearance but largely mixed genetics and descent, as in the case of black Brazilians. As shown in Wikipedia's own article on Afro-Brazilians, genetic studies carried out on young people from this group and the "pardo" group (i.e. mixed-race Brazilians) show that a large part of this population has more European ancestry than African or indigenous. Brasil157 (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Self-identified

This article needs to be re-written letting more clearly information, many people in social media and academical environments still confuses the percents of "white people" as " pure white people" or "people with mostly european admixture" scpecially in countries deeply eurocentric such as Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Chile, Cuba and Venezuela. People still not understand that those percents are self-identified people, classified by the World Factbook or skin color self-identification.

What is the parameter to be "white"?, traditionally those of 3/4 of European ancestry are consider as "white" or "euro-mestizo" (castizo in colonial census). Lizcano (2005), classified 53% of chilean population as white. In the Eyheramendy et al (2015) study with 313 chileans from all regions of Chile, 80% of individuals have 40-60% european dna (historically this admixture is classify mestizo), all individuals shows african dna prescense and most of chileans reclaim cero african ancestry. Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7472/figures/3 Vers2333 (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• According to Homburger et al (2015), historically colombians have more european dna than Argentina and Chile, except since 4 generations ago (ends 1800s). Souce: https://europepmc.org/article/pmc/4670080

• Historically, the spanish caribbean and Haiti have more european ancestry than other latin american country. Source https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24244192/

• Uruguay, claimed as the most european latin american country, have native american dna persistent in their genetics with more than 25% in all generations since ends 1600´s. Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.733195/full

--Vers2333 (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Genetic studies can have many biases, intentional and unintentional therefore shouldn't be used to try to deliniate ethnic groups. For example, I see that you added Mexico to the "European DNA" section that you created recently with an average of 45%, but you are not taking into consideration that the large majority of genetic studies made in Mexicans are made with volunters who priori self-identified as mestizos, thus is not correct to say that those studies are "The genetic average of Mexico" and compare it to other countries (and even "Europe" which you added at the top). I think this kind of biases are true for most other Latin American countries in more or less evident ways, because genetic research is often conducted with the aim of developing new medications that work on individuals of mixed ancestry, on which some medications do not work well (it would be pointless to test European looking/identifying Latin Americans, as medications developed for European peoples already work on them). Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

All genetic investigations report the covered in which regions/departments/states they select people (including those where highly influenced by european legacy). I added a table with results that mostly are not in this article, but in this same article there are variety of results and people are free to consider wich is the most representative. Greetings. --Vers2333 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that your table does not specify which methodologies and therefore sample biases the sources used for each country may have, the source you used for Mexico with no exageration, omitted several studies on which European ancestry was higher, I discussed the overt biases of that source precisely with another editor some months ago. I don't plan on removing that section myself (maybe I'll add a note to it eventually), I'll wait to see what other editors think of it, there is at least one around Mexico articles that depending of the month may raise the European average, then go and raise the African one, then the Indigenous one and so on. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with the previous user. In the table of European DNA you added regional averages for Argentina and Uruguay (from the Patagonia and Tacuarembo) instead of national averages. 181.46.68.24 (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The phrasing of "European DNA" is wrong and unscientific itself. None of the sources as far as I can tell refer to "European DNA" because DNA does not have a geographic (or ethnic, cultural, or racial) designation. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Brusquedandelion Haplogroup--Vers2333 (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Was there more you mean to write? Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wrong data

The following excerpt published in an opinion piece (with a possible ideological bias) claims that this data appears in a PLOS Genetics study: A 2015 study concluded that 90% of Argentinians have a genetic composition different from native Europeans. At no point in the research does this percentage appear or can it be inferred from analysis. Nor does the research claim that there are genetic differences between Argentinian and native European populations. The original text doesn't even use the term "native European". Brasil157 (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)