Talk:White Latin Americans/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Whiteness in Latin America

While I strongly disagree with the "obvious"/"transcendental" witheness concept that Wikiscribe proposes, I can see that Maunus is also carrying a good argument too far. I see the urgent need to put into context the concept of "White Latin American", and to integrate different perspectives into this article. But I believe that this is not the place to develope the full argument about "Whiteness in Latin America", so I propose you both an accord. First, to develope a new article "Whiteness in Latin America", explaining both historical and current dimensions and significance of the concept, as well as its modern uses across the region. Second, to summarize the section about modern uses for contextualizing this very article and its figures. Can we agree on this, so as to avoid further sterile discussions about what has to be tematized in this article? Salut, --IANVS (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot agree to that - there is no way of making an article that collectively treats white people in LAtin America without noting that there is no criteria that are necessary and sufficient and universal for claiming status as "white" throughout Latin America. It is like making an article about "Socialists" without noting that there are different interpretations of what it means to be a socialist and that people called socialists in one country can be conservatives in another or vice-versa.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can't do it, but it can be done. There are different brands of socialism, yet there's a Socialism article that summarizes them. Get it? A "Whiteness in Latin America" article could summarize the different ways in which whiteness is viewed in Latin America. Wikipedia has overview articles and more specialized ones. I presume you knew that. If you'd like more examples, let me know. SamEV (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You are not getting it - I am beginning to think it is on purpose. I am arguing that the article SHOULD summarise the different kind of whiteness and not attempt to somehow relegate that debate to another article. There is no article on "socialists" although socialists of course exist and have a literature written about them. That article doesn't exist because the article socialism rightly describes that there is no discrete class containing all people categorized as "socialists". ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you can hang your hopes on the 'socialism' vs 'socialist' distinction. Won't wash, though. It follows that a socialist subscribe to some brand of socialism. SamEV (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And it follows that a "white person" falls into some category of "Whiteness" - that alone doesn't tell us a whole lot though. And we certainly wouldn't put a picture of someone as an illustration of the article on socialism just because they happened to be born in country with a government that defined itself as socialist. We would only ever label someone socialist by 1. using a source. and 2. by defining which kind of socialist we are talking about.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

We show pictures of White Latin American people because the article is about White Latin American people, not the abstraction of whiteness in Latin America. Good day. SamEV (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

new article

i am studing politics and I did and I made no less than a month an investigation into causacicos descendants in Colombia, the Colombian audience ethnography and cultural systems have already verified the item, to verify my studies is necessary to enter to the website of the Colombian ethnography of 2010 given by the national government thanks ice —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC).

Unsourced additions removed

Below is unsourced content that was added recently. Please let's not make unsourced additions, or the article will never become fully sourced. SamEV (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Panama
  

"There is a sizable Panamanian Jewish community often of Eastern European origin have settled roots in Panama."

• Puerto Rico
  

"{Other settlers have included} Greeks and thousands of others (such as Azoreans and Maltese)"

"The definition of whiteness in Puerto Rico is somehow different from the mainland US where the divisive measure of declaring someone "black" depending on any African ancestry, does not apply in Puerto Rican society. The majority of Puerto Ricans are of European descent, including a large minority of Afro-Puerto Ricans (20-25% of the island's population) can pass for being "white" or for having Caucasian appearance. The historical review of race relations in Puerto Rico with the entire Caribbean shown some progress of African slave families and European masters' children began to intermarry together slowly but profoundly over the island's 500-year history."

• Venezuela
  

"Today, Venezuela has the third largest Spanish community outside of Spain after France and Argentina, the third Portuguese colony after Brazil and USA and one of the largest Italian colonies in Latin America after Agentina and Uruguay. The Germans even though they are a minority group, with the help of Colonel Agustin Codazzi and Benitz Alexander succeeded in founding in 1843 La Colonia Tovar, a German village that stimulate agricultural development and today is a tourist and cultural center of the country."

Pictures have got to go

Per WP:EGRS we cannot use pictures of people to exemplify this topic unless they publicly and verifiably have stated that they identify as "white latin americans". That is not currently the case for any of the pictures, some state that the person has "european ancestry" or in some cases the person is characterized as "white" by others, but that is not enough to use them as examples, since this is a possible BLP issue.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there was consensus for including an image gallery, on which several editors worked.

Secondly, that guideline (which is about categories, specifically) doesn't say that inclusion has to be based *only* on self-ID.

Why are you in such a hurry? Why can't you discuss the matter here and wait until others have weighed in? The way things tend to go in these matters, you can't seriously doubt that the outcome will favor your position, it seems to me. SamEV (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What Maunus said. See above. Also, this should be replaced by a page on "Whiteness in Latin America"; otherwise it will be a matter of time until some very limited individual creates a "White Latin American" category. Feketekave (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it, can we get a movement started on White American to finally get rid of that image too (File:WhiteAmericanFolks.jpg)? It's been languishing on their sourcelessly for long enough... as if there was any possibility of finding a source that calls Rima Fakih a "white American" (or even white). Bulldog123 07:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Bulldog you might know that canvassing to start a so called "movement" at other articles talk pages is disruptive and not allowed and also yes Arab -Americans are classed as white plainly and clearly with little to no ambiguity don't try to over lap these two articles into your greater war on ethnic/race articles(as you are a single purpose editor)i remember you tried to have the white American article deleted but failed miserably when the admin who kept it stated the article you and your buddy Maumus who voted in favor of delete of an article that was described as having the potential for being a feature article.The USA has clear definitions on who is white though the article does exclaim(according to sources) that some Arab Americans may not consider themselves white but that does not mean we leave an Arab pic out of the article(especially when the girl is Lebanese)so i hope you are not invoking your own sensibility on who or what the white race/ethnicity is because there is a reliable sources that does(whether you like it or not)

The term "White" refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who reported "White" or wrote in entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.[2]

The guide for the inclusion of pictures at the White American article do not necessarily have to use the word "White American" but instead ancestral origins( if that is all that is available) and that would not be original research for example but it would be WP:COMMONSENSE.Just as it was explained to you @ the European-American article [1]] where you were making similar arguments that we needed sources that stated in exact words a person was a" European-American" when it can be deduced with WP:COMMONSENSE that for example if Ben Franklin is an English American and England is Europe right? Than he would be a European American.So why not be a champion and help find sources for the "current pictures" ancestry (as i will) instead of going around being disruptive with the soul purpose of trying to remove content or delete articles.Since you are a single purpose editor right?. --Wikiscribe (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't use commonsense to find out people's ethnicities, genders, sexualities or religions. Your definition of "white" is also problematic because that it not what "white" means colloquially and it doesn't take into account that the bundary of whiteness has changed historically (in the early 20th century forexample Catholics and Jews were not considered white). You are doing OR and it has got to stop. Also I don't think you have much to suggest any "buddy" relationship between myself and Bulldog123 other than we happen to agree on this issue. Perhaps you should start making coherent arguments instead of making up conspiracy theories about your fellow editors.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes i know Catholics were not considered white and i am sure there are people in America today(never mind yesteryear) that don't consider Catholics white or so called Hispanics or Arabs etc etc......and the article does make note of such things?I mean at one time in history someone like Barrack Obama would not have been considered black/Negro but Mulatto or even white in the state of Ohio at one time, so should we recluse him form a article about Black people or Black Americans because of this? Just because you keep claiming OR does not make it so, just as you claimed that the entire White American article was OR and the reason it should be deleted right? The article was found NOT to be based on OR though, again common sense does go into the construction of any article,OR would be trying to include.You seem to be entangled in your own web of personal opinion.--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

We should exclude Obama (and any other person) from any Ethnic, Gender, Sexuality or Religion related category unless he (or they) selfidentify as a member of that category. The point I made about the fact that there are different criteria for whiteness is that if you as an editor decide to label anyone as "white" person without attribution to themselves you are conducting original research and run the risk of lumping people into groups with which they do not identify. Just because you keep contradicting the fact that that is OR does not make it not OR. I am afraid that you are blinded by your own web of your own entrenced beliefs about racial classification.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well there you have it, did you check the sources or do you assume(i did not scout them myself)?, in your opinion it seems as though there is some possible OR going on at those two articles i mentioned there, you may have a new "movement" with Bulldog, now check those sources, but seriously all sarcasm aside for a moment not all race/ethnic articles are gonna flesh out exactly the same.Once more (because you skipped over this little technicality) i thought the white American article was simply,plainly and obviously based on OR?Well how come it did not get deleted?Maybe because you were wrong like you just might be here?Perhaps like many other editors you like to invoke the God of original research because you may disagree?Sources that fit into the definition(that i did not make up by the way and if i did that would be OR) and parameters of the article should suffice.I mean did you even bother to read the article?No you are your Mr.Personal Opinion i am apparently Mr. Original Research --Wikiscribe (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

None of the three sources you added to White Americans call the individuals "white." Also, typically, spaces go after punctuations and before parenthesis. Bulldog123 01:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's thought experiment comes to mind when he writes

Editor X devotes his or her editing to adding positive information to Wikipedia about the high points of Blue history and culture. For example, X has contributed well-written articles about the lives of respected Blue people, such as law enforcement personnel and other Blue people who are widely perceived as having contributed to society. X also adds information about the positive impact of specific Blue individuals and positive aspects of Blue culture to other appropriate articles. Significantly, although the overall tone of X's contributions about Blue people is largely positive, each individual edit is neutral in content, appropriate in weight, reliably sourced, and compliant with policy.

Editor Y devotes his or her editing to adding negative information to Wikipedia about the low points of Blue history and culture. For example, Y has contributed well-written articles about the lives of detested Blue people, such as Blue criminals and other Blue people who are widely perceived as having harmed society.

This appears to be a case where the pictures were added by an "Editor X". Wapondaponda (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The photo should stay

Hello, Maunus. I'm Pablo Zeta from Argentina. I've read your user page and your alleged credentials are impressive. I don't doubt your knowledge on anthropology, but I think you are missing some points here. I see your expertise field is Amerindian culture, languages, etc in Mesoamerica, so I won't even attempt to discuss with you any of those topics, for your knowledge will surely far surpass mine. But we're dealing with White people here; and as I am born and raised in Latin America, there are aspects of the region's culture and racial/ethnic identity that you don't know or you don't understand. I think that you are simply applying your knowledge on anthropology in a contextyou're not familiar with, and so I see things very differently. The concept of "White pople" in Latin America is more relaxed than in the US; since colonial times, a person who was at least 7/8 European and 1/8 Amerindian could be considered "White" no matter that small degree of admixture. In LatAm, if you have a Caucasian phenotype, European/Middle Eastern ancestry, and you act and dress like an European, you are considered White. That's the criteria I use to justify the restoration of the photograph.--Pablozeta (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. Your opinion on who is 'white' is irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Photomontage is unsourced for several entries

I'm going to remove the photomontage, as several entries have no reliable source for anything, regardless of other issues:

Elena Poniatowska and Juana de Ibarbourou are 'sourced' from a dead link to Google search results.

Gabriela Sabatini is sourced to NNDB - not remotely a reliable source.

Francisco Morazán is 'sourced' to a Google books search result that gives no indication that the topic of Morazán's ethnicity is even mentioned (actually, it doesn't indicate that Morazán is mentioned)

Óscar Berger Perdomo is likewise 'sourced' to a Google book search result: "Heroes, Lovers, and Others: The Story of Latinos in Hollywood".

There are no doubt further examples of fictitious sources, but frankly, if crap like this is seen as acceptable by the person responsible, I see no reason to waste my time investigating further. This is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not working out.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As soon as I have time, I'll weed out the bad sources in the montage and restore the rest. SamEV (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a better alternative would be not to have a montage, sourced or not.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Chile

If you want to keep this article, it's OK. But, about Chile you must to do to make some corrections. There is a distortion of information. About Chile Lizcano gives no certain percentage, in fact he acknowledges there is no data, he just estimates based on other sources (such as the CIA World Factbook). The Chilean State officially considered the Chilean population as homogeneous, without racial classifications. There is no legal concept of "white man", nor has counted the people by the color of their skin, since it is an independent nation. Only recognizes the existence of a 4% or 5% of Amerindian population. There is no valid study or reference white population figures. There are only estimates made by others without methodological rigor, which differ greatly from each other. For this reason, with respect to Chile should not have figures. --Jcestepario (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The same situation applies for many of the other countries as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, a little inspection of the CIA Factbook ethnicity figures for different countries leaves little doubt that it cannot be WP:RS for this subject - some are frankly bizarre, and there is no indication whatsoever of sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Jcestepario, it is an instance of original research for any user to pick out from a source which particular figures to include and which not. SamEV (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The solution is then to not use that source at all as it is not reliable, or repesentative of general scholarship in the topic area.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Lizcano

In this article[2] Lizcano gives a very long theoretical definition of what he means by "etnia" and "grupos etnicos" - he explicitly states that "Whites", "Mestizos", "indians" are not Ethnic groups in the normal use of the term, they do not have a common identity and they do not interact. He basically states that he uses etnia as a shorthand for "Ethnic Category" using "category "in the sense of Giddens' "social category" as a label applied externally to groups who do not selfidentify as members of such a group. He then goes on to use Barth's concept of ethnicity in a novel way as he says that the groups can be seen as being ethnic groups in the sense of sharing particular cultural traits as the ethnic categories share important aspects of their history (in this case mostly the geographic ancestry of their cultures apparently). The most important part is that he makes it very clear that he does not consider "White people" or "Mestizos" to be ethnic groups in the usual meaning of the word which implies common identity. To the question of whether these groups could have common identity he says emphatically no.(p. 13). He is also clearly aware that most scholars would consider it is highly problematic to talk about "whites", "mestizos" and "Indians" as "etnias" - since he goes to a great lengths to explain and justify his use of that terminology. He talks about "la misma distincion entre etnia y grupo etnico defendida en este articulo" - clearly implying that the distinction requires to be defended (i.e. it is not generally accepted). ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edits here are constructive, AFAIC. I do think it's important to show restraint and not try to use the article to tell the world how un-white one thinks White Latin Americans are. There are others who've come by here with that agenda. SamEV (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you know that what I am trying to tell the world is that current scholarship on the topic of race does not consider that there is such a thing as "white" or "unwhite" except relative to a specific social and historical context. Suggesting that anyone is arguing that Letin America is "unwhite" betrays a belief in the antiquated and ethnocentric view that the American definition of "white" is objective and immutable and the racial yardstick for how all other cultures and populations should be judged, whereas other cultures' varying definitions are merely misunderstanding or trying to mask the objective truth regarding their whiteness. I am not the one trying to include article's about whiteness of different populations in this encyclopedia, I am just trying to make sure that when we can't get rid of them they at least reflect the current scholarship and not outdated racial theories of the early twentieth century.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd also point out that to suggest that anyone has an agenda involving telling Latin Americans how 'white' or otherwise they are is highly questionable. Personally, my only objection has been in regard to people (Latin American or otherwise) insisting that they have the right to say whether someone else is or isn't 'white', and what 'being white' means. Stereotypes explain little, and hide a lot. Reducing Latin America to a set of mutually-exclusive 'ethnic categories' does nobody any justice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Why was that comment about agendas taken so personally? I was referring to the actual fact that we've had to deal with editors who seemed only interested in making edits that questioned the whiteness of this group. You can find out more about it in the talk page archives.

Not that it's anybody's business what my personal beliefs are, but as it regards race and Wikipedia articles, it goes like this: when a subject is notable and has reliable sources, I write what the sources say, my own beliefs be damned. So if Scholar X says that whites are a "groupo étnico", or clarifies that he means "categoría étnica" in Latin America, I write that whites are an ethnic group or ethnic category in Latin America. If in its field "Ethnic Groups" a source deemed accepatable by the WP community lists white people, I list them. It's not my assertion, but those sources'. I'm not under the conceit that it only exists or is a reliable source if I say so. SamEV (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The distinction between ethnic group and category is not commonly used, which is why he has to spend so many pages explaining its meaning and why he uses it. It is misleading the readers to use without a thorough explanation of what it means - layreaders cannot be expected to understand the way Lizcano is combining Giddens and Barth. If it makes sense to use Lizcano's numbers it would only be with a very large caveat and not as if they are somehow unproblematic and completely objective. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Lizcano and Chile. I don't know if you can read Spanish or not, but if you read the Lizcano's paper, he recognizes that never studied the Chilean population, and only collected figures provided by other sources, without checking its veracity. In fact, reached such a point there are no figures fidables of white population in Chile, the CIA World Factbook puts "whites" and "mestizo" together in the same group. Moreover, Cruz Coke said on average the Chilean population is approximately 64% white and 35% Amerindian with traces of other admixture. But he doesn't give amounts or percentage of whites in Chile. It just says that in % every Chilean has a 65% European genes, which is very different. In fact he said: "The ethnic sources of Chilean populations are basically an admixture between Amerindian and European peoples. He never talk about "white Chilean people".--Jcestepario (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. (And yes, I do read Spanish well.) No source is perfect, but if it passes the reliability threshold, we can use it. You can add better sources, too. SamEV (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

JC, instead of removing one reliable source and replacing it one you like better, just *add* your source alongside the existing one. Please do not remove reliable sources. It violates WP:NPOV. There's room for more than one source and more than one POV. SamEV (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the source can't be used, but in the case of Chile Lizcano doesn't make any study and that he himself acknowledges. And Cruz Coke don't gives any number or % of "white Chileans", he said another thing. The sources must be used correctly. Regards. --Jcestepario (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree about the Coke source; my revert was about Lizcano, no Coke. The Coke source had escaped my notice until last month, but I forgot to remove it after noticing that it was misused. There's been at least one persistent pro-Chilean booster at this article.

Now back to Lizcano. Please drop by this thread at RSN, and see especially the last comment made there. The thread is about the Factbook, but the comments have general applicability. Lizcano doesn't have to have studied the Chilean population himself; It's OK if he merely used data produced by others. The most important thing is that he is a reliable source and that the statement made in this article about Chile is supported by the Lizcano source. This is key: it is pointed out at RSN that isn't even necessary that a reliable source give sources.

I kept what you added from the Factbook. SamEV (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The thread at RSN is of no relevance whatsoever regarding the question of whether your use of the Factbook is legitimate, or constitutes WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Luckily, most Wikipedians can read, so they can see that you're just in denial. for themselves. SamEV (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC); 22:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL, and then show me where it was stated that your calculations aren't WP:OR. And by the way, the population figures are estimates for July 2011, not actual data - though you are using them with old 'ethnic category' percentage figure in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I referred to your denialism there and no one had anything to say about it.

If you perceive that there's OR in the calculations, feel free to start a thread at the appropriate noticeboard. SamEV (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

How big is an 'ethnic category'?

With regard to this contentious sentence in the lede: "According to one researcher about 36% of the population as of 2010, White Latin Americans constitute the largest ethnic category[22][2] in the region..." I have a simple question. Where is the 36% figure sourced? It doesn't seem to come from Lizcano, and the (contested) CIA source gives no total percentage. Unless it can be properly sourced, it needs to be removed immediately. In any case, since an 'ethnic category' is an external construct, it cannot possibly be cited as factual data - it is nothing more than opinion at best. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I consider including Lizcano here to give a large amount of UNDUE weight to a single researcher who's idea has had not general impact. That would be my reason for removing it. The ethnic category thing is basically part of the argument he is presenting that there are on average certain cultural and historical differences between the different ethnic category that set them apart as cultural macro-groupings. This is a much more interesting argument that his counting "white people" in Latin American. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Lizcano gives a figure for 'Criollos' not 'Blancos' - I don't see how it can be used at all. Or am I missing something here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Criollo" was the term used for American-born whites in colonial times (though it had other uses, too), and is used as a synonym for White sometimes, including by Lizcano, although most of the white influx occurred after the colonial era. SamEV (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC); 16:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually in Mexico Criollo now carries connotations of African descent much like "creole" does in most of the world, "Criollo" was never used as a synonym for "blanco" because it served to distinguish People born in Europe (peninsulares) from people born from European parents in the colonies.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Actually you are right Andy, since he does use Criollo consistently and Criollo is not a racial category of "whiteness" but one that describes European heritage Lizcano is in fact an argument for merging this article with the one on "criollos" or rename it to Latin American people of European descent. Criollos is a better ititle in my opinion because it is the closest to a category of whites that actually exists (or existed) throughout Latin America and it adequately captures the groups historical roots in the colonial era. It would however exclude recent immigrants from the category, but I find it to be good to make that distinction between recent and colonial immigrants to LA.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposals to rename away from White to Criollo have been made here and failed. Besides, Lizcano does use blanco.

BTW, the CIA, which uses "white" consistently, provides numbers that are very similar to Lizcano's. SamEV (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

CIA does not have any aggregate numbers for all of Latin America, using that source for statements about the entire group would be SYNTH.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Prove it. Give a quotation from the relevant policy. SamEV (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is not? Or are you just being contrary? The synth policy allows making simple calculations, but since we know from our reliable sources that "white" means different things in different countries and different contexts adding together the numbers given for "white" in all the individual countries is not just adding up a simple calculus but creating an statistical artefact with no prior existence. That is synthesis. In anycase the factbook is a substandard source that should not even be regarded as reliable in the first place.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that you seem unable to quote a policy, even though you're an administrator and should know policies well.

And yes, you clearly don't think that the CIA Factbook should be considered RS: But it is. You even tried to have it declared unreliable and didn't succeed. You just can't seem to accept that you're not the arbiter of reliability. SamEV (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see you quoting much policy, much less demonstrating understanding of them.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You insist that long-stable content be removed. The burden's on you. So again: policy, please. SamEV (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the burden is on the one who wishes to include content that is challenged. In this case that would be you.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, my (our) burden is to source the content. Your challenge is based on the simple fact that you don't like the sources. Since the sources have already been deemed reliable, your challenge is rather frivolous. What you should seek to do, as if you didn't know, is to balance those sources with the ones with whose POV you agree. SamEV (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

But regardless of whether the source is reliable it doesn't support the claim.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what you keep allege. SamEV (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are claiming that the 36% figure is sourced from the CIA Factbook through "making simple calculations", can you show us the calculations that were used? Without this, your claim is worthless. It should be noted that the CIA Factbook [3] gives no figure for a separate 'white' category for Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Paraguay or Venezuela (actually it gives no percentages at all for Venezuela, yet another reason to question its usefulness as a source).AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? No one else at this article has had to have that explained, in my experience. The number of whites in the Latin American countries (percentage white multiplied by national population in each case) is totalled up, and this total is divided by the total population of Latin America.

You already know about Field Listing :: Ethnic groups; the population figures are collected in Field Listing :: Population. SamEV (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And where are the CIA Factbook figures for 'white' percentages in Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Paraguay and Venezuela to be found? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We keep no secrets. The fact that a precise percentage is unavailable for some countries would be disclosed. (Surely you've seen "N/A" in reliable sources in your lifetime, I assume.) It would just mean that the figure obtained from CIA numbers is a lower figure than what the actual would be if data were available for all. ('Per CIA figures, at least N% of the LatAm pop. is white (figures are unavailable for some countries)') Not that difficult to state. They are after all acknowledged to be estimates. SamEV (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC); 21:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

But the CIA doesn't give a figure - it can't, as it doesn't have the data. The 36% figure is therefore WP:OR, created out of thin air from flawed data. In any case, the CIA cannot possibly be considered WP:RS for these figures - they are inconsistently compiled, and in some cases, just plain nuts (look at Spain, or Switzerland, for example) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just modified my last comment to make my point clearer. If you want to continue insisting that the CIA Factbook is unreliable, please do so there. SamEV (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll raise this at WP:RSN. Meanwhile, do you want to check the figures from the CIA are actually consistent with the 36% stated, or do I have to do this myself? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather you do it. SamEV (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't include the source until there is a consensus to do so.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Let's see that promised RSN thread by Andy. SamEV (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_CIA_World_Factbook_a_reliable_source_regarding_ethnicity.3F. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of section: Puerto Rico 75% white!?!?!?

Why remove it? I am arguing about the source against reality and fact; it should be noted that the US Census is self-reported. There is not a 75.8% of “white only” population in Puerto Rico. There have been scholarly analysis at the University of Wisconsin, Madison by Mara Loveman and Jeronimo Muniz about this issue; such as the one below that this is not so. And that this idea is a political agenda of whitening the population. It should be noted clearly that this 75.8% is self-reported. Removing the thread in the discussion is trying to give the idea that this is not challenged and that the census is accurate regarding this issue of race.

“In 1899, a year after Puerto Rico came under U.S. dominion, the census reported that 62 percent of the population was white; by the year 2000, according to official census results, the white proportion of the Puerto Rican population reached 80 percent. Observers of Puerto Rican society have speculated about the sources of this trend, which is typically cited as evidence of the hold of “whitening ideology” on the island. To date, however, none of the hypothesized mechanisms of whitening have been subjected to empirical test.” http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/demsem/loveman-muniz.pdf

I will like to see the thread of discussion reinstated; by the person who removed it. I will assume good faith by that spurious removal of a legal thread of discussion. So please don’t play games WP:GAMES (See I can also cite policy!). That thread was in view with policy’s it is about a “source” in the article, and I was not trying to pass my opinion as a source not trying to do any original research. SilentBor (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The thread was removed per WP:NOTFORUM, since you were citing no external sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

SilentBor, your thread was heavy on personal opinion. Cite those sources instead with any edits you make or suggest. SamEV (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The only thing we really know is that there was serious European immigration to the island, more so then any other. Previous census may have been skewed considering the Anglo-American definition of White versus the realistic dominance of Southern European genetics on a multicultural island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.1.37 (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Largest ethnic category

Before I revert you, Andy, I'd like you to look at these consecutive edits and who made them: [4] and [5]. Your comment? SamEV (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Take your time, Andy (what's one more vexatious tag?): I'll be editing somewhere else and will continue checking my watchlist once in a while to see if you venture any reply. SamEV (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Asking for a source for a statement does not constitute a 'vexatious tag'. Regarding the diffs you give, I fail to see their significance. I suggest that rather than edit-war, you provide a source for the statement that "White Latin Americans constitute the largest ethnic category in the region", or remove it as unsourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's vexatious, because the source is given next to the statement. "Cuadro 2" in the Lizcano source--here it is again: Lizcano, pdf page 34-- shows that Criollos/Whites compose 36.1% of the population, as even Maunus acknowledges implicitly in that second diff, since he only objected to the CIA Factbook's being used to support the statement. SamEV (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you citing Lizcano. or the table on p. 218? Lizcano refers (in the English-language Abstract) to "six ethnic groups... Latin or Iberian, Indigenous, Black, Creole, Garífuna and Asian". The table refers to 'Criollos', and the footnote (c) accompanying this category implies that it is a linguistic one, from what I can tell. Neither refers to a 'white Latin American' as an ethnic category. In any case, since an 'ethnic category' is an external definition, rather than a verifiable fact, to state that X category 'is' the largest is highly questionable - as Maunus's edit indicates, this is the opinion of a researcher, rather than measurable data. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir, there's no "citing Lizcano. or the table on p. 218", because that table is by Lizcano. By 'citing Lizcano' I and the others have always meant that table.

Secondly, Lizcano uses these terms interchangeably in that document: "blanco" and "criollo". It's always been that table that's been cited. I suggest you ask someone else who can read Spanish before you go on edit warring over this.

I remind you that your objection has already been addressed at RSN: a source that meets the reliability threshold can be used, and you can't get picky about what to include or leave out.

The source's reliability has been maintained. The data can be used. Find better sources if you continued to dislike Lizcano. But that the claim is sourced to him should be patently obvious to you by now. SamEV (talk) 02:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies over the confusion - the table is Lizcano's, I'd misread this. Having said that, I'm still not convinced that the table is referring to an 'ethnic category', rather than a linguistic one. As you say, a Spanish speaker, which I'm not, might be able to confirm this one way or the other - in such cases, an uninvolved translator is the best way to clarify things. Regarding the more general issue though, I don't see how you can use the source as a statement of fact, rather than for a statement of opinion. You know that the data is contradicted elsewhere, e.g. by Schwartzman, [6] who gives a figure for self-identified 'blancos/whites' in Argentina of 63%, rather than the 85% figure that Lizcano cites. Such contradictory data may well indicate that an unequivocal assertion that 'whites' are the largest ethnic category (whatever that means) isn't even backed up by all the data available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I (and Maunus) changed the statement in this article to "ethnic category" ([7], [8]) based on a source that Maunus dug up (I added it) in which Lizcano explains that that's what he meant by "etnia" (lit. "ethnic group").

"I don't see how you can use the source as a statement of fact, rather than for a statement of opinion."

Didn't you notice that today I added a clause that addresses your concern? I added "according to some sources", precisely so it wouldn't look like it's the absolute truth. If you'd like it reworded, we can work on it.

Lizcano is referring to ethnicity, and names the document and the table accordingly, as both of them contain the phrase "Composición Étnica" in their titles. Do have a look.

"You know that the data is contradicted elsewhere, e.g. by Schwartzman"

So add Schwartzman, rather than edit warring. Who's stopping you? SamEV (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What the hell: "Blanqueamiento (bleaching) racial classification" category

Please someone remove these two categories or edit them. What makes the American concept of the one drop rule anymore logical? Obviously if someone has non-black blood they are mixed, only in the Untied States are they 'black'. Also a Mulato in Latin America is usually categorized by his or her appearance, so this is not true at all, but even if it was, having European blood would make him or her that: mixed in race, even if it isn't significant. Stop projecting American racial views on other countries, most countries don't share the same racial views and ideologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.171.98 (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Brazil

PNAD 2008 or 2010 give you >92 million white people, or 48.43% of Brazilian population. LOL, we became minority-majority.

It is probably because Pardo started to be perceived as multiracial rather than mulatto and Amarelo started to be perceived as Asian Brazilian rather than Mongolic and as such caboclos (mestizos — they are majoritary in our Northern, Northeastern and Center-Western regions and as such numerous and important among the Brown population, even if we're stereotyped as mulattoes) and ainokos (Eurasians/hafu — this term did not become taboo in Brazil since once Japanese Brazilians integrated, they disconsidered their impurity prejudices about miscegenation, but it was, and is in some rare cases, still not much popular among the community, because of the link that persons of mixed ancestry can or can not have with their original culture or the perceived sexism in much higher social acceptance of relationships between Asian women and White men rather than the opposite, nevertheless today it concerns only elder "Angry Japanese men") started to count as non-whites.

I doubt very much that light mulattoes here in Centro-Sul (our social construct of non-whiteness is rather different) would thought themselves White, and the main demographic shift was here. A light-skinned mulata can have sufficiently European-looking features to be accepted and consider herself as White, but White men are millions less numerous than White women here, differently from minorities were this gender demographic inequality is not this strong (what is really very weird since they are the main victims of violence and the regions where they perform the majority are the most affected by subdevelopment and bizarre forms of machismo — there are prejudices like "true men resists better the pain and are always healthy because they are made of steel since women is the fragile sex", NOT that male dominance and sexism is not present in all regions and socioeconomic classes of Brazil or that White Brazilians are naturally more rational and absent of Latin American prejudice instead of European egalitarianism [it can make me lulz much because our main "sources" were Portugal, Spain, Italy, Lebanon and Syria, totally not comparable with the differences between whites and mestizos in the United States, and again NOT that the stereotyped figure of Latino culture in USA can be totally true as something that differs them from us], but the cultural shift found between Centro-Sul and Northeastern Brazil, and the cultural shift between Centro-Sul's urban lower classes of higher African ancestry and the upper classes of mainly European ancestry, the Amerindian factor in urban development is quite undetermining except in the case of Caboclo immigrants from Northeastern Brazil which is a pretty traditional society, makes machismo worse among minorities in Brazil —, which generally make men live less than women, about >7 years what is very much here since our life expectancy is <75).

But also because multiracials have a higher birthrate than White people. Even if knowly both have closely-related genomes and ancestry (about 20% Brazilians have some Italian ancestry, mostly in states where people of color were a tiny minority before internal migration and social issues that made high birth taxes among them and as such most Italian Brazilians are white people, about >15% have some non-Southern European ancestry with 5% being somewhat noticeably, the others are all typical Portuguese Brazilians with some mixed ancestry as the Pardos), they are more religious, conservative, have lesser social status etc. same thing as happened in developed countries and other Latin American nations, but this time demonstrating that race is a mere social construct. If racial relations in Brazil become worse, Whites will not intermix with Pardos (it generates White children, at least for the social construct of White people made here) and by 2025 Brazil will be less than 40% White, except with more liberal reprodutive rights legislation which probably will make people of color birth rate equivalent to White one. 189.106.123.96 (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Costa Rica and University of Brazilia study

I wanted to point out a pair of mistakes I found here. Firstly, it is stated that Whites make approximately more than a 80% of Costa Rican population, which is certainly false to any person who has actually been to that country. Costa Ricans are, on average, darker than Chileans, and the last ones are from 30% to 50% White, so there is no way 80% of Costa Ricans are White people. You should re-see your sources. I think Costa Ricans neighbours are so dark that someone goes to Costa Rica and see them as a lot 'whiter' than, to say, Salvadorians or Panamanians. But that doesn't mean at all they're 80% White people.

Another thing is about the University of Brazilia study. It is quite not serious, it is biased because they give the same important to an unpopulated place such as the Patagonia than to Buenos Aires. Also, Brazil presents weird high percentages of European admixture in zones that are very African, where almost 3/4 of the population are categorised as 'Pardos'. Argentina shows less European admixture in the study than not only Brazil, but even Venezuela. North-eastern Brazil appears to be more European than Argentina and Chile, as Venezuela appears to be more European than Bogota and the Paisa region -whitest zone in Colombia-. It is very biased and not surprisingly comes from a Brazilian. It is odd she shows Brazil as having the highest European admixture, above Argentina. Another weird thing, Brazil and Chile's African admixture are quite similar, despite the fact of Chileans nearly not having slaves and Brazil having thousands and thousands of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naacevedo (talk • contribs) 18:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Haiti French

I know for a fact that the "most French" did not "leave" following the revolution in Haiti. Most French were KILLED in the revolution. See the book Stoddard, Lothrop. The French Revolution in San Domingo. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1914. It was written by Lothrop Stoddard and earned him his PhD from Harvard.

Unsigned 26 Decemember 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to claim that, you'll need a better source than Lothrop Stoddard, a notorious exponent of racist theories. I suggest you find one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The man had a PhD from Harvard which he earned from writing the book. If you want to show that his book was somehow in error then go ahead and do so. I guess you'd have us believe that the slaves rose up in Haiti and then just stood by and let the French plantation owners leave without so much as a nasty word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Le Maire (D). "Un Dunkerquois Colon a Saint-Domingue. Lettres inedites de Domenique le Maire." In "Bulletin de l'Union Fauconnier. Societe Historique de Dunquerque," vol. IV p 461-591 (1901).

Mosbach (A). "Der Franzoesische Feldzug auf Sanct Domingo (1802-1803). Nach den Berichten vier polnischer Offiziere." (Breslau, 1882).

Gaffarel (P.): "La Politique Coloniale en France, de 1789 a 1830." (Paris 1908). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Library of Congress good enough for you?

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+ht0017)

The carnage that the slaves wreaked in northern settlements, such as Acul, Limbé, Flaville, and Le Normand, revealed the simmering fury of an oppressed people. The bands of slaves slaughtered every white person they encountered. As their standard, they carried a pike with the carcass of an impaled white baby. Accounts of the rebellion describe widespread torching of property, fields, factories, and anything else that belonged to, or served, slaveholders. The inferno is said to have burned almost continuously for months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt that white persons were among the victims of the Haiti uprising. That is not the question. However, you wrote that "Most French were KILLED in the revolution". Find a source that backs that up. As for 'Library of Congress', it is just that: a library. You can find the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in a library (I know: I have. In the library of a major British university). That doesn't mean they endorse the contents. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you some sort of communist commissar of political correctness? What a joke "Whites were among the victims of the Haiti uprising" the uprising was coordinated mass violence against the white/French residents of Haiti! The black slaves rose up and killed every single white person on the island, except for a few dozen who managed to escape. I have a book that references a letter from a French soldier who was captured by an English ship as he left the island, and he stated "I doubt there are more than twenty whites left alive on the whole island." He said he saw every white in Les Cayes being killed, and he only avoided death by hiding himself. After the black slaves killed all the white people they killed virtually all of the mulattoes as well. To deny the obvious racial nature of the violence is to deny history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on contributors. A letter by a single French soldier cannot possibly be seen as conclusive evidence for what occurred on the entire island. Our article on the Haitian Revolution states that "the slave rebellion resulted in the death of 100,000 blacks and 24,000 whites" - sourced to here [9] - which in turn states that "Before the fighting ended 100,000 of the 500,000 blacks and 24,000 of the 40,000 whites were killed". The 'French soldier' and this source cannot both be correct. And where did I deny the racial nature of the violence? I'd have thought that it is self-evident that a rebellion by persons enslaved on the basis of 'race' would involve racial violence. All I asked is that you find a credible source that "Most French were KILLED in the revolution" You haven't. 60% is a majority - but it isn't 'most'. The slave revolt was a horrific event, of that there can be no doubt. But then so was the history of slavery. The most appropriate way to discuss such events is through openness and clarity, rather than by engaging in hyperbole. It seems that this article may need some rewording, and I will look into this - but we must reflect what reliable sources say - and as I said at the beginning of this discussion, a dubious and discredited racist scholar like Stoddart wouldn't be seen by current historians as in any way remotely reliable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The deaths of approximately 24,000 whites? Well the highest estimate I've ever found is that there were 30,000 to 32,000 whites on the island. With an estimate of 24,000 dead it would be no exaggeration to say "most were killed." Also the total number of blacks on the island was probably closer to 800,000 and there were a large number of "coloreds" who were free mulattoes, many of whom owned slaves. Indeed one-third of the slaves on Santo Domingo were owned by free mulattoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that Stoddard is actually a credible source in regards to the events in Haiti. He exhaustively cited his sources in his book on the revolution and he earned a PhD from Harvard for the work. Does Harvard have an established track record of giving out PhDs to crackpots? Stoddard cites plenty of French language sources from the period of 1804-1810 which he probably had original copies of. If you want to say that Stoddard had a racialist view of the world it shouldn't be too hard to make a case for that, but if you want to say he was a pseudo-historian who had a PhD he didn't deserve for writing a work that was bogus, then you have quite a chore cut out for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the relevant section in the article, which ought to deal with the issue as far as this article is concerned. If you aren't happy with this, then propose something further. If you want to discuss changes to the Haitian Revolution article, I suggest you raise the matter at the article talk page - there is no point in discussing it here. As for the reliability of Stoddart, I'd point out that we'd be unlikely to take any source that old as the final word on anything - and you aren't giving specific references anyway. You'd need to provide page numbers at minimum, and preferably a direct quotation of what he actually claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it leaves a bit to be desired, it seems to be leaving out a few words. Most of the white Haitians are descendants of French settlers, although following the violence of the Haitian Revolution of 1791–1804, which resulted in Saint-Domingue's independence as the Republic of Haiti, most surviving French Whites left.

I think it probably should read-

Most of the white Haitians are descendants of French settlers, although most whites were killed during the Haitian Revolution of 1791–1804, which resulted in Saint-Domingue's independence as the Republic of Haiti. After the revolution ended in 1804 most surviving French Whites left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 'most whites' is actually supported by the sources we currently cite: 'many whites' certainly would - it shouldn't be forgotten that the majority of the casualties of the revolt weren't white though, and I think we need to avoid undue emphasis on a minority of victims. Perhaps we should see if anyone else has any comments on this though? If we don't get any further input here, I could try posting on an appropriate noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Table of Latinobarometro

Nobody notice that any country made up a 100%? Also is very wrong Please somebody delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by User60092678 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The table is from the source provided [10]. Certainly some of the rows add up to significantly less than 100% - one can only assume that this is because "don't knows" and "wouldn't says" are excluded. As for it being 'very wrong', do you have a source that contradicts it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly Wikipedia is a serious place and since mostly of the people check out Wikipedia as first option when they search info, i think we cannont have that table since dont reach the 100% in any country, with a significant difference in some of thems, also is pretty wrong because if you look the table next to the wrong one you will see huge differences in mostly of countries, only ones that are somelike similar are mexico, brazil, chile and colombia (4/15)... also dont know why there isnt this table in the article, is pretty accurate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Americans#Ethnic_groups — Preceding unsigned comment added by User60092678 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong interpretation of the source: "University of Chile"

1) The source: The study University of Chile used as blood donors at 150 persons San Jose Hospital in Santiago de Chile. That is, is very biased, and although that serves to demonstrate segregation between social groups and that no significant differences with the "Hispanics" in America, does not state that these data are indicators of genetic contributions relating to European and Indigenous ancestors of the Chilean population.--Ccrazymann (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

White population in Venezuela

Added an OFFICIAL SOURCE from the 2011 Venezuelan Census. The "Britannica Online Encyclopedia" is not anymore a reliable source for this case, since there is a recent and OFFICIAL result of the Venezuelan Ethnicity. The results of the Official 2011 Venezuelan Census showed that 42,2% of the population are white (of the 27,227,930 inhabitants, the source are from the Government "Instituto Nacional de Estadistica" (INE) ... and the document from that report you can find it in the pg. 14 of this link Official Census 2011 - Venezuela. Also the University of Brasilia did a research where the result was that 60,6% of the population in Venezuela were from European (white) ancestry. "O impacto das migrações na constituição genética de populações latino-americanas"

So those are more reliable source than that one from the "Britannica Online Encyclopedia", that encyclopedia didnt even do studies about the ethnicity in Venezuela, so why that's more reliable than the official ones?, also it's old and not very accurate --Pankoroku (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I deleted this source "Lizcano", since this is an investigation old from 2005. What is necessary here is to mention recent and accurate figures (about the population), not estimates and much less research of seven years ago... That's why I deleted that info, at the present time the "Instituto Nacional de Estadistica" did the research for the Venezuelan ethnicity, it's more accurate than an info from 2005 and it wasn't an official result. --Pankoroku (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in White Latin American

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

Reference named "overview":

• From Rationing in Cuba: Overview of Cuba's Food Rationing System José Alvarez University of Florida
• From Race and ethnicity in the United States Census: Grieco, Elizabeth M.; Cassidy, Rachel C. (2001-03). "Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: Census 2000 Brief" (PDF). U.S. Census Bureau. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• From Hispanic and Latino Americans: Grieco, Elizabeth M. "Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2000" (PDF). United States Census Bureau. Retrieved 2008-04-27. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

White Population in Venezuela

On repeated occasions I have seen the need to change the percentage of white population in Venezuela. According to the article the white population is 5.8 million, however according to the last population census conducted by the National Institute of Statistics of Venezuela showed that this figure is 11.4 million, which translates into 42.2% of the national total. [11].

I have been wrongly accused of "Vandalism" article, illogical thing as I am governed by official census references from my own country and expressing information currently the article is incorrect while deciduous exposes a reference and is replaced the most current.

Please suggest to amend such information, I am open to criticism, Greetings from Venezuela.

«Jaam0121 (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)»

I agree, why are we stating a massive range based on data that's nearly 10 years old when there's a reliable up to date source with a single figure? The same applies to the figures for Columbia, Mexico and and Chile as well, they're all stating ridiculously large ranges. I'll check the sources and update to a single figure based on the most recent reliable data. Tobus2 (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Updates: I've updated the following 4 populations for the following reasons:

• Columbia: Both previous pops were from the same source, it says 37% white from 2005 census data (used here) then goes on to say "the actual percentage of Colombians of primarily European ancestry may be closer to 20 percent". There's no ref for where this 20% figure comes from, but it's measuring genetics not the social construct that this article is about.
• Mexico: The figure for the low range was from 1998 - way out of date. Mexico doesn't have "White" on it's census so there's no real figure of how many people consider themselves "white" and I've flagged it with "(est.)" to show it's an estimation, not a counted figure. I've used the existing figure which comes from Britannica's "who are nearly as numerous" as American Indians who "who account for more than one-sixth of the total". There is probably a much better figure than this.
• Venezuela: I've used the 2011 census figure. The previous low figure is from a 2005 review of a number of earlier studies (eg Agencia EFE (2003)) - it's ~10 years out of date.
• Chile: The previous low figure was from a genetic study showing 30% European ancestry. This compares to ~60% who self-identify as "white" which is the figure I've used (this article is about the social construct, not genetic admixture). Chile doesn't separate "white" in the census so this figure is flagged as an estimation.

Tobus2 (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There were a bunch of countries with the CIA Argentina page as their ref, I've fixed all these up and updated the populations to based on the current CIA figures where appropriate. I couldn't find a ref for the "other" group. Tobus2 (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Blanqueamiento

This whole "Blanqueamiento (bleaching) racial classification" section is loosely based on a single source[12] (full text at [13]), which is only about Brazil and is about parents viewing their children as "white" or "non-white". It was removed with no explanation here[14] and restored here[15]. I support the removal - I don't think it's important or relevant and it states things as global facts that are really misinterpretations or oversimplifications of what the source says. If the study is to be included at all it should only be a sentence or two in the "Brazil" section.

I have removed it again primarily to get a discussion happening here. I'm happy for it to be reinstated until a consensus is reached if somebody feels strongly that it should stay in it's current form.

Tobus2 (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the section was too Brazil-centric. Blanquiamiento is a real idea in Latin America, and should be addressed in the article. I've created a new section (using some of the text and references from Blanqueamiento. Does this new section address your concerns?Goodsdrew (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Not at all - I still can't the point of including this. As it stands it's basically a copy of the Blanqueamiento page with a meaningless statement "there's more mixed-race in Brazil because blacks say they're mixed race, oh yeah and also because whites say they're mixed race too" - which isn't what the source provided says. It's also factually incorrect because more people identified as "black" in the Brazil 2010 census than did in 2000.

If you're talking about the social policy then my suggestion is to wikilink Blanquiamiento in the History section where it's already being talked about: "...so a major process of "Whitening" was required, or at least desirable". If you are talking about the nebulous nature of invidivuals' perceptions of their own "race" then it's already covered in the Being "White" section. There's no need for a separate section.

Tobus2 (talk) 09:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If you still don't like the section on Brazil, I'm fine with you taking it out. I think it is a big enough deal in Latin America, though, that we should have a section about blanquiamiento. I don't see a problem with duplicating content from the other article--the content is relevant to both articles, and duplicating such relevant content is done all the time on wikipedia.Goodsdrew (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

From the sources provided it seems that blanquemiento was a big deal back in the '50s and earlier, but has declined since then and over the last 10 years has ceased to be a significant phenomenon - if anything, the opposite ("pretoiamiento"?!) is more common. As such I think it's appropriate to mention it in it's historical context (in the History section) but not to give it undue weight over the other forms of changing self-identification of individual colour (as discussed in the Being "White") section. It seems that User:Szekszter has blanked the section, I've added a wikilink to it as appropriate in the History section. Tobus2 (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Populations Figures

Regarding this edit by User:Jaam0121: [16] - I spent many hours investigating and correcting these population figures so I'd appreciate it if you'd discuss any corrections/updates instead of blanket reverting.

My main purpose when reviewing the figures a few months back was to remove the ridiculously large ranges (eg 5.9 - 20 million for Mexico) and ensure each population had the most up to date figures available. As noted in the "White Population in Venezuela" section above the cause of the large discrepancies was either out of date data or a genetic rather than social definition of "white" - in all cases I have explained my choices and reasons in the section above. I also discovered that many of the countries were using the same ref that pointed to data for Argentina so I fixed all of them up. Your edit has restored a bunch of problems that I've already fixed, so I have reverted it again. If you have any updates or corrections I'm happy to hear them, but please stop blanket reverting to a previous version full of errors - it's not in the best interests of WP.

Tobus (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Jaam0121 you are repeatedly reverting the population figure for Colombia to the 1990 figure. Please leave it at the 2010 figure which is the most recent one we have. Tobus (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:TobusI repeat again, the references that point are vague and uncertain, I am Venezuelan - Colombian and fully know the ethnography of both countries. There figures used in Colombia and are not necessarily to have them published on the Internet as a reference , however no longer true .

The White Population in Colombia around 20-25% as the reference point in the article . There are other references such as [ http://paomultimedia.wordpress.com/etnografia/ ] and this [ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QbtdboIT9Wk203vpOX7p6GCVqqQwlFPjIX2PqJUfo5g/edit?hl=es ] with 2010 data (ENOUGH CURRENT] .

Remember, Colombia is a country that widely MESTIZO ethnicity represents 58 % of the population , followed by the soft population with 25 % , then 10.6% blacks , indigenous to 3.6 % and finally called " Gypsies" with 0.001 " of Colombia's total population .

PLEASE reviertas no changes in the article, what you changed again with reference to just sign , and I hope they are Achates changes and 3 references I show you with fair and figures from Colombia . If you want to contribute , do so without undo changes that others do devoting our time. Greetings . Jaam0121 (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This just seems so straightforward to me that I don't understand your problem - the 2010 version of the study is the most up to date and we should definitely use it instead of the 1990 one. The other ref you included is anonymous and undated so it's pretty hard to establish if it's a WP:RS and if it's more up to date than the official study. Rather than continue edit warring I have asked for clarification at RSN[17]. Hopefully this will settle the issue once and for all. Tobus (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, very good option to stop the edit war, meanwhile let the esperos article like this and they say at the end.

Jaam0121 (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Two editors have replied at RSN and both say that we should be using the 2010 figure instead of the 1990 ones and that the 2nd ref you added to the article doesn't meet WP:RS. I have recalculated the population using the 2010 report (37% of 45.3M) and updated the article accordingly. Tobus (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Jessica Alba

What's her picture doing in this article? She's not even Latin American, neither were her parents. Only her paternal grandparents were from Mexico, her mother is not Mexican, she can't even speak Spanish. By the way, she does not consider herself White. Xuxo (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed Jessica Alba, since her White parent is her mother, who is not even Mexican, she is American of French and Danish descent. Moreover, Alba said in several interviews that she never considered herself White. Xuxo (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

USA

Why is the Latino community in the USA included in this article??..this article isn't about Americans like Marco Rubio who are born to Cuban parents. If this was the case then you can add every single latino community in the whole world...this is about the population of "Latin America"....someone seriously has to take this section away.

Brazil

With the recent additions the Brazil section now has 4 separate tables showing genetic makeup from 4 different genetic studies all showing similar results - do we really need four? I suggest we present the table of one study (either the latest or the one with the highest sample/SNP size) and then in the text say something like "several other studies have shown similar results" and citing them all. The same goes for much of the text in the bottom part of the section: "Study X in 20xx found x%. Study Y in 20yy found y%" could just be "Recent studies have found x%-y%" or similar - especially when the studies are saying pretty much the same thing. At present it's a mass of numbers and I expect a bit hard for readers to make sense of. Tobus (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the demographics of Brazil is a complex one, the studies not always use the same methodology and the results even if overall are coherent they differ in the details. They vary in time (one is from 2008, the other from 2013, etc), they were conducted by different researchers. I think it is fairly justified to keep all the various studies posted (they cover all of Brazil, and they provide averages for each region).Grenzer22 (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Too many pictures

This article has too many pictures of actors, actresses, super models and other non-average looking people. Many of these pictures need to be removed, because they pollute the article. Moreover, most White Latin Americans do not look like beauty queens or supermodels. Xuxo (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. I've noticed this trend with articles dealing with ethnicity: an abundance of gratuitous photographs of attractive women in particular. They may be notable to some extent but, in the context, it is not encyclopaedic. Where are the pot-bellied, beer-swilling, middle aged men at the Oktoberfest, for example? I think this images used in this article need a serious clean up. Firstly, it makes the page unnecessarily byte-heavy. In the second instance, they are not informative (unless you want the readers to believe that they're reading "Who Magazine" or an article on beauty pageants). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there may be a few extra images that could be removed. However, I think it's perfectly fine and normal to present "beautiful" (or however you choose to call it) people for a specific ethnicity. That's what every single ethnic article does. People like to showcase "the finest" of their ethnic group. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

In which case, for the sake of balance, how about a bit more 'beefcake' for the ladies?

In seriousness, however, rather than having large photos proliferating a WP:SUMMARY article, I've noted that similar pages actually have consensus votes on the talk page as to whose photos should be featured and why. Gratuitous photos are removed (i.e., "Beauty queen of the Italian community"; "Italian immigrants with the president Lula"). I'm sure there are plenty of relevant historical pics for these communities (where appropriate and informative) at Wiki Commons. Having traced the history of various additions, they've simply been added by individual users according to who and what they want to put in.

Considering that it is a general page, it should cleaned up in order to focus on the information. Each section has its own main article and quite a few of the images are duplicates of the main nation-state entry for Latin Americans of European descent. Note, also, that the conventional structure is using an 'ethnic group' infobox, such as Mexicans of European descent, White Puerto Rican, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

So, please, someone, clean up this article removing all those pictures. Xuxo (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to be returning to clean up more image overkill, concentrating on photos already used in the main articles and those sandwiching text and tables. Brazil seems to be suffering from the most overkill in terms of photos and information which belong in the main articles. Remember, this is an overview page with the majority of information concentrating on the demographics of all Latin-American countries, not a regurgitation of information for each nation-state with at least one other main article dealing with the subject matter! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed some unnecessary pictures of celebrities. Moreover, they are all unsourced. Do these people identify as being Whites? It needs source there. Xuxo (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Great, you've removed the images. However, it doesn't really matter if they "identify" as being "white". The images you removed were of white individuals. Regardless, thanks for removing the unnecessary images. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Per Afro-Eurasian, cheers, Xuxo. Images cluttering the body of the article must be scrutinized as carefully as written content to meet WP:V and WP:RS standards. WP:DISCRIMINATE applies to the use of images as well as textual information. The final factor is considering the byte size of articles and the fact that many readers don't have the download speeds or latest computers, platform and OS's (which is also addressed in the guidelines directly aimed at the use of images). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Native American

"Native American" is an American term for its indigenous peoples. Most, if not all Latin American states call these people "Indigenous". Does it make sense for this article to use "Native American" continuously? Eladynnus (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It is wide, Native American also means those who have been born in the USA. It can be any race. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Judging by the sources, it would seem that 'Native American' is used as a substitute for 'Indigenous American'. That being the case, the meaning should be qualified in the article by applying the correct nomenclature. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Significance

What criteria do we want to use for "significant" population size, ie for inclusion in the "Regions with significant populations" box? Recently we've seen countries with less than half a million "white" people added - is this reasonable? Should we have a minimum cutoff (eg 1 million people), or perhaps should we base it on %age of the population? Or perhaps remove the "significant" from the pop box title altogether? Any thoughts? Tobus (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There should be no cut-off. Who are we to judge what is significant or not? Half a million is not significant? I think it is in the readers best interest to include these countries as well. I don't see the need to exclude merely "four" countries because they do not meet a personal standard. I also do not see it improving the article in any way by its withholding. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

So let's just get rid of the word "significant" then? Tobus (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Therefore you're proposing "Regions with populations" as an alternative.(?) Significant may not have any absolute numeric value, but is certainly indicative of there being enough members of a particular minority group for them to have cultural community enclave (or enclaves), religious, and other ties as opposed to being fully assimilated into a broader culture.

More to the point, the 4 countries you wanted to eliminate only have what, by your criterion, would only constitute insignificant populations in total, i.e., total populations of < 10 million. In relation to the ratio in proportion to the total population, numbers of less than a million certainly qualify as being significant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Not literally, I'd suggest "Population by Country" or something. "Significant" implies more than ordinary, or standout - I mean I sang "Hound Dog" at Karaoke last night, does that mean I qualify to be listed under "Significant Contributions to Rock'n'Roll"? If the consensus is for a free-for-all inclusion of any Latin American country then lets change the title to reflect that.

I already floated the idea a %age of total population minimum - it'd more indicative of "significant" relative to the country's total populations than a flat minimum number. Having said that, of the 4 countries I removed using a flat 1M minimum, Ecuador is only 6% "white", Haiti <5%, Honduras 1% and Panama 10%... compare that to nearly 50% in Brazil and over 90% in Argentina, there really is a significant difference here.

The question really is what serves the page best - do we want a long list of every Latin American country up front, or do we want a short list of the major countries with the rest detailed down below in their relevant sections? Personally I prefer the former, it's much cleaner and caters to the majority of interest while still providing the less popular info for those who want it. I'd put about 5-6 countries in the list (looking at it, I'd probably make it 5Mil and cut it after Cuba), but this isn't my page, so what do other's think? Every country up the top or just the biggest/most significant ones?

Tobus (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate your concern for crowding the content, this would still require WP:OR in order to define 'significant'. Why try to implement some absolutist system for qualification when alphabetical order is fine? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Significance" is a little but subjective but we can't seriously be accused of misusing it if we include over 95% of the global population - and that percentage is covered by the first 7 countries listed. OTOH we are certainly using a strange definition of it by saying Haiti is "significant" - it represents less than half a percent of the global population and less than 1/20th of it's own internal population. I'm sure it's "significant" to somebody somewhere, but we're not pandering to them, we're writing an encyclopedia and in an encyclopedic context, it's not significant.

Outside the top 95%, I think you could also make a case for keeping Uruguay, Costa Rica and Puerto Rico which despite their low %age on a global scale, all have significant internal populations of over 50%. I can't see much of a case for claiming "significance" for the rest - they each represent less than 2% of the global population and under 20% of their own internal population. If we removed them we would still be covering 209mil of the 219mil global population - a "significant" proportion no?

Tobus (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

We're hardly talking about an endless list. Per Savvyjack23, there's no justification for proscribing it. I fail to understand why you're obsessing over it. Please understand that you have two editors objecting to proscribing it as it isn't up to us to define 'significant'. There's no benefit or need to change it in order to enhance the content. End of discussion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Significant" is already defined, all we need to do is apply it. Can you make a case for why (eg) Haiti should be considered a region with a significant population of White Latin Americans? If not, let's remove it. Tobus (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you make a case for why half a million in a population of ten million (5%) isn't 'significant'? How does this compare with the overall percentage in the United States: 27 million out of a population of 320 million (8.4%). I repeat: any rendering of 'significant' in this context without reliable sources is original research. Please drop the stick. I don't want to waste my time on this any longer. You've failed to explain why this is a 'significant' issue as there's no reason why we need to proscribe the list on the grounds of having an excessively long list. If you can provide a logical reason as to why you're making such a big deal of it, I'm prepared to WP:LISTEN again. If not, it isn't that WP:ITSIMPORTANT as no one other than Savvyjack23 has even engaged in the discussion. In all seriousness, I'm not going to engage in any further discussion unless you can provide a good reason for exclusion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, you are switching the burden of proof (see WP:PROVEIT) - if we put Haiti in a box called "Regions with significant populations" then we are saying that Haiti *is* a region with a significant population and need to be able to justify that, not the other way around.

Secondly, I've already made my case, you just chose to ignore it: "Significant" here is in a global context (the page covers many countries, not just one!). Haiti's 0.5m represents less than one quarter of one percent of the global white Latin American population (0.495 of 219 is 0.226%). This is not "significant" as defined in any English language dictionary I've ever seen.

Thirdly, the US population of 27 million represents ~12% of the global population making it the 3rd most significant country in the world. If we removed the US we'd be covering less than 90% of the world population. (Compare that to Haiti where we'd still be covering 99.75% of the global population if we removed it!)

Fourthly, your comments and links about original research, dropping the stick, this not being important/significant etc. apply equally to yourself - why are *you* making such a big deal of this? If you don't want to "waste your time" on this unimportant issue then don't - let me clean up the list so it matches the description and stop insisting on the inclusion of countries with extremely small populations in a pop box labeled "significant populations".

Fifthly, I note that 2 of the 4 countries I originally raised this discussion about have already been removed by another editor and not restored... there does seem to be support from other editors to restrict the list, even if they're not participating in this discussion.

And finally, if we make sure that we're covering at least 95% of the global population then there's no way we can have missed any of the major contributors. Even if we decided to cover 99% of the world population Haiti and Ecuador still wouldn't make the list. There's no logical reason to include them, only personal and emotional ones.

Tobus (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You've misunderstood WP:PROVEIT. As the contributor who wishes to redact (i.e., remove) content, the onus is on you to provide evidence through reliable sources to demonstrate that 'significant' is qualified by some sort of proscribed formula in the field of demographics. Please stop with your WP:OR interpretation based on your own reading of the dictionary meaning of 'significant'. Once you can provide such sources, you're welcome to provide them here and redact the list accordingly. Until you have a genuine case, please desist from this WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in trying to escalate the issue. You've gone from querying a point to being disruptive. Without sourced demographic proscriptions, I'm not engaging again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I quote: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (bolding in original)... it is you who has misunderstood it. If you are insisting that Haiti is a region with a significant white Latin American then WP:PROVEIT. Tobus (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is you, per bold → revert → discuss. You're responsible for the WP:BOLD edit using a personal predilection unsupported by secondary sources for the definition of 'significant' number in any glossary of terminology in the field of demographics. The onus lies with you to demonstrate that this isn't simply a WP:POV and WP:OR interpretation of 'significant'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not me - I removed questionable content and you are arguing for the restored material. So as per WP:PROVEIT the onus is on you, "the editor who adds or restores material" to justify why Haiti should be included in this list. As per WP:BRP I've left the page with my edit reverted while we discuss the issues, but contrary to what you are saying, there's nothing in WP:BRD that excuses either of us from providing evidence during that discussion. So please, explain why you think Haiti is significant in this context.

Secondly, I've already made my case twice, you are just not listening. The definition of "significant" I am using is the dictionary definition (not my "personal predilection" as you seem to think). While this is necessarily contextual, in this pop box the context is global since we are discussing many countries. Haiti has a white population less than 0.25% (one quarter of one percent) of the global population, and hence, by any standard definition of the term, Haiti's while population is not significant.

In the interests of resolving this issue, can you please make your own case, using facts and logic, of why Haiti should be included in this list.

Tobus (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I can see the rationale in removing Haiti by the percentage of the population of Haiti (and because that percentage is white and mulatto), but the brunt of your argument from the inception has been using < 1 million as a cut-off point would have cut off 4 countries. When the total population of a nation-state is only 10 or 15 million, in terms of the overall population a group of just under 1 million (while a minority) is still a significant percentage. Using Ecuador as the example, with a population of 14.5 million (although that's the 2010 stats), a population of 0.95 million constitutes 6.1%. I have seen no WP:RS that tell me that it isn't a significant proportion of the population, therefore I understand it to be significant enough to warrant inclusion, particularly as there is no breakdown of numbers of indigenous and other ethnic groups in what is a multicultural nation-state.

I don't see this as being worth taking to dispute resolution. No one else seems to be interested in getting involved, so I'm just going to ping a couple of uninvolved, neutral editors for third party input. I'm happy to abide by decisions made by consensus, or by overriding policy.

Sorry to ask for your time, but could Cullen328, Ymblanter, or Nick-D please help out here? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I recommend eliminating the word "significant" which seems to add nothing to the article except generating massive talk page discussion to no good end, and list the statistics for every Latin American country, assuming that those reliable statistics are available. It seems that most Latin American countries are listed currently. Why not all? If it is necessary to limit the list for some reason that I do not understand, then make the cutoff one million people. But please, please stop these lengthy debates where people repeat the same point over and over again. By the way, I disagree with listing the Haiti statistics in the current form, which clearly are not "white". Bottom line - please stop the bickering. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In my first attempt, I did not even understand what is being discussed. I will try again in the afternoon.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

United States

This article states it is about people of Latin America countries. But the article has a section of several paragraphs on the United States. Since the US is not considered a Latin American country, should this section be deleted? Why or why not? Hmains (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, considering that the article WP:TITLE is "White Latin American", it certainly reads as being WP:OFFTOPIC. Nevertheless, as a result of the US census methodology for determining ethnicity and self-identification, there is a distinct stratification of ethnic identification amongst the large Latin American presence in the US. Personally, if it's deemed as being encyclopaedic, I see this as belonging to a related spin-off article rather than this article as it conflates the issues surrounding relevant content for this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a long standing article on the US subject Hispanic and Latino Americans. Hmains (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Hmains. Hispanic and Latin America isn't really my field but, rather, just an area I'm interested in. In all honesty, I've only added a number of articles in the field due to a concern that there aren't enough regulars maintaining this area in order to cite-check and sort through RS as being an unfortunately neglected area of Wikipedia. I've now added the above-mentioned article to my watchlist.

Given the title and content of that article, I'm in agreement with you that the content on the US is off-topic for this article. This article is detailed and complex enough without needing to reference the presence of white Hispanic and Latin American diasporic communities living in the USA, therefore I fully support the removal of content relevant to the US. At best, if the "Hispanic and Latino Americans" article isn't wikilinked within the body of the article, it could be added to the "See also" subheader. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Costa Ricans

The picture given isn't of Costa Rican girls, it's of American girls in ethnic costumes. It's very misleading to claim they are something they aren't. Here is a link to all the pictures: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/iday/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.73.92 (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed I've removed the photo, plus have changed the description on the WikiCommons page, where the photo is hosted, to reflect that it's children in California dressed up in Costa Rican folk costumes for International Day in 2003. As such, it fails WP:PERTINENCE for use in this article. Thank you for drawing my attention to the misrepresentation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources

All the sources are correct. Please don't remove without reason. --Bleckter (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

References in Argentina and Costa Rica

This report is a shame, but it is necessary to reverse the edition of the user Bleckter (which is a Mexican ip), what happens is that our "great researcher" Bleckter, confused genetic data with race, and this article talks about the race, specifically the white race in Latin America, and the reference to Argentina said that 44% of them have genes pure Europeans, but the Argentine whites are more than 80%, the same case in Costa Rica. Thanks --190.148.92.240 (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• I come to label that the user Blecker after to accusing me and put his hands on data of Argentina and Costa Rica, he did not follow editing, this could signify a WP: SPA.--190.148.92.240 (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

in the same ref that is used to put "44% white" says that 44% are pure european, saying also that this is not show in the appearence of the people, althougt this study is not really believable because they say that 44% is pure and 56% is somewhat mix or pure amerindian, excluding, the smalls but existing and gorwing, asian and black population, so i find this as serious as the CIA study that says that 97% of the population is white — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chueco23456 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

if you have one indian great grand parent and seven whites, your phenotype is caucasic not mix race,understand now bleckter? this user does no more than vandalism Chueco23456 (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on White Latin Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017061209/http://www.embajadaconsuladoschile.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=60&lang=de to http://www.embajadaconsuladoschile.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=60&lang=de

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done 404 capture replaced by working capture. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

 Why not make a page on Wikipedia that only talk about the Hispanic whites in the Americas 

Please make a page on Wikipedia that only speak of Hispanic whites in the Hispanic countries of the Americas, in addition to adding Hispanic whites in the United States Derekitou (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you are asking, could you expand? Personally I'm not even sure this article makes sense and may be imposing a classification that is not used in many of the countries being discussed. --Erp (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, I do not understand you either. I say make an article only white people of Hispanic American countries --Derekitou (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

if there European diaspora, it's possible Hispanic whites in the Americas (Mexico, Central america except Belize, South American except Brazil, Guayana and Surinam, Only Puerto Rico, Cuba and Dominican Republic in the Caribbean).--Bernfield (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on White Latin Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140603230454/http://www.one.cu/publicaciones/cepde/cpv2012/20140428informenacional/46_tabla_II_4.pdf to http://www.one.cu/publicaciones/cepde/cpv2012/20140428informenacional/46_tabla_II_4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140522233206/http://www.laboratoriogene.com.br/geneImprensa/2009/pensamento.pdf to http://www.laboratoriogene.com.br/geneImprensa/2009/pensamento.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102032304/http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/ to http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140603230454/http://www.one.cu/publicaciones/cepde/cpv2012/20140428informenacional/46_tabla_II_4.pdf to http://www.one.cu/publicaciones/cepde/cpv2012/20140428informenacional/46_tabla_II_4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130823015618/http://www.nacionmulticultural.unam.mx/Portal/Izquierdo/BANCO/Mxmulticultural/Elmestizajeylasculturas-elmestizaje.html to http://www.nacionmulticultural.unam.mx/Portal/Izquierdo/BANCO/Mxmulticultural/Elmestizajeylasculturas-elmestizaje.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022220348/http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/105/10503808.pdf to http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/105/10503808.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008042155/http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/misctopic/dominican/antihaiti.htm to http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/misctopic/dominican/antihaiti.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102032304/http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/ to http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121128033015/http://www.mona.uwi.edu/liteng/courses/e21h_2007/documents/santiago/Neither%20Black%20nor%20White-The%20Representation%20of%20Puerto%20Rican%20Racial%20Identity.RTF to http://www.mona.uwi.edu/liteng/courses/e21h_2007/documents/santiago/Neither%20Black%20nor%20White-The%20Representation%20of%20Puerto%20Rican%20Racial%20Identity.RTF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722230520/http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/pdf/269/26900104.pdf to http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/pdf/269/26900104.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021152752/http://www.brazil.org.uk/resources/documents/bs-primary03.pdf to http://www.brazil.org.uk/resources/documents/bs-primary03.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130072656/http://cienciahoje.uol.com.br/noticias/2011/02/nossa-heranca-europeia/?searchterm=Pena to http://cienciahoje.uol.com.br/noticias/2011/02/nossa-heranca-europeia/?searchterm=Pena
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502213529/http://www.amigodoador.com.br:80/estatisticas.html to http://www.amigodoador.com.br/estatisticas.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xmleMZgv?url=http://www.alvaro.com.br/pdf/trabalhoCientifico/ARTIGO_BRASIL_LILIAN.pdf to http://www.alvaro.com.br/pdf/trabalhoCientifico/ARTIGO_BRASIL_LILIAN.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xmleMZgv?url=http://www.alvaro.com.br/pdf/trabalhoCientifico/ARTIGO_BRASIL_LILIAN.pdf to http://www.alvaro.com.br/pdf/trabalhoCientifico/ARTIGO_BRASIL_LILIAN.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511001812/http://www.deia.com/es/impresa/2008/05/22/bizkaia/ekonomia/469496.php to http://www.deia.com/es/impresa/2008/05/22/bizkaia/ekonomia/469496.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100202064123/http://www.empresariosvascos.cl:80/boletines/2008-11-03-BOLETIN-EMPREBASK.pdf to http://www.empresariosvascos.cl/boletines/2008-11-03-BOLETIN-EMPREBASK.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318054736/http://www.aurora-israel.co.il/articulos/israel/Titulares/24782/ to http://www.aurora-israel.co.il/articulos/israel/Titulares/24782/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090722073846/http://laventana.casa.cult.cu/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=514 to http://laventana.casa.cult.cu/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=514
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516225654/http://palestinethinktank.com/2008/05/05/exiling-palestinians-to-chile/ to http://palestinethinktank.com/2008/05/05/exiling-palestinians-to-chile/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080412230551/http://www.karnobooks.com/cgi-bin/karno/5814.html to http://www.karnobooks.com/cgi-bin/karno/5814.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917024605/http://www.matis.hr/vijesti.php?id=2265 to http://www.matis.hr/vijesti.php?id=2265
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303195315/http://www.hrvatski.cl/html/croatas.htm to http://www.hrvatski.cl/html/croatas.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102170531/http://www.kuwi.europa-uni.de/de/lehrstuhl/sw/sw1/mitarbeiter/rosenberg/lateinam.pdf to http://www.kuwi.europa-uni.de/de/lehrstuhl/sw/sw1/mitarbeiter/rosenberg/lateinam.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210203244/http://www.migranti.torino.it/Documenti%20%20PDF/italianial%20ster05.pdf to http://www.migranti.torino.it/Documenti%20%20PDF/italianial%20ster05.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925011120/http://schweizergruppe.sv.tc:80/ to http://schweizergruppe.sv.tc/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

All 26 links work. Some combining of references with duplicate URLs (esp. #3, 8 and #14, 15) possible. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Latinobarómetro 2016

The information regarding different ethnicities (White, Mestizo) according to the "2016 Latinobarómetro Report" is fake, if you see the link it's just a slideshare, because Latinobarómetro didn't ask for this in 2016.

Specifically, the numbers for Chile and Brazil are altered.

It should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.214.91.48 (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

White mexicans

Have anyone checked the source about white mexicans? The source says "between one-tenth and one-fifth of the total" and the total population of the country is 120 Million. So it should NOT be 35 Million as the wikipedia article points out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsandovalm (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That's true, I just changed it.--186.151.60.76 (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for your for your diligence. Someone must have tampered with the stats. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on White Latin Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117081541/http://www.ibge.gov.br/english/presidencia/noticias/noticia_visualiza.php?id_noticia=2018&id_pagina=1 to http://www.ibge.gov.br/english/presidencia/noticias/noticia_visualiza.php?id_noticia=2018&id_pagina=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090704104421/http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/151/15103202.pdf to http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/151/15103202.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327124211/http://historiamexicana.colmex.mx/pdf/13/art_13_1938_16335.pdf to http://historiamexicana.colmex.mx/pdf/13/art_13_1938_16335.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140225201837/http://www.haitimega.com/Haiti_Grand_Anse-The_Polish_Influence_in_Casale_Haiti_and_Contribution_to_the_Haitian_Revolution/84117465590726656/article_86845847910949337.jsp to http://www.haitimega.com/Haiti_Grand_Anse-The_Polish_Influence_in_Casale_Haiti_and_Contribution_to_the_Haitian_Revolution/84117465590726656/article_86845847910949337.jsp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/tabela/protabl.asp?c=262&i=P&nome=on&notarodape=on&tab=262&unit=0&pov=3&opc1=1&poc2=1&OpcTipoNivt=1&opn1=2&nivt=0&orc86=3&poc1=1&orp=6&qtu3=27&opv=1&poc86=2&sec1=0&opc2=1&pop=1&opn2=0&orv=2&orc2=5&qtu2=5&sev=93&sev=1000093&opc86=1&sec2=0&opp=1&opn3=0&sec86=0&sec86=2776&sec86=2777&sec86=2779&sec86=2778&sec86=2780&sec86=2781&ascendente=on&sep=43344&orn=1&qtu7=9&orc1=4&qtu1=1&cabec=on&pon=1&OpcCara=44&proc=1&opn7=0&decm=99
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222015251/http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/trabalhoerendimento/pnad2006/sintese/tab1_2.pdf to http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/trabalhoerendimento/pnad2006/sintese/tab1_2.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amigodoador.com.br/estatisticas.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.medwave.cl/ciencia/11.act
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061025184545/http://www.lablaa.org/blaavirtual/publicacionesbanrep/boletin/boleti5/bol29/tierra3.htm to http://www.lablaa.org/blaavirtual/publicacionesbanrep/boletin/boleti5/bol29/tierra3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111019035805/http://www.ine.gub.uy/biblioteca/raza/MODULO_RAZA.pdf to http://www.ine.gub.uy/biblioteca/raza/MODULO_RAZA.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120601180825/http://www.ine.gub.uy/enha2006/Informe%20final%20raza.pdf to http://www.ine.gub.uy/enha2006/Informe%20final%20raza.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

White chileans

The Universidad de Chile study is not accessible, so I'm going to delete the sentence quoting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedshint (talk • contribs) 17:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Populations section

The first table is awfully wrong, using several times genetic composition studies as ethnic composition, which doesn't make any sense, so I'm going to delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistypinto (talk • contribs) 17:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Also the file "Ethnic Compostition of the Americas" is extremely wrong and misleading. More than half of chileans are white/arab? Really? Whoever made this: have you ever been in Chile? The same happens with Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, Colombia, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistypinto (talk • contribs) 17:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the table, which is longstanding and seems well referenced. I'd like to see consensus develop for its removal before it's taken down. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Fake source Chileans

Please somebody erase the Isabel allende's quotes ...Allende confirmed himself that she dont even say a word about this famous but fake line (invented by peruvians)..."The chileans want to be racially argentines and culturally peruvians"

— Hay una frase tuya que circula mucho el redes: "El chileno tiene un complejo de hace mucho tiempo: racialmente quiere ser Argentino y culturalmente Peruano". ¿Es tanto así? ¡Esa frase no es mía! Hay varias frases que me atribuyen y son muy inteligentes, ojalá se me hubieran ocurrido a mí. Pero esa no es mía.

http://elcomercio.pe/luces/libros/isabel-allende-mario-vargas-llosa-encontro-mujer-formidable-436730— Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.160.228.141 (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That's really not quite all that's going on, is it. You're also removing information on DNA research which, while it may need to be improved for grammatical reasons, is unrelated to Allende's misquote. Please explain what your issues (plural) are, as it is certainly not just a single issue you're contesting.

As an aside, please follow WP:TALKNEW. Your new section header and comment assume bad faith on behalf of those who created the content and have maintained it. Obviously, the fact that she was asked about the quote makes it clear that it is a common misquote, which is not the same as calling it 'fake'. I would still like to know, however, why you have eliminated the research percentages without addressing the blanking of this reliably sourced content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

White Mexican, population and percentage

No one of the three sources for ensure the "47% of white mexicans" contains about ethnic groups of mexico, the three sources talk about only the racism in Mexico: 21 de marzo Día Internacional de la Eliminación de la Discriminación Racial Encuesta Nacional sobre Discriminación en México DOCUMENTO INFORMATIVO SOBRE DISCRIMINACIóN RACIAL EN MéxICO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.61.164 (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you must re-read these documents, and actualy pay attention to their context, as first they talk about how racism in Mexico manifests on Mexicans preffering and favoring people with European appearance and that has light skin, light hair etc. over people with non-European ones and then proceed to state that 47% of Mexicans identify with light skin. In the document's context (which is as you said yourself 'racism') the later statement means that 47% of Mexicans self-identified as being of European appearance.

You claim that "the documents do not explicitly meantion that 47% are white..." but that claim is far fetched and unfounded as it is not neccesary for the documents to mention races such as European, Mestizo, Indigenous or African at every page because, as established on it's titles the context of the whole thing is races and racism. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I've worked on this article and scrutinised these sources on more than one occasion in order to refresh my memory. The content and sources are valid and reliable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but before writing this quote I took time to read the documents and most of the information is about the public opinion of Mexican society regarding racism in Mexico. And with respect to the source that says "47% of Mexicans responded to be caucasian" in a poll that was perhaps made to about 1,000, 5,000 or 10,000 (with marges of error), doesn't serve as a source in an article that speaks specifically about races and has (or should has) professional sources on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.61.164 (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not a concise scientific article on DNA studies - which are still in their infancy and have articles dedicated to the science - but an article on the broad subject of the concept of what 'white Latin Americans' means. Self-identification and sourced content on 'races', admixtures, etc. is not the same thing as DNA. Excluding reliably sourced research and statistics is WP:PPOV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to intervene here, in regards to what the ip user said about the sample size of the survey in question, as he is stating that "it's only 1,000 or 5,000 people..." when it actually was 52,000 and was spread proportionally through all the cities/towns along the country. Making it the biggest and most reliable ethnicy survey performed in Mexico to date. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

If so, I agree, although I suggest that instead of place 47% of white Mexicans as an official figure, the text should be changed to "according to a national survey, 47% of Mexicans answered to be white" (To say one example), for the moment is the only source that argues the 47% of mexicans are white vs much others who estimate 15-25%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.61.164 (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear pob3qu3: In the section on "populations" there's another racial-identification survey made by the latinobarometro that surveys more than half million of Latin Americans (it is the largest statistical institution in the region) and reveals that only 6% of Mexicans answered to be of European origin. All statistics has margin of error between 5 and up to 30%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.61.164 (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It's nice that you mention Latinobarometro, as it's something I wanted to point out in here: In the mexico survey, according to the methodology included full document itsel, Latinobarometro interviewed only around 5000 people, and the surveys were made only in 4 cities: Mexico City, Puebla, Guadalajara and Monterrey, thus it's completely unreliable compared to CONAPRED's one. but that's not all, here's what I've wanted to point out for some time: Latinobarometro claims that, based in the interviews made in these 4 cities the indigenous average is 19%, nonetheless according to Mexico's national census in no one of these cities indigenous peoples are more than 3% of the population. So how did Latinobarometro obtain 19% indigenous by making interviews on cities where Indigenous peoples are never more than 3%? It's simple, their results are made up. Because this strong and well founded reasons latinobarometro is not reliable and Mexico should be removed from it's results on wikipedia. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I've also been considering the use of the World Factbook (incidentally, now showing 10%, not 9%). There have been copious discussions as to where and when the CIA Factbook should or shouldn't be used. It can be fine as a benchmark to check against when considering the best reliable sources for content, but not where (as with this case) they don't state their sources for the data they present, and have further noted that the Mexican census does not gather information on ethnicity. That being the case, from whence does their statistical breakdown emanate? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed the world factbook has been target of criticism, specially when it comes to ethnic groups, in the case of Mexico, the ethnic breakdown comes from the 1921 census (as they're the same results), for other Latin American countries who do not account for ethnicy it might be guesswork. I don't believe it shouldn't be included on wiki at all, but it shouldn't be the axis on which an article (or ethnic composition) is written upon, albeit this sort of discussions, where the opposing party uses it's data as his/her main backup makes me think otherwise. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I finally found in the document a survey for identification of skin color and it turns out that in fact 64.6% of Mexicans were self-identified with brown skin and 10.9% of white skin (page 42). Also, the Latinobarometro works with 5,000 (actually 1,200 cases) for different month of survey period since 1996, because latinobarometro takes into account the evolution of public opinion, in other part, conapred made a study of 52,096 people only in 2010. The cia world factbook already removed the 1921 census data, currently has the ethnic information of mexico so: 62% mestizo, 21% Indio-mestizo, 10% European and 7% indigenous. Also in the note says: Mexico does not collect census data on ethnicity (2012 est.). Usually, those who criticize the data of the world factbook is the yellowish note when the data is not of the personal expected. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.60.100 (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Your claim in regards to the CONAPRED statement is properly addressed already in the article of Mexicans of European descent, I'll write the relevant points here: besides "blanco" the full survey included additional slang words that refer to white people in Mexico (güero, aperlado, apiñonado etc.) which increase the percentage, the other crucial poin is that moreno does not imply exclusively brown skin or being of mixed race in Mexico, a person with light skin but dark hair is refered to as a moreno aswell, all this claims are pertinently sourced already, this is why the CONAPRED made the aclaration that in total, 47% of Mexicans have European traits (light skin) as there are Europeans who are "morenos".
The CIA world factbook results are largely the same, they just divided the indigenous group on indo-mestizos and indigenous, the percentage of mestizos and whites is the same and they didn't do any field investigation to reach these results, Latinobarometro is still out of question as even if what you say was true, their sample population is considerably snaller and their results still make no sense when the demographics of the surveyed cities are checked, regardless of these sources official results by Mexico's government must be the priority here, as they conduct field investigations and research. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Then, according to your logic 47% is identified as European dividen into different skin tones and as some Europeans are "brown" makes that 64% also self-identify with brown skin? you're just contradicting yourself. In appart, independient the differente skin tones the results for conapred was:

• 64.6% brown
• 10.9% white
• 5.4% light
• no answer 4.7%
• "apiñonado" 4.3%
• "güero" 2.1%
• "apelardo" 1.7%
• dark-brown 1.2%
• chocolate 0.8%
• dark 0.7%
• yellow 0.6%
• "trigueño" 0.6%
• black 0.5%
• "prieto" 0.5%
• cinnamon 0.5%
• burned 0.4%
• Sun tanned 0.3%
• chestnut 0.2%

"" is for "tones" without english equivalent.

According to the results, White+Light+güero (Mexican localism to refer a caucasian) = 18.4% not 47%. "Apiñonado" isn't a "white tone". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.60.100 (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

"Apiñonado" is an ambiguous term, as it is "burnt" or "moreno" itself, cinnamon etc. do you really believe that there are no Europeans who are "morenos" (Europeans with dark hair or tanned skin)? anyway, rather than make this discussion even longer by discussing with you what each color means I'll limit myself to point out that in the documents has also been pointed out that 47% of Mexicans have light skin, and that this was made precisely because the color names tend (specially moreno) to be ambiguous. I'll also point out that this is all in official data from Mexico's government itself and it's based in extensive field research, which makes it the most reliable source used for Mexico in this article and the prioritized one, thus there was no reason to start this discussion to begin with as the more reliable a source is the better according to Wikipedia itself. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The Europeans who are tanned (especially those of the Iberian peninsula), is by the solar position. A very small minority of Europeans have mostly mongolian or African genes (obviously I'm not including immigrants). The Mexican government currently only estimate the percentage of indigenous people. Please, could you tell us where the pdf says that 47% of Mexicans are white? I read the document four times and what I found the figure that 64% was identified as brown skin. Greeting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.60.100 (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I find very interesting that you seem to not be aware that there's a very considerable amount of sun in Mexico, but I find even more interesting that you are now asking "where does it say that 47% of Mexicans are white" when you have previously acknowledged it already not one, but two times [18] [19], talk about stranger things!. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

It's easy distinguish the European tan with a Latin tan. By the way, with respect to the "white skin tones" that use in your beloved institution, I have investigated that there are nuances in all the tones and it's imprudent affirm that are exclusively European tones, The "Apiñonado" was used to attach different racial mixtures (with clear or yellow tones), the "light" tone also refer to albinos (people of indigenous or African origin who suffered a discoloration), the "Cinnamon", "chesnut", "yellow", "burned" (even "Apiñonado") tones were in reality derogatory terms of Spaniards for the racial mixtures that they considered "abnormal" since after generations of mestizaje, several people began to leave with other colors of skin. If really conapred is prestigious as you claim, why they didn't include those specifications in the survey?...

Here, I was giving a solution for this discussion because for a moment i had believed that conapred said 47%, but after to clarify on page 42, now I think it was a confusion or malintension of you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.60.36 (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense that you try to "invalidate" CONAPRED's statement of 47% of Mexicans having light skin, if they said it it's because that's how it is, you don't know better than them (at least you now acknowledge that they said it). Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't recognized it, I valued it as a possibility and was days ago not today, read better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.60.36 (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You changing your mind so this discussion can be extended doesn't change it, neither does you going to bother other editors on their talk pages trying to convince them of something that has been extensively discussed on this talk section already, which is that "moreno" has a wide definition in Mexico, with the word being used to refer to white skinned people with dark hair and people of African ancestry alike, it's because this that the CONAPRED settled it stating that in total 47% of Mexicans have white/light skin. Pob3qu3 (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll kindly ask you for third time to indicate in which page is the data of "47% of whites mexicans", in the four times that I see the document, mainly appear results of surveys on racism in Mexico, and only a survey of racial identification. It also makes me curious that both conapred and lizcano used the quantitative method and you want to devalue lizcano because this gives a percentage much lower than your beloved 47% (according to you, provided by conapred). When you finally indicate the page, you have to remember that conapred has 114 pages if you thought to put page 200 or 300 (as you did in Mexicans of European descent). Goodnight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.60.36 (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The 47% figure appears in the press release of the survey, which you linked when you opened this section, you have previously acknowledged in this discussion, and right now you acknowledge it’s existence when you try to revert the Mexicans of European descent article with your other IP [20] by the way, the claim you were using to revert it is totally false, the 47% figure does not refer to all Mexicans who have any European ancestry, if we were to use that metric to quantify white Mexicans the percentage of white Mexicans would be much higher than 47%, as the average Amerindian Mexican is of 21% European ancestry [21]. All the claims you are doing right now are erratic, false and even contradictory. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The ip and his case is not relevant here because i'm not him. You still follow evading me, I asked you the page not section or communication, if you show me in what page and text exactly says that "47% of Mexicans are white", I will accept that my posture was totally wrong. For the moment you're just excusing your information and you're taking advantage of iryna's support. Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.61.228 (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That is, with no hyperbole, the very first thing I answered in this discussion [22], we are going in circles now. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

For all who see this thread, see the last comments here. My regards. --186.151.61.36 (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on White Latin Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/history/migration/chapter53.thml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110304174453/http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/pdf/128/12891701.pdf to http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/pdf/128/12891701.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927230306/http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~mloveman/papers/Loveman%20Whiteness%20in%20Latin%20America.pdf to http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~mloveman/papers/Loveman%20Whiteness%20in%20Latin%20America.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160119051632/http://public.wsu.edu/~bmkemp/publications/pubs/Sans_et_al_2006.pdf to http://public.wsu.edu/~bmkemp/publications/pubs/Sans_et_al_2006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117020702/http://elmuseoviajero.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/Archivos/M%C3%A1s-de-la-mitad-de-los-argentinos-es-originario.pdf to http://elmuseoviajero.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/Archivos/M%C3%A1s-de-la-mitad-de-los-argentinos-es-originario.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.solidaridadandalucia.org/pdfs/voluntariado2014/EL%20SALVADOR_2014.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222170837/http://www.embajadahonduras.org.mx/v1/cultura.php to http://www.embajadahonduras.org.mx/v1/cultura.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114022215/http://www.lacult.org/sitiospatrimonio/showitem.php?id=158 to http://www.lacult.org/sitiospatrimonio/showitem.php?id=158
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212100808/http://portal.constanza.net/historia/historia/losquenohicieronlasamericas.php to http://portal.constanza.net/historia/historia/losquenohicieronlasamericas.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://sp.rcm.upr.edu/demo/images/CIDEclasico/Pob-politicaPublica/Francisco%20Moscoso-1995-El%20censo%20de%20Lando%201530%20historiografia%20y%20critica.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304080956/http://disabilityworld.org/11-12_02/gov/guatemala.shtml to http://disabilityworld.org/11-12_02/gov/guatemala.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dorlingkindersley-uk.co.uk/static/cs/uk/11/worldfactfile/countries/ar.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930064509/http://www.construyendopuentes.gov.ar/Crespo.php to http://www.construyendopuentes.gov.ar/Crespo.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218231130/http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/soc237/papers/cookappendixr.pdf to http://sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/soc237/papers/cookappendixr.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419232548/http://www.ibge.gov.br/brasil500/portugueses/imigtransicao.html to http://www.ibge.gov.br/brasil500/portugueses/imigtransicao.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120140009/http://www.ibge.gov.br/brasil500/portugueses.html to http://www.ibge.gov.br/brasil500/portugueses.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090705084110/http://www.ibge.gov.br/brasil500/espanhois/emigespanhola.html to http://www.ibge.gov.br/brasil500/espanhois/emigespanhola.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6GrrUiDTj?url=http://imigrantes.no.sapo.pt/page6portugal.html to http://imigrantes.no.sapo.pt/page6portugal.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016224632/http://viajerosgriegos.ar.vg/ to http://viajerosgriegos.ar.vg/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016224632/http://viajerosgriegos.ar.vg/ to http://viajerosgriegos.ar.vg/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Source and data showed

There are some important sources of current genetics research cited on this page, wich are more objective and cuantitative than our opinion or than our points of view about the population. But the data showed in this page does not meet the source. For example, if a genetic reseach shows a population with 40% of european gene is imposible we can can stablish that this population is 80% european. When a trial say that a population is 57% european that county has mixed heritage but that does not mean that every individual in that country has 57% of european genoma and 33% of other genoma. That mean that a 57% of population has european gen. The most frequent a genoma from an ethnicity the most the proportion of population for this ethnicity for this population and vice versa, the less he genoma the less the posibilities to found this ethnicity in this population. Whe have to update de data in order order they meet the source we refer to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.1.12.58 (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please note that this is an article about ethnicity and cultural identification/self-identification, not an article on the science of genetics, nor genetic research into what 'White Latin Americans' means (i.e., no original research. If you are concerned about the veracity and depiction of DNA studies - convoluted enough, and in their infancy - please take it to an appropriate article. It is WP:OFFTOPIC for this article. If there are problems with the current depictions, then we should form consensus to remove unsupported and unreliable content from this article, full stop. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Guero and White

Can someone please show that guero is the same as self-identification as white amongst Mexicans? A previous user was intentionally vandalizing Mexican related pages to falsely increase the apparent percentage of Mexican to identify as white. Given this vandalism, I'm very skeptical of claims which greatly increase that percentage. We need reliable sources which indicate that these two concepts are synonymous , as opposed to one being a description of skin tone in the other being a description of racial identity. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I told you to look up wikitionary, but here's another one [23] in fact in the article there are 3 different studies that have concluded that 18-23% of mexico's population have blond hair alone, so how can only 10% of Mexico's population be white? Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Blond is not the same as White. How can you suggest that certain hair colors or eye colors make you a specific race? Unless you can demonstrate with that within the Mexican cultural context blonde hair makes someone White, we need sources which specifically state racial identities and not phenotypes or skin tones.

From what I can tell about the term guero, it is a reference to skin tone and not necessarily a racial category.

Please note that this article is about the racial category of white, not about skin tones necessarily. We should rely upon surveys or censuses which specifically asked about racial self-identification not about self-perceptions of skin tone or other body variation such as hair color. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The article I linked here even uses the terms interchangeably, and the 47% figure comes from a document that is titled "March 21, International day against race discrimination" and talks about racists practises in Mexican society based on a person appearance, appearance in this context is the same as race, the Mexican government likely opts for using phenotypical traits (skin, hair color etc.) to obtain a more exact percentage regarding the country's European population. Pob3qu3 (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Mexico discussion

Excuse me for my english, but the topic that I am going to touch is of my interest and my knowledge because, recently the last two years, i'm looking at the White Latin Americans article, and i am watching recently that the percentages of the white population in Mexico are crazy and have no common sense, besides not revealing true sources where that is confirmed, since in the link provided by CONAPRED it does not appear anywhere that Mexicans admit to be 47% white , first of all and with all the respect and seriousness, I have always understood that the white population in Mexico does not exceed 10%, since it is a country mostly mestizo and with an important Amerindian population, since I understand that great civilizations Indians inhabited Mexico, as is the Aztec (all of Mexico) or the Mayan culture that inhabited Yucatan, in addition to other not so famous but considerable and many other Amerindian cultures, the fact is that I was reading the PDF of CONAPRED, and has nothing what to do with the percentages or censuses of the country, since people are saying the following:

As I understood, on March 21 is celebrated the day of the elimination of racial discrimination in Mexico, then the National Council to Prevent Discrimination (Conapred) and the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) conducted a SURVEY (not census), with the aim of understanding racism in that country. What I could understand is that 65 - 70% of Mexicans are brown, that is to say, mestizos, these people say they have no problem in having to live with people of another race, while the remaining 23% said that they would not be willing, and 10% said that it depended on the situation, so you asked? who are that 23% and 10% who would not be willing? You will see as it says in the CIA factbook Mexico , says mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 62%, predominantly Amerindian 21%, Amerindian 7%, other 10% (mostly European), well we already understood the percentages, but our collaborator Pob3qu3 keeps insisting that the population identifies itself as white, when that did not appear at any time in the text of CONAPRED since I am Spanish speaker and very good Spanish, even better than English, as the text said IS A SURVEY ON SOCIAL PROBLEMS, NOT ON NATIONAL CENSORS EITHER RACIAL THEME STATISTICS, then for me, the references of Pob3qu3 do not have the necessary evidence to affirm that data, it also happens with the white population which is 11 million, there is no article on the internet that states that Mexico has 53 million white people at the height of Brazil , Argentina or Colombia, which are countries with large white population and official data, real censuses of those countries, which take into account racial identification through genetic tests, as a collaborator said recently, he read the 1921 census of Mexico and there it is affirmed that the Mexican population is of 9% or 10% as the CIA affirms factbook at the moment, so that was all, I wanted to leave you the restlessness, because I want to edit the population sections of Mexico, since I have the Valid references to do it, but I do not do it without your opinion, because I would be behaving in a malicious way like Pob3qu3 vandalizing the article with false information, regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignorantes22 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Race is a taboo topic in Mexico, especially when it comes to Mexico's two largest demographics who are Mestizos and Whites, because of this it's a common practice to calculate the percentages of Mexico's white population based on phenotypical traits such as hair or skin color instead of asking people if they think they are one race or another. For example one study, by the American Sociological Association asserted that, based in the prescence of blond hair the percentage of White Mexicans is 18.8%, another study made by Mexico's metropolitan University use this methodology and calculated 23%, thus, Mexico's white population being only 10% is not realistic (and the accuracy of the 1921 census, which is the root of that figure, has been contested), especially when considering that according to the article for Blond hair said trait has it's highest frequency on Scandinavian nations at around 50%-60% (nobody would go around saying that only half of Scadinavians are white!). Another fact is that in northern Spain (the zone from which most white Mexican's ancestors come from) the frequency of blond hair is 30%-40%. Going back to the Conapred, it does a similar thing just with skin color instead of hair color, and asserts that Mexicans with light skin are 47%. While in the documents terms such as "White" nor "Mestizo" are specifically used (because again, race is very taboo) "European looking" and "European features" are, which is beyond doubt used a less controversial synonym for "white". Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you describe to me about whites and mestizos, these populations also exist throughout Latin America, and the same social problem of racism is experienced throughout the region.

I do not need to explain the types of race, I am chilean and I understand it perfectly, the problem is that the survey carried out by CONAPRED is not a census, much less an official census, since the survey refers to to the social problem, affirming that 64% of Mexicans are mestizos and that the other remaining percentage would not like to live with other ethnic groups, but the remaining percentage never makes reference to 47% self-identified as white, on the contrary that 47% is divided into 21% Amerindian, 7% unidentified Amerindian races, 9% European descent and 2% Gypsies and foreign ethnic groups, it is absurd that you invent that 47% claim to be white, when the text never states this, much less says that they are 53 million, these are invented data.

Look, I understand how difficult are the issues of racism and discrimination, in Chile you live the same situation, but you can not put that kind of references in a racial census article, you should put the CONAPRED reference in a wikipedia article that speaks of racism and discrimination, because in this article you do it in the wrong way, inventing data and generating controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignorantes22 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere in any of the cited documents there's a reference to Mestizos, directly or indirectly (unlike with White Mexicans, who are refered to as being "European looking"). I assume you are basing your "64% of Mexicans are Mestizos" claim on the question on which 64% of Mexicans considered themselves morenos, however moreno and Mestizo is not the same as moreno has no racial connotations (maybe it does in Chile but not in Mexico, where it is used equally for white people with dark hair/eyes as it is for Africans), I don't think that you are not aware that morenos (tanned and/or dark eyed/haired people) exist in Europe. That you are trying to pass moreno as being the same as Mestizo and at the same time dismiss "European looking" as an equivalent for White screams "double standards" to me. This with no mention that the extant evidence that is already cited in the article (frequency of blond hair, light eyes, Mongolian spot etc. books that assert that the majority of northern and western Mexicans are white, books that point out inconsistences in the 1921 census and books with the populations for colonial cities) completely contradict the "Mexico is only 9%-15% white" posture you are trying to push, no matter how much you criticize the Conapred source for not being completely direct, all these other sources also support the claim of Mexico's white population being between 40%-50%, forget about reverting the percentage of White Mexicans to 9%-15%, it's simply not true. Pob3qu3 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Is that I'm not inventing myself, here http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Mexico.htm https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html https://www.britannica.com/place/Mexico/Ethnic-groups I will leave the three references that rule that Mexico does not exceed 9-15%, stop repeating the same sermon as always, that the moreno, that the guero, the moreno and the guero exist in all Latin America, there is even more in Chile than in your beloved Mexico, so i can understand it perfectly, also "MORENO" and "GUERO", "RUBIO" are not even races taken into account in the census of any country that is not even taken into account as races, what are you talking about? do not want to admit the little white population that your country has, then take any article you find in Spanish and invent whatever it takes to modify the data at your convenience, the other collaborators have had the same discussion with you, and you are always disqualifying official pages like the CIA FACTBOOK, like BRITANNICA O LEZCANO, but it does not lack words to invent things, as I say I am Chilean, I am Spanish just like you, and the PDF of CONAPRED only speaks of racism and discrimination in Mexico, limiting itself to speak only about that topic, the only percentages that are given there are the same as those given in the CIA FACTBOOK and those shown by BRITANNICA, at no time are people claiming to be white, mestizo, etc., since Mexico has not had No census in recent times, and the reference you give, is limited to being a popular survey of social problems carried out by a university and a foundation, Give me TESTS AND GRAPHICS, as the censuses that the governments of the countries give, or of foreign pages that worry precisely about that topic, stop seeing us the face of idiots, that here has someone who knows Spanish and does not allow himself to be duped. I know how you always disrupt and manipulate all the articles that have to do with Mexico, just for your convenience, as Iñaki warned you at the end of 2017, until you do not prove the reason of your inventions, reverse the changes until you get tired. If you do not give me concise and demonstrable proofs, such as those given by the collaborators and I, I will stop paying attention to the repetitive and meaningless answers that you give.

Aca mis referencias y pruebas de lo que aporte en el artículo, ahora solo te falta desacreditar la CIA FACTBOOK que es lo unico que sabes responder ..... / Here my references and proofs of what I contribute in the article, now you only need to discredit the CIA FACTBOOK since it is the only thing that you know how to respond ......

https://www.britannica.com/place/Mexico/Ethnic-groups (GRAPHICS 15% MEXICO WHITE POP)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html (CENSUS AND PERCENTAGE 9% MEXICO WHITE POP)

http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Mexico.htm (15% MEXICO WHITE POPULATION AGAIN)

¿Entonces yo me lo invento? haber sacame otra excusa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignorantes22 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The worldfactbook bases it's estimation on the 1921 census, as I told above, in recent times it's accuracy has been disputed, as according to local censuses and church registers previous to it multi-racial marriages were rare compared to unions between people of the same race/ethnicity, thus it's not a figure to base the sections of Mexico on. Encyclopedia Brittanica does the same thing, it attemps to actualize it a little, but if the root figure has been deemed inconsistent it's figure is imprecise too, additionaly the article takes various liberties that are factually wrong, for example, it asserts that "The north of Mexico is overwhelmingly Mestizo" which is completely wrong according to actual field research made in Mexico such as the ASA paper, which points out that blond hair (the actual percentage of Mexicans with blond hair alone is 18.8%, which is higher than the estimation Brittanica gives for ALL white Mexicans!) has it's higher frequency in north Mexico, this evidence alone proves Brittanica's text and estimations are currently wrong. Your third source, worldstatesmen, only reuses the figures britannica gives so it's not valid either, in conclusion there's no reason to prioritize sources that actual field research and published books by people specialized in the field prove wrong, we have to go with the best sources aviable, not the most "popular" ones. By the way, you didn't even try to say anything to refute these sources I mention above (frequency of blond hair, light eyes, mongolian spot, the book by Howard F. Cline, the book that shows the ethnic composition of colonial Mexican cities etc.) all of which back up the 40%-50% figure, i don't really know what more proof you need. I also must add that in fact, I had a very similar discussion some months ago with an IP user, i'm almost sure it too was you [24] the editor has the same arguments and intentionally leaves his posts unsigned, I'm don't want to fall on your game of personal attacks but I'm confident that you've been behind practically all the discussions I've had about the percentage of white Mexicans on this site (and behind this message [25] on my talk page). You are not looking very good here thus I think it's better if you keep composture because to treathen with blindly revert changes you don't like until I "get tired of fixing them" further worsens your image. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice excuse saying that I had already had an argument with you, when I do not even know who you are, or what your intentions are, I do not know what your racial complex is, of which you can not admit that Mexico has a low white population , I do not know what your political intentions or lies are for the purpose of a hoax, if people have had the same discussion with you, it is because it is known in all articles of the internet, that the population of Mexico does not exceed 9% or 15%. %, wikipedia is not made for self-conscious people who want to manipulate articles for personal satisfaction, I have no problem with the reference of CONAPRED, I have problem is that you misinterpret the text data, THE CONAPRED TEXT SAYS "y un 47% señaló que los indígenas no tienen las mismas oportunidades para obtener un trabajo en México." , At what point are people saying that they have light skin? This is a confirmed hoax with the sole purpose of deceiving people, with the excuse of using an article from CONAPRED that has nothing to do with it. This page sums it up very well

https://www.animalpolitico.com/2017/06/racismo-discriminacion-piel-mexico/ https://www.animalpolitico.com/2017/06/racismo-discriminacion-piel-mexico/ I will have to send your reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:40:28:DD9:4E3:7D4F:A4C9:7D71 (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This is sourced to Italian Wikipedia, and other Wikipedias aren't usually counted as reliable. Can you supply a more direct source? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

References