Talk:White Latin Americans/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Benicio del Toro

His ancestry is vague in that source ([1]). The interview has him saying "Yo tengo sangre española, italiana y americana, y me siento completamente latino.Creo que soy el que más barreras raciales ha roto." First, in Spain "americano/a" doesn't mean estadounidense usually/necessarily, but American in the continent-wide sense. Additionally, it could mean "Amerindian". If so, note the criteria above: when we have only the person's ancestry, we use a 7/8 threshold, which was used historically in Latin America. It's our best way to avoid nasty WP:NOR issues.

Also, please note that del Toro himself seems to acknowledge a (relatively high?) degree of racial mixture, since he says he's broken racial barriers. Again, in order to keep our whole system from breaking down and putting us back substantially to where we were before - with a poorly sourced list - we have to apply these rules strictly. If another source exists that is clearer concerning his ancestry, I suggest it be posted. SamEV (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, SamEV, that Benicio del Toro may be referring the "American continent" than the United States of America. He did that interview in Spain, and in Spain and Latin America, the Western Hemisphere is only one continent. If he did said that in an interview in the US/Canada/UK/Australia/other English-speaking countries, then he means US American. So maybe he was acknowledging Amerindian ancestry, who knows? He does talk about breaking down racial barriers. Lehoiberri (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

i would like to add one thing on the comment he made about breaking racial barriers ,maybe he was talking in terms as being latino, it is common for some latinos to misinterpret latino as race rather than what it is just a very and i mean very broad generic ethnicity of lumping so many people of different races together which leads to so much confusion even among latinos themselves--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Lehoi.

Wikiscribe, that's a good point, and I did consider it; the possibility that he was misusing "Latino" as a race. But I figure that it's better not to guess and to just ask for a clearer source. He's famous, so there might be more unequivocal statements about his ancestry. And remember, it wouldn't matter at all how mixed he is (if he is) if a reliable source literally calls him "white". SamEV (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

agreed,i just wanted to float that out there--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

We must remember that most Latin Americans do not indentify themselves with a single "race". Many see themselves as "purely" Brazilians, or Mexicans or Argentines. His "American" claim can refer to Amerindians, but also can refer to his feeling of belonging to the American Continent, and it can be of any race. Remember that we have over 500 years of colonization, and most people here feel native to their respective countries.

Latin America is not like the USA, where many people whose family arrived from Europe in the 17th century still keep connecting themselves to this remote heritage. In LA people fastly start to see themselves as "native", to the same leval of the Amerindians, despite being white, black, whatever. Opinoso (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it's true that most do not ID with a race, but I otherwise agree with what you wrote.

BTW, as I read the interview, I kept wondering whose words they were: del Toro's, or the interviewer's. After all, the story says that del Toro's Spanish is "arrastrado", and yet, in the interview he comes across like a "catedrático". I think it's possible that "americana" was a word the interviewer used; perhaps in substitution of "Taíno", the Amerindian people of Puerto Rico (and Dominican Republic, etc).

In any case, this very discussion shows that whatever it is del Toro said/meant is unclear in the source the IP gave. SamEV (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ricky Martin

Just wandered what people thought of this book preview that released about Boricua pop, which describes rickys influence of being a middle-class white Puerto Rican, is this sufficant reference to add him, since most would agree that he is.[2]. Chick out his twin sons too.[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.36.184 (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

yes i would say the book source is enough to add ricky--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, too. But I think you should use this page this page, anonymous. It's possibly the only one in the whole book where the author unambiguously calls him white. The mentions of race tend to be awakward in that book, I thought. SamEV (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC); 23:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Quebec

Is Quebec part of Latin America? Opinoso (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, they were included by the French creators of the concept of "Latin America". And a literal definition of the term need not leave them out, either: they are a Latin people after all; moreover, why must membership be limited to independent countries or overseas dependencies of distant countries? If we include Martinique, why not Quebec, too? So per two types of definition (the historical and the literal) it seems Quebec belongs. SamEV (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It would need to be reliably sourced. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is were you wrong, SamEV, by saying that that Quebec must be included because Martinique is listed is not right. You are tying to make Quebec a Frence dependency, like Martinique. Quebec is a province not a dependency, and it is part of Canada, which is part of "Anglo-America". This is why I exclude Quebec because it is a province of Canada. By following your example, then we should list Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Florida as Latin America because they have a significant number of people who speak a Latin-based language, and they were once colonies of Spain and France. Also, we can put the Chubut province in Argentina as part of Anglo-America because it was first settled by Welsh immigrants. That is why we should not include Quebec. And what definition claims that Quebec is part of Latin America? Lehoiberri (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

First, a note about yesterday. I ended my Wikisession early then, in order to do some a bit of research on this et al. I was also quite sleepy, having slept little on Christmas night.

On the issue at hand, I'll point out that Quebec's inclusion is not illogical, as it meets several criteria/definitions: its has a French history, as it was a French colony; its language and culture are French; and as regards ancestry, they're mostly descendants of French. Very Latin. Much more, in fact, than the Caribbean parts of France, since they do not have majorities who are of French (let alone Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, or Romanian) descent. The selectiveness in leaving out overwhelmingly Latin Quebec in favor of far less Latin populations is odd (even suspicious, in some cases; but I'm not referring to you, my fellow Wikipedians): Is it that Quebec is too First World to be associated with the rest of (underdeveloped) Latin America?

"Quebec is a province not a dependency", you say, Lehoi. But I don't understand the logic there. My question to you is: why should dependencies be more apt for inclusion? And where do you get the idea I'm trying to connect Quebec politically to France? I'm connecting it per culture and ancestry and history.

I don't think your analogy of the Southwest U.S. applies: Concerning Quebec, I spoke chiefly of the historical definition of Latin America, and that did not include the Southwest U.S. It did include Louisiana in a source that I read. And as regards the Chubut Valley, again, the issue is whether it has ever appeared in any definition of Anglo-America, and I don't think it has, Lehoi.

Finally, I'll leave all of you with some links, including the just alluded to source (the last one): [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] (cache). All are reliable sources, and provide definitions and analysis of the matter. One of them (the next to last one) I included because I got a kick out of how it takes for granted that Quebec is part of Latin America. They felt no need to state it explicitly. SamEV (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As a Quebecker myself (I know, I make some mistakes in English...sorry for weird words that I translated from French), I can't agree. Of course, all of what you said above is true; we speak a latin language, we're of French descent, etc. But here stops the similarities. The food is somewhat different, but much more American-styled than European. And here why I don't agree: perhaps it's because our difinition of Latin American is different, but you should make a census asking if Quebeckers consider themselves as Latin American. I think that the majority would be suprised by this question. I mean, the only "Latin" qualification that we have is our language, nothing else, moreover, it has nothing to do with Latin America it's just a language classification. So why would we claim to be Latin? Back here, "Latin" means South America, Iberian culture, darker complexion (this is just a stereotype, of course), overall it defines a place : l'Amérique latine. When I first read this article, I though that it wasn't dead right and completely fair. Maybe someone put Quebec's population among the "White Latin American" community, because we are white without being anglo-saxon, and we do live in America. (I should add that I feel the same way towards Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, though it still belongs to France. They are Whites without being anglo-saxon.)

And if you still think that this nation (recognized as such by federal government in 2006) has a place on this page, then you should think about saying something on the Acadians. Moreover, a Canadian section in the category "Regions with significant population" (in the chart) is omitted. Quebec should be categorized somewhere else, even if it's hard to. And it's still a social matter here, we had a hard time finding the right place with such monopolizing neighbour.

But the most important reason why this article should not include Quebeckers as "White Latin American" is that they don't consider themselves as Latin American, about anyone could tell you this.

EDT95 (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you acknowledge that Quebec is Romance-speaking, and believe that "Latin America" is a linguage-based region, then it's case closed: Quebec is Latin American. You also acknowledged that Quebec is recognized as a "nation" by the government. That goes a long way with editors who have a preference for independent states in the definition of Latin America.

I do agree that Quebecers' self-perception may be the biggest reason for not including them. Then again, we haven't collected the opinions of people in some of the lands that have been included in this article, or in the Latin America article. Some editors appear to have simply decided that Romance-speaking American nation = Latin American nation. Well, Quebec is a Romance-speaking American nation.

Lastly, you'll notice that I haven't asserted that Quebec should be in the article – But I do think we should debate the matter. I argued my case; thanks for arguing yours, EDT95. SamEV (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy to see that my concerns are justified (Does this sentence make sense? Again, my English is a bit poor.) Still, I doubt about Quebec and Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon having a place in this article.

Of course, all the facts tend toward inclusion of those two places here, but then if this part stays, it would be important to specify the differencies between Latin American of Spanish, Portuguese and European descent from South America and Latin American of French descent from North America. Two distinct forms of Latin American. In this way, maybe people will mark as different these two regions, similar by language.

What do you think of this?EDT95 (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Do you want to write it?

And don't worry about your English; it's good. SamEV (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll do some researchs to find some sources and, yes, I'll write it. (Any help from others is welcomed too!) There's already some interesting sources quoted above (The Non Spanish or Portuguese Coutries) by Kman543210.EDT95 (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I'm willing to help, and I'm sure there are others who are, too. Best luck. SamEV (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

I notice that the CIA numbers are actually from the Brazilian 2000 census. Given that there was a census in 2005, should we remove the CIA figures? I've been for keeping it because it allows a certain unity of source: it allows us to add up all the numbers per the same source and arrive at totals for the region, per that same source. Here's the CIA's entry for Brazil: "white 53.7%, mulatto (mixed white and black) 38.5%, black 6.2%, other (includes Japanese, Arab, Amerindian) 0.9%, unspecified 0.7% (2000 census)"[9] SamEV (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There's already the 2007 census, which reports: "49.4% white, 42.3% pardo, 7.4% black, 0.5% Asian and 0.3% Amerindian".[10] Opinoso (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, so that's one vote to strike. Anyone else? SamEV (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Next year we'll have another "big census" in Brazil, then CIA will also change its figures, since they are still using the last "big census" from 2000. Opinoso (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I gathered from the source that the newer numbers were yearly estimates, like the American Community Survey, for example. Estimates are fine by me, too. SamEV (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted add, belatedly, regarding Fidel Castro, that it has been argued that his brother (and current ruler of Cuba) was illegitimate, the product of a liaison between his mother (who was Castro's father's live-in-maid before she became his wife) and a Chinese or otherwise Asian field hand (there were a fair number of Asians in Cuba at the time [including Fulgencio Batista]). In fact, Raul Castro was referred to by his comrades-in-arms as "el chino" because he could never grow a beard (unlike Fidel, Che, et al.) and exhibits (what may be interpreted as) some Asian facial features. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.92.43 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Census in Brazil is made in years ending in "0" (except for 1872, which was the first, and 1991, which was delayed one year due to our "genius" President Collor de Mello "reengineerings").

There is no such thing as a 2005 or 2007 "Census". The 2007 figures are from PNAD - Pesquisa Nacional por Amostragem de Domicílios, National Survey by Homehold Sampling - which is exactly what its name says: some randomic households are surveyed, and the data are extrapolated into the whole population of Brazil. Donadio (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Salma Hayek

I noticed an edit-warring going on because of her picture. Why don't we discuss about her here? Opinoso (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well why dont you lead off opinoso since you started the topic,but i guess i will, she is of lebenese and spanish ancestry which makes her white end of story unless somebody can come up with reliable sources saying she is an aztec warrior queen i digress--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not completly right if Salma Hayek looks "white". Yes, Lebanese look they are from Southern Europe, but there are some exceptions, some of them look like, for texample, people from Afghanistan (a minority of them, of course). The same goes for some Spaniards who may not look they are "Europeans", even though they are genetically Europeans. Or other Europeans, such as Victoria Beckham who is 100% English, but does not look like an "ordinary" European woman. I mean: would Salma be considered "white", even by Mexican standards, or something else? I don't know. Opinoso (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2009

(UTC)

She is part Lebanese and Spanish, so genetically she is White, Supaman89 is the one that took her off and added a picture of Garcia Bernal, now I can go with either one of them, but I believe Salma Hayek is sourced on her nationality, where Bernal is not, so that should make a difference, in terms of proper source Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

opiniso reliable sources please, your treading on us useing our own p.o.v of whos white and whos not i dont know who consideres her white or who consideres victoria beckham white ,this is not the who everybody consideres white article ,who is the typical european women i don't know do you?and not only europeans are considered white.--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No Opinoso, Salma wouldn't be considered white in Mexico, she would be just as Mestizo as anyone else, I mean she's obviously browned skin, in fact back in the early days of her acting career in Mexico, she was always portrait as the "brown girl", now, don't get me wrong, I think Salma is absolutely hot, but the problem is that if we leave that picture and say "hey, she's white", people are gonna think, "..so that's how white Mexicans are like", which is absolutely ridiculous; this situation reminds me of those "Native Americans" in the United States that are white looking but they'll swear that that they are partly indigenous.

The problem can be solved by simple putting someone else’s picture that doesn’t cause such controversy.Supaman89 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

supaman69 come up with sources thats states she has native ancestry and we will measure it against the one there than we will see but until than controversey is not enough to remove her, wikipedia is not about truth because she is here does not mean you have to consider her white and she is not brown try using your internet browser and search for some pics and trust me it does not make a difference most people would not consider any mexicans white no matter what the phenotype so please stop being ridiculous--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please watch the language and don’t call me “ridiculous”, not everything is about sources, sometimes it’s about obviousness the use of reason, if you like to think she’s white fine (I guess Osama Bin Laden is white too, huh?), let’s suppose she was white, still who choose to put the in the picture anyways without asking anyone first? in any case, we should put 4 or 5 pictures of real white people (you may add Salma if you want) and let people decide which picture to use, instead of unilatelly putting whatever picture (such as this case) and reverting anyone who doesn’t agree with it.

BTW, regarding you comment about white people, it is irrelevant to what we’re discussing here, people who don’t know that there are millions of white Mexicans are just ignorant, so let’s not feed their ignorance by telling them that white Mexicans are brown as Salmita Hayek. Supaman89 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Salma Hayek is not white. She's latina. Tom Lennox (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Latino isn't a racial grouping. It's an ethnicity.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Supaman69 again find sources because obvious is code word for p.o.v which is not acceptable and as a matter of fact bin laden is white according to a reliable source such as the United States government, it might be useful to read this article supaman69 White people--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Osama Bin Ladden white? yeah right.., 90% of the world would agree with me that Salma Hayek is not white, despites of what the U.S. government says, what's next? Jackie Chan becoming white because the U.S. government says so? anyways, let's suppose she was white, still you cannot put her without any consensus, we should at least propose 5 people and let users decide which one to leave for the article, ok?

Once again you're failing to provide a source for ancestry outside the middle east and europe and just because many sources say her mother is of mexican descent does not mean she has native ancestry many sources state gloria estefan as being of cuban descent does that mean she is not white(and that is a common practice in the u.s when describing people from latin america, you are taking to much away from a picture and failing to realize that picture is just a picture and may not represent her true skin tone(since you seem to have an issue with that) and not all white people are the same exact skin tone(i.e we are not here to measure melanin)--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a picture of Salma Hayek's mother: [11]. She is definetly not what the average Mexican mestiza looks like...moreover, Suppaman, if Lebanese are not whites, then it would be impossible for Hayek to be mestiza (mixed white and Indian), since she's half Lebanese and half something else. Don't you think Lebanese Prime-Minister Fouad Siniora is white? Everybody does. Opinoso (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks, any WP:RS which specifically state she is or isn't white? These should have precedence. Of course, if she self-identifies in something like an interview or a book, that would be even better. And of course, lastly, it's not up to use to decide whether she's considered "white" or not. We shouldn't inject our POV in this article.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiscribe most sources simply say her mother is Mexican, they don't really specify whether she's white, indian or whatever, regarding his dad, of course some Lebanese are gonna be white looking, but most aren't despites of what the US government says, but anyways, even if Salma was white (which 90% of the world would agree with me she's not) still, we have to have some options, that's why I put those 5 pictures, to let people decide which choose for the article, the best for everyone would be to choose someone not so controversial.

BTW, Salma would never identify herself as white cuz she knows she's not, but whatever. Supaman89 (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Supaman, again it is not for us to decide whether she is white or not. According to Wikipolicy, we can't even vote to say if we consider her white or not as that would be WP:OR. Again, you have failed to provide any reliable sources, you just state your opinion and that "90% of the world would agree with me", which is a good reference for your opinion, but not for anything else.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have, cuz most sources don't say her mom was white, they simply say she was Mexican without any reference to her race, but anyways, if it makes you happy ok "Salma is white" fine? (I would love to hear what she thinks about being called white...) so now, since "Salma is white", let people decide between those 5 white persons which one do they think is the most appropriate for the article ok? Remember we cannot just put any picture without any consensus. Supaman89 (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Voting

Salma Hayek	Vicente Fox	Gael Garcia	Guillermo del Toro	Santa Anna
File:Salma Hayek.jpg
Pro: She's a recognized actress worldwide. Against: Her ethnicity is unclear, most sources don't put her mother as having "Spanish ancestry" but simply as "Mexican", as for her father being Lebanese most sources don't consider Middle Easters as white.	Pro: Famous Mexican president who's also recognized worldwide. Against: Part Amerindian	Pro: Along with Salma, one of the best reknown Mexican actors in Hollywood. Against: ???	Pro: One of the best directors in the world, famous for big Hollywood hits. Against: ???	Pro: A very controversial Mexican president but at the same time one of the most internationally known Against: ???

• Y Guillermo del Toro: My vote goes to Guillermo Del Toro. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Y Guillermo del Toro: If VIcente Fox hadn't screw up those 6 years, he would've got my vote, hahaha, so I'll have to go with Guillermo del Toro, I sure everyone would agree with me he's white, so he won't cause any controversy like Salma. Supaman89 (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Statistical of Chile and Mexico, false

The sources of statistical of Mexico of the British Encyclopedia are false, the text says another thing. In the case of Chile 60% and 8,8 millions of Caucasian, it is a pseudo-scientific source of beginnings of the XX century that is not also reliable and it is not independent as the first suitable statistic, and therefore, a false information. Wikipedia should verify these false and not well deliberate data —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.192.125 (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Britannica source says that nearly 1/6 of the population is white. Do the math, 1/6 of Mexico's population = 17.78%, but since it doesnt say it's exactly 1/6, but nearly that amount, the percentage would be approximately 16%. - Lancini87 (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Small observation: 1/6 = 16.67%, not 17.78%. SamEV (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

False, in any part of the British Encyclopedia and especially in Mexico: People» Ethnic groups", that is affirmed that your you say, it is false. I suggest the readers to revise the source and to check what I say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.103.254 (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

An ethnographic study conducted by the University UANM by Lizcano (2005) gives a 52.7 for the white in Chile which is equal to 8.8 million [12], another study by the Spanish Esteva-Fabregat daria more than 60% for white Chile, but a study by the University of Chile is 65% for castizos (white-mestizos) in Chile and 30% for whites [13].

Another study conducted by Jose Flores Garcia - History, Modern.- In Peru, one of the oldest countries of occupation, while the Amerindian are 54% population and 32% Mestizos, white of Spanish origin barely reach 12% and are fewer blacks and Japanese. Something different is the situation in Colombia - white 20%, Amerindian 2%, mestizo, 58% black, 4%, mulatto, 14% - and in Mexico, white 15%, Amerindian 30% and mestizo 55%. Brazil, for its part, has only a small population with Amerindian (0.4%), 53% white European origin, recent extraction, especially Portuguese, Spaniards, Italians and Germans, 34%, mestizos, and its very important to black people in the past, now limited to 11%, reaching a high percentage of black (22%). Finally, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, its population is composed almost entirely of a white population from the south of Europe - over 70% -, Spaniards and Italians for the most part, besides some minorities of Jews, Levante (Syrian Lebanese Armenians) and Central, mostly Germans, arrived mainly after 1800, ranging between Aborigines and a seven percent (E. García Zarza, 1992, 19). [14]

Other scholarly articles and books that speak of ethnicity in Latin America compocicion >>>

massive immigration of European Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Brazil.

[15]

Ethnicity, living conditions by Simon Schwartzman

[16]

predominantly white population of European origin in nations such as Argentina, Uruguay, Chile or Costa Rica, there is a large proportion of black or mulatto in Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba and Colombia.

[17]

Laureano Gómez: given its more strident: the Colombian mestizo by, "not a factor used for political unity and economic integration of Latin America: Indigenous defects retains too is false, servile and disgusts abandoned any effort and work. Only those crosses successive primary mestizos with Europeans and expressed "the black is a defect in the countries where he has disappeared, as in Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, has been able to establish an organization with strong economic and political foundations of stability. " The blame for the backwardness of the people who frustrated time and again the heroic efforts of our elite.

[18]

The first Indoamérica: comprising Mexico, Central America except Costa Rica, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay, as is characteristic with its training base at the junction between the Spanish culture and the strong pre-Hispanic cultures, from the dense demographic point of view and culture.

The second Afroamerica: comprise the Caribbean region, Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil and is characterized by the union of a strong contribution of the black African population with Spanish rioja.

Euroamerica: composed of southern Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and Chile with a strong European immigration. SOCIAL IDENTITY- Marta Fierro -Social Psychologist

[19]

The Latin American fusion, which includes whites, blacks and Indians to not evolved uniformly or Haiti today is a republic almost exclusively of blacks, still even linguistically purely indigenous in Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Mexico, while nearly that presence has disappeared in Uruguay, Chile and Argentina.

[20]

But we must note that these three cultures or status can not be valued at demographics uniform throughout the continent. While in Chile, Argentina and Uruguay climate and physical conditions in general greatly stimulated the development of a predominantly European society in Mexico and Peru and also in Brazil, e! Conflict with European civilizations already developed, the mineral wealth them and the system of colonial exploitation produced more yuxtaposicióny an antagonism of races amalgamiento a progressive. Instead, paísescomo Paraguay, Bolivia, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, are based in one of intense cultural mixing substance frankly just indigenous elements assimilated black con of European origin.

[21]

The population of Latin America are often ethnically divided into eight areas. A indomestiza, predominantly Indians, represented by Guatemala, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. The Indians are 40 or 60% of the total population, the rest are mestizos and whites. There is another area indomestiza second, but with predominance of the mestizo. This is the case of Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama. Méstizos in these countries represent 60% of the population, the remainder being whites, Indians and blacks. The third zone, the white, represent Costa Rica, Argentina and Uruguay, where almost the entire population is of European origin. Chile and Paraguay are countries hispanomestizos because its population consists of whites and mestizos. In Chile the predominant white group in Paraguay and the mestizo. A fifth area is the negromulata including Haiti, Jamaica, British West Indies, Netherlands Antilles, French Antilles and British Honduras or Belize, 40 or 90% of its population is black, the rest black and white. Hispanomulata area, predominantly mulatto, is limited to the Dominican Republic, where the majority of the population is black, while the predominantly white area hispanomulata is that of Cuba and Puerto Rico, where almost 70% of the population is white and the rest black and mulatto. Finally, the eighth is the hybrid of Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela, whose populations are composed of varied elements.

[22]

EURO-AMERICA THE FORMATION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE Charles Wagley

[23] The Latin American continent is composed of a great melting pot of ethnic groups with majority of mestizos, whites, blacks and Indians. On the other hand, there are also a variety of socio-demographic conditions that vary from country to country and from region to region. In the case of Argentina, Chile and Uruguay immigration, mostly Caucasian, occurred in late 1800 and early 1900 came from European countries (particularly Spain and Italy). In Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay, there was a significant racial mixing between Amerindians and Europeans (especially from Spain), giving as the mixed result. The inclusion of the black race was mainly from the sixteenth century to settle in countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela and Islands Caribe.

[24]

América Latina: Cono Sur ARGENTINA, CHILE, URUGUAY AND BRAZIL white majority. Colonial knowledge: Eurocentrism and social sciences. Latin American Perspectives- Edgardo Lander

[25]

First is the fact that in America when there was a mixture of blood occurred almost exclusively between representatives of European ethnicities. Such phenomenon also occurred in Latin America, particularly in countries or regions (Argentina, Uruguay, southern Brazil, parts of Chile), where, as in the U.S. in the last third of the nineteenth century and the first two decades of the twentieth century there were waves of European immigration. But in Latin America will also mix the fusion of different races, an element that predominates in the "mighty symphony of blood" (E. Agosti) for the majority of Latin American peoples.

[26]

All studies on etnografia Divide in Latin America to countries according to their characteristics eg Indoamérica PARAGUAY, HONDURAS, NICARAGUA, SALVADOR, PERU, BOLIVIA, GUATEMALA, MEXICO AND ECUADOR. Afroamerica COLOMBIA, CUBA, VENEZUELA and Brzil and in many cases, the Euroamerica finally composed ARGENTINA, URUGUAY, CHILE AND SOUTH OF BRAZIL.saludos--Kusamanic (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)--Kusamanic (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? Latin America is a place of deep racial mixture. There's no such a thing as "Euroamérica" or "Afroamérica". Of course my personal opinion is not a source, but I have been to Chile myself and there's no way that 60% are Whites. Even in the areas of "German settlement" of Southern Chile, the local population looks more Amerindian than anything else. Opinoso (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

hello, dear friend Opinoso not answer their personal assessments on Chile, because Wikipedia is not a forum, or for value judgments and not to incite racial hatred between brotherly countries. Just give the references and sources. Greetings--Kusamanic (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)--Kusamanic (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean with "incite racial hatred between brotherly countries"? The fact that most Chileans look Amerindian is not an offense from my part; it's a fact. Most sources claim the majority is mestizo. If a source claims 60% are whites, there's something wrong about it. It's like using a source that claims that whites make up the majority of the population of South Africa, when everybody knows they don't. It's important to follow the reality, not imaginary figures. Opinoso (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Shakira's race

How can Shakira be white if her skin color is tanned?. Tom Lennox (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Because at least one reliable source tells us that her ancestry is white. (Besides, how do you know she's not just artificially tanned?) SamEV (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, her skin color is not white, but she is Caucasian, Middle Easterners, Italians, and even Greeks are not all white in skin color, but are considered part of the white (Caucasian race).Please see- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco (talk • contribs) 01:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Her skin color looks pale to me i think your mind is playing tricks on you guys just because she is latina,have a look [27] now the person next to her looks tan she is not naturaly tan, but i do believe shakira does sunbath like many other white people do but i dont thinks whites have all the same exact skin tone as niether do sub sahran africans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.237.33 (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That is true. She doesn't look all that tanned in that picture. SamEV (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

also look at these two pictures[28] [29] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.237.33 (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree about those, two. But mainly, I agree that we have a reliable source and that Tom does not. SamEV (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I can't see the pictures. I got a message that says "Directory has no index file." Lehoiberri (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

When is this obsession with Shakira coming to an end? Opinoso (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no sign of that, unfortunately.

Lehoi, I can't imagine why you can't see them. They are still up, I just viewed them again. SamEV (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why Shakira has to be white? will she be anymore important if she is white? No. She is a morena from Culumbia. Just because she is not white, doesn't mean she is a bad person. Tom Lennox (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Since her mother is of Spanish/Italian descent and her father is Lebanese, she is white. People from Lebanon are whites. They can pass as any Southern European. I already posted a picture of Shakira's parents here. Both looks White. "Morena" is a broad definition. In some countries black people are called "morena". In others, white people with black hair. In others, olive-skin people. But, morena is not a "race" (even though races do not exist, but if we believe they do, morena has never been a race). Shakira is not black, Asian or Amerindian. Not mixed, because has Lebanese and European background, being white. The fact she is not blond and does not have blue eyes does not make her non-white. Do you have cable TV? Watch the Portuguese or Spanish televisions. Shakira is not different from most of them. Opinoso (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, She has european and lebanese ancestry, and those are considered caucasian. But She is of caucasian ancestry, not white ancestry. You are confusing white with caucasian, hispanics and whites are caucasian, but in the case of shakira is is a hispanic-caucasian. She is morena, since she falls in two categories of morena, olive-skin and black hair, and she has very non-white characteristics such as a round ass that white women don't have. White is Britney Spears. Tom Lennox (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Britney Spears already reported to be "Native American"[30]. Then, if a person with Native American ancestry, such as Britney Spears, is "white", and a person with European and Arab ancestry, such as Shakira, is not white, then your definition of "whiteness" is completly odd. Opinoso (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Arabs are not white, they are middle-eastern. Middle-eastern is a race. Tom Lennox (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How about English singer Victoria Beckham? Is she middle-eastern too? Opinoso (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, She is 100% White, Shakira is just 50% White. Tom Lennox (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

But Beckham looks more "tanned" than Shakira. Moreover, you claimed Britney Spears is the example of what "white" is, but she already reported to be "Native American". How do you explain that? Opinoso (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because she has light skin doesn't mean anything...

I know some Asian with really dark brown skin but that doesn't make them any less Chinese. Tom Lennox (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't ask my question: how about Britney Spears? You claimed she is the greatest definition of what "white" is, but she already reported Native American ancestry. How can a person with Native American ancestry, such as Spears, be the example of what "white" is, and a person with Arab ancestry not be? Arabs are, for many definitions, white. Lebanese, more than most Arabs, look similar to many Southern Europeans. However, nobody never claimed Native Americans are whites. Then, if Spears who is part Amerindian is the example of white, Shakira who is part Arab, is surely whiter than Britney Spears. How do you explain this situation? lol Opinoso (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.nachatte.com/clip/Foto/Cheb%20Khaled.jpg This guy is an arab singer called Khaled. Would you call him White since you say Arabs are white? Tom Lennox (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that guy white too? Tom Lennox (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Khaled is not even Arab. He's from Argelia, then he is Northern African. People from Northern Africa are not pure Arabs. Moreover, we're talking about Arabs from Lebanon and Syria, who look whites, not Arabs from other countries. Arab is culture and language aspects, not racial. It's an identity, nothing more. Opinoso (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Shakira is not White, She's Catholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.152.90 (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone put somebody "whiter" than Shakira? --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

What do you mean? Do you mean whether it's possible? Or are you asking that it be done?

And please scour the archives for past discussion of this matter. SamEV (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my recent edit, Shakira is parda. Not actually white. Shakira, Beyonce, Jackie Chan and Michael Jordan are not white. 201.68.139.139 (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I didn't think having /Archive 1, /Archive 18, and /Archive 19 was terribly useful, so I moved /18 to /2 and /19 to /3. I set the bot to go back to #3, and only to fill it to 150K, not 200K. I think this is non-controversial: give me a yell on talk if I did a Bad Thing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

New picture for Argentine section

Hi all, I have a sourced picture of some white Argentine girls. I think it's a good example.

What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimshep (talk • contribs) 23:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

me i have no problem what so ever with adding this pic but what kind of source to you have for those group of girls being white--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't you see their faces? They are white. What kind of source do you need to prove that? --Grimshep (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

okay i know what you are saying but that would be using our own pov to decide if they are white or not,or if they even come from argentina or not ,im not trying to be coy but the obviously white arguement may not hold it has not in the past--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, Wikiscribe, my picture is perfectly sourced and these girls are Argentine(therefore Latin American) and white. I'm going to post it again. If you find a valid argument I'll remove it, but until then the picture stays in the article. Your phenotype shows whether you're white or not, and these girls clearly are. In fact, I think these girls are the "whitest in the article" so far, so please use common sense. Or do you need genetic samples of these girls in order to prove it?? Come on. --Grimshep (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

hey i'm not going to edit war over this but if you noticed your not being picked on here all those pics in the article have sources directly to persons either being white or with ancestry traced back to europe or the middle east--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but white has never been a genetic term. I can understand discussions over Shakira's whiteness but these girls need no prove of that. These girls are all white, or is it that you see microscopic traces of amerindian or african blood with your magic eyes? What's your point in arguing about this? I don't want to edit war either. There's no point in knowing if these girls are a 100% white, cause they look so, and that's all that matters. --Grimshep (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I've been a bit rude to you, sorry about that. --Grimshep (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To use pictures in this and most Wikipedia Articles, most people would prefer a famous person like a artist, actor, sports person, or someone in politics... I am sure you can find one for Argentina. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason backing that approach is that it's harder to prove a person's nationality with a picture, as anybody could post a picture of a couple of norwegian guys and then say they are Argentines. But this is not the case. This picture is perfectly sourced. --Grimshep (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll paste here my discussion with samEv:

Hi SamEV, I think my picture perfectly follows the Article's "Inclusion criteria". The picture is perfectly sourced, there's prove that these girls are from Argentina, and their whiteness leaves no room for debate. Why did you remove it? Do you need to know their entire family tree to know if they're a hundred 100% white? --Grimshep (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Grimshep.

I do not need to know their entire family history. What we, all of us (editors and readers of Wikipedia) need is for the source to say that they are white. It doesn't ([1]).

If you must know, since you mentioned "common sense": to me some of them do look non-white. You can't claim that it's obvious to all, therefore. SamEV (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

SamEv, all the girls in the picture I posted are white. Do you need a newspaper article stating that they have european ancestry? Like the article that is supposed to be Shakira's prove of her whiteness? Would that be a reference? I'm sorry but references can not be used in such sutile things as a person being white or not, specially when that's obvious as in this case. I think your bending the rules to you're own point of view. I agree that 2 of the girls in the other pictures from the website do look as if they had some degree of amerindian mixture, but the ones in the picture I'm using are all white. So? --Grimshep (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your basing your position on how they look to you, not on what the source says. Wikipedia insists on sources: read WP:V and WP:RS. Wikipedia insists on sources even more in the case of disputed content, which that picture certainly is. And by "insists" I mean that you don't merely cite a source, but that you show that whatever claim you make, the source made.

That source makes absolutely no mention of the race or the ancestry of those girls. You're engaging in original research, and accusing me of 'bending the rules' is really the wrong path to take. SamEV (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Anything more you'd like to discuss about this say it on the article's talk page, please. Cheers. SamEV (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

SamEv, again, you're bending the rules. So if you see a black guy you can't say he has some degree of African ancestry because there's no reference to prove it? Answer me this, if I find a source proving that they all have european ancestry, will it then be ok to add the picture? --Grimshep (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimshep (talk • contribs)

I guess you could say the person has black ancestry. But to say he's black, as opposed to biracial/multiracial would be something else. You'd need a sources for that.

Our inclusion criteria says that if you can show 7/8 white ancestry for a person, they can be considered white for purposes of this article. (That ratio was based on historical precedent, mentioned in the article itself, and remains open to reduction, as stated in the criteria.) But the picture's context page never uses the word "white" nor provides any info about the race or ancestry of the students whatsoever. There are mestizos in Argentina and some of the students look mestizo. Why not? SamEV (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, this is unbelievable. So, only the magic word "white" works as a reference? Right now there's no reference for claiming that Riqui Martin is 7/8 white. The reference cited only says that he is "white" but does not clarify on his whiteness percentage. The same goes for Shakira's source, which doesn't even state that she's white, only that she has Lebanese and Spanish Ancestry, and the sources for the brazilian guy only claim that he is white but don't give any information on his ancestry. These girls in my picture are mostly of Irish, Brittish and Italian descent, and they do look white. Tell me which girls look as mestizo to you. I'm just curious. I can't believe I took the trouble of looking for a good clear picture showing white Argentines and I managed to get the copyright and now you're arguing about some of these girls looking mestizo to you, or about not having prove of their European Ancestry. --Grimshep (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

grimshep ancestry is sufficent you don't need a source saying flat out they are white that would be a little to high and unfair of a threshold--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But can't you say their ancestry is obviously european? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimshep (talk • contribs) 01:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if we can't prove that every one of them is at least 7/8. That's just being too picky. --Grimshep (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

see their goes that obvious word again,there is a reason there are no pics of random groups of people in this article it's almost impossible to trace there ancestry or whiteness to a source ,why not try and find a noteable white argentine with a source it will be much easier--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry but I won't do it the easy way. I'm goint to do it the right way. These girls are as white as any of the other latin americans in this article. If you get picky I'll get picky too. There's no scientific or social authority on whiteness, whiteness is only a subjective term. Therefore you can't use a subjective reference to prove if they're white or not. None of these Latin Americans have sources strong enough to prove they're white. --Grimshep (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

all i was basically saying is you need a source stateing straight out they are white or one citeing their ancestry don't assume that im saying they are not white i'm just saying you need a source--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Grimshep, if you read our inclusion criteria, you must not have read the part wherein Mariah Carey is mentioned. The criteria are rather clear on this, but I'll restate it: if the source says that the person is white, we don't inquire further. Unless other sources contradict that original source, the person is white. Do you understand? If the book says Ricky Martin is white, we don't care how white – whether he's 7/8 or more or less. It doesn't matter to us. What matters is that the source calls him white. It's only if it didn't that we'd have to look at ratios based on ancestry. All of that applies to 'the Brazilian guy', too.

Shakira's ancestries are both white, so as far as we're concerned, that might as well mean that she's 100% white, if such even exists.

"These girls in my picture are mostly of Irish, Brittish and Italian descent"

That may well be. Show us where it says that and your problem is solved.

"and they do look white."

But you're not a reliable source.

"Tell me which girls look as mestizo to you. I'm just curious."

It doesn't matter (I'm not a reliable source, either). So I'll pass. SamEV (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well. Let's see. So if we find a picture of someone with features that are strictly european (hair color, skin color, eyes, whatever..) we can't post it here unless we find a published article (even if it's not a serious one) stating that he is white or at least of european ancestry...

These are my sources(more serious than the ones you cite for Ricky Martin, Shakira or the Football guy):
1) These girls look whiter than Ricky Martin and Shakira.
2) They come from Argentina, the whitest Latin American Country. Half its population is a 100% european, the other half is at least 6/8 or 7/8 european (at least this is the case in Buenos Aires).
3) They are pupils from an Irish Dancing school, so it's pretty obvious that they have Irish ancestry.
4) Now that you say that you don't need to know if Ricky Martin is 7/8 white or less if the source claims that he is white, then European Ancestry is the only thing required to be white, and therefore, as it's pretty obvious that these girls' European features are predominant they should all pass as white.

Why some of your sources are not serious:
1) They're newspaper articles, whose writers have no authority at all in claiming who's white and who's not. Their oppinions are as good as yours or mine. If these articles were of a scientific or genealogical nature, then that would be different. So they're not reliable sources either.
2) Ricky Martin's reference source does not state that he is of European ancestry. Only that he is "white" (subjective term), and it's the same with Kaká's source.
3) These articles state nothing, they only mention random stuff about some of their ancestry or whiteness.

It's a pitty that you want to fight over this nonsense just because you think some of these girls look mestizo (which is very far from the truth).
--Grimshep (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In cases such as these I would recommend Wikipedia:Ignore all rules WP:IAR Our article is being enslaved by this self-imposed rule of who's white and who's not. Something that has no formal basis and it's purely subjective.
And in the end we end up posting pictures like Shakira's which are controversial to many, and not adding a picture that is a very good sample of white people in Latin America.

I think ignoring this rule on "reliable sourced material" (which in this case is virtually non-existant) would help us provide the article with better pictures that are more representative to white people worldwide. In this way we would only need to prove the person's nationality and avoid all this arguing about whiteness.
Check the "whiteness" sources you've provided so far; they don't even qualify as tertiary sources or as reliable information.
That's why I think we can't apply this rule in this case, and that we should go for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.

What do you think? --Grimshep (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your "source" #3 is hilarious (I mean, really: who knew that in Argentina you had to be of Irish ancestry to be admitted to Irish dancing classes?). Crazy funny. And no, the pic's not excluded because anyone in it is mestizo. It's because – here it comes – you don't have a source. I'll take our sources over your personal word any day. I'll take our sources over my personal word any day, in fact.

Grimshep, you're wasting everyone's time. That's what I think. SamEV (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi samEv. You haven't answered my question.
1)What do you think about WP:IAR?

I have a new question too,
2)Do you really think your sources are reliable?
Just because Ricky Martin or Kaka look white to the interviewers eyes? Wikipedia clearly states what a reliable source is, and yours are far from falling into that definition. These interviewers are no authority on the subject, their words are worth the same as mine or yours (to wikipedia standards).

About my third "source". Of course you don't have to be of Irish ancestry to be admitted, but this picture was taken more than 25 years ago. In that time Irish dancing was not very popular in Argentina, in fact I don't think Argentines in general knew a word about it, only people of Irish ancestry did. And that was my point. Not a reliable source, but a common sense source on a matter, again, that has no reliable sources available.

Think about it, none of our sources are serious or reliable, nor yours nor mine. The point is that there are no reliable sources on this subject at all! I really think we should rely on common sense only. Wikipedia clearly states that in cases like this we should use common sense and disregard any rules hindering our way if that's for the best of the article. (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules...WP:IAR)

Listen samEv, I'm not wasting your time, I'm just trying to do what I think is best for the article. In any case you're the one who's wasting my time by leaving my questions unanswered and posting only about how "hilarious" you find my 3rd "source" to be.
Please ,if you don't want to answer all of my questions, and in a respectful manner, just don't bother answering at all.

Does anybody else want to share their opinions?
--Grimshep (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:IAR should be ignored. I've never seen the logic in it at this stage of Wikipedia. Maybe it made sense early on, but not any more.

I do think our sources are reliable. Mind you, I've always wished for them to be replaced with even more reliable ones if possible. But I have other things to do. Would you like to help with that?

Their words are not worth the same as yours. It may be just their word, but they're qualified journalists whose work is published in reliable sources with others reviewing their work, as far as we know. That's a far cry from some anonymous person like you or me.

You're engaging in the purest WP:OR with this 'it's an Irish school way back then so they're Irish students" argument. It's ridiculous, Grimshep. At first I thought you were joking! SamEV (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Grimshep is correct to claim these girls have Irish descent. Why would a person of non-Irish ancestry be engaged in an Irish dance group? These folk groups are usually attended by people who want to preserve some aspects of their culture, with a few exceptions of people who may not be of Irish descent but are part of that group. Opinoso (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Et tu, Opinoso-e?

I do find it reasonable to assume that most probably are of Irish descent. There are two problems though: That doesn't mean that they're all white, necessarily, as some of them might indeed be mestizo, the Irish ancestry supplying at least part of their white ancestry. The main reason, the really important reason, though, is that to chuck our rules would open the door to any ignoramus who says "I think these people are white for this or that reason" and we'd be back here arguing incessantly over whether RBD belongs. I hope you see the wisdom of sticking to a set of rational, even if imperfect, rules, Opinoso. SamEV (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is really getting mad. Next, if someone comes with a "proof" that those girls are white, such as, for instance, their birth certificate, this isn't going to be evidence, because, well, they could be bastards or kidnapped at birth. What do we need? A genomic map? And evidence that the physician signing the birth certificate isn't lying, and that the genomic map wasn't wrongly exchanged for another person's? This way it is better not to have any articles about anything. After all, can anyone actually prove, with no possible doubt, that there even is a country called Argentina?

These girls are white, period. If someone claims they aren't - this would be an extraordinary claim, and would need quite good sources to be backed. Good grief. Ninguém (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with samev here ,leting this picture would lead to countless pics being added of people without sources on a person's own pov I.E I think these people are white, it is best to have a source it avoids POV most importantly and secondary it avoids never ending arguement to who is and who is not white,it's best left to adding picture by people who think a group of people or a celeb is white but who also has a source to back up the claim--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there any proof that Fidel Castro is White? Ninguém (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

yep read the source next to his pic--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading that source, I learn that he is Cuba's dictator, but by no means that he is White. Can you help me to find the information? Ninguém (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand: Wikipedia doesn't care whether Fidel Castro is or isn't white. It doesn't care whether your girls are or aren't. Wikipedia doesn't worry about nor demand that we show the truth. All that Wikipedia asks of us is that we provide verifiability. Verifiability, not truth. It's what we're doing here in this article.

So take my advice and save your argumens about the truth, period and put your effort into providing verifiability.

Thank you, Wikiscribe. I was going to give him just that answer about Castro. You beat me to it (edit conflict). SamEV (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I understand. Fidel Castro could be black as Brent Blend; as long as we have a source stating he is White, we can include such information in Wikipedia, even if we perfectly knew it was a lie.

But the problem is, the source provided for Fidel Castro doesn't say a word about he being White or Green or Pink With Yellow Polka Dot. So, it is still unsourced information. The only reason his picture is in the article is common sence. If it is valid for him, it should be valid for the girls. If it is not valid for them, it shouldn't be valid for him. Ninguém (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and from the Verifiability guideline:

The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article.

And also:

When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.

Which is exactly what I'm asking from you. Ninguém (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Of course I understand. Fidel Castro could be black as Brent Blend; as long as we have a source stating he is White, we can include such information in Wikipedia, even if we perfectly knew it was a lie."

Exactly!

The source certainly does refer to Castro as white. Let me give you a quotation: "Black soldiers tended to identify with Batista, who was a mulatto and former sergeant, against the white traditional ruling class of Spanish origin, of which Castro and his two companions were typical representatives."[31] And I'm taking no chances – the way this has gone, you're very likely to miss it. So to help you locate it, I've highlighted the essential clauses: Look in the middle of the page.

If you still want more sources for Castro, here are a few I gathered some months ago: [32], [33], [34]. SamEV (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That source is a text with three paragraphs:

Paragraph one starts with "Rhetoric during and after..." Paragraph two starts with "Leycester Coltman, British ambassador..." Paragraph three starts with "Coltman chronicles the events..."

In which paragraph exactly can I find the sentence you mention? Ninguém (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Your second source has the same problem. The third is more promising, but it 104 pages long. Can you please tell me the page where I can find the information? Ninguém (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What "same problem"? The only problem I perceive is that you don't like the idea of sources.

As to the other matter, if you're referring to the pdf, it has a search box. Just enter "Castro" in it and read the sentence of which it is part. SamEV (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The "problem" being that I am unable to find the sentence you mentioned.

But never mind. Fidel Castro is obviously White, no one needs a source for that. This, not sources, is the reason he has been chosen to illustrate the article. Sources only come after, to substantiate the claim.

In the case of these girls, they are White. That some people take pleasure in denying such a fact, just to annoy other editors, strikes me as immensely absurd. But so be it. Wikipedia is a place were people bitch about sources, regardless of truth. And some even take to the task of experimenting to what extent they are able to maintain known falseties here, as long as they seem to conform to sources. Ninguém (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this will help: "But he also insists that, "for all his [Fidel's] talk of "colorblindness,' the white leader of revolutionary Cuba already had his eyes riveted on a goal to which he would assign a growing priority and increased resources: the extension of Cuba's political influence to black Africa. ""[35] And: "Who is the racist then — the black Batista or the white Castro, who boasts of his Galician origin?"[36]

"Wikipedia is a place were people bitch about sources, regardless of truth." Well, duh: WP:V, remember?

And yet, you're wrong about us here. None of us (and I'll take it upon myself to speak for Wikiscribe, Opinoso, and Lehoiberri in particular; they can repudiate my action if they prefer) has added info we know to be false, or even suspect of being false. But the fact is that WP only requires verifiability. The level of absolute truth on which you keep harping is simply above our pay grade. You can like it or not.

"And some even take to the task of experimenting to what extent they are able to maintain known falseties here, as long as they seem to conform to sources."

One could throw that insinuation your way, actually — except that you don't even deign to provide sources, of course. Or is this some clever way out for you...? SamEV (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks Ninguém and Opinoso for your support and common sense. To samEv and Wikiscribe; I'm going to find a solution to this nonsense sooner or later. Regards,

--Grimshep (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

By "nonsense", based on everything you've stated so far, I take it you mean WP:V, WP:RS, or anything else requiring sources, right? Well, good luck... I guess. SamEV (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Any hint on how you plan to overturn these Wikipolicies and guidelines? SamEV (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't like it. "Not truth" has gotten dangerously important here. But, because I don't like it, I'm leaving; this way, you are going to be free to continue your byzantine game. Good luck.

Grimshep, don't lose your time. This isn't serious; it's a power game about enforcing rules against their spirit. Ninguém (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And yet, you're wrong about us here. None of us (and I'll take it upon myself to speak for Wikiscribe, Opinoso, and Lehoiberri in particular; they can repudiate my action if they prefer) has added info we know to be false, or even suspect of being false.

So, let me understand this. Do you guys make up a team? A team whose business is to make editing Wikipedia the nastiest experience as possible for other editors? Or for what other reason does Lehoiberri get a place in your list, since he doesn't seem to have taken part in this discussion? Ninguém (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I followed the WP:AN/I thread here. Im not even going to read all of the above. Here's some tea.

☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺

Also, image captions generally not need to be sourced as valid descriptions of image content, nor do free images or their contents need to be sourced as authentic. If you think about it, it would be next to impossible because we only use free, i.e. uncopyrighted, images. To be sourceable it would have to be published somewhere, which means that the vast majority of sourceable images are unusable. On the other hand, images do need consensus to include, and if someone has a bona fide complaint that the image is inappropriate (e.g. isn't authentic, is unrepresentative, does not illustrate the subject matter well, degrades the page quality, etc) then it's best to leave it out and search for a better one. Regarding Latin American whiteness, perhaps people do want a picture of notable people, or a gathering of white people, or something more telling than a school portrait. It's really up to editors to decide how they want the article to look and read. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

NO, you can't use the photo as an illustration of "white Latin Americans". First, at least a couple of them look Hispanic to my eye, which indicates that calling them "white" is original research or personal interpretation. The picture's description doesn't say they're white kids, it says they are kids in a Celtic dancing class. That description seems to square with the photo, so it would be reasonable to use the photo in an article about Celtic dancing. Asserting that they are "white" is inappropriate not just because of the subjective nature of drawing conclusions from a photo, but also because "white" is a colloquial term lacking a strict definition. In fact, if "white" is taken to mean "caucasian", then everyone in Argentina is "white", except for those whose ancestors are aboriginal peoples or who intermarried with aboriginal peoples. In short, lacking further evidence, the picture shouldn't be used as an illustration of "White Latin Americans". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's original research! But that's okay in photo choice and captions. If you look at all the photos on Wikipedia, 90% have uncited claims about the photo content. It's still subject to disagreement and challenge. I do agree with Bugsie that it's a little questionable to make a judgment that all these girls are white, and to use a Celtic dance class as an illustration of whiteness. Why not choose a well-known person who self-identifies and is recognized as being white? Or some other photo that everyone can agree on? Why push so hard or care so much about a photo that someone else disputes, there must be some uncontroversial ones. The fact that race is poorly defined and subjective goes to the heart of the article, not just the photo. But the concept of race does exist, and as long as Argentina has a notable social construct of whiteness then I think it's reasonable to have an article on the subject. I'm so much not an expert in the subject that I don't think I can reasonably weigh in though. Race is such a subtle concept. Wikidemon (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. You've made a point that I've made to others from time to time, that the descripotions of photos, as given by their uploaders, often defy the rules against original research, especially due to the insanely restrictive "fair use" rules, that essentially require original research for photos of living persons. For example, let's say I take a snapshot of Tom Hanks. It looks to me like it's Tom Hanks, so I say it's Tom Hanks; it looks to most everyone else like it's Tom Hanks; but someone might say, "Prove that's Tom Hanks." I might not be able to... and I can't post an "official" picture of Hanks as evidence, because it probably violates the fair use rules; and because it's a picture I took, it is inherently unverifiable, unless I can find some "official" photo that was taken at the same time. But with a well-known person, I've at least got a shot at getting consensus that it is, in fact, Tom Hanks. Similarly, you're saying we should find a photo of someone well-known who has been verifiably determined to be a "white Latin American". You are right on the money. We are unlikely to find a reliable source that says those kids are all "white", or maybe even that they are all "caucasian", as appearances can be deceiving. But that kind of question might well be verifiable for a public figure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Some look hispanic to my eye" please if people want to try and help out the article please lets do that than, a statement like that does not help the situtaion or clear any issues--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. It says that the poster cannot claim they are all white just because they look white to him. To me, some of them look somewhat darker skinned. Therefore, the judgment as to whether they are "white" is strictly personal opinion a.k.a. original research, thus ruling out the use of the photo in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You're eye is a pov eye and can you clear how somebody can look hispanic when hispanics are not a race?--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The one who wants to post it is also a pov eye. And you're right, hispanics are not a race. They are part of the white race, i.e. caucausian. Which means everyone in Latin America whose ancestry is European, is white. So what's your point? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You're statement seems like it would just create more confusion--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My statement is this: The picture does not belong in the article. Is that clear enough? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

yes i tend to agree but not because i think they look white or not because that would be my own pov--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Then we're good. The picture's out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Costa Rica Percentages

I put aditional information on Costa Rican percentages, based on this references [37],but I didn´t put the references in the article because I had some problems editing, so is there someone who can help me with this please? The changes would be 47%of white population in the first chart

And I think too that this changes are necessary because 80% percent number does not fit with the Costa Rican National Census [38], who is the most recent source of this information. And as it says in the article, most people(94%) either white or mestizo, and this category is because most Costa Ricans don´t know if they are white or mestizo,so thats another problem with these facts-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlnte (talk • contribs) 01:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We've dealt with the first source you provide. We rejected it as unreliable, as there's every appearance that it's self-published and/or by a non-expert. Read about the need for reliable souces in WP:V and WP:RS.

The second one doesn't say what percentage of Costa Rican are white, so it's rather useless for this article, even though it's from the Costa Rican government.

If you have any other suggestions for improving the presentation of the Costa Rican numbers, please post them here.

And please don't use <ref> and </ref> tags on talk pages. Just put links within square brackets, like this: [http://www.thisisanexample.com]. SamEV (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's have more info about social indicators

Immigration history and numbers are part of the info we want in this article. But there's a lot more we could say about this group. It's the dominant group in Latin America – a fact we should mention, btw – and there ought to be a ton of data about them, I suppose. What's their education level? And how does it compare to whites elsewhere? I once saw a documentary which said that white Brazilians had a standard of living as high as Western Europeans'; do they? How about the life expectancy of white Mexicans? Is it higher or lower than the average for all Mexicans? Is it higher of lower than that of white Australians? What's the white Ecuadorian median age?

I hope all of us make an effort to contribute such info to the article. SamEV (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I put this kind of information in the article Ethnic groups in Brazil, which compared the standard of living of white and non-white Brazilians. There's a huge difference. Take a look. [39] Opinoso (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about.

If you have a source for each statement, I think you should add at least a lot of that data here as soon as you can. SamEV (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

SHAKIRA WHITE??

She is not white is black and Arab ancestry, is very nice, however it is not white and nothing else.

-- She's white. Her mom's ancestry is Catalan/Italian and her dad's ancestry is Lebanese. The majority of Lebanese people, like myself are and identify as whites, and have always been seen as whites in Latin America.

Shakira is not white, she is parda, morena. 201.13.197.181 (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Shakira doesn't have Black ancestry you idiot.She is not a parda or morena to the idiot poster above. Stop trying to act like you know other peoples ancestry, when you have no clue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.189.74 (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Quebec?

Why is Quebec in an article about Latin America? Latin America traditionally means the countries south of the USA - generally excluding the Caribean. This is a novel redefinition to include parts of countries north of the USA (Canada and France), which is a bit illogical. If south of the USA, then it is entire countries but if its north of the USA, then its parts of thise countries. Why exclude New Brunswick then? It also calls into question why the USA itself would be excluded, which of course calls into question the concept of "Latin" America. Quebec and St. Pierre should be deleted as they are not part of the normal definition of Latin America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.73.43 (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically, it wouldn't be a redefinition. The name "Latin America" was actually coined in France and originally referred to all areas of the Americas where a Romance language was spoken (thus including Quebec). It has, of course, since been narrowed down in scope to usually only refer to the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries. At any rate, I agree that, using the now-conventional definition of "Latin America," Quebec shouldn't be listed here. 24.11.127.26 (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Chilean girls

This article shows renowned people, and there's an user that is constantly adding a group of girls that are part of a team that nobody knows, we need to show well-known people, and those girls are not. An administrator has given him an advice on his talk page, but he doesn't seem to understand. So, please stop or add famous people only.--Danoasis (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Colombia

I have the I think the original source from Pubmed. It was a sample taken to examine the origin of the founders of Antioquia. It was not 99% but about 90%. From Pubmed and I quote,

"To examine the origin of the founders of Antioquia, we typed 11 markers on the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome and four markers on mtDNA in a sample of individuals with confirmed Antioquian ancestry."

"We previously examined the maternal and paternal ancestry of a sample of Antioquian individuals ascertained in the provincial capital but with a widespread ancestry in the region. Y chromosome lineages were found to be ≈94% European, 5% African, and 1% Amerind, whereas mtDNA lineages in this sample are ≈90% Amerind, 8% African, and 2% European (10, 11). The marked difference in the paternal (Y chromosome) and maternal (mtDNA) ancestry indicates a biased pattern of mating at the foundation of Antioquia, admixture involving mostly immigrant men and native women. A similar phenomenon has now been described for several other Latin American populations (11–14). The elevated Native American maternal ancestry detected in Antioquia was, however, unexpected because this population has been considered by historians and genealogists as primarily of Spanish descent (15, 16). Furthermore, available classical marker data (blood groups and proteins) suggest that the genetic background of Antioquia is largely (≈70%) European, with substantially smaller Native American and African contributions (≈15% each) (17). If this admixture estimate is correct, we would expect the mtDNA lineages to be no more than ≈30% Native American"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11032790 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1464326/

Data can be interpreted wrong. I am going to change the source to Pubmed, and fix it up a bit. We all know pubmed is reliable. I'm not saying every literature in pubmed is correct because its not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret killer (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute

There is a long-standing content dispute about whether or not certain photos belong in the article. The main photo in question appears to be File:Chilenas.jpg, with the recent addition of File:Shakira at Obama Inaugural (cropped).jpg into the mix.

To end the edit war, the article is locked for three days. I strongly recommend that both sides use this time to discuss the situation; I will immediately block anyone who continues the edit war after the page protection expires. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The one with the Chilean girls and other unknown people photos has been a problem for a while it appears people want to include photos of unknown people but some complain that you can't verify who these people even are and if they are in fact from where they say they are from,i myself am unsure if this is a valid complaint for exclusion ,the Shakira photo, there is not a controversy just from time to time people play the game of this person is not white and that person is not white so they remove the photos it happens at all race articles this happen at the White American article as well from time to time--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, the whole article shows people that is famous, people that you may know, that may have an article about them, that may represent their country, and the only picture that doesn't fit here is the one with the Chilean girls. The user that is constantly adding the photo says that they are from a selection of Polo, but it doesn't make them renowned or something. I'm sure that someone can provide another photo of a well-known person if there is a necessity for another one in the Chile section.--Danoasis (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do people have problems with the random Chilean girls? It's better then having a page full of celebrities and presidents. Put the freaking Chilean girls back. Why worry about if you can verify that they are from there? Are you trying to say the author would waste his time to take a picture of some random girls that aren't Chilean; just to put it in the White Latin America page under the Chile section? Come on, if you really want to verify look at their shirts. One girl has a Tur-bus jersey on. Tur-Bus is the main passenger transport company in Chile fyi. You can even see the Chile flag on the girls jerseys. So if verification is every-bodies problem then it shouldn't be any more.

Now since we got that out of the way. Shakira: I already made another collage that is balanced. And I added Shakira in it since Wikiscribe wanted her in. Secret killer (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Totally agree with you Secret killer at the origin of his comment, these girls are well known in Chile, where the Polo is a sport much more popular than in other Latin American countries, another example is the eighth edition of the World Polo Championship took place in Mexico during May 2008 and was won by Chile. (current world champions). Ccrazymann (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Represented by an image:

  

  The Chilean team with President Michelle Bachelet after they won the trophy of the 2008 World Polo Championship.

I've never doubted whether the girls are Chilean or not, so stop complaining about that.

If those girls are so well-known until today then, can you provide us some references?, I think if they were really famous then there will be many sources (not only Chilean) that would talk about them with the possibility to write an article about them as well. Your another example is better than the girls anyway.

For example I added a photo of a Peruvian surfer, she is really renowned and has an article not only in the English and Spanish Wikipedia. I don't know why is so difficult to add a new image that can fit very well with this article, I'm totally sure that Chile has more prominent figures like the one of Manuel Pellegrini to add in here.--Danoasis (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't be a problem. The page does not need to have all celebrities or political figures. Secret killer (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Shakira[40] Che[41] Pedro II of Brazil 'Ferreira, Aurélio Buarque de Holanda. Minidicionário da Língua Poretuguesa. 1. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira, 1977, p.169' Mario Benedetti[42] Leon de Greiff[43] Oscar Cox[44] Óscar Berger Perdomo[45] Eva Peron [46] Don_Francisco_(television_host)[47] Luis Miguel[48] Gabriela Sabatini[49] Jose Marti Alborch Bataller, Carmen, ed. (1995), José Martí: obra y vida, Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura, Ediciones Siruela, ISBN 978-8478443000 . Gisele Bundchen[50] Francisco Morazán [51] Maria Montez [52] Dolores del Río [53] Miguel Hidalgo [54] Stefania Fernandez [55] Ángel Rivero Méndez [56] Sofía Mulánovich [57] Juana de Ibarbourou[58] Elena Poniatowska[59] Kaká was named the FIFA World Player of the Year 2007. Gertrudis Gómez de Avellaneda [60] Juana Inés de la Cruz [61]

okay this is what we got so far between ones that have been somewhere in the article for a while now,ones Sk has come up with and a few new ones i found,i am just stumped at the moment of needing 3 more women for the complete collage at the moment but i will continue to try and find them.--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No more images of people with unsourced race or ancestry

When protection is lifted I plan to remove those currently in the article which violate that. This is merely a return to the consensus established last year. SamEV (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That will be unbelievable if you do. Deleting a picture that has an unsourced race...what is that? That is not going to accomplish anything in this article. Secret killer (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm experienced at that sort of thing. It tends to work. So please, whoever it is you want to see in the article, I suggest you find reliable sources that say either: 1) this person is white, or 2) this person's ancestry is of such and such European and/or Middle Eastern and/or North African ancestry. SamEV (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha no I don't think you can do that. You can question the uncited claim and can remove the claim if you "have reason to think that the claim is inaccurate", but I don't think you can remove the photo itself. Sometimes a good source is somebodies surname. White is based on physical appearance mostly; that is why Elvis who is mixed with Native American passed as white and so did many others in the United States. And it's hard to find somebodies full ancestry. So why not save the burden of the editor? Secret killer (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I did it. Six times. I sourced the six people in the infobox. SamEV (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

SK why not post the names of the white latin americans you put in your collage so maybe i can help find sources for them i mean we already have sources for the ones in the box right now so we dont have to bother trying to find sources for at least six of them (((Shakira[1] · Fidel Castro[2] · Elena Poniatowska[3] Jorge Bergoglio[4] · Gisele Bündchen[5] · Francisco Morazán[6]))) are you cool with this??? because though in my revised opinion i did not feel it was a major big deal to have sources for the pics anymore unless people had raised issue with an un-sourced picture(not to mention there are several unsourced statements in the article that people are not so concerned about so why be so concerned with pics) than at that point in order to keep content people would than have to WP:PROVEIT,so that is where we stand with the collage--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• The sources for the collage don't seem to hold up, at least as far as I can tell. The first one (for Shakira) doesn't link to anything having to do with her, let alone to a source that states she is white. The second one (for Fidel Castro) actually appears to contradict his inclusion here; page 7 of that book says Castro was reluctantly admitted to a school that had traditionally been only for whites. If the rest of the sources are as bad as the two I looked at, there's some serious work to be done there. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My reply is below. SamEV (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please WP:assume good faith e.g your coming off like somebody just put dummy sources up there. SAMEV found those sources and he is a regular editor to this article and makes many positive contributions all around the Encyclopedia ,the sources were all there and checked before but as you may know some of these sources may come from news sources in which sometimes they delete these articles for whatever purposes, it seems like the sources for Jorge Bergoglio has been deleted as well. I am not sure what you mean about Castro source but i will recheck that one, you may be looking at one statement and taking in out of context!also i found two new sources for Shakira's ancestry [[62]],[[63]] I will also be looking for a new one for the Priest--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Here i found a new one for Cardinal Bergoglio as well [64]--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about assuming good faith. I didn't say anyone did anything wrong - I said the sources don't support the information. And they don't. Come to that, I don't see the word "white" in any of the three sources you just posted here. Don't get confused: I'm here to help keep the discussion productive, not to take sides, so I'm just pointing out problems with the article itself. I don't have a position about the photos, but I will extend the page protection if I don't start seeing productive discussion here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In all practicality all it has to do is source their ancestry not say the word "white" also i can garuantee you that it will be reviewed by another admin if you are in the right to further protect the article i have seen much more worse unhelpful discussions than this also if you are a man on a mission please see these articles and make sure all their sources if any apply say black or white Black Hispanic and Latino Americans White Americans Afro-Latin American, it seems you have taken an interest in the pics--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Now what was that you said about assuming good faith?

I don't care about the photos. I'm not sure what in my editing history would make you think I care about this topic or any of those other articles; I never edit anything having to do with this stuff. I just care that the edit war doesn't start again. If that happens, I will issue blocks and protect the page, as I warned everyone previously, and no admin is going to overrule me on that. Enough is enough. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just pointing out the fact you have taken an interest in the pics in general(but that is your right as an editor) because the ones you brought up before were not the source of the controversy and edit warring, it was the one about the random Chilean people right and that is why you are here as an Admin ?? Hey why not start more controversy though race articles could always use more right?? I was just giving other articles that you can go scrutinize with the same vim and vigor as here also block who ever you feel is appropriate i been here trying to ask another editor would he like my assistance to find sources ,even though he was not initially to civil toward me but hey i was just trying to be helpful and work out some of the kinks here but hey nobody was trying to be productive right because you did not see any productive discussion???--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

SamEV: I looked through the sources and only the Kaka source says he is white.

Wikiscribe: hello. What do you plan on the source saying? Is anybody reading what I'm typing?? It's going to be hard to find sources that says if a person is white. The picture should only be removed if it has nothing to do with the article or if it's out of place. The uncited claims should be removed if somebody has reason to think that the claim is inaccurate, then it should be the editors problem to locate a reliable source for the claim. I don't know how they define reliable.

For an example, lets say Hilter was born in Argentina with the same German ancestry. I couldn't put his picture up here unless I have a source that says he is white?? That's crazy. I should be able to put his picture up here since it's related to the article. But it's when I start giving claims like he is the cousin of Shaka Zulu, that if somebody has reason to think that the claim is inaccurate they should remove the claim. Or claims like he has English ancestry then if somebody has reason to think that the claim is inaccurate they should remove it. Not the picture.

We are not going to start giving sources next to their names and make the info box look sloppy. If we all want to play that little game; then I'm going to delete every thing that doesn't have a source. I'll go to the White Americans page and delete everything that doesn't have a source including the pictures. I'll go to all the "peoples" pages and delete everything that doesn't have a source. Because that's the same little game that people are playing here. It's not going to get this article done.

So let's stop the bull crap. We are not going to delete the pictures. We are all going to accept the collage. Because the only two complaints were: Shakira not added and balance. I added Shakira and balance. I believe I only added 3 Argentines. Thank you. Secret killer (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

SK, i agree with you on a certain level and yes it is within your right to go and challenge all that is unsourced material ,i placed a link to several race orientated articles above where anybody is free to challenge and remove pics,i understand your frustration,but SAMEV and the ADMIN has enacted their right to challenge unsourced material per WP:PROVEIT,i was not challenging that myself but i offered to help look for sources if you wanted to list the names in the collage that you took the time out to make, source should say ancestry or something referring to them as white,--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Kafziel, I stand by each and every word I wrote. Those sources either stated that the particular person was white, on the page linked (I did not read the whole books; but if you want more Castro sources, just say so), or stated what their origins were, and these were either in European or Middle Eastern ethnic groups, or both. I stand by that. If some of the sources later became unavailable, that's another matter; I took a break from this article last spring so I had no way of knowing that. So maybe you should review what transpired here in 2008 and what it took to quiet things down before you try to drag my name through the mud.
Wikiscribe, hello! Long time no see!
Wiki and secret killer, I was also going to remove uncited statements, and I'm glad to see that SK apparently wouldn't disagree, either.
SK, do whatever you think is best at the White Americans page. Here we're discussing improvements to this article. SamEV (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiscribe- They didn't challenge my collage though. And what is there to challenge? That is what I want to know. Are they challenging their whiteness? This is not a white supremacy page. Are they challenging that they are from Latin America? Well when they click on the names it takes them to their wikipedia page and they can verify it. There are only three people I believe who weren't BORN in Latin America; that is Elena Poniatowska who was born in Paris, France, Guillermo Brown who was born in Foxford, County Mayo, Ireland, and Pedro I of Brazil who was born in Portugal. Are they challenging their ancestry? Well this page isn't about ancestry. It's about White Latin Americans not White Latin American's ancestry.

They can challenge unsourced claims. All the pictures are related to this article. White like in any country is mostly based on physical appearance just like Black. I don't see the people arguing over who's Black in the Black Latin American page. Why do you want to do the unnecessary work of finding the sources? Nobody wants the infobox to look sloppy with numbers by their names; god just let it be.

SamEV- I don't care if you remove the unsourced claim but hopefully you are doing it because you have reason to believe that it's inaccurate. The picture is a different story. Secret killer (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If people can verify these people's whiteness in their Wikipedia articles, that would mean that there are reliable sources for that info there. So just go copy those sources to this article.

The point of sourcing is to avoid just this kind of nonsense: people arguing over who's white and who's not. We can just refer those people who argue over any pictured person's whiteness to the sources and ask them to refute the sources if they can. That's why we decided to require sources. We chose ancestry as another way to support the addition of these people because race is so often defined in terms of ancestry ('White = the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa', for example: sound familiar?).

"They can challenge unsourced claims."

Exactly. And I'm challenging the inclusion of anyone who's added here as a white person without any sources being provided.

It doesn't matter what people argue over at Black Latin Americans or wherever. You have an issue here, at this article, over your effort to include unsourced images.

The infobox has had those sources next to them since at least December 2008. The fact that you don't like it is not good enough reason to undo that consensus.

I'll remove unsourced everything because it leads to more stable articles and is required by Wikipedia, and because I happen to also find it useful for the info I read to have reliable sources I can verify. I'm doing my small part to make this encyclopedia more reliable. Join me. SamEV (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiscribe, could you give me a new source for Shakira? The WayBackMachine doesn't have the one I added. I'll remove the unsourced images after I fix the problems with Shakira's and Bergoglio's sources. SamEV (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Samev i have not been around to much myself lately either ,like i said i understand SK frustration and naturally he is right,race with in a society is mainly based on physical make up but this is not everyday society per se and unsourced stuff can be challenged and can be removed by people,but Sam is right people will come down the road and pull this classic "that one is not white this one is not white etc etc" .--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said people can verify the whiteness in the wikipedia page. White like I have said before is mostly based on physical appearance. Is this ringing in anybodies head? Why do you need a source for that? People can argue that Hitler is not White but let them look like the fools. I see you are using White and Caucasian interchangeably like most people; Hugo Chávez has Spanish ancestry so obviously I can put him here.

How is that a claim? And how can you challenge physical appearance? So if people in the Black Latin American page don't argue over stupid crap like this why can't we? Where does it say that you can remove unsourced images? I can't find it. I don't care if you had the numbers next to the names since the beginning of time; it's sloppy. I don't see where you reached a consensus. No its different with pictures, you don't seem to get the point. All the pictures here are relevant; the captions of the pictures are the claims that can be removed if unsourced. I'm going to put the collage up then we'll take it from there. The collage shouldn't be in question since I already fulfilled the recommendations from wikiscribe and the other guy. Verifying pictures even though White or Black is based on physical appearance Hahahahaha. Secret killer (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Why do you need a source for that?"

Because at this article there's a history of people questioning and arguing over the whiteness of the people pictured.

"Where does it say that you can remove unsourced images? I can't find it."

WP:V and WP:RS. WP:BLP may apply, too, since the inclusion of anyone here as white is making a statement about them.

Go to the archives and you'll find where that was discussed in late 2008.

"All the pictures here are relevant; the captions of the pictures are the claims that can be removed if unsourced."

OK. So you plan to: a) include the images without captions, or b) make no claims about the race/ancestry of the people depicted. That's not the back door you think it is, because then you'd be challenged to explain why those images are in the article, why they're relevant. Your answer would have to be: 'because these people are white', which would require sources. See? SamEV (talk) 03:52, 15

February 2010 (UTC)

Let me play devils advocate here lets not edit war here lets leave the collage for now because people are free to find sources and i will work on that myself 2 things Samev i don't think calling some one white is tabloid material or slanderous in this case so i don't think WP:BLP is a real at play like that also SK you can't insist that there can't be sources because you don't like how the numbers look--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WS, I don't mean that it's negative info. I was referring to this, from WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]" SamEV (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WS, I won't do this without you. If you're OK with unsourced stuff in the article and all that that will bring, then, my friend, I'm outa here, and wish you the best of luck. I really don't mean it in any bad way, just saying that I could apply the time I devote to this article elsewhere, where it would be more productive. Please reconsider. SamEV (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So a source validates someones physical appearance? Nice argument. Are you are trying to change the rules to fit your own agenda? Where does this imply images? And I can easily explain why those images are included and why it's relevant. It's so trivial. Hello I'll be making a claim based on their physical appearance you don't seem to understand this. No you can include their name and what they did by leaving their name highlighted; you know what I mean. Stop removing my collage. If you want sources so badly I will find the sources for those who I can. You just want to cause trouble don't you? Your making it a big deal, stop it your embarrassing me. Secret killer (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I need to ask a question. Is Britannica Online Encyclopedia consired a source? Secret killer (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No sam, i was just saying to end this whole thing just leave the collage up and i will find sources for them i know i can just glancing at them some are not living even and we have sources for some of them already for shakira the cardinal etc etc che will be easy as well.--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

SK, please go by WP:NOR. Your own opinion about who looks white is not reliable. Find the sources first and include them with the images. Stop replacing sourced content with unsourced.

WS, how soon can you find the sources? SamEV (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

i can start looking now i will be on the computer for prob the next couple of hours so i can look for a while and yes i believe the encyolopedia britanica can be used as a source but can't be positive--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to source some of the content, and if SK agrees to leave the images out until they're sourced, I agree to pitch in with sourcing them, too.

And yes, SK, Britannica is reliable. I tried to answer that in my last reply, but it got lost in an edit conflict and I forgot to put it back when I tried again. SamEV (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay the new sources for the Cardinal and Shakira are further up the article those are already covered because i found them earlier because the other ones got deleted by the news agencies i was saying lets put the collage and the names on the talk page so we can see the names of the people we are looking for--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm... could you rephrase that? I'm not sure what you're saying. SamEV (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

File:White Latin American.jpg

1^st row: León de Greiff - Santiago Creel - Nicole - Fidel Castro - William H. Phelps, Jr. - Maria Montez - Gisele Bündchen

- 2^nd row:Juana de Ibarbourou - Juan Williams Rebolledo - Eugenio María de Hostos - Oscar Cox - Eva Perón - Francisco Morazán - Alexandra Braun Waldeck

- 3^rd row: Enrique Bolaños - Juan Williams Rebolledo - Guillermo Brown - Gertrudis Gómez de Avellaneda - María Julia Mantilla - Che Guevara - Elena Poniatowska

- 4^th row: José L. Duomarco - Frederick Lois Riefkohl - Pedro I of Brazil - Shakira - Giovanni Lapentti - Hernán Büchi

-

SamEV: My opinion is based on physical appearance; it's a shame you don't understand this. Anyways how do I source pdf files, or can I just source the html file? Secret killer (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WS, I really don't know what you're saying. Why don't you just post the links to the Shakira and Bergoglio sources, here on the talk page?

SK, PDF is allowed, too. Don't mind the format. Post the links here and I'll take care of the rest. SamEV (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I understand well. What you're saying has been said here a zillion times: "But so and so looks white! It's obvious!" But it's not obvious to everyone, that's the problem. SamEV (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No i was saying i found sources for those 2 earlier and why dont we post the collage on the talk page while we look but i found the file for it and posted it here and here is the source for shakira but we wont need the other one i found for the Berggogkio because SK left him out

[[65]]--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for correcting me.

Hey, try Google Books, especially. Even if the books are removed from the site, they'd still exist in physical form. SamEV (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I use this http://profiles.friendster.com/alexandrabraun

or should I use this http://pageants.india-server.com/miss-earth/alexandra-braun-waldeck.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret killer (talk • contribs) 05:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I would not use the social networking one that is not a reliable source also what sources have you found because i don't want to waste my time looking for duplicate sources--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I found León de Greiff, Juana de Ibarbourou, Juan Williams Rebolledo, Eugenio María de Hostos, Eva Perón, Enrique Bolaños, that's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret killer (talk • contribs) 06:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Those two links for Braun Waldeck are unreliable. Reliable sources are books, newspaper stories, news agency stories (AP, AFP, Reuters, BBC, ABC News, etc etc).

And WS raises a good point. We should do a sort of draft, so we don't duplicate effort. So choose the names you guys are going to track down and leave me the rest.

SK, post the links as you find them so you can feedback concerning their reliability. SamEV (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

is allexperts.com reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret killer (talk • contribs) 06:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is one for Che though it gives the generic Hispanic label but it does say his ancestry as spanish and irish[[66]]--Wikiscribe (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No I don't support anything that gives that Hispanic label especially if a person hasn't self-identified as it. I already have a source for him. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/248399/Che-Guevara

I'm going to save it now. Why? Because the sources now out number the previous sources. And it will be easier to see what people have. Secret killer (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

it gives his ancestry though the hispanic part is not important

same thing here with Santiago Creel he say hsiapnic but it says his ancestry is irish [[67]] i mean be patient some of these people are very obscure--Wikiscribe (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't need Che anyways. Alright put the source for Creel in there then. Secret killer (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

allexperts.com has a Wikipedia mirror, which is certainly not reliable. But other parts of the site may be reliable.

Why do we need both Castro and Che Guevara? Let's not overrepresent communists. That used to be a problem until about 2 years ago.

We'll check all these references before posting the collage. BTW, why is the collage so wide? Why don't you try the opposite set up: 4 across, 8 down? SamEV (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Only three are left unsourced now. I'm saving already, stop taking it off.Secret killer (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

i just got on here a little while ago i am looking for the Tennis player Giovanni Lapentti no luck yet but i will keep looking--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

SK, I promised to help contigent on your holding off until all images were sourced. Since you didn't, and forced page protection again with your rash behavior, I'll leave you to it and go work on other articles. I'll come back in a week and clean up the article. Make sure that all images you're adding have sources: I'll remove even the images I added if the sources are no longer available. Make sure the sources are reliable: a non-reliable source = no source. I'll work on the cleanup offline and load it when page protection is lifted again. SamEV (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to let people know i have been looking for sources for the remaining people but not having any luck yet--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiscribe: you shouldn't even worry about it anymore. Sam got his way by crying and whining. His whole input is flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret killer (talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

SamEV: I'm going to tell you this one time because we can get this page locked for a year for all I care. You DO NOT take off all the pictures. I provided the sources. You can click on the numbers and see if the sources "checks out", and if it doesn't you delete that one picture only. I'm putting the new one back. If you want to delete the new pictures you check the sources out now; not when you feel like it. Secret killer (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Secret killer, put the pics in (sourced, of course), but... DON'T MESS UP THE FORMAT! The Ogre (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to let people know i am working on a new collagemi have not heard from SK about the message i left him on his talk page so i will make one though a number of the people he had in his will remain also using ones already with in the article with sources and some noobs as well--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

All right. SamEV (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay i just have a few more to go and stuff hopefully be finished in the next 24 or so--Wikiscribe (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiscribe: Good Collage. It contains too many Mexicans but it's good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret killer (talk • contribs) 07:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

While I haven't been active on Wikipedia for a while now, I still come by to watch how articles are going. What spot me to come back again was Che Guevara was back on this page again. Have we forgot a year ago we had a debate about this. While Che Guevara is ethnically White, he didn't like to be called White at all. Remember we have to think about self-identification. Che Guevara is the example of a self-hating white leftist, and that's why he was removed over Castro. Che blamed Whites for the problems in Latin America, and he was sympathetic to indiginous movements, like in Bolivia. Castro in the other hand, does show pride (lack of better words) of his family's Gallego/Galician roots. I say remove Che for Castro, plus the only other Cuban I see is Jose Marti. Or at least add someone from another country that the collage lacks, like someone from Costa Rica, Honduras, Panama, Ecuador, Bolivia, or Paraguay. Lehoiberri (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally forgot about that. I concur about removing Guevara.

I didn't even know that some countries are missing. I haven't had time to verify the references fully, either (I trust you, Wikiscribe: however, one must 'trust, but verify'; just in case). SamEV (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some examples for those countries I listed: José Figueres Ferrer (Costa Rica), Roberto Micheletti (Honduras), Justine Pasek (Panama), Jamil Mahuad (Ecuador), Lidia Gueiler Tejada (Bolivia), and Silvio Pettirossi (Paraguay). I also forgot to mention Nicaragua since there isn't one either, but here's one Enrique Bolaños.

First lets talk about balance again, i must inform all that we will never reach balance Nirvana ,i don't think editors realize, due to the fact of we are very limited because of several factors which i took into account when under taken this project

1.First and foremost sources this article is very strict in this fashion unlike any other race articles.

2.Pictures at the Commons,because of copyright.

3.Trying to keep balance of the sexes e.g Male Female

4.Live and dead people i.e we don't want all dead people and we don't want all pop culture people because of a historical perspective

5.Trying to keep some sort country balance e.g not having 10 from Brazil and 15 from Argentina,though because of all the above it may be hard ,so i just made sure all regions were represented instead e.g Central America, South America, Mexico and the Caribbean , here are the countries in the box

Colombia Puerto Rico Dominican republic Uruguay Argentina Brazil Chile Peru Mexico Cuba Honduras Venezuela Guatemala

Note: countries like Mexico Brazil Argentina Uruguay have very large white populations either by percent or by sheer numbers.So it is natural you will have in some cases more than one rep from these countries

Countries not in the box

Paraguay Bolivia Panama El Salvador Ecuador Costa Rica Nicaragua

13 out of 20 under the common definition of Latin America snatched up,along and all regions have somebody not to bad considering all the snafus i mentioned above @ 1-4.Not to mention Male female is pretty much balanced.

Funny thing you mentioned Che because i was in the process of revamping the collage , because that picture of Jose Marti is not Jose Marti at all but his son,an editor that uploaded that picture made a mistake and mistook that picture for being Jose Marti, so i was remaking it to include a real picture of marti and i also cropped some other pictures so they would be more close up at the faces.

I don't mind changing Che for either somebody else or for Castro,but it should be noted that Che is not a living person and can be in the collage with out a problem , just because he was a leftist self hating white man does not mean he was not white or should not be seen as white,a living example of this is Heidi Klum she said she is not white and is a lighter brown,does this mean she is not white?Of course she is, but she is living ,so for example if she was a white Latin American we would have to respect that and not include her on those grounds,so do we just go for Castro ,so since another editor has came up with a few people pick one of those and post the source for ancestry to replace che

Also one more note this collage was made to create long term picture/article stability and is a improvement on the over all esthetic of the article ,along with not having to worry about pictures deleted off the commons. It is tedious to keep recreating these nice collages and than everybody who may come along with every minor gripe about pictures throws peoples work down the drain,because somebody is always going to be disatisfied with photos in the box for there own personal reasons.

People are still alkowed to add other pictures in the article next to their respective countries not everybody will be in the box period,remember the threshold here really is notable White Latin americans--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed che from my photo program and replaced him with the dude from Ecuador because he had a source and was male --Wikiscribe (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it bears repeating that you've done a great job with the collage, Wikiscribe. About representing every country, I don't mean that each must be represented right now; it's just that I got the impression that each one was, without thinking about it much (maybe it's because the collage has so many pictures). Representing every country should be a goal for the long term, if a reasonable effort this time around doesn't allow it. SamEV (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and leh introduced people who mainly have no source except one(another former/current head of state), i think one has no picture and rest mainly current/former heads of states, i do not want a collage that is filled with former or current heads of states or full of beauty queens,for the sake of having a couple of more countries when like i said every region is represented and people are still free to add pictures to the article next to their respective countries ,i will give a little more time for leh to come up with sources,though as i said all these people can't be included because of other diversity issues that will arise,but the Paraguay pilot is a good one but those links are dead that might have his ancestry.--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Page locked again

Because edit warring resumed as soon as the page protection ended, I have now locked the page for a full week. I hope that will be enough time to reach a consensus here on the talk page. If there's a change you feel is of extreme importance—and only if it is not related to any of the disputes being discussed here—you may request an edit by using the {{editprotected}} template and an administrator will make the change if appropriate. Otherwise, please use this time to talk things out and/or begin a request for dispute resolution.

I'll leave you to it. If you have any questions, you may reach me on my talk page. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Poniatowska

I added the image of Poniatowska 16 months ago ([68]). But I always wanted to improve on the source ([69]), which I added with the idea that it would be temporary, as I felt that "Born in Paris, the daughter of a Polish father and Mexican mother" was not quite enough information. That's because assuming her Mexican parent to be white or mostly white is the exact same [an even worse] exercise in original research as [than] assuming Poniatowska herself to be white merely because she looks white. [At least we have Elena Poniatowska's own image.] So the issue is not whether she looks white (she does); the issue is the source, which is not definitive enough. It's not the source's fault, of course — their article is not about her race. [It's up to us to find a better source if we want to include Poniatowska.]

The current infobox is not final. We're actually in the midst of overhauling it. So, CKent87, if you want to participate in a constructive way, you're welcome to. SamEV (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC); 22:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, just needed an explanation as to why you took her out, but left others. I'm in favor of a very mixed group representing most/all of Latin American countries... while others try to put in an unbalanced amount from certain countries. Thanks. C.Kent87 (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to work something out with SK to give me names and sources of 10-15 people he would want to have in the collage,(since he was the one who took it upon himself to make one in the first place) and i would find the other 10-15 and i would make the collage similar to the one i made on White Hispanics but he has been blocked by a rogue admin who has been playing the roll of the bully pulpit around here--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is that guy second row, 4 spaces right?

That is not Che so somebody needs to fix that.Secret killer (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good

Good job, Wikiscribe! I'm thinking that maybe the images could be a little bigger; what do you think? SamEV (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Great and thank you i also did increase the size of the picture--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant increasing the size of the images individually. Increasing the size of the finished collage makes it a bit blurry. SamEV (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No not unless you exceed the original size of the collage, i will put it to the original size ,but after that i don't think to much bigger would be good because it will impede and take over the whole top of the article--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that's much better. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

However, here's one small reason why you should consider a further increase, by a few pixels: two of the refs are currently detached from their names/captions and are by themselves on a separate row. SamEV (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggested a few pixels and you added several centimeters. Great! Now it becomes possible to add the percentages to the infobox—though I'm not completely sure about that yet. SamEV (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh okay cool,yeah i made it more oversized ,just to be on the safe side and so i would not have to make it again :( , making over sized makes it so you can make it smaller than the original size of the pic and it does not effect the picture quality like trying to adjust the pic beyond it's original size.--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I like how much sharper each image is now, and the fact that the names of the pictured only take up two rows per image row. Excellent. SamEV (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And btw, thanks to SK, too. SamEV (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Whites in Chile

As usual, the racist idiot who intepreted the racial composition of Chileans who came to the conclusion that 52% of Chileans are of pure European descent after misinterpreting some University study, has had his racist rubbish spread to all articles were the ethnic origins of the Chilean population lie. The twit who has publish the ridiculous information have misinformed others of the truth. Most Chileans, indeed around 90% DO have some, if not a lot of Amerindian blood. However, the ration might bee 52% European and 44% Amerindian in the average Chilean, even if the percentage is very small amongst the upper classes. However, most Chileans, not even half, are anywhere near pure European-descent. The original upper-class married Incan princesses and cacique's daughters, and the sebsequent Spaniards and Eruopean immigrants intermarried amongst the descendents. Wikipedia should portray the truth, not some racists' fantasy based on ignorance and proved by biased university research.86.160.120.47 (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is not here to try and figure out everybody's ancestry but if there is a misinterpretation of a source bring the source to the talk page and point it out,also there is a paragraph that states possible admixtures in white population of Latin America which is more than adequate so really nobody is claiming anybody to be pure or not but only white population numbers and history,there is no such thing as a pure race that is only in extreme racist ideology and by your statements you are buying into that concept as well maybe you might look in the mirror at yourself and maybe you might be the racist instead of coming here and calling people racist here and idiots,don't be a hypocrite--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's true that there have been issues of POV-pushing with the Chile numbers (more than with any other country's), so if you can point out any problems with the sources currently given for Chile, that would be helpful, 86.160.120.47. As for the rest: What Wikiscribe said. Also, please mind WP:NPA. SamEV (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Second chance for challenged content

This content had been tagged since January. Posting it here will give anyone who wants to a chance to source it.

Mexico

"Non-Iberian surnames, most notably French, are also more common in central Mexico, especially in Mexico City and the state of Jalisco."

SamEV (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Petition for Name Change

White Latin American → Euro-Latin American

Just like Black-Latin American is now referred to Afro-Latin American, as they are mostly descendants from Africa, i suggest doing the same with White Latin American as they are mostly descendants of immigrants from Europe; furthermore, White Latin American sounds outmoded and racist. Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

OpposeStrong oppose. The name would be original research. Most sources probably call these people "White". That's certainly the case of our source the CIA Factbook, from which we draw so many of the numbers here.

That Afro-Latin American article is not comparable to this one. This one would have to include mestizos and mulattoes, besides white, in order to be. There's a need of a real article about Black Latin Americans. You're basically asking that one wrong be done in order to match another wrong. SamEV (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC); 00:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. I will agree with the move. CashRules (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose It would leave the door open to adding anybody to this article because very large number of South and Central America have varying degrees of European ancestry ,this is about one in particular ethnic group called "whites" for which there are sources as SAMEV pointed out.Your rationale is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST along side POV to change a name of the article which are not very good reasons.--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. White Latin Americans include Middle-Easterners and Caucasians, so the title would be flawed from the beginning. End of discussion. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 23:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(If you want, create another article to refer to the "Euro-Latin Americans", if you find RS about that, and if you can justify such an article could be significant enough). Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 23:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Request

Could someone please remove the "Wikistalking?" thread to User talk:CashRules, where it originated? Thank you. SamEV (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

convo started on this page. as such I kept it here [70] CashRules (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 00:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, IANVS. SamEV (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright!! Opinoso (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Criollos

The article says "The original settlers were mostly Spanish and Portuguese, and their descendants were known as Criollos".

In Brazil, the descendants of Portuguese were never known as "criollos". In fact, "crioulo" in Brazil means "Black", not "White". So, I think it should be changed. Opinoso (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Opinoso.

I agree, and I've just removed it. SamEV (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Don Francisco

Im pretty sure Don francisco wouldn't consider himself to be white. Im pretty sure most people that saw him wouldn't think he is white either. He should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.91.217 (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

POV and possible OR problems

The article ignores the large academic scholarship on racial relations and categories in Latin America. This means that the article implies and assumes that the definition of who is "white" is the same every where in Latin America and that being White is primarily a matter of genetic heritage. The article also assumes that statistics from different sources are directly comparable and that they emplo the same definitions of "white". This assumption quite possibly results in WP:SYNTH as diverse sources of statistics is compared to give an overall picture of "Whiteness" in Latin America that is not contained in any of the single sources. The article also doesn't employ any distinction between race, ethnicity and genetic heritage, which are used as three completely distinct (although somewhat interrelated) concepts in modern scholarship. It also doesn't go into the socio-economic correlations of whiteness in Latin America - for example the phenomenon of Whiteness being more a social achievement than a racial category which is well documented for several parts of Latin America.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

How can we deal with this quite necessary umbrella term to cope with distinct definitions along countries? Would it be enough to make explicit that the concept (its significance as well as its sense) widely vary across the region? Any ideas so as to how can we improve this article? Thanks, --IANVS (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I would say that it would be necessary to use the scholarship. We woulod have to describe how the meaning and value of whiteness varies throughout Latin America and has varied through different periods. Its not really enough to say "its varied" and then go on to pretend that its directly comparable. The article needs to make the problems explicit and take it into account as it develops a picture of what kind of a group White Latin Americans are and why it is a necessary umbrella term. I am in the process of writing Race and Ethnicity in Latin America and as I do this I will gain a better overview of the sources about whiteness also and then I will go on to try to implement them here.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted this is a demographic article for which their are reliable sources for this demographic and that Wikipedia is not a scholarly venture you complaints seem to be in some sort of vague way this is not getting into the long winded technicalities that for example someone from Brazil for claim to be white even though he is a mulatto "really"..etc etc i caution those who want to use their scholarship to orchestrate articles because that leads to OR --Wikiscribe (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That is preposterous. You are suggesting that articles should be written based on common sense and ordinary language understandings of concepts instead of using actual peerreviewed scholarship to structure them....because using scholarship leads to OR. I think you should read WP:V and WP:RS again.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an Encyclopedia you do know that? It is not based on superior intellect, this article is no more "OR" than you are authoring in that winded Ethnicity in Latin America article--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but you really need to reread the policies of WP:SYNTH, WP:V and WP:RS. You are clearly not up-to date on howexactly this encyclopedia takes a stand in relation to academic scholarship and use of sources. If you think there are synth problems in the article on Race and Ethnicity in Latin America I encourage you to go to the talk page and argue how exactly I am juxtaposing sources in way that argues a point that is not contained within those sources. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the spirit of any encyclopedia is to give the best elaboration possible on any topic. IMO, we should work with specialized scholarship, as much as possible, in the objective of adressing topics of common interest. I mean, WP is not a specialized publication but it surely should aspire to give the most elaborate knowledge, as posible. I'll wait for further insights of yours, Maunus. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the article is not about Mesoamerica but as always anyone is free to contribute but i do not want this to turn into a long winded smorgasbord of WP:SYNTH i.e because Money whitens in Brazil the reliable sources of a white population are just mulattoes and pardos who are rich as opposed to the mass of Europeans who have migrated to this region just as the ones that have migrated to the USA Canada etc etc i.e clear separation of the different populations that may consider themselves white,the problem is i am concerned about structure and it should be noted that the article does touch on some different ways white is looked upon in these societies as seen in this section

Admixture

Since the European colonization, the evolution of Latin America's population is embedded in a long and widespread history of intermixing, so that many White Latin Americans have Native American and/or sub-Saharan African and/or, rarely, East Asian ancestry. Under the casta system of colonial Latin America, a person of mixed European/Native American ancestry, or Mestizo ancestry, would legally and automatically regain their limpieza de sangre (literally "purity of blood") and be classified as criollo with others in that category (a designation denoting "pure" Spaniards born in the Americas), if they were of one-eighth or less Native American ancestry. These would be the offspring of a castizo (1/4 Native American and 3/4 Spanish) with a Spaniard or a criollo (who may himself have been mixed).[43]

In practice, many castizos did themselves also subversively purchase their Whiteness all over Latin America, for a steep price,[44] with relevant "probanzas de limpieza de sangre" records altered, consolidating themselves within the lawfully white population. Additionally, at least in the parts of Latin America under the jurisdiction of the Viceroyalty of New Spain (Spanish territory in Mexico, Central America (except Panama), the Caribbean, Florida, and the present Southwestern United States; it later included the Louisiana region, to the Canadian border) officials in the late 16th century did actually decide "to grant limpieza certification to those who had no more than a fourth of native ancestry (called castizos)."[43]--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Those sections are not bad - they do touch on the topic - but only in the colonial setting. As for your comment about Mesoamerica I am not sure what you are trying to say? Mesoamerica is within Latin America. And again I challenge you to show how I am engaging in WP:SYNTH - under the definition provided by the actual policy not your own homemade definition.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe it is time to start differentiating between "race" (whatever its definition) and ethinicity. On the one hand, "The history of Whiteness in Latin America", with its racial implications should be treated extensively in one another article, this is not a place for more than a summary on it. On the other hand, an article like this should make clear distinction of ethnicity and mere genealogy (this is probably the biggest problem of this article as it stands today).

As long as there are different possible definitions for white populations across Latin America, they have to be treated accordingly, notwithstanding some other sources that can provide a more comprehensive global view. Integrating both sets of info should be the objective of this article, if this is not to result in a WP:SYNTH itself. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

See the point i am trying to bring out is the article does touch on some of the other historical white race nuances in Latin America... like Castizos purchasing their way to being white like fully native Americans also use to purchase their way to becoming mestizo to move up the social ethnic ladder ...so on and so fourth..but the definition of white in the USA is similar to race in Latin America(being we are always comparing one damn country to another place made up of many different countries that have their own histories and ethnic make ups)..Gisele Bundgen for example is white in Latin America the same reason she would be white if she was born and grew up in the USA regardless of her economic status..--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is it that you have knowledge of how celebrities would be classified if they had been born in a Sao Paulo slum instead? A crystalball? You state that she is white because she is white. But you have no sources at all to back that claim up with. And then you try to accuse me of OR...·Maunus·ƛ· 11:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

History of whiteness apart, what definition would be valid in both cases? a) phenotipe? Then there's no ethnicity b) genealogy? Then we don't have a proper concept anymore. I don't believe there is authentic scholarship support for dealing with "races" anymore in this century. And I dont think that a "popular" concept on races should merit an article like this in any encyclopedia. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Phenotype obviously does matter in modern Latin America, but it is not the only thing that matters. This is treated in sources. I don't think I've read any sources that suggest that actual genealogy matters, but that imagined genealogy matters a lot. For example studies of the Ladino (non-indian) class in Guatemala shows that they often consider themselves to be "pure white" and stress their european roots, but by investigating their actual genealogies it turns out that they have many more indigenous ancestors than they would themselves think/admit. This means that Whiteness in that context is simply identifying with a european heritage - not necessarily that you have exclusive claims to that heritage.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

i brought up an example with Bundgen and this is talk page..but yes phenotype does matter in which that is intertwined with ancestry obviously..that is where common sense works it 's way in and hence the Gisele Bundgen example claims German ancestry ,in the second paragraph their are statements that covers the Ladino example granted not in great detail.... this is an Encyclopedia...

"Since">(meaning right up till modern day times) the European colonization, "the evolution of Latin America's population is embedded in a long and widespread history of intermixing, so that many White Latin Americans have Native American and/or sub-Saharan African and/or, rarely, East Asian ancestry". Under the casta system of colonial Latin America, a person of mixed European/Native American ancestry, or Mestizo ancestry, would legally and automatically

You seem to be under the Illusion that we are trying to say anybody is 100% of anything,just as in the White American article is under no illusion that all White Americans are 100% of anything and that is why their are reliable sources that express many White Americans have Native American and Sub Saharan admixture.. i think your concerns is this article lack of depth/detail more than anything because where in the article does it say anybody had to be 100% of anything to be white?--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be under the illusion that I am trying to say that you are trying to say that someone is 100% of anything. I am not. I am saying that information about percentages of ancestry cannot be used as information about ethnic or racial group. What I am trying to say is that you cannot make statements such as "X is a white Brazilean" without qualification of what that means. Do you have a source where X says "I am a white Brazilean", or a source where Y says "X is a White Brazilean" - then write that. Do you have source that says in the sense of Z X is a white Brazilean - then write that. If you have a source saying X's mother is a White Brazilean and X's father is a white Brazilean then write "X's parents are German and Portuguese" but don't write "X is a White Brazilean because her parents are German and Portuguese" because that would be synthesis and original research. The same for statistics. If you have a source saying under criteria Q there are P number of White Brazileans then say that. But dont say "there are P number of White Brazileans" without qualifying under which definition and counted how by whom. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No statistical data because you claim that it can't be determined under what definition they are claiming.What !??????!It is not our job to figure out what definition is being used or (where applicable) why people are claiming what they claim on a census i.e what ever their ancestry might be,if it is 80% European 10% Black African 10% Native American like this BBC source claims the Average White Brazilian to be [71]or what ever their mixture might be or not be ,but than again did the BBC miss the memo about money whitens in some cases in Brazil or perhaps in Brazil only rich people are white???Is that your claim and ancestry has nothing to do with it,at all ?? Or how in some cases the CIA World factbook collects these figures when some countries to not collect data on ethnicity,for example if a person is claiming to be white,again their is no definition of white at this article, in the way you are in implying but that is why it does plainly state that many White Latin Americans have Black and Native American ancestry which seems to be your concern that this article is implying that this article is saying only people of wholly European ancestry is white like how it is thought in America though that is not the case their either in the reality of everyday life,now maybe that section is a little flimsy and could be added onto and if somebody wants to they very well can.I am in no way saying this is a perfect article,it is far from that,but again you are free to add to the article nobody has stopped you contrary to what you are telling other editors, i only removed the tags because their was no explanation on the talk pages for a couple of them and expressed some concern on the talk page,if that is alright by you,but maybe that is the reason you are writing an essay about ethnicity in Latin America which probably would be a more appropriate avenue for what you are trying to achieve...I like how you keep side swiping most of what i am saying,especially when further up the talk you reiterated what i was saying, but you used the word imagined and i said common sense, but u keep referring to Bundgen, but ..i am sorry ,i am not a fan--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Look there's really nothing extreme about what I am proposing. You would never write in an article that "X is a leftist" without making it clear what that meant and how that label had been established - by self identification, someone labelling her or by some particular definition of the term. Its the same we have to do here. As for the model I didn't think you were a fan - its spelled "Bündtchen" a fan would know that. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"What I am trying to say is that you cannot make statements such as "X is a white Brazilean" without qualification of what that means."
It means that X is identified or self-identified as white or as a person of overwhelmingly white ancestry (i.e. European or Middle Eastern), in reliable sources. This obeys definitions of "white" which refer to ancestry and an agreement we made in 2008 on this talk page. (Users were adding images of people that they thought looked white [offering no source], other users were constantly challenging the inclusion of this or that person, and there was endless bickering. Our agreement drastically cut down on that; nearly eliminated it.) An exploration of the concept of 'white' or of whiteness in Latin America can be read elsewhere, such as in your new article. It's off-topic here. We can include a section that summarizes that subject, but that's all it should be: a summary; this article shouldn't be a duplicate of any other, of course. Like others of its kind, this is an article about facts and figures from reliable sources—i.e. Census figures, Lizcano, CIA Factbook, etc.—about whites, rather than about the concept of whiteness, even the concept of whiteness in Latin America.
BTW, Maunus, I notice that your new article seems as though it will focus on the indigenous, mestizo, and African-descended populations. How about whites, said to be the largest group in Latin America? You've written no section about them. Not even a headline. Yes, I know: Your article is in an incipient stage. But I'm just asking because you've written the headline "Afro-minorities" (no content yet). It isn't your position that no whites exist in Latin America, is it?
Nevertheless, that article is long overdue. But considering how incomplete it is, it would probably have been best for it to not have gone live yet. SamEV (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"Over whelming white ancestry (i.e. european or middleeastern)" - what if their european ancestors weren't white? Not all europeans are phenotypically white you know? If the criteria for inclusion here is european ancestry then wouldn't it be better to call the article Euro-Latin Americans? Why can't you see it is a problem that people can self identify or be identified as white based on so many different criteria that stating which is being applied in each case is a necessity to keep readers from being misinformed. I really don't understand this tenacity about seeing "white" as somekind of club where a membership card from Larksdale is valid worldwide. Especially not in the face of so many sources showing that it is not the case. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"Not all europeans are pheno-typically white you know?"How about you clarify that statement...--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Being European is about where you were born or about which continent you identify with - not about which phenotypical traits you exhibit. Lots of Europeans travel to the US and are classified as Black. So having european ancestors do not say anything about which racial category you will be put into in the US or in Mexico or in Brazil.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well for example since you brought up the USA, Thierry Henry is technically a European but he is not an "original person of Europe" because he does obviously has a large amount of Black African ancestry..--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any category of "original European" unless you are inventing it right now as we speak. No European nation has sorted its citizens by their amount of "Black African ancestry" since 1945 - a comment about Thierry Henri not being European is completely on your personal account. But it shows very well that because you know that a person has a German father and A portuguese mother that doesn't mean that you know anything about how that person would classified into a racial group in any given country. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish."[72] your persistence with trying to create ambiguity is starting to seem like an agenda--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the American census bureau. That is how white is defined by the US government. I would tell you what your insistence that the categories employed by the US are universally valid seem like but it would not be civil. I think I should rather stop arguing with you as you are clearly not interested in understanding. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

But that is what we were talking about..see your trying to play a game of gotcha . You said i pulled the term "original" out my ass basically, when we were referring to America..again this is a demographic article and the idea presented down below by another editor was not a bad one ...by the way--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a heading explicitly about white people because I haven't been able to find any source treating that separately. All of the other sections treat notions of whiteness, but in relation to other groups. That is the way my sources treat "white". I have put in sections for each of the topics that are being treated separately in the sources. As for the article not being sufficiently developed to have gone live - I maintain that it is already far better than any of the articles on White Mexican, White Latin American or Mestizo which have been "live for many years now" - you are of course welcome to add to it or suggest changes on the articles talkpage. I do not hold the view that White people don't exist in Latin America - that would be a position contrary to all data. I do hold the position that "white people" is not an object that can be said to have any objective existence anywhere in the world. Are there people in Latin America who selfidentify as white? yes. Are there people who have only european ancestors in LAtin America? yes. Are there people in L A with phenotypical traitsthat would be considered white in the US? yes. Are there people in L. A. who are classified by others in their own society as being white? Yes. But this doesn't imply that there are people in LAtin America who can simply be said to "be white". Whiteness, blackness, mixedness are all categories constructedsocially through opposition to other categories and with changing meanings in different social settings. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This "originally European"/"pure white"/"obvious whiteness"/"forever white" is making me vomit. This is not just unencyclopedic and baste, it is also racist. WTF are you talking about when you say "White"???? I'd never expect this in WP senior editors. --IANVS (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"Not all europeans are phenotypically white you know?"
Who's talking about phenotype? Oh that's right: you are, Maunus. I told you that we refuse to rely on phenotype since early 2008. And unless we have some source claiming or suggesting otherwise, we assume that a particular European individual is white. (You guys have been talking about Henri: well, there are plenty of sources noting that he's of African ancestry, for example.) And yes: we make the outrageous deduction that if someone's parents are white, that someone is white too.
" If the criteria for inclusion here is european ancestry then wouldn't it be better to call the article Euro-Latin Americans?"
No, because that would exclude Middle Easterners. Or did you miss the part where I mention that we include them? What else have you missed?
What we've done here has worked so far. My question to you Maunus is: are you here to 'win' arguments, or to improve this article? Because if it's the former, then you'd just be disrupting and wasting our time.
"I do not hold the view that White people don't exist in Latin America - that would be a position contrary to all data."
What data? Where? Per what definition of "white"?
"I do hold the position that "white people" is not an object that can be said to have any objective existence anywhere in the world."
Now that's quite a contradiction. If you were not inventing "data" in the previous statement, then you can't claim that whites do exist in Latin America, but that whites don't exist anywhere on Earth! Be consistent, please.
"Are there people in Latin America who selfidentify as white? yes. Are there people who have only european ancestors in LAtin America? yes. Are there people in L A with phenotypical traitsthat would be considered white in the US? yes. Are there people in L. A. who are classified by others in their own society as being white? Yes."
Now we're getting somewhere.
"But this doesn't imply that there are people in LAtin America who can simply be said to "be white"."
Yes it does. The concept exists and is treated as real by many, whether you (or I...) like it or not. Hence it exists. It's part of the human imagination. We're not on the metaphysical quest you think we are. Race is widely treated as real in the world, hence it has enough reality to be treated as real in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, race is treated as real in many ways, no less in census taking in a great many countries. Again, that imparts notable reality to the concept. We're about notability here, and verifiability. NOT TRUTH. Understand? If an idea is notable and has reliable sources, we have an article on it.
So yes. Go ahead and improve the article. Add caveats and qualifications, and so on, just don't overdo it, please. I still believe that your contribution could be very valuable, as you could add more scholarly content.
BTW, there's no "t" in "Bündchen", Maunus. I thought I'd bring it up, since you were correcting Wikiscribe. SamEV (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You are twisting my arguments in a way that is either caused by your not understanding what I am saying or by a lack of good faith. Your last summary of what I am supposedly saying is such a gross misrepresentation of my actual standpoint that it is really hard to keep Assuming good faith. I shall make a last desperate attempt to explain myself. There is no class of whiteness that has universal, objective existence. There are however many different kinds of whiteness that have contextually situated subjective existence - I give examples of all the ways in which whiteness can be said to exist, as selfidentitfication, as phenotype within given cultural criteria etc. White people exist - but not as a natural class that can be defined by a set of necessary and sufficient criteria. I am the one who is using sources here so you can pack your insinuations that I am arguing based on WP:TRUTH away to a very dark place. Wikiscribe and you are defending a TRUTH notion of whiteness that is in direct contradiction to the entire body of academic sources on the topic and you swing WP:TRUTH at me....this is heading to dispute resolution fast now. You are right about the t in Bündchen - I am also not a fan.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Maunus. I think I understand well. But do as you think or wish. SamEV (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall. First however I will have a cup of tea. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

These surveys of self-identification or the like are only indicative, as respondents tend to identify themselves according to elements of social prestige or status, rather than referring to elements close to reality, for these reasons and others, have been questioned as sources information in several countries. sorry for my bad English.--Tipicad (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Maunus is making some very good points here. Notice, moreover, that "whiteness" is a very politically laden label in Latin America - perhaps more so than elsewhere. Given a long history of intermixing, there are, in the main, simply people who believe themselves to be white and people who are not attached to such a belief. The latter group includes, mind you, some children and grandchildren of immigrants; some such people I know would rather drink a pitcher full of warm spit rather than identify as distinctly "white".

Of course, having a light skin tone sometimes carries advantages, and one has to acknowledge that, but this is no reason for Wikipedia to impose whiteness on people who do not desire it and who lived their lives simply as citizens of their countries. This includes in all likelihood several of the people included in the upper-right-corner picture. Feketekave (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)