![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This idea:
"Strictly speaking, Latin America can designate all of those countries and territories in the Americas where a Romance language (i.e. languages derived from Latin, and hence the name of the region) is spoken: Spanish, Portuguese, French, and creole languages based upon these".
Creole languages are not considered in the Latin context, for this reason countries like Jamaica, Haiti, etc, are not considered Latin Americans and for this reason, in order to include them, sources refer as "Latin America and the Antilles". -- Albeiror24-Neopanida ( talk) 02:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Haiti is a Latin American country, they speak 100% french, and they have Haitian Creole which is a creole language based on french.~~Cakechild~~
It is not true that no white pepole live in Paraguay, my Mom is white and she is from Paraguay. Miagirljmw14 ( talk) 21:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The culture part of the article reports: "Italian and British influence has been important as well".
I wonder if there's any Britsh influence in Latin America. Surely not. Opinoso ( talk) 22:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
British Guiana is NOT totally part of Latin America, since they do not speak a Latin language there.
What about British Peruvian? The article does not cite its sources and they are surely a tiny minority in Peru.
There's NO Britsh cultural influence in any Latin American country. Only because 2 or 3 countries were under British rule for a time does not mean they were influenced by Britsh culture. Opinoso ( talk) 02:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
And I am not talking about British Guiana, which is not part of Latin America at all. And former British Honduras, now Belize, is a Hispanic country, not Anglophone.
Tell me a couple of REAL Latin American countries which have British influence. You gotta list 4 or 5, because Latin America is very big, and only because 1 country may have some British influence, we cannot list British among the people who influenced Latin America. Opinoso ( talk) 02:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Surely the history of Latin America goes on after 1825? Kelvinc ( talk) 20:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw the sub-sub section titled Europeans, but it also talks about Middle Eastern people. Last time I remembered the Middle East is not located in the continent of Europe. Shouldn't the section be called White because Middle Easterners are White, not European. Lehoiberri ( talk) 22:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
USA is the 4th latinamerican country with more than 40000000 people. This population should be represented in the lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisanchez ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:ElOtro.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 10:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Please come to consensus here before continuing. NJGW ( talk) 22:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all Amerindians are indigenous peoples of the Americas, not just in the U.S., I'm talking about small islands in the Caribbean, central and South America. Am I not right? Second, how can you be so sure that there isn't at least a small percentage of Amerindian ancestry, there were many indigenous peoples in that country such as the Tainos, and Arwarks (as a Haitian I should know). Finally, your racially distribution chart is messed up. There are plenty mullattos in Haiti, I would change the "other" percentage, because there are more mullattos than "others" in Haiti. Cakechild ( talk) 02:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
According to many reliable sources (books, websites) Mexico City is the largest city in latin america (above São Paulo). It is the largest even in the western emisphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_hemisphere. By the way I posted the "European population 2" but I took the 15.5 percent from wikipedia, so, I hope someone could post a highly reliable source of Mexico's white population...And just as a coment, I agree with the discussion, I mean the white population could be 1 percent and the picture of the argued Mexican girls still could be accurate, in guadalajara is not weird to find people with notable european descendant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe0 ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Here are a couple; http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/379167/Mexico#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Mexico%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
this whole article starts from a presuntion which is wrong, but it doesn't even mention it and i cannot do it myself either. Latinamerica has not existed since Adán, but was invented in the late XiX early XX (arielistas?) as a way to create an ideological union (the political one was a fail) and separate the old spanish america from the saxon america, which started to be felt as a threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.45.249.100 ( talk) 12:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
In fact Latin-America has began at the moment when all these parts of the Americas have felt under Spanish, Portuguese and in a lesser extend French rule.
Before that speaking about a "latin-America" is a complete nonsense and let thinking that the latins were existing before the arrival of the southern Europeans in the region: that is to say that the latins are the Amerindians...
I find absolutly absurd to put images of Machu picchu (Inca) or Chichen Itza (Maya) as symbols of latin-American history as if at these times this part of America was already latin (as if it has always been latin). This is absurd and a complete lack of respect for the native Americans who were everything but latin people. The latin people were the conquerers; the Spanish, the portuguese and the french. The latins were the ones that destroyed the these civilisations - how can we consider that precolumbian people were living in latin America??
Latin culture is the in which those southern European peoples get their roots. Latin-America today deserve its name since a big of its culture (but not always its people's genetic herency) is derived (language, religion). But it is absurd to let thinking that everything in latin America is latin: Amerindian history and African influences have nothing to see with latin culture even is they have melted with it in latin-America, they still non-latin in origin.
The same way it would be absurd to speak about Ameridian cultures and people in pre-british United States as being part of "anglo-America" history. Or let supposing that Anglo-Americans already existed before the arrival of British people. It would mean that Cherokees, navajos, sioux, etc. were part of Anglo-American history in the years before European colonisation...
Wouldn't it be quite ridiculous to call Cherokee pre-british culture a "Anglo-American" culture. Or considering a pre-British Cheyenne indian to be of "Anglo-American" race, or even to shorten it as "Anglo" race. Or even worse; to conserdering that the real Anglos are the native os what is now Anglo-America; which would mean that to be a "true" Anglo one has to look like a native indian from Anglo-America... This is absurd for everyone but it is how many North American people (anglo-Americans) think about latin-America.
This section needs to be clear how it's "ranking" cities, and then it needs a source for that ranking. -- Falcorian (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I´d like to point out how messed up is the information in the Largest Metropolitan Areas part of the fact box. Being brazilian I know Porto Alegre isn´t one of the biggest metropolitan areas (let alone the sixth), and obviously São Paulo is lacking. It seems to me this article should be protected to assure quality information being displayed. 189.105.141.243 ( talk) 05:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Somebody tried to update the numbers on the economic table, incorrectly placing Mexico with the highest GDP per capita at PPP. I corrected the information using the comparison tool provided in the IMF website. See This link. for further details. Likeminas ( talk) 21:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Using 2007 IMF figures...
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2007&ey=2007&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=213%2C273%2C339%2C218%2C223%2C278%2C283%2C228%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C238%2C243%2C248%2C253%2C263%2C268%2C298%2C299&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a=&pr.x=17&pr.y=14 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jesusmariajalisco (
talk •
contribs)
02:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Who is/are the person(s) who keep including Chile as a "white country"? There are no sources for it. The census shows Chile is mainly mestizo. The fact that these mestizos are mainly white does not make them white. I am excluding Chile. Opinoso ( talk) 14:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
-- 200.73.30.108 ( talk) 17:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)-- 200.73.30.108 ( talk) 17:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Since when? Sure, we've always had a significant amount of mulattos but never have they been the majority. Cuba has always been mostly white, unmixed- and of Spanish descent. This was really shocking to come across. Even with a ton of White Cubans fleeing the country some years back due to Fidel, Whites still make up the majority of the population- by a lot, too. Here's the last official CIA census as proof. Cited.
Ethnic groups:
white 65.1%, mulatto and mestizo 24.8%, black 10.1% (2002 census)
[1] Cuban Census (2002)
Does anyone else think it might be better to list the Ethnic Groups according to actual numbers rather than putting them in alphabetical order? It's a bit odd to have Asians above Mestizos, Europeans, and Blacks as they are probably the tiniest minority in the region. Should we list them according to their figures? Mestizos, Europeans, Amerindians, Mulattos, etc are much more numerous in Latin America. Cali567 ( talk) 08:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I’m looking at the reference used for that table, and from looking at full city GDP rankings (on page 24) I see that the order and GDPs of the first three cities is incorrect.
As per the reference, Mexico City is #8 @ 315$bn at PPP, Buenos Aires #13 @ 245 and Sao Paulo #19 @225. Therefore the table should have the above cities as 1, 2 & 3 respectively.
Lima is properly positioned; however, the GDP is off. It’s not 75 but 67. The rest of the cities seem to have the correct information.
It would be also a good idea to say that this estimate is from 2005 and that figures are expressed in USD using the PPP exchange rates.
Likeminas (
talk)
20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I created the table last night, but when I checked it this morning an anonymous user and someone with user name Alextra changed the info. throwing the numbers off... I've corrected them, as well as the ranking order. Thanks for your continued input. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 20:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
What sources are being used to determine these figures?
From what I see on table 3.3 of page 18 from the PwC report.
Buenos Aires has a GDP per capita of USD $19.5k, Mexico city $16.2k, Rio $12.3k and Sao Paulo $12.3k.
The rest of the cities are nowhere to be found within that source.
If it’s the pricewaterhousecoopers report then, the figures need to be corrected; else another reliable source needs to be listed.
Likeminas ( talk) 14:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Please disregard the above comment, it looks like the figures are correct.
Nonetheless, I still couldn't find the GDP per capita within the PwC report of cities such as Monterrey and Belo Horizonte. Am I missing something here, or is the UN report the one being used?
Likeminas (
talk)
14:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
GDP per Capita (PPP) is simple math.... GPD/population... it is the same formula PwC used for the other cities. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 18:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
They are also Latin Americans, no?-- Sonjaaa ( talk) 14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Is a picture of Easter Island appropriate for the article? While it is true that Easter Island is a Chilean possession, the article defines "Latin America" in a way that restricts it to lands and islands in the Americas. Easter Island is normally regarded as a part of Polynesia and Oceania. Please review whether deletion of the photo of Easter Island is in order. I suggest it be deleted and replaced. Rrcs law ( talk) 16:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Demographics
The discussion on early settlement needs to be co-ordinated with the entry on Monte Verde. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teleer ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"Brazil is home to 1.49 million people of Asian descent,[8][9] which includes the largest ethnic Japanese community outside of Japan itself, numbering 1.5 million." How Japanese are Asians if I'm not mistaken. ---- Nate Riley 23:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering how this: [1] is irrelevant? I am not an expert here so I am just asking for more detail on why this peice of information should be included or no. -- DerRichter ( talk) 21:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
How many Mexicans do you know who trace their ancestry to Austria? I do not know any.
They did not have any impact in Mexico's demography.
By the way, the writer wrote "Ausrians", not Austrians. Do you really think anyone serious would write "Ausrians" and leave it wrong? Nobody serious would. Opinoso ( talk) 21:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, these sources say that immigrants were a minority in all Mexico's history, and only a few thousands of post-colonial Europeans settled Mexico. They did not have any huge impact in Mexico's demography.
How many Mexicans with a Belgian surname do you people know? Nobody. Opinoso ( talk) 22:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Surely, Lithuanian immigrants had a larger impact in Brazil (Brazil has 200,000 people of Lithuanian descent) [6] or Croatian immigration had a larger impact in Argentina (Argentina has 250,000 people of Croatian descent_ [7] than these French, Belgian or Austrians had in Mexico all together.
It is a matter of good sense and historical informations. Why aren't Lithuanians or Croatians listed there, which are actually big communities, and these small groups French, Belgians or Austrians are?
Dúnadan, stop claiming I am paranoid with "which country is whiter" because in all these discussions, YOU are involved in all them. So, the paranoid person with "which country is whiter" here is you, not me. You are trying to pass Mexico as a "white" country, which is not the reality.
By the way, I do not agree with an entire sentence giving emphasis on Mexico: "the Second Mexican Empire, many more French, Belgians and Swiss settled in Mexico". Why is it talking about Mexico, and other countries, such as Venezuela, which had a big European immigration in the mid-20th century, is not even listed?
Posting pictures of blond girls with Mexico T-shirt is crazy, because nobody can proove these girls are actually Mexicans; they can be tourists with a Mexican T-shirt. Second, most White Mexicans do not have blond hair or blue eyes, because most are of Spanish heritage, not French or Belgian at all.
So, it's totally irrelevant to talk about these minoritary people in Mexico, while much more important ethnic groups in Latin American, such as Lithuanians, Croatians or even Latvians, Hungarians and Russians are not listed.
Again, I think Lithuanians or Croatians should not be listed, because if we start to list every single ethnic group of European descent in Latin America, this article will never end. HOWEVER, if we list French, Belgians or Austrians in Mexico, we have to list many other people who, in fact, contributed to the demography of Latin America. Mexico should not be even listed there, since it never had a big European component in its population. Put Venezuela or even Colombia in its place. Opinoso ( talk) 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Somebody can take a picture of me on the street wearing a Mexico T-shirt and post my picture claiming I am Mexican. Nobody will be able to proove I am Mexican or not. Nobody can proove these girls are actually Mexicans only because in the picture they are wearing a T-shirt written "Mexico" or with their faces painted with Mexico's flag colors.
First: Mexico does not deserve an entire sentence about it in the European session. Second: Belgians and Austrians also should not be even listed, because both are very small and insignificant groups, not only in Mexico, but in all Latin American. Lithuanians, Croatians or even Russians, who are much bigger groups are not even listed there.
Third: the same way a picture of blond girls saying "White Mexicans are among the third largest ethnic groups" is a nonsense, since most "White" Mexicans are dark-haired and dark-eyes, because most have ancestors from Spain, not from Belgian or Austria. By the way, in all Latin American countries the vast majority of Whites do not have blond hair and blue eyes, so posting a picture of these blond girls, who are probably American tourists having fun in a Mexico soccer game, to represent the Whites of Latin America is a complete nonsense.
Chipilo with its Italians and other places are a very small minority in Mexico's 120 million inhabitants. Opinoso ( talk) 00:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, if we list every single ethnic group alive in Latin America, this article will never end.
I could include in the article the unnecessary information that 29 Finish immigrantes settled the countryside of Rio de Janeiro in the 1920s. And they really did, and I have sources to proove. These Finish created the distric of Penedo, an interesting tourist place of Rio.
But, why should I include this pathetic group of Finish people who settled a rural area of Rio? This is not an important information. They were a very small group. Even though they created a district, they were not important to Rio's demography, much less to Brazil's.
The same applies for Belgians in Mexico. They immigrated there, settled there. But was their impact really important to Mexico that they deserve to be listed among Spaniards, Portuguese or Italians in Latin America? Of course not. Opinoso ( talk) 02:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Or are you also trying to claim Spaniards are blonds? Opinoso ( talk) 02:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, you must read the article Spanish people: it reports Iberians trace their ancestry mostly to Paleolithic and Neolithic basis. It has nothing to do with Germanic people. Moreover, the Celts of Spain were mostly native people who were Celtized, not really pure Celtic. By the way, most Celts were also dark-haired and dark-eyed, like the nowadays population of Wales.
So, don't claim Celts were mostly blond people, because they weren't.
And also take a look at the map about blondism in Europe: Spain has the same low frequency of blond hair North Africa has, with only 1-19% of Spaniards being blonds. [8]
Why are you talking about the Moors? Do you think the dark hair of Spaniards came from the Moors? No, my friend. It comes from the Iberia's Paleolithic and Neolithic basis. These people, who started settling there 40,000 years ago were dark-haired and dark-eyed. It has nothing to do with the "recent" Muslim rule of Iberia.
Please, study and read WP:Verifiability, not me.
Dúnadan, no matter how much you claim Spaniards have blond hair and White Mexicans have blue eyes. Nobody will believe you. You claim people want to fight for which country is whiter, but it obviously seem you are the one trying to "white-wash" Spain and Latin America.
Give it up, my friend. Opinoso ( talk) 16:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Nobody wants to fight with you. By the way, this is not place for it. Find a forum for you to have fun.
Please, read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I finish this boring and useless discussion with you now.
Goodbye. Opinoso ( talk) 23:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Or do you mean brown hair and brown eyes? yes that's common. But other eye and hair colours are also very common. The south has a bit darker traits than the North though. but anything too noticeable (today). - Pedro ( talk) 10:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
LAST NEWS: Fernando Torres, Xabi Alonso and Carles Puyol have been expelled from the Spanish national soccer team because they have red/blond hair and blue/green eyes and according to Opinoso it's a crime to look nordic in a southeuropean country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.22.98 ( talk) 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Opinoso You should make a trip to Los Altos in Jalisco, plenty of blondes and red heads their with blue and green eyes. Mostly due to French and Spanish backgrounds. Broaden you horizons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I find this quite insulting, to have my French heritage belittled by someone who has never set foot in Mexico. And we are not the only French-Mexican family you will find in the country, like you seem to imply; I have met several others, all across Mexico. And no, we are not related, nor we settled in the same region, just in case you want to minimize or dismiss our presence. And, of course, we have mix with Spaniards and natives alike, and we still keep the genes for blond hair, fair skin and clear color eyes (green and blue, choose, we have both in the family). This is a racist discussion, spawned from a racist stereotypical point of view of Mexicans. Maybe I should introduce you to my French-Mexican, Irish-Mexican, English-Mexican or German-Mexican friends so you can have a nice friendly talk with them and tell them they shouldn't exist in the first place, or better, that their presence in Mexico has been and continues to be irrelevant. You really need to travel more and talk less, Opinoso and the like.
Cheval Fou 12 (
talk)
00:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
With all do respect, why is one photo singled out and changed to another photo of the same type of source!? The uploaders of all these types of photos know what they are taking photos of and what's the difference between the Mexican girls and Urugauyan ones? They're all White! Why should it be that just because the girls in the photo don't "look Mexican" they should be singled out and not taken seriously? There are more White Mexicans than there are White Uruguayans!!! Stop your madness, or else take all other photos of Mulattos, Spaniards, Chinese, Amerindians, etc out of all Articles! Cali567 ( talk) 06:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I was the one who replaced the picture of the Mexican girls with the other one (Uruguayan girls) mainly for two reasons;
Uruguay has a much greater proportion of white people than Mexico (86% and 16% respectively), so chances the photo was from actual Uruguayan girls is quite plausible.
I know I’m relying on statistical probability rather than irrefutable evidence, but like many of the pictures that are uploaded and associated with a country's (or regions) demographics I thought this was a reasonable bet.
Lastly, and unlike the other user who only uploaded the photo of white Mexican never to be seen again, I used a picture that was uploaded by
Fercho85, a user who contributes heavily on the demographics sections of many articles. so in case anyone who doubted the origins of the photo, I thought, he might just come forward and give us his testimony.
This issue might turn out to be a complicated one.
Should we delete all pictures of people in the demographic section on the basis of unverifiable/questionable origins?
I’m not so sure that’s the right path to take, and I’d be very careful in doing so.
Perhaps, we could file a request for comment and get more input on this issue before taking any further action.
Likeminas ( talk) 15:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Cali let’s review some basic probability.
Uruguay does have about 3 million white people (out of 3.4 million)
So that’s about 85+% of the total population. Now Mexico has 16 million white people out of 110 million, or 16% of the total population.
So, if you were to pick randomly any 10 Mexicans and any 10 Uruguayans; tell me (according to the data above) what are the chances of picking any 10 white Mexicans and any 10 white Uruguayans?
The odds go like this,
all other things being equal: out of 10 randomly picked Mexicans, most likely you’ll get 1, and at most 2 whites.
On the other hand; out of 10 randomly picked Uruguayans you’ll get 8, and at most 9 whites.
See the difference?
Moreover, nobody is saying is "more common" to find these girls in Uruguay than in Mexico, All I said it’s more plausible, as far as the statistics go.
See, there's a difference between those two phrases as well.
Anyway, arguments for absolute numbers are usually weak. The better argument, yet, still weak, is the one about the allegedly violation of no original research.
So let's review what the policy says about user generated pictures:
Because of copyright law in a number of countries, there are relatively few existing images publicly available for use in Wikipedia. Photographs, drawings and other images created by Wikipedia editors thus fill a needed role. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.
Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed. It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to try to distort the facts or position being illustrated by a contributed photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any image that is found to have manipulation that materially affects its encyclopedic value should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion.
Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the main text of the article. Great care should be taken not to introduce original research into an article when captioning images.
So if I were to add the picture about the white girls in Uruguay, Can those contributors that oppose the use of that picture mention of how it introduces unpublished ideas or arguments?
The rule above clearly encourages editors to take photographs and upload them to Wikipedia thus filling a needed role (i.e.; White people in Latin America)
The tricky part does not lie on the action of uploading pictures to illustrate a certain need but to properly caption those images.
Likeminas ( talk) 18:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
(undent) "You shan't" is a weak argument given all the evidence I've mentioned here. Since your beef is with the way photos are handled Wiki-wide, please go to the village pump and take it up there.
NJGW (
talk)
04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I find myself this time, kind of agreeing with SamEV regarding the picture of the White Mexican girls.
It’s fairly easy to assume that the girls are in fact white, however, when it comes to the statistics and demographics of Mexico, then the claim about their nationality is not so obvious and it can reasonably become dubious. I’m not saying they're not Mexican, but rather, that it’s not an easy assumption to make.
At this point, I personally prefer having the picture (for now at least) of a famous person, such as Vicente Fox or any other well known white Latin American, than the picture of the white Mexican girls stating “there are 16 million White Mexicans” as another contributor suggested.
After all, the section is not about Mexicans per se, but instead about white Latin Americans in general.
Now with respect to the pictures depicting Mullatoes and Zambos, I see that the same issue could eventually arise. But instead of deleting those pictures, I propose we caption those images with some sort of generic description.
Perhaps, something like “People of Mullato heritage are a relevant part of the total population in some Caribbean countries”
[9] and “Zambo people are a small minority in Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil”
[10].
That’s my suggestion.
What do you guys think?
Likeminas (
talk)
15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, this is as simple as going to the Televisa web page and look at the pictures of the entertainers depicted there. As a sample, Rebecca de Alba (listed here in Wikipedia by the way, without a picture), show in the web site news, like the one contained in this link: http://www2.esmas.com/sos/noticias/013107/realizara-rebecca-alba-actuacion-especial-s.o.s Cheval Fou 12 ( talk) 01:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Here’s the link to this year’s projections. [12]
GDP per capita is easily calculated by dividing the country’s income by its population over a certain period of time. This can be a month, a quarter or a year. And although, the year is not over (We’re almost half way) the figures I believe we should be using are the 2009’s.
Likeminas ( talk) 15:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed Jesus reverted my update to the table. I assume he's doing so because 2008 already passed and the IMF no longer projects those numbers to fluctuate. But after double checking the IMF website, I see that on the upper-right corner of the table it says: Shaded cells indicate IMF staff estimates
So even the table for 2008 has most countries listed as estimates.
That's also the case with the figures for 2009.
So faced with two set of estimates, I'd rather have this year's estimate.
Any thoughts? Likeminas ( talk) 20:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Figures are were updated in April, meaning that 2009 figure estimates were up to February, only 2 months into the year, now 2008 would be a more accurate projection than 2009. I would say stick to the 2008 until the next update in October. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 21:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
White Mexicans are less than 10% that info of European Population is false. The picture of the "mexican girls" is fake. They look more like german girls with some Mexico T-shirts in the World cup 2006 that "white mexican girls". https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html#People —Preceding unsigned comment added by J altamirano ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) "how do we know that the blacks or amerindians are actually in Latin America? How do we know the Meztizos are in Guatemala or the salsa dancers are in Cuba? How do we know they're dancing salsa..." Good questions: how do we know?! I submit that there's either a hole in the policy, or that we, and by that I mean "you", are misreading it. The idea or argument in question here is these people's citizenship, btw. But listen, considering that no one seems to question whether Bolivian Indians in a picture really are Bolivian citizens, instead of say, Ecuadorian, whereas they do in the case of white Mexicans, why not go the notables route? You can put away the issue once and for all that way. Just a suggestion. SamEV ( talk) 04:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. In fact, you did misread the policy, because it actually states that the claims/info accompanying images ARE NOT exempt from WP:NOR: "Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the main text of the article. Great care should be taken not to introduce origninal research into an article when captioning images." SamEV ( talk) 04:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
It’s quite amusing to see how such an extensive argument developed based solely on the pictures of those white “Mexican” girls. I find it interesting that this is being disputed and I wonder if the issue would have arisen if the girls were wearing an Argentinean soccer shirt.
Statistically it’s quite reasonable to think that these girls are not part of the vast mestizo majority of Mexico, but at the same time it is not acceptable to discard the possibility that they, in fact, are part of the tiny white minority.
Now I see that the argument of some contributors has come down to the rule of “No original research”. But If we were to follow that logic, then, lots pictures in Wikipedia would have to be removed since at least some (if not most) are very hard to verify. That's a rather bootless task to accomplish specially when there are so many others with higher priority.
The OR argument is a slippery slope in the demographics section of any article.
How do we establish the exact nationality of an unknown person?
Do we use pictures from a reliable source such as a newspaper, website or magazine?
Then could be risking violations in terms of copy rights.
The only way I could see not violating any copy rights and while at the same time not being acussed of O.R. is if show pictures of only famous people. But, then again, that might not be a good representation sample.
Take a look at these pictures from the South American article. They would also amount as OR, as would most articles about demographics depicting races or ethnicities of a country. While I’m aware that Wikipedia strives for accuracy. I think it’s rather impractical and futile to attempt to establish with scientific exactitude the nationality of an unknow person.
Likeminas ( talk) 15:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiny White Population in Mexico? Mexico's White population is about 15%, so out of Mexico's 110 million people 16.5 million are white, so chances of seeing girls like this in many regions, especially in the north is not uncommon, now Chile ony has 5 million whites to Mexico's 15+ million.... so what is your argument? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Latin_American —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced the questionable picture with one that’s both statistically more likely to be accurate and taken within the context of a local beauty contest in Uruguay.
Picture information below:
Description: Colonia Valdense, Uruguay
Queen of the 12th Colonia Valdense Celebration
Source: self-made
Date: 09-12-2004
Author:
Fercho85
Likeminas (
talk)
22:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong with you, Likeminas? You created a complete fiasco over spilled milk just because you can't bring yourself to believe that a couple of white girls in a picture are Mexican. If Latin Americans weren't so subconsciously obsessed about race and degrees of whiteness, this problem would probably would not have happened at all.--Unregistered user, 19 March 2009
I modified/replaced the following ERRONEOUS sentence:
Given that the non-Latin territories about the Caribbean share a common sociopolitical history with their Latin neighbours in the region, the term Latin America and the Caribbean may be used
My version is as follows:
Given the geographical proximity of the non-Latin territories about the Caribbean with their Latin neighbours in the region, the term Latin America and the Caribbean may be used
Obviously, the Wikipedist who wrote the former phrase doesn't know enough about Latin America -- I do know because I am a Latin American myself, but anyway I'll try to list a few more convincing reasons supporting my point:
1) Latin American countries typically abandoned their colonial status in the 1810s or 1820s -- the only exceptions are Dominican Republic (in the 1860s), Cuba (in 1898) and Puerto Rico. On the other hand, the non-Latin Caribbean neighbors achieved their Independence in the second half of the 20th century.
2) In Latin American countries the most popular religion is Roman Catholicism. On the other hand, in the non-Latin Caribbean neighbors, Roman Catholic majorities are the exception and not the rule.
3) In none of the Latin American countries the African population is the majority (unless you accept the controversial inclusion of Haiti). On the other hand, in the non-Latin Caribbean neighbors the African component is paramount.
4) All Latin American countries (except perhaps Costa Rica and Puerto Rico) have a long history of dictatorships extending since the independence until the 1980s. This is not the case in the non-Latin Caribbean neighbors.
5) All Latin American countries have a tradition of tolerance for racial/religious/sexual minorities; for example, homosexuality is legal in all Latin American countries, without exception; on the other hand, homosexuals are clandestine and segregated in almost all Anglo-Caribbean countries.
I think that these arguments are significant enough to demonstrate that there is no common sociopolitical history shared by Latin America and non-Latin neigbors, therefore the expression Latin America and the Caribbean is due to geographical proximity.
Sebasbronzini ( talk) 05:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Sebasbronzini good point man. Non-Latin Caribbean countries have way more difference than similarity with Latin countries. Even Haiti, which is considered a Latin country despite its strong African-descended population bears much more similarity with other Latin countries than non-Latin Caribbean countries culturally speaking such as having a Roman Catholic majority, achieving independence in the 1800s (in fact Haiti was the first Latin country to do so in 1804), run by dictatorships for most of its history and the like. Fact of the matter is that Latin America should have its own article separate from the Caribbean.
User:Spyder00Boi|Spyder00Boi]] ( talk) 09:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
What I don't understand is how is Homicide the principal cause of death in Mexico when the homicide rate is ony 10%? The article is poorly sourced, there are atleast 5 other latin american countries with a higher rate then Mexico? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_rate Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Find me a recent source that states that Mexico has a homicide rate of 25% and i'll leave your edits alone, but for now please see the fallowing sources http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A//www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sv.pdf http://www.icesi.org.mx/documentos/estadisticas/estadisticas/denuncias_homicidio_doloso_1997_2006.pdf Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 20:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do you have to get all personal about my intentions, that shouldn't matter to you, we all use Wikipedia for our own reasons, which shouldn't matter to you, I'm sure you have your own hidden agenda, we are all biased, I know you love you Chile, and you should, just don't judge me. Anyways, I'll keep searching for other more recent sources regarding the matter and will get back to you. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know who is the user who keeps including Chile as a "white" country. It's incredible that somebody erases Chile, then a few days the name of the country is back again. There are no sources that claim Chile is predominantly "white". The census there count mestizos and whites together. It makes no sense. Others claim 30% is white, which is not majority either. Opinoso ( talk) 17:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not the census that counts mestizos and whites together. It's the CIA world factbook. The Chilean census doesn't not ask anything about ethnicity (aside from personal indigenous identification).
It's not the census that counts mestizos and whites together. It's the CIA world factbook that does that. The Chilean census doesn't not ask anything about ethnicity (aside from personal indigenous identification).
I don’t know if you read Spanish but as per Lizcano
Los países que más criollos contienen son Brasil (51%),
Argentina (17%) y, con casi 15 millones, México (8%); en tanto que Colombia y Chile tienen en torno a 8 millones cada uno, así como Perú,
Venezuela, Cuba, Costa Rica y Uruguay entre 3 y 4 millones.
Translation
The countries with the most Criollo people are Brazil (51%), Argentina (17%) and, with almost 15 million, Mexico (8%); whereas Colombia and Chile have around 8 million each, as well as Peru, Sees and Venezuela, Cuba, Costa Rica and Uruguay with between 3 and 4 million.
The Chilean population is 16 m. out of which 8 million are criollo, which makes it about 50% of the total population. Brazil is listed with a similar percentage. Should we remove it as well? Likeminas ( talk) 18:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
We cannot trust any source. We have to be carefull. If Chile has no census, then it is has no racial figures. That's the point. The source must be reliable to be acceptable. Opinoso ( talk) 18:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
"We cannot trust any source. We have to be carefull. If Chile has no census, then it is has no racial figures. That's the point. The source must be reliable to be acceptable."
In the case of Chile, only, I suppose. Because in [White Brazilian], Opinoso thinks that the "information" that there are 25,000,000 "Italian Brazilians" and 12,000,000 (!) Arab Brazilians should be kept, albeit the Brazilian census does not ask for that information. Lol. 200.198.196.129 ( talk) 15:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Since the article is about an area where Romance languages are spoken, the pre-Columbian languages mentioned in the infobox should be delineated from the other Romance ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.208.140 ( talk) 03:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This idea:
"Strictly speaking, Latin America can designate all of those countries and territories in the Americas where a Romance language (i.e. languages derived from Latin, and hence the name of the region) is spoken: Spanish, Portuguese, French, and creole languages based upon these".
Creole languages are not considered in the Latin context, for this reason countries like Jamaica, Haiti, etc, are not considered Latin Americans and for this reason, in order to include them, sources refer as "Latin America and the Antilles". -- Albeiror24-Neopanida ( talk) 02:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Haiti is a Latin American country, they speak 100% french, and they have Haitian Creole which is a creole language based on french.~~Cakechild~~
It is not true that no white pepole live in Paraguay, my Mom is white and she is from Paraguay. Miagirljmw14 ( talk) 21:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The culture part of the article reports: "Italian and British influence has been important as well".
I wonder if there's any Britsh influence in Latin America. Surely not. Opinoso ( talk) 22:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
British Guiana is NOT totally part of Latin America, since they do not speak a Latin language there.
What about British Peruvian? The article does not cite its sources and they are surely a tiny minority in Peru.
There's NO Britsh cultural influence in any Latin American country. Only because 2 or 3 countries were under British rule for a time does not mean they were influenced by Britsh culture. Opinoso ( talk) 02:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
And I am not talking about British Guiana, which is not part of Latin America at all. And former British Honduras, now Belize, is a Hispanic country, not Anglophone.
Tell me a couple of REAL Latin American countries which have British influence. You gotta list 4 or 5, because Latin America is very big, and only because 1 country may have some British influence, we cannot list British among the people who influenced Latin America. Opinoso ( talk) 02:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Surely the history of Latin America goes on after 1825? Kelvinc ( talk) 20:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw the sub-sub section titled Europeans, but it also talks about Middle Eastern people. Last time I remembered the Middle East is not located in the continent of Europe. Shouldn't the section be called White because Middle Easterners are White, not European. Lehoiberri ( talk) 22:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
USA is the 4th latinamerican country with more than 40000000 people. This population should be represented in the lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisanchez ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:ElOtro.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 10:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Please come to consensus here before continuing. NJGW ( talk) 22:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all Amerindians are indigenous peoples of the Americas, not just in the U.S., I'm talking about small islands in the Caribbean, central and South America. Am I not right? Second, how can you be so sure that there isn't at least a small percentage of Amerindian ancestry, there were many indigenous peoples in that country such as the Tainos, and Arwarks (as a Haitian I should know). Finally, your racially distribution chart is messed up. There are plenty mullattos in Haiti, I would change the "other" percentage, because there are more mullattos than "others" in Haiti. Cakechild ( talk) 02:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
According to many reliable sources (books, websites) Mexico City is the largest city in latin america (above São Paulo). It is the largest even in the western emisphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_hemisphere. By the way I posted the "European population 2" but I took the 15.5 percent from wikipedia, so, I hope someone could post a highly reliable source of Mexico's white population...And just as a coment, I agree with the discussion, I mean the white population could be 1 percent and the picture of the argued Mexican girls still could be accurate, in guadalajara is not weird to find people with notable european descendant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe0 ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Here are a couple; http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/379167/Mexico#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Mexico%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
this whole article starts from a presuntion which is wrong, but it doesn't even mention it and i cannot do it myself either. Latinamerica has not existed since Adán, but was invented in the late XiX early XX (arielistas?) as a way to create an ideological union (the political one was a fail) and separate the old spanish america from the saxon america, which started to be felt as a threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.45.249.100 ( talk) 12:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
In fact Latin-America has began at the moment when all these parts of the Americas have felt under Spanish, Portuguese and in a lesser extend French rule.
Before that speaking about a "latin-America" is a complete nonsense and let thinking that the latins were existing before the arrival of the southern Europeans in the region: that is to say that the latins are the Amerindians...
I find absolutly absurd to put images of Machu picchu (Inca) or Chichen Itza (Maya) as symbols of latin-American history as if at these times this part of America was already latin (as if it has always been latin). This is absurd and a complete lack of respect for the native Americans who were everything but latin people. The latin people were the conquerers; the Spanish, the portuguese and the french. The latins were the ones that destroyed the these civilisations - how can we consider that precolumbian people were living in latin America??
Latin culture is the in which those southern European peoples get their roots. Latin-America today deserve its name since a big of its culture (but not always its people's genetic herency) is derived (language, religion). But it is absurd to let thinking that everything in latin America is latin: Amerindian history and African influences have nothing to see with latin culture even is they have melted with it in latin-America, they still non-latin in origin.
The same way it would be absurd to speak about Ameridian cultures and people in pre-british United States as being part of "anglo-America" history. Or let supposing that Anglo-Americans already existed before the arrival of British people. It would mean that Cherokees, navajos, sioux, etc. were part of Anglo-American history in the years before European colonisation...
Wouldn't it be quite ridiculous to call Cherokee pre-british culture a "Anglo-American" culture. Or considering a pre-British Cheyenne indian to be of "Anglo-American" race, or even to shorten it as "Anglo" race. Or even worse; to conserdering that the real Anglos are the native os what is now Anglo-America; which would mean that to be a "true" Anglo one has to look like a native indian from Anglo-America... This is absurd for everyone but it is how many North American people (anglo-Americans) think about latin-America.
This section needs to be clear how it's "ranking" cities, and then it needs a source for that ranking. -- Falcorian (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I´d like to point out how messed up is the information in the Largest Metropolitan Areas part of the fact box. Being brazilian I know Porto Alegre isn´t one of the biggest metropolitan areas (let alone the sixth), and obviously São Paulo is lacking. It seems to me this article should be protected to assure quality information being displayed. 189.105.141.243 ( talk) 05:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Somebody tried to update the numbers on the economic table, incorrectly placing Mexico with the highest GDP per capita at PPP. I corrected the information using the comparison tool provided in the IMF website. See This link. for further details. Likeminas ( talk) 21:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Using 2007 IMF figures...
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2007&ey=2007&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=213%2C273%2C339%2C218%2C223%2C278%2C283%2C228%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C238%2C243%2C248%2C253%2C263%2C268%2C298%2C299&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a=&pr.x=17&pr.y=14 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jesusmariajalisco (
talk •
contribs)
02:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Who is/are the person(s) who keep including Chile as a "white country"? There are no sources for it. The census shows Chile is mainly mestizo. The fact that these mestizos are mainly white does not make them white. I am excluding Chile. Opinoso ( talk) 14:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
-- 200.73.30.108 ( talk) 17:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)-- 200.73.30.108 ( talk) 17:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Since when? Sure, we've always had a significant amount of mulattos but never have they been the majority. Cuba has always been mostly white, unmixed- and of Spanish descent. This was really shocking to come across. Even with a ton of White Cubans fleeing the country some years back due to Fidel, Whites still make up the majority of the population- by a lot, too. Here's the last official CIA census as proof. Cited.
Ethnic groups:
white 65.1%, mulatto and mestizo 24.8%, black 10.1% (2002 census)
[1] Cuban Census (2002)
Does anyone else think it might be better to list the Ethnic Groups according to actual numbers rather than putting them in alphabetical order? It's a bit odd to have Asians above Mestizos, Europeans, and Blacks as they are probably the tiniest minority in the region. Should we list them according to their figures? Mestizos, Europeans, Amerindians, Mulattos, etc are much more numerous in Latin America. Cali567 ( talk) 08:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I’m looking at the reference used for that table, and from looking at full city GDP rankings (on page 24) I see that the order and GDPs of the first three cities is incorrect.
As per the reference, Mexico City is #8 @ 315$bn at PPP, Buenos Aires #13 @ 245 and Sao Paulo #19 @225. Therefore the table should have the above cities as 1, 2 & 3 respectively.
Lima is properly positioned; however, the GDP is off. It’s not 75 but 67. The rest of the cities seem to have the correct information.
It would be also a good idea to say that this estimate is from 2005 and that figures are expressed in USD using the PPP exchange rates.
Likeminas (
talk)
20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I created the table last night, but when I checked it this morning an anonymous user and someone with user name Alextra changed the info. throwing the numbers off... I've corrected them, as well as the ranking order. Thanks for your continued input. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 20:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
What sources are being used to determine these figures?
From what I see on table 3.3 of page 18 from the PwC report.
Buenos Aires has a GDP per capita of USD $19.5k, Mexico city $16.2k, Rio $12.3k and Sao Paulo $12.3k.
The rest of the cities are nowhere to be found within that source.
If it’s the pricewaterhousecoopers report then, the figures need to be corrected; else another reliable source needs to be listed.
Likeminas ( talk) 14:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Please disregard the above comment, it looks like the figures are correct.
Nonetheless, I still couldn't find the GDP per capita within the PwC report of cities such as Monterrey and Belo Horizonte. Am I missing something here, or is the UN report the one being used?
Likeminas (
talk)
14:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
GDP per Capita (PPP) is simple math.... GPD/population... it is the same formula PwC used for the other cities. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 18:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
They are also Latin Americans, no?-- Sonjaaa ( talk) 14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Is a picture of Easter Island appropriate for the article? While it is true that Easter Island is a Chilean possession, the article defines "Latin America" in a way that restricts it to lands and islands in the Americas. Easter Island is normally regarded as a part of Polynesia and Oceania. Please review whether deletion of the photo of Easter Island is in order. I suggest it be deleted and replaced. Rrcs law ( talk) 16:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Demographics
The discussion on early settlement needs to be co-ordinated with the entry on Monte Verde. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teleer ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"Brazil is home to 1.49 million people of Asian descent,[8][9] which includes the largest ethnic Japanese community outside of Japan itself, numbering 1.5 million." How Japanese are Asians if I'm not mistaken. ---- Nate Riley 23:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering how this: [1] is irrelevant? I am not an expert here so I am just asking for more detail on why this peice of information should be included or no. -- DerRichter ( talk) 21:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
How many Mexicans do you know who trace their ancestry to Austria? I do not know any.
They did not have any impact in Mexico's demography.
By the way, the writer wrote "Ausrians", not Austrians. Do you really think anyone serious would write "Ausrians" and leave it wrong? Nobody serious would. Opinoso ( talk) 21:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, these sources say that immigrants were a minority in all Mexico's history, and only a few thousands of post-colonial Europeans settled Mexico. They did not have any huge impact in Mexico's demography.
How many Mexicans with a Belgian surname do you people know? Nobody. Opinoso ( talk) 22:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Surely, Lithuanian immigrants had a larger impact in Brazil (Brazil has 200,000 people of Lithuanian descent) [6] or Croatian immigration had a larger impact in Argentina (Argentina has 250,000 people of Croatian descent_ [7] than these French, Belgian or Austrians had in Mexico all together.
It is a matter of good sense and historical informations. Why aren't Lithuanians or Croatians listed there, which are actually big communities, and these small groups French, Belgians or Austrians are?
Dúnadan, stop claiming I am paranoid with "which country is whiter" because in all these discussions, YOU are involved in all them. So, the paranoid person with "which country is whiter" here is you, not me. You are trying to pass Mexico as a "white" country, which is not the reality.
By the way, I do not agree with an entire sentence giving emphasis on Mexico: "the Second Mexican Empire, many more French, Belgians and Swiss settled in Mexico". Why is it talking about Mexico, and other countries, such as Venezuela, which had a big European immigration in the mid-20th century, is not even listed?
Posting pictures of blond girls with Mexico T-shirt is crazy, because nobody can proove these girls are actually Mexicans; they can be tourists with a Mexican T-shirt. Second, most White Mexicans do not have blond hair or blue eyes, because most are of Spanish heritage, not French or Belgian at all.
So, it's totally irrelevant to talk about these minoritary people in Mexico, while much more important ethnic groups in Latin American, such as Lithuanians, Croatians or even Latvians, Hungarians and Russians are not listed.
Again, I think Lithuanians or Croatians should not be listed, because if we start to list every single ethnic group of European descent in Latin America, this article will never end. HOWEVER, if we list French, Belgians or Austrians in Mexico, we have to list many other people who, in fact, contributed to the demography of Latin America. Mexico should not be even listed there, since it never had a big European component in its population. Put Venezuela or even Colombia in its place. Opinoso ( talk) 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Somebody can take a picture of me on the street wearing a Mexico T-shirt and post my picture claiming I am Mexican. Nobody will be able to proove I am Mexican or not. Nobody can proove these girls are actually Mexicans only because in the picture they are wearing a T-shirt written "Mexico" or with their faces painted with Mexico's flag colors.
First: Mexico does not deserve an entire sentence about it in the European session. Second: Belgians and Austrians also should not be even listed, because both are very small and insignificant groups, not only in Mexico, but in all Latin American. Lithuanians, Croatians or even Russians, who are much bigger groups are not even listed there.
Third: the same way a picture of blond girls saying "White Mexicans are among the third largest ethnic groups" is a nonsense, since most "White" Mexicans are dark-haired and dark-eyes, because most have ancestors from Spain, not from Belgian or Austria. By the way, in all Latin American countries the vast majority of Whites do not have blond hair and blue eyes, so posting a picture of these blond girls, who are probably American tourists having fun in a Mexico soccer game, to represent the Whites of Latin America is a complete nonsense.
Chipilo with its Italians and other places are a very small minority in Mexico's 120 million inhabitants. Opinoso ( talk) 00:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, if we list every single ethnic group alive in Latin America, this article will never end.
I could include in the article the unnecessary information that 29 Finish immigrantes settled the countryside of Rio de Janeiro in the 1920s. And they really did, and I have sources to proove. These Finish created the distric of Penedo, an interesting tourist place of Rio.
But, why should I include this pathetic group of Finish people who settled a rural area of Rio? This is not an important information. They were a very small group. Even though they created a district, they were not important to Rio's demography, much less to Brazil's.
The same applies for Belgians in Mexico. They immigrated there, settled there. But was their impact really important to Mexico that they deserve to be listed among Spaniards, Portuguese or Italians in Latin America? Of course not. Opinoso ( talk) 02:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Or are you also trying to claim Spaniards are blonds? Opinoso ( talk) 02:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, you must read the article Spanish people: it reports Iberians trace their ancestry mostly to Paleolithic and Neolithic basis. It has nothing to do with Germanic people. Moreover, the Celts of Spain were mostly native people who were Celtized, not really pure Celtic. By the way, most Celts were also dark-haired and dark-eyed, like the nowadays population of Wales.
So, don't claim Celts were mostly blond people, because they weren't.
And also take a look at the map about blondism in Europe: Spain has the same low frequency of blond hair North Africa has, with only 1-19% of Spaniards being blonds. [8]
Why are you talking about the Moors? Do you think the dark hair of Spaniards came from the Moors? No, my friend. It comes from the Iberia's Paleolithic and Neolithic basis. These people, who started settling there 40,000 years ago were dark-haired and dark-eyed. It has nothing to do with the "recent" Muslim rule of Iberia.
Please, study and read WP:Verifiability, not me.
Dúnadan, no matter how much you claim Spaniards have blond hair and White Mexicans have blue eyes. Nobody will believe you. You claim people want to fight for which country is whiter, but it obviously seem you are the one trying to "white-wash" Spain and Latin America.
Give it up, my friend. Opinoso ( talk) 16:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Nobody wants to fight with you. By the way, this is not place for it. Find a forum for you to have fun.
Please, read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I finish this boring and useless discussion with you now.
Goodbye. Opinoso ( talk) 23:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Or do you mean brown hair and brown eyes? yes that's common. But other eye and hair colours are also very common. The south has a bit darker traits than the North though. but anything too noticeable (today). - Pedro ( talk) 10:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
LAST NEWS: Fernando Torres, Xabi Alonso and Carles Puyol have been expelled from the Spanish national soccer team because they have red/blond hair and blue/green eyes and according to Opinoso it's a crime to look nordic in a southeuropean country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.22.98 ( talk) 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Opinoso You should make a trip to Los Altos in Jalisco, plenty of blondes and red heads their with blue and green eyes. Mostly due to French and Spanish backgrounds. Broaden you horizons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I find this quite insulting, to have my French heritage belittled by someone who has never set foot in Mexico. And we are not the only French-Mexican family you will find in the country, like you seem to imply; I have met several others, all across Mexico. And no, we are not related, nor we settled in the same region, just in case you want to minimize or dismiss our presence. And, of course, we have mix with Spaniards and natives alike, and we still keep the genes for blond hair, fair skin and clear color eyes (green and blue, choose, we have both in the family). This is a racist discussion, spawned from a racist stereotypical point of view of Mexicans. Maybe I should introduce you to my French-Mexican, Irish-Mexican, English-Mexican or German-Mexican friends so you can have a nice friendly talk with them and tell them they shouldn't exist in the first place, or better, that their presence in Mexico has been and continues to be irrelevant. You really need to travel more and talk less, Opinoso and the like.
Cheval Fou 12 (
talk)
00:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
With all do respect, why is one photo singled out and changed to another photo of the same type of source!? The uploaders of all these types of photos know what they are taking photos of and what's the difference between the Mexican girls and Urugauyan ones? They're all White! Why should it be that just because the girls in the photo don't "look Mexican" they should be singled out and not taken seriously? There are more White Mexicans than there are White Uruguayans!!! Stop your madness, or else take all other photos of Mulattos, Spaniards, Chinese, Amerindians, etc out of all Articles! Cali567 ( talk) 06:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I was the one who replaced the picture of the Mexican girls with the other one (Uruguayan girls) mainly for two reasons;
Uruguay has a much greater proportion of white people than Mexico (86% and 16% respectively), so chances the photo was from actual Uruguayan girls is quite plausible.
I know I’m relying on statistical probability rather than irrefutable evidence, but like many of the pictures that are uploaded and associated with a country's (or regions) demographics I thought this was a reasonable bet.
Lastly, and unlike the other user who only uploaded the photo of white Mexican never to be seen again, I used a picture that was uploaded by
Fercho85, a user who contributes heavily on the demographics sections of many articles. so in case anyone who doubted the origins of the photo, I thought, he might just come forward and give us his testimony.
This issue might turn out to be a complicated one.
Should we delete all pictures of people in the demographic section on the basis of unverifiable/questionable origins?
I’m not so sure that’s the right path to take, and I’d be very careful in doing so.
Perhaps, we could file a request for comment and get more input on this issue before taking any further action.
Likeminas ( talk) 15:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Cali let’s review some basic probability.
Uruguay does have about 3 million white people (out of 3.4 million)
So that’s about 85+% of the total population. Now Mexico has 16 million white people out of 110 million, or 16% of the total population.
So, if you were to pick randomly any 10 Mexicans and any 10 Uruguayans; tell me (according to the data above) what are the chances of picking any 10 white Mexicans and any 10 white Uruguayans?
The odds go like this,
all other things being equal: out of 10 randomly picked Mexicans, most likely you’ll get 1, and at most 2 whites.
On the other hand; out of 10 randomly picked Uruguayans you’ll get 8, and at most 9 whites.
See the difference?
Moreover, nobody is saying is "more common" to find these girls in Uruguay than in Mexico, All I said it’s more plausible, as far as the statistics go.
See, there's a difference between those two phrases as well.
Anyway, arguments for absolute numbers are usually weak. The better argument, yet, still weak, is the one about the allegedly violation of no original research.
So let's review what the policy says about user generated pictures:
Because of copyright law in a number of countries, there are relatively few existing images publicly available for use in Wikipedia. Photographs, drawings and other images created by Wikipedia editors thus fill a needed role. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.
Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed. It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to try to distort the facts or position being illustrated by a contributed photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any image that is found to have manipulation that materially affects its encyclopedic value should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion.
Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the main text of the article. Great care should be taken not to introduce original research into an article when captioning images.
So if I were to add the picture about the white girls in Uruguay, Can those contributors that oppose the use of that picture mention of how it introduces unpublished ideas or arguments?
The rule above clearly encourages editors to take photographs and upload them to Wikipedia thus filling a needed role (i.e.; White people in Latin America)
The tricky part does not lie on the action of uploading pictures to illustrate a certain need but to properly caption those images.
Likeminas ( talk) 18:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
(undent) "You shan't" is a weak argument given all the evidence I've mentioned here. Since your beef is with the way photos are handled Wiki-wide, please go to the village pump and take it up there.
NJGW (
talk)
04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I find myself this time, kind of agreeing with SamEV regarding the picture of the White Mexican girls.
It’s fairly easy to assume that the girls are in fact white, however, when it comes to the statistics and demographics of Mexico, then the claim about their nationality is not so obvious and it can reasonably become dubious. I’m not saying they're not Mexican, but rather, that it’s not an easy assumption to make.
At this point, I personally prefer having the picture (for now at least) of a famous person, such as Vicente Fox or any other well known white Latin American, than the picture of the white Mexican girls stating “there are 16 million White Mexicans” as another contributor suggested.
After all, the section is not about Mexicans per se, but instead about white Latin Americans in general.
Now with respect to the pictures depicting Mullatoes and Zambos, I see that the same issue could eventually arise. But instead of deleting those pictures, I propose we caption those images with some sort of generic description.
Perhaps, something like “People of Mullato heritage are a relevant part of the total population in some Caribbean countries”
[9] and “Zambo people are a small minority in Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil”
[10].
That’s my suggestion.
What do you guys think?
Likeminas (
talk)
15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, this is as simple as going to the Televisa web page and look at the pictures of the entertainers depicted there. As a sample, Rebecca de Alba (listed here in Wikipedia by the way, without a picture), show in the web site news, like the one contained in this link: http://www2.esmas.com/sos/noticias/013107/realizara-rebecca-alba-actuacion-especial-s.o.s Cheval Fou 12 ( talk) 01:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Here’s the link to this year’s projections. [12]
GDP per capita is easily calculated by dividing the country’s income by its population over a certain period of time. This can be a month, a quarter or a year. And although, the year is not over (We’re almost half way) the figures I believe we should be using are the 2009’s.
Likeminas ( talk) 15:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed Jesus reverted my update to the table. I assume he's doing so because 2008 already passed and the IMF no longer projects those numbers to fluctuate. But after double checking the IMF website, I see that on the upper-right corner of the table it says: Shaded cells indicate IMF staff estimates
So even the table for 2008 has most countries listed as estimates.
That's also the case with the figures for 2009.
So faced with two set of estimates, I'd rather have this year's estimate.
Any thoughts? Likeminas ( talk) 20:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Figures are were updated in April, meaning that 2009 figure estimates were up to February, only 2 months into the year, now 2008 would be a more accurate projection than 2009. I would say stick to the 2008 until the next update in October. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 21:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
White Mexicans are less than 10% that info of European Population is false. The picture of the "mexican girls" is fake. They look more like german girls with some Mexico T-shirts in the World cup 2006 that "white mexican girls". https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html#People —Preceding unsigned comment added by J altamirano ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) "how do we know that the blacks or amerindians are actually in Latin America? How do we know the Meztizos are in Guatemala or the salsa dancers are in Cuba? How do we know they're dancing salsa..." Good questions: how do we know?! I submit that there's either a hole in the policy, or that we, and by that I mean "you", are misreading it. The idea or argument in question here is these people's citizenship, btw. But listen, considering that no one seems to question whether Bolivian Indians in a picture really are Bolivian citizens, instead of say, Ecuadorian, whereas they do in the case of white Mexicans, why not go the notables route? You can put away the issue once and for all that way. Just a suggestion. SamEV ( talk) 04:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. In fact, you did misread the policy, because it actually states that the claims/info accompanying images ARE NOT exempt from WP:NOR: "Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the main text of the article. Great care should be taken not to introduce origninal research into an article when captioning images." SamEV ( talk) 04:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
It’s quite amusing to see how such an extensive argument developed based solely on the pictures of those white “Mexican” girls. I find it interesting that this is being disputed and I wonder if the issue would have arisen if the girls were wearing an Argentinean soccer shirt.
Statistically it’s quite reasonable to think that these girls are not part of the vast mestizo majority of Mexico, but at the same time it is not acceptable to discard the possibility that they, in fact, are part of the tiny white minority.
Now I see that the argument of some contributors has come down to the rule of “No original research”. But If we were to follow that logic, then, lots pictures in Wikipedia would have to be removed since at least some (if not most) are very hard to verify. That's a rather bootless task to accomplish specially when there are so many others with higher priority.
The OR argument is a slippery slope in the demographics section of any article.
How do we establish the exact nationality of an unknown person?
Do we use pictures from a reliable source such as a newspaper, website or magazine?
Then could be risking violations in terms of copy rights.
The only way I could see not violating any copy rights and while at the same time not being acussed of O.R. is if show pictures of only famous people. But, then again, that might not be a good representation sample.
Take a look at these pictures from the South American article. They would also amount as OR, as would most articles about demographics depicting races or ethnicities of a country. While I’m aware that Wikipedia strives for accuracy. I think it’s rather impractical and futile to attempt to establish with scientific exactitude the nationality of an unknow person.
Likeminas ( talk) 15:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiny White Population in Mexico? Mexico's White population is about 15%, so out of Mexico's 110 million people 16.5 million are white, so chances of seeing girls like this in many regions, especially in the north is not uncommon, now Chile ony has 5 million whites to Mexico's 15+ million.... so what is your argument? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Latin_American —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced the questionable picture with one that’s both statistically more likely to be accurate and taken within the context of a local beauty contest in Uruguay.
Picture information below:
Description: Colonia Valdense, Uruguay
Queen of the 12th Colonia Valdense Celebration
Source: self-made
Date: 09-12-2004
Author:
Fercho85
Likeminas (
talk)
22:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong with you, Likeminas? You created a complete fiasco over spilled milk just because you can't bring yourself to believe that a couple of white girls in a picture are Mexican. If Latin Americans weren't so subconsciously obsessed about race and degrees of whiteness, this problem would probably would not have happened at all.--Unregistered user, 19 March 2009
I modified/replaced the following ERRONEOUS sentence:
Given that the non-Latin territories about the Caribbean share a common sociopolitical history with their Latin neighbours in the region, the term Latin America and the Caribbean may be used
My version is as follows:
Given the geographical proximity of the non-Latin territories about the Caribbean with their Latin neighbours in the region, the term Latin America and the Caribbean may be used
Obviously, the Wikipedist who wrote the former phrase doesn't know enough about Latin America -- I do know because I am a Latin American myself, but anyway I'll try to list a few more convincing reasons supporting my point:
1) Latin American countries typically abandoned their colonial status in the 1810s or 1820s -- the only exceptions are Dominican Republic (in the 1860s), Cuba (in 1898) and Puerto Rico. On the other hand, the non-Latin Caribbean neighbors achieved their Independence in the second half of the 20th century.
2) In Latin American countries the most popular religion is Roman Catholicism. On the other hand, in the non-Latin Caribbean neighbors, Roman Catholic majorities are the exception and not the rule.
3) In none of the Latin American countries the African population is the majority (unless you accept the controversial inclusion of Haiti). On the other hand, in the non-Latin Caribbean neighbors the African component is paramount.
4) All Latin American countries (except perhaps Costa Rica and Puerto Rico) have a long history of dictatorships extending since the independence until the 1980s. This is not the case in the non-Latin Caribbean neighbors.
5) All Latin American countries have a tradition of tolerance for racial/religious/sexual minorities; for example, homosexuality is legal in all Latin American countries, without exception; on the other hand, homosexuals are clandestine and segregated in almost all Anglo-Caribbean countries.
I think that these arguments are significant enough to demonstrate that there is no common sociopolitical history shared by Latin America and non-Latin neigbors, therefore the expression Latin America and the Caribbean is due to geographical proximity.
Sebasbronzini ( talk) 05:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Sebasbronzini good point man. Non-Latin Caribbean countries have way more difference than similarity with Latin countries. Even Haiti, which is considered a Latin country despite its strong African-descended population bears much more similarity with other Latin countries than non-Latin Caribbean countries culturally speaking such as having a Roman Catholic majority, achieving independence in the 1800s (in fact Haiti was the first Latin country to do so in 1804), run by dictatorships for most of its history and the like. Fact of the matter is that Latin America should have its own article separate from the Caribbean.
User:Spyder00Boi|Spyder00Boi]] ( talk) 09:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
What I don't understand is how is Homicide the principal cause of death in Mexico when the homicide rate is ony 10%? The article is poorly sourced, there are atleast 5 other latin american countries with a higher rate then Mexico? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_rate Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Find me a recent source that states that Mexico has a homicide rate of 25% and i'll leave your edits alone, but for now please see the fallowing sources http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A//www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sv.pdf http://www.icesi.org.mx/documentos/estadisticas/estadisticas/denuncias_homicidio_doloso_1997_2006.pdf Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 20:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do you have to get all personal about my intentions, that shouldn't matter to you, we all use Wikipedia for our own reasons, which shouldn't matter to you, I'm sure you have your own hidden agenda, we are all biased, I know you love you Chile, and you should, just don't judge me. Anyways, I'll keep searching for other more recent sources regarding the matter and will get back to you. Jesusmariajalisco ( talk) 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know who is the user who keeps including Chile as a "white" country. It's incredible that somebody erases Chile, then a few days the name of the country is back again. There are no sources that claim Chile is predominantly "white". The census there count mestizos and whites together. It makes no sense. Others claim 30% is white, which is not majority either. Opinoso ( talk) 17:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not the census that counts mestizos and whites together. It's the CIA world factbook. The Chilean census doesn't not ask anything about ethnicity (aside from personal indigenous identification).
It's not the census that counts mestizos and whites together. It's the CIA world factbook that does that. The Chilean census doesn't not ask anything about ethnicity (aside from personal indigenous identification).
I don’t know if you read Spanish but as per Lizcano
Los países que más criollos contienen son Brasil (51%),
Argentina (17%) y, con casi 15 millones, México (8%); en tanto que Colombia y Chile tienen en torno a 8 millones cada uno, así como Perú,
Venezuela, Cuba, Costa Rica y Uruguay entre 3 y 4 millones.
Translation
The countries with the most Criollo people are Brazil (51%), Argentina (17%) and, with almost 15 million, Mexico (8%); whereas Colombia and Chile have around 8 million each, as well as Peru, Sees and Venezuela, Cuba, Costa Rica and Uruguay with between 3 and 4 million.
The Chilean population is 16 m. out of which 8 million are criollo, which makes it about 50% of the total population. Brazil is listed with a similar percentage. Should we remove it as well? Likeminas ( talk) 18:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
We cannot trust any source. We have to be carefull. If Chile has no census, then it is has no racial figures. That's the point. The source must be reliable to be acceptable. Opinoso ( talk) 18:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
"We cannot trust any source. We have to be carefull. If Chile has no census, then it is has no racial figures. That's the point. The source must be reliable to be acceptable."
In the case of Chile, only, I suppose. Because in [White Brazilian], Opinoso thinks that the "information" that there are 25,000,000 "Italian Brazilians" and 12,000,000 (!) Arab Brazilians should be kept, albeit the Brazilian census does not ask for that information. Lol. 200.198.196.129 ( talk) 15:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Since the article is about an area where Romance languages are spoken, the pre-Columbian languages mentioned in the infobox should be delineated from the other Romance ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.208.140 ( talk) 03:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)