Talk:Latin Americans

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Collage proposal

File:Latinoamericanos.png

1st row: Garcilaso de la Vega, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, Porfirio Díaz
2nd row: María Montez, Emiliano Zapata, Eva Perón
3rd row: Gilberto Gil, Rigoberta Menchú, Evo Morales
4th row: Piedad Córdoba, Kaká, Taís Araújo

I've composed this collage proposal, trying to roughly respect national, ethnic and gender proportionalities:

National: 3 Mexicans, 3 Brazilians, 1 Peruvian, 1 Bolivian, 1 Dominican, 1 Colombian, 1 Argentine, 1 Guatemalan

Ethnic: 4 White Latin American, 3 Mestizo, 3 Afro Latin American, 2 Amerindian

Gender: 6 women, 6 men

Please, help improve this collage so we can have an illustration for the article. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 20:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]









New Collage Proposal

File:Latinoamericanos2.png

1st row: Garcilaso de la Vega, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, Julio Argentino Roca, Michelle Bachelet
2nd row: María Montez, Emiliano Zapata, Sylvia del Villard, Benito Juárez
3rd row: Gilberto Gil, Rigoberta Menchú, Evo Morales, Daniele Suzuki
4th row: Piedad Córdoba, Kaká, Taís Araújo, Rafael Correa

New Proposal:

National: 4 Brazilians, 3 Mexicans, 1 Colombian, 1 Argentine, 1 Peruvian, 1 Chilean, 1 Ecuatorian, 1 Guatemalan, 1 Bolivian, 1 Dominican, 1 Puerto Rican

Ethnic: 5 White Latin American, 4 Afro Latin American, 3 Mestizo, 3 Amerindian, 1 Asian Latin American

I'll wait for more opinions. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 23:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the newer better. I propose you add some more, to at least 20 individuals.
Did you arrange them that way on purpose? I notice that one row is entirely non-white in both proposals (Gil, Menchú, Morales, Suzuki). I think we should mix them up. SamEV (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti?

Why isn't Haiti here? Haiti speaks French, so it can't be part of Anglo America, and by pure definition of Latin America, it is part of Latin America. And some mention of Quebec must be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.13.221 (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to research that in some considerable depth and will have a response by this weekend, though I hope sooner. SamEV (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, won't be this weekend. Still researching it. Sorry. SamEV (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Not yet.
BTW, I chose to do this because I'd been meaning to for years. I figured that if I committed to it, publicly, I might follow through, finally. We shall see if I do. SamEV (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belize?

Should Belize also be added here? After all, they use Spanish as a recognized language, even though English is official. And the people of Belize are more similar to Latin Americans per se than Anglo Americans.--Fernirm (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico is not indomestizo/indigenous in general population or culture.

Pages 13 & 15 of the source that states Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, & Guatemala as indigenous/indomestizo countries does NOT include Mexico, Mexico is specifically included in the "mestizo" nations. And Mexico cannot be thought of as an indigenous nation, given the fact that it has the largest mestizo population in Latin America. Its culture is mixed, for example: only 5.4% of Mexicans speak an indigenous language, while most of those 5.4% also speak Spanish, and the rest of the 94.6% of the Mexicans don't speak a Native language, but they speak Spanish (a Euro language); Mexican cuisine is a fusion of different cultures, predominantly Spanish & Indigenous, (good example: tacos are a fusion of indigenous maize and European beef/chicken); many Mexican traditions originate from Spanish ones or are culturally between Spanish & Indigenous; the grand majority of Mexicans adhere to Roman Catholicism, not an indigenous religion. So in almost every way, shape, and form, Mexico is clearly mestizo, so I don't know why it would be considered "indigenous" when the great majority of its people, culture, gastronomy, language, traditions, religion, etc. are all mestizo in origin (or sometimes even solely European), and not indigenous. Bolivia & Guatemala are majority indigenous, indigenous is the largest majority group in Peru, & natives make almost the biggest group in Ecuador, but what about Mexico? Mexico's majority is mestizo, not indigenous, and most estimates put indigenous Mexicans to be between 10-14% of the Mexican population, even the CIA's 30% is still too low (it's like calling Venezuela a "white country" just because 30% of its people are white and most of the rest of the population are partially white.) While I would have liked to see more countries in the Americas to be more indigenous, I think that it's just simply wrong to deny the European/Spanish part of Mexico, because it would be like denying the indigenous side of Mexico and saying Mexico is a "white country", given that the white/partial white population combined reach up to 85.5% of the Mexicans, which is 1.5% higher than the indigenous/partial indigenous combined population (these are the stats from the ethnicity table of the article).--Fernirm (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico has the largest numerically indigenous population in Latin America.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, you are undoubtely right in your argument, Fernirm, but the source by Larraín does not state what you say. At least not on the pages you mention. But I'm sure you can easily get some verifiable reliable sources to support and reference your argument in the article. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I think I clicked the wrong source, but the source I clicked on said on pages 13 & 15 that four indomestizo countries are Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, & Guatemala. While Mexico was classified as mestizo. This is the source I clicked on (I believe) -<http://convergencia.uaemex.mx/rev38/38pdf/LIZCANO.pdf> , check pages 13 & 15 (the source has 48 pages).-Fernirm (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lizcano is the source for the table above. The reference for the line we are discussing is from Larraín (ref Nr 36). The clasification is from Mario Sambarino (himself based on D. Ribeiro), and it is cited on pages 3 & 4 in Larraín. Find another realiable source to support your argumentation, and maybe we'll find a way to introduce it in some place. For further editions, take into account that the info that is sourced should represent what the sources say. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we replace Mario Sambarino's classifications with Lizcano's classifications (given that Sambarino is just copying Ribeiro) and Lizcano is more precise. Saying that Mexico is indigenous and comparing it to REAL Indigenous countries seems wierd and unprofessional in this page and would be like comparing and grouping Venezuela with Argentina and Uruguay. We should be more open, and, if we have Lizcano for the ethnic compostion, then why not for the classification?--Fernirm (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lizcano is giving an ethnic panorama, and he is already widely mentioned in this article. The paragraph incluiding Riberiro's classification, and Sambarino's, is focused more on cultural identity. At least Ribeiro's is a consistent clasification, which of course takes into account the post-Revolutionary Mestizo identity of Mexico, but underlines the indigenous component in it. Anyway, as the end of the same paragraph states, Ribeiro's classification is grossly approximative and changes substantially if you look at subnational regions. I'd propose that we expand this paragrpah into a new section (ethno-culture), adding other approaches to the subject. But I'd preserve the current info, as it is probably the best developed comprehensive comparative study on the subject across the region (Case studies may be far more accurate, but it would be a lot more difficult to establish valid comparisions cross-national). Salut, --IANVS (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, actually Larraín says that Sambarino bases his classification (not his study -he is not "copying") on a classification by some Elman Service. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I agree with Fernirm. Mexico's 13% of indigenous people and 70% of mestizos are missrepresented in the work of Ribeiro. And if you are talking about cultural classification that is even more wrong, since Mexico's culture is a mixture of Catholic Spanish traditions and some native american elements, which is a mestizo culture (mixed culture). I think that must mean something. Promoting Ribeiro's work that so hard is opposite to Mexico's reality seems a little harsh. I think Lizcano should be used, or other author. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 05:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's always bothered me, too, since I saw that content at the Latin America article.
A solution might be to clarify that despite the Service-Sambarino classification, most or all sources show Mexico to be a majority mestizo country. SamEV (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism

Buddhism should be mentioned in this article. 67.175.103.146 (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So whats with the School children from Lima

I must say that its not because I find the photo essential for the article its really kind of ugly and doesn't illustrate any thing, but I've found the reasons given in the edit summaries by Ccrazymann basically meaningless. What is it that makes you object to this photo? It obviously shows a group of Latin Americanpeople from Lima, and it doesn't purport to show anything more or less than that. You can't expect to get any single photo that illustrates the ethnic or socioeconomic composition of Peru with statistical accuracy. What is the criteria for inclusion of photos anyway? Most of them are original research and mildly racist any way so what is the problem with this harmless group of seemingly upper middle class students?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black, Mulato and Zambo population in Venezuela

Good morning to all, I recently saw the need to withdraw Venezuela from some paragraphs of the article in which he was included that country within the population that have more black and mulatto mulatto. While, previously included in that country, but according to the last population census in 2011 it was concluded that the black population in the country accounts for only 2.8% which does not have great relevance in the paragraph when compared with figures from other countries such as Brazil and Colombia where the population is much higher afrodescenciente. (Pag 14 -> [1]).

Yesterday I saw the need for such corrections in the article with solid references, however the user "MAUNUS" changes reverted article. Hope and take into account my remarks and that the printed article is modifque since the reference is solid and reliable enough to do so.

Greetings. «Jaam0121 (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)»[reply]

Venezuela has historically had a signficant African presence, the fact that most afro-descendants no longer identify as such in censuses does not change this historical fact. You can add the census information, but don't remove sourced information.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
're Wrong. While Venezuela historically received balnca races, black, Amerindian including what settle the racial spectrum is Venezuela today. But your argument is personal or at least so I understand, these are actual samples OFFICIAL of the National Institute of Statistics of Venezuela and shows both black population that exists in the country, I understand that other references show altered figures, but already having results a national census is necessary to make the.

Changes will reverse again and I hope you respect, otherwise the item may be involved in a war of Editions Might even be blocked.

I suggest that you respect the policies of wikipedia, take your time and read them. Greetings. «Jaam0121 (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)»[reply]


The census from 2011 argument is stupid, and probably something cited by some child. The census clearly mixes both "mestizo" with "moreno" and it does not provide a separate identification for people of just indigenous and white mixture, vs african + indigenous + white.

I don't know where you come from, but you certainly aren't venezuelan. Probably some american kid larping as latin american.

Regardless, as I already mentioned, if you go to the 2011 census, you can see that the people that identify as afrovenezuelan is miniscule. Secondly, the census decided to use "moreno" as a blanket term for mixed, not specifying mestizo or mulatto.

Thirdly, you can see by DNA analysis done by the university of Brasilia, that Afro DNA in the venezuelan Gene Pool is small compared to its indigenous and european DNA. [1]

Fourthly, this is actually widely discussed by people. Since the people claiming this very large "african heritage" in venezuela have absolutely no sources.

EVEN if the census from 2011 had two criterias for mestizo and 'moreno', the word 'moreno' in venezuela does not mean mulatto, it means brown. Furthermore, it does not matter what people identify as, because data does not back it up.

Cheers, here is a discussion from a Latin American forum where you are told to be quiet. Same topic, same answer. I am editing this article and fixing it. [2] 1. https://repositorio.unb.br/handle/10482/5542 2. https://www.reddit.com/r/asklatinamerica/comments/m33t0n/why_has_xenophobia_increased_in_latin_america/gqnd8ls/


signed, an actual venezuelan. We are not black, and that's racist.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Latin Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Latin Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Latin Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Latin Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Haitians considered Latin American and not Quebecers?

The boundaries seem a bit strange to me...Php2000 (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that someone from the US, who had never left the US coined the term to refer to everything south of the Rio Grande and only later after the word had caught on did people start trying to justify it or define it as meaning something more than that, so they picked romance languages. I mean what does it even mean? The idea that somehow Guatemala is more similar to southern Brazil where I live than Belize because we speak Portuguese, they speak Spanish and the people in Belize speak an English creole is bizarre. Or Buenos Aires and Port Au Prince, or Valparaiso and Juarez. The other reason people could say is racism ie we're white and they're not, but the strip starting in Rio De Janeiro and going down to Buenos Aires which is about 125 million or so people is demographically very similar to the US and Canada, so it's not even that. 186.222.32.140 (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about how people in Brazil use the term, but in Spanish-speaking South America the term "Latin American" includes Puerto Rico and Brazil but excludes Quebec, Surinam and Guyana. I don't think that such dichotomy can be blamed on the United States. I do think that most people leave out Haiti, Martinique and Guadeloupe from the definition of Latin America, but if the sources say that they are included then we need to keep them in. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the term was not coined by "someone from the US, who had never left the US", but by South Americans living and publishing in France. Also, the "why" question is the wrong question to ask. The right one, is *what* do reliable sources say—even if they get it "wrong" (by logic, or by consistency, or by your opinion or anybody's opinion). So discussion here should concentrate on this question: "Do the preponderance of reliable sources consider Haiti, but not Quebec, part of Latin America?" If the answer to that question is "yes", then so must we; and if the answer is "no", then we mustn't, either. Mathglot (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quebec is better supported by RSs on the page than Haiti. Quebec is a region in the Americas where a romance language is primarily spoken which as per the RSs cited under definition of Latin American make it Latin American. Haiti fails this definition provided by RSs present in the Definition subsection. In Haiti only 42% of the population speak a romance language ie French. The rest speak Haitian Creole which is a blend of west african languages that borrow heavily from French vocabulary. But there in lies the kicker, and why it's not listed as a romance language, lexicon in irrelevant which is why English is a Germanic language, and Persian is Indo-European and not Afro Asiatic. So yes, I keep seeing RSs before people delete sourced material, like with what happened with the inclusion of peoples living in the French Regions of French Guiana, Guadeloupe, and Martinique. 186.222.32.140 (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to find reliable sources that describe Quebec as being in Latin America, not sources that say that a majority of residents in that particular Canadian province speak a Romance language. And your denigration of Haitian Creole adds nothing to the debate, given that some reliable sources list Haiti as part of Latin America. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing the references of Latin-Americans in the Philippines?

Why are you removing the references of Latin-Americans in the Philippines? When nations such as Japan or Australia which had very little Latin-American immigration get mentions while the Philippines has not, despite the fact that the Mexico-based Viceroyalty of New Spain sent thousands of Mexican immigrants to the Philippine per year, according to military deployment records, when the Latin-America centered Viceroyalty of New Spain, ruled the Philippines from the 1500s to 1800s (Spain only directly ruled it from 1800 - 1898). Logically by the large time span, 3 Centuries of Latin American rule, there are Millions of Filipinos with Latin American descent today. Yet Japan and Australia get mentioned while the Philippines' mention is constantly erased despite damning overwhelming evidence!!!? OMG! 3 CENTURIES of rule under a Latin American political entity does not qualify a mention of the Philippines' Latin American population, whereas faraway Australia that has never been under the radar of Latin-Americans get a mention? Where is the logic in that!? Please explain your actions! Thank You...@AuH2ORepublican, Cwmhiraeth, 2804:1054:301e:78f0:44f2:2a73:3fda:20b2, 72.137.39.142, and Moxy: 49.145.107.148 (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about Latin Americans, which is a term that comprises people from Latin America (defined as the Spanish-, Portuguese- and French-speaking countries of the Americas). The Philippines are located in Asia, so even if they had been ruled by Spain for even longer than they were (and please note that the Philippines had Spanish rule, not "Latin American" rule), and even if there had been even more Spanish immigration to the Philippines and Spanish ancestry was as important a component of Filipinos today as it is in, say, Mexico, the Dominican Republic or Chile, it would not make the Philippines part of Latin America or it people (even the Spanish-descended ones) Latin Americans. Similarly, Western Sahara and Equatorial Guinea (which were Spanish territories until 1975) are not part of Latin America, and its people are not Latin Americans.
Yes, there are many verified Hispanics in the Philippines, and of course "Spanish mestizos" such as Benito Legarda and Manuel Quezón are included in the article that lists Hispanic and Latino members of Congress *because they were Hispanic*. However, "Hispanic" and "Latin American" are by no means synonymous terms--Martin Sheen and Joaquin Elizalde are Hispanic but not Latino, while John Sununu and Pelé are Latino but not Hispanic.
Also, please keep in mind that when a person from Latin America moves to Australia or Japan, he is a Latin American emigrant to such country, and such cases are discussed in the section related to Latin Americans who live outside of Latin America. That is a very different case from Mexicans who settled in the Philippines in 1700 or whatever. That some Filipinos have partial Latin American ancestry from three centuries ago (which, frankly, is not proven by the proferred "scientific studies" that point to some modern Filipinos "looking like Latin Americans--do they mean that they look like Celia Cruz, like Gisele Bündchen, like Keiko Fujimori or like Dayanara Torres?) is irrelevant to an article about Latin Americans today, and it does not make the Philippines one of the destinations for recent Latin American emigration or part of the "Latin American diaspora" as the term is normally understood.
I trust that this was responsive to your query. If the other editors that have removed non-germane information regarding the Philippines from the article on Latin Americans wish to chime in as well, I invite them to do so. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @AuH2ORepublican: for your informed opinion, however I have spotted several inconsistencies on the list of nationalities with Latin American immigrants, for example, Japanese Latin-Americans are mostly Japanese-Brazilians with no Latin American descent, merely ethnic Japanese who migrated to Brazil and back-migrated to Japan. Also the Spanish Latin Americans included pure Spaniards with no Native-American descent, back-migrating to Spain.
Isn't it unfair that the Philippines which also has Native American descent (According to this source:) "Letter from Fajardo to Felipe III From Manila, August 15 1620.(From the Spanish Archives of the Indies) ("The infantry does not amount to two hundred men, in three companies. If these men were that number, and Spaniards, it would not be so bad; but, although I have not seen them, because they have not yet arrived here, I am told that they are, as at other times, for the most part boys, mestizos, and mulattoes, with some Indians (Native Americans -emphasis mine-). There is no little cause for regret in the great sums that reënforcements of such men waste for, and cost, your Majesty. I cannot see what betterment there will be until your Majesty shall provide it, since I do not think, that more can be done in Nueva Spaña, although the viceroy must be endeavoring to do so, as he is ordered.")
Asides from Native Americans, Mexicans were also repeatedly sent to the Philippines...
As well as the classic Latino descent (Spanish-Amerindian Mestizo)...
"In 1637 the military force maintained in the islands consisted of one thousand seven hundred and two Spaniards and one hundred and forty Indians." ~Memorial de D. Juan Grau y Monfalcon, Procurador General de las Islas Filipinas, Docs. Inéditos del Archivo de Indias, vi, p. 425. "In 1787 the garrison at Manila consisted of one regiment of Mexicans comprising one thousand three hundred men, two artillery companies of eighty men each, three cavalry companies of fifty men each." La Pérouse, ii, p. 368.
The Native Americans and Latinos (Spanish-Amerind Mestizos) who migrated to the Philippines in colonial times, are not counted as Latin-Americans living abroad despite having Amerindian blood descent but pure Spaniards and pure Japanese who simply back-migrated to Spain or Japan and had only lived in Latin America without themselves possesing Native American descent are considered overseas Latin-American. It really irks me how this double standard is applied in regards to the Philippines and in relation to the other examples. Can you chime in on this too, @Cwmhiraeth, 2804:1054:301e:78f0:44f2:2a73:3fda:20b2, 72.137.39.142, and Moxy: 49.145.107.148 (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)? Thank you.----[reply]
@AuH2ORepublican, Cwmhiraeth, 2804:1054:301e:78f0:44f2:2a73:3fda:20b2, 72.137.39.142, and Moxy: Please kindly supply a necessary answer to my question's conundrum otherwise I will restore the erased content but with some modifications if you people have suggestions. :D 49.145.41.10 (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, threatening to reinsert unsourced, irrelevant and POV edits to the article is not the way that disputes are resolved on Wikipedia. Second, you cannot force anyone to reply to you. And third, I already responded to your questions, with a long and detailed answer. Perhaps you forgot what I wrote, so I'll repeat it here:
"The article is about Latin Americans, which is a term that comprises people from Latin America (defined as the Spanish-, Portuguese- and French-speaking countries of the Americas). The Philippines are located in Asia, so even if they had been ruled by Spain for even longer than they were (and please note that the Philippines had Spanish rule, not "Latin American" rule), and even if there had been even more Spanish immigration to the Philippines and Spanish ancestry was as important a component of Filipinos today as it is in, say, Mexico, the Dominican Republic or Chile, it would not make the Philippines part of Latin America or it people (even the Spanish-descended ones) Latin Americans. Similarly, Western Sahara and Equatorial Guinea (which were Spanish territories until 1975) are not part of Latin America, and its people are not Latin Americans.
Yes, there are many verified Hispanics in the Philippines, and of course "Spanish mestizos" such as Benito Legarda and Manuel Quezón are included in the article that lists Hispanic and Latino members of Congress *because they were Hispanic*. However, "Hispanic" and "Latin American" are by no means synonymous terms--Martin Sheen and Joaquin Elizalde are Hispanic but not Latino, while John Sununu and Pelé are Latino but not Hispanic.
Also, please keep in mind that when a person from Latin America moves to Australia or Japan, he is a Latin American emigrant to such country, and such cases are discussed in the section related to Latin Americans who live outside of Latin America. That is a very different case from Mexicans who settled in the Philippines in 1700 or whatever. That some Filipinos have partial Latin American ancestry from three centuries ago (which, frankly, is not proven by the proferred "scientific studies" that point to some modern Filipinos "looking like Latin Americans--do they mean that they look like Celia Cruz, like Gisele Bündchen, like Keiko Fujimori or like Dayanara Torres?) is irrelevant to an article about Latin Americans today, and it does not make the Philippines one of the destinations for recent Latin American emigration or part of the "Latin American diaspora" as the term is normally understood.
I trust that this was responsive to your query. If the other editors that have removed non-germane information regarding the Philippines from the article on Latin Americans wish to chime in as well, I invite them to do so." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Distribution data for the Dominican Republic

The data appears to be 160.40% in the Racial distribution, in 2005 - Population estimates, as of 2018 table. I was trying to check references but could no figure it out where the data comes from, can anyone plese check? Osplace 17:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the figures according to the Lizcano source. --Jotamar (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

Italy was the first country to speak Latin, therefore the Italians are the Original Latinos Leda Latin was passed on to other countries that’s what I learned from my own country which was Italy. 2603:9000:7D07:DB00:140B:5A2E:92EE:165A (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While the first speakers of Latin indeed lived in Italy, and Latin is the forefather of the Romance languages spoken in Latin American countries, Italy is in Europe, and thus is not a Latin American country. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the Canada or "Quebec" placement arguement

Okay first of all, to all you idiots out there Quebec is NOT the only province in Canada where French is spoken it's a NATIONAL language! Quebec is only considered Ground Zero because Montreal is the largest french-speaking city there. Secondly, to suggest that Canada or Quebec should be included to "Latin America" is beyond stupid. Hell Miami is near Cuba and heavily Caribbean Spanish so Central & Southern Florida would make for a stronger case to be included in the "Hispanic or Latino American" arguement. Even Haiti doesn't qualify. Just because English isn't officially spoken there doesn't make it "Hispanic". Actually it's more like Saint Lucia, Grenada, Jamaica & Martinique not like Dominican Republic or Puerto Rico. But back to Quebec, to suggest that it should be Latin America would be like saying "let's make India, Hong Kong and the Philippines part of the European white population simply because English is listed as one of their official languages". Philippines is culturally & physically more tropical far eastern with racial elements of Polynesia, Malaysian, Spanish, Hindu, Mexican, Chinese & a tiny tiny bit of American & or Japanese. Now that I think about it, it makes more sense to include Filipinos as "Latinos" (according to this stupid article definition) than peoples from Quebec that's a no-brainer. Quebec is a mostly lilly white haven! Lol. There Used to be a time where French was spoken in Norway during the Napoleonic Wars, I guess if they kept on speaking French I guess you would want to make it a part of Latin America too right? I've been to both Montreal Quebec Canada and to Latin America and believe me I've never mistaken the two places for each other. I've been to Toronto too & trust me when I say this: Toronto is Montreals brother city! not Rio or Buenos Aires or Lima or CDMX<that's Mexico city for you morons. C'mon Get real man. 76.167.193.57 (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definition is too PC or out of touch

I went to school in 5 different countries great Britain then italy then Jamaica then Canada & finally US & NEVER has "Latin America" been defined that way. It's always been all the countries or dependencies south of the US or all the countries south of United states of America where Spanish & Portuguese are spoken. French is never included Just like English. And now suddenly imbeciles want to rewrite history? Every dictionary & encyclopedia agrees with what I'm stating. 76.167.193.57 (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the term "Latin America" usually is limited to Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries in the Americas, but the article has included reference to French-speaking parts of the Caribbean and South America since it was spun off from the "Demographics of Latin America" section of the "Latin America" article in June 2010, and Haitians have been mentioned specifically as Latin Americans since October 2010. Maybe the article presents a minority view, but it isn't something new that sprang from the political correctness of the past few years.
Of course, that such inclusion does not constitute PC revisionism does not mean that it necessarily is correct or properly sourced. Here is the definition of "Latin Americans" provided by the article:
"Latin America (Spanish: América Latina or Latinoamérica; Portuguese: América Latina; French: Amérique latine) is the region of the Americas where Romance languages (i.e., those derived from Latin)—particularly Spanish and Portuguese, as well as French—are primarily spoken.[25][26]"
Footnote 26 is a reliable dictionary source that does not support the inclusion of French-speaking countries within the definition of Latin America: "Latin America." The New Oxford Dictionary of English. Pearsall, J., ed. 2001. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; p. 1040: "The parts of the American continent where Spanish or Portuguese is the main national language (i.e.Mexico and, in effect, the whole of Central and South America including many of the Caribbean islands)."
Footnote 25, on the other hand, references the following book: Colburn, Forrest D (2002). Latin America at the End of Politics. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-09181-1.
I have not read that book, so I don't know whether it states that persons from French-speaking parts of the Caribbean and South America are considered Latin Americans. That book was, along with the aforementioned New Oxford Dictionary of English, one of the two sources of the article's definition of "Latin Americans" from the very beginning, and if it does not mention that natives of Haiti, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, etc. are Latin Americans, then a reliable source that says that must be obtained and referenced in order for persons from those French-speaking countries to continue to be included in the article. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Cuba, Dominican Republic and El Salvador

The infobox with the population of Latin American countries uses the numbers provided in, for example, "11,256,372". However, the population given for Cuba, the Dominican Republic and El Salvador is around 1/10th of the current population of such countries. I'm not familiar with how to correct the Wikisource for such numbers; could someone please do so, or explain how it can be done? Thank you. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, the figures I see on my computer seem roughly correct: Cuba 11,256,372 - Dominican Republic 11,117,873 - El Salvador 6,314,167. Which populations did you expect? --Jotamar (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's very odd. I do see the correct numbers now for Cuba, DR and El Salvador, but a few hours ago the numbers that I saw were roughly 1/10th of the correct ones. And now I see the following (obviously wrong) population counts for Argentina, Nicaragua and Uruguay:
"Argentina 4,527,678
...
Nicaragua 685,054
...
Uruguay 342,626"
Either my computer is out of whack or there's something wrong with the Wikidata. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I see it, some of the figures seem to be missing one digit. I guess the problem must be in the templates, rather than in Wikidata. --Jotamar (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:UN population has been massively edited in the last days, as I suspected. There is the problem. --Jotamar (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just undid the changes in population recently made to those three countries in the Template, which fixed the problem. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it was a factor-of-ten error. The template figures have been corrected. Thanks for bringing this up. Anderjef (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Asian" is not a "race" in Latin America like in the United States.

A year ago, user @AuH2ORepublican: asserted that I was wrong for including West Asians as part of the "Asian" category. The user stated[2]:

"West Asians, including but not limited to Lebanese, Palestinians and Jews, do *not* fall under the term "Asian" as it is used in Latin America, and they are considered white in every country in the region. If you wish to argue otherwise, please discuss in the Talk page and provide reliable sources for your assertion."

Latin America is not the United States or the United Kingdom which lump together diverse Asians peoples under one generic "Asian" racial/ethnic label. And even that ignores the criticism that Asians are also a multicultural/multiethnic society just like Latin America. With many ethnic East Asians being seen as a separate "race" or skin colour from South Asians and Southeast Asians. The latter of whom are often seen as "Brown" or may even call themselves "Brown Asians".[3][4]

Asian is not considered a race in virtually all Latin American countries. An "Asian" or "Asiático" racial category is NOT present in the censuses of Venezuela,Pg. 29 Colombia,[5] Ecuador,[6] Guatemala,[7] El Salvador,Pg. 336 and so on. Peru does not have a generic "Asian" racial or skin colour category in their most recent census.Pg. 214 They only use terms "Tusan" and "Nikkei" for Chinese and Japanese descendants. Brazil,[8] officially uses the term "Amarela" or "Yellow" to describe ethnic East Asians. But East Asian =/= all of Asia. And there is no mention of where, for example, South Asians would be classified as. And "Yellow" is now seen as a derogatory term in English so I guess you'll see the generic "Asian" label instead of "Yellow" being used in English sources. Such as the CIA Factbook[9]. Uruguay also uses the term "Amarilla" or "Yellow" as well.Pg. 11 Cuba has historically included the term "Amarilla" and not "Asian/Asiático" to describe people of Chinese origin.Pg. 17

Your claim of West Asians not being considered "Asian" and are "white" in virtually every Latin American country seems like WP:OR to me. The Venezuelan census for example states that being "White" is associated with light skin and therefore, European ethnic origin. Quote: Blanca/blanco: Personas cuya tonalidad de piel es clara y que por ello suele ser asociada a poblaciones de origen europeo. In Cuba, census sources state that the "blanco" category is mainly through descent from Iberian Europeans.Pg 8 Quote: "las componentes ibero europea (blancos) y centro oeste africanas (negra) fundamentalmente, sin obviar la influencia de la cultura china (amarilla). And if you notice, the "Yellow" or "Amarilla" category was equated to Chinese immigrants (though I'm not sure if it may have extended to a general East Asian category). Still, no generic/pan-Asian racial category to be seen.

You also seem misinformed if you think that being "Asian" means you can't be considered "White" in Latin America. They may be mutually exclusive terms in the censuses of the U.S. or the U.K, but this is not the case in Latin America. The Brazilian demographic sources state that West Asians like Lebanese and Syrian communities in Brazil are part of their largest Asian communities.Pg. 53 Quote: descendentes e os asiáticos – japoneses, chineses, coreanos, libaneses, sírios, entre outros." And it does look like West Asian Brazilians are both lumped with the "White Brazilian" label and are considered one of the largest Asian communities in the country. So again, being "White" and "Asian" are not mutually exclusive in Latin America, just like being "White" and "Latino" is a thing. Though this contrasts with other definitions like in the United States census. The 2005 Lizano Study, which is sourced on the page actually states that West Asians do, along with East Asians, form the bulk of the Asian community in Latin America. Per the note on pg. 219: "asiáticos en el conjunto de Iberoamérica se puede establecer de la siguiente forma: 48% de árabes (en lo fundamental de Siria y Líbano), 26% de chinos, 25% de japoneses y 1% de coreanos." And on pg. 194: "En principio, se pueden distinguir dos grupos muy distintos al interior de esta etnia: el que procede de Asia occidental (sobre todo árabes cristianos llegados desde Siria y Líbano) y el que salió de Asia oriental (chinos y japoneses principalmente)." With "Asia occidental" meaning "Western Asia" in English.

In Argentina, West Asian immigrants from the Levant region were considered the most "European" (among other attributes) in Asia. But still from Asia. He is a source talking about Levantine immigration to Argentina.[10] Quote: "González convenció a sus pares de rechazarla, con el argumento de que eran "los más europeos del Asia y son sumisos y laboriosos".

Furthermore, in Latin America, East Asians themselves have been accepted as being "White" people during certain times. See pg. 81 which talks about the grouping of Chinese descendants with "White" people. In Brazil, Japanese descendants have also been considered "White people", according to research done by sociologist Edward Telles.[11] Quote: "The Japanese were sometimes considered white. Lesser (1999) cites Federal Deputy Acylino de Ledo in a speech before the House who stated, "The Japanese colonists are even whiter than the Portuguese."

According to this journal, some Chinese immigrants in the 1950s to Brazil belonged to the country's ethnic Russian community. And ethnic Russians are one of the recognized 55 minority peoples in China. And unless I'm mistaken, Russians, as a European ethnic group, are considered "White people".[12] Quote: "and the third one is the resettlement of the Russians from China during the 1950s". And again, I guess it further proves that in Latin America, "Whiteness" and "Asianess" are often not mutually exclusive concepts like they are in the United States.

Finally, the pg. 218 chart from the 2005 Lizano study specifically uses the term "Criollo". Pg. 187 states that for the context of the text, "Criollo" is a term that will refer to the descendants of European in general. Though it also acknowledges what it's historical term was in colonial Hispanic America. Quote: "En este texto se llama criollos o trasplantados a los descendientes de los europeos en general." Since the study notes that Asian's in Latin America largely come from West Asian and East Asian descendants. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil

Brazil is South America not central. 2603:9001:4F04:B62D:E4A8:6334:D16C:41A7 (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's how it's described in the article. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Latin_Americans"