Talk:Latin America.html
 
| ca | de | en | es | fr | it | nl | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | fi | sv | tr | vo |


 

 
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of April 9, 2006.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Contents

European Population

Hey, I'm just adding this to point out that the percentages given in the European section aren't consistent with the table shown below. According to the table Uruguay is clearly the country with the highest White population, having 88% of Whites. Brazil is named as being the one with the highest White population but only 55% of them are White according to the table. Mexico is named as the third with the highest White population and according to the table only 9% of them are White! So yeah, what's wrong the table or the section? Can someone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.0.134.49 (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That sentence refers to absolute numbers - how many millions of people - as opposed to percentages. I tweaked it. SamEV (talk) 02:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think something is wrong with the figures for Venezuela. 41% white? Most sources I am aware of would list it between 20% and 21%. Can someone fix it and cite where they're getting the numbers from and if they are up to date? Rafajs77 (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Geography

I think this page is lacking a geography section or at least a link to one. Also this discussion page is getting quite long. LostLucidity (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

City Order

Sorry to add to this long discussion page, but is there a rhyme or reason to they way the photos of Latin America's major urban centers are arranged? I ask because the order changes almost daily, almost as if people were just putting their own favorite cities on top (most changes happen without explanantion). I even tried to arrange them alphabetically and explained this is what I was doing and it was reversed just a few hours later. If not alphabetical, then maybe by population, or GDP, I don't know, but the changing around on personal whim is very unprofessional. Rafajs77 (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I did tried to set a criteria unsuccessfully, as other editors did try too. I think is time to call an Administrator to ban these anonymous editors, this pic game is not only childish but it is wasting Wiki disk memory with unnecessary entries in the history log. Mariordo (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We have to reorder the pictures according the most important economies or cities, (Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Santiago de Chile.)

--Fercho85 (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What do other areas do? Or better yet, the MOS? – Ricky81682 (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Northern America

I think somewhere in the article, specifically the introductory sentence, should mention that Latin America and Northern America are the two cultural/economic halves of America as a whole. M.nelson (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection

In the chance that they actually care to explain themselves, I've asked both of the last IP addresses about their editing habits.[1][2] If they continue, you can message me and I'll semi-protect the article so they can't play with it. They have to learn to explain their problems not just play games. – Ricky81682 (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Mexico

I thinks 52% is an underestimate for Mestizos in Mexico, and 30% is an over estimate for AmerIndians. Full blooded AmerIndians only make up 12% of the Mexican population. Perhaps, if the time is not to change, someone can clarify the disrepencies? Being predominantly Indian doesn't mean you're not Mestizo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.10.220 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Belize

Recently, there's been a user that is making changes to the article that puts Belize grouped in equal consideration as all the other countries that are traditionally considered Latin America. Rather than get involved in an edit war, I thought it'd be a good idea to discuss it here. Personally, I thought the way the article was before, as even the map indicates that it was considered different than the rest of the countries. In all my Latin American studies and through Spanish studies in college, Belize was never grouped together with the rest of Latin America (my sister-in-law's mom comes from there too and doesn't consider it as such). I realize that there are a lot of Spanish speakers there, but not only is the official language only English, but creole there is mainly English based. Also, Spain did claim the region, but they never actually had full dominance over the natives and couldn't successfully establish colonies; that's how the British were able to make a claim (even though there are even some border disputes today). I know that different sources may conflict, but I thought the previous version did a good job at explaining that it sometimes is, but made the distinction, which with all the recent edits, it doesn't. Kman543210 (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am the user that made the edits. I am Belizean. The fact is that Belize is geographically and culturally Latin American. It borders Mexico and Guatemala and is a Central American country. Latin America does not mean Spanish America (Haiti and Brazil are both Latin American countries, as are the ABC islands, as is Puerto Rico, where English is also an official language), but even if it rritory and was not successful in establishing settlements; that's a big reason that Great Britain was able to establish colonies. Kriol in Belize is also English-based, not Spanish-based.
Most sources provided and that I have seen do not include Belize in Latin America, and we have to rely on sources, not anecdotes. You're right that due to immigration, Spanish and Latin American culture is influencing Belize more and more. Eventually, it may be considered part of Latin America, but I haven't seen the inclusion of Belize yet in all my Latin American and Spanish studies. Sometimes it is included, but I thought the article already did a good job explaining that before the edits. Kman543210 (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing the discussion. The fact is that there are people in Belize, like your your sister-in-law's mother, that do not speak Spanish. Many of these people wear their English as a badge of honor. However, national statistics show that as a percentage of the population, these people form a very small group. There are other Latin American countries with non Spanish/Portuguese speaking populations, particularly indigenous groups. This does not mean that they are not Latin American. What I mention here about Belize is not anecdotal, it is fact. Look at the current census data from the country. Look at the demographics. Lets look at facts, not anecdotes. Geographically, Belize is in Latin America. This is not even debatable. Culturally it is as well. I do understand the confusion because of its British Colonial past, but two things (1) the demographics don't lie and (2) other Latin Americans have non-Spanish or Portuguese colonial pasts as well. I mentioned Haiti and the ABC islands in addition to Puerto Rico. It was mentioned that Spain did not have "full" control over Belizean territory. That's because Spain colonized it along with half of America. Spain didn't have "full" control over most of the territories and peoples it colonized, which is precisely what led to the independence, or loss to other imperial powers, of most of its American conquests. Unlike most of the English Caribbean, Belize is not just geographically Latin American, it is culturally Latin American. Most of its cities do not have English names, they have Spanish and Maya names. The main religion in Belize is catholicism, with protestant churches on the rise (as it is in other Latin American states). The biggest ethnic group is the Mestizo group, Belizeans of mixed Spanish and Amerindian descent. There is also a significant Maya and Garifuna population. Spanish is spoke more than any other language as a first language and most of the population is bilingual or trilingual. These are all facts. Facts that can easily be verified. According to census data from as far back as the 1980s when Belize became an independent country, even then, the majority of Belizeans spoke Spanish. The census estimated that in 1980 that some 62 percent of all Belizeans were bilingual or trilingual (see: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+bz0034)). This during a time when Belize just got its independence from the British. The official numbers of Spanish speakers has only increased over the past 25+ years of Belizean independence. Data from 1992 shows that Spanish was spoken more as a first language than any other language, including Kriol/Creole (http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=BZ). Today, data from the latest census, 2000, shows that Spanish is spoken more as a first language than any other language and that is prevalence as increased. Spanish, Kriol and Maya Ketchi are all spoken as first languages by more of the population than English. Here are the numbers: English 3.9% (official), Spanish 46%, Creole 32.9%, Mayan languages 8.9%, Garifuna 3.4% (2000 census). I don't think the article previous article did a "good job" at explaining any of this, which is why I made the edits. To the contrary, it mentioned Belize alongside the Falkland Islands, Guyana, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago stating that "they are not culturally or linguistically Latin American". This is inaccurate, as Belize is not like those counties at all. None of those places have significant Spanish speaking populations let alone ones that are as great a Belize's, where they form the largest group. Non of those countries boast bilingualism and trilingualism as Belize does. My arguments are based on facts and not on what one person from a particular country is telling me. It was mentioned that there are Spanish Studies and Latin American Studies that do not mention Belize. It is something that I have noticed in my studies and work as well. However, the fact is that most classes and text wont' cover it, not because it is not Latin American, but because it is a tiny country of only 300,000 people. However, at the same time, I would find it extremely hard t believe that any serious academic of academic text of Latin American studies would argue that Belize is not in Latin America. If "most sources provided" don't include Belize as being part of Latin America, then I would really suggest looking for better sources. Check out Modern Latin America by Thomas E. Skidmore and Peter H. Smith . Their and others' understanding of Latin America includes Belize and nowhere do they make a point of not including Belize as part of Latin America or grouping it with the Falkland Islands, Guyana, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago. I find it hard to believe that I am even having to make these arguments to people editing a Latin America page, but I don't mind doing it if it raises awareness. Amilito (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2008 (GMT)

Don't forget too that Belize was a British Colony at the time when the term "Latin America" was already established. At that time most British territories in the Americas were still under British control. (Less Canada and the United States.) I mean the majority of British Colonies south of the United States have only started gaining their indep. since the early 1950s... Don't forget the West Indies federation collapsed in 1962 when Jamaica left. And Jamaica was the first to start the trend for Independence in the region.... Jamaica was followed by Trinidad and Tobago that year. Then four years later was Guyana and Barbados. Then some years later Dominica, and Saint Lucia etc. (and some others in the OECS states) and the Bahamas etc... Belize is still recent... When the term "Latin America" was devised by Napoleon it was partly developed to provide a fraternity (of sorts) among the non-British areas of that part of the Americas... E.g. Spanish, French and Spanish countries...

Also this current practice of recognizing a territory as semi-autonomous is still only a recent idea. Only the lest decade or so, pretty much since the UN started their agenda for de-colonisation and looking at every piece of rock as the captain of their own ship. Prior to that, territories were widely seen as satellites for whatever political capital they hail under... E.g. for example Martinique and Guadeloupe today for example are still a part of France and aren't really considered "Latin American" yet Haiti (is independent) and somewhat is considered to be a part of Latin America. So it is two pronged. When the term Latin America was created the British areas south of the US weren't independent. And secondly the vary term "Latin America" was created to bee used for non-British ruled areas. You can easily Google "the term Latin America" and see the history behind that phrase. CaribDigita (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for sharing your knowledge of your country. The language statistics are definitely not in dispute, as I have seen the percentages; that's why I acknowledged that there is a majority Spanish-speaking population now (just not "vast"). I think maybe a better word choice would be that Belize has not always been "traditionally" included with the rest of Latin America. Don't get me wrong; I don't mean any disrespect to Belize and in all my studies on Latin America, Belize was mentioned because it's in the area. Also, there's no dispute that Latin America does not mean Hispanic America; all countries traditionally with Latin-based colonies and languages have been included (Spanish, French, Portuguese). I think the problem is that the sources that are used in this article do not back up that Belize is "always" included. Those bullet points were taken directly from a source, so if you change the definition, it no longer matches the source. If Belize is now always included in the definition of Latin America, then there needs to be new reliable sources used and maybe a small sentence explaining the change in Belize over the last century with an increase in the Spanish-speaking population. Another source not used in the article that I'm looking at right now (latinamericans.com) does not list Belize with the rest of the "traditional" Latin American countries, but it is mentioned under the "sometimes" paragraph. I know this might sound silly, but wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Although, if Belize is truly now a considered part of Latin America in all definitions, then there should be plenty of sources out there. Kman543210 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you again as well. The discussion is good. Belize may have not been considered a "traditional" part of Latin America. This is understandable, as it only just recently became a country. It used to be called British Honduras and has only been an independent nation called Belize since 1981. Under the past circumstances, it is easy to see why the territory may have been overlooked in popular and academic discourses on Latin America, as it was a a British colony. Today, it is not longer a British Colonial outpost and is now an independent country. It should be, and is, looked at differently than it was in the past. Here are two very credible sources that include Belize as part of Latin America: (1) Latin America: A Concise Interpretive History by E. Bradford Burns and Julie A. Charlip; and (2) Modern Latin America by Thomas E. Skidmore and Peter H. Smith. These are two very well researched books that have gone through many editions and the authors are universally regarded as experts at the top of their field, Latin American Studies. I think there is an over reliance on websites. I wouldn't really consider latinamericans.com as a credible academic resource. The fact is the the average person, anglophone and hispanic has not ever heard of Belize and knows very little about it. This is true even in the Caribbean. I often have to explain things like this. Thanks for helping me understand about wikipedia. This was my very first edit. Amilito (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2008 (GMT)

This generally had been the point-of-view of the "Caribbean" (according to the English Speaking Caribbean.) 50 Frequenty Asked Questions on Caribbean Language - by the Society for Caribbean Linguistics CaribDigita (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant Immigration

Just wondering how this: [3] 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)

I saw that information removed today with "irrelevant immigration" as the reason and was wondering the same thing: why is it irrelevant? Maybe it is, but the term "irrelevant" is overused in my opinion, especially without any additional explanation for reverting or deleting. To me, it was just a simple sentence giving an addition wave of immigration. Kman543210 (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
It actually is historically interesting, and explains some of those odd pieces of trivia, like "Why is the last commercial brewer of Vienna lager located in Mexico?"
Kww (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any information on the Internet that says "many more French, Belgians and Ausrians" settled Mexico.

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)

Good point. I do not know any either. But then again, I know zero Belgians period. --DerRichter (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Another "which-country-is-really-white" fight? Gee... Yes, there are plenty of Mexicans, mostly in the eastern states (and mostly Jalisco), where French, Belgian and Austrian immigration had a huge impact in demography, not only in the big cities (Guadalajara, 4 M) being one of them, but in the rural towns as well. Comments such as "I don´t know any", coming from a resident of South America are not what Wikipedia is about. Ever thought of searching for verifiable sources as a better comment than personal knowledge? Just a quick, very quick google search provided this results: [4], [5], [6], [7].--the Dúnadan 12:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


These sources do not say "French, Belgian and Austrian immigration had a huge impact in Mexico's demography". Dúnadan, stop accusing other users of being paranoid with which country is whiter or not. This is your own paranoid, not mine.

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)

It seems you fail to understand my point: it doesn't matter who or how many you or I know. For goodness sake, read WP:Verifiability. If it matters, I do know two Mexicans girls with a Belgian surnames, and several personal acquaintances from Guadalajara, living in the US that have a French last name. But who cares whom I know, or the limited knowledge that you have, as a Brazilian, of other countries in Latin America? This is again, the endless fight between Latin Americans to prove that "your country is less-white-than-mine", and "how-European-my-country-is". Can't you simply describe the immigration phenomena in Latin America by actually doing some research (instead of counting how many Mexicans, Peruvians or Guatemalans you know), without giving any judgments of value? --the Dúnadan 23:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't state that these migrations had a huge impact on Mexico's demography. It clearly states that Italians, Spaniards, and Portuguese were the largest groups of the Europeans. It just says that "many more" arrived and lists some of the smaller migration groups to indicate that there were other immigrants besides the Italians, Spaniards, and Portuguese. It's one sentence in a section called Europeans, and it has a reliable source. I agree with Dúnadan that one cannot use his own personal experiences to determine facts for an encyclopedia. Kman543210 (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Well said. --DerRichter (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


HOWEVER, that information is still not relevant. I am not saying there was no Belgian immigration to Mexico, but if we start to include every single nationality who immigrated to some Latin American country, we will stay here forever listing their names.

Surely, Lithuanian immigrants had a larger impact in Brazil (Brazil has 200,000 people of Lithuanian descent)[8] or Croatian immigration had a larger impact in Argentina (Argentina has 250,000 people of Croatian descent_[9] 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)

Opinoso, take a deep breath, and don't put words in my mouth. I have never claimed that you are "paranoid", in fact, I have not used the word "paranoid", nor "paranoia". So, unlike you, I have not insulted anyone directly, like you did by saying verbatim, that I am paranoid. The fights to prove "which-country-is-whiter" are evident, in the daily vandalism at Indigenous peoples of the Americas, Demographics of Argentina, Demography of Mexico, just to mention a few. Secondly, I did not post the picture of the Mexican girls; so please discuss that with the appropriate user. Your claiming that "you cannot prove they are Mexican" is not a serious argument. Especially followed by the next sentence: "most Mexicans do not have blond hair or blue eyes..." and "not French or Belgian [heritage] at all" (bold mine),ergo "those girls cannot be Mexican". Are you serious? Have you ever been to Mexico? Go to the Venetian community of Chipilo, the Dutch-German rural communities in Chihuahua, or to Guadalajara. Thirdly, irrelevancy is not defined in terms of "how many people I know" or "how many more ethnic groups do we have other than what Mexicans have". But please feel free to provide sources for your many claims. And of course, you can add that Lithuanians, Croatians, Latvians and Hungarians settled in Argentina. You see, there is no "either-or" situation here. All can fit. It is your only your arguments that " Mexicans can't be blond... at all", and those "minorities aren't relevant" that are not appropriate. --the Dúnadan 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I never said Mexicans can't be blond. I know Anahí from the Rebelde group. I also never said these blond girls are not Mexicans. I said nobody can proove they are Mexicans, the same way nobody can proove they aren't.

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)

OK, here we go again, since it seems you do not understand, I'll try to outline my arguments:
  • Nobody can prove the girls are Mexican; well, you certainly cannot prove they aren't. Not with your opinions that all white Mexicans are descendants from Spaniards, and therefore, they do not have blue eyes. (Which makes me wonder if you actually know a Spaniard, probably not). Ludicrous argument, to be honest. But, like I said, but you probably didn't read it, the picture is the least of my concerns. I didn't put it there. Go fight—even though I advise you to use better arguments that mere opinions—with the author that included it.
  • Mexico does not deserve an entire sentence about it in the European Sentence; according to whom? You? Forget about the fact that it is verifiable, referenced and inclusive of all points of view, including, of course, minority points of view which, in a single sentence, gives the true weight of the assessment. If you say "Mexico doesn't deserve it", I guess you must be right? I don't think so.
Since this situation is, in my opinion, getting to a stalemate; I'd be more than happy to Request for Mediation. Shall we?
--the Dúnadan 02:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's put things in perspective. Isn't it just one sentence? As far as the picture, I don't think anyone has any strong feelings as to whether is should stay or go, but I remember that picture being put into several articles in the same night. Kman543210 (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Dúnadan, it's not a matter that the information has sources. It is a matter of good sense. To talk about Belgians and Austrians in Mexico and not even list Lithuanians or Croatians is not a good sense.

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)

Dúnadan yes, I know Spaniards: Penelope Cruz or Antonio Banderas are not really blond people. Since Spain did not have great impact from Germanic invadors, neither Slavic or other mainly blond people, and its component is mainly Celtiberian, which were dark-haired people, they are not the most fair-skinned types of Europe.

Or are you also trying to claim Spaniards are blonds? Opinoso (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't you get it yet? PLEASE, read WP:Verifiability. Verifiability is not "how many Spanish actors I know", for crying out loud. Do some research, please. Especially concerning Spain, which is an extremely diverse racial and multicultural country! Spain was invaded by the Visigoths, which left a long-standing cultural and demographic impact in Spain. The kingdoms of Galicia and Asturias, were never conquered by the Moors; the Asturian population traces its roots back to the German invaders, while Galicia to the original celts, both of which are "blond and blue eyed". But who cares??!!! Please, I beg, read WP:Verifiability, or at least travel a little. The argument that Spaniards are not blond because you know Penélope Cruz and Antonio Banderas is ludicrous, not to mention unacceptable for inclusion of content in Wikipedia.--the Dúnadan 03:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
How about a compromise? We could add in something about Croatians and Russians too. And for the record, I asked someone to read the sources and they mention nothing of Austrians (here), so I think we can remove Austrians from the list unless there are other reliable sources to be added. --DerRichter (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


Dúnadan, I think you should travel more and also learn how to read. I have been to Spain myself, and most Spaniards are dark-haired and dark-eyes, the same way most Portuguese, Southern Italians and Greeks.

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. [10]

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)

Opinoso, (indeed, opinoso), you have proven, even if the "frequency of blonds" is low, there are blonds in Spain. You had previously said that there were no blonds in Spain, therefore, the girls had to be American dressed as Mexican for fun (quite a serious research you did on that one!). But, hey you've proven my point, so no worries =-) Moreover, considering your opinions about "Spaniards" and "traveling", let me tell you that given my nationality, my background and where I live, you are preaching to the wrong choir... --the Dúnadan 03:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Dúnadan, stop pretending you are the smartest person in wikipedia, because you aren't. Your nonsense comments proove it. Opinoso (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:UNCIVIL. To be honest, your reiterated comments (paranoid, nonsense, and the above) are on the brink of incivility. Like I said before, if you wish I can Request for Mediation, or, given your comment above, I can ask an administrator to weigh in. --the Dúnadan 21:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Dúnadan, stop trying to fight with other users in the discussion pages of Wikipedia, as you are trying to do here and in the discussion page of Argentina with nice user Lehoiberri.

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)

Nobody wants to fight actually, but we all want to debate constructively by providing reliable sources. Sorry to see you leave, but if you decide to come back, please review WP:UNCIVIL. --the Dúnadan 00:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by dark hair and dark eyes are prevalent in Portugal? You mean BLACK? I would like an answer to this. To know if i'm talkinmg to a serious person.

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)

Creole languages

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)

Race

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)

Nowhere in the article does it state that there are no white people. According to the source, 95% are mestizo (half white/half Amerindian) and 5% other. The "other" in the source doesn't specify, but that's where the white population would be included. Kman543210 (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Britsh influence??

Political Evolution of Central America and the Caribbean from 1700 to present
Political Evolution of Central America and the Caribbean from 1700 to present

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 Honduras, British Guiana, British Latin American, British Peruvian, and tons of Caribbean island territories. NJGW (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC) extent
You are wrong. Caribbean countries colonized by England ARE NOT part of Latin America. British Honduras is a small country of 300,000 inhabitants, with a insignificant proportion of people with British ancestry. Only because it was under British rule does not mean the population there keeps any British tradition in their day life.

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)


You gotta proove a couple of Latin American countries which have some British influence in their culture. I am not talking about English-speaking Caribbean countries, such as Jamaica, because THEY ARE NOT part of Latin America.

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)

History

Surely the history of Latin America goes on after 1825? Kelvinc (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Europeans? What about the Arabs?

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)

That's actually a very good point, and I never even noticed that before. It is under the "Racial groups" section, and European isn't a race. Since by some definitions, Middle Easterners are considered white, I guess we could change it to that or to Caucasians. Kman543210 (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Canada

You forget Canada. see Québec
All Right Reserved © 2007, Designed by Stylish Blog.