Talk:White Latin Americans/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Pure race sentence

However, intermixing is not exclusive to the region, of course, and the white race is nowhere a "pure race": pure races do not exist, and evidently never have. The reason that I previously removed this sentence is that is seems to have been just thrown in as a poorly written, random thought about the white race. The entire paragraph already addresses the topic of Latin Americans "intermixing" and that many of them have Amerindian ancestry. It also does a good job explaining the caste system. That sentence just seems very anecdotal and unencylopedic. I don't think it adds anything, but at the very least it should be rewritten. The source does not state it this way. Kman543210 (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that.
The purpose of the sentence is not merely to convey the fact of admixture, but to contextualize it globally. I wrote it (please rewrite it if it's so poorly written) because certain other persons had hijacked the article (I was away for half a year) for soapboxing about how NON-white they think white Latin Americans are.
I'm also very curious as to what you believe "anecdotal" means. SamEV (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation; that helps me understand the intent better. What I mean by anecdotal is that the phrase seemed to be casually added (after the however) as a rebutal to an argument. It's interesting that I picked up on that without even knowing that was the intention. What I meant by poorly written is more the tone of the sentence, as it sounded like I was being lectured that "there is no such thing as a pure white race and how dare I even think it." I'll have to put some thought into how to rewrite it. It sounds like you had people insisting that someone can't be white if they even have one ancestor that's non-European. Problem with most of the DNA tests is that they only test the Y-DNA (male line) and MtDNA (maternal line), so you only get 1 line out of possibly thousands of ancestors in the last few centuries. I guess this is just one thos topics that will remain "heated." Kman543210 (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As I see it, there is no controversy: the article has been stable for months, and any ideas of racial purity are the province of an unscientific fringe, so we don't have to take them into account. And again, if you (still) feel the sentence should be rewritten/reworded/rephrased, then do it.
And, it would be "anecdotal", AFAIK, if it presented just my observations, particular ones specifically, as opposed to the scientific consensus, as it does instead. SamEV (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't misunderstand my comments, as they were not meant to say there was a controversy. I don't dispute the accuracy of the statements, just the tone. Stable article doesn't necessarily mean the best though. And yes, I do know what anecdotal means, but I was using it in the "casual" sense rather than the "lack of scientific evidence" sense. I'll just have to put some thought into how to rewrite the sentences. Kman543210 (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[Definition of "anecdotal" here http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anecdotal] (I know you don't need it, I'm just being thorough).
You're right about article stability. But it is held to be a valid criterion for many decisions at Wikipedia. SamEV (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to this article, but I have to agree with Kman543210 that even though it may be true, it doesn't sound very professional (just the sentence that he mentioned). The rest of it seems fine. The burden will be on him to rewrite it 'cause I'm not sure how it would go. And by the way, I know what he meant by using the word "anecdotal" in that sense, so it wasn't necessary to post a link to the definition for him, just seems pedantic and snide to do so. Jabez2000 (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"pedantic and snide"
At this project we're supposed to present evidence from proper sources, instead of tossing around our own uninformed opinions. My initial response was not in keeping with those standards, which I wholeheartedly embrace, so I later sought to make up for that and provided him a link, while (in case you missed it) expressing that I was aware that he didn't need it. Again: I was trying to live up to the standard to which Wikipedia, and I, hold others. SamEV (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries SamEV, you didn't hurt my feelings. Now excuse me whilst I go wipe the tears from my eyes ;) I'll take a look at the original source and come up with something tonight or tomorrow and propose the changes on the talk page to see what everyone else thinks. Kman543210 (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
"Now excuse me whilst I go wipe the tears from my eyes"
Lol. It does help to have a sense of humor. SamEV (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo of White Latin Americans

It has come to my attention that the photo of "White" Argentines includes an immigrant of Asian descent. While it cannot be so well seen from afar, an up close look at the photo will reveal what many thought was a white latin american to be an immigrant of Asian descent. There is no problem with the photo for immigration purposes or even for Argentine population photos... but for a White Latin American article it is a little odd to have such a photo. There is a photo added of White Mexican girls who are obviously white and cannot be debated (Of course some will try). I think this photo alone will suffice. What say you? Cali567 (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even notice it until I actually clicked on the photograph. Actually, the girl on the left looks like she's mestizo (I know this might be debatable), the girl in the middle Asian, and the girl on the right is the only predominantly white girl in the photograph. I agree that there are better representations of white Latin Americans that can be displayed. Kman543210 (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, yet is has been posted in every article dealing with the 'Whiteness' of Argentines and all Latin Americans... It should be deleted.Cali567 (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe the girl on the left is of Arab or Southern European ancestry, I doubt mestizo since it is a festival celebrating Argentina's immigration. I say it should stay until we find a better picture to replace it. Lehoiberri (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
A picture of White Mexican girls has already been supplied... and this picture should suffice and is able to stand alone. The other photo should be deleted. Cali567 (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

the two end ones are white no doubt they look either european or west asian decent but there could be an arguement about the middle one looking mestizo--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

kman i would disagree with you very much on the one on the left being possible mestizo she does not have any negro or native american features only maybe the middle one --Wikiscribe (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ricardo Maduro

What is this unknown president doing there among Gisele Bundchen or Shakira? lol. Opinoso (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Opinoso, if you want to know the full story read here. Read all the way down because it was a long discussion, and it had many sections. Lehoiberri (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It's talkin' about Che Guevara (?). Opinoso (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep on reading until to the "Pure race sentence" section. Like I said, it was a long discussion and it took five sections. It started with Che Guevara, then it was expanded. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Unknown President? By whom is he unknown? Are you claiming popstars are more notable than Presidents? Or that big countries are more notable than little ones? Maduro is a household name in Honduras, which is a part of Latin America. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant, P.C. Editorializing?

Taken from the article: "However, intermixing is not exclusive to the region, of course, and the white race is nowhere a "pure race": pure races do not exist, and evidently never have.[12] This is backed up by a 2004 study of White Americans, which showed that up to 30% of them have between 2% and 20% Sub Saharan African and or Native American admixture similar to the ratio of white Latin Americans.[13]"

How is any of this relevant? First off, I think its pretty obvious that racial intermixing does not occur exclusively in Latin America. Does an article about Antarctica require a passage explaining that naturally occuring ice is found elsewhere on the globe?

Similarly, the whole point of the passage doesn't seem to be directed at contributing any useful content to the article's subject, but rather is intended towards disparaging the idea of a "pure race," albeit without providing a viable definition of the terms "pure," "race," or "pure race." I suppose The Flapdoodle McGillicudy Dimension doesn't exist either, but maybe it does? Who can say, without a definition of the term? And obviously, this article is not the place to define the term "pure race," hence any discussion about whether such a thing exists or not, is not germane to the topic at hand. It is, as I said, irrelevant editorializing. Most of us are already aware of what Criticial Theorists think on the subject of race; we don't need to be instructed on one particular school of thought's perspective on the question of race in general, in an article about "White Latin America." There are plenty of articles where such opinions/theories on the question of human biodiversity are relevant to the topic at hand; this article is, rather obviously, not one of them.

I deleted this bit of off-topic, socio-political editorializing, presented as relevant and objective fact, but my deletion was reverted. Even if one agrees with the content of the passage, and probably most people do, it simply isn't part of the scope of the article. Nor is it objectively factual, but rather an example of one particular side in a debate using Wikipedia in order to confer authority status upon their favored viewpoint. Its not much different than if someone had inserted racialist commentary (which apparently was, in fact, done; see below) about the supposed deficiencies of mixed-race people into the article. This article is not a place to hash out differences of opinion, especially about an undefined term, "pure race," that no intelligent person uses anymore anyway (hence the passage is little more than the knocking down of an imaginary strawman; I don't even think David Duke believes in the concept of a totally "pure (White) race," although again, its difficult to say for certain, since we really have no idea what that term is intended to precisely mean).

As an aside, I see now that apparently, the purpose of this passage was to combat a tendency among certain elements who were involved in a concerted effort to disparage the notion of a White Latin American population, presumably as part of their own pet, ideological project. The problem there is that racialist propaganda should not be replaced by anti-racialist propaganda. I think we're all in agreement on that score, even the guy who wrote the passage in question (and I hope he doesn't feel overly disparaged by my characteristically polemic style in addressing this topic).

Anyhoo, I'll probably just let this percolate for a couple of days, and see if I get any feedback, and then perhaps attempt to modify the passage in question, in an effort to reduce its editorial character. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you on this. I actually removed this sentence back on May 30th, but it was immediately reverted without explanation at first (one of the editors even went as far as to put a vandalism notice on my talk page). See previous conversations above at Pure race sentence. At first glance, it sticks out as a rant about no such thing as a pure race. I think the original intention was to appease people who were offended at the idea that there were that many whites in Latin America because of the amount of intermixing. If others insist on it staying, it needs to be rewritten, but to be honest, I just haven't taken the time to do that yet like I was going to. The source provided does not state it the same way it is currently presented. I think the phrases "apparently" and "and never have" is what really seemed unencyclopedic to me. Kman543210 (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

What are the sources for the some of the notable white l. americans? not all of them have sources. phenelogy could be deceptive. Lihaas (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The sources that they use, by their own admission, are the skin colors of those individuals. *eyeroll* 74.69.64.52 (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Shakira

An IP editor removed the picture of Shakira stating that she isn't white. From what I know, her mother is a Columbian of Spanish descent (and possibly Italian) and father is Lebanese. Spaniards are white, and according to many definitions, so are Lebanese since they're from the Middle East. I've restored the picture. Kman543210 (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

she is of catalan and lebanese descent = white latin american ,there are always going to be somebody to say she's not white i think this has been discused before so lets not bring the trolls out by starting more threads like this some people just cant stand the fact she is white thats all and britney spears is not white either see how easy that was to say does not mean its true--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Its probably the same troll who deletes every person of full or partial Arab descent in "Notable White Latin Americans" section. Also Shakira has Italian ancestry in her maternal side, too. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

probaly right lehoiberri one ip made that statement the others gave the old classic reason why she is not white she is colombian so there for she could not be white LOL but check the history of this article there was just a horde of ip's that kept removing her picture see i was right this thread brought the trolls out lol finaly an admin had to add a semi protect--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw the history page, and I saw that the troll was using a racist White Supremacist website founded by the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis as his source to prove Shakira is not White. What a Loser! Lehoiberri (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Is she White? —Preceding unsigned comment added by InuYoshi (talk • contribs) 23:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the "Shakira" entry a few above this. It has already been discussed. The answer is yes, she is white. Kman543210 (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Lebanese are a Semitic people. The few remaining 'Whites' are likely to be a mixture of Aryan and Semite. Colombia does not appear to have a large White population, so neither of her parents are likely to be White, so unless you classify anyone who doesn't look black or Asian as 'White', she is not White. 201.27.171.210 (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

your racial theories dont work here please cease with your racial propaganda--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think Shakira is multiracial, take a look at her early pictures, here in Brazil she is considered "Morena (Latina)" too due to her fairly tanned skin. She is mixed races, not white. InuYoshi (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

InuYoshi, you must have a narrow definition of what white looks like then, which is understandable since it is a social construct in a way and there are different definitions of what white is out there. One thing is clear by sources is that her mother is Spanish (of Catalan descent) so that can't be argued that her mother is white. The only dispute can be whether you consider her father, of Lebanese descent, to be white. By many definitions he is, but by some he is not. As to her earlier pictures, I have her earlier albums and have never thought that she looked multiracial. She just looked like she had dark hair and normal skin (not super pale but not dark). By what you have described, you would probably go to Spain or Greece in Europe and think that most of them are not white. Kman543210 (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Kman and Inuyoshi,if you want to play picture games and skin tone games lets play look at this picture here of shakira with this man[1] do you think the guy by her side is white and if so tell me why she is more pale than him also morena does not mean just latina it means a dark skinned or tannned latina i got news for you tanned is misleading being white people do and can tan such as shakira,so stop being ethnocentric white is a race clasification--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Shakira doesn't look White. 201.95.49.206 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No. She looks white, but she's Hispanic;, Well, technically, she's 100% pure grade "A" Colombian. 201.42.211.32 (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
White is a race, Hispanic is an ethnicity, and Colombian is a nationality. They are three different things, and she is all three: a white Hispanic, Colombian. Kman543210 (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Note the difference in definition of white in USA

It should be noted that Americans in the USA are very strange when it comes to defining white. Some of them can get really racist without realizing it. They think that if anyone has the least bit exotic feature or olive skin that somehow they cannot be white. Which is strange considering a lot of them claim to have Native American ancestry or African slave ancestry. They also believe Italians to be white but deny Argentinans the same claim, even if most of them are of Italian decent. The claim of being white is very deranged in the USA. We should make a note of this in the article and we shouldn't give in to their strange notions of race.

I have also noticed that this type of thinking is also appearing around the world as even Hispanics in Latin America are starting to think of themselves as "racially" Hispanic/Latino. People are starting to adapt to the Anglo-American type of thinking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.91.177.70 (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC).

I think you are over generalizing a bit too much here if you're referring to all Americans in the U.S. The official definition of white in the United states is "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." Hispanic/Latino is on the official census, but it is not a racial category; it's an ethnic group that includes any race (a large part of Hispanics in the U.S. are reported as white). It is true that the news or law enforcement will make a physical identification of someone as Hispanic when they really mean mestizo, but this is rejected by educated people as well as all official demographic studies. This article is about White Latin Americans and not Hispanics in the United States. If you have a source that states that people in Latin America are "starting to think of themselves as 'racially' Hispanic/Latino," then it might be able to be added where appropriate. Another thing is that although with some people Hispanic and Latino are synonymous, many people still know the distinction that Hispanic means that you come from a Spanish-speaking country and Latino/Latin American means that you come from Latin America, the latter including Brazil. Kman543210 (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
well put kman i agree with your accessment very much, to the ip, i doubt very seriously that many latin americans are doing that (lol) in particular argentines and people from uruguay,i think the term is being adopted to mean some sort of racial idea among mestizos populations within the united states or latin america , most coutries have there census broken down into racial catageories rather than saying hispanic or latino being everybody is latino hispanic like i said maybe among the mestizo population but not among non mestizos in latin america or north america though im sure there are some ignorant whites who try to exscape the white race by saying they are latino or hispanic and just look white because of the american media constant giving latino and hispanic some sort of racial value but and its just not cool to be white in society because you cant be proud to be white because you are than tagged with the racist label,so just because somebody may say they are not white does not mean its truth,and most latin americans do not have olive skin just as most europeans in gerneral do not olive skin is just a genetic mutation in which you have a greenish hue to your skin tone but are still pale but people with this tend to get tanned very easily and can get very dark tan than those without and this is not exclusive to southern europe but this can happen all through europe michael ballack who is a german footballer has olive skin--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Proof that Shakira is not white

The proof she is not white is here. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/shakira-white-83052p5.html and here. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak2zQi6cBe2r1cVMCgf_v.4jzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20061006130035AA82z2S .

Even latinos don't consider her white. http://mx.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmRqfrD9vOgAOZA5U1WsrbrB8gt.;_ylv=3?qid=20070917044334AAsGVvr —Preceding unsigned comment added by InuYoshi (talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

as i said on your page stormfront is a racist site(though ethnocentrics like to use white racist nordicist to claim people when it suits them) and opinions from a yahoo question and anserw session are not reliable sources but there are sources that cite her ancestry as catalan ,italian and lebanese do you have any sources that she is mestizo--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nndb.com/people/485/000023416/ Ask an average American if he/she thinks Shakira is white, he/she'll say no, Shakira will never be considered white in western society. Here in Brazil or Colombia she is considered morena/ or mixed races. It's not that I hate Shakira, it's just that she is not White. Besides wikipedia, nobody considers Shakira white. InuYoshi (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

what makes her mixed race is the question? people consider Shannon Elizabeth white and she even has native american ancestry check her family tree out, which shakira has none of, first off you ask the average american and they think hispanic or latino is race LOL... there is a difference between reality and ignorance--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of Americans do not consider her white, a friend of mine said "WHOA" when he saw Shakira being considered White in an American website like Wikipedia. Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race, she is of Hispanic ethnicity InuYoshi (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

i know what hispanic is but many americans are ignorant to this and think she is not white because she is colombian but americans with native american ancestry are still considered white such as shannon elizabeth,Heather Locklear,Johnny Depp Val Kilmer etc etc etc and with all this said shakira has no non caucasian ancestry all sources say she is italian catalan and lebanese and she is pale like a ghost but she has exotic features no different than Catherine Zeta Jones who is Welsh and Irish but she is still a white caucasian--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Shakira's natural skin color is very tan, she pretended to be white when she entered american marketing, but she is far from being white, her race is arabm and ethnicity is hispanic. Tom Lennox (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Xuxa

Why not replace the picture of Shakira for the picture of Xuxa, since Xuxa is more white than Shakira. InuYoshi (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We try to keep it balanced with one person for a country. I don't know why you don't see Shakira as white. Its because she is half-Lebanese? And since you use a racist website as you proof, it seems you have something against Arabs or people of Arab descent. Just so you know, I oppose removing Shakira, and I believe majority of the Wikipedia editors of this page agree with me. I ask you kindly, can you please drop this "Shakira is not White" argument? Thank you. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I love Shakira, and I think she is one of the best musicians, I love her earlier songs, and she is definitely one of the most beautiful women on this planet. However I do not see her as a white womAn, and she is not. Just because she is not white does not make her any less cool or beautiful, it's just that she is not white. Halle Berry and Beyoncé are black, not white, that doesn't make theY any less beautiful, they are also two of the most beautiful women on the planet. There's nothing wrong with her not being white, it's just that she is not White.. And I don't hate arab people or people with arab descent. I love arabic music and I find arabs beautifully exotic. InuYoshi (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because she is white does not mean she has to mean anything less to you,i mean you still have not come up with a reliable sources ,also arab is not a race though you do talk in terms like it is please stop being ethnocentric or whatever beyonce has nothing to do with this though she has white ancestry and halle berry is half white and yes they are beautiful,like i said earlier exoctic looks are also apart of the white phenotype now please sources are stop wasteing time and this issue has been raised before and settled in the same fashion this is not your personal oipnion in my personal opinion mariah carey is not black but i am not trying to pov her into being white on someother article--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


Don't Feed the Trolls.

trolling comments by user inu yoshi deleted--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What did I do wrong? I was just kidding when I said she was not white. Actually I am one of those who fight to prove that Shakira is white for those prejudiced Americans. InuYoshi (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I chose not to respond to the outlandish comment of "is more white", but I shall just say that I object to the removal of Shakira for Xuxa on the basis that Shakira is more notable world wide (not that I don't love Xuxa too). Kman543210 (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Caucasian vs White

Is there a difference between white and caucasian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.150.157 (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on whom you ask. Caucasoid was generally the scientific term that was used for people with certain features found in a geographic area and could be viewed as the more general, inclusive term. Many people view them as synonymous. I believe in most articles on wikipedia, they are understood to be the same, although there will obviously be people who don't consider them to be. I know that on official forms in the U.S., they are synonymous. Kman543210 (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Caucasians are people from the Caucasus, like Armenian, Gergians, Ossetian, Abkhazian, Chechnian,...
Whites are people with very light colored skin, but not albino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.218.90 (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, that is one definition of Caucasian, but it is not the only or even most common. Here are the dictionary definitions of Caucasian, 2 of which specifically use the word white:
Random House:
1) Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by fair to dark skin, straight to tightly curled hair, and light to very dark eyes, and originally inhabiting Europe, parts of North Africa, western Asia, and India.
2) of or pertaining to the Caucasus mountain range.
3) of or related to the non-Indo-European, non-Turkic languages of the Caucasus region.
American Heritage:
1a) Of or being a human racial classification distinguished especially by very light to brown skin pigmentation and straight to wavy or curly hair, and including peoples indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, western Asia, and India.
1b) Of or relating to a racial group having white skin, especially one of European origin; white.
2) Of or relating to the Caucasus region or its peoples, languages, or cultures.
3) Of or relating to a group of three language families spoken in the region of the Caucasus mountains, including Chechen, Abkhaz, and the Kartvelian languages.
Webster's:
1) A native or inhabitant of the Caucasus, esp. a Circassian or Georgian.
2) A member of any of the white races of mankind.
U.S. Census Bureau (Caucasian and white are synonymous in this census):
A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.
Rather than making up my own definition, I think it's good to consult references. Kman543210 (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What about Thalia?

What about Thalia? Is She White? 201.68.139.157 (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck its usualy is a duck ,can i ask you a question is kelly clarkson white?--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Technically Kelly Clarkson is 100% pure grade "A" American. lol InuYoshi (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's stop debating who is white who is not. For the matter, Thalia is White. InuYoshi (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Get a source! Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the White Mexican article Thalia is listed there, so I think she is white. InuYoshi (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Especially in a contested issue around a living person you need a source. No sources - no edit. Simple as that. Toddst1 (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it would be nice to have a source with a contested issue; however, if you look at the pictures in the White people article, you will see that most of the pictures do not have a source. It's not like it's defamation of character to be called white. Kman543210 (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a contested edit. No source-no edit. Toddst1 (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why can't this "Who's White and Who's Non-White" BS end!!! Ignorant people out there in Wikipedia, THERE ARE WHITE PEOPLE IN LATIN AMERICA, AND IT IS A FACT! IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE FACTS, THEN THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM! STOP SPAMMING TALK PAGES BY SAYING "THIS PERSON IS NOT WHITE"! GROW UP, PEOPLE!!! Lehoiberri (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

White Colombian

Since there ar articles for white brazilian, argentine, cuban, mexican we could have one for White Colombians, in the infobox we can put Shakira and Gabriel Garcia Marquez. InuYoshi (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Shakira

Isn't Shakira Brunette? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.34.156 (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Joker Begins (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Shakira is brunette, not white Amigo Fura Olho (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
That was a confusing statement. The majority of brunettes are white. Kman543210 (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

oh brunette is a race now--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He meant Morena, Shakira is morena, not white. 201.68.138.71 (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Morena is Spanish for brunette meaning hair, eyes and or skin tone and has nothing to do with race.— Ѕandahl ♥ 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
morena is slang and is not race, shakira is pale there are numerous pictorial evidence along with sourced ancestry that she is white this is encylopedia not urban race theft--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely right.— Ѕandahl ♥ 15:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Shakira is more asian than white 200.161.62.242 (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither Spaniards nor Lebanese are classified as Mongoloid race (Asians), so I'm not sure how she could be more of the Asian race Kman543210 (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous douche bags are still continuing to claim that Shakira is not White! Can we just erase this whole section from the talk page to prevent more stupid comments from anons? Lehoiberri (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Shakira is not white and Kman, Leihobem, wikiscribe and sandahl are the same person. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If Shakira is not white, what is she? Not mixed-race at all, because Lebanese people are a population who ancestry comes primary from Phoenician settlers.

Phoenicians also settled some parts of Europe, including Southern Spain, Italy, France and Greece. If Lebanese are not white, so many people in Europe are not. Opinoso (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

There's a chance that Shakira may not be white, that's because some lebanese are white, not all. We have to consider if her father is a white colombian, I don't think so. So if her father is not white and her mom is, Shakira is only 50% white. 50% is not 100%, so a movie cut in two is not a movie at all, so Shakira may not be White at all. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do people like to claim that Shakira is not White. I will say this is capital letter and in bold for slow, ignorant people like you, SHAKIRA IS WHITE BECAUSE HER FATHER IS OF LEBANESE ANCESTRY, AND HER MOTHER IS OF CATALAN AND ITALIAN! Both her mom and dad are white Colombians, and Lebanese are considered White. You claim that this article is racist, but it seems it you who is acting racist because you can't admit that Shakira is White. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

SOME LEBANESE ARE WHITE, SOME ARE NOT, THERE ARE CHANCES THAT HER LEBANESE FATHER IS NOT WHITE Pé de Chinelo (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

ALL LEBANESE ARE WHITE What do you view the "other Lebanese" you claim that are not white, are they Black or Asian? Lehoiberri (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

in this page, change her ethnicity to white if she is white and then I'll agree she is white, the site is here http://www.nndb.com/people/485/000023416/ ps: the lebanese are middle-eastern, not white. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC).

That website just say she is Hispanic, and Hispanic is an ETHNICITY, not a RACE. Hispanic means anyone who comes from Latin America or Spain, or there origins are from those regions. Hispanics can be White, Black, Indigenous, mixture of one of those three (Mestizo/Mulatto/Zambo), and Asian. Also that website list her ancestries. Please know your facts. Lehoiberri (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The Middle East is a region, and Middle Easterners reside in that region; it is not a race and not even an ethnicity. Rather than making up our own definitions of white/caucasian, here is a repost of some common definitions from sources:
Random House:
1) Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by fair to dark skin, straight to tightly curled hair, and light to very dark eyes, and originally inhabiting Europe, parts of North Africa, western Asia, and India.
2) of or pertaining to the Caucasus mountain range.
3) of or related to the non-Indo-European, non-Turkic languages of the Caucasus region.
American Heritage:
1a) Of or being a human racial classification distinguished especially by very light to brown skin pigmentation and straight to wavy or curly hair, and including peoples indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, western Asia, and India.
1b) Of or relating to a racial group having white skin, especially one of European origin; white.
2) Of or relating to the Caucasus region or its peoples, languages, or cultures.
3) Of or relating to a group of three language families spoken in the region of the Caucasus mountains, including Chechen, Abkhaz, and the Kartvelian languages.
Webster's:
1) A native or inhabitant of the Caucasus, esp. a Circassian or Georgian.
2) A member of any of the white races of mankind.
U.S. Census Bureau (Caucasian and white are synonymous in this census):
A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.
Now can we discontinue this topic? There is nothing we can say and no source that will change Pé de Chinelo's mind, and this is starting to become trolling. Kman543210 (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I called for this topic to be delete before it was trolled back again. Hopefully some one deletes it, or archive it, or do something that will stop the spammy trolls. Lehoiberri (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OK I'll give you that, Shakira is White. but don't delete this thread, we can use this as proof for other things. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Shakira's PARENTS

I found a picture of Shakira with her parents. Her Lebanese father looks "whiter" than her Colombian Italian/Spanish mother:

http://www.myshakira.org/images/shakira_parents.jpg

So, Pé de Chinelo, how do you explain Shakira's Middle-Eastern father looks whiter than her "European"-descend mother?

Those trolls claim someone is not white basing in the country they were born or their surname. As the troll who months ago was claiming Nelly Furtado is not white, claiming she is "Hispanic", because she eventually sings in Spanish language, even though her parents are from Portugal and she has nothing to do with the "Hispanic World".

Why people do not claim Victoria Beckham is not white? Because she is British. If she were from Mexico or Guatemala, many trolls would call her "mestizo" or something similar. Opinoso (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

excellent point about victoria beckham, i have seen many pictures of shakira and her parents are as white as casper the friendly ghost there not brown,tan olive or whatever you want to say she is a pale face with family origins in places where she would be considered white,some seem like they cant be a fan of hers unless she is seen as non white--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Her lebanese father has european ancestry. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. His surname is Mebarak Chadid, Arab surnames. Does not sound really European. Moreover, I've never heard about any type of European immigration to Lebanon.

Lebanese are primary descendants of Phoenician settlers. The Arab colonists left their language, culture and traditions, but the local population remained with their Phoenician ancestry. Being an "Arab" does not mean you have to trace your ancestry to the Arabian Peninsula. Arab is a cultural aspect, not a race. The same applies to Hispanic, which is a cultural aspect. Hispanics can be of any race, the same goes to Arabs. Read the article Arab.

Not only Europeans can look "white". Maybe you should study History more and learn that all humans came from Africa, and all humans were of black skin 100,000 years ago. Those who left Africa and went to Europe, due to natural selection and genetic mutations, only the lighter skinned people survived in Europe, because of its cold weather (light skin absorbes more sun light), while those of dark skin tended to dissaper over the millennia. This phenomenon was not exclusive to Europe, it also happened in other parts of the world. White human skin is a recent phenomenon. Human species exists for only 130,000 to 200,000 years, and humans first arrived in Europe 40,000 years ago. The first people with blond hair only appeared 11,000 years ago (see article blond).

All Humans are descendants of a small group of humans who came from Africa. From China to Sweden, we all share the same ancestry and genetic structure. The genetic differences between a "white" and a "black" are so minimal and pathetic.

Races and ethnicities are created by people's mind. This stuff does not exist. If we go generations ago, we were all black people living in the middle of a jungle in Africa.

All I wrote is to say: not only humans in Europe can have look white. And all this "race" stuff is not serious, because everybody came from the same place. Everybody have black ancestors from Africa, including Shakira, her Lebanese father and, of course, you Pé de Chinelo. If you are a human being, of course.

MANY of the ancient "European" peoples first settled in the Middle-East and then re-immigrated to Europe.

So stop with this "she can't be white because her father is from Lebanon" or "her father looks white, so he has European ancestry". GO to school study biology or take a trip to Lebanon and stop trolling. Opinoso (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm a Lebanese American and have green/hazel eyes and my skin is fair enough that I get sunburned at the beginning of every summer. The idea that white Middle Easterners all have European ancestors is ridiculous: about 90% of Lebanese people could easily pass for Southern Europeans, and there's no way the Crusades could have left that massive of a genetic impact. Not only that, but the Europe-Asia border is geopolitical, not mandated by God or nature, and so the idea that Greeks are "white" and therefore more closely related to Swedes and Danes than they are to their neighbors in West Asia is preposterous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormwoodpoppies (talk • contribs) 21:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


Many people from west asia in particular from the Bilad al-Sham region which includes places like "Lebanon",Syria,jordan,Israel, Palestinian territories and also people in places like Iran and Afghanistan look no different than europeans also people from al-sham region self idenitfy as white and since race which was pointed out by opinoso,is a social construct made up by man based on similar physical characteristics, shakira 's father would not only fit the broad definiton of white/caucasian that everybody from the middle east is white but her father would fit into the strict purely social american construct of white there is no doubt it can't be denied that Shakira is white--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Shakira doesn't belong to the white race. Tom Lennox (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Basques and French

In the section on Peru it lists alternative sources for the European ancestry and says "French (mainly Basques)"... What's the Freakazoid is that??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Basques would be Spaniards... Not French!!!! Or is there any justification? I'm not correcting it myself out of cautiousness... But really... That's really messed up!!!!!Undead Herle King (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Basque people can be from either Spain or France, as the historical Basque country spanned across the border of both modern-day nations. Even the article on the Basque people states: The Basques are a those who inhabit a region spanning over parts of north-central Spain and southwestern France. Kman543210 (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I had guessed a justification might come from that line of thought... But even then... Most of the area that is Basque is officially Spanish not French, and Spanish Basques rather identify themselves as Basques than as Spaniards more often than French Basques rather identify themselves as Basques than as French... Or at least that's what I know and understand on the topic...Undead Herle King (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying on my talk page about the deletion. Just for reference, here is the guideline that says that new comments go on the bottom: Wikipedia:Talk#Layout. You're right that most of what is the modern-day Basque region is in Spain and that many of them probably identify as Basque before Spaniards or French. I'm not an expert on that, but maybe the person who put that in was just trying to specify that they were from the country of France but that they were Basque. Either way, I don't see a source for any of that paragraph, so it's not easily verifiable. Kman543210 (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I shall guess I shall get a vote called to have new messages at the top... There it is more likely for people to read them... Anyway, I really meant that Spanish Basques, more often than not, identify themselves as Basques first and foremost, while French Basques, more often than not, identify themselves as French, first and foremost, and as Basques only afterwards, when getting into more detail, but I do lack soruces to justify this...Undead Herle King (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Such a proposal would not be accepted byt he community as it would be extremely irritating to those with experience of the website. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

RBD

What RBD members are white? RBD is a mexican pop group. Joker Begins (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

THIS AGAIN?! Lehoiberri (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

All of them except Dulce Maria and Christian Chavez who look mestizo. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Eva Mendes White?

Joker Begins (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember that this article is about white people from Latin America. Eva Mendes is an American, born in the United States, to Cuban American parents, so it would be more appropriate for the White Hispanic and Latino Americans article which is about Hispanic Americans. As far as I have read, I have not seen any references to her having Amerindian ancestry or being mestizo or even castizo. Her parents are from Cuba, and officially that country is 65% white, 10% black, and 25% combined mulatto and mestizo.
Are you looking to add information about her to an article, or are you just asking for your information? Remember that talk pages are for discussion on improving the articles and should not be used as forums or for general conversation about the topic. Kman543210 (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
there is no doubt that eva mendez is white the facts are there are little to none mestizo population in cuba most natives were killed off, but never the less she is was a victim of that latina given mistaken racial value in the movie Hitch with will smith because they did not want a white actress for such and such reason or a black actress for such and such reason so they got someone from the latina race to play the lead female roll its really funny how ignorant some people are, that is why hollywood plays a major roll in giving latino/hispanic mistaken racial value--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe, just maybe, Eva took those roles because she perceives her ethnicity as non-white. But then you wouldn't find that evidence reliable either, since apparently she's another "confused" Latino wanna-be non-white...even though you know, Latinos in reality derive from a culture notorious for institutionalized pro-white favoritism. "There is no doubt...", hah, maybe none to the untrained eye that believes race is denoted by skin tone...oh wait, Eva has never had light skin. But wait, some French or Portugese are also "as dark as her". LOL. I live in an area with so many Caribbean mulattos (with black-skinned parents/siblings) who look like her that it just makes me laugh to see obviously sheltered individuals trying exert authority on this topic. But wait, a horribly sunburnt Italian could have their skin color, so I guess all Latinos are just white. We can dream, can't we? 74.69.64.52 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Nobody here can say if she is white or not: only SHE can say so. Not all the Cuban indigenous population was killed before they mixed with other peoples there. It is almost impossible to kill an entire population without leaving any genetic contribution to the within generations. Opinoso (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


there are small amount of mestizo cubans, also lets not confuse being mixed race(mestizo) with maybe having nominal native admixture,you stand corrected opinoso --Wikiscribe (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no genetic resources in Cubans avaiable, so nobody here can say if there are few or many "mestizos" in Cuba. Moreover, even if Cuba were 99.9% White, mulatto or black, there was still a 0.1% and Eva Mendes or somebody else could be part of this 0.1%.

You said: "there is no doubt that eva mendez is white the facts are there are little to none mestizo population in cuba most natives were killed off".

Nobody needs to have Amerindian ancestry to look like her. It can be the African blood as well. A person with 1/4 black ancestry can look exactly like Eva Mendes (I'm from Brazil and I know what I'm talking about).

It can be even Chinese (yes, a significant number of Chinese emigrated to Cuba) or something else.

Racial admixture is very intensive in Latin America, and a brother can look completly "white" and the other brother completly "non-white". Nobody can use only "physical apparence" in Latin America to say if a person is white or not. Only the person can say so.

By physical apparence, in my opinion, she does not look her ancestors came straight from Spain. Opinoso (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The Non Spanish or Portuguese Countries

I have noticed some editors put Barbados, Bermuda, Haiti, Martinique, French Guiana, Guyana, and Trinidad and Tobago in this article, and these editors view these countries as part of Latin America. Are these countries part of Latin America? Many view the Spanish and Portuguese speaking areas as only Latin America. What do you all think? Lehoiberri (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

yeah i have noticed that as well and i have not interfeared with those edits because i am unsure but i always thought french being a latin derived language should be apart of latin america .--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
One of the main, but somewhat restricted definitions, of Latin America would be the countries that speak Spanish and Portuguese. The more expansive definition includes the French-speaking countries. Although there are some who consider Latin America to be anything south of the United States, this is not the generally accepted definition.
Random House: The part of the American continents south of the United States in which Spanish, Portuguese, or French is officially spoken.
American Heritage: The countries of the Western Hemisphere south of the United States, especially those speaking Spanish, Portuguese, or French.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: A term applied to all of the Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking nations south of the United States.
WordNet 3.0: the parts of North America and South America to the south of the United States where Romance languages are spoken
Merriam-Webster: Spanish America & Brazil
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition: The Spanish-speaking, Portuguese-speaking, and French-speaking countries (except Canada) of North America, South America, Central America, and the West Indies. The 20 republics are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Kman543210 (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The inclusion of non-Romance-speaking countries seems to represent an insignificant view, so should be removed. Haiti seems solid, though by no means is it unquestionable. In fact, the inclusion of any French-speaking area demands we consider including Quebec. We can deal with that later. SamEV (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to remove Barbados, Bermuda, Martinique, Falkland Islands, French Guiana, Guyana, and Trinidad and Tobago since they don't fit the definitions of Latin America presented by Kman543210. I originally posted Haiti, but since its been proven it is part of Latin America since they speak a Latin Language (French), so it stays. Any one have any problems?
Regarding Quebec, the reason it can't be applied since it is not an independent country. What I am confused is the issue of Belize. It is an English speaking nation, so the term of Latin America can't be applied to them, but Belize is ethnically similar to Guatemala, except it has people who have some or full African and British ancestry. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Lehoi.
The definitions don't really specify that only independent countries are covered, so we can't rule out Quebec, Martinique, etc. (The words "country" and "nation" can also apply to dependent entities.)
Belize is possibly the toughest one to deal with. Spanish does appear to be the mother tongue of a plurality of people there, and Mestizos are the largest group ([2])... SamEV (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

SamEV is correct that Belize is one of those borderline instances where some people include it and some do not due to a lot migration from other Latin American countries, but it is definitely not a traditional Latin American country. According to the 2000 Belize census[3], the current language users (language they use at home) are as follows: Spanish 43%, Kriol 37%, English 5.6%, etc. In terms of language proficiency, 80% of Belizeans speak English either well or some, and 63% speak Spanish either well or some. That being said, since this article deals with White Latin Americans, I would not include Belize because the white population in Belize is only 4.3%, and of that 3.6% are Mennonites (mostly German speaking). So that leaves 0.8% of the country that is non-Mennonite white, and of that 0.8%, only a total of 49 people in 2000 Belize Census indicated that Spanish was their mother tongue. Unless we're going to put in the section that there are 49 white Latin Americans in Belize, I think it should be left out. Kman543210 (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Peradventure there shall be 49 found there (sorry, I couldn't resitst), it would still merit inclusion: if the conclusion is that it is a Latin American country. The point of the article is to give a full accounting of the white population in every Latin American country, without exception. If a country had 0 whites, that noteworthy fact must be mentioned as well. SamEV (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Luiselramos2.jpg

The image Image:Luiselramos2.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

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Models

Why so many pictures of unknown models, such as Taliana Vargas or Valeska Saab?? (who are they??). It would be better to post pictures of more known people, or historic pictures of European immigrants in different countries of Latin America. Opinoso (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, this article has, in my opinion, models I haven't heard of before. Currently there are 7 pictures of models in this article. Wait...Let me rephrase that, there are 2 models and 5 beauty queens (remember "real" models don't view beauty queens as models!) I now beauty pageants are a big deal in Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Colombia, but seriously there are more people, and better people, beyond these fake women (in my opinion; beauty queens are notorious for having plastic surgery). I think it would be nice to have historical pictures, than beauty queens. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems somebody was trying to paint that all White Latin Americans are models or beauty queens. If you notice, there are no "normal" people in this article. Only beautiful singers or models. Why not post pictures of "normal" white Latin Americans, such as writers, athletes or other more "ordinary" people~? (and more famous too). And moreover, it needs historic pictures. Opinoso (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Too often these turn into "who's your favorite celebrity" galleries or lists. They don't all need to be currently famous, just notable in some way (of course that's subjective too). Kman543210 (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Falkland Islands?! WTF!!

Now this is getting ridiculous! Why is the Falkland Islands listed here, it is a FULLY RECOGNIZED British Territory. Only Argentina doesn't recognize it as British. The Falkland Island is NOT part of Latin America, and I bet you all that Falklander would find it offensive to be referred as Latinos/Hispanics since it would make the Falklands as an Argentinian territory. The Falkland Island is made up of primary people of British descent, and the offical language is English, not Spanish or Portuguese. Maybe I am the only Argentine with common sense, but serious remove the Falkland Islands! Lehoiberri (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.worldstatesmen.org/

Can this be used as a reliable source... it seems to be very informative.

http://www.worldstatesmen.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco (talk • contribs) 20:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that I am not the only one who thinks that this source is not very reliable.. Besise it contradicts with other sources. --Fercho85 (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced list

The list of white Latin Americans is unsourced. I think that if references cannot be found to show that a particular person identifies as a white Latin American, or in some way demonstrating that the person can be considered a white Latin American, then the person should be left off the list.

Ordinary Person (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Ordinary Person.
Let me tell you what I don't like about your comment: nothing. You're absolutely right. I was against the list from the moment it was dumped onto the article early this year (from a deleted article), but I thought we could, little by little, add references to it. Hasn't happened, and doesn't look like it's going to any year now.
So, big changes are coming soon; and by soon I mean probably within the next 24 hours. Stay tuned. SamEV (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Before you start removal make sure you use a scapel and not an hatchet because in this particular article there are some with sources for ancestry on each individual's main article such as shakira, che guevara, michelle Bachelet(,fidel castro and raul castro,gisel bundchen,thalia ,salma hayek e.t.c e.t.c though most on this article may not have sources and many were added without any consenusus--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Since I only added a few names, I don't think I should be the one who has to verify them all (and it's no use asking you guys to help; you won't. I mean no offense, Scribe; it's just a fact). So they're goners, except for the infobox, of course. I did find a source in Gisele's article yesterday, and found another for Castro, so they're staying. The other 4 will be replaced. I'll post the names that are currently scattered throughout the article and in Notables here, where any and all of us can, at our leisure, pick a name here and there to verify so we can return it to the article. Verifying the whole list may take a decade, especially since I have no intention of spending much time on it. But at least in the meantime the few names in the article will be sourced.
But if you want to post a source for any of these names today, go ahead. If it's a reliable source, that name will stay. SamEV (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

there is a source for Shakira as well samev you know as well i as i do that she has been disscused to the point of nauseum on this very talk page--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the source for Shakira? SamEV (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

try clicking the link shakira is lebanese, catalonian and italian origin its right on her main article also samev if you wish to make an issue out of something deal with it maybe not everybody got time right now to scan the internet looking for everybody's ancestry but as i said a few have sources right on there main article if you remove shakira i will just re add her--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiscribe, please. Calm down. SamEV (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, Wikiscribe. The BBC story counts as a reliable source, yes. But let's see how much it says about her race or ancestry. There's the headline: "Shakira proud of Arab background"; the intro: "Colombian singer Shakira has spoken of her pride in her Arabic heritage and her sadness at the way some people view the Middle East."; the first sentence: "The 28-year-old, whose father is of Lebanese descent..." Her comment re: the origin of her moves: "Many of my movements belong to Arab culture,..."; which is restated later: "She learned her distinctive hip-shaking belly-dance moves from her Lebanese grandmother." As you can see, neither any of those statements, nor their sum, are conclusive about her total ancestry. They only point to someone with some Middle Eastern ancestry.
Understand this: I'd be delighted if we could keep Shakira. I'm a fan of hers (what's not to like? She's even smart!), so yesterday I took a look at her genealogy, but that's inconclusive, too.
We need firm sources, Wikiscribe. We cannot make any exceptions. Now if you want to post another source, please do. SamEV (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

here you go now any questions [4]--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no questions.
Thank you very much. Nice doing business with you. Come again. SamEV (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(SamEV here) Well, the deed is done, and here goes the list.

Authors

Entertainers Actors/Actresses

Musicians

Journalists

Models, beauty queens

Presidents and Political figures

Religious figures

Sports

And the people who were pictured alongside the list:

And other individuals whose images were scattered throughout the article:

Now in regards to the new-look infobox, I'll try to make refinements, probably change some pictures, as time goes by. Meantime, here's an issue we must resolve:

  • A table near the top of the "Population" section showed groups of people (Argentines, Brazilians, Mexicans, Uruguayans), as did the Nicaragua Deutsche Club pic. Aren't such pictures inherently OR? I mean, how do we verify the race of all those people? Should we allow group pictures at all?
  • {I removed my comment about the Duchess b/c it came out all wrong.}

so basicaly find sources for the ancestry of these people and as we do they will get added back to the article--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. However, from the looks of it, my hunch is that in the end only (roughly) one in five of these people will prove sourceable. So I think that the list will only grow to its past size (about 110; which was not excessive, come to think of it) or even one half of it by adding dozens of new people whose ancestry info is available. It's doable; it's just that I won't be the one who does it. SamEV (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

samev nobody had asked you to look for sources but anybody can whether its me or any other editor who comes along who wishes to do so can do so from time to time this is not a job where people are paid by the hour to perform tasks and there is no time limit--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? Of course none of us is obligated to do anything at Wikipedia; and of course everyone can contribute. But whether you admit it or not, there are now six sourced names and faces in the article, and in 5 of them it was I who did the sourcing. SamEV (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

fantastic that you sourced 5 of them it was your choice just like it was my choice to find the one for shakira that you supposely could not find i did not look for an award so why should you--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, you should try and calm down.
And not "supposedly": I could not find it. Period. Thank you for sourcing Shakira. Happy now?
As for "award", that's childish. My point is obvious: we talked and talked about sourcing these people's race and nothing was done till yesterday when I finally did. Deal with it. SamEV (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


Finding a reference showing that someone has some Arab, Catalonian and Italian ancestry is not tantamount to evidence that they can be considered a White Latin American. Even if we leave aside for one moment the discussion of whether Arabs are broadly considered "White", to include Shakira you would need to find some reference indicating that she identifies, or is broadly identified, as a White Latin American. This is WP: we don't include original research.

Ordinary Person (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Her ancestries are, by and very large, categorized as white ones.
Btw, to whom were you replying? SamEV (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually I was replying to something Wikiscribe said way up there. Not sure how I ended up down here...
I think the Shakira/Hayek dealie typifies the vexed nature of this topic. Whether or not a group is considered white is to an extent a matter of perception and convention, and it is not entirely about skin colour: it's partly a social definition. Despite their inclusion in the old Caucasian group, whether or not Arabs are considered white is a moot point, discussed briefly in the WP White People article.
All though the topic in general is interesting, for mine, ethnicity is partly about self-identification. Carol Channing did not identify as black: Halle Berry does. They probably had/have about the same recent ethnic ancestry. I guess my take home message is that maybe this topic would be better discussed in general terms, and that any list of WLAs provided should only feature those who self-identify as white, unless very strict, objective and logical criteria can be determined for whiteness.

Well, that's my two cents. Ordinary Person (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a fuller discussion about the definition within the article is merited. Ordinary Person (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Castro and criteria

Fidel Castro: African Ancestry?

I am not 100% sure about this one, but it is believed by some that Fidel Castro has some African ancestry from his mother's side. I am aware that his father was from Galicia, Spain, and his mother may have had Galician ancestry as well; however, this does not eliminate the possibility of her being of mixed ancestry. Here is a website that makes note of this possibility:

http://www.afrocubaweb.com/aboutacw.htm

Hopefully this will be taken under consideration.69.235.143.22 (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC) James Lopez


Would you like us to get a dna sample from him to find out, many white people from the americas whether their from the caribbean ,south america ,north america or central america may have non white ancestry.I would like to get a dna sample for Abraham Lincoln or Marilyn Monroe to find out did they had any black african ancestry being 30% of all White American have non white ancestry (i.e black or native american)which leaves open the possibilty, your source(which is not a very good one) talks about the possibilty of 70% of cubans as a whole of having black african ancestry this is not an article of possibilites because anyone in particular in the new world has a chance of having non white ancestry just what sources say about an individual--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
That's the only source I've heard of that makes such a claim about Castro. And to second Wikiscribe, we don't do one-droppism here.
Nevertheless, since mestizos (mestizos proper being those who are 50/50 [white and black] of course) wouldn't be included (and in fact, they have their own article), it's obvious that there's a cut-off point somewhere between 100% and 50% white. I've been meaning to bring this up; we need to establish what that cut-off will be. Not based on original research, but on historical precedent. In fact, the article gives us a good cut-off. It mentions the fact that those who were 3/4 white and 1/4 Native were castizo, whereas those who were 7/8 white and 1/8 Native were counted as white. I suggest we go with that (we include those who are at least 7/8 white). I'd like to here your opinion, Wikiscribe, Lehoiberri, Opinoso, Kman, everyone. SamEV (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

maybe i put out the wrong vibe, i am not trying to impose some sort of one drop rule, i just said what the ip suggested we can say about abraham lincoln there is a possibilty he might have some non white ancestry and what he is suggesting is that we remove fidel because there is a chance he might have some non white ancestry but under that arguement we can also remove abraham kincoln from the white american article in others words the ip's arguement is fallacious one and is hinting at a one drop rule--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


I remember hearing some of the criticism of Fidel Castro and the Communist regime is that he and the hierarchy of the Cuban Communist Party are White. There are non-Whites in the Communist Party, but they are not in the top of the party where the Castro bros and their friends sit. Lehoiberri (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Wikiscribe, I was addressing the same issue. The IP seemed to suggest we remove Castro b/c he may not be simon-pure white, which I would oppose, too.
What do you guys think of the 7/8 cut-off? Perhaps a specific example would help. Vicente Fox himself wrote:[5] "My late mother ... was an elegant Spanish merchant's daughter..." "...my German Irish American grandfather, who came from Ohio on horseback to marry the daughter of a French soldier and an indígena peasant,..." So he's 7/8 white. Should he be included or not, and why or why not? This issue will come up at some point, so let's take it on early. SamEV (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

wait, im bad with this numbers, so somebody like fox is only 1/16 native american?--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

He's 1/8 Native American. One of his 8 great-grandparents was Native American. She was the mother of one of his grandmothers (married to his German-Irish American grandfather). SamEV (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

i would say, something around that would be be a good cut off that would be more like admixture one "great" grandparent was native american--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am the original poster on this particular discussion area, and I must say that I apologize for initiating so much negativity and controversy here-- I assure everyone that it was unintentional. And no, I was not necessarily suggesting removing Fidel Castro from the list, nor do I subscribe to the one-drop theory. I am merely critical of the idea that Fidel Castro is always presumed to be white, and the question is: how do we know? Does he consider himself white? Do we really know his ancestry? It seems that he is always presumed to be white without any real evidence presented. No, I am not necessarily proposing a removal, nor do I think "purity" is a true factor in "whiteness" (or however sort of color one identifies with). Take are.155.135.55.230 (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC) James Lopez

No need to apologize. Your first post, though evincing one-droppism, did convince me to start a related discussion I'd been meaning to start. Thank you for that.
Now in regards to the manner in which we include anyone, let me say that we take what we can get. Self-ID when available, or other reliable sources. Now, I take it you didn't notice the little number next to Castro's name in the infobox. It's for a source wherein he's called a typical representative of the white elite.Here's the link. In the books and magazine and newspaper stories I've read, and in the documentaries and TV news stories I've seen about Castro, he's never been referred to as mulatto or anything other than white. Here are more sources about his race [6], [7], [8]. SamEV (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I never heard or read of Castro claiming to have non-White ancestry. I always read about Castro that he is a Gallego, well his ancestors are Gallegos. Also, Castro was born to a wealthy family, and in Latin America, wealthy families are always White. Lehoiberri (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
No, not always. Simón Iturri Patiño was 3/4 Native American and Erasmo Wong is Asian.
But again, all the info I've come across about Castro says he's white.
Hey, I want to know what you think about the cutoff idea. SamEV (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
True, but majority are White. Well for the cut-off rate, find by me, I don't have any objections. Lehoiberri (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
All right. SamEV (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Castro's mother was not from a priveleged background; she was a maid, which is fairly well-known. Fidel was born "illegitimately," and some sources say that his father did not acknowledge him immediately. Here is a source, in Spanish, that says that he was born poor but raised rich; not only that, but this source, among many others in Spanish, states that his mother, Lina Ruz, was mulata, hence acknowledging African ancestry (and probably not distant) for Fidel:

http://www.elgrancapitan.org/foro/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=9731

As far as I am concerned, he is white Latin American and should be included here; however, his possible non-white heritage may be more recent (and more important) than originally thought. Take care, all.69.235.143.22 (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC) James Lopez

Please understand: we haven't so much as implied otherwise about his mother's station, the circumstances of his birth, or his early years. But that he went on to be raised under privileged conditions is common knowledge and that is why that reliable source in the article calls him a typical member of the white ruling class. SamEV (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
James, web forums are not reliable sources. Sorry. Lehoiberri (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Understood, but the first post I made sites another source which is debatably more reliable.69.235.143.22 (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC) James Lopez
If you want to, you can cite it directly. SamEV (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

i agree with samev proposals except for the matter about adding a footnote about individuals possible non white ancestry because there is already a statement to that fact about latin americans as a whole of having possible admixture, just like there is a similar statement about admixture on the White Americans article, also your two sources are weak one being a web forum and one being a special intrest web page that from what i can see only mentions about 70% of cubans as a whole as having possible black african ancestry.Plus this is the first time i ever heard of fidel castro having any possible black ancestors, if you want to try and add it to his main article by all means try it, there is a simlar more well known rumor about Warren G Harding the 29th president of the united states of having an african american grandparent but the source there is the new york times so its more plausable--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Do me a favor: add your comment about the inclusion rules below that section, please. I want to have a record of the opinions about it. I'll respond to your concern there, afterwards. Tx. SamEV (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

Let me say that I don't think that 7/8 should be the minimum. But I wanted us to establish the idea that some mixture was acceptable in order to establish that we would not be going the one drop rule route. 7/8 was a no-brainer.

In general, I propose that we include:

  1. people known to self-identify as white, from reliable sources
    1. people known to self-identify as white, from reliable sources, regardless of what is known about their actual ancestry. Thus, someone like Mariah Carey, who is 5/8 white, AFAIK, would be included if she identified as white (and if she were Latin American, which she's not. That was just an example)
  2. people whose self-identification is unknown but whom reliable sources identify as white. If sources are divided concerning the person's race, an overwhelming majority must call the person white
  3. people whose self-identification is unknown but whose ancestry is traced (to borrow Census Bureau terminology) to the original peoples of Europe, and/or the Middle East, and/or North Africa, per reliable sources. It is here that the 7/8 cutoff would apply, or some smaller fraction if we have good, original research-free reasons for adopting a smaller fraction
  4. we should add contrary information when available from reliable sources. So for instance, the claim about Castro's allegedly mixed mother, if a reliable source is cited, should be added in a footnote.

Notice that in all cases, reliable sources are required. There is no room for original research.

Your thoughts, everybody? SamEV (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.69.235.143.22 (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC) James Lopez
i agree with samev proposals except for the matter about adding a footnote about individuals possible non white ancestry because there is already a statement to that fact about latin americans as a whole of having possible admixture, just like there is a similar statement about admixture on the White Americans article[.] Wikiscribe (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The article refers to the intermixing that we all have due to millenia of mixing. But as you know, in practice, and absent genetic tests, a person is assumed to be 'pure' if there's no memory of mixture preserved by their family or by documents, and/or if the person has no 'obvious' phenotypic signs of mixture. It's a purely practical assumption. And it's what allows there to be an article about Multiracial people: even though all humans are multiracial. See what I mean? There's genetics, and then there's the social construct of race, of which this article is itself a reflection. So whenever someone has documented, recent ancestry from more than one race, but most sources claim or imply that the person is in fact 'monoracial', it makes sense to add a footnote with the contrary info. In fact, it's required per WP:NPOV, unless it's a claim by a very tiny minority of sources. SamEV (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

okay but as you said people should assume 100% white ancestry though as you know when it comes to latin americans it's usually the opposite people incorrectly assume mixture ,but i don't want to get into a whole big deal about this ,if there will be footnotes so be it, but being we are talking people's ancestry the sources should be good reliable ones because some sources can be dubious or fringe ones--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. SamEV (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with the other person above that just because the person comes from Latin america you have to asume they are not white...if some of these exact people that we are not sure of where born in the US or Canada we wouldnt be as choosy as we are being on here..but ofcourse i thin its best to have references too..but since we are tring to make people aware of white people in Latin america , now we are being the picky ones, within reason. on a program in the uk they too english peoples dna thiking they had full english dna for generations and found one or two that has less than 10% sub-suharan dna..but were fully english..maybe thats the average dna..would like to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.25.11 (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Are Indians considered White?

Are people from India considered White? Pé de Chinelo (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

People from india in the united states are not considered white they are considered apart of the asian race along with other south asians and east asians now since latin america and the united states have similar race view when it comes to the asian continent, i doubt indians would be considered white in latin america indians are only considered white i believe in the broadest scientiffic sence but im not at all certain--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ "FAST FACTS".
  2. ^ "Carmen Miranda's Bio at the Internet Movie Database".
  3. ^ "Schafik Giries Abdullah Handal"
  4. ^ "Schafik Giries Abdullah Handal"
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_Latin_Americans/Archive_2&oldid=1136474018"