Talk:White Latin Americans

Native American

"Native American" is an American term for its indigenous peoples. Most, if not all Latin American states call these people "Indigenous". Does it make sense for this article to use "Native American" continuously? Eladynnus (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It is wide, Native American also means those who have been born in the USA. It can be any race. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Judging by the sources, it would seem that 'Native American' is used as a substitute for 'Indigenous American'. That being the case, the meaning should be qualified in the article by applying the correct nomenclature. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Significance

What criteria do we want to use for "significant" population size, ie for inclusion in the "Regions with significant populations" box? Recently we've seen countries with less than half a million "white" people added - is this reasonable? Should we have a minimum cutoff (eg 1 million people), or perhaps should we base it on %age of the population? Or perhaps remove the "significant" from the pop box title altogether? Any thoughts? Tobus (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There should be no cut-off. Who are we to judge what is significant or not? Half a million is not significant? I think it is in the readers best interest to include these countries as well. I don't see the need to exclude merely "four" countries because they do not meet a personal standard. I also do not see it improving the article in any way by its withholding. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

So let's just get rid of the word "significant" then? Tobus (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Therefore you're proposing "Regions with populations" as an alternative.(?) Significant may not have any absolute numeric value, but is certainly indicative of there being enough members of a particular minority group for them to have cultural community enclave (or enclaves), religious, and other ties as opposed to being fully assimilated into a broader culture.

More to the point, the 4 countries you wanted to eliminate only have what, by your criterion, would only constitute insignificant populations in total, i.e., total populations of < 10 million. In relation to the ratio in proportion to the total population, numbers of less than a million certainly qualify as being significant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Not literally, I'd suggest "Population by Country" or something. "Significant" implies more than ordinary, or standout - I mean I sang "Hound Dog" at Karaoke last night, does that mean I qualify to be listed under "Significant Contributions to Rock'n'Roll"? If the consensus is for a free-for-all inclusion of any Latin American country then lets change the title to reflect that.

I already floated the idea a %age of total population minimum - it'd more indicative of "significant" relative to the country's total populations than a flat minimum number. Having said that, of the 4 countries I removed using a flat 1M minimum, Ecuador is only 6% "white", Haiti <5%, Honduras 1% and Panama 10%... compare that to nearly 50% in Brazil and over 90% in Argentina, there really is a significant difference here.

The question really is what serves the page best - do we want a long list of every Latin American country up front, or do we want a short list of the major countries with the rest detailed down below in their relevant sections? Personally I prefer the former, it's much cleaner and caters to the majority of interest while still providing the less popular info for those who want it. I'd put about 5-6 countries in the list (looking at it, I'd probably make it 5Mil and cut it after Cuba), but this isn't my page, so what do other's think? Every country up the top or just the biggest/most significant ones?

Tobus (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate your concern for crowding the content, this would still require WP:OR in order to define 'significant'. Why try to implement some absolutist system for qualification when alphabetical order is fine? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Significance" is a little but subjective but we can't seriously be accused of misusing it if we include over 95% of the global population - and that percentage is covered by the first 7 countries listed. OTOH we are certainly using a strange definition of it by saying Haiti is "significant" - it represents less than half a percent of the global population and less than 1/20th of it's own internal population. I'm sure it's "significant" to somebody somewhere, but we're not pandering to them, we're writing an encyclopedia and in an encyclopedic context, it's not significant.

Outside the top 95%, I think you could also make a case for keeping Uruguay, Costa Rica and Puerto Rico which despite their low %age on a global scale, all have significant internal populations of over 50%. I can't see much of a case for claiming "significance" for the rest - they each represent less than 2% of the global population and under 20% of their own internal population. If we removed them we would still be covering 209mil of the 219mil global population - a "significant" proportion no?

Tobus (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

We're hardly talking about an endless list. Per Savvyjack23, there's no justification for proscribing it. I fail to understand why you're obsessing over it. Please understand that you have two editors objecting to proscribing it as it isn't up to us to define 'significant'. There's no benefit or need to change it in order to enhance the content. End of discussion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Significant" is already defined, all we need to do is apply it. Can you make a case for why (eg) Haiti should be considered a region with a significant population of White Latin Americans? If not, let's remove it. Tobus (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you make a case for why half a million in a population of ten million (5%) isn't 'significant'? How does this compare with the overall percentage in the United States: 27 million out of a population of 320 million (8.4%). I repeat: any rendering of 'significant' in this context without reliable sources is original research. Please drop the stick. I don't want to waste my time on this any longer. You've failed to explain why this is a 'significant' issue as there's no reason why we need to proscribe the list on the grounds of having an excessively long list. If you can provide a logical reason as to why you're making such a big deal of it, I'm prepared to WP:LISTEN again. If not, it isn't that WP:ITSIMPORTANT as no one other than Savvyjack23 has even engaged in the discussion. In all seriousness, I'm not going to engage in any further discussion unless you can provide a good reason for exclusion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, you are switching the burden of proof (see WP:PROVEIT) - if we put Haiti in a box called "Regions with significant populations" then we are saying that Haiti *is* a region with a significant population and need to be able to justify that, not the other way around.

Secondly, I've already made my case, you just chose to ignore it: "Significant" here is in a global context (the page covers many countries, not just one!). Haiti's 0.5m represents less than one quarter of one percent of the global white Latin American population (0.495 of 219 is 0.226%). This is not "significant" as defined in any English language dictionary I've ever seen.

Thirdly, the US population of 27 million represents ~12% of the global population making it the 3rd most significant country in the world. If we removed the US we'd be covering less than 90% of the world population. (Compare that to Haiti where we'd still be covering 99.75% of the global population if we removed it!)

Fourthly, your comments and links about original research, dropping the stick, this not being important/significant etc. apply equally to yourself - why are *you* making such a big deal of this? If you don't want to "waste your time" on this unimportant issue then don't - let me clean up the list so it matches the description and stop insisting on the inclusion of countries with extremely small populations in a pop box labeled "significant populations".

Fifthly, I note that 2 of the 4 countries I originally raised this discussion about have already been removed by another editor and not restored... there does seem to be support from other editors to restrict the list, even if they're not participating in this discussion.

And finally, if we make sure that we're covering at least 95% of the global population then there's no way we can have missed any of the major contributors. Even if we decided to cover 99% of the world population Haiti and Ecuador still wouldn't make the list. There's no logical reason to include them, only personal and emotional ones.

Tobus (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You've misunderstood WP:PROVEIT. As the contributor who wishes to redact (i.e., remove) content, the onus is on you to provide evidence through reliable sources to demonstrate that 'significant' is qualified by some sort of proscribed formula in the field of demographics. Please stop with your WP:OR interpretation based on your own reading of the dictionary meaning of 'significant'. Once you can provide such sources, you're welcome to provide them here and redact the list accordingly. Until you have a genuine case, please desist from this WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in trying to escalate the issue. You've gone from querying a point to being disruptive. Without sourced demographic proscriptions, I'm not engaging again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I quote: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (bolding in original)... it is you who has misunderstood it. If you are insisting that Haiti is a region with a significant white Latin American then WP:PROVEIT. Tobus (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is you, per bold → revert → discuss. You're responsible for the WP:BOLD edit using a personal predilection unsupported by secondary sources for the definition of 'significant' number in any glossary of terminology in the field of demographics. The onus lies with you to demonstrate that this isn't simply a WP:POV and WP:OR interpretation of 'significant'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not me - I removed questionable content and you are arguing for the restored material. So as per WP:PROVEIT the onus is on you, "the editor who adds or restores material" to justify why Haiti should be included in this list. As per WP:BRP I've left the page with my edit reverted while we discuss the issues, but contrary to what you are saying, there's nothing in WP:BRD that excuses either of us from providing evidence during that discussion. So please, explain why you think Haiti is significant in this context.

Secondly, I've already made my case twice, you are just not listening. The definition of "significant" I am using is the dictionary definition (not my "personal predilection" as you seem to think). While this is necessarily contextual, in this pop box the context is global since we are discussing many countries. Haiti has a white population less than 0.25% (one quarter of one percent) of the global population, and hence, by any standard definition of the term, Haiti's while population is not significant.

In the interests of resolving this issue, can you please make your own case, using facts and logic, of why Haiti should be included in this list.

Tobus (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I can see the rationale in removing Haiti by the percentage of the population of Haiti (and because that percentage is white and mulatto), but the brunt of your argument from the inception has been using < 1 million as a cut-off point would have cut off 4 countries. When the total population of a nation-state is only 10 or 15 million, in terms of the overall population a group of just under 1 million (while a minority) is still a significant percentage. Using Ecuador as the example, with a population of 14.5 million (although that's the 2010 stats), a population of 0.95 million constitutes 6.1%. I have seen no WP:RS that tell me that it isn't a significant proportion of the population, therefore I understand it to be significant enough to warrant inclusion, particularly as there is no breakdown of numbers of indigenous and other ethnic groups in what is a multicultural nation-state.

I don't see this as being worth taking to dispute resolution. No one else seems to be interested in getting involved, so I'm just going to ping a couple of uninvolved, neutral editors for third party input. I'm happy to abide by decisions made by consensus, or by overriding policy.

Sorry to ask for your time, but could Cullen328, Ymblanter, or Nick-D please help out here? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I recommend eliminating the word "significant" which seems to add nothing to the article except generating massive talk page discussion to no good end, and list the statistics for every Latin American country, assuming that those reliable statistics are available. It seems that most Latin American countries are listed currently. Why not all? If it is necessary to limit the list for some reason that I do not understand, then make the cutoff one million people. But please, please stop these lengthy debates where people repeat the same point over and over again. By the way, I disagree with listing the Haiti statistics in the current form, which clearly are not "white". Bottom line - please stop the bickering. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In my first attempt, I did not even understand what is being discussed. I will try again in the afternoon.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

United States

This article states it is about people of Latin America countries. But the article has a section of several paragraphs on the United States. Since the US is not considered a Latin American country, should this section be deleted? Why or why not? Hmains (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, considering that the article WP:TITLE is "White Latin American", it certainly reads as being WP:OFFTOPIC. Nevertheless, as a result of the US census methodology for determining ethnicity and self-identification, there is a distinct stratification of ethnic identification amongst the large Latin American presence in the US. Personally, if it's deemed as being encyclopaedic, I see this as belonging to a related spin-off article rather than this article as it conflates the issues surrounding relevant content for this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a long standing article on the US subject Hispanic and Latino Americans. Hmains (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Hmains. Hispanic and Latin America isn't really my field but, rather, just an area I'm interested in. In all honesty, I've only added a number of articles in the field due to a concern that there aren't enough regulars maintaining this area in order to cite-check and sort through RS as being an unfortunately neglected area of Wikipedia. I've now added the above-mentioned article to my watchlist.

Given the title and content of that article, I'm in agreement with you that the content on the US is off-topic for this article. This article is detailed and complex enough without needing to reference the presence of white Hispanic and Latin American diasporic communities living in the USA, therefore I fully support the removal of content relevant to the US. At best, if the "Hispanic and Latino Americans" article isn't wikilinked within the body of the article, it could be added to the "See also" subheader. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Costa Ricans

The picture given isn't of Costa Rican girls, it's of American girls in ethnic costumes. It's very misleading to claim they are something they aren't. Here is a link to all the pictures: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/iday/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.73.92 (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed I've removed the photo, plus have changed the description on the WikiCommons page, where the photo is hosted, to reflect that it's children in California dressed up in Costa Rican folk costumes for International Day in 2003. As such, it fails WP:PERTINENCE for use in this article. Thank you for drawing my attention to the misrepresentation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

References in Argentina and Costa Rica

This report is a shame, but it is necessary to reverse the edition of the user Bleckter (which is a Mexican ip), what happens is that our "great researcher" Bleckter, confused genetic data with race, and this article talks about the race, specifically the white race in Latin America, and the reference to Argentina said that 44% of them have genes pure Europeans, but the Argentine whites are more than 80%, the same case in Costa Rica. Thanks --190.148.92.240 (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• I come to label that the user Blecker after to accusing me and put his dirty hands on data of Argentina and Costa Rica, he did not follow editing, this could signify a WP: SPA.--190.148.92.240 (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)