Talk:Latin America

Moai pictures

I removed the Moais. Easter Island is in Polynesia, clearly not a part of the American contintent. It wouldn't make any sense to have a picture of them in the Latin America article, just like it would't make sense to have a picture of Guam in the North America article or a picture of French Guyana in the article about Europe. Discuss.

Canada

You forget Canada. see Québec

A couple editors obviously have difficulty comprehending or substantiating that Quebec is generally not considered part of latin America, and push the (unsourced) concept of a 'greater' latin America, but continue to revert to an unsourced map including it while accusing of sockpuppetry. BS. If editors cannot substantiate the map, it will be removed. 76.66.124.5 (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

European Population 2

In the section "Absolute numbers", Absolute numbers means: How many people exactly? and calculating the percentage of the White population of Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay and Venezuela, the results are:

Brazil Population: 190,010,647 Percentage of White Population: 53.7% Total White Population: 102,035,717,439

Mexico Population: 108,700,891 Percentage of White Population: 15.5% Total White Population: 16,848,638,105

Venezuela Population: 26,023,528 Percentage of White Population: 21.0% Total White Population: 5,464,940,88

Uruguay Population: 3,460,607 Percentage of White Population: 94.5% Total White Population: 3,270,273,615

So, in the caucasians section reffering to absolute numbers (not to the percentage), the right order is the following; Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Venezuela —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe0 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 7 October, 2008 (UTC)

Demographics table

SamEV recommended that is should explain my reasoning for using the CIA numbers. They are more recent and adding them to the table will in no way damage the outcome of the other nations. It will effect the total percentage but this is because it is more accurate for Mexico in particular so it can work because there is no binding date that all the countires surveys were taken anyways. I hope this helps. Rahlgd (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I said you should make sure that your change doesn't hurt the table.

Somewhere I read that the CIA's Mexico numbers are not recent at all, but are instead based on a census taken in the 1920s. And from what I can tell, based on sources I have at hand, the CIA seems to have used those same Mexico figures for at least two decades. Be that as it may, the CIA Factbook is a reliable source which I use a lot myself.

It seems to me that we then have two equally suitable sources whose data differ significantly. There should be no choice between them: both should be included. I suggest you include the CIA figures without removing Lizcano's, and adjust the totals accordingly. Please don't leave that task to others.

In fact, maybe the table should be modified so that the CIA's figures for all the countries are similarly included and factored in; alternatively, there should be a separate CIA table. SamEV (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a good idea. I have actually been working on a completely re-done version with updated sources which i will post when completed which hopefully can be by the end of the day. I think that for the spaces with no information instead of having a 0.0% in the spaces there should be a N/A put in it's place because countries like Chile don't have Zambo as an available choice in their survey but that doesn't mean the country has no Zambos. Also, for Brazil, not every pardo is a mulatto (some are mestizo or even zambo or mixed with asian because pardo is just the general term used for racially mixed) so we shouldn't have the pardo population percentage tagged as mulatto, rather we should have a multiracial category that mainly Brazil would fill as Brazil is far more mixed than most of the other countries. About the CIA statistics on Mexico, they have not been exactly the same for the last two decades, but they have been very similar with usually only a 1 to 3 percentage point difference, usually in the Amerindian population due to a phenomenon occurring in Mexico's indigenous population. In most societies when people become more developed their birth rates lower, but for Mexico's indigenous population they have been maintaining they're high birthrate even as they attain higher incomes and move to urban or suburban environments. Meaning that Mexico's indigenous population is increasing with new development and wealth even though historically based common ideas of demographics say that they were originally projected to decrease. According to the the demographics of Mexico from the CIA world fact book in 1997 the racial make up of Mexico was 28% Amerindian, 11 % White, 59% Mestizo and 1% other (mostly Black although it seems like there should be more Asian too). Rahlgd (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Those are good ideas. SamEV (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Rahlgd, I was in the middle of doing a partial revert of that edit you did 1.5 days ago when Alex beat me to it and went one better: he reverted your edit completely. There are several issues. You seemed to have picked from among the sources the ones which matched your POV. That's contrary to the whole point of this, which was to be NPOV by leaving Lizcano; you were supposed to add the CIA figures. Those other sources will have to be examined one by one. You got Chile completely wrong: the source says that 65% is 'predominantly white mestizos, yet you included that 65% as white! And where did you find those Salvadoran percentages? I recall from reading the source you gave back on the 29th that it only provides the Indigenous percent (12); did you obtain the others by subtracting that 12? That's OR.

And so on and so forth. SamEV (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, please learn about reusing references. SamEV (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Raghld it is now very obvious to me that after pushing "nahuatl" and other amerindian issues in Mexico-related articles, you want to continue your "work" here in this article. You have a very biased approach to Mexico's mestizos and whites. You want to booster amerindians and their things, something is not welcomed in Wikipedia in general. Undue weight is a firm rule so you must follow it. You only want to use the CIA source because it falsely states that Mexico has 30% of amerindians, which is not true. Other sources far more qualified such as anthropological references, always say that amerindians are around 10-13%. Stop your attitude, it is not constructive. Any boosterism won't be tolerated and will surely be reverted. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 11:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As usual, the racist idiot who intepreted the racial composition of Chileans who came to the conclusion that 52% of Chileans are of pure European descent after misinterpreting some University study, has had his racist rubbish spread to all articles were the ethnic origins of the Chilean population lie. The twit who has publish the ridiculous information have misinformed others of the truth. Most Chileans, indeed around 90% DO have some, if not a lot of Amerindian blood. However, the ration might bee 52% European and 44% Amerindian in the average Chilean, even if the percentage is very small amongst the upper classes. However, most Chileans, not even half, are anywhere near pure European-descent. The original upper-class married Incan princesses and cacique's daughters, and the sebsequent Spaniards and Eruopean immigrants intermarried amongst the descendents. Wikipedia should portray the truth, not some racists' fantasy based on ignorance and proved by biased university research.86.160.120.47 (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused what you mean. You say that i'm racist against amerindians because I said that Chile is 65% white? And then you say i have an agenda against whites because i said that Mexico's indigenous population is 30%? All information i have come across has stated that this is true (regarding Mexico). If anyone has an agenda it is you, Covarrubias, you are the one who went and falsely inflated Mexico's white population in numerous articles dsepite the sources clearly indicating that you were wrong. I have seen sources that say that Mexico has more indigenous than Whites but not the other way around. I have just heard you say this. You blatantly added false uncited information to make it look like there were more whites so if anyone has an agenda it is you Covarrubias. I'm sorry if i offended anyone with the information i posted, i got it from trying to find the most recently updated statistcs on each country. If you think the information is incorrect than I can simply use the CIA as the source for all of them, while it's not the most recent source it is more recent than the informaton currently being used. I'm also so sick of you saying than i have some sort of personal agenda, Covarrubias everytime i say something in good light about amerindians you don't agree with. It seems like you just have some problem with amerindians and don't even start saying i'm trying to promote some pro-nahuatl agenda, i'm not even half indigenous. I'm a quarter Japanese, half White (dutch, spanish, german and some italian) and only a quarter amerindian and of that i'm not even Nahuatl i'm Zapotec so just stop these personal attacks. You are the one that constantly removes Indigenous things from the Mexico article and tried to say they were'nt culturally relavent. Also you still never answererd for your lying and blatant manipultion of data in the ethnography section in the Mexico article. So don't be such a hypocrite, it is not wanted here nor is your rude, condescending attitude. Rahlgd (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that you, Covarrubias again tried to inflate the white popultion by changing it from 16% to 17% thats just childish. Please don't do it again and stop inserting theses small lies that you think we won't notice. Rahlgd (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Brazil: 0% Mestizos? What?

There is a table in the article that says that the ethnic distribution in Brazil is: 53.8% White, 39.1% Mulatto, 6.2% Black and 0.4% Amerindian. There is a huge mistake in it: there is 39.1 BROWN, and not "Mulatto". In Brazil, the "Pardo" (or in English: "Brown") does NOT mean "Mulatto". It is a broader classification that includes Mulatto, Cabloco (that is, "Mestizo", or "Indian-European descendant") and in a lesser presence, the Cafuzo. That means that a Brown Brazilian will almost always be a "Caboclo" or "Mestizo" if he is from the Northeast and North and a "Mulatto" if he comes from the Southeast. For a better explanation and with sources, see Brazil#Demographics. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As currently used in the English language "mulatto" most often means "mixed race". ALL of the classifications you have given are "mixed race" categories, English simply doesn't really distinguish by which "races" are mixed. Admittedly mulatto originally only referred to the offspring of white and black unions, but other usages have been known almost since the word was first coined. Mulatto is simply the English word that most closely matches the Portuguese term "Pardo". The fact that mulatto means something else in Portuguese is irrelevant to an English language text. --Khajidha (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Khajidha, are you actually serious? What English language are you referring to where "Mulatto" has this generally accepted meaning?

Lecen, please respect the fact that the table cites a reliable source. Your proposition of triple counting the same population is just about the worst way of fixing the problem. SamEV (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the word is rarely used anyways. The broader meaning I mentioned has been present since the colonial days of the United States and has been used in that sense in the few cases I have come across recently. Maybe the more precise meaning is still in use in your region, but not in mine? The terms "mixed race", "multiracial" and "multi-ethnic" are used much more frequently. --Khajidha (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You're making flat statements that are unsupported by any sources and are very unconvincing, Khajida. My 'region' is the United States, by the way. SamEV (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

City GDP table has an error

The description of GDP for the Largest Economic cities section says, "GDP figures are estimated and expressed in USD, using purchasing power parity (PPP)exchange rates:" This is how GDP is usually described in economics textbooks and various reports.

However that actual number for Sao Paulo in the table is $25,675. This is waaay to high for Brazil. Checking the referenced source: http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/presidencia/noticias/noticia_impressao.php?id_noticia=1288 on table 10, I see that is shows the "Produto Interno Bruto" or PIB (Portugese for GDP) is R$ 25,675 in 2006.

So not to rub it in, but that 25,675 number is wrong at least three ways: It is 4 years old, it is in Brazilian currency instead of USD, and it is not adjusted for PPP.

I didn't check the other figures in the table.

MountainMeadows (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC) MountainMeadows

Yes, those Sao Paulo figures are for July 1, 2006. The exchange rate on that date was 2.1640 reais per US dollar,^[1] so those R$25,675 come out to 11,865 dollars.

I tried to verify a few more cities' numbers, but one reference was dead (Mexico City's), and the Monterrey ref is a general one, so I gave up. (References should link to the specific pages that corroborate the claims made at Wikipedia.) I tried the Buenos Aires ref, but it's possible that the reason I couldn't find what the table says is because I only skimmed the reference. The table definitely needs improvement. So I messaged the editor who recently edited the table and restored the table to a version that has fully verifiable economic figures. There's a second reference which presmably provides the population figures, but it isn't working right now. If you come across any good sources, let us know. SamEV (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC); 06:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted content

The following content was added recently, but it requires sources and copyediting.

"During much of the 19th century Latin American countries saw strifes between liberal and conservative political factions. Initially conservatives did succesfully gain power in countries like Chile, Argentina. During the second half of the 19th century some countries shifted towars liberal goverments while in some other like Mexico conservative regimes consolidated. By 1899 a large conservative-liberal war broke out and while in Colombia the conservatives won the war the Mexican Revolution that begun in 1911 wiped out an vestige of Porfirio Diaz authoritarian conservative regime."

SamEV (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For starters, liberal-conservative was not the major contradiction in XIXth c. Argentine politics. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. There was the big issue of federalism vs unitarianism. SamEV (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

green text?

There's a problem with green text leaking over the page (from economy down)... the font tags seem OK but there's still a problem? Haven't been able to find the problem unfortunately, anyone else want to try?

James (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I just fixed it because of your message. Thank you. SamEV (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Nicaraguans

This article is incorrect in that it states Nicaragua has 0% black people. This is not true, about 10% of Nicaragua's population is black, it has the most black people(in terms of numbers not percentages) of any Central American country.

Revertion by Jesusmariajalisco

Hello there. User:Jesusmariajalisco has just reversed a lot of edits I have made to this article under the pretense that these constitute "vandalism" and that they were not properly referenced. I have to say that these two accusations are false. First they are clearly not vandalism; I'm not in Wikipedia to vandalize articles, as you can see from my contribution history. Second, all of my edits have been properly referenced with authoritative sources, such as the IMF. I ask User:Jesusmariajalisco to please take greater care when reversing any future edits to this article and to exercise caution before launching false accusations against another user. Have a good day. Pristino (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Conflict with editor SamEV

I have changed recently the infobox about Brazilian ethnic groups since it says that it has 39% Mulattoes. It is clearly a mistake since it makes a confusion over the Portuguese word "Pardo" that translated to English means "Brown". However, "Pardo" is not simply a mulatto, but all mixed-race Brazilians.

This well explained in the article about Brazil (See Brazil#Demographics):

The brown population (as multiracial Brazilians are officially called; pardo in Portuguese) is a broad category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (descendants of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (descendants of Blacks and Indians). Caboclos form the majority of the population in the Northern, Northeastern and Central-Western regions. A large Mulatto population can be found in the eastern coast of the northeastern region from Bahia to Paraíba and also in northern Maranhão, southern Minas Gerais and in eastern Rio de Janeiro.

• Azevedo, Aroldo. O Brasil e suas regiões. São Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional, 1971. Template:Pt icon
• Enciclopédia Barsa. Volume 4: Batráquio – Camarão, Filipe. Rio de Janeiro: Encyclopædia Britannica do Brasil, 1987. Template:Pt icon
• Coelho, Marcos Amorim. Geografia do Brasil. 4th ed. São Paulo: Moderna, 1996. Template:Pt icon
• Moreira, Igor A. G. O Espaço Geográfico, geografia geral e do Brasil. 18. Ed. São Paulo: Ática, 1981. Template:Pt icon
• Vesentini, José William. Brasil, sociedade e espaço – Geografia do Brasil. 7th Ed. São Paulo: Ática, 1988. Template:Pt icon

My edits correcting that mistake were reverted by user SamEV (Here: [2]) and the only explanation he gave was that "please desist from such ridiculous changes". I explained to him why I made the edit in his talk page (Here: [3] and not only he did not bother to answer me he also erased whati I wrote (Here:[4]) with the explanation that he was "removing nonsense".

Not only he did that, but he also, once gain, reverted my edit (Here: [5]) explaining that he was "reverting good faith but ridiculous edit again". As all can see, his behavior in at least unconstructive and at most disruptive. He has been rude withou reason and reverted my edits even though the main article about the country says otherwise. --Lecen (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I created this section to explain my edits, which are according to the main article about Brazil. In here anyone can see the sources used there to explain the demographics of that country. I made a further edit (here: [6]) explaining better what are the mixed-race groups in Brazil, although I did not change the 39,1% figure. I wrote: "Correcting figures. See talk page, section "Conflict with editor SamEV"" In this very section you can all see the sources, books used in Brazil to explain its demographics. This is not something that I took out my mind, but out of the article about Brazil. Once gain, editor SamEv reverted my edit (this is the third time, it is about time to warn him that he will be blockef for such action) (Here: [7]). To expalin his revert he simply wrote: "Restored sourced content. When you can cite a reliable source, Lecen, then *maybe* omitting the figures provided by Lizcano will be justifiable. He's a reliable source, you're not." Nowhere I "ommited" not it came out of my mind. I am trying, as polite as anyone can be, explaining why I made the edits. The other editos insist on a disruptive and rude behavior. --Lecen (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Question. Can you explain why the population percentages exceed 100% as your edit here shows? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In Brazil, there are the following ethnic groups: Whites, Blacks, Indians, Asians and Pardo (officially translated by IBGE as "Brown"). The "Pardo" category, unlike the others, are a group of several ethinic sub-categories, such as the Caboclos (known as "Mestizos" in Hispanic America), Mulattoes and Cafuzos (known as "Zambos" in Hispanic America). That is, the "Pardo" category group all mixed-race Brazilians. In this very article ("Latin America"), the demographics chart shows Brazil with 39% Mulattoes and 0% Mestizos and 0% Zambos. The correct should 39% Pardos. Since there is no category that group all three mixed-race classification in that chart, I thouhgt it would be better to put Mestizos, Zambos and Mulattoes all with 39%. Then I changed to a "note" (Here: [8]) where the reader would click on it and understand that the exact number of Mestizos, Mulattoes and Zambos in Brazil is unknown since the National Census does not have data about each one, only on all as one group only. Unfortunately, no matter how many times I try to change it to correct the mistake SamEV simply revert it and does not bother even to reason with me. He erased the message I wrote to him in his talk page and calls my arguments as "ridiculous". What I can not understand is that all I am doing is bringing the data that appears in the main article about Brazil (more precisely Brazil#Demographics). --Lecen (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If no one is going to say anything about it, it leaves me with no remaining option if not to request an arbitration. Letting this go is the last thing I'll do. If it is going the easy way, it shall go by the hard way. --Lecen (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A piece of advice: dial down the aggressive tone.

Now, believe it or not, I'm not opposed to replacing the Lizcano figures in cases where justified. Let's work out a good way to do that in re: to Brazil, shall we? SamEV (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ow, now you want to talk? --Lecen (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, Lecen, since Sam is now willing to discuss this issue with you, it would be far more productive not to comment on the contributor, in order not to poison the well. ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have patiently waited for days for some kind of stance from any of the editors around this article and nothing happened. Both editors "SunCreator" and "Salvio" simply ignored the present matter and "SamEV" made no comment so far. In fact, after seeing "SamEV" las edit where he reverted another editor's edition calling it "rv unencyclopedic crap" made me realize that I am dealing with a classic type of article ownership. I will request the opinion of other editors now, if nothing happen, I will request an arbitration. When I said that I would go to the end with my complains I wasn't kidding. Regards to all, --Lecen (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to make an outraegous comment... this artificial discussion seem to fall in the typical Brazilian racism against blacks and mulattoes. Why to add a whole new category (such as "pardo") just because some author use that classification? Seems ridiculous. I agree with SamEV. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 01:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not understand what I meant. Is not that scholars in Brazil deny the existence of mulattoes. What happens is that there are not only mulattoes, but also mestizos and zambos in Brazil. The problem is that there are no data concerning each group indivindually, only together as one group, simply called "pardo". The table that can be seen in this article says that there are 0% mestizos and 0% zambos and 39% mulattoes. That is incorrect. There are 39% mestizos, zambos and mulattoes in Brazil.

Also, saying that my concern is an "artificial discussion seem to fall in the typical Brazilian racism against blacks and mulattoes" will look like you are implying that I am a racist. That is not a constructive way to deal with a discussion in wikipedia.

P.S.: It is not "some author" who says that. If you look carefully there are five different books used as source, including the famous Encyclopædia Britannica, the most respected enciclopaedia in the world. --Lecen (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvio. Hey Alex.

Lecen, can't you come up with a better idea than triple counting the pardos? SamEV (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do have. Indeed, as you can see in my last edition [9], I added a "note" tag on mestizo, zambo and mulatto category, instead of a number. So, when a reader click in any of it, he/she will learn that all three of them together represent 39% of Brazilian population. Just click on the link and you will understand it easily. --Lecen (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you find a source that breaks down the 39% into its contituent groups? I saw one in a very old book. SamEV (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Just take a look at the begining of this section: "The brown population (as multiracial Brazilians are officially called; pardo in Portuguese) is a broad category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (descendants of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (descendants of Blacks and Indians).". --Lecen (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about the percentage for each group. SamEV (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, there isn't. For unknown reasons, IBGE has never made any kind of research to how many caboclos are in Brazil, or how many mulattoes are, or how many cafuzos. It has simply grouped all of them together as one large group. Worse of all, in Brazil, the interbreed between Whites and Mongoloid Asians (that is, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, etc...) are also treated as part of the Brown group. The problem is that while IBGE calls it "Pardo", due to the fact that in 1872, when the first national census was made, the mixed-race Brazilians were descendants of Whites, Blacks and Amerindians only, experts in Brazil prefer to call it "Mestiço". However, the word "mestiço" in Portuguese does not have the same meaning as "Mestizo" in Spanish. In Brazil, "mestiço" (mixed-one), means anyone who is descendant of a mixture of different ethnic groups. That is why they group the "ainocô" (the name used to represent the descendant of whites and mongoloid asians) as part of the "mestiços". What the experts have made so far, and at most, was to tell where each group may be found in Brazil.

For example, the descendants of African slaves can be found in large numbers in areas where the economy was directed toward the foreign market, even if in different moments of Brazilian history. For example, the eastern coast of the northeast region was a great producer of sugar cane from the 16th to 17th century. The state of Minas Gerais became an important area of gold extraction from the 17th to 18th centuries. The state (then known as "captaincy") of Maranhão was a large producer of cotton in the 18th century. Rio de Janeiro and again Minas Gerais (mostly its south) were the main producers of coffe in the 19th century. All those areas have a significant African descendant population. In Maranhão there is also another type of "mestiço": the "Juçara". The Juçaras are the descendants of whites, blacks and indians.

In the other regions where the economy was not so much important, such as the remaining area of the northeast region, the central-west and the north region most od the population are the descendants of both whites and indians. The reason to why the south and São Paulo have such a large white population nowadays are due to the European immigration that occurred from 1820 until the 1970s.

Having explained that, the table can not have 39% mulattoes and 0% caboclos and 0% cafuzos as it is now.

It is amazing to see that you (in your own words) saw a table for each group (caboclo, mulatto and cafuzo) "in a very old book" but before called my remarks as "ridiculous" (several times). Why did you do that? Why did you erased my private message to you? Why you did not bother to answer me? Do you really believe that by reverting all my edits, even though they were correct and there is no big deal about them, is not the best solution to deal with a dispute in Wikipedia? --Lecen (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your aggressive tone and threats, and your opting for a multiple count of the 39% are the things I called ridiculous. It wasn't news to me that Brazilians of White-Amerindian mixture don't have their own census category.

The old source I mentioned states this: "Figures are hard to get. But a semi-official estimate (1922) is that Brazil is 51 per cent white, 14 per cent Negro, 22 per cent mulatto, 11 per cent mestiço, and 2 per cent Indian." I own the 1941 edition (([10]), but Google Books' preview of it doesn't show that quotation; however, you can find the same quotation in the 1943 edtion: [11]. SamEV (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who reads this section will see that I tried to reason and only after all you did that I said that I would request an arbitration. Leaving that aside, what can we do about the table? It can not remain as it is. --Lecen (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's very likely that there are estimates of Caboclos and Cafuzos by non-government entities. For example, leading up to the last Brazilian census there were organized efforts by Caboclos for a separate census category. Maybe Caboclo organizations have estimates of this group's total population. And maybe Cafuzos have them for their group, too. But of course, it would be even better if we obtained the estimates from more neutral sources. SamEV (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

How is it sensible to remove the note?

Do you want me to add a note to the top of the table, until we resolve this? SamEV (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Amerindian Population in Mexico is not 13 percent

In Mexico the amerindian population is 30 percent, this number is often underestimated because in terms of preserving languages, religions, and traditions the indigenous population in Mexico is 13 percent. The actual indigenous population of mexico is 30 percent, just because a person of full-blooded amerindian descent is completely hispanicized does not mean they aren't amerindian. For example; an African american is not considered white or mulatto just because they speak english and are christian... Michael jordan was not English. Why on earth would an amerindian be denied their heritage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juleon Powe (talk • contribs) 23:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

NO mention of massacres and Genocide

There is a large mention of diseases brought by the europeans in the colonization section of this page, however, there is no mention of mass murder don by the Europeans. In a paper on world war two it would be unacceptable to not include the holocaust, so why not here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juleon Powe (talk • contribs) 02:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The table of percentages is wrong, in Perú there are more percentages of asians that in Argentina.

Nicaragua's Black Population

The demographic chart is incorrect, nearly 10% of Nicaragua's population is of African descent. And more than 14% is of European descent.