Talk:Afro-Latin Americans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Afro-Latin American)
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Afro-Latin Americans:
  • Remove original research
  • Add citations
  • Add to and expand, especially sections without material
    • Bolivia
    • Nicaragua
    • Costa Rica
    • Panama
    • Paraguay
    • Uruguay

Place importance on nations with significant or outspoken Afrodescendent populations. Nicaragua and Panama are nations with such populations.

Can someone review changes made to the text/chart, keeping an eye out for unquoted text (even with citation), unsourced facts placed in the text, and demographic facts (which seems to be changed every few days or weeks)?

Why is the person who changes the demographic information so persistent and what source is this person using to base his changes.

Feel free to edit this list, removing items you attend to and adding tasks that need to be done.

Haiti "not" a Latin American country[edit]

You seem to have assumed that Haiti is a Latin American country. This is wrong. In common parlance, Latin America includes the countries of the Americas where Spanish and Portuguese are spoken, that is, Hispanic America plus Brazil. Technically one could make a case that countries or territories where French is spoken should be included, since French is a romance language. However, that is not normally done. Quebecois and French Canadians are NOT normally considered Latin Americans, not are the inhabitants of Martinique, Guiana or Guadalupe. Neither are Haitians, and to my knowledge Haitians do NOT consider themselves Latin American. Haiti's history and culture are, for many reasons, quite different from those of Hispanic American countries and Brazil. Furthermore, Haitian language is quite different from French (it is not a dialect or accent (as Quebecois French is) but a really distinct language, in vocabulary and grammar). Often the phrase "Latin America AND the Caribbean" is used, to include Latin America proper, plus the West Indies. This does include Haiti (as well as Jamaica, Trinidad, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgrod (talkcontribs) 02:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Reply. Your argument has a few holes. First, French is the official language of Haiti and in turn a Francophone nation and a Romance/Latin originated one. Recently, the creole has become its dual official. Canadians might speak French as well but they are a commonwealth of the United Kingdom, while Martinique and Guadalupe are French territories who did not join in as they are still dependents of a European nation. Haiti is in the Latin Union. To be accepted in this union, a country (being in Latin American territory), would have to meet a strict number of qualifications and Haiti meets all (language, location, etc.) while you will see countries like Jamaica, Guiana (the English one) excluded from this list for obvious reasons. You can check to see on the official website.[1] (A reputable source) To play devil's advocate on my own statement, Haiti has also tried to be included in the "African Union" and has failed. Haiti is currently only an observer.[2] Mind you, in my personal opinion, some people in the Haitian government would like to be a part of this African Union, for the simple reason that Haiti was the first ever successful slave rebellion and its something of pride, but I wonder how the 5% (white, mulatto) feel about that inclusion. In conclusion, we are not using the "United States'" terminology here on who are Latinos/Hispanics. Haiti to the rest of the world is a Latin American country and there are numerous references to support this. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


  • Reply. Sorry, but the Latin Union is totally irrelevant, since that is relatively recent world-wide, rather obscure, alliance that follows a purely linguistic criterion. As a born and raised Latin American I can assure you that Latin Americans do NOT consider Haiti a Latin American country, and, to my knowledge, most Haitians will be shocked to learn some view them as "latinos"...The point about Quebec and the others is that regardless of their POLITICAL status, which can of course change (there is a strong pro-independence movement in Quebec and to a lesser extend in the mentioned French-speaking territories), neither the Quebecois PEOPLE view themselves as "Latin Americans" nor do Latin Americans count Quebecois people among them...And that will continue whether or not Quebec achieves independence at some point in the future...same for the others French speakers in the Americas. Regardless of any technical hair-splitting, the fact is that Haiti's history and culture are completely different from those of Latin American countries, including the Dominican Republic and Cuba (nearest neighbors)....Haiti arose from a most bloody slave rebellion, after which nearly all non-slaves left or lost their lives...That gave rise to a society unlike any other in the Americas...Other Caribbean islands such as Jamaica have more in common with Haiti than the Spanish-speaking countries do, because, like Haiti, those islands are predominantly inhabited by people who are predominantly slave descendants (not by a small percentage), although they did not have the kind of bloody independence Haiti had...By contrast, the Latin American societies became independent through the joint efforts of most local people, of all classes, colors, and races, following a leadership that included many European descendants, plus many people of mixed heritage...Brazil in fact became independent by an act of the Portuguese monarchy itself...There is simply no comparison...Lumping Haiti with Latin Americans can only be justified as a linguistic technicality, and even then, for consistency sake, the same technicality would apply to Quebecois and others who are NOT being counted as Latin PEOPLE. ==>> EDIT: By the way, Puerto Rico (like Quebec, Martinique, etc) is NOT an independent country, yet, most people --and THIS article -- do consider Puerto Ricans as Latin Americans (regardless of PR's political status, which may eventually change), and to my knowledge, most Puerto Ricans do view themselves as Latin Americans. There is simply no justification to include PR (correctly) and Haiti (presumably by a linguistic technicality) but to exclude Quebec and other French-speaking people of the Americas (which would be covered by the same technicality).Virgrod (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply. I'm sorry, but being black and rising from slaves have nothing to do with being Latino. I also said "Latin-American." Your personal experience of Haiti are noted but unsourceable. (In fact it was Alexandre Pétion that aided Simon Bolivar with weaponry in Port-au-Prince to start the revolutions in the other Americas as most of these countries had black slaves as the natives were unslaveable). Technically, Canada cannot be Latin American as I mentioned previously that they are a commonwealth of England (Anglophone). Puerto Rico is actually very debatable now, as they are considered Americans when born there. In terms of Martinique and Guadeloupe technically they are Latin American, since they are (a) in Latin America, and (b) speak a romance language. Again, Latin-American. The U.S. terminology for Latinos are Hispanics and Brazilians; yes, that part is understood. On that note, the United States uses outdated terminology. Many European nations even adopted Passing (racial identity), in which the United States still has the one-drop de facto. Also, Jamaica is English speaking, please. Most countries blood lineage doesn't even trace back to their motherlands anymore but sporadic ethnicities. Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply Sorry, but you are imposing a definition of Latin America which is NOT commonly accepted, certainly not by the people involved. And you are not even applying your own definition consistently. To include Haiti your only justification is that its language has some elements of French. But you exclude Quebec, which does speak French, on the grounds it is affiliated with England (anglophone). Yet you include Spanish-speaking PR which is affiliated with the USA (anglophone). Very very clear inconsistency. Your statement about Martinique and Guadalupe is puzzling: they ARE in Latin America AND speak a romance language? Perhaps you meant they are in the Americas and speak a romance language?...yet it raises again the definition issue: you are imposing a purely linguistic one which is not used by everyone, including the people affected. Of course there were slaves in most Latin American countries...what they did NOT have was a major slave rebellion that killed or forced out (nearly) all non-slaves...see the difference? Haiti for better or worse is a society created almost exclusively by (former) slaves...that makes a huge difference to its culture, its institutions, its religion, its language, etc. When people group countries they look at such factors. That is why it makes perfect sense to cluster the Spanish-speaking countries...same language, same culture, similar history, similar social/political institutions, same/similar religious beliefs, etc., etc...The same can be said about Brazil except for the language (which is almost mutually intelligible with Spanish, BTW)...but Haiti does NOT share these factors with the Latin American countries, hence it makes no sense to cluster Haiti with them. Fact is Haiti is in a class of its own, for better or worse. Virgrod (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply I enjoyed our debate, but unfortunately I do not believe you have the sources to back up these claims. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply To back up WHICH claim? Virgrod (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply (1) Canada has never been considered a Latin American country as it is a commonwealth of ENGLAND. (2) The United States is not an Anglophone nation technically because English is NOT the official language; it is the de facto language. We even dial 2 for Spanish on phone-calls. The law never gets past to make it official because it keeps getting denied. I said Puerto Rico is debatable, never said they aren't Latin American. (3) The French Caribbean islands are situated in Latin America (plus qualifying factors) and I believe should be considered and they are as I view this Wikipedia page. (4) You have mentioned Haiti in the same sentence as for better or worse twice.(?) (5) Brazilians are Latino, not Hispanic. Same culture? Brazil has more people than all the Spanish speaking countries combined and Brazilians strongly dislike being mistakenly called Hispanic. They have a pretty distinct culture. (6) You mentioned that Haiti has nothing in common with Latin America, perhaps you should look at its music, cuisine, language, culture, etiquette, etc. a little bit more closely. I have a many good reads on Latin America; if you would like I can share them with you. Also, I've found that there is already a previous discussion on this on the List of Afro-Latinos talk page. Cheers. Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply Well, I think we have to move to closing arguments here. I propose that we use an AUTHORITATIVE source to settle this, since after all, this is not a personal website where the owner can impose his/her own criteria on anything. Do you agree? I suppose most agree that Webster's Dictionary is (one of) the most authoritative for American English. According to them, Latin America means: (1) "Spanish America & Brazil" or (2) "All of the Americas S of the United States". (2) is clearly NOT being used here (all English and Dutch speaking places would have to be added), hence (1) is the one that applies. What about British English? I suppose most would accept the Oxford English Dictionary as (one of) the most authoritative. According to them, Latin America means "The parts of the American continent where Spanish or Portuguese is the main national language". That is quite clear, no? Notice that the definitions are not restricted to independent countries, hence Puerto Rico IS included. I suppose that Webster's and Oxford's dictionaries are good enough sources for a Wiki article. Hence the article should be edited accordingly, right? Virgrod (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC) says in conclusion:
These "definitions" do not mention that the term Latin America was supported by the French Empire of Napoleon III during the French invasion of Mexico as a way to include France among countries with influence in America and to exclude Anglophone countries and that it played a role in his campaign to imply cultural kinship of the region with France, transforming France into a cultural and political leader of the area.[1]


That the term "Latin America" was first used in 1861 in La revue des races Latines, a magazine "dedicated to the cause of Pan-Latinism".

While these definitions may be held true, it can never be fully recognized as such, due to an overwhelming number of sources that contradict these definitions that are written in many different languages, not just in English.


  1. ^ Chasteen, John Charles (2001). "6. Progress". Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-393-97613-7. Retrieved 4 July 2010. 
  • Reply As a born and raised Latin American I posted the correct meaning of the term as it is actually used by most people, but you challenged it and demanded sources. Now that you got your sources, you seem to claim that (two of) the most authoritative English dictionaries (US and British) in the world are, BOTH, INDEPENDENTLY, wrong. I am sorry but you are not better qualified to know the correct meaning of a phrase than the editors of both dictionaries are. That the phrase was coined the way you describe does not contradict the definitions given by the dictionaries. Definitions and etymology are not the same thing. What matters is how the words are actually used TODAY in standard English, which conceivably may or may not be different from the way they were used decades or centuries ago. It is clear that you will not accept any definition different from the one you like, not matter what anyone or any source says and how reliable the source may be. That would be OK for a personal website, but this is a community page that doesn't belong to anyome. Perhaps we just need to invoke a higher authority or conflict resolution procedure to choose between the Webters/Oxford definition and yours. Virgrod (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again I agree with Virgrod, for instance, brazils 100+ population of Afrolatinos includes pardos, whom by your logic Savvyjack23 do not constitute black. A prior consensus had already been made saying that afrolatino means any caste or racial classification in middle or South America with any component of Sub-Saharan African descent regardless or quantity. That being said, most of the Afrolatinos in the Latin world are not 80-100% pure African blood, but are a mixture of various European (Mainly Spanish/Portuguese), various Amerindian peoples and various African peoples. The main unifier for Afrolatino is those whom label themselves as such, whether they be Haitian, Venezuelan and columbian multiracials, brazil pardos, or mexico lobos. (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree Virgrod, I believe we need to invoke a higher authority. We both have our reasons and sources of why or why this group should be included. My one concern on Wikipedia articles and editing is its accuracy. Nothing more, nothing less. If there is serious compelling evidence in favor for why this group should no longer be included, I would not hesitate to support it. Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Reply Well, the definitions provided independently by (2 of) the world's most authoritative English dictionaries (US and UK) constitute "serious compelling evidence", right? These definitions clearly exclude Haiti, and other former French colonies in the Americas. This is not a matter of personal opinion or taste. The dictionaries are either right or wrong on this matter. I see no evidence presented that they are wrong. Virgrod (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Afro-Latino populations in the Americas; the USA figure[edit]

It says Afro-Latino populations, the USA is not a Latin speaking country, therefore just because 12.2% of the population is Black does not mean 12.2% is Afro-Latino. The USA does actually have stats on this tho and here is the figures... the Latino population that is Black in the USA was 1,243,471 (0.4%) in 2010 while the population in 2010 was 308,745,538. Here is the source: (B23Rich (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC))


Greetings to the entire community making life wikipedia article. I dirigo to plant a drawback orginó an edit war, in which the user User:DonBarchanga DonBarchanga (talk · contribs) added DonBarchanga article modifying information supported by official figures and very safe source. The problem is the figures for Venezuela, which according to the National Statistics Institute (Single demographic entity, governmental and able to provide data of this kind in the country) it is clear with the percentage of the population, which ignores the user. Venezuela is a very racially mixed nation. Research in 2001 on genetic diversity by the Venezuelan Institute of Scientific Research (Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, IVIC) in which the population was compared to the historical patterns of the colonial castes. According to the last population census in Venezuela conducted by the National Institute Estadististica (INE), the population in the country afrodescendienten represents 2.8% of the national total, which is 181 157 result in the number of Venezuelans with black racial characteristics[1]. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the user modifies the figure exaggerated, standing at 8.7 million, which is obviously false. The reference points [2] which is the year 2009, while the INE 2011 is also such reference is to the embassy, and the place is the Venezuelan government. Furthermore, the article is about the African descent, something that all Latin Americans have a greater or lesser extent; and the user includes in those 8 million population "mestizo", which I think should not be, since it corresponds another ethnicity. And in this case the figures mestizo populations were added, it should be with all countries, not just Venezuela, considering that if figures talking, Mexico would be the leader, because with over 100 million people , most equivalent to mestizo, as in many Latin countries; but it is necessary to differentiate. .I think it is clear, unfortunately I found myself involved in an edit war by trying to restore the information because despite trying to dialogue with the user I never received a response or Animos discuss here by the user, which is unfortunate. Currently, the issue is for the user, and can not be reversed because the article was protected in view of the edit war. I hope to intervene in this discussion, although I sincerely doubt it does. Thank you very much, greetings.

Orphaned references in Afro-Latin American[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Afro-Latin American's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "cia":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 08:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks for all your hard work AnimieBOT Tobus (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference dump[edit]

I'm cleaning out the impossibly long external links section. Many of the links are dead, and I've found archived captures for them, but the information is dated and peripheral.

Being an information hoarder (yes, I have stockpiles of pamphlets and sundry 'stuff' dating back to the early 70s mouldering away in storage), I can't bring myself to simply consign it to the history of the article. There may be some useful information for this article, or surrounding articles to be found amongst the hoard.

As this talk page doesn't see any use than my sundry hard-copy info, I'm going to transfer the redundant material here for interested editors to rummage through. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

(first instalment) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Afro-Latin Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Afro-Latin Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)