Talk:White Latin Americans

Argentina - no mention of the Welsh in Patagonia

The Welsh were pioneers of the opening up of Argentine Patagonia in the 19th century and there are still Welsh speakers there today. This is not mentioned in this article even though there is a separate wikipage about it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=welsh+patagonia&oq=welsh+patagonia&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.5253j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.72.220 (talk) 6:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

One Drop rule in Argentina studies

The one drop rule establishes that even if one grand-grand parent was Amerindian, the person is considered Amerindian, regardless of the other seven grand-grand parents being pure white. Similarly, if one grand-grand parent was black, the person is black or mestizo, even when they may look striklingly European. People must have full European ancestry to be regarded as white in the forementioned studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:40:28:1155:31E3:7264:B813:41D1 (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The use of the racist and largely unscientific idea of the one drop rule does not apply to the Latin American context. In societies where Iberian colonization was prevalent, the phenotype has always been more important and considered in terms of racial classification. The concept of the one drop rule is completely contradictory if analyzed from a reverse perspective, as in the case of ethnic groups that have an African physical appearance but largely mixed genetics and descent, as in the case of black Brazilians. As shown in Wikipedia's own article on Afro-Brazilians, genetic studies carried out on young people from this group and the "pardo" group (i.e. mixed-race Brazilians) show that a large part of this population has more European ancestry than African or indigenous. Brasil157 (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Guatemala has 4.7 million?

This number is too high, the table lists Guatemala as having only 35% European DNA (one of the lowest in LatAm apparently), which is almost the same as Ecuador. But in Ecuador, the highest percentage of whites given is 10%, which would equal 1.7 million. And on the Ecuador wiki page, you can see only 2% identify as white on the census. 2% seems more accurate and matches my experience of what I saw in Guatemala.

4,700,000 is basically implying that 26% of Guatemalans are white (lol) and that only 15% are mestizo (these are the figures in the latinobarometro survey ). Maybe 30% of the survey participants were white, but not 30% of the country.

So, I suggest to apply the figure of 4-10% number (I can't seem to find the 10% on the internet archive). So 720,000 (4%) to 1,800,000 (10%) whites seems good. This is still a higher % of whites than Honduras, which has 50% European blood and a census that's actually good. I think this figure is more realistic.SSCreader (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Recent changes

Grayfell, recently you made rather big changes to this article without consensus and various of them come to my attention, as it seems that you are modifying information/sources on a selective manner, for example here [1] you edited a sentence related Mexico's White population to say that the World Factbook states that less than 10% of the population are Europeans when in source the World Factbook states that 10% of the population are other but at the same time you removed the mention of 31% of Mexico's population being White even though in source Encyclopedia Brittanica also states that 31% of the population are other (and even specifies on text that the other group are ethnic groups on which European descent is significant). Why do you understand right away that the World Factbook is talking about Europeans when they mention other but when Brittanica says that 31% of Mexico's population are other you suddenly don't understand that they are talking about Europeans?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I have repeatedly told you not to ping me. Stop being a pest. Your understanding of consensus is deeply flawed, and many of these sources you have added to this article have been badly misrepresented. You do not WP:OWN this or any other article. Grayfell (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding this edit:

• The bit about the Factbook info being based on the 1921 census appears to be a fabrication. It is completely unsourced and none of these sources make this connection. You have never addressed this or provided any sources. You can't just make stuff up and present it as a fact on Wikipedia.
• The Factbook says "...other 10% (mostly European) (2012 est.)" under the "Ethnic groups" heading. That is all it says about this topic, so that is all it is cited for. I am perfectly fine removing it completely, but we cannot editorialize or lie about what the source actually says.
• The Britannica has one pie chart which lists "Mexican white" at 15.0%. A separate pie chart lists "31.0%" as "other" in contrast to "Mestrizo" and "Amerindian". The source does not directly explain this chart any further. A separate paragraph includes this passage: Generally speaking, the mixture of indigenous and European peoples has produced the largest segment of the population today—mestizos, who account for about three-fifths of the total—via a complex blending of ethnic traditions and perceived ancestry. Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population.

It does not say that "White" is the majority. It also doesn't mention what percentage are Black, Asian, or Middle Eastern, nor does it address any multiracial groups. You cannot cite other sources to fill in this gap, as that would be WP:SYNTH.

Grayfell (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I have repeatedly told you not to ping me. Stop being a pest. Sorry about pinging you, but it seems that if I don't ping you you don't reply (see my other response on the article of Mexico's talk page on which you haven't replied [2]) Also this is a new discussion so I wanted to make sure you saw it. Now, if attending discsussions directly related to your own edits is something for which you've got no time, just tell me and I'll perform the needed corrections to the articles on which you've been performing that kind of edits. In what respects to Encyclopedia Brittanica I think you answer your own concerns because immediately after your objection you acknowledge that the main entry is written in accordance to the newer chart (this is, three-fifths (62%) mestizos, less than one tenth (7%) indigenous, remainder (31%) "other"). We could simply write that Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the 31% other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population. That way there should be no concerns of SYNTH from your part because that is all it says about this topic, so that is all it is cited for. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I would accept removing the Britannica source completely. The Factbook source can go as well. Otherwise, you should not be performing any "needed corrections" at all. Your "corrections" would undo my "corrections" for no benefit. This makes it seem like you are trying to filibuster the article to restore your own preferred wording. That is a form of edit warring. Your behavior regarding this topic is disruptive, and it appears this is the only topic you edit. Instead of trying to cast aspersions by implying I'm being intentionally dense or hypocritical (which is obviously what you're trying to do by saying I "suddenly don't understand") please at least consider that I'm not actively trying to piss you off and that I might be saying these things for a reason.

The article already explains what Britannica says in more detail than is justified. Your proposed wording is too verbose and is subtle editorializing which is not directly supported by the cited source. As I just said, "31.0%" and "significant" are separate. "Significant" could also apply to the "15.0%", and since that is the only other mention of "White" in the source, that interpretation is more directly supported. To put it another way, the use of "significant" in this situation is a pointless filler word which unduly emphasizes only one interpretation. You may say this is the 'obvious' interpretation, but it is not the only interpretation.

The prose paragraph of the Britannica source which mentions 'significant' also specifically notes that biological race has been discredited. This is the paragraph before the pie charts, which are not sourced or otherwise directly discussed by the source. To ignore parts of what the source says and only use it for nebulous statistics about race is a misuse of this source. Grayfell (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Your proposed wording is too verbose and is subtle editorializing which is not directly supported by the cited source My proposed wording is actually way shorter than what you wrote for Brittanica and is supported by source, just think seriously about it, if on the chart that the other category is 31% big only 15% were to be White what would the other 16% even be (This disregarding that on text Brittanica states the other group to be significantly White ethnic groups)?. Also that a person has little free time and thus can only edit a topic that interests them does not make the person in question disruptive. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the current wording is also too verbose. This topic has a glut of editorializing, errors, and filler language. My attempts to clean-up have lead to these interminable discussions. Regardless, verbose doesn't just mean 'a lot of words'. Verbose means it uses more words than necessary. Being shorter isn't good enough, it also has to be accurate and proportionate.

Your speculation about what the 'other 16%' would be suggests you don't understand what I said at all. The source already says who the other people are. The chart specifically says 15%, and that same chart also lists "detribalized Amerindian' at 10.0%, among others. The prose of the article is intentionally ambiguous and is not presented as a direct summary of these pie charts. As I said, we cannot mix-and-match two different pie charts to form a single conclusion, nor can we use other sources to fill-in gaps in these charts. Those would both be forms of original research.

Posting thousands of bytes over multiple months across multiple talk pages to defend the use of this one tertiary source, solely to say that 31% of Mexicans are White, has become disruptive regardless of your motives or how much free time you have. Grayfell (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Posting thousands of bytes over multiple months across multiple talk pages to defend the use of this one tertiary source... That is not an accurate assesement of the situation, as we have not only discussed Encyclopedia Brittanica, but many other sources and many other edits made by you on which you've modified text/removed sources on a rather odd manner, just a recent example of this would be my most recent reply on Mexico, on which I proposed a paragraph on which Brittanica is not mentioned (mostly for brevity reasons, not because I don't consider Encyclopedia Brittanica a good source)[3] and you still haven't replied in there.

The prose of the article is intentionally ambiguous and is not presented as a direct summary of these pie charts.... It matches perfectly the 2012 chart, which is the one displayed alongside the entry, also detribalized amerindian cannot be in the remaining 16% of the other section as its stated to be composed of significantly European ethnic groups, if anything detribalized Amerindians would be within the Mestizo group (other authors/sources have stated things like this before). Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Grayfell (I know you don't like pings, but you simply do not reply) there are other rather odd edits by yours on this article and others that we have to discuss besides the ones above, so it would be good if you replied to the discussions. Another such edit os this one[4] on which you removed a study published by the American Sociological Association that reported frequencies of blond hair in Mexicans (in the methodology in page 19 is stated that the presence of blond hair is used in order to classiy a Mexican as White because blond hair does not darken with sunlight[5]) with no justification, just saying that it was SYNTH which is completely misleading, so there are multiple instances already of you removing completely sourced content using misleading edit summaries that require us to discuss/fix it. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

If you continue to intentionally antagonize me about this, I will report you for tendentious editing. This single mention of blond hair buried on p. 16 of a 27 page PDF was not proportionately summarized. Your use of this source for this was synth, and refusing to acknowledge these problems and continuing to intentionally pester me about this tendentious. Grayfell (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This single mention of blond hair buried on p. 16 of a 27 page PDF was not proportionately summarized... Grayfell that single mention of blond hair is very important, as it was the criteria to determine whether a Mexican was to be classified in the White category or not, to not mention it results in a considerable understimation of Mexico's White population, as not all White/European people have blond hair. Additionally, the source was summarized with more detail on the article of White Mexicans and you removed any mention of blond hair in there aswell[6] while claiming that it was "a blatant misrepresentation of the source" when what was written was literally what is said in the source (in fact, you added a "note"[7] on which you almost copied the sentence on which exposure to sunlight is mentioned, just omitting to mention blond hair). In complete contrast, you removed the tables of blood types in Mexico claiming that it was OR[8] even though every sentence in those paragraphs appears in source (and its not hyperbole, it is explained with much detail here[9]). You say that I'm antagonizing you, so why don't you explain your good your faith motives to, in some instances remove text that is totally sourced claiming that is OR and in other alter/remove(or as you would say, incur in OR) parts of text that appear in source?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This paragraph is too confusingly written for me to even respond in detail. This is not the place to discuss changes to a different article, and I stand by my edit summaries at that article. Those sources were being misrepresented and over-stated at that article in that context. The end result was to bolster a pseudoscientific conception of biological race. Grayfell (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

This paragraph is too confusingly written for me to even respond in detail Put more simply, in various articles you removed a source that used blond hair (or any mention of blond hair, in the case of the White Mexicans article) as a reference claiming that it was OR/SYNTH/misinterpreted even though its easily verifieble in the page 19 [10].

I stand by my edit summaries at that article Grayfell The problem being that in your edit summaries you are not explaining your changes at all (beyond repeating that something is SYNTH/OR etc. again and again) nor are you doing so in the talk page, and you've now escalated to remove official government surveys seemingly because they are primary sources, which is a clear misinterpretation of policy and would set a negative precedent for Wikipedia, as other editors would go to other articles and attempt to remove government censuses and other official data on the pretense of them being wrongly labeled as "primary sources." Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)