Talk:Afro–Latin Americans/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Population Figures

User:Jaam0121 asked me to take a look at the minor edit war going on here as I recently did a full review of the population figures used on the White Latin American page. I think at least part of the problem here is it's not clear if we are talking about a social definition or about a genetic definition. The White Latin American page clearly states "White" and is interpreted as a social definition, so we use "white" from the census where available and ignore genetics-based figures of "European" ancestry. In this page it's a bit unclear as the title is "Afro-Latin American" (not "Black Latin American") indicating an ancestry-based interpretation, but the lede states "Normally Afro Latin Americans are called "black"", indicating a possible social definition. This has led to the extremely confusing "x% black + y% multiracial" etc. in the pop box. I think we should reach a consensus (via a WP:RFC if necessary) on whether we want to use a social definition ("black") or a genetic-definition ("African" ancestry). If the agreement is "black" then we should use the latest census figures/estimates, if the agreement is "African" then we should ignore the census completely and use genetic studies instead. I think using "multiracial" from the census is not at all helpful as there's no indication of how much is Native American and how much is African (or other ancestries), so it ends up just being confusing. I will spend some time going through the article's history and invite editors who have edited the population figures to add their opinion if they have something to say. Tobus (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI i have restored it to the version w/o Abdelrahman93 edits as I think (from my own experience with the editor) there seems to be a reluctance to use the protocol for editing on the page. I would suggest it is possible to add a note and include both positions. "black" in all its meanings is a poor way to discuss any group of people. --Inayity (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the article should specifically refer to the black population in Latin America as its name suggests. I think we should not refer to the descendants in Latin America since colonial times enome received an influx of immigrants from both Africa and Europe for this is that most of its inhabitants have both races whose outcome is Mixed that is not the same as "Black".

I think we should not include the term "Multiracial" because they tend to confuse, for example is Colombia figures seem very exaggerated and inaccurate. «Jaam0121 (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)»

The page should include both the black(who are pure African descent) as well as the multiracial considering discrimination in many Latin American countries such as Brazil where half the population is now considered black or of some african ancestry. The consensus is the same in all news reports about venezuela and brazil. When they state that hugo chavez is the first multiracial or first black president of Venezuela.The multiracial and black populations have always gone hand in hand because of the "social stigma" of having some black ancestry, so with that being the case you wouldn't post multiracial statistics with the white latin population but rather with the black. The reason I insist on the dual figures is that there has been a history of division (castes) between latinos of european descent and those of native and African descent.Abdelrahman93 (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Latinos such as Adriana Lima who for many would be anything other than black, labels herself as an afro latino.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niEyoFutsfw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFGDLJy0s0E&t=0m40s

To separate the Afro latino descent population from the Black(Purely African) latino population would cause more harm than good. It would be most convenient to list the multiracial population here, as well as the de facto "black" population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelrahman93 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed The page must explicitly refer to the Latin American black population, but in that case you point in the article that the black population in Venezuela exceeds 14 million, which is totally false because according to the population census conducted in 2011 that country has a 2.8 black population, ie : 181 154 people.

Similarly the number of Colombia is also adulterated, as the black population in this country is approximately 4 million, not 17.

It is necessary to differentiate between BLACK and HALF, is not the same. Black race is distinctly African. Mixed or also called by some "Multiracial" (wrongly) is the mixture of White, Indigenous and African. «Jaam0121 (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)»

That's what I'm saying Jaam0121, the point that you are so fixated on making, is already in use. It doesn't say that 17 million in Columbia is black, the way it was set up made clear differences by listing the "black" population, then saying "if including multiracial/pardo" this is the percentage. I was in no way exaggerating the black population numbers. But like I've just stated, the stigma of having some black ancestry, groups multiracials with blacks. When the world factbook, cnn and yahoo news labeled "more that half of Brazil is now black", even though they aren't completely black, is proof of what I'm saying and I feel as if that can't be stressed enough. Multiracials are grouped with blacks, due to a long history of racial tension and castes in Latin America. In Latin America the pardos and multiracials are discriminated against because of their african and indegenous heritage.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jgrlpxnwFjpAQgOrEnVEuysR1gcw?docId=dd7aa411-4059-4b97-94c6-62aee3edd3f8

The multiracial populations are Afro descended meaning they should be listed here.Abdelrahman93 (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

REPEAT, you can NOT include mixed in this classification as mixed or mestizo mix are "White, Indigenous and Black", therefore they are not "Black" fully.

Besides mestizos make up the majority of the population in Latin America, this region is very diverse. «Jaam0121 (talk) 1:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)»

Why not? the Article title is Afro-Latin American not black, which means it could be understood to include those of mixed afro heritage. Yes, they are discriminated against because they are part black, and listing them here is not me insisting they are fully black, all I'm saying and suggesting is that since the multiracial and black population have such a intertwined history, they should be displayed here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelrahman93 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with using the "multiracial" figures from the census is that it includes people with zero African ancestry - ie people with mixed European/Native American ancestry. Depending on the country this can be a significant part of the "mixed race" category. To get around this I suggest using genetic studies that estimate the ancestry of each country instead, such as this study by the University of Brazil - see Table 1.3 on page 17 (page 33 in the PDF) which breaks down populations into African, Native American and European percentages based on genetics. I should make it clear that this is not giving a %age of the population who have African ancestry, it is giving the %age of the genetic diversity within the population that is African. Given that the two populations discussed above, Venezuela and Colombia, both have more Native American than African ancestry it would be reasonable to expect their "multiracial" category to be less "Afro-" and more "Indian-" - a good example of why we can't use that census category to estimate the number of Afro-Latin Americans in those countries. Tobus (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiracial would not include people with zero African heritage, Multi means three or more, and considering that there are three roots in Latin America (African/Indigenous/European) and possibly Asian, but in brazil it only accounts for 1% of the population and less than that if any in other Latin American countries . Venezuela, Brazil, and Columbia have populations that "self identify" (and that's what Latin America is known for), self identification, those three countries have significant portions that identify as Multiracial (African/Indian/European). Genetics are very funny, as many latinos with more Native heritage than african, would still look very african and would be treated as such. In Latin America, a full blooded brother and sister could belong to two different castes depending on looks.

But you point is dually noted, countries that have virtually no African elements to the population do no have to be listed the way Brazil, Venezuela, and Columbia are. And that's the way it was, Uraguay, Argentina, and Costa Rica, do not have a multiracial population added because they are majority Spanish and Indigenous. A quick google image search would show you how the typical people of the countries of Venezuela, Brazil, Columbia look, and the all look majority afro descended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelrahman93 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tobus because the article refers to the Afro-Latin American population and not the mixed as these are a mixture although they are not completely black Africans ancestry.

Note that the black population in Colombia is 10.60% ie 4.3 million (PAG 12) [1] not 17 and consider that the "mixed" you include mestizos and other ethnicities that are irrelevant.

At the same time I warn Abdelrahman93 to leave to revert the changes in the article "Venezuela" as ethnography raised in the article is official and provided by the "National Statistics Institute" of Venezuela which showed in the 2011 census in the data set. [gov.ve/CENSO2011/documentos/pdf/ResultadosBasicosCenso2011.pdf]

«Jaam0121 (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)»,

Jaam0121, Afro Latin American does not mean black! It means of some african heritage, if you don't want the multiracial populations I had shown on Afro latin American, then where would you like them displayed, because that is the matter at hand here. The indegenous have a page, the European do, and the Afro has a page, so on who's page do you feel the multiracial(black/native/euro) should be displayed on. The point I've stressed is they can't be on the euro page, do to social stigma, the native would be troublesome because they pride themselves on their pure native heritage, that's why I suggested the afro Latin American which means afro descended(which the multiracial population is), but who would you see fit Jaam0121?Abdelrahman93 (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Abdelrahman93 I understand that you say, but keep in mind that it is absurd to include mixed solos because obviously African descent have linked to European and indigenous. It is inconsistent to apply this analysis in ethnically diverse region such as Latin America, if so we all have ancestors African, European and indigenous and not that means there is an even greater population of this ethnic group.

For example, most of the Latinos regardless of their skin color have a European ancestor, but that does not mean thier are net Europeans. In Venezuela as well as Colombia and throughout Latin America is the most dominant ethnic group MESTIZO, which is the mixture of EUROPEAN, INDIAN AND AFRICAN. In these countries that covers the majority ethnic population, and obviously have to be a mixture of African descent are not more fully African.

I repeat again, inform yourself about what is MISTO OR HALF AND MULTIRACIAL, obviously do not know the ethnicity. «Jaam0121 (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)»

Jaam0121 what part about "I'm not saying they are fully black are you not understanding? Despite everything I say, every point I try to get across, and every social taboo I being to light, you refuse to hear me. A multiracial could never be listed with a white in Latin America, it is taboo. They would be listed with the blacks, the mulattos, the pardos, the chinos, and the morenos. In all honesty we may just have to wait until other editors submit their opinions because I feel you have grown tired of mine. I sincerly thank you for you time. I'll remain silent on this issue until another editor emerges.Abdelrahman93 (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I respect your decision, you will always be welcome to contribute positively in Wikipedia.

«Jaam0121 (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)»

I think you have both made excellent points - Abdelrahman is correct that "black" on the census doesn't include all Afro-Latin Americans (as many would choose "brown"), but Jaam is correct that "brown" on the census includes many people who aren't Afro-Latin Americans (for example see Figure 2 in the 2nd ref for Brazil - the majority of people who chose "pardo" in the North have no African ancestry).

If you both agree (and any other editors who want to weigh in) I will spend some time going through the list and finding alternate sources where the existing source doesn't give a clear "Afro-" figure. I'll report back here with a list of changes and we can use it as a starting point to reach figures we are all happy to go with. In most cases I'd expect the final figure to be somewhere in between the "black" and "black + brown" ones.

Tobus (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.Abdelrahman93 (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I've come up with some sources that give reasonable-sounding estimates of "people with African ancestry":

• Brazil: 80M [2] (UNHRC/Minority Rights Group). This lines up with most of the "mixed" population having African descent, which is what we'd expect from the genetic studies
• Colombia: 9.1M [3] (CIA). It gives separate mulatto/mestizo and "black-amerindian" figures instead of a single "mixed" figure. I note that the 2005 census has 4.3M [4] for "Afro, black, mulatto or African progeny" including San Andres and St Basil - covering the same groupings. Presumably the difference is due to mixed-race individuals self-identifying primarily as either White or Amerindian. Minority Rights International says "This is 16% down from the government's previous estimations in 2002, which put the total Afro-descendant population at 26% and which is the figure still currently used by the United Nations. Census figures also continue to be disputed by Afro-descendant leaders ... who claims that the Afro-Colombian population is as high as 36-40%" [5]. If we're going the "has African ancestry route" then the CIA seems a more accurate figure than the census.
• Cuba: Minority Rights says estimates range from 34-60% and may now be closer to 70% [6] (Minority Rights) but I couldn't find a good solid single figure. I suggest we stay with the existing 4M (~36%) from Afrolatino and flag it as an estimate ("est."), or provide a range instead. I note also that the NY Times ref given for Cuba doesn't support the figure given except to imply "more than one-fifth" - it should be removed.
• Venezuela: 20-30% [7] (Venezuelan Embassy in USA). This aligns with most of the "moreno" being Amerindian, not African as the genetics suggests.
• Dominican Rep.: 7.9M (existing CIA ref) - the "mixed" is virtually all African/European. I note that Dominicans shun African ancestry, preferring to call it "Indian" even though there hasn't been Amerindians there for over 400years.[8]. Labelling mixed Dominicans as "Afro-Dominican" may well be offensive in their culture so we should be careful with the headings and make it clear we are giving estimates of African ancestry, not assigning people to social or cultural groups.
• Peru: 2M (existing ref) plus [9] (Minority Rights)
• Panama: 0.5M [10] (CIA) up to 1.5M [11] (Minority Rights). The CIA gives a separate category "Amerindian and mixed (West Indian)" of 14% but it is much lower than the 50% that Minority Rights reports. I can't find any reason to believe one over the other so perhaps a range is necessary here.

We are now getting down to under 1M and/or <10% of the population, making me question if the rest should really be included in "Regions with significant populations". I also note that the current heading is "Notable or Full African Ancestry" which is not what we are reporting here, it should be changed to something like "Estimated Population with African Ancestry".

Please let me know what you think.

Tobus (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this looks spot on, except for Brazil, the source you used is dated 2008 which predates the 2011 census. I feel the current statistics for Brazil should be used, as it states that now a little more than half the population is Black.

As for Venezuela, the Afrodescended population, is the population that looks black, not those with significant black ancestry, which is why I strongly feel that the mestizo population should be used instead, which includes the "Afrodescended population" and tallies out to 49.9% https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_people

In the case of Columbia, "mulatto" - is black and white, "mixed black and Amerindian" - is black and indian, but still mestizo accounts for all the parts and you didn't tally that in. If you did, going by CIA references, the population with african genetics would be 79% percent.

As you suggested "Estimated Population with African Ancestry" would include these figures.

I still feel that populations with less than 10% of the population being black should be listed, because there are a few countries with no african heritage (or atleast no visible). Other than that listed above, I feel everything else has been spot on.Abdelrahman93 (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point - we can't assume that 100% of the "pardo"/"moreno"/"mixed" population in these countries has African ancestry, in fact, we know that they don't. To say "black" + "brown" = "African" is WP:SYNTH - a conclusion that isn't explicitly stated by any source. I've found reliable sources that explicity state the estimated percentage of African ancestry and we should use those (or others that do so) rather than using our own calculations, especially when we know our calculations are based on unfounded assumptions.

On top of this:

• The difference of 3 years for the Brazil source in insignificant - it's 1/8th of a generation and any noticeable change would take at least a few generations.
• "Afrodesendent" in the ref I gave for Venezuela means has African ancestry - is there something that makes you think it means "looks African", or did you just make that up?
• "Mestizo" in the CIA page for Colombia means mixed European/Native American ancestry (see Mestizo Colombian), so should not be counted towards African ancestry.

Tobus (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If the Brazilian census said in no uncertain terms that 51 percent of the country is black, then that renders this debate invalid. In Brazil the census said that there might not have been an ethnic shift, but rather more people willing to identify as AfroLatino.

"In an interview last year Brazil's minister for racial equality, Elio Ferreira de Araujo, attributed the change to growing pride among his country's black and indigenous communities. "People are no longer scared of identifying themselves or insecure about saying: 'I'm black, and black is beautiful,'" he told the Guardian." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/17/brazil-census-african-brazilians-majority

I see your point on Columbia and agree with the population estimate.

On Venezuela, "Throughout the twentieth century, Blacks in Venezuela have faced subtle forms of racial discrimination despite a philosophy of racial democracy and an ideology of mestizaje that contends all groups have blended together to form a new, indistinguishable type, called the mestizo." http://www.everyculture.com/South-America/Afro-Venezuelans-History-and-Cultural-Relations.html#ixzz2pP0Ejwix

Meaning that all or close to all of Venezuela's mestizos "had" significant african ancestry, but considering the European immigration to venezuela in the 1900s, (Portuguese/German/Italian) it's safe to say that close to only half of the mestizos, those to the northern coast, should be listed. So 20-30% plus 25% from the mestizos ranges from 45-55%.Abdelrahman93 (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, *if* the Brazilian census said in no uncertain terms that 51 percent of the population is black then we could use it - but it *doesn't* so we can't.

The idea that all Venezuelan mestizos have African ancestry is just that, an "ideology of mestizaje" - it's not a fact, but a cultural notion. You can't just say "it's safe to say that close to only half of the mestizos...should be listed" and make up your own estimate, that's WP:OR. In any case the "20-30%" from the Venezuelan embassy already includes mestizos, so you're counting them twice. You should be starting from the 2.8% "black" from the census, giving ~28% - inside the range that the reliable source says.

If you have genuine reliable sources (not your own estimates!) that state other figures then please provide them, otherwise I'll go ahead and update the page using the sources I've given above.

Tobus (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"Brazil census shows African-Brazilians are the majority for the first time" "Out of around 191m Brazilians, 91 million identified themselves as white, 82m as mixed race and 15m as black."

Preliminary results show 50.7% of Brazilians now define themselves as black or mixed race compared with 47.7% white. Just as some of those labeled "white" have african blood, they are still listed under white. The same should go for those who call themselves "black" with some european blood.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/17/brazil-census-african-brazilians-majority http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/11/29/brazil-census-black-mixed-population/ http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15766840 Everything else can be updated, but the figures of Brazil should remain.Abdelrahman93 (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

We are not talking about self-identified "white" or "black" here, we are talking about African ancestry. You'll note the Guardian headline is the only place that talks about "African" - the actual content of the Guardian ref and the entire BBC article are very clear that the census reports "black and mixed race" to be over 50%, with no attribution of African or other ancestry to those categories. The Guardian headline is obviously just an attention-grabbing summary and can't on it's own be used to justify such a statement here, especially as the more reliable BBC goes out of it's way to use "non-white" as it's wording for the same category. The Global Voices ref is just a personal blogger reblogging the Guardian article, not a WP:RS.

The most reliable source we have so far states 80M, and that is the figure we should use.

Tobus (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/racism-remains-institutionalized-in-brazil-un-panel-1.1591369 "Afro-Brazilians represent more than half of the Brazilian population, however they're sub-represented and invisible in most positions of power, in the media and the private sector."

http://fusion.net/culture/story/world-cup-event-called-racist-white-host-296177 "Nearly half of the Brazilian population identify with being Afro-Brazilian. In fact, the 2010 Brazil Census found that the majority of the population declared themselves as black or brown"

http://mobile.rawstory.com/therawstory/#!/entry/black-models-go-topless-in-rio-to-protest-racism-in,527be314025312186c7c6e04 "More than half of Brazil's 200 million people are of African descent, the world's second largest black population after Nigeria."

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4224948/ "About half of Brazil's 204 million people are black, more than in any nation except Nigeria. Blacks face persistent socio-economic inequality in Brazil, and affirmative action is essential for creating equal opportunities. -Dilma Rousseff"

http://www.miamiherald.com/multimedia/news/afrolatin/part3/ "A multiracial crowd of commuters leaves the subway in Rio de Janeiro on the way to the central train station. Brazil claims more than 90 million people of African descent out of a population of 190 million. It has more blacks than any country except Nigeria. In Rio's slums, blacks make up the majority of residents."

http://m.ibtimes.com/blackout-how-argentina-eliminated-africans-its-history-conscience-1289381 "In the present-day, roughly one-half of the Brazilian population trace their lineage directly to Africa. African culture has imbued Brazil permanently and profoundly, in terms of music, dance, food and in many other tangible ways."

http://latindispatch.com/2012/04/15/black-brazilians-income-doubles-but-major-disparities-persist/

"According to the 2010 census, there are 97 million African descendants in Brazil, comprising 50.6 percent of the Brazilian population – the largest number of blacks outside of Africa."

"He pointed out that the survey used the term negros in reference to Brazilians who may self-identify as pretos (blacks) and pardos (browns), terms provided on the IBGE (the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) census. “Negro is basically a term invented here and created based on a political doctrine called racialism. Also, they are talking about a group that represents almost half of Brazilians. It is a very big group of people to be statistically accurate data,” said Magnoli."

Are all these evidence enough.Abdelrahman93 (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

So which is it? "More than half", "nearly half", "about half", "90 million out of 190 million"?? What these links show is that there is a great deal of interpretation and guesswork going on, by, in these refs: a politician trying making a point, a fashion reporter, various individuals either giving no source or misinterpreting the "brown" census figures like you have and one even claiming that Brazil has more "blacks" (clearly having no knowledge of race in Brazil) than any other country except Nigeria! None of these refs are official reports or documents, the closest is the statement by a member of a UN panel in a clearly politicised context... I'd be happy to accept most of these if there were no other source, but we have an official report by an organisation that is given high regard by the UN and regularly provides official reports to governments. If you can find a ref from an organisation of similar calibre I'd be happy to accept it. Tobus (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The last link I provided stated that in the census "negros" was used in place of preto and pardo. Meaning that it would be impossible to determine in 2010 what percent of the population was preto or pardo. Which is why all the news headings say 51 percent of the population is black or triracial. The source you used was outdated and used old population numbers. The 2010 census stated that there was not a great population change but more people felt comfortable calling themselves black. With that knowledge at hand, the population of Brazil should read "between 90-99 million" as the IGBE states.Abdelrahman93 (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The last link says that the economic study released by Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV) used term "negro", a term which wasn't used in the census and which is criticised as being "created based on a political doctrine called racialism". The Brazilian census used "Branca", "Preta", "Amarela", "Parda", "Indígena" and "Sem declaração"[12], so the "black"/"brown" figures are clear.

I think we've discussed this enough to know we're not likely to reach a resolution through further discussion. After reading your sources, my summary of the situation is that the 2010 census reported a minority of "white" people for the first time. Some sources (such as the Guardian headline) misunderstood this and reported it as a majority of people with African ancestry, ignoring the small but not insignificant Native American component. The idea was taken up and repeated by many sources and today is a widely held belief among a range of people, including Brazilian politicians and social researchers at the UN. The only other source we've found that has done it's own independent research states a smaller figure, which is roughly what we'd expect from the census results if we factor a small %age of "brown" being purely European/Native American ancestry (ie. not African), but does not appear to be widely used.

I think there are arguments for using either figure - one seems technically more correct (although slightly older and not widespread), and one seems more representative of the current general consensus of the issue (although not as accurate). WP policy is that all statements must be verifiable, but also that we should be reporting the mainstream expert view, so I'm not 100% sure of what the best way to go is. If you agree I'll ask for opinions at the WP:RSN stating the case pretty much as I have in my previous paragraph, with sources, including most of the refs you've provided (which clearly show a widespread acceptance of the 50% figure). I'll be asking whether those sources show a wide enough acceptance of the 50% figure to warrant using it over the alternative 80M from what is (to me) a more reliable, but sole, source. I'll try to state the arguments as fairly as possible - I don't really care what the final figure is, as long as it can be verified as per policy... and of course you will be able to comment as well if you think I've misrepresented something.

Tobus (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies I stated that the population should post 90-99 million, when in actuality I meant 80-99 million to account for both censuses. I agree that your older source was more concrete, but the newer census showed a huge change in statistics, mainly because brazil doesn't go by genetics, or what you look like, but rather what you feel you are personally. I do feel you could ask for opinions if you feel them needed, but I feel the 80-99 range is a safe bet. As even your first link stated that the Afro Brazilians, in all actuality could account for 120 million Abdelrahman93 (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I just reread my Minority Rights source and you are completely right - it says 80M is the official figure but it is estimated to be much higher... for some reason I thought the 80M was their estimate from their own research, but I must have read it wrong. In light of that I'm happy to go with a "roughly half" figure of 100M and use the statement from the UN representative [13] as the source. I think that's everything sorted, if no-one objects in the next 24 hours or so I'll put the new figures up. Tobus (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Recently I notice was amended article and I'm glad you have checked all the references to have more precise figures so .

However , I think the reference population in Venezuela is erroneous .

It is necessary to note that the only witness against authority to provide demographic/ethnographic data in Venezuela 's National Statistics Institute ( INE). This organism according to official figures from the national population census (2011) showed that the "Black " population represented 2.8 % and 0.7 % Afro - Venezuelans [14] ; contrasting with current reference that exists in the article which argued that represents 20 or 30 % of the total population: 8.5 million .

The fact raise the current standard is inconsistent if it is based on a 100 % as the two main ethnic groups in the country according to INE are Mestizo (49.9%) and White (42.2%) . Providing the exposed reference surpass 100 % which makes no sense. «Jaam0121 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)»

The figure used on this page isn't the number of people who self-identify as "Black", it's the estimated number of people with some degree of African ancestry... in Latin America in general and Venezuela in particular these are very different things - "black" only applies to people who have sole or predominately African ancestry, while people of mixed ancestry generally consider themselves "Brown" ("Moreno") on the census (presumably this is what you are calling "mestizo"). If we simply used the "Black" figure from the census we'd be ignoring the large number of people who have mixed African and European/Native American ancestry. We can't use the "Brown" figure either, as this would include many people who have both European and Native American ancestry but no African ancestry. So the census figures are no good for us and we need to find a different source that estimates African ancestry directly without using the "black"/"brown" colour labels. The 20-30% estimation comes from an official document from the Venezuelan government (the Embassy in the US) which specifically states this as the number of people with African ancestry, so is a reliable source for our purposes. If you have an equal or better reliable source that gives an alternative figure then please let me know what it is.

The 100% issue is a red herring - "mestizo" and "African ancestry" are overlapping categories and can't be added together as if they were distinct... "mestizo" in Venezuela means a mixture of European, Native American and/or African ancestry, so some of the people included in "mestizo" are also included in "African ancestry" and you'd be counting them twice if you added the two together. A better check is that we'd expect "Afican ancestry" to be all of the "Black" category plus part of the "Brown" category, so more than 3% and less than 53% - the 20-30% estimate fits this perfectly.

Tobus (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)