Wikipedia

Talk:Afro–Latin Americans/Archive 5

< Talk:Afro–Latin Americans
Latest comment: 4 years ago by RMCD bot in topic Move discussion in progress
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Pictures in the info box

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

I'm in favor of reinserting Nicole Richie's photo in the info box in order to show diversity of Afro-Latins. I feel a little that her picture was removed because her complexion is too light,that's the impersonation I'm getting. If that's the case then that's biased and shows that there is an agenda instead of neutrality.Mcelite (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Disagree. A few days ago, I've found that these people in these photos had an extremely minor Afro ancestry. This article isn't about the "one-drop" rule as in the United States. It should represent people that clearly has African ancestry especially if those countries have them, and should minimize those who have less. In some countries these people would be viewed as being mixed (mulatto and not Afro or negro. In the New World, Latin America, the Caribbean etc. it was a product of mixing, between black (slaves), white (colonialists), native, etc and these people should represent each country in their own image collage, and truly be represented. People who have clear African roots, I believe, deserve to be represented and there should not be a mistake of what page you came to. When I first came to this page, I thought I was on the Latin-American page and then I realized I was on the Afro-Latin American page and I was shocked. Seriously who looks at Nicole Richie as Afro? She not only has lighter skin but her hair is straight. Melody Thornton on the other hand is also black and Mexican just as Richie but the distinction is clear with both curls and darker skin. If you look at Nicole Richie's dad, he is not 100% black thus why there is a big difference between Nicole Richie and Melody Thornton. So Nicole Richie should get a limited spot instead of "Taís Araújo" of Brazil? Cassie Ventura is also Mexican and black and has more African ancestry. Should Nicole Richie get it over her too? I would much rather see Cassie Ventura. There is also diverse photos in the collage; some have lighter skin and wavy hair, or darker skin with straighter hair. I believe the photos should be in agreement with the article name for Wikipedia standards. Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply I understand what you are trying to say however, it is not your place to determined how much African ancestry she has. The point is she is by blood Latina and of African ancestry. The article is to show the diversity of Afro-Latin people and to exclude someone because they are too light is not neutrality and is misrepresenting the people. No different if we did the Native American infobox in that fashion of only having full bloods and those with mixed with a European bloodline that is misrepresentation. Having straight hair is a part of the diversity that's like excluding native with wavy hair from being show to match the stereotype of them having bone straight hair. Your edits concern me because they seem to be more personal than wikipedian...Mcelite (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply How was this personal? It is absolutely not personal at all. In fact, I think it may be personal on your part. The article's name is Afro-Latin American. In the opening paragraph where it says, "The term can refer to the mixing of African and other cultural elements found in Latin American society such as religion, music, language, the arts and social class." This is not sourced and may be untrue to the article's name. There is such a thing as a mulatto, or mixed races. Maybe you should look up these terminologies first before saying this is personal. Being how she is half White Latina, would she not apply to being a "White Latin American?" If you believe, she would not apply, then how can she apply to be Afro Latina? This is rationale reasoning. And so, the rest of this article naturally contradicts with this "unsourced" statement, as under every country it mentions being black, not mixed. All other pictures on this page apart from the former photo collage, are of clear African origin. Hence, I believe there is a fallacy in your statement that this page should show diversity of mixes with African descent. Again, you are inferring that a "one-drop rule" would apply but it does not account for this terminology, that only applies to Americans ands mixes of black who are not of Latino origin. In other Latin countries, Nicole Richie would be counted as being mixed and not black. Savvyjack23 (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Mcelite, you Savvyjack23 seem to have a personal vendetta with anyone who doesn't meet your own requirements of "AfroLatino"75.62.20.174 (talk) 06:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no citation that says Afro is also viewed as a mixture of other races and not just as mulatto, hence the citation tag I inserted in the opening paragraph. I also find it odd how you have overlooked my argument and to quickly take sides. I will look up your IP address to see if it is the same as Mcelite, if it is you are tampering with this discussion in an unjust agreement with yourself. Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Reply My apologies for taking so long to reply, things have been extremely busy with school. I would have to say that mulatto and Afro-Latin can be viewed as the same thing. Mulatto in the United States meant certain things depending in history, throughout the 1700s to the early 1900s Native Americans were called mulattos and those mixed with a native bloodline were called mulatto. When you get to the 1940s it generally meant someone that was clearly bi or multiracial. I have a strong stance against the one drop rule just so we are clear. I would say Nicole Richie can claim both White Latin and Afro Latin, I could care less if she was 5% of her makeup was African she is still Afro-Latin by blood (even though genetic testing isn't 100% accurate). My main concern was she represents a lighter complexion...hence diversity which is accurate not just showing those who show dominate sub-Saharan traits.Mcelite (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply. No worries and I understand what you are saying but you need to understand two things. One, the United States play a minor role in who is an Afro-Latino and the official universal term of mulatto is the mixing between one pure European and one pure African, however today it is used not only to describe a perfect even 50/50 split. Two, you said I would have to say that mulatto and Afro-Latin can be viewed as the same thing, this needs to be sourced as this is (whether right or wrong) an opinionated statement. If it is a right one, great! - but it must be sourced. This is why I've added a citation tag in the opening paragraph. Also, when viewing the CIA census report, black and mixed or mulatto are held separate. I have also found no evidence, that someone who is of mixed origins been called black in Latin America. One example is in the Dominican Republic. Someone of mixed descent (mulatto), to be called black would be extremely offensive for their own personal reasons. As United States terminology goes, the President of the United States, Barack Obama is often considered black, but then everyone forgets that his mother was white, but again this is only contingent in the U.S. and having the one-drop rule; not treated the same in the rest of Latin America). But if he was a Latin American could he not represent being white? Probably not as well, but a mulatto or mixed? Yes. Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply It can be more that it is opinionated that mulatto and Afro-Latin can be viewed as the same thing in certain cultures, that will take me a bit of time to find a reliable source relating to that. The attitudes in the U.S. are a bit twisted, as you said due to the one drop rule, irony is that rule does nothing but decimate families and cultural connections. Can it be agreed to have someone of a light complexion who is culturally more connected with Latin America to show the diversity of the group. That is a main focus I'm trying to express.Mcelite (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply FoxNews Latino says: "There is a big difference between the U.S. and Latin America, and this goes back to the one-drop rule," said Edward Morales, professor at Columbia University's Center for the Study of Race and Ethnicity. "If you have one grandparent who is black, you’re black. In Latin America it is the opposite. If you have any white, you are not black." 75.62.20.174 there is no citation available on this page that agrees that an Afro-Latino can be of mixed ancestry and not just black. This is why we have creoles, mulattos, criollos, and pardos. You said: "most of the Afrolatinos in the Latin world are not 80-100% pure African blood", okay understood, but CIA reports that these people are "identifying" themselves as black hence the black population percentages that are distinct from "mixed" or "mulatto." All week you have been disrupting this discussion without filling in the void and contributing to adding sources to this article. Do these people identify themselves as Afro? Ok, so site them. Afro-Latin can "can refer to the mixing of African," okay so why is this not sourced? Instead you have constantly reverted. Please add sources, that is all. If that is so difficult to do, then perhaps there aren't any. [1]
Reply I am completely confused, were you talking to me SavvyJack? I've only done one revert and haven't done another one.Mcelite (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Haiti "not" a Latin American country

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

References

  1. ^ http://unilat.org/SG/Etats_members/fr
  2. ^ Sampson, Ovetta (2012-02-29). "Long distance relationship: Haiti's bid to join the African Union". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2012-03-01. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • 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]

AND:

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.

References

  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. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |separator=, |trans_title=, |trans_chapter=, |laysummary=, |month=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
  • 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.75.62.20.174 (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

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1 (B23Rich (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC))

Orphaned references in Afro-Latin American

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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}}).

 Y 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.

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

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

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

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Populations

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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[2]. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the user modifies the figure exaggerated, standing at 8.7 million, which is obviously false. The reference points [3] 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.


Numbers for Costa Rica are extremely outdated, it says 100.000 blacks in CR, there are actually 384.000. Can't edit the whole chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.231.178.77 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afro–Latin_Americans/Archive_5&oldid=1143814463"