Talk:Latin America/Archive 3

Creole languages

This idea:

"Strictly speaking, Latin America can designate all of those countries and territories in the Americas where a Romance language (i.e. languages derived from Latin, and hence the name of the region) is spoken: Spanish, Portuguese, French, and creole languages based upon these".

Creole languages are not considered in the Latin context, for this reason countries like Jamaica, Haiti, etc, are not considered Latin Americans and for this reason, in order to include them, sources refer as "Latin America and the Antilles". --Albeiror24-Neopanida (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Haiti is a Latin American country, they speak 100% french, and they have Haitian Creole which is a creole language based on french.~~Cakechild~~

Race

It is not true that no white pepole live in Paraguay, my Mom is white and she is from Paraguay.Miagirljmw14 (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it state that there are no white people. According to the source, 95% are mestizo (half white/half Amerindian) and 5% other. The "other" in the source doesn't specify, but that's where the white population would be included. Kman543210 (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Britsh influence??

Political Evolution of Central America and the Caribbean from 1700 to present

The culture part of the article reports: "Italian and British influence has been important as well".

I wonder if there's any Britsh influence in Latin America. Surely not. Opinoso (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

British Honduras, British Guiana, British Latin American, British Peruvian, and tons of Caribbean island territories. NJGW (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC) extent

You are wrong. Caribbean countries colonized by England ARE NOT part of Latin America. British Honduras is a small country of 300,000 inhabitants, with a insignificant proportion of people with British ancestry. Only because it was under British rule does not mean the population there keeps any British tradition in their day life.

British Guiana is NOT totally part of Latin America, since they do not speak a Latin language there.

What about British Peruvian? The article does not cite its sources and they are surely a tiny minority in Peru.

There's NO Britsh cultural influence in any Latin American country. Only because 2 or 3 countries were under British rule for a time does not mean they were influenced by Britsh culture. Opinoso (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You gotta proove a couple of Latin American countries which have some British influence in their culture. I am not talking about English-speaking Caribbean countries, such as Jamaica, because THEY ARE NOT part of Latin America.

And I am not talking about British Guiana, which is not part of Latin America at all. And former British Honduras, now Belize, is a Hispanic country, not Anglophone.

Tell me a couple of REAL Latin American countries which have British influence. You gotta list 4 or 5, because Latin America is very big, and only because 1 country may have some British influence, we cannot list British among the people who influenced Latin America. Opinoso (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

History

Surely the history of Latin America goes on after 1825? Kelvinc (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Europeans? What about the Arabs?

I saw the sub-sub section titled Europeans, but it also talks about Middle Eastern people. Last time I remembered the Middle East is not located in the continent of Europe. Shouldn't the section be called White because Middle Easterners are White, not European. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's actually a very good point, and I never even noticed that before. It is under the "Racial groups" section, and European isn't a race. Since by some definitions, Middle Easterners are considered white, I guess we could change it to that or to Caucasians. Kman543210 (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

USA

USA is the 4th latinamerican country with more than 40000000 people. This population should be represented in the lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisanchez (talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ElOtro.jpg

The image Image:ElOtro.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:HouseOfSandPoster.jpg
• Image:FromDuskTilDawnDance.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Demographics table

Please come to consensus here before continuing. NJGW (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've used the CIA Factbook info as first source, as it seems a pretty serious publication, backed by a government agency. When country information is missing from the Factbook, or it is ambiguous (lack of percentages), I've used alternative, but authoritative sources, such as in the case of Venezuela, where I'm using a study from the US Library of Congress. ☆ CieloEstrellado 12:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Haitians not having Amerindian ancestry?

First of all Amerindians are indigenous peoples of the Americas, not just in the U.S., I'm talking about small islands in the Caribbean, central and South America. Am I not right? Second, how can you be so sure that there isn't at least a small percentage of Amerindian ancestry, there were many indigenous peoples in that country such as the Tainos, and Arwarks (as a Haitian I should know). Finally, your racially distribution chart is messed up. There are plenty mullattos in Haiti, I would change the "other" percentage, because there are more mullattos than "others" in Haiti. Cakechild (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Mexico City/São Paulo

According to many reliable sources (books, websites) Mexico City is the largest city in latin america (above São Paulo). It is the largest even in the western emisphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_hemisphere. By the way I posted the "European population 2" but I took the 15.5 percent from wikipedia, so, I hope someone could post a highly reliable source of Mexico's white population...And just as a coment, I agree with the discussion, I mean the white population could be 1 percent and the picture of the argued Mexican girls still could be accurate, in guadalajara is not weird to find people with notable european descendant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe0 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to provide a specific one? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple; http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/379167/Mexico#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Mexico%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia

http://www.worldstatesmen.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco (talk • contribs) 23:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

a dangerous presumption

this whole article starts from a presuntion which is wrong, but it doesn't even mention it and i cannot do it myself either. Latinamerica has not existed since Adán, but was invented in the late XiX early XX (arielistas?) as a way to create an ideological union (the political one was a fail) and separate the old spanish america from the saxon america, which started to be felt as a threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.45.249.100 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds very interesting. Is there a source which discusses this? NJGW (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact Latin-America has began at the moment when all these parts of the Americas have felt under Spanish, Portuguese and in a lesser extend French rule. Before that speaking about a "latin-America" is a complete nonsense and let thinking that the latins were existing before the arrival of the southern Europeans in the region: that is to say that the latins are the Amerindians...

I find absolutly absurd to put images of Machu picchu (Inca) or Chichen Itza (Maya) as symbols of latin-American history as if at these times this part of America was already latin (as if it has always been latin). This is absurd and a complete lack of respect for the native Americans who were everything but latin people. The latin people were the conquerers; the Spanish, the portuguese and the french. The latins were the ones that destroyed the these civilisations - how can we consider that precolumbian people were living in latin America??

Latin culture is the in which those southern European peoples get their roots. Latin-America today deserve its name since a big of its culture (but not always its people's genetic herency) is derived (language, religion). But it is absurd to let thinking that everything in latin America is latin: Amerindian history and African influences have nothing to see with latin culture even is they have melted with it in latin-America, they still non-latin in origin.

The same way it would be absurd to speak about Ameridian cultures and people in pre-british United States as being part of "anglo-America" history. Or let supposing that Anglo-Americans already existed before the arrival of British people. It would mean that Cherokees, navajos, sioux, etc. were part of Anglo-American history in the years before European colonisation...

Wouldn't it be quite ridiculous to call Cherokee pre-british culture a "Anglo-American" culture. Or considering a pre-British Cheyenne indian to be of "Anglo-American" race, or even to shorten it as "Anglo" race. Or even worse; to conserdering that the real Anglos are the native os what is now Anglo-America; which would mean that to be a "true" Anglo one has to look like a native indian from Anglo-America... This is absurd for everyone but it is how many North American people (anglo-Americans) think about latin-America.

• This is not a discussion forum. Please make suggestions on how to improve the article to go along with your criticisms. Thank you. LostLucidity (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Financial centers and main cities in Latin America

This section needs to be clear how it's "ranking" cities, and then it needs a source for that ranking. --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Largest Metropolitan Areas

I´d like to point out how messed up is the information in the Largest Metropolitan Areas part of the fact box. Being brazilian I know Porto Alegre isn´t one of the biggest metropolitan areas (let alone the sixth), and obviously São Paulo is lacking. It seems to me this article should be protected to assure quality information being displayed. 189.105.141.243 (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. SamEV (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

IMF new figures for 2008

Somebody tried to update the numbers on the economic table, incorrectly placing Mexico with the highest GDP per capita at PPP. I corrected the information using the comparison tool provided in the IMF website. See This link. for further details. Likeminas (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Using 2007 IMF figures... http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2007&ey=2007&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=213%2C273%2C339%2C218%2C223%2C278%2C283%2C228%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C238%2C243%2C248%2C253%2C263%2C268%2C298%2C299&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a=&pr.x=17&pr.y=14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco (talk • contribs) 02:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Chile white

Who is/are the person(s) who keep including Chile as a "white country"? There are no sources for it. The census shows Chile is mainly mestizo. The fact that these mestizos are mainly white does not make them white. I am excluding Chile. Opinoso (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Chile is not mostly white. I see a some people (like in the previous section) trying to push the Afro-Chilean claim, and others repeatedly including Chile, as a mostly white country..

The fact of the matter is that, Chile's white population is about +30%, with the rest being mainly Mestizo.

By the way, I also removed the statement that included the Southern Cone as the region with the highest proportion of whites in the Americas, due to the fact that definitions of what countries constitute this region is still a matter of debate.

Even if we were to include the usual three (Argentina, Chile & Uruguay) it's a rather controvertial statement to say that the region has the highest proportion of whites. Leaving Uruguay by itself is a much safer and accuarate account.

Likeminas (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Amen. SamEV (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Depend, if "White" tag is about 100% purebreed then Chile is not white at all. Anyways, for many countries, neither Portugal or Spain (even Italy in some cases) are considered as a white countries, most likely gray people, or self claimed as "cinnamon tone/skin" (piel canela in spanish). So yes, Chile is not White at all, but it is not quite native american (red skin), neither black or yellow.

--200.73.30.108 (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)--200.73.30.108 (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you name at least one country that is "100% purebreed", anywhere in the world?

This is not about what 'some people think'. It's about what the source states. SamEV (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cuba being mostly Mulatto?

Since when? Sure, we've always had a significant amount of mulattos but never have they been the majority. Cuba has always been mostly white, unmixed- and of Spanish descent. This was really shocking to come across. Even with a ton of White Cubans fleeing the country some years back due to Fidel, Whites still make up the majority of the population- by a lot, too. Here's the last official CIA census as proof. Cited.

Ethnic groups:

white 65.1%, mulatto and mestizo 24.8%, black 10.1% (2002 census)

Cuban Census (2002)

Since a very long time. It was that same source which stated that Cuba was 51% Mulatto, 37% White, and 11% Black since the 1990s. They've only recently changed it, sometime in the last several months, per the 2002 Cuban census. SamEV (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cuba is quite confusing since you have different numbers from different sources (CIA and the Cuban Govt). In my opinion, I think we should stay with the Cuban Govt sources since they are the ones in power, but we can have both listed if it causes a big controversy. I know that many Cuban exiles don't view themselves as Americans, only Cubans, and many have said that they will return to Cuba after the downfall of Communism. So maybe the CIA counts the Cuban exiles, who knows? Lehoiberri (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to deal with that any more, Lehoi. The CIA is now in sync with the Cuban govt. SamEV (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Demographics and Listed Race Categories

Does anyone else think it might be better to list the Ethnic Groups according to actual numbers rather than putting them in alphabetical order? It's a bit odd to have Asians above Mestizos, Europeans, and Blacks as they are probably the tiniest minority in the region. Should we list them according to their figures? Mestizos, Europeans, Amerindians, Mulattos, etc are much more numerous in Latin America. Cali567 (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"It's a bit odd" doesn't seem like a compelling enough reason for changing from one list order for an equally valid one. I would argue (just my opinion) that forsaking numbers and going alphabetical shows a measure of goodwill; it defeats the tyranny of numbers. The groups with the bigger numbers have that fact going for them anyway, no matter where they're listed: So why is it so such an injustice if some smaller group gets listed ahead of a bigger one? It's entirely at our discretion, but there's my case for keeping the alphabetical order. SamEV (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems just because you put a "disclaimer" in front of your opinion, you belittle mine. I will say it again, though: It's odd. The fact that it is odd, and I reiterate it doesn't discredit anything. People, as you know, take certain aspects of these articles to mean things they don't. For instance, someone glancing at the article for Latin America's racial make-up might see this order of ethnic groups and take the order to coincide with true numbers. I thought it would make it easier for readers, there is no racial side of this whatsoever. Besides "alphabetical" order isn't always the best way to present everything, as you might know...maybe not.Cali567 (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Or, someone glancing at the article might instantly realize that the order is alphabetical. "Might", "might", "might". (Why don't we wait till we actually have some feedback from the readers? Just a thought.)

You want odd"? The fact that the section that would happen to lead the list is the White section, and that it is the largest section, would not strike some as "odd"? I think it might. And yes, that is intended to raise the subject of possible racial favoritism. Just as you may have understood it to... or not. SamEV (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

New table with largest economic cities in Latin America.

I’m looking at the reference used for that table, and from looking at full city GDP rankings (on page 24) I see that the order and GDPs of the first three cities is incorrect.
As per the reference, Mexico City is #8 @ 315$bn at PPP, Buenos Aires #13 @ 245 and Sao Paulo #19 @225. Therefore the table should have the above cities as 1, 2 & 3 respectively.
Lima is properly positioned; however, the GDP is off. It’s not 75 but 67. The rest of the cities seem to have the correct information.

It would be also a good idea to say that this estimate is from 2005 and that figures are expressed in USD using the PPP exchange rates.
Likeminas (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I created the table last night, but when I checked it this morning an anonymous user and someone with user name Alextra changed the info. throwing the numbers off... I've corrected them, as well as the ranking order. Thanks for your continued input. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You beat me! I was getting ready to correct it, by you got it first.

Anyway, good work. I think it's an informative table.

Likeminas (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What sources are being used to determine these figures? From what I see on table 3.3 of page 18 from the PwC report.
Buenos Aires has a GDP per capita of USD $19.5k, Mexico city $16.2k, Rio $12.3k and Sao Paulo $12.3k.
The rest of the cities are nowhere to be found within that source.
If it’s the pricewaterhousecoopers report then, the figures need to be corrected; else another reliable source needs to be listed.

Likeminas (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please disregard the above comment, it looks like the figures are correct.
Nonetheless, I still couldn't find the GDP per capita within the PwC report of cities such as Monterrey and Belo Horizonte. Am I missing something here, or is the UN report the one being used? Likeminas (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

GDP per Capita (PPP) is simple math.... GPD/population... it is the same formula PwC used for the other cities. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok I see. I didn't know you calculated it manually. I thought, maybe you saw it somewhere in the report.

Likeminas (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This article omits Quebecers, Acadians and Cajuns!

They are also Latin Americans, no?--Sonjaaa (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Easter Island

Is a picture of Easter Island appropriate for the article? While it is true that Easter Island is a Chilean possession, the article defines "Latin America" in a way that restricts it to lands and islands in the Americas. Easter Island is normally regarded as a part of Polynesia and Oceania. Please review whether deletion of the photo of Easter Island is in order. I suggest it be deleted and replaced. Rrcs law (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

History

Demographics

The discussion on early settlement needs to be co-ordinated with the entry on Monte Verde. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teleer (talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit. It does, however, need to be clearer as to what it is that Monte Verde contradicts. Specifically, the old dating isn't mentioned, nor is the Clovis First theory. And please add a source. SamEV (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Japanese

"Brazil is home to 1.49 million people of Asian descent,[8][9] which includes the largest ethnic Japanese community outside of Japan itself, numbering 1.5 million." How Japanese are Asians if I'm not mistaken. ---- Nate Riley 23:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant Immigration

Just wondering how this: [1] is irrelevant? I am not an expert here so I am just asking for more detail on why this peice of information should be included or no. --DerRichter (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw that information removed today with "irrelevant immigration" as the reason and was wondering the same thing: why is it irrelevant? Maybe it is, but the term "irrelevant" is overused in my opinion, especially without any additional explanation for reverting or deleting. To me, it was just a simple sentence giving an addition wave of immigration. Kman543210 (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It actually is historically interesting, and explains some of those odd pieces of trivia, like "Why is the last commercial brewer of Vienna lager located in Mexico?"
Kww (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any information on the Internet that says "many more French, Belgians and Ausrians" settled Mexico.

How many Mexicans do you know who trace their ancestry to Austria? I do not know any.

They did not have any impact in Mexico's demography.

By the way, the writer wrote "Ausrians", not Austrians. Do you really think anyone serious would write "Ausrians" and leave it wrong? Nobody serious would. Opinoso (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I do not know any either. But then again, I know zero Belgians period. --DerRichter (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Another "which-country-is-really-white" fight? Gee... Yes, there are plenty of Mexicans, mostly in the eastern states (and mostly Jalisco), where French, Belgian and Austrian immigration had a huge impact in demography, not only in the big cities (Guadalajara, 4 M) being one of them, but in the rural towns as well. Comments such as "I don´t know any", coming from a resident of South America are not what Wikipedia is about. Ever thought of searching for verifiable sources as a better comment than personal knowledge? Just a quick, very quick google search provided this results: [2], [3], [4], [5].--the Dúnadan 12:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

These sources do not say "French, Belgian and Austrian immigration had a huge impact in Mexico's demography". Dúnadan, stop accusing other users of being paranoid with which country is whiter or not. This is your own paranoid, not mine.

Actually, these sources say that immigrants were a minority in all Mexico's history, and only a few thousands of post-colonial Europeans settled Mexico. They did not have any huge impact in Mexico's demography.

How many Mexicans with a Belgian surname do you people know? Nobody. Opinoso (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems you fail to understand my point: it doesn't matter who or how many you or I know. For goodness sake, read WP:Verifiability. If it matters, I do know two Mexicans girls with a Belgian surnames, and several personal acquaintances from Guadalajara, living in the US that have a French last name. But who cares whom I know, or the limited knowledge that you have, as a Brazilian, of other countries in Latin America? This is again, the endless fight between Latin Americans to prove that "your country is less-white-than-mine", and "how-European-my-country-is". Can't you simply describe the immigration phenomena in Latin America by actually doing some research (instead of counting how many Mexicans, Peruvians or Guatemalans you know), without giving any judgments of value? --the Dúnadan 23:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't state that these migrations had a huge impact on Mexico's demography. It clearly states that Italians, Spaniards, and Portuguese were the largest groups of the Europeans. It just says that "many more" arrived and lists some of the smaller migration groups to indicate that there were other immigrants besides the Italians, Spaniards, and Portuguese. It's one sentence in a section called Europeans, and it has a reliable source. I agree with Dúnadan that one cannot use his own personal experiences to determine facts for an encyclopedia. Kman543210 (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said. --DerRichter (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

HOWEVER, that information is still not relevant. I am not saying there was no Belgian immigration to Mexico, but if we start to include every single nationality who immigrated to some Latin American country, we will stay here forever listing their names.

Surely, Lithuanian immigrants had a larger impact in Brazil (Brazil has 200,000 people of Lithuanian descent)[6] or Croatian immigration had a larger impact in Argentina (Argentina has 250,000 people of Croatian descent_[7] than these French, Belgian or Austrians had in Mexico all together.

It is a matter of good sense and historical informations. Why aren't Lithuanians or Croatians listed there, which are actually big communities, and these small groups French, Belgians or Austrians are?

Dúnadan, stop claiming I am paranoid with "which country is whiter" because in all these discussions, YOU are involved in all them. So, the paranoid person with "which country is whiter" here is you, not me. You are trying to pass Mexico as a "white" country, which is not the reality.

By the way, I do not agree with an entire sentence giving emphasis on Mexico: "the Second Mexican Empire, many more French, Belgians and Swiss settled in Mexico". Why is it talking about Mexico, and other countries, such as Venezuela, which had a big European immigration in the mid-20th century, is not even listed?

Posting pictures of blond girls with Mexico T-shirt is crazy, because nobody can proove these girls are actually Mexicans; they can be tourists with a Mexican T-shirt. Second, most White Mexicans do not have blond hair or blue eyes, because most are of Spanish heritage, not French or Belgian at all.

So, it's totally irrelevant to talk about these minoritary people in Mexico, while much more important ethnic groups in Latin American, such as Lithuanians, Croatians or even Latvians, Hungarians and Russians are not listed.

Again, I think Lithuanians or Croatians should not be listed, because if we start to list every single ethnic group of European descent in Latin America, this article will never end. HOWEVER, if we list French, Belgians or Austrians in Mexico, we have to list many other people who, in fact, contributed to the demography of Latin America. Mexico should not be even listed there, since it never had a big European component in its population. Put Venezuela or even Colombia in its place. Opinoso (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Opinoso, take a deep breath, and don't put words in my mouth. I have never claimed that you are "paranoid", in fact, I have not used the word "paranoid", nor "paranoia". So, unlike you, I have not insulted anyone directly, like you did by saying verbatim, that I am paranoid. The fights to prove "which-country-is-whiter" are evident, in the daily vandalism at Indigenous peoples of the Americas, Demographics of Argentina, Demography of Mexico, just to mention a few. Secondly, I did not post the picture of the Mexican girls; so please discuss that with the appropriate user. Your claiming that "you cannot prove they are Mexican" is not a serious argument. Especially followed by the next sentence: "most Mexicans do not have blond hair or blue eyes..." and "not French or Belgian [heritage] at all" (bold mine),ergo "those girls cannot be Mexican". Are you serious? Have you ever been to Mexico? Go to the Venetian community of Chipilo, the Dutch-German rural communities in Chihuahua, or to Guadalajara. Thirdly, irrelevancy is not defined in terms of "how many people I know" or "how many more ethnic groups do we have other than what Mexicans have". But please feel free to provide sources for your many claims. And of course, you can add that Lithuanians, Croatians, Latvians and Hungarians settled in Argentina. You see, there is no "either-or" situation here. All can fit. It is your only your arguments that " Mexicans can't be blond... at all", and those "minorities aren't relevant" that are not appropriate. --the Dúnadan 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said Mexicans can't be blond. I know Anahí from the Rebelde group. I also never said these blond girls are not Mexicans. I said nobody can proove they are Mexicans, the same way nobody can proove they aren't.

Somebody can take a picture of me on the street wearing a Mexico T-shirt and post my picture claiming I am Mexican. Nobody will be able to proove I am Mexican or not. Nobody can proove these girls are actually Mexicans only because in the picture they are wearing a T-shirt written "Mexico" or with their faces painted with Mexico's flag colors.

First: Mexico does not deserve an entire sentence about it in the European session. Second: Belgians and Austrians also should not be even listed, because both are very small and insignificant groups, not only in Mexico, but in all Latin American. Lithuanians, Croatians or even Russians, who are much bigger groups are not even listed there.

Third: the same way a picture of blond girls saying "White Mexicans are among the third largest ethnic groups" is a nonsense, since most "White" Mexicans are dark-haired and dark-eyes, because most have ancestors from Spain, not from Belgian or Austria. By the way, in all Latin American countries the vast majority of Whites do not have blond hair and blue eyes, so posting a picture of these blond girls, who are probably American tourists having fun in a Mexico soccer game, to represent the Whites of Latin America is a complete nonsense.

Chipilo with its Italians and other places are a very small minority in Mexico's 120 million inhabitants. Opinoso (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, here we go again, since it seems you do not understand, I'll try to outline my arguments:

• Nobody can prove the girls are Mexican; well, you certainly cannot prove they aren't. Not with your opinions that all white Mexicans are descendants from Spaniards, and therefore, they do not have blue eyes. (Which makes me wonder if you actually know a Spaniard, probably not). Ludicrous argument, to be honest. But, like I said, but you probably didn't read it, the picture is the least of my concerns. I didn't put it there. Go fight—even though I advise you to use better arguments that mere opinions—with the author that included it.
• Mexico does not deserve an entire sentence about it in the European Sentence; according to whom? You? Forget about the fact that it is verifiable, referenced and inclusive of all points of view, including, of course, minority points of view which, in a single sentence, gives the true weight of the assessment. If you say "Mexico doesn't deserve it", I guess you must be right? I don't think so.

Since this situation is, in my opinion, getting to a stalemate; I'd be more than happy to Request for Mediation. Shall we?

--the Dúnadan 02:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's put things in perspective. Isn't it just one sentence? As far as the picture, I don't think anyone has any strong feelings as to whether is should stay or go, but I remember that picture being put into several articles in the same night. Kman543210 (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dúnadan, it's not a matter that the information has sources. It is a matter of good sense. To talk about Belgians and Austrians in Mexico and not even list Lithuanians or Croatians is not a good sense.

Again, if we list every single ethnic group alive in Latin America, this article will never end.

I could include in the article the unnecessary information that 29 Finish immigrantes settled the countryside of Rio de Janeiro in the 1920s. And they really did, and I have sources to proove. These Finish created the distric of Penedo, an interesting tourist place of Rio.

But, why should I include this pathetic group of Finish people who settled a rural area of Rio? This is not an important information. They were a very small group. Even though they created a district, they were not important to Rio's demography, much less to Brazil's.

The same applies for Belgians in Mexico. They immigrated there, settled there. But was their impact really important to Mexico that they deserve to be listed among Spaniards, Portuguese or Italians in Latin America? Of course not. Opinoso (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dúnadan yes, I know Spaniards: Penelope Cruz or Antonio Banderas are not really blond people. Since Spain did not have great impact from Germanic invadors, neither Slavic or other mainly blond people, and its component is mainly Celtiberian, which were dark-haired people, they are not the most fair-skinned types of Europe.

Or are you also trying to claim Spaniards are blonds? Opinoso (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't you get it yet? PLEASE, read WP:Verifiability. Verifiability is not "how many Spanish actors I know", for crying out loud. Do some research, please. Especially concerning Spain, which is an extremely diverse racial and multicultural country! Spain was invaded by the Visigoths, which left a long-standing cultural and demographic impact in Spain. The kingdoms of Galicia and Asturias, were never conquered by the Moors; the Asturian population traces its roots back to the German invaders, while Galicia to the original celts, both of which are "blond and blue eyed". But who cares??!!! Please, I beg, read WP:Verifiability, or at least travel a little. The argument that Spaniards are not blond because you know Penélope Cruz and Antonio Banderas is ludicrous, not to mention unacceptable for inclusion of content in Wikipedia.--the Dúnadan 03:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How about a compromise? We could add in something about Croatians and Russians too. And for the record, I asked someone to read the sources and they mention nothing of Austrians (here), so I think we can remove Austrians from the list unless there are other reliable sources to be added. --DerRichter (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dúnadan, I think you should travel more and also learn how to read. I have been to Spain myself, and most Spaniards are dark-haired and dark-eyes, the same way most Portuguese, Southern Italians and Greeks.

Moreover, you must read the article Spanish people: it reports Iberians trace their ancestry mostly to Paleolithic and Neolithic basis. It has nothing to do with Germanic people. Moreover, the Celts of Spain were mostly native people who were Celtized, not really pure Celtic. By the way, most Celts were also dark-haired and dark-eyed, like the nowadays population of Wales.

So, don't claim Celts were mostly blond people, because they weren't.

And also take a look at the map about blondism in Europe: Spain has the same low frequency of blond hair North Africa has, with only 1-19% of Spaniards being blonds. [8]

Why are you talking about the Moors? Do you think the dark hair of Spaniards came from the Moors? No, my friend. It comes from the Iberia's Paleolithic and Neolithic basis. These people, who started settling there 40,000 years ago were dark-haired and dark-eyed. It has nothing to do with the "recent" Muslim rule of Iberia.

Please, study and read WP:Verifiability, not me.

Dúnadan, no matter how much you claim Spaniards have blond hair and White Mexicans have blue eyes. Nobody will believe you. You claim people want to fight for which country is whiter, but it obviously seem you are the one trying to "white-wash" Spain and Latin America.

Give it up, my friend. Opinoso (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Opinoso, (indeed, opinoso), you have proven, even if the "frequency of blonds" is low, there are blonds in Spain. You had previously said that there were no blonds in Spain, therefore, the girls had to be American dressed as Mexican for fun (quite a serious research you did on that one!). But, hey you've proven my point, so no worries =-) Moreover, considering your opinions about "Spaniards" and "traveling", let me tell you that given my nationality, my background and where I live, you are preaching to the wrong choir... --the Dúnadan 03:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dúnadan, stop pretending you are the smartest person in wikipedia, because you aren't. Your nonsense comments proove it. Opinoso (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNCIVIL. To be honest, your reiterated comments (paranoid, nonsense, and the above) are on the brink of incivility. Like I said before, if you wish I can Request for Mediation, or, given your comment above, I can ask an administrator to weigh in. --the Dúnadan 21:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dúnadan, stop trying to fight with other users in the discussion pages of Wikipedia, as you are trying to do here and in the discussion page of Argentina with nice user Lehoiberri.

Nobody wants to fight with you. By the way, this is not place for it. Find a forum for you to have fun.

Please, read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I finish this boring and useless discussion with you now.

Goodbye. Opinoso (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody wants to fight actually, but we all want to debate constructively by providing reliable sources. Sorry to see you leave, but if you decide to come back, please review WP:UNCIVIL. --the Dúnadan 00:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• What do you mean by dark hair and dark eyes are prevalent in Portugal? You mean BLACK? I would like an answer to this. To know if i'm talkinmg to a serious person.

Or do you mean brown hair and brown eyes? yes that's common. But other eye and hair colours are also very common. The south has a bit darker traits than the North though. but anything too noticeable (today). -Pedro (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

LAST NEWS: Fernando Torres, Xabi Alonso and Carles Puyol have been expelled from the Spanish national soccer team because they have red/blond hair and blue/green eyes and according to Opinoso it's a crime to look nordic in a southeuropean country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.22.98 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Opinoso You should make a trip to Los Altos in Jalisco, plenty of blondes and red heads their with blue and green eyes. Mostly due to French and Spanish backgrounds. Broaden you horizons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco (talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I find this quite insulting, to have my French heritage belittled by someone who has never set foot in Mexico. And we are not the only French-Mexican family you will find in the country, like you seem to imply; I have met several others, all across Mexico. And no, we are not related, nor we settled in the same region, just in case you want to minimize or dismiss our presence. And, of course, we have mix with Spaniards and natives alike, and we still keep the genes for blond hair, fair skin and clear color eyes (green and blue, choose, we have both in the family). This is a racist discussion, spawned from a racist stereotypical point of view of Mexicans. Maybe I should introduce you to my French-Mexican, Irish-Mexican, English-Mexican or German-Mexican friends so you can have a nice friendly talk with them and tell them they shouldn't exist in the first place, or better, that their presence in Mexico has been and continues to be irrelevant. You really need to travel more and talk less, Opinoso and the like. Cheval Fou 12 (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Photos!

With all do respect, why is one photo singled out and changed to another photo of the same type of source!? The uploaders of all these types of photos know what they are taking photos of and what's the difference between the Mexican girls and Urugauyan ones? They're all White! Why should it be that just because the girls in the photo don't "look Mexican" they should be singled out and not taken seriously? There are more White Mexicans than there are White Uruguayans!!! Stop your madness, or else take all other photos of Mulattos, Spaniards, Chinese, Amerindians, etc out of all Articles! Cali567 (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking for myself: there is no singling out. It just happens that the only photo-related discussion in which I participated was the one on the supposedly Mexican girls. I was quite involved in it, as you can see above, and that's why I remain so interested. If discussion of other pictures ensues and I feel like participating, then I will. SamEV (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So then there really is no reason you should keep the photo out other than another user barking about it? Why should it be changed to sooth his temper?.. Cali567 (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. But just in case, take a look at the discussion above. You'll see that several users came out against the image. Then visit the NOR discussion. You'll see that several other users came out against it there, too: not one wrote in favor of it. So, no, it's not 'that one user'; it's not about 'soothing' him. SamEV (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's be more accurate. In the discussion above the opinions where evenly split. In the noticeboard discussion, one person thought it was OR, one person questioned whether the girls were even white! and another thought it was a BLP violation to have any picture of a non-famous person. NJGW (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

All right... SamEV (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who replaced the picture of the Mexican girls with the other one (Uruguayan girls) mainly for two reasons;
Uruguay has a much greater proportion of white people than Mexico (86% and 16% respectively), so chances the photo was from actual Uruguayan girls is quite plausible.
I know I’m relying on statistical probability rather than irrefutable evidence, but like many of the pictures that are uploaded and associated with a country's (or regions) demographics I thought this was a reasonable bet.

Lastly, and unlike the other user who only uploaded the photo of white Mexican never to be seen again, I used a picture that was uploaded by Fercho85, a user who contributes heavily on the demographics sections of many articles. so in case anyone who doubted the origins of the photo, I thought, he might just come forward and give us his testimony.

This issue might turn out to be a complicated one.
Should we delete all pictures of people in the demographic section on the basis of unverifiable/questionable origins?
I’m not so sure that’s the right path to take, and I’d be very careful in doing so.
Perhaps, we could file a request for comment and get more input on this issue before taking any further action.

Likeminas (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, sourced images would be best, even if they're a pain to find. But your action seems rather reasonable and altogether well-intentioned. SamEV (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Illustrations do need to be based on information that is sourced in the articles they are used in, but requiring every photo to have a wp:V source would elliminate 95% or more of the photos in the project (leaving only famous or old public domain pictures). This is quite clearly stated at wp:OI: "Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." White girls living in Mexico or Uruguay are not an illustration of "unpubished ideas or arguments." This is policy btw, not a guideline. NJGW (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you're sticking to your interpretation. However, I believe the people at the NOR noticeboard. They're more experienced than you with this type of issue. SamEV (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't have a opinion on this issue, but I can see why Cali567 is not happy for taking away the picture of the Mexican Girls. At looking at the first discussion, the whole issue of the picture can basically sum up to "Mexicans don't look like that". If we look at the facts, Mexico does have Germanic-looking people. There 150,000 Mexicans have German ancestry, and 1.1 million Mexicans of American ancestry (Although the American ancestry group means anyone born or have ancestors born in the United States and are US Citizens, doesn't mater of race or ethnicity). Hey, those girls can come from those two groups. Although Blondism in Spain is not common, but in the Northeastern region (Galicia and Austurias), that region is considered to be the Blondest in Spain (Just look at the map in Blond). Those girls may have either Galician and Austurian ancestry? I also understand the NOR arguments, since the picture has no sources, and we don't know where the picture came from. But if we are going to find pictures with sources, that means we are more likely going to use celebrities. That is something I don't really support. (I remember how White Latin American was filled with fake people (a.k.a Beauty Queens)). Lehoiberri (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Mexicans don't look like that" appears to an argument by others; it was certainly not my argument.

It doesn't matter at all there are blond Mexicans. It boils down to this: the image is unsourced and was challenged. If, as you say, "I also understand the NOR arguments, since the picture has no sources, and we don't know where the picture came from." then you understand my opposition to keeping it, or any other unsourced image whose inclusion is challenged and causes disruption. SamEV (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I was not saying that you claimed that "Mexicans don't look like that", you had a valid argument. What I meant to say that this whole issue was started by "Mexicans don't look like that". It was started by J altamirano. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The White Populations of Uruguay and Mexico, respectively: Uruguay has roughly less than 3 million. Mexico has around 16.5 million. It is not more "common" to find these girls in Uruguay rather than Mexico - thats an opinion. The photo of the Uruguayan girls has a much smaller resolution and seems as if it was taken out of a web-site, while the Mexican girls seems to be a real photo from a real private camera. Cali567 (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Cali let’s review some basic probability.
Uruguay does have about 3 million white people (out of 3.4 million) So that’s about 85+% of the total population. Now Mexico has 16 million white people out of 110 million, or 16% of the total population. So, if you were to pick randomly any 10 Mexicans and any 10 Uruguayans; tell me (according to the data above) what are the chances of picking any 10 white Mexicans and any 10 white Uruguayans?

The odds go like this, all other things being equal: out of 10 randomly picked Mexicans, most likely you’ll get 1, and at most 2 whites.
On the other hand; out of 10 randomly picked Uruguayans you’ll get 8, and at most 9 whites.
See the difference?
Moreover, nobody is saying is "more common" to find these girls in Uruguay than in Mexico, All I said it’s more plausible, as far as the statistics go.
See, there's a difference between those two phrases as well.

Anyway, arguments for absolute numbers are usually weak. The better argument, yet, still weak, is the one about the allegedly violation of no original research.

So let's review what the policy says about user generated pictures:

Because of copyright law in a number of countries, there are relatively few existing images publicly available for use in Wikipedia. Photographs, drawings and other images created by Wikipedia editors thus fill a needed role. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed. It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to try to distort the facts or position being illustrated by a contributed photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any image that is found to have manipulation that materially affects its encyclopedic value should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the main text of the article. Great care should be taken not to introduce original research into an article when captioning images.

So if I were to add the picture about the white girls in Uruguay, Can those contributors that oppose the use of that picture mention of how it introduces unpublished ideas or arguments?

The rule above clearly encourages editors to take photographs and upload them to Wikipedia thus filling a needed role (i.e.; White people in Latin America) The tricky part does not lie on the action of uploading pictures to illustrate a certain need but to properly caption those images.

Likeminas (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You got it. It's all about the caption. There's no problem with the fact that it's a user-created work. But any claims made about the people being depicted must cite a published, reliable source. No reliable source was ever produced which stated that those girls were white, but especially, that they were Mexican. We could presumably apply common sense to the claim about their race, but common sense doesn't say that they were necessarily Mexican. This was my argument. With so many notable white Mexicans, why insist on displaying that image? SamEV (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Any claims made about the people being depicted must cite a published, reliable source" Where is this from? I can't find this in the wp:OI policy page anywhere. What you're saying is that we should remove all the pictures from this article??? NJGW (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I? Or is WP:OI? I quoted it to you, the first time you couldn't find it (italics are mine): "Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the main text of the article. Great care should be taken not to introduce original research into an article when captioning images." How have you interpreted that? Whatever you say in the caption must not be original research, i.e., it must reference a source other than the uploader: a reliable, published source. That's how you comply with the NOR policy. Seems clear enough, I think. Let the implications be what they'll be. SamEV (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So you're OK with the images staying in the article? Cool, I propose we use the Mexican girls with a caption that reads "There are 16 million white Mexicans." NJGW (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

But the caption has to relate directly to what's depicted. So you'd be saying that they are white, and that they are Mexican. You'd be right back where you began: claiming that they are examples of White Mexicans, all on your own. SamEV (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at Ant, "today's featured article" (21-1-09). ZERO out of 19 pictures there have the attributions you are asking for here. Similar issues exist in the recently featured Amateur radio in India, where non-famous amatures are all over the pictures (with no real way of knowing if they are in India or England or Antarctica, and no way of knowing if they are Indian or Bangaladeshi, or even that they're not professional radio operators). In fact, other than historical images or images of famous people, ALL the pictures in the featured articles seem to fail your standards. You are wrong. The spirit of wp:OI is that original research is allowed in images "as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments." Showing white people who might be Mexican does not "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas". NJGW (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

People who "might" be Mexican...

Wouldn't it be better to show people who are known to be Mexican and White? They're not a rare species, you know?

If I'm wrong, then show me where they said so on the noticeboard. As you might remember, they tended to see it the other way. SamEV (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tended nothing... there where three seperate oppinions from 3 seperate people. Doesn't matter anyway, according to policy you (and they) are wrong. NJGW (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If you say so, then it must be true... SamEV (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I do, and so does wp:OI, and that's why all these featured articles aren't up to your standards. Shall I take your last reply as acceptance of my proposal to reinsert the picture of the Mexican girls? NJGW (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You shan't. SamEV (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) "You shan't" is a weak argument given all the evidence I've mentioned here. Since your beef is with the way photos are handled Wiki-wide, please go to the village pump and take it up there. NJGW (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I find myself this time, kind of agreeing with SamEV regarding the picture of the White Mexican girls.
It’s fairly easy to assume that the girls are in fact white, however, when it comes to the statistics and demographics of Mexico, then the claim about their nationality is not so obvious and it can reasonably become dubious. I’m not saying they're not Mexican, but rather, that it’s not an easy assumption to make.
At this point, I personally prefer having the picture (for now at least) of a famous person, such as Vicente Fox or any other well known white Latin American, than the picture of the white Mexican girls stating “there are 16 million White Mexicans” as another contributor suggested.
After all, the section is not about Mexicans per se, but instead about white Latin Americans in general.

Now with respect to the pictures depicting Mullatoes and Zambos, I see that the same issue could eventually arise. But instead of deleting those pictures, I propose we caption those images with some sort of generic description. Perhaps, something like “People of Mullato heritage are a relevant part of the total population in some Caribbean countries”[9] and “Zambo people are a small minority in Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil” [10].

That’s my suggestion.
What do you guys think?
Likeminas (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a great suggestion. SamEV (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The weakness of NJGW's position is apparent in the following, and simple, thought experiment. Suppose someone uploaded the image to another Wikipedia, say, the Herero language Wikipedia. And suppose they captioned it "U.S. college students visiting Mexico." According to NJGW, this would have to be accepted as the truth, because his strange position is that Wikipedia:Assume good faith means that we should take the uploader at his/her word; apparently, NJGW is unaware of the fact that some people make unintentional mistakes, and that others deliberately introduce wrong information into Wikipedia. Furthermore, NJGW protests that he's not basing his stance on the fact that the girls are wearing Mexico t-shirts.

Anyway, the upshot is that they'd be both U.S. students and Mexicans, per NJGW. But why should it stop there? There are 265 Wikipedias.[11] The image could be uploaded into every one one of them, with a different description, naming a different nationality for the subjects each time. Which is the true one? Will NJGW maintain that the English Wikipedia uploader is more good-faith than the others and therefore is to be believed above them? Will he instead claim that our uploader deserves the benefit of the doubt because he was first?

But, the key word is "doubt": all those unsourced descriptions deserve to be doubted. But we have less doubt (or even no doubt) with someone like Vicente Fox, who is easily sourceable. SamEV (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Doubt = Assuming someone is lying. If you truly believe this, I expect you to go to Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Traditional and request that all the "Images by Wikipedians" be deleted. They have no reliable sources other than the photographer's claim that they portray what they claim they portray. NJGW (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Doubt = Wikipedia:Assume stupidity, sometimes. A lot of times.

Seriously, though, I prefer to assume the obvious: that they provided no source, and that if it is challenged, as happened here, it's got to go.

Lastly, do I really have to turn into some crusader just to justify one edit? Shouldn't you at least have to prove the merits of your stance to some people? SamEV (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Who's stupidity are we assuming? Quite the weird joke considering all the civility talk you're throwing around today.

2. Are you really trying to trump a guideline with a humor page? We're trying to have a serious conversation here.

3. "If it is challenged... it's got to go" I'm not familiar with this rule. Where does it come from?

4. Why be a crusader, just be consistent. If you believe that this is OR and should go then you believe that those are OR and should go. As it is, they are featured pictures based on the very same level of reliable sources as any of the pictures of non-famous people (which you seem to be saying should all be removed from Wikipedia). The fact that those pictures are "Featured" (basically shining examples to the community of great picuture standards) proves that your requirements are not in-line with Wikipedia's. The pictures in the "featured articles of the day" that I pointed out also have the same level of citation as the ones we are discussing. The policy I've quoted to you time and again explains it to you also. I've prooved my point plenty of ways, but you are too stubborn to accept it. NJGW (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, NJGW, there is a sense of humor at Wikipedia. Some Wikipedians have a sense of humor and do not apologize for it.

"I'm not familiar with this rule. Where does it come from?"

From WP:V.

" The fact that those pictures are "Featured" (basically shining examples to the community of great picuture standards) proves that your requirements are not in-line with Wikipedia's."

See, if you could get several people at the noticeboard to say that, I wouldn't oppose putting the image back.

" I've prooved my point plenty of ways, but you are too stubborn to accept it."

You haven't proved anything! You and I disagree, so you asked at the noticeboard for a clarification of that very policy you quoted, and no one agreed with you there. You stubbornly neglect to take that into account. SamEV (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that wp:V says anything about images, but the author of the Mexican girls picture, who took the picture, clearly states "These Mexican girls are at a fair in Jalisco, Mexico near Zapopan." According to wp:OI, that's good enough. NJGW (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We got no kind of answer from the noticeboard, despite what you keep insisting. We got 3 opinions from 3 people: one agreed with you, one said they weren't white, and one cited blp (which according to the image privacy policy at Wikimedia and US law is a bogus argument). Just because one person agreed with you doesn't mean you've proved anything. Strangely, the one editor that agreed with you says what I'm saying here. NJGW (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no, please don't do that. Don't break up my comments with yours. Just quote me and follow the quote with your reply, if you want. I moved the first half of your comment.

"According to wp:OI, that's good enough."

You've failed to show that anyone else agrees with that.

"Strangely, the one editor that agreed with you says what I'm saying here."

And there's another user who agrees with him. Or maybe he doesn't...He seems to have equivocated.

In any case, three others disagreed with the two of them.

Also, your count is faulty. "I'd concur with SamEV." is what User:NVO said, and went on to express the fact that the claims are not obvious ("Are they Mexican? Are they white?") User:Blueboar said: "I certatinly agree that the image and caption at Latin America constitute OR." It's all at Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard/Archive 5#Image question. SamEV (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is as simple as going to the Televisa web page and look at the pictures of the entertainers depicted there. As a sample, Rebecca de Alba (listed here in Wikipedia by the way, without a picture), show in the web site news, like the one contained in this link: http://www2.esmas.com/sos/noticias/013107/realizara-rebecca-alba-actuacion-especial-s.o.s Cheval Fou 12 (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 IMF figures

Here’s the link to this year’s projections.[12]

GDP per capita is easily calculated by dividing the country’s income by its population over a certain period of time. This can be a month, a quarter or a year. And although, the year is not over (We’re almost half way) the figures I believe we should be using are the 2009’s.

Likeminas (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed Jesus reverted my update to the table. I assume he's doing so because 2008 already passed and the IMF no longer projects those numbers to fluctuate. But after double checking the IMF website, I see that on the upper-right corner of the table it says: Shaded cells indicate IMF staff estimates So even the table for 2008 has most countries listed as estimates. That's also the case with the figures for 2009.

So faced with two set of estimates, I'd rather have this year's estimate.

Any thoughts? Likeminas (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Figures are were updated in April, meaning that 2009 figure estimates were up to February, only 2 months into the year, now 2008 would be a more accurate projection than 2009. I would say stick to the 2008 until the next update in October. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

White population in Mexico

White Mexicans are less than 10% that info of European Population is false. The picture of the "mexican girls" is fake. They look more like german girls with some Mexico T-shirts in the World cup 2006 that "white mexican girls". https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html#People —Preceding unsigned comment added by J altamirano (talk • contribs) 16:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You're making two different statements. Just because there are 10-15% whites in Mexico doesn't mean that picture isn't of Mexicans... wp:AFG. NJGW (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

False. white people in mexico are less than 10%. So how can you prove the girls are mexicans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J altamirano (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You have not provided a logical connection... there could be less than one percent europeans in Mexico and the picture could still be accurate. You need to read wp:AFG if you are going to continue editing. NJGW (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A t-shirt with the word "Mexico" does not mean that you are mexican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J altamirano (talk • contribs) 17:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not relying on the t-shirt, but on the person that uploaded the picture saying that they were Mexican. NJGW (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Then it has to qualify as OR. The personal word of a WP'ian is acceptable in statements re: his own race or ancestry, not others'.

But how hard can it be to depict white Mexicans? Someone should just take a screenshot of a Mexican telenovela! (half-kidding) SamEV (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." (wp:OI) White people in Mexico is a fact, therefore the image is acceptable. Otherwise every image would be original research. NJGW (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Of course it's a fact that there are white Mexicans. But determining the citizenship of the random people depicted in the picture cannot depend on the word of the Wikipedia editor who uploaded it. It simply doesn't work that way. The thing to do is depict notable people, people with articles here, who are known from reliable sources to be Mexican. Or to put it another way, the quote you gave itself explains my point: the citizenship of those unknown people is itself unknown, unpublished. It's not found in any reliable source. Only that Wikipedian is the source. Thus it's an OR piece of info for these purposes. SamEV (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the guideline says... if we were to follow your method then the only pictures on Wikipedia would be the ones of notable people. Look at all the other pictures on this page: how do we know that the blacks or amerindians are actually in Latin America? How do we know the Meztizos are in Guatemala or the salsa dancers are in Cuba? How do we know they're dancing salsa and not actually Whirling Dervishes? WP:OI explains that the core reason behind the NOR policy is not to illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. Please state what "unpublished idea or argument" is illustrated by the picture, and have faith that the uploader of the picture knew they were Mexican. The image illustrates a proven well known fact, and that is its only purpose. NJGW (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) "how do we know that the blacks or amerindians are actually in Latin America? How do we know the Meztizos are in Guatemala or the salsa dancers are in Cuba? How do we know they're dancing salsa..." Good questions: how do we know?! I submit that there's either a hole in the policy, or that we, and by that I mean "you", are misreading it. The idea or argument in question here is these people's citizenship, btw. But listen, considering that no one seems to question whether Bolivian Indians in a picture really are Bolivian citizens, instead of say, Ecuadorian, whereas they do in the case of white Mexicans, why not go the notables route? You can put away the issue once and for all that way. Just a suggestion. SamEV (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. In fact, you did misread the policy, because it actually states that the claims/info accompanying images ARE NOT exempt from WP:NOR: "Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the main text of the article. Great care should be taken not to introduce origninal research into an article when captioning images." SamEV (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're reading the policy wrong... or in other words I say "all images are original" you say "hole in the policy". Also, AFG is one of the "fundamental principls" of Wikipedia, so I'm surprised that you're ignoring it. If you like, we can get put a question in a proper place for the experts to chime in. As for the Indians, how do you know they're not in North Dakota or Alberta? And unfortunately I don't personally know any notable Mexicans, much less have access to a white one so I can take a picture of them... NJGW (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: p.s. I think we're reading this in very different ways... put a question on that policy page's talk section and see what happens. NJGW (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude, come on. It's pretty clear that the policy says 'no NOR exemption for captions'. Seriously, NJGW. IOW, I just showed there is no hole in the policy; you simply failed to see a certain part of the policy. This 'ignoring AGF' stuff won't do. If you want clarification for the policy, posting a question on its talk page seems like a good idea. Go ahead.

"As for the Indians, how do you know they're not in North Dakota or Alberta?" Er, that's my point exactly, man.

"And unfortunately I don't personally know any notable Mexicans, much less have access to a white one so I can take a picture of them..."

OK... I meant that you should use a picture of a notable Mexican, such as Vicente Fox. You don't have to know him personally in order to use an image of him in an article. SamEV (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that most of the pictures on Wikipedia need to be removed? Check out Johns Hopkins Blue Jays lacrosse. How do you know that image isn't of some kids playing in some jereys they bought at the store? It's the same exact issue. The image shows 2 people playing lacross, and one of them is in a Hopkins jersey and the other in a jersey of a team they play against. No original research is presented, only an original image. How about the first image at Test cricket? There's no way of verifying that the caption isn't lying about it being "a test match between South Africa and England in January 2005" other than by believing the photographer. To me the caption in this article wasn't over the line, but I've changed it to try to end the silly circle we're chasing eachother around. I placed a question at the OR noticeboard about the image itself, so hopefully someone will chime in to clarify the image policy in general. NJGW (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

NJGW, I don't know that those aren't non-Hopkins kids. And I don't know that that's really a South Africa vs England match. What do you think that proves, then? Suppose they aren't Johns Hopkins, and that it isn't a South Africa v England match. Then all you've succeeded in doing is identifying other NOR violations. Those are not my images, I don't have to vouch for them. If they violate policy that doesn't absolve you here. It means they'd have to go, too. If most WP image captions violate policy, that's a huge problem for WP to deal with, somehow. I'm here, commenting on this article. That's all.

But let me point out that the second image is from flicker.com AND has the geographical coordinates of the camera at the time the pic was taken. That info is on the image page. That would place the picture in the right place and time where the match was played. But that's as far as I'll go on that. They're not my images, and I won't cry for them if they're deleted on NOR violations.

But I'm now quite interested to find out what the reply might be to your question. I'm glad you posted it. I added my comment/question to it. SamEV (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Another user came out against the picture at the Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard. Do you still think that's not enough, NJGW? SamEV (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It’s quite amusing to see how such an extensive argument developed based solely on the pictures of those white “Mexican” girls. I find it interesting that this is being disputed and I wonder if the issue would have arisen if the girls were wearing an Argentinean soccer shirt. Statistically it’s quite reasonable to think that these girls are not part of the vast mestizo majority of Mexico, but at the same time it is not acceptable to discard the possibility that they, in fact, are part of the tiny white minority.
Now I see that the argument of some contributors has come down to the rule of “No original research”. But If we were to follow that logic, then, lots pictures in Wikipedia would have to be removed since at least some (if not most) are very hard to verify. That's a rather bootless task to accomplish specially when there are so many others with higher priority.
The OR argument is a slippery slope in the demographics section of any article. How do we establish the exact nationality of an unknown person? Do we use pictures from a reliable source such as a newspaper, website or magazine? Then could be risking violations in terms of copy rights. The only way I could see not violating any copy rights and while at the same time not being acussed of O.R. is if show pictures of only famous people. But, then again, that might not be a good representation sample.

Take a look at these pictures from the South American article. They would also amount as OR, as would most articles about demographics depicting races or ethnicities of a country. While I’m aware that Wikipedia strives for accuracy. I think it’s rather impractical and futile to attempt to establish with scientific exactitude the nationality of an unknow person.

Likeminas (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tiny White Population in Mexico? Mexico's White population is about 15%, so out of Mexico's 110 million people 16.5 million are white, so chances of seeing girls like this in many regions, especially in the north is not uncommon, now Chile ony has 5 million whites to Mexico's 15+ million.... so what is your argument? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Latin_American —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco (talk • contribs) 19:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know why you came up with the demographics of Chile, but well, let’s see.

Mexico’s has 15% white population out of 110 million.

Chile has 5 million whites out of a population of 16 million. That would be approx. 31% of the total population.

So yes, Mexico (with the exception of Bolivia) does have a proportionally small white population compared to other Latin American countries, especially if you compare it to southern South American countries such as Argentina, Uruguay, or Brazil.

However, that’s not my point and I’m sorry you missed it. All I wanted to say is that it’s rather impractical and futile to attempt to verify the nationality of people's pictures within the demographics section of any article, especially when these are portraits of unknowns.

Likeminas (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the questionable picture with one that’s both statistically more likely to be accurate and taken within the context of a local beauty contest in Uruguay. Picture information below:


Description: Colonia Valdense, Uruguay
Queen of the 12th Colonia Valdense Celebration
Source: self-made
Date: 09-12-2004
Author: Fercho85
Likeminas (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with you, Likeminas? You created a complete fiasco over spilled milk just because you can't bring yourself to believe that a couple of white girls in a picture are Mexican. If Latin Americans weren't so subconsciously obsessed about race and degrees of whiteness, this problem would probably would not have happened at all.--Unregistered user, 19 March 2009

All these controversies are stupid and biased. Of course the white population of Mexico is NOT tiny. The problem begins when we try to make black/white distinctions between white, mestizo and indigenous people. If we count the millions of Mexican mestizos of, say, 70-90% European ancestry and evident european features the porcentage of whites would be overwhelmingly higher (at least 30 or 40%). Most of the so-called white Chileans belong to this category. Another important point is that virtually all the images of Mexican people one sees in the media are mainly from Mexico City, which has a very large population of Mestizo/indigenous people. Rarely images from Monterrey or Guadalajara are displayed, that's the reason why people couldn't believe that these girls are infact Mexican (as far as I know they are from Guadalajara and they have indeed strong Guadalajaran features). Mexico is a very heterogeneous place and sometimes it looks more like a continent than a country-state.--Scandza (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Common sociopolitical history shared by Latin America and non-Latin neigbors???

I modified/replaced the following ERRONEOUS sentence:

Given that the non-Latin territories about the Caribbean share a common sociopolitical history with their Latin neighbours in the region, the term Latin America and the Caribbean may be used

My version is as follows:

Given the geographical proximity of the non-Latin territories about the Caribbean with their Latin neighbours in the region, the term Latin America and the Caribbean may be used

Obviously, the Wikipedist who wrote the former phrase doesn't know enough about Latin America -- I do know because I am a Latin American myself, but anyway I'll try to list a few more convincing reasons supporting my point:

1) Latin American countries typically abandoned their colonial status in the 1810s or 1820s -- the only exceptions are Dominican Republic (in the 1860s), Cuba (in 1898) and Puerto Rico. On the other hand, the non-Latin Caribbean neighbors achieved their Independence in the second half of the 20th century.

2) In Latin American countries the most popular religion is Roman Catholicism. On the other hand, in the non-Latin Caribbean neighbors, Roman Catholic majorities are the exception and not the rule.

3) In none of the Latin American countries the African population is the majority (unless you accept the controversial inclusion of Haiti). On the other hand, in the non-Latin Caribbean neighbors the African component is paramount.

4) All Latin American countries (except perhaps Costa Rica and Puerto Rico) have a long history of dictatorships extending since the independence until the 1980s. This is not the case in the non-Latin Caribbean neighbors.

5) All Latin American countries have a tradition of tolerance for racial/religious/sexual minorities; for example, homosexuality is legal in all Latin American countries, without exception; on the other hand, homosexuals are clandestine and segregated in almost all Anglo-Caribbean countries.

I think that these arguments are significant enough to demonstrate that there is no common sociopolitical history shared by Latin America and non-Latin neigbors, therefore the expression Latin America and the Caribbean is due to geographical proximity.

Sebasbronzini (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sebasbronzini, are you 186.18.9.96? If so, please do not edit as an anon IP, if not my apologies. You make a good point. I've previously reverted that change, not because I disagreed, but because I asked for a source. Can you provide one? Than you. The Ogre (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am 186.18.9.96, sorry for my anonymous edition -- As for the source, my answer is the following: since there is no common sociopolitical history shared by Latin America and non-Latin neigbors (this is clear if you read the five points above), then the reason for the Latin America and the Caribbean label must be geographical proximity. It's just common sense, and I didn't see the need for a source on that. Anyway, I'll try to find a source, unless another wikipedist comes out with a better explanation for the Latin America and the Caribbean label. Sebasbronzini (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly valid point Sebasbronzini!

Sebasbronzini good point man. Non-Latin Caribbean countries have way more difference than similarity with Latin countries. Even Haiti, which is considered a Latin country despite its strong African-descended population bears much more similarity with other Latin countries than non-Latin Caribbean countries culturally speaking such as having a Roman Catholic majority, achieving independence in the 1800s (in fact Haiti was the first Latin country to do so in 1804), run by dictatorships for most of its history and the like. Fact of the matter is that Latin America should have its own article separate from the Caribbean.

User:Spyder00Boi|Spyder00Boi]] (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Homicide Rate

What I don't understand is how is Homicide the principal cause of death in Mexico when the homicide rate is ony 10%? The article is poorly sourced, there are atleast 5 other latin american countries with a higher rate then Mexico? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_rate Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read WP:CIRCULAR? If you did, you're probably well aware that you cannot use WP as a source itself. Please also read WP:V as articles, especially from entities such as the UN are reliable and more than accetable.

Please refraim from deleting them.

Likeminas (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, now it's no so poorly source because I added a report from the United nations delevopment fund for women dated 2007.

Likeminas (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Find me a recent source that states that Mexico has a homicide rate of 25% and i'll leave your edits alone, but for now please see the fallowing sources http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A//www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sv.pdf http://www.icesi.org.mx/documentos/estadisticas/estadisticas/denuncias_homicidio_doloso_1997_2006.pdf Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Finding is your job if you're disputing the sources. The first source you list is from 2001-2002, the ones I provided are 2004 and 2007 respectively.

The second source talks only about Mexico and not Latin America as whole like the reports from the World Bank and UN do.

I want to assume good faith from you, but it seems to me that you’re over zealous about protecting the image of your country. I hope I’m wrong about that.

Likeminas (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you have to get all personal about my intentions, that shouldn't matter to you, we all use Wikipedia for our own reasons, which shouldn't matter to you, I'm sure you have your own hidden agenda, we are all biased, I know you love you Chile, and you should, just don't judge me. Anyways, I'll keep searching for other more recent sources regarding the matter and will get back to you. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree we're all biased to a certain degree. However, the trick here is to try not bring that bias into Wikipedia. While, that might be hard to accomplish it is certainly not impossible.

Having said that, I apologize if my remarks were taken as judgment on your intentions.

Likeminas (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

White Chile

I don't know who is the user who keeps including Chile as a "white" country. It's incredible that somebody erases Chile, then a few days the name of the country is back again. There are no sources that claim Chile is predominantly "white". The census there count mestizos and whites together. It makes no sense. Others claim 30% is white, which is not majority either. Opinoso (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not the census that counts mestizos and whites together. It's the CIA world factbook. The Chilean census doesn't not ask anything about ethnicity (aside from personal indigenous identification).

It's not the census that counts mestizos and whites together. It's the CIA world factbook that does that. The Chilean census doesn't not ask anything about ethnicity (aside from personal indigenous identification). I don’t know if you read Spanish but as per Lizcano

Los países que más criollos contienen son Brasil (51%),

Argentina (17%) y, con casi 15 millones, México (8%); en tanto que Colombia y Chile tienen en torno a 8 millones cada uno, así como Perú,

Venezuela, Cuba, Costa Rica y Uruguay entre 3 y 4 millones.

[13]

Translation

The countries with the most Criollo people are Brazil (51%), Argentina (17%) and, with almost 15 million, Mexico (8%); whereas Colombia and Chile have around 8 million each, as well as Peru, Sees and Venezuela, Cuba, Costa Rica and Uruguay with between 3 and 4 million.

The Chilean population is 16 m. out of which 8 million are criollo, which makes it about 50% of the total population. Brazil is listed with a similar percentage. Should we remove it as well? Likeminas (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Brazilian figure is based on the national census. If there is no "racial" census in Chile, then the figure is based on what? How can people know the percentage of whites in Chile if there's no census? Opinoso (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know and I personally don't care. What matters here is what the sources say.Likeminas (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You should care. Because there are sources claiming 30% of Chile is White. If there are different informations about a subject, then one of them must be wrong. And if there are no census in Chile, then these racial figures came from nowhere. And also, everybody who went to Chile know that no way 50% of the population is White. Not even in Brazil the figure is so high, and Brazil has many more whites than Chile, because the European immigration to Chile was minimal, when compared to Brazil.

We cannot trust any source. We have to be carefull. If Chile has no census, then it is has no racial figures. That's the point. The source must be reliable to be acceptable. Opinoso (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If there are sources listing a wide array of numbers for a stat, then, as per WP:NPOV all of them should be listed. That's why sometimes you see the white population of Chile represented in a range (i.e;30-50%).

What you and I think or claim to know about the demographics of any country is irrelevant here. So let's just save that for the bar.

In any case, I agree with removing Chile from the predominately white statement, but removing it altogether, while using the source posted above, is not an accurate representation of the information therein. Perhaps, it could go within the line and are also a significant demographic group in Brazil, Cuba and Puerto Rico....Likeminas (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"We cannot trust any source. We have to be carefull. If Chile has no census, then it is has no racial figures. That's the point. The source must be reliable to be acceptable."

In the case of Chile, only, I suppose. Because in [White Brazilian], Opinoso thinks that the "information" that there are 25,000,000 "Italian Brazilians" and 12,000,000 (!) Arab Brazilians should be kept, albeit the Brazilian census does not ask for that information. Lol. 200.198.196.129 (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Languages

Since the article is about an area where Romance languages are spoken, the pre-Columbian languages mentioned in the infobox should be delineated from the other Romance ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.208.140 (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)