Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas

A request from WarriorsPride6565
I couldn't log on to my WarriorsPride6565 account. I got an new computer but I can't remember my password or email-address but anyway I would like to add this piece of important information, please do not prevent the truth. Allow to add this please->" They are also related to the Amerindians. Blood tests made upon today's Ainu reveal Mongoloid ties."

Book: Proto-religions in Central Asia. Author: Charles Graves, Universitätsverlag Dr. Norbert Brockmeyer, 1994 - History - 223 pages

Link---> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qTFuAAAAMAAJ&q=Proto-Mongoloid+amerindians&dq=Proto-Mongoloid+amerindians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dEW8T7adKpPR8QONpsk2&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBg - 94.175.118.39 (talk) 3:05, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

Newly added top level tags
IMO the newly added top level tags are not useful and IMO as a minimum are going to need some specifics in order to stay. One tag says "needs more citations" on an article that has 312 references and about 350 cites. And a "may need to be rewritten" on large article built by over 8,000 edits over 18 years is going to need (instead) something more specific. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about the newly added tags as well. @Moxy, I notice that you added the tags earlier this month. Which specific areas - such as a paragraph or section that needs to be cited? Have you read the citations to see whether the information may be contained therein, and just needs to have an existing citation added to the things you are questioning? Also, what specifically do you think needs to be rewritten? It's hard to know what improvements you think are needed without that specificity. Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you had a syntax problem pinging  North8000 (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We have whole section after section recently copy and pasted from all over with no sources....the mass copy pasting has also created mass overlinking, duplication of information and has left the article in multiple tones. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 22:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Moxy, any idea which editor may have done the mass copy pasting? I'm wondering if it would be worth it to ask that person if they would be willing to either clean it up, or let us know which sources they were using. Hope the ping work this time, I guess something was up with ReplyLink. Thanks for your quick response. Netherzone (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tags without looking at this., maybe just remove the problomatic sections? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Whole sections without sources ....why was this removed??? Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 23:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you remove the sections you're complaining about, Moxy? oncamera  (talk page) 19:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be half the article.....will work on this on the weekend. I'm not a fan of transclusions but I'm thinking it maybe worthwhile here. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 22:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
— Assignment last updated by Bbalicia (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03
— Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of estimate
Is there a reason why we should use the census data for Colombia rather than a more recent estimate that takes into account the various ethnic groups of the country? I am just curious on why you remove the estimates and replace it even though many of the other estimates on this same page use non-census data for this due to the censuses undercounting indigenous populations. Id like to know. Zaquezipe (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The figures provided are nowhere to be found in the linked source, the question you should be asking is why is that. Only after you figure that out is that the rest of your concerns become relevant. I'm not doing your homework, the information is there, if you want to quote it do it properly. When I'm directed to missing info by shitty lazy references I replace them with existing good ones. 2001:1388:19:433:4909:4913:ED84:30C7 (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that due to the way the website functions, I am unable to link it directly to it, I have already discussed this with another user and we agreed to use the cite but instead clarify where it comes from. The Colombian Census is known to undercount minority populations, given the discrepancy between the 1960 Colombian census where only 1% of Colombians were counted as indigenous to 2018 were more than 4% are counted as indigenous and the 2005 census which counted 10% of the population as being Afro-Colombian to the 2018 census which only counts it as 6%. It’s been a known issue within the country and the latinobarometro cited help provide deeper explanation into the demographics of Colombia. Latinobarometro consistently measures more than 4% of Colombians being indigenous and 6% of Colombians being Afro Colombian every year. I see no reason why this one can’t be used over one that is known to undercount the population, just like with Ecuadors number that doesn’t use Census data but rather estimations, same can be said for many of them. Zaquezipe (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's the link, I don't see what's the problem, does it expire?
 * https://www.latinobarometro.org/LATDC/DC00716/F00017035-Latinobarometro_2023_Colombia_v1_0.pdf
 * I'd encourage you to do (proper) references for every country to replace the stock CIA Factbook ones in the Demography section, maybe I will as well... eventually 2001:1388:19:433:4909:4913:ED84:30C7 (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The link does not work, it has been talked with another user and we have agreed to link the homepage, the only accessible page from what I see. The percentages only accounted for specific ethnic groups in which I cited. I suggest to do similar to what has been done with Mexico and have a range rather than a single number, with the highest range or 9.5% and the lowest range or 4.4% being used, that way both the census estimate and the most recent estimate are used. Zaquezipe (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How is the link not working? Does it direct you to an error 403 or 404 page or is it downloading the pdf instead of opening it in the browser? If it's the latter I'd say it's working fine.
 * Doing ranges sounds good to me, as long as they are confined to the Demography Section, Mexico is a unique case in the infobox in that both of its figures come from the same official source (the census). 2001:1388:19:433:4909:4913:ED84:30C7 (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It gives me a 403 error (403 - Prohibido: acceso denegado.
 * No tiene permiso para ver este directorio o esta página con las credenciales que ha proporcionado.) Thats what happened with the other user and the reason we had to link the main page instead. I agree to place it in the demography section. Zaquezipe (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can do what I did with Saint Lucia, adding instruction on how generate a report, something like
 * Go to Online Analysis > STEP 1: Select 2023 survey > STEP 2 Select all > Select "Analyze" > Select "Democracy" > Select "A_011 Desigualdad" > Select "What ethnicity or race do you identify best with?" 2001:1388:19:433:4909:4913:ED84:30C7 (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, do you think the highest estimate should be included? The estimate from 2018, or the same year as the census. Indigenous Colombians are estimated to be 10.4% of the population, that way the entire range of indigenous Colombians is represented within the demography section. Zaquezipe (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you're getting that number from, for 2018 Colombia it says 9.4%. I'd go with the most recent (2023) estimate. 2001:1388:19:346E:B8EE:6419:975D:EB1C (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The official numbers don’t include people who didn’t answer, only those who chose a specific category or other race. As included here. https://ibb.co/Rb7mFqX Zaquezipe (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no "official" numbers, just numbers that can be acceded through their website (either through the database or the pdf) and original research using statistic tools 2001:1388:19:346E:B8EE:6419:975D:EB1C (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I meant from the available numbers Zaquezipe (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am just asking if I can use the 10.4% to show the highest estimate or if the current should stay Zaquezipe (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see a 10.4% being available, it's unavailable 2001:1388:19:346E:B8EE:6419:975D:EB1C (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It says it in Analysis online > 2018 Colombia > Raza/etnia que pertenece > Excluir no respuesta, which is typically done for Latinobarómetro studies to get the most accurate info. Zaquezipe (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. Do you know if the Colombian census excluded those who didn't answer when calculating their indigenous percentages? They'd have had to be excluded from the total population, being a census, I don't think that's how they do things. 2001:1388:19:346E:B8EE:6419:975D:EB1C (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of the population in Colombia didn’t answer in the 2018 census, being 90% of the population, with only 4% identifying as indigenous and 6% identifying as Afro Colombian. However with the case of latinobarometro, people who didn’t respond are the minority and usually excluded when added on Wikipedia to show the full scope. As for the case of the numbers on the indigenous Colombians page at Indigenous peoples in Colombia. I suggest a possible range from 4.31-10.4% of the indigenous population as is said there Zaquezipe (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you are mistaking participation in the census with not answering a specific question (while participating in it). If methodological concerns are not an issue then I don't see a reason to use 2018 data, might as well go with the latest available. 2001:1388:19:346E:B8EE:6419:975D:EB1C (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant to type 9.3% 2001:1388:19:346E:B8EE:6419:975D:EB1C (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

2001:1388:19:433:4909:4913:ED84:30C7 I propose considering the use of the 11.8 million estimate for indigenous Mexicans instead of the 11.8–23 million estimate on this page. The 11.8 million figure is widely used by the government and the general public in Mexico, making it a more commonly cited statistic. It is worth noting that Mexico is the only country on the list that provides a range rather than an exact number for its indigenous population. In a similar vein, the Mexican 2015 Intercensus counted both partially indigenous and indigenous peoples as indigenous, which might explain the larger estimate. However, the current estimate focuses on full-blooded indigenous peoples, aligning with the specific scope of this page. By using the 11.8 million figure, we can provide a more precise and commonly accepted statistic for the indigenous population in Mexico. As for the United States, something similar was done in which previously, a 9 million self-identification estimate was used including both indigenous and partially indigenous peoples, however, it was changed to the version we have now to only include full blooded indigenous peoples, in the Spanish page Mexico wasn’t given a range but rather a specific number of 11.8 million where it was specified what the number represented. I don’t see why the same can’t be done for Mexico in the English page instead of having a range, the range should be left to their respective pages rather than on the list. Here are cites where indigenous Mexicans are defined. Its best if we only have one specific estimate rather than a range, the range can be kept for the indigenous peoples of Mexico page rather than this page. PedroDonasco (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I disagree, a range is more appropriate for this topic. And it is provided by the Mexican government. Even if you are correct and the 11,800,000 figure represents full blooded indigenous Mexicans it is still appropriate to include the upper range that includes partial indigenous people in this page especially. Zaquezipe (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's already a lengthy discussion about this, people come to wikipedia to learn more about a subject, not to conform with what's "common" knowledge (statistics rarely are other than total pop) or what their governments tell them (in case of some dictatorships) 2001:1388:19:346E:B8EE:6419:975D:EB1C (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)