Talk:White Latin Americans/Archive 1

White Hispanic or White Latin American
This article has changed names from White Hispanic to White Latin American...while I feel the latter is used correctly, I feel most people use the term Hispanic when refering to 'the people that come from Latin America'. The phrase Non-Hispanic White is used for White people without ancestors from Spain or Latin America,...I think we should change it back to White Hispanic...it is correct to say they are Latin American, but for most people...it's Hispanic. Why wouldn't they put Non-Latin American White? I think many people have a hard time accepting that there are indeed 'White Hispanics' and by using 'White Latin American', it further alienates the term white from Hispanic...I'd like to hear other opinions. Thank You! --Cali567 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I started a new White Hispanic article. It's only a stub at this point. I still have some misgivings on whether it is necessary, though. SamEV 03:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering why we have to have two groups under different names for the same ethnic groupings? Is one for Americans (Hispanic) and one for the rest of the World (Latin Americans)? I agree with the info. on the White Hispanic article, I'm just wondering. Thank You. --Cali567 21:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Because they're not the same ethnic group, just as Asian American is not synonymous with Asian, for example. One descends from the other, but that doesn't make them identical. SamEV 00:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Argentinian Jews and Irish-Argentinians or Italian-Argentinians are Hispanic cause they speak Spanish, now Brazilians who are Portuguese, Italian, German, Spaniard, Slav, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Dutch, Scandinavian, Jew or Arab speak Portuguese, a neo-latin romance language.


 * Italian-Americans and French-Canadians are White, American and Latin.


 * Well, I can see where you're coming from..but I don't think in reality they are that different. As a person from such a country I am either Hispanic or Latin American. Most of the English readers here are from the U.S. In the U.S. we don't differentiate between these two very much. In a way I think people will get confused. There will never be a complete distinction...it just won't happen. They are apart of the same group. It's no different from being called Hispanic when you may be a Mestizo...then what about this: You may have the culture, but what if you don't speak Spanish? --Cali567 00:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I don't make the rules. There is an official distinction made by the U.S. government, which doesn't negate the Hispanicness of people in Latin America. In fact, it's b/c of their Hispanic heritage that the term is used in the U.S. for those of Latin American ancestry. To try to lump a third generation American from New York in the same basket as a rural Colombian just won't go. They're citizens of different countries, have different cultures, different histories, different attitudes, may speak different languages (third gen often don't even speak Spanish), etc. Hence different terms are needed. SamEV 03:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To be quite honest, I mostly meant that we are not different racially...culture is something very different, I'm sure you know. I think it should at least be clarified on each of the pages that they are the same group...just different 'backgrounds'...by the way, I know you don't make the rules. I think this could have been avoided if you just created another page for White Latin Americans, instead of changing White Hispanic into it. I will say both pages sem to be correct anyway. Best of luck --Cali567 01:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Different backgrounds is enough. I'll try again: there are separate articles for, say, Italian people and for Italian Americans, even though they're the same racially (originally anyway). Their 'backgrounds' merit that separate treatment. SamEV 03:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hispanic is a person who speaks Spanish or has full/partial Spanish blood. Latin is a person who has full or partial Latin blood or speaks a Romance language, such as (but not limited to) Romanian, Italian, Portuguese, French and Spanish. Count Dracula was Latin!


 * Check out these articles, please: Hispanic, Latino and Latin peoples. SamEV 09:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Chile
Add Chile to the list considering that there are a high population of English, German and Galician Spanish Chileans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.142.24.192 (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Considering that Chile officially has no white people but instead has 'white and mestizo' people - due to their being combined as one census category - maybe Chile doesn't belong at all! But what the heck... SamEV 11:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is odd considering that Chile has a high proportion of German Chileans in the South. Pretty much everyone in Southern Chile has a German, Irish, or English last name. Have you ever seen the movie Machuca? The whole movie is about the white/amerindian split in Chilean society.


 * Spanish and Italians, too. You answered my next question, which was, is racism so bad in Chile that they have to seek unity by this pretense? I think that just sweeps the racial problems under the rug.
 * No, haven't seen the movie. I'll try to, then. SamEV 02:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse. Instead of addressing the differences in race and understanding it, the government seeks to unite Chileans by using a sort of noble lie. Not to say that there arent a significant number of mixed Chileans. There are. But that there is also a HIGHER significant number of white Chileans too.


 * Let me say that the figures I'm used to seeing were 66% mestizo, 25% white, 5% indian. So, while certainly in the minority by these numbers, that's still 4 million white Chileans. That's about the same as the population of Ireland, last time I checked. (I'll check again ... yep, 4 million it is). And again, honesty is the best policy, so yes, Chile should address race with genuine openness, not with tricks. SamEV 06:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What I have learned that whiteness in Latin America is more fluid than it is rigid. It is more about perception than anything . That is probably why countries like Chile and Costa Rica make White and Mestizo as one category on the census. It is about degree of racial whiteness; it is a spectrum. Just like white Americans who have indigenous or black blood are still white, Chileans who have indigenous blood are "White/Mestizo" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.83.73 (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Chileans do that in order to create a National Identity. You can exclude the non powerfull native americans but if you exclude the mestizos, you will for sure have social problems. It's just a way the whte elite managed to say that "we are all the same, there is no prejudices" and simultaneously consider the mestizos as less white and as so, less Chileans. The concept is the following: There are Native Americans, and Chileans, wich are implicitly white. If you are mestzo, you don't have to do a revolution to rule your own country, you're Chilean too but remember, you are not as Chilean as I am, and as so I will continue to be richer and more powerfull than you, it's legitimate once I am more Chilan than you. Though you're Chilean! Just not as much as I am... the country is ours, isn't that wonderfull?

There is no such "White / Mestizo" category in the Chilean census. They census only asks if you consider yourself a part of a number of Native American ethnic groups. If you say no, then you are just not part of a Native American group, period, and you are not classified further. ☆ CieloEstrellado 05:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures
It seems a bit odd that you'd change the picture of Fox for Ricky Martin...after all of that talk about chile being so Germanic, you'll switch a part German ex-President (Fox was Fuchs before they changed it) for a Puerto Rican singer whom many in America think of as "brown"....? C.Kent87 02:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ricky Martin is white. Americans cannot even tell the difference between a southern european and an amerindian. I would NEVER use thier concept of "white" because their view is tainted by the "one drop rule". They assume that white only means blonde haired and blue eyed or any Anglo/Nordic derived equivalent. They dont even recognize the Mediterranean sub-culture as a "white", even though it is. Whats ironic is that many Americans claim to have Native blood but still consider themselves white and then they turn around and claim that certain Southern Europeans are not white along with many Creole Latin Americans like Ricky Martin. What they fail to take note of is that many creoles like Alexis Bledel, Carlos Ponce and Mexican Director Guillermo Del Toro are probably more "white" then they are by thier own flawed standards.

This site should feature white Latin Americans of all stripes from fair, medium to olive skin, from Alexis Bledel to Andy Garcia to Gael Garcia Bernal. We shouldnt have to incorrectly narrow the true definition of white to an American standard. White Hispanic is not an oxy moron.


 * Good points, you make. SamEV 06:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think 'White Hispanic' is left open for interpretation, so don't shoot me down for using an 'American' viewpoint...fist of all, I'm a "White Latin American", and I'm sorry if his brown skin causes me to think he's brown...which he is. I don't think Americans are dumb enough to confuse an Amerindian with a Mediterranean, though there may be some (but that's another subject). Whites, I know, aren't limited to Nordic types...and don't label Americans with anything because everywhere you go there are preconceptions...not only in America. I will however agree with the "Whites having Amerindian blood" thing.....I think this is something that we have to work on, because to get a huge lecture about Latino 'whiteness' when asking a simple question...is a little much. A chip on ones shoulder is never good. C.Kent87 04:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I still dont see how you see Ricky Martin as "brown". He is a bit tan, but his features are very European. He is olive skinned.

Hi, I actually changed the picture because even though i thought the Mexican president was a good photo, i thought id change the subject alittle and changed it to the R-Martin one..even though it may not be the best photo of him its good enough and if he is what some americans think of as being brown ,then they just have to compare him with some Spanish bullfighters and so on....i shouldnt need to explain.but there you go. I would use other or more pics of other people that repsresent the subject but its hard to get pics that are free to use too.

I can not understand how some Amricans think of Ricky Martin as brown but count Steven Seagle as white. For those ignorant guys, being white/brown it's all about being born in right or wrong side of the border. Ricky Martin is 100 times whiter than Steven Seagle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.95.237 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did it take this long to address the notion of White Hispanics?
It seems that lately there has been a upsurge in addressing the concerns of White Latinos. For years now our darker skinned brothers have been in the limelight taking full charge of the labels given to us by the Americans; Hispanic/Latino. Yet, as of late the White Hispanic has likewise been vocal about the diversity in the Latino culture constantly reminding the Americans that Latino is not a race, but a culture composing of different races. Maybe its because TRUE Hispanic culture is seeping into the United States with the surge in the Hispanic population. I mean in our mother countries, no one considers themselves racially latino. They use the same standards the rest of the world uses: black, white, amerindian, mestizo, mullato, asian. Is it me, or is logic catching up with the Americans and their attempts to group a diverse culture into one label for the sake of cementing a voting bloc? And also how in the world did this concept seem to just escape the attention of the Americans when we constitute for ONE THIRD of the continent! Lets discuss this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.254.205.3 (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC).


 * The truth is definitely catching up: Latinos are diverse! No need to tip toe around it in pursuit of unity.
 * I'd say this diversity was easy to miss for most Americans due to: the fact that most Latin Americans and Latinos are not white; the fact that most white Latin Americans and Latinos are of the Mediterranean types, whose whiteness has been challenged by the dominant nordicist outlook in the US; and lastly by Americans' widespread acceptance of the one drop theory, as the poster above said, where in it doesn't matter what a person's actual race is, only whether they have a drop of non-whiteness. But that theory is pretty much dead or dying fast. SamEV 06:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing that is stranger is that there isnt this unity within our own mother countries like there is in the US. I believe its because in our own countries the Creole population usually has control of the media and politics so they determine the outcome of their demographics and dont have to tip toe around Political Correctness like we do in the United States. So in Latin American countries people are not going around saying that they're racially latino but address themselves as Afro-Latino, Mestizo, and Blanco. Americans in the US have to accept the fact that we're as diverse as they are and that Anglos arent the only whites in the country. I think it makes them a bit uncomfortable knowing that a white person can be into such things as mambo, salsa, and a festive culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.248.172.10 (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Ha! A sense of humor about this stuff, good for you.
 * Good description about of the situation in Latin America, too. At this stage, they're decades behind the US in terms of respect for all people, of all races. Hope it doesn't take half a century to catch up. SamEV 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

To the first guy, Hispanic culture is not a culture of many races, it is a purely WHITE CULTURE!!! It is the culture developed by the people who have lived and ar living in ancient Hispania. That culture is the PORTUGUESE and SPANISH (with all its sub Nations) cultures. Those cultures are Latin, Atlantic and Mediterranean. But they are European cultures, white European cultures. If you are a white latin american you should have known what your culture is. Hispanic or Iberian Culture is a blend of three main cultures; Celtic, Roman-Latin and Christian, conjugated in a greater context of an European Civilisation. Minor influences have been the Arab-Berbers muslims (this yes, non white, but their cultural and genetic contribute is minimum) and in the Meditterranean coast the Iberian and Tartessic cultures (very few surived of this cultures). So unless you culture ain't Hispanic, it is an all white European culture. That's because declerations like that that some distracted persons can not see you, white latin americans, because you seem to have merged your WHITE EUROPEAN HISPANIC CULTURE with the natives and negroes (inferior) cultures. The Americans strongly identify themselves with Anglo-Saxon European culture. But it is difficult to be only 33% of a population and be the only culture, after all. The non white latin americans onsider themselves a blend of European and others culture and they are the majority... so your culture may indeed be of diferent races. And as so not Hispanic. All this concepts may be hard to understand, that's why North Americans stereotypese you, white latin americans. DS2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.95.237 (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The problem is that White Latin Americans can simply merge into the overall American culture and be indistinguishible unless they have an overtly latin name like Gonzalez or Perez.  Also, since the beginning of the 20th century, many notable White Latin Americans have changed their name (Rita Hayworth, etc.).  As a White Latin American myself, I worked in a company in Minnesota for 4 years before someone heard me speaking Spanish to my mother on the phone and freaked out when I told her I was Cuban.  Of course, the infamous "...but... you're white! you have green eyes... you don't look Cuban!" phrases came out.  Of course.. my response was:  "Yes, I look Cuban.  This is what many Cubans look like"206.212.89.240 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fox
What? Ricky Martin is white in ALL Latin American countries. I just dont understand what peoples perception of white is these days? Ricky Martin has significant Southern European features. To me being non-white in Latin America is having signigicant Indegenous or African blood to where it does not make you look European. Like Benjamin Bratt or George Lopez. But Ricky Martin is white. Now in the United States is where white is screwed up because to them white means Nordic and only Nordic. Even they have a trouble labeling Italians as white but only do because they've lived here for so long and became Americanized. So I would NEVER trust an Anglo-American's definition of white because they are so racially deranged in keeping their socio-economic status alive.70.248.172.10


 * Anglo Americans are not "racially deranged" as you put it. Italians are accepted as white in the United States, as are Greeks, Jews, Spaniards, etc... As a U.S. citizen, I can say that there are really TWO (or more) groups of whites in the U.S. The largest group is the so-called "Anglo" Americans, which includes British, Irish, German, and other north-western European groups. There is also the "ethnic whites" who include Jews, Greeks, Slavs, Hispanics, etc... The fundamental difference is that by and large, "Anglos" have been here much longer, and have fewer ties to their "mother countries." Ethnic whites, on the other hand, tend to have more exotic names and traditions, and have more ties to their ancestral countries (still speak the language, celebrate the holidays, etc...) Most Americans have a hard time understanding the concept of white in Latin America, because our familiarily lies primarily with Mexico, which has a large mestizo minority. Also, most Latin Americans in the United States identify themselves as "Latinos" and not as whites, even though they may be. However, regardless of what Americans consider white to be, people of significant European or other Mediterrenean-area descent in Latin America would be white by anyone's standard. DBQer 20:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people from the South of Mediterranean would not pass as white for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.95.237 (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is idiotic. Although you are correct that many people in southern Europe show definite arab or moorish features, you should know that in genetic terms, arabs (including berbers and middle easterners) are considered caucasian.  Also, people who live in sunny warmer climates tend to be darker even after only a few hundred years.  Being pale skinned, blue eyed and blonde is not a pre-requisite for being white.  That's just one type of caucasian.206.212.89.240 (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey fellow! Don't mix these two concepts: White is not the same as Caucasian.. many Caucasians are not white despite the fact that every white person is Caucasian. Also, have you ever been to Southern Europe? I don't think so. In Southern Iberia and in Southern Italy, people look more like their Northern counterparts than with Africans or Asians non white Caucasoids. If you go to Southern Spain/Portugal, southern France or Sicily you will easily spot the North African from the general population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.100.190 (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

CIA WORLD FACT BOOK
CIA WORLD FACT BOOK as you all can see the CIA world fact book is incorrect in some demographycs for example mexico they dont have a census in ethnic groups so the white population of mexico is unknown.

You know what, i totally agree with you anonimous person, because i have been to several parts of mexico mainly the north like monterrey, and chihuahua and from my own MEX. experience almost every mexican i saw in these places where white with dark hair and dark eyes, similar to the people of southern europe which i have visited too. And about 5.8 to 5.10 feet tall pretty avarage to me, and the CIA world factbook has to be wrong because they dont even go and make genetic studies and census of mexico for racial origins and how can they even give an exact number they are so stupid, and i bet you most of those CIA people have not even been to mexico, i would say the population of mexicans that are white or at least look white is probably half of mexico's population, and as i mentioned before, if most of you think im wrong because you think white people have to have blonde hair and light colour eyes and that is why you think most mexicans are not white, well think again because mexican whites are of the southern european type and therefore they have dark hair and dark eyes but very fair skin, and this is probably at most, i would say half of the people in mexico and that is why i too disagree with the CIA world factbook.

I am curious, the CIA fact book states that the USA is 81.7% white 12.9% black, 4.2% Asian, and 2% others? This adds up to about 100%, what happened to all the Mexicans, and Hispanics? Are they saying that ones a Mexican crosses over the border he or she becomes white? that makes no sense. At what percentage does a mestizo become white, 50%, 75%, or 90%. According to the U.S census if a Mexican marks Mexican on the U.S Census, he or she will be classified as white. This leads to my final question, shouldn’t then most Mexicans be classified white, according to the CIA? Finally, I have been to several parts in Mexico and I have noticed that many, or the majority of Mexicans in central Mexico look whiter than Italians, French and middle eastern, which are classified as white everywhere. A large percentage of the Argentinean population has Amerindian mixture, doesn't that make them Mestizo's? Any ways, we will never know for sure until a large genetic sample is taken. At the end we will only find out that we are all Homo sapiens.

Argentna is way mor wwhite than Mexico, Mexico's 10% white seems to be the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.95.237 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Mexican" and "Hispanic" is not a race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.89.240 (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Mexican is indeed not a race. Hispanic, otherwise is referent to the Hispanic or Iberian European peoples, people from Southwest Europe, people from the today countries of Portugal and Spain. According to Coon, he found many similarities between this (European) Hispanic people that could make them a "race" under some defenitions: According to Coon, this people's skin is 10% Pinkish white (as in Northern Europe); 45% burnette whte (a middle term) and 45% light brown (as the 20% lightest North Africans). Hair colour: 40% brown, 30% black, 20% light brown, 10% blond He also noted that the ighter types are more frequent in the North and especially in the Northwest and that the darker types are mmuch more dominant in the South and in the Southeast. So, Hispanic is a white European Aryan race of people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.100.190 (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The biggest group of white latin americans are the italians
28 millions in Brazil; 16 millions in Argentina; 2 millions In Uruguay; 2 millions in Venezuela; other 2 million between Colombia, mexico and Chile. Total 50 millions!

How can you prove all these Italian-descendants are Whites? Many of the Italian immigrants have married with non-Whites local Latin Americans.

Most White Latin Americans are those of Spanish or Portuguese ancestry. Opinoso 23:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely to be white you just need some white blood not 100%, one drop theory and all that, I would agree that the Portuguese are larger and the Spanish larger still as a white Latin American group though what we would need anyway is sources, SqueakBox 18:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Is simple. In Argentina and Uruguay the averange of populaation is white. So, also the italians. In Brazil the italians live in the south (santa catarina, rio grande do sul), and all the population in this part of Brazil is white. In Venezuela probably are mixed, but i am not sure, becouse i know italo-venezuelan, and i have been 2 times, but all the italians were whites. Ps. In Brazil the portuguese are mixed with blacks and indios becouse they arrived centuries before the italians. And the mestizaje was a political way of colonization


 * This is a stupid remark. Spaniard, Portuguese, Italians and other Europeans would not have segregated from each other since they all are white. You are again stying to take the "whiteness" away from the Portuguese and Spanish. In fact, Spaniards are a "whiter" race than italialians with a much higher prevelance of blondes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/Map_of_skin_hue_equi3.png

I agree. I dont know why most people think that Spaniards are darker than Italians? It is generally known in Europe that Spaniards are the usually the second "lightest" in Southern Europe after the French.

The French got 'lighter' because of the Vikings. This is typically how blondes in southern Europe came to be. You guys are trying to rewrite history in order to fit yourselves into a white catagory. If you are not even in the US, why do you want it so badly?

Ok, HI, as panamenian of italian descent I can tell you for sure that my family from southern italy is pretty white as my grandfather, my aunt and many of my cousins are blond and with blue/green eyes. PS. I have many friends from spain who are as white as the nordics.


 * That map does not prove that Spaniards are lighter than Italians. First of all, unlike North America where a greater number of Italians were southerners, the largest sources of Italian immigrants to Latin America was the Veneto, Liguria, and Piedmont...they are definitely lighter than an Andalusian. And yes, Italians are the largest white group in Latin America with more than 40 million members. I like some justify that many Italians married into Amerindian, thus losing their whiteness. That is the dumbest thing I have heard. Has anyone heard of "mestizo". They are the majority in Latin America and are predominantly Spaniard and Native mixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.154.247 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the whiter South Europeans are the Serbians. In the West, the whiter South Europeans are the North Wester Iberians, that is the Galicians of Spain (which are of the same ethniv group as the Portuguese) and the Potuguese of Minho and Douro Litoral: http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/214-the-blonde-map-of-europe/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.95.237 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well according to the map, it is merely a blonde map not a colour map. I think someone from the Veneto, Friuli and Trento is fairer than someone from Portugal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.154.247 (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in Southern Europe, being of fair skin is highly related to sun expousure. So the less Sun you get, the whiter you will be. I thought fair meant being blond/blue eyed or something following that stereotype.


 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/Map_of_skin_hue_equi3.png

this map clearly show that northern italians have fair skin like germans and britons, not that the spaniards are more white than italians ! and anyway this is a serious map of pigmentation in europe :

http://aycu29.webshots.com/image/39908/2003854802501020027_rs.jpg

as you can see the italians are the more fair southern european and if you want more proof have a look :

http://www.vitalgraphics.net/ozone/graphics/jpg/04-Skin-color-map_cl.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Passing_of_the_Great_Race_-_Map_4.jpg

there isn't one single anthropologist who said that iberians are more white than italians, just some troll on internet... anyway i want say you that italy is populated by 60 milions of person, northern italians are more than 30 milions and southern italians less than 17 milions ...caused by the immigrations of milions of sicilians ,calabrians and neapolitans during the '900 ! Bye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaiusCrastinus (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Italians as a whole are indeed lighter than the European Hispanics. But the maps presented here are nonsense! Southern Hispanics are the sme s Southern Italians, Central Hispanics are the same as Central Italians and Northern Hispanics are the same as Northern Italians. Here comes some estmitives of blond hair in some Southwestern European cities:

Turin = 22% Milan = 20% Braga = 20% Oporto = 18% Bilbao = 18% Genoa = 17% Florence = 14% Barcelona = 14% Bologne = 14% Zaragoza = 13% Rome = 10% Madrid = 9% Lisbon = 8% Napoli = 8% Seville = 8% Malaga = 8% Bari = 8% Palermo = 6% Valência = 4% Catânia = 3%

Is it polemical? I would put Marseille at 18%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.25.163 (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Too much attention is given to the so called "ameridian admixture"
It seems like the entire article is about how non-white white Latin Americans are. Someone should redo it because in most countries like South Africa and Australia people could have their race officially changed. In fact American whites have generally 20% black ancestors. This has been proven by DNA tests so its a double standard. So I just think focussing on that through the entire article takes away from the fact that there are actually 100% white Latin Americans, not that those with a small amount of amiredian blood are not white too.


 * I for one would like to see a link to a source, or any credible literature, which presents the claimed finding; that non-Hispanic White Americans average 20% African admixture (or any other admixture for that matter).


 * That I am aware of, of all the literature from research findings on the subject, it is around 30% of the total non-Hispanic White American population that has recent African admixture, and that among those within that 30%, the degree of actual admixture is low. Meanwhile, those within the other 70% of the non-Hispanic White American population, that is, the majority of non-Hispanic White Latin Americans, do not have the genetic signitures indicating recent African adxmiture. Al-Andalus 10:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, of course there are those within the White population in Latin America which don't have any Amerindian or recent African admixture, but they are a minority within the White populations of the Latin American countries. Just to copy and paste a table from another referenced article in Wikipedia, it indicates the proportions of those people with admixture and no admxiture within the white population of some Latin American countries.

It is said that 50% of Brazilians are "white", or at least consider themselves white according to the latest brazilian census. However, 33% of those have Amerindian and 29% recent African admixture indicated by female mtDNA signitures. Together, 62% of White Brazilians have non-White admixture, either Amerindian or African. An aditional 2% have African admixture indicated by male Y Chromosome signitures, but to avoid a possible double count, lets just focus on the mtDNA. This would indicate that at the VERY LEAST, 62% of White Brazilian are not pure, and at the VERY MOST, only 28% of White Brzilians don't have Amerindian or recent African admixture, i.e. at the VERY MOST, only 14% of the total population is theoretically "pure" White.

It is said that 85% to 95%, but let's use 90%, of all Argentinians are classified as "white". However, 45% of those have Amerindian admixture from the female (mtDNA) line. An aditional 9% have Amerindian admixture cindicated by male Y Chromosome signitures, but to avoid a possible double count, lets just focus on the mtDNA. This would indicate that at the VERY LEAST, 45% of White Argentinians are not pure, and at the VERY MOST, 55% of White Argentinians don't have Amerindian admixture, i.e. at the VERY MOST, only 49.5% of the total population is theoretically "pure" White.

According to most souces and findings, 30% of all Chileans are classified as "white". However, 84% of those have Amerindian admixture from the female (mtDNA) line. An aditional 22% have Amerindian admixture indicated by male Y Chromosome signitures, but to avoid a possible double count, lets just focus on the mtDNA. This would indicate that at the VERY LEAST, 84% of White Chilieans are not pure, and at the VERY MOST, only 16% of White Chileans don't have Amerindian admixture, i.e. at the VERY MOST, only 4.8% of the total population is theoretically "pure" White.

According to most souces, 20% of all Colombians are classified as "white". However, 90% of those have Amerindian and 8% recent African admixture indicated by female mtDNA signitures, together 98% of White Colombians have non-White, either Amerindian or African admixture. An aditional 1% have Amerindian and 5% African admixture indicated by male Y Chromosome signitures, but to avoid a possible double count, lets just focus on the mtDNA. This would indicate that at the VERY LEAST, 98% of White Colombians are not pure, and at the VERY MOST, only 2% of White Colombians don't have Amerindian or recent African admixture, i.e. at the VERY MOST, only 0.4% of the total population is theoretically "pure" White.

These are big leaps from the averages for non-Hispanic White Americans. Al-Andalus 10:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, for Argentina at least, these figure has been disproven. In fact Ameridian testing in general is not very reliable because it assumes that Ameridians are a "race", which we all known "races" do not exist. Secondly, is because in scientist thought these genes or "markers" were "unique" to Ameridians, but in reality all Ameridian "markers" are found in other places around the world, including Europe, especially in some (slightly more or less than half) of Southern and Eastern Europe. So in order to be fair and in order to keep true the Wikipedia's rules, we should remove that part of the article it does indeed focus too much on genetic studies. Etherroyal 14:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reputable source that disproves the figure for Argentine Amerindian ancestry? As far as I know, it hasn't been disproven but published as a serious research. Moreover, the 95% figure of White Argentines is based on self-ascription (that is, they ask you, "what do you consider yourself to be"). Needless to say, figures are not as accurate as a genetic study. I find that particular section on genetic studies far more interesting and conveys far more information that mere estimations made on physical appearance or personal ascription.  -- the D únadan  02:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that you are having this argument proves that there is a double standard. Whiteness in colonized countries, including North Amrica, is based mostly on physical appearance. This whole "White-Latin American" article is focussing way too much on the admixture in White Latin Americans when the White American article does not do that. More can be said about the fact that white Latin Americans hold the most power in Latin America ect. Cultural aspects. Another thing is that, many if not most, white americans have Ameridian admixture and yet they are still considered white. Not even to mention African admixture.

This article reads as if it was written by a white or black north American with the steriotypes that go with that. Another point. Genetic studies gererally reflect the society under wich the tests were done. An American scientist would probably find more admixture in Latin America that is realistic and a Latin American scientist would probably find less. And when these tests are done there is no proof that the subjects are actually white people anyway. Care needs to be taken not to go on the subect's word only but also their close family and cultural background. I think these tests prove nothing.

This article is clearly bias. It simply has to be corrected. I am not saying admixture should not be mentioned but it is rediculous to have an article called. "White Latin Americans" and then 80% of the article is about non-white admixture. It is certainly not done in the White American article.


 * see White_american, Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe and Race_and_genetics


 * What is the point of the links? They just prove how little is said about admixture in the White American article. And in the "sub-saharan DNA in Europe" article it is not said wether the test were done on the white or gypsy or a mixture of both populations.


 * The simple fact is that these countries have racial caste systems unlike the USA, which provide for verifiable non-White ancestry to count as White--on looks alone. The USA considers that hypocrisy, because either one is, or is not a racially mixed individual.  68.110.8.21 04:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The USA's opinion is of little importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.207.17.179 (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cuba number
Why is the upper-estimate given the benefit? Bulldog123 03:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why should the lower estimate?206.212.89.240 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

^Apparently someone hasn't been told about answering a question with a question. Honestly, if you don't actually have a answer to the question, why bother responding at all? I guess it just feels better to be a smug little nuisance than to be helpful. Given the tone of the article, I don't think it's really any secret anyway why the upper number was given the benefit. 74.69.64.52 (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a serious re-edit
Or citations from a reliable source. "one fourth of the self-identified White Australian population acknowledges distant Chinese ancestry" Rubbish - at the 2006 Census only 3.4% of all Australians acknowledged Chinese ancestry. And "white" is an adjective that should not be capitalised Kransky 13:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think "White" is capitalized when they are talking about both biology and culture (as in "the White cilivization"), and when "white" is not capitalised, it might refers to biology only ("the white peoples"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.24.8.186 (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fake
"White Latin American" is an oxymoron. 68.110.8.21 15:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah? Go look at the page for Julie Gonzalo (Argentinian) or Joanna Garcia (Cuban) and tell me if they're not white.  Here is a link for picture of Joanna Garcia (who plays the "cracker" daughter of Reba McIntire in the show "Reba") http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0305272/206.212.89.240 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your ignorance is amazing. Manic Hispanic 17:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you know everything about me. 68.110.8.21 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:White_Hispanic 68.110.8.21 04:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Inexplicable
No entiendo a la gente que le da otro significado a la palabras, si son LATINOS son blancos, porque todo el mundo sabe que una persona latina es una persona que tiene descendencia latina, osea, europea, osea blanca, existen los latinos negros? o los latinos asiáticos?, o los latinos mayas?, es absurdo. ademas ponen a shakira como latina esa no es arabe o algo asi y la modelo de brasil no es alemana por etnia?. Este articulo es cualquier cosa.

--Vokoder 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

See Afro-Latin American, though I would personally merge that artiucle and this one, SqueakBox 21:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yo soy blanquisimo con ojos re azules, pero no tengo nada de latino, aunque soy argentino porque asi lo dice mi documento nacional de identidad aunque nací en otro país, también soy un latinoamericano blanco?, no entiendo ni siquiera soy católico romano. --Vokoder 04:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable
What is the criteria to be a notable white latin American, I think the section should be removed because there are probably thousands of notable white latin americans.Muntuwandi 20:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. -- the D únadan 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It should not be removed. The criteria is that your ancestors be of only European and white Middle Eastern decent. And it must be sourced like in the case of Shakira who is of catholic Lebansese, Catalan and Italian decent.
 * That is why it should be removed. If the criterion is that your ancestors be of only European descent (and the arbitrary white Middle Eastern descent, which you might need to define), then Mr. Gonzalez (whoever) could also be included. It is the criterion of notability the criterion in question, not the criteria of ethnicity. Why Shakira? Why Fox? Can you truly trace their ancestors to know there is no admixture? It is completely arbitrary. -- the D únadan 22:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be kept removed, there are far too many notable white Latin Americans, literally thosands and were we to choose a few from that number our choices would just be a reflection of our own POV's, unaviodably, SqueakBox 22:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That is precisely the reason this section should not be removed. The purpose of this section is to explain that contrary to popular belief that anyone who is a native speaker of Spanish or Portuguese must be of African or Amerindian descent, there are many people who are of caucasian descent in Latin American and can actually trace their backgroung to Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, France, Sweden and other European countries.206.212.89.240 (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This line deliberately tries to make it seem as if latin American whites are less "pure" than say North American whites
"The evolution of Latin America's modern population is embedded in a long and widespread history of intermixing between Europeans, Amerindians and sub-Saharan Africans, and racial categories are more so a social construct there than in other parts of the world. Consequently, many White Latin Americans have a degree of Amerindian and/or sub-Saharan African ancestry."


 * WE all know that many if not most white americans have Ameridian ancestors not to mention black blood. For this reason it is not correct to imply that whiteness in Latin America is less "Real" than in North America.


 * There is no implication. In fact, the phrase doesn't even say anything about North American Whites. No comparison. Nothing. Why would you imply that? -- the D únadan  22:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Most White Americans do not have African or Indian ancestors, identifying with the Caucasian race. It would seem to the world at large, that "Latin Americans" at most could be considered honorary whites due to their mixed heritage.  There are "Hispanics"/"Latins" who hate Whites and others who think they are White above American Indians.  This is a social racism that never existed in North American ("Anglo") culture.  68.110.8.21 23:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me but this line "racial categories are more so a social construct there than in other parts of the world" does imply that. Most White Americans do have Ameridian admixture. You are confused. Not all hispanics are white. Only those who's ancestors are only from Europe or certain Middle-Eastern countries should be used as examples of white Latin Americans. Someone keeps putting picture of metzizos as examples of white latin americans. You are grouping all Latin American people as if they are one homogenous group. There are black Latins, white latins, and mixed race latins. This article does not deal whith mixed latins. Only white latins. It is rediculous to think that a white Latin American is an honourary white because then so are all other white people. And in fact in places like Argentina there is less admixture in the white population than in the US white population. and even in countries with a lil more admixture, there are still 100% pure caucasians. If the term "white Latin American" is an oxymoron then so is the term "white american". It is important that only examples of REAL white latin americans are used and not metzizos.


 * There was this trend in the 1960s, where Hippies led the way for Americans to "feel bad for themselves", with guilt trips being foisted upon the general population by liberal wackjobs. One of the numerous eccentricities, was adoption of an "American Indian" heritage.  It's all make-believe, because the fact remains is that it would make the descendents of the conquerors into descendents of the conquered, thus denying the true story of those fallen.  It is like as if General George Custer or Presidents William Henry Harrison and Andrew Jackson had great-great grandchildren say they themselves were the Indian victims!  In America, it is much different than countries descended from Indians and Conquistadors.  When we fought the Indians, we did very much in a "genocidal way", without regard for life or property.  We certainly did not create sexual servitude as in the case of the Spaniards and Portuguese.  We had no incentive to do so by the Catholic Church, since we were ignoring the Treaty of Tordesillas.  We never tried to assimilate Indians and they never wanted to be, so your claims are FALSE.  You cannot sneak your fake Whites into our true White populace.  Keep them in your fake White societies, in "Latin/Hispanic" America.  Control your illegal alien friends.  68.110.8.21 00:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ooooh..an anonymous comment...How weird...Cali567 08:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, because Lou Diamond Phillips, Johnny Depp, Elvis Presley, Litefoot, Wayne Newton, Wes Studi, Cher, Burt Reynolds, Adam Beach, Stepfanie Kramer are all "pure" white Americans. Not to mention they a lot of these actors play ANGLO roles. Not to mention that a huge portion of America can claim Native American ancestry somewhere in their line and even Mexican too. Also, MR. Stormfront, have you not noticed that a HUGE influx of Europeans stormed into Latin America during WWII. Germans, Poles, Jews, Italians, Spaniards, British FLED to the Americas {North and South).

Now try putting up Wayne Newton, Johnny Depp, Elvis Presley, Cher, and Burt Reynolds AGAINST Alexis Bledel, Julie Gonzalo, Carlos Ponce, Guillermo Del Toro, and Majandra Delfino. Now is he going to say that all of the first list of people are white americans but the second list are not really white? Get real, and it shows the ignorance of A LOT of Anglo-Americans and their whole ANGLO superiority complex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.75.107 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey folk, its not a superiority complex, it is an inferiority complex. I, as a EUROPEAN, can attest how americans feel less white than us, less civilised, like if they were bornt in the garbage, etc, when compared to us Europeans. Canadians are totally different, by the way. They are blond too but they are normal, without complexes. By the way, my wife is a white Venezuelan and I am racist enough to not have sex with (inferior) non whites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.95.237 (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Who says you are right?
I think you are all judging, cataloging, putting things here and there (in this case persons) the way each one of you like. But, hey! Which one of you has an oxford biology degree that can at least make people say "this guy knows what he's talking about"?. I said oxford degree in biology just for making my point, but I mean, if you are a professional and you know about the subject, please edit it and correct it, otherwise, please don't edit it up, or put things just basing yourself in the "cia world factbook" or whatever, someone that knows about this should check this out, and point you guys in the right direction.

Articles like this one, should be done by people that know about what they are talking about. It's just my sincere opinion.

Good luck.

Mauri (200.122.23.31 07:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, Mauri.. :-)206.212.89.240 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A third of all American whites have between 2 and 20% African admixture!
Firstly. In Latin America someone who is less than 1/8 Ameridian could aaply to be classified as white, however, in the US someone who is as little as 1/4 Ameridian could pass as white anyway based on physical appearance! And let me not even mention the enormous amount of African admixture in white Americans. Whiteness in the US was just as much, if not more based on physical appearance than in Latin America. There is a bigger chance that a white American has black ancestors than a white Mexican! Wake up!


 * 


 * Using Wikipedia as your source is the wrong idea, troll. You don't live here, but insist on presenting misconceptions from Sweden as if they were facts.  Look, you have it backwards.  Some people want to be White, so they pretend to be "pure".  "White Latins/Hispanics" in the Americas are usually the chief representatives of those who wish to deny their non-White ancestors, in favour of an exclusively White identity.  Americans have never thought this way, except SOME former slaves in the Civil War era--but this is not about Black heritage.  Have you never heard of the One-drop rule?  Have you never heard of the Indian policy of verifying the genealogy of "Indians" who are actually Whites just trying to be accepted as Indian?  Anybody who is 1/16 Indian, is automatically accepted into a tribe.  So, how big are Indian reservations in proportion to the country?  Obviously, there aren't that many Indians running around here.  We did a pretty damn fine job of whooping their asses.  Being a foreigner, of course you know nothing about our situation.  This debate about "White Latins/Hispanics" is rather about the Spanish/Portuguese colonial policy of breeding with the American Indians, chiefly to disable opposition from them and to assimilate all said peoples of the New World.  "Anglo" countries never pursued this strategy.  We simply killed or kicked out the "natives" and took their land.  "White Mexican" is somebody like Vicente Fox, Agustín I of Mexico or Maximilian I of Mexico, not your average Mexican.  68.110.8.21 22:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well obviously the one-drop rule did not prevent black blood from entering the white American population. This argument is stupid because in all colonized countries including the US, whiteness is down to physical appearance. You can argue all you want but you cannot argue science. The percentage of white Americans of pure European decent is very minimal when you consider that a third has black ancestors and I will find out how many have indian ancestors. You are pulling facts from your thumb. Don't you know how Native South Americans were opressed by the Spanish and Portuguese as well as the other European colonizers? you act as if they had the right to intermarry. The law that allowed people that are less than 1/8 Ameridian to pass as white was only made possible because they would obviously have the European's culture and looked like them to a large extent. If you think that Native's in what is called Latin countries today had any rights then you make a huge mistake. If they had any rights then they would have lost their language etc. And the 1/8 rule in latin America was also a way of monitoring mixing because these people were declared white on an official level whilst in the US there was no way of monitoring these types of thigs and the mixed "whites" simply became part of the white population. The fact is that the US white population has a large amount of non-white blood. You cannot argue that! And btw I know what a white person is. I know that "brown" mexicans are not white duh!


 * I wonder how you think speculation is an incontrovertible matter of fact. It makes me laugh at you writing: "You are pulling facts from your thumb."  You know nothing about America.  Keep your haughty European opinions where they belong.  68.110.8.21 05:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Any American who wants to take away from the whitness of White Latin Americans, need to look at the history of Americans whites miscognition with african slaves and indigenous women. Genetic studies prove there is a link, especially on the mitochondrial side. Manic Hispanic 18:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The point I am debating, is the Indian heritage of "Latin" Americans. Nobody disputes the White heritage in the African American descendents of slaves, but you lot try to spin it around and say the Black is in the White.  That is obviously backwards, unlike among the Mestizo population where they think they are White first and foremost, without Indian ancestors.  The Peninsulares either were absorbed, or went back to Spain.  Give me a living example of unmixed creoles.  Don't bother saying that recent European immigrants to "Latin" America are the representatives of the "White Latin" American people.  They of course, have come from all over Europe and do not try to falsify their heritage to climb the racial ladder.  They are not the ones whitewashing their heritage.  68.110.8.21 03:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ManicHispanic was not refering to the "white" blood in African Americans but the Black blood in "White" Americans. That is a fact. Why do you try to deny that by acting as if no1 mentioned it and as if it is not a fact. Show me a study on the amount of Ameridian ancestry in "white" Americans before you start implying that "white" Latin Americans are "fake". White Americans are the most fakely whitewashed group in the world. And fyi, there are many pure white Latin American families. You forget that racial mixing was monitored much more in Latin America than in the US. Even today it still exists on a greater scale that in the US. Of course mixing took place in all colonized countries but don't pass judgement untill you proove the pureness of the US ok? Which you cannot prove because white Americans are not pure. Another thing, which would you rather consider white? A white person with black ancestors, or a white person whith ameridian ancestors? And please do enlighten us on the Ameridian admixture in the US. You arguments are based on ignorance "68.110.8.21" whatever ur name is!


 * I was informing you that the concept of Black blood in Whites is contrary to the convention of White blood in Blacks, with respect to Americans at least. It is not a fact you write, but backwards misconception of Americans and our condition.  You must be a foreigner to judge so wrongly, on something so easily accepted as the normality of race in the USA.  Your opinion is not the one discussed anywhere in America, I can tell you that.  Your "studies" are biased in favour of conspiracy theories.  White Americans are the least whitewashed of European colonial countries.  I rather doubt the colonial Whites of "Latin" America, as well as Indonesia, India and Hong Kong.  Places like that are rather more open to mixing than White Commonwealth type of countries such as the US.  If there are pure Whites in "Latin" America, of Hispanic descent, they are not descendents of the Conquistadors or initial colonists, but later aristocratic emigrants who still have haciendas.  This is a very tiny portion of the "Hispanic" population in such countries, as they are not all wealthy.  The recent immigrants are much less mixed and they come from all over Europe, but it is a matter of time before they are absorbed as well.  That is because these countries are like California and California does not represent America, but the wave of these types of immigrants.  Notice how Americans don't care for them.  Well, then it is obviously we are not the same.  So, you believe in nonsense.  It is a fact that Spanish and Portuguese colonies practiced a state-sponsored breeding of colonists and Indians.  The very same people bred themselves light to avoid looking African like their slaves, but nevertheless hiding their multiraciality.  Anglo breeding outside of race was different, since plantation owners would make more slaves by impregnating their female African slaves.  These children would not be accepted as White.  Only the most Hippie and Liberal people think otherwise in America.  68.110.8.21 11:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are so confident about your "facts" and assertions, why don't you simply bring verifiable and reputable sources to back up your claims, and then, if they are truly relevant to the content of this article, they can be included. Otherwise, let me remind you that this is not a forum. -- the D únadan 16:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * a source that discusses white American's real racial background.

Give us proof that Americans are not mixed. You can't! It is fine if white Americans call themselves white even though so many are mixed but don't be pompous and have a purist attitude and call other groups who may be more pure than you non-white. Don't have double standards.

HEY YOU ARE FORGETTING THAN MANY (IF NO MOST) OF THE WHITES LATINS/HISPANICS DESCEND FROM LATE EUROPEAN INMIGRATION IN LATIN AMERICA, NOT JUST PORTUGUESE AND SPANISH. When americans think about white latins, they think about south europeans, but no about the waves of poles, russians, nordics, irish and others. BUT THERE IS CERTAIN ZONES WHERE YOU CAN FIND PURE COLONIAL WHITES, This is because not all of latin america was populated for the amerindians, there is large zones where never was amerindian, sometimes, europeans settled in this zones and they remained largely unmixed for centuries.


 * Why are you guys debating this loser? He has obviously never been to Argentina, Chile or Uruguay where the combined WHITE population of these nations far outnumbers that of the "white" population of the USA. His precious White Commonwealth argument is spurious. Take away the Italians, Irish and the Jews (all ethnic groups denied white status in the early era) and you are left with less with a population claiming to be "pure" white in the US. Guys like that are upset to see White Latin Americans dancing to salsa, mambo, cumbia, speaking fast non-Castillian Spanish, NOT caring an inch about white pride or America. White suburban folks think of White Latin Americans as their worst nightmare. They feel as disgusted counting them as white as they did counting Italians as white in the past. This guys obviously cannot tell the difference between White Latin Americans of MEDITERANEAN decent and mestizos. In Latin America we can tell the difference between Latinos who are white of Mediterranean decent, those of Northern European extraction and MESTIZOS. I can tell the difference between Andy Garcia, who is white of Mediterranean Spanish decent and Eva Mendez who is Mestiza. It is these subtle features that Anglo-Americans cannot distinguish but Latin Americans can. We can tell the difference between these two Cubans, but most dumb Anglo-Americans would think they're siblings. I think that is where the problem lies. And this idiot who comes in here to debate has overlooked the countless whites in Argentina ALONE that would make "pure" white americans look mestizo.

Anyone want to tell me the real difference between BURT REYNOLDS AND VICENTE FERNANDEZ? They look like they were seperated at birth, yet REYNOLDS has that whole Good Ol' Boy WHITE guy persona behind him while Fernandez gets catorgorized as a "dark mexican". Same thing with DAISY FUENTES and JENNIFER ESPOSITO. GUILLERMO DEL TORO and MICHEAL MOORE. The list goes on! Do not trust Americans when it comes to defining racial ethnic groups. They just want to feel superior, they want their ANGLO-AMERICAN culture to be dominate in the white race in America. They did that to the Jews, Irish and the Italians who are now considered Anglo in the US. As White Latinos we should assert ourselves against the Nordisists in the Anglo camps and be proud of both our white european roots and our LATIN culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.75.107 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Heavily Romanised peoples like Portuguese, Spanish, Italians and Southern French or Provençals have a different way of thinking, some say more civilised, than Northern Europeans. Anglo colonisation was a late colonisation compared with latin (Portuguese/Spanish) colonisation. Portuguese and Spanish were conquering new lands whereas Anglos were moving to a better place. Portuguese and Spaniards who first went to the colonies were to the colonies as soldiers or as functionaires of the government, they were doing a service/sacrifice for their Nation, Anglos colonised directly, they moved with their famalies to get a new way of living. This is why white Americans rebelled, they were hostile to their own Nation whereas Portuguese and Spaniards in the colonies were loyal to their kings, they only rebelled when Napoleon atacked their European lands, Portugal and Spain. Now, PUT THIS IN YOUR HEADS, FILTHY AMERICANS, PORTUGUESE AND SPNIARDS PROCREATED WITH NON WHITES SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY HAD NO WHITE FEMALES AVAILABLE IN THEIR COLONIES. ON THE OTHER HAND, ANGLOS DID ALWAYS HAVE LOTS OF WHITE FEMALS IN THEIR COLONIES. IN LATIN AMERICA, A CAST SYSTEM EMERGED: IN THE BOTTOM WERE AFRICAN SLAVES, THAN THE NATIVE PEOPLES. THE SECOND CLASS WAS DOOMED TO CONSIST OF THE DESCENDENTS OF WHITE MALES WHO WERE NOT ABLE TO GET A WHITE FEMALE. THE HIGHEST CAST OF ALL WAS THAT OF THE HIGHR VALLUE MALES, WHO COULD GET ONE OF THE FEW WHITE FEMALES AVAILABLE AND THEIR DESCENDENTS. OF COURSE, A PORTUGUESE FROM PORTUGAL OR A SPANIARD FROM SPAIN WOULD HAVE MORE AUTORITY THAN EVERYBODY IN THE CAST SYSTEM. That's how it worked, and you know hat? You, blondie Anglos, would not do better. We preserved our lines (and I am European, not American. Our, means our as Europeans and Euro-Americans. I am an European from Europe) the best we could. Our daughters were always going to the hands of white males; Our sons, would have to proove themselves as one in the best group of men to continue belonging to the highest cast and to get the white (and beautifull, educated, civilised, etc.) girl, otherwise he would still be part of the famaly but his children would belong to another cast. This almost perfect system have done perfectly well as we can see today a rich, thriving and powerfull white population across the Americans, now endangered and presecuted by left wing politicians like Chavez, Lula, Morales and others. But, HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT IT ONLY TAKES YOU TO GOOGLE, OR GO SURF THE NET TO EASILY FIND BEAUTIFUL WHITE GIRLS FUCKING NEGROES AND OTHER NON WHITES? HAVE YOU NOTICE HOW DEGRADATING THAT IS? WHY ARE ALWAYS NORTH AMERICAN GIRLS? WHY DO LATIN AMERICAN WHITE GIRLS NOT DO THIS KIND OF THINGS?

MAYBE IT IS BECAUSE WE, HAVE ALWAYS PROTECTED WHAT IS OUR AND WE, DO NOT GIVE OUR DAUGHTERS TO THOSE KIND OF PEOPLE, AS ANGLOS DO. WE DO NOT HAVE LATIN WHIT GIRLS IN THE HANDS OF NON WHITES, AS IN NORTH AMERICA. IT IS ALMOST CERTAIN IN LATIN AMERICA THAT A WHITE GIRL WILL BE MOTHER OF WHITE CHILDREN. IN LATIN AMERICA, HOWEVER, WHITE MEN NOT ALWAYS WILL FATHER WITE CHILDREN. IN AMERICA, DESPITE LOTS OF WHITES AVAILABLE WE CAN SEE MIXED RACE RLATIONSHIPS AND, SEPCIFICALLY, NON WHITES FUCKING WHITE GIRLS BECAUSE THE WHITE GIRL FAMALIE DOES NOT CARE. That in Latin Amrica, does not happen. A white girl is for whites only. Remember, we protect what is most valuable for us, our daughtrs, wifes and sisters. Do you do the same? Go google porn and let me know of white latin american girls with non whites. It does not exist. But, North American girls with non whites...

Ceasar Augustus

The Pics
Shakira, Ricky Martin? Martin on TV expressed his African heritage and that of his land of Puerto-Rico, so he is not of the same mindset as the other wannabes. Shakira, you can see the African in her, like so many othe Columbians. This whole article is propaganda and wishful thiniking on the part of these mulattoized peoples of Latin AMerica. Trying to be like us won't win you anything but more embarassment for yourselves. You people trying to convince us or anyone else that you are white is like Wesley Snipes trying to convince us that he is white.

hahaha, how much ignorance you find here. If the article is "propaganda", it would be north american propaganda trying to put non-white latin americans in the article, to make all this controversy, neither Shakira or Ricky Martin would be considered to be white in Argentina, Uruguay, France, Spain, etc... And please the ones who say that Shakira or Martin have white genes or whatever, why don't just stop whit all this and put some blondes brazilians or Argentinian models so you can end with this discusion... 201.231.42.162 22:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not African ancestors, but Indian ancestors. 68.110.8.21 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing African about Shakira or Ricky Martin. They have never talked about African ancestors in their families or anything like that.

Shakira looks Lebanese, she wouldn't be out of place in Lebanon.

Neither Ricky Martin would be out of place in Spain; Portugal; Italy; he could even pass as a dark-haired Scandinavian or German.

It is funny to see people who have never stepped their feet in Europe and do not have any information about genetics or ethnic groups trying to teach us anything here.

Why are you afraid about the existence of White people in Latin America? Why should it bother you?

Nobody in Latin America wants to be an American. Maybe you should read more magazines or newspapers about how strong Anti-Americanism is in Latin America.

By the way, even a 100% Amerindian or a 100% Black Latin American is, culturally, more European than any North-American.

American culture is based on consumerism, money, food and fat. There's nothing similar in Europe.

Any Latin American feels at home in most European countries, no matter what race they are. Most Americans only feel at home eating a Big Mac in the McDonald's. Opinoso 03:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ooh, communist anti-Americanism. How impressive and original.  68.110.8.21 17:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do Americans think everything that is not American is bad, Communist and leftist??? why don´t they realize that they also make bad comments about other racial groups and countries but when they do it the never think it´s bad or wrong, but when someone does the same thing to them then the person getting back at them is communist and leftist, according to them. Why can´t they realize that there is white people in latin america, i mean does it put in danger U.S.A national security or what? and in Mexico if you also count people who are predominantly white then you could have as much as 30% to 40% predominantly white Mexicans, im Mexican and im white, and i am sick of Americans always displaying th popular avarage image of a Mexican as an Indigenous looking person, when probably 40% of Mexicans are predominantly white, and when they look at a white Mexican they say "it cant be¡" because they are so closed minded and trust Hollywood more when they want to learn about other countries, than they would trust a Geography class,


 * Mexico and all of "Latin America" was founded on the policy of miscegenation between White males and Indian females, so nobody justifiably believes your complaint has any validity. You think you are White just because of skin colour; you are Whiter than purer Indians--but that is about it.  Americans verify their race by ancestry, not merely skin colour.  Grow up and educate yourself.  68.110.8.21 21:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Who cares how USonians verify their race ??
 * wikipedia is not a forum off topic edits may be subject to deletion Muntuwandi 22:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * wikipedia is not a forum off topic edits may be subject to deletion Muntuwandi 22:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There was never a policy of Miscigenation in Latin America. It only happened because there were few White famales to get marrie to many White males.

Not all Whites mixed with the Indians, and not all Indian mixed with the Whites. You should study and learn that there was a enormous European immigration to Latin America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Opinoso 22:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody said that 100% are mixed and duh...of course immigrants have moved to "Latin" America. I already stated this elsewhere.  E.G. Vicente Fox.  Look here for "Latin" American breeding policies.  68.110.8.21 05:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The person with the ip: 68.110.8.21, why can't you let it go? Firstly as it has been mentioned, Shakira is half lebanese and any "ethnic" (although christian lebanese are white) look she might have comes from that. Her mother looks totally white and is of Italian and Catalan background. Please do not judge on face value. I could just as easily say, Britney spears looks native (and she actually has native blood). Or Sarah Jessica Parker looks black coz she has curly hair. That's rediculous. Why can't you just allow people to be themselves? you wan't white Latin Americans to deny who they are and crawl under this "hispanic metzizo" disguise to make you feel superior to them. That won't happen.  White hispanics are just as white as white North Americans. You act as if all white hispanics are decended from the conquistadors that impregnated indians (where do you think the metzizo population comes from?). It was not long before they brought European women to the new world.


 * You're from South Africa. Who the hell should listen to your ignorance?  68.110.8.21 15:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What the hell are you talking about?

jeniffer lopez
is she white?

No. She's mestizo. --70.22.182.63 03:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugly picture of Gisele Bündchen
In my opinion, user João Felipe C.S posted a very ugly picture of Gisele. The other pic I posted seems to be more beautiful, as Gisele really is. Opinoso 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thalia is not white, she is a mestizo
Thalia looks white because her many surgeons and because she dye her hair, but if you see her in her old telenovelas she is a typical mexican mestizo. Thalia es una india operada, con el pelo pintado. A quien quieren enganar?

Of course she's not white, this article is only showing the ignorant point of view of north american people. There are million and millions of white people in Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, so i don't understand why they put pictures of non-white latin american like shakira(colombian) Ricky Martin (Puerto Rican)... 201.231.42.162 22:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thalia wouldn't be out of place in France or Spain. If she were American no one of you would be here saying the is mestiza. Get a job you all. Opinoso 17:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Here in Paris she would perfectly fit without anyone wask her where she's from. Inversely a very nordic person would seem foreign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Sarahan African heritage
I have removed the passage dealing with this subject since the ideas expressed therein are not expressed in the source that the author cited, otherwise the passage is simply an unsubstantiated editorial, or the citation is incorrect. This is the passage: "In regards to sub-Saharan African ancestry, while legal formulas of the Spanish colonial system did not allow for people with African ancestors, no matter how distant, to legally regain any automatic "purity of blood" (African ancestry was considered "unredeemable"), "as individuals, they might be able to purchase the status of purity from the crown (and some did), but not to prove it through their bloodlines." " Kemet 23:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 01:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC) But she is out of place in Mexico, she is not considered as white here, many people say that she looks like a Philippine, and when she worked with Mexican TV(whose almost only hire white or light-eyed people for leading roles in telenovelas,because they think that being dark skinned, mestizo or Amerindian means ugliness and poverty)she got leading roles in telenovelas, but as an ignorant, mestizo and poor girl who fell in love with a wealthy white man.Why do you think that she is no longer working with mexican TV? Believe me the racism is a way worse in Mexico than in United States, If you are dark skinned you will be target of insults.The most ironic is that light-skinned people in Mexico are a small minority(phenotypically whites, because genetically all mexicans are mestizos, except isolated groups as menonnites).Lithop 01:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha Thalia a mestizo?

just take a look on their sisters pictures,  And not all Mexicans are mestizos, Mexican census consider that every citizen born in Mexico is a mestizo, you don't know anything about Mexico, so don't do stupid claims without any knowledge. And finishing the subject, just the menonnite comunities in mexico are genetically whites? well just do a research about the italian comunities like chipilo and other migrations from spanish, libanese, french, and northamericans to Mexico —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.144.42.14 (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disturbing question to white Americans:
Do you think just predominantely Germanic-Protestant peoples like the Dutch, the Germans, the Norwegians, the Englishmen, the Swedes, the Danes, the Icelanders, the majority of the people of the White Commonwealth and yourselves are the only really “true white” peoples on the Planet Earth?

I’m asking this because it seems like in many places on the web (and sometimes here in Wikpedia) ther is a clear impression that many “standard” white Americans (mainly the suburban middle class) don’t consider Irishmen, Italians and Spaniards “really white enough”.

I am Hispanic but my girlfriend is Anglo-white so I can answer this. Bascially she and her family (they're from Texas) believe that anything south of Northern France is techinically not white. The most they say is that they're ethnic-white or default white like Jews. I remember showing pics of my cousins in Chile who had red hair and green eyes and she simply looked at me and told me that regardless of their hair being light and their skin being white that they were still not white. It is really weird. A lot of Anglo Americans cannot even tell the difference between an Italian and a Mexican. They just think dark is dark and Mediterranean features constitute Mestizo features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.101.136 (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Unsigned IP said: "Bascially she and her family (they're from Texas) believe that anything south of Northern France is techinically not white" ... Ooops... I'm curious now... Where, in the map of France, can one trace this line beetween the White world and the Negro World? Any map on Wikicommons already :p 189.24.8.186 16:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

Chile statistics a bit off
Chile is more of a Castizo nation then a mestizo nation. Whites predominate the south of Chile and mestizos in the north along the border of Peru and Boliva. Central Chile is mainly castizo and white. I think that the stats should atleast be adjusted a bit to recognize this fact. I mean I do not mean for this to sound bad but Chile is "whiter" than most of the nations listed before it. I just want the stats to acuratley portray reality. Thanks. BTW, if anyone doesnt know: Castizo means being half white and half mestizo, meaning you are 3/4 white, 1/4 Amerindian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.101.136 (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I got a question?
Hello im from mexico i just want to ask a question if i look white but i have indian blood on me im not white...???? or you can only count the pure whites and not the predominantly white looking hispanics so am i a mestizo..???


 * Yes. Atleast to me. You would be more castizo like Johnny Depp or Burt Reynolds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.101.41 (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A lot of time ago I heard that if one is 15/16 White and 1/16 Amerinidian, he would be legally a White in USA (as well if one is 31/32 White and 1/32 Black, he would be legally White in USA). But I guess it does not apply to Latin Americans ;) 189.24.8.186 16:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Costa Rica (94%) is totally wrong.
The CIA worldfactbook about Costa Ricas ethnic groups: white (including mestizo) 94%, black 3%, Amerindian 1%, Chinese 1%, other 1%

This does not mean that 94% are white. That Colombia for example have 20% white is a fact, but this is not.

-This should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calarca (talk • contribs) 19:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The CIA book actually says white/mestizo not pure white, presumably working on that very American one drop theory, otherwise there would only be 13% Indians in Brazil's popuklation which is ridiculous (as one in three are black). I ahve edited to reflect this, SqueakBox 19:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox said: "there would only be 13% Indians in Brazil's popuklation which is ridiculous" Actually, purebred Indians in Brazil are way less than 13%... I would say purebred Indians are about 3 or 4% of the whole population in a very optimistical guess. There are of course several Brazilians who are part Indian, half Indian or mostly Indian, but these are no longer considered "Indians" but pardo (mixed) people or mestizos.  I believe Brazilians apply the "one drop rule" when they classify Indians, lol.  I don't know why though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrasmentium (talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I noted that. Its in the notes section. I couldn't find the exact white (only) percentage of people in Costa Rica. I left it like that because i didn't know whether to remove Costa Rica for that reason or not. So, does it go? -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  20:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I think the Brazil stat is wrong too, you only have to see images from the tv to realise there are many mestizos and the number of white only people is way less than 50% so we should probably remove the whol;e section if we are to remove anything, SqueakBox 20:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

They all have their source, i don't think it would be right to delete the section whole. In the Brazil article is states "The last PNAD (National Research for Sample of Domiciles) census revealed the following numbers: 93.096 million White people (49.7%)" with this source. Should that source be used? I re-did the numbers a bit ago because they were being changed over and over and none of the editors had a source so i used the cia world factbook as the source. I would think that the governments of the countries we edit have more accurate information about their population.-- LaNicoya  •Talk•  20:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case, their definition of white is certainly as valid as yours. You can't remove the figure simply because you don't like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.192.177.245 (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi... the 94% figure is historically correct but not current... its a figure from the early 1900´s. However the 47% figure is also wrong... i would say its more like maybe 60-70%, race specific census have not been done since the late 60s, early 70´s, the figure at that point was around 80%. No matter how much nicaraguan immigration has happened, a drop from 80% to 47% in 30 years seems highly unlikely. In any case discussing percentages is futile, as things depend on the region studied and the political orientation of the person doing the study. This whole issue has a lot of political baggage in Latin America. "Non-whiteness" is a rallying cry for many revolutionary and leftist groups, so its not uncommon to see a blonde person define him/herself as black, for political reasons. "White" is equalled with the "oppresor", the "capitalist", the dreaded "empire", whilst "coloured" is equalled with the "victim", the "poor", the "revolutionary". In latin America race is used as a political weapon and as such true objectivity is totally uncommon. Mariategui, on of the prophets of the latinamerican radical left once said that the "shining path" to socialism went through "indigenism". "Indigenism": this term reveals clearly that race in latin america is more ideology than biology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.192.69.238 (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any reliable website that you know of that mentions (at any time in history) the number of people who classified themselves as white in Costa Rica? I have searched and searched but have only found the percentage of whites and mestizos combined. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•   00:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Eugenio María de Hostos

 * I added a picture of Eugenio María de Hostos, I believe and I am sure of that he is white,

although you can disagree with me, I will not fight with you, but please, do not start saying I am wrong, this is a discussion, not a violent fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garc1993 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

CIA is totally wrong about Puerto Rico.
First of all, i'm not trying to cause controversy, i've been there, to three of it's cities, and can honestly say that it's population is not 80% white. If i were to estimate the white percentage, it would be around 40%. But honestly, most light skinned people i saw also had noticeable African features. Very few looked fully white. I've noticed that the CIA is not only wrong about Puerto Rico, but other countries as well, the percentage of those others, however, is not as exagerated as Puerto Rico's, which is why i'm discussing it. -- Lancini87 18:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make them non-white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.196.122.131 (talk • contribs)


 * neither does it automatically make them white. -- Lancini87 14:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In some people's opinion : yes it does. And the article is about "white", not "fully white". 86.196.122.131 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, i doubt you got to see each and every Puerto Rican on the island so that is original research. However, if you have a valid and reliable source contradicting the CIA go ahead and post it. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•   11:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am aware of that, but what i meant was that the CIA is wrong for classifying even those with noticeable African features as white, which were most of the people i saw in Puerto Rico, instead of mulato or multiracial. Speaking of which, why doesnt the US have a mulato/mestizo/multiracial percentage? -- Lancini87 14:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And your claim that they are wrong in doing so is based on what, exactly ? Your own opinion of who is white and who is not is useless. (see:Puerto rico's demographics) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.196.122.131 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, his view is wrong. Since apparently, the "white" view of who is white is who is not with regards to Latin Americans is apparently the RIGHT view, huh?  It's good to see the motivations behind this rather dubious article being confirmed once and for all (it's worse than I already expected).  Here we have a confession that we're only defining race according to skin tone, and all other features are to be disregarded.  Okay then, why don't go ahead and remind all of those fair-skinned east Asians of this and let them know what race they've been all along.  And how about the historically more fair-skinned Cherokee Indians while we're at it?
 * Apparently this article disregards that the term white is normally used to denote a a person who is indeed FULLY VISIBLY white. *eyeroll* Is it any wonder the Wikipedia is commonly considered to be a joke as far as credible sources goes? I'll just point people to this discussion whenever they need clarification on how exactly big a joke it is. Sad.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.64.52 (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

the term white
this term is what causes the confusion,when the white man first came to the americas who were mainly spainards first were called white by the natives not because they were the color of elmers glue but to show a clear difference in skin tones the spainards were more fair in skin color than the natives just as the english french portugese were ,because the fact of the matter is so called white people skin tones runs from very fair to light brown or dark tan or whatever you feel more comfortable with,so called white people have origins not only europe but in north africa and also south west asia and northern india.race has alot more to do with gentics make up facial features not just how white your skin is,so the term white has gotten so out of wack that people has mitaken it for only anglo saxons are white which is dumb.And i do blame alot of white hispanics for the ignorance of this because when you got nelly furtado calling herself latina she is pretty much trying to hide the the fact she is white because term latino or latina was made up by non white hispanics to show there own identity seperate from white hispnics ,hispanics who are white should not use this term at all.hispanic fine latino or latina no,and i see someone has brought up the issue of jennifer lopes has being meso yes she does have some native indian blood in her but so does johnny depp but he still white i consider her white when she was with ben afleck i did not consider them to be interracial couple as a matter of fact they could have been in a movieplaying rolls as queen isabella and ben afleck as a conquitsador and there would be no problem.but when she was with p.diddy that was interracial. jenifer lopes is very fair in complexion did anybody see her when she was a fly girl.and she would not be out of place in europe and nobody would question her race either whether she was in greece or france or whatever,that is why white has to end it puts to much weight to exact skin color.that is why im just for using the term caucasian--Mikmik2953 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The term caucasion is the wrong term which is used to describe someone from a European backgroud usually when caucasion can origianlly mean people including the middle east and northern india....but they are not considered white obviously by the strict meaning....even though the U.S does include north africans and middle easterners to be in the white catagory...nothing to do with skin tone...they have different features..non european..mostly....Irans president donest look european for example but caucasion, yes. and do i consider lopez white, then she is predominatly...because its funny that examples like Don Johnson or Depp said his maternal grand mother or father was full blood Native american but he is still considered white..mm strange how the europeans in the US dont have to proove who they are but anyone that comes from another country isnt beleived to be so..Im from europe by he way. Look at the replies in the US census...most mexicans dont want to reply as mestizo or native american....and just say mexican or some other race...thats a nationality not origin..the USA's native american populartion is much larger than people think it is really...eventually this will even out i think. Hispania 15:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

i know not all middle easterners and north africans would fit into as being white,and you bring up the point of the president of iran corect he does not but he does not represent,the majority of iranians,just like if america had a black president does not mean he would represent what the majority of americans look like. also as far as north africans zenedine zadane who plays for france but is a north african berber,also look up the current miss egypt ehsan hatem both of these people are north africans go do a google serch on them and come back and tell me what race they are--Mikmik2953 (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on! I am in Portugal, one of the less white like Anglo-Saxon countries in Europe, just like Spain, Italy or Greece and Jenifer Lopez would never pass as white here! Come on! We have here some Brazilians who look like her and I am against non white immigration but I wellcome every white Brazilian because when they want, they can fully integrate. I was saying, we have some look a like Jeniffer Brazilians here, and even if they intermarriege with whites, their children would not pass as Europeans, even in South Europe. Well, in America it may be different... DS2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.95.237 (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ordering
C.Kent87, if you know anything about Wikipedia's rules relevant to ordering that list (I didn't find them) please post a link. And how about we take a simple poll here on whether to order it north to south or alphabetically, and to abide by the result? SamEV (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Latinoamericano blanco"
I think that the direct translations of "White Latin American" are irrelevant here. These terms are not used in Spanish or Portuguese and are similar enough that they don't provide much more information. Google has 181 hits for "latinoamericano blanco", some of which are just juxtapositions of words. "blanco latinoamericano" gives 176 and seems more related. "branco latino-americano" seems to be about cheese. "latino-americano branco" is all copies of this article. So I say, either remove the "translations" or provide terms actually used in Spanish and Portuguese. Criollo? Just blanco/branco? Actually the concept of classifying all the whites of Latin America together and apart of those of Europe and North America seems a US-centric point of view. --84.20.17.84 (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe the article can do without those translations, I've thought, too. But a US-centric article? There's already an article on white people worldwide. I don't understand how it can be wrong to zoom in on each major region. SamEV (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean that grouping all the white Latin Americans together as one group apart of other Latin American groups or White groups elsewhere seems an US POV. If you want divisions of white people by region, the title would be better as White people in Latin America. --84.20.17.84 12:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * From Afro-Latin American:
 * The term is not widely used within Latin America outside of academic circles. Normally Afro Latin Americans are called black (in Spanish negro, in Portuguese negro or preto). More commonly, when referring to cultural aspects of African origin within specific countries of Latin America, terms carry an Afro- prefix followed by the relevant nationality. Notable examples include Afro-Cuban (Spanish:Afro Cubano)[3] and Afro-Brazilian,[4] however, usage varies considerably from nation to nation.
 * The article should reference who and where uses the label "white Latin American" so that it is clear it is not original research.
 * --84.20.17.84 13:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The title is just descriptive: White Latin Americans are Latin Americans who are white. But your suggested title seems reasonable, though I don't support it. The current title is consistent with other article titles such White American, White British and White African. SamEV 23:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But White American and White British are probably used in academia and even in census data (does the British census classify people as White English, White Welsh?). White Africans has some more commonalities, with some people having actually lived in different African countries. We have Asians in Africa though. --84.20.17.84 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The UK uses "White British", "White Irish", and "White other". I don't quite follow on White Africans: It seems to me that you're saying they're white because they were domiciled in various African countries. Please clarify. Again, just think of "White Latin American" as shorthand for "Latin Americans who are white". Sure, its use may be rare, but it is used outside Wikipedia. Here's a sample, all but the last two predating this article: a 1980 book, an academic paper, a UK health document, Newsweek Magazine, a Christian magazine, ESPN,a book published this year. You won't find it in census data, of course, b/c Latin America is not one country. You bring up "Asians in Africa". A key problem, I think, is that any title such as "X-People in Y-Land" conveys a sense that they're just people who live in Y-Land, not people who are Y-landers; that they're not people who belong. "White Latin American" makes it clear that these are Latin Americans; Latin Americans who happen to be white. SamEV (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good you found references. About White Africans, I meant that there is more sense in talking of them as one group since they shared more social and class features among themselves. According to the article, there has been significant migration of whites from one African country to another. I think that many of them think (or thought) of themselves with local+racial labels such as Afrikaner, or racial labels such as white or White African than as local labels such as Mozambicans or Senegalese. With white Latin Americans, my impression is that they label themselves primarily as Argentinians or Italo-Argentinians or merely Latin Americans. Very few would label themselves as white Latin Americans. --84.20.17.84 (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Take another look at the White African article. It talks about people from every Western European country living in their respective African colonies, separately from each other. Contrast that with White Latin Americans. Most live in the Hispanic American nations. I don't have to tell you of the commonalities these nations have (historical and contemporary). How can Germans in Namibia, English in Kenya, Portuguese in Guinea Bissau, Belgians in the Congo, Italians in Libya, French in Morocco, etc, have more in common with each other than do the white citizens of these 19 Hispanic nations, no matter how many of the former have moved about? It's not as if all White Africans have lived with all the other groups, either. Besides, this article makes no claim that White Latin Americans are one people. Notice that there are separate entries for whites in each country: White Mexicans, White Cubans, White Uruguayans, etc. So yes, we're very aware of the fact that these are separate nationalities. It's an overview of the white population in Latin America. Try not to read too much into its title. SamEV (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Thanks for adding the sources to the article. I didn't realize that was your IP. SamEV (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. 84.20.17.84, I'm sorry if I came off a bit annoyed in the preceding exchanges; it's just that it seemed like you were giving a hard time about this title for no reason. Anyway, here are the search results from Google Scholar. SamEV (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Beyond my comprehension....
It might be that I am not academic enough to understand this article and all it implies, but I find the whole idea of classifying people just for what they look like absurd and completely irrelevant! I am Ecuadorian and I do have native blood in me, as well as my parents (both of them). However, my mother has a very white complexity and she looks very European (even European people have said so)… Her parents also look more native than white, so, what does this mean?? That my mother is white but both her parents are not?? At the same time, my sister is also very white, does that mean that one sibling can be white and the other not?? I find it absurd and racist that you dare to classify people like this. The fact is that most of the people in South America have some degree of European and native blood in them; if you see it historically, even the most aristocratic families in South America were mixed at some point with natives or “mestizos”. So, you would actually need blood samples from every South American in order to be able to classify them (biologically). So, my question is: even if you do that, what is the use of it? Why is it relevant to know that or classify people in that way? You should be careful with what your article might imply. I am sure you do not want to say that “White Hispanics”, as you call them, are better from those that are more tanned or that their merits are superior because, to you, they seem white. ☺☻♥♪♫♣♠♂♀§

eerr no...there are articles about all sorts of people...in the US, the UK most groups are covered...look at the see also links!.etc.ohh and beleive it or not some people are born different races not often but sometime...some look more like their father and some like thier mother..i even saw a story about an black and white couple that had 2 children ,one completly white and one completly black... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.140.107 (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The racial and ethnic division of mankind used in Wikipedia (with many American and British users) does not fit well in every society. The color of skin is not relevant for many scientific purposes, but, in some societies, it is relevant for social, economical, cultural and political purposes. I leave to you to decide if it so in Latin America and Ecuador in particular. --84.20.17.84 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I find this article unusual. I can understand, perhaps, linking this to national origin, such as "Italo Latin Americans", etc. But "white" is such a vague term. There was a time in the United States when it was debated as to whether Italian Americans were considered "white." It's all so vague. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
Frank Mad, we rely mostly on the CIA Factbook for these figures. Although we should give pride of place to the official figures published by the Cuban government, we shouldn't suddenly make an exemption for Cuba vis a vis the Factbook; especially given that there's such a wide difference. The Factbook's figures for Cuba should appear, if only in parentheses. SamEV (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

66.67.219.168, 1. White Latin Americans are the largest group in Latin America. It is not so because I say or want it to be so, but because the figures in our main source say so. Please see the figures for the Latin American countries in the Factbook's Field Listing. In short, the claim is backed up by that reliable source. A strong personal opinion against it is not enough to remove it. 2. The sentences about the racial 'impureness' of all humans are common knowledge, but they're there to balance the statements about the racially-mixed ancestry of white Latin Americans, which imply that being mixed is unique to them and not to whites everywhere. If you disagree and would like to defend the idea of white 'purity', present a link to a reliable source. 3. The figures for Mexico are not a range. Rather, they are two different figures: one source says 9%, another says 15%. So it's "either/or" (9% or 15%), NOT "from n to x" (9-15%). 4. Please refrain from making uncivil comments about editors. SamEV (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Middle Easterners?
Why is there even mention of Middle Easterners in this article. This is not a US-based article therefore the US governments oversimplified classification of certain North Africans as white does not apply. And we can agree that these people are by no means white or of European origin. Koalorka (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Most people of Middle-East descent in Latin America are people of Syrian or Lebanese background and they are Whites; we can't find any visible difference between a Lebanese and a Spaniard. The Middle-East is a very diverse region. Some people might think they all look the same, they all look like Osama bin Laden. However, in Lebanon, Syria and Iran they look White.

The old Arab settlers gave them their Muslim religion, but not always their "race". Syrians and Lebanese are mostly descendants of Phoenicians settlers, who were living there many years before the arrival of the Arabs. Iranians are mostly of Persian ancestry. They all have a mediterranean origin, like the Spaniards, Portuguese, Southern French and Italians do.

Arab is not a race, it is a cultural/linguistic term; Latin American is not a race, it is a cultural/linguist term, and so on.

So, Arabs of Latin America are Whites. Look at Shakira, please. Opinoso (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry, I am a Portuguese and a Lebanese or a Syrian does not look like a Spanish or a Portuguese. Ys, some Christian Lebanes descendent from the Phoenicians and yes, some can be considered white but, they look mor like Greekes than like Spaniards... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.95.237 (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a trip to Lebanon then you say if you are wrong or right.

By the way, there's no difference between a Greek and a Portuguese.Opinoso (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no difference between a Greek and a Portuguese? I took no offrnse by the way. Are you kidding me? While it is true that both usually have dark hair and eyes the features are indeed diferent. If you were to stay a time here or at Greece, you would be aware of some "foreign look" that I can hardly describe. Even some Italians who came here "look Italian"! But take a count the different influences from PPortugal and Greece: Portugal has a Germanic influence and an African-Middle Eastern influence (the Moors) the Greeks have no Germanic influence, they have some Asian and Middle Eastern influence (the Turk), Greeks also have some Slavic influence. The Greeks originate froma purely Greek ethnic origin, the portuguese from a Celtic one. Yes, we both look Mediterranean, but any Greek would recognise a Portuguese as a stranger when passing on a town in Greece. Concearning the Lebanese, they are mmuch heterogenious, some may fall into the white spectrum, I would say, a great part of the Christians and a minority of the muslims. The Syrians? Only the costal ones... the others are from the desert, they are Semites. The pure Persians look white though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.25.163 (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Koalorka said: "Why is there even mention of Middle Easterners in this article. This is not a US-based article therefore the US governments oversimplified classification of certain North Africans as white does not apply. And we can agree that these people are by no means white or of European origin." Basically, Koalorka does not know how to read, nor make any sense. It does not say anywhere in this article that Latin American countries define white like the United States because it is not about the United States. If you know what Latin America is in the first place or have read this article you would know that the countries of Latin America are not Nordicist countries and in Latin America they do not care about the Nordicist views of your third-world country. The United States has no authority over who is considered white in Latin America. 76.230.145.34 (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC) AutoBot

Whites in Mexico
I think 9% - 15% of Mexican Whites is too low, I think the CIA(besides I do not remember them coming here and make some sourt of census or genetic study, so Mexico should just not be included for lack of reliable information) is just taking in to account mostly for the people of White Spanish ancestry in Mexico who came during the very early colonial times, and not the large European immigration waves during the mid and late 19th century and also the early 20th century. Those were mosltly French and Italian who came durnig the Profiriato period, when European immigration to Mexico was at it's peak. I have met a-lot of regular people here with last names like betancurt, beltran, d' gal just to name a few I from close people (note that the spelling of them is more castilianized). Some Italian last names that are very common are Cazalle, Grandini, Marin. Seriuosly, if the White population was as low as it says in CIA, the I have met like 80% of all the Mexico's Whites in my lifetime and every time I go to the grocery store or just simply to the street (no I am not rich nor do I live in a "White" privileged area) and it is not like I am going to ask every White person I see rather than my self ''are you really White? can I take some DNA samples so a lab can tell me that you really are White, you might have an Indigenous great great great great great great grand father and not even know it''. The weird thing is that according to some people from places like the USA I have met, the majority of Mexicans are pure Indigenous, when in my lifetime I have only seen a couple of Indigenous peoples, if they were so common how come I never see them regularly when I am out in the street going to work, or out somewhere leasure on time? One would usually just see Mestizos and Whites, that is the common thing here. If you ever come to Mexico (my city is Torreon) and go to any mall, grocery store, restaurant, public school, or any public place in general, I assure you that at least half of the people you see are White. I am not trying ot say there is a White majority, I can obviously tell my self that there are a-lot more Mestizos, but My point is that if the White population here was so low, then it would be very rare to see a white person walking in public places, it would ceirtainly raise some eyebrows (which that is not the case). So I request for anyone to take out the information of Mexico because like I mentioned before, the CIA never did any census or genetic study of the population here (at least not that I can remember, or heard of), therefore the information is not reliable and should be immediatly removed by someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.65.78 (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, white Mexican! Take the next exercise: In Portugal and Spain, the coloured eyes (blue, green, or other but brown [or black if it exsits!]) is some 35%. Sure it is less than 40% and more than 30%. In Italy, it may be some 50%. In France it is even more. So, these are the primary Mexican white ethnicities, but let's take into acount only the Portuguese and Spanish media. 35% in 50 million persons means that there are some 18 million coloured eyes in Portugal and Spain. Now, how many coloured eyes there are in Mexico? 35%? more than 35 million Mexicans have coloured eyes? 20%? more than 20 million Mexicans have coloured eyes? 5? more than 5 million Mexicans have coloured eyes? 1? more than 11 million Mexicans have coloured eyes? If you have ever been to Mexico, you will notice that coloured eyes are less than 5%. So, let's imagine that only one thrd of the Mexican whites have coloured eyes. Now, for calculating the number of Mexican Whites we are going to calculate this way: 5% (maximum ccoloured eyes) X 3 (the third of Mexican cloloured eyes plus the two thirds of Mexican whites with brown eyes) = 15.

So, if there are 5% of coloured eyes in the Mexican population, we will have a white population of 15 million white Mexicans. But we don't have 5% coloured eyes in Mexico. At least not in León, Mexico and Cancún. So there are no more than 15 million white Mexicans. What is a pitty because Mexican (white) women are generally beautifull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.25.163 (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

eyecolor is not a good definition for white/non-white —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.218.90 (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox pictures
There are too many entertainers there. SamEV (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Whites
How can a person say who is White or not? All these people in the list were included just because they LOOK White.

Did anybody do any recourse to know about all these people's ancestry? Opinoso (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, that Cristiana Frixione does not look White Italian at all. Just because her grandfather was Italian does not make her White. What about the other 3 grandparents? Were they Whites?Opinoso (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about specific cases like Frixione's, but I'm not much in favor of the list, either, for the same reason you gave: lack of sourcing. SamEV (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Cristiana Frixione looks very Italian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.34.108 (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nahh she doesn't look 100% Italian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.10.38.191 (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

my friend if you look white you are white i look white and am american but maybe somewhere down the line i have a non white ancestors but i look white so there for i am same thing in latin america also there is no such thing as a one drop rule in latin america like in north america and there is no such thing as a pure race includeing the caucasian race you just add to the ignorance that everubody in latin america is just a mutt and are the reason we even need to have articles like this--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. If you look white the chances of you beeing white are some 99%. But it depends on what you mean by white. What is the non white blood percentage that is acceptable. is it 50%? 25%? 10%, 5%, 2%, 1%, 0,5%, 0,000001% or 0,000000000000000000001%. For me a white person is a person of overwhelmingly European ancestory so that its non white genes are neutralised. Are the Hungarians white? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.25.163 (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge into criollo
I suggest this article should be merged into criollo. It's basically the same thing, and criollo is much more commonly used than White Latin American. Mixcoatl (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Criollos were the white population during colonial times. Most of the white immigration arrived after independence, so that Criollos are a component of the present white population. Also, and very importantly, you're asking that a relatively well-referenced article be merged into a completely unsourced one? It should rather be the opposite: merge Criollo into this article! SamEV (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I Agree with SamEV that Criollo and White Latin American should not be merged. Majority of the White populations in Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Chile, and I think Venezuela and Colombia are descendants of Immigrants that came to these countries after they gain their independence Spain and Portugal. In Argentina and Uruguay, the immigrant population overwhelmingly outnumbered the Criollo population to the point that the immigrants greatly transformed the culture of those countries.    Lehoiberri (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with SamEV! The Ogre (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If anything, the merge should actually go the other way, Criollo (people) should be merged into White Latin American, as this is the English-language Wikipedia, the English-language term should be used. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks all you. Chris, I'd rather there be no merge, as I have no beef with the criollo article. But I appreciate the support. SamEV (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be merged the other way round, ie criollo to here!. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

i think criollo should be merged into this article its the same article ,this article is better and more polished by far--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This should NOT be merged with criollo. Criollo was a term originally used by Spanish colonial officials to denote whites who had been born in their colonies and differentiate them from those born in Spain.  Later, criollo expanded to include mestizo and mulatto children of Spanish residents.   The White Latin American discussion and article discuss ethnic and racial classification.206.212.89.240 (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Che Guevara
After a debate we had over Isabel Allende in Talk:White Hispanic, I start to think about how this page makes Che Guevara as a notable example of White Latin Americans (and White Argentines, too). But after that debate, we decided that Isabel Allende should be removed because she did not view herself as White. So in my opinion, the same should be done for Che Guevara. I know Che Guevara was White because he was of Spanish, Basque, and Irish descent, but Che had many opinions that made his sound like he was a Self-Hating White. Many times Che had refer himself as Mestizo even though his family tree debunks his claims. He believed he was the same as the Mestizos and the Indigenous. Also, Che vilified White Latin Americans. I don't think Che Guevara should be in this page since he didn't view himself as White. What do you all think? Lehoiberri (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO we should only include anyone when we have verifiable relaible sources that state the person is white. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

che like his comrade castro 100% white, family trees verifiy them as white,in that case even if they say they are not white they cant be considered non white ,we cant pick our race and change our phenotype lol its no doubt that people such as left wing radicals such as che would most likely suffer from white guilt hence they do not want to reconize there european ancestry--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, I think we should replace Che Guevara's image from the Infobox since it is not really an appropriate representation of White Latin Americans. Also, Che is the odd one in that infobox since he is a dead revolutionary in a black & white picture while the others are living celebrities in color pictures. I believe he should be replaced with another Argentine, I say Lionel Messi, or anyone else. Does anyone have problems with a change of image?   Lehoiberri (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We do not want just celebrities in the infobox. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

che was an important figure in latin america whether you agree with his politics or not and should stay in the box--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well i certainly think Lehoiberri's comment "Also, Che is the odd one in that infobox since he is a dead revolutionary in a black & white picture while the others are living celebrities in color pictures" is a strong argument not only for including Che but also for removing these color pic celebs and putting more interesting people in their place. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ignore my picture comment, this is about Che Guevara. Che should be replaced with someone else because I believe Che is an inappropriate person to represent White Latin Americans since he is a self-hating White. SqueakBox, if you don't want more celebrities, then we should remove Che and add Cristina Fernandez de Kitchner in his place since it is much more appropriate.   Lehoiberri (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Alvaro Uribe would be good. I don't agree that Che was a white hater but am not committed to having him here, merely that we gett he balance right. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Felipe Calderon is not white
Can't you people see the obvious, Felipe Calderon is mestizo. Also, Ricky Martin is a light skinned mulatto. He grew up in a Puerto Rican slum to black looking parents. This article is risible, ridiculous, and repugnant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.92.223 (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Only celebs in the infobox
We must not give undue weight to clebs in the info box, a couple of [politicians really helps balance that and the reverting by a single editor is baffling, we need to get rid of at least one if not 2 more celebs. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

On Che, celebs
There are valid arguments all around. Lehoiberri's concerns are reasonable: It's entirely justified to exclude someone from a group he seemed to have repudiated. It is also the case that Che should not be replaced with another celebrity; we need occupational variety. I don't mind if either Thalia or Shakira is replaced, as they're both of Middle Eastern ancestry and the inclusion of just one should suffice. I think we should replace Che with a non-entertainer, preferably of Italian descent, since they seem to be missing from the infobox. SamEV (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like us to add Alvaro Uribe, I am happy to see Che here or not, same as with Fidel Castro. Really we should aim for 2 politicians, 2 celebs and 2 others (assuming we want 6). Thanks, SqueakBox 19:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with Castro. Well, actually, there's a lot wrong with a ruthless... Er, but he could be included. As to their occupations, if everyone is of a different one from the next, even better. SamEV (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If we are going to have a couple of politicians one from the left and one from the right would be best for neutrality. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea. Either that or we choose a non-partisan politician or a centrist. SamEV (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

being white is not a club  samev  cant say you are not white and be let out this article is in danger of losing its integrity because it is not being based on fact but on subjectivity, so if che was a self hating white does not matter this article is not about who is proud to be white, its about fact che was white(basque and irish) and a influential well known figure in the 20th century its not like he was a serial killer if pele hated being black should he be taken out of the afro latin american catergory no ,this is an unesscary subject to be brought up it is pure pov ,  the fact remains che white ,che is well known and should remain in the box the reasons being given is not valid and if it is removed i will seek an administrator because this reaks of pov the subject is white latin americans not white latin americans who were proud to be white--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The real point, thoughm, is that we should only include people who are verifiably white based on reliable sources and while almost all information about ethnic make up is based on people's beliefs about their ethnicity (eg in censusues) it may not eb true. And what do we mean by white anyway. if we use the one drop theory (ie the American idea that an American with one drop of black blood one is African-American) the according to recent research almost all Latin Americans could be considered white, and unlike in many parts of the world there is a huge racial mix in Latin America. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and wikiscribe this is a content issue and there is absolutely no need for admin intervention as long as we do not edit war. Thanks, SqueakBox20:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum for debating Latin Americans' whiteness. There are verifiable data in the article about white populations in each country. That's all we need in that respect. Verifying individuals is a separate thing, and I'm troubled by the lack of that in the list. SamEV (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiscribe, you told me that this should be debated, and what you posted now on seeking an administrator seem to me like trying to kill the debate. My problem is why should Che be pictured in the infobox, which is on the top of the page, making him the face of White Latin Americans. Che's opinions about himself does not make him an appropriate person to represent White Latin Americans. My question the whole time was appropriateness. Wikiscribe, you commented about Che was not a serial killer, well according to Cuban Americans he was. Che killed many political dissident in Cuba. Che is historically important, but is he appropriate to represent White Latin Americans. Lehoiberri (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think we should be looking at people in the infobox as representing Latin America. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

see that is what i mean you think he should not be included because he may not be the poster child for white latin americans,i think he should be included because he is a well known figure and is white see my thought is based on fact yours is based on pov--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So how are you 2 going to compromise. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should wait for other people to give their opinion about this issue. I think there are more people who regularly contribute to this page than just us four (SqueakBox, Wikiscribe, SamEV, and me).   Lehoiberri (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And I certainly am happy either way re Che. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikiscribe, that's a good point for debate. But I'm not asserting he's not white, as you characterized me above; I'm suggesting we exclude him, for the good of the article, to avoid further conflict. If you want someone from his end of the political spectrum, why not Castro? Either of the Castros? SamEV (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

okay you can take che picture out of che infobox and replace him with fidel castro but leave che in the bottom list of political figures at the bottom fair enough--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ SamEV (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem
The article is politically unbalanced. In the infobox, one politician is a communist, the other a leftist. Lower down, one finds the leftist again, and another one, Lula, and another communist, Guevara. Please add balance. The alternative will be to remove the pictures and names of all politicians from this article. SamEV (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Add Uribe, please. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

and remove the president of argentina she is not that well known anyway--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

✅ SamEV (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I totally disagreee about Kirchner not being well known, much more more so than Thalai and Shakira IMO but the box is looking better, all we need now is to replace 2 more celebs with some folk from other professions, like tennis players. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with that about other professions, except about the tennis players. There's already one in the infobox, and another (Nalbandian) is elsewhere in the article. SamEV (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

can we put shakira back she is very popular right now in america and can she be put back and she is a good example of white latin american--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine but replacing Thalai or Ricky Martin, Gisele Bündchen is the only Brazilian so i would oppose her removal without replacing with another Brazilian (cos the language is different and about a third of all Latin Americans are Brazilian). Thanks, SqueakBox 01:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

what about replacing thalia what do you think about that--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, that would also leave 3 men and 3 women. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be right to put Shakira back, as we'd have two Colombians if we do (Uribe is the other). Also, she's of Middle Eastern ancestry, like Thalia, so this ancestry would be overrepresented. Thalia gives us a Mexican and Middle Easterner in one. SamEV (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Err if she is of Middle east origin surely that means she isn't white. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Per reliable sources, she is. SamEV (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine then. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

oh no i though this subject was taken care of already many middle easterners look no different than europeans particular from lebanon and syria take a look at the president of syriaand look at shakira.even in the backwardsness of american racial classifications middle eastern people are considered white by the government with that said can we put shakira back--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes well in my opinion the whole thing is bollocks anyway, the race thing I mean, almost all Latin Americans have some white blood in them, as recent research has confirmed. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We do need to have fewer entertainers in the infobox. Also, Wikiscribe, if you can find a non-Colombian politician from the right to replace Uribe, then you should add him and Shakira. And oh, we don't need a hyperdescent, One drop rule definition of white. It's just the flip side of the discredited one formerly enforced in the US and based on hypodescent. SamEV (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How about replacing Uribe with Mel Zelaya or if you want someone more right wing Ricardo Maduro. As ever Central America remains underepresented. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

yes ricardo would be good he is a consevative--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, either one is fine. Good idea to add a Central American. SamEV (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

i changed it but the picture i found of shakira is not very good can somebody find another one or where on wiki can you look for more pictures --Wikiscribe (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, too. SamEV (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

okay great--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Next time we should tackle the overrepresentation of entertainers. And as regards Ricky Martin, there's already Castro from the Caribbean, and, I thought it right to include a Mexican. Removing a South American would've been wrong, as they're the vast majority of the white population, so at least half the pics should be of them. So unfortunately, Ricky had to go. SamEV (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * i dont have a problem i think you are right there should be a mexican represented and since there is fidel up there already so ricky has to go but maybe sooner or later we should just expand it so we could include more because it seems like people would like to have more people represented sort of like the spanish peoples article .--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. I just kept thinking expansion would be no good, as it would get out of hand. But I see you're right. The Spanish infobox looks good. SamEV (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A Cuban Dictator of Galician descent, a Mexican actor of Spanish descent, an Argentinian tennis star of Italian descent, a Colombian musician of Lebanese/Catalan/Italian descent, a Brazilian supermodel of German descent, and a Honduran President of Spanish/? descent (don't know were the last name 'Joest' comes from); and also none of these people have renounced their race and ancestry. I believe this is now balanced. I know this change is my fault, and I know I angered or annoyed some of you guys, so I am sorry to those I have angered. Anyways, great work everyone! Lehoiberri (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

great its cool im sorry i was hot headed at first about the removal of che, but at first when on my watch list i saw a response to this thread ,i thought it was somebody who had an issue with the info box people lol--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Lehoiberri, I must say I don't know what you're talking about: it never occurred to me that you were to blame for anything! AFAIK you're a good faith editor who's been working to improve this article. So forget it. Just help us complete the work of diversifying this infobox by finding a couple of non-politicians and non-entertainers; or more, if we decide on expansion. BTW, where do you stand on Wikiscribe's expansion proposal? SamEV (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

After seeing the page well, now I think there is too much images in "Notable White Latin Americans". I think we should keep it around four or five. Lehoiberri (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you say anything more specific? And what about adding more pictures to the infobox? SamEV (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can add 3 more people in the Infobox. I don't like how the pictures in the "Notable White Latin American" goes way down to "Notes and references", it looks really messy.  Lehoiberri (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks; we'll add images to the infobox.
 * About Notables: the pictures end before the list does. There are no pictures alongside the "See also" section, which precedes Notes and References. Are you sure it's not something to do with your browser settings? Is anyone else experiencing this problem? I'm not totally opposed to removing some pictures, but just want to make sure that we don't act based on a misunderstanding. SamEV (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

i think the pictures down by the noteables looks great--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

and if we expand the info box people maybe the priest should move into the info box being most latin americans are roman catholic--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree about the priest, who also brings needed occupational diversity (a non-entertainer... Well, I don't know how entertaining he makes mass...) I like how Notables looks like a dictionary, with images on the margins of pages, and I hope Lehoiberri changes his mind. But in any case, I want to wait till we resolve that before adding pictures in the infobox, as I may borrow some of the Notables section pics for that purpose if we take some of them out, per Lehoiberri, or swap them out for others, etc. (Either way, adjustments to the balance would have to be made.) SamEV (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

the only one currently in the info box that i most definately want to keep is shakira but the rest we can debate but i thought we had a good mix in the info box so i thought we were just going to add to the infobox not take away--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was referring to possibly removing some pictures from Notables, not the infobox. SamEV (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

oh good thanks for clearing that up--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. With the infobox mostly leftist and communist, the article does seem unbalanced.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

SamEV, probably you're right, it might be the browser settings. If we are going to add people to the infobox, here are some of my suggestions: Sofía Mulánovich - a Peruvian surfer of Croatian descent, Tomás Hirsch - a Chilean politician and businessman of German-Jewish descent, and Jaime Lusinchi - a former Venezuelan president of Italian descent. Oh, and a suggestion of removing an image in the Notables: remove RBD because, in my opinion, there are just a bunch of untalented idiots who are nothing more than cash cows for Televisa. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right on about Mulanovich. She was my number one choice as well, because I thought the list could use someone of Eastern European ancestry.
 * But about RBD, I think a more valid reason is that they're a group, and since it's so hard to source one person's ancestry, it's not a good idea to have to source a whole bunch in one picture.
 * Just so we don't seem stuck in the present, I added a picture from the past in the infobox, and another in Notables (well, this one is from the VERY recent past). The former also has a Portuguese surname, which were absent from the infobox, and was a writer to boot. The one problem now is German overrepresentation, as there are now three (Bundchen, Hummes, and Maduro (his mother was part German; so maybe 2.5), but I'll try and make sure that's temporary. SamEV (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * SamEV, I thought we were going to have one person from different Latin American countries in the Infobox. We have three Brazilians. I would actually prefer one person from one country. Venezuela and Chile have large populations of Whites, they need representation. It would actually be balanced if there was a Jewish person it the infobox.   Lehoiberri (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't recall any discussion a 'one picture per nationality' limit. But it seems like a good idea. I'll work on it. SamEV (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, do you think we should have nine pictures, or are you saying there should be as many pictures as there are countries? SamEV (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nine pictures. Lehoiberri (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But why not twenty? Wikiscribe brought up the Spanish people infobox, which shows 18 faces (6*3). We could do a 4*5 layout and voilà. SamEV (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

yes the spainards info box looks very nice and i would be all for makeing it like that one--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Spanish is nice, but 20 that is a lot and their is not enough pictures of White Latin Americans, and it may lead to an overrepresentation of Brazilians and Argentines. Look at the Italians or Russians, those infoboxes are nice but the have a few people, 8 and 12 respectably. 20 is way too much.   Lehoiberri (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about *one* picture per each of the twenty countries; therefore, there would be no overrepresentation. And there are hundreds or thousands of pictures of white Latin Americans. Pick a category (for example, Argentine writers), go to Commons, and look for Media. You'll see. SamEV (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw, I don't have a problem with 'overrepresenting' Brazilians and Argentines: they combine for 2/3 of all White Latin Americans! SamEV (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand now, I didn't know there was 20 countries. I have no problems now. Lehoiberri (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, thanks. SamEV (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

- How about we spread the pain? There are 14 images to add. Let's divide that (as equally as possible) amongst us, so we each have to find five. You guys agree? SamEV (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

HELLO-LO-Lo-lo... IS THERE AN ECHO IN HERE-ERE-Ere-ere...? SamEV (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2008

so you want each one of us to find five white latin americans to add to the info box,is there any other criteria ie what part of latin america and such--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, pick any five countries, and apply the usual criteria: males and females (2.5 of each... j/k), of different ages, occupations, time periods (i.e. not just people alive today or recently), and ancestries (Italian, Latvian, Portuguese, Turkish, British, Spanish, etc), who are not currently pictured in the article. SamEV (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. So we choose the country and find someone for the infobox? Hmm...I can't think which country to start, but since I'm in my summer break, I have enough time to think about this.Lehoiberri (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's one way to divide the countries. Our initials are, alphabetically, L, S, and W (Lehoiberri, SamEV, and Wikiscribe). The missing countries are, alphabetically: Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Since your initial comes first alphabetically, Lehoi, why don't you take the first five (Bolivia to Ecuador), I take the next five (El Salvador to Paraguay), and Scribe takes the last four (Peru to Venezuela)? Also, three of my pictures should be women, and two of yours, Lehoi. How about that, guys? SamEV (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, fine, Lehoiberri: you get three women, I'll just get two ... SamEV (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

the problem is picking the countries and trying to find well known white latin americans for particular country i would prefer if we just find random white latin americans 5 each as you said and list them here and debate them like that if they should be added or not--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I was trying to divide the countries objectively, but if you guys want to pick them, please do. And the people do not all have to be well-known; it's enough that they're notable, and have articles on Wikipedia. So let's have a mix of the famous and the not. But look, we won't find any pictures if we don't try. So, let's try it your way. SamEV (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

wiki's 5
Daisy Fuentes cuban born host and may i add a very beautiful woman Miguel Bose panamanian actor Pedro the II of brazil Alfonso Gumucio Dagron Bolivian Author Fernando Botero Colombian Artist


 * Yes, you may add the very beautiful Vicente Fox ... :->
 * Problem: too many politicians. I'd also like for us to go off the beaten path a little: I've seen Fox's picture on a few articles over the years here. I think Daisy and the emperor are keepers. Put Fox and Portales in your back pocket just in case, but try (not necessarily today) to find other people. Bose is categorized as Spanish, not Panamanian, btw. SamEV (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

bose is on a list of panamanians i thought that was a good find --Wikiscribe (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we should double-check these people.
 * I'll be adding my names some other day. SamEV (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah bose is born in panama his mother was italian decent and his father was a famous bull fighter from spain, oh yeah i mean daisy is very beautiful my wording was bad, vincente fox is not my type lol--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

removed made some changes here are my offical 5--Wikiscribe (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Scribe, the Bolivian's a good nomination. However, concerning the others, if you're going to nominate people from countries already in the infobox, then that effectively means we're starting over, as opposed to my original proposal of keeping the current 6 and only adding 14 more. Starting over means we have to find 20 pictures, or 7 each, not 5. In fact, per my proposal, we don't need Daisy, the emperor, and Botero, unless we wish to replace Castro, Giselle, and Shakira, respectively. I'd also prefer we not use Daisy, b/c she more belongs in the White Hispanic article than this one, since she grew up in the US. And forget about Bosé; let's not go there. His own article doesn't call him Panamanian, it only says he was born in Panama. This article is not the place to debate or change his nationality. Also, notice that 4 of your noms are males. SamEV (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I looked at the previous topic and here are some people for the nomination:
 * Chile: Michelle Bachelet
 * Costa Rica: Francisco Orlich Bolmarcich
 * Dominican Republic: Charytín
 * Ecuador: Nicolás Lapentti
 * Peru: Alfredo Bryce

Anyone have objections  Lehoiberri (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Back so soon, eh? (lol)
 * My objections: 1) Bachelet is currently in the list of Notables; 2) we have one tennis player in the infobox and another at Notables (where are the football players?); 3) you nominated 2 politicians.
 * I suppose we could move Bachelet into the infobox for one of the politicians ... But then we'd have to debate which of them (Castro or Maduro?).
 * On the other hand, kudos for a nice mix of ancestries.
 * And um, where'd you find a picture of Charytín? SamEV (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hard to find a Dominican with know European ancestry, and most Dominicans are mulatos or mestizos. Too much politicians and Tennis Players, ok. How about José Zalaquett for Chile. I can't think about the rest. I'll get back to you later. Lehoiberri (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd go with Hipolito Mejía for D.R.
 * No problem with Zalaquett. He's the only lawyer so far (not counting Castro and perhaps some of the other politicians). SamEV (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)