Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:40, 21 February 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White Latin Americans article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White Latin Americans article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Benicio del Toro

His ancestry is vague in that source (). The interview has him saying "Yo tengo sangre española, italiana y americana, y me siento completamente latino.Creo que soy el que más barreras raciales ha roto." First, in Spain "americano/a" doesn't mean estadounidense usually/necessarily, but American in the continent-wide sense. Additionally, it could mean "Amerindian". If so, note the criteria above: when we have only the person's ancestry, we use a 7/8 threshold, which was used historically in Latin America. It's our best way to avoid nasty WP:NOR issues.

Also, please note that del Toro himself seems to acknowledge a (relatively high?) degree of racial mixture, since he says he's broken racial barriers. Again, in order to keep our whole system from breaking down and putting us back substantially to where we were before - with a poorly sourced list - we have to apply these rules strictly. If another source exists that is clearer concerning his ancestry, I suggest it be posted. SamEV (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, SamEV, that Benicio del Toro may be referring the "American continent" than the United States of America. He did that interview in Spain, and in Spain and Latin America, the Western Hemisphere is only one continent. If he did said that in an interview in the US/Canada/UK/Australia/other English-speaking countries, then he means US American. So maybe he was acknowledging Amerindian ancestry, who knows? He does talk about breaking down racial barriers. Lehoiberri (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

i would like to add one thing on the comment he made about breaking racial barriers ,maybe he was talking in terms as being latino, it is common for some latinos to misinterpret latino as race rather than what it is just a very and i mean very broad generic ethnicity of lumping so many people of different races together which leads to so much confusion even among latinos themselves--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Lehoi.

Wikiscribe, that's a good point, and I did consider it; the possibility that he was misusing "Latino" as a race. But I figure that it's better not to guess and to just ask for a clearer source. He's famous, so there might be more unequivocal statements about his ancestry. And remember, it wouldn't matter at all how mixed he is (if he is) if a reliable source literally calls him "white". SamEV (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

agreed,i just wanted to float that out there--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

We must remember that most Latin Americans do not indentify themselves with a single "race". Many see themselves as "purely" Brazilians, or Mexicans or Argentines. His "American" claim can refer to Amerindians, but also can refer to his feeling of belonging to the American Continent, and it can be of any race. Remember that we have over 500 years of colonization, and most people here feel native to their respective countries.

Latin America is not like the USA, where many people whose family arrived from Europe in the 17th century still keep connecting themselves to this remote heritage. In LA people fastly start to see themselves as "native", to the same leval of the Amerindians, despite being white, black, whatever. Opinoso (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it's true that most do not ID with a race, but I otherwise agree with what you wrote.

BTW, as I read the interview, I kept wondering whose words they were: del Toro's, or the interviewer's. After all, the story says that del Toro's Spanish is "arrastrado", and yet, in the interview he comes across like a "catedrático". I think it's possible that "americana" was a word the interviewer used; perhaps in substitution of "Taíno", the Amerindian people of Puerto Rico (and Dominican Republic, etc).

In any case, this very discussion shows that whatever it is del Toro said/meant is unclear in the source the IP gave. SamEV (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ricky Martin

Just wandered what people thought of this book preview that released about Boricua pop, which describes rickys influence of being a middle-class white Puerto Rican, is this sufficant reference to add him, since most would agree that he is.. Chick out his twin sons too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.36.184 (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

yes i would say the book source is enough to add ricky--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, too. But I think you should use this page this page, anonymous. It's possibly the only one in the whole book where the author unambiguously calls him white. The mentions of race tend to be awakward in that book, I thought. SamEV (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC); 23:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Quebec

Is Quebec part of Latin America? Opinoso (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, they were included by the French creators of the concept of "Latin America". And a literal definition of the term need not leave them out, either: they are a Latin people after all; moreover, why must membership be limited to independent countries or overseas dependencies of distant countries? If we include Martinique, why not Quebec, too? So per two types of definition (the historical and the literal) it seems Quebec belongs. SamEV (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It would need to be reliably sourced. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is were you wrong, SamEV, by saying that that Quebec must be included because Martinique is listed is not right. You are tying to make Quebec a Frence dependency, like Martinique. Quebec is a province not a dependency, and it is part of Canada, which is part of "Anglo-America". This is why I exclude Quebec because it is a province of Canada. By following your example, then we should list Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Florida as Latin America because they have a significant number of people who speak a Latin-based language, and they were once colonies of Spain and France. Also, we can put the Chubut province in Argentina as part of Anglo-America because it was first settled by Welsh immigrants. That is why we should not include Quebec. And what definition claims that Quebec is part of Latin America? Lehoiberri (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

First, a note about yesterday. I ended my Wikisession early then, in order to do some a bit of research on this et al. I was also quite sleepy, having slept little on Christmas night.

On the issue at hand, I'll point out that Quebec's inclusion is not illogical, as it meets several criteria/definitions: its has a French history, as it was a French colony; its language and culture are French; and as regards ancestry, they're mostly descendants of French. Very Latin. Much more, in fact, than the Caribbean parts of France, since they do not have majorities who are of French (let alone Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, or Romanian) descent. The selectiveness in leaving out overwhelmingly Latin Quebec in favor of far less Latin populations is odd (even suspicious, in some cases; but I'm not referring to you, my fellow Wikipedians): Is it that Quebec is too First World to be associated with the rest of (underdeveloped) Latin America?

"Quebec is a province not a dependency", you say, Lehoi. But I don't understand the logic there. My question to you is: why should dependencies be more apt for inclusion? And where do you get the idea I'm trying to connect Quebec politically to France? I'm connecting it per culture and ancestry and history.

I don't think your analogy of the Southwest U.S. applies: Concerning Quebec, I spoke chiefly of the historical definition of Latin America, and that did not include the Southwest U.S. It did include Louisiana in a source that I read. And as regards the Chubut Valley, again, the issue is whether it has ever appeared in any definition of Anglo-America, and I don't think it has, Lehoi.

Finally, I'll leave all of you with some links, including the just alluded to source (the last one): , , , , (cache). All are reliable sources, and provide definitions and analysis of the matter. One of them (the next to last one) I included because I got a kick out of how it takes for granted that Quebec is part of Latin America. They felt no need to state it explicitly. SamEV (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As a Quebecker myself (I know, I make some mistakes in English...sorry for weird words that I translated from French), I can't agree. Of course, all of what you said above is true; we speak a latin language, we're of French descent, etc. But here stops the similarities. The food is somewhat different, but much more American-styled than European. And here why I don't agree: perhaps it's because our difinition of Latin American is different, but you should make a census asking if Quebeckers consider themselves as Latin American. I think that the majority would be suprised by this question. I mean, the only "Latin" qualification that we have is our language, nothing else, moreover, it has nothing to do with Latin America it's just a language classification. So why would we claim to be Latin? Back here, "Latin" means South America, Iberian culture, darker complexion (this is just a stereotype, of course), overall it defines a place : l'Amérique latine. When I first read this article, I though that it wasn't dead right and completely fair. Maybe someone put Quebec's population among the "White Latin American" community, because we are white without being anglo-saxon, and we do live in America. (I should add that I feel the same way towards Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, though it still belongs to France. They are Whites without being anglo-saxon.)

And if you still think that this nation (recognized as such by federal government in 2006) has a place on this page, then you should think about saying something on the Acadians. Moreover, a Canadian section in the category "Regions with significant population" (in the chart) is omitted. Quebec should be categorized somewhere else, even if it's hard to. And it's still a social matter here, we had a hard time finding the right place with such monopolizing neighbour.

But the most important reason why this article should not include Quebeckers as "White Latin American" is that they don't consider themselves as Latin American, about anyone could tell you this.

EDT95 (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you acknowledge that Quebec is Romance-speaking, and believe that "Latin America" is a linguage-based region, then it's case closed: Quebec is Latin American. You also acknowledged that Quebec is recognized as a "nation" by the government. That goes a long way with editors who have a preference for independent states in the definition of Latin America.

I do agree that Quebecers' self-perception may be the biggest reason for not including them. Then again, we haven't collected the opinions of people in some of the lands that have been included in this article, or in the Latin America article. Some editors appear to have simply decided that Romance-speaking American nation = Latin American nation. Well, Quebec is a Romance-speaking American nation.

Lastly, you'll notice that I haven't asserted that Quebec should be in the article – But I do think we should debate the matter. I argued my case; thanks for arguing yours, EDT95. SamEV (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy to see that my concerns are justified (Does this sentence make sense? Again, my English is a bit poor.) Still, I doubt about Quebec and Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon having a place in this article.

Of course, all the facts tend toward inclusion of those two places here, but then if this part stays, it would be important to specify the differencies between Latin American of Spanish, Portuguese and European descent from South America and Latin American of French descent from North America. Two distinct forms of Latin American. In this way, maybe people will mark as different these two regions, similar by language.

What do you think of this?EDT95 (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Do you want to write it?

And don't worry about your English; it's good. SamEV (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll do some researchs to find some sources and, yes, I'll write it. (Any help from others is welcomed too!) There's already some interesting sources quoted above (The Non Spanish or Portuguese Coutries) by Kman543210.EDT95 (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I'm willing to help, and I'm sure there are others who are, too. Best luck. SamEV (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Shakira's race

How can Shakira be white if her skin color is tanned?. Tom Lennox (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Because at least one reliable source tells us that her ancestry is white. (Besides, how do you know she's not just artificially tanned?) SamEV (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, her skin color is not white, but she is Caucasian, Middle Easterners, Italians, and even Greeks are not all white in skin color, but are considered part of the white (Caucasian race).Please see- http://en.wikipedia.org/White_people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco (talk • contribs) 01:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Her skin color looks pale to me i think your mind is playing tricks on you guys just because she is latina,have a look now the person next to her looks tan she is not naturaly tan, but i do believe shakira does sunbath like many other white people do but i dont thinks whites have all the same exact skin tone as niether do sub sahran africans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.237.33 (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That is true. She doesn't look all that tanned in that picture. SamEV (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

also look at these two pictures —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.237.33 (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree about those, two. But mainly, I agree that we have a reliable source and that Tom does not. SamEV (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I can't see the pictures. I got a message that says "Directory has no index file." Lehoiberri (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

When is this obsession with Shakira coming to an end? Opinoso (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no sign of that, unfortunately.

Lehoi, I can't imagine why you can't see them. They are still up, I just viewed them again. SamEV (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why Shakira has to be white? will she be anymore important if she is white? No. She is a morena from Culumbia. Just because she is not white, doesn't mean she is a bad person. Tom Lennox (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Since her mother is of Spanish/Italian descent and her father is Lebanese, she is white. People from Lebanon are whites. They can pass as any Southern European. I already posted a picture of Shakira's parents here. Both looks White. "Morena" is a broad definition. In some countries black people are called "morena". In others, white people with black hair. In others, olive-skin people. But, morena is not a "race" (even though races do not exist, but if we believe they do, morena has never been a race). Shakira is not black, Asian or Amerindian. Not mixed, because has Lebanese and European background, being white. The fact she is not blond and does not have blue eyes does not make her non-white. Do you have cable TV? Watch the Portuguese or Spanish televisions. Shakira is not different from most of them. Opinoso (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, She has european and lebanese ancestry, and those are considered caucasian. But She is of caucasian ancestry, not white ancestry. You are confusing white with caucasian, hispanics and whites are caucasian, but in the case of shakira is is a hispanic-caucasian. She is morena, since she falls in two categories of morena, olive-skin and black hair, and she has very non-white characteristics such as a round ass that white women don't have. White is Britney Spears. Tom Lennox (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Britney Spears already reported to be "Native American". Then, if a person with Native American ancestry, such as Britney Spears, is "white", and a person with European and Arab ancestry, such as Shakira, is not white, then your definition of "whiteness" is completly odd. Opinoso (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Arabs are not white, they are middle-eastern. Middle-eastern is a race. Tom Lennox (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How about English singer Victoria Beckham? Is she middle-eastern too? Opinoso (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, She is 100% White, Shakira is just 50% White. Tom Lennox (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

But Beckham looks more "tanned" than Shakira. Moreover, you claimed Britney Spears is the example of what "white" is, but she already reported to be "Native American". How do you explain that? Opinoso (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because she has light skin doesn't mean anything...

I know some Asian with really dark brown skin but that doesn't make them any less Chinese. Tom Lennox (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't ask my question: how about Britney Spears? You claimed she is the greatest definition of what "white" is, but she already reported Native American ancestry. How can a person with Native American ancestry, such as Spears, be the example of what "white" is, and a person with Arab ancestry not be? Arabs are, for many definitions, white. Lebanese, more than most Arabs, look similar to many Southern Europeans. However, nobody never claimed Native Americans are whites. Then, if Spears who is part Amerindian is the example of white, Shakira who is part Arab, is surely whiter than Britney Spears. How do you explain this situation? lol Opinoso (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

I notice that the CIA numbers are actually from the Brazilian 2000 census. Given that there was a census in 2005, should we remove the CIA figures? I've been for keeping it because it allows a certain unity of source: it allows us to add up all the numbers per the same source and arrive at totals for the region, per that same source. Here's the CIA's entry for Brazil: "white 53.7%, mulatto (mixed white and black) 38.5%, black 6.2%, other (includes Japanese, Arab, Amerindian) 0.9%, unspecified 0.7% (2000 census)" SamEV (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There's already the 2007 census, which reports: "49.4% white, 42.3% pardo, 7.4% black, 0.5% Asian and 0.3% Amerindian". Opinoso (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, so that's one vote to strike. Anyone else? SamEV (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Next year we'll have another "big census" in Brazil, then CIA will also change its figures, since they are still using the last "big census" from 2000. Opinoso (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I gathered from the source that the newer numbers were yearly estimates, like the American Community Survey, for example. Estimates are fine by me, too. SamEV (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted add, belatedly, regarding Fidel Castro, that it has been argued that his brother (and current ruler of Cuba) was illegitimate, the product of a liaison between his mother (who was Castro's father's live-in-maid before she became his wife) and a Chinese or otherwise Asian field hand (there were a fair number of Asians in Cuba at the time ). In fact, Raul Castro was referred to by his comrades-in-arms as "el chino" because he could never grow a beard (unlike Fidel, Che, et al.) and exhibits (what may be interpreted as) some Asian facial features. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.92.43 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Salma Hayek

I noticed an edit-warring going on because of her picture. Why don't we discuss about her here? Opinoso (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well why dont you lead off opinoso since you started the topic,but i guess i will, she is of lebenese and spanish ancestry which makes her white end of story unless somebody can come up with reliable sources saying she is an aztec warrior queen i digress--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not completly right if Salma Hayek looks "white". Yes, Lebanese look they are from Southern Europe, but there are some exceptions, some of them look like, for texample, people from Afghanistan (a minority of them, of course). The same goes for some Spaniards who may not look they are "Europeans", even though they are genetically Europeans. Or other Europeans, such as Victoria Beckham who is 100% English, but does not look like an "ordinary" European woman. I mean: would Salma be considered "white", even by Mexican standards, or something else? I don't know. Opinoso (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2009

(UTC)

She is part Lebanese and Spanish, so genetically she is White, Supaman89 is the one that took her off and added a picture of Garcia Bernal, now I can go with either one of them, but I believe Salma Hayek is sourced on her nationality, where Bernal is not, so that should make a difference, in terms of proper source Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

opiniso reliable sources please, your treading on us useing our own p.o.v of whos white and whos not i dont know who consideres her white or who consideres victoria beckham white ,this is not the who everybody consideres white article ,who is the typical european women i don't know do you?and not only europeans are considered white.--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No Opinoso, Salma wouldn't be considered white in Mexico, she would be just as Mestizo as anyone else, I mean she's obviously browned skin, in fact back in the early days of her acting career in Mexico, she was always portrait as the "brown girl", now, don't get me wrong, I think Salma is absolutely hot, but the problem is that if we leave that picture and say "hey, she's white", people are gonna think, "..so that's how white Mexicans are like", which is absolutely ridiculous; this situation reminds me of those "Native Americans" in the United States that are white looking but they'll swear that that they are partly indigenous.

The problem can be solved by simple putting someone else’s picture that doesn’t cause such controversy.Supaman89 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

supaman69 come up with sources thats states she has native ancestry and we will measure it against the one there than we will see but until than controversey is not enough to remove her,[REDACTED] is not about truth because she is here does not mean you have to consider her white and she is not brown try using your internet browser and search for some pics and trust me it does not make a difference most people would not consider any mexicans white no matter what the phenotype so please stop being ridiculous--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please watch the language and don’t call me “ridiculous”, not everything is about sources, sometimes it’s about obviousness the use of reason, if you like to think she’s white fine (I guess Osama Bin Laden is white too, huh?), let’s suppose she was white, still who choose to put the in the picture anyways without asking anyone first? in any case, we should put 4 or 5 pictures of real white people (you may add Salma if you want) and let people decide which picture to use, instead of unilatelly putting whatever picture (such as this case) and reverting anyone who doesn’t agree with it.

BTW, regarding you comment about white people, it is irrelevant to what we’re discussing here, people who don’t know that there are millions of white Mexicans are just ignorant, so let’s not feed their ignorance by telling them that white Mexicans are brown as Salmita Hayek. Supaman89 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Salma Hayek is not white. She's latina. Tom Lennox (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Latino isn't a racial grouping. It's an ethnicity.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Supaman69 again find sources because obvious is code word for p.o.v which is not acceptable and as a matter of fact bin laden is white according to a reliable source such as the United States government, it might be useful to read this article supaman69 White people--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Osama Bin Ladden white? yeah right.., 90% of the world would agree with me that Salma Hayek is not white, despites of what the U.S. government says, what's next? Jackie Chan becoming white because the U.S. government says so? anyways, let's suppose she was white, still you cannot put her without any consensus, we should at least propose 5 people and let users decide which one to leave for the article, ok?

Once again you're failing to provide a source for ancestry outside the middle east and europe and just because many sources say her mother is of mexican descent does not mean she has native ancestry many sources state gloria estefan as being of cuban descent does that mean she is not white(and that is a common practice in the u.s when describing people from latin america, you are taking to much away from a picture and failing to realize that picture is just a picture and may not represent her true skin tone(since you seem to have an issue with that) and not all white people are the same exact skin tone(i.e we are not here to measure melanin)--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a picture of Salma Hayek's mother: . She is definetly not what the average Mexican mestiza looks like...moreover, Suppaman, if Lebanese are not whites, then it would be impossible for Hayek to be mestiza (mixed white and Indian), since she's half Lebanese and half something else. Don't you think Lebanese Prime-Minister Fouad Siniora is white? Everybody does. Opinoso (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks, any WP:RS which specifically state she is or isn't white? These should have precedence. Of course, if she self-identifies in something like an interview or a book, that would be even better. And of course, lastly, it's not up to use to decide whether she's considered "white" or not. We shouldn't inject our POV in this article.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiscribe most sources simply say her mother is Mexican, they don't really specify whether she's white, indian or whatever, regarding his dad, of course some Lebanese are gonna be white looking, but most aren't despites of what the US government says, but anyways, even if Salma was white (which 90% of the world would agree with me she's not) still, we have to have some options, that's why I put those 5 pictures, to let people decide which choose for the article, the best for everyone would be to choose someone not so controversial.

BTW, Salma would never identify herself as white cuz she knows she's not, but whatever. Supaman89 (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Supaman, again it is not for us to decide whether she is white or not. According to Wikipolicy, we can't even vote to say if we consider her white or not as that would be WP:OR. Again, you have failed to provide any reliable sources, you just state your opinion and that "90% of the world would agree with me", which is a good reference for your opinion, but not for anything else.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have, cuz most sources don't say her mom was white, they simply say she was Mexican without any reference to her race, but anyways, if it makes you happy ok "Salma is white" fine? (I would love to hear what she thinks about being called white...) so now, since "Salma is white", let people decide between those 5 white persons which one do they think is the most appropriate for the article ok? Remember we cannot just put any picture without any consensus. Supaman89 (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually if anybody can get ahold of a clip of her in inside the actors studio, the interviewer says after discussing her fathers background. He says, and your mothers background,? she says 'Spanish', then james lipton says but she was born in mexico, so she's mexican.. She wouldnt confuse the term spanish, since she didnt even use the word mexican.and a clip saying she is half lebanese. get a pic of her without any make-up or a slight tan if it makes a difference.SHclip and the clip was on youtube, but not anymore, unless the script is written down..81.151.198.117 (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Voting

Salma Hayek	Vicente Fox	Gael Garcia	Guillermo del Toro	Santa Anna
File:Salma Hayek.jpg
Pro: She's a recognized actress worldwide. Against: Her ethnicity is unclear, most sources don't put her mother as having "Spanish ancestry" but simply as "Mexican", as for her father being Lebanese most sources don't consider Middle Easters as white.	Pro: Famous Mexican president who's also recognized worldwide. Against: Part Amerindian	Pro: Along with Salma, one of the best reknown Mexican actors in Hollywood. Against: ???	Pro: One of the best directors in the world, famous for big Hollywood hits. Against: ???	Pro: A very controversial Mexican president but at the same time one of the most internationally known Against: ???

• Y Guillermo del Toro: My vote goes to Guillermo Del Toro. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Y Guillermo del Toro: If VIcente Fox hadn't screw up those 6 years, he would've got my vote, hahaha, so I'll have to go with Guillermo del Toro, I sure everyone would agree with me he's white, so he won't cause any controversy like Salma. Supaman89 (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Statistical of Chile and Mexico, false

The sources of statistical of Mexico of the British Encyclopedia are false, the text says another thing. In the case of Chile 60% and 8,8 millions of Caucasian, it is a pseudo-scientific source of beginnings of the XX century that is not also reliable and it is not independent as the first suitable statistic, and therefore, a false information. Misplaced Pages should verify these false and not well deliberate data —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.192.125 (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Britannica source says that nearly 1/6 of the population is white. Do the math, 1/6 of Mexico's population = 17.78%, but since it doesnt say it's exactly 1/6, but nearly that amount, the percentage would be approximately 16%. - Lancini87 (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Small observation: 1/6 = 16.67%, not 17.78%. SamEV (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

False, in any part of the British Encyclopedia and especially in Mexico: People» Ethnic groups", that is affirmed that your you say, it is false. I suggest the readers to revise the source and to check what I say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.103.254 (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

An ethnographic study conducted by the University UANM by Lizcano (2005) gives a 52.7 for the white in Chile which is equal to 8.8 million , another study by the Spanish Esteva-Fabregat daria more than 60% for white Chile, but a study by the University of Chile is 65% for castizos (white-mestizos) in Chile and 30% for whites .

Another study conducted by Jose Flores Garcia - History, Modern.- In Peru, one of the oldest countries of occupation, while the Amerindian are 54% population and 32% Mestizos, white of Spanish origin barely reach 12% and are fewer blacks and Japanese. Something different is the situation in Colombia - white 20%, Amerindian 2%, mestizo, 58% black, 4%, mulatto, 14% - and in Mexico, white 15%, Amerindian 30% and mestizo 55%. Brazil, for its part, has only a small population with Amerindian (0.4%), 53% white European origin, recent extraction, especially Portuguese, Spaniards, Italians and Germans, 34%, mestizos, and its very important to black people in the past, now limited to 11%, reaching a high percentage of black (22%). Finally, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, its population is composed almost entirely of a white population from the south of Europe - over 70% -, Spaniards and Italians for the most part, besides some minorities of Jews, Levante (Syrian Lebanese Armenians) and Central, mostly Germans, arrived mainly after 1800, ranging between Aborigines and a seven percent (E. García Zarza, 1992, 19).

Other scholarly articles and books that speak of ethnicity in Latin America compocicion >>>

massive immigration of European Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Brazil.

Ethnicity, living conditions by Simon Schwartzman

predominantly white population of European origin in nations such as Argentina, Uruguay, Chile or Costa Rica, there is a large proportion of black or mulatto in Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba and Colombia.

Laureano Gómez: given its more strident: the Colombian mestizo by, "not a factor used for political unity and economic integration of Latin America: Indigenous defects retains too is false, servile and disgusts abandoned any effort and work. Only those crosses successive primary mestizos with Europeans and expressed "the black is a defect in the countries where he has disappeared, as in Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, has been able to establish an organization with strong economic and political foundations of stability. " The blame for the backwardness of the people who frustrated time and again the heroic efforts of our elite.

The first Indoamérica: comprising Mexico, Central America except Costa Rica, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay, as is characteristic with its training base at the junction between the Spanish culture and the strong pre-Hispanic cultures, from the dense demographic point of view and culture.

The second Afroamerica: comprise the Caribbean region, Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil and is characterized by the union of a strong contribution of the black African population with Spanish rioja.

Euroamerica: composed of southern Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and Chile with a strong European immigration. SOCIAL IDENTITY- Marta Fierro -Social Psychologist

The Latin American fusion, which includes whites, blacks and Indians to not evolved uniformly or Haiti today is a republic almost exclusively of blacks, still even linguistically purely indigenous in Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Mexico, while nearly that presence has disappeared in Uruguay, Chile and Argentina.

But we must note that these three cultures or status can not be valued at demographics uniform throughout the continent. While in Chile, Argentina and Uruguay climate and physical conditions in general greatly stimulated the development of a predominantly European society in Mexico and Peru and also in Brazil, e! Conflict with European civilizations already developed, the mineral wealth them and the system of colonial exploitation produced more yuxtaposicióny an antagonism of races amalgamiento a progressive. Instead, paísescomo Paraguay, Bolivia, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, are based in one of intense cultural mixing substance frankly just indigenous elements assimilated black con of European origin.

The population of Latin America are often ethnically divided into eight areas. A indomestiza, predominantly Indians, represented by Guatemala, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. The Indians are 40 or 60% of the total population, the rest are mestizos and whites. There is another area indomestiza second, but with predominance of the mestizo. This is the case of Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama. Méstizos in these countries represent 60% of the population, the remainder being whites, Indians and blacks. The third zone, the white, represent Costa Rica, Argentina and Uruguay, where almost the entire population is of European origin. Chile and Paraguay are countries hispanomestizos because its population consists of whites and mestizos. In Chile the predominant white group in Paraguay and the mestizo. A fifth area is the negromulata including Haiti, Jamaica, British West Indies, Netherlands Antilles, French Antilles and British Honduras or Belize, 40 or 90% of its population is black, the rest black and white. Hispanomulata area, predominantly mulatto, is limited to the Dominican Republic, where the majority of the population is black, while the predominantly white area hispanomulata is that of Cuba and Puerto Rico, where almost 70% of the population is white and the rest black and mulatto. Finally, the eighth is the hybrid of Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela, whose populations are composed of varied elements.

EURO-AMERICA THE FORMATION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE Charles Wagley

The Latin American continent is composed of a great melting pot of ethnic groups with majority of mestizos, whites, blacks and Indians. On the other hand, there are also a variety of socio-demographic conditions that vary from country to country and from region to region. In the case of Argentina, Chile and Uruguay immigration, mostly Caucasian, occurred in late 1800 and early 1900 came from European countries (particularly Spain and Italy). In Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay, there was a significant racial mixing between Amerindians and Europeans (especially from Spain), giving as the mixed result. The inclusion of the black race was mainly from the sixteenth century to settle in countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela and Islands Caribe.

América Latina: Cono Sur ARGENTINA, CHILE, URUGUAY AND BRAZIL white majority. Colonial knowledge: Eurocentrism and social sciences. Latin American Perspectives- Edgardo Lander

First is the fact that in America when there was a mixture of blood occurred almost exclusively between representatives of European ethnicities. Such phenomenon also occurred in Latin America, particularly in countries or regions (Argentina, Uruguay, southern Brazil, parts of Chile), where, as in the U.S. in the last third of the nineteenth century and the first two decades of the twentieth century there were waves of European immigration. But in Latin America will also mix the fusion of different races, an element that predominates in the "mighty symphony of blood" (E. Agosti) for the majority of Latin American peoples.

All studies on etnografia Divide in Latin America to countries according to their characteristics eg Indoamérica PARAGUAY, HONDURAS, NICARAGUA, SALVADOR, PERU, BOLIVIA, GUATEMALA, MEXICO AND ECUADOR. Afroamerica COLOMBIA, CUBA, VENEZUELA and Brzil and in many cases, the Euroamerica finally composed ARGENTINA, URUGUAY, CHILE AND SOUTH OF BRAZIL.saludos--Kusamanic (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)--Kusamanic (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? Latin America is a place of deep racial mixture. There's no such a thing as "Euroamérica" or "Afroamérica". Of course my personal opinion is not a source, but I have been to Chile myself and there's no way that 60% are Whites. Even in the areas of "German settlement" of Southern Chile, the local population looks more Amerindian than anything else. Opinoso (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

hello, dear friend Opinoso not answer their personal assessments on Chile, because Misplaced Pages is not a forum, or for value judgments and not to incite racial hatred between brotherly countries. Just give the references and sources. Greetings--Kusamanic (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)--Kusamanic (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean with "incite racial hatred between brotherly countries"? The fact that most Chileans look Amerindian is not an offense from my part; it's a fact. Most sources claim the majority is mestizo. If a source claims 60% are whites, there's something wrong about it. It's like using a source that claims that whites make up the majority of the population of South Africa, when everybody knows they don't. It's important to follow the reality, not imaginary figures. Opinoso (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

New picture for Argentine section

Hi all, I have a sourced picture of some white Argentine girls. I think it's a good example.

What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimshep (talk • contribs) 23:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

me i have no problem what so ever with adding this pic but what kind of source to you have for those group of girls being white--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't you see their faces? They are white. What kind of source do you need to prove that? --Grimshep (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

okay i know what you are saying but that would be using our own pov to decide if they are white or not,or if they even come from argentina or not ,im not trying to be coy but the obviously white arguement may not hold it has not in the past--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, Wikiscribe, my picture is perfectly sourced and these girls are Argentine(therefore Latin American) and white. I'm going to post it again. If you find a valid argument I'll remove it, but until then the picture stays in the article. Your phenotype shows whether you're white or not, and these girls clearly are. In fact, I think these girls are the "whitest in the article" so far, so please use common sense. Or do you need genetic samples of these girls in order to prove it?? Come on. --Grimshep (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

hey i'm not going to edit war over this but if you noticed your not being picked on here all those pics in the article have sources directly to persons either being white or with ancestry traced back to europe or the middle east--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but white has never been a genetic term. I can understand discussions over Shakira's whiteness but these girls need no prove of that. These girls are all white, or is it that you see microscopic traces of amerindian or african blood with your magic eyes? What's your point in arguing about this? I don't want to edit war either. There's no point in knowing if these girls are a 100% white, cause they look so, and that's all that matters. --Grimshep (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I've been a bit rude to you, sorry about that. --Grimshep (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To use pictures in this and most Misplaced Pages Articles, most people would prefer a famous person like a artist, actor, sports person, or someone in politics... I am sure you can find one for Argentina. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason backing that approach is that it's harder to prove a person's nationality with a picture, as anybody could post a picture of a couple of norwegian guys and then say they are Argentines. But this is not the case. This picture is perfectly sourced. --Grimshep (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll paste here my discussion with samEv:

Hi SamEV, I think my picture perfectly follows the Article's "Inclusion criteria". The picture is perfectly sourced, there's prove that these girls are from Argentina, and their whiteness leaves no room for debate. Why did you remove it? Do you need to know their entire family tree to know if they're a hundred 100% white? --Grimshep (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Grimshep.

I do not need to know their entire family history. What we, all of us (editors and readers of Misplaced Pages) need is for the source to say that they are white. It doesn't ().

If you must know, since you mentioned "common sense": to me some of them do look non-white. You can't claim that it's obvious to all, therefore. SamEV (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

SamEv, all the girls in the picture I posted are white. Do you need a newspaper article stating that they have european ancestry? Like the article that is supposed to be Shakira's prove of her whiteness? Would that be a reference? I'm sorry but references can not be used in such sutile things as a person being white or not, specially when that's obvious as in this case. I think your bending the rules to you're own point of view. I agree that 2 of the girls in the other pictures from the website do look as if they had some degree of amerindian mixture, but the ones in the picture I'm using are all white. So? --Grimshep (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your basing your position on how they look to you, not on what the source says. Misplaced Pages insists on sources: read WP:V and WP:RS. Misplaced Pages insists on sources even more in the case of disputed content, which that picture certainly is. And by "insists" I mean that you don't merely cite a source, but that you show that whatever claim you make, the source made.

That source makes absolutely no mention of the race or the ancestry of those girls. You're engaging in original research, and accusing me of 'bending the rules' is really the wrong path to take. SamEV (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Anything more you'd like to discuss about this say it on the article's talk page, please. Cheers. SamEV (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

SamEv, again, you're bending the rules. So if you see a black guy you can't say he has some degree of African ancestry because there's no reference to prove it? Answer me this, if I find a source proving that they all have european ancestry, will it then be ok to add the picture? --Grimshep (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimshep (talk • contribs)

I guess you could say the person has black ancestry. But to say he's black, as opposed to biracial/multiracial would be something else. You'd need a sources for that.

Our inclusion criteria says that if you can show 7/8 white ancestry for a person, they can be considered white for purposes of this article. (That ratio was based on historical precedent, mentioned in the article itself, and remains open to reduction, as stated in the criteria.) But the picture's context page never uses the word "white" nor provides any info about the race or ancestry of the students whatsoever. There are mestizos in Argentina and some of the students look mestizo. Why not? SamEV (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, this is unbelievable. So, only the magic word "white" works as a reference? Right now there's no reference for claiming that Riqui Martin is 7/8 white. The reference cited only says that he is "white" but does not clarify on his whiteness percentage. The same goes for Shakira's source, which doesn't even state that she's white, only that she has Lebanese and Spanish Ancestry, and the sources for the brazilian guy only claim that he is white but don't give any information on his ancestry. These girls in my picture are mostly of Irish, Brittish and Italian descent, and they do look white. Tell me which girls look as mestizo to you. I'm just curious. I can't believe I took the trouble of looking for a good clear picture showing white Argentines and I managed to get the copyright and now you're arguing about some of these girls looking mestizo to you, or about not having prove of their European Ancestry. --Grimshep (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

grimshep ancestry is sufficent you don't need a source saying flat out they are white that would be a little to high and unfair of a threshold--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But can't you say their ancestry is obviously european? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimshep (talk • contribs) 01:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if we can't prove that every one of them is at least 7/8. That's just being too picky. --Grimshep (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

see their goes that obvious word again,there is a reason there are no pics of random groups of people in this article it's almost impossible to trace there ancestry or whiteness to a source ,why not try and find a noteable white argentine with a source it will be much easier--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry but I won't do it the easy way. I'm goint to do it the right way. These girls are as white as any of the other latin americans in this article. If you get picky I'll get picky too. There's no scientific or social authority on whiteness, whiteness is only a subjective term. Therefore you can't use a subjective reference to prove if they're white or not. None of these Latin Americans have sources strong enough to prove they're white. --Grimshep (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

all i was basically saying is you need a source stateing straight out they are white or one citeing their ancestry don't assume that im saying they are not white i'm just saying you need a source--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Grimshep, if you read our inclusion criteria, you must not have read the part wherein Mariah Carey is mentioned. The criteria are rather clear on this, but I'll restate it: if the source says that the person is white, we don't inquire further. Unless other sources contradict that original source, the person is white. Do you understand? If the book says Ricky Martin is white, we don't care how white – whether he's 7/8 or more or less. It doesn't matter to us. What matters is that the source calls him white. It's only if it didn't that we'd have to look at ratios based on ancestry. All of that applies to 'the Brazilian guy', too.

Shakira's ancestries are both white, so as far as we're concerned, that might as well mean that she's 100% white, if such even exists.

"These girls in my picture are mostly of Irish, Brittish and Italian descent"

That may well be. Show us where it says that and your problem is solved.

"and they do look white."

But you're not a reliable source.

"Tell me which girls look as mestizo to you. I'm just curious."

It doesn't matter (I'm not a reliable source, either). So I'll pass. SamEV (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well. Let's see. So if we find a picture of someone with features that are strictly european (hair color, skin color, eyes, whatever..) we can't post it here unless we find a published article (even if it's not a serious one) stating that he is white or at least of european ancestry...

These are my sources(more serious than the ones you cite for Ricky Martin, Shakira or the Football guy):
1) These girls look whiter than Ricky Martin and Shakira.
2) They come from Argentina, the whitest Latin American Country. Half its population is a 100% european, the other half is at least 6/8 or 7/8 european (at least this is the case in Buenos Aires).
3) They are pupils from an Irish Dancing school, so it's pretty obvious that they have Irish ancestry.
4) Now that you say that you don't need to know if Ricky Martin is 7/8 white or less if the source claims that he is white, then European Ancestry is the only thing required to be white, and therefore, as it's pretty obvious that these girls' European features are predominant they should all pass as white.

Why some of your sources are not serious:
1) They're newspaper articles, whose writers have no authority at all in claiming who's white and who's not. Their oppinions are as good as yours or mine. If these articles were of a scientific or genealogical nature, then that would be different. So they're not reliable sources either.
2) Ricky Martin's reference source does not state that he is of European ancestry. Only that he is "white" (subjective term), and it's the same with Kaká's source.
3) These articles state nothing, they only mention random stuff about some of their ancestry or whiteness.

It's a pitty that you want to fight over this nonsense just because you think some of these girls look mestizo (which is very far from the truth).
--Grimshep (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In cases such as these I would recommend Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules WP:IAR Our article is being enslaved by this self-imposed rule of who's white and who's not. Something that has no formal basis and it's purely subjective.
And in the end we end up posting pictures like Shakira's which are controversial to many, and not adding a picture that is a very good sample of white people in Latin America.

I think ignoring this rule on "reliable sourced material" (which in this case is virtually non-existant) would help us provide the article with better pictures that are more representative to white people worldwide. In this way we would only need to prove the person's nationality and avoid all this arguing about whiteness.
Check the "whiteness" sources you've provided so far; they don't even qualify as tertiary sources or as reliable information.
That's why I think we can't apply this rule in this case, and that we should go for Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules.

What do you think? --Grimshep (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your "source" #3 is hilarious (I mean, really: who knew that in Argentina you had to be of Irish ancestry to be admitted to Irish dancing classes?). Crazy funny. And no, the pic's not excluded because anyone in it is mestizo. It's because – here it comes – you don't have a source. I'll take our sources over your personal word any day. I'll take our sources over my personal word any day, in fact.

Grimshep, you're wasting everyone's time. That's what I think. SamEV (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi samEv. You haven't answered my question.
1)What do you think about WP:IAR?

I have a new question too,
2)Do you really think your sources are reliable?
Just because Ricky Martin or Kaka look white to the interviewers eyes? Misplaced Pages clearly states what a reliable source is, and yours are far from falling into that definition. These interviewers are no authority on the subject, their words are worth the same as mine or yours (to[REDACTED] standards).

About my third "source". Of course you don't have to be of Irish ancestry to be admitted, but this picture was taken more than 25 years ago. In that time Irish dancing was not very popular in Argentina, in fact I don't think Argentines in general knew a word about it, only people of Irish ancestry did. And that was my point. Not a reliable source, but a common sense source on a matter, again, that has no reliable sources available.

Think about it, none of our sources are serious or reliable, nor yours nor mine. The point is that there are no reliable sources on this subject at all! I really think we should rely on common sense only. Misplaced Pages clearly states that in cases like this we should use common sense and disregard any rules hindering our way if that's for the best of the article. (Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules...WP:IAR)

Listen samEv, I'm not wasting your time, I'm just trying to do what I think is best for the article. In any case you're the one who's wasting my time by leaving my questions unanswered and posting only about how "hilarious" you find my 3rd "source" to be.
Please ,if you don't want to answer all of my questions, and in a respectful manner, just don't bother answering at all.

Does anybody else want to share their opinions?
--Grimshep (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:IAR should be ignored. I've never seen the logic in it at this stage of Misplaced Pages. Maybe it made sense early on, but not any more.

I do think our sources are reliable. Mind you, I've always wished for them to be replaced with even more reliable ones if possible. But I have other things to do. Would you like to help with that?

Their words are not worth the same as yours. It may be just their word, but they're qualified journalists whose work is published in reliable sources with others reviewing their work, as far as we know. That's a far cry from some anonymous person like you or me.

You're engaging in the purest WP:OR with this 'it's an Irish school way back then so they're Irish students" argument. It's ridiculous, Grimshep. At first I thought you were joking! SamEV (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Grimshep is correct to claim these girls have Irish descent. Why would a person of non-Irish ancestry be engaged in an Irish dance group? These folk groups are usually attended by people who want to preserve some aspects of their culture, with a few exceptions of people who may not be of Irish descent but are part of that group. Opinoso (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Et tu, Opinoso-e?

I do find it reasonable to assume that most probably are of Irish descent. There are two problems though: That doesn't mean that they're all white, necessarily, as some of them might indeed be mestizo, the Irish ancestry supplying at least part of their white ancestry. The main reason, the really important reason, though, is that to chuck our rules would open the door to any ignoramus who says "I think these people are white for this or that reason" and we'd be back here arguing incessantly over whether RBD belongs. I hope you see the wisdom of sticking to a set of rational, even if imperfect, rules, Opinoso. SamEV (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is really getting mad. Next, if someone comes with a "proof" that those girls are white, such as, for instance, their birth certificate, this isn't going to be evidence, because, well, they could be bastards or kidnapped at birth. What do we need? A genomic map? And evidence that the physician signing the birth certificate isn't lying, and that the genomic map wasn't wrongly exchanged for another person's? This way it is better not to have any articles about anything. After all, can anyone actually prove, with no possible doubt, that there even is a country called Argentina?

These girls are white, period. If someone claims they aren't - this would be an extraordinary claim, and would need quite good sources to be backed. Good grief. Donadio (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with samev here ,leting this picture would lead to countless pics being added of people without sources on a person's own pov I.E I think these people are white, it is best to have a source it avoids POV most importantly and secondary it avoids never ending arguement to who is and who is not white,it's best left to adding picture by people who think a group of people or a celeb is white but who also has a source to back up the claim--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there any proof that Fidel Castro is White? Donadio (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

yep read the source next to his pic--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading that source, I learn that he is Cuba's dictator, but by no means that he is White. Can you help me to find the information? Donadio (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand: Misplaced Pages doesn't care whether Fidel Castro is or isn't white. It doesn't care whether your girls are or aren't. Misplaced Pages doesn't worry about nor demand that we show the truth. All that Misplaced Pages asks of us is that we provide verifiability. Verifiability, not truth. It's what we're doing here in this article.

So take my advice and save your argumens about the truth, period and put your effort into providing verifiability.

Thank you, Wikiscribe. I was going to give him just that answer about Castro. You beat me to it (edit conflict). SamEV (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I understand. Fidel Castro could be black as Brent Blend; as long as we have a source stating he is White, we can include such information in Misplaced Pages, even if we perfectly knew it was a lie.

But the problem is, the source provided for Fidel Castro doesn't say a word about he being White or Green or Pink With Yellow Polka Dot. So, it is still unsourced information. The only reason his picture is in the article is common sence. If it is valid for him, it should be valid for the girls. If it is not valid for them, it shouldn't be valid for him. Donadio (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and from the Verifiability guideline:

The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article.

And also:

When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.

Which is exactly what I'm asking from you. Donadio (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Of course I understand. Fidel Castro could be black as Brent Blend; as long as we have a source stating he is White, we can include such information in Misplaced Pages, even if we perfectly knew it was a lie."

Exactly!

The source certainly does refer to Castro as white. Let me give you a quotation: "Black soldiers tended to identify with Batista, who was a mulatto and former sergeant, against the white traditional ruling class of Spanish origin, of which Castro and his two companions were typical representatives." And I'm taking no chances – the way this has gone, you're very likely to miss it. So to help you locate it, I've highlighted the essential clauses: Look in the middle of the page.

If you still want more sources for Castro, here are a few I gathered some months ago: , , . SamEV (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That source is a text with three paragraphs:

Paragraph one starts with "Rhetoric during and after..." Paragraph two starts with "Leycester Coltman, British ambassador..." Paragraph three starts with "Coltman chronicles the events..."

In which paragraph exactly can I find the sentence you mention? Donadio (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your second source has the same problem. The third is more promising, but it 104 pages long. Can you please tell me the page where I can find the information? Donadio (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What "same problem"? The only problem I perceive is that you don't like the idea of sources.

As to the other matter, if you're referring to the pdf, it has a search box. Just enter "Castro" in it and read the sentence of which it is part. SamEV (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The "problem" being that I am unable to find the sentence you mentioned.

But never mind. Fidel Castro is obviously White, no one needs a source for that. This, not sources, is the reason he has been chosen to illustrate the article. Sources only come after, to substantiate the claim.

In the case of these girls, they are White. That some people take pleasure in denying such a fact, just to annoy other editors, strikes me as immensely absurd. But so be it. Misplaced Pages is a place were people bitch about sources, regardless of truth. And some even take to the task of experimenting to what extent they are able to maintain known falseties here, as long as they seem to conform to sources. Donadio (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Insignificant presence of white women among Portuguese settlers in Brazil

Opinoso, I know that your prefered sport is to revert anything I write, but please, where does the source say anything about it being insignificant?

The only hint about its significance is the figure of 39%, which can hardly be equated with "insignificant". Donadio (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)