Talk:Afro–Latin Americans/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pictures in the info box

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

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

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

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

• Reply My apologies for taking so long to reply, things have been extremely busy with school. I would have to say that mulatto and Afro-Latin can be viewed as the same thing. Mulatto in the United States meant certain things depending in history, throughout the 1700s to the early 1900s Native Americans were called mulattos and those mixed with a native bloodline were called mulatto. When you get to the 1940s it generally meant someone that was clearly bi or multiracial. I have a strong stance against the one drop rule just so we are clear. I would say Nicole Richie can claim both White Latin and Afro Latin, I could care less if she was 5% of her makeup was African she is still Afro-Latin by blood (even though genetic testing isn't 100% accurate). My main concern was she represents a lighter complexion...hence diversity which is accurate not just showing those who show dominate sub-Saharan traits.Mcelite (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply. No worries and I understand what you are saying but you need to understand two things. One, the United States play a minor role in who is an Afro-Latino and the official universal term of mulatto is the mixing between one pure European and one pure African, however today it is used not only to describe a perfect even 50/50 split. Two, you said I would have to say that mulatto and Afro-Latin can be viewed as the same thing, this needs to be sourced as this is (whether right or wrong) an opinionated statement. If it is a right one, great! - but it must be sourced. This is why I've added a citation tag in the opening paragraph. Also, when viewing the CIA census report, black and mixed or mulatto are held separate. I have also found no evidence, that someone who is of mixed origins been called black in Latin America. One example is in the Dominican Republic. Someone of mixed descent (mulatto), to be called black would be extremely offensive for their own personal reasons. As United States terminology goes, the President of the United States, Barack Obama is often considered black, but then everyone forgets that his mother was white, but again this is only contingent in the U.S. and having the one-drop rule; not treated the same in the rest of Latin America). But if he was a Latin American could he not represent being white? Probably not as well, but a mulatto or mixed? Yes. Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply It can be more that it is opinionated that mulatto and Afro-Latin can be viewed as the same thing in certain cultures, that will take me a bit of time to find a reliable source relating to that. The attitudes in the U.S. are a bit twisted, as you said due to the one drop rule, irony is that rule does nothing but decimate families and cultural connections. Can it be agreed to have someone of a light complexion who is culturally more connected with Latin America to show the diversity of the group. That is a main focus I'm trying to express.Mcelite (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply FoxNews Latino says: "There is a big difference between the U.S. and Latin America, and this goes back to the one-drop rule," said Edward Morales, professor at Columbia University's Center for the Study of Race and Ethnicity. "If you have one grandparent who is black, you’re black. In Latin America it is the opposite. If you have any white, you are not black." 75.62.20.174 there is no citation available on this page that agrees that an Afro-Latino can be of mixed ancestry and not just black. This is why we have creoles, mulattos, criollos, and pardos. You said: "most of the Afrolatinos in the Latin world are not 80-100% pure African blood", okay understood, but CIA reports that these people are "identifying" themselves as black hence the black population percentages that are distinct from "mixed" or "mulatto." All week you have been disrupting this discussion without filling in the void and contributing to adding sources to this article. Do these people identify themselves as Afro? Ok, so site them. Afro-Latin can "can refer to the mixing of African," okay so why is this not sourced? Instead you have constantly reverted. Please add sources, that is all. If that is so difficult to do, then perhaps there aren't any. [1]

Reply I am completely confused, were you talking to me SavvyJack? I've only done one revert and haven't done another one.Mcelite (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Haiti "not" a Latin American country

You seem to have assumed that Haiti is a Latin American country. This is wrong. In common parlance, Latin America includes the countries of the Americas where Spanish and Portuguese are spoken, that is, Hispanic America plus Brazil. Technically one could make a case that countries or territories where French is spoken should be included, since French is a romance language. However, that is not normally done. Quebecois and French Canadians are NOT normally considered Latin Americans, not are the inhabitants of Martinique, Guiana or Guadalupe. Neither are Haitians, and to my knowledge Haitians do NOT consider themselves Latin American. Haiti's history and culture are, for many reasons, quite different from those of Hispanic American countries and Brazil. Furthermore, Haitian language is quite different from French (it is not a dialect or accent (as Quebecois French is) but a really distinct language, in vocabulary and grammar). Often the phrase "Latin America AND the Caribbean" is used, to include Latin America proper, plus the West Indies. This does include Haiti (as well as Jamaica, Trinidad, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgrod (talk • contribs) 02:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply. Your argument has a few holes. First, French is the official language of Haiti and in turn a Francophone nation and a Romance/Latin originated one. Recently, the creole has become its dual official. Canadians might speak French as well but they are a commonwealth of the United Kingdom, while Martinique and Guadalupe are French territories who did not join in as they are still dependents of a European nation. Haiti is in the Latin Union. To be accepted in this union, a country (being in Latin American territory), would have to meet a strict number of qualifications and Haiti meets all (language, location, etc.) while you will see countries like Jamaica, Guiana (the English one) excluded from this list for obvious reasons. You can check to see on the official website. (A reputable source) To play devil's advocate on my own statement, Haiti has also tried to be included in the "African Union" and has failed. Haiti is currently only an observer. Mind you, in my personal opinion, some people in the Haitian government would like to be a part of this African Union, for the simple reason that Haiti was the first ever successful slave rebellion and its something of pride, but I wonder how the 5% (white, mulatto) feel about that inclusion. In conclusion, we are not using the "United States'" terminology here on who are Latinos/Hispanics. Haiti to the rest of the world is a Latin American country and there are numerous references to support this. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

References

• Reply. Sorry, but the Latin Union is totally irrelevant, since that is relatively recent world-wide, rather obscure, alliance that follows a purely linguistic criterion. As a born and raised Latin American I can assure you that Latin Americans do NOT consider Haiti a Latin American country, and, to my knowledge, most Haitians will be shocked to learn some view them as "latinos"...The point about Quebec and the others is that regardless of their POLITICAL status, which can of course change (there is a strong pro-independence movement in Quebec and to a lesser extend in the mentioned French-speaking territories), neither the Quebecois PEOPLE view themselves as "Latin Americans" nor do Latin Americans count Quebecois people among them...And that will continue whether or not Quebec achieves independence at some point in the future...same for the others French speakers in the Americas. Regardless of any technical hair-splitting, the fact is that Haiti's history and culture are completely different from those of Latin American countries, including the Dominican Republic and Cuba (nearest neighbors)....Haiti arose from a most bloody slave rebellion, after which nearly all non-slaves left or lost their lives...That gave rise to a society unlike any other in the Americas...Other Caribbean islands such as Jamaica have more in common with Haiti than the Spanish-speaking countries do, because, like Haiti, those islands are predominantly inhabited by people who are predominantly slave descendants (not by a small percentage), although they did not have the kind of bloody independence Haiti had...By contrast, the Latin American societies became independent through the joint efforts of most local people, of all classes, colors, and races, following a leadership that included many European descendants, plus many people of mixed heritage...Brazil in fact became independent by an act of the Portuguese monarchy itself...There is simply no comparison...Lumping Haiti with Latin Americans can only be justified as a linguistic technicality, and even then, for consistency sake, the same technicality would apply to Quebecois and others who are NOT being counted as Latin PEOPLE. ==>> EDIT: By the way, Puerto Rico (like Quebec, Martinique, etc) is NOT an independent country, yet, most people --and THIS article -- do consider Puerto Ricans as Latin Americans (regardless of PR's political status, which may eventually change), and to my knowledge, most Puerto Ricans do view themselves as Latin Americans. There is simply no justification to include PR (correctly) and Haiti (presumably by a linguistic technicality) but to exclude Quebec and other French-speaking people of the Americas (which would be covered by the same technicality).Virgrod (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply. I'm sorry, but being black and rising from slaves have nothing to do with being Latino. I also said "Latin-American." Your personal experience of Haiti are noted but unsourceable. (In fact it was Alexandre Pétion that aided Simon Bolivar with weaponry in Port-au-Prince to start the revolutions in the other Americas as most of these countries had black slaves as the natives were unslaveable). Technically, Canada cannot be Latin American as I mentioned previously that they are a commonwealth of England (Anglophone). Puerto Rico is actually very debatable now, as they are considered Americans when born there. In terms of Martinique and Guadeloupe technically they are Latin American, since they are (a) in Latin America, and (b) speak a romance language. Again, Latin-American. The U.S. terminology for Latinos are Hispanics and Brazilians; yes, that part is understood. On that note, the United States uses outdated terminology. Many European nations even adopted Passing (racial identity), in which the United States still has the one-drop de facto. Also, Jamaica is English speaking, please. Most countries blood lineage doesn't even trace back to their motherlands anymore but sporadic ethnicities. Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply Sorry, but you are imposing a definition of Latin America which is NOT commonly accepted, certainly not by the people involved. And you are not even applying your own definition consistently. To include Haiti your only justification is that its language has some elements of French. But you exclude Quebec, which does speak French, on the grounds it is affiliated with England (anglophone). Yet you include Spanish-speaking PR which is affiliated with the USA (anglophone). Very very clear inconsistency. Your statement about Martinique and Guadalupe is puzzling: they ARE in Latin America AND speak a romance language? Perhaps you meant they are in the Americas and speak a romance language?...yet it raises again the definition issue: you are imposing a purely linguistic one which is not used by everyone, including the people affected. Of course there were slaves in most Latin American countries...what they did NOT have was a major slave rebellion that killed or forced out (nearly) all non-slaves...see the difference? Haiti for better or worse is a society created almost exclusively by (former) slaves...that makes a huge difference to its culture, its institutions, its religion, its language, etc. When people group countries they look at such factors. That is why it makes perfect sense to cluster the Spanish-speaking countries...same language, same culture, similar history, similar social/political institutions, same/similar religious beliefs, etc., etc...The same can be said about Brazil except for the language (which is almost mutually intelligible with Spanish, BTW)...but Haiti does NOT share these factors with the Latin American countries, hence it makes no sense to cluster Haiti with them. Fact is Haiti is in a class of its own, for better or worse. Virgrod (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Reply I enjoyed our debate, but unfortunately I do not believe you have the sources to back up these claims. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Reply To back up WHICH claim? Virgrod (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply (1) Canada has never been considered a Latin American country as it is a commonwealth of ENGLAND. (2) The United States is not an Anglophone nation technically because English is NOT the official language; it is the de facto language. We even dial 2 for Spanish on phone-calls. The law never gets past to make it official because it keeps getting denied. I said Puerto Rico is debatable, never said they aren't Latin American. (3) The French Caribbean islands are situated in Latin America (plus qualifying factors) and I believe should be considered and they are as I view this Wikipedia page. (4) You have mentioned Haiti in the same sentence as for better or worse twice.(?) (5) Brazilians are Latino, not Hispanic. Same culture? Brazil has more people than all the Spanish speaking countries combined and Brazilians strongly dislike being mistakenly called Hispanic. They have a pretty distinct culture. (6) You mentioned that Haiti has nothing in common with Latin America, perhaps you should look at its music, cuisine, language, culture, etiquette, etc. a little bit more closely. I have a many good reads on Latin America; if you would like I can share them with you. Also, I've found that there is already a previous discussion on this on the List of Afro-Latinos talk page. Cheers. Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Reply Well, I think we have to move to closing arguments here. I propose that we use an AUTHORITATIVE source to settle this, since after all, this is not a personal website where the owner can impose his/her own criteria on anything. Do you agree? I suppose most agree that Webster's Dictionary is (one of) the most authoritative for American English. According to them, Latin America means: (1) "Spanish America & Brazil" or (2) "All of the Americas S of the United States". (2) is clearly NOT being used here (all English and Dutch speaking places would have to be added), hence (1) is the one that applies. What about British English? I suppose most would accept the Oxford English Dictionary as (one of) the most authoritative. According to them, Latin America means "The parts of the American continent where Spanish or Portuguese is the main national language". That is quite clear, no? Notice that the definitions are not restricted to independent countries, hence Puerto Rico IS included. I suppose that Webster's and Oxford's dictionaries are good enough sources for a Wiki article. Hence the article should be edited accordingly, right? Virgrod (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC) says in conclusion:
These "definitions" do not mention that the term Latin America was supported by the French Empire of Napoleon III during the French invasion of Mexico as a way to include France among countries with influence in America and to exclude Anglophone countries and that it played a role in his campaign to imply cultural kinship of the region with France, transforming France into a cultural and political leader of the area.

AND:

That the term "Latin America" was first used in 1861 in La revue des races Latines, a magazine "dedicated to the cause of Pan-Latinism".

While these definitions may be held true, it can never be fully recognized as such, due to an overwhelming number of sources that contradict these definitions that are written in many different languages, not just in English.

References

• Reply As a born and raised Latin American I posted the correct meaning of the term as it is actually used by most people, but you challenged it and demanded sources. Now that you got your sources, you seem to claim that (two of) the most authoritative English dictionaries (US and British) in the world are, BOTH, INDEPENDENTLY, wrong. I am sorry but you are not better qualified to know the correct meaning of a phrase than the editors of both dictionaries are. That the phrase was coined the way you describe does not contradict the definitions given by the dictionaries. Definitions and etymology are not the same thing. What matters is how the words are actually used TODAY in standard English, which conceivably may or may not be different from the way they were used decades or centuries ago. It is clear that you will not accept any definition different from the one you like, not matter what anyone or any source says and how reliable the source may be. That would be OK for a personal website, but this is a community page that doesn't belong to anyome. Perhaps we just need to invoke a higher authority or conflict resolution procedure to choose between the Webters/Oxford definition and yours. Virgrod (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again I agree with Virgrod, for instance, brazils 100+ population of Afrolatinos includes pardos, whom by your logic Savvyjack23 do not constitute black. A prior consensus had already been made saying that afrolatino means any caste or racial classification in middle or South America with any component of Sub-Saharan African descent regardless or quantity. That being said, most of the Afrolatinos in the Latin world are not 80-100% pure African blood, but are a mixture of various European (Mainly Spanish/Portuguese), various Amerindian peoples and various African peoples. The main unifier for Afrolatino is those whom label themselves as such, whether they be Haitian, Venezuelan and columbian multiracials, brazil pardos, or mexico lobos.75.62.20.174 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree Virgrod, I believe we need to invoke a higher authority. We both have our reasons and sources of why or why this group should be included. My one concern on Wikipedia articles and editing is its accuracy. Nothing more, nothing less. If there is serious compelling evidence in favor for why this group should no longer be included, I would not hesitate to support it. Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply Well, the definitions provided independently by (2 of) the world's most authoritative English dictionaries (US and UK) constitute "serious compelling evidence", right? These definitions clearly exclude Haiti, and other former French colonies in the Americas. This is not a matter of personal opinion or taste. The dictionaries are either right or wrong on this matter. I see no evidence presented that they are wrong. Virgrod (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Afro-Latino populations in the Americas; the USA figure

It says Afro-Latino populations, the USA is not a Latin speaking country, therefore just because 12.2% of the population is Black does not mean 12.2% is Afro-Latino. The USA does actually have stats on this tho and here is the figures... the Latino population that is Black in the USA was 1,243,471 (0.4%) in 2010 while the population in 2010 was 308,745,538. Here is the source: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1 (B23Rich (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC))

Orphaned references in Afro-Latin American

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Afro-Latin American's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "cia":

• From São Tomé and Príncipe: "The World Factbook -- Field Listing - Population - CIA". Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 2015-03-07.
• From Afro-Haitian: "CIA - The World Factbook -- Haiti". CIA. Retrieved 2013-05-21. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Central America: Central Intelligence Agency (2014). "The world factbook". Washington, D.C.: Central Intelligence Agency.
• From El Salvador: "CIA - The World Factbook -- El Salvador". CIA. Retrieved 2013-10-12. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Afro-Kittian and Nevisian: "CIA - The World Factbook -- Saint Kitts and Nevis". CIA. Retrieved 2013-06-20. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Nicaragua: "Nicaragua: Economy". CIA World Factbook. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
• From Afro-Vincentian: "CIA - The World Factbook -- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines". CIA. Retrieved 2013-05-13. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Argentina: "Argentina". The World Factbook. CIA. Archived from the original on 30 August 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Afro-Bermudian: "CIA - The World Factbook -- Bermuda". CIA. Archived from the original on 13 February 2013. Retrieved 2013-03-16. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2 April 2010 suggested (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Guatemala: "CIA World Factbook, Guatemala". July 2011. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
• From Madagascar: Central Intelligence Agency (2011). "Madagascar". The World Factbook. Archived from the original on 24 August 2011. Retrieved 24 August 2011.
• From Afro-Anguillian: "CIA - The World Factbook -- Cayman Islands". CIA. Retrieved 2013-06-09. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Portuguese language: "The World Factbook – Field Listing – Population – CIA". Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 14 January 2015.
• From Belize: "Belize". CIA World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved August 14, 2014.
• From White Latin American: "Paraguay". The World Factbook (2024 ed.). Central Intelligence Agency.
• From Uruguay: Central Intelligence Agency. "Uruguay". The World Factbook. Retrieved 5 January 2010.
• From Afro-Turks and Caicos Islander: "CIA - The World Factbook -- Turks and Caicos Islands". CIA. Retrieved 2013-10-13. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Bolivia: "South America :: Bolivia". The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 28 January 2014.
• From Honduras: Honduras. CIA – The World Factbook. Cia.gov. Retrieved on 28 July 2012.
• From Afro-French Guianan: "CIA - The World Factbook -- French Guiana". CIA. Retrieved 2013-10-13. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Afro-Antiguan and Barbudan: "CIA - The World Factbook -- Antigua and Barbuda". CIA. Retrieved 2013-06-09. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Afro-Saint Lucian: "CIA - The World Factbook -- Saint Lucia". CIA. Retrieved 2013-05-13. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Peru: Peru. CIA, The World Factbook
• From African Saint Helenians: "CIA - The World Factbook -- Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha". CIA. Retrieved 2013-03-17. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Afro-Bahamian: "CIA - The World Factbook -- Bahamas, The". CIA. Archived from the original on 2 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-04-02. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Panama: "Panama". CIA – The World Factbook. Retrieved December 23, 2010.
• From Ethnic groups in Central America: "Belize" (PDF). 2010 Belize Housing and Population Census. Statistical Institute of Belize. Retrieved 7 June 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks for all your hard work AnimieBOT Tobus (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference dump

I'm cleaning out the impossibly long external links section. Many of the links are dead, and I've found archived captures for them, but the information is dated and peripheral.

Being an information hoarder (yes, I have stockpiles of pamphlets and sundry 'stuff' dating back to the early 70s mouldering away in storage), I can't bring myself to simply consign it to the history of the article. There may be some useful information for this article, or surrounding articles to be found amongst the hoard.

As this talk page doesn't see any use than my sundry hard-copy info, I'm going to transfer the redundant material here for interested editors to rummage through. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Young Lords origins web site
• The World Bank Group's website, "Afro-Latin Americans" from 2001 and not updated
• The World Bank's Latin American and Caribbean Social Development Unit's newsletter "La Ventana" Webpage contains links to three editions of newsletters detailing World Bank activities toward the social inclusion of Afro-Latin American and indigenous peoples.
• The World Bank's Publications on Afro-Latin Americans (see column on right side for Acrobat documents available for download).
• The World Bank's website: "The World Bank and Afro-Latins – Overview"
• World Bank webpage announcing their report entitled: "Inequality in Latin America & the Caribbean: Breaking with History?" (archived from the original on 2007-06-15)The webpage includes links to specific report chapters, including Chapter 3, which considers racial factors involved in inequality.
• Ivan Briscoe, "The time of the underdog: rage and race in Latin America," Open Democracy (19 December 2005).
• Mayra Buvinic and Jacqueline Mazza with Ruthanne Deutsch, eds. Social Inclusion and Economic Development in Latin America, (Inter-American Development Bank, 2004) (by various authors and with considerable parts dealing with Afro Latin Americans).
• Omar Arias, Gustavo Yamada, & Luis Tejerina, "Education, family background and racial earnings inequality in Brazil," (Abstract) the International Journal of Manpower, Volume 25, Number 3/4 (2004), pp. 355–374.
• Colombian 2005 Census Television Commercial Orgullosamente Afrocolombiano

(first instalment) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Afro-Latin Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.alvaro.com.br/pdf/trabalhoCientifico/ARTIGO_BRASIL_LILIAN.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150201224728/http://www.nuestro.cl:80/eng/stories/people/oronegro.htm to http://www.nuestro.cl/eng/stories/people/oronegro.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927214946/http://www.benedict.edu/exec_admin/intnl_programs/other_files/bc-intnl_programs-law_70_of_colombia-english.pdf to http://www.benedict.edu/exec_admin/intnl_programs/other_files/bc-intnl_programs-law_70_of_colombia-english.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Afro-Latin Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afrolatinos.tv/index.php?root.display%2F222%2FNicaragua
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afrolatinos.tv/index.php?root.display%2F233%2FUruguay
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afrolatinos.tv/index.php?root.display%2F266%2FChile
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afrolatinos.tv/index.php?root.display%2F223%2FCosta_Rica
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afrolatinos.tv/index.php?root.display%2F214%2FGuatemala
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afrolatinos.tv/index.php?root.display%2F228%2FBolivia
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202222851/http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~mloveman/papers/LovemanMunizBailey_ERS_2011.pdf to http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~mloveman/papers/LovemanMunizBailey_ERS_2011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927160218/http://cienciahoje.uol.com.br/noticias/2011/02/nossa-heranca-europeia/?searchterm=Pena to http://cienciahoje.uol.com.br/noticias/2011/02/nossa-heranca-europeia/?searchterm=Pena
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.alvaro.com.br/pdf/trabalhoCientifico/ARTIGO_BRASIL_LILIAN.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afrolatinos.tv/index.php?root.display%2F214%2FGuatemala
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afrolatinos.tv/index.php?root.display%2F222%2FNicaragua
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afrolatinos.tv/index.php?root.display%2F265%2FBolivia
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afrolatinos.tv/index.php?root.display%2F266%2FChile
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afrolatinos.tv/index.php?root.display%2F267%2FArgentina
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afrolatinos.tv/index.php?root.display%2F270%2FUruguay
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nuestro.cl/eng/stories/people/oronegro.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Afro-Latin Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160129081134/http://spanish.state.gov/respas/38119.htm to http://spanish.state.gov/respas/38119.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924122330/http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/trabalhoerendimento/pnad2009/tabelas_pdf/brasil_1_2.pdf to http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/trabalhoerendimento/pnad2009/tabelas_pdf/brasil_1_2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160129081134/http://spanish.state.gov/respas/38119.htm to http://spanish.state.gov/respas/38119.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Populations

Greetings to the entire community making life wikipedia article. I dirigo to plant a drawback orginó an edit war, in which the user User:DonBarchanga DonBarchanga (talk · contribs) added DonBarchanga article modifying information supported by official figures and very safe source. The problem is the figures for Venezuela, which according to the National Statistics Institute (Single demographic entity, governmental and able to provide data of this kind in the country) it is clear with the percentage of the population, which ignores the user. Venezuela is a very racially mixed nation. Research in 2001 on genetic diversity by the Venezuelan Institute of Scientific Research (Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, IVIC) in which the population was compared to the historical patterns of the colonial castes. According to the last population census in Venezuela conducted by the National Institute Estadististica (INE), the population in the country afrodescendienten represents 2.8% of the national total, which is 181 157 result in the number of Venezuelans with black racial characteristics[2]. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the user modifies the figure exaggerated, standing at 8.7 million, which is obviously false. The reference points [3] which is the year 2009, while the INE 2011 is also such reference is to the embassy, and the place is the Venezuelan government. Furthermore, the article is about the African descent, something that all Latin Americans have a greater or lesser extent; and the user includes in those 8 million population "mestizo", which I think should not be, since it corresponds another ethnicity. And in this case the figures mestizo populations were added, it should be with all countries, not just Venezuela, considering that if figures talking, Mexico would be the leader, because with over 100 million people , most equivalent to mestizo, as in many Latin countries; but it is necessary to differentiate. .I think it is clear, unfortunately I found myself involved in an edit war by trying to restore the information because despite trying to dialogue with the user I never received a response or Animos discuss here by the user, which is unfortunate. Currently, the issue is for the user, and can not be reversed because the article was protected in view of the edit war. I hope to intervene in this discussion, although I sincerely doubt it does. Thank you very much, greetings.

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

Move discussion in progress

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

Proposed merge with Afro-Latinx

"Afro-Latin American" is also a gender-neutral term. There's no reason stated in the article that this is different enough to warrant a separate article. ... discospinster _talk 20:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Reply. Respectfully disagree, yes, it is a gender neutral term yet to is the article for the term Latinx and that has a full article devoted to it as well. I'm the creator of this article and feel both gender neutral terms are deserving of their own articles, Wikipedia is in need of more diversity and more diverse topics such as this. Neptune's Trident (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The references given in the article don't distinguish between Afro-Latinx and Afro-Latin American (or Afro-Latino, Afro-Latina, Afro-Latin@). There needs to be sources that acknowledge the difference between the two terms, otherwise they just seem like synonyms. Some of the articles even use Afro-Latinx and Afro-Latina/o interchangeably. ... discospinster _talk 03:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

---

I found a few academic encyclopedias that discuss Afro–Latin Americans, but without much reference to other terminology. A couple of sources I found seem to treat Afro–Latin Americans and Afro-Latinos as distinct groups corresponding to Latin Americans and Latinos, respectively:

• "African Americans, Blacks, Afro-Latinas/os, Afro–Latin Americans, dark-skinned mestizos, and people of Asian descent are discriminated against ... Afro–Latin Americans interact with U.S.-born Latinas/os and Afro-Latinas/os"
• "These scholars argued that, despite their relatively small numbers, Afro-Latinos were distinct among Latinos ... the African diaspora empirically is, and therefore theoretically should be, inclusive of Afro-Latinos and Afro-Latin Americans"

Since Latinx is a gender-neutral version of the US-centric Latino, Afro-Latinx would logically refer to people born and/or raised in the US, as opposed to the rest of the Americas. If this article is to be about Latin Americans of African ancestry, then I think Afro-Latino, Afro-Latinos, and Afro-Latinx should redirect to Hispanic and Latino Americans#Demographics, maybe with a disambiguation link to Latinx. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Turns out there's a separate article at Black Hispanic and Latino Americans. I've re-targeted the above redirects there. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

References

"Afro-Latinx"

I am not aware of the term "Afro-Latinx" being considered offensive to Latin people - if there is an indication of this then it could be removed or accompanied by a note. In fact, I see the term and "Latinx" being used freely by Latin studies scholars.

• So you're Afro-Latinx. Now what?
• "Latinx studies" @ Google Scholar
• "Afro-Latinx" @ Google Scholar

... discospinster _talk 18:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It is very offensive to us native Spanish-speaking Latin Americans and should not be used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for the entire world not just for the US.

Some sources below:

A 2016 HuffPost article stated, "Many opponents of the term have suggested that using an un-gendered noun like Latinx is disrespectful to the Spanish language and some have even called the term 'a blatant form of linguistic imperialism,'" which is "unpronounceable in Spanish".

Hector Luis Alamo described the term as a "bulldozing of Spanish". In a 2015 article for Latino Rebels, Alamo wrote: "If we dump Latino for Latinx because it offends some people, then we should go on dumping words forever since there will always be some people who find some words offensive.

Php2000 (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:Wikipedia is not censored. The word is in fact used in academia, so that should be noted. ... discospinster _talk 14:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That is a pretty poor response. "Wikipedia is not censored" but we don't write "Americans also known as Gringos" as the opening line to the article about American people, just because we typically refer to them as Gringos in Mexico. Its systemic anglocentric bias, I suggest you read the relevant WP policies. Php2000 (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Well if Mexican academics of American/white descent referred to Americans as "Gringos" on a regular basis in their articles then yes, it would be in the opening line. ... discospinster _talk 16:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

References

IMO Latinx is a very clear example of anglo chauvinism. Latin people don't use the term by a large margin, with only 2% identifying with it. Heck 2 out of 3 oppose it. YES it is an offensive term used only by a select few in american college circles. Belevalo (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Whether you think it's chauvinistic or not, the reality is that people (including Latino/a writers) do use it and clearly don't find it offensive. (And before you bring up the N-word as a comparison, please don't.) ... discospinster _talk 19:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

65% of latin people who are aware of it oppose it. only 2% support it. Conclusion: it's offensive. and so far, you're the only one defending it in this talk as well. Belevalo (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop removing it. ... discospinster _talk 16:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Whether anyone considers the term "offensive" or not is not a valid reason to censor it; otherwise we'd have to delete the entire Latinx article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

"Afro-Latinx" in lead

The term may indeed be noteworthy, but Medium is a poor source, since it's self-published. The Google Scholar results above are essentially primary sources for the usage as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it shows that the word is commonly used. The article is not about whether Afro-Latinx is noteworthy or notable, the word is included because it is a term that is used in many places, whether it's preferred or not. ... discospinster _talk 18:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

By "noteworthy", I just mean worthy of inclusion within the article, not "notable" in the WP-jargon sense. Regardless, we still need a reliable, independent source commenting directly on the usage to satisfy due weight requirements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Does that also apply to "Black Latin American" and "Afro Latino"? ... discospinster _talk 19:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. See my comment under § Proposed merge with Afro-Latinx above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Discospinster: the NYU source is a two-hour video of a virtual symposium; if anything, it's a primary source for any statements made in it. Where does the video say anything about the meaning of Afro-Latinx, let alone that Afro-Latinx is synonymous with Afro–Latin American? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The paper by Vidal-Ortiz & Martínez (2018) is a secondary source for Latinx, but not Afro-Latinx. The latter term appears only in a brief mention at the end, as the authors say, "to further incite the conversation on the possibilities and challenges of Latinx", where they pose the question whether Afro-Latinx conflicts with the goal of inclusivity in using Latinx. There's no evaluation or analysis, just a question. We don't know from this source how prevalent use of Afro-Latinx is or even its precise meaning. However, given that the authors specifically make a distinction between "Latina/o/x" and "Latin American", we can safely assume they mean "Afro-Latinx" to denote Black Hispanic and Latino Americans rather than Afro–Latin Americans. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is not about the meaning of Afro-Latinx. The term is in fact used as a synonym of Afro-Latin American and I have supplied many sources to show that. You continue to be unsatisfied with the nature of these sources and changing what you consider to be sufficient. I'm not sure what your end game is here. ... discospinster _talk 15:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I just explained that the Vidal-Ortiz source does not show that the terms are synonymous. I asked where the NYU symposium video supports that claim, but didn't receive an answer. I'm not sure how reliable Oprah Magazine is considered to be for sociological topics, but I suspect it's on the same level as most mass-market women's magazines, which is to say, not very. At any rate, the source you added seems to conflate Latin Americans with Latinos, defining "Afro-Latinx" people as "descendants of Latin America with African roots", "Latin American[s] of African descent", and "Black Latinos" interchangeably. We already have an article on Black Latinos at Black Hispanic and Latino Americans. Given the sources we have, listing Afro-Latinx as a synonym of Afro–Latin American seems unduly weighted at best, and at worst simply incorrect. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It is absolutely correct and just as relevant as the inclusion of "Afro-Latino", of which it is a synonym, as shown in the sources. ... discospinster _talk 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Where in the sources? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse but I will repeat, "Afro-Latinx" is absolutely correct and relevant to the article, whether or not it is acceptable to you. ... discospinster _talk 15:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or I think is correct. I'll ask once again, where do the sources say this? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm done trying to justify this to you. I have provided multiple sources which all seem to have a fatal flaw according to you. If you have a problem with the inclusion of Afro-Latinx as a synonym, I suggest you take it up in dispute resolution. ... discospinster _talk 16:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. Would you agree to a third opinion request? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. ... discospinster _talk 16:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's my proposed request for listing at WP:30#Active disagreements:

Talk:Afro–Latin Americans#"Afro-Latinx": dispute between two editors about whether "Afro-Latinx" should be added to the lead sentence as an alternative name for the topic. Editors differ on whether doing so accurately represents published, reliable sources or is a form of undue weight.

Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. ... discospinster _talk 14:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Third opinionDiscospinster Sangdeboeuf In some ways, I think this might be the wrong page to be having this discussion on. I note that Latino (demonym) doesn't even mention Latinx in the lead (though it does briefly in the body). The main article for Black Hispanic and Latino Americans doesn't have it either. I think it should probably be discussed in the context of those broader articles before it is in a country specific article like this one. I don't think there is going to be a lot of literature for Afro-Latinx, but there seems to be no shortage discussing just Latinx. I don't think its a leap to take the primary sources we have for Afro-Latinx and combine them with the already broad literature on Latinx to justify inclusion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: just to clarify, do you mean inclusion on the other pages you mention, not on this one? What about on Latinx? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, I mean inclusion on this page. Although now that you mention it, I could also see "Afro-Latinx" being discussed on the Latinx page itself. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, but I'm still not convinced that most of these sources are using "Afro-Latinx" to mean Afro–Latin Americans. The essays on The Root (contrasting "Afro-Latinx" with "African American") and Medium are about Afro-Latinos in the US. Vidal-Ortiz & Martínez (2018) are careful to distinguish "Latina/o/x" from "Latin American". Oprah Magazine seems to conflate Latin Americans with Latinos. All the sources are written for a primarily Anglo–North American audience. While there's some genuine overlap, the sources seem to focus mainly on Black Hispanic and Latino Americans when discussing Afro-Latinx identity. Therefore I still think listing the term in the lead would be a form of undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Both "Afro-Latines" and "Afro-Latinx" are neologisms and don't belong in the lead.★Trekker (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)