Talk:Afro–Latin Americans/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Afro–Latin Americans. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Link to Current Discussion Page

OLD Guidelines for using this page:

Note these guidelines referred to the main talk page, not this page, and are here only for historical completeness. Under ordinary circumstances all comments should be placed on Talk:Afro-Latin American

Please do not move or archive this section

Add a new topic of discussion by clicking the "+" tab at the top and provide a brief title to your topic. Newest topics are always added to the bottom of the page.
Respond to or comment on an existing topic by adding your comment to the bottom of the specific topic, indenting your comment from the previous one by placing one or more colons (:)at the start of your paragraph.
Sign and Date your comment (click the signature button at the top of the edit box)to help other readers follow the flow of the conversation and aid in archiving of the comments when the page becomes too lengthy.

Edits

How can there be less blacks in Honduras than in Guatemala? It is a clearly false assertion. IMO the title is made up and needs changing. The black Latinos dop not regard themselves, nor does anyone else in LA regard them as Afros. I would like to change the name, but not sure what to, SqueakBox July 6, 2005 17:31 (UTC)

I have removed the false assertion that the majority of Honduran blacks are Garífuna, and removed the percentages of blacks in CA countries as they are not credible figures. I didn't know this article existed but now that I do I look forward to contributing, SqueakBox July 6, 2005 17:57 (UTC)

I now have serious doubts about the reliability of any statements within this article, given the sheer number of dubious steatements I have read, and I haven't even finished the article, SqueakBox July 6, 2005 18:29 (UTC)

You removed the pecentages. Doesn't it make more sense to cite the sources of the percentages instead of removing themn altogether? There are sources available from government or academic agencies. They all have their problems - but so does any nations reporting of this statistic. Cacimar July 14, 2005

The first paragraphs seems to have a lot of irrelevant or unsourced information. "Many black Latin Americans feel insulted to be called Afro or African." This applies to most general ethnic or racial labels. Does each entry in wikipedia carry a similar disclaimer? Usually this feeling "insult" is attributed to relf-racism when it is applicable. "Afro" is an apparent popular term in current and historical cultures in Latin America by people addressing their blackness or africanness.

No this is not popular in that sense. Al least in Mexico, people with dark skin would not care to be called negro or mulato, but he would not like to be called african.... Nanahuatzin 01:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"In most Latin American contries, negro is reserved for people with very dark skin, while people with mix is called mulatto. The difference on the two is subjetive and full of cultural bias."

I'm not sure mentioning the difference without explaining it is worthwile. Mulato can be applied to dark and white skinned people. It's subjective, but at the same time extremely flexible. I also think this and other labels specifically challenge the idea that one drop rule was never applied in Latin America. The wide variety of ethnic labels contradict that. Including the concept of La Raza Cosmica. The phrase itself was never applied, but the concept of Black ancestry changign what you were was very solid. There is a wide range of labes between "puro hispano" and "negro."

Subjetive and extremey flexible are the same thing. In colonial times, the spanish autorities tried to keep all the power in hands of Peninsular spaniards. At first they tried to prevent the mix or races, but it was imposible, so they intead tried to label each posible mix, but soon it became to complex. From all the racial terms invented, lobo, saltapatraz, noteendiendo, tenteenelaire, morico, sambo, etc etc. The only surviving terms are criollo, mulato and mestizo. Eventually, in the colonial society, the social status was determined by skin color, not race. A mestizo or a mulato, living indoors, could have considered a higher lever thatn if they were tanned, living under the sun. Each latin american country developed this in diferent ways. In mexico, people are still sensitive to skin colour.. but they really care little about race, since at least 80% of the population is considered mix and in oficial papers there is no record about race, so no one has a way to know the race of his/her ancestors... Nanahuatzin 01:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Any statistics on the number of Afro-Latin American has no meaning unless the criteria are full explained."

This should remain a standard of the article as opposed to a part of the topic content. Statistics on *anything* have no meaning unless the criteria are explained. And again, I wonder, if wikipedia has the standard of explaining the methodology of all statistics mentioned. That can be an article in itself for each number. While it could legitimately be a full section (Determining population/Population History) this doesn't make statistics "meaningless". This statement appears to be over-general and biased. Cacimar 19:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

As i explained, my wording of this need to be cleaned. I asume ( something that SqueakBox has insisted i should not) that most of the readers in the english wikipedia would adopt the US-centric point of view that the definition of "black" is the On drop rule. If we adopted that rule Mexico would be "probably" 60% black, since originally there were more black people than white. The criteria under wich each country define black, is different. So far i have not found a reliable source on mexican blacks. Mexico Negro, reports about 50,000 members. But that is as far as i have found. INEGI, (national institute of geography and statistics) does not record race in any study. It is a touchy subject that i think to be treated with more care than most subjects in the wikipedia. Nanahuatzin 01:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed the percventages because some of them didn't seem credible. Wikipedia has a reputaytion as not being a reliable source of information (one of the main criticisms) so it is best to be conservative and only include material we are sure about, SqueakBox 20:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with removing uncited percentages. But the statement against including any percentages and labeling them generally as meaningless seem off the article topic. Especially when the option exists to require sources when percentages are added. There are several studies etc that are more qualified than you or I after all. I'll look at one this evening that "maps" the population. Cacimar 20:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Afro-Mexican not its own article?

SqueakBox: Is there a reason why Afro-Mexican should not be its own article? It would add readibility to the Afro-Latin article (which got quite large) plus it has more information that any other Afro-Latin group (more than Cuban). --Vizcarra 8 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)

It is easier to put the one article on Vfd rather than putting the Mexican article on Vfd as well. Also this article is not too long, and if we have to have an article on black latinos I would rather it was all in one place for ease of reading and ease of editing. I am not convinced black latinos should have their own article at all let alone 2 articles. And there are very few black Mexicans, vastly more black Brazilians and they don't get their own article, SqueakBox July 8, 2005 20:47 (UTC)

If it's not too long, then we can make it a "stub", but then again, it would be much larger than most stubs. Do you put articles on Vfd for a reason other than personal reasons?

It wouldn't be easier to put Afro-Mexican and Afro-Latin American in one article for reading, because Afro-Mexican section is much larger than most others (other than cuban), so even for aesthethics it's better to summarize with a similar amount of information as with other countries and add a link for "more info".

I don't think you know much about the topic, because if you did you wouldn't say "there are very few black Mexicans". Even number is not of much significance here because we are talking about how it is a group in itself. If there would be too many, there wouldn't be a need for an article because there were so many! (like in Haiti).

Black Brazilians haven't got their own article because nobody has taken the time to write about it. African Americans have their own article, not having one for Afro-Mexican and Afro-Latin American because you don't agree with it doesn't make sense to me. To get rid of so much information contributed by other wikipedians.

Have you noticed that you are the only one wanting to delete this article? --Vizcarra 8 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)

If may offer my opinion. I have more access to material related to black people in Mexico than black people in other countries. It does not matters there are few black in Mexico, after all, we have info about vulcans who do no exists... :) (note. Please, could you sign your posts... It´s a bit dificult to say who is saying what...) Nanahuatzin 8 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)

No this Vfd is not for personal reasons. Why would anyone think it is. Stop seeing the Vfd as negative, and if you really want to keep the article make it better. I know a lot about black people in Central America, not much outside of this region, and it was the CA section that I immediately spotted as being riddled with inaccuracies. Perhaps the Mexican section isn't, and perhaps it is the only section that isn't. If this article is to survive it rerally needs the Mexican section to be a part of it. Everyone has signed all their posts today, SqueakBox July 9, 2005 00:55 (UTC)

I think each "Afro-Nationality" should have it's own entry. But they can also grow towards that as the article grows. I don't see why this topic can't stand and as nationalities get fleshed out, link to those independant articles and continue to flesh out the others until they can stand on their own. Cacimar July 14, 2005

Disclaimer???

I think the article must stress the diferent conception on black between latin america and US, since probably most of the reader will be from there. Latin america would be considered 80% black or something like that if we used the "one drop theory" that seems to be the rule in the US. I wrote a kind of disclaimer about it, but i think it can be rewritten to become clearer. thanks. Nanahuatzin 07:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

This is an international encycloperdia and we must not asssume our readers are from anywhere. The obsessive self awareness about rascism and the one drop theory do not appear to apply here in atin America. A major part of my objection to this article is that it is totally US centred in both the name and the attitudes. Hence my perception of rascism within the article. Latinos are not obsessed with race in the way Anglo Saxons are, and thus the society is much less rascist. I wish that could be reflected in the article, and good to see Nanahuatzin has made a start, SqueakBox 14:57, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, Yes it´s an international enciclopedia.. but oriented to English speaking readers, most of whom i asume are anglo saxon. In the spanish wikipedia i would not includ most of this. We should keep in mind this. For example the article i have about aztecs have a diferent content in the spanish wiki and the english wiki. Mainly because english reader usually only know the version of Prescot about aztecs.

Another importan thing for me. The articles in the wikipedia are mirrowed in a lot of places (officially and non oficially), we must remember there is going to be a lot of copies of this. For example

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/af/afro-latin_american1.htm http://www.answers.com/topic/afro-latin-american

In my opinion, the original article was written from someone asociated with the movements that seek to create a conscience of black community. For examples it resports that "There have been many accounts of Afromestizos being pulled over by the police and being forced to sing the Mexican national anthem to prove they are Mexican (Graves, 2004)". As a mexican i have never hear an account of this, but i will try to found the source or another source before change it. I think the topic is important and should be cleaned, not erased.

I read what the person above wrote. The only people who are Anglo-Saxon are the British descent, and to be quite accurate, that person would have to be from the colonial period. I guess that those who are in the U.S. from Britain from the colonial period are very few. And since this is an international encyclopedia, can we make certain that this is factual and perhaps have someone familiar with Afro-Latin Americans and academic writings about Afro-Latin Americans help to rewrite this? Chriscarlos

Wikipedia is aimed at anyone who can read English. Given the popularity of it as a second language this is a lot of people. We must not assume our readers are Anglo Saxon. Also do remember that an English person like me knows very little about the race issues in the States. For me the article comes across as having ben written by a black activist pushing a black consciousness POV. For me the idea that a black Honduran (etc) is somehow less Honduran than anyone else born and raised here is the rascist idea. The consensus appears (the Vfd isn't over yet) to be to keep the article, in which case I totally agree that we need to clean the article up. I also plan to have articles on White-Latin American and Indigenous-Latin American, SqueakBox 15:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

It,s good we agree. Probably as a mexican with a big border with US, i am used to consider most english speaking people as anglo-saxon... The idea of creating a black conscience is not necesarilly bad... but i agree is potentially racist. That is why, i think those points should be included and commented on the article. It is a very touchy subject. A quick search on "afro-latin american" in google, reports me a lot of articles "us-centric" and i think we can make a contribution on this subject, since it seem most of us (interested in the article) are form not us countries. But we need to have a lot of discussion. I found the situation of black mexicans(o more specifically, black comunities), analogous to the one of indigenous comunities. Oficially there is no diference between mexicans, and theorically this should mean they are treated the same.. but instead they area treated as if they do not exists, which is discriminatory, specially if they try to live with their own traditions. This are really cultural problem, not racial problems. Nanahuatzin 16:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see the name changed to Black Latin American. What do folk think? SqueakBox 16:13, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I partially agree. Since most (or a lot???) "Black Latin American" do not like the word "african", but we would need to keep the direct, since there is already a lot of articles elsewhere on the subject of afro-latin american. Mhhh on second toughts... I think black latin would be to concerned on race, while afro-laitn could be more concerned on the african influence in latin america.. Which i think is still more important. For example, we have afro-latin music, and other cultural influences. Nanahuatzin 16:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

To make this article about the African influence in Latin America you would really need to start again as right now the article is clearly about black people (a not clearly defined term if we discount the one drop theory) in Latin America. What to do and how to do it are not easy questions to answer, SqueakBox 17:15, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, then we must re-build the article bit by bit, and evolve it over time, creatin a section about african influence, altough probably i would concentrate more on the article about Mexico, i would apreciate your sugestions and critics. Nanahuatzin 17:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

All I really know about is Central America. Though it would be interesting to research South America, SqueakBox 17:45, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Removed Vfd

I have removed Vfd after being for five days. Results: 1 vote for deletion, 6 votes to keep the article. I still don't see how it the article fell in any of the categories for reasons for a Vfd. And according to the votes, I may not be alone in this one. I also remove NPOV, since the article has changed so much since the first NPOV. --Vizcarra 18:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

As the Vfd has not been closed the notice must not be removed from the article either. Either learn how to close a Vfd properly (normally an admin role, though not necessarily) or wait for someone who does know how to close it to do so, SqueakBox 19:14, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. An admin from the Wikipedia:Cleaning_department has to close the Vfd. --Vizcarra 20:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned you not being an admin is irrelevant. A closed Vfd looks like this. If you know how to close the Vfd by all means do so, but make sure you do so properly (I haven't a clue), SqueakBox 22:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I have read. The policies say someone from the cleaning department checks the pages (on July 15th is the next one, as far as I understand). But, since you proposed it you can remove it if you'd like to, I'm sure nobody would oppose. Otherwise we can wait until an admin does so. --Vizcarra 22:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No I would rather leave it as I don't know how to and I don't particularly fancy trying as I would probably mess it up. I have had to wait up to 2 weeks to see a Vfd finish and I have just had to cultivate patience, SqueakBox 22:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully this won't be the case. According to Wikipedia:Cleaning_department, there someone who cleans up all VfDs after 7 days. --Vizcarra 22:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I've closed the VFD debate. The result was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Name change

I think we should change the name to something like Black Latin American before removing the NPOV tag, as associating black people with Africa when they don't do it themselves is very POV, SqueakBox 19:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Black Latin American will imply color of skin and no ethnic origin. Many East Indians are very dark skinned and Australians Aborigines are mostly black. Hispanics are not called Brown-Americans. --Vizcarra 20:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well can you think of a third option? Afro Latin is not common usage, and many find it offensive as it makes them less Latino than everyone else. Hispanic is an American term, and we have no article for "brown" Latinos. Mostly black means negroid, etc. The name Afro Latin sounds like an American word, which would be fine dealing with a stateside subject but is not ok for the rest of the world, SqueakBox 21:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Many Latin Americans do not like the term Latino either because it makes them feel less (native) American and implies being white (of Roman origin). Afro-Latino was a United States article until you merged it with the Afro-Latin American article which deals with those Latin Americans with African background. I don't see how the term "Afro-Latin American" has no lack of neutrality, in fact change it because "many" (could you cite a source to determine how "many") find it offensive would be a non-NPOV. "Black Latin American" does not imply African origin, but only color of skin. It could be that "mostly black means negroid" but it does not reflect the African origin (as opposed to Australoid black or East Indian dark-skinned). The NPOV tag was designed for an article's content, not an article's title and you haven't provided arguments to support the non-NPOV since the tag was re-introduced by you this morning. Perhaps explaining what are the outstanding issues would clarify the disagreement. --Vizcarra 21:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

These people absolutely do not have an African background. Some of their ancestors from centuries back have African roots. I have no sources about the ofensiveness at the moment but the black people I speak to here describe it as stupid and offensive, which I can understand as I would be offended to be called an Austrian merely on the basis of long ago ancestry. The NPOV tag was used while the similarly offensive term Rastafarianism was used to describe the Rastafari movement. Can you provide a source that this term is actually used in all the countries mentioned in the article. We must not go out of our way to offend people, which we are doing here, nor must we use abstract American terminology to desctribe peoples outside America ass this is clearly not an American encyclopedia, SqueakBox 21:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

To ask for "a source that this term is actually used in all the countries mentioned in the article" would be an enormous task, don't you think? I don't think anybody is going "out-of-their-way" to offend anyone. If you read the article with the objectivity that most people have you would think otherwise. This is not an American encyclopedia but English is not the language of any Latin American country (unless you would consider Puerto Rico a country, so the terms must have originated from outside Latin America. Again, can you provide any arguments to support your idea that the content of the article is non-NPOV? That's what the NPOV tag suggests per wikipedia policies. --Vizcarra 21:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The dispute over the title isn't a reason to change it. It's a reason to have an entry discussing the differences, just as African American does. There are over 20 nations involved with this title, so searching for a common agreement on the label isn't realistic. The disputes in this discussion are extremely similar to discussions over the African American label. The preferrred term for this entry is probably Afro Latino - although Afro Latin American allows the inclusion of Brazilians and Haitians (who are often part of "Afro Latino" gatherings, studies, etc, without having to say Afro-Berian-Americans or somethign as cryptic. The most accurate label is afrodescendientes (and the most appropriate for African American would be US Blacks or something more specific), but this is an English language portal. These are labels commonly accepted and used.

As far as "not having an African background" - they absolutely do. As the subject will eventually shows as it grows in wikipedia, it can be displayed that the African ancestry affects everything from skin tone to language to religion to dance to culinary habits, etc. Also, in many nations these are still cohesive communities that live within the same areas are a community. --Cacimar 14 July 2005

I would say the difference between African American and Afro Latin is that there are a sizeable minority of Americans who identify themselves with the label whereas I argue there are not a similar group in Latin America. These people identify themselves as black but not Afro, which is why I would prefer to see the article called Black Latin Americans. It is only intellectuals who are identifying them as Afro, and that is not common usage. Common usage must dictate our name choice, SqueakBox 17:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's accurate. There are many historical and current organizations and groups in Latina America that use Afro. It is definitely common in Brazil. Afrodescendientes is the common Venezuela. Afro Colombian is definitely in use as is Afro Peruvian. Afro Cuban of course. (There Spanish and English equivelants) I'm AfroBoricua or Afro Puerto Rican. Afroantillano goes way back. If common usage dictates, you seem to be suggesting that there is a common usage of the nationality or ethnicity with negro or Black as a qualifier. I agree negro by itself is more common, but when talking about a specific nation, region or culture and those people involved with that "afro" comes into play cacimar 17:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with cacimar, whent talking about the culture I have heard and read the term "Afro-Cubano/a", "Afro-Caribeño", but never "Negro/a Cubano/a" or "Negro/a Caribeño/a". --Vizcarra 18:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Since "common usage" was mentioned - Google is an indicator. Put the following terms in quotes and see how people are using the phrases in English and Spanish. This isn't a pefect method, but a good indicator. Afrolatino appears to be a shared high commonality. Black Latino is high due to articles discussing race in the US - there is more often than not a comma between Black, Latino discussing two separate groups. This is proven by the extreme drop in counts when you go to the singular use of Black Latino. Afro Latino is the clear common majority across cultures. Afro Latin American would remove the ethnicity baggage of the word Latino when appied to nations like Belize, Suriname, Brazil. Afrobrazilians are often found in the Latin or Latino category (think of the Latin Grammy) but other cultures aren't.

I don't really know how to add to this page, so here goes. In response to the above, I do think it needs to be clarified which countries are apart of Latin America. Many people only include Spanish speaking ones, and Brazil. I would include more, based on location, language, and culture. As far as Puerto Ricans go, please do note, that there are probably as many Puerto Ricans outside of Puerto Rico as there are living on the island. So any mitochondrial DNA testing will not be representative of all Puerto Ricans. For example, if you were to test the mitochondrial DNA of Belizans, it would vary from year to year. Belize is a majority Black country, but it is said that the numbers of Belizans that immigrate to the U.S. every year is so high, and that the numbers of Mexicans, and Central Americans migrating to that country are also so high that the demographics change rather quickly. The majority of Puerto Ricans in the U.S. have obvious African features, or are even Black, although many of which may or may not identify as black. The blacker a Puerto Rican is, the more likely they will identify as mixed, especially when living in the U.S. This is not based on DNA, but experience. Puerto Rico did not have a mixed category on the census until about the 1980's, I believe. Not only that, the number of Blacks in Puerto Rico, have dropped dramaticaly in a relatively small period of time.

Afro Latin American 4,410 (English) Afro Latin Americans 794(English) Afrolatinoamericano 127 (Spanish) Afrolatinoamericanos 302(Spanish)

Black Latin American 414 (English) Black Latin Americans 104 (English) Latinoamericanos Negros 49 (Spanish) Latinoamericano Negro 17 (Spanish)

Afro Latino 54,500 (English) Afro Latinos 4,790 (English) Afrolatinos 11,600 (Spanish) Afrolatinos 18,400 (Spanish)

Black Latino 139,000 (english) Black Latinos 869 (English) Latinos Negros 5,520 (Spanish) Latino Negro 487 (Spanish) Cacimar 18:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I have added this to the section

According to the most recent census taken in Puerto Rico 8% are black and 10.9% are mixed and other. According to the most recent mitochondrial DNA testing, around 27% of all Puerto Ricans have at least one African female in their family tree. *See sources below

Sources:

As you can see from the sources, these numbers are backed up by both the most recent Official Census as well as DNA studies.

Wikipedia should not be used to push personal agendas or to promote race based myths. As long as we all try to stick to the facts as we have them, everyone wins. --4.250.63.178 16:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Your edit looks great. Latest comments go to the bottom as you first did it, SqueakBox 16:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Prejudice over precision?

It seems like whoever originally wrote this article really had an axe to grind, and they have let their own personal prejudices mar the accuracy of this article. I would even go as far as to say some of it is bordering on racism, and some of it seems to stretch into the realms of fiction. I do not think there is any question about the lack of neutrality regarding this article, and in my opinion an article such as this, which is pushing such a blatently political agenda with turns of phrase such as

"White Europeans who are consciously and subconsciously afraid of Black unity. These people are aware that many Blacks worldwide are uniting or at least attempting to unite, and they are doing their very best to stop it."

They might as well have put the phone number for the Black Panthers' recruiting office in there as well. Such a biased and politicised piece of what could only be called propaganda does not deserve a place on a respected bank of knowledge such as Wikipedia. It brings down the credibility of the organisation having an article such as this which obviously is not based soley around factual documentation.

My edits

This article was riddled with original research, unencyclopedic material and rascism such as the bizarre section Negro actually referring to the Spanish word for the colour black not an English word for black people, SqueakBox 17:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving and cleanup

I've attempted to put a bit of order on this talk page by archiving older issues which seem to have fallen out of interest (based on date), and adding a guidelines section above which may help to orient users who are not familiar with the accepted procedure in using talk pages.

Hopefully other's will find my efforts useful --JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 15:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just added a talkheader template to this page so the 1st section regarding use of the page is redundant. Rather than deleting it, I'm thinking of archiving it simply in the interests of keeping the history of this page intact. Does anyone have any strong thoughts about this? --JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 17:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalsim and afd

Funny how none of those righteous warriors determined to keep this article can be bothered to vandalism patrol it, SqueakBox 15:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't support this page existing, why make such major revisions? It puzzles me why you would go and take out actual substantial information, such as Bobby Vaughn's link. He lived with the Afro-Mexicans in Costa Chica and has written academic articles and now a book and (I think he) consulted on Chicago's Mexican Fine Art Center Museum's The African Presence in Mexico exhibit. And I know if I put the link back, that you will delete it again. I guess an expert opinion is not valid enough to leave in this page, which is supposed to be helpful to those doing research and looking for information on this topic. If there is a problem with him having a link to his book, then perhaps someone could ask if he could place that on his Notre Dame website so that his page can be used.

I really don't get why I should care about this entry when it seems that you don't care, as you want to delete this whole entry and are going about removing large portions of it in very non-collaborative, unilateral manner. Yes, the views that someone added were ridiculous, but you can remove the parts that are foolish and put something that makes sense. Instead you remove large parts of the page, without asking what others might think, and without seeing how that impacts the entry itself.

I am sorry, but how can what you do be positive and then you criticize others for not stopping vandalism? Isn't deleting whole sections of this page just like vandalism? How about if I wrote about my love for Susana Baca's music and deleted any mention of Peru in this entry other than that? Would that be fair?

Think about what and how you are doing things. I will not invest a large part of my time trying to write any portion of this or even asking an expert to contribute unless people such as yourself understand that the purpose of Wikipedia is not about individual efforts, but group or collaborative efforts. Part of what you should see as being progress is having an entry that, beyond reflecting your views, is accurate, is factual and is accessible to those from Latin America and is understood by those from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, and can be used as an encyclopedia entry. As the old newspaper movies always said about journalism: Just the facts m'am. What you or I may think on a personal level is unimportant. Chriscarlos

Editing 2

The first line of this piece is INCORRECT. The reason why it is incorrect is simple. The terms Latin American and Latino are not the same in usage. Latin American refers to a specific geographic area over MANY NATIONS AND REGIONS, while Latino refers to ONE NATION AND SEVERAL REGIONS (as the U.S. spans North America and Asia, and has Puerto Rico and various other territories).

Why not correct the article instead of presenting all your arguments here?

I think we need to keep in mind that this is an English publication and while it might be relevant to note in the article that an equivalent term might not be used in Latin America (and why), it is clear that English-speaking people use the term and some people might want to know more about what it means (which is the reason they would consult Wikipedia).

While it may not be precisely correct it is also important to realize that some English-speaking people may use Latin American and Latino interchangeably. If it is not correct to do so, this article would be an appropriate place to correct that misperception.

Another point which I've realized (and I will probably correct the article if someone else doesn't do it) is that the term is not necessarily used exclusively to describe people but also other things such as music, art, etc.--JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 15:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You have made some good points, Jaxhere, all of which I am in agreement. Chriscarlos, instead of declaring who you think may or may not be entitled to edit the article you should do so yourself as I for one respect your right to edit the asrticl;e. Please reciprocate and respect my right too, SqueakBox 16:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The term Latino is a term that ONLY REFERS TO THOSE WHO RESIDE IN THE UNITED STATES and doesn't refer to those from Latin America. In Latin American countries the term HISPANIC and LATINO are foreign, as each person feels a connection to their nationality and not to an ethnicity, as ethnicity in a Latin American country may be defined by the various populations and cultural groups (Criollo or European, Mestizo, Indigenous, Asian/Chinese/Japanese, African descent, mulatto or Afro-Meztizo). THUS, LATINO IS NOT A TERM USED IN LATIN AMERICA TO REFER TO LATIN AMERICANS. It is however, used in the United States to refer to those of LATIN AMERICAN ORIGIN both by the public/government sector, academics, political activists, and the various people of Latin American descent, given the emphasis toward broad pan-ethnic or pan-Latin American identity in the United States. [Also, it is a term that is mainly used by the 2nd generation Latin Americans of various countries to refer to themselves. See José Cuello, or the 2nd to last link below.] Here are some websites about the usage of the terms or reviews of the terms Hispanic and Latino. From these references, one can CLEARLY see there is a GEOGRAPHICAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN LATINO AND LATIN AMERICAN, as Latinos reside in ONE COUNTRY, and Latin Americans reside in VARIOUS COUNTRIES. If you ask a professor of Latin American Studies or Latino/Chicano Studies, they will tell you how to best use these terms.

http://www.hsp.org/default.aspx?id=355

http://www.pbs.org/americanfamily/latino3.html

The two links are from the American Heritage® Book of English Usage, pages 198 and 199: http://www.bartleby.com/64/pages/page198.html, http://www.bartleby.com/64/pages/page199.html.

Pennsylvania State University Commission on Race/Ethnic Diversity Terminology Guidelines (search for Latino or Hispanic): http://www.equity.psu.edu/cored/resources/term/term.html

Latinos and Hispanics: A Primer on Terminology: http://www.dptv.org/archive/ourfamilies/basic.shtml

Martha Godinez of the University of Colorado reviews Hispanic & Latino terms: http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/heresies.html

Also, if someone wants to READ a chapter about PAN-ETHNICITY, try this one: Not Just Black and White: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in the United States. Here is the link to the table of contents: http://www.russellsage.org/publications/books/0-87154-259-5/toc_pdf When it opens, skip to the 2nd page and look at Pan-Ethnicity, Part III or Chapter 8. An academic library will have it, so you can copy that chapter and use it for different Wiki entries, EVEN THIS ONE. And imagine, a Wiki entry with an academic reference. Have we died and gone to heaven?

Can someone tell me why have an article titled Afro-Latin American if people use a term like Afro-Latino. The terms Latino and Hispanic are not used in Latin America, and an Afro-Latin American would find their usage foreign, if not confusing. (Perhaps the term Afro-Latin American would be a bit foreign to a Latin American of African or part African lineage.) Chriscarlos

Can someone enlighten me why Bobby Vaughn's website was edited out? Bobby Vaughn is an academic who has lived in the Costa Chica part of Mexico, along the Pacific Ocean, with Afro-Mexicans. I guess his academic writing about this topic isn't particularly related to this topic? Perhaps having an expert who is an academic, and who writes on this subject isn't something a supposed encyclopedia deserves. But if someone wants to go at the page and delete anything that adds to the issue in substance, that's okay. This page seems to be a waste of time. If you write crap on a Wikipedia page about insects or birds, that gets edited to the past form. When people take out useful information here, in this entry, like Bobby Vaughn's website, it just stays off. Chriscarlos

The page today looks like someone went at it with a hacksaw and added their own opinions, with no references. While I love to write and have people read my writing, this is supposed to be an "encyclopedia" so I am told.

If anyone is an administrator, please place some control over what stays and what goes. Or assign someone to write something based on books, journals, opinion pieces, and is very thorough and exhaustive.

Let's be honest. Those who are mixed with African and Spanish may not consider themselves to be African or even if they know their family to be mulatto, they may chose to identify as mestizo. Census self-identification is unreliable. Has anyone read academic literature that can be used as source material for a paragraph or two in this entry? I dislike reading articles that are unsourced and unreliable.

IMO the article should be deleted but a few US based politically correct editors caused its afd to fail, SqueakBox 15:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the info in this article is distinctly not NPOV (e.g., " Even though they are treated wrongly they overcome prejudice") and I wonder about some of the other statements, for example

All most all Puerto Ricans have some African lineage. The actual racial statictics of Puerto Rico are not known (this is contradictory)

and

an additional 11% are pure blacks

apart from the fact that racial purity is a fiction, how can one be certain (given the way slaves were treated, given the fact that few people know exactly who their ancestors were) that most of these people have no non-African ancestry in the time they have been in Latin America? Guettarda 23:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

US CENSUS DATA IN THE US AND IN PUERTO RICO ARE NOT ACCURATE GIVEN THE DATA IS BASED ON INDIVIDUAL CENSUS EMPLOYEE'S VIEWS OF WHO IS WHITE OR BLACK OR ON INDIVIDUALS' VIEWS OF THEIR OWN RACIAL IDENTITY. Chriscarlos 02:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes this article is far from good. It may have even been a cut and paste from another webpage, as it had no wiki formatting before I got to it. If you can verify the copyvio, feel free to delete it. Otherwise, maybe we should add a POV disputed tag to it, since I don't know the source of the info. - Taxman 03:01, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

that most Puerto Ricans have some African lineage and that no actual racial statistics are known is not contradictory. The former needs just observation and common knowledge the latter scientific testing. There was a recent DNA study that (through sampling) the scientists determine that a high percentage of Puerto Ricans (even white PRs) have African DNA.

Here's a source from the US National Science Foundation with figures of 27% of African lineage. [Article in Caribbean Net News http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2003/10/07/dna.htm]

I do think it is an interesting topic that should be written about, and not deleted

cuba section

According to a 2001 census between 60 and 70 percent of Cubans characterise themselves as Black, while close to 15 percent consider themselves to be mulato.. Many Cubans still locate their origins in specific African ethnic groups or regions, particularly Yoruba and Congo, but also Arará, Carabalí, Mandingo, Fula and others. In contrast, between 85-95 percent of Cuban-Americans, classify themselves as white.

The percentage ranges in the preceeding paragraph seem too broad to have come from a precise count, such as a census

--JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 15:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Haiti section

Comments about Haitian unimportance, and discrimination removed because they are irrelevant to this article. --JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 15:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mexico section

Note, although most of the "facts" are interesting and relevant, they need to be substianted, or they face elimination due to being considered as opinion. The points which I have not questioned, I would leave,even though they, too, would benefit from some verification

Most of the roads, bridges and cathedrals were constructed by Black people. (((During what period)))?
In the 16th century, Afro-Mexicans made up 71% of Mexico's population. (((Source?)))
Vicente Guerrero (El Negro Guerrero), Mexico's 2nd President, helped abolish slavery. (((Source, when, what "help"?)))
Blacks had important roles in Mexico`s military and helped gain its independence from Spain. (((Source, when, what roles?)))
Mexico employed more African slaves than any other nation in the western world. (((Source, when?)))
Under the dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz, Black people were not allowed to immigrate into Mexico. Source, when?
Many Black communities bear names related to Africa such as Mozambique, Cerro del Congo (Congo Hill) and El Mulato.
Guerrero, Oaxaca, Tabasco and Veracruz are where most Afro-Mexicans live today. (((Source?)))
Negro is viewed as derogatory and is no longer used but rather Moreno (Brown) when the subject of Afro-Mexicans is brought up. (((Source?)))
2002 Black Population: App. 1,000,000 (((Source?)))

--JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 15:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

DELETE ALL FACTS THAT ARE NOT SOURCED OR PLACE A DISCLAIMER UNTIL THE SOURCES ARE CLEARED UP. While the information that are claimed is important, having incorrect information is not helpful for anyone doing a high school paper or wanting basic information on Afro-Mexicans. Chriscarlos 02:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Following removed from page for lack of sources:

Vicente Guerrero (El Negro Guerrero), Mexico's 2nd President, helped abolish slavery. ^{[citation needed]}
Blacks had important roles in Mexico`s military and helped gain its independence from Spain. ^{[citation needed]}
Under the dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz, Black people were not allowed to immigrate into Mexico. ^{[citation needed]}
Many Black communities bear names related to Africa such as Mozambique, Cerro del Congo (Congo Hill) and El Mulato.
Guerrero, Oaxaca, Tabasco and Veracruz are where most Afro-Mexicans live today. ^{[citation needed]}
Negro is viewed as derogatory and is no longer used but rather Moreno (Brown) when the subject of Afro-Mexicans is brought up. ^{[citation needed]}
2002 Black Population: App. less than 1,000,000 ^{[citation needed]}

If anyone can cite sources for these, please do so and put back in the Mexico section.JAXHERE | ^Talk 01:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

points needing attention numbers refer to paragraph number in section:

1 However, an island-wide mitochondrial DNA study conducted by the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez (((when?))) revealed Puerto Ricans to have 61% Native Amerindian (Taino) ancestry, 27% West/Central (Sub-Saharan) African blood and only 12% European/North African (((is this designation correct?)))blood.
para 2 Certain critics ^{[citation needed]}(((need to be identified))), consider these numbers to be skewed since they are based on self-definition and acute physical observation of census-takers.
ok
It has been noted that the Puerto Ricans that typically identify (((do they identify themselves as such?)))as black, make up the majority of Puerto Ricans immigrating to the U.S^{[citation needed]}

--JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 16:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

ANYTHING WITHOUT A SOURCE SHOULD BE ELIMINATED. Also, can someone read J. Duany's chapter in "Neither Enemies nor Friends" Essentially he claims that those Puerto Ricans socialized in the U.S. claim themselves as something other than Black or White in the Census. Also, Censuses are not factually accurate. "Identify" does not necessarily mean that those people are. If I was mulatto but said I was white, I would be "identifying" as white. Also, in the case of Census enumerators, those Puerto Rican Census enumerators may have a different view of race distinction than those U.S. Census enumerators. In the U.S., we have a "one-drop" approach to race that is essentially based on supposed racial purity. In other places, racial purity is not regarded as a priority. Chriscarlos 02:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

points needing attention numbers refer to paragraph number in section:

1 However, an island-wide mitochondrial DNA study conducted by the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez (((when?))) revealed Puerto Ricans to have 61% Native Amerindian (Taino) ancestry, 27% West/Central (Sub-Saharan) African blood and only 12% European/North African (((is this designation correct?)))blood.
para 2 Certain critics ^{[citation needed]}(((need to be identified))), consider these numbers to be skewed since they are based on self-definition and acute physical observation of census-takers.
ok
It has been noted that the Puerto Ricans that typically identify (((do they identify themselves as such?)))as black, make up the majority of Puerto Ricans immigrating to the U.S^{[citation needed]}

--JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 16:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

ANYTHING WITHOUT A SOURCE SHOULD BE ELIMINATED. Also, can someone read J. Duany's chapter in "Neither Enemies nor Friends" Essentially he claims that those Puerto Ricans socialized in the U.S. claim themselves as something other than Black or White in the Census. Also, Censuses are not factually accurate. "Identify" does not necessarily mean that those people are. If I was mulatto but said I was white, I would be "identifying" as white. Also, in the case of Census enumerators, those Puerto Rican Census enumerators may have a different view of race distinction than those U.S. Census enumerators. In the U.S., we have a "one-drop" approach to race that is essentially based on supposed racial purity. In other places, racial purity is not regarded as a priority. Chriscarlos 02:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Race

The whole article is obsessed with race. IMO a connection between race and Afro-Latin Americans needs to be provided or all this race info should be either removed or put into a demographicsd section, SqueakBox 15:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your view but, perhaps my attempt to clean up the article will meet your approval.

I've been thinking that there needs to be a part of the article which points out that the term Afro-Latin American is a term invented in the English-speaking world for "political correctness" to refer to people with ancestry who had black skins and that throughout Latin America the term "black" to refer to those people doesn't seem to carry the stigma that is prevelent in the English speaking world.

Hopefully, though, this could be substiantiated.--JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 16:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask a question of you: do you believe in a Utopia? Because that is what I am reading from your comments. That Latin American countries are some idealistic places where everyone is treated nicely and everyone is fair to each other. Can you please demonstrate how this can be proven. Do people in Latin American countries use terms such as "whiten" or "improve the race" when describing interracial mixing? Perhaps someone who is writing and editing this page better get a doctoral degree in Latino and Latin American Studies before this page is little more than an outline by people who have no expertise in this topic, though who have the "best of intentions".

What on earth are you talking about? You dont have to get a qualification to get to know Latin America. Where does anyone suggets the place is a utopia. What exactly are you talking about with your race comments, they make no sense at all to me, SqueakBox 01:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sqeakbox, I don't think that you should have a role in deciding what happens on this page. You deleted Bobby Vaughn's website :from a part of this article, even though he is AN ACADEMIC WHO HAS LIVED WITH AND WRITTEN ABOUT AFRO-MEXICANS. So from my point of :view, your opinions and perspectives are suspect. Your edits are similar, if not equal, to vandalism in my opinion. Anyone who :takes their own views and places them in an entry and imposes them on Wikipedia users is a vandal.

Your comments about this term point to your lack of knowledge on this topic. I will suggest that you go on-line and buy these :books: Neither enemies nor friends and :Race and Ethnicity in Latin America which is carried by the University of :Michigan Press in the U.S. Also, I found that the World Bank may disagree that there is no stigma associated with "skin color" as they have noticed that race and ethnicity may determine inequality in their report :Inequality in Latin :America and the Caribbean: Breaking with History? But, then again, inequality for the indigenous and those Afro-descendants in Latin America may have to do with something other than phenotypic or cultural differences?

A while back, in 1944, Rogler examined how semantics demonstrated race difference among Puerto Ricans. In his article in Social Forces (1944) he describes how a mulatto may be defined as white given he has wealth and social standing, and another mulatto may be considered black given he is working class or low skilled and poor. In this example, "money whitens", something that is often remarked of in Latin America, something that Melvin Harris has noted of regarding Brazil. He comments (in Motta, 2000):

It is incorrect to imply that racial identity in Brazil is simply a matter of what

a person looks or acts like, for the perception of what he looks or acts like

appears to be influenced by visually obscure if not invisible factors. . . . Phenotypically

caucasoid types are frequently identified by terms which are ideally

supposed to be appropriate to the Negroid end of the spectrum. (Harris and

Kottak, 1963: 204)

In Brazil one can pass to another racial category regardless of how dark one

may be without changing one’s residence. The passing is accomplished by

achieving economic success or high educational status. Brazilians say ‘money

whitens’, meaning that the richer a dark man gets the lighter will be the racial

category to which he will be assigned by his friends, relatives and business

associates. (Harris, 1964: 59)

Lacking caste distinctions based on racial identities, Brazilian social structures

contain no evident practical requirements for achieving high levels of

intersubjective ‘competence’ with respect to raciological taxonomies. (Harris,

1970: 12)

Motta's (2000) analysis of Harris continues:

According to Marvin Harris there is no racial or ethnic democracy in

Brazil. But his non-democracy, like Freyre’s democracy, is qualified with

ifs and buts:

On the whole, there is an ideal racial ranking gradient, in which whites occupy

the favorable extreme, Negroes the unfavorable extreme and mulattos the

various intermediate positions. But these ideological phenomena do not seriously

affect actual behavior. What people say they will or will not do with

respect to pretos and mulattos does not issue into actual behavior. Indeed

extremely prejudiced Brazilians have been observed to behave with marked

deference toward representatives of the very types whom they allege to be

most inferior. Racial prejudice in Brazil, in other words, is not accompanied by

systematic racial segregation and discrimination. The reason for this paradox

should be clear: Despite the ‘ideal’ stereotypes, there is no ‘actual’ status-role

for the Negro as a Negro, for the white as a white, or for the mulatto as a

mulatto. There are no racial groups. . . . It is one’s class and not one’s race which

determines the adoption of subordinate and superordinate attitudes between

specific individuals in face-to-face relations. It is class which determines who

will be admitted to hotels, restaurants and social clubs; who will get preferential

treatment in stores, churches, night clubs and travel accommodations;

and who will have the best chance among a group of marriage suitors. There

are no racial groups against which discrimination occurs. Instead, there are

class groups. . . . Race discrimination is per se mild and equivocal; class discrimination

produces disabilities and inequalities of a sharp, persistent and

pervasive sort. (Harris, 1964: 60–1)

So for Harris, race isn't that big a deal. But Motto then examines Hasenbalg critical view, stating:

A fashion of connecting the slavocrat past to the present consists in the ::interpretation

of present social relations as a residual area resulting from the survival

of ‘archaic’ or ‘traditional’ patterns of intergroupal relationships. . . . The underlying

supposition of this interpretation is that, in spite of the abolition of

slavery, a historical inertia preserves the traditional patterns of interracial

behavior. But as these patterns are not required by the new structure, they will

decrease with time and thus racism and racial inequalities will eventually

wane. [But here] it has been suggested that (a) discrimination and race prejudice

are not kept unchanged after abolition; to the contrary, they acquire new

meanings and new functions within the new structures and (b) the racist practices

of the dominant White group, which preserve the subordination of Blacks,

are not mere archaisms but are functionally related with the concrete and symbolic

benefits that the White group gains from the competitive disqualification

of the non-Whites. (Hasenbalg, 1979: 85)

So in analyzing Brazilian race relations, we can see how some academics analyzed Brazilian race relation and determined there is or was either little or considerable racial discrimination in Brazil.

In Spanish, the term blanqueamiento is used to mean a "whitening" of the group :which is not white, but mestizo, or indigenous, and specifically the darker :Afro-descendants and mulattos through interracial miscegenation, until this group is :"lightened" sufficiently to be thought of as mestizo. The Washington Post's 1998 :article titled :"America's Racial and Ethnic Divides: Interracial Marriages Eroding Barriers" :mentions the phrase "improving the race". Such intermixing was seen as a solution :to :the issue of inequality.

Just to give you a sense of the effect of the stigma of race in Latin America, in Colombia, there are significant social indicators associated with race. Here is a link to the Afro Latino Development Alliance's Afro-Colombian Notes: link here (see The Problem).

Sorry but I do have a role on this page. I strongly advise you to stop being aggressive. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not anyone you descide. Just back off with your aggressive attitude. I will continue to edit this article for the betterment of the encyclopedia and if you wish to continue editing this article you will have to accept this as I am not the slightest bit interested in your opinion that I shouldn't have a role in this article, nor do I believe anyone else will be. What I do think is that we must keep on topic and remove anything from the article that goes off topic, hence my edits. You are, of course, free to edit yourself but you are not free to agressively attack me or assert it is you, with less than 100 edits to the project, who decides who does and does not plays a role in this article. Finally let me assure you that as a white person living with black people in a relatively poor barrio in a poorer Latin American country that I do have personal experience of race in Latin America. What experience do you have? SqueakBox 15:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is simple: this article needs FACTS and not POINTS OF VIEW. FACTS are stated in this article, but are not referenced. You DELETING A WHOLE SECTION without asking those who are involved in this encyclopedia entry seems to be what I am concerned about. And I am concerned that no expert/experts is/are involved in editing or rewriting this entry. Your experience is not something I feel is relevant, unless you have authored/co-authored a book or have edited academic papers on this topic, or have completed a master's thesis or project on some aspect of this topic. If you read the books that I mentioned, and then read a part of the World Bank study, I would feel that there has been some progress in understanding this issue.

And since I quoted specific articles, a study, and a website, those would be issues that I feel would be topics that we can or could discuss. And the concept of "whitening" of the race.

Let's be honest: no one likes their dirty laundry aired. And the issues of race and ethnicity in Latin America are a part of the dirty laundry of those various countries. The fact that some folks in Latin American say that dark, kinky hair is pelo malo and hair that is straight and a brown color or lighter is thought to be ideal may give us a glimpse q`at how race is viewed in Latin America. It's not only a Latin American phenomenon, though. Carlos Moore, in a speech at UCLA noted that Anwar Sadat objected when a Hollywood production of a film based on his life cast an African American actor to portray him. Chriscarlos 07:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read a bit of the new external links provided by Chriscarlos and am inclined to think that there is a lot of material which could enlighten readers about racial issues, discrimination and so on but I'm also having my doubts about whether that material -- except in is briefest form should be in this article. Some issues, or certain issues withing specific countries might be big enough to warrant their own articles which could be linked to from here. Does anyone else have any views about this? --JAXHERE | Talk 02:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Chriscarlos and anonymous editors

Please sign and date your entries, and try to take care to format your comments so that others can follow the flow of the conversation or debate. (If you don't know how to sign and date, you use four tildes in a row ~~~~).

I know this topic seems to generate a lot of emotion for some contributors, however, if you are not careful to present your ideas and thoughts in a way which makes it easy for other's to follow them they may simply be lost in the flurry of activity which this discussion page carries.

Note, that it is especially important to sign and date a comment which you insert in the middle of an existing posting because some readers who have been following the exchange might tend to just jump to the end to see the latest additions instead of reading a section completely from beginning to end each time they look at this page.

You might find it worthwhile to look at Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to understand more about the effective use of these talk pages. --JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 15:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have signed all my edits, as always. Why is my name on this section? Please remove my name from this section or I will do so myself. Thankyou, SqueakBox 15:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed my name as none of the comments had the slightest relevance to me and were taken as a personal attack. Its generally a bad idea to put the names of editors in section titles. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I mistakenly included you in the heading. I had the impression when I did it that I had seen a recent addition of yours without a signature and date.

I had no intention of insulting you or anyone in doing this, I was only hoping that we might achieve a bit of order is everyone is aware of a procedure to do so.

I agree about not naming editors in a "public" place, however in the case of Chriscarlos I had left messages in his own personal talk page which, I have the impression, he doesn't read. In fact, he didn't even have a users page until I created one for him. This is something I find rather unusual since I believed that the Wiki system automatically created one when a new account is opened. I thought that putting his name in a section title might grab his attention.

I also have the impression that Chriscarlos may have made several edits without logging, I don't know if this is due to ignorance of the Wiki system or if it might be a deliberate attempt at Sock puppetry. Since you are more experienced in wiki than I, do you have any thoughts about how to deal with this? JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 17:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Squeakbox: In NONE of your "EDITS" that I noticed in the last few weeks did you ask any group if a section or a phrasing can be reworded and redone to make sense in relation to the article. You removed the WHOLE section and links, one of which was Bobby Vaughn's. And since I began to mention this fact there has never been an effort to put Vaughn's website back in the article. (And I will not put it back in the article if it will just be deleted. I have better things to do that to attempt to place a link to a website by an expert on this topic.) If you feel that I am being aggressive, perhaps you should review what you have written about this topic and the fact that your personal view is that it doesn't merit an article or entry in Wikipedia. I consider this to be a very aggressive point of view.

I am defending the point of view that this article is significant for various reasons and I have suggested that a group of experts work on this. I can either recruit such experts or I can work with an academic who can recruit the experts. Such experts can make the entry a useful encyclopedia entry with every fact and concept sourced, and they can reference articles on specific areas either by the academics from that country or by U.S. or other English language authors who have written about this topic.

And my point of view which is present in the things I have written is that people who are making decisions should read about the topic area BEFORE they state points of view and edit and delete whole sections. And, if you know of someone with access to an academic institution via the web, you can go to google.com and search for specific academic articles under Google Scholar, print about up to thirty or so academic articles for information regarding the subject area, and work on placing specific information which is referenced in this article. Also, Google Scholar can give titles of books that are available. Those which may be most useful are those which are published by an academic institution or those written by a historian, sociologist, political scientist if published by a commercial publisher. And governmental or think tank or other non-governmental organization reports or policy studies (ie. the World Bank) may provide useful information which is sourced and may be rich in detail. A good article has a ton of sources and is both intricate and easy to read or find a section which enlightens those looking for accurate and relevant information on the topic. For an example, please see this Wikipedia entry for U.S. Reconstruction (after the U.S. Civil War): link. Note the number of references.

If you read my remarks and take them personally I would recommend that you understand that: this entry is seen by thousands of people who are researching this topic and are looking for reliable and potentially valid information. If someone attempts to put information that is poorly stated, and possibly ridiculous, in the interest of everyone, perhaps it would serve the "collaborative" effort for you to review the section and ask yourself: what part of this relates to the subject area? Copy and paste the section in question into a MS Word document, and using a few books, academic articles and reports, construct a useful restating of the view the author intended which is well-referenced and quite relevant. You can delete the section and put a note in the discussion area that the portion is being rewritten and will be completed in a month or two months, depending on the level of detail will be added.

And if I have written something and then noticed that I am not logged in, I have gone back and attempted to re-edit after I was logged in. Not putting the thing at the end is not a mortal sin. It is just that if you write your viewpoint in the discussion window and attempt to place information, such as quotes from academic journals and your own point of view, you may wish to just save your edit and log out. Because you figure, I edited that when I was logged in. And besides, no one would place a ton of quotes in this discussion box and try to answer questions who is anonymous. I understood that if I was answering the questions about race and repeating a previous remark that I made (to Squeakbox about deleting whole sections unilaterally and commenting on his view that this Wikipedia entry for Afro-Latin America should be deleted, given there is no stigma attached to physical appearance, according to Squeakbox) that those regular readers/editors who were reading would know it was me, especially because my view is a part of what I have mentioned to them.

And to those who are editing: if you base your edits on factual and academically referenced material that would probably make sure that this Wikipedia entry reflects things as they are or how a number of people feel that things are.

Chriscarlos 01:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What is your point? Your link has been restored though you appear not to have noticed and the article is now in much better shape than a fortnight back. Be bold is wikipedia policy, and having been so I have improved yet another article. And of course citing academic and other sources is essential. Nor do I think skin colour makes no difference here in latin America but it clearly has far less meaning than in the race obsessed United States. Can we please keep on topic, general rants arent going to help improve the article, SqueakBox 02:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

United States section

After doing a bit of work on this article, I'm inclined to cut the section on the United States since it really isn't a part of Latin America, which is the focus of this article. Can anyone give me any reasons why it should stay? --JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 15:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Latin America isn't the focus of the article, is it? This is about people.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lalalatin (talk • contribs) 22:20, November 13, 2006 (UTC)

Yes the article is about people from Latin America. The United States's aspect, I believe, is quite amply covered in Afro American, which is linked-to in this article. --JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 11:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

New country sections

I've added sections for several countries which have not been included. I hope some people can provide some information (sourced) about the Afro-Latino elements in these countries. --JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 15:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

dominican republic

An unregistered user added some info without a source, but it seems that there was an intent to have one. I sent this message to the IP's talk page, but I don't know if it will ever be seen, so I've copied it here

Do you have a reputable source to add to this change? If so, please use the <ref> </ref> tags instead of {{ref}} and place your reference notes between the beginning and ending of these tags, replacing the {{fact}} template which I've inserted

If anyone can fix this, please do so. --JAXHERE | Prevaricate at me 13:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why No References?

I decided to add this so that people who are ADDING their POINTS OF VIEW can explain why there are no references to their obvious POINTS OF VIEW. A person's POINTS OF VIEW are not FACT but can be referenced if there is a BOOK, ARTICLE, or NEWSPAPER ARTICLE which has the same POINT OF VIEW. Chriscarlos 02:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This may work, but I think that many people who edit don't bother to even look at a talk page, and even if they did few would be inclined to explain why they didn't leave a source. They'd either just add it or leave their edit for someone else to fix.--JAXHERE | Talk 02:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Why No Use or Referencing of Academic or Recognized Sources?

I decided to add this so that people who are just placing information from various sources (some of which may or may not be academic, since it is not referenced, see "Why No References?") can explain why they are not using or perhaps referencing the use of academic sources. I love to see an article or section expand, but I dislike and discourage placing information with no credibility or references. Chriscarlos 02:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing should be on any page without reliable sources, Chris. See WP:RS and WP:V. If you have good sources, particuarly for material that is unsourced or you believe is incorrect, you are welcome to work on the page and add them into the article. Good academic sources are desperately required here.--Zleitzen 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)