The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I'm aware that there was some WP:Canvassing going on during this discussion, but even discounting some canvassed 'keep' rationales, I cannot find that there was a strong consensus one way or the other Firsfron of Ronchester 20:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White Latin American

[edit]
White Latin American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article creates an ehtnic group out of a synthesis of statistical artefacts, and should be deleted per WP:OR WP:SYNTH, WP:NEOLOGISM and merged/redirected to Demographics of Latin America or Race and Ethnicity in Latin America. The precedent was set in the deletion discussion of White Argentine where it was shown that there is no such group except as a statistical artefact of census data. The same holds for this group, indeed for some countries it is not even that - for example Mexico has not included race in its censuses since 1921 - that means that there osn't even reliabel statistical information about any group called "white" for that country and indeed the literature on race (e.g. Nutini and Isaac 2009) stress that racial categories are completely fluent and situational, and mostly correlates with class and certain folk definitions that are not consistently applied.

There is no body of literature that considers "white people" in Latin America to form a coherent whol about which it is possible to make general statements. Rather the literature on race in Latin America always states that there is wide variability about what being "white" means in different latin american countries. The only source that supports this usage is A source by a minor Mexcian sociologists Francsico Lizcano who openly admits that his usage of "etnia" for racial groupins is non-standard - and then of course the CIA worldfact book which just analyses demographics in all countries according to American racial categories, but has no scientific credibility. The fact that the term has been "occasionally used" does not mean that this justifies an article about the subject, especially not in the face of an ample literature that testifies to the non-existence of the concept as a valid group.

The article also has the OR, POV problem that it uses a very narrow folk definition of "white" which stresses genetics, descent and phenotype - ignoring the vast literaturew showing that in most of Latin America the main correlate of being White is social status and that classification into the "white" depends more on economic than on biological heritage.

It also incidentally violates WP:EGRS through its picture cavalcade by attributing people to the category "White" based solely on their appearance or others evaluation of it.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC) ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- -- Favonian (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article covers a significant proportion of Latin America's population. Here some reasons:
1) Afro Latin Americans and Amerindian Americans already have their own articles, so it is fair that Euro-descendants have it too.
2) There are several countries in the region that conduct ethnic/racial censuses or surveys with categories that allow people to identify themselves as White/Branco/Blanco. The existance of official figures on this matter already justify an article about it. The countries with racial censuses/studies are:
3) In the cases of countries which do not conduct racial/ethnic censuses, there are international sources that provide fair estimates. The CIA Factbook and Encyclopaedia Britannica are well reputed sources, among others. In the case of Argentina, for example, I have at least five sources that confirm that at least 80% of its population is European/White: World Statesmen.org: Argentina Argentina: People: Ethnic Groups. Composición Étnica de las Tres Áreas Culturales del Continente Americano al Comienzo del Siglo XXI by Francisco Lizcano Fernández. page 218, UAEM (2005). Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook. by David Levinson. Page 313. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998. ISBN 1573560197 World Fact File. Dorling Kindersley Books Limited, London.
4) Lizcano Fernández's work Composición Étnica de las Tres Áreas Culturales del Continente Americano al Comienzo del Siglo XXI is always misvalued. Whether you like it or not, the man is an eminence in its field, and his work was published by a well-reputed university. You are intitled to dislike his work or conclussions, but that does not diminish the value of the study.
5) There are other studies that deal on how many Latin Americans self-identify as "Whites". For example this survey named ECoSocial done in 2007. I provide links for both versions in Spanish and Portuguese: Etnia, condiciones de vida y discriminación. (Spanish) and EcoSocial 2007 (Portugués)
6) Recently I found this article: Whiteness in Latin America: Measurement and Meaning in National Censuses (1850-1950) written by Mara Loveman. Journal de la Société des Américanistes. Vol. 95-2, 2009. I planned to add her conclusions to the article, but I was bussy and had no time to do it. I think that further studies on the matter of Whiteness in Latin America exist: they have to be found and add to the article.
7) If what bothers detractors of this article is the template of "ethnic group", I may agree in its removal and replacement by another template that suits the content of the article. I also may agree in a name change to "Latin Americans of European descent".
The way I see it, there are plenty of sources to back up the existance of White people in Latin America, and to assess very fairly its demographic importance. This article surely needs improvement, but by no means it should be deleted.--Pablozeta (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is arguing that there ar enot people who identify as white in Latin America - what is debated is whether they can be meaningfully treated as a single group. None of your sources show this to be the case.Your statements that some individual countries have white groups in their censuses or in the national demographic classification cannot be used to justofy the larger concept. Whether or not "African Latin Americans" and "American indians" have pages is firstly irrelevant for the merits of this article, secondly wikipedia has no such concept as "fair" - but operates only on what can be showe in sources. "Fair estimates" from the Factbook may be enough to provide circumstantial mention within an article - it is by no means enough to show notability of a subject and the factbook do in anycase never treats latin american whites as a single group but only as demographic segments within single latin american countries. The Lizcano source is fringe and uses the concept in a non-standard way - and even admits to do so - he is by no means eminent in his field and the Universtiy of Toluca where he works is a minor state university within Mexico and has no international credentials to speak of. Your source number six is the closest thing to a passable source that you have produced, but it treats the ways in whiuch Whiteness is different among Latin American nations and does not at all pretend to establish the unity of "white latin americans" as a single group. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Maunus notes, this is OR/SYNTH and violates WP:BLP policy. Frankly, Wikipedia would be well rid of racist nonsense like this in any case - it is pushing a POV based on nothing but discredited 'science' and on a systematic misinterpretation of ethnicity - it is an insult to the people of Latin America that their identity should be presented in such a way by a group of contributors clearly intent on ignoring the complexities of Latin America, and instead painting a picture of racial distinctness and superiority. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From their statements it is clear that Maunus and AndyTheGrump see this as as poll on whether there exists a race of White Latin Americans. Consistent with their long-term POVs against race as a biological concept they therefore wish to delete this article. That is irrelevant since it is clear that the concept exists as an important social phenomenon in many Latin American nations. Similarly, Maunus spent a great deal of effort in trying to convince others to get Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White American (2nd nomination) deleted. Which is even more absurd, that many people identify as white American is beyond doubt and the concept is obviously important. This is similar.Miradre (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fcat that there exist groups that identify as white in individual latin american countries does not mean that the larger grouping is justified. Note that policy based arguments surely will be than ad hominem arguments. On that note maybe I should note that Miradre is a Single Purpose Account dedicated to pushing a pro-White Nationalist viewpoint across a wide range of articles. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will briefly allow you to retract your personal attack before reporting you. I personally believe that races are exists and are important unlike yourself. I am not a "White Nationalist". How do you even know that I am white? Miradre (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not called you a white nationalist, nor have made any speculations about your race. You could be Samuel L. Jackson or Jon Stewart, but that would not change the fact that every edit you have made in your brief career here has been made in the context of pushing a pro-White Nationalist viewpoint. Whether you agree with that viewpoint on a personal level I could not care less about, and I have not made any statement to that effect. If do not feel that my description of your editing pattern is unfair in the least, nor do I mean that statement as a personal attack, but as a rebuttal to your characterization of my views made above, meant to put your offered opinion of me in its proper context. If you decide to report me I urge you to remember that you have in fact previously made a statement[1] to the effect that the Miradre account is an sockpuppet account that you use specifically to make controversial edits that you do not want to be associated with your main account - I would consider that in itself an admittance of SPA and advocacy status - the pov that you are pushing is obvious to anyone familiar with your edit. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not stated that I am a SPA so that is another incivility. I am not a "White Nationalist". Regarding for example immigration, I prefer systems such as in Australia and Canada, where those with education and skills that are needed are selected, regardless of skin color. Now that I have clarified I ask you to take back your personal attack.Miradre (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no attack to retract. I have made no comments or speculations about your beliefs or personality - I have made a characterization of your edit pattern that I believe to be completely accurate. regardless of your viewpoints each single edit of yours that I have seen you make has accomplished one of x functions: 1. Present arguments supporting hypotheses ascribing inferior innate abilities in persons that would in the US be classified as black. This includes supporting a particular hypothesis regarding the nature of intelligence and a particular hypothesis regarding the biological classification of humans and supporting a particular hypothesis regarding that explains social phenomena such as crime and migration in terms of those particular views of intelligence and race. 2. edits that either provide minimal context of opposing views or directly misrepresent them. These hypothesese regarding intelligence and race that you have provided supprting evidence in favour of - and specifically the combinatoin of these two hypotheses to explain social phenomena are only commonly advocated by groups that I can only try to describe somewhat neutrally by calling them "White nationalist". You may have made certain article space edits outside of the mentioned areas, but this, but I will generously estimate that they make up less than 5% of your total article space edits. That is all.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself stated quite clearly that your intention for creating a new account was to conceal your identity while you edited these controversial topics: "Yes, I have edited under another username before. But I did not change the name because I was banned. Obviously when editing such a highly controversial topic I want to remain anonymous.". aprock (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have also stated that I edit a broad range of article which excludes SPA.Miradre (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may have stated that, but your edit history states otherwise: [2]. aprock (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what your point is. Yes, I think races exist and are important. But not for individuals, there is to much overlap, I judge them on personal merit. Race is only important as a group phenomenon. Maybe we should get back to discussing the AfD? The personal attack was Maunus's and can be solved if he retracts it.Miradre (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand that you must find my descriptions your edits uncomfortable, I am sorry for this and making you feel uncorfortable is not my intention or purpose here - only as I say to put your comments into what I believe to be the correct context. I will however mention that you could have avoided this digression from "discussing the AfD" had you not opened your participation in this AfD with an logical fallacy ad hominem[3] that I had no possibility of letting stand without proper contextualization. (Also let me note that you do in fact make a characterization of "my pov" (which I can only take to mean my personal political stance - whereas I only make statements that characterize your edithistory and which can be verified or falsified by anyone who bothers to look))·Maunus·ƛ· 20:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think he (or I) have breached civility, by all means take it up at WP:WQA. aprock (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the AfD, if you yourself admit that "there exist groups that identify as white in individual latin american countries", then it is appropriate to have an article to discuss this phenomenon.Miradre (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No that means that those particular national groups may have sufficient third hand coverage to have their own articles. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is the point of this comment? There are several editors who have some expertise in anthropology in Central and South America. Maunus is one of them. There are others and wikipedia is lucky to have them as editors. Mathsci (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite possible that we should have an article on Betty White's Latin American Dance School, I don't think this is it though.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's amusing but I must say also more than a little disingenuous. Of the 258 results by no means all are on point - and I never said that they were - but more than enough are to prove the existence of 'White Latin American' as a commonly used concept, and one worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. There is also undoubtedly vastly more coverage in Spanish and Portuguese language sources. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's literally no coverage there. All you have are "word matches" -- that's not the same thing as "undoubtedly vast coverage." Bulldog123 21:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as synthesis of published material that advances a position (the position is a specific definition of "white people"). "White Latin American" does not appear to be a coherent self-identifying people. Quigley (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an argument in there?·Maunus·ƛ· 23:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maunus, yes there is. At the expense of clashing with WP:OTHERCRAP, it seems that "white"(ness) is only a "delete(able)" issue when applied to Latin Americans. Many of these "white categories" are not scientific, or even academic – but they are part of the popular parlance and represent notable phenomena’s with the always tricky, disputed, and controversial issue of "race". You are obviously an intelligent person, but I think you may be letting your anthropological "hat" (with its own embedded esoteric vernacular and definitional parameters) in conjunction with your closeness to this topic as it relates to Latin America - cloud your judgment on this issue. You are right to demand that we address and accurately reflect the many nuances of people who self-identify or get labeled "white Latin Americans", but I don’t believe that deleting the article altogether is helpful in furthering the understanding of our readers.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an official census category - there is no Latin American census. Several countries in Latin America do not have race in their censuses at all. Mexico for example has not had that category since 1921. White American is not the real parallel - the real parallel would be if there was a "White North American" page. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you already know from your previous campaign to purge Wikipedia of articles on national diasporas, we use descriptive titles for articles. Not a single reliable source uses the term "2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests", yet it is one of the top viewed articles in Wikipedia, that is the nature of a descriptive title. You used the same argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian diaspora (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish diaspora where you wanted to preserve the meaning of diaspora for a select set. Now it seems the term "white" is a target for your purges. Why don't you try and discuss things before deletion and try and change Wikipedia rules globally instead of going to deletion first. If you can't delete one why not start a global discussion instead of just nominating a second one. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White American (2nd nomination). That way everyone can respond globally to the issue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever voted "delete"? Perhaps rather than accusing other of conducting "purges" maybe you should reconsider your automatic inclusionist stand and start working to improve wikipedia instead of just keeping articles regardless of their merits. Given my previous negative experiences with interaction with you I shall refrain from further engagement with you here. I would appreciate if you will do the same and refrain from further arguments ad hominem.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Every article that is up for deletion that I do not cast a "keep" !vote for is a tacit !vote for the deletion consensus. If there are 50 articles up for deletion each day and I read each article and each AFD nomination and !vote "keep" for one or two, that means I have left a tacit vote of delete for the 48 others. How many articles do you think I !voted "keep" and ended up being deleted? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. 'White Latin American' isn't a 'national diaspora'. In fact, it doesn't seem to be anything except an arbitrary intersection of a vague and contested term ('white') with another social construct ('Latin American'). Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about topics discussed as a topic in external sources, not topics cobbled together by POV-pushing contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WHere? In the Latin American Census? I wasn't aware there were any such census.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the 2011 UK census distinguishes between 'national identity' and 'ethnic group', though it asks for both to be self-described. Within the 'White' ethnicities, the choices are: 'English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British', 'Irish', 'Gypsy or Irish Traveller' and 'Any other White background, write in'. Even within England (the other UK censuses may differ regarding questions), a considerable complexity is allowed for - though it could probably go further. As this indicates, ethnicity within a single country can be a complex issue, even for census compilers, who have to reduce complexity to manageable terms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion rationale is not notability.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is incoherent in that it proposes both deletion and merger - please see WP:MAD. The objections seem to be correctable by means of ordinary editing per our editing policy and the availability of sources seems adequate for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing incoherent about that. The material about individual countries can well be merged to their respective articles. That has nothing to do with the fact that the wider topic is a neologism reached through OR and SYNTH.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neologisms are new words. There is no new word here as the title uses ordinary English in an ordinary way. The article is just taking the topic of White people and looking at it for the geographical/cultural segment of Latin America. This intersection seems quite reasonable and is covered by third-party sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, neologisms are new concepts, which often use combinations of existing words into new phrases. Read WP:NEOLOGISM if you want to know what wikipedia's policy is regarding what counts as a neologism when creating a title for an article.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except they are all editors who voted "Keep" in the recent "White Argentine AFD" - where Pablozeta was also admonished for canvassing.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is true, then this should absolutely be taken to ANI and this editor should certainly face administrative action.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the list of editors was of people that had contributed to the article, with the notable exception of an editor that had removed links to similar articles. The closing admin should take note of User talk:Pablozeta#Canvassing block.—Kww(talk) 15:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at his contributions, the most recent one he canvassed (and therefore maybe others, although I don't have time to check right now) did not contribute to the article but were just previous !keep voters.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you mean "keep !voters" Favonian (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most admins that deal with AFDs would consider the motivation of notifying ((everyone that had edited the article) minus (everyone that had removed links to articles beginning with "White") plus Colonel Warden) pretty shaky. If I were going to choose one editor that would be most likely to result in a "keep" !vote, Colonel Warden would be a strong candidate for the role.—Kww(talk) 15:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No personal attack made. I generally caution people against inviting me to AFDs, for the reason that it will inevitably appear as an effort to get an article deleted. I also evaluate articles individually, but that doesn't change the fact that I weigh in as "delete" or "redirect" in greater than 90% of cases. You were an exception case in the notification list, and that means the motivation for the exception needed to be examined.—Kww(talk) 18:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of those sources are American medical studies that use Latin American classified as "white" by the American racial system as a control group. They go nowhere to show that this group exists. It would really be nice if people were more careful when they present random google results as evidence.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Afro-Latin American already exists.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only substantive argument seems to be based on census data and census data is largely self-reported. It has little, if any, encyclopedic merit. If the "Keep" contingent would like to replace "White" whatever with , say, Welsh-Latin American or Russian-Latin American, that might have an organizing principle worthy of an encyclopedia. Mixing nationality with skin colour, which is a construct largely dismissed in human scientific sorting, seems without merit. Bielle (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your confusing an encyclopedia with a science textbook. A science textbook would not have articles on God or Alien abductions. That is the difference between the concepts of WP:truth vs WP:verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't whether the combination of racial and national constructs seems to you, or to anyone else, to be without merit, the issue is whether this topic has sufficient coverage to be notable. And that is indisputable.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested in you identifying the policy or guideline that states that coverage in reliable sources mandates inclusion as a stand-alone topic, and that editorial judgment plays no role in the selection of topics to cover.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Policy doesn't mandate creation of any article, of course, but this article already exists and the question is whether it should be deleted.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article imposes a USA notion of racial categories which is not used by the people of Latin America. It is synthesis and distortion. Any useful information should be moved to some form of article which covers the range of racial categorizations used in those countries. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These references [6][7][8] prove existence of a separate white Latin American culture. --Reference Desker (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this indentation meant to imply this is a riposte to my delete vote? I looked at the references. They look like minor uses of the phrase "white latin american". Are you seriously claiming that these people have a separate culture? I thought everyone was in agreement that there is a common culture with social divisions mixed up with racial divisions. I'm very surprised that you think these snippets "prove" anything. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. [9] "hegemonic white Latin-American culture". If this is not evidence of a race-based culture, then what evidence do you want? 2. [10] This also says existence of race-based consciousness, though less prevalent compared to the US (in past). --Reference Desker (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Random, contextless, snippets are not very strong evidence of anything. If you really believe that there is a white Latin-American culture separate from the rest of Latin-American culture you would need to find an academic paper claiming that. I am confused as to what you are trying to say. I am saying that race or skin-color is not totally irrelevant in Latin America, but that it far less important than in the USA. Our articles in Wikipedia should be careful not to impose US prejudices and categorizations on other regions of the world. This article, from its title downward does so impose. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maunus laid it down pretty clearly The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In accord with the majority of the above reactions to the nom, which are also keeps. Especially compelling to my mind are the references to White Latin Americans set forth above, including those by Pablo, and the rejection of much the same argument in a number of prior AFDs, as is also indicated by some commentators above.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks to me like the sources provided by Reference Desker and Colonel Warden are enough to satisfy the notability of the topic. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, this article is largely WP:SYNTH of self-identification surveys that do not demonstrate a cohesive cultural identity, a problem further exacerbated by the fact that what is considered to be "white" varies by country and culture, and that recent genetic surveys have found only a highly equivocal and inconsistent basis for such self-identification. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Combinatinations of statistics not gathered under the same criteria do not make for a strong article as a minimum. Prior discussions have reached a general consensus that such categorization articles do not benefit the reader, which, after all, is the sine qua non of any article. Had the discussions reached the opposite consensus, I would have supported that consensus. My !vote here is based entirely on the fact that a consensus appeared to have been reached in the past, and having islands of contradiction do not make sense. Collect (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note to closing admin - User:Pablozeta a major contributor to this article has been blocked indefinately for canvassing in regards to a keep position during this AFD. Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The nominators rationale says it all. WP:OR WP:SYNTH, WP:NEOLOGISM and merged/redirected to Demographics of Latin America or Race and Ethnicity in Latin America. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article tries to objectify an ambiguous concept. There is no serious source that says "white population of Latin America" is an ethnic group, this article becomes a primary source. Mix, without rigor, biological, anthropological, sociological concepts and demographics. Manipulating the few valid information available. If some one can read spanish, look at this Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Población blanca en América Latina (2ª consulta) --Jcestepario (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Maunus and AndyTheGrump. Hopefully, in a due time, we reconsider this monstrosity too. Bulldog123 21:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maunus' arguments are completely borne out in the reference book Ethnic groups worldwide by David Levinson (a reference already used for Ethnic groups in Europe). There is a general discussion of Blancos which is repeated in separate articles. Here for example is an excerpt from the entry for Ecuador.[11] "Blanco or White is more a social-class designation than an ethnic one, as identification as a Blanco is based on a combination of white skin color, European features, speaking Spanish, residence in the western part of the nation (especially in a city), and enough wealth or education to be classified as middle or upper class. However, in some rural regions, Mestizos refer to themselves as Blancos, to distinguish themselves from Native Americans and Quechua speakers. Blancos form the ruling elite in Ecuador, and categorization as a Blanco is considered desirable by people of full or partial European descent." Mathsci (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So — what of it? It doesn't matter to us whether it is an ethnic classification, a social one or some sui generis hybrid. All that matters is that the concept and topic is reasonably well-supported by third-party sources and so it seems. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The information shown in this article, even when needs to be probably reorganized and improved, is valuable and is not possible to find anywhere in Wikipedia, and it would be a pitty to lose it. After reading the argumentations provided by supporters and detractors, I consider the ones provided by supporters are more valid. Furthermore, even when it is disputable if White Latin Americans are properly categorized in the censuses of each Latin American country (in many cases are wrongly not taken into account), they indeed represent an evidently existing ethnicity. So I strongly vote for keeping this article. --Rusoargentino (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep article is well-referenced and the subject is meritory. The rationale provided by the promoter of the deletion, Maunus, is merely another POV, a personal opinion of what "white" should be. If there is enough references, then subject is meritory of an article, as in this case. The bias, POV of promoter is evident when he calls author Lizcano a "minor author" just because he does not share his POV about ethnography. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 23:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you choose to employ an ad hominem argument leaves me no choice but to go back on my selfimposed interaction ban against you. It may be an opinion, but my opinion happens to be based based on actual knowledge of the sociological and anthropological literature relating to race and ethnicity in Latin America whereas yours is based on a petty nationalist agenda. Lizcano is a minor researcher at one of Mexico's minor universities, he is never cited in the international literature about the subject and he admits quite frankly that he is not using the common definitions of the word ethnicity and that most researchers disagree that there is any bases for making the claims about transnational racial groupings that he makes. This is probably bcause he is trained as a historian and he works in demography. No work he has ever done has been characterizable as "ethnography", I don't think that word means what you think it means.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an ad hominem attack, and everybody can read it. Your personal definition about what race, ethnicity and especially what "white" should mean is just that, an opinion, even if it is based in books. Other authors differ with your prefered view. So my argument is that we must not delete the article based in a single POV given the fact that there is not the only one and not the prevailing view. That would be cherry picking POV. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 04:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - from the very first line of Race and ethnicity in Latin America: 'There is no single system of races or ethnicities that covers all of Latin America, and usage of labels may vary substantially.' This article seems to be a case of WP:SYNTH, trying to artificially impose a North American conception of race across a vast and diverse region where it is arguably not wholly meaningful. Not all Latin American countries categorise some of their people as 'white', and in those that do it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as it does in the US: as such this article does not have a clearly defined subject. For those that think it does, I have to ask, where does the identification of 'white people' stop? Are there plans to create articles on White European, White Russian (not the drink), White Arab, White Jew, White Indian and White Chinese? If some or all of those ideas sound silly to you, have another think about this article and ask, is it really any different? Is there, in fact, an identifiable subject here? I think not. Robofish (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources presented by Pablozeta and the fact that "White" or "Blanco" is indeed a classification on many legal forms in Latin American countries. In the state of Oaxaca, Mexico, for example, "Blanco" on the drivers license application , along with other classifications as "Negro" and "Mestizo". Its also on the Mexican census form, and its often a qualifier in other official documents. When discussing heritage, "blanco" is also often used as a "blanket term" for people of USA/Canada/European ancestry.-- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 00:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
INEGI has not collected or published data on race since 1921. I highly doubt that the state of Oaxaca does either.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can "doubt" what you want, but the infobox was there when I renewed my Oaxacan drivers license in January, and on the last census form. When was the last time you participated in a Mexican census or renewed an Oaxacan drivers license? You seem to be failing to Assume Good Faith, and as you are an administrator I find that troubling. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 02:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I use Mexican census data quite regularly in my professional life and I know that INEGI does not publish data regarding race, it may be that they still include it in the census forms but as I say I doubt that. Especially since I have a reliable source saying that they don't. It would take more than your word to convince me otherwise - that is not a failure to assume good faith, but adherence to WP:V.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Asking someone for RS to support their position is WP:V, telling someone you "doubt" what they say is a failure of AGF. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 02:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is ridiculous - asking for you to provide a source is of course the same as expressing doubt. I doubt that you are correct. I strongly suspect that you are mistaken, that has nothing to do with good faith. I think you are the one who assumed that when I talked about doubt that I was implying that you were a liar. I don't expect people to lie, but I know from experience that they are frequently wrong none the less.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't know what "Blanco" "Negro" or "Mestizo" under a heading titled "Raza o nacionalidad" means when it appears on a drivers license application. So now you are implying that I don't know what I'm talking about? Maybe you should be more careful in your word choice and not automatically assume everyone you are talking to knows nothing about what they speak. Regardless of how you are classifying your response, your word choice/phrasing/approach can be interpreted as insulting to other editors and is not conducive to the discussion process. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 02:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is filled with material that violates , WP:NPOV,WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. The images used in the article are a prime example of the problems with the article. The subject of racial identification in Latin America, which would include categories such as white, black and Native American, does have merit. But this subject of identification as white isn't dealt with in this article. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Whether or not all Latin American coutrie use the term "white" or "Blanco" or "Branco" on their census forms today is irrelevant. Also, if some feel that this has the supposed "North American conception of race" that is somehow radicaly different to the ones in Latin American countires then im sure this could be dealt with. To say that there isnt the usage of the term "white" in many Latin American countires is wrong, even in Mexico where they only asked the raza/race once back in 1921, many Mexcans when asked to describe someone by their appearence...they use Racial terms, like black, white etc...Just because it isnt asked, does this mean that the terms arnt used at all.

Cuba has always asked peoples race by colour in thier Census, the last one back in 2002, 65% SELF-IDENTIFIED as white (see www.cubagob.cu). In the most recent 2010 Census in Puerto Rico, over 75% self-identified as white (they had all the other races to choose from!)2010.census.gov. Brazil, asks this in their census also. This has been used as a racial term since the mixing of people and European influence on the region. The Spaniards and Portuguese used it for hundreds of years. Even if many dont ask this in the census, Latin Americans centainly know what the terms mean and use it. In France or Spain for example, they dont ask the race question on their census like they do in Holland or the UK. That doesnt mean that ethnic french people dont see themselves as white europeans. Just because many dont like the subject of the article, isnt really a good enough reason to delete.Puertorico1 (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To end the disscussion, can this not be called Latin Americans of European descent or European Latin American, something along those lines. Sure, it leaves out many that are classified as white of Middle eastern origin but this would be a start.Puertorico1 (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering this proposal for deletion and this deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Argentine, all these articles about "white latin americans" as ethnic group should be deleted:

  1. White Mexicans or euphemistically Mexicans of European descent
  2. White Colombian
  3. Peruvian of European descent
  4. Venezuelan of European descent
  5. Argentines of European descent--GiovBag (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I honestly believe the article should not be deleted because it is well sourced. Also Reference Desker and Colonel Warden make an excellent point. I also do not think that this is an attempt to impose an American-based race view on Latin America. I do know and references prove that there is a category named "blanco" (portugues "branco") in Latin America so deleting this article is just wrong. Karnifro (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)— 50.22.201.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Given that this IP (they signed it with a username, but that name does not exist) which just started editing these contested articles, is very likely the recently blocked editor who canvassed this AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This article even if it is well sourced but is simply a large amount of original resource. It is really just self identification. A person who is white in the Dominican Republic may be black in Venezuela or black in north america (a prime example is Vanessa Williams or Mariah Carey. individuals like Marcelo Ríos who is obviously not White but mestizo (a mix of european and native american) took it as an insult when asked if he was part native american. [12] . this is the problem with self identification. see pic of Marcelo Rios

24.239.153.58 (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons given for deletion above, as with a number of the other deletion votes in this discussion, focus entirely on the merits of the 'White Latin American' concept. Whilst interesting, this is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. I personally feel that the classification does have merit, but even if I felt that it had none I would still be strongly in favour of article retention because it addresses a topic which has more than sufficient third-party coverage to make it notable. 'I don't agree with it' is no more valid an argument than 'I don't like it'. If people feel that the concept is flawed or worthless then they should add those viewpoints - properly cited of course - to the article itself, rather than try to get the article deleted. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

don't think a dekation is what this artical desevres, , but maybe just change the page title as Latin Americans of European descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.197.116 (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC) — 203.171.197.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment Since we seem to have a lot of new editors !voting here: I don't think that closing admins typically weigh Strong Keep or Strong Delete more heavily than run of the mill Keep or Delete !votes. It's the strength of the argument that is important to them. (Not to say that there's really anything wrong with using the word Strong though) Qrsdogg (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename - Regards. First of all, I want to make clear that I am new here; I was looking for an article on the White population of Latin America, and when finding the article, I also learnt about this deletion consult. I created this account to participate in it, so I have no previous contributions -I see some contributors to this consult have been checked their antecedents. I've read this consult and the article's talk page thoroughly, and I consider that the article should be kept for the information it contains is quite notable, but it also should improved and modified signficantly.
  • First, it should be renamed "White population in Latin America" or any equivalent such as "Eurodescendants in Latin America", or "Latin Americans of European/Middle Eastern descent". Though the two latter titles would not be very accurate for they might include Mestizo people, they might be acceptable for those who dislike the word "White" in the title.
  • Second, the ethnic group infobox/template should be removed and replaced by other that suits the content. It seems to me that the very debate is that "White Latin Americans" is not a single ethnic group, so the ethnic group infobox should not be there.
  • Third, there are plenty of evidence of the presence of White people south to the Río Grande, so I think that the information this article displays is quite notable and it certainly reveals that certain stereotypes on the inhabitants of the region are wrong. I've met many people who did not know that there are many euro-descendants in the subcontinent; they thought that it was only populated by Mestizo, Mulatto and Amerindian peoples. Given that the main function of Wikipedia should be to inform and correct wrong stereotypes, I think this article is relevant to fulfill that purpose.
  • Fourth, Some users allege that this articles is a Synthesis of others. It is true that some of the information contained in this article also appears in the articles on Demographics or Ethnic composition of every separate country, but it is also true that Latin America is generally perceived as a "unity" (there is a separate article for it), so having all the available information on White people living in the subcontinent in one article is quite adeccuate, as there is an article on the Afro-descendants of the region, too.--Parmeggiani (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)— Parmeggiani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep White Latin American is listed on multiple censuses in the area, as has been shown above, and has been discussed in [numerous sources]. I don't understand why people keep trying to delete article on ethnic and national groups. The article uses the definitions given in the sources and isn't a synthesis of anything. SilverserenC 22:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"White Latin American" is neither an ethnic nor a national group. If it is anything, it is a synthesis imposed largely by outsiders - though there is little evidence of a 'white' identity (as opposed to the complexities of ethnicity in general) being studied in Latin America by academics for example, which would seem to be the appropriate criteria (see WP:GNG). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting this interpretation of policy? A synthesis imposed by outsiders? Since it's not being studied by academics in Latin America, it's inappropriate? None of that has anything to do with notability on Wikipedia. If book writers and people studying Latin America are synthesizing such things, that doesn't matter, because we only reflect sources and we're not the ones making the synthesis. And it is only your interpretation that it is a synthesis. Furthermore, are you seriously saying that we can only use sources by Latin American academics? That is so far outside policy that it is utterly ridiculous. SilverserenC 23:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I evindently could have written that more clearly. What I meant was that I saw little evidence of 'white' identity in Latin America being studied as a subject by academics. Where these academics are from is irrelevant. There have been studies of ethnicity, certainly, but these emphasise the complexities, rather than assuming that 'whiteness' is in any way a meaningful universal concept: instead it is part of a much more complex discourse, which also revolves around issues of class, and of national identity, in which ethnicity and descent is only a part of the picture. An article in Wikipedia that takes as read that a particular ethnic (or 'racial') grouping is real, and meaningful, in such a context can only be a synthesis - and a synthesis built on a distinctly dubious POV at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are several studies on "Whiteness" that include Latin America in its scope: Whiteness in Latin America: Measurement and Meaning in National Censuses (1850-1950), Whiteness: an Introduction. Chapter 5, Whiteness in the Caribbean and Latin America, and Working through Whiteness. International Perspectives. Chapter 3.. I think these studies make the topic notable and so it is worth an article about it.--Parmeggiani (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC) — Parmeggiani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

-

An article on "Whiteness in Latin America" is a completely different issue, I have myself suggested creating such an article in stead of this one on the article's talkpage. The point is exactly that there are differences and commonalities regarding how being white is defined within Latin America that makes it possible to discuss the abstract concept and how it has been conceptualized in different parts of LAtin America - but that there is no basis for making an article about a group of people thus defined because that presumes both that there is a single criteria of whiteness that is valid throughout Latin America and that people so designated use this as a prime identifier among themselves and in their relations with people in other countries - these assumptions are squarely contradicted by the vast majority of literature about race and ethnicity in Latin America.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. A quick look at the three sources provided by Parmeggiani suggests that each article makes the very point that I did: that 'whiteness' in a Latin American context is a complex issue, and that there is no universally-recognised 'white' group within that context. To quote from the last of the sources cited (Levine-Rasky, p. 73):
"Money whitens" If any phrase encapsulates the association of whiteness and the modern in Latin America, this is it. It is a cliché formulated and reformulated throughout the region, a truism dependant upon the social experience that wealth is associated with whiteness, and that in obtaining the former one may become aligned with the latter (and vice versa)".
'Whiteness' exists as a concept, rather than as an objective reality. A concept that has no real consistency even within a single Latin American country, never mind the whole region. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some policy against having articles on complex subjects? Can there only be articles about subjects on which there's unanimity, near-unanimity, or 'substantial unanimity' (whatever that is) among sources?
Andy, I urge you to review WP:V. Wikipedia articles are not limited to things that have 'objective reality'. SamEV (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC); 00:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles should be (actually, must be) about subjects recognised as such by outside reliable sources. None have been given. 'Whiteness' in Latin America is clearly a recognised subject, with excellent coverage by academics. And as these academics note, the suggestion that 'white Latin Americans' exist as a unified group is untenable. Therefore, an article based on the premiss that it does is a breach of [[WP:SYN], WP:POV and common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about this phantom, uniform group of White Latin Americans of your imagination. It's an overview article, with a section for each country. I.e. it summarizes the content of White Cuban, White Brazilian, etc. The choice of title is only logical; if not "White Latin American" (or "White Latin Americans") the title would have to be 'White Cubans, White Brazilians, White Puerto Ricans...' etc, with 20 or more white populations named in the title.
Scope. The article centers on demographic data from official censuses and scholarly sources such as Lizcano (who provides total figures for the region, btw), and estimates from more general sources such as the CIA Factbook (accepted by WP as a reliable source). There's also much immigration data, which provides some history by explaining how whites got to Latin America. It's meant to be a fact-centered article, not an exposition on the subject of whiteness, an abstraction, though there's room for some discussion of the abstraction (it's just that that's not its main purpose). If the article should say more about how whiteness may differ among and within countries, fine. Each country has a section, so that poses no difficulty.
So, if complexity is no obstacle to an article's existence, if lack of unaminity isn't either, and since the figures are clearly sourced, then the real objection to this article would seem to be that it isn't currently a perfect article. That doesn't demand an AfD. SamEV (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article lede makes the manifestly-false claim that 'white Latin Americans' are a "racial-ethnic group". That it then goes on to compile statistics (of varying credibility) from multiple sources to put numbers to this 'phantom group' only compounds the problem. And the suggestion that the CIA Factbook figures for ethnicity should be accepted as WP:RS is frankly absurd, as has been pointed out in an earlier AfD: [[13]] - they are nothing more than a mishmash of dubious and inconsistent 'statistics' with no indication of sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk)
I am not making any such claim. I am saying the sources doesn't support the existence of such a group. PErhaps it does for White African's but that is irrelevant since WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More