User talk:SamEV/Archive 3

• Archive 1 7/2004 – 10/11/2007
• Archive 2 10/11/2007 – 12/31/2009

Sobre el E-mail

Hola Sam, esto es una respuesta a lo que me mandaste por e-mail: Para ser honesto en verdad no se lo que quise decir con esa palabra. Probablemente fue un error mio pero en estos momentos no tengo idea. Voy a leerla de nuevo para ver si me puedo dar cuenta de que es lo queria decir con el "Sparking"..jejeje. Bueno, muchas gracias. Lamentablemente, estoy un poco retirado de wikipedia porque estoy en la universidad y me esta ocupando mucho tiempo pero espero que pronto pueda hacer mis aportes a WP. EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Sam, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 20:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Are you sure?

I only added it because his party, Dominican Liberation Party, calls themselves social democrats now, i don't know about the future.. The truth is, i'm not that sure. --TIAYN (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, i'll check into it. Seeing that he is leader of a country, it won't be that hard to find a reliable source. --TIAYN (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem

Hi Sam, I didn't even remember that discussion. I tell you what, my vote would have been different now that I know your commitment to the subject. Feliz Año, --Jmundo (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello SamEV! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 6 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Hiromi Hayakawa - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record—because I'm going to remove this section sometime soon—when I created the article I sourced the three sentences I wrote ([1], [2]). But the source was later removed, with the claim that it was a Wikipedia mirror site ([3]), as it seems to be, indeed; though I don't know if that became the case since, or was so three years ago when I used it. But the information on Hayakawa itself couldn't have been a self-reference, since the external source's article predated the Wikipedia article. SamEV (talk) 17:49; 15 January 2010 (UTC), 04:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ur

Coloured to colored to coloured. I think the obviously American editor simply changed what he assumed to be a spelling error. If you know what English spelling dialect is being used, could you place the template on the talk page? We really don't do this often enough. I've seen lots of "spelling corrections" and most are inadvertent. It would be easier to point to a pre-existing template claim. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Abraham

Johncoz's edits seem pretty minor (and reasonable) to me. If I were he I'd avoid giving glosses and explanations (e.g. the correct location of Ur) in the summary-of-narrative section and put them in later in a separate section, but it won't keep me up nights.

I think that article is likely to be contentious/antagonistic - it doesn't matter to the majority of people, but to the minority who car it matters a lot.

Please don't feel obligated to me to do any editing, but if you do I'll watch with interest :) PiCo (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! I guess I'm done with Abraham, at least for the moment. So feel free to hack away :-) Johncoz (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll just be watching the page out of interest, but I have a few other things on my plate that need attendting to Johncoz (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, but your edit on Abe's dates alerted me to problems with the dating sections, and in starting to deal with that I ended up doing rather more than originally anticipated (with some prudent edits by PiCo) Johncoz (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the article which begins on 146 of this book - fascinating. The article really should have something on such things (i.e., the literary art within the story) PiCo (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

blogs and blogs

Apparently, blogs are not considered reliable sources due to being self-published, or contributed by nonprofessional writers outside of editorial control. If a newspaper rebrands their columns online as "blogs" in their desperate attempts to survive new media, this doesn't automatically make them unreliable, according to WP:RS anyway. – RVJ (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Selena

Hey! I saw your post. I know Selena is from the United States of America, did I put something else? if so, please help me by showing me thanks! AJona1992 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC).

Yea, I do understand where you are coming from about the article. BUT, There are thousands of things missing in that article!!! Where's the "Stage" sub-title? Selena got her nick name "Mexican-Madonna" because of it, and the leading article should have Selena's record sales, why she was nick-named Queen of Tejano, EMI and Sony Records offers, and her Products. Selena's filmography is WRONG she appeard on more shows then those listed. Even though, that's a featured article readers need to know the TRUTH and not a basic article that only tells of simple things, for that it should be on the Simple English version of the Selena page. But the English version needs more information there are thousands of things missing and this article Selena that I will be re-creating will meet wiki's standards. But again thank you for your concern because I need to know what wiki needs; oh and also if you don't mind can you give me all the wiki helps on creating an article like Selena? and what would be best needed? thanks and have a great day! AJona1992 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC).

Re:Talk H/L Ams

Thanks for your comments, SamEV. Although I'd certainly prefer the discussion not to be on top of the talk-page, the reason to let it on display is that such views will come again more sooner than later, so it is possible that such a discussion can help someone to moderate his/her attempted interventions, or at least to think about his/her prejudices twice. On the other hand, the timing of the 2010 census you mention is certainly worth considering, so I let the handling of this issue entirely at your criterium. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RE:WLA

That's cool i like the Olympics myself except for the curling and cross country skiing i most like to watch the Hockey,

But i think sk may have found a few already i am trying to ask him who he has found i dont want to waste time looking for duplicate sources--Wikiscribe (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Columbian Exchange

Nice catch there. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Popclock

Thanks for the correction here. I think I must have made that error by blitzing through my watchlist too fast. I see a lot of that kind of thing and it's almost always an error. I clearly missed seeing that this was an exception. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Selena (2)

WHAT??? i'm sorry but can you please be more clear again AJona1992 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Well I don't get it can you fix it then??? AJona1992 (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay I have created that "sand box" AJona1992 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so can you fix the "cite errors" AJona1992 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So can I now added on the main page of Selena? AJona1992 (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No Problem, Thank you! but I dont know how to take that off. AJona1992 (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey it still says "cite error" AJona1992 (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm finished with the sandbox, so you can edit what needs to be edit. I added more information to the article. AJona1992 (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey are you finnished with my sanbox of Selena yet? AJona1992 (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuestro amigo

Looks like our friend is edit warring again. I've reported them at ANI under their IP address if you're interested at looking at it. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

He/she got blocked another 3 months. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay

I have enabled this feature--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually

I did not say it sammy, it is as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29#Opening_paragraph section 3.2

"Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." George Lopez gained his notability via his comedy that is based on his Mexican American heritage. I am not de nationalizing him as you say, and you fail as a mind reader thinking you know what my response would be, it is strictly something taken for wiki policy.

TomNativeNewYorker (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, Tom, I'm friend, not foe; I assure you. :)

I know it's in MOSBIO, as I've quoted many times myself. I think it's a good guideline.

But Tom, I did think you'd say that. How can you tell I didn't? SamEV (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

first you say it shouldn't be here and now you agree it should be. This was hashed out months ago. You have made numerous edits and never had a concern with it before. You should let it lie, it was fine until you decided it shouldn't be there even though the MOS allows it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomNativeNewYorker (talk • contribs) 22:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I still say it shouldn't be there: there as in in place of his real nationality. I have no problem with both his nationality and his ethnicity's being mentioned; you're the one who don't want the bio to say that he's American. As I said, "Mexican American" is not his nationality. Let's take this to his talk page, shall we? SamEV (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Americans of Dominican Republic descent

Hi Sam

Just a quick note to ask whether you might reconsider your opposition to the speedy renaming of Category:Americans of Dominican Republic descent to Category:American people of Dominican Republic descent, at WP:CFD/S?

You are of course quite title to object if you want to, and then we can have a full discussion at WP:CFD, but your suggested names do seem a bit odd to me (they include redundant words), and they don't fit the convention of either of the parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Message on my user page?

Hello. A message was left on my page (listed under my IP address 72.146.113.199) saying that an edit I made to Jose Feliciano's article has been reverted, as it was not constructive. I have never been on his article and cannot find my IP address on the revision history for the page. Why was this message left? Chitoryu12 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Americans of Dominican Republic descent

After an objection to the proposed speedy renaming of Category:Americans of Dominican Republic descent, the category has now been nominated for a full discussion to seek consensus on the suggested renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But I don't believe that that process works. SamEV (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CFD is a forum where consensus can be sought on changes, and where anyone can participate. Like other things on wikipedia, it may not be perfect, but it's all we've got.

However, the fact that you were prepared to oppose a speedy renaming was what triggered a full discussion. That has involved quite a bit of work from other edits, and the only reason that work was necessary was that you insisted that there should be a full discussion. If you aren't then prepared to contribute to that discussion to explain the case for your preference, then it's hard to sustain the presumption that your original objection was made in good faith; it looks more like a form of disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I have the right to lose faith in a process midway through it without my motives' being impugned. I gave a valid reason for my opposition at the Speedy, and that should take care of any argument that it was disruption. I don't have to restate, at the full CfD, why I opposed the rename, because the discussion from the Speedy proposal was copied to the full CfD proposal.

Thank you, BrownHairedGirl. I think you're sincere. But I really don't find enough good faith from others over there, so I really don't want to participate. SamEV (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a moot issue anyway, I see on my watchlist. SamEV (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

After a recent close that actually went against consensus, and seeing the way these guys (I don't mean BHG - she's one of the very few fair and reasonable people over there) stack debates and ignore any opposition to their bogus claims and their often mindless global-standardi(z)ation campaign, I think DRV is really your only hope - get the damn thing overturned. Orderinchaos 05:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll consider it, though I'm very averse to dealing with that crowd any more. SamEV (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment well. Orderinchaos 05:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Philippines again

Hello SamEV! Hope all is well. We seem to have another editor trying to make the Philippines an hispanic nation. Again... It's Banananana88. I reverted him, bur we should keep an eye... Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Quoted text

What's the issue here? I don't see any quoted text. Colonies Chris (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I failed to notice that one. Thanks for reinstating it. Colonies Chris (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

American

In this sort of context it always means the US. In geographical articles it might mean the continent. So I don't think unlinking it here introduces any ambiguity. Colonies Chris (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sam, thanks for your inquiry on Chris's page. I've come here to endorse what he says: "American" is rarely used in the sense of "the Americas", and on those rare occasions, only in that (historical) context; I can't remember having ever seen it, though. We have "North American" (pertaining to Canada and the US), "American" (the US), "Central American" (Mexico to Panama, although some may dispute the inclusion of Mexico), and "South American". These are the common usages understood by English-speakers, and they do not normally require a link. Unfortunately, the habit of linking common anglophone national names and demonyms started early on when wikilinking was a whizz-bang new function and was used without discipline. Wikilinks now need to be applied with skill in their choice and piping; one of the main reasons is to avoid the dilution of high-value links in the vicinity, and to reduce the peppering of WP's text with unnecessary bright-blue spots. Tony (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely you are not suggesting that readers should have to divert to a link to find out what "American" means? "X is an American singer-songwriter who began his career with ...". Ummm .... no. Tony (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Article help

Hi there, just wandered if you could help with a disagreement about the Spanish Mexican article as to what the article is about...its was started it seems to be about mexicans of spanish descent but the disagreement is with someone one doesnt feel that the article is either needed and just tinks the crillos article is enough which it isnt...anyway they also seem t think its about recent immigrants from spain and not the descendents of spanish immigrants over the mexican history...can you help since it should be inline with all the other ethnic groups in Mexico likeFrench Mexican etc...otherwise the article name needs to be changed to stop other disputes...think you can help ,read on the talk page of the article..Puertorico1 (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hispanic and Latino Americans

Strictly speaking you're correct. I shouldn't have changed it. However, it didn't change the sense in any way, and anyone who chose to search for that title would be extremely unwise to expect to find exactly those quoted words with exactly those abbreviations. For example, it may well be that the original has Sept or Oct without the full stop, or that it has Sep rather than Sept. So the practical effect of the change is negligible. I'll revert it nonetheless. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Rahgdl

Hello Sam. I just wanted to leave this short comment. I've seen user Rahgld's edits in the past months and now I'm able to say that I think he's been boostering everything related to Mexico's amerindians. First he wants to include nahuatl, then add nahuatls translations, then Aztec or amerindian pictures all over the Mexico article, then he also modified the demographic figures in the article... and much more.

Now he's doing the same in Latin America. He's just being disruptive and if you need help to keep the articles in good shape, just let me know. I'm so frustrated because of biased people. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 11:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay first of all, Covarrubias you are the one pushing an anti-amerindian agenda which is evident by your attempts to remove all images regarding indigenous peoples fromthe Mexico aticle and by the fact that you have outright lied to cover information you disagree with. And i'm sorry to bother you, but Indigenos people are quite relevent in Latin America, something you repeatedl deny. Secondly where do you get off spreading bias, and lies about my supposed "amerindian agenda" to other users? The following explains my resoning for the Latin America changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Latin_America#European_Population_2 . If you have something to say about me then say it to me.Rahlgd (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SamEV for helping me out on the formatting errors on the Latin America page. I'm currently trying to compile information for the article that is recent and from the same source, but it's not as easy as i would hope to find though. Thanks. Rahlgd (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Chief

This guy. --Morenooso (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to Univision. We must have hit the save button at the same time but your edit won out. I wonder when these editors will get the message?

Are you any good at creating redirects? Wcquidditch used a great wikilink in reverting the program guide on Univision. His line read Wikipedia is not an electronic programming guide and was wikilinked to WP:NOTDIR or in non-wiki markup: [[WP:NOTDIR|Wikipedia is not an electronic programming guide]]. Reason I ask about creating redirects is because I believe the navbox to the upper right of that section should include [[WP:NOTTVGUIDE]]. Someone would have to build that redirect and add it to the navbox.--Morenooso (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you create a redirect to St.Paul - O.L.V. School from St. Paul - Our Lady of Vilna School ??? This school was re-listed on AfD and I saw the relisting while on Recent Change Patrol. Article is looookkkking good. --Morenooso (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

A talkpage is lighting up. Hope you see it. --76.234.21.200 (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverts

Stop trying to make it seem as if I "have issues". Obviously, you may, since all you do is revert so that it will remain what you want it to remain. I'm only adding information that there are sources for. Can't you do simple math to convert numbers into percentages? To top that off, I'm not over-doing it with the statistics. I'm using lower numbers than might be the case. And in white american, what is so "issue" causing about noting the white Hispanic population after it lists the peoples it counts? It lists Europeans, North African, Middle Easterners. Then, it should mention the "Hispanic" "non-Hispanic" population. Do you have issues? C.Kent87 (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There's 0.0 reason for converting irrelevant numbers into percentages or fractions, decimals, or anything else.

And no, I'm issue-free. But thanks for asking. SamEV (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Edit warring by User:68.34.12.93/User:Therock40756

I've added the article in question to my watchlist. I don't see a 3RR violation tonight, but I'll be keeping an eye on what happens to the article in the future. —C.Fred (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he would be reportable to WP:AN3 for edit warring. Although three revers in 24 hours is a good rule of thumb, it's not absolute: given that he's been warned for it, if he continues to revert without discussion, that's edit warring by definition, regardless of the time interval between edits. —C.Fred (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:H/L Americans

Sam, it is always good to hear from a good friend. I'm glad that you liked some of the additions. I don't know, I had nothing to do today and I told myself "Why not expand some of the sections". I must have taken Jose Rodriguez out by mistake, I don't know. If you feel that he belongs there, be my guest. I also agree that maybe Herman Santiago is a little outweighted. There is one thing though, I maybe wrong, but I think that Santiago and Richie Valens may have been the Hispanic pioneers in the American Rock and Roll scene. Anyway, Sam you and I are like brothers here, therefore I will be fine with anything that you do. Saludos, Tony the Marine (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Distinguished service

		The Huelga Shield
		In recognition of your valued support and not because you like lucha libre. Morenooso (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Time to earn your huevos. --Morenooso (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Where you been? Somebody dusted-up your favorite movie today. Slacker.--Morenooso (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm still trying to earn that barnstar.

A bear hug for you. If that's not too weird. SamEV (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Sam, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

re:Sandbox

Ok then well I would like to add more information there by tomorrow. So if anything, I will contact you via your talk page (here) to tell you when I am done. Thank you! AJona1992 (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Feel free to propose desired changes on proper article's talk page. - Darwinek (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Latin America

Hey SamEv, thanks for the heads up. My job a setting a Virtual Office at my house, so I will have an extra couple of hrs. a day to help out on Wikipedia. I will do my part to contribute to the page, thanks again. Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

On accents.

Hi, my friend. I do not think Google can be of service in this issue, as most websites in English drop the accent marks even in the cases in which they should be there. Wikipedia is one of the few sites that properly use the accent marks. Here I'm simple using the bottomline criterion of being born in PR, but may be you are right. I do not know how to move the title back. Thanks for your input. --Againme (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

An adittional problem is that, with education generally dropping all over our Hemisphere, people do not use the accent marks any more even in Latin American countries, but ortography still applies, so at least in Spanish Wikipedia the let's-see-how-he/she-spells-it criterion is not useful... --Againme (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again my fellow Wikipedian. I think that yours is a very good proposal, although I seriously doubt that "Printed sources tend to have no problem with special characters". I've bought books in major stores in Manhattan, by bestselling educated and recomendable authors, for example Jared Diamond, without accent marks even when they unmistakenly should have included them, for example Aerolineas Argentinas instead of Aerolíneas Argentinas. Also I have a little Taliban attitude towards following orthography over personal choices... In conclusion: maybe your proposal is the best available in our unperfect world, but I fear that it could lead to supress most accent marks in names... --Againme (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's strengths is its redirects; if the title of an article is missing the accents you can create a redirect that has them (and vice verse). — Robert Greer (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert: we know that. Sam: Perfect, let´s do that, only that I don´t have the time to do it (I had to take a second job to pay for my apartment's furniture) :) --Againme (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hey ok just tell me when your done AJona1992 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Spanish IPA

As it currently stands, we transcribe Spanish in a pan-dialectal way, such that ‹z› and soft ‹c› are /θ/, despite being [s] in all of Latin America. If the local pronunciation is particularly important, the switch "local" can be added to the {{IPA-es}} template, like this:

• {{IPA|es|ˈsantʃeθ}} → Spanish pronunciation: [ˈsantʃeθ]
• {{IPA|es|ˈsantʃes|local}} → locally [ˈsantʃes]

But then it may be important to apply less salient local characteristics, like [h] for /s/, etc, and you quickly get bogged down in detail, which is why we try to use a very broad transcription. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of forcing the /θ/ (or the /ʎ/ for ‹ll›) on Latin American names, for many reasons. In general I leave them as I find them, and my suggestion would be to do the same. But exercise your own judgement. As for any other errors/discrepancies, continue to be bold! It's good to have another editor looking over these IPA transcriptions, and any input you may have for WP:IPA for Spanish (or any of the other WP:IPA for XX pages) would be appreciated. Cheers! — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(Spanish Mexican)

Spaniard no is a ethnic group, Spanish people are many ethnic grupes, for example, Godos, Celtics, Greek-Romans, Arabics, Sephardics, Alemanics, Franks, and Lusitanians. Mexican people no is ethnic grupe we have got many bloods, Aztec, Mayan, Tarascan, Zapotec, Celtic, Roman, Arabic, Sephardic anothers. Mexican people and Spanish people are comunities, but aren't ethnic grupes.--Marrovi (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

, he cambiado la forma anterior de Polaco-Mexicano por Inmigración polaca en México y de todas las nacionalidades que estan dentro de la categoría de grupos etnicos de México. Gracias por la aclaración, see you.--Marrovi (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

está bien, hazlo, see you!!--Marrovi (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SamEV. You have new messages at Salvio giuliano's talk page.
Message added 11:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

An editor came to me complaining about your behaviour and I gave him my two cents; your input is welcome! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok!

Ok...Thank You So Much for telling me. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honey Bee Real (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

On distractions

in order to avoid further sidetracking at Talk:Dominican Republic, I'll repeat this here: You've asked for a sockpuppet investigation, which is reasonable. Talk:Dominican Republic is a place to discuss the article Dominican Republic, and what the best content for it is. By continuing to turn the discussion into a discussion of whether or not User:CashRules is a sockpuppet, you are preventing useful work from being done. If he's wrong about the sex tourism, then it isn't because he's been here before- it's because he's wrong. Instead of just saying 'we aren't going to do it because he's a sockpuppet,' explain why it's wrong for the article, in a way that others can understand and agree with. I understand that you're frustrated, but at this precise moment, you're distracting the community at that article from reaching consensus. Please, keep your discussion of User:CashRules in more useful places- no one who is involved in investigating or blocking him will even see it at Talk:Dominican Republic, so it doesn't serve any purpose there other than to sidetrack the conversation there. I started that discussion so you could reach consensus together, because once you reach consensus, if he continues to push the edits against consensus, he'll be blocked for edit-warring no matter who he is, and the problem is solved. By preventing the discussion from happening, you're making my secret plan to block him not work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As a courtesy to you, I won't belabor the point about the question of reverting on sight a suspected sock. And I'd be perfectly happy to conduct the discussion elsewhere than at Talk:DR.

However, please notice that Bill has claimed that there already is consensus and has added content that CashRules wanted! Your comment here indicates that you believe consensus hasn't been reached yet and is being worked towards: so would you please tell Bill that? SamEV (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain what consensus, if any, is in place because right now, most of the discussion is about whether or not User:CashRules is a sockpuppet. Here as there, you're putting words in my mouth to support your view. I promise, if I come to support your view, I'll say it myself, in nice clear English- there's no need for you to say, "I'm right, because FisherQueen says..." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, if you point out any specific sentences or words in which I misrepresented you, I'll strike them out.

So let me ask you, do you support this edit, [4]? It's not hard to figure out if there's consensus, because there are only five involved editors: CashRules, BilCat, SamEV, you (correct me if I'm wrong), and perhaps Elockid. That is it. You already know where the first 3 editors stand. SamEV (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think 3 against one is consensus, now that Elockid has said he sees nothing wrong with the edit.

Unless CashRules insists on adding more controversial content between now and the resolution of the SPI, I believe this issue has been put to bed.

Thanks for your help. SamEV (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you believe this issue is put to bed, then you should withdraw the SSP report due to the extreme shortage of checkusers (according to FT2 and others). This will allow them to concentrate on more pressing cases. Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the issue to which I referred was whether or not the suspicion alone should be enough to keep him from editing, while the SPI is in progress. I still believe he's a sockpuppet and plan to add more evidence. Please see his talk page for a new twist.

When do you think the case might be taken up? SamEV (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Good behavior is the most important trait. Please don't misunderstand and think that I think the person is not a sock. However, we mustn't also be too aggressive in accusations because false accusations really harm Wikipedia by sapping the enthusiasm of writers/users. Try to encourage good behavior and good editing! The CUs are very busy because some people have a low threshold for submitting cases. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

All right. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Monsiváis

If you could do some copyedits that lengthen Carlos Monsiváis, I'd appreciate it. I 5x expanded the article and nominated it for a DYK nom. It's about 200k above the minimum and looks okay but it's always best to have a healthy margin. Plus, his article reads well. Man, that guy knew some people. Trips me out that he compared himself to Ringo Starr and probably knew Frida as well. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant to thank you for the copyedits to Telemundo (as I did on its talkpage) and for Monsiváis. I included you in the DYK credit for your efforts. Additionally, I think that the editor, who chimed in my and his talkpages, will be back. ----moreno oso (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Re/ Darcy Ribeiro

You are right, though he mentions the rare situation of Costa Rica and Panamá. I'll add this online version in Spanish as reference, and re-edit myself. I further recommend you this quote from the same link, page 78. Maybe it can help you in future edit discussions (here and there :P) as it is about the different approaches about races in the various regions of the Americas:

"En los Pueblos Transplantados se tiende a confundir en una sola población a negros y mulatos; en los Pueblos Nuevos, a sumar al contingente blanco europeo a todos los mestizos y mulatos claros; y en el de los pueblos testimonio a identificar como mestizos a gran número de individuos puros desde el punto de vista racial, por el hecho de haberse incorporao a los estilos de vida modernos."

Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 17:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Carlos Monsiváis

-- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks for your copyedits of this article. I appreciate what you did and included in the nom because it was the right thing to do. If you like, you can add to your userpage the following:

• {{User Did You Know2|1}}

That userbox will let other editors know you are a DYK contributor. The second number reflects this *might* be your first one. Who knows, maybe you will want to build a new article of 1,500 characters or 5x improve one like we did with Carlos. I'd be glad to help you with either building one or nominating one for you. ----moreno oso (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Cirt. And your bot, too.

Moreno oso, I replied on your talk page. SamEV (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You earned it. Now, put it on your userpage b4 I shove it down your throat like a tequila worm. Trust me, you aint getting with it either. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The far right side is where I go first thing in the morning. I check the recent deaths to see if there is a Spanish/Latino article that needs creation. I'm about to tag one about a Mexican mayor who was gunned down - Manuel Lara Rodríguez on or about Father's Day. What a way to go in front of your family. Then, there's in the news which sometimes will generate an article. It only takes 1500 kb for a new article to be nominated. This one has 58 words and is 800kb. Another 60 words or so would qualify it for a DYK nom (hint, hint). ----moreno oso (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I improved the lede with several citations that should give you all you need to flesh his article. It now stands at 1471 B or 252 words. 1500 b is needed for the DYK nom. Ideally, I try to get at least 200 B over the limit as other editors and the reviewing admins will try your work. Lara was a PRI party member and the CNN article talks about how they (the Ciudad Juarez mayor and he) fought the war on drugs together. The quote at the end of lede belongs to the other living mayor and really hammers home the notability of this mayor. Combined with the governor's action of ordering government troops to guard the state capitol shows his death had consequences. Also, I put my ref names in my summaries because I saw another editor do this. He told me that he keeps open a second article of the same name with the History tab open which shows the refs. He then pulls the appropriate one when he cites something. I've seen five other editors do the same in the last three months - must be catching on. I'll do the DYK nom tomorrow after you do some work on the article. Typically it can take about three to five days before the nom is picked up. Good luck, Mr. Phelps. . . ----moreno oso (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Several articles use both names. Personally, I think it should just be Lara. Your call. ----moreno oso (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Morning. If you could finish adding some info from the English articles suggested on Lara's talkpage, I'll do the nom today. Ideally, the article should look finished because reviewers will look it over after the nom is made. Although the five day window is only in its third day, you don't want to drag it to the end as articles are added every day and the date of the 5x expansion gets pushed back as each day begins. In a nutshell, for a DYK nom you want everything about the article to look nice and cited; complete and timely; and, then submitted as soon as possible. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Brazilian

Good job there, SamEv. At least one article can be saved from becoming another mess. Opinoso (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

lol, it is very "interesting"...Opinoso (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Open challenge

In the talk page of "Brazilians of Spanish descent", you challenged me to prove what I have said about you.

In order to comply with your challenge, I would have to know what do you mean by "Excellent comment, Opinoso, especially the point about Ninguém and his colonial ancestry." What does my ancestry have to do with anything there, and why would such ad hominem be an "excellent comment"? Ninguém (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol...what a waste of time! There's a LIFE outside Wikipedia. Opinoso (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Opinoso said "Funny that Ninguém already reported to be of "colonial Portuguese descent", and now he is saying that Brazilians of 18th-century Spanish descent are not "Spanish Brazilians" anymore! So Ninguém can be of colonial Portuguese descent, but other people cannot be of colonial Spanish descent! I can't understand this person." I was agreeing with Opinoso that there's a double standard there. I'm sorry for confusing you by not expressing myself more clearly. SamEV (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If Ninguém claims remote Portuguese ancestry, why can't other Brazilians claim remote Spanish descent? And most Spanish Brazilians have recent Spanish descent, grandparents in most cases, it's not a remote ancestry like yours, Ninguém. So Spanish Brazilians are more likely to claim their Spanish ancestry than you are able to claim Portuguese ancestry. If a person like Ninguem who has Portuguese ancestors from centuries ago is still claiming to be of "Portuguese descent", there's nothing wrong about a person who has a great-great-grandfather from Spain to claim that ancestry. But the funny thing is that Ninguém is still claiming his remote ancestry, but he doesn't want other Brazilians to claim their recent immigrant ancestry. Why? Opinoso (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. That's what I meant.

Understand now, Ninguém? SamEV (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So let's see. Like everybody, I have an ancestry. Like most people, I have some hints about what my ancestry is. It includes people who came from Portugal a long time ago, quite certainly before 1822. So I would have a colonial ancestry. It is a fact of life; it is nothing to be either proud or ashamed of. I don't put it into my user page, I don't make a point of it, I don't "claim" it. I have no special relation to Portugal or the Portuguese people, other than sharing some 9th grade ancestors with them. This doesn't make me a "Portuguese Brazilian". I indeed never said anything about being a "Portuguese Brazilian", and would have denied such if asked.

I haven't also denied any particular person a "spanish colonial ancestry". Some might have it; I think I even gave you a precise example, such as the Buenos in São Paulo, descendants from Amadeu Bueno da Ribeira, from Sevilla, Spain. Those people are not "Spanish Brazilians" and I have never heard or read they stating anything similar. What I have said, and I maintain, is that these cases are rare; there aren't significant numbers of Brazilians that have a colonial Spanish descent. Perhaps this is a pity; perhaps the world would be a better place if there were huge numbers of Brazilians of ancient Spanish descent. But there aren't. It isn't an ideological issue, nor is it an issue of "fairness" in the distribution of ancient ancestries. It is an issue of stating what corresponds to reality, and abstaining from stating false things.

I hope you realise now there is no double standard in my position. And I hope you are willing to reconsider your support for Opinoso's ad hominem; if so I apologise for having confused your position with Opinoso's continual harassment of my person for the sole fact that I am of Portuguese ancestry. Ninguém (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ninguém has "hints" about his ancestry? He's not even sure that he has any Portuguese person in his family, he probably has zero Portuguese ancestry, but even not knowing his ancestry he still claims to be of Portuguese ancestry, but he doesn't want people who know they have Spanish ancestry to claim it. Funny that Ninguém also claimed to be a Gaúcho from Rio Grande do Sul, from that area that had a heavy Spanish settlement. He is always saying that area if composed of pure-blooded Portuguese descendants, but there are no records that there was any significant Portuguese emigration to that area in colonial times. Portuguese went to Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, the coast of the South and in the Northeast. The rest of Brazil was populated by mixed-race people. Only Paulistas (mixed Portuguese and Amerindian), Spaniards, Amerindians and some slaves from Africa were taken to that area. Sorry, Ninguém, but your "hints" will not take you to Portugal...why don't you have a genetic study? You will be surprised that you won't find any "Portugal" there...lolOpinoso (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Now let me address Opinoso.

As I have repeatedly told you, I have no reasons to be "proud" of my ancestry. Indeed I think being "proud" of one's ancestry is ridiculous and presumptous. Accordingly, I don't "claim" a Portuguese ancestry. I merely gave myself as an example, to another editor who asked how was it possible that the sum of Brazilians of Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, etc., descent was bigger than the population of Brazil, and told him that I, for instance, count twice, as I count as 1 Brazilian of remote Portuguese ancestry, and as 1 Brazilian of recent Italian descent - which doesn't mean, of course, that I am 2 Brazilians. Since then, you have been wikihounding me, repeating that I am a "proud" Brazilian of Portuguese colonial ancestry, denouncing me as a Portuguese patriot, lying that I am "obsessed" with Portugal, etc., based exclusively in this ridiculously flimsy base.

I have no problems with people claiming whatever descent. If someone believes they are of Tadjik and Bolivian descent, it is their problem, and I have nothing to do with it. But I have a problem with people inserting misinformation in what should be a serious website. Many people I know are of Italian descent; I have no problem with it. I myself am of Italian descent. But there aren't 25 million Brazilians of Italian descent; this is a fantasy, incompatible with any actual knowledge about Italian immigration to Brazil.

And so, what you are saying in the above edit of yours is again one of your conflations. Many Brazilians are of Spanish descent, practically all of recent, immigrant Spanish descent, and a few of remote, colonial Spanish descent. I have never denied that they are, and I have never denied them the right to be it, or to claim it, or even to be - as stupid as it is - "proud" of such ancestry. The discussion in Wikipedia isn't about individuals, it is about figures. There aren't 15 million Brazilians of Spanish descent; the Brazilian gaúchos, as a whole, aren't "Brazilians of Spanish descent".

So, let's stop with the ad hominems, the conflations, the fallacies, the calls-to-arms, the attempts to make what is merely an issue of placing correct, reliable, information in a website into an ethnic quarrel. Ninguém (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the above before Opinoso's new round of unwarranted personal attacks. Those are blatant lies. I didn't claim to be a gaúcho from that area that has a "heavy Spanish settlement". Indeed I don't think I ever mentioned from what area in Rio Grande do Sul I am from. I have never said that any area in Rio Grande do Sul is "composed of pure-blooded Portuguese descendants". Indeed I don't believe in the existence of "pure-blooded" people. The advice about taking a genetic survey is unwarranted. Your behaviour constitutes continued harrassment. There is no reason for you to discuss my ancestry here. It is an invasion of my privacy, it is unrelated to the contents of my edits, and it is an ad hominem, a thinly veiled attempt to "to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely". And since this is SamEV's Talk Page, where I am having a private conversation with him, it is also "joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor". All those behaviours are expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy, so please stop. Ninguém (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's just drop the issue please. I can tell you that I prefer to work harmoniously with others, and my experience working with Opinoso tells me that he's that kind of editor, too.

I suggest that we restart with a clean slate (or as clean as possible) from this moment on. SamEV (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. And leave only those who are sure about their Portuguese ancestry to claim it! No "hints", please. And let's not prevent people to claim Spanish ancestry if they are sure about theur ancestry, because there are even people who are not sure about Portuguese ancestry claiming it! lol Opinoso (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Good. I am therefore replacing undue interference in our conversation, so that we can better understand each other (and so that you can have a better idea of what my "experience" with Opinoso is, by looking at the section below).

I suppose you now agree with me that there is no double standard on my part? Ninguém (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ninguém, that wasn't necessary; I had no trouble following the conversation. In general, refactoring other users's talk pages should never be done unless requested.

I'm not sure right now if your explanation disproves the charge of a double standard. I might read your comments again tomorrow. But as I said, I'd rather we just started over. None of us three is a bad faith editor, we're all in good standing here at Wikipedia, so we should be working together in peace. SamEV (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A clean slate requires the removal of dirt. Dirt in this case being your doubt on whether I do have a double standard on ancestral issues, and my doubt whether you are attempting to discriminate me on the basis of my ancestry. Whence we remove such "dirt", we can have a clean slate. Thanks, anyway, for clearing that you don't consider me a bad faith editor.

And, please, I am interested in discussing these issues with you, SamEV, personally. I am not interested in reading Opinoso's personal attacks against me, and they do disturb my comprehension of what you are trying to say. They have nothing to do with our discussion, nor are they in any way helpful. Can you, please, if you don't support those abusive comments, remove them from your Talk Page? Ninguém (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, Ninguém. Maybe you're not applying a double standard.

Now the good part: can you prove that I've expressed the view that you can't edit a certain article about an ancestral group unless you have that ancestry? Have you any idea how many articles about ancestries I don't have I've edited?

A word of advice: ask for a clarification before you launch another wild accusation against absolutely anyone else. SamEV (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So, you openly support an ad hominem by user Opinoso against me, calling it an "excellent post", and I am the one who makes "wild" accusations?

I am obviously not satisfied with your "maybe" - if maybe I don't, it seems to follow that maybe I do, in which case the accusation stands. Do you believe that I apply a double standard, or not? If you don't, then it was a misunderstanding, I take back my "wild accusation", I apologise, and I don't see why you would ask for "proof" of anything. And I won't say "maybe". If you do, then you are probably justified in asking for a proof, but, in order to provide such proof, I must ask for a clarification. User Opinoso accuses me of "preventing" people from "claiming" Spanish ancestry (and, I suppose, other ancestries alike). Have you ever seen me denying anyone the right to claim any ancestry? Have you ever seen me, here or elsewhere, telling anyone who has expressed the idea that they are of this or that ancestry that they cannot do that, or that they are not of such ancestry? Can you give us the diff, or any other evidence of that? If you can, please do it. If you can't, please explain me how you have come to the conclusion that I apply a double standard on that issue. And once you have done that, I will be quite happy to show you how it gives me the clear impression that you are supporting the idea that I should not edit this article because of my ancestry (not, as you mistakenly paraphrase, that I shouldn't edit an article about any ancestrality unless I have such ancestry - I never said or wrote that, as you will easily realise by re-reading the appropriate diffs). Ninguém (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

All right, no, you're not applying a double standard. SamEV (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, thank you. I suppose it was a misunderstanding, and apologise for taking that you meant that my posting privileges here should be related to my ancestry. Ninguém (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Lara DYK nom

Here's the nom: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Jes.C3.BAs_Manuel_Lara_Rodr.C3.ADguez. I have the page under Watch and will respond if there are any questions or corrections needed. I say this because another editor (actually two) almost tubed the noms because they tried to be "helpful". There's a trick to doing noms and that's why lede should have "juicy" parts to it. You want the nom to be found immediately when the reviewer reads the article for the first time. To be fair, the creator had to be included as the 5x expansion came within five days of creation. This should pose no factor as the reviewers are good at going over "older" noms that get added later due to reasons like your 5x expansion. ----moreno oso (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

About that "it could take a day or two to get approved" was wrong because my eyes are backing up with brown stuff. It got picked up 30 minutes ago which means the article will appear as a DYK. ----moreno oso (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Manuel Valdés

One of Mexico's most famous comics, Manuel Valdés, would be an easy 5x expansion. It's only 48 words long. Lede improvement and two sections - *poof* DYK nom. ----moreno oso (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jesús Manuel Lara Rodríguez

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

¡Felicidades! ----moreno oso (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Oso! Thanks, Rlevse! SamEV (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Grr. ----moreno oso (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Brazilian

Ninguém keeps removing informations he deslikes. He acts as if he was the owner of the article. Opinoso (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

So what else is new? :( SamEV (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Población en RD

He estado viendo las correcciones que haces a los datos de población en la República Dominicana. Te felicito por tan gran trabajo; siempre traté de usar las informaciones del último censo pero aparenta que todo el mundo quiere que su ciudad o provincia tenga más habitantes, aunque sean números inventados. Espero que no te canses como me ha pasado a mí, que uno pasa más tiempo corrigiendo que haciendo algo original. Suerte. Jmarcano (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hispanic and Latino Americans

Thanks for notifying me :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Haiti and Belize

(Read what I wrote regarding Belize on Talk:Latin Americans. And, Haiti is considered Latin American in the Spanish wiki page of Latin America, so, I'm advocating its addition to Latin Americans, plus the Latin Americans page has references to Haiti in the "Blacks" section under demographics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.13.221 (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ampersand

I do apologise for that &... oh sorry ... and it won't ever happen again. Bruich (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2010 (GMT)

LOL. It better not. :-> SamEV (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Baluarte Del Conde, Dominican Republic

The move is fine. In retroscpect Baluarte del Conde is better, I just added DR if ever there were a conflict (I prefer specificity, although it may not be needed in this instance).

I believe I moved it to Baluarte because that was the name of the structure historically, and the name of the entire structure, based on some articles I found. But today the only remnant is la puerta del conde, which I believe i made clear on the article. Yet the flip side to that and i suppose what your getting at is that the more significant structure is just la puerta del conde. As for me, I don't really care if its named baluarte or puerta so long as there is mention of both, for historical accuracy.

i.e.: If named Puerta del Conde, there should be mention that the gate was apart of the Baluarte del Conde which protected the gate. i.e.: If named Baluarte del Conde, there should be mention that the gate was an entrance through the Baluarte and the baluearte served to protect the gate. Also, that the gate is a remnant from the baluarte.

Also thank you for your interest in the subject, i think there should be major upgrades to all things dominican, just my opinion.

--El Mayimbe (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Hey I just looked at the article with "Fresh Eyes" and yeah it should be moved to La Puerta del Conde, I'm ready to move it when you are. --El Mayimbe (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

---

I just checked it out, it looks great and ties in much better with what already out there on other articles. As for creating a separate page El baluarte; I think it would be a very small stub and perhaps just including a section in la puerta is fine. let me know what you think.--El Mayimbe (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

---

They are the same.--El Mayimbe (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Selena

Ok what's going on? I have sources that backed up my claims. If you can't restore it back and help with my grammar, I would have to revert it back because I do have sources. Thank you AJona1992 (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You have a new question AJona1992 (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Altar de la Patria

Hey I also created the page Altar de la Patria, Dominican Republic. I know that there are many Altars de la Patria and in this case that was why I added the the suffix of DR. Do you suggest I use the pipe trick here? Thanks in advance.

--El Mayimbe (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Latin Americans in the United Kingdom

An article that you have been involved in editing, Latin Americans in the United Kingdom, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Cordless Larry (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Latin Americans in the United Kingdom

There was no discussion on this move at all, and I have to say I disagree with the title 'Britons of Latin American origin', many Latin American-born people living in the UK would not consider themselves 'British'. The title is also completely odd compared to the naming conventions of other articles about ethnic groups in the UK which have been discussed numerous times. Bring this proposed move up in a discussion please and in future have the decency to change the rest of the article so it reflects the title of it (i.e. the only place said said 'Britons of Latin American origin' was the title whilst the remained of the article still includes the term 'Latin Americans in the United Kingdom' - a term which I believe could include any person of Latin American origin in the UK regardless of birthplace). It is kind of rude to have done this especially since I am working hard to expand this article and the only thing you have done is controversially moved the page. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Help

I have created a new sandbox regarding the death of Selena. Please help me with any mistakes before I put this as a article here. Thank you. (The death of Selena) AJona1992 (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I understand that you are busy but I would like to move my sandbox (the death of Selena) to this article Death of Selena. If you can, ask an admin to help with my grammar problems. I am also wondering if I do move it, since it's and unsourced article, will it be nominated for deletion or speedy deletion? Thanks! I also took your advice and began editing the Selena article slowly and not adding numerous information so fast! --AJona1992 (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, can you help me on telling me what am I doing wrong? I want to move this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AJona1992/Sandbox) to List of The Bad Girls Club episodes#Season 5 but it comes back up blank! Can you help? Thanks AJona1992 (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Tried but failed. Hey on the official Selena MySpace page (her family's) it says Dreaming of You sold 18,000,000 copies. They also have other information that would be great to use in the article. Is there a rule againist using MySpace as a source? AJona1992 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't get why Michael Jackson can have a big lead but Selena can't? AJona1992 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Speech

This humble servant would like to share this speech made before the Commission of the Latino American Museum, with his friends: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=423585291337 Tony the Marine (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Spanish profanity

I could use your help with Spanish profanity to clean it up like we did with Univision. An recent editor has become uncivil in providing refs. I tried to explain that the article need reliable sources informally but he chose to revert blindly. His recent ref is not the best and I will add the clean up tag now. He suggested deleting the article but that is not advised as the subject obviously exists. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

OMG... Dude, you may have picked the worst article for me to help edit, because I happen to hate profanity. I took a look at a diff over there and just ran away at first! But I did work up the courage to go back and review the relevant edits. I then left the guy a comment.

Because he did as you asked and sourced the content, can I presume the the dispute is over, at least for now?

If you want, name some other article where we can collaborate, if you really think you need my help. I'll help at least twice a week; I doubt it could be more, until next month. SamEV (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, dictionaries are not acceptable reliable sources. I happen to be on the article because another vandal fighter asked me to help him with the "fly-by" edits. It gets lots of vandalism and has been nominated three times for deletion. It probably never will be deleted because we all know profanity exists. I don't like being on it either but I don't like vandalism and I don't like uncited edits. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Dictionaries are not RS, seriously? WP:RS doesn't mention dictionaries. SamEV (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the dictionary but they will not save an article at WP:AFD. I probably should have mentioned this in my original reply as I was thinking about it but figured you knew that. Otherwise, I could describe Abe Lincoln that way. Seriously, other articles that don't have the weight of this topic that have only been defined by dictionaries have been deleted as described. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I just remembered part of an AfD that doomed another Spanish topic that was built on a dictionary edit. WP:NONENG is a part of WP:RS buried as one of those headers. That's why when I build a Spanish article, I always try to include as many English refs as possible. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the education.

I'll keep an eye on the situation (no, not that Jersey Shore guy), but I'm not at all inclined to editing an article on that subject matter. SamEV (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll go it alone. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice you acknowledged in your OP that he did provide a source, but that it isn't of good quality. By the time I returned and replied, I'd forgot that. I'm sorry.

If the subject weren't so distasteful to me, I'd help you. But except for calling an edit cr*p, on one occasion (unconsciously; and I tried to take it back: immediately after I'd pressed "Save page" I pressed ESC, but without luck), I don't think you'd find uses of profanity by me.

If I edit that article I think I might get physically ill! :( SamEV (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I don't like profanity of any kind, much less in Spanish. But, what really disturbs me is the fly-by vandalistic edits. On one AfD, an editor made a great point that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and that as per that policy, it's okay to have a topic defined by a dictionary, an article must take on the form of an encyclopedic article (also as per that wikilink) otherwise the entry should be transwikied to Wikitionary. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's sensible.

BTW, I think that user is a good faith editor. I say that in spite of a gripe I have with him. Nevertheless, I really expect that you guys will be able to amicably sort this out. Good luck. SamEV (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree but I guess you missed all his edit summaries and pushing of the topic on my talkpage. I mentioned WP:STICK and hope he gets the drift. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should all be kind to horses. Can we at least agree that's a good essay, so we can end this discussion on a good note? :-) SamEV (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for explaining, but I think you are seeing only Morenooso's arguments. To clarify: I did not add the content, it was repeated previous content that was part of the article's stable version, I just fixed the grammar and removed repetitions. Good luck. --Againme (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Haran

Hello, and thanks for your edits on Haran and Harran. Several queries/comments:

• The article Haran is written like a dictionary entry, covering various quite distinct things: "Haran is the name of three men and of a place in the Bible, and is also a Hindu name. It means 'life' in the Sanskrit language." If we had enough material, each of the three men would be treated separately; since we don't, I guess it makes sense to treat them together. However, including the city and the Hindu name does not conform to WP:NOT#DICT, bullet 2: "Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. ... articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title." (my emphasis).
• As the article says, the 'h' of Haran the person and Haran the place are different Hebrew letters: ה for the men and ח for the place (yet another reason not to have them in the same article). Thanks for correcting my blunder there (I got the transliterations exactly backwards); would you agree that the placename should be written with <ḥ>?
• You have put the identification of Harran with חָרָן in the second paragraph, and written "often identified", yet the Harran#Harran_in_scriptures section seems to assume the identity. I looked for reliable sources discussing Haran and Harran, and found that both Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible [5] and Brill's New Pauly (Brill, 2010) treat Haran = Harran. Do you have WP:RS saying the contrary?

Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Macrakis.

It was others who added that it is a Hindu name and an Azerbaijani city. I like most of the changes you made to Haran. Thanks for adding that ref.

I agree that in 2 Kings and Isaiah Haran=Harran. I don't think we can be so sure in the case of Abram's Haran, though Freedman et al make that equation. What's certain is that Til E. is perpetrating a fraud by claiming that the equation is always made, even though he can't back up that extraordinary claim.

Yes, whenever we mention the Biblical placename Haran we should use Ḥ. SamEV (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maps of American ancestries. It's an interesting article, but IMO not suitable for an encyclopedia. Feel free to disagree, or agree. Thanks. Jaque Hammer (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It was kept. I tend to spend more time on several other US demographics articles, but I'll try to work more on that one. The article does have too many maps, probably. SamEV (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Mestizo

"Maunus, a group can have diff names and (of course!) circumstances in diff countries. Should White people be solely about White Americans? "Blancos", "Weiße", etc in separate articles only?"

The article about "White people" shouldn't include information about societies where there is not such category. There are for example no "White people" in Denmark where I am from - it is not a meaningful category by which Danes classify other people. White people only exist in Denmark if the America Black/White racial classification scheme is extended to cultures outside of the US. In the same sense Mestizo cannot be applied to countries that do not have a traditional distinction between people with mixed amerindian/european heritage. In the US at one time there were a distinction between "pure" indians and halfbloods and mixed bloods - that distinction no longer exist and tribal membership in the US can usually be attained by 1/8 of indian genetic heritage. Also "mestizo" doesn't mean simply genetically mixed - it means mixed heritage of native american and european heritage in a LAtin American country' - there are no mestizos in Canada, there they were called métis, which is now a people by themselves - and mixed heritages are no longer kept track of. In the US there were halfblood and mixed bloods, but those categories are also no longer used. The section on multiraciality conflates a completely different concept - namely the concept that a person can claim multiple racial membership by keeping track of two or more lineages. This has nothing to do with either the mestizo or the halfblood concept because mestizos and halfbloods and métis are not seen as members of any of the races that they have heritage from but as members of a group unto themselves. There could be an article on multiraciality (if there isn't one already) - but the concept has a distinct application from mestizo, a distinct history and are used in incompatible systems of racial classification. There could be a section about Halfblood and mixedblood indians in a US context in the article on Mestizo - IF anyone can find reliable sources that discuss that concept in relation to the concept of Mestizo. If there are such sources a comparison of the historical US categories and the latin american ones would be interest. If there are no such sources there is no basis for inclusion of the section.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"The article about "White people" shouldn't include information about societies where there is not such category."

"White" is used by countries other than the United States; take a look at this: CIA Factbook. And lest you think that's a case of Americans employing the term for countries that don't use it, look at these two examples of countries that use the concept of "White" in their censuses: Cuba ("blancos" = "whites", literally), Brazil (PDF, p. 45) ("Cor ou raça" = lit. "Color or race", and "Branca" = lit. "White").

But even when only employed by outsiders, if those outsiders are reliable sources, we can make the claim, though the local terminology should be given and preferred. So if reliable sources say that there are White people in Denmark, we can say that there are White people in Denmark, per those sources. You know that. ("Verifiability, not truth".)

"In the US at one time there were a distinction between "pure" indians and halfbloods and mixed bloods"

And that alone, i.e. the fact that historically there's been such a distinction in the US, as you acknowledge, makes a discussion of the United States' mixed White/European-Native American people a fit subject for that article.

The article Mestizo is not just about the term's official use, Maunus. It's about people who are White/European and Native Amerindian. The article is not about the *word*, either, so it's not fatal that there's a different word (métis) in Canada for them. (This word "métis" is in fact cognate with "Meztizo", did you know?). It's about people. Like many subjects in Wikipedia, these people are referred to by various names, so there's nothing unusual there.

I don't defend all of the content in the section that you removed. A lot or most of it had to go. But I defend the fact that an article about this group should encompass all the groups of similar ancestry, regardless of location.

There already are the articles Multiracial and Miscegenation.

"There could be a section about Halfblood and mixedblood indians in a US context in the article on Mestizo..."

I'm glad you think so (and I note your caveats). I'll do what I can to create a better section about the people who are Mestizos or correspond to Mestizos in the United States. It probably won't be any time soon, though. SamEV (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that "White people" is used outside of the US, which is why I gave Denmark as an example of a place that would not merit a section in an article on white people. You can find sources that contend that there are "white people" in Denmark but those sources are likely to be stormfront type fringe propaganda using a definition of race that does not have general currency in danish society. The CIA factbook is not a reliable source about racial and ethnic relations in any country in the world - not even the US. In my opinion the article on Mestizo has to be about the concept, not about people who have at one time or the other been claimed or to be mestizos or who have claimed to be so themselves (even under such a definition american multiracial persons wouldn't qualify). It is not about "people of who are mixed native american and european" because in most contexts where it is applied - that is not what the word means - neither unofficially or officially. It is not a case of the same group having different names - they are different groups with different membership criteria - Brazilean "branca" include people who would be black by American criteria, and Mexican mestizo contain people who would be either native american or white or even black under US criteria. In Mexico (the one place in Latin America where the word has the longest and most salient history of usage) mestizo does no longer mean that - it means a person who identifies with a particular set of cultural values rather than others. A mestizo can be fully European or fully amerindian genetically speaking - noone cares and noone keeps track of genetic ancestry in Mexico. Just like noone in Denmark will ask you to cross in if you are white/caucasian, black/african-american or other in a Danish legal document. And just like someone who is classified as "blanco" in the Dominican republic or Brazil may very well find that other people will refer to him as "black" once he arrives in the US. Mestizo" and "white people" are both a culturally defined terms with different meanings in different cultural contexts and not something that any group of people can be said to either be or not be. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You're saying that there are different ideas of what a Mestizo is. I don't disagree. And unlike you, I don't consider it a problem. In fact, it's par for the course. It's the sort of thing for which WP:NPOV was created.

Representing multiple viewpoints is a hallmark of Wikipedia, Maunus. SamEV (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not all I am saying, no. I am saying that using some of those as if they were fact is not in line with NPOV - this includes tacitly using the racial categorization system as a basis for the article and what it should include. Representing multiple viewpoints doesn't mean that anyone who thinks that some topic also belongs in an article can willy nilly include a section on it. Articles must include definitions - those definitions must define the primary sense of the word. In this case the primary sense of the word doesn't include people outside of Latin America. Alternative viewpoints could be included if supported by reliable sources - I have seen no reliable sources for including american halfbloods, or multiracials or any reliable sources suggesting that the number of mestizos in any country can be given as a simple figure. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You keep making this claim that Mestizos only exist or existed in Latin America, but you've offered no proof. Let me cite you some reliable sources on how "Mestizo" is defined.

"a person of racially mixed ancestry, esp., in Latin America, of mixed American Indian and European, usually spanish or Portuguese, ancestry, or, in the Philippines, of mixed native and foreign ancestry." (Dictionary.com Unabridged; Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010)

"a person of mixed parentage, esp the offspring of a Spanish American and an American Indian"(Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009)

See that? Mestizos are said to be especially found in Latin America or Spanish America. Not "exclusively".

The venerable Merriam-Webster dictionary is more categorical, as it doesn't even speak of 'especially':

"a person of mixed blood; specifically : a person of mixed European and American Indian ancestry"([6])

If you have reliable sources that disagree with these: fine. As I said, no big deal. We have WP:NPOV for that. But you don't have the right to pretend that these sources don't exist, or to claim that they're unreliable, merely because you don't like what they say.

BTW, I'm not going to include the section willy nilly; I'll include it resolutely and carefully, per my usual editing. SamEV (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hato Mayor del Rey

Thx for the King Carlos correction. Hey what do you think of that History section???? A lot of details that are poorly translated and unreferenced. I'll correct the translation, but is it worth it if there are no references??? --El Mayimbe (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem re: the King.

That question's tougher to answer than I thought.

In that situation I myself don't worry about whether the content is unreferenced. Unref'd content can linger forever around here, usually. So go ahead and improve it if you want. I may (I can't make promises) try to find some sources for the content from here on.

But remove anything that seems dubious to you. SamEV (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC); 03:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thx for the advise.--El Mayimbe (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources for Latin American Racial Categories

WHere is the source that gives a 14% of Zambos in Panama? Or 2% in Costa Rica? Its not in the Lizcano source. And its not from the factbook either and thy're not mentioned in the sources in note 27. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

They're in the Lizcano document's "creoles y garífunas" column. He calls the Garifunas a Zambo people.

But the fact is that I'd rather we integrated that column with the Black column, because the Creoles are Black, and Lizcano acknowledges that despite their Black and Indigenous characteristics, the garifunas self-identify solely as Black. SamEV (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

not true. He doesn't give statistics for Zambos at all - he gives statistics for afrocriollos. He mentions Zambo in connection to the Garifuna, but he very specifically states that they are usually counted as their own ethnic group and that they are not considered Zambos in the countries they inhabit - the same for the miskito. Give me page numbers if you still think the source supports the claims. Secondly I don't think Lizcano's articles are sufficiently mainstream to support such a table - I think he is clearly presenting a fringe viewpoint (he even admits so himself) - and basing the table on it is giving it undue weight - pretending that his data is directly comparable with official statistics and CIA factbook stuff is completely ridiculous from an academic stand point. Don't remove my tags untill the problems have been adressed. And mean adressed - not dismissed. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Lizcano writes: "La etnia garífuna o caribe negra constituye uno de los escasísimos ejemplos en todo el continente de un grupo netamente zambo; o sea, conformado en lo fundamental por rasgos indígenas (en este caso de pobladores autóctonos de las Pequeñas Antillas, de donde tomaron su lengua) y africanos" (p. 194) But as I already stated (all you did was basically repeat what I said!), he also writes: "Con todo, los garífunas se autoidentifican como negros y no como indígenas (Bastide, 1969: 75-81; Cruz Sandoval, 1984: 442; Gargallo, 2002: 13-16)."

As for your tags, they're doubling the table the table's width, making it difficult to read. You're rather defacing the article with them. That's not your intent, I hope. SamEV (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, my intent is that sources be supplied as quickly as possible so the table can go back to normal - or that the table is scrapped altogether as it basically constitutes a violation of WP:SYNTH. As you see he also notes the difference between a groups selfidentification and his established ethnic categories. In another article he discusses at length the concept of ethnicity and acknowledges that what he is constructing is ethnic categories - not ethnic groups - i.e. the people assigned to the categories do not consider themselves to be part of such a group. About the Garifuna he is using the term Zambo not as a classification but as a description - Zambo is not one of the siz categories he works with. He does not use the term Zambo in the presentation of statistics. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, i didnt realize that source was from 1921. However the CIA source states similar statistics and it is also from the 1990's. I think i should explain something about the issue of the skewed Amerindian/Mestizo results. The reason that Lizcano has stated that only 14% of Mexicans are actually Amerindian is because Lizcano is basing his results on the sociological interpretations of Mexico's own ethnic understanding of race, not actual genetics. The facts that he gets to support this are numbers from Mexico's national Indigenous people's government entity which lists that 14% of Mexico's populations practice that traditional Indigenous customs/lifestyles or speak an Indigenous language. However it only lists these people and their is a very large number of Mexicans of actual Indigenous ethnicity who do not practice Indigenous customs or speak an Amerindian language. While in Lizcano's interpretation these people are not counted as Indigenous because they have rejected Amerindian customs, they are in fact still Amerindian. This excerpt explains the point accurately:

"The category of "indígena" (indigenous) can be defined narrowly according to linguistic criteria including only persons that speak one of Mexicos 62 indigenous languages, this is the categorization used by the National Mexican Institute of Statistics. It can also be defined broadly to include all persons who selfidentify as having an indigenous cultural background, whether or not they speak the language of the indigenous group they identify with. This means that the percentage of the Mexican population defined as "indigenous" varies according to the definition applied.Sometimes, particularly outside of Mexico, the word "mestizo" is used with the meaning of a person with mixed Indigenous and European blood. This usage does not conform to the Mexican social reality where a person of pure indigenous genetic heritage would be considered Mestizo either by rejecting his indigenous culture or by not speaking an indigenous language, and a person with a very low percentage of indigenous genetic heritage would be considered fully indigenous either by speaking an indigenous language or by identifying with a particular indigenous cultural heritage."

This explains why sources citing genetic criteria usually put Mexico's Amerindian population around 30% but sources citing sociological criteria usually put this number around 15%. The sociological criteria is not correct however when being encyclopedic, which is why i have put the number cited by the CIA. And what do you mean, I Made up an Asian population?? Mexico has had a sizable Asian population for quite some time. I'm confused by what you mean by this. Rahlgd (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The sociological criteria is the correct ones to apply in an encyclopedia and anywhere else. There is no way to determine genetically whether someone is a mestizo or belongs to an indigenous group. That is an illusion.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"Sorry, i didnt realize that source was from 1921."

Oh, you mean it was an honest mistake. That's OK then. No problem.

Guess what, Rahlgd? I've always preferred the CIA numbers, which put Mexico's Amerindian population at 29%. But someone created that table with only the Lizcano numbers, so only Lizcano's number is seen.

In re: to the Asian percentage, I'm referring to the fact that nowhere in the source you gave did I see any mention of Asians.

Maunus, what are you talking about? Geneticists match haplogroups to geographic populations routinely. SamEV (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Because Haplogroups are not ethnic groups. That is why they are called haplogroups. Matching a haplogroup to a population is not the same as counting the number of Mestizos or indigenas - because neither being Indian or Mestizo is defined by belonging to any particular haploggroup. There are no genetic criteria for membership in ethnic groups. There also isn't anyone doing genetic surveys of the entire population of Mexico so genetic criteria cannot be the base of demographic statistics.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Deny it all you want. The fact is that each haplogroup is more prevalent in one geographic area, making it possible to determine genetically whether someone groups with Amerindians as opposed to Europeans. SamEV (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You can do that, but it still doesn't tell you if they are more or less mestizo or more or less indigenous. It tells you something about what percentage of genetic ancestry they have from different continents, but that is not what determines membership in those categories. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The only way it doesn't is if membership is being determined non-genetically, such as sociologically, as you insist it should be. But you should keep in mind that that's one POV, and stop trying to push out the other expert POVs. It's Wikipedia policy. SamEV (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that my POV is supported by a wide field of academic scholarship while the genetic one is currently supported by a single fringe source - which is not even claiming that mestizo and indian are ethnic groups (but rather ethnic categories (which broadly corresponds to the American concept of race)). He certainly isn't contradiction that the official standpoint on the definition of "mestizo" and "indigenous" as well as the one employed in mainstream scholarshup is social and not genetic in Mexico and has been so since the 1930'es.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"fringe"? Don't be absurd. Though I disagree with some of what he writes (I too rejected the Lizcano source at first), I think the man is a reliable source. He's apparently a respected and accomplished academic; read about him here.

In fact, far from "fringe", his numbers are quite similar to the CIA World Factbook's.

Oh, wait... You don't like the Factbook's numbers. I guess the Factbook is a fringe source, too, then. Did you succeed in getting it declared a non-RS?

Seriously, Maunus, it's disappointing that you, an admin, seem so unwilling to grasp or abide by WP:NPOV. Quite simply: there's room for more than one view.

If you want to have three or whatever different tables, one for each way in which race can be defined, go ahead and propose that. SamEV (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

WPNPOV clearly states that 's should be weighted in accordance to their acceptance in scholarly sources. I can amass upwards twenty sources published by the most respected journals and academic presses that espouse the "sociological view". This view is currently not represented in any of the articles about racen and ethnicity in Latin America- where it is represented it is because I have ointroduced it and had to undertake lengthy discussion with editors who reject it out of hand and put the genetic view back in, backed by dubious sources and synthesis. I do not appreciate your trying to make it look like I am the one in violation of POV. In fact you don't even know my POV - you only know the one from the large body of sources that I bring with me when ever I edit. As for Lizcano he teaches at a small Mexican univerisrt and publishes exclusively in journals that do not have a reputation of being well reviewed. Furthermore he even states himself that the classification he is applying is not the mainstream one and that he applies a non standard definition of ethnicity. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to your POV (how could I?! I'm Mr. Neutrality). But I'm really opposed to the way you've been going about things, which is your attitude of working against us rather than with us, for the improvement of the article. SamEV (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have come across as unnecessarily abrasive - I guess I may have. It is however the result of having had to deal with a slew of articles giving a completely one-sided treatment of the precarious issue of race and ethnicity in Latin America that have been completely devoid of actual scholarly viewpoints and sources, but defended by editors who were sure that the race/ethnicity=genetics viewpoint was the state of the art without ever actually bothering to do a google scholar search of "race and ethnicity in Latin America" to see if that idea was really supported by a majority of scholarly sources. I am not saying that you are one of those - and I do apologize if I have taken frustration with other editors out on you. But can we please start using a wider scope of scholarly sources - taking into account that the mainstream viewpoint in social sciences today is that race and ethnicity are both social constructs and that genetic studies of populations should not be conflated with notions of ethnicity and only in some limited cases with race?(And yes, I can back that claim up with multiple citations from RS) And could we also please start using statistics in a responsible way by making sure that figures are actually comparable between different sources and find ways to take it into account when they are not? And could we start writing the articles in away so that readers are not falsely lead to believe that it is unproblematic to describe and quantify racial and ehtnic groups in Latin America, and that doing so can be done without specifying which definitions of race and ethnicity are being used? If you would help me work towards those goals that would greatly improve my general mood, and ease my feeling of being up against the wall with only a large stack of reliable sources to defend my claims with. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... That's interesting. Even your apology has a recriminating tone to it. But let's leave it there. Thank you.
I think that you're not appreciative enough of the fact that (though not all of it is sourced) the section has sources, including one which is quite established here as being reliable. I do not wish to discuss the reliability of those sources any more; that's not the point. The point, again, is that getting editors to provide any sources at all, let alone reliable or reasonably reliable ones, is a bit of a triumph at Wikipedia.
You're guilty of thinking too much like a scholar. Don't forget that our readership is a general one. They use sources like the Factbook and such, and WP allows us to use the Factbook, and such, in creating content for them. (No, I'm not saying we're not supposed to use more scholarly works, too.)
Finally, I don't mean to misrepresent my intended contribution. In terms of new content it may not amount to much, if anything at all. I'll certainly observe, review, copyedit. If you keep in mind that several of us have put work into that section, and that we'd at least like to know why any changes you wish to make are necessary (basic WP MO and human courtesy), you'll be able to remake the section pretty much without interference. SamEV (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Islas Catalina y Saona

Lamento no haber respondido pero ya no entro en Wikipedia con tanta frecuencia como antes. Las islas Catalina y Saona pertenecen, ambas, a la provincia La Romana y nunca han pertenecido a La Altagracia (aunque sí a la antigua provincia La Altagracia, que incluía La Romana). Jmarcano (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

MULATTO/HYPERDESCENT

Suggesting that hyperdescent did not exist in Latin America because not all Latin Americans with white ancestry are classed as white is the equivalent of suggesting that there was no one drop rule (hypodescent) in the U.S, because most of the descendants of black slaves in the U.S are not classed as black but are classed as white, are you suggesting there was no one drop rule? If so will you remove all refrences of the one drop rule (hypodescent) the same way you removed refrences to hyperdescent or the reverse one drop rule?

According to Dr. Carlos Moore, resident scholar at Brazil's University of the state of Bahia, Afro-multiracials in the Arab world self-identify in ways that resemble Latin America. He claims that black-looking Arabs, much like black-looking Latin Americans, consider themselves white because they have some distant white ancestry.

Genetic admixture studies by Bertoni et al, Admixture in Hispanics: Distribution of Ancestral Population Contributions in the United States, Human Biology - Volume 75, Number 1, February 2003, pp. 1-11, conclude that hispanic Americans are between 34%-68% European and yet most self ID as white, how did white hispanic end up so mixed compared to non hispanic whites who are 90+ white if not due to hyperdescent? and why would millions of white Latin Americans consider themselves white when many of millions of them are below half white or near half white? if not due to hyperdescent?

Brazil has one of the largest white populations in Latin America and yet studies carried out by the gentist Segio Pena concude the average white Brazilian is of mixed race descent, with the avergae white Brazilan being 10% Black and 10% Native American, despite all of the above evidence you still deny hyperdescent?

Quotations from both the anthropologist Peter Wade, viceroy of new granada and Clare Ribando Seelke a specialist in Latin American Affairs confirm that some blacks class themselves as mulattoes and that some mulattoes class themslves as white, you think this is of no importance on a page where the primary subject is mulattoes?

The total abscence of hyperdescent which meant many mulattoes passed as white and the law Gracias al Sacar which aloud mulattoes to become leagly white, in a page which primary subject is mulattoes presents a false and biased version of history because it leaves one with the false imppression all mulattoes were classed as mullaotes when many were classed as white and this is linked to the fact that most of todays white Latin Americas are of mixed race descent.

quote you - If you'd like to know something that ought to be self-evindent, here it is: considering that most Latin Americans have white ancestry, if hyperdescent were the rule, then most Latin Americans would be classified white. That's patently not the case

If you believe the above statement you made then you must believe there was no one drop rule in the U.S becuase its patently not the case that most people with black ancestry are classified as black, most with black ancestry are classified as white, so i take it you will be removeing all references to the one drop rule because if we apply your logic then there was no one drop rule?--ChineseNygirl (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What I object to is not your claim that hyperdescent existed in Latin America, but your exaggerated claim that people with marginal white ancestry could be classified as white. Upwards of 3/4 of Latin Americans have white ancestry, yet only 36% of Latin Americans classify themselves or are classified as white. So much for your claim.

The Spanish had all kinds of ways of classifying mixed race people: they didn't classify people with some white ancestry as "white", as you think happened. (Have a look at some of the racial categories, just in Mexico: [7] Has it been lost on you that the reason the mulatto category existed is precisely because being part-white didn't earn mulattoes the right to be classed as white?

In your first sentence you acknowledge that there are millions of Americans with black ancestry who are classed as white. Does that mean that hyperdescent was the system implemented in the United States? No. It means that hyperdescent occurred some of the time in the United States, as was the case in Latin America.

You also make a false cause and effect argument by saying that racial mixture is the 'effect' of hyperdescent ("how did white hispanic end up so mixed race if not due to hyperdescent?", you ask me). How are most US Hispanics mixed because of hyperdescent? Are the mixed race non-Hispanics (including those non-Hispanic whites who also have black ancestry) the product of hyperdescent? That's not a rhetorical question. I'd like your answer to that.

BTW, thanks for responding to my message. I believe we can get somewhere through discussion. SamEV (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Here you go with the numbers again - this time without even giving a source the policies of whitening that rely on hyperdescent are so well documented that this is really an incredible instance of speaking against better knowledge. What about you start reading books, thats right, books made of paper and written by authors with academic training, about race in Latin American contexts instead of believeing that all knowledge from US government websites is eternally valid and unassailable. ChineseNY girl backs her claim up with sources, good sources, such as writings by Peter Wade who is one of the people who have spent decades studying racial concepts in Latin America and publishing in academically respectful venues. It is simply disrespectful that you think that pulling statistics out from god knows where can be used to counter those arguments. The reason some people with african ancestry are classed as white in the US is not because hyperdescent occurs sometimes - it is because the categories change meaning over time and the one-drop rule is no longer in effect in the US where membership in categories are now based on visual and cultural characteristics. So that a person with african ancestors can become white if he looks sufficiently white and acts sufficiently white. Hyperdescent however continues to be the rule in most of Latin America (I only say most because there are some countries where I do not reliable have information from - it is the case in all of the sountries that I do have information from) It is stated in multiple reliable sources that the difference between ideologies of the one drop black rule (hypdescent) and whitening (hyperdescent) is the main difference between Latin American and North American racial categorization. You ask "How are most US hispanics mixed because of hyperdescent" the answer is of course - because they're in the US where the rule is hypodescent. In their own countries they would likely be categorized as white because the rule there is hyperdescent. WHen the word mulatto was introduced there was no category of white. Mulatto didn't mean "non-white" it meant - non Spaniard. The category of "White" wasn't introduced in latin america untill the late 18th century. Policies of hyperdescent came into play in the late 17th century and when the caste system was abloished after independence the classification of mulatto dissapeared becoming absorbed into the blanco/criollo, mestizo and indigenous categories. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(email)

I Dropped you a line samev--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I replied--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

RE-MULATTO/HYPERDESCENT

SamEV quote- Upwards of 3/4 of Latin Americans have white ancestry, yet only 36% of Latin Americans classify themselves or are classified as white. So much for your claim.

Well firstly its not my claim, the fact that hyperdescent and whitening existed in Latin America is confirmed by anthropologist and sociologists around the world.

SamEV QUOTE - What I object to is not your claim that hyperdescent existed in Latin America, but your exaggerated claim that people with marginal white ancestry could be classified as white.

Admixture studies on U.S Hispanics conclude they are between 34%-68% white and most classify themselves as white, and you still dont think hispanics with marginal white ancestry (hyperdescent/reverse one drop rule) class themselves as white?

You have missed my point entirely, the point i was trying to make is that u said- I am exaggerating hyperdescent because most people in Latin America with white ancestry dont class themselves as white, well if thats the case u must think the one drop rule is exaggerated because most people with black blood in the U.S are classed as white and not black. If you leave in place references about the one drop rule then you have to leave in place references about hyperdescent because you say most people in Latin America with white ancestry are not white and along the same vein most people in the U.S with black blood dont class themselves as black but class themselsves as white, dont you see the contradiction in keeping references to the one drop rule (HYPO-DESCENT) without keeping references to hyperdescent? in a page about mulattoes? and dont you think the fact some blacks sought to be counted as mulattoes which is attested to by experts in Latin American affairs such as Peter Wade and Edward E Telles, has a place in a page about mulattoes?

Your claim that Latin America has a white minority only serves to reinforce hyperdescent and not disprove it, if latin America has a white minority then that would mean hyperdescent and whitening is the rule among U.S Hispanics. If Latin America has a white minority and according to admixture tests U.S Hispanics are between 34%-68% white, how can most U.S born hispanics be white if not due to hyperdescent? You dont end up with whites who are either below half white or near half white unless that white group is defining themselves by hyperdescent.

Of course not all people in the U.S with black blood class themslseves as black despite the one drop rule and of course not all people in Latin America with white ancestry class themselves as white, but nevertheless there was a tendency in the U.S to class mixed race people as black due to Hypodescent (one drop rule) and as result of this most African Americans have white ancestsry, the opposite was the case in Latin America where there was a tendency in Latin America for mixed race people to be classed as white (light skinned mixed race people) and as a result of this white Hispanics tend to be mixed to a higher degree then non hispanic white Americas, this is directly linked to hyperdescent.

Sam EV quote - The Spanish had all kinds of ways of classifying mixed race people: they didn't classify people with some white ancestry as "white", as you think happened. (Have a look at some of the racial categories, just in Mexico: [7] Has it been lost on you that the reason the mulatto category existed is precisely because being part-white didn't earn mulattoes the right to be classed as white?

Your misinterpreting the mixed race classifications in Latin America, no matter how much you think these mixed race classifications represent mixture the reality is race in latin America was and still is defined by skin colour, eduacation and wealth, a persons ancestry or mixture was largley irrelevant in their racial classification and geneticists state- skin color is a poor indicator of ancestry thus useing skin colour to determine who is mixed race eqautes an unreliable form of racial classifaction. Studies carried out by Edward E Telles concludes in Brazil -For browns(including mulattoes), there are three outcomes: classification as white, as black or as brown, Edward E Telles also found - Self-classified browns (including mulattoes) with high education are categorized as white approximately 40 percent of the time in places like Sao Paulo he also concludes - In particular, self-classified black women with high education are least likely also to be called black by others, this demonstrates the ambiguity and the lack of meaning with regard to mixed race catgories in Brazil and in Latin America as a whole and highlights a tendency of non whites to whiten themselves or be whitened in the sense that mixed race people including mullatoes will be someimes classed as white and in turn blacks will be sometimes classed as something other then black (usually mulatto)

Mixed race classifications in Latin America were about acknowledging a group of people who were in skin color between the most darkest of blacks and Native Americans and whites, some of the people who were classed as mixed race were blacks and Native Americans who were either light skined wealthy or a combination of the two, as well as mixed race people. If you had two parents from different races and were light skinned, you were classed as white in Latin America. Light skinned mullatoes and mestizos are still classed as white in present day Latin America. The fact the spainish had laws in which an acknowledged mulatto or mestizo could buy a white identity demonstrates they cared nothing about acknowledging mixed race people and were far more concerned with whitening the population.

Sam EV quote- In your first sentence you acknowledge that there are millions of Americans with black ancestry who are classed as white. Does that mean that hyperdescent was the system implemented in the United States? No. It means that hyperdescent occurred some of the time in the United States, as was the case in Latin America.

Suggesting an official policy of hyperdescent existed in the english Americas is ridiculous, english speaking America had the one drop rule and not hyeperdescent (with regards to black ancestry) and to suggest that hyperdescent was practiced in equal measure in the U.S and Latin America is also ridiculous. In the U.S despite of the one drop rule most of the descendants of black slaves are white, this is not because of any offical policy of hyperdescent but due to the fact blacks ignored the one drop rule and passed as white.

Hyperdescent and Branqueamento/Whitening are two sides of the same coin if not the same thing, both hyperdescent and whitening have as their central themes identifying mixed race people as white, the whitening ideal is the belief that threw mixing between blacks, Native Americans and whites that blacks and Native Americans would vainish from Latin America and Latin America would become white, you can only achieve this by identifying the resulting mixed race children as white. The only real difference between whitening and hyperdescent is that whitening also has the effect of blacks and Native Americans whitening themselves by wrongly reporting to be mixed in order to partially dissociate themselves with African and Native American ancesctry and move closer to white. The Latin American whitening ideal is delineated particularly well in Thomas Skidmores book black into white, and also well documented by the anthropologist and expert in Latin American affairs peter wade and EE Telles. Whitening has many themes tied to it but the central theme is that Latin American would become white because marriage to whites by blacks and native Americans was believed to whiten the population because white genes were thought to be dominant (Skidmore 1974) You can only achieve this be identifying the mixed race children of blacks and whites or whites and Native Americans as white (hyperdescent), you cannot eliminate blacks and Native Americans via mixing and create a white Latin America if you dont accept the resulting mulattoes and mestizos as white, this is hyperdescent in practice and hyperdescent was the rule in most of Latin America.

Sam EV quote- You also make a false cause and effect argument by saying that racial mixture is the 'effect' of hyperdescent ("how did white hispanic end up so mixed race if not due to hyperdescent?", you ask me). How are most US Hispanics mixed because of hyperdescent? Are the mixed race non-Hispanics (including those non-Hispanic whites who also have black ancestry) the product of hyperdescent? That's not a rhetorical question. I'd like your answer to that.

Your talking about 3 groups of people (mixed race people, white hispanics, non hispanic whites) as if they were all the same and they are not. Someone who is mixed race is not mixed race because of hyperdecent, they are mixed race because they have two parents from different races. White Americans have black ancestry because black Americans circumvented the one drop rule and passed as white, not because of an offical policy of hyperdescent. White Hispanics are the product of hyperdescent due to the degree to which they are mixed, it's not the mere fact they are mixed which is inextricably linked to hyperdescent but the degree to which U.S white hispanics are mixed. Non Hispanic white Americans are 90%+ European by direct contrast white hispanics are only between 34%-68% European. How else do you explain the fact white hispanics are on average way more mixed then non hispanic white Americans? The only reason white hispanics are more mixed then non hispanics white Americans is due to the fact light skinned mulattoes and mestizos were able to assume a white identy because of an offical policy of hyperdescent and whitening, and the resulting consequences of this is that many white hispanics in the U.S are below half white or only near half white, this is because of hyperdescent. You can determine the fact hyperdescent was the rule in Latin America not by looking at how many white latin Americans there are but by looking at how mixed white latin Americans are in contrast to other white peoples.

SamEV you ask me - How are most US Hispanics mixed because of hyperdescent?

Its easy to explain how white Hispanics are the product of hyperdescent, you only need look at the levels of white ancestry white hispanics have in contrast to non hispanics white Americans. According to - Genetic admixture based on Bertoni et al, Admixture in Hispanics:-

U.S hispanics are between 34%-68%, on average no U.S hispanics in the study were found to be more then 68% white and yet most hispanics in the U.S self ID as white by direct contrast studies on non hispanics white Americans conclude non hispnaic white Americans are 90%+ white, how else do you explain the disparity between the levels of white ancestry between white hispanics and non hispanics white Americans if not due to hyperdescent? You can only end up with white people who are between 34%-68% white because they are defining whiteness by hyperdescent.

Hyperdescent has meant as much if not more to the history of latin America, white latin Americans and mulattoes as the one drop rule has meant to U.S history, black Americas and U.S mixed race people, to have no mention of it at all in a page about mulattoes presents a false and biased version of history in which no mulattoes or mestizos were classed as white when in fact due to hyperdescent and the resulting light skinned mulattoes and mestizos identifying as white (hyperdecent) many of todays U.S white hispanics are either below half white or only near half white. Hyperdescent and Branqueamento cannot be written out of Latin American and mulatto history.

Furthermore the fact some wealthy and light skinned blacks were and still are classed as mullato is also an integral part of mullato history and should not be written out of history on the mullato page. The fact blacks are sometimes classed as mullato, and mullatoes are sometimes classed as white is attested to by both Peter Wade and Edward E Telles PROFESSOR Ph.D. University of Texas at Austin who i quote - many better- off blacks classify themselves and are classified by others as brown (mullato).--ChineseNygirl (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

To give you an example, Pelé isn't classified as white, even though he's rich and superfamous. The idea that money whitens is only true within narrow constraints. If you looked at the elite of Latin America you'd know that the region is dominated by whites. The place is no racial democracy.

"Admixture studies on U.S Hispanics conclude they are between 34%-68% white and most classify themselves as white, and you still dont think hispanics with marginal white ancestry (hyperdescent/reverse one drop rule) class themselves as white?"

But that data doesn't say what ratio are overwhelmingly or mostly white, so how can you tell that most who say they're white aren't mostly white?

"u must think the one drop rule is exaggerated because most people with black blood in the U.S are classed as white and not black."

The conclusion is inescapable that if the one drop rule didn't result in the classification as "black" of all who had a drop of black blood, then the rule's success was not total. It didn't 'catch' everyone.

The problem with your hyperdescent references is that they don't actually support what you write. Most simply define what hyperdescent is, and make no mention of Latin America. You need to do a better job of sourcing what you actually write. I'm not opposed to your pointing out, briefly, that hyperdescent exists in Latin America (as it does in the US). (It has to be brief because the article is not about hyperdescent, a subject that has its own article already. To go on an on about it would be to give that issue undue weight.)

"If Latin America has a white minority and according to admixture tests U.S Hispanics are between 34%-68% white, how can most U.S born hispanics be white if not due to hyperdescent?"

I addressed the issue of the admixture ratio above. As for the rest, immigration doesn't necessarily reflect the ethnic distribution of the source countries. For all kinds of reasons, one group can migrate in greater numbers than its actual local percentage. Think of the Chinese in Indonesia. They're a small minority that has suffered much persecution at times. If a million were to migrate to the United States, most Indonesian Americans would be Chinese, even though most Indonesians are not. Whites haven't left Latin America in those circumstances, of course, but the case of Cuba is somewhat comparable. 50 years ago whites made up a majority, but not an overwhelming one, of Cuba's population. But the Castro regime attacked the upper and upper middle classes, which were overwhelmingly white. So they left Cuba in huge numbers, and the result is that the overwhelming majority (85% in the 2000 census) of Cuban Americans are white. So the racial profile of Cuban Americans doesn't match that of Cuba, be it 50 years ago, or now.

"...a persons ancestry or mixture was largley irrelevant in their racial classification..."

Those racial categories used in New Spain that I linked to were not based on skin color, but on ancestry, which is made explicit.

"The fact the spainish had laws in which an acknowledged mulatto or mestizo could buy a white identity demonstrates they cared nothing about acknowledging mixed race people and were far more concerned with whitening the population."

You have such a penchant for exaggeration. The Spanish had to pass laws allowing such a thing. That hardly shows they 'cared nothing'. And it was castizos, i.e. those who were 7/8 whites who were allowed to be classified as white at certain times.

"In the U.S despite of the one drop rule most of the descendants of black slaves are white, this is not because of any offical policy of hyperdescent but due to the fact blacks ignored the one drop rule and passed as white."

Hyperdescent doesn't have to be official to exist. Also, your POV seems to be that the one drop rule is the right rule. You call people with some black ancestry "black", and speak of their 'passing' for white. If they were white enough to 'pass' for white, who are you to say they weren't white people who were asserting their racial identity?

"Your talking about 3 groups of people (mixed race people, white hispanics, non hispanic whites) as if they were all the same and they are not."

Actually, I was specifically referring to all those 'mixed white Hispanics' and the 'mixed white non-Hispanics'.

"White Hispanics are the product of hyperdescent due to the degree to which they are mixed,"

Oh, now we're talking about degrees, huh? Well, the logical next question is: at what degree of admixture can we say that there's hyperdescent?

"white hispanics are only between 34%-68% European"; "U.S hispanics are between 34%-68%"

You do realize that those are two different claims, right? One is about White Hispanic and Latino Americans and the other about all Hispanic and Latino Americans. Mightn't you claim that some white Hispanics are <50% white be based on a misreading of Bertoni et al? (BTW, can you please provide an exact quotation of Bertoni? At least the exact page number?)

Look. Hyperdescent existed in so far as it allowed mixed race people to 'climb the racial ladder' into higher-status groups. That doesn't mean that someone of mixed race was automatically assigned the higher or highest of the two or three races whose ancestry they had, which is what hyperdescent properly speaking would be. Hypo- and hyperdescent are essential to bipolar systems (those, like the US's, in which you're either in the dominant group or not). The Spanish instituted a different system, one that recognized intermediacy. I.e. rather than placing the offspring of black and white in either the black or white race, they used the category "mulatto". (They US used the mulatto category sometimes, too). Hyperdescent had a place in that system, but an ancillary one, not intrinsic to the system. You're free to think of that as being wrong; you're free to prefer the one drop rule, wherein someone can be 99% white and still be non-white. You can continue to be outraged that many (or most?) of the Hispanics who call themselves white do so without what you seem to believe is a 'right' to; that's your choice, but please observe WP:NPOV when you edit, because the article is not a soapbox for your (or mine, or anyone else's) personal views. You're also free to add content to the article which is relevant and proportionate. Above all, please properly attribute any content you add.

And could you be less verbose, please? SamEV (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

PERSONAL ATTACK

I was actually going to address your points one by one but i wont now as you have made a personal attack on me by implying that i am a racist when i am not racist and nor have i said anything racist and made another personal attack me by implying i support the one drop rule, after all the personal attacks and false hints at racism that you have made against me SamEV i wont even bother addressing your points.

I never once said i supported the one drop rule i was simply refuting your suggestion the reason non hispanic white Americans have African ancestry is because of an official policy of hyperdescent as you falsey implied. I was simply highlighting the fact non hispanic white Americans have black DNA because blacks circumvented the one drop rule and passed for white and not because of an offcial policy of hyperdescent as you wrongly implied SamEV, i used the term black and passed in the context of U.S history and not an expression of my own point of view.

If i believed in the one drop i would not have said - most of the descendants of black slaves in the U.S are white, i would have said - most of the descendants of black slaves in the U.S are black, which i did not say.

I actually new you were going to insult me somewhere down the line because your arguments make no sense and when people make arguments they know deep down are false they normally resort to personal attacks, all of the arugments you use to underplay or deny hyperdescent/whiteining could be used to underplay or deny the one drop rule but you only try and underplay and deny hyperdescent/whitening, i wonder why that is?

The fact you have resorted to a personal attack on me by implying that I am a racist when i am not racsit nor have i said anything racist and made another personal attack on me by implying i belive in the one drop rule when i have said no such thing and not address many of my points i have made demonstrates you have no counter argument and the fact you ignored the history of whitening further illustrates this.

Genetic admixture graphs based on Bertoni et al, Admixture in Hispanics: Distribution of Ancestral Population Contributions in the United States, Human Biology - Volume 75, Number 1, February 2003, pp. 1-11 Concude hispanics in the U.S are between 34%- 67% yet most Hispanics in the U.S self ID as white.

Lets just say for arugments sake the most white Hispanics in that study self ID as white (51%-67% European), unless your going to argue that Europeans arrived in Latin America 51%-67% European you would have to accept that Hisapnics are defining themselves by hyperdescent and this is the only reason to explain the disparity between non hispanic white Americans who are 90%+ European and white hispanics who are much less European (51%-67% European). If not due to hyperdescent/whitening - how else do you explain U.S white hispanics haveing the most lowest European ancestry of any self defined white group?

The Law of - Gracias al Sacar was not the - Limpieza de sangre, the term castizo predates the 18th Century The Gracias al Sacar was a law which came into being in much of latin America in the 18th Century and it allowed acknowledged mulattoes and mestizos to become white, you really need to learn history is about the facts SamEV not what you distort and call fact.

The way in which you constantly and wrongly imply that hyperdescdent is practiced in equal measure in the U.S and Latin America is another distortion of history, its almost as if your trying to grant hyperdescent legitimacy or make hyperdescent seem morally justifiable by falsey implying hyperdescent was as widespread in the U.S as it was and still is in Latin America which is not true, hyperdescent towards black ancestry was never an offical policy of the U.S as was the case in Latin America, hyperdescent was never as widespread in the U.S as it was and still is in Latin America, white hispanics in the U.S are 67% and lower white, you dont end up with white people who are 67% and lower white unless they are defining whiteness by hyperdescent.

Quotations from the anthropologist Peter Wade, viceroy of new granada, Dr. Carlos Moore, Edward E Telles and Clare Ribando Seelke a specialist in Latin American Affairs confirm that some blacks class themselves as mulattoes and that some mulattoes class themslves as white, you think this is of no importance on a page where the primary subject is mulattoes?

You free to deny or underplay hyperdescent, your free to tell yourself the lie that- people arrived from Europe to Latin America 67% or lower European despite the fact no native European people has such a low level of European ancestry. The truth is White Hispanics have much lower levels of European ancestry (in the case of U.S Hispanics 67% or lower) because they are defining themselves by hyperdescent and are accepting mixed race people as white and this is why they have such low levels of European ancestry in contrast to other white peoples, the classification of mixed race people as white (hyperdescent) is an intergral part of mullato history and is linked to the low levels of white ancestry many white Hispanics have.

The total abscence of hyperdescent which meant many mulattoes passed as white and the law Gracias al Sacar an which aloud mulattoes to become leagly white, in a page which primary subject is mulattoes presents a false and biased version of history because it leaves one with the false imppression all mulattoes were classed as mullaotes when many were classed as white and this is linked to the fact that most of todays white Latin Americas are of mixed race descent.

There is no point going on with this discussion you will not address any of my main points you only try and avoid them and distort what i am saying the same way you love to distort history, and because you dont believe in what your saying you will only resort to more insults and false hints that i am racist in order to silence the facts and shut down debate in an attempt to bully me into submission and allow your distortion of history to prevail.

All of the arguments you use to deny or underplay hyperdescent could be used to deny or underplay the one drop rule, yet you only deny or try to underplay and remove refrences to hyperdescent and not the one drop rule? which proves you dont believe in your own argument and are only desperate to underplay and airbrush the history of hyperdescent out of mullato and Latin American history.--ChineseNygirl (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I insinuated nothing. I stated very clearly that, to me, you appear to believe in the one drop rule and that you appear to think that too many Hispanic and Latino Americans call themselves white; ironically, you've just articulated that you do hold the latter opinion. That's not necessarily the same as calling you a racist.

"...i was simply refuting your suggestion the reason non hispanic white Americans have African ancestry is because of an official policy of hyperdescent..."

No, I asked you whether that's what logically follows from your arguments. All those other claims you ascribe to me ('hyperdescent was official policy in the US', etc) are in the same vein. I was trying to demonstrate deductions that could be made from your arguements.

"i used the term black and passed in the context of U.S history and not an expression of my own point of view." "If i believed in the one drop i would not have said - most of the descendants of black slaves in the U.S are white, i would have said - most of the descendants of black slaves in the U.S are black, which i did not say."

OK. Thank you for clarifying that.

You still are not providing a quotation or exact (as in one) page number of the Bertoni source; "1-11" is not precise enough. I already took a look at it and didn't find it.

The Cédula de Gracias al Sacar certificate of whiteness was a legal document not obtained by just going to the store and buying it, nor by handing some money to an official and presto, the payer became white.

But above all, I find it amazing how much ado you're making about nothing. How many millions of such certificates do you think were issued? How many hundreds of thousand? How many tens of thousand? How many do you think were even requested?

I have a very good source to help us with those questions. This book states that that gracia existed during a half-century at the end of the Spanish colonial period (1760-1808), and that: "During the closing decades of the eighteenth century the Council of the Indies received a significant if small (twenty-six) number of petitions from mulattoes and pardos to be considered white." TWENTY-SIX. Out of millions of mixed-race people! (No, I'm not suggesting that there weren't more requests and issuances; I'm saying that this puny number suggests that, whatever the total number, it was a quite rare occurrence.) Reading further, you can see what a serious thing those requests were. There was much legal procedure involved. And sometimes years of waiting for the final decision, which was sometimes negative. You can also read about the very strong opposition of the colonial elites to extending recognition of whiteness to mixed-race individuals.

So your insinuations that Spanish America was a region rife with whiteness-purchasing is as usual grossly exaggerated. This is again suggested by the following info. Of the approx. 20 million people in Spanish America and Brazil when the region (except Cuba and Puerto Rico) became independent in the early 19th century, about 4 million were white (An Encyclopedia of World History). That's only one in five people. Tremendous European immigration since then has pushed that percentage as high as 36 now.

"White Hispanics have much lower levels of European ancestry (in the case of U.S Hispanics 67% or lower) because they are defining themselves by hyperdescent"

You see, if you cite reliable sources that state that explicitly (attributing the admixture ratio to hyperdescent), your problem is solved. Until then, that statement is just original research, which is unacceptable.

This is just a suggestion: Why don't you start by adding one sentence at a time? After we discuss it and its source, we can move on to another sentence. SamEV (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't delete factual history.

You deleted the entire article on the Latins page that I spent much time writing. Only maybe the part where I said "The identity theft of the Latins continues into the present day" would fall under "non neutral point of view". The several other paragraphs I typed were neutral historical fact that I worked hard on. I would like you to change it back as deleting historical facts is rude and wrong. If you want you can leave out the above quoted sentence that violates neutrality, I'll agree to that. Thank you. Dannyapplejuice (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

TWISTING WORDS

You have a remarkable talent for twisting words, when did i say to many Hispanics or Latin Americans were calling themselves white? I was simply linking the low levels of European ancestry white Hispanics in the U.S have in contrast to other white people to the Latin American history of whitening/hyperdescent.

SamEV QUOTE- Tremendous European immigration since then has pushed that percentage as high as 36.......The Tremendous European immigration you speak off was part of the whitening process, the Europeans who came to Latin America were brought in to whiten the popualtion because the the white elites of Latin America believed European genes were dominant and that the resulting mixed race children would be white.

How else do you explain the fact white Hispanics in the U.S are 67% and lower European? in contrast to non hispanic white Americans who are 90+ European? whitening was and to a certain extent still is the racial ideology that defines Latin America, in order to whiten the black and Native American popualtions the resulting mixed race offspring (lighter skinned) were classifed as white. Numerous studies carried out by numerous sociologists and anthropologists confirm that self whitening or external whitening in the sense of blacks reclassifying themselves as mullatoes and mullatoes reclassifying themselves as white is still common in Latin America. Edward E Telles PROFESSOR Ph.D. University of Texas at Austin who i quote - many better- off blacks classify themselves and are classified by others as brown (mullato) I have said this over and over again and you have ignored this point, dont you think that some blacks class classify themselves as mullatoes is worth a mention on a page about mullatoes? --ChineseNygirl (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"dont you think that some blacks class classify themselves as mullatoes is worth a mention on a page about mullatoes?"

Of course I do. But that's not the source of this conflict you and I have. SamEV (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

ADMIXTURE WHITE HISPANICS IN THE U.S

Admixture studies carried by the geneticist Bernardo Bertoni on the overall Hispanic population of the U.S conclude the most European hispanics (in terms of ancestry) in the U.S are 67% European and most hispanics in the U.S self ID as white thus the average white hispanic in the U.S is 67% white or lower , i dont see what there is to discuss.

Bernardo Bertoni gives numerous and varying figures of Admixutre in the U.S hispanic population but the average hispanic in the U.S was found to be no more then 67% European, 2 stuides on hispanics in California found they were 46%-48% European so unless your going to say there are no white Hispanics in Califronia you must accept the facts that the average white Hispanic in the U.S is 67% or lower European.

A graph on the overall admixture of Hispanics in the U.S illustrates the admixture of hispanics carried out by the geneticist Bernardo Bertoni, with the highest European content being 67% European, if you question the validity of the graph i would suggest you remove it from the page tilted - MEXICAN AMERICANS.--ChineseNygirl (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

For the last time: name the exact page. If you don't, I'll have to ignore what you say about Bertoni et al.'s study from now on. SamEV (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP DELETING ADMIXTURE OF WHITE HISPANICS

You have not removed the admixture graph with regard to the admixture of the overall U.S hispanic population on the MEXICAN AMEIRCANS page so i presume you do not doubt the validity of its contents? Admixture studies carried by the geneticist Bernardo Bertoni conclude the most European hispanics (in terms of ancestry) in the U.S are on average 67% European and most hispanics in the U.S self ID as white thus the average white hispanic in the U.S is 67% white or lower , the fact you have not removed the admixture graph with regard to the admixture of the overall hispanic American population on the MEXICAN AMERICAN PAGE which concludes the most European are on average 67% European demostrates you do not question the validity of its contents.

Studies carried out by Bertoni and his team were comprehensive and to be understood in there proprer context cannot be simplifed to one page, on page number 5 there is a graph which illustrates his findings but as i said before you cannot simplify a comprehensive study to one page.

Page 7 highlights that the European ancestry of Hispanics in the East ranges from 63%-95% European, 67% and over European however does not reflect the average European ancestry of Hispanics in the U.S, PAGE 7 clearly highlights the average hispanic in the U.S is 66.80% and lower European, thus the average white Hispanic in the U.S is 67% or lower European.--ChineseNygirl (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"You have not removed the admixture graph with regard to the admixture of the overall U.S hispanic population on the MEXICAN AMEIRCANS page so i presume you do not doubt the validity of its contents?"

That's not how we do things at Wikipedia. Disputes can be compartmentalized, treated separately. Sometimes it can even be considered disruptive to extend a dispute from one article to another. After we resolve our issues at WHLA, I'll have a look at the use of that data in the Mexican American article. Remind me if I forget. SamEV (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

BLACKS SOMETIMES CLASSIFIED AS MULATTOES

If you did not question the fact some blacks are classifed as mullatoes which is attested to by numerous sociologists and anthropologists, then why did you remove all my entries about this subject on the mullato page?--ChineseNygirl (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say it? I removed them because your sources did not directly support them. You kept writing things that struck me as dubious and that I couldn't find in your sources, so I asked you in an edit summary to quote, i.e. to cite verbatim what your sources say, and you didn't. Per Wikipedia policy, it behooves you, when challenged, to show which source and in what precise location states what you write. SamEV (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

SamEV quote- How many times do I have to say it? I removed them because your sources did not directly support them. You kept writing things that struck me as dubious and that I couldn't find in your sources, so I asked you in an edit summary to quote, i.e. to cite verbatim what your sources say, and you didn't.

I included numerous sources and quotations from Peter wade, Clare Ribando, EE Telles which all confirm some blacks classify themselves as mullatoes (self whitening) or are classified by others as mullatoes (external whitening), i shall re write and repost my entires.--ChineseNygirl (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Admixture in Hispanics PAGE 7 - Table 4. Admixture Percentage Contributions

Admixture in Hispanics PAGE 7 - Table 4. Admixture Percentage Contributions, this page highlights that on average Hispanics in the U.S are 67% European or lower European, thus the average white Hispanic in the U.S is 67% or lower European.--ChineseNygirl (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look later. SamEV (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Guess what? A 67% admixture level is rather high. I'd have expected something closer to 50%. Now I'm more confident that the 63% of Hispanic and Latino Americans who say they're white got it right. Maybe 33% nonwhite admixture is 'too much' for some people. But unless you believe in some silly concept of racial purity, or harbor some weird Hispanophobic bias, it should be hard to fault those 63%.

You can't apply the average for the general group to a subset. It just doesn't work that way. Please ask someone else to explain why.

Also, you can't say "on average Hispanics in the U.S are 67% European or lower". Either the average is 67%, or it is lower. It can't be both. SamEV (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

67% and lower is quite high? the average white person is 80%-90%+ European so 67% and lower is quite low. The preponderance of ancestry rule ( an alterative to the one drop rule and hyperdescent/whitening) states to whom one traces most of ones ancestry to should be the race they class themselves as.

Accodring to one academic - Hybrid populations with multiple lines of descent are to be characterized in just those terms: as of multiple descent. Thus, American Negroids are individuals most of whose ancestors from 15 to 5000 generations ago were sub-Saharan African. Specifying 'most' more precisely in a way that captures ordinary usage may not be possible. '> 50%' seems too low a threshold; my sense is that ordinary attributions of race begin to stabilize at 75%.

The number of 75% has support among other academics because it gives people who are below 75% of ancestry the right to ID as mixed race and gives people who are 75% or more the right to ID as a single race.

You would be more then happy to claim somone who is below 75% European as white? which means you support hyperdescent/whitening?

Calfornia has one of the largest white Hispanic populations in the U.S and yet autosomal studies which measure the levels of ancestry in a person or group conclude the maximum of European ancestry in Hispanics in California is 46%-48% European which means white Hispanics in California are below half white, i suppose your going to say 46%-48% Euorpean is quite high for a white person?

If it pleases you to i will say- the average white Hispanic in the U.S is lower then 68% European. Autosomal studies which measure the levels of ancestry a group or person has concude the average Hispanic in the U.S is 67% and lower European most Hispanics in the U.S self ID as white thus it is self evident the average white Hispanic in the U.S is 67% or lower European. The fact you say - 67% is quite high demonstrates you accept this to be fact, you just dont want anybody else to know about it.--ChineseNygirl (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"The number of 75% has support among other academics because it gives people who are below 75% of ancestry the right to ID as mixed race and gives people who are 75% or more the right to ID as a single race."

I think a 75% threshold is just fine. And then again, human beings, being free creatures, do have the right to self-ID however they choose, even in ways that aren't fully agreeable to us all. But that's beside the point, which is that you're trying to edit articles here with data that you're misinterpreting. We're just trying to make sure that what's in those articles is supported by reliable sources, and so far there are 4 editors who've told you that your sources don't support your claims. Isn't it about time you took a timeout to verify if that's the case, rather than insisting that we're all wrong and you right? It's not outside the realm of possibility that you are right and we're wrong, but you should arm yourself with additional sources that demonstrate that. If you can't find them, then you should take that as good evidence that your interpretation is just that: your interpretation, and no one else's. SamEV (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

STOP DELETING ADMIXTURE OF WHITE HISPANICS

You quite clearly want to potray white hispanics as more white then they really are, studies which measured the ancestry of Hispanics concluded the maximum of European ancesty is 66.80%, most Hispanics in the U.S self ID as white thus the average white Hispanic in the U.S is lower than 67% European. I have no desire to engage in edit war with you if you want i will write - the average white Hispanic in the U.S is lower than 67% European. No matter how much you want white Hispanics to be more European you cannot escape the fact white Hispanics in the U.S are below 67% European.--ChineseNygirl (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

LOWER THEN 67% EUROPEAN IS HIGH?

SamEV quote- SamEV Guess what? A 67% admixture level is rather high. I'd have expected something closer to 50%.

Really? 67 and lower is quite high? Name me one European people who have such low levels of white ancestry?

SamEV quote- I'd have expected something closer to 50%.

So people who are only half white are white according to you? So Hyperdescent and whitening are the correct way to view race? Its nice to know your POV SamEV

White Hispanics in the U.S are lower then 67% European, when you go below 67% European you get closer to 50%, so white Hispanics are near half white. But that does not matter to you because you support hyperdescent/whitening someone who is near half white is white to you.

An autosomal DNA study on the Hispanic population of Calfornia ( autosomal studies measure the sum of the ancestors of a person or group) concLuded the maximum of European ancestry in Hispanics in California was 46%-48% European. California has one of the largest white Hispanic populations in the U.S and according to autosomal studies White Hispanics in California are only 46%-48% European.--ChineseNygirl (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No where in the citations you gave are these statements made. Furthermore, the PDF you used is not about "white" Hispanics, but all hispanics. There seems to be a little bit of WP:SYN going on here. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Autosomal studies which measure the levels of ancestry a group or person have concluded the average Hispanic in the U.S lower then 67% European most Hispanics in the U.S self ID as white, it is self evident the average white Hispanic in the U.S is lower than 67% European. Autosomal studies on the Hispanic population of California conclude the most European Hispanics in terms of ancestry are 46-48% European it is self evident that if 46-48% is the maximum of European ancestry of Hispanics in California, that means white Hispanics in California are 46%-48% European.--ChineseNygirl (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Self evident = WP:SYN unless you have a valid citation and it involves the subject matter of White Americans, not Hispanic Californians. Until you can come up with some reliable sources, the statistics you're promoting stay out of the article. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 17:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not talking about all white Americans i was talking about white Hispanics. You say Hispanic Calfiornians as if Hispanic means non white. The study was of the overall Hispanic population of the U.S and concluded the maximum European ancestry of the U.S Hispanic population to be lower than 67% European how can white hispanics be more then 67% European when the maximum is lower then 67%? California has one of the largest white Hispanic popualtions in the U.S, studies conclude the maximum European ancestry in the Hispanic popualtion of California is 46%-48% European, how can white Hispanics in California be more then 46%-48% European? when the maximum of European ancestry is 48%?

Autosomal studies which measure the levels of ancestry of a group or person have concluded the maximum of European ancestry in the Hispanic population in the U.S is lower then 67% European, how can any white Hispanic be more then 67% European when the maximum amount of European ancestry lower then 67%? --ChineseNygirl (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Erikeltic. As you can see, she's unfortunately using words like "maximum" and "average" very inconsistently, also. SamEV (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It continues to another day SamEV. At this rate, I cannot help but wonder if ChineseNYgirl is actually trying to get a topic ban or if she really doesn't understand Wikipedia procedures or policies and what constitutes a reliable source and/or citation. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What a shame that she's wasting her and our time. She's not a vandal nor unintelligent, just very stubborn right now. If she wanted to remake herself into a good editor, she could. It's up to her.

I didn't know about the "Hispanics and Latinos in the United States" article until now. It's a poor-quality article, and I'm going to merge it into "Hispanic and Latino Americans", probably this evening. I think it's a noncontroversial action.

I see that you often edit the James T. Kirk article, so I watchlisted it, to help you back. I'll at least be able to spot vandalism. SamEV (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. FWIW, I think merging the article into Hispanic and Latino Americans is a great idea. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 21:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

All right. Of course, the main reason for merging them is that they cover the same topic. SamEV (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I was about to do the merge, but decided to rename it instead. I remembered that I'd thought about creating a Hispanic/Latino demographics article in recent days, and I realized that I was looking at one! I guess there's a chance that it could be deemed a too-particular article, though the same would almost certainly be said of the other one of its kind, Demographics of Asian Americans. In that case the original plan of merging them can be carried out; so as I see it, there's nothing to lose by renaming it first. SamEV (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Message

Hi Sam, I just saw your message. The thing is that Im doing this editing for a school project. Wikipedia asked 6 schools of public policy from different universitites to contribute with editing some pages related to a policy issue of our interest, in order to provide better content. My topic is Inequality in Latin America and i had to provide some public policy options to tackle this issue. I did the analysis and the best option is the condtional cash transfer programs, so that is why I decided to expand that section, since I consider it very important. However, you can do the editing and take out whatever you think is not necessary, that is part of our project too, to describe the reactions of other users and to create a dialogue. I might try to edit the Conditional Cash Transfer page instead if it is possibble depending on the content and then I can erase more information on the LA page Ramacu (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sabotage in Page Rafael Nadal

Hello my friend

User User:MMAJunkie250 is sabotaging Page Rafael Nadal, specifically in Section 2010

You can check by logging on to Revision history of the page

Please dispose of because I do not know what to do محمد البكور (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only failure in the past two years, but has removed the entire phrase the end of the season, and he scuttled the phrase match final, I do not mean the tired phrase Rafa in the semi-finals.

I found a full Rafa Permit after the match has been developed and you amended as you deem appropriate

Please speak with whom to stop for Message me and threatening a law-I am not trying to sabotage, but just the opposite —Preceding unsigned comment added by محمد البكور (talk • contribs) 03:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Help

Sam - Can you take a look at this [8]. There is some strange stuff in there (it's all fetish pictures and lederhosen) and this new editor has replaced several images with pictures of himself in various costumes. Yeah.... at any rate, I'm trying to revert the Lederhosen picture but I'm having some difficulty. Can you see if you have more luck reverting it than I? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 03:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I got it... still take a look at those edits. That's interesting.... Erikeltic ^(Talk) 03:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I've seen it all!

Even though there's all kinds of internet outlets for everything, finding out about this one had me ROTFL: [9]. SamEV (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I know. I hate to say it, but I had a good laugh over it too. I wish there was a WP:FAIL; maybe we should make one. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 12:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The world really needed a latex fetishist wiki, hehe.

I've just read much of WP:FAIL. Good stuff which confirms many of my thoughts about WP's progress, or lack thereof. SamEV (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Merengue Music

You are so right! If the IP rewrites the cites it would be ok. Osplace 23:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you be interested in being an advisor about a documentary on the Panama Canal?

Hello, I noticed that you have more than ten edits on the Panama Canal article. First of all I would like to say thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Secondly, I am writing to ask you if you would consider participating as an advisor to a group producing a documentary about the canal and its history. If this is of interest to you please drop me a note on my talk page. Thank you for your time. Psingleton (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete important information in Rafael Nadal

Hello my friend

There are several users who delete the very important information on the participation of Rafa in the ATP World Tour Finals in 2010

and i am back the information but they removed

Please find a solution to this childish behavior that they do محمد البكور (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

ok

It is true that a long article, but you think to delete some lines from the department eventually will reduce the tournament from the article?

I do not think so .. And also all the information that we have is important because the first final for Rafa

Please return the missing lines because I was drawn twice and they delete reduce summarize the events and try not to delete

Photo about Nadal and Shakira was not aware that it is licensed

Do not worry .. I have experience about simple pictures here on the wiki

and thank you 78.155.70.228 (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Dominican films

Hey, long time we haven't exchanged messages. Anyway, earlier today I stumbled upon an article List of Dominican Republican films, it was created in 2007 and needed improvements. So I figure that I start with changing the title to List of Dominican films, I figured that the worst that would happen would be that someone from Dominica would object and well I'd just have to change the name again. Instead it got proposed for deletion by user:armburst, without any prior discussion on a talk page. After explaining to him that "hey its been around for almost 4 years and by the way I'm trying to improve it," he continues to believe it should be deleted. Anyway, he seems to be unreasonable, and I was wondering if you could take a look at it and give an opinion. I am more willing to accept yours than his, even if it does mean deletion. Thanks--El Mayimbe (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad y un Prospero Año Nuevo

	<font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Prospero Año Nuevo" (Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year) Tony the Marine (talk) External audio Jose Feliciano's "Feliz Navidad "

Well my brother, here is wishing you the best. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Latin America

Hi Sam. Well I wasn't cherry-picking. Cherry-picking involves selecting a reference that you just "like" because it suits your personal point of view. My edit, on the other hand, had nothing to do with what I like. It is just that after months of seeing people especulating about the real amount of indigenous people in Mexico, I finally put myself to work and found a very accurate official source, the National Comission for the Development of Indigenous People, the institute in charge for protecting and promoting the rights of native mexicans. They also make statistics of all kinds including the size of the indigenous population, economic performance, academic advancements, etc.

I wasn't aware about the existence of that institute, until a professor pointed it out for me. I think it presents the most reliable source of all, because of their excellent job and because it is leaded by indigenous people. The 9.8% figure isn't very different from what other sources in the field indicate (not the outdated CIA, which is not only inaccurate but not reliable in terms of ethnicity or race as it is not specialized in the matter).

But most importantly, the other sources are only estimations while the NCDIP actually makes a census, with the help of the INEGI (Mexico's official census). AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 01:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Whenever there already is information from a reliable source, it cannot be replaced for mysterious reasons. The existing info needs to be retained if a new source is added whose info differs. Then there's the issue that your change altered the totals and percentages, and you failed to adjust them. I've undone similar edits by others for that same reason. When I spoke about integrity, I meant both that we need to keep the numbers adding up to 100%, and that we shouldn't replace numbers lightly.

I'm not totally in the dark about how the indigenous population of Mexico is measured. The basic issue hinges on whether phenotype or language should be the main factor. The government has chosen the linguistic method, which produces a low figure. The CIA figure is probably more in line with what a phenotypic method would yield, and is closer to what indigenists would prefer (AFAIK), but may be outdated; still, the Factbook is a reliable source. Lizcano comes in close to the goverment, I agree. That makes him a nicely moderate source, don't you think?

I'm glad you've found an official source, and I meant it when I said it would be nice if you offered a suggestion on how to include multiple sources properly. But until we figure it out, let's please stick to the Lizcano numbers in the table itself. SamEV (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Abraham's Birthplace

Where was Abraham born? Jasonasosa (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not really known; the Bible never actually says it. It could be Ur Kasdim, or it could be Haran. The Sumerian city Ur is one theory for the identification of Ur Kasdim. That's one of the issues why Dougweller removed the infobox. SamEV (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If you regard Genesis as a remotely possible source of information to go by, you would not choose Haran as a possible birthplace for Abram. Since his brother Haran was from Ur of the Chaldees where his father was living along with the whole family... why is there a conflict to suggest (because obviously nothing is hardproof) that Abram's nativity was from Ur of the Chaldees as well? - Jasonasosa (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Genesis seems to support Haran above all. See 12:1–4 and 24:4ff.

But this is not about what I prefer. I don't remember which location I preferred the last time I gave it serious thought. SamEV (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Indignación

Is outrageous mix of Spanish culture and Latin American culture, we conquered America, that's for sure, but America had its culture, which have forced them to speak our language does not mean we are now almost the same culture, Americans have a very stereotyped world vision, and you ought to think that France is very fine, in Italy only eat pasta and the Greeks live in stone houses with servants slaves ... I AM SPANISH, EUROPE, throughout western Europe has the same cultural base and in america you think that the Spain are almost Mexican ... seriously, I am offended as Spanish, not only do not know who are us, but because you think that you have more right than I to describe the Spanish culture. --Zayuk (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I guess you're that user who's been vandalizing Hispanic and Latino Americans.

You apparently don't comprehend that we don't just write what we want. (See WP:V.) We have to write what's in reliable sources. You're wasting your time taking out your frustration on us. None of us editors created the definitions; therefore your anger is totally misdirected. SamEV (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)