Talk:Mexicans of European descent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Mexico (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sociology (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Europe  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Improve the Article[edit]

The article as I read it today is unencyclopedic and ambiguous begging many questions and assuming many things. For one thing, which white-Mexicans are we talking about? Does the article deal with the historical descendants of the first Spaniards that came to Mexico? Because if that is the case those so called "white-Mexicans" (Criollos) would fall under the category of Ethnic Mexicans since they share 100% in the Mexican culture and identify solidly as Mexicans and not as Spaniards or any type of European just as the rest of the Mexican Mestizo and Indigenous population. The article seems to speak of Criollos and newly arrived immigrants all in the same breath as if they are equal. This is not the case in the Mexican mindset or society, many patriotic "white-Mexican" would be outraged at the idea of being made equal to foreigners in Mexican soil who are just here for the ride. As in the U.S. recent immigrants in Mexico from European countries live in their own neighborhoods and colonies thus constituting as Mexicans by Citizenship, as opposed to Ethnic Mexicans. This article should at least have two separate parts:

  • one that deals with Criollos as being Mexicans by cultural/ethnic identity
  • and the other that deals with recent immigrants who have Mexican citizenship but are not fully integrated into the Mexican identity and live among Mexican society as foreigners.

Most of all... this article's tone seems to be operating on the premises of the old colonial mentality of the 18th century where everyone was meticulously divided into every shade of color perceivable to the human eye along with the racist one drop rule as it was known by the Spanish where as more drops of "white" blood were in you the more "white" you became. I don't need to say how this is all monkey feces in the eyes of science. Here we are dealing with sociology, NOT some sort of social astrology, thus we need to incorporate such disciplines as Anthropology (Culture, Sociology) and Ethnography (Admixture, customs, legacy). There must also be awareness of the racist tendencies in Mexican society where "white" is seen as far more desirable and many in the society tend to unconsciously behave in ways that favor a "white" image of themselves. As many here in the discussion have already mentioned, the Mexican media and Telenovelas try to portray Mexico as a white European nation to the extent of absurdity: [1][2][3][4]. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I, and i'm sure most "white Mexicans", whether from recent immigration or not, would have to disagree. I am of Italian descent from my dad's side, yet i am, and consider myself Mexican first and foremost. If you don't see it that way, there's nothing i can do to change your point of view, but the article cannot be based on an opinion either. What would outrage white Mexicans is if they were ignored and/or denied of their existence, claiming everyone in Mexico is either mestizo or Amerindian. -- Lancini87 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
That is why I propose that we be more specific, and encyclopedic, about what the article presents... In the case of indigenous Mexicans it is quite easy to categorize and write about; but with the subject of "white Mexicans" it's very tricky and ambiguous just as with the idea of "Latino" where everyone has their own opinion of what it means and there is no formal or common consensus of what it actually is. Does the term "White Mexicans" speak of only the Mexican nationality or Mexican ethnicity? Take Germans for example, they differentiate between ethnic Germans and Germans citizens. With Mexicans it is obvious that some are Mexican by ethnicity and legacy even if they lose their citizenship to the nation of Mexico and become acculturated into another while others are Mexican only by citizenship but have no legacy or ethnic ties to Mexico itself. I dare to say Thalia, Julio Iglesias and Luis Miguel can be a prime examples of being Mexican citizens and acculturated as Mexicans but they aren't ethnic Mexicans such as Juan Gabriel, Vicente Fernández, and Pepe Aguilar (born in Texas) who are Mexicans by ethnicity despite Pepe being born outside Mexico and being "white" along with Vicente Fernández. This is why I say we need to specify between "white Mexicans" who are considered Ethnic Mexicans (Criollos) and the others who are just recent 1st or 2nd generation immigrants living in Mexico and have become Mexican Citizens but not necessarily adopted a Mexican identity. It's all about background and the degree of culture, what backgrounds are we speaking of? Are they descendants of Criollos who have been in Mexico for centuries and know of no other identity or loyalty or are they recent immigrants with varying degrees of acculturation? These should be two separate categories in order to avoid the confusion and better explain the situation. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I think i know where youre going... The intro clearly says the article is about white Mexican citizens. People born outside the country of white Mexican descent are obviously excluded, and i don't agree with "This is why I say we need to specify between "white Mexicans" who are considered Ethnic Mexicans (Criollos) and the others who are just recent 1st or 2nd generation immigrants living in Mexico and have become Mexican Citizens but not necessarily adopted a Mexican identity.", because, like i said before, i have "recent" Italian descent, yet that does not make me any less Mexican than you, but again, the article cannot be based on opinions. Whether or not you agree, the more recent European descendants are no different than the criollos with colonial ties, since they are both white and Mexican. In the end, that's what the article is about, so we shouldn't discriminate. -- Lancini87 (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
So if we are excluding Mexican criollos born outside of Mexico then Mexicans such as Pepe Aguilar won't be counted here which would be absurd and confusing. The article just clearly seems to be written from an outsider's perspective and not by the point of view of Mexicans themselves who have a very different criteria of who Criollos are. But then again the Article is about "white Mexicans" and not "Mexican Criollos." Someone will probably get the idea to create a separate article that deals specifically with Mexican Criollos since this articles conglomerates them with other groups and doesn't do them justice. This is already looking like it's going to be a mess. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Do realize that we the article is about the white population of Mexico, not the United States or elsewhere white Mexican descendants were born. Those countries have such articles too, so they will most likely be counted there. It's just like the Indigenous Mexican and other articles about specific ethnic populations within a specific country. I suppose a section can be added about the history of Mexican criollos if you like. -- Lancini87 (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I see what you are saying now... I don't think it will be necessary to make Mexican Criollos into their own article because they are already included in the Mexican people article and they are counted among the diaspora and will be included in the History. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


I suggest this page to be semi-protected due to the high level of vandalism. People just write plain rubbish such as: "98% of the White Mexican population is Mestizo, but their European genes are predominant" This is not only unsourced information but simply nonsense. Most Argentines, Americans and Chilians have indigenous genes but we never make such silly remarks in order to make them look more amerindian. Mexico is a country with large communities of foreign migrants, the US communty alone is about one million, followed by Canadians, French, Germans, etc. So these kind of comments are a slap in the face of all the migrants in Mexico. Also the remark: "In Mexico the White Mexican's (sic) are very wealthy and usually considered to be on the top of the status", again, an unsourced one, is nothing but an example of childish and complexed amerindian/mestizo nationalism. This is a serious encyclopedia and not a soapbox for unsourced and highly POV-motivated opinions.--Scandza (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is a complete waste of time. It is pointless and useless save for racial profiling. I suggest it should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What an irrelevant, useless and misleading article. It is definitely non encyclopedic and lacks a real source, the sources provided are about info used in the article, but not about the article. It is definitely original research. I also suggest removal. -- (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Who aren't white[edit]

Salma Hayek and Gael Garcia Bernal are not white. previous unsigned comment by

If Gael Garcia Bernal isn't white, then what race is he? He is obviously not Amerindian. Kman543210 (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He is a mestizo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly castizo, but doubtful that he's mestizo. Kman543210 (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
No one is pure these days, but Gael could easily pass for a southern European. There's no doubt about that. Anahi is also white, but just not as notable as Gael, so please quit reverting. - Lancini87 (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This stubborn person is under different IP Addresses, it's getting really annoying. There should be a way to block anonymous users. - Lancini87 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You won, but Gael Garcia will never be white, he is a mestizo.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Gael Garcia is from Guadalajara, where there are a lot of Mexicans with European background--including a lot of blonds. Salma Hayek is a light brown--I've met her personally twice. Her facial features are her mothers mostly, thus linked straight to southern Europe. People who are that light in Mexico usually gather mostly with Mexican whites. What I mean is, even though she is a racial combination, she's got very strong European connection, more so than anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfonsomedina1 (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah this unanimous unsigned person is stubborn doesn't want to face reality that his/her favorite Mexican actor is White. And yeah whites from Guadalajara I realize only gather with others like them see Gael's baby mama of course for me this is no surprise it's natural that people prefer their own kind. IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBTS that Gael does not look white then WATCH the new Heineken commericial Boss's Daughter the White actor has a striking resemblance to Gael!!!Gael Look-Alike; Proves Gael looks White! Funny how I can see white people that look like Gael but still have yet to see an Amerindian that resembles him!!!
I happen to be from Guadalajara Jalisco, and I can tell you that this dumb concept you guys probably invented yourselves of "whites tend to hang mostly with whites" in Jalisco is not true. People do tend to hang with their own kind, but what kind is that? In Guadalajara, as in all of Mexico, people commune on an economic basis, rich with rich, poor with poor, etc.. Many darker skinned Mexicans from the rich upper classes tend to hang more with their bourgeois peers than with those Mexicans of the middle and lower class. White Mexicans from a humble background tend to commune more with mestizo and indigenous Mexicans of their same cultural and economic class, regardless of race: Guadalajara Zapopan Jalisco Tepatitlan Jalisco. Only fools (or racists) would attempt to superficially judge the race that these people belong to when clearly the great majority are mixed race. So next time, if you don't know what you are talking about kindly keep your ignorance to yourselves because for some time I have been smelling a white nationalist agenda in this page. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Are u responding to me? Well I never mentioned "hang" I said "gather" which I meant to marriage/mating partners ect. Anyways just so you know I hang with people who are not my race too; at school outside of school ect. no big deal it's a way of life here in the U.S.A. By the way what do you mean by "darker skinned Mexicans" what if I say there's rich upper class darker skinned Americans would you know what that is/what i mean? please elaborate are you saying there's rich people with Amerindian phenotypes? Is it so negative to utter Amerindian that people have to say "dark skinned" that's why I consider mexico to so Wack. There's Inner-racism people are so ashamed to be part of the Amerindian ethnicity which is very different from the U.S. native-american concept Present day Native-Americans. Anyway For those "darker skinned" How did they get there but most importantly Now that they've have made it to the top what have they done to help their own kind those "darker skinned mexicans" their own people who by MAJORITY are poor. Are there poor whites in Mexico, yeah sure but are they really a majority? No not all. So much for your economic class. Here in the news with the whole immigration issue the images seen they look more Amerindian related than White. sorry it's a fact about your "economic class" your middle-class is almost non-existent in Mexico it's basically rich or poor like Brazil.
To answer your questions: Yes, the majority of "whites" in Mexico are "poor" (Middle or lower class if you don't think the middle class exists in Mexico). Here is a hypothetical situation: say there are only 15% whites in Mexico, but Mexico's 5% rich are all white, that means that over 66% of whites in all of Mexico aren't basking in the wealth of the elites. When I said "dark skinned" I meant anyone who isn't "white." And for intermarriage Mexicans do not discriminate by skin color (or race) as much as they do by class. As with any other society marriages are based on cultural habits, specifically women are more likely to marry men they perceive will be a good provider and provide a stable relationship. Men's habits are more complex so I won't get into that here. Also, Mexicans tend to marry Mexicans (of whatever "race") rather than foreigners. As for your claims about me somehow talking about economics I have no idea what you are trying to insinuate by that. To condense my main idea I was trying to say that Mexican society works under a classist system entwined with the racism of the backwards colonial caste system. The common prejudice in Mexico is "Wite is rich; Dark is poor." Ocelotl10293 (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
No this is isn't a common prejudice it is what we SEE. By the way your whole response with sounded like bla bla bla cause it has no sources.
What are you talking about? "It is what we see?" What are we supposed to be "seeing" here? And my response needs no sources because I didn't make any specific claims other than point out the obvious (Mexican society's classism and racism, want sources? Here you go: [5][6]) and one HYPOTHETICAL situation. If you don't know what hypothetical means and why it doesn't require sources look up the definition for Hypothetical Ocelotl10293 (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Salma Hayek White?[edit]

She doesn't look white to me, yet she is listed under White Mexican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InuYoshi (talkcontribs) 11:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not the first person to ask this question, but since I do not know her exact genealogy, I cannot tell you for sure. Her article states that her father is of Lebanese and her mother is of Spanish descent. You can't always go by "looks" or what your perception of "white" may be, but I am pretty sure she is not mestizo, possibly castizo (1/4 Amerindian) if either of her parents have any Amerindian ancestors, but nothing in her article states this explicitly. Remember that many white people have darker features, especially Southern Europeans, and Middle Easterners are considered white by many definitions as well. I did revert your good-faith edit of replacing her picture with Eva Longoria, not because I object to replacing Salma Hayek, but because Eva Longoria is American and not Mexican (her father was Mexican American, but she was born in the U.S.). Kman543210 (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The only thing we can go by is the sources. If there is no source for someone being "white" then determining it ourselves is blatant original research. Our own observations, accurate or not, cannot be the basis for content. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
All the sources I looked up state that her father was of Lebanese and mother of Spanish descent, so that is white. Kman543210 (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? What is the exact definition of "white"? I'm just concerned about WP:OR creeping into the article. Since "Hispanic" people are not generally considered "white", is a half Spanish/half Middle Eastern person white? We are on very shaky ground here, and I think we should err on the side of caution and not include anyone who has not been reffered to as "white" by a reliable source. There are WP:BLP concerns here as well, some people are very, very sensitive about their race. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure that I am not going off my own definition. I recommend that you read the White people article; it explains the history as well as the scientific and social definitions of white. Not everyone agrees what constitutes the white or Caucasian race; however, I have listed several sources below that give the definition:

  • Random House Unabridged Dictionary: Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by fair to dark skin, straight to tightly curled hair, and light to very dark eyes, and originally inhabiting Europe, parts of North Africa, western Asia, and India.
  • American Heritage Dictionary: Of or being a human racial classification distinguished especially by very light to brown skin pigmentation and straight to wavy or curly hair, and including peoples indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, western Asia, and India.
  • MSN Encarta: Racial group consisting primarily of the light-skinned peoples of Europe, North Africa, western Asia, and India.
  • U.S. Census Bureau: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

The 2000 U.S. Census indicated that almost 50% (now estimated at over 52%) of Hispanics in the U.S. identified as white. I'm not sure where you get that Hispanic people are not considered white. It is true that white Hispanics are not the majority in Latin America, but they are a large minority as a whole, and they are the majority in several countries. Kman543210 (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hispanics being non-white (besides the ones with mixed heritage) is something i've only heard in rather racist circles. I guess each summer when i go to the beach i stop being of the white race. Ciobanica (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)*I checked out the article on White people (apperently at the same time you did), and it seems there is no consistent definition of what constitutes "white" and that more and more the question of race is one that is based on self-identification with a race, as opposed to appearance. Many Mexicans I have personally met consider themselves Mexican above all else, leaving "race" out of it altogether... Beeblbrox (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
You're right about not everyone agreeing on the definition. It is generally considered a social construct in modern times, but nonetheless, it is still used for many reasons. You're also right that some identify as their nationality above all else rather than race, but Mexican is still a nationality rather than a racial category or single ethnic group. Kman543210 (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • My real concern here is that by making any judgement ourselves, original research is being added to the article. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To IP Address[edit]

I removed the dated prod template you added. I completely disagree with you, the article is encyclopedic and referenced. It seems your only concern is that most or all of the sources provided don't use the term "White Mexican", but "people of European descent" instead. Well, neither do the sources on other articles such as White Brazilian and White American, and I personally see no problem with that, since whites are in a majority "people of European descent". It is also logical for the sources to mention immigration of whites, as whites didn't originate in the Americas, where Mexico is precisely located. - Lancini87 (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be kept. We would have to delete every single article on race for the same reasons. Articles on race or ethnic groups can be complicated and controversial, but I don't think we should avoid them just because it's difficult to write them. If anyone has specific suggestions on how to improve the article, then we should spend our time discussing those specific issues about the article. Kman543210 (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why Unencyclopedic[edit]

The reason why I proposed the article for deletion is not the content or the sources, but the fact that they are in an article called "White Mexican". The article starts with a term of dubious existence, and treats it as if it was common knowledge, is there a source for this term? I have not found it. I must admit I am no expert but I have traveled in Mexico and have never heard the term. “Mexicano blanco” referred as shared ethnic identity. I have heard as racial slur as in “he/she is not white people (no es gente blanca)” or in ironic remarks “White man invention (Invento del hombre blanco)”. If you ask me I have met two kind of Mexicans, the darker skinned indigenous population (usually poor), and the lighter skinned meztizo, caucasis, asian, etc. However it is not my opinion that count, the sources provided in the article never mention the existence of such a term, concept, or ethnic group, they are articles on European emigration to Mexico, not to a distinct ethnic group within Mexico that, either recognizes itself or is recognized by others as “White Mexican”. The provided Britannica link with information on ethnicity in the country states “identities as members of ethnic groups may be additionally complicated, given that ethnicity is a function of cultural patterns and traditions as varied as a group’s sense of linguistic, religious, and socioeconomic history.” Which if you ask me tends to contradict the idea that there is a clearly defined group called “White Mexican”. As far as I remember there is no real shared sense of belonging that does not include the mestizos, I do admit that they tend to be racially conscious when it comes to Mexican native population. I am only saying that since the sourced material is actually about European immigration to Mexico and not about an integrated ethnic identity called “White Mexican” it should not mislead the reader into assuming that there is a real source for the article. -- (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Maybe the article should be re-named then. Suggestions? Beeblbrox (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
There are many sources that use the term "white Mexican", and I have grown up hearing about the inequality between the majority mestizos and wealthy white upper class in Mexico. Here is an article that touches on some of the issues: [7][8]. The CIA Factbook as well as several books that I have read indicate the different ethnic groups in Mexico, one of them being white. You can probably find several writings out there that discuss the concern from some people of white Mexicans being overly represented in Mexican telenovelas (soap operas) and movies. Maybe additional information can be added to the article, but the term is definitely used (and well known amongst my Mexican friends). There's also the issue of some Mexicans self-identifying as white even if they have some Amerindian in them (not personally saying this is right or wrong, just that it's discussed as a social issue). I oppose both the deletion and renaming of the article. What are alternative names? Also, remember not to automatically assume that just because someone isn't blonde or really light-skinned that they are not white. Even though there are many blonde Spaniards, many of them can be considered Mediterranean people which would give them darker features. Kman543210 (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I just glanced over the article again, and it can definitely be expanded. Just as the above editors have stated, it talks a lot about immigration. I still oppose the renaming or deletion of the article, but it definitely needs to be expanded. Just as I discussed above, white Mexicans are not just an ethnic/racial group, but are considered by some a social class. There is plenty of material out there that talks about the social issues as well, so I think that it can be at least touched on. Kman543210 (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

VDare? A racist, anti-Semitic website? You can't be serious. Eric323 (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Salma Hayek White (Part 2)?[edit]

Ok yes I have read the article for white people - and I also read the first discussion on top, but I decided to recreate another topic on this because since the other is jammed packed and Wiki so up-tight with accuracy, I think Salma Hayek being defined as a "White-Mexican" is sensitive. I honestly think she is mixed (White/Non-White Arabic blood). I think the media or magazine tabloids must have mixed up her background on ethnicity or she could be lying or whatever. Since we don't know her exact phenotype, we can only judge based on her appearance as well as her family's, and yes it should be credible to her account on race. If you have seen older pictures of Salma Hayek (candid) photos you can see she looks very Mestiza and mixed - no way would does she look white. And I'm not talking about photo shoots since those should never be taken as credible for one's appearance since most are touched-up with photo-editing to make a person more attractive. For example, here are pictures of her back in the late 1990s.

199x Photos
Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3

And here we have present candid photos of her.

Present Day Photos
Picture 1
Picture 2

Arab Mexicans[edit]

This redirects to a page on Euro Mexicans, but Middle Eastern people are racially White. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Picture 3

(NOTE: Non of these photos were edited at all, these are photos taken by paparazzi.)

Not a major change right? She has that American Indian look. Now lets look at some photo shoots of her:

Mixed Look:
Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3

Caucasian Look:
Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3
Pic 4
Pic 5
Pic 6 *Looks very Caucasian here*

As you can see, as the years have gone; her look has appeared to be more Caucasian in photoshoots.Sure she does have a very European nose, as well as her eyes but that's all she has that's very Caucasian of her. But what these photo-shoots did is touch it up a bit and bring out her eyes a little more, and bring the skin out a little more lighter, etc.; a common technique used in photo-shoots. Now her family: The only Images I could find are her and her mom, and brother Sami Hayek; but no photos of her father.

Salma & Her Mom

So she has very light skin, and light-brown hair with eyes, but her features don't look very Caucasian, but looks like she has some admixture, probably American Indian blood or so. But sources claim her mother is of Spanish descent; which I think was mislead since the term "Spanish" is pointed it on a lot of people who are not even of Spanish descent (Spaniard). Then we have her brother, who looks very Arabic:

Sami Hayek

But overall, I think she is partially white, but not fully. Maybe from her mother's side, but I'm not too sure about her father's side. Since we don't know her background 100%, we cannot tell for sure if she is a White-Mexican, but judging from past photos and today's and I think it is obvious that she has some admixture in her. I still think she is beautiful nonetheless. Gouryella (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Her mom looks white to me! Caucasian features and all, So I don't know what u are talking about! If u think she's got a "dark look" it's from her Lebanese father. I remember seeing an old youtube video a red carpet even in Mexico Salma was there with her father. Her father basically looks like Carlos Slim but very short (he is the same height as Salma) and he wears glasses.

I am from Spain and there are many Spanish and Italian girls who look somewhat like Salma Hayek (even if not as pretty) but I ve not seen any Indian who looks like Salma Hayek.-- (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is false[edit]

First "Mexicano Blanco" is not a good translation, it would be better something like "Mexicanos de origen europeo". Second according to the CIA World fact book, the "White Mexicans" are less than 10%. Arabs are not Europeans! Third Mestizo and Castizo can be so white as an European.--J altamirano (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Because Arabs are not people of Europe Salma Hayek and Carlos Slim are not part of the article.--J altamirano (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree - but the Wiki-Nazis on here don't want to change it. Salma & Carlos Slim both stand out the most of being non-white in the info box. This article is misleading.Gouryella (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

  • No one said Arabs were Europeans. Read the intro to the article next time before complaining. The article is for White Mexicans, not exclusively those of European descent (otherwise, the article would be called European Mexican rather than White Mexican), but of Middle Eastern descent as well. Yes, Arabs are too considered white. - Lancini87 (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Dah Arabs aren't European.... but people from the middle east are classified as white... look at you U.S. census... White will say of European or Middle eastern origin.--cooljuno411 06:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree[edit]

I agree, the article is a waste of time. NO ONE says "Mexicano blaco" in Spanish. The arguments used about Gael García being "castizo" are really obsolete. Opposite to countries where the Protestant church was dominant, the Catholic church allowed always interracial marriages in Latin American countries, which lead to a homogeneous mixture of the population. Most of the people used as examples are taken from the entertainment industry, who traditionally have been "whiter" than the the regular population (not to mention that they have to be attractive besides being talented). Why are you discussing Salma Hayek's racial group when she is an actress and her job is to look different in every movie? The same with Jenniffer Lopez, she dyes her hair and whitens/darkens her skin depending on the role she's playing...

Delete the whole categorization of races in Latin America. It's not encyclopedic.

August (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree! Please delete this article!--J altamirano (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Please use the talk page for improving the article rather than using it as a soapbox about how much you don't like it. If you feel that strongly about deleting the article, then you can nominate the article for deletion so that it can go through the process. If there is a consensus to delete, then it will be deleted. If not, it will stay, and I would hope that will be the end of the soapboxing. Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to find out how to nominate an article for deletion. Kman543210 (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with August and Altamirano. Este articulo no parece enciclopedico, discutiendo la raza de, por ejemplo, Salma Hayek! Y no nos enga~emos, en Mexico no se usa eso de "white mexican", quiza si lo usaran, pero las personas racistas, que de esas si que hay. What a waste of time.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


Actually, the church forbid, interracial mixing until around 1821 or so, depends on what sources you find, the white population is really around 60% or so. Its impossible to be as low as 10%. Actually 21 states of Mexico have their white population over 75% so how can it only be 10% the numbers dont add up. I personally think the US is scared because Mexicans have portrayed Mexicans for brown people, which is false. Whenever their is a colonial power, the dominating race in the country will remain just like the US. Withuout white Spanish speakers from Spain and Latin America it would only be 61% white with Spanish speakers it is 76%. The US wants that majority. Mexicans have their own race too. Tehy can be as white as John Smith, and many colors. I think the US is dumb for saying White label=english language, Spanish is white man's language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caminosoto (talkcontribs) 03:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

White Mexican[edit]

People in Mexico are aware of their ancestors, obviously if you white your white, I know a handful of Mexicans who the census taker always marks them white and their last names are very Spanish. Europeans created the white label so leave it alone America! America was named after an Italian, If i do recall Italians at one time were not considered white, then why use America after an italian? As great as the country is and the best in the world it people have done stupid things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caminosoto (talkcontribs) 03:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Article name change from[edit]

I was wondering if the article's name could be changed to "Caucasian Mexican" instead of "White Mexican", I just think it sounds more proper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Beware of White Nationalism[edit]

The article's content puts its strangely close to the ideologies of white nationalism, particularly in the way it adds as many groups under the sphere of "whiteness" as possible. A common tactic of ethnic-nationalism to make their numbers appear larger than they really are by inducting as many people into their ethnic-umbrella term as possible. As stated by Caminosoto in White Mexican the concept of "whiteness" has not always included some parts of Europe or some European peoples such as Italians, Slavs, Jews, and even the Irish at one point; especially not the Middle East much less North Africa. If the term for "whiteness" is going to be this broad then why not include Eurasians, Asians, and Native Americans? Basically anyone that isn't "Black." Some Japanese have already staked their claim to being "white."[1] In the article on White people it states: "A common definition of a "white person" is a person of primarily, or wholly, European ancestry.[2]" Ocelotl10293 (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^ Bonnett, Alastair (2000) White Identities. Pearson Education. ISBN 0-582-35627-X


Why not change the title to European Immigration in Mexico? Is more neutral and objective, that a "term" (White Mexican) unofficial of dubious origin?, or maybe create an more general article called Ethnography of Mexico. Regards.--GiovBag (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering: a) The article refers to Mexican's population of European origin; and b) "White Mexican" is no recognized as an ethnic group, as has been demonstrated. The most logical and neutral thing to do is to rename the article, to Mexican of European descent, or something like that. Regards.--GiovBag (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


Just leave it as it is, no one is saying Mexico is 99% white. One sixth is a decent educated guess from a reliable source. Others sources that use the 1921 census are not reliable for the same reason - it's almost 2011 here folks! It's almost 100 years after 1921! (Almost 90 years to be exact.) I see nothing wrong with the article, it's not exaggerating the white Mexican population, and it clearly states in the beginning, someone of "PREDOMINANTLY" European heritage. I think that the person who keeps deflating the number of whites is the same person who keeps massively inflating the number of Amerindians in Mexico. I mean, just stop, we're not in 1921 anymore. Amerindians made up over 50% of the population just 200 years ago, do Amerindians still make up over 50% of the populace? No! Move on already! Leave things as they are!

The peoblem isn't the ratio of whites to indians - the problem is that "white" isn't a category that is generally used in Mexico and there is not reliable statistics for how many people consider themselves white. This means that the article is basically OR.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

White is used by the population in Mexico. No reliable statistics? Who says, you? You seem to be clueless. This article is about the white people in Mexico. Even though Mexico has no racial census that doesn't mean the population does not use racial words to describe themselves, or that there are no external sources. So calm down child. Secret killer (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


"There are basically four operational categories that may be termed ethnic or even racial in Mexico today: (1) güero or blanco (white), denoting European and Near East extraction; (2) criollo (creole), meaning light mestizo in this context but actually of varying complexion; (3) mestizo, an imprecise category that includes many phenotypic variations; and (4) indio, also an imprecise category. These are nominal categories, and neither güero/blanco nor criollo is a widely used term (see Nutini 1997: 230). Nevertheless, there is a popular consensus in Mexico today that these four categories represent major sectors of the nation and that they can be arranged into a rough hierarchy: whites and creoles at the top, a vast population of mestizos in the middle, and Indians (perceived as both a racial and an ethnic component) at the bottom. This popular hierarchy does not constitute a stratificational system or even a set of social classes, however, because its categories are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive. While very light skin is indeed characteristic of the country’s elite, there is no “white” (güero) class. Rather, the superordinate stratum is divided into four real classes—aristocracy, plutocracy, political class, and the crème of the upper-middle class—or, for some purposes, into ruling, political, and prestige classes (see Chap. 4). Nor is there a mestizo class, as phenotypical mestizos are found in all classes, though only rarely among the aristocracy and very frequently in the middle and lower classes. Finally, the bottom rungs are not constituted mainly of Indians, except in some localized areas, such as the Sierra Norte de Puebla (see Nutini and Isaac 1974: 149–203)." (Hugo Nutini & Barry Isaac - Social Stratification in Mexico 1500 - 2000 p. 55)·Maunus·ƛ· 04:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


I understand that the name "Mexicans of European Descent" is more neutral, but mestizos are also of European descent, and so are mulattos. But mestizos and mulattos are not white, per se. I propose we change the article's name back to "White Mexican" or "European Mexican" (the former is more preferable than the latter). I'm not even sure if there was a consensus to change the article's name to "Mexicans of European descent", was there? Also, I understand the phrase "White Mexican" isn't used in Mexico, but it is what those Mexicans are, and it is what you find on the internet if you search up "White Mexican" on Google or some search engine. I think that we need sources, but I think that needing a source for the name "White Mexican" is ridiculous. It's like needing a source for the names of "White Argentine", "White Brazilian", "White South African", etc. Also, there's an Afro-Mexican article, and the term "Afro-Mexican" is used mostly outside Mexico (and used on the inernet when talking about black Mexicans), but this is an English language wiki, so if "White Mexican", or "Afro-Mexican", or "Green Mexican" or whatever is not used alot in Mexico, it is used in English, especially by Americans (USA) who are used to calling people by their race, then nationality. Just like how the term "American people" here on the English wiki takes you to "People of the United States" because "American" means "U.S. national" most of the time in the English language. But if this was the Spanish or Portuguese language wiki, then "Americans" might redirect to "People of the Americas" (or as you would say in Spanish/Portuguese, "People of America"), since "American" in Spanish/Portuguese is correctly translated as "someone from the Americas". But this is the English language wiki, and also, "white" is more clearly meaning "pure or mostly pure" white, compared to "European descent" which can include mestizos, since they ARE descended from Europeans/they ARE of European descent (regardless of the fact that they are mixed race). It removes the disambiguation, since this page is after all about Mexican "criollos" and other Mexican non-mixed whites. One might argue, "how do we know they're pure white, alot of them have some non-white blood". Well, most white Americans are not exactly 100% pure white(Sex-biased gene flow in African Americans but not in American Caucasians)( Afro-European Genetic Admixture in the United States, Frank Sweet), but they are white, since they look and identify as such. And the fact that most white Americans and white Mexicans have 2% to 10% (or even as much as 20%) nonwhite admixture doesn't mean they are now mestizos, especially since a white American or white Mexican would be in real life someone who LOOKS white and IDENTIFIES as such (regardless of whether there's a racial census in their countries to prove that those white-looking people identify as white). If you want to make "white" mean someone who is 100% pure white, then only people directly from Europe or 1st-generation European immigrants in the Americas would qualify as such (even then, depending on the country/region, most Europeans have some nonwhite admixture, [as was shown by a study that was posted on an online website] (averagely) ranging from 0.5% in Germany to 3% to 4% in Spain to 9% or 11% in Sicily). You're not going to tell me that a source is needed to prove that Mexicans like Ilan Stavans, Guillermo del Toro, and Elena Poniatowska are white, and I doubt those three identify as mestizos or Amerindians. --Fernirm (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I support Fernirm's proposal. Even when it might sound racist, the word White is the best to synthesize the group of people the article is referred to; the Mexican citizens of predominantly European/Middle Eastern descent, and Caucasian phenotype. Although White Mexicans may share their language and part of their culture with Mestizo people, they have a diferent racial origin, and certainly do not share the same phenotype. Renaming the article "Mexicans of European descent" would make the article even more ambiguous, for Mestizo Mexicans are half-European descent, but they are not White. I propose to rename the article "White population in Mexico". The same criterion might be applied in White Argentine, White Latin American, and other similar articles. Thus, all this useless discussion on "existant or non-existant ethnic groups" and on BLP policy might be avoided.--Pablozeta (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't change the title. The article is about people of European origin, and the same user Fernirm considers the current title is more neutral. The people of predominantly European origin is unformally called white (or güero) in Mexico, independent of the degree of mixing, which couldn't affect their cultural identification with the country of his ancestors. They have different ethnic origins (Spanish, Italians, Slavs, Germans, British, Scandinavians, Magyars, etc.) and all together don't constitute a new ethnic group. Caucasian phenotype is a terminology of classical anthropology, almost no longer used to classify human beings, especially after the discovery of the human genome. In fact there is no scientifically accepted rules to determine what "Caucasian phenotype" is.--GiovBag (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
You're missing my point, the word "white" more clearly means "of unmixed European descent", because mestizos and mulattos are also of European descent. And also, WAS THERE A GENERAL CONSENSUS TO CHANGE THIS ARTICLE'S NAME FROM "White Mexican" TO "Mexican of European descent"?--Fernirm (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • comment White Mexicans are not a different ethnic group from other Mexicans - they may be a different racial group, but not an ethnic one. In fact according to the most recent specialized sources "White" isn't even a group but a kind identity associated with the highest social echelons of Mexican society and correlated partly with a lightskinned phenotype. (Nutini & Isaac "Social Straitification in Central Mexico"). There is no source that supports calling either white mexicans or mexicans of european descent an ethnic group. Giovbag is right. The topic of this article isn't even sufficiently well describable to deserve an article - it should be redirected to Demography of Mexico or a new article called Social Stratification in Mexico.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


Maunus is absolutely right, and considering [9], this article would be deleted.--GiovBag (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We need to discuss each article on its merits, rather than arguing that because one article was deleted, another one should be. Nevertheless, I think the cogent points regarding the deleted 'white Argentine' article are also relevant here - if not more so. There is no evidence offered that 'Mexicans of European descent' constitute an ethnicity - indeed, what evidence there is seems to suggest that 'whiteness'/'European-ness' is a question of social class, and as such a deeply-contested issue. I've no doubt that an article on "Social Stratification in Mexico" would be more relevant, and better able to indicate the nuances and complexities of the subject. I can't see much in this article which would be directly relevant, so I'd support a move to delete. Meanwhile, can I suggest we try to avoid getting involved in the incivility and edit-warring that marred the debate over 'white Argentine' - it didn't really do anyone much credit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. This article should not be deleted whatsoever. I think this article is educational. I mean, everyone has this stereotype that all mexicans are short and brown. As a white person from Latin America who is tired of all the stereotypes, I say it should not be deleted. (User:rman22)[User talk: rman22] 4:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rman22 (talkcontribs)

The correct way to counter stereotypes is to demonstrate their falsehood, not introduce new ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

andythegrump please care to elaborate? What you just said makes absolutely no sense. How does it create more stereotypes??? The article deals with the white population of Mexico. If you are talking about social interactions in mexico then that is a different story. If you are saying that criollos are viewed as Mexicans along with dark skinned mexicans that is still different. It doesn't change the fact that mexico is still a diverse society. If you delete this article then lets delete the article that deals with Mexico's Indigenous population. The article says that most whites from Mexico are of Spanish descent. They are mexicans but they are still white as are the descendants of european immigrants that settled in the country. If you want to deal with how Mexican society views color, how talking about it in mexico is kind of taboo, then add the subject in the article. But deleting it will just continue the sterotype about people of mexican nationality. [User: Rman22] 8:41 pm, 21 February 2011 (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)rman22

This artice is unnecessary. All information contained in it, exist in other ones: Mexican people, Immigration to Mexico and Demographics of Mexico. They are not an ethnic group, and this article seems original research. In fact, it is, to determine unilaterally the existence of an ethnic group not recognized by any publication, statement or valid source.--GiovBag (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is necessary. Look, I'm not trying to start any argument here. BUT, I think this article is necessary for showing that Mexico definitely has color diversity. I don't understand why it has to be so wrong to acknowledge that. Rman22 (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)rman22


The revision by givobag is not sourced properly. Which one of the complaints of the article is that "this article needs additional citations for verification." Giobag's revision has no merit. Secret killer (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Mexicans of European descent are not an ethnic group, therefore the infobox is inappropriate. Consequently, I removed an entirely unsourced montage of supposed 'Mexicans of Euroepan descent'. Understand one thing: Ethnicity isn't about genetics, and nor is it about abstract geographical concepts (like 'Europe'). And neither is it about abstract 'racial' concepts (like 'whiteness'). Ethnicity is about how people define themselves. Regards.----GiovBag (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"The Mexicans of European descent are not an ethnic group, therefore the infobox is inappropriate."

Nobody is saying they are an ethnic group, and the infobox is not inappropriate. The infobox shows notable Mexicans of European descent and is totally relevant to the article.

"Consequently, I removed an entirely unsourced montage of supposed 'Mexicans of Euroepan descent'. "

Which montage are unsourced? And this seems contradictory since you are revising to a page that is unsourced.

"Understand one thing: Ethnicity isn't about genetics, and nor is it about abstract geographical concepts (like 'Europe'). And neither is it about abstract 'racial' concepts (like 'whiteness'). Ethnicity is about how people define themselves."

How people self-identify is influenced by so many things in society including geographical areas, etc. Again whether or not they are an ethnic group is irrelevant. That is a strawman you decide to put up to validate revising the article. This article is about Mexicans of predominantly European descent. Instead of arguing you could be helping to expand the article. Secret killer (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If this article is about "Mexicans of predominantly European descent" then there clearly needs to be a reliable source that tells us how we determine whether an individual fits into this category - deciding for ourselves would be original research, and contrary to policy. Can you tell us where this source can be found? Actually, since the article title makes no mention of 'predominantly' European descent, one would have to suggest that any Mexican with any European ancestry would be included - on that basis, I'd suggest that the article should be renamed as "Almost all Mexicans"! AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"If this article is about "Mexicans of predominantly European descent" then there clearly needs to be a reliable source that tells us how we determine whether an individual fits into this category - deciding for ourselves would be original research, and contrary to policy."

Not when it's so straight forward. You would be arguing for the sake of arguing. The statement has to be to be backed up by reliable sources for it not to be considered original research. But we have something called making a consensus.

Can you tell us where this source can be found? Actually, since the article title makes no mention of 'predominantly' European descent, one would have to suggest that any Mexican with any European ancestry would be included - on that basis, I'd suggest that the article should be renamed as "Almost all Mexicans"!

First, we can easily change that statement. Second, read WP:TITLE. Thank you for participating in trying to make this article better. Secret killer (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting that we reach a consensus regarding what the article is about? If you are suggesting that it should be about anything other than Mexicans with any European ancestors, the title will need to be changed. If you propose any other definition, you will also have to demonstrate that the definition is used elsewhere. This is straightforward. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"So, are you suggesting that we reach a consensus regarding what the article is about?"

No I never suggested that.

If you are suggesting that it should be about anything other than Mexicans with any European ancestors, the title will need to be changed.

No you are wrong. I'll leave it to you to find out why.

If you propose any other definition, you will also have to demonstrate that the definition is used elsewhere. This is straightforward.

If I suggest a completely different definition then yeah it needs to used in a reliable source. Secret killer (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"No you are wrong. I'll leave it to you to find out why". No, if you are going to claim I'm wrong, you've got to demonstrate why. I notice that once again you are failing to address the central issue. Who is this article supposed to be about? How do we know whether someone comes within the (not-ethnic, not-'racial') subject group? Or are we just going to have to take your word on whether someone is sufficiently 'European' to be included? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"No, if you are going to claim I'm wrong, you've got to demonstrate why."

Actually I don't have to. If you read the article I gave you then you should know why. Arguing with you is not productive and it's not making this article better. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing it seems.

"I notice that once again you are failing to address the central issue."

How am I not addressing the central issue when I am replying to you? Everything that you have said I have replied.

"Who is this article supposed to be about?"

I have already stated that. Mexicans of European descent unless I am wrong. Please tell me if I am wrong.

How do we know whether someone comes within the (not-ethnic, not-'racial') subject group? Or are we just going to have to take your word on whether someone is sufficiently 'European' to be included? " To be included a person must have ancestry to the continent of Europe. Secret killer (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In which case, the lede (such as it is) will need to be revised to reflect this. Clearly not every Mexican with any European ancestry is going to be referred to as "güero" or "blanco" - and the word 'predominantly' will have to go too. And the term 'heritage' is ambiguous in this context too. On that basis, the lede should read "A Mexican of European descent is a Mexican citizen of at least partly European ancestry". Not much of a lede, but it seems to fit your definition. Or have you got a better suggestion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"In which case, the lede (such as it is) will need to be revised to reflect this. Clearly not every Mexican with any European ancestry is going to be referred to as "güero" or "blanco" - and the word 'predominantly' will have to go too."

I do not know what the source says about that. So even if what you said is true, that not every Mexican is called blanco, etc., obviously most or some are called that. Which is still relevant to the article. You can take out the word predominantly.

"And the term 'heritage' is ambiguous in this context too. On that basis, the lede should read "A Mexican of European descent is a Mexican citizen of at least partly European ancestry". Not much of a lede, but it seems to fit your definition. Or have you got a better suggestion?"

Heritage is used in the Britannica source. Why not just say that "A Mexican of European descent is a Mexican citizen of European ancestry." I don't know what is wrong with the word heritage? Or why don't we change the title to European Mexican? Secret killer (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

'European Mexican' is clearly no good as a title - as I suggested, if this article is about every Mexican with any European ancestry it is entirely possible that a significant proportion will not be particularly 'European' at all, either in terms of ancestry, or culturally. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

European Mexican' is clearly no good as a title

Yes it is. It fits well with the policy of wikipedia.

as I suggested, if this article is about every Mexican with any European ancestry it is entirely possible that a significant proportion will not be particularly 'European' at all, either in terms of ancestry, or culturally.

Europeans and mestizo are considered a separate group. And many independent sources back this up. So what is the problem? Secret killer (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Considered by whom? If that is true, then once again, we need an answer: who is this article about? You seem to be arguing one thing one minute, and another the next. It can only be about (a) Mexican citizens of entirely European ancestry, (b) Mexican citizens of predominantly European ancestry, or (c) Mexican citizens having some European ancestry. We need to clearly state in the lede which group we are discussing. We also need to confirm that when sources refer to 'European Mexicans', they are referring to the same group. I ask you to please make clear once and for all who you consider this article to be about. If you are not prepared to do this, I can only assume that you don't actually know yourself, or do not wish to answer the question for some undisclosed reason. In either case, a refusal to answer a simple question can only be interpreted as obstruction, and as a violation of expected standards. So give us a straight answer for once: what makes someone a 'Mexican of European descent'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

By institutions and encyclopedias. When you are talking about demographics and display the percentage of one group in the country and display the percentage of another group in a country, you are recognizing that they are not the same unless stated otherwise. I'm just informing that this is the case. I have already stated what this article is about. Mexicans of European descent. I have already gave you my take on the definition and the meaning is so straight forward. A Mexican who has their origins or ancestry or however you want to put it to the continent of Europe. I have said this ad nauseum, and I am done saying it. Secret killer (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you refuse to clarify who you think this article is about, I suspect the best policy will be to start a WP:RfC on the issue, and let a wider range of contributors decide. On the other hand, I suspect that it may be simpler to move for AfD, on the grounds that this article is nothing other than a POV-fork from Immigration to Mexico - it covers nothing whatsoever that can't logically be dealt with in this or other articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Article should be kept[edit]

This article should be kept because it has stimulated a great deal of talk and debate in the area of race and ethnicity within the Mexican population. As a Mexican-born U.S. citizen I have observed that the most apparent disaggreement among the respondents to this article has its root in their perception of race. Unlike the U.S., Mexico has never upheld the one-drop rule with relation to blood quantum. The Spanish colonists, unlike their English counterparts on the eastern seaboard of North America, were quite inclusive in their relationship with the natives. Mixed unions between Spanish men and Indigenous women had the blessing of the Spanish Crown and the Roman Catholic Church because their offspring ultimately provided the manpower behind the construction of a new society. The capacity for power and decision-making rested in the hands of the unmixed Spanish elite simply because they were not willing to share it with anybody else once they had subdued most of the native population of Central and Southern Mexico. However, as most natives began to die in the late 16th century due to diseases brought by Europeans, the number of people of mixed descent began to climb at such a fast rate that they became the majority ethnic/racial group in New Spain (Mexico) by the 18th century. Consequently, while mixed individuals usually married other mixed individuals, some went on to marry "pure" Spaniards. Thus, they ended up procreating a people whose racial background got closer and closer to their European roots, while at the same time distancing themselves from their indigenous past. With this in mind, how do we apply the concept of race to a country that is color stratified?

My point is...American racial concepts cannot be applied to Mexico because of the overt historical differences in reference to their relationship with indigenous peoples. The fact that White Mexicans exist is obvious. But, to actually put a number to their population is something that comes directly from a racist mindset because it seeks to insert a segregationist attitude where there's never been one. White Mexicans, unlike White Americans, can have parents, siblings, and other relatives that are "Non-White." This is so because racial purity does not exactly place someone under the "White" label but rather his or her overall physical appearance. Now, combine this idea with other factors such as socioeconomic status, and/or language spoken (Spanish or Indian) and you have a pretty good idea as to how Mexicans perceive themselves culturally and ethnically.

In conclusion, I will be brave enough to say that "Whites" in Mexico hover between 25-33% of the population. By this I mean that, regardless of racial ancestry, 25-33% of Mexican citizens can move to Europe (particularly the Mediterranean part) and blend in perfectly given their physical appearance. Another 3-5% could probably blend in Northern Europe considering that they have Nordic features such as blond hair, blue eyes. Nevertheless, as long as "White" Mexicans conform to the cultural idiosyncracies of their country they will always be Mexican, first and foremost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latinhooligan (talkcontribs) 23:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right, the debate is very important and interesting, but Wikipedia is not space for it. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a forum. In fact you have the answer in you hand, when you say: American racial concepts cannot be applied to Mexico. Maybe, the fact that some people considered white exist in Mexico is obvious, but isn't the existant of "White Mexican" as ethniciy.--GiovBag (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
That is an interesting commentary on the issue, Latinhooligan. I think it shows that there is a need for an article on how ethnicity and race are perceived in Mexico, as this is clearly a complex issue. Obviously, this will need reliable sources, but I'm sure they must exist. Do we need an article on 'Mexicans of European descent' though? From what you are saying, it would seem not - individuals seeing themselves as 'white' is no indication that they see this as a distinct ethnicity, and if 'whiteness' in others is nothing but a subjective opinion based on appearance, to treat them as a distinct group at all becomes even less tenable.
You are absolutely right about the tendency in Wikipedia articles to look at issues of 'race' from a US perspective - this is misleading, and actually hides more than it reveals. The key, as always in such cases, is to ask how the people one are describing see the issue. This of course requires an understanding that there may be many different perspectives on the issue, amongst Mexicans themselves. Any article will need to acknowledge this too, and not just make the sort of generalisations implied by the ethno-categorising logic of this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No it is not a complex issue, and it is not an issue at all. You want to make a complex issue for whatever reason. And Nobody is looking at race from a US perceptive. Secret killer (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't "an issue at all", why should we have an article about it? What exactly is notable about a Mexican being of (partly) European descent? As always, it is for those who wish to include content in Wikipedia to demonstrate why it should be. If this isn't about ethnicity, or about 'race' then what the heck is this article supposed to be about? Is it any more valid than an article on Left-handed Mexicans, or of Mexicans that can't whistle? Actually, at least in theory, those could be sourced... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't "an issue at all", why should we have an article about it?

Because it's about giving information to the masses on the different ancestry in Mexico. Is that not what an encyclopedia is for? providing Information on various topics?

"What exactly is notable about a Mexican being of (partly) European descent?"

This makes no sense.

"As always, it is for those who wish to include content in Wikipedia to demonstrate why it should be. If this isn't about ethnicity, or about 'race' then what the heck is this article supposed to be about? "

This article is about Mexicans of European descent.

"Is it any more valid than an article on Left-handed Mexicans, or of Mexicans that can't whistle? Actually, at least in theory, those could be sourced"

Yes it has sources. But you could say the same thing for any article that talks about a group of people in a country. Secret killer (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So basically, you are just going to carry on asserting that because you think the article is about a notable subject, you don't have to demonstrate this notability? That isn't what Wikipedia policy says. If you cannot find sources that demonstrate notability, the article has to go. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"So basically, you are just going to carry on asserting that because you think the article is about a notable subject, you don't have to demonstrate this notability?

I did not assert anything like that. How far are you going to take this fallacious argument? This article has reliable sources, and so on WP:GNG.

"That isn't what Wikipedia policy says. If you cannot find sources that demonstrate notability, the article has to go. End of story."

Actually it does not have to go: WP:FAILNSecret killer (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, per WP:FAILN, see this diff. [10] Now find sources that assert that there is anything notable about being of European descent, if you are a Mexican. Or find sources that e.g. academics have discussed 'Mexicans of European descent' as a subject. And while you are at it, find sources that tell us how 'European descent' is defined. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The article is about a real topic. It needs improvement, sure. But it should not and won't be deleted. Especially not when there's at least 17 millions (other sources say 20 millions) of white Mexicans of European descent. In this case, should we also delete an article about indigenous people in Mexico? Because they represent only 10.1 millions accordingly with the latest figures from INEGI. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 22:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no requirement whatsoever that a Mexican needs to be 'white' to fall within the article topic - or if you think there is, then you'll have to sort this out with Secret killer, who suggests that the article is about any Mexican with any European ancestry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to find sources that says whether it's notable being European descent. The article is notable based on the guidelines: WP:GNG. If not please tell me. I don't have to find whether a person in academics talks about Mexicans of European descent as a subject. But I can give you an educational site where a Mexican lady talks about her being European descent. Secret killer (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that this Mexican lady considers that her European ancestry is notable to her. So what? If you could find evidence that it was notable to a significant number of Mexicans, and that such Mexicans considered themselves part of a distinct group because of this, it would be notable in Wikipedia terms. At the moment, the article seems to be about nothing more specific than the intersection of the group 'people of at least partly European ancestry', and the group 'Mexican citizens'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe, the article show there are Mexicans who are descended from people coming from Europe. In fact, no one has doubt about it. But don't prove all this people constitute a distinct ethnic group. There is no academic sources or official demographic information to prove it. Maybe is possible write an article about Mexicans of India, China, Syria, Israel, Philippines or Siberian origin, but doesn't mean that there is an ethnic group called "Mexican of Asian descent". With Europeans is the same thing: a "criollo" of old Spanish origin is absolutely different from a Slavic, a Scandinavian, a German or a Hungarian, as each of these is to a Greek, a Sicilian or a French. Many different peoples, many different cultures and many different ethnicities, vulgarized under a common continental origin.--GiovBag (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

European Mexican is talked about in many sources around the web, and as a distinct group. Almost everything in the other revision was sourced. I do not have to find what number of people in Mexico considers themselves a distinct group. Nowhere in any wikipedia policy says that's required. And where does it say that gives automatic notability?

GivoBAg: It does not matter if Mexicans of European descent is not an ethnic group, which I do have sources that says otherwise. Why don't you go to the European American article and say the same thing? I'll even back you up. It just seems contradictory(if that's the word I'm looking for) of you. Anybody with half a brain know that their is a difference between Europeans. Secret killer (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does matter if they're not an ethnic group... considering this page (at one point) used the template ethnic groups. Bulldog123 04:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
If Mexicans of European descent is not an ethnic group, what are they?, a category? (for whom?), a social group? As could be, curly-haired Mexican, Mexican football fans or Mexicans over 15 years. When we can say someone is a Mexican of European descent? Perhaps it's better merge this article in the existing Ethnography of Mexico and Immigration to Mexico.--GiovBag (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
In fact in academic publications about Mexico (and all Latin America) the only fairly acceptable category of some kind of European-Mexicans is "Criollo", because it involves some common historical and cultural features, that approaching to an ethnic group definition. But does not include the descendants of European migrations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. And this article already exist.--GiovBag (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Many encyclopedias and books of mexico do include European migrations. What I don't understand here is the term "ethnic group". It makes no sense. That concept can pose a huge problem. If an African American moved to India and had children there does that mean they can't say they are african american? Does that mean Mexican Americans should no longer have Mexican in the description? In fact should African be removed from African American since most african americans are more closer to whites as an ethnic group? My point to all this is that the term "ethnic group" can mean a wide variety of things. Are European mexicans an "ethnic group"? Maybe, maybe not. But what is for sure is that mexican is a nationality. Not a race. I mean, in reality there is no such thing as race but being a "Latino" does not even fit in the imaginary world of separating people into races.Rman22 (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)rman22


The Emperor Maximilian is not a Mexican of European descent, he is an Austrian.-- (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes proposal[edit]

  • First. Introduction: A People of European descent in Mexico is a Mexican citizen of predominantly European heritage, isn't good. The People of European descent in Mexico is a Mexican citizen of European heritage, all of them. No matter the degree of mixing. Includes criollos, mestizos and others of European heritage.
  • Second. History: As Mexico was colonized by Spain, the majority of white Mexicans are of Spanish descent, or criollos.... Isn't good. Don't exist any group (or category) called "White Mexicans"; in fact, the majority of all Mexicans are of Spanish descent, criollos or not. Most of them are mestizos, but have European origin anyway.
  • Third. History: However, many other immigrants (mostly French) also arrived during the Second Mexican Empire,... ; there is any reference of that?, if there is no evidence is better deleted the bracket (mostly French).
  • Fourth. History: '"... the majority from Italy, Germany, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Lebanon and Israel.(...) Greeks, Romanians, Portuguese, Armenians, Poles, Russians, Jews, White Americans and White Canadians, and immigrants from other Slavic countries, along with many more Spanish refugees fleeing the Spanish Civil War, also settled in Mexico. Fine, but if there is no references about a significant migration from all these countries, is better delete it from the list. In the same way, instead of talking about White Americans or White Canadians, we should talk about Americans and Canadians of European origin.
  • Fifth. Rename the section Region --> Geographical distribution, or some thing like that.
  • Sixth. Region: The northern region of mexico has the largest european population and admixture in the country.. Better, The northern region of mexico has the largest population of European origin and admixture in the country.
  • Seventh: ... becoming the region with the highest proportion of whites during the Spanish colonial period. Better, ... becoming the region with the highest proportion of Spanish during the colonial period.
  • Eighth: Due to the intermixing of Europeans and Amerindians since colonial times, some white Mexicans today may have a degree of Amerindian ancestry and vice versa. Better in the introduction, but corrected. Due to the intermixing of Europeans and Amerindians since colonial times, the majority of Mexicans today have different degrees of European and Amerindian ancestry.
  • Nineth: ...though many communities of European immigrants have remained isolated from the rest of the population since their arrival. This is not true, not many, just a few. Is better say ...some communities of European immigrants have remained isolated from the rest of the population since their arrival.
  • Tenth: ... immigration from other Latin American countries has also increased and has brought other White Latin Americans to Mexico, especially from Argentina. There is evidences of that? Better say: ... immigration from other Latin American countries has also increased and has brought other Latin Americans of European origin to Mexico, especially from Argentina.
  • All the detail of the 1921 census, has no relevance. I think correct refer to it, but almost the only information in the article is that it is absurd.
  • The template of mexicans it's OK, but without Maximilian, because he wasn't a Mexican with European origin, he was European.
  • With the template, the other photographs have no sense. There is too many.
  • If nobody improves this article and considering the information contained in article, maybe would be better merge this article with Immigration to Mexico.
  • I hope help. Regards. --Jcestepario (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Some of these changes are minor enough that you could do them yourself, such as renaming the section and removing Maximilian. Why don't you make these changes yourself? SilverserenC 00:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I have seen some dicussions about this same topic but at White Argentine and now at Argentine of European descent and I would say that there are some racist editors that want to deny or delete the existence of white people in Argentina, Mexico, Peru or Latin America in general. I personally do not agree with the changes above. Also why I cannot edit the article? Do I need to register an account? I was able to edit other articles withour registering an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


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

  1. White Mexicans or euphemistically Mexicans of European descent
  2. White Colombian
  3. Peruvian of European descent
  4. Venezuelan of European descent
  5. Argentines of European descent--GiovBag (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh man I don't think any of those articles should be deleted. I've seen that you are campainging all over the English Wikipedia to delete articles about white people, but only in Latin America. Why? It's not right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


I don't know if this: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]; is vandalism or sabotage, but the Templeates shouldn't erased, the reference says another thing and the category "White people" don't exist.--GiovBag (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither, read what is vandalism. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This page is protected for 5 days. That should give you guys enough time to work out what tags need to be in this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

GiovBag is currently in the proccess of a Sockpuppet Investigation because of his multiple anonymous IP edits in order to avoid being punished, and also because of his newly registered account. It's amaizing that he dares to speak about "sabotage" when the only person sabotaging was him. We all reverted his "sabotage"/vandalism. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 22:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The template [20] was introduced by AndyTheGrump on 2 April 2011, being erased by Alex and Thelmadatter many times without a single explanation. And the problems with the article are always the same. Nobody has presented valid references or reasons to justify retaining this article on these conditions. They just reverse the editions but they don't dialogue. I don't know exactly why, because they are Mexicans?, or live in Mexico?, or they feel white?, or simply they are not agree?. Finally, Alex don't use the old strategy rather than discussing the arguments, discredited the interlocutor. In fact, some of my changes are not sabotage as you can see ... [21], [22]--GiovBag (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability, and Synthesis[edit]

I see that shortly before this article was protected, the 'notability' template I added was removed, without any attempt to resolve the issues I raised on this talk page earlier, Can I point out the relevant section in WP:GNG:

General notability guideline
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4]
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.[5]

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

I see no sources given that "address the subject [Mexicans of European descent] directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content", and I can thus only conclude that the article is a synthesis. Without these sources, the article must of course be deleted. Given that I have raised this issue some weeks ago, I could probably begin the AfD process now, but will allow a little time for a response. Meanwhile, can I suggest that the {{notability}} template be reinserted, to draw readers attention to the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Under such criteria, you better be inserting notability templates into each and every unsourced article that exists. Since we have had unsourced BLPs in Wikipedia for years, that is not sufficient criteria for determining if something is notable or not. The standard is if such could be found. There are already several sources in the article about several European groups in Mexico such as the Mennonites and Spanish refugees. Could the article be improved? Definitely. But notability is not an issue except to those who beleive that Europeans or whites do not (or better stated, should not) exist in Latin America.Thelmadatter (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
So you agree that the article lacks a source which addresses the subject. Good, that clears that up. And I'd appreciate you not making ignorant assertions about my motivations. Oh, and see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree with Thelma. We have recently arrived to this article and we do believe it would be great to make an overall improvement, but there's no doubt about it's notability. I also can clearly see a bunch of Wiki-editors, it's very easy to identify them 'cause they edit in a gang-like way, which seem to have enganged in a crusade to erase everything related to white people in Latin America. It's not a secret and it's public (since everything in Wikipedia is). AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 00:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Once again, a resort to a personal attack, rather than a response to a request regarding the article. If "there is no doubt about it's notability", can you point out the sources from which this notability is derived? Which sources "address the subject [Mexicans of European descent] directly in detail"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the rules may be, practice has NOT been to question notability of an article purely because it lacks citations. There are other templates for that. If European groups in Mexico such as Mennonites in Mexico and Russians in Mexico are notable, then an overall article about those of European descent qualifies as notable as well. Not to mention the fact that several other European or "white" ethnicities are mentioned in the Immigration to Mexico article. I will continue to revert any notability template for these reasons. Other templates, such as the one noting that it lacks citiations would be appropriate. If anyone feels so strongly that this needs to be deleted, we have AfD for that. Anyone care to continue to "report" me as a "vandal" is welcome to do so.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So your argument amounts to 'the rules don't count and I'll cite other Wikipedia articles to show why'? An interesting point of view. Of course, this implies that rules are utterly worthless, and we should base decisions on precedent alone... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The Mexicans of European Decent exist in all facets of today's Mexican society, and have, from a modern and historical standpoint, made substantial contributions to the development of the country. Sources given may need some expanding and improving, however thats what tags are for. Race, gender, and religion are always sensitive subjects; we need to keep this in mind during discussions. There is also the problem of systemic bias here on WP, which works against articles pertaining to non-english speaking, developing-world countries and their populations. -- nsaum75 :::!Dígame¡ 04:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
None of that actually addresses the issue, which is whether there are reliable sources which address the article topic in detail. As for 'systematic bias', I agree this is a significant problem on Wikipedia. It is however, unlikely to be solved by allowing articles predicated on a narrow 'racial' interpretation of a much more complex situation to define how the subject is discussed. If anything, the emphasis on 'race', and the unwillingness to deal with other aspects of identity in the context, acts to reinforce the very bias that needs to be countered. Mexico needs to be studied 'as Mexico, not as a place to be compared and contrasted with other places on the grounds of 'race', ethnicity, or other external factors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
With that argument, there should be no articles on any of the various indigenous peoples of Mexico either. I wouldnt agree to that any more than deleting anything about European/white people.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump: When this article comes off protection, if you still feel strongly that this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, that's what WP:AFD is for. Lacking citations doesn't necessarily imply a problem with notability, so the {{notability}} tag wouldn't be as appropriate as, say, {{refimprove}}. At the same time, the WP:BURDEN is on those who want to retain this article to show through reliable sourcing that it deserves to be retained. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This article should remain. There is no reason why it should be removed.Rman22 (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)rman22

Mennonites from Skandinavia in Chihuahua?[edit]

I have seen in various sites in the Internet that there is supposed to be a Skandinavian (Swedish?) Mennonite settlement in Chihuahua called "Nueva Escandinavia". Can anyone tell me where it is? I myself was raised up in a Mennonite settlement in Chihuahua, work for a governmental office that deals with mennonite-related issues and have NEVER EVER heard of anyone from this mythical town, with the exception of a certain "Mennonite rockstar" Martin Thulin who claims to be from there, mainly to get attention. It seems that he hardly knows anything about Mennonite culture and thinks they originate from Skandinavia. Could anyone inform him better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

How come...[edit]

there is no longer a number on how many white Mexicans there are? Didn't it used to say like 17 million or so?

Is it because nobody knows or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Since 'white' is an arbitrary and contested category, nobody ever 'knew' in any meaningful sense. At one time, the Mexican census attempted to get an 'answer' apparently, but they have since moved on to counting things they can at least attempt to define. It is possible that this article at one time also had an 'answer' to the question, but since it was undoubtedly wrong (since there is no right answer), I expect it has been deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I have been working offline on a rewrite of this article, which has not been easy because as noted "white" or "of European descent" is not easy to define and yes, has a different connotation in Mexico than in other countries. I put up a really rough draft in my sandbox at User:Thelmadatter/sandbox so you can see what I have done and where I am going with this. There is also rough list of references.Thelmadatter (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Article has been updated. There should be enough information now to show that the article should stay. It still needs some editing work, tho.Thelmadatter (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this article is much better written than it was some time ago (back when it was called "white mexicans", it was very grating for us people actually living in Mexico). Most notable is the effort of the writers on trying to put the article in the perspective of Mexico, instead of trying to understand the subject as understood in the United States. In Mexico, being white is less about being part of an ethnic group, and more about having an unusual yet desirable physical characteristic, not unlike being tall, or having attractive features. It is not uncommon to hear "X is whiter than Y", similar to "A is taller than B"; a comment like that probably doesn't make sense under the concept of race or ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the direction on which this article has been going to...[edit]

I´ve been reading this article in previous days, and I've noticed several things that are plain wrong with it, the article in general has a bias against Mexico and it sugest "strong racism that makes impossible to progress for Mexico" various times, which is wrong, Mexico is an emerging power, a developed and an industrialized nation (with it's economy being in the top 20 of the largest economies in the world) the article also sugests that there is a power struggle between different races (similar to what happened in United States during the black rights protests etc. don't know how are they called, i'm not an specialist in the subject) in this case being mestizos vs criollos (even a section of the article is named this way, but will rename it eventually) stating that in recent times mestizos have rapt the power to criollos, which is also wrong, Mexico's leaders have always been mestizos (Porfirio Diaz, Venustiano Carranza, Francisco I. Madero) and there have even been leaders that were mostly amerindian (Benito Juarez). In other parts it says that white mexicans prefer to stay away and refuse to integrate with the mexican society, which is also wrong, Mexico is not a racist country, the mestizo identity was instaled to prevent all of this (this can be proved in Dr. Lizcanos study, which states that due the mestizo identity instalation, a large part of biologcally white mexicans are identified as mestizo, this in turn, makes a quantification of all the white mexicans impossible), you can see white actors interacting with mestizo actors all the time, the same in restaurants, in the streets and in political positions on the congress. I, finally, have noticed that all this statements come generally from the same source: a schoolar thesis that is unverifiable (isn't found anywhere on internet) and have never been published by a third party. What I will do on the next days is to correct the infomation based in a studio published by a third party made by a specialist on the subject (The Dr. Lizcano), which refutes the statements made on the other source to, finally, have an article of encyclopedic quality. Czixhc (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I went bold and reverted the article to its original expansion in July 2011. Since then there has been a lot of stuff added or changed with absolutely no citations. Almost all of the citations on this version are from Latin American academic sources, the best you can get when defining something so contentious as race and race relations. BTW, of course there are racial tensions in Mexico, they just manifest themselves differently for different historical reasons.Thelmadatter (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
By the way, Ive read Lizcano's study which says no such thing. The political use of a mestizo identity (La Raza) did not eliminate social stratification based on ethnic heritage.Thelmadatter (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that you are kind of confused. First: the instalation of the mestizo identity in early XX century and "La raza" movement are two things completely different. Second: Your restored version of the article is even worse than the version from one week ago, it in fact, relies even more in the schoolar thesis titled: "For The Enjoyment of All:” Cosmopolitan Aspirations, Urban Encounters and Class Boundaries in Mexico City" by Alejandra M. Leal Martínez, which is the thesis i was refering in my response above: a schoolar thesis that is unverifiable (isn't found anywhere on internet) and have never been peer reviewed or published by a thir party, therefore this document is an unreliable source and any content on it that result offensive must be removed (even the it's title emanates cynism), if not it's totality. Lizcano's work on the topic is way more proffesional, is peer reviewed and have been published by a third party, if anything the article must rely on this one. And while racism is not unexistant in Mexico, is not as intense as the article sugests it to be, actually Mexico is way more classist than racist.
Finally i went to your userpage and found out that you were born in the United States, and that is, actually, one of the reasons for which this article is inaccurate: because it is written from the perspective of United States instead of a neutral perspective (which is beyond obvious, because this article don't even exists on the spanish wikipedia) and attempts to address the racism on the ways that it is in USA rather than on the ways that it is on Mexico, i'm in no way saying that only mexicans can edit articles related to Mexico, but you must understand that your perspective might not always be the most accurate. All this said i'm taking my revision back, because it actually relies more in reliable sources such as Lizcano's work and less on foreign misconceptions and unreliable sources. Czixhc (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:Verifiable does not mean that the source must be on the internet. Only that it has been published and the source is reliable. Dont insult me as to my national origin, please. That is against Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The information from the July 2011 version, reposted yesterday is all from reliable and almost all are from academic papers from Latin America. That is what makes for credibility of Wikipedia articles, not the person writing on Wikipedia.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW, you are making changes with no citations to back them up and even took out referenced materials. Both are not permitted here. You were right to put the infobox back in however.Thelmadatter (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I read my response again, and i don't believe that i've have ever insulted you in any way, the only thing i told you was that to address racism on mexico in the same perspective that it is in USA is wrong, because the countries are too different culturaly, here the people is more classist than it is racist, i don't see how that aclaration can be an insult. Second as i told you above the schoolar thesis titled: "For The Enjoyment of All:” Cosmopolitan Aspirations, Urban Encounters and Class Boundaries in Mexico City" by Alejandra M. Leal Martínez is unreliable, because it is unverifiable (isn't found anywhere on internet) and have never been peer reviewed or published by a third party (such as a science magazine), and part of it's content can be considered offensive, it in fact would be good if it were removed totally.
Regarding the material that I've removed, it was unsourced statements, such as the sentences like the one stating that european migrants didn't stay in the country, i also removed information related to the afore mentioned controversial thesis because it's unreliable by wiki standards and haven't been piblished bu¿y a third party, finally i removed outdated in formation.
You in the other hand removed information that i added that is entirely verifiable and reliable, such as citations from Lizcano's work, the news article that asserts that Mexico is the country with the largest number of inmigrants in the world, and totally verifiable information regardig the conquest of the aztec empire by Cortes with the help of the Tlaxcaltec tribes. Stop removing that information, you know that it is reliable. Czixhc (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've merged content from both versions: the one favored by you and the one favored by me, so there can be a middle point. Czixhc (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Issues - Improve - Article[edit]

There are some issues that I want to address
1) There is no need to post a bunch of pictures of people in the initial template. We should agree that (NOTE: Faux ami; what I wrote does not corresponds to what I intended to mean.) 16 pictures is fairly enough.
2) The template {{Mexicans of European descent}} which was used in the article from 2011 until 2013, was intended to have citations of those who has European descent to furfill the requirement of Verifiability.
3) This article was created in 13 November 2007 as White Mexican but renamed on January 2011 as Mexicans of European descent by GiovBag (talk · contribs) after #Title.

Considering: a) The article refers to Mexican's population of European origin; and b) "White Mexican" is no recognized as an ethnic group, as has been demonstrated. The most logical and neutral thing to do is to rename the article, to Mexican of European descent, or something like that. Regards.--GiovBag (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As you can see above, in this page, there were several debates from January to April 2011 regarding the use of the expression 'White Mexican' (there were consensus to decline/drop it use) which even included the existence of this article (to deleted it or not, due to WP:Original Research).

Nacho Mailbox ★ 08:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

So what exactly is the issue to be resolved? I got involved in this article sometime back because of the discussion to delete. there was this idea that there are no "white" people in Mexico and living in Mexico City, I know that is not true. So I went digging and found scholarly articles in Spanish that dealt with the issue. Since then, the article has changed a lot, but I havent done much with it.Thelmadatter (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

USA Census somewhat erroneous[edit]

The amount of White Mexican-americans is basically the same as the White Mexicans back in Mexico!!! which is total BULL. I'm first generation mexican-american and I believe my mom marked herself and the whole family (9) as white but we are NOT. Since my parents are the head of the household they had to fill it out for the rest of us. The truth is A lot mexicans did not know how to fill it out. I remember a phone call from the Census, the person spoke spanish I could tell he was mexican, ask the race question and It did feel as if you had to Choose ONE. My mom hesitated for a while then said white because she said her dad's family came from Spain. But the fact is you are aloud to Choose more than one race but the person on the phone never explained that. Anyways Two years later I took a DNA test and it came back predominantly Native American also my mom is not of direct european descent but of Amerindian descent cause my haplogroup is A2.-- (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM - this article isn't about the failings of the U.S. census system. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Classification of White Mexicans[edit]

As it is established, under the casta, 7/8ths europeans were considered criollos. So, even under the 1808 Mexican census, in which Mexico was under Spanish colonial rule, this definition would formally hold. There is no evidence to suggest that this definition evolved to exclude 7/8ths europeans later on. This source which cites the same 1808 census (, claims that various racial groups including natives assimilated into the mestizo classification, not anything else about 'purity' or the exclusion of 7/8ths europeans.

Furthermore, there is no modern census in Mexico, so there is no formal modern definition of what constitutes as 'white mexican', in any case. However, given the historical precedent, no evidence has been giving that this definition ever formally changed to exclude those of 7/8ths european ancestry. Alon12 (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Article protected until 9 January[edit]

The article has been fully protected three days due to a complaint at WP:AN3. See WP:Dispute resolution for some options to consider. Admins won't tolerate a continuing edit war here. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Majority hold that the proposed title is not appropriate, for valid reasons. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Mexicans of European descentWhite Mexicans – Consistency with other articles on persons of European descent in the New World, such as White Americans and White Brazilians. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - "White Mexican" could refer to United States/Canada "White Mexicans". White Mexicans don't mean just European Mexican. I know this because I am Mexican myself. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This page was named as Mexicans of European descent because it was considered Original Research to use the label "white" when they are not legally recognized as an ethnic group in Mexico. Nacho (Talk page) ★ 04:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the Spanish version of this page is titled es:Mexicanos de origen europeo. This may be a copy of the English page but the title remains the same. I suggest the nom or other highlights this discussion at Wikiproject:Mexico or similar location. GregKaye 10:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - "Mexicans of European descent" is not a specific enough to be the title for this article, the majority of the Mexican population (often including Amerindian tribes) has European descent. With a title like "White Mexican" readers know exactly what we are talking about. I don't think that "White Mexican" could refer to United States/Canada "White Mexicans" is a real argument to oppose the change, because Mexican diaspora is mentioned in this article. The "it is considered original research to name the page White Mexicans because they aren't recognized by the government" is not a consistent argument either, because for example, the figures of CIA world factbook and Encyclopedia Britannica that are used on this article aren't recognized by the Mexican government, yet I see them used here, if we are going to write the article based on what the Mexican government officialy recognizes for starters these sources shouldn't be here. Aergas (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is neither necessary or possible to standardize articles on racial por ethnic categorization across countries. Most countries do not use the US based system of racial classification. An article about White Mexicans would be OR as there is no literature about that topic, and there is no population in Mexico who are defined or described as such. The CIA factbook or the EB are not reliable sources about this topic since they contradict the entire body of reliably published literature and impose externally defined categories unto an area where they have no currency. In Brazil there is an actual category of brancos whites, but this is not the case in Mexico.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Maunus. Imposing invalid external categorisations regarding ethnicity is not only dubious on WP:OR grounds, but just plain unencyclopaedic. And as for the CIA factbook, its 'ethnic' data is the most appalling hodgepodge of confused misclassifications one could ever have the misfortune to come across. Article titles should be based on reliable sources actually discussing the subject, not on random junk from elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion at WP:DRN[edit]

There is moderated discussion in progress at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Mexicans of European descent. Anyone who wishes to be added as a party to the discussion is invited to participate. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Note Robert McClenon is acting as moderator in the mentioned discussion and had not proposed it as I had originally presumed. GregKaye 10:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Two-Part RFC on Statements in Lede Section of Article[edit]

No and no: by a snowy margin. For the record, please be more clear in the layout and other matter: the "proposed versions" are redlinked, and in both parts (see "Because of this") it is not immediately clear what was being proposed or discussed--that's what we have quotation marks for. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a two-part RFC about whether two statements should be added to the lede section of the article on Mexicans of European descent. Please insert your Support or Oppose !votes in the Survey sections and leave your comments in the Threaded Discussion sections.

This is the result of a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The two proposed versions can be seen and compared at User:Robert McClenon/Versions of White Mexicans. This RFC is about the inclusion or non-inclusion of language found in one of the two versions and not the other version.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Protocol Note[edit]

I have moved some threaded discussion from a Survey section to a Threaded Discussion. The alternative would have been to hat it so that it doesn't distract from the Survey. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Blurring of distinction[edit]

Should the following sentence be added at the end of the first paragraph? Because of this, the line between whites and mestizos has become rather blurred, and the Mexican government decided to abandon racial classifications.


  • This is outright false. The line between Mestizos and Criollos (there has never been an official category of "white" in Mexico) was abolished with the constitution of 1824. It is not the case that lines were blurred, they were removed. Mexico has not made racial categorizations of their citizens since then. Since then categorizations have been cultural, distinguishing between citizens who form part of the indigenous cultural groups (through language and custom and tradition) and those who don't. And of those who claim ties to European culture and ancestry and those who don't (note, that this is a claim, as most other people also factually have those ties but just do not claim them).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The grammar is vague and confusing and -without a source to support it- such claims should not be made. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Should not be added, per Maunus. It's just not a factual statement. Something like what Maunus is saying could be added, but only with reliable sources.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written. The line is no longer recognized by the government. Whether the lines are blurred as seen by some people should be attributed to whoever is blurring the lines, or left out. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion[edit]

I note that the statement is currently in the lede, with a citation, and a tag saying 'not in citation given'. Can someone not reliant on Google translate confirm that the specific assertion suggested is actually based on the cited material - because if it isn't, there can be no question of including it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it is either a misunderstood or unreasonably simplified summary of what the source actually says. The article argues that the category Mestizo had different meanings in the context of the colonial regime (a racial category) and in the 19th and 20th century (a cultural category). So it has nothing to do with blurring of lines (unless we believe the world is objectively or should be divided by racia lines) but simply a redefinition of the meaning of the category and consequently of the dividing lines. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a similar claim in the body of the article that reads: "The concept of race in Mexico is subtle and the result of multiple cultural concepts which are in conflict. They not only include physical clues such as skin color but also cultural dispositions, morality and intellectual status. It is not static or well defined but rather is defined and redefined by situation. Descent is still one primary determiner of social status which is only loosely associated with biological traits. This makes racial distinctions different than those in other countries such as the United States:[27]" I wonder if this is what the sentence was meant to say. The introduction still works well without the sentence so i leave it up to the opinion of another editors. Aergas (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
That is a conflation in that context of this introductory statement. This particular link does not substantiate the claim of the reason for why mexico dropped the census, hence it maintains a 'citation not given' tag, because that is fundamentally applying opinion and WP:Synth, not present in the extant source. Alon12 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of comparison between sources[edit]

Should the following paragraph be added after the last paragraph of the lede section? Despite that extra-official sources estimate the modern white population of Mexico to be only 9-16%, in genetic studies Mexico consistently shows a European admixture comparable to countries that report white populations of 52% - 77% (in the case of Chile and Costa Rica, who average 51%[17] & 60%[18] European admixture respectively, while studies in the general Mexican population have found overall European ancestry at 58.96%[19] ranging from 56%[20] to 50-60%,[21] and up to 78% [22]). The differences between genetic ancestry and reported numbers could be attributed to the influence of the concept known as "mestizaje", which was promoted by the post-revolutionary government in an effort to create a united Mexican cultural identity with no racial distinctions.[23]


  • No. Being White is not about genes or ancestry. It is a social classification. Genes have nothing to do with determining who is white, genes show ancestry. There are hardly any Mexicans who have ancestry from only one continent - being indigenous, white or mestizo are therefore cultural classifications not genetic ones. The relevant literature is unanimous in this. The difference between genetic and reported ancestry is due to the fact of 500 years of mixture between American and European derived populations, and the fact that racial categories were abolished with the end of the colony. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not in the lead section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Should not be added, at all, for the same reasoning Maunus gives. This is basically mid-20th-century racialist nonsense. I say that as someone with a degree in anthropology, BTW. No one with any academic training in that field could possibly take this seriously, except in a really negative sense.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No reason given to add anything about population genetics or about degrees of "whiteness", which will just add controversy. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion[edit]

  • Per Maunus, Wikipedia should not be making assertions to the effect that genes determine ethnicity, and the (confusingly worded) section seems to be engaging in original research to prove something not supported by any of the sources individually. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that being white is a social classification rather than genetic, the problem is that in this case there are no modern social cues, because the Mexican government abolished any ethnic census concerning white people, and no comprehensive study has been made about this, even this study cited in the first paragraph:
Lizcano Fernández, Francisco (May–August 2005) (Mexico: Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Centro de Investigación en Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades)
states in the page 196 that in some countries "a good number biological white people has passed as mestizos because of the influence of the mestizo culture" and that "the standard used on this study is cultural" I cite the same study on the paragraph that was copied in this section of the discussion, and the genetic studies of Mexico, Chile and Costa Rica are cited as a way to support said statement and show the heavy influence that the mestizo identity has had in Mexico, I wonder if is necessary to reword it to make it more detailed and clear, because other editors have been confused by it's current wording before. I linked sources in the DNR case, particulary on my eight response that might be helpful to do this, because while there isn't any modern comprehensive ethnic or racial census, there are modern genetic studies that might help to give an idea regarding the current situation of white people in Mexico. Aergas (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Unless the Chile and Costa Rica studies discuss Mexico, it is original research to cite them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
It was not only 'europeans' who assimilated into the mestizo identity, it was also natives [23]. So, by the same token, this should also be present in the article on 'indigenous mexicans'. Irrespective of that, this article specifically refers to the ethnic 'white mexicans', same way the article on indigenous mexicans refers to those who are ethnic natives, not those who are self-proclaimed mestizos. Likewise, the various genetic data suggests that overall, mexicans are mestizos on average at 58%.
And likewise, this piece in the introductory heading should also be removed, because it does not substantiate the claim in the link
"Another group in Mexico, the "mestizos", also include people with varying amounts of European ancestry, with some having a European admixture higher than 90%."
It is explicitly mentioned in the study, that it is not a survey on a self-identifed cohesive group called mestizos, as it is suggested, so that is inaccurate and another implementation of WP:Synth
"The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection."
So, you cannot call this another cohesive group, when it is explicitly mentioned that the term mestizo was used in a geographic context, not an ethnic one, so it does not describe another group, it describes a random survey of various of nationals of mexico presumably including, but not limited to self-proclaimed mestizos, in addition to other ethnicities as well. Alon12 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Alon12, I was clear enough to you in the DRN already, no genetic study in Mexico collects it's samples based on ethnic identification, and if one did, it would be of little help, unless a census regarding the results of self-reported ancestries was to be released alongside the study and had a big enough sample of population.
I was reading the article for synth [25] and found this:
  • The following is a more complex example of original synthesis, based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones. The first paragraph is fine, because each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to this dispute:

YesY Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

  • Now comes the original synthesis:

N If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.

In accordance with Wikipedia, synthesis is allowed when each statement is carefully sourced, and wikipedia also says that SYNTH is not just any synthesis and each statement of the sentence in question is sourced, it is an issue that requires a more concise rewording, and maybe to add more sources, for example, this source directly states that mestizos are different from amerindians and similar to Spaniards genetically speaking [26], same thing here [27]. How would be good to reword that section to include this? Aergas (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The wording is actually inaccurate, because the grouping specifically does not describe a secondary group called mestizos in the source, it references mestizos as a region, so, if that is to be assumed, then so-called white mexicans would also be taken in in the study, along with amerindians, hence, it cannot be mentioned in the context of a separate group, as it is mentioned in a singular statement encompassing no specific ethnicity present in mexico. Furthermore, if that is true, then as studies have reported mexicans in aggregate to be 58% european genetically, then the europeans and amerindians who both culturally assimilated into the 'mestizo' identity, effectively cancelled each other out, as shown in the same general genetic data. Furthermore, those other 2 linked studies, are not relevant to specifics on admixture, because you are assuming some kind of linear correlation for non-linear genetic data, (which is actually another form of WP:Synth and WP:NOR) regarding specific allele frequencies that can be widely impacted by such things as 'founder effects', for instance, it is claimed that the mexican population studied there shows similarities with US Hispanics, but for, and against with respect to other groups. Those sources, do not provide any support for your statements on admixture, and even less on the specifics regarding 'white mexicans', which is fundamentally, the most relevant point to this article.
So, by definition, not only does this point of 90%, not describe a separate group, unlike what is implied in the article, as that is directly a violation of WP:Synth, in addition, on the point of this sub-thread, it has not been substantiated the relevance of this, as seeing as how indigenous mexicans also assimilated into the common cultural identity, so such data can be placed there as well. In fact, as both of these articles, are written in the context of these specific ethnic groups, 'white mexicans', and 'indigenous mexicans'
in particular, by referencing their population estimates separately of allegedly assimilated mestizos, the topic of such 'white' and 'indigenous' mexicans who assimilated would not be relevant to those listed under this particular ethnicity of 'white mexican' or 'indigenous mexican'. Alon12 (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Repeating the same thing just adding as many technisisms as you can is not going to change that in modern Mexico, everybody is written off as mestizo, this includes genetic studies, you won't find a genetic study done only on White Mexicans for this reason. Your argument don't applies because that's how every extant genetic study is. For your comments about the studies I linked I have to ask you for actual sources to sustain your claims, instead of your own assumptions and "perhaps" and sources that directly relate to the studies I linked, not indirect studies, because you did that a lot in the DNR and is the reason we didn't got anywhere there. So instead of replying with walls of unsourced text and an excess of technisisms with the intention of overwhelm other editors just prove your claims with direct sources, I was asked to do that and I just did, if you can't do it please stop clogging discussions repeating the same things over and over. Aergas (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


It is the burden on the contributor to provide evidence for the statements. How do you know what every single person identifies as on studies, if you even say yourself such a study has never been conducted? Even in the study, it is specifically stated, that no ethnic classification was ever even asked, that is not the same as saying they all identified as mestizos. Furthermore, despite this, the wording of the article does not reflect the actual source, as it assumes that 'white mexicans' are taken into a separate group from the 'mestizos' in that study, when that study specifically only mentions mestizo in the context of a region, not an ethnicity. So, the fact that you now admit this, is proof in and of itself that the wording is incorrect, since it makes the opposite implication. Irrespective of these ad hominems you make, you do not address the actual inconsistencies in the article. You are the one, if anything, providing sources that do not reflect what is actually mentioned in said sources, and instead, apply your own WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH, in the context of those sources. As has been said, the burden of proof is on the contributor to provide proof, when something cannot be substantiated from the source. Alon12 (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are you asking me how do I know what the tested people identifies with when I already told you that they are never asked what they identify as? Are you paying attention to the discussion? And you are right, in modern Mexico a lot of whites are written as mestizos without being asked, to make that clear has been one of my priorities since I started comming here, sadly lately I've been having problems with an editor that wants exactly that information removed and even opened a DNR case about it. Do you know by chance who I'm talking about here? Aergas (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
No it is emphatically not the case that "a lot of whites are written as mestizos". That statement is false a priori because it assumes that "white" is an objective category and that some people who "should" be considered "white" are "misclassified" as Mestizos. That is exactly not the way it works. What is the case is that currently "mestizo" is the neutral category in which people are assumed to fall unless the explicitly identify as something else. Mestizo is simply the default Mexican citizen. Everyone is assumed to be of mixed ancestry. And in all factuality this is not far from being the case. The vast majority of Mexicans (also indigenas and güeros) are of mixed continental ancestry to various degrees. So no there are no white people being misclassified as mestizos. But there are a lot of people who could be considered white if they were to be classified by Americans based on their phenotype, who either identify as mestizos because they identify with Mexican national cultural identity which is mixed, or who are simply by default assumed to be mestizos in this sense. But this is not a case of misclassification, but a result of the fact that this is what the word mestizo means - it refers to a cultural identity and not to ancestry. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I say "biologically white people was passed as mestizos" because that is what one of the sources textually says, that aside I think overall we agree here. Aergas (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The exact line in the heading suggests that they are 2 different groups, 'another group', and furthermore it makes the assumption, not present in the source, that ethnic classification was taken, yet there was no ethnic classification taken at all. Hence, it does not make sense to present the statement like that, as that is factually inaccurate. Just because no survey has been conducted on 'white mexicans', does not mean that no mexican nationals identify as such. So, by injecting that opinion, it is a form of WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. With regards to 'whites' being identified as such, there was no survey taken on an ethnicity at all, so the burden of proof is for you to present that. That is just a general survey on the region of mexico, it is called 'mestizo', as a geographical term which also encompasses other Latin American regions, as people are aware of the admixture that took place under Spanish Colonial rule. It was not just supposed 'whites' who were classified as mestizo, but also 'indigenous' [28], as well. By the same token then, all of this information should also be posted on 'indigenous mexicans'. Which, makes this redundant, for both articles. Alon12 (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
And the problem don't ends there, there are cited soures, like the CIA world factbook and Encyclopedia Britannica who also treath White Mexicans as a group appart, when in reality they are all considered mestizos even if they have no indigenous ancestry. It's a misunderstanding of international proportions, at least Lizcano's study asserts that for countries like Mexico the percentage of whites and mestizos might be different if a biological categorization was to be used instead of a cultural one. But I have a solution for that line: [29]. The difference between the situation of Indigenous Mexicans and White Mexicans is that indigenous Mexicans have their own category in Mexico's census while White Mexicans don't, And I've seen sentences regarding the cultural mestizaje of Amerindian Mexicans included long before the cultural mestizaje of White Mexicans was addressed on Wikipedia. Aergas (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
'when in reality they are all considered mestizos even if they have no indigenous ancestry', can you provide proof of this statement outside of opinion? Even this source, clearly states that some, but not all, natives as well as europeans consider themselves mestizos, hence not all europeans or natives see themselves as such, [[30]]. There is no modern ETHNIC census in mexico. That does not mean that european and indigenous mexicans do not exist. Alon12 (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The source to that statement is the investigation I cited at the end of the sentence, and that I linked here before:
Lizcano Fernández, Francisco (May–August 2005) (Mexico: Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Centro de Investigación en Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades) Is the page 196.
And what you say about how not all Europeans or Amerindians consider themselves mestizos is a dead end regarding White Mexicans, because there is no modern competent racial census in Mexico, the only census close to be ethnic is the one that divides Amerindians from non-Amerindians, because the Mexican government never uses the term mestizo either, and they didn't even used it directly in the 1921 census, Mexico have done of it's racial/ethnic affairs a huge riddle. We have sources that assert that Whites were classified as mestizos and that's what we can use. This discussion grown a lot and now the sources that I've presented get lost easily, and new participants are saying that there aren't sources for the claims on this discussion when there are. Aergas (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
No, the source present claims that SOME europeans as well as amerindians considered themselves mestizos [31], obviously all did not, hence did not identify themselves as such on the census. Furthermore, even this link [32], which is a pan-latin american article, not specific to mexico, claims again that SOME of those who are 'biologically white', are considered mestizos in cultural aspects. It does not give a specific breakdown by region and nor does it make any such blanket assertions, like you made, 'when in reality they are all considered mestizos even if they have no indigenous ancestry',. The sources present also claim that amerindians were classified as mestizos, so again, it is equally relevant to post any such material regarding mestizos on 'white mexicans' as it is in 'indigeneous mexicans'. The fact that the Mexican census does not perform a census does not mean ethnic identities such as european mexicans and indigeneous mexicans do not exist. Furthermore, the surveys conducted in modern mexico, are not ethnic or racial censuses, specifically, they're linguistic censuses, which refers to speakers of various languages, including but not limited to amerindian languages, and culture and ethnicity are not the same thing. The fact that the source you attempted to provide is a pan-latin-american article, and the fact that despite the subject of 'biological whites', many in various other latin american countries, do continue to identify as 'white' on their respective national censuses, shows that the argument is not binary and mutually exclusive, unlike the implications you attempt to make. Again, that is original research. Alon12 (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
What part of "the cultural mestizaje of indigenous Mexicans is addressed already on wikipedia articles" didn't you understand? Why are you giving so much importance to a statement I made in this discussion (that was done in the context of the genetic study you complain about, the one that textually claimed to write everybody in a determined region as mestizos) when the opening paragraph clearly says that "a good number (not all!!) white people in Mexico were passed as mestizos? You are complaining about a study that "wrote off everybody as mestizos" and you want to point that there were whites included, and simultaneously you complain about source that claims that "a number of whites was passed as mestizos" which is exactly what you want to be said of that study. See the problem here? Aergas (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The study did not write everyone off as mestizos by any means. That is another form of WP:Synth, which you are projecting. The study did not make any references to ethnicity at all. It simply called it a 'mestizo region' for all of latin america, because these regions were known to consist mainly of mestizos. Furthermore, it also counted multiple latin american regions, in which there are still censues, in which there still exists a self-identified white populations. Again, just because no ethnic census is conducted, doesn't mean that european and indigenous mexicans do not exist. It is equally relevant to mention all the data on 'mestizos' on 'white mexicans' as it is on the page on 'indigenous mexicans', so it is actually redundant. The source doesn't say that all whites passed as mestizos, that is again, another form of WP:Synth. The fact that it is a pan-latin american article, and that censuses exist in other latin american to continually show self-identified white populations shows that it is not a mutually exclusive issue. You keep applying statements which are not corroborated by the sources you claim to present. So, again, you have not proven your idea that 'when in reality they are all considered mestizos even if they have no indigenous ancestry'. Alon12 (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


Look my friend, if the study says that the people subject to the genetic testing were mestizos, they were, specially in the case of Mexico, that don't has any racial census. Why do you keep arguing about "all whites passing as mestizos" when the lead sentence clearly says that a number did, but not all? Why did you add a "not in citation given" when just yesterday you were talking about how the Mexican census uses language and culture as standards to define ethnicy as opposed to race, and the investigation cite uses cultural standards itself? Aergas (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

But that is the thing, it explicitly does not say that. You are applying WP:Synth.
"The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection." It simply used the term 'mestizo region' in a geographic sense, it made no mention of mestizo being used in either an ethnic or cultural context, which is what the wording implies. Yet again, you are conflating the issue, simply because a census is not taken, does not mean 'white' mexicans or indigenous mexicans do not exist. And as attested, when the census was conducted, not all 'whites' or 'natives' identified as mestizos [34]. Furthermore, the other source, again does not provide support for your claim, again it says SOME, not all assimilated, which is reflected in the pan-latin american context of the article, as the statement is also applied to other latin american countries, which do have censuses in which ethnic 'whites' are classified. So, again, just because a census is not taken, does not mean only a single ethnicity in a country exists. That is original research. Alon12 (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Mexico does not have a category for mestizo nowadays either, yet the study call them such, and Wikipedia has articles that call them that. Why you don't have a problem with that? The source calls the tested people mestizos, that's all it's needed. This is a circular argument now. I don't see what you don't understand. Aergas (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You had indeed been referencing a circular argument, because you don't appear to have the data to corroborate this. The study explicitly is a pan-latin american study, which explicitly does not measure ethnic classification, and extended this study to incorporate and classify 'mestizo regions', even in modern latin american nations, whereby 'whites' still are a present category on their respective cenuses. So again, the lack of a census does not imply that said 'european mexicans' and 'indigeneous mexicans' do not exist. Alon12 (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
"The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection."

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why are Americans included?[edit]

In the Infobox, why are statistics for Mexican-Americans included? The opening sentence: "European Mexicans or White Mexicans are Mexican citizens of European descent." While some Mexican-Americans may have Mexican citizenship, definitely not all. Thus including the statistics is problematic. Xochiztli (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Genetic Admixture of Foreign Nationalities such as Americans and Spaniards[edit]

The referenced data in the article demonstrates that when compared directly, Spaniards are found to be specifically less homogeneous than White Americans. Spaniards are the overwhelming majority of 'Mexicans of European Descent'. This is not a surprise considering the legacy of north african and near eastern influences in historical southern europe and iberia in particular.[1][2]. There are many historical references for this which document the events: [3][4][5][6][7]. This section has been created to discuss the inclusion of data regarding the Genetic Admixture of Foreign Nationalities such as Americans and Spaniards.

Alon12 (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I notice that you misinterpreted the source presented on the Biomed article for White Americans to begin with [36], you wrote that to be white White Americans must be at least 9/10 white on admixture, when in reality the 90% white is the average of all the White Americans, and the study is clear, and shows in the graphics that there are White Americans who are more than 1/4 non white [37], you are misinterpreting the sources and almost lying, that' why I removed it. Aergas (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That graphic demonstrates the amount of Hispanic Americans who are misclassified, not vice versa, so you are misinterpreting that.[38]
"The Hispanic-American group seems to be more heterogeneous than the remaining groups with fairly large number of self-identified Hispanics being assigned to the same cluster as the self-identified European-Americans."
Alon12 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That means that Hispanic Americans overlap with White Americans, can't you understand the chart? Aergas (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
And? That does not implying 'white americans' are misclassified, as you say, it shows hispanic-americans are misclassified, not vice versa. That is the logic. Alon12 (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

04:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)~

More Data: Here is more details on the famous study called 'Comparing self-reported ethnicity to genetic background measures in the context of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis' (MESA)'. If you look at this study. This study only conducts research on a subset of the cited MESA population set. Those who were effected with LVH, and it is proven that blacks and hispanics were over TWICE as likely to have LVH than 'white americans'.[39] "We used ancestry informative markers (AIMs) and phenotypic data on left-ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) collected in the context of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) to address two related questions: ".

The funny thing is that LVH is specifically associated more with Hispanic Americans and African Americans, from the same MESA group of studies. [40]

You can see the graphic here, blacks and mexicans and caribbean hispanics are twice as likely to have this condition as 'whites': [41]

"All Hispanic subgroups also had a higher prevalence of concentric and eccentric hypertrophy compared to non-Hispanic whites (P<0.001)."

" In age-sex adjusted models, Caribbean-origin Hispanics and Mexican-origin Hispanics had twice the odds of having LVH as non-Hispanic whites."

Another study showing similar LVH liklihood being higher for african-americans:

[42] "). African Americans and males had significantly greater left ventricular mass (P�0.001) than did European Americans and females, respectively"

Even comparing the african-american population you see greater admixture, of the african element, despite most studies demonstrating african-americans to have 79% african admixture, not 84%.[43], this study, for instance, also shows 79% african ancestry when measured in the general population [44], here is yet another study:


'Self-identified African Americans, on average, had a mean African ancestry of 76%, only 21% were derived from white ancestry, and <3% were derived from Native American populations. '

yet another NEWER article, from the same author of the one who also published 86%:


Even the author now claims 79-80% is more accurate for the general popultion:

" The average proportion of genome-wide African ancestry in the combined sample was 80% (SD 11.5%). When the sample was split based on a CAC cutpoint of 10 H.U., the average proportion of African ancestry was 79% for individuals with CAC ≥10 and 81% for CAC <10 (p-value=0.002). " "Among African Americans, mean±SD ancestry was estimated as 79.9% " African ancestry was 79.9%±15.9%

I will talk more about these other last 2 next, so you see out of all studies, this is the only only which shows african americans to have 84%, not 79% ancestry, even when measured against studies that take the genetic population and do not measure a particular medical condition, specifically significantly more prevalent in hispanics and blacks.

This is the original study on the entire subject, you see many factors contained as being measured:


"Examples of these measures are echocardiographically measured left ventricular mass and carotid ultrasonographic measurement of arterial wall thickness, which have been used in the Framingham Study (1), the Cardiovascular Health Study (2), and the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (3) to detect underlying subclinical disease and predict clinical CVD (4). Recent developments in the measurement of cardiovascular structure and function make imaging of other aspects of subclinical disease and measuring functional aspects of the vasculature in population-based studies feasible and accurate, providing specific, detailed information that relates more directly to pathology. Coronary calcium is a specific marker of atherosclerosis (5) that has been included in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study (6) and in subgroups in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study and the Cardiovascular Health Study (7). " " Roles have been suggested for a host of other factors in the etiology of atherosclerosis and of clinical events (34), including hemostatic factors"

Here is the genetic admixture data on the same data-set with more balanced data. This is ancestry estimated using both coronary artery calcium and common and internal carotid intima media thickness.

" In general, Caucasians of Northern European descent such as those in MESA and Chinese groups show very little admixture (<5%) with other populations,"

". It was also confirmed that the MESA Caucasians had greater than 97% European ancestry on average, and thus were acceptable for use as a pseudo-ancestral group. Supplemental Table 2 contains further details."

Here is another study confirming the correlations between the 2 methods used in the above study in the context of race, showing it to have an offsetting relationship, thus balancing out racial biases, for more accurate estimates:[PEA = predominant european ancestry]

"Participants with low PEA (≤7%) had lower CAC prevalence [PR = 0.50 (95% CI: 0.31, 0.80)] and those with high PEA (≥ 30%) had lower cCIMT [mean difference = -0.035 (95% CI:-0.06, -0.01)] compared to those with the median PEA. "

Here is the data on another factor, in which 'white americans' showed very little admixture, less than 5%, despite hemostatic factors actually being higher in those with more african ancestry:

"Greater African ancestry among African Americans and Hispanics was associated with higher levels of several hemostatic factors, notably fibrinogen"

" In general, Chinese groups and Caucasians of Northern European descent, such as those in MESA, show very little admixture with other populations (<5%); "

Even when compared with the black and hispanic biased LVH dataset, (thus more likely to pick up inviduals with higher admixture than the typical admixture found in the general population) which is specifically 50% in higher liklihood for blacks and hispanics, the african ancestry at max is 0.02, which is still less than that of spaniards. So, the admixture for 'white americans' is actually far less than 11%, it is 3%, while 'white americans' otherwise maintain 97% european admixture, while Spaniards alone maintain 2.4% sub-saharan african ancestry, and 20-30% north african + near eastern ancestry. Alon12 (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^ Los Estatutos de Limpieza de Sangre, Albert A. Sicroff, Taurus Ediciones S. A. 1985
  6. ^ Historia Social, Política y Religiosa de los Judíos de España y Portugal, José Amador de los Ríos, Madrid, Imprenta de T. Fortanet, 1875
  7. ^ Documentos para la historia del Libertador General San Martín. Buenos Aires: Instituto Nacional Sanmartiniano and Museo Histórico Nacional. 1953.

State of the Article[edit]

Stop edit-warring. This article was fully page-protected last week due to edit-warring. Then a request was filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard for volunteer mediation. After acting as the moderator / mediator, after several rounds of discussion, we identified two issues concerning language that was proposed for inclusion in the lead section of the article. These two issues are now being considered by a Request for Comments. I then asked the participants whether there were any specific issues concerning the remainder of the article. The result was general comments, but not specific areas for further discussion. The edit-warring then resumed. The dispute resolution noticeboard thread has now been closed as a general close. Once again, the way to resolve content issues is on the article talk page, not by edit-warring. Any future edit-warring is likely to result in another page protection, or may be reported to WP:ANEW or WP:ANI, which may result in the edit-warriors being temporarily blocked. Stop edit-warring and start talking to rather than past each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

My point is that, as it was resolved on the board, that sourced links must be posted first, and then debated after the fact. How come my sourced data was removed? It should be re-inserted into the article. That is hypocritical, and indeed I disagree with edit warring, which is why my previous edit should be restored.
Alon12 (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Because you are premeditely misinterpreting sources. And in the last days you have been debating over things that aren't even written in the article. Aergas (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I have explicitly shown you multiple times, that you have been directly applying WP:Synth to the article, in many instances. Even you admitted that you applied WP:Synth, by saying that despite the genetic study not being specific to mestizos, 'it must be assumed to be on mestizos, because everyone is classified as a mestizo'. Yet, you do not have any references to substantiate that. In any case, that is a separate issue, and you are dragging it here for some reason. Alon12 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I told you that they are mestizos because that's what the study calls them. That's all. Aergas (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
But the study explicitly DOES NOT call them that, you are calling them that through WP:Synth. Mestizo was defined as a region, including regions whereby modern censuses are conducted and 'white' exists as a category, and in which many identify as. So, a lack of a census, does not assume a singular ethnicity.
"The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection."
Again, a separate issue from this thread, but you want to drag it here. Alon12 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
"The position of each blue dot on the triangle plot indicates the proportion of European, Native American and African ancestry estimated for each individual in the population. The triangle plots for the other 11 Mestizo populations examined are shown in the Supporting Information" alright, what's confusing about this sentence that explicitly call them mestizos? I don't see any problem here. Aergas (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
"The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection."
The article is explicitly NOT referring to mestizo as a cultural or ethnic term, but rather a geographical one, this is literally defined in the article. It encompasses all members of any ethnic or cultural background. Alon12 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
One don't excludes the other, specially in the case of Mexico where a number of whites have been passed as mestizos. Aergas (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Not only 'whites', but also 'indigenous' assimilated into mestizos according to the same sources, so if you have evidence that the article refers to ethnic or cultural mestizos, then post it, but the evidence simply does not exist. Alon12 (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
And how is that relevant to an article about White Mexicans? Aergas (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The very study says absolutely nothing about white, black, brown, or whatever else mexican, it is purely a geographical study, not based on any brown/white/black culture or ethnicity, for that matter. So, by calling it a separate group, that is specifically misleading and is a form of WP:Synth. Alon12 (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The study is about mestizos, I think it's clear enough, if you complain about some notion of "separate groups" why aren't you bothered with the sources from the CIA world factbook or Encyclopedia Britannica? These divide groups too. Aergas (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The study is about a geographic region, and the region of latin america was considered as mestizo, it says nothing about cultural or ethnic mestizos. So, it is not 'another group'. It is very clear in the source.
"The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection." Alon12 (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
You must understand that we are working with concepts that are very vaguely defined, the Mexican census never used the word mestizo, and there hasn't been a classification of something close to ethnicy in more than 90 years. We can't take the study as a definitive truth, but we can't discard it either, that's why it's written that the definition of mestizo can vary from study to study, the term mestizo in Mexico is something inconsistent. Aergas (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
You must understand that the article is not talking about the term mestizo as it is used in mexico, the article is not talking about the term as it is used in any specific country or in any specific cultural or ethnic sense. It specifically uses its own definition, defined as a geographical sense, nothing else. "The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection." Alon12 (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Original Research[edit]

NAC: Both editors blocked for edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Any edits that are thought to be original research can be reported at the original research noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Where should WP:Synth be reported? In addition, my edits, were extremely well-sourced and included many links, how come they were removed, and on what basis? If it is understood that sourced edits are made to an article first, and that discussion regarding them are conducted after the fact on the talk page, why was my well-sourced data removed by an opposing party who had engaged in an edit war against me, by removing sourced data. On the other hand, I removed no such data. That is hypocritical. Alon12 (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Your edits had sources? perhaps, but you were misinterpreting them, starting with the article about White Americans and the diagram that clearly shows individuals with more than 1/4 non-European ancestry. This breaks the rest of your contribution because it's basis was that White Americans are more European than Spaniards because the least European White Americans are 1/10 non white, which is false. Aergas (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The article shows that the number of 'hispanic-americans' were misclassified, not vice versa. Do you realize there is a difference? This is elementary logic, for instance, a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square. Talk about it there, instead of bringing all these issues to every single sub-thread. Alon12 (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article there is any claim of mis-classification, citing it textually: "The Hispanic-American group seems to be more heterogeneous than the remaining groups with fairly large number of self-identified Hispanics (The little black dots) being assigned to the same cluster as the self-identified European-Americans (the little red dots)" self-identified Hispanics are all the black dots, how would a self-identified Hispanic in that study mis-classify itself as non-Hispanic White when it already self-identified as Hispanic? Do you have a grasp of grammar, or do we have to open a DRN to discuss this sentence? Aergas (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Yet again, more and more ad hominems, yet you continue to apply WP:Synth
"Four clusters are identified using 96 ancestry informative markers. Three of these clusters are well delineated, but 30% of the self-reported Hispanic-Americans are misclassified. " Alon12 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
It's talking about the position of the black dots in the chart, it's not saying that self-identified Hispanics were mis-clasified as Whites during the sample collection, do we seriously need a DRN case for this? Aergas (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
It is explicitly say that Hispanics were misclassified, and that it isn't a surprise, considering that hispanic is not a race. "In MESA, there is a very high agreement between self-reported ethnicity and individual ancestry estimates computed using genotyped AIMs for Americans who identify themselves as either of European, African or Chinese descent. SRE seems to be a less reliable indicator for Hispanic-Americans. We note that the term Hispanic-Americans, in general, refers more to social-cultural factors than to a genetically homogeneous group of people. " Again, keep to the subthread, do not bring this here Alon12 (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If a Hispanic mis-classified itself as white in the sample collection process then it wouldn't be refered to as "self-identified Hispanic" in the study, it's not rocket science. Aergas (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

IT says that Hispanics were '30%' mis-identified, and that is exactly what the graphic shows.
"Four clusters are identified using 96 ancestry informative markers. Three of these clusters are well delineated, but 30% of the self-reported Hispanic-Americans are misclassified. " So, you cannot say that because hispanics are misclassified, that so are chinese and whites, it does not work like that. Alon12 (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You said it above, Hispanic is not a race, a Hispanic might mis-classify itself as White-Hispanic, Black-Hispanic etc. but still being a self-identified Hispanic (a black dot) in the chart, it isn't hard to understand. Aergas (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That's why it shows and explicitly states HISPANICS being misclassified at that rate in the graphic, not whites or chinese. Indeed, it is not difficult to understand. Alon12 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Finally you understand, a self-identified Hispanic might mis-classify itself as White, Black or Asian, but is still a self-identifies Hispanic (black dot), Hispanic itself can't be mis-classified because Hispanics can be of any race. Aergas (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That's why it says Hispanics are misclassified, not whites, so the point about 30% of whites being misclassified is not mentioned in the source, only for Hispanics it is said. Alon12 (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If isn't mentioned that 30% of Whites were misclassified then it didn't happen. Aergas (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
So, if it shows 30% of 'hispanics' were misclassified, not 'whites', then you admit that you are wrong in your wording in the article. Alon12 (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not wrong, the source was used to show that there are self-identified White Americans with more than 1/4 of non European ancestry. Aergas (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
But it shows that hispanics were, not whites, specifically. Alon12 (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That's because Hispanics can be of any race but still are self-identified Hispanics (black dots). Aergas (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
It shows 'hispanic' as a separate group, and some hispanics being misclassified, not whites at that '30%' rate you keep quoting. Alon12 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
In the graph we see some self-identified non-Hispanic White Americans (red dots) almost in the 60% mark. Aergas (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
In figure s10, we can see some spaniards close to reaching the 40% north african admixture mark.[48] Alon12 (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The article explicitly states that it was hispanics who were misclassified at the highest rates, not 'whites'. "In MESA, there is a very high agreement between self-reported ethnicity and individual ancestry estimates computed using genotyped AIMs for Americans who identify themselves as either of European, African or Chinese descent. SRE seems to be a less reliable indicator for Hispanic-Americans. We note that the term Hispanic-Americans, in general, refers more to social-cultural factors than to a genetically homogeneous group of people. "Alon12 (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, Hispanics sometimes mislabeled themselves "White Hispanic" or "Black Hispanic" but still Hispanic, there was no mis-identification of White Americans, so if a red dot is on the 60-70% European mark it is indeed a self-identified White American. Aergas (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
There were 4 groups, self-identified hispanics, self-identified whites, self-identified blacks and self-identified chinese. All this study [49] says is that hispanics are not a homogeneous group, and hence are misclassified at higher rates than all other self-identified ethnicities. ". Three of these clusters are well delineated, but 30% of the self-reported Hispanic-Americans are misclassified." It does not say that '30% of whites' are misclassified, it says, 30% of hispanics, specifically and that Hispanics were misclassified at higher rates than all other ethnicities."In MESA, there is a very high agreement between self-reported ethnicity and individual ancestry estimates computed using genotyped AIMs for Americans who identify themselves as either of European, African or Chinese descent. SRE seems to be a less reliable indicator for Hispanic-Americans. We note that the term Hispanic-Americans, in general, refers more to social-cultural factors than to a genetically homogeneous group of people. " Alon12 (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, White Americans weren't mis-classified, if a red dot is on the 60%-70% is because that's how European a White American is, why do you keep repeating the same thing? Aergas (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
So, you are wrong in your statement, because it shows 30%, of hispanics misclassified, and it shows ~90% european admixture for white americans.[50] You have no answer for any of these claims. Alon12 (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not wrong, if it doesn't says tht White Americans (red dots) were mis-classified they weren't. The graph shows the final results, and all self-identified Hispanics, have they wrongly labeled themselves White, Black, Asian or have they labeled themselves correctly are still self-identified Hispanics (black dots). Aergas (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, so it says hispanics were misclassified at 30%, not whites being mis-classified. So, the wording in the article is wrong. Alon12 (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
No because they are still self-identified Hispanics (black dots), we are talking about self-identified White Americans (red dots) here, two different things and inconsequential to each other. Aergas (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It says that Hispanics were mis-classified at '30%', not whites. It is inconsequential to the admixture of whites 'being 30%', if hispanics are misclassified at 30%. Alon12 (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Why do you keep trying to relate one with the other? They even have different colors to prevent this from happening. Aergas (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
And it shows hispanics were misclassified at 30%, not whites, in the actual data, even explicitly claimed many times. That is what the data shows. Alon12 (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


Comment. References to persons 'wrongly labelling themselves' are grossly offensive. 'Race', like it or not, is a social construct, and it is not Wikipedia's job to go around asserting that people don't belong in the group they assign themselves to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Alon12, again, Hispanic is not a race, a self-identified Hispanic in this study can identify as Black Hispanic, Asian Hispanic or White Hispanic, that's what the mis-labeled claim is about, on the study, a self-identified Hispanic could have labeled himself as Black, White etc. but the person was still considered Hispanic, mislabeled or not it was given the color asignated for Hispanics (the color black), if it wasn't this way they wouldn't have been called "self-identified Hispanics" and since Hispanic is not a race, there wouldn't be a way to find out if someone mislabeled itself or not, because as the study shows, Hispanics are located everywhere in the graph, from the core of the White American cluster, the the core of the African cluster. You are complaining about something that didn't happen. White Americans (red dots) and Hispanics (black dots) are different things, we are talking about the red dots here. Aergas (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
With regards to talk about identity, this is indeed something mentioned in the study, that 'hispanic-americans' as an entity were measured as a group, as were, chinese, white, black americans. So, it states that hispanic-americans as an ethnic group were heavily mis-classified and found to be the most heterogeneous, and for them mis-classification was found to be up to 30%, not for other ethnic groups. You need to stop conflating this issue. These groups were measured separately and compared in aggregate. [51]. You can clearly see that they were measured as separate groups [52] [53]. Alon12 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
They were separated indeed, that's exactly why I don't understand that you keep bringing Hispanics (black dots) when the point of discussion was White Americans (red dots). Aergas (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It is your claim that mis-classification for 'whites' was 30%, yet the source only states that such a rate was found for hispanics. Alon12 (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I've never claimed that there was a mis-classification of White Americans on this study, there were self-identified White Americans that shown around 70% European admixture, but it wasn't a mis-cassification. Aergas (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
There are also individual Spaniards who score over 30% North African admixture. See figure s10.[54] Again, like I said, statistical outliers are not a good form of making generalizations. Alon12 (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
"Estimates of North African ancestry range between 5% and 14%" Aergas (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
That is general admixture, that graph shows specific individual admixture, which can range up to 30-40%, which is to compare to outliers you were promoting with your 'red dots theory'. This is why I say it is better to compare general admixture, because when you do, spaniards are less homogenous.[55] Alon12. And this is exactly why the other study shows 'white americans' to be ~90% european in general admixture. Alon12 (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The sentence in question does not suggests that it is, it might result surprising for you, but in that kind of genetic graphs not every color means "non-white" genes. Aergas (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Since you like talking about graphics, it is made extremely clear. 'White Americans' show ~90% european ancestry. [56], while Spaniards in figure s3, show 20-30% near eastern + north african ancestry, [57], and such, when directly compared, Spaniards are even more admixed than 'white americans' [58]. Alon12 (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The Spaniards (Spa) that present the highest Near East and North African admixtures are in the 80% mark, not 60%, anyone with good sight can tell this. Some other points: Sub-Saharan African admixture (light blue color) is non-existant in the Spaniards of this study while is notable in the White Americans of the study at hand (not to mention Amerindian), and the other point is that White Americans weren't tested with markers that allow to calculate Near East admixture, while you are making the summatory of Near East + North African admixtures to claim that Spaniards are less white. Aergas (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
So now you are copy-pasting comments to other sub-threads too where you should not even post this exchange? I already addressed you. " That is a different group of Spaniards.[GAL] for Galician, and [AND] for Andalusian who are also ethnic spaniards were also selected from groups. So, it shows there that it shows level of admixture up to 30-40%. In addition BAS is for Basque, and CAN is for Canarians. The actual paper focuses on north african ancestry here, then near eastern ancestry, not so much on sub-saharan african ancestry, which is why it references other papers on that particular issue. With regards to sub-saharan african admixture, the paper cites [59] this which shows 2.4% sub-saharan admixture, which is greater than the amount present in 'white americans'. Furthermore, it is indeed relevant for Spaniards and 'white americans' to be compared directly, it is explicitly stated that Spaniards are less homogenous [60], and you can see in this graphic that in a comparison of all global ancestry, spaniards maintain more admixture [61] than 'white americans'. " Alon12 (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Genetics content[edit]

The genetics content was only in the lead, so I moved it into a new section in the body. the last sentence was WP:OR - neither source attributed the difference between genetic studies and polls/censuses to the mestizo-ization policy. Here is that sentence with its sources:

The differences between genetic ancestry and reported numbers could be attributed to the influence of the concept known as "mestizaje", which was promoted by the post-revolutionary government in an effort to create a united Mexican cultural identity with no racial distinctions.[1][2]

  1. ^ Knight, Alan. 1990. "Racism, Revolution and indigenismo: Mexico 1910–1940". Chapter 4 in The Idea of Race in Latin America, 1870–1940. Richard Graham (ed.) pp. 78–85)
  2. ^ "Al respecto no debe olvidarse que en estos países buena parte de las personas consideradas biológicamente blancas son mestizas en el aspecto cultural, el que aquí nos interesa. (pag.196)" (PDF). 2005-03-16. Retrieved 2013-06-27. 

All the genetics content is sourced from primary sources, so I tagged it for that too. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a source attributing the statistical differences to the process of mestizaje (in Spanish) [62]. Regarding the claims of primary sources there are studies that directly compare Mexicans with Europeans and have found the so called mestizos to be similar to Eurpeans and different of Amerindians and Africans: [63], [64]. All this sources have been posted in the discussion before, but it has grown as much that they get lost easily. Probably is necessary to include this sources with that sentence (replacing either Chile or Costa Rica with Spain for example). I'll wait to listen your opinion in the sentence for the mestizaje. In the meantime I'm returning the genetic sentence to the lead because is too small to have it's own section. I want to hear your opinion wheter to include the studies that compare Mexicans directly with Europeans and found them similar or if we leave it as it is. Aergas (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

your reversion violates WP:LEAD. We don't put content in the lead that is not in the body. Why are you violating WP:LEAD? (real question) The new source about statistical differences. I don't see where it says anything about genetic testing, so I don't see how it supports the deleted sentence. Did I miss that? (real question) With regard to primary/secondary sources, what would be best here would be one or more WP:SECONDARY sources - for this, secondary sources are review articles that look at the primary sources (like the ones cited) to draw the bigger picture. That is what we are looking for. Primary sources for things in biology (like these kinds of genetic screens) are notoriously unreliable - that's why we really want secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
In addition, For those 2 links on genetics, you are assuming original research that this presents some kind of linear correlation for proving amdmixture, but it does not, because many non-linear impacts such as for instance, 'founder effects', have been known to influence genetic data of specific alleles. So, again that is not evidence. Alon12 (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
with regard to reviews, here is very recent one; here is a very old one; here are 14. Not sure all of those are on point for this article. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Alon12, I told you this before: Can you prove any of the claims you just made with sources that are directly related to these studies? if you can't then what you are saying is nothing more than "what if's" and "perhaps'", the source about the mestizaje does not address genetics I'm afraid, but it does address statistical discrepancies, the problem is that Mexico does not have any modern census on race. I see what's the peoblem we have with the lead right now, but to put it on it's own section would look bad too, what if we merge it with an extant section instead? I was thinking on mixing it with the "Distribution" section and rename it "Distribution and estimations" we could add the other figures there too. What do you think? Aergas (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
You are the one making claims about admixture using original research, when in fact the papers make zero reference of admixture, and you have not shown any evidence that exact proportions of specific estimated alleles are necessarily correlated with proportional admixture. Alon12 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It says that they are similar to Spaniards and different from Africans and Amerindians, if that wasn't the case it simply wouldn't say that. Don't make a +40 replies argument out of this clear fact. It's unalterable. Aergas (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
'Similar' can mean meany things, since you are assuming a linear relationship for a subject as complex as genetics, which has many non-linear tendencies such as 'founder effects'. So, it has nothing to do with implied proportions of admixture. To demonstrate that it does show that the alleles show any specific relation to admixture, it must be proven, otherwise it is original research. Alon12 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Prove your claims with sources that refer directly to those studies. Aergas (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You are the one who need to prove that those studies have anything to do with proportions of admixture, because they do not claim to be anything about it. Alon12 (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── while you guys keep editing in your own private hell, I moved the genetics content back out of the lead. I made it a subsection of the Census section, which I renamed to Population studies. I urge you guys to not get hung up on percentages published in primary sources - using genetics for population studies of ethnicities is a notoriously bad field, in which lots of studies end up with results that other groups cannot reproduce'. That is why reviews are especially important. Take the numbers lightly! Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

and btw I will be deleting the genetics content, probably on Sunday, if it still sourced only to primary sources at that time.Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The improvements you made to the citations and to the sources were very needed, but you removed a lot of sourced material, and worse, material that is in the mid of a dispute and not for very good reasons: You claim to have removed the genetic information of the United States because there is no legal cocept of 1/4, but that is irrelevant to the sentence in question, it says "equal to around 1/4" not that there is a 1/4 standard, and if is that much of a problem to mention 1/4 we can replace it with "60%-70%" on top of this the information regarding the United States is necessary because there is a big Mexican diaspora in that country. Please discuss before making mass removals of material thar is on dispute. I made you a proposal regarding the genetic information (wheter it should be merged, left on the lead or modified with new sources that I presented) and you ignored it. And primary sources is not a ground to remove information, the policy of Wikipedia on reliable sources allows their use [65], if it's necessary to modify the sentence to say something on the style "Mexican mestizos are genetically close to people living on European countries" instead of Chile or Costa Rica that's something that extant sources allow us to do, and is something directly stated on them. It's a matter of discussing before editing. Wikipedia policies state it: Do not revert, discuss [66] [67]. By the way, it's good that you decided to stay. Aergas (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, you talk about 1/4, yet there are also Spaniards who maintain up to 30-40% north african ancestry. So, that means it is required for a spaniard to be only 60-70% european too? Again, as we see in figure s10 [68]. This is an article on mexican nationals in particular, in any case, not mexicans in foreign nations. Alon12 (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this line in the lead is also, genetics content, ' Another group in Mexico, the "mestizos", also include people with varying amounts of European ancestry, with some having a European admixture higher than 90%.[12] ' Alon12 (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I find ironic that you are trying to suggest and compare the admixture of White Americans with Spaniards doing a massive amount of non-accepted synthesis yet at the same time you contest a study that directly compares Spaniards with Mexicans and have found them to be similar. Your argument is flawled to the root: White Americans weren't tested with the same markers than Spaniards so the Near East admixture isn't considered, you are comparing apples and oranges here. Additionaly the non-white admixture of White Americans is Sub-Saharan African and Amerindian, product of recent admixing, while the admixture from the Near East and North Africa can be traced back to the neolithic, and on top of this, North Africans and Arabs are considered white in the census of the United States per the White American article. Aergas (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yet again, you ignore all research, and make your own apples and oranges comparisons. Here are direct sources, comparing all forms of global admixture, INCLUDING north african and middle eastern, and spaniards are shown to be less homogeneous than white americans [69][70]. Furthermore, this shows that despite the racial caste system of Spain attempting to excluding near easterners and north africans in the claim to be of 'clean european blood'[limpieza de sangre], spaniards maintain more admixture, so a 'white american' living in spain, would show higher european genetic content relative to a spaniard by Spaniard standards. And, the study specifically associates the moorish invasion with north african ancestry in spain too.[71] "n. For example, the Moorish Berber conquest in Iberia began in the 8th century common era and lasted for more than 500 y; this conquest has been suggested as a potential source of gene flow from North Africa toward the Iberian Peninsula" Alon12 (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

content about race in America[edit]

The content said "While in the United States the criteria has become less strict: there is self-identified white people that has an amount of non-European admixture that would be equivalent to around 1/4.[1] This could be attributed to historical and cultural reasons, including slavery creating a racial caste and the European-American suppression of Native Americans, which often led people to identify or be classified by only one ethnicity, generally that of the culture they were raised in. While many Americans may be biologically multiracial, they often do not know it or do not identify so culturally.[2]:

  1. ^
  2. ^ Gates, Henry Louis, Jr. Faces of America: How 12 Extraordinary Americans Reclaimed Their Pasts (New York University Press, 2010)
  • The first sentence is so grammatically butchered that it makes no sense. What are you even trying to say? What "criteria" in particular are being discussed? The reference says nothing about "criteria" for sure.
  • And more importantly, how does this have anything to do with "Mexicans of European descent "? (that is a real question) In my view you guys have been fighting about something that is completely off topic. Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It's related because there is a huge Mexican diaspora in the United States and a explanation to why 52% of Mexican Americans are white when supposedly only 10% of Mexicans are white must be given. Aergas (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no content in the article about 52% of Mexican americans being white, nor about 10% of Mexicans being white, today. If there were, it would be complicated to discuss and we would indeed need to have some clear, brief, and well-sourced discussion about how race and ethnicity have been surveyed in the US and in Mexico. The content above is not clear and not well-sourced. But it is pointless in the article as it stands as there is no discussion of ancestry of Mexican-Americans. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Because you removed it, it must be restored. Aergas (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The Latest Genetic Research Demonstrates Amerindian ancestry is predominant over European ancestry in Mexico[edit]

Since it has been determined that citing ancestry estimates from a primary source is not a good thing, here is a news article from a research journal, which references a primary source, explicitly saying that the lines between 'mestizos' and indigeneous is genetically blurred and that they retain close biological ties. It does not get anymore clear than this. [72]

"The largest survey of Mexican genetics performed so far reveals tremendous diversity in the country."

The study also reveals that there are close biological connections between Mexico’s two traditional cultural groups: indigenous Native Americans and “mestizos” — people with mixed Native American and European ancestry.

“As academics, we have been separating them into two groups — indigenous and cosmopolitan,” says geneticist Andrés Moreno-Estrada at Stanford University in California, one of two lead authors of the paper describing the findings, which is published today in Science1. “Genetically, we see that, in fact, there is very little difference between these two.”

"The authors also report that the mixed-descent Mexicans in the study, although economically and socially distinct from native populations, are genetically quite similar to them. Mestizo people from particular regions of Mexico showed more genetic similarities to nearby indigenous groups than to distant ones.

“We see that there is very little difference between a cosmopolitan person from the city of Oaxaca and a Zapotec from the highlands of Oaxaca, and I hope this breaks down those barriers,” Moreno-Estrada says. “This separation in social terms that we have been accepting for years doesn’t have a biological basis.”"

The study [73], is the newest, most in-depth study, showing mexico's genetic roots. Authors of this new work include A. Hidalgo-Miranda, I. Silva-Zolezzi, G. Jimenez-Sanche, who had made previous studies such as [74][75], so this is a continuation of their now, less comprehensive, old work.

There is zero original wording in the topic of this section following the next colon, it is simply the latest genetic data word for word, relevant to the mention of genetics in this page, direct from a primary source, a peer-reviewed genetic study on latin america too, which confirms the same:

[76] "Mexico A total of 19 reports regarding molecular autosome estimates of parental continental ancestry in Mexican populations are presented in Table 1. Three of them concern the country in general, while 27 concern specific populations, with the large population of Mexico City heavily represented (seven estimates). Amerindian ancestry is most prevalent (51% to 56%) in the three general estimates, followed by European ancestry (40% to 45%); the African share represents only 2% to 5%. The Amerindian contribution is the highest in 22 (81%) of the 27 estimates.

Many cases of repeated sampling in the same population were recorded: for the general evaluations, the percentage differences are minimal (at most 6%), but for Nuevo León, Veracruz, Guerrero, and Yucatan (all sampled twice), the highest differences, generally involving the European fraction, are 17% to 28%. In Mexico City, the European contribution was estimated as 21% to 32% in six of the seven reports, with the anomalous value of 57% obtained in a single sample of 19 subjects. European ancestry is most prevalent in the north (Chihuahua, 50%; Sonora, 62%; Nuevo León, 55%), but in a recent sample from Nuevo León and elsewhere in the country, Amerindian ancestry is dominant. The general conclusion, therefore, is that the Amerindian genes were victorious in the battle of survival over those of the Spanish Conquistadores!"

Alon12 (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The first study was conducted with the intention of tracing the genetic map of the amerindian population of Mexico, when the full study is read [77], you can see that the study states to be focused on amerindians' genetic diversity. Thus is misleading to call it a "definitive study" because Mexicans with considerable European ancestry wee left out of the selection.
The second study compilates several genetic studies, here is a table included in said study [78], however when you go to the sources of each study nearly half of them present sample bias, for example this study (No. 1) [79] was cited, and it states to have been done on Mexicans with asthma, per recent research, asthma itself affects people from lower socioeconomic status almost twice, and the relation between high Amerindian ancestry in Mexico and a low socioeconomic status is high and this has been documented before. Another study cited (No.3) [80] states that "the sample from Mexico City, which includes 967 cases and 343 controls from a Type II Diabetes study" and the correlation between high Native American ancestry and Diabetes is well documented [81] [82] so we have another sample bias here, the study No.10 was done on Amerindians [83], study No.11 again was done on diabetics [84], same with study No.12 [85], study No.14 tested only 26 people [86], study No.16 textually asserts that "the study is not comprehensive survey of the selective landscape in the ancestral populations of the present day Mexicans" study No.17 is the same study than No.3, study No.18 is a study in a remote rural population [87], study No.19 is an amerindian tribe [88]. Once all the studies are analzed you find that more than half aren't fit to represent "Mexico as a whole" as the study wants to imply, and is likely that the studies that can' be accesed or scrutined enough present sample bias aswell, it also must be noted that several studies on which the European admixture in Mexicans was dominant were excluded, and these studies don't have that kind socioeconomical/medical sample bias (which is perhaps why the European component is dominant). Aergas (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The paper published in Science is a WP:PRIMARY source and it should not be cited. The accompanying news piece is not what we look for in a secondary source - it is just a news piece on the primary source. The other source described,, is great - this is a review article and is exactly what we look for as a WP:SECONDARY source for scientific information. It overviews all the work that has been done, analyzes it, and summarizes it. You should generate content from the "Actual Data, Middle America: Mexico" section and focus on the authors' discussion. We cannot analyze the data presented there ourselves, in any way. That is WP:OR. I'll replaced the current content, with content from this source and remove the tag. Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
We aren't going to add information that is largely proven incorrect when there is much better information aviable. Please don't modify the article until these issues are resolved. Don't revert or remove, discuss. Aergas (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Additionally I would like to know why are you replying in the place of Alon12, editing the information that Alon12 brought and talking just like Alon12 does. Aergas (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about in your last comment? I don't understand. Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Aergas, please provide a rationale for this reversion. Every Wikipedia content policy calls us to rely on secondary sources - WP:NPOV and WP:OR in particular, as does the sourcing guideline, WP:RS. Why revert an edit replacing old primary studies with a recent review? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You know what I'm talking about, you should have been more careful, at this point is obvious that you and Alon12 are the same person, you reply on place of him, he replies on your place, both use the same style, both bring reflists to talk pages, both use bold text to make emphazis, both support the same changes... It's too much evidence. And is not mandatory to use secondary (and proven incorrect) sources. Wikipedia accepts primary sources just as good, specially for direct claims such as the ones where they are being used. Aergas (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, you are accusing me of being a WP:SOCK and I suggest that you tread very carefully there. I am not a SOCK of Alon12 or anyone else. I have directly responded to you. If you continue to believe I am a SOCK, the proper forum to deal with that - now that you have asked and been answered - is WP:SPI. If you bring this up again here - ever - I will bring you to ANI for disruptive behavior. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You are correct that it is not mandatory to use secondary sources but every policy and guideline urges us to use them. Please present a valid reason to use old, primary sources when a recent secondary source is avaliable. Also, please provide a source of equal quality to the 2014 review that "proves" it is "incorrect". Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm being careful enough, don't worry for me. And primary sources are better on this case because they have no proven sample bias. Nor claim to be focused on "Amerindian genetic diversity" how can you want to add a source focused on Amerindian genetic diversity and that created a map of Amerindian genetics on an article for White Mexicans? Aergas (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You need to bring a source saying that the 2014 review is flawed. Otherwise that is your WP:OR. Please provide a source. If you do not have a source, please say so. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
If there is a secondary source who claims that the sky is yellow, will you push it on an article becuase it's a secondary source, or will you rather use all the primary sources aviable that say that the sky is blue? Is common sense, not everything that comes in a secondary source is correct, Wikipedia editors must be able to separate good sources from bad ones, you aren't a robot who don't have any common sense, I'm sure of that because very often you remove good secondary sources from articles related to GMO topics because you don't like them. As much that you have received coverage in websites that aren't Wikipedia. One source textually claims to be focused on Amerindians ad the other includes studies that go as far as to claim that they aren't supposed to be used as any referent to ancestry, yet they are used. There is no reason to use these surces when better ones are aviable. Aergas (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, so you don't have a source; you are doing WP:OR. I will bring this to WP:RSN and we will get more input there; I have to run now but will do that later today or tomorrow. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary but if you feel it is do it. Aergas (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. How do you think we should resolve our difference? I'll wait to go to RSN for your answer. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Is not a complicate thing, it's just that you want to add studies focused on Amerindian genetic diversity to an article about White Mexicans, the study itself might be good, but don't belongs here or on an article about the Mexican population in general. It belongs to the article for Amerindian Mexicans. And there is no point on trying to attack the Europeaness of Spaniards stitching a lot of sources together that don't even use the same markers, specially when the "non-white" admixture of Spaniards and White Americans is different (north african for Spain, black and amerindian for the USA). And on top of this, any Spaniard that goes to the United States will be considered white, no matter if is the darkest person on Andalucia, and near easterners and north africans are considered white in the US. Aergas (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
hm. The content I added gave ancestry from europeans, as well as amerindians and africans (seems to me that all three are relevant). Are you objecting to the content also referencing the percentages of amerindian and africans, or to the source itself? Or maybe both? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The reason I object the use of the source here is because is focused in Amerindian genetic diversity, you edit articles about medicine, I'm sure that you understand semantics. That study is more than welcome in articles about Amerindian Mexicans, same with your previous complains about the cultural mestizaje of Amerindians. Aergas (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────. We don't agree about the source. It is called "Interethnic admixture and the evolution of Latin American populations" and as its abstract says, "A general introduction to the origins and history of Latin American populations is followed by a systematic review of the data from molecular autosomal assessments of the ethnic/continental (European, African, Amerindian) ancestries for 24 Latin American countries or territories.". I'll go ahead and open a thread as RSN and will put a notice here when that is done. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── posted on RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Secondary_vs_primary_sources_for_population_genetics_in_Mexicans_of_European_descent. I won't discuss further here, so we don't fork the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

State of This Article, Again[edit]

The two editors who were edit-warring and talking past each other have been blocked for two weeks. Any editors who have newly come to this article are invited to look at it and see if they can make any constructive suggestions or edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are my own thoughts for now (and I won't be trying to be neutral on previous issues, only to observe a neutral point of view, since I am no longer mediating. First, any phrase having to do with "racial purity" or anything similar should be avoided, with the possible exception of quotations for historical pre-Revolutionary context.

Second, I am skeptical of the need for any reference to persons of European descent in other countries in the Western Hemisphere. The United States, in particular, has a significantly different history and cultural context is different than Mexico. Mexico was populated largely by Spaniards who came to a country that had a very large indigenous population, and "white" is distinguished from mestizos of mixed white and indigenous origin and from predominantly indigenous persons. More recently, immigration to Mexico has been primarily of Europeans (who are considered "white"). The United States, on the other hand, had a much smaller indigenous population, and there was little intermarriage between the English and other European settlers and native Americans (who were either killed or limited to reservations). In the United States, the main "non-white" groups are African-Americans descended from African slaves who were imported by the European settlers, and non-European immigrants (Asian, Latin American, and African). The two situations are not comparable. The existence of Americans in Mexico and Mexicans in the United States is not important unless its importance can be established. Similarly, the history of Brazil is sufficiently different from that of Mexico that comparison is probably not useful. We should be skeptical of the need for any comparisons to other countries. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think is better to remove anything concerning "racial purity" because it's a controversial topic, it was the reason this problem started and we couldn't agree on what to do there after long discussions, I will expand some sections aswell. Aergas (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Large Edits without Discussion[edit]

Please don't make large edits without discussion to this contentious article. User:Aergas: Please explain your edits, which I am rolling back. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm just expanding the information that already exists, I invited other editors to participe and discuss, but they have shown no interest so I'll go on on editing things that aren't involucrated on this discussion. Aergas (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
on the genetics, please read the discussion at RSN and let me know your thoughts here. Jytdog (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I read it, but I'm afraid it doesn't address the actual issues here, the reason that part of the text is on dispute is not because is an unrealiable source, but because the source might not be the most appropiate for this article, and this issue is something appart of the main issue right now: Expanding the content of this article with other appropiate sources, thing to which there is no real reason to oppose. Aergas (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
If you want to discuss population genetics, that is the most recent, on-point secondary source. There is no justification for using a slew of old primary sources (some of them just conference abstracts) for that content when we have a recent secondary source. I would be fine with not discussing population genetics at all. Jytdog (talk)
If Robert McClenon agrees, I think an RFC on whether biology or genetics should be included at all in the article might be relevant at this juncture. Does it matter if some 'biological indigenous' or 'biological whites' identify as another group? Firstly, as race is more of a social construct rather than a purely biological one, more so in historical multiracial regions such as latin america, and secondly as the genetic data clearly demonstrates the predominant amerindian heritage, and thirdly, as no independent genetic analysis has taken place on this particular ethnic group of 'white mexicans', it does not make sense for them to be referenced with other data. Alon12 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
It isn't clear why I am being asked to agree at all. I am only incidentally involved any more, since I didn't want to hear two contentious editors talking past each other as to what should be done to this article. I would prefer not to discuss population genetics at all, which, even with good secondary sources, will be controversial. Race is controversial enough even when seen as a societal construct, and is even more controversial when one tries to base it on biology. I would prefer not to add anything that might be controversial without an RFC. I will !vote against any additions in an RFC unless the change is clearly defined and well sourced. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm suggesting an RFC as a possible solution to remove all current mentions of biological and genetics content in the article in light of those points Robert McClenon makes. Similarly Jytdog, has also suggested that as an option. Alon12 (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Alon I would not oppose removing the content but I would not !vote in favor of it. I am just offering that as option of Aergas if he cannot see his way to appropriately sourcing the content. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
In general, the burden of proof on anyone who wants to add anything, even supposedly only to expand something, should be on the editor wanting to add something. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, if you go to any article related to human genetics, you will find muultiple citations, from multiple sources of primary and secondary type, not only the "most recent" secondary source, which is not so complete because it misses several studies, including the ones I want to add, there is no wikipedia policy that opposes to the expansion of sourced material, or that says that only one secondary source must be used, and is something that isn't practiced anywhere on Wikipedia, and the source is likely not appropiate for an article about European Mexicans because almost every study done on Mexicans with dominant European ancestry was lost and no justification or explanation is given within the study as to why. And now you are talking about removing genetic studies, why now? this entire problem started because disputes on the inclusion of information about genetics and racial purity, you indeed added content related to genetics. What's going on here? Aergas (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── bad sourcing in other articles is not a reason to use them here. in general i don't leave bad sources standing in any article I work on. i fixed the bad sourcing on genetics that was in this article; the secondary source provides the ancestral genetics of all mexicans, including ones of european descent. like i said if you don't want to discuss genetics in the article, i am fine with that. i fixed what was there. oh and please point me to those articles so i can fix them. would you do that please? Jytdog (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Mexicans, Chileans, and Costa Ricans all score on the same levels on genetic studies, yet, Costa Rica and Chile are said to have way higher white percentages than Mexico. I think this would be helpful to mention on this article. There are even sources for this, which Jytdog deleted. I understand I should have come to the Talk section of this article before I edited. But, I think this would be helpful to mention. Maybe in other wording from the way I edited it. I also understand that there are sources for the number of whites in Mexico,, such as the CIA Factbook, or Encyclopaedia Britannica, which are the most commonly sourced. But, the CIA Factbook source is from nearly 100 years ago. The Encyclopaedia Britannica estimate is closer to the real number in my opinion(I've been to Mexico and don't think the number could be 9%). Maybe whites and Mestizos could be grouped together like on topics like this relating to Chile and Costa Rica. I also mention this because mestizos don't have one look, and could look white, but does that mean they're white? I don't know. I just thought I'd write this here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFV210 (talkcontribs) 01:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
You mentioned in the article something related to studies that had both parents considered, but that's not a real explanation, because several non-uniparental studies were left out, and within the studies considered in that review, the few that had a dominant European ancestry were down played greatly [89] for example, source number six is only mentioned one time for Nuevo leon, but if we look the actual study, it included two tests, not only one [90], and other studies that included multiple tests are mantioned various times. You ask where have primary sources been used? that's easy to do, start here, the article is built mainly with primary sources and as shown in this diff [91] Alon12 added a primary source recently, despite that he was talking on this same discussion about how primary sources shouldn't be used. Aergas (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── it is out of bounds to criticize a secondary, peer reviewed secondary source published in a good journal in the biomedical literature. we are editors, not authors or critics; doing that kind of analysis is WP:OR and you can only do that via another source that is as good. and as for this article, you may have noticed that i have been slowly working over the sources and I will continue to improve them. there will be no primary sources left when i am done. Jytdog (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be more concerned than habitual about secondary sources in this article in particular, because that don't seems to be the case elsewhere on Wikipedia. For example, why haven't you edited the article I pointed you to two days ago? Aergas (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I am done here. good luck. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Is just that you have tried to push secondary sources everywhere on this article, but I gave a look to your edit history and many articles you edit frequently include primary sources, same goes for Alon12, who was insisting on the use of secondary sources in this article while he almost simultaneously added a primary source to other article that is related to genetics, what's going on here? I have the impression that there is some bias in this discussion, just like there is a clear bias in the study/review that you are trying to push, not to mention the unjustified opposition to expand the information included in the article, and even worse: one of the sources that I want to include to expand the information of the arcticle is an actual, lawful secondary source but still there have been opposition here. Aergas (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Given that more than two months have passed since I posted my last response explaining why the changes I want to perform are valid and pointed out that they are backed by secondary and primary sources alike I will perform said changes. I urge interested editors to discuss any changes related to the article in this page before editing the article. That way we hopefully will avoid edit wars in the future. Aergas (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
You cannot apply alleged issues in other articles to represent issues for this one, as has been pointed out. Simply waiting for an edit war to die down in the interim and then come back out of the blue to go back to re-engage in the same edit war does not help your cause. Alon12 (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It's completely possible to do so because both articles involve you, how can it be possible that in this article you are arguing how secondary sources must be the only ones used and that in no way primary sources are appropiate and then at the same time you go and add a primary source to another article that is related to genetics aswell? That suggest a strong bias on your part towards this issue, because in reality you don't practice what you are demanding to be done here. My intention was never to let the edit war die, I was the last editor to reply, and I was expecting an answer from you, and in more than two months you never appeared, you appear until I edit the article, why did you wait so long knowing that I was expecting your answer as soon as possible? It's not like you are busy somewhere else in Wikipedia because you are a single porpouse account and you edit nothing but this article. You got many things to explain in this issue. Aergas (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You were given an adequate response at the time of the debate, and you were cited by numerous parties for violating WP:CIR. Now, you are simply trying to obsessively revert the article to return to your edit warring once again, and ignoring dialogue posted by multiple parties. Alon12 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you tell me which was that "adequate response" you are talking about? Because I don't see any, the last thing that happened on this discussion was we discussing the double standards you have shown on your edits here on Wikipedia, and how does that answer the questions I made to you about these double standards? And what abot WP:CIR? You have been the only one pushing that for months with no results at all, in fact, the double standards you have shown on this discussion make good ground for a WP:CIR case opened on you. Finally you have no ground to accuse me of edit warring, I made my responses and waited enough for other editors to participe in the discussion but nothing happened, so I made the edits, you on the other hand come here and start reverting without discussing things properly, much less reaching a consensus, by definition you are the one incurring on edit warring here and I'm the one reverting the edit warrior, you can't say I didn't waited enough for you to answer in this talk page, and you didn't because you don't care about discussing things properly. Aergas (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
This whole section on the talk page was created in reference to your large edits, which is indicative of your pattern of edit warring. There is not much more which needs to be said. You cannot unilaterally make such edits to the page. There have been other instances during this long contentious exchange, other than here, regarding your credibility, but even you can even see here, you do not respond well to basic dialogue without wrapping it around circular motions. Alon12 (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
My edits weren't unilateral, I waited more than two months for input of another editors on this case and nobody showed up, how long do I have to wait then? 6 months? I also consider the adjetive "unilateral" to be incorrect, because if you look back to your edits when this whole issue started and the article on it's current version, you will see that all the edits you originally wanted were included in the article, and these edits remain on it's place in the current version of said article. I personally can't recall my credibility being up to question, but I recall yours being questioned when an administrator pointed out that you are an obvious single porpouse acount. Aergas (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
If you are talking about EdJohnston, he stated that he wanted both of our accounts banned, so bringing him up, does not help your case. No one responded to you because you were applying a logical non-sequitur, which has been pointed out as not applying to this context. It was just a redundancy, this sub-section was created precisely when you attempted to edit war and make reversions to your edits beforehand, and you were warned not do so. Otherwise, why did not attempt to revert this article 2 months ago when this situation was on-going, because 2 months ago when you tried to revert this, your edits to this page were specifically reverted, so instead you attempt to 'get the last word in', in some form of juvenile fashion, and then try to re-ignite your edit war when you think no one else will be watching the article after a certain amount of time passes, which is even more juvenile. Alon12 (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
But Edjohnston accused you of being a single purpose account, thing that he didn't accused me of, I wasn't applying any kind of logical non-sequitur, I just want to know why do you had a problem with primary sources and even talked about removing them all while at the same time you added a primary source in another article, and have no problems with primary sources used everywhere else on wikipedia. My intention was never that of want to have the last word, it was that of have a discussion with other editors involved, specially you, I also want to know why you never replied when you knew that all this time I was waiting for your response and you monitored this article all along. Aergas (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
EdJohnston stated that both of us should be banned, and so have other editors. You have shown a complete disregard in attempting to help develop a community consensus on this issue. The section on genetics for instance, was even sent to another board for deliberation, and you completely ignored the findings there, which was to maintain the page the way it was before you reverted it to the April 13 'large edits', which this section warned against, and attempted to revert the page here 2 months after the fact, when this subsection was specifically created to warn against you making such large edits. Alon12 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── But i'm not ignoring anything, we were discussing that source back then but you stopped replying, and right now you are the one who is edit warring and still don't wants to discuss anything about that source or explain your uncivil behavoirs, such as the double standards you have shown, you refusing to discuss and appearing until someone edits the article and now even opening cases in the noticeboards with summaries that distort the truth and that are filled with plain lies. Aergas (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Creating walls of text for every comment reply and then when the other user stops playing your game, deciding to unilaterally make an edit, is not how the wikipedia community operates. You were given ample opportunity to discuss the content regarding genetics on the topic, as well as the primary sources board, where it was discussed in unanimous agreement on that board, that the obsolete sources for genetics which you keep reverting to, were invalid, relative to the new modern genetic content that was placed in the article in February. Alon12 (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
My replies rarely qualify as walls of text, nothing that you say about the sources happened, the source wasn't sent to a board called "primary sources notice board" it was sent to the "reliable sources notice board" and on top of that you are removing the secondary sources I brought aswell, why do you lie so much? Aergas (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
So you are familiar with it? Yet you chose not to discuss in it, despite having the opportunity to do so. Boards such as that are created precisely as forms of dispute resolution to develop community consensus, the discussion on that board was unanimous in updating the content. Like I said, I did not even participate in these edits, other users did, and the consensus developed at that time was to keep the page with the updated genetics content. That is how wikipedia operates, not by spamming walls of text for every comment reply on a talk page and trying to 'get the last word in', and then say 'I win', which is basically what you're trying to do here. Alon12 (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
But that board is to determine if a source is reliable, not if it is situable for a particualr article, and why do you reject the secondary sources that I've brought? Why did you ignore the discussion for more than two months? Why do you added a primary source on another article when here you removed all the primary sources? The bias is too obvious with you. Aergas (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The old sources were specifically deemed to be less reliable relative to the modern data, that makes it less relevant to the article in accordance with wikipedia standards. Anything else on any other article is not relevant to the discussion on this article, as multiple different users have told you on different sub-sections of this talk page, because no one is interested in you walls of texts and personal attacks instead of content discussion. In any case, I did not even participate there, so it has nothing to do with me, you're arguing against the community decision on the issue. Alon12 (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
How is that sources that weren't even brought to that noticeboard such as the secondary sources I brought long after that discussion was closed were deemed as less reliable? The community you talk so much about didn't even saw them, again: Why do you lie so much? And what you did in the other article is very well relevant because you have a completely opposite position on that article to the position you show here. And why did you ignore the discussion for two months if you knew I was waiting for your answer? Aergas (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
If you still want to debate your paternal haplogroup studies (LOL, considering our history of interaction, you still seem to even barely know what that means) and all the other studies which still predate the new ones, then bring it up in the reliable sources board for again as a means of dispute resolution, and the dispute can be settled. After that point, it does not matter who gets in the last word on the talk page out of desperation, Aergas. Alon12 (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
You've opened so many cases before and when these don't go the way you want (basically all of them) you return to edit warring and to open new cases, why can't you just answer the questions I'm making to you? Why do you want the secondary sources I've brought removed? Why you didn't reply to the discussion in more than two months? Why do you show a completely opposite posture regarding primary sources in other article? Why did you open a case in the edit warring noticeboard with a summary that was plain lies? Aergas (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I, nor anyone else is interested in entertaining your insane walls of text, aergas (I'm saying this because you literally do not know how to even read a genetic study and needed my help in explaining them to you, which you admitted in our past interactions, but that's besides the point), but you can't damage the integrity of this page and expect no response. The fact is that even the administrators admit that we can't make a mutual consensus on any issue. If I had continued to reply to every new wall of text you posted, this talk page would probably be 50x larger, if not 100x larger than it is now, with no dispute resolution in sight. This is why third-party noticeboards are used to assist in developing consensus for the article. The only reason why you would fear bringing this to a noticeboard, where only data is considered, and not personal attacks is because you are afraid that the data does not weigh in your favor. There is not much more to say. I'm being very fair here. Alon12 (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Why can't you just explain why do you have so blatant double standards? Is it that hard to do? Aergas (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm done with your personal ad hominems and paranoia. I will only discuss content issues on this page relating to the content of this page in question, and I gave a solid avenue for resolution. Anything else is not worth my time. Alon12 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Look with attention Alon12, currently in this talkpage you want all the primary sources related to genetics removed, this is a fact that anyone can confirm, and then, at the same time, in another article related to genetics you added a primary source without any problem [92], how is this not a double standard? How am I being paraniod about this issue? Why can't you answer any question I make? You say that you don't want to lose time but then you tell me that I have to present peer-reviewed secondary sources to the reliable sources noticeboard, when they are peer-reviewed secondary sources from reputable sites, that board is supposed to address doubios sources, not sources that are obviously reliable, here you just want to waste the time of other editors, like you do on every case you have opened (how many have you opened? 15?) and then when the resolution don't favors your views you just ignore it and open a new one, people here don't have time for that, and you know that you have zero justification to reject the secondary sources I've brought, if you say that you don't have time for this stop dragging this article down and don't edit here anymore. Aergas (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You are the one dragging this around, and your issues were explained a million times. In the context of the content presented here, there is nothing more to say. If you cannot comprehend the nature of the statement, then you are the one who shouldn't post here. It is hilarious when you talk about opening cases, because you've also done so, and are now in the process of doing so again [93], so your hypocrisy is plain for all to see. The real issue here is how you avoid content resolution, and instead try to play ad hominem games and 'get the last word in', as a means of winning. By the way, thank you for further enlightening this board with your ignorance and WP:CIR, as you are even further demonstrating that you do not even know what a secondary source is. Alon12 (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Please stop making evasives, and now you acuse me of wasting the time of other editors when all this is because of you, I've opened no more than three cases on my time on wikipedia, you have opened around 15 in 5 months, this is a false equivalency, and now you say that I don't know what a secondary source is when the source I've brought reports a "scientific finding" that's the definition of a secondary source. Aergas (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
You make many bold, inaccurate and misleading claims as usual, yet, ultimately, you're the one who replies with giant walls of texts filled with emotional rhetoric. You're the only one wasting anyone's time here, with your refusal to discuss content rationally. That's not what a secondary source is, keep on demonstrating your WP:CIR. Alon12 (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)