Talk:Mexicans

Mexicans as a People

• For a long time I have been wanting to see an article that covers Mexicans more in depth as an ethnic group, under the subject of Ethnography, instead of being treated as only a Nationality or a minority group within other nations or as a demographic that is broken down into even more demographics. This article Should be in the same context as the articles about Germans, Japanese, French, Irish, etc. The focus should be on the history of Mexicans beginning with the pre-Columbian origins which then moves on to the Mestizaje that gives Mexicans their modern identity. History, Ethnography, Culture, Attitudes, Languages, Ancestry, Politics should all be included. I hope to get many more people to collaborate with me in this article since I'm not an expert in these various fields. Giving references and sources for information would be of tremendous help and also keep in mind that unscholarly sources or sketchy information that deals more with opinion than with empirical data will be discarded. I have also noticed that the article Demographics of Mexico already contains much information that could be used in this article but the difference is that this article is focused on Mexicans as an ethnic group and not as a demographic of a nation.Ocelotl10293 (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

• Some people have been vandalizing the article with racist comments and petty alterations or removing citations. I'd also like to express that I don't want to monopolize the article, I appear to be the only editor and contributor so far. I wish more people would start adding more information. But also keep an eye out for vandalism. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Stop changing the racial statistics. The racial demographic percentages are placed in accordance to the cited sources and some individuals keep tampering with them adding information which contradicts the cited sources. The CIA World Factbook has already been established as an unreliable source for this department because their statistics on race are not up to date, unlike it's other segments such as the population of Mexico which has been steadily updated over the years; and if you see closely they place the year in which their estimate is based. This is not the case when it comes to racial demographics where they do not specify which year such data was collected. As Lancini87 has pointed out the CIA has not updated their racial demographics of Mexico and anyone can verify this by looking into the older records which are exactly the same as they appear today: CIA World Factbook 1994. Nevertheless the CIA WFB still remains as a cited source because the demographics from the other sources do not deviate much from those stated by the CIA and also there is the possibility that the percentages have remained basically the same since 1994. You cannot expect demographics to change dramatically in 20 years when historically demographical changes in a significant magnitude such as changing from 1% to 5% take anywhere from 50 years to a few centuries to happen even under invasions, social revolution or warfare. Also Mexico has not suffered any significant social events in the last 100 years in such a magnitude that would dramatically change it's demographics. It has not been invaded nor suffered any mass genocides or migrations or had any heavy influx of foreign immigration that would saturate it's population. The one million "American Citizens" living in Mexico could mostly be ethnic Mexicans with dual citizenship (such as myself) and even of all one million were white Americans that would constitute as 0.90% of Mexico's population of over 111,000,000, and that is not counting the estimated 10 million living outside Mexico.

Now as to the percentages on Mestizos, Criollos, and Indigenous peoples of Mexico these percentages are based on diverse sources such as: the publications of Mexico's National Institute of Genomic Medicine, The Encyclopedia Britannica, and a 2005 publication of the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México. Any further changes in the racial demographics of Mexicans done in this article that contradict the cited references and do not cite any sources of their own will constitute as vandalism. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving from 'Mexicans' to 'Mexican people'

I moved this article and its talk page, but I'm not sure if I did it correctly, please forgive me if I didn't. Everything seems to work right, the only thing is the old "revision history" (although not very long) isn't attached to this article's page of "revision history". It is here [1], so we can at least look through it. C.Kent87 (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Stupid page

This page makes no sense, it was created by an INDIGENIST Mexican who lives in the United States and plays on the stereotypes about Mexicans in USA. This page exagerates the number of indigenous Mexicans and mestizos (most of which migrate to the US and most of the indigenous died from disease and mistreatment from the Spaniards). If you are going to have a page on Mexicans, then you'd better create a page on Salvadoreans, Peruvians, Argentinians, Uruguayans, Brazailians, etc. etc.

• Just because you feel this page is stupid doesn't give you the authority or reason to decide if this article should be published or not. Mexicans, as a people, are a very complex subject and we have been doing our best to create an encyclopedic and scholarly article about them. There also isn't any reason not to create those articles on Peruvians, Argentinians etc.. if they are done properly. If you want to create such articles then go ahead, just make sure to cite your sources and follow wikipedia's guidelines. Now as to your objection of Mexicans being an ethnic group it seems you do not comprehend what that term means. Many people very often confuse the term ethnicity with race. The following is the same response I gave user C.Kent87 on his talk page when he asked me about this same subject:

About ethnicity and race these terms are not the same thing. Race would constitute the biological composition of individuals or groups, in which case Mexicans are mostly bi-racial (Amerindian/European). The racial/biological composition of Mexicans is not very important because the article deals with Mexicans as an ethnic group which, according to Fredrik Barth: "can be said to exist when people claim a certain identity for themselves and are defined by others as having that identity." (Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference. London: Allen & Unwin. 1969.)

To quote Conrad Phillip Kottak in the text book: Window on Humanity a concise introduction to Anthropology Pages 217-218:

As with any culture, members of an ethnic group share certain beliefs, values, habits, customs, and norms, because of their common background. They define themselves as different and special because of cultural features. This distinction may arise from language, religion, historical experience, geographic isolation, kinship, or "race." Markers of an ethnic group may include a collective name, belief in common descent, a sense of solidarity, and an association with a specific territory which the group may or may not hold... Ethnicity means identification, and feeling part of, an ethnic group and exclusion from certain other groups because of this affiliation. Ethnic feelings and associated behavior vary in intensity within ethnic groups and countries and over time.

I wanted to create an article on Mexicans as "one people" where the point of view comes from anthropology, culture, biology, history and is as far away from ethnic nationalism and political correctness as possible. I'm Mexican myself and I can safely say that we all see ourselves basically as one race (despite the fact we are mestizos) or at the very least as one people. For the most part we are blind to racial differences within out own group but there exist many who suffer some sort of identity crisis and lean toward one group or the other and begin racist agendas within the collective identity of Mexicans as a group. To put it in short words, I wanted to create a scientifically objective article on the Mexican People without the mainstream distortions and prejudices and without any inclination to any ethnic/political/national agenda like so many that are floating around all over the internet. It's nice to see other people are getting interested in the project but I believe balance will be the greatest chore here since everyone wants to tell their side of the story. Thanks for contributing to article. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You see, the problem is that my family has been all over Mexico (even in the regions that have the highest concentration Native Indians, and I can tell you that there is no way Indians make up 30% or more of Mexico's population, at most they make up 16%. I don't know what you try to accomplish or achieve by exaggerating the number of Indigenous peoples and by saying that all white Mexicans are mestizo, if you try to make all Mexicans seem brown, then you're wrong. If you've ever even BEEN to Mexico, you would know what I mean and you would not be posting misinformation. The CIA World Factbook cannot be precise because even the Mexican gov't hasn't made a racial census, so how is the "CIA" going to know the number of Indians, whites, or mestizos? Did the CIA ask every Mexican what his/her race was? Even on their page it says "1% other". I, as a white Mexican, am outraged by the misinformation that you post. There ARE pure races in Mexico because anyone can be Mexican. If a German couple had a baby in Mexico and lived in Mexico, then that baby is Mexican, just like if the same family had their baby in the USA and lived there, then the child would be a US "American". You seem to forget that there are over 70,000 PURE German MENNONITES in Mexico, not counting the other 580,000 people in Mexico of German descent (whether pure or not). So don't put that there aren't any pure races in Mexico. If you really are a Native, then you should have enough respect for EVERY Mexican and not make us all seem like one brown ethnic group, it's not fair for all of the other Mexicans who live in Mexico to discount them or ignore their roots and their race (because there are also East Asians (~0.5% of Mexicans), Middle Easterns (~1.1% of Mexicans), and blacks (~0.4% of Mexicans) in Mexico). Is it strange that you say that white Mexicans are mestizo yet you say Natives are not mestizo, even though you previously said that there are no pure races in Mexico? It seems to me that you know nothing about Mexico other than what the biased US media puts in your head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.2.131 (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In wikipedia we follow a protocol in posting information. We cannot take your mere observations or opinions as evidence, we can only cite published articles that are reliable as sources of information found on the web. Read Wikipedia's no original research policy. Not everything found on the web tells the truth, there are many pseudointellectual articles out there that exaggerate, warp, or suppress the reality of the matter and some that are just complete hogwash. For this you need to also read Wikipedia's policies on verifiability to see what constitutes as a reliable source. The article also has to retain a neutral point of view with a proper tone. Now as to what you are saying about being born in Mexico from German parents that would be an example of being a Mexican citizen through naturalization just as if an Indigenous Mexican were to be born in the United States and he is then naturalized as a U.S. citizen. This article is about Mexicans as a people and ethnic group NOT about Mexican nationality. Ethnic Mexicans are all those who have, and practice, a Mexican cultural heritage together with indigenous ancestry which includes that Spanish ancestry from the colonial era (Mestizos, Indígenas, Criollos) excluding all other groups such as the German Mennonites or recent Lebanese immigrants who are Mexicans by citizenship. If you think that the CIA World Factbook is wrong then you can imagine how much more the Encyclopædia Britannica misses the mark; if our own neighbor can't make an approximate guess then I wouldn't trust someone half a world away to judge our demographics. Also by my own experience in reading hundreds of books and articles I can tell you that the sources from the United States about Mexico are much more reliable and closer to the truth than those from Europe which are almost always outdated and full of different types of biases and plain misunderstandings. Also in the Ethnography section and whenever race is an issue I make sure to cite scientific publications since this is a department of genetics rather than a census and even so the information is not 100% exact since it's based on partial examinations of Mexican samples and not of the entire population. But what is for certain based on Mexico's own genetic investigations is that Mexicans have a very strong indigenous admixture, read the report for yourself. Just because someone may look white doesn't mean he/she is genetically "white," as in, purely Caucasian. Such a person would constitute as mixed-race, hence a mestizo. This is the reason the percentages overlap. Many mestizos can pass off as either Indigenous or as White. In my own family I myself look indigenous yet my own sister looks white. As the old saying goes: Appearances can be very deceiving. This subject is far more complex than just merely driving through Mexico and looking at people's faces and checking them as either white or indian.Ocelotl10293 (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ocelotl, if you review the CIA World Factbook's archives, you will notice that they have not changed Mexico's ethnic groups since its creation, which was more than 20 years ago. The majority of Mexicans who have left the country since then have been indigenous people. So how can the statistics be exactly the same more than 20 years later? There's nothing reliable about that, so your reason for insisting on keeping the CIA World Factbook as the article's main source, must not be reliability, but something personal. -- Lancini87 (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that... weird. But this is getting much more complicated than I envisioned. In this case we would need to make a compromise of these various sources and calculate the average, or simply add them both and explain why they are different; mainly because, as I wrote in the article, the social barometers used to define the Mexican population are not exact and serve more as opinion polls rather than an accurate measurement. But lately there have been serous scientific studies of the Mexican population done withing the past 2 decades which don't rely on people's mere appearance. The genetic data gathered in these studies has revealed what is plainly obvious to most Mexicans and what is recorded in history: Mexicans are mostly "indios." The indigenous population has always been the majority in Mexico until these last 2 centuries when the indigenous population began to decline as the Mestizo population began to climb, some historians believe this correlates to more people, who would otherwise be classified as indigenous, now being classified as mestizos. Such as my father's side of the family who are racially indigenous but politically classified as mestizos because they don't belong to a tribe and they speak Spanish. I have this information on at least 2 good sources [2][3]. I own both these books and the 2nd one is 1,000 pages thick. I'm reading them and I will use them as sources to add more information here in the future. Progress is very slow because I want it to be scholarly and factual.Ocelotl10293 (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Britannica is the most accurate of the encyclopedias. World Statesmen's statistics are somewhat similiar to Britannica's too. This last one is by an American organization, if that helps. Needless to say, the currect percentages in the article don't make sense at all. It says 80% of the population is mestizo, which leaves a remainder of 20%, but then it says 16-30% are Amerindian. Hmm... that alone would surpass the maximum amount of 100%. -- Lancini87 (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The percentages overlap creating that weird 100%+ effect because in the spectrum of {Indigenous <-> Mesztizos <-> Criollos} there are a lot of gray areas. Mestizos being in the middle can pass off as both white or indigenous. So the census gets thrown way off not to mention that many dark skinned Mexicans like to believe they are white just as many white Mexicans like to believe they are mestizos or even indigenous. This throws the calculations out of whack. Also the definition of what constitutes as indigenous is very ambiguous in those encyclopedias including the CIA World Factbook. Are they speaking in terms of race or in political terms where one has to belong to a tribe and speak the language in order to be counted as indigenous?Ocelotl10293 (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I see, and no, you don't necessarily have to be in a tribe to be considered indigenous. Look at the World Statemen's statistics; it says 18% of Mexico is indigenous, of which 10% is detribalized. So it also includes those who are not in any tribe and speak Spanish, like your father, for example. -- Lancini87 (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ocelotl, do you happen to be the same person as this person: [4] ?

Pardon my French but, HELL NO! Personally I believe Naui Ocelotl is a goofball and many more things which I won't utter here out of respect for this discussion. When I made my username I just picked Ocelotl at random because it was an old Aztec order. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha, if you were him, then I would be angry because he has said "fuck criollos" to white mexicans, so...

I guess you have somewhat of a point, yet by what you say then most white Americans are not full Caucasian because of their Native and African ancestry that is moslty less then 10% but can reach 30% in others (see White Americans, I think it was that page). And according to studies on why Russians easily get addicted to alcohol is because of their 3% or more Mongolian genes, does that make Russians mixed and not white? What about white Americans? What about Argentinians who have a large CASTIZO population, and alot of them are of small Native ancestry. Since Spaniards and the Portuguese have a bit of Moorish blood (from 8 centuries of Moorish conquest), then they are not the same "race" as an Englishman or a German? Again, are they not white? Your standards sort of confuse me, because even if you say a Mexican with 20% or even more Indian blood that looks white is not a true white person, society will accept that person as white (maybe solely based on phenotypes, as almost all societies do). It's not as if everyone will go dig through genetic research. Regarding the German born in Mexico, I meant a German couple had a baby IN Mexico and that baby was born and raised in Mexico, would that still make that person non-Mexican? It seems that you want to say Mexicans are a race, even though you deny it. If a MEXICAN (of German, Japanese, Cherokee, Egyptian, or you name it decent) accepts Mexican culture, is he/she not Mexican culturally? Are Mestizo, Indian, or Spanish Mexicans the only ones worthy of Mexican culture? A US American has to be an non-Latin American descended person to be worthy of US American ANGLO culture? You say Mexicans have a NATURAL indigenous look? If most did, then they wouldn't look Spanish like a huge sum do. Don't put your opinion, omit biased opinions please. Don't forget our Spanish legacy... But reality does not lie, if you say 9% are white, fine. Reality will say show something else, something that mere words on a website cannot show.

You think I am trying to make this article solely about race. I already explained that this article is about Ethnicity. So let me put up a checklist about the attributes a person would need to have in order to constitute as belonging to any certain ethnic group:

• Biological, the individual must share a genealogical legacy with the group.
• Social, the individual must identify with the group at the exclusion of others.
• Cultural, the individual must share in the culture and social peculiarities of the group.

The so-called "white Mexicans," or Criollos, constitute as Ethnic Mexicans since they have been in Mexico for 500 years now and you can't just pluck them out of Mexico and put the back into Spain. Many who I talk to tell me they wouldn't even fit in the United States. Growing up in the U.S. I noticed the Criollos would always band together with the rest of their Mexican compatriots instead of going over with other whites (including Spaniards) and trying to socialize with them. Among Mexican society many Criollos also do not identify with Spanishnes at all and prefer to live our Mexican culture and identity. Their appearance is totally irrelevant because their heritage is now fully Mexican, and the extent to which Europe has influenced them is no greater than it has influenced indigenous Mexicans. If you leave the Criollos in Mexico another couple of thousand years they will constitute as "native Mexicans."

But of course you have those few conflicted idiots who, for some emotional and personal reason, want to pick a side and polarize the Mexican population into white and brown. Some, like the Aztlanists (Those who shout Brown Pride), hate the Criollos because they perceive them as foreigners who sellout our people to European and U.S. interests. And then there are the smug Eurocentric Criollos who still carry that backward legacy of the caste system from colonialism and see all dark skinned Mexicans as inferior and lazy and blame them for all of Mexico's problems.Ocelotl10293 (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What about US Americans (regardless of race) or Canadians? What about non-white immigrants in Europe? In 1000 years will they all be native Americans, native Canadians, and native Europeans (respectively)? What about the gypsies who have been in Europe (most specifically, in England) since 1200 AD. Are they Native Europeans? What about the Mongolian Kalmyks who have been in Europe for over 400 years? But one thing, I do want you to omit opinions unless they're not opinions and are varifiable, such as this "...This is what gives Mexicans their natural indigenous appearance...BROWN SKIN". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.2.131 (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

IP 76.83.2.131 You seem to only have an issue whenever "browness" enters the picture. I don't know about gypsies or mongols or Americans. All I know is about Mexicans because this is the area I have been researching to add to this article. I have heard Americans use the term "native" when referring to Caucasians from certain U.S. regions. For example: "Bob is native to the rugged Florida swamplands." There is a measure of semantics in this subject as well. Also to comment about your inclusion of Castizos that seems to me like trying to resuscitate the old monster of colonial racism: the caste system. We must keep the article as simple as possible without deviating into 1/4 this and 2/3 that and assigning every single sub-race ever invented by the racists in the colonial era. The spectrum here must be simple: Indigenous and European with everything in between. No Castizos, Novohispanos, Gachupines, Zambos, Lobos, Cholos, Mulatos, Moriscos, Chinos, Gíbaros, Albarazados, Calpamulatos etc etc etc... The term Mestizo in the article is used to refer to any type of mixed race found in Mexico and the term Criollo is used in a way that it means anyone who is European 100% or has a predominant European Admixture. The term Indigenous likewise is used when an individual is either 100% Native American or has a predominant indigenous admixture.Ocelotl10293 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to quote YOU: "All I know is about Mexicans because this is the area I have been researching" "I have heard". It seems you are doing some original research of your own. --76.83.2.131 (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

IP 76.83.2.131: As a matter of fact I am, it is necessary for me to do the research in order to adequately contribute to the article. But when I edit or add information to this article I use sources and citations, not my own opinions and conclusions. What I am doing in the article is not original research, click on the hyperlink to know what it is. It's becoming more clear that you have an agenda here. You keep deliberately changing cited information to suit your own personal point of view. If you keep this up you will be reported to the administrators because what you are doing constitutes as vandalism by deliberately introducing factual errors after you have been told to stop.Ocelotl10293 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, reality wins and not words, but I will do some research on UPDATED info. I will return here with this information, and you will see it is factual and reliable. Good bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.2.131 (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Whats with this Ocelotl reverting SOURCED information?

The fact that you don't agree with the updated information, does not make it vandalism on my part. -- Lancini87 (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because the new information you put in conflicts with the cited sources or you remove them altogether. I'm not sure if it's you who does it but that is the reason I keep reverting the article.Ocelotl10293 (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

History

We need to include a history of the Mexican people. We can use the histories found on other articles about other people as models such as the Germans, English, and Italians. The reason I say we should use these articles as models is because they present the same multiracial origins of each ethnic group just as it is the case with modern Mexicans who were formed through a similar process of integration and conglomeration of different ethnic groups consisting mostly of Native American and European groups. Also, Mexicans identify their origins primarily with their Native American heritage which is natural since most ethnic groups primarily identify themselves as being native to the region where their culture or heritage originates from. This is why in the United States the many immigrant groups identify themselves by their ethnic origin by attributing a cultural or regional prefix to their name such as Anglo-Americans African-Americans Asian-Americans Mexican-Americans etc.. Here is a very brief overview that can serve as a guideline:

The history should begin with the Nahua peoples because this ethnic-linguistic family stretched very far and wide across Mexico especially during the Aztec Empire and had the most influence just before the European arrival and has the largest pre-columbian legacy in modern Mexican culture. There is no need to delve to deep in previous groups but they should be mentioned briefly. At the same time other groups such as the Maya to the south and the Chichimeca to the north should be mentioned with equal importance to the Aztec because they play an important part of Mexican history. Then it should be carried to when the Spanish arrived and explain the changes that took place in Mexico under Spanish colonial rule which wasn't a complete replacement of indigenous peoples as it has been misleadingly stereotyped to be. The Spanish undoubtedly practiced genocide, racism, and pushed many indigenous people from their homelands as it's been historically documented but what most people don't know, or ignore, are the complex relationships that developed during the colonial period that are crucial in explaining how Mexicans's modern identity evolved. Many indigenous governments retained some measure of self-rule through the preservation of their former "nobility" blood lines as well as local indigenous governments called Juntas or Ejidos which were forced to pay tributes to the Spanish crown. Some indigenous groups fought and resisted the Spanish while others formed alliances with them, such as the Aztec themselves after their former government had been overthrown along with the Tlaxcaltec and Otomi to conquer western and northern Mexico. These complex relationships are what led to the Mestizaje which fueled racist sentiment and social stratification under the caste system and thence served as a motivation among the peasants after the leaders of the Independence came in contact with the liberal ideas of the Enlightenment that entered Mexico through the Bourbon Reforms. Then the post-1910 Revolutionary nationalism solidified the Mexican identity as it is known today by placing due importance on the indigenous heritage of Mexicans while steering away from Hispanicism which came to be seen more and more as a foreign element based on the ideals that surged and evolved throughout late Mexican history beginning with the struggle for independence, then the Reform War and lastly with the Mexican Revolution. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Cutting Back

This page reflects more the "Demographics of Mexico", rather than focusing on Mexican people as "one group" (of course not all homogeneous). Ocelotl10293 said in the beginning this was to be about the Mexican people in general, " instead of being treated as only a Nationality or a minority group within ther nations or as a demographic that is broken down into even more demographics." This is exactly that - a demographic broken down to even more demographics. It was also said that, "racial/biological composition of

Mexicans is not very important", yet this is what the article is about. There are, however, some great sentences that tie it all in and we can get through this. I suggest that we cut back on much of what is said here, and simplify, simplify, simplify. I know the time that has been put into it, but maybe we can make it easier for readers.

We should have ONE section labeled 'Ethnography' on the ethnic/racial make-up of Mexico. We need to plainly explain the "{Indigenous <-> Mestizos <-> Criollos}" aspect of Mexico, but stop short of the picking to death and putting other headings such as "Native Mexican descent" or "European descent". As far as all of the different statistics on Mexican racial breakdowns, we should include the "from % to %" but only from reasonable sources that we know are professional. To me, the "World Statesman" isn't quite one of those. And we should put it in or after a brief history of "Mexican people".

Afterwards, we can work on clear photos, and maybe stear clear from putting actual photos from different ethnic groups (?). The Language section doesn't need much more work, so that's good. I regret that I haven't been able to get here sooner, but have been busy with other complications. Please let me know what you think. C.Kent87 (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is still a work in progress... A History still needs to be added which includes Origins, Pre-hispanic, Colonialism, Independence, Revolution and 1910 to the present. There also needs to be segments on minorities, religion, racial/ethnic attitudes, cultures, folklore, arts and, I dare say, identity through literature as well as notoriety in academics, linguistics, and world literature. Take a peek at the other articles on groups of people like the English or Japanese to get an idea of what the article is somehow going to look like. This Article deals with ALL Mexicans not just those living in Mexico, that is why it includes diaspora. This makes it different from the Article on the Demographics of Mexico, sure this article will contain the same information but here the Mexican people will be analyzed in much more detail not less. After all, they are the focus of the Article. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also instead of cutting back on information we should be adding more. We should only cut back on those sections which already have articles of their own such as the Language and Ethnography sections which are just brief and straightforward. The Trick of this Article is to make all the other Articles about Mexicans on Wikipedia fit together. This should be the main article which branches out to all the other ones thus it should have a fair amount of details and information. Always remember that the Main Idea of this Article is: Mexicans as a People. This means mostly explaining how all Mexicans fit together and form one collective group. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am also thinking the Ethnography section will be made unto a sub section called "Definitions" just as in the English people article in order to explain why and how Mexicans came to be an ethnic group. This would also justify the article's reason to exist as such in the first place because it is explaining Mexicans as a people in detail. The other sections such as Demographics of Mexico gives ample data about Mexicans but it doesn't explain how it all fits together to create the Mexican identity. This is why we have many people arguing that this article shouldn't even exist because they are under the impression that Mexican is "just" a nationality and nothing more. This article exists to explain and inform that Mexicans are a people not a mere nationality. Whoever wants to dispute this just ask any Mexican if they are "just a nationality." Or better yet, ask a qualified Ethnographer. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for recent reverts

C.Kent87 I reverted your last edit because it cut off valuable information plus it messed up with the citations and caused an error in the Markup Language. Until we add the History wich explains that segment you cut down It's going to have to stay there in order for the rest of the article to make sense because otherwise it is just a facsimile of the Demographics article. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost the entire "Intro" section is composed of nothing but history... You do not need to read all of that to set the tone. The sentence at the intro I put sets the tone. Then it goes to the history...C.Kent87 (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm even more confused because you said the history should be about Origins, Pre-hispanic, Colonialism, Independence, Revolution - all of that was mentioned in history?...C.Kent87 (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What you did gave me an idea... I am going to create the History section now and just transfer that information into it and fix the Intro accordingly. The history can latter be expanded but all the briefs would be there more or less. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sounds fine. I know its a long process and sometimes we change our minds, but I have found a couple things that are contradictory. The sentences "not...as a demographic that is broken down into even more demographics" and "analyzed in much more detail not less" do not line up together. I simplified the context becuase some of the info was a bit extra and not balanced. What should we do? C.Kent87 (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And beside what you didn't like about my edit, were some of the paragraphs better aligned? I feel that the wording was a little clearer and unbiased (not that there was strong bias). C.Kent87 (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well with the edit you did the problem was mostly that it threw off the XML because you removed some primary citations that were in those paragraphs. Also It felt like a waste that all that information would just be deleted instead of just transferred into the appropriate section under History. Right now I placed those few paragraphs under History which should now give people some direction to go in expanding the article. The Ethnography and Language sections are done, those shouldn't be fiddled with anymore. I was thinking of creating a "Definitions" section like I mentioned before but I think it's almost unnecessary now since in the opening paragraphs I gave a crunched explanation of what defines Mexicans. If that short paragraph isn't enough then we will need to create that "Definitions" section to explain why Mexicans are Mexicans in the Ethnic sense. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure how that happened w/ the citation, I didn't know I touched it. I'm not exactly sure which info your talking about as waste... all of the "deleted" info from the top of the page was put into the history section. Yes, I did take out some sentences, but only so that we can get to the point. As for some sections "being done" and not to be fiddled with, Wikipedia is a work in progress and that is not possible. Especially in ethno. area, it can be improved. C.Kent87 (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as when you are building a house you need to set the foundation first, once it's set properly you usually don't go back and redo it after you have begun constructing the walls and are halfway in building the roof. The article is the thing that is in progress not each and every one if it's sub-sections. Think of them as blocks that have already been put in place. The reason I say they are finished is because there isn't anything more we can add to them without making them redundant. Now we must set work on writing the History section which I expect will be quite lengthy and have sub-sections of it's own. Only the relevant data that supports the main idea of Mexicans evolving into one people should be included in order to keep it brief and clear and also place links to the main articles already written about certain sections like the Independence or the Mexican Revolution in order to save the article from irrelevant details. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Statistics for criollo pop.

As for my switching the white pop to 16%, and you switching back: Starting with a population of 111 million, the Britannica source says whites and Indians are 'about' equal, with "more than one-sixth of the total pop. being Indian" and whites "nearly as numerous". 1/6th of 111 million is 18.5 million.

How much exactly is "more than 1/6th"? and what constitutes "nearly as much"? More than 1/6th could be 19 million. Then nearly as much would be 18 million (or just under the 1/6th) - And 18 million is over 16%... - Yet you have whites at 15%, which is only 16,650,000. Even at that, 16% should be the lowest estimate. Not to mention in the article, we have "≈120,000,000" - which would make it even higher! C.Kent87 (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And the indigenous peopole - the 2nd Article of the Mexican constitution sort of defines them, yet we're still using 30% (which the Mexican government wouldn't use, as we see)...? Shouldn't we define it how the Mexican government sees it, rather than the CIA? According to that criteria, it might be anywhere from 10-14%. It's a little confusing to add that info, yet use another number provided by outside sources.

Also, if there is an indigenous section and criollo section, where is the mestizo (the largest group)? Can't we just refer the reader to the 'Demographics of Mexico' section at the Mexico article and leave only a rough overview? Or better yet, this info really should be here. That way there won't be three seperate 'in depth' articles/sections on this, and we can keep it better in tact on one page. And instead of tearing Mexican people into sections, unite them in this article. C.Kent87 (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason I placed 15% (at most) is because the other sources give the number of criollos at around 10% or less such as the CIA WFB. Also by reading the trends in Mexican population from articles such as the Convergencia, INMAGEN and ncbi; you begin to see a pattern that criollos do not constitute more than 10% and their number seems to be decreasing with each successive generation as they intermarry with more mestizo or indigenous Mexicans. There are also those who embellish the numbers by counting white-looking mestizos as criollos under the excuse of being "castizos" or other ambiguous non-scientific criteria. In essence, a true criollo is one who has at least a 51% European admixture but this causes a lot of problems because even people with a 65% admixture or more can still look typically mestizo or even Amerindian. This is why their cultural identity is also used in the criteria. Criollos are usually judged as being of a more urban culture. But I have seen and heard of criollos being mislabeled as amerindians because they are humble ranchers and also amerindians mislabeled as criollos because they are light skinned or live in the city. To put this mess to rest that is why I went with a conservative estimate of 15%. Now mestizos are mentioned in the first paragraph of the Ethnography section. The sub sections are meant to explain the two extremes that don't count as mestizos. And as for the indigenous we are not strictly using the Mexican government's definition of them just as we are not using only a cultural or genetic definition of criollos but both. It's explained that under the cultural criteria for what constitutes as an indigenous people the number is at 14% but when culture is discarded and you look at the people's genetic heritage the number jumps to 30%. This link (it's in Spanish) provides the definition of how indigenous people are judged in Mexico but it also states that many ethnic Amerindians have become "urbanized" and integrated into the mestizo melting pot and don't speak or belong to any federally recognized indigenous group. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't just "average out" the estimates. They have to be true according to the sources. To me, it appears you are an indigenist with an agenda of making us Mexicans appear more Native than what we are. OMIT OPINIONS AND ORIGINAL RESEARCH, stick to the SOURCES. If the CIA says 9%, don't put 8%, if Encyclopedia Britannica says 16%, don't put 15%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.2.131 (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the discussion above where all of these issues have already been addressed. We have to decide on an average because we can't just say "Criollos make 8% 9% 13% and 16% of the population." I don't have an agenda other than keeping the article as close to reality as possible. I admit mistakes when I am wrong and I correct them if there is evidence to back it up. I have a strong liking to indigenous culture and history, I admit it in my own page, but you cannot claim that I am ethnocentric when I go by what the sources say, not by what I 'feel.' Also, this is your final warning, if you keep vandalizing the article by purposefully attributing false information you will be reported to the administrators. If you have questions or concerns this is why we have this discussion page. Bring your questions here before you edit the article. If you present reliable sources which show that the information in the article may be incorrect then provide those sources, do not just edit based on a hunch or your feelings. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

I see that the neutrality of the Ethnography section is in dispute. I wonder how is this so since all the relevant data is cited with scholarly and scientific sources. Is it the tone of the language that presents it? Someone elaborate. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I put up the tag. Maybe it wasn't the right tag to put up, but I meant to express my complete exception to that section. It doesn't cover ethnography at all. Ethnography is the branch of cultural anthropology that is concerned with describing cultural systems - material and intellectual culture. The section attempts to describe the difficulties of classifying the mexican people based on genetic/racial criteria. Genetic studies of populations are outside of the scope of cultural anthropology and therefore also outside of ethnography - it falls under Physical anthropology. The section should be renamed and completely rewritten. A problem that is prevalent throughout the article is that it seems to be based on an unspoken primordialist assumption - i.e. that there is a "Mexican identity" that is coherent and can be traced back through time - even before the existence of mexico. Fact is that it is highly problematic to talk about "Mexican people" before 1821 - there quite simply weren't any, because there was no Mexico. A much better treatement of the history of "Mexican people" would be the story of how Mexican national identity has been deliberately constructed by shifting political establishments from 1821 and up to now, how the modern Mexican symbols were created, etc. That would be an article worthy of wikipedia - this is basically nationalist propaganda.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a good direction. The Definitions section should explain the creation and condition under which "Mexican" is an identity trough the events of history. It should also include the works of Mexican authors that have analyzed what it is to be Mexican such as Octavio Paz. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WHITES?

How come the whites/criollos were removed? And how does it work to have 12-30% indigenous + 80-90% mestizo? It makes no sense, since both add up to over 100% if you add the EXISTING white population which varies between 9-16% or more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.0.12 (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the discussions that have taken place above that already addressed the issue of overlapping statistics. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WHITE MEXICANS

Sources #11 page 12 says nothing about what percentage whites are in Mexico. As a matter of fact, none of the sources say whites are 8%, Encyclopedia Britannica says whites are about one sixth (16.6666667% ~16.66% is one sixth of 100%). Source #13 says white Mexicans are 15%, while the CIA says they are 9%, so I don't see why it is 8-15%, and not 9-16.66% or 9-~17%. Since .66 rounds to 1 place up. You did this with the mestizos (86% mean round), why are you not doing it to the white Mexicans who merit it more to due to the higher decimal place of .6666667?--76.83.0.12 (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)