Talk:List of Mexicans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

List of Mexicans[edit]

I know how upset Latinos get if you call them Mexican or Puerto Rican when they're not (learned that from a Peruvian and a pair of El Salvadoreans), but isn't Santana Mexican? If someone can confirm this, please add him. Tokerboy

He is born in Mexico, so I think this could qualify him as Mexican, doesn't it? --zeno 07:57 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)
I dont get upset. Im Puerto Rican and I feel all latinos are brothers and sisters. On the other hand, I changed the name to List of famous Mexicans, because the name List of Mexicans covers a wider variety. My neighbors and friends would qualify for the list if the name was List of Mexicans AntonioMartin
No they wouldn't, because they're not encyclopedic... ;-)
Every other nationality is currently at List of Poles, list of Albanians, etc - I was (foolishly) trying to standardise. It just means that fame isn't the sole quality for inclusion or not - importance counts too. (but see eg talk:List of Christians for debate on the subject) Martin


I reverted to an older version, because many names had been removed by an unlogged in user without any explanation. If there was a reason to remove all those names, please explain here on talk and feel free to undo my change. -- Infrogmation 23:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There seem to be quite a few people listed who are not from Mexico but the US. Shouldn't they be in a different list, 'Mexican-USians' or something? Perhaps these were the names that were deleted.

White Mexicans[edit]

HAHAHAHA! 99% of famous "Mexicans" of pure White Spanish decent, not indigenous or mestizo decent. How sad...

how are you so sure? do you know the entire family histories of each person on this list? -- 19:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen so many light haired, light eyed, pasty skinned, Nordic-looking "Mexicans" before. Are you going to try to tell me they are mixed with Amerindian? I don't think so. Please point out any non-Caucasian features among most of them. I think the list of "famous Mexicans" should be mestizos and indigenous Amerindians, not the decedents of Spanish White Europeans. You only have a tiny handful of real Mexicans on here. Edit this page or delete it.**
Most actors in Mexico are of the "Nordic" type you mention. All but one of the sportspeople are of the "real Mexican" type you seem to think exists (it doesn't, Mexicans are of every race). Kalimba is black, Salma Hayek, Harp Helu and Carlos Slim are of Lebanese descent. Jose Alfredo Jimenez and Miguel de Icaza do have features of "real Mexicans". --Vizcarra 05:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Latinos are of all types of colors. Did you know there are Argentine Mestizos and Blacks too? I agree with Vizcarra, no color should define whether you are from one country or not. Antonio Orale chula! Martin

Mexico is neither 100% european nor 100% indigenous, we are a mix of half and half" so every mexican is considered "mestizo", in that sense every mexican with european roots, causasian or indigenous roots is considered mexican.

Vote for Deletion[edit]

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 01:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Guillermo Franco[edit]

i don't think Guillermo Franco should be in the list given that he's Mexican-Argentinian and the only reason for him to become a mexican cityzen was to join a national soccer team. he wasn't called for the argentinian national soccer team.

If he is a Mexican citizen and famous, he can be in the list. --Vizcarra 05:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Vizcarra. Antonio Tapachula Martin
Agree too. Please refer to the Constitution of Mexico for clarification of what constitutes Mexican. The constitution does not limit the rights and privileges of citizenship based on intent. Guillermo Franco is Mexican by law, and according to the constitution, he earned the right of doing so. There is no reason why he shouldn't be on the list, and actually, there is every reason to include him. He is Mexican and famous. Hari Seldon 06:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Representation[edit]

I think there is a problem of NPOV when on a List of Mexicans article, 34 of 38 images are of white Mexicans (35 out of 39 images if we include the cartoon self portarait). Given that 60% of Mexico is mestizo, 30% is indigenous Amerindian, 9% white and 1% Afro-Mexican, it would be good to have the pictures in that ratio. The only praise would be the inclusion of the Afro-Mexican singer Kalimba.

And yes, we all know that the proportions that are on the article right now is basically the same proportions of ethnic representation on Mexican television, but this is Wikipedia. We have control of NPOV here. Where's Benito Juárez? Where's Cantinflas? Where's María Elena Velasco? Al-Andalus 13:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Being a mestizo does not imply looking like a native. A mestizo can look white, Amerindian or anything in between. Not because whites are a minority group in Mexico they should be represented less when they are a majority in certain lines of work. That would be NPOV. If there are no pictures of Benito Juárez it is because the section he would be in already has enough pictures. I think it takes less efort to place a Cantinflas picture than to write pro or against placing it here. --Vizcarra 00:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Once again, Vizcarra's the...err, person. Antonio Barely Human Martin
Vizcarra, who said being a mestizo implies looking like a native? Being a mestizo implies you look mixed. The majority of Mexicans look mixed. The majority of the people in this article look unmixed European.
We also know that everyone in Mexico is mixed in some degree, even Mexico's whites and it's Amerindians. But in Mexico, and the rest of Latin America, you are what you look. Since everyone in Mexico is mixed, it is true that they are all "technically" mestizos, however, today, it is only those that are mixed and also look mixed that are classified as mestizo, this is 60% of the population. Likewise in modern-day Mexico, as was in the colonial era, if you are predominantly white, and look white, then you are white. Today, unlike the colonial era, if you are predominantly Amerindian, and look Amerindian, then you are what is today called Mexico's Amerindian population. Simply put, there is no unmixed Mexican, just people that look mixed (those actually classified as mestizo, 60%), and those that look unmixed and are Mexico's Amerindians, whites, and blacks anyway (30%, 9%, and 1% respectively).
In the colonial caste system you had peninsulares (Spaniards born in Spain, 100% Spanish), criollos (Spaniards born in the New World to peninsulares parents; ie 100% Spanish, or people over 75% Spanish who legally regained their "purity of blood", all accepted as white), castizos (75% Spanish; some accepted as white depending on the status of the Criollo or Peninsular parent, but never categorised as mestizo), mestizos (50% Spanish, they were the type originally classed as "mestizo"), coyotes (75% Amerindian, but treated as separate from Amerindians in the old caste system), and indios (100% Amerindian). The percentages were calculated by the ratio of Spanish great-great-grandparents.
Your argument that not all mestizos look mixed (or as you erranously said, look native) is also the banrupt argument used by Televisa, TV Azteca and the entire Mexican entertainment industry to excuse why the industry is saturated with people who not only "look" white, but are indeed what in Mexico is classified as that country's white population. As already stated, yes, we know evey one has some admixture. When the industry is accused of racial bias, they affirm "we are all mestizos in Mexico", and then they happily continue profiling casting as usual, and continue to see themselves as whites behind closed doors. Al-Andalus 03:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The Amerindian population in Mexico is approximately 12.7 million, which would be about 12% of the whole population, not 30%. The data for Mexico on the CIA World Factbook does not come from the Mexican government. --- Lancini87 02:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
That figure of Amerindians being a mere 12% of Mexico is based on the parameters that the person speak an indigenous language and have indigenous cultural affiliation. Additionally, that 12% estimate was reached not by asking Mexicans if they self-identified as Amerindian in a census question. That figure was reached by official Mexican statistic agencies who were using parameters specifically intended to under count the Amerindian population and minimise it as much as legistically possible. If you included Amerindians who no longer speak an indigenous language (ie. are monolinguals in Spanish), have adopted mestizo culture, dress, customs and practices, and have moved from rural areas to urban centres, then the estimate of indigenous Mexicans would reach between 30 and 35% of the population. This reality is self evident in the light of unbiased analysis of recent and past demographic data, or a mere visit to the country.
The officially sanctioned under counting of Amerindians (and/or the African descended population in countries where they may be found) in all of Latin America, not just Mexico, seems to be a favourite government pastime. It goes back to a culture of wanting to "mejorar la raza" (better the race), which in the past often went hand in hand with immigration policies seeking European immigration.
All Latin American countries have instituted laws to encourage this, but only Argentina and Uruguay were successful in achieving it. Argentina and Uruguay managed to overwhelm their colonial (mostly mestizo) population with European immigrants 7 times greater than the original population. Chile's attempt was just as hard pressed, but as a proportion of its population throughout its history, few Europeans ever made it to Chile — in the colonial period, Chile's population consisted of a mestizo majority, with a large Amerindian and small European minority. European immigrants never surpassed 5% of Chile's total population, and for every European immigrant there was one from other Latin American countries. This 5% was of course more than Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Colombia, or Peru managed to ever attract (just as examples). Venezuela also tried hard, but was as successful as Chile. All Chile and Venezuela managed to do was to lighten the population (which was and remains a mestizo majority) a shade or two. Where the average admiture in a Mexican would be 41% European contribution, 56% Amerindian and 3% African; in a Chilean it would be 57% European contribution, 43% Amerindian, and 0% African.[1] In the Dominican Republic, dictator Rafael Leónidas Trujillo offered finiancial incentives and land grants for every European who settled in the country and sired with mulattos and blacks; to either whiten the existing mulattos or to decrease the large proportion of unmixed blacks. While today the country is not white, it did achieve an ethnic composition which is predominantly mulatto with a considerable white minority. It would otherwise have mirrored its neighbour Haiti with a black majority and tiny mulatto population (both countries are located on the island of Hispaniola).
Of Chile's total population, over 10% identified as Amerindian in the 1992 figures released by that country's own official statistic agencies.[2] However, in 2002 the government reworded the census so as to count as few Amerindians as possible; where only those who have cultural and linguistic affiliation may be legally classified as Amerindian. Now Amerindians supposedly compose only 4.6% of Chile's total population.[3]
In Ecuador's last census in 2000, the self-identified Amerindian population, which is also determined on certain parameters, was given as 6.8% [4]. Analysis of demographic data of past years would show that it would today be closer to 25%.
Peru, Bolivia and Guatemala are even worse. In countries where Amerindians constitute the largest segment of the population (almost 50% for Peru, over 55% for Bolivia, and over 60% for Guatemala) not only do they refuse to ask a question on ethnic identity in the census, they also refuse to even estimate. These countries don't publish data for indigenous people, and never make mention of any numbers of percentage.
Going back to Mexico, although its largest segement of the population is not Amerindian (like Peru, Bolivia and Guatemala) it is nonetheless a very large minority. We have seen that Mexico also refuse to simply include a question on ethnic identity in their census. If this were done, the respondents self-identifying as Amerindian would rise to over 20%. Meanwhile, if Mexican statitians changed their purpusfully biased parameters and included those who failed to self-identify as Amerindian but are indeed Amerindian based on a racial standing (although now "mestizo" in language, culture and customs) the Amerindian figure would rise to 30 to 35% as stated earlier. Al-Andalus 05:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow... did we sidetrack a bit much? --Vizcarra 21:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Roberto Bravo[edit]

Can anyone confirm if this guy is notable or not? If he isn't, it could be overwritten with something about the pianist. Kappa 06:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

proposed cleanup[edit]

this list contain quite a few 'redlinked' names. as i've proposed on other lists, i think the following formula is useful and indeed necessary: "for lists of notable X, if X doesn't have a wikipedia page of their own, then they fail notability. create the page for X first, then add them to the list of notable X". why do i think this is important? because - on lists where i'm familiar with the notable parties - i've seen it to be all too common for vandals to add names that sound plausible, but that are not in fact notable X. someone could easily add "Romero Quintancias" or some other plausibly "mexican" sounding name to the list, and that vandalism would remain in place indefinitely. i believe all redlinked names should be removed from the list, and thereafter, vandalism will be easily and clearly discernable. thoughts? Anastrophe (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Drug Lords[edit]

A list of prominent drug lords should be added to this list. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A Narco nation![edit]

Mexico has failed1 The few mexicans that have been sucessful in science art etc. are too few! Mexico if it remains a nation. Will be remebered as a falied NARCO nation of thives and Drug Lords!```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by HATESPICMORT (talkcontribs) 01:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)