Talk:Mexicans of European descent

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

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

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 [1] 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 [2], 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 [3] 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 [4], 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 [5], 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)

New edits[edit]

Hello. One-tenth/one-fifth means 10%-20%, not 17%. I add new source. Nacionmulticultural is not working, I add web archive. Emilio Azcarraga is of basque descent and I add Paulina Rubio, a popular singer of spanish descent. --Bleckter (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, thats true, one mistake, I note that in this version you put that 45% of mexicans are "white" with this reference but the reference say: 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. Greetings. --190.149.2.47 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Other thing, this information of genetic data was put in this part of the article. Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.149.2.47 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)