Talk:White Mexicans

Proposing the Removal of the 47% Reference as the Maximum Representation of White Mexicans

Dear @Pob3qu3 . I appreciate your active participation in our ongoing discussion. I would like to direct our conversation towards a particular aspect that has been of concern - the utilization of the 47% reference as the maximum representation of white Mexicans.

It is imperative to underscore that attributing the 47% figure as the upper limit for white Mexicans might not accurately reflect the underlying data. This percentage originates from individuals selecting the three lightest shades on a nine-tone skin scale, but it does not inherently denote self-identification as white Mexicans. Thus, equating this 47% with the proportion of white Mexicans may require further clarification. I carefully reviewed the document a Encuesta Nacional sobre Discriminación en México 2010 and specifically page 7. Textually said: ... La mayoría de las mujeres mexicanas(54%) tienden a decir de sí mismas que tienen tonos de piel más bien claros; esto comparado con un 40% de hombres que respondió lo mismo. Puede ser que esto quiera decir que a las mujeres de nuestro país –influenciadas por una publicidad francamente racista en los medios de comunicación y por los prejuicios que México aún arrastra contra la tez morena ... the Translation to English ... The majority of Mexican women (54%) tend to say of themselves that they have rather light skin tones; this compares with 40% of men compared to 40% of men who responded responded the same. It may be that this may mean that women in our country -influenced by influenced by frankly racist media publicity and the media and by the prejudices that Mexico still harbors against dark complexions, women in our country -influenced by frankly racist advertising in the media and by the prejudices that Mexico still harbors against dark complexions ...

In this context, I would like to inquire whether you agree with the proposition to remove this reference as the maximum representation of the white population in Mexico or if you have an alternative perspective on how this data should be presented. Your insights into this matter are highly valued as we strive for precision and accuracy in our academic discourse. Thank you for your continued dedication to this academic exchange.

Thank you for your continued engagement in this academic exchange. I welcome your input for further discussion I also appreciate any comments from @Rsk6400:, @WindTempos:, @Dimadick:, @Johnsoniensis:, @Hunan201p:, @Rjensen:, @Suntooooth:, @Dhtwiki:,@Clear Looking Glass:, @Vipz:,, @Gcjnst:, @Xuxo:, @Yesthatbruce:.Kodosbs (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Your whole premise is flawed from the start, the article states various times that the percentage of White Mexicans in the article is based on phenotypical traits (in this case skin color, there's also two sources that use blond hair as the reference point), it is also shown, with sources how and why Mexico's government uses for this end, distribution of skin colors is found here (page 7) [1] here is shown how skin colors form groups with each other (page 7)[2], here can be seen the government providing different kinds of results per skin tone group (this one is huge, but the skin color results start appearing at the last quarter of the document)[3], this ids a document by the princeton University which recomends the phenotype-based standard Mexico's government uses (the first half of this small document is specially insightful)[4] this sources are examples of articles that pick up the results of the aforementioned documents [5][6][7], I've presented all of this sources to you already on this discussion, multiple times, yet you pretend to not see them, looking at your behavior it seems you are betting on tagging editors who may not be familiar with all this material in hopes of impressing them with your "apparently rightful and concerned" posture (and I say "apparently rightful and concerned" because you just came out of a block for using proxies [8]). Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Your ping might not be working, as I wasn't notified of this discussion in that manner. Your argument seems motivated by the need to denigrate those who would identify as white, as many here seem also to do, as if ethnic pride is either not allowed or allowed only to certain ethnicities. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Kodosbs, I agree. The information must be removed. Xuxo (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that you are agreeing with "another editor" who is blocked due proxy usage[9][10] I think you have to understand for once that personally not agreeing with text within an article is not a valid ground to remove such text, specially not when its so strongly sourced. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't this removed yet? It's one of the most blatantly misrepresenting things on Wikipedia arguably. Analyticalreview (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not removed because that it is "one of the most blatantly misrepresenting things on Wikipedia..." is a personal opinion and goes against the sources in use in the article, putting it simply there's recent field research made by Mexico's government, the lowest estimates are from ENADIS surveys from 2017[11] and 2022[12], with 29% and 31% (it also has to be considered that these surveys make clear that they were conducted with a special focus on people on socially disadvantaged situations such as indigenous peoples or afro-mexicans) and then there's surveys such as the ENADIS 2010/12 with 47%[13] and the MMSI by the INEGI with 49%[14] and that's it. Besides this there's other sources such as [15] who make clear that it is being talked about White people and different press articles that do so aswell[16][17][18]. I don't quite understand why you so insistently complain about these percentages being innacurate, if anything, the real outlier nowadays would be the 9% figure from the World Factbook, which is also not an official source. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Literally, all the editors disagree with you. Even @PedroDonasco who you definitely know is not a "personal enemy" of yours. We will come to a resolution later and deal with this. Analyticalreview (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The main problem is you are pretending saying you have "lighter skin" is the same thing as saying you are "White." Those are not equivalent statements. Imagine putting everyone that identifies as "dark skin" being thrown into the Black category? See the problem here? Analyticalreview (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you miss this ones that I just linked [19][20][21][22] where "White" is mentioned multiple times? its always the same with you, its as if any information that contradicted your personal opinions was totally, literally imperceptible to you, this is also true when you mention that "literally everybody disagrees with me" as a look to this articles' history will reveal that editors that try to remove this data are reverted by editors other than just me. Regarding Uruguayan989 I already got a positive consensus with him about using a weighted average, which could be done here aswell to eliminate outliers such as the World Factbook, so he doesn't exactly disagree with me. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

So let's go one bye one:

1) Can't access citation 44 for some reason.

2) Citation 45 is just a news opinion (it says it on the top "OPINION"). The word White is mentioned several times but what does this have to do with anything? All it is talking about is how the "more White" your skin is the more privileged you are in society generally. In this context, a person who is in the middle of the skin tone range is "more white" than a person who is on the darkest end, that still does not make the medium skin tone White.

3) Citation 46 is more clear in its categorization clearly putting H in the "White" category. However, this is a FORBES article, not an official publication by the government.

4) Citation 47, another opinion piece that does not say much but I want you to click on the part that says "El INEGI reveló nuestra pigmentocracia" It links to another article that says H is in the Dark category!

"Si consideramos que de las escalas A hasta la H una persona puede ser considerada como morena, tenemos que casi el 88% de los mexicanos son morenos." So one of your sources links to another one that blatantly contradicts what you are saying.

The biggest problem with your logic is the official survey the government released only has 1 in 10 Mexican self-identifying as the word "Blanco." Over 60% Identified with the word "Moreno." Self-Identification should easily be the metric that matters the most here. Analyticalreview (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The article mentions 88% being considered Moreno, that means 12% is "other" (mainly White).

This figure comes really close to the 1 in 10 Mexicans that self-identify as "blanco." Analyticalreview (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

For the point 1 I don't know why it doesn't work for you, even Wikipedia recognizes it as a PDF file, try to set your browser to open non-https pages. In point 2 It seems that you acknowledge that this one mentions "White" a lot so that's progress, you may have seen also that the source states that nearly half of the population is White. For point 3 you dismiss it as a Forbess opinion piece, but it is important to remark that it uses the same standard that Mexican government's publications use, this is relevant aswell on point 4, this one is more about backing up that the surveys speak indeed about White people (as you've tried to imply before that they don't) albeit indeed the writer does not use the standard Mexico's government uses while Frobess writer does, although it is important to remark that "moreno" and "blanco" are not mutually exclusive, there's a source in the article that talks about that. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to try to get the first source to work but source 2 actually does not say half the population is White.

"En cambio, una de cada cuatro personas de la mitad más blanca cuenta con al menos estudios universitarios."

This translates to "Whiter half." Meaning, it is more white than the darker half.

For example, president Obama is half African and half White. If you look at family photos he is clearly more White than his entire Kenyan family. However, this only makes him more White in proximity, it does not actually make him White. Analyticalreview (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Now you are just trying hard to misinterpret the source, whose title for starters is "Being White" not "Being Whiter." Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay the links are now working (for the most part)

Citation 36) The word "blanco" is not used once (although as you mentioned H is in the "more clear" skin tones category).

Citation 37) The word "blanca" is stated twice just asking survey takers if they agree with white skin being superior essentially.

Citation 38) Doesn't work for some reason

Citation 39) The word "blanco" is not stated at all.

Citation 40) The word "blanco" or "blanca" is stated four times. One sentence is saying how Mexicans tend to identify their skin tone as more White than what it really is (which kind of hurts your argument funnily enough). It also mentions how the electorate is more likely to vote for white candidates over brown candidates. The rest was hypothetical discrimination scenarios. That's it.

Now you are just trying hard to misinterpret the source, whose title for starters is "Being White" not "Being Whiter."

I'm not misinterpreting it at all, also I'm kind of laughing at your comment because I have no idea what point you were trying to make by the title.

Can you please send me a link of the Mexican government stating close to 50% of the population identifies as (or is) "blanco?" If not we can hurry up and fix this situation already! Analyticalreview (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

"Citation 40) The word "blanco" or "blanca" is stated four times. One sentence is saying how Mexicans tend to identify their skin tone as more White than what it really is (which kind of hurts your argument funnily enough..." It doesn't really hurt my argument, specially considering the table in the page 7 where colors align by themselves, in fact I would like it if you copied and translated the content on this talk page for all to see, you say you want to fix this situation already, that seems like a good way to do it, also, just in case it is not clear the citation 39 is directly related to the citation 40. The article titled "Being White" to which you are just givig evasives to now is directly related to these two aswell. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really hurt my argument, specially considering the table in the page 7 where colors align by themselves

What's the point of this statement?

in fact I would like it if you copied and translated the content on this talk page for all to see

Can the others not see our conversation? I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I'd gladly love to hear their input.

The article titled "Being White" to which you are just givig evasives to now is directly related to these two aswell

You did a typo there. Not sure what you mean by that. Either way, an opinion piece is not relevant at all. It should only matter what the government states the "White" population is. Send a link where the government states half of Mexicans are identified as White. Analyticalreview (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly why I asked you to copy and translate the citation 40 (please do it), because the Mexican government uses skin color research as ethnic research given that they have observed it yields more accurate results than plain self-identification, it is also recomended by the Princeton University, who created the color palette that Mexico's government uses. In this document in the first pages it is stated that White people tend to identify with the tones H to K[23]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly why I asked you to copy and translate the citation 40 (please do it), because the Mexican government uses skin color research as ethnic research given that they have observed it yields more accurate results than plain self-identification,

Okay then, show me the source where the Mexican government explicitly states the White population then!

By the way, the Princeton University also shows there is an overlap of identification:

"self-identified whites are in the 1-4 skin color categories, mestizos are 3-5"

So there are many "Mestizos" that identify with skin color number 3 aka "H." It does not make any mention of it being an exclusively White category. The actual categories that seem to be going exclusively for Whites are 1-2, which if you are paying attention, a very small percentage of Mexicans identify with.

As stated earlier, find the source where the Mexican government states half the population is considered "White." If not that false information will be removed very soon. Analyticalreview (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

"Okay then, show me the source where the Mexican government explicitly states the White population then..." Its the citation 39, where they show how many Mexicans identify with each skin tone, here's another one[24] this one is related to the citations 39, 40 and the article "Being White", scroll down and you'll find a graph where White is mentioned.

"So there are many "Mestizos" that identify with skin color number 3 aka "H." It does not make any mention of it being an exclusively White category..." In any case it'd be Mestizo who are predominantly White, furthermore, as can be seen on the way Mexico's government splits the categories on sources such as ENADIS 2017, they treat them as a single group. There's also a huge contradiction on you "asking for a source exclusively from Mexico's government while wanting to use only the source from the World Factbook in the infobox, you realize this right?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not using the World Factbook. I'm using the amount of Mexicans that identify as "White." By the way, thank you for providing me all these sources because they completely dismantle your argument. Analyticalreview (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

See? this is why we have to discuss in the talk page first, the source you are talking about (ENADIS 2010 I believe) used other words that are also used to refer to White people in Mexico such as güero, claro, aperlado, cinnamon etc. not just White, furthermore I don't see how the source I just provided, which uses clearly the word White, or all other sources I've provided disprove my argument, would you like to elaborate on it?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to defend your decision. The statement on Wikipedia literally describes those as "words that may or may not refer to a white person depending on the case." However, let's pretend and have it your way. Let's assume all those words 100% mean White (which we have no evidence to support this). The source states:

¿Cómo le llamaría usted a su tono de piel?

Blanco: 10.9%

Claro 5.4%

Güero 2.1%

Aperlado: 1.7%

If you add up all these words and assume every single one means you identify as White, that still only means 19% of the population in total is identifying as "White." So you're still wrong. Analyticalreview (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You missed quemadito, bronceado, apiñonado, amarillo and canela, which would near 30%, I also notice that you added this ENADIS 2017 to the main text[25] without specyfying that it was performed focussing on disadvanteged groups (hence the lower percentages) so I think we can agree that the lowest realistic estimate would be 30% instead of just 9% right?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

quemadito: .4%

bronceado: (which literally means bronze or tan): .3%

apiñonado (which basically means tan): 4.3%

amarillo: .6%

canela: .5%

So adding everything together we have: 26%.

That is being very generous and assuming everyone who is "bronceado" (and others) is also identifying as White (which is almost certainly not the case). The lowest estimate is 10% (since Mexicans self-identified with that word) and the highest is 26% if we are being extremely generous and using every single definition that could potentially mean light skin. Analyticalreview (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

"That is being very generous and assuming everyone who assuming everyone who is "bronceado" (and others) is also identifying as White (which is almost certainly not the case)..." I don't see why it wouldn't be the case, you forget that we have actual sources who point out that many Mexicans don not identify as Mestizo [26][27], with no mention that Mestizo does not appear in the survey at all. You are also forgetting the Brittanica source, which points (albeit on an unconventional manner) that about two fifths of Mexico's population do not have mixed or indigenous ancestry, so that's about 40% and the population, and finally the MMSI and ENADIS sources with 47% (same survey you seem to trust per your last two replies) and 49% (and its related sources which you say you can refute but you haven't yet). Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Wait, you legitimately believe 40% of Mexicans are purely European? Do you think it is still 1600? Even back then only 20% of the population was purely European. There has been centuries of interracial mixing since then. Not a single genetic study supports that claim. Even the most extreme cases (I.E Mennonites) are becoming Mestizos in recent decades. It is utter nonsense to believe Mexico is almost as European as the USA. Analyticalreview (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

There you are again trying to shift the discussion to personal opinions/beliefs when confronted with sources yuo can't refute. Please lets stay focused on sources. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Find a genetic study or government published source that states the population of Mexicans that have pure European ancestry. In terms of genetic studies, look at the Monterrey study in the 1990s, that was the closest one we have to ever suggest a "pure Spanish" population and even that was still around 10% Indigenous DNA (nowadays they are a lot more Indigenous via recently published studies). I will now be out enjoying the rest of my day. Have fun looking for sources! Analyticalreview (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

So the official documents where White is mentioned that I've posted on this discussion[28][29] here are not enough for you and now you shift focus to genetic studies when I just sent you links twice where Mexican geneticists themselves state why genetic studies cannot be used for such purposes[30]? Just say that you concede defeat. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Citation 53 literally contradicts you.

"De las personas que se autoclasificaron en las tonalidades de piel más claras (de la “I” a la “K”),"

So here the skin tone most Mexicans identify with (H) is not put in the "lightest skin tones category." Every source you ever put only hurts your arguments. You are incorrect, find sources that support your obviously wrong beliefs. Until then,

Have a good day! Analyticalreview (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, in the page 15 of the document[31], in the first paragraph (right above the one you quoted), it is specified that the light skin category goes (from "F" to "K"), I mean come on I don't think you didn't see that. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Analyticalreview as I said on my previous edit summary here[32] you are currently misunderstanding the source[33], as the questionaire did not only use the term White but many other words that are synonyms to White in Mexico (such as Claro, Güero, Aperlado, Quemadito, Bronceado, Apiñonado etc.) you acknowledged this yesterday[34][35], so I do not understand why you are currently planted on reverting to a number that you know its wrong. Furthermore the question, found in the page 42/43 is titled "What would you call your skin color" meaning that the research was based on skin color, just like the other sources I've brought by the Mexican government that you keep removing. Put it simply: why do you accept one survey about skin color but reject the other survey about skin color? they're about the same thing. Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Analyticalreview , After carefully reviewing the entire conversation, it's evident that @Pob3qu3 arguments lack substance. Allow me to summarize the key points and address them one by one.

1. Firstly, it's imperative that @Pob3qu3 familiarizes themselves with scientific literature. I recommend reading the article [36] where you can learn that citing notes from web pages from newspapers like those you cite from Forbes and other news agencies are not scientific literature, these documents are written by people who do journalism and did not study to explain data but to inform. Please stop citing data from newspapers, and go to official sources (INEGI, CENSUS, etc.) or scientific articles.
2. Regarding @Pob3qu3 shares references from the INEGI, as it has been told a thousand times, a person choosing a skin tone IS NOT THE SAME as self-defining a race or ethnicity. When someone questions him about this, his answers are the same: He gives many references to documents where the INEGI mentions the word "white", but he does not share any document where the INEGI mentions that choosing a color tone is the same as being white. After reviewing the multitude of documents sent, there is only one reference, when opening this link [37], like @Analyticalreview the page has problems opening, however in the link they mention Presentacion_MMSI2016 , when searching for this presentation on the internet it does appear, and is found in this link [38] which is from INEGI itself. In the document they do mention the word white, on page 30 (because it is important to clearly state the page, not like @Pob3qu3 who almost always sends documents without indicating the clear pages, or worse, places things like "... in the last quarter of the document...") but literally they say in Spanish "Distribución porcentual de la población de 25 a 64 años por autoadscripción étnica, según percepción de cambio en su situación socioeconómica actual respecto a la de su familia de origen", it is In other words, it does not say anything about choosing the 3 lightest colors being the same as calling yourself white. Here it is important to note that if the INEGI itself indicates the self-perception word "white" it is because it has asked, but the number of people who call themselves white is not published by INEGI. Another reference that @Pob3qu3 love to use is this link [39] where on page 32 they indicate that "Un 29.4% señaló tener un tono de piel más claro (H-K)", again the same document says "they indicated having lighter skin, not that they identify as whites are identified.

The truth is, with all these arguments, not why continue a discussion with @Pob3qu3what is necessary is to start editing Wikipedia and remove the number of 47% where they never say that they call themselves white. Personally, I will write to INEGI about it, since it is quite sad that someone subjectively implies that a country as beautiful and multiethnic as Mexico is whiter than the state of California in the US. As soon as INEGI responds to me, I will share that document here in the discussion.

@Analyticalreview @Hunan201p I think it is possible to start making modifications to the article and as soon as @Pob3qu3 starts modifying, report an editing war. Kodosbs (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That you come to write here after months just to repeat the same things that Analyticalreview is saying is kind of pointless in my opinion, you could have saved us some time by addressing the issue Analyticalreview has been having with the sources since weeks ago: the actual issue here is that you, or Analyticalreview or whatever for some reason ignore that all Mexico's recent ethnographic research is based on skin color, in your last reply you even linked this document [40] that talks about how socioeconomic differences are correlated to skin color and ethnic differences, this document even mentions White and Whiteness but you still don't seem to get it (also in the graph in the page 7 it can be seen how skin tones organically form three different groups), you keep peddling that skin color reseach is not related to race/ethnicity in Mexico, why do you keep doing that?. Lets hope that you can answer this question before your proxy gets blocked again [41][42]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"...the actual issue here is that you, or Analyticalreview or whatever for some reason ignore that all Mexico's recent ethnographic research is based on skin color..."

I am not saying the opposite. I'm just talking about you telling me where INEGI says that choosing a skin color tone is equivalent to being white. Kodosbs (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"...in your last reply you even linked this document [43] that talks about how socioeconomic differences are correlated to skin color and ethnic differences, this document even mentions White and Whiteness but you still don't seem to get it (also in the graph in the page 7 it can be seen how skin tones organically form three different groups)..."

Apparently INEGI is changing the addresses of the pages, please make sure before sending links that they work, I have used Wayback Machine to see the link and in the document Resultados de vida y color de piel en México at no time mentioned that for INEGI, choosing a certain skin color indicates that it means to be white. Please tell me the document and the specific page.. Kodosbs (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I was going to link the document from the senate again but I see that you are linking it directly in your last reply, so I wonder why you still refuse to understand that ethnographic research in Mexico is conducted based primarily on skin color and that there is a direct relation between skin color and race/ethnicity. Such deliberate narrowness reminds me of the discussions I was having with Analyticalreview before he got blocked, where I would link and cite a document from the Princeton University that textually states that skin color provides more accurate results than racial self-identification and he would then reply "Yes more accurate results for socioeconomic research not race..." They're responses/attitudes that really just make one think: What? Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

...I was going to link the document from the senate again but I see that you are linking it directly in your last reply...

Dear @Pob3qu3 , please do not change the subject. I am asking you to point me to the official INEGI document where they state that people who choose a skin tone are classified as white. If you don't have it, please indicate with a simple YES or NO if this document exists or not. Kodosbs (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

As you should be aware, the INEGI only begun taking care completely of ethnographic research related to Mexicans of European appearance recently (this used to be a task for the for another governmental agency, the CONAPRED, of whose documents we've talked much about before), one example of this is documents such as the ENADIS 2022 for example, which in the page 157[44] and onwards collected an array of information about different skin tones. I also have to point out that similarly to how you dismiss documents such as the one by the senate you are also deliberately ignoring an important piece of context here: the one that in Mexico's society (and likely Spanish-speaking societies in general), "Tez clara"(Light skin/complexion) and Tez blanca"(White skin/complexion) are very common ways to refer to White people in Mexico and are used interchangeably as seen on this sources[45][46]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

As someone who loves the verisimilitude of data, it is really disappointing how you are not clear and organize a narrative to suit your whim. As a human being, it is hard for me to understand how someone does not have the humility to admit they are wrong. Anyway, I see there is no room for further argument with you. To the editors reading this thread, please help with data modification, as, following the same format used in all countries where white population data is required, use data from official sources as a source, use self-identification as white people as a reference in the main description. Kodosbs (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way but you can't just ignore the sources provided by other governmental branches such as the CONAPRED or the Senate (the document by the senate[47] in fact, uses the term "Tez Blanca" in the page 10) and others just because they aren't the newest works by the INEGI. You shouldn't ignore either that "Tez Blanca" ("White skin/complexion") and "Tez clara" ("Light skin/complexion") are used interchangeably in Mexico and most of Latin America and is one if not the most common way to refer to a White person here. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Phrasing such as "...quite sad that someone subjectively implies that a country as beautiful and multiethnic as Mexico is whiter than the state of California..." tells me of POV pushing. Saying that you will make changes to the article when the matter is still contested, and then report the other side for edit warring if they revert, seems questionable. Talking of phenotype, i.e. skin color, seems a definite and legitimate way of determining "whiteness", especially when admitting of some adherence to cultural whiteness is discouraged by political sentiment. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Dhtwiki, I am a person that when I am wrong I say so. Yes it was a mistake that sentence you mention and I am sorry. I respect your idea that phenotypic traits can be indicative of determining "whiteness". However, I am still waiting for an official document from INEGI where they indicate that Mexican whites are those who choose a certain skin color. But I will keep waiting because that document does not exist. Kodosbs (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

direct translation for sources

Hello! I'm Camila Vallejo and I am a bilingual English-Spanish translator!

I have seen the page history of this page and I have come here to offer a direct translation for one of the sources: the ENADIS 2010 Mexican survey for page 3 as I have seen some past difficulties with understanding the context for that page.

Please contact me at my talk page if you want the translation! Camila Vallejo (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Continued

@Pob3qu3

Find the exact quote of Britannica stating 40% of the Mexican population is estimated to be White. If not, the metric will be changed to reflect actual recent sources. Thank you! Analyticalreview (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

As you quoted directly [48] (likely by mistake)

Generally speaking, the mixture of indigenous and European peoples has produced the largest segment of the population today—mestizos, who account for about three-fifths of the total—via a complex blending of ethnic traditions and perceived ancestry. Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population

The key being “whites” are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population With the remainder in this context being "two fifths" or 40%. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

My friend, you are forgetting the Indigenous population. If Mexico comprises of 60% Mestizo and 40% White, this means there are no Indigenous people in the country. The full quote is this:

"Mexico’s population is composed of many ethnic groups, including indigenous American Indians (Amerindians), who account for less than one-tenth of the total. Generally speaking, the mixture of indigenous and European peoples has produced the largest segment of the population today—mestizos, who account for about three-fifths of the total—via a complex blending of ethnic traditions and perceived ancestry. Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population."

Now that you have the full quote do the math. Analyticalreview (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Is not necessarily contradictory to state that is about two fifths as is written in the article though, as the white population has surely to be more than three tenths, I ask you again, do you agree with this?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Two/fifths = 40%, the article has it actually at around 30%. That's quite a big difference. Also, no, I don't agree with this. I am willing to accept 30% as an upper range of the population however. Analyticalreview (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The entry we are talking about does not have it at thirty, that's another one that is yet to be updated, we are talking about this one, and 30% cannot be the upper range, it's actually the low realistic range, specially when we look at government field surveys for example, which range from 29% to 49%, this is also is why the consensuated average in the infobox is 40% and is why so many other editors revert you when you try to change it including Evergreenfir[49] whose edits you tried to use as a justification for yours hours ago for some reason. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"The entry we are talking about does not have it at thirty"

It literally does, read the full quote.

"and 30% cannot be the upper range, it's actually the low realistic range, specially when we look at government field surveys for example, which range from 29% to 49%"

The most recent government surveys used in the intro of this paragraph have it between 10-12%.

"this is also is why the consensuated average in the infobox is 40%"

First of all, consensuated is not a word. If you meant the general consensus I have to laugh because that was singlehandedly decided by yourself. The majority of editors actually disagree with you. Have you not read the talk discussions you yourself are at the center of? Clearly you are lying because most editors have a problem with your editing. Also, Evergreenfir reverted changes made due to a user using an anonymous account that has a bad track record. Analyticalreview (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

read the full quote I already did, it states that Mestizos are three fifths, Indigenous less than one tenth and Whites the remainder, so it can't be just 30%, just simple math.

The most recent government surveys used in the intro of this paragraph have it between 10-12% The government surveys use the standard H-K so they go from 29% (little bit lower than Brittanica) to 49%, this was discussed already.

The majority of editors actually disagree with you. The last month proves this isn't true. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"I already did, it states that Mestizos are three fifths, Indigenous less than one tenth and Whites the remainder, so it can't be just 30%, just simple math"

I'm astonished by your lack of math skills. You are quite literally assuming Indigenous people represent virtually 0% of the population in your calculations.

"The government surveys use the standard H-K so they go from 29% (little bit lower than Brittanica) to 49%"

As mentioned by sources you yourself provided, H is used by Mestizos as well. Only tones I-K are chosen almost exclusively by Whites. The opening paragraph of this page states, "the government releases data on the percentage of "light-skinned Mexicans" in the country, with 12.5% of Mexican people surveyed choosing the three lightest shades in 2017. Using the same skin tone categories, a 2022 survey found that 10.2% chose the three lightest shades."

The most interesting part is your supposed source for the 49% figure (which I believe has a different skin tone scale) itself states that over 60% of Mexicans self identify their skin color as the word "Moreno" with only 10% self identifying as "Blanco." So this completely contradicts your claim of virtually 50% of Mexicans being "White." Analyticalreview (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

You are quite literally assuming Indigenous people represent virtually 0% I assumed a percentage of six or so.

H is used by Mestizos as well but the same source states that Whites use H too, more importantly, the government groups H-K together (and they group together by themselves as shown in the page seven of this document[50]).

your supposed source for the 49% figure (which I believe has a different skin tone scale) It actually uses the same scale [51], the one you confused it with is the 2012 one that gives an overall percentage of 47%. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"I assumed a percentage of six or so"

It's at 7. Mestizo is at 62% and "Other" is 31%. As mentioned earlier, it basically states *most* of "other" is White, but not all. This is due to other minority groups such as Afro-Mexicans, Asians, etc.

"but the same source states that Whites use H too"

Yes, but the tones they virtually exclusively (key word here) use are I-H. You can't just assume everyone using the H skin tone is White when it states otherwise. This is how you inflate your numbers.

"It actually uses the same scale the one you confused it with is the 2012 one that gives an overall percentage of 47%"

Do you have a link to the "2012" report. The only thing I can find on the Wikipedia page is a press release of the 2010 survey that stated such numbers of "47%." I'm quite certain you made up a separate survey that was never actually done. From reading the Wikipedia page, it appears the first time Mexico used the PERLA 11 skin tone scale was in the 2017 Intergenerational Social Mobility Module, not the 2010 survey. Every survey since then using the PERLA skin tone scale has less than 15% of the population having the three lightest skin tones. Analyticalreview (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Mistyped on the second comment there. I went ahead and looked back at the Princeton study and this is what is stated:

"As a rule of thumb, self-identified whites are concentrated in the 1-4 skin color categories, mestizos are 3-5, indigenous peoples and mulattos in 4-6, mulattos and blacks in 6 and higher."

You keep mentioning in surveys you often see the first four skin colors together and this is because this is survey is also including black people which Mexico does have, but not a large portion of (around 2%). So the exclusively White categories are typically 1-2 aka J and K. There is large overlap between 3 and 4 with "Whites" and "Mestizos" which we do not currently have exact figures on. 5 is a mix of Mestizo, Indigenous, and Mulatto. Now let's pretend for one moment, and assume everyone in H is in the "White" category like you are doing to inflate your numbers. According to the most recently published survey in 2022, this would still represent 29.2% of the population (let's just round to 30% for your sake). As mentioned earlier, this still would be pretty foolish to do considering many, if not most, Mestizos are in the H category. Analyticalreview (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It's at 7. Mestizo is at 62% and "Other" is 31% that's the Kids Brittanica source, but then I'm not sure why do you argue so vehemently about it as you have said previously that you don't even agree with it.

Yes, but the tones they virtually exclusively (key word here) use are I-H(looks like you had a freudian slip here) You can't just assume... I'm not assuming anything, I'm adhering to the standard the Mexican government uses, which groups H-K together and as I said yesterday, those four groups always comee together by themselves when other, unrelated to ethnicity, statistical data is analyzed [52](check the graph in the page 7 for example). You are the one assuming which tones "Whites could exclusively use" (this answer goes for your 08:14 reply aswell).

I think, in order for this discussion to move forward you must accept that a figure of only 10% Whites is completely disconnected of reality, that number has its origin on the 1921 census, which was not properly conducted as the Mexican Revolution was taking place and is considered propagandistic, there even are sources that directly refute its results[53](page 9, note 1)[54](Page 3, note 2), in fact even the source you brought yourself up on this discussion (Kids Brittanica) points to a much higher percentage of Whites (although every time I confront you with this you bizarrely keep saying that you do not agree with your own source). Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"I'm adhering to the standard the Mexican government uses, which groups H-K together"

Show me the source where the Mexican government states Mexicans that have an "H" skin tone are classified as White. You cannot, because it does not exist.

"You are the one assuming which tones 'Whites could exclusively use' "

All I am doing is using your own sources. The Princeton study stated Mestizos predominately use skin tones 3-5, which means 1-2 is *almost* entirely selected by White Latin Americans. Is this just a reading comprehension error or do you need me to translate the paper to Spanish?

"I think, in order for this discussion to move forward you must accept that a figure of only 10% Whites is completely disconnected of reality, that number has its origin on the 1921 census, which was not properly conducted as the Mexican Revolution was taking place and is considered propagandistic"

So answer me this then, when did this sudden increase in the White population of Mexico take place? Because the Spanish/Criollo population peaked at around 20% during the colonial era, it has never in recorded history been any higher than this.

Here is the 1810 census results:

Indigenous 60%

Europeans .2%

Criollos 17.9%

Africanos .1%

Mestizos 21.7%

There was never any mass European migration to Mexico post independence (unlike what happened in the USA and South America) so it is quite literally impossible for it to be any higher than this. The majority of those Criollos ended up intermixing with the rest of the population of the country.

"even the source you brought yourself up on this discussion (Kids Brittanica) points to a much higher percentage of Whites (although every time I confront you with this you bizarrely keep saying that you do not agree with your own source)."

Firstly, that source was brought up by you, I would rather not use Britannica since it is not an official government publication. However, even if we were to compromise and use that, the figure is actually around 30%, not 40%. It's not my fault you cannot read your sources correctly. Analyticalreview (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Show me the source where the Mexican government states Mexicans that have an "H" skin tone are classified as White... All I am doing is using your own sources. The Princeton study stated Mestizos predominately use skin tones 3-5 You are falling in a circular argument/backtracking again, as not even one day ago you replied writing "As a rule of thumb, self-identified whites are concentrated in the 1-4 (or H-K) skin color categories"[55] after this you make a lot of personal assumptions but the important thing is that you acknowledged the quote yourself.
So answer me this then, when did this sudden increase in the White population of Mexico take place?... According to the page 12 of this document[56] Whites (Criollos plus Europe-born people) range from 18.0% to 22.6% and Mestizos range from 20.8% to 25.4%, a key fact here is that both groups are almost of the same size. And there are ways to know that this trend has continued up to this day, this study analyzed different blood group frequencies in Mexicans[57] and as you can see in the page 4, non-O blood groups are more common in younger volunteers than they are in older ones, considering that Mexico's Amerindian exclusively exhibits the O blood type this means that Mexicans of non-Amerindian origin have been slightly increasing its numbers at least for the last 90 years. Also the total of non O blood groups is around 38%, which comes to prove that Brittanica's estimate is on the lower end of realistic estimates as I've previously said.
that source was brought up by you... I'm certain I brought up the "standard" Brittanica source, you brought the "Kids" Brittanica source which has the pie chart[58], on a semi-related note to this, something that I've noticed across our discussions is that you do have personal views/opinions regarding the demographics of many countries that are rather different of reality, another example of this would be what you said here[59] when you stated that Mexico being 40% White is being "almost as European the USA" when USA itself is 72% White, which means that you do not consider USA's percentage of Whites accurate either. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

"You are falling in a circular argument/backtracking again, as not even one day ago you replied writing "As a rule of thumb, self-identified whites are concentrated in the 1-4 (or H-K) skin color categories"[50] after this you make a lot of personal assumptions but the important thing is that you acknowledged the quote yourself."

I'm convinced you are incapable of reading comprehension. In the very next sentence the source states that most Mestizos fall under the 3-5 skin tone categories, meaning there is overlap, therefore, it is incorrect to put all Latin Americans that identify with skin tones 3 and 4 in the "White" category. Unless your only definition of "Mestizo" is people who has skin tone number 5 which is ludicrous.

"According to the page 12 of this document[51] Whites (Criollos plus Europe-born people) range from 18.0% to 22.6% and Mestizos range from 20.8% to 25.4%, a key fact here is that both groups are almost of the same size."

I am shocked you are almost acknowledging historical realities now. Yes, this was the peak of the European population in Mexico, approximately 20%.

"this study analyzed different blood group frequencies in Mexicans[52] and as you can see in the page 4, non-O blood groups are more common in younger volunteers than they are in older ones, considering that Mexico's Amerindian exclusively exhibits the O blood type this means that Mexicans of non-Amerindian origin have been slightly increasing its numbers at least for the last 90 years. Also the total of non O blood groups is around 38%"

Okay, you definitely have no idea what you are talking about now and it shows. You do realize people of mixed race (aka Mestizos) can have non-O blood types right? My partner is primarily of Indigenous ancestry and has the A blood type. Are they White now? Also, non-O blood types can come from non-European sources, such as Africans and Asians, which Mexico does have notable populations of. Or did you forget that too?

"I'm certain I brought up the "standard" Brittanica source, you brought the "Kids" Brittanica source which has the pie chart"

It's the exact same source. I am quite literally clicking the source you are providing with the exact same entry you quoted. You yourself posted the paragraph stating that 3/5's of the population is Mestizo, a little under 10% is Indigenous, and the rest is "Other."

"on a semi-related note to this, something that I've noticed across our discussions is that you do have personal views/opinions regarding the demographics of many countries that are rather different of reality, another example of this would be what you said here[54] when you stated that Mexico being 40% White is being "almost as European the USA" when USA itself is 72% White, which means that you do not consider USA's percentage of Whites accurate either"

Current Wikipedia page for the Demographics of the USA:

"People who identified as white alone (including Hispanic whites) numbered 204,277,273 or 61.6% of the population and Non-Latino whites made up 57.8% of the country's population."

So even if you count "Hispanic Whites" it is actually 61%. You seem to have a consistent history with rounding up numbers by significant figures. For the record, I put "Hispanic Whites" in quotes because in recent years there has been significant decrease in Hispanics solely identifying as White in the USA (most likely due to better census questionnaires allowing for more representation of Mestizos and Indigenous Latinos), only 23% of Hispanics in the USA identify solely as White now. Analyticalreview (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, the White Mexicans Wikipedia page is literally stating everything I have told you!

It states:

"The results of this studies however, shouldn't be taken as exact, literal estimations for the percentages of different ethnic groups that there may be in Mexico (I.E. A+B blood groups = percentage of White Mexicans) for reasons such as the fact that a Mestizo Mexican can have "A", "B" etc."

and

"Mexico's European heritage is strongly associated with Spanish settlement during the colonial period, Mexico not having witnessed the same scale of mass recent-immigration as other New World countries such as the United States, Brazil, and Argentina...There was also strong demand for people with specialized skills in fields such as geology, metallurgy, commerce, law, medicine etc. As stories of professional immigrants amassing huge wealth in a pair of years were commonly heard, New Spain became very attractive only for Europeans who filled these profiles and their families, which in the end resulted on the country getting relatively less European immigration." Analyticalreview (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

there is overlap, therefore, it is incorrect to put all Latin Americans that identify with skin tones 3 and 4 in the "White" category... Is in part due these concerns that the infobox is at 40% instead of say 47% or 49%.

You do realize people of mixed race (aka Mestizos) can have non-O blood types right? My partner is primarily of Indigenous ancestry and has the A blood type. The O positive blood group has a significant prevalence in Spain aswell so that argument is fairly moot, (also, O negative is not present in indigenous mesoamerican populations either, so the actual percentage of Mexico's population that has a non-Americas-origin blood group is 42%). Anyway, as I stated on my previous reply, the main reason I brought up blood group frequencies in Mexicans was not to calculate how many White Mexicans there is (albeit it gives an approximate idea) but to prove that people whose blood groups have their origin outside the American continent (on its big majority White people in the case of Mexico) have continued to increase in numbers (even if at a small rate) since the 1800 census, thus is not true that 20%-22% was the peak number, even the document[60] states on the page 8 that this increase "A" "B" blood groups is due non-random mating tendencies.

It's the exact same source... The variation of percentages wouldn't be that much so it may not be worth it to argue so much about it.

People who identified as white alone (including Hispanic whites) numbered 204,277,273 or 61.6% The article of White Americans have it at 71%[61], but even if you were thinking of the 61% figure, that's still too far from Mexico's 40% figure to consider it "as European as the USA" like you did. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

"Is in part due these concerns that the infobox is at 40% instead of say 47% or 49%."

Okay, so you admit you just made up the number then. You cannot do this.

"

but to prove that people whose blood groups have their origin outside the American continent"

Due to Mestizaje this is POINTLESS, you can also be of virtual pure European ancestry and still have Indigenous paternal/maternal haplogroups and vice versa. Some Mexicans even have African haplogroups! More so than those who identify as being Afro-Mexican.

"thus is not true that 20%-22% was the peak number"

Find me a single racial census published by Mexico that states there being a higher number than 20%, you can't because it's not true.

"have continued to increase in numbers"

Again, due to the increase of Mestizos, not pure White Mexicans. Around 60% of Mexicans have a European forefather, including myself. We are still Mestizos because they represent a small sliver of our total ancestry.

"The variation of percentages wouldn't be that much so it may not be worth it to argue so much about it."

You have a bad history of adding around "10%" to the "White" category in whatever source you try using so that's the primary reason

"The article of White Americans have it at 71%"

If you took some time to actually read what you send you can see that information is including people that identify partially as White also known as mixed race people.

It states:

According to the 2020 census, 71%, or 235,411,507 people, were White alone or in combination, and 61.6%, or 204,277,273 people, were White alone. This represented a national white demographic decline from a 72.4% white alone share of the U.S. population in 2010.

The keyword here is "in combination," This is in large part due to the huge decrease of Hispanics identifying solely as White, and now rather a combination of White with Indigenous or African, etc. Such as most Mexican-Americans in the present.

"but even if you were thinking of the 61% figure, that's still too far from Mexico's 40% figure to consider it "as European as the USA" like you did."

You're just grasping at straws because you know none of your data supports your claims and only hurts yourself. "

It's very obvious you have a weird obsession with making our people seem more "White" or European than they actually are. I have some news that will probably make you sad then my friend, the pure

White population in almost all parts of the world is declining

, in the end we will all be "Mestizos."

I implore @

Kodosbs

, @

PedroDonasco

, @

Xuxo

, etc. to read this ridiculous thread where all you do is pick and choose specific sentences and invent reasons as to why it supports your claims.

Analyticalreview (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

you just made up the number then Simple arithmetical calculations to get an average from numbers present in reliable sources are fine on Wikipedia.

Due to Mestizaje this is POINTLESS... Did you missed that the document[62] about blood groups state in the page 8 that "A" and "B" blood groups are increasing due non-random mating tendencies (people marrying within their own race)?.

Find me a single racial census published by Mexico that states there being a higher number than 20% How about the surveys about skin color that we've been discussing for days? What you've been doing here is taking advantage of the fact that "race/ethnicity" is still a taboo topic in Mexico to deliberately pretend that you don't see that there's a relation between skin color reasearch and race and worse is that you've failed at keeping that facade up various times, like when you quoted[63] the Princeton document saying "As a rule of thumb, self-identified whites are concentrated in the 1-4 (or H-K) skin color categories" and even though race is still a taboo topic in Mexico, there's been some official documents published that have used the term White [64][65].

I have some news that will probably make you sad then my friend, the pure White population in almost all parts of the world is declining, in the end we will all be "Mestizos." And yet in that same portion of your reply you say that I'm the one with a "weird obsession"... Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Simple arithmetical calculations to get an average from numbers present in reliable sources are fine on Wikipedia.

What you did was not "simple arithmetic." You have proven you cannot do basic things such as averages. I would like to know if you have received a bachelor's degree and from what university.

Did you missed that the document[57] about blood groups state in the page 8 that "A" and "B" blood groups are increasing due non-random mating tendencies (people marrying within their own race)?.

I'm laughing so hard, you really don't understand huh? Due to centuries of intermixing, Mestizos nowadays can possess virtually all blood types. I have O, but my partner, who is a Mestiza of predominate Indigenous ancestry, has A. We are quite literally the same race, both a mix of European and Indigenous. I believe you are, at the very least, smart enough to understand this. Also, I went ahead and poked through your source and it it didn't sample a single southern Mexican state. It completely stops at Mexico City. This is extra interesting considering the Mexican state with the youngest population is Chiapas, an extremely Indigenous one.

"How about the surveys about skin color that we've been discussing for days? What you've been doing here is taking advantage of the fact that "race/ethnicity" is still a taboo topic in Mexico to deliberately pretend that you don't see that there's a relation between skin color reasearch and race"

Of course there is a correlation, but most Mexicans with lighter skin are still Mestizos, such as myself. I was born with light hair, pale skin (I would probably be number two on the PERLA scale) , and hazel eyes. Guess what? I am only 50% European by DNA (tested). Am I Mestizo or not? This is why skin research (while interesting) is not the end all be all.

To conclude, it is quite literally impossible for the White population to be increasing.

List of Mexican states by fertility rate

The top 3 are some of the most Indigenous states in the country. Chiapas has the youngest median age at 25 according to the 2020 census. But yes, tell me the White population is somehow increasing in Mexico when the fertility rate is jumping off a cliff (being at 1.64 nationwide). You are wrong. End of story. Analyticalreview (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I would like to know if you have received a bachelor's degree and from what university. Considering that you believe that "everybody will be mestizo" in the future you shouldn't be making this kind of comments, as "races" are not static from a genetic standpoint, within 3 generations of admixing with Whites the linage of a Mestizo can become "genetically" White again, same on the case of a Mestizo lineage that admixes with Amerindian peoples.

I'm laughing so hard, you really don't understand huh? Due to centuries of intermixing, Mestizos nowadays can possess virtually all blood types... Yes but as the source states near the end of the page 8 and through the page 9, that minoritary blood types prevail and increase instead of reducing, specially in the center and the north of the country has to be attributed to migrations and nonrandom mating tendencies, in other words if it was "mestizaje" the percentage non-O positive groups would be dropping.

I went ahead and poked through your source and it it didn't sample a single southern Mexican state. It completely stops at Mexico City. This is extra interesting considering the Mexican state with the youngest population is Chiapas, an extremely Indigenous one. There are states in the North such as Tamaulipas, Chihuahua, Baja California Sur etc. that are not included either, additionally in the study above that one Oaxaca, Tlaxcala, Campeche and Tabasco were sampled and their results didn't differ much from Puebla's. On this topic you are exhibiting a similar behavior to the one you have when it comes to the skin color surveys, where you pretend to not get the message of the sources but your actions[66] reveal you actually do.

This is why skin research (while interesting) is not the end all... Again, that's in part why the infobox is at 40%, not 47% or 49%. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

There are states in the North such as Tamaulipas, Chihuahua, Baja California Sur etc. that are not included either

Okay, but there is still many states in the North represented such as Sinaloa and Sonora, which are the most European states in the country. There are quite literally zero states in the South represented in the study. It doesn't matter if the results may be similar to Puebla (by almost all metric the South is more Indigenous than Puebla though), it still makes the average more tilted towards the European side.

Again, that's in part why the infobox is at 40%, not 47% or 49%.

You are not allowed to make an average from different sources with different methodologies. You are allowed to use basic arithmetic such as, for example, scaling a population in a study to show it being represented as a nationwide percentage. Let's pretend we can do this weird Frankenstein of an average you want to do, If we were to use the latest 2022 survey and give you the extreme benefit of the doubt and include all Mexicans identified with skin tones 1-4, then also use the Britannica source, the "White" population would be actually 30%, not 49% or even 40%. Clearly show the math you did to calculate the average right now or it will be changed very soon.

2022 survey:

29.2%

Britannica Mexican Demographics page:

31%

(31 + 29.2) / 2 = 30.1

Changes will be made to actually reflect the sources very soon. Analyticalreview (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

it still makes the average more tilted towards the European side What does it tell you that 75% of the country leans to show growth in the European side?

Clearly show the math you did to calculate the average right now or it will be changed very soon Most surveys on skin color in México use the same methodology, the only outlier is ENADIS 2010 but still the overall average (47%) does not deviate at all of the results presented by those other sources, in fact its actually lower than the result of the MMSI (49%), regarding the ENADIS 2017 (28%) and ENADIS 2022 (29%), these are made with a focus on disadvantaged populations, this is further observed when looking at the documents on sample design of each (2022[67] 2017[68]) almost at the end of the 2022 document its shown that more surveys were conducted in southern states proportionally speaking. This explain why their results are lower than previous ENADIS or the MMSI. The calculation would be 29 + 28 + 31 + 47 + 49 = 184 / 5 = 36.8. Once that the considerations regarding the sample design of ENADIS 2017 and 2022 are taken and we consider other sources such as the document about blood groups I presented previously it can be inferred that 30% is in the lower end of realistic estimates and 40% is a fairly balanced percentage. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

"What does it tell you that 75% of the country leans to show growth in the European side?"

I would like a study that has both the most European states in the country as well as the most Indigenous states in the country before making any conclusions. Provide me one that does that!

"almost at the end of the 2022 document its shown that more surveys were conducted in southern states proportionally speaking"

What, so all of the sudden sample proportions matter to you? I thought they didn't when it came to blood tests!?

"the only outlier is ENADIS 2010"

If it does not use the same methodology it cannot be thrown in any hypothetical average.

"Once that the considerations regarding the sample design of ENADIS 2017 and 2022 are taken and we consider other sources such as the document about blood groups I presented previously it can be inferred that 30%"

Again, tell me where you are seeing this growth of the White population in Mexico. The most fertile states in the country are some of the most Indigenous ones. Can you explain how White people are having children below replacement level yet still growing in population? Are White Mexicans somehow cloning themselves or something? Chiapas literally had more births than Jalisco in 2022 despite having a much smaller population. It is pretty generally understood that Sinaloa and Sonora are two of the most European states in Mexico so we will use them as a reference.

Here are the births registered in 2022:

Sinaloa: 46,669

Sonora: 38,373

Here is now the two most Indigenous states in Mexico:

Oaxaca: 59,276

Chiapas: 151,564

Explain to me where is this growth in the White population coming from when the most European Mexicans are having the least amount of children? You cannot, because it is simply not happening. We also see this trend in the USA where Non-Hispanic Whites have extremely low fertility rates.

Analyticalreview (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

If it does not use the same methodology it cannot be thrown in any hypothetical average I disagree with the ENADIS 2010 being unusable, as even though it uses a different palette both are about skin color and report similar results, but even if we were to use only surveys with identical methodologies the results would not vary much, there's the original PERLA 2012 for example, which reported an H-K result of 58% for Mexico (the actual breakdown per color is very difficult to find but another editor I was having a similar argument years ago with managed to find it a put it on as a table on es Wiki [69], my subsequent reply is here [70]).
So using only surveys with identical palettes it'd be (28 + 29 + 49 + 58 = 164 / 4 = 41%) see? 40% is a fairly balanced result.
What, so all of the sudden sample proportions matter to you?... The difference here is that when I say that there may be a sample bias it is documented and verifiable while when you do it you cling onto hypoteticals like bringing up fertility rates, which isn't that much of a deal as after the three southern states with very high fertility rates come a lot "Whiter" states with high fertility rates[71], after that the center and the rest of the south come. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

there's the original PERLA 2012 for example, which reported an H-K result of 58% for Mexico

Firstly, all of H should not be included in the White category since the Princeton paper *you* cited even states Mestizos primarily identify with that skin tone. Next, why are you using old sources done with the same methodology when creating an average. This is like using the official census of 2010, adding the results of 2020, and then finding an average of the two. You should just use the most recent ones. Thank you for linking that old conversation you had because it proves how many years you have been posting blatant propaganda on your weird mission of misrepresenting Mexico as a much more European country than it actually is. @Wikiedron was definitely correct. You either had very little education and lack basic reading comprehension or you are blatantly trying to "Whitewash" the country.

"The difference here is that when I say that there may be a sample bias it is documented and verifiable while when you do it you cling onto hypoteticals like bringing up fertility rates"

Your sentence here makes no sense. Not including the most Indigenous parts of the country is a "red alert" sample bias. Also, fertility rates are not hypothetical, it is one of the greatest sources of data we have. The Indigenous population is generally at replacement level while the White population is not. So tell me, how is it possible that the children of Mexican are becoming "more White" (they are not). This is not even factoring what type of people are having children in many of the Northern states. Major metropolitans in the North have become much more Mestizo in recent decades due to migration from the South. It is very sobering seeing how you have been doing this quite literally for years and are just simply unreasonable. Changes are coming soon my friend! Analyticalreview (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

all of H should not be included in the White category since the Princeton paper *you* cited even states Mestizos primarily identify with that skin tone The document says that they do but not that they "primarily do" this other reply of mine in that discussion sums it up very well[72] as on it I compare results of different ethnographic sources with the skin color results and its shown that both point to a similar amount of Whites in the analyzed countries. Also I've told you multiple times before, its partly due these concerns that the infobox is at 40% and not at, say 49% or 58%

You should just use the most recent ones The last two ENADIS surveys conducted more interviews in southern states so their results may show a number of Whites lower than it actually is this is verifiable when looking at the sample design, also 2017 (the date the MMSI was published) is not old at all.

The Indigenous population is generally at replacement level while the White population is not Most of the country's states are above replacement level

This is not even factoring what type of people are having children in many of the Northern states This is what I mean when I tell you that you use mere hypoteticals. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Mexico's birthrate is now around 1.6. The country only has 14.8 births/1,000 population. Tell me how most states are at replacement level when the country as a whole is not even close to it. This is not a trend exclusive to Mexico. All of Latin America is aging significantly. The trend definitely seems only very Indigenous countries such as Guatemala and Bolivia still have replacement level fertility.

"This is what I mean when I tell you that you use mere hypoteticals"

It's not hypotheticals man, look at genetic studies from the past ten years. There has been an increasing amount of Indigenous admixture in Northern states with publications as far back as the 1990s showing this.

                                            Spanish                      Mexican Indians

Monterrey

  Generation 11                        95.80 ± 7.28                     4.20 ± 7.28

  Generation 12                        82.70 ± 6.35                    17.30 ± 6.35

  Generation 13                        81.78 ± 5.75                    18.22 ± 5.75

  Total                                    82.15 ± 5.51                    17.85 ± 5.51

You are wrong. Analyticalreview (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You are overlooking that the available data on fertility (it does need an update though) shows that the decrease in growth is uniform, this is, all states are reducing their fertility rates at a similar rate, this could suggest an slowdown, but not a shift or reversal of growth trends. In regards to the genetic study you posted, we shouldn't let secluded fluctuations distract us of a general trend, this is a common advice when analyzing statistics. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

"You are overlooking that the available data on fertility (it does need an update though) shows that the decrease in growth is uniform, this is, all states are reducing their fertility rates at a similar rate, this could suggest an slowdown, but not a shift or reversal of growth trends"

It absolutely shows an aging population, there is no question about that. It also is logical if the states at replacement level are more Indigenous that means subsequent generations I.E Generation Z, is more Indigenous than the prior one. This is backed by studies that show a growing Indigenous admixture in Mestizo populations in many major urban areas as said people move there for work. Another great example is this report by Brazilian researcher Francisco Mauro Salzano and Uruguayan researcher Mónica Sans who looked through many studies to find a general conclusion on the genetics of Mexicans (and other Latin Americans). This was their conclusion:

"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!"

So, I will ask you this. What is your definition of a White Mexican? Is it someone with light skin? Is it someone with more European DNA than Indigenous? Or is it someone who has virtually pure European DNA? If it is the latter then the actual White population is extremely little, with states of historical predominate European ancestry such as Sonora barely having around 60% European admixture nowadays (for the reasons I mentioned earlier). If you are considering someone that is 60% European to be "White" (even though these are obviously Mestizo people) then your figures start to make more sense. Analyticalreview (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It also is logical if the states at replacement level are more Indigenous that means subsequent generations I.E Generation Z, is more Indigenous than the prior one. Actually Per the comparative date we have on fertelity rates that you initially presented[73] it seems the gap between the three first "most indigenous" states and the subsequent "whiter ones" is closing, if this trend continues your statement may be completely wrong.

The Salzano & Sans study you brought actually is included in the article in the section of genetics in the fifth paragraph[74] and is noted in there that it left out studies on which European admixture was higher with no explanation or justification at all, its thus the prime example of why genetics shouldn't be use to delineate the race of a country as there are just too many sample biases, both, intentional and unintentional. Mexican geneticists themselves have previously stated something similar to this[75](Page 9).

So, I will ask you this. What is your definition of a White Mexican? We could say that is based on phenotype as that's what most sources seem to be taking into account (good call as institutions such as Princeton have observed that it yields very accurate results). Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

"Actually Per the comparative date we have on fertelity rates that you initially presented[68] it seems the gap between the three first "most indigenous" states and the subsequent "whiter ones" is closing, if this trend continues your statement may be completely wrong."

Again, a lot of the births in states that were historically European are now being driven due to more Indigenous populations moving there for jobs. It's becoming increasingly common for Norteños to have some ancestry in the Central and South now.

"The Salzano & Sans study you brought actually is included in the article in the section of genetics in the fifth paragraph[69] and is noted in there that it left out studies on which European admixture was higher with no explanation or justification at all"

I'll edit that line later when I have more time to go through those again but there is definitely problems with it. The 1995 study explicitly states one of the studies that has high European ancestry is most likely due to it being in a high income area. The 2007 study also has a sample pool of literally 37 Mexicans. The only study with a barely passable sample pool that shows higher European ancestry in Mexico City is from over 20 years ago (published in 2002). They even explicitly write that recent samples from "elsewhere in the country" (recent most likely being late 2000s and onwards judging by the citations) show predominate Indigenous ancestry. Show me a single study published in the last 15 years that suggest a predominate European origin, you can't, because it does not exist.

"We could say that is based on phenotype as that's what most sources seem to be taking into account"

That is incredible. So according to your logic, my race is "White" despite me only being half European by DNA. I am a Mestizo, and I always will be. Despite whatever you say. Analyticalreview (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Show me a single study published in the last 15 years that suggest a predominate European origin This isn't the contundent answer you think it is, because by now most genetic studies are over 15 years old (here is a relatively "recent" one anyway[76]), it also has to be considered that since 2005 or even earlier, most if not all studies declare to have been conducted on self-identified Mestizos, this is the main reason for the changes on ancestry values, not some sort of extraordinary reversal of birth trends (which the fertility data you have presented does not support at all), I don't think that you honestly believe that Nuevo Leon's European admixture dropped from 80% to just 30% in less than one generation time because of "immigration from southern states," such fluctuations happen simply because the geneticists are analyzing different people.

So according to your logic, my race is "White" despite me only being half European by DNA. I am a Mestizo, and I always will be Don't worry, If your DNA is actually that you are not going to be White phenotypically and won't be perceived as "White" by others, which is another reason why phenotype-based classification is more accurate, as it takes into account how others may perceive you aswell. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, If your DNA is actually that you are not going to be White phenotypically and won't be perceived as "White" by others, which is another reason why phenotype-based classification is more accurate, as it takes into account how others may perceive you aswell

What you are saying is complete pseudoscience. No sociologist believes in this and it's a big sign on how undereducated you are on this topic. I am extremely pale skin with light hair and colored eyes. I easily pass for White in the USA, most people think I am before I tell them otherwise. Almost all Mexicans with light-skin are Mestizos such as myself. Skin color is quite literally one of the worst ways to determine race in Mexico due to centuries of intermixing. Analyticalreview (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I also looked at your linked study and I'm not even sure why you shared it at all. All it does is show Mexico City and Puebla being of predominate Indigenous ancestry and Sinaloa being of predominate European ancestry (which we already know). No one is disputing the North having higher European ancestry, what I am stating is that the level of admixture has definitely gone down since the 20th century (which no serious person disputes). Analyticalreview (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

What you are saying is complete pseudoscience. No sociologist believes in this What about the Princeton University and the Vanderbilt institute[77]?.
No one is disputing the North having higher European ancestry, what I am stating is that the level of admixture has definitely gone down since the 20th century (which no serious person disputes) What about the large scale study on blood types that state that such atypical growth trends for the non O positive groups is due non-random mating tendencies and migration?[78](pages 8-9) Your large scale data on fertility rates is also inconclusive at best and if you add to this other large scale data sources such as surveys on phenotypical traits and historical census data what can be concluded is that there's a large Mestizo group and a White group of a similar size, not as large but still large. A similar conclusion was reached some months ago when I was having a similar discussion with another editor[79]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"What about the large scale study on blood types that state that such atypical growth trends for the non O positive groups is due non-random mating tendencies and migration"

So I went ahead and actually read your source and this is what it actually states:

3.1. Blood Groups Distribution by Age and Gender. The blood types distribution in 271,164 people studied revealed that O was the most frequent (61.82%), followed by A at 27.44% and B at 8.93%, and finally AB group was the less frequent at 1.81%. Moreover, the Rh (D) group was found in 95.58% of the people studied, and 4.42% were identified with the Rh (d) group (Figure 1). The pooled ABO and Rh groups had the following distribution: the O Rh (D) type was the most frequent (59.26%), followed by A Rh (D) (26.08%), B Rh (D) (8.53%), O Rh (d) (2.56%), AB Rh (D) (1.71%), and A Rh (d) (1.35%). In contrast, B Rh (d) (0.40%) and AB Rh (d) (0.10%) were less frequent which were found in less than 1% of people studied (Table 1). The distribution of pooled blood antigens among age and gender was analyzed; it was found that they had similar frequencies in people ranges from 0 to 90 years (Table 1). Interestingly, slight differences were observed in some blood types in both genders.

It also goes on to state:

The frequencies of the ABO antigens in Mexican populations are different from those observed in other Latin American countries like Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Dominican Republic. Interestingly, the Rh (D) antigen was more frequent in Mexico (95.58%) than what is observed in other Latin American countries. The frequency observed was slightly similar to those found in indigenous populations [37– 39], reflecting the complex processes of the admixture giving rise to Mexican mestizo populations. It was found that the frequencies of blood groups were similar among ages; however, slight differences between genders were observed in the A Rh (D), AB Rh (D), and O Rh (D) blood types. The above could be explained by the sampling method used, which would result in the overrepresentation of females in the sample.

So this whole time you actually have been either lying or quite literally unable to read your sources. It states there is no significant difference between blood type frequencies regarding age, only a slight difference in gender. It also states that Mexicans are more likely to have the Rh (D) antigen which is more similar to Indigenous peoples than those from other Latin American countries. So your source actually contradicts you and suggests a lesser European population!

There is ZERO historical evidence to suggest a growing White population after the year 1900. @Uruguayan989 Also came to the conclusion that your figure is wrong recently. I will update the misinformation on the study accordingly. Analyticalreview (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

And what do you think the actual quote I pointed you to on my previous reply means? here it is "geographical cline of the ABO and D loci with remarkably high frequencies in the north and the center for the ABO and D, respectively, was identified; more studies are needed to explain the possible causes underlying these cline distributions in the country. Different factors like migrations, nonrandom mating, and infectious diseases among others would confer evolutionary constraints over this genetic trait;" besides this, even if the numbers across age groups are "similar" when analyzing the numbers of the table in the page 4 there's an undeniable growth trend on non-O positive (or ABO as they're referred to in the document) blood groups, "similar" does not mean "the same." Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The study would have explicitly said there was a positive correlation between foreign blood types and younger generations if there was one. This is not something professionals leave out of reports. It was most likely due to sampling as the age group with the least amount of type O was actually 60-69. Ages 20-29 also have the highest share of O blood type so there's definitely no noteworthy correlation between age and blood types. Analyticalreview (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I also re-read that passage:

geographical cline of the ABO and D loci with remarkably high frequencies in the north and the center for the ABO and D, respectively, was identified

All this means is the North has higher frequencies of the A blood type (which is most likely due to its higher European ancestry) and the center has higher rates of RH (D) (which is more common with Indigenous people). This might be a translation issue on your part because the word "respectively" indicates the first item (ABO) corresponds to the first region mentioned (the north), and the second item ( RH D) corresponds to the second region mentioned (the center). Analyticalreview (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The study would have explicitly said there was a positive correlation between foreign blood types and younger generations... Well its visible on the table, regarding your comment about the observed frequencies on the age 20-29 group, remember that we shouldn't let secluded fluctuations distract us of a general trend.

This might be a translation issue on your part because the word "respectively"... That wouldn't be a reason to dismiss the sentence though, as it still states that the difference in blood group frequencies (wheter it is present in the north and the center, or it is between the north and the center) its due nonrandom mating, migrations etc. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a reason to dismiss the sentence though, as it still states that the difference in blood group frequencies (wheter it is present in the north and the center, or it is between the north and the center) its due nonrandom mating, migrations etc.

All it is stating is that the North has more foreign blood groups while the center has more groups associated with Indigenous peoples. What more is there to break down? Analyticalreview (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Well its visible on the table, regarding your comment about the observed frequencies on the age 20-29 group, remember that we shouldn't let secluded fluctuations distract us of a general trend.

Again, there is no trend or else the researchers would have explicitly said so. If we were nitpicking we can break down the younger generations and older ones

Ages 0-49: Average O group - 58.826%

Ages 50-90: Average O group - 56.9975%

So if we were being nitpicky it's actually the younger generations with a larger amount of O blood type compared to the older generations. Either way, it is statistically insignificant or else the researchers would have said otherwise. Analyticalreview (talk) 05:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

What more is there to break down? Don't think about it any longer, already added the quote to the article.

So if we were being nitpicky it's actually the younger generations with a larger amount of O blood type Is not actually that way when the complete set of data is analyzed you know... Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)