Talk:Mexicans/Archive 1

Mexicans as a People

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

Vandalism

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


 * I didn't know that... weird. But this is getting much more complicated than I envisioned. In this case we would need to make a compromise of these various sources and calculate the average, or simply add them both and explain why they are different; mainly because, as I wrote in the article, the social barometers used to define the Mexican population are not exact and serve more as opinion polls rather than an accurate measurement. But lately there have been serous scientific studies of the Mexican population done withing the past 2 decades which don't rely on people's mere appearance. The genetic data gathered in these studies has revealed what is plainly obvious to most Mexicans and what is recorded in history: Mexicans are mostly "indios." The indigenous population has always been the majority in Mexico until these last 2 centuries when the indigenous population began to decline as the Mestizo population began to climb, some historians believe this correlates to more people, who would otherwise be classified as indigenous, now being classified as mestizos. Such as my father's side of the family who are racially indigenous but politically classified as mestizos because they don't belong to a tribe and they speak Spanish. I have this information on at least 2 good sources . I own both these books and the 2nd one is 1,000 pages thick. I'm reading them and I will use them as sources to add more information here in the future. Progress is very slow because I want it to be scholarly and factual.Ocelotl10293 (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the Britannica is the most accurate of the encyclopedias. World Statesmen's statistics are somewhat similiar to Britannica's too. This last one is by an American organization, if that helps. Needless to say, the currect percentages in the article don't make sense at all. It says 80% of the population is mestizo, which leaves a remainder of 20%, but then it says 16-30% are Amerindian. Hmm... that alone would surpass the maximum amount of 100%. -- Lancini87 (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


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


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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Whats with this Ocelotl reverting SOURCED information?
The fact that you don't agree with the updated information, does not make it vandalism on my part. -- Lancini87 (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edits because the new information you put in conflicts with the cited sources or you remove them altogether. I'm not sure if it's you who does it but that is the reason I keep reverting the article.Ocelotl10293 (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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


 * What you did gave me an idea... I am going to create the History section now and just transfer that information into it and fix the Intro accordingly. The history can latter be expanded but all the briefs would be there more or less. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds fine. I know its a long process and sometimes we change our minds, but I have found a couple things that are contradictory. The sentences "not...as a demographic that is broken down into even more demographics" and "analyzed in much more detail not less" do not line up together. I simplified the context becuase some of the info was a bit extra and not balanced. What should we do? C.Kent87 (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And beside what you didn't like about my edit, were some of the paragraphs better aligned? I feel that the wording was a little clearer and unbiased (not that there was strong bias). C.Kent87 (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Neutrality Dispute
I see that the neutrality of the Ethnography section is in dispute. I wonder how is this so since all the relevant data is cited with scholarly and scientific sources. Is it the tone of the language that presents it? Someone elaborate. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I put up the tag. Maybe it wasn't the right tag to put up, but I meant to express my complete exception to that section. It doesn't cover ethnography at all. Ethnography is the branch of cultural anthropology that is concerned with describing cultural systems - material and intellectual culture. The section attempts to describe the difficulties of classifying the mexican people based on genetic/racial criteria. Genetic studies of populations are outside of the scope of cultural anthropology and therefore also outside of ethnography - it falls under Physical anthropology. The section should be renamed and completely rewritten.  A problem that is prevalent throughout the article is that it seems to be based on an unspoken primordialist assumption - i.e. that there is a "Mexican identity" that is coherent and can be traced back through time - even before the existence of mexico. Fact is that it is highly problematic to talk about "Mexican people" before 1821 - there quite simply weren't any, because there was no Mexico. A much better treatement of the history of "Mexican people" would be the story of how Mexican national identity has been deliberately constructed by shifting political establishments from 1821 and up to now, how the modern Mexican symbols were created, etc. That would be an article worthy of wikipedia - this is basically nationalist propaganda.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


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

WHITES?
How come the whites/criollos were removed? And how does it work to have 12-30% indigenous + 80-90% mestizo? It makes no sense, since both add up to over 100% if you add the EXISTING white population which varies between 9-16% or more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.0.12 (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the discussions that have taken place above that already addressed the issue of overlapping statistics. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WHITE MEXICANS
Sources #11 page 12 says nothing about what percentage whites are in Mexico. As a matter of fact, none of the sources say whites are 8%, Encyclopedia Britannica says whites are about one sixth (16.6666667% ~16.66% is one sixth of 100%). Source #13 says white Mexicans are 15%, while the CIA says they are 9%, so I don't see why it is 8-15%, and not 9-16.66% or 9-~17%. Since .66 rounds to 1 place up. You did this with the mestizos (86% mean round), why are you not doing it to the white Mexicans who merit it more to due to the higher decimal place of .6666667?--76.83.0.12 (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Britannica says under 16% thus 15% in accordance to the number on source #13 . The CIA states 9% and source #11  states 8% on page 14:

"La subetnia criolla representa 36% de la población iberoamericana. La mayor parte de sus integrantes viven en tipos de países donde esta subetnia está más claramente delimitada, en los países criollos y en los afrocriollos. En efecto, algo más de la mitad (55%) de los criollos vive en los países afrocriollos (naturalmente, la gran mayoría en Brasil), la cuarta parte en los países criollos y el resto (20%) en los otros tipos de países. Los países que más criollos contienen son Brasil (51%), Argentina (17%) y, con casi 15 millones, México (8%); en tanto que Colombia y Chile tienen en torno a 8 millones cada uno, así como Perú, Venezuela, Cuba, Costa Rica y Uru guay en tre 3 y 4 millones. Sin embargo, como ya se indicó, los países con mayor proporción de criollos son, lógicamente, los catalogados como criollos, seguidos de los afrocriollos y los afromestizos."

You can use Google Translate to translate this text into English. So now as you can see from the various sources the number is no less than 8% and no greater than 15% as it is stated in the article. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also you didn't need to create these last two segments on Whites, this subject is already being addressed in the Statistics for criollo pop. segment above. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's strange though, because "almost 15 million" of a 111 million population equates to 13%, not 8%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.0.12 (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it takes into account the total number of Mexicans including the ≈10 million living in the U.S., or it is speaking in terms of culture rather than race. Either way 13% still falls between the 8%-15% range. All these sources seem to only be speculating at the number. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Protect this page.
Someone should place a semi-lock on this page like it was done to the Mexico page because of continued vandalism on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Iz Cali (talk • contribs) 00:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone really needs to place a semi-lock on this page. It's being vandalized every single day! Ocelotl10293 (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism is still a big problem Ocelotl10293 (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis
A part that is missing is the history of how and when Mexicans became Mexicans. As with the history of other peoples Mexicans were not created in one day nor can we say Mexicans only began to exist at the wake of their independence. The ethnogenesis of the Mexican people is missing but it is also a chapter of Mexican history that is not well known outside of Mexico. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Ethnic Group"?
Ocelotl, I don't quite understand the reason that you've labeled Mexicans as an "ethnic group." The article now both initially describes Mexicans as an ethnic group and then contradictorily states that the Mexican population (as they are a national group, in fact) "consists of many, separate regional and ethnic groups." What would be appropriate is to modify the entry and the other pages concerning the Hispanic and Latino countries of America to reflect the fact that we are referring to national rather than racial/ethnic groups. In the case of Canadian people, it is clearly specified that, "The people of Canada, or simply Canadians, are citizens of Canada. Canada is a multi-ethnic nation, home to people of many different ethnic and national backgrounds. As a result, some Canadians don't take their nationality as an ethnicity, but identify themselves with both their nationality and their ancestral origins." The other pages ought to run parallel to that one, including this article itself. Cochise the Restorer (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see how that can be perceived as a contradiction, but I think you are confusing ethnicity with race. Don't adhere to the American politically-correct train of thought which isn't always reflective to facts or truth. I have already explained above what Ethnicity means in the sub-section titled Stupid Page. The word "race" usually means biological legacy but it is often used interchangeably or mistakenly to mean ethnicity depending on the context. Mexicans are multi-racial, but essentially one ethnicity: Mexican. Mexicans, that is, those who are ethnically Mexican, are the Mestizos, Amerindians, and Criollos of Mexico. These 3 "groups" are never thought of as being 3 separate identities within the Mexican mindset; they are made to look like they are by foreign observers who misinterpret scholarly and historical observations and by those Mexicans who somehow find themselves disenfranchised with the Mexican identity and then choose to polarize under ethnic-nationalism one way or the other: European or Amerindian. Modern Mexico is essentially a hybrid nation, hybrid does not mean multi-ethnic, but rather, more like cross-ethnic or multi-racial (under the same ethnicity). The Mexican identity predominantly encompasses the European and Amerindian elements forging a very strong gray-center area of identity that is more inclined to the native aspect because Mexicans feel that they naturally belong to the land and have always been there. All (or most) Mexicans share and feel a sense of "oneness," feeling that their Mexicanness isn't merely a nationality which can be downgraded unto just being ink and paper where it is merely written that they are Mexican. Rip the flag and rip their governmental papers and Mexicans will tell you that they are still Mexican. Revoke their citizenship and Mexicans will still "feel" Mexican and claim that their Mexicanness stems from their very blood and not because of nationality. In short, Mexicans believe they are a race and behave and act accordingly which is very often reflected in such slogans as: La Raza, La Indiada, La Mexicanada, etc. As the very popular Mexican Folk sayings go: "Quien me quita lo indio?" (Who takes the Indian out of me?) Implying that Mexicanhood is a "race" of Amerindian descent; and "Y el nopal de la frente quien te lo quita?" (And who removes that cactus from your forehead?) This saying is often used as a rebuttal to Mexicans who deny being Mexican, the saying implies that their Mexicanness is so obvious that it's as if they wear it on their forehead in the figure of the prickly pear cactus which is a symbol that implies "extreme Mexicaness" because it's a humble yet common traditional food and it also appears on the Mexican flag where the Eagle is perched on it commemorating the foundation of Mexico itself. Mexicans are not just a nationality, they are an ethnicity because they make themselves out to be one and much of the world doesn't dispute it but rather confirms it by going along with it; which is one of the premises for being considered an ethnic group. Even in the common consensus of the United States Mexicans are popularly, though mistakenly, held to be a "race" or at least an ethnic group. Mexico has many different peoples and cultures but which nation doesn't. People misinterpret the degree to which other races and ethnicities exist in Mexico often mistakenly believing that Mexico is a conglomerate of immigrant communities like in Canada or the United States. Unfortunately I cannot cite any scholarly sources here because there aren't many reliable sources dealing specifically with this subject. This is why progress in writing the article has been terribly slow. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cochise and I don't think he is conflating race with ethnicity. Mexicans arte not only multiracial they are also multiethnic. I think you should begin to include sources for the nature of mexican ethnicity instead of simply statements of personal opinion about how nationalism and patriotism by mexicans apparently can be directly translated to mexicans being and ethnic group. You mistake national group for ethnic group. ·Maunus· ƛ · 07:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed a sizeable pool of literature about ethnicity in a Mexican context vast majority makes it clear that Mexico is a multiethnic nation. The only one that explicitly cites the possibility of a Mexcian ethnicity is Ethnicity and NAtionalism by Thomas Hylland Eriksen p. 119 which states that "Mexicans in the United states belong to an ethnic group but belongs to a nation when he or she returns home" - this again makes it clear that Mexicanness as an ethnic identity only exists when it is contrasted with ethnic groups in other nations, just like Cochise says about Canadianness - when in Mexico Mexicans identify by one of the ethnic groups found in Mexico Nahua, P'urhepecha, Mestizo etc.·Maunus· ƛ · 10:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That is all true but remember this article is about all Mexicans as a collective group, both in and outside of Mexico, including their history and specific "cultural/ethnic" identity as Mexicans. As stated by Conrad Phillip Kottak ethnicity comes at the exclusion of other groups: "Ethnicity means identification, and feeling part of, an ethnic group and exclusion from certain other groups because of this affiliation." Mexicans willfully exclude themselves from various other racial/ethnic groups like Blacks, Whites, Europeans etc.. If an incredibly broad umbrella term like "Hispanic" can be deemed as an "ethnicity" then certainly "Mexican" can be one as well which is a far more cultural-specific term than the definition for "Hispanic." Mexican people are made up of sub-cultures which are not so radically different from one another as to constitute completely different ethnicities. The argument that Mexicans are multi-ethnic makes no sense because under such ambiguation of the term ethnicity such sub-cultural groups as Gothics, Emos and Punks would be seen as "ethnic groups" which is ridiculous. This "multi-ethnic" composition of Mexicans is generally confused with "multi-racial" which Mexicans indeed are for the most part. But to claim Mexicans are multi-ethnic is declaring that Mexicans from Guadalajara would somehow not be able to identify on a cultural level with Mexicans of Monterrey which isn't true unless they are from a traditional Amerindian group. Mexicans as a whole constitute not only a nation but a specific ethnic group because of the common culture and mannerism shared by all Mexicans regardless of region, class, or race. All Mexicans identity as Mexicans. You don't see some Mexicans claiming to be of one stock while others claiming to be of another which is so incompatible to the first to the point where these form separate ethnic identities. You do see a level of classism entwined with racism among Mexicans but social-status or biological background doesn't constitute a separate ethnicity if you still practice the same culture, language, habits, tastes, and mannerisms. Only the politically-indigenous populations of Mexico can be said to be separate ethnic groups and even they are not that radically different from their mestizo neighbors. So the reason I state Mexicans are an ethnic group is because I am considering Mexicans as a whole including the Amerindian groups. Lastly, Mexico's own Constitution does not identify the Mexican nation as multi-ethnic but as multi-cultural. This definition of being multi-cultural accommodates the true reality of Mexicans as it includes every variation ranging from Amerindian groups to Punks while at the same time acknowledging that Mexicans are "one and indivisible." Every ethnicity has sub-cultural groups, but these sub- cultural groups do not break the collective identity of the whole ethnic group unless they get to the point of having separate identities with mutual exclusion of each other. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Also... What definition of "Ethnic Group" are we using here? I already stated that I'm going by the broadest definition based on Conrad Phillip Kottak's book Window on Humanity A Concise Introduction to Anthropology Chapters 9-10, pp. 199-221 dealing with Race and Ethnicity where it mentions "Hispanic" as being an ethnic label. I think the problems I am mostly having is with the definition of ethnicity. How does Hispanic categorize as an ethnicity both in and outside so-called Latin American countries yet when we analyze those countries themselves, such as Mexico, the Mexican people somehow are not an ethnic group nor even a sub-ethnic group. Instead they are just a nationality. But then when we go one more step further and look deeper into the Mexican nationality ethnicity pops into the scene again after having magically disappeared when we were looking at Mexicans as a whole under the Hispanic umbrella. So now I need to hear a 2nd opinion: what does ethnicity mean? We need to go from there. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry but no, we don't need to establish any definitions. We have to go from sources. If you can find reliable academic sources describing how Mexicans are an ethnic unit then we can describe Mexican's as an ethnic group using the definitionused by that source. I haven't been able to find one, and I have looked. ·Maunus· ƛ · 13:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I had forgotten about that... SOURCES! Well then I will have to look for them as well. Thanks for reminding me. I was going off on a different tangent. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Jose Carlos Ruiz not well known? How about Dolores Del Rio or Ramón Novarro who are extremely obscure actors that many Mexicans have never even heard about? I myself have never heard about them nor seen any of their films. Jose Carlos Ruiz is well known to contemporary Mexicans since he has been in recent Mexican movies and Telenovelas. He has played the part of Benito Juarez and Juan Diego. Dolores Del Rio and Ramón Novarro are obscure actors by Mexican standards and they don't compare to Maria Felix, Irma Serrano, Antonio Aguilar, Vicente Fernandez, or Ignacio López Tarso.Ocelotl10293 (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that Jose Carlos Ruiz qualifies as an "indigenous Mexican."69.235.157.245 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)James Lopez
 * Not by political standards but he is certainly indigenous by race. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this is debatable.69.235.128.192 (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)James Lopez

Mexican women?
I look a images from Mexican Women with very interesting life.--Marrovi (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Do not vandalize this page and other ethnic-related pages as it shows a low level of intellectuality.
Nope — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.149.207 (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The title says it. By ignorant fools, these ethnic-related pages such as Mexican, African-American, Native-American and such are being vandalized daily by uneducated people. Please stop doing so as it shows you inhabit no manners and no level of respect and intellectuality.

Ultraman X77 (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's completely useless to try and reason with the people who vandalize these articles. They are mostly stupid and immature kids with no sense of reason. Other times It's just idiots who think they are being funny. They do not care at all so the best, and only, thing we can do about it is to put the article under protection so only serious editors can make changes to the article. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How do we look at archived threads that have been inactive for 30 days? They don't appear on this talk page. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Pictures "People of Mexico"
There is a ridiculously large amount of Amerindian pics, with practically no mestizo pictures. We should even out the pics.--Fernirm (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We should remove them or declassify them. This page is not about racial relations in Mexico and if it were it would need to have damn good sources. As it is now it has none - and neither do most of the pictures. The attempted racial classification is completely outdated and misrepresent ethno-racial groupings of Mexico by fitting it into a mostly american common sense model and it also seems to be completely original research by those attmpting the classification. This article is really low low quality and the pictures do not help.·Maunus· ƛ · 01:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is not such thing as "clearly mestizo" Meztizo is a cultural concept - not a racial one that can be judged by phenotype. Race relations have not been biologicaly founded in Mexico since independence did away with the caste system - you are grossly misrepresenting the issues.·Maunus· ƛ · 01:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with racial relations. We're just putting pictures of Mexicans of different phentoypical races.--Fernirm (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Putting in pictures to represent phenotypical races is original research unless they come from a source that is explicitly using phenotype as a base for racial relations in mexico. You won't find such a source because phenotype is not what mexicans use to classify eachother into race. That is why including such pictures is misrepresenting the question of race relations in Mexico. In Mexico ethnicity and race is based mostly on socio-economic status (like in Brazil). Please don't put more racial information into this article before you have solid sources to do so. It will be removed quickly.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Article's factual accuracy is disputed
Maunus I noticed you added these tags to the top of the article. Yet, there is no specification as to which claims are the ones being disputed. Please elaborate, because other than the last paragraph in the subsection about the languages of Mexico all claims appear to be verified with sources and links. What exactly is in dispute? Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am removing the tags at the top of the article as well as the unsourced information at the end of it. All claims are supported with cited sources, there is no need to dispute the claims of this article when they are all based on cited sources and not on original research. If anyone feels that anything needs to be disputed state it here. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats not the way it works Ocelotl. I have argued extensively here and in the pages of Mexico, and Mestizo that the basic division of the Mexican people in to supposedly racially defined groups such as "white/mestizo/indigenous" is not supported by sources - and is in fact not relevant in a Mexican context. This article consists mainly of a section about racial categories that are no longer in use - Mexican society does not operate with a racial distinction of white, mestizo and indians as the colonial spanish casta system did - but cultural distinctions - being mestizo (this term itself is abandoned in Mexican social studies) does not mean to be of "mixed blood" it means to be of mixed culture, and indigenous does not mean to be descended purely from precolumbian inhabitants of Mexico - it means to have part in a culture that preserves many of its traditional aspects. This is what is the problem with this article it attempts to make it look like Mexican society is divided along bio-genetic lines when in fact it is not and has not been since the independence when the casta system was abolished. The sources used to make this fake biological race distinction look real is one genetic study that doesn't go anywhere towards showing that these genetic difference have any social reality in Mexico. They speak only about biological diversity - not about what that means in mexican society. The section on Mesitzos has no sources at all. This is particularly worrying since this category basically nolonger exists - mexicans donidentify as mestizos but as mexicans - the category is no longer used in government censuses.  The section on indigenas correctly shows that this is a culturally not genetically defined  concept - but the structure of the article belies this as the other categories are attempted to be biologically constructed ""indigenous is sandwiched inbetween the invented racial categories of white and mestizo. The section on white is based on the assumption that selfidentifying as criollo is the same as being white. In: short the entire build up of this article is based on an authors own assumptions about how best to understand the composition of the mexican people - not on any authoritative source that actually shows that this racial division is used to classify mexican people today.  Each section has its own sources to show that there is a group called "white, criollo, indigena etc." - but there is no source that shows that this racial division is actually used to describe the mexican people today. This is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH and the OR tag will need to be in place untill this is changed.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How do we know that U.S. whites and U.S. blacks are pure? How do we know U.S. Amerindians are pure? Most of the people who identify with the said 3 races are not pure (as studies have definitively shown), yet they identify and identified with those races. A blue eyed, pale skinned mestizo Mexican of 50% white blood will be considered white by society, just like a 40% Amerindian man dressed in Indigenous tribe clothes will be identified as Indigenous. Or a 80% white Mexican who identifies as mestizo is techinocally mestizo, but to other societies would surely be grouped as white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.14.12 (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maunus I think it would do well if you add sourced information on that subsection about race that specifically deals with how the concept of race was abolished in Mexico and how Mexicans don't actually view themselves in this light. When I'm editing the article I am doing so from an American point of view and you know how they must categorize everything by race/gender/class etc... This is why from the beginning I have been having these awkward problems too because in Mexico and Mexican society all this sub-division is not only foreign it's also viewed by some as dangerous. I would add this information myself but i don't have sources. Also all these unrealistic articles that have sprung up about Black-Mexicans Arab-Mexicans White-Mexicans Spanish-Mexicans are just absurd and are getting out of hand in distorting the reality of Mexican society. I had tried to argue once before that half of these spin-off articles can go under one Article dealing with "Criollos" just like the article for Indigenous Mexicans while the great majority can be included as sub sections to this article and don't need to be their own article. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The big problem is that there doesn't seem to be any sources dealing specifically with race in a mexican context. I have serached fairly extensively online and in big university libraries. That is why the section on race is almost doomed to be OR. I can find statements for the abolition of indigena as a racial concept in the years of Cardenas - I can also find statements that mestizo isn't in official use in Mexico (and hardly in colloquial use either) any more. ·Maunus· ƛ · 11:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also necessary to remove the material that isn't adequately sourced.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article should be rethought and written with a firm basis in sources about Mexican demographics, sociology and cultural history - not on CIA factbook nonsense or naive accounts of genetics studies as if they provide sufficient background for understanding racial categories in Mexico. Alternatively you could look at articles such as People of the United States and Canadian people for inspiration.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the race section based on good sources - it is now called race and ethnicity and it gives an actual description of how the two concepts are related in modern mexico. I would have included a section on "genetic Makeup of the Mexican population", but the INMEGEN link is dead and I can no longer find it on the INMEGEN website. If you can find it you could rewrite a sectiopn on the genetic composition of the mexican population, but be sure not to misrepresent the sources. For example the text said that INMEGEN "sampled 300 mestizos and concluded that 80% of the population is mestizo" which makes no sense what so ever.·Maunus· ƛ · 03:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Maunus I don't see any problems with the new sub section only that it's incomplete. There is still the other side of that coin where as Miguel León-Portilla has pointed out the Mexican National identity and society doesn't completely shun and think the indigenous legacy is all pejorative or degrading. There is also how Mexican Nationalism has adopted indigenous imagery and history for it's own. For example, look at various nationalistic works whose names or imagery is modeled after indigenous civilizations. Mexican Nationalism sees itself as being heirs of Indigenous Civilizations much like some European nationalists see themselves as heirs of Roman or Greek civilization. Look at the rectory tower and library for the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Look at military and federal insignia which heavily uses Aztec, Mayan, or Teotihuancan imagery. And also it's not just the indigenous who are thought of as backwards, primitive and superstitious. There are also the white Norteños and Rancheros who are seen in a very negative light as being barbaric, savage, uneducated, uncouth and primitive. The subsection is one sided and shows the indigenous heritage of Mexico wrongly as being somehow undesired or suppressed when the opposite is true. I see you mentioned briefly the indigenous revival but didn't elaborate on that. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think its one sided - it represents the sources at hand completely - and believe me I have searched extensively and used all that found. I can try to elaborate on the indigenista period in the 40-60's of which Leon Portilla is part. It is an ironic and sad fact that the indigenistas appropriation of indigenous cultural hertiage for the purposes of forging a national identity was not at all accompanied by any actual rise in socioeconomic status experienced by the indigenous people, but rather an increased pressure of conforming to the national identity. The indigenous revival is best exemplified in the Zapatista uprising and the San Andres accords, I will add them to the section as well. Sources about race and ethnicity don't mention any negative stereotypes limiting whites in the north or elsewhere, and socio-economic statistics certainly don't support any such conclusions either. There are of course poor mestizos and white mexicans, but they would be treated in a section on social class - not ethnicity, their socio-economic status cannot be said to be dependent on their ethnic status as in the case of indigenous peoples. Please try to present sources when you argue that a particular view is misrepresented, it is hard to work with statements of opinion and anecdotal evidence. When you find some reliable sources feel free to incorporate them into the section, but please think of the overall coherence of the section as you write.·Maunus· ƛ · 01:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to agree with Ocelotl on this issue. It seems like the article currently is simply taking the view that most Mexicans view the Indigenous as being backwards and impoverished. This is simply not the case. Possibly amongst bigots and people who try to justify the repression of said indigenous peoples but in modern society being Indigenous is not particularly associated with backwardness and underdevelopment. It is very unencyclopedic to be displaying these statements as if they were the general Mexican view on Indigenous peoples. Despite the fact that many Indigenous peoples are poor and live under hardships they and their cultures are still held in high regard by Mexican society, many times even by the white Mexicans and Mestizo Mexicans. I think this is a poor summary of the Indigenous peoples of Mexico's current role in Mexican society and an unencyclopedic one as well! Foxxygrandpa (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture changes
I decided to remove some old black and white pictures; there were too many of them. But I had to include a black and white picture of Pedro Infante, a very famous Mexican, I tried to find a good picture of Cantinflas but couldn't find one. Lila Downs is more of a Mexican American. Rito-Palormes or whatever his name was really was just a random guy, so... And Maria Sabina's picture didn't look like a good portrait, and her other portrait was black and white, so I just decided to remove her. I added Cajeme to represent Mexican Indians, but I removed him to make room for Carlos Slim and because Cajeme's picture is also black and white. I added Gael Garcia Bernal to represent a more contemporary that's not plain black and white. Also, I added Pio Pico to represent Afro-Mexicans (I think Andres Pico would look better though) and I also added Carlos Slim, to represent Arab Mexicans. I want to add a picture of an East Asian Mexican, like Luis Nishizawa, but I can't find a good picture of him or of any East Asian Mexican.--Fernirm (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Photos
There are five rows, I say we add a sixth row that includes Miguel Hidalgo, Jorge Negrete, and Agustin de Iturbide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.1.212 (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's ridiculous, no native people, no women, no interesting people, only actors and musicians as Mexican people. --Marrovi (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree it is ridiculous - the article isn't called "dead white male mexicans".·Maunus· ƛ · 14:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I can provide some photos of the Mixe and other native individuals, although then you tread into the issue of photos of identifying individuals. That said, Mexico's Freedom of Panorama laws may allow for some leeway. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ &lrm; 06:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictures
The picture collection should be less vertical and more square. Anyone else supports slightly altering the arrangement?--76.2.31.112 (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Bad pictures, José José, Andrés Pico no is interesting Mexican People. --Marrovi (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Population genetics?
The current snippet on "population Genetics" displayed in the article appears to contradict the 2009 INMEGEN study: PNAS Article. How does the European (EUR) genetic contribution go from 58% in 2006 to 41% in 2009 and the Amerindian (AMR) from 31% to 61% in 3 years? Methinks the abstract to of the article to which this snippet is linked does not share all the data; or it's data is being misrepresented in the article as it does mention that the study was conducted only in certain states which would not represent the entire Mexican variety as a whole as the 2009 study intended to do. The INMEGEN website for some very foolish reason decided to take down the original publication where it was more clear for the lay reader to see the figures. Anyway these current stats being mentioned about the genetic composition of the Mexican population are wrong, simple common sense would tell you this but also the 2009 genetic study which showed radically different figures. Somebody needs to correct this mistake or delete the subsection entirely because it's misinformation. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the study said that Mexicans are 80% Indigenous, I'm sure you'd be more than happy to leave it alone...--Fernirm (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And I am most sure that it is because it says "Mexicans are (genetically) 58.96% European" that you insist on leaving this misinformation posted. Ever since I first started this Article I have been having a mountain of trouble with people trying to claim Mexicans are more "White" than they actually are even when all the data and evidence says otherwise. Now I am not a geneticist, which is why I have posted that experts in this subject come and interpret the scientific jargon found in most of these published genetic studies. But here you have it from the Horse's Mouth (In Spanish): Televisa News Segment, Aritegui. I'm not touching the Article until an expert has been consulted on this matter. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "And I am most sure that it is because it says "Mexicans are (genetically) 58.96% European" that you insist on leaving this misinformation posted." So what is it supposed to say? That Mexicans are 58.96% Amerindian? Then would that not be misinformation? LOL You know what? I have seen a mountain of people too, but a mountain of people who claim Mexicans are more Amerindian than they really are (like you). And here is a study that shows otherwise (plus other studies conducted) and now you want to deny it. Now, I am no geneticist, but I am not in favor of Indigenists who try to make Mexicans out as Amerindians or overwhelmingly/mostly Amerindian. I saw both videos you posted (and the part 2 to one of the videos), and none state the specific amounts of ancestry in Mexicans. Now, if there was a Mexican census on race, and it showed white Mexicans to form a higher percentage than Amerindians, then I am sure you and others would protest, but if it said there more percentages of Amerindians than whites, then I am sure you would be content. Am I right?--Fernirm (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny you should mention Mexican Indigenism since it was started mostly by Criollos in the 1920's. What I am saying here is that the information from your source contradicts all other sources I have seen. It's as if the study was conducted on a particular community that does not represent the wider demographic of the Mexican people. And you say there are mountains and mountains of Mexicans claiming Mexicans are more Amerindian than we really are? Or could it be that the Hispanicists are the ones living under the delusion that Mexicans are predominantly European? No wait, scratch that; I have talked to Hispanicists and not even they believe in this. Their agenda is only that the Hispanic Element is the "Superior Element" in Mexican culture and national identity; they never go as far as to claim "most" Mexicans are "mostly" of European admixture. This delusion is a phenomenon I have observed to be a awkward response, spread mostly through YouTube, 1,2,3, to all the videos created by fanboys of the Mexica Movement and by all other Mexicans who happen to want to re-establish their identity on the racial grounds that they happen to be predominantly Indigenous, 1, 2, 3, 4. If you saw the last video of the first list you will realize that it doesn't take a cultural Anthropologist with a Ph.D in ethnography to realize that the claim that the majority of Charros are predominantly white is as big a lie as "Weapons of Mass Destruction" back in 2003: Charros. And lastly yes yes I know, This is probably the most unprofessional response I have ever given in Wikipedia but I had to bring to light the cause and origin of this obvious conflict between Euro and Ameri sides that has sprung up all over the web these past few years. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This response is going to be long, so please bear with me. I understand what you're saying, but the thing is, in one study you have cited, it says that Mexican mestizos have about an equal amount of European and Amerindian blood. Yet, in another study, it shows Mexicans are 61% indigenous, in another 65%, and in another 51 (or 53%?). In one study (the one I showed), it says it's 59%, in another one it was 55%, and yet in two other places I saw it said 56% and 51%. (Almost all of these studies I saw like 2 years ago, so I don't remember them). I guess it has to do with the little "k=5" "k=2" "k=1" etc. I'm not a genetics expert, but when doing genetic studies, sometimes unintentional bias creeps in in terms of population numbers or regions. For example: mestizos of northern Mexico are more white than Amerindian, but they make up a low population relative to the massive population of southern Mexico (which is more Amerindian than white), so the genetic "average" of mestizos ends up being predominantly Amerindian due to the numerical superiority of southern Mexico. In studies that showed a white majority in mestizos' genetics, the researchers might have chosen white-looking people; while in the studies that showed an Amerindian majority, the researchers might have specifically chosen people who didn't look Caucasian at all. Other example: many researchers choose more Indian-heavy regions or more European-heavy regions for test subjects. Another problem is that many self-identified mestizos are actually just Hispanicized Indians. Also, I saw that in one study that showed Mexicans were predominantly Amerindian, they didn't actually prove that Mexicans were mostly Indian, they just observed genetic material that wasn't similar to Caucasian, East Asian, or Sub-Saharan African genetic material, and assumed it was Amerindian (even though it wasn't too similar either to Amerindian genetic material). Finally, I'm starting to think that genetic percentages depend on the gene or chromosome one studies. Because in some research papers it says "autosomal", in others "linkage disequilibrium", and in others "chromosomal". This has been shown to be true at least in the case of mtDNA vs. y-chromosome. The mtDNA is inherited from the mother only (and has been shown to be mostly Amerindian in Mexican mestizos), while y-chromosome is only inherited from males (and has been shown to be mostly Caucasian in Mexican mestizos). If this is true for most or all genetic material, then that would mean it would be near imposssible to find the actual percentages in Mexican mestizo ancestry (at least at the moment). This would be because different genes, chromosome, etc. will show different percentages of racial heritage (such as was shown in gene maps of populations).--Fernirm (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Population genetics Part 2
For user Ocelotl10293, here are conflicting studies that show different admixture percentages.

,, , , , , , ,. I've seen more studies, but I'm still trying to remember where I found them. There is one study that claims Mexicans are 65% Indigenous, however, the study deals with individuals from Mexico City, and it just takes the 65% by averaging the y-chromosome and mtDNA admixture percentages of Mexico City mestizos. And yet, another study found that Mexico City's mestizos are 50% Caucasian. One of the studies (I forget which one) uses simulated samples of Latin Americans and takes percentages of them (it's at the bottom of one of the articles, but the top of that article uses actual percentages from real samples). One of the studies shows another conflict: that Mexico City mestizos are 56% Indigenous and another one (I think) shows them to be 58 or 59% Caucasian. However, almost all studies show higher lower Amerindian contribution and higher European contribution than was shown in the 65% Indigenous article. Some of this is based on genetic tests using "locis" like DHS186, SM614 (I'm making these up) but wierd names like that. And there are different methods to obtain the admixutre proportions, so, I truly think that the final answer to the ancestral contributions to Mexican mestizos remains hidden and would probably only be found fairly if every individual in Mexico had a DNA test done, and the DNA results were screened (divided) according to the self-identification of the Mexican (white, mestizo, Amerindian, or other). Averages can be taken differently: geometric mean, arithmetic mean, median, mean, or even mode or standard deviation. So taking an average of Mexico's ancestral contributions is unwise (as a matter of fact, it should not be done [not even with any country]), all that should be done is a state average for self-identified mestizos in Mexico's different states and the Federal District.

As for the "population genetics" section in the Mexican people article, I say we either add more studies (not just studies that show Mexicans to be mostly Indigenous nor just studies that show Mexicans to be mostly Caucasian), OR we specify that different studies have churned out different and often conflicting results but we should indicate what almost all studies have shown - that mestizos of north Mexico are more white than Indigenous, and that mestizos of south Mexico are more Indigenous than white. We can, in any given case, just specify the admixture proportions in states that have been studied (and if studies conflict for a state, then just include all figures and specify that they came from different studies). You are right, it is not correct to rely on one study only (so you shouldn't just rely on one study either). I will try to change the "population genetics" section in the article soon enough (or you can do it too of course). Biases should not be allowed in any given case, but we will try to work out a solution here. Thanks for reading this whole thing and respond to me if you can.--Fernirm (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

MORE: Just curiously, if you see the 6th study I posted, you'll find that the Huasteco Indians from Mexico are less Indigenous than many of the Mexican mestizos populations listed.

WHY ARE SPANISH PEOPLE INCLUDED? I am from Spain, and in my opinion white and mestizo Mexicans with over 50% of ancestry fromn Spain should be considered "SPANISH PEOPLE" and be included in the article about SPANISH PEOPLE in the World. There are over 300 million people of Spanish ancstry in the World if we use the same definition as in other groups like Germans, Italians or French.--88.9.128.83 (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's because most of the people in the USA with German or other Euro ancestry are mixed with other European ethnicities (the same race), while most Mexicans are of Spanish descent, but mixed with a non-European ethnicity (they are mixed with another race). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.196.87 (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from V.franco96, 6 September 2011
V.franco96 (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Please change the pronunciation of Mexicanos to Mechicanos as in Brazil. Brazilians pronounce Mexico(Mejico in Mexico and the United States of America)) as Mechico, the correct sound of the letter "X"(che). Therefor, Mechicanos are the people of Mexico and "Chicanos" is short for Mexicans(U.S.A.) or Mexican - Americans. In Mexico hyphenated Mexicans are "Pochos"(those born in the U.S.A.).

Hidalgo changed Mejico to Mexico with the intention of returning to the correct sound of the letter "X" (che) to all words the Spaniards had changed from "X" to "J" with the Castillian sound of "HE" in English. Some words like Xochl, Xochimilco and others kept the true sound of the letter "X".

Further information, including links will follow in this talk page.

V.franco96 (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Typos and Grammar
Wikifof (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Small typo in the Ethnicity section, Today subsection, 5th paragraph: "lat" instead of "late."
 * Also, under Languages, 3rd paragraph: reads "Mexico's National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples recognizes the language of the Kickapoo who immigrated from the United States," probably should ready "Mexico's National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples recognizes the language of the Kickapoo that immigrated from the United States."
 * Section Population Genetics, 4th paragraph, content states a study was conducted in 6 cities, but states are listed instead.

Genetics of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Dominican, Colombians and Ecuadorians
The genetics that they did were not in Latin America like in the genetic section says, the genetic studies were done in the Tri-state in New York, the mexicans who live in New York doesnt represent the mexicans as a whole since the ones who live in New York are mexicans from Puebla who come from indigenous communities, therefore it would be good to write that down. I think its important to show what natives mexicans from New York get on their genetic testing, since they dont have a place in the genetic section, only mestizos testing

Here is the article http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100503161421.htm

here is also another genetic testing done on mexicans from Mexico Genetic admixture in three Mexican Mestizo populations based on D1S80 and HLA-DQA1 loci. Cerda-Flores RM, Villalobos-Torres MC, Barrera-Saldana HA, Cortes-Prieto LM, Barajas LO, Rivas F, Carracedo A, Zhong Y, Barton SA, Chakraborty R. Departamento de Genetica de Poblaciones, Centro de Investigacion Biomedica del Noreste (CIBIN), Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico.

This study compares genetic polymorphisms at the D1S80 and HLA-DQA1 loci in three Mexican Mestizo populations from three large states (Nuevo Leon, Jalisco, and the Federal District). Allele frequency distributions are relatively homogenous in the three samples; only the Federal District population shows minor differences of the HLA-DQA1 allele frequencies compared with the other two. In terms of genetic composition, these Mestizo populations show evidence of admixture with predominantly Spanish-European (50-60%) and Amerindian (37-49%) contributions; the African contribution (1-3%) is minor. Together with the observation that in Nuevo Leon, the admixture estimates based on D1S80 and HLA-DQA1, are virtually the same as those reported earlier from blood group loci, suggests that DNA markers, such as D1S80 and HLA-DQA1 are useful for examining genetic homogeneity/heterogeneity across Mestizo populations of Mexico. The inverse relationship of the proportion of gene diversity due to population differences (Gst) to within population gene diversity (Hs) is also consistent with theoretical predictions, supporting the use of these markers for population genetics studies.

Genetic structure of the populations migrating from San Luis Potosi and Zacatecas to Nuevo Leon in Mexico. Cerda-Flores RM, Kshatriya GK, Barton SA, Leal-Garza CH, Garza-Chapa R, Schull WJ, Chakraborty R. Subjefatura de Investigacion Cientifica, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Nuevo Leon, Mexico.

The Mexicans residing in the Monterrey metropolitan area in Nuevo Leon, Mexico, were grouped by generation and birthplace [Monterrey Metropolitan Area (MMA), San Luis Potosi (SLP), and Zacatecas (ZAC)] of the four grandparents to determine the extent of genetic variation within this population and the genetic differences, if any, between the natives living in the MMA and the immigrant populations from SLP and ZAC. Nine genetic marker systems were analyzed. The genetic distance analysis indicates that SLP and ZAC are similar to the MMA, irrespective of birthplace and generation. Gene diversity analysis (GST) suggests that more than 96% of the total gene diversity (HT) can be attributed to individual variation within the population. The genetic admixture analysis suggests that the Mexicans of the MMA, SLP, and ZAC, stratified by birthplace and generation, have received a predominantly Spanish contribution (78.5%), followed by a Mexican Indian contribution (21.5%). Similarly, admixture analysis, conducted on the population of Nuevo Leon and stratified by generation, indicates a substantial contribution from the MMA (64.6%), followed by ZAC (22.1%) and SLP (13.3%). Finally, we demonstrate that there is no nonrandom association of alleles among the genetic marker systems (i.e., no evidence of gametic disequilibrium) despite the Mestizo origin of this population.

Genetic variation in Arizona Mexican Americans: estimation and interpretation of admixture proportions. Long JC, Williams RC, McAuley JE, Medis R, Partel R, Tregellas WM, South SF, Rea AE, McCormick SB, Iwaniec U. Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque 87131.

Mexican Americans are a numerous and fast growing ethnic population in the United States. Yet little is known about their genetic structure. Since they are a hybrid, it is of interest to identify their parental populations and to estimate the relative contributions of these groups. This information is relevant to historical, biomedical, and evolutionary concerns. New genetic typings on 730 Arizona Mexican Americans for the HLA-A, HLA-B, ABO, Rh, MNSs, Duffy, Kidd, and Kell loci are presented here and they are used to estimate ancestral contributions. We considered both a dihybrid model with Amerindians and Spaniards as proposed ancestors, and a trihybrid model with Amerindians, Spaniards, and Africans as proposed ancestors. A modified weighted least squares method that allows for linkage disequilibrium was used to estimate ancestral contributions for each model. The following admixture estimates were obtained: Amerindian, 0.29 +/- 0.04; Spaniard, 0.68 +/- 0.05; and African, 0.03 +/- 0.02. The interpretation of these results with respect to Amerindian and Spanish ancestry is straightforward. African ancestry is strongly supported by the presence of a marker of African descent, Fy, despite the fact that the standard error of the estimate is as large as the estimated admixture proportion. An evaluation of the sensitivity of these results to a number of variables is presented: 1) our choices of ancestral allele frequencies, 2) the possibility of selection at HLA and the blood groups, and 3) genetic drift in Mexican Americans.

Gene frequencies and admixture estimates in a Mexico City population. Lisker R, Perez-Briceno R, Granados J, Babinsky V, de Rubens J, Armendares S, Buentello L.

Five hundred and ten students of the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico were tested to determine the distribution of ABO, MN, Rr-Hr blood groups, and serum haptoglobin, albumin, and Factor Bf types. Based on the results we found that the proportion of Indian and White genes are of 56.16 and 43.84%, respectively in the dihybrid model and 2.93, 56.22, and 40.85% for Blacks, Indians, and Whites in the trihybrid one. The present study reveals a higher proportion of Indian genes in the Mexico City population than estimated in previous publications. Reasons why the present results apply to a much larger group of Mexico City mestizos than the previous ones are given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawson714 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

^^The first article or study talks about Y-DNA haplogroup lineages, the study was not done on autosomal admixture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.124.31 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Population Genetics revisited
Hello people, many people here have confusions over the status of the racial admixture in Mexicans (on average). It seems that most of us are not informed as to what these percentages of racial admixture indicate. For example, in the study that found Mexicans to be ~64 European, that study was referring to the DNA Y chromosome which is only inherited from the father. It did not take into account the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which is inherited only from the mother. Therefore, the study concluded that 64% of 50% of Mexicans' genes were European. In other words, we could say that 64% of 50% is 0.64 * 0.50 is 0.32, or 32%. The study established that Mexicans have at least 32% European admixture when both paternal and maternal genes are averaged. I believe most studies of Mexican mtDNA found it to be mostly Amerindian (>80%) therefore the study that is closest to reality is the study on the article that states that Mexicans are (on average) 55% Amerindian and 45% European (and African). I hope this clears it up and I might put into a citation for the mtDNA studies.--169.231.48.161 (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't venture to say that one study is closest to reality than other, consedering that inside the study you are talking about it's mentioned that the samples used "do not fully represent the genetic variability of European and Amerindian ancestral origin present in these Mestizos" . And you can't attempt to calculate Autosomal genetic results doing a summatory of the results found on Y-dna and mtDNA studies, it doesn't works that way, these two things are very different. You can learn more about this reading the Genealogical DNA test article here on wikipedia. Kn1467 (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Mexican American population VS Mexican immigrants
What exactly is this article supposed to cover? Is it the people of Mexico as a "nationality" or as an "ethic group"? From what I can gather, it's the former. Why then, does the article include the total number of people of Mexican descent living in the United States? A large portion of whom don't consider themselves Mexican, rather Mexican American. Heck, right at the beginning it says that it is the populace of Mexico and those that "identify with the Mexican cultural and/or national identity." There is also the problem that the numbers given for other countries (with the exception of Canada, which should also be changed) are over the immigrant population. Both problems can be solved by including the immigrant population of about 13 million instead of the 34 million+ Mexican Americans. If necessary, a hatnote or some other option to differentiate should be included to direct people to the entire Mexican American population. Xochiztli (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Nezahualcoyotl, a Mexican?
On the section displaying pictures of Mexicans there is a picture of Nezahualcoyotl, who was a leader of the Texcoco city state. It would seem incorrect to classify him as a Mexican given that during his time the Mexican nationality was not even defined, the Mexican nation did not even exist. Mexico is a melting pot of the European & Indigenous cultures that resulted from the conquest and it was not until the late XIX century that a true Mexican sense of identity was created. The analogy would be displaying the picture of Julius Caesar in the `Italian People´ page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.35.180.235 (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Chespirito
It's sad that there is no image at commons for Chespirito who is by far a legendary Mexican cultural icon. Is there a way to add a picture of him. There's a statue of El Chavo on commons and some other language Wikipedia are using it as an image for Chespirito. Maybe, with your consent, we can use it. Or maybe, if appropriate, I can upload a non-free file to the Wiki of Chespirito. Just a suggestion. I really feel that there needs to be something of Chespirito. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Belizean people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

yo i think you might have made a mistake
Dude, I think your statistic about Mexicans living in the United Kingdoms might be incorrect. I clicked your foot notes and followed it to the source, after further review, it looks like it is displaying data for Argentinas living abroad not Mexicans living in other regions. Furthermore, I believe they don't even mention the United Kingdoms in that table at all. Thank you for looking over this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E0B4:6C00:A5D1:FFED:AED:A22D (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2015
Aperinoap (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌. Please specify what you think should be changed and reactivate the above template by changing the  parameter to no.  Dustin  ( talk ) 20:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups
Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mexicans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.historiang.com/articulo.jsp?id=1606479

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Image spam
I will be working on the image problem here.--Moxy (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2016
Mexicans are residents of Mexico, not the United States.

Source? It's in the name.

GryffinDarkBreed (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

popular genetics
4 STOMACH MEXICAN PEOPLE Yes, they actually exist, and uses their all 4 to carry food for border crossing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.252.47.121 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

why not just delete this section of popular genetics if there is so mush dispute and diagreements with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urjyurf (talk • contribs) 06:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We dont just delete references material because we don't like it. The section is sourced with it clearly stating that there are different reports/papers/etc.. on the topic and is why its a bit confusing and contradictory. All that said how can we fix the material. What are the problems at hand? Moxy (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the"Today column" it says there are considerable african and asian heritage in populations. Mexico is predominantly of indeginous and spanish heritage.In mexico it is very rare fot their to be african heritage beacuase heritage is defined as valued objects and qualities such as cultural traditions. There ore only a few regions that have minor african/asian heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxy38 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The pop. has alout less than PARTIAL african ances/heritage, only 3% do (http://www.everyculture.com/Middle-America-Caribbean/African-Mexicans.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urjyurf (talk • contribs) 23:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Could we get you to read up on the subject - Then edit the page using it as a ref perhaps?. Please read over . See also  Moxy (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

7 July 2016
Mexico is not, nor has ever been the second largest smart phone maker in the world. I wish it were true... but no. Just no. There's no source for this incorrect information, either. Samsung, Apple, Lenovo make up 70 percent of all smartphones. Funny enough, they are all Chinese. Anyway, why is this shirt locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.250.206.149 (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed section based on WP:UNDUE- overtly specific claims for an article that's not over the economy. AuroralColibri (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 one external links on Mexicans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151210212235/http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/proyectos/encuestas/hogares/especiales/ei2015/doc/eic2015_resultados.pdf to http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/proyectos/encuestas/hogares/especiales/ei2015/doc/eic2015_resultados.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121113132033/http://www.ime.gob.mx:80/mundo/europa.htm to http://www.ime.gob.mx/mundo/europa.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071225055120/http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/kokusei/2000/gaikoku/00/hyodai.htm to http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/kokusei/2000/gaikoku/00/hyodai.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022220348/http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/105/10503808.pdf to http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/105/10503808.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx/noticia/123878
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131009152736/http://www.inegi.org.mx/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/censos/poblacion/poblacion_indigena/Pob_ind_Mex.pdf to http://www.inegi.org.mx/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/censos/poblacion/poblacion_indigena/Pob_ind_Mex.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327124211/https://confines.mty.itesm.mx/articulos2/GarciaRE.pdf to http://confines.mty.itesm.mx/articulos2/GarciaRE.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327124211/https://confines.mty.itesm.mx/articulos2/GarciaRE.pdf to http://confines.mty.itesm.mx/articulos2/GarciaRE.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.discoverymexico.com/Culture/Arab-Influence-in-Yucatecan-Cuisine/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022220348/http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/105/10503808.pdf to http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/105/10503808.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Mexicans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304103300/http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/proyectos/encuestas/hogares/especiales/ei2015/doc/panorama_sociodemografico_2015.pdf to http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/proyectos/encuestas/hogares/especiales/ei2015/doc/panorama_sociodemografico_2015.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130823015618/http://www.nacionmulticultural.unam.mx/Portal/Izquierdo/BANCO/Mxmulticultural/Elmestizajeylasculturas-elmestizaje.html to http://www.nacionmulticultural.unam.mx/Portal/Izquierdo/BANCO/Mxmulticultural/Elmestizajeylasculturas-elmestizaje.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130823015618/http://www.nacionmulticultural.unam.mx/Portal/Izquierdo/BANCO/Mxmulticultural/Elmestizajeylasculturas-elmestizaje.html to http://www.nacionmulticultural.unam.mx/Portal/Izquierdo/BANCO/Mxmulticultural/Elmestizajeylasculturas-elmestizaje.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130823015618/http://www.nacionmulticultural.unam.mx/Portal/Izquierdo/BANCO/Mxmulticultural/Elmestizajeylasculturas-elmestizaje.html to http://www.nacionmulticultural.unam.mx/Portal/Izquierdo/BANCO/Mxmulticultural/Elmestizajeylasculturas-elmestizaje.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611011220/http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/257.pdf to http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/257.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926232909/http://cdi.gob.mx/index.php?id_seccion=1378 to http://cdi.gob.mx/index.php?id_seccion=1378
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118010024/http://www.inegi.gob.mx/est/contenidos/espanol/rutinas/ept.asp?t=mlen01&c=3325 to http://www.inegi.gob.mx/est/contenidos/espanol/rutinas/ept.asp?t=mlen01&c=3325
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304060335/http://www.inegi.org.mx/prod_Serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/censos/poblacion/1921/EUM/RCGH21I.pdf to http://www.inegi.org.mx/prod_Serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/censos/poblacion/1921/EUM/RCGH21I.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717201141/http://www.normateca.gob.mx/Archivos/34_D_1247_22-06-2007.pdf to http://www.normateca.gob.mx/Archivos/34_D_1247_22-06-2007.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611011220/http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/257.pdf to http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/257.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926232909/http://cdi.gob.mx/index.php?id_seccion=1378 to http://cdi.gob.mx/index.php?id_seccion=1378

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mexicans
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mexicans's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Britannica": From Australia: "Smallest continent and sixth largest country (in area) on Earth, lying between the Pacific and Indian oceans." From Easter:  From Mexicans of European descent:  From Mexican art:  From Climate of Mexico:  From White people:  From Lebanon: </li> <li>From Islam: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2017
Not Mexican Spanish, but actually just Spanish. You do not say Spain Spanish. Lss2001 (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sak ura Cart elet   Talk 05:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2017
Mexicans are not residents of the Us, they are residents of Mexico. Lss2001 (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sak ura Cart elet   Talk 05:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2017
Mexico has a population of 127.5 million people. Lss2001 (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sak ura Cart elet   Talk 05:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mexicans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014074447/http://www.ine.gov.bo/cgi-bin/Redatam/RG4WebEngine.exe/PortalAction?&MODE=MAIN&BASE=TallCreac&MAIN=WebServerMain.inl to http://www.ine.gov.bo/cgi-bin/Redatam/RG4WebEngine.exe/PortalAction?&MODE=MAIN&BASE=TallCreac&MAIN=WebServerMain.inl
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080817154430/http://www.todaytranslations.com/language-history/spanish-language-history/ to http://www.todaytranslations.com/language-history/spanish-language-history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Genetics? Really?
I look up the wiki page for other Latin American countries and I don't see such an overzealous coverage of trying to determine genetic makeup of those people but the Mexican people wiki page looks like some kind of racialist study sponsored by Stormfront.--47.157.18.219 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mexicans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170804041510/http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405-92742016000200092&lng=pt&nrm=iso to http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405-92742016000200092&lng=pt&nrm=iso
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111206133901/http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2011/03/30/inegi-cada-vez-mas-mexicanos-hablan-una-lengua-indigena to http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2011/03/30/inegi-cada-vez-mas-mexicanos-hablan-una-lengua-indigena

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Issues on sub-section "Autosomal studies"
The reason I am undoing those edits is because they infringes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and contained WP:CHERRYPICKING.

In the source, the 18.5% and 28.5% figures for blond hair and light eyes, respectively, does not explicitly appear, they are the result of substracting the total for dark-brown/black in both hair and eyes (source states: red-reddish haired 0%, blond 1-2%, dark blond-light brown haired 12-21%, dark brown-black haired 77-86% // blue-grey eyed 1%, green 4-6%, honey 2-3%, light brown 21%, dark brown-black eyed 71-72%). The issue of doing this, is that in one side, on the hair color's Fischer–Saller scale (see hair color and Fischer-Saller scale), light-brown hair is not considered blond and scientists from the research collected and combined or joint light-brown with dark-blond, whereas, in the other side, on the eyes pigmentation's Martin scale (see eye color) blue and grey are regarded as light eyes' colors, with green being mixed (as what people usually calls green is actually a combination of blue and brown shades within the iris), hazel (honey) and light brown are dark mixed eye colors, and dark brown eyes are dark eyes, so this means that alleging that all eyes (or hair) that are not dark brown are light when in the research itself there is not explicit assertion to this matter, there is a clear a violation to WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Also, another issue here is that when the source indicates several pigmentation traits and in the article there is only mention to light traits, like if dark traits did not matter it constitutes cherrypicking (WP:CHERRYPICKING) and may also violate WP:PROPORTION. In the second part of these edits that I have reverted, I deleted a critic to the research because it is not properly sourced: yes, there was a reference to the study itself at the end of that sentence but the researchers did not discredit their own work in that paper, so it is a false citation covering original research, which under WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION can be either tagged or removed.

I had several power blackouts this night, that is why I couldn't elaborate this talk earlier, inmediately after my  as I was supposed to do. ★ Iñaki ★   (Talk page) ★ (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC) and 07:17


 * ★ Iñaki ★, I don't see any valid conflict here, you are just being obtuse, here's why: first, as I told you in your talk page and on my talk page , dark blond hair is universally considered blond hair, ask anyone you want, also anywhere in the world dark blond hair is more common than golden blond hair, same for eye color, light brown (also known as hazel), honey and green are universally considered light eye colors. Second, you are accussing me of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for putting in the article something that is not explicitly written in the source's body of text, but nonetheless it's clearly confirmed by the charts included in the source (i.e. frequencies of light eyes and blond hair), while at the same time you're citing color charts out of nowhere by authors not cited in the study at all: how do you know that the criteria used to define dark blond hair was the same in the study used as source in this article than the one that is used in the fischer-saller scale? you are the one doing real WP:OR and WP:SYNTH here, your arguments are baseless, almost satire. Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Both the Fischer and Martin scales are standard in physical anthropology and medicine to determine the shades of hair and eye color, respectively, as one can confirm in any of those 4 articles. But in any case, regardless of these systems, you have not shown any valid criteria (any link, any reference) to joint —for example— certain shades of color besides your claim that it is "universally considered" (weasel words?) as such. One cannot state opinions as facts and vice versa (WP:YESPOV).
 * I would be very pleased if you also reply on the criticism in the article to the research with giving no valid citation, and regarding the issue that your edits exhibit an unbalance regarding certain phenotypic traits that are covered or cherrypicked, while others are ignored despite being the majority.
 * Also I have to ask you to assume good faith and not to suppose that I have ulterior motives as you have said to me in your talk page, and to be civil, since you can dispute my points without calling me obtuse, extremist, irrational or satirical. ★ Iñaki ★    (Talk page) ★ 23:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I pondered that your comments might be satirical because I find rather unbelieveable that you don't see the irony in you accussing me of doing OR or SYNTH for writting down what is clearly stated in the figures included within the source (and demanding a source for wheter dark BLOND hair is considered to be blond hair), and simultaneously bringing up unrelated charts for color to try to disqualify the source used in this article. Anyway looking up the Fischer-Saller scale I think there you have your "source" as I see there's a category for "dark BLOND", so I honestly don't see how it does back up your point or goes against my point at all. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * First, that "dark blond category is including light-brown haired people who are by definition not blonds. Second, why are you only addressing this point but ignoring other issues that I have bring up? ★ Iñaki ★    (Talk page) ★ 23:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm focusing in the blond hair issue because all your complaints follow the same formula: you accusing me of doing original research or synthesis because I wwrite down what charts and figures clearly say (which according to Synt and OR policies does not qualify as synth in any way, you insist it does because you continue denying against all opinions and evidence, that dark blond hair is considered blond hair too. To address other points will unnecesrily extend the discussion. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mexicans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151210230740/http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/proyectos/encuestas/hogares/especiales/ei2015/doc/eic_2015_presentacion.pdf to http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/proyectos/encuestas/hogares/especiales/ei2015/doc/eic_2015_presentacion.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011103154/http://www.diego-rivera.org/rockefellercontroversy.html to http://www.diego-rivera.org/rockefellercontroversy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Joshua Project
The Joshua Project is not a reliable source:  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_15
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_80

White Mexicans
It appears to me to be OR to suggest that a term applying to Mexicans with blonde hair or fair skin is the same as the racial category of white. Especially when the provided sources use the specific term white in addition to guero. If we are using racial categories, it would make more sense to me to use sources would specifically speak to those categories and not shades of skin tones.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As I already told you in the edit summary, the source makes emphasis on European appearance, not only skin tone, if you want me to explain something to you ask here intead of edit warring. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain how that is the same as a racial self-identification? Please see Talk:White_Latin_Americans for context  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Mainly the document/pdf that mentions it is titled "March 21, international day against racial discrimination" and the whole thing talks about racial discrimination between European looking Mexicans and Indigenous/African looking ones. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Admittedly my Spanish is not the best, but does the article / PDF you reference referred to perceived Race by others, or self-identified race? Because this issue is about the latter not the former.
 * for what it's worth, the reason I'm pushing so hard on this as I discovered  a user who was vandalizing data on these pages  in order to alter  the percentages regarding white Mexicans. However, I have major concerns about the  conflation of skin tone and racial self-identification  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with EvergreenFir - there is no racial category of "white" in Mexican census data, that is an American category. Mexicans with only European ancestor are not likely to identify as "white", but with the såpecific European country of their ancestry - for example Spain.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to be concerned, the document from which the figure comes from is all about the racism and inequalities there are in Mexico between Euroean Mexicans and non European ones, this is analogous to investigations about racism and inequalities between Whites and non-Whites in the United States. As this is the English wikipedia I've opted for using terms that readers in this language are more familiar with, as another example, I tend to use "Native American" (which is almost never used in Mexican spanish) instead of "Indigenous" (which is the term that is commonly used in Mexico), it's a matter of language differences, but ultimately mean the same thing. I wouldn't be so sure regarding European/White Mexicans identifying with European countries as it happens in the US with Irish-Americans, German-Americans etc, as in Mexico, due the majority of the white population being of Spanish origin (and the subsequent war of independence against Spain) there are no hypenienated identities. It's similar to how White Americans of English ancestry tend to identify as "Americans" alone. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that approach does not work, since the categories are not in fact equivalent. White is not the same as "of european ancestry", one is a racial category the other is an ancestry category.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends of context, in the case of the CONAPRED document a race-phenotype-based perspective is clearly used as it stresses that racism has it’s base on a person’s appearance, this is, to have a some degree of European ancestry is not enough, (if you check the genetic studies section of the article, it shows that members of indigenous tribes have a mean European genetic ancestry of 20%, for example) a person actually has to look white. European ancestry is actually very widespread in Mexico. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes but the issue here is not perceived race as the basis of racial hatred or prejudice. It's about racial category in terms of demography which, today, is about self identification. At least when it comes to tables of racial demographics.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The different dynamics and interactions between people of different races and ethnicies in a society are within the scope of demographics. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The existence of racism betwen lighter and darker skinned Mexicans does not mean that there is a category of "white people" in Mexican society.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In recent time investigators have made various works regarding race dynamics in Mexico that confirm that the concepts of "White people" and "being white" are still recognized as such by Mexico's society. The investigators claim that the "everybody is Mestizo" ideology promoted by the Mexican government in the 20th century couldn't homogenize Mexico's society precisely because the perception of there being people of different races namely white, black, indian etc. never disappeared in Mexican's everyday interactions and is still are very prevalent in contemporary Mexican society. It has been asserted that in fact, rather than eliminating racism, the "Mestizo identity" actually enables racism, as it allows to shut down accusations of racist practices under the pretense of "everybody is of the same race". Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that mestizo identity has supposedly be used to hide racial abuse in Mexico doesn't mean that scholars should push a new lie that most Mexicans are "white" rather than mixed when historical evidence (sorry that church register was from a specific era and area) and, most importantly, genetic evidence shows otherwise. Even the genetic tests performed on the majority population and not just on self-identified "mestizos" show that the majority of Mexicans have native ancestry of varying degrees (even in places like Durango where it is minor but still there) and that is more important than pseudoscientific racial categories based on phenotypes - one of the most imbecilic things I have ever witnessed in the modern era. I thought we'd got passed such nonsense with the dismissal of craniometry as a basis for race and the reviling of people like Carleton Stevens Coon who judged race using methods similar to using phenotypes to determine "race". The majority of Mexicans descend from the indigenous people of the Americas (regardless of percentage of Amerindian genetics) and no pseudoscientific nonsense based on external characteristics or the twisting of historical documents will change this FACT. - Art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.45.135 (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly there are various sources that talk about mixed marriages being rare according to the overall results of the censuses in the colonial and post colonial era (not only the church registers from one area). Secondly genetic evidence is inconclusive mostly because due it's complex, expensive procedings they can't cover more than a few hundred people at once, this combined with the fact that Mexico is a rather diverse and stratified country leads to some studies showing a notorious indigenous ancestry and others showing an European ancestry comparable to those of ethnic Europeans so is not possible to make a flat judgement like that. Having "mixed" ancestry is more of a social construct than a genetic reality, as modern science has shown that races are fluid, not static (this is, most of manking is composed of various degrees of multiple races). In particular case of Mexico for example, it's been found that some non European admixture has come directly from Europe and that Native Americans are colsely related to Uralic/Central Asian peoples. Finally, I'm removing the templates you added to the article because as your reply here shows, you acknowledge that the sources do say what is written in the article (the actual problem is, you personally don't like what they say). Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there is a generalized confusion on all sides of this argument. But the truth is the only possible division of Mexico according to sources is between Whites, Mestizos and indigenous - regardless of actual ancestry because those are the only sources of self-identification available. Its worth mentioning that the concept of genetics as a proxy for ethnicity is completely senseless. As an example, many conquistadors and settlers who came to Mexico from Spain were neither White nor derived most of their ancestry from Europe. Equally, the vast majority of modern-day White Mexicans have of course a range of ancestries most of which is from Spain but some of which may be from other places in Europe and the Middle East, and most with a good dose of Mesoamerican ancestry as well. White Mexican is simply a question of actual phenotype - there is nothing more to it. It is not an ethnicity. Its a bad concept but its at least sourceable and far better than the totally nonsensical concept of "European Mexicans" --Php2000 (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Definition of European Mexicans
There is no clear definition of what a "European Mexican" is. Nor any source which supports such a definition. Please discuss here because this is a problem which requires solving.

Dividing Mexicans on alleged racial lines is a sensitive topic. Regardless, a majority of Mexicans derive most of their ancestry from Spain/Europe. So we need to get around that fact if we want a clear definition. White Mexicans seems more logical than European Mexicans since it includes the Lebanese community and doesn't take a quasi naziesque attitude to ancestry common in Anglo-America. Php2000 (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * First, the source you've been trying to remove for example, states that there's a segment of Mexico's population that originated from Europe, it even uses the term "Criollo", which was the colonial term used as a "clear definition" between White Mexicans and Mexicans who were of partial European descent, thus said source does address your concerns regarding the fact that most Mexicans at a degree have European ancestry. The source is extense and there may be issues regarding language barriers but you can be certain that it does actually covers all your concerns. Besides that, you've done other edits that don't seem to improve the article at all, such as replacing "North and South America" with merely "other countries" with your reasoning being that "Europe was being excluded" even though Europe was already mentioned a pair of lines above, these kind of edits actually worsen the quality of the article and I have to ask you to stop doing them, thanks in advance. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pob3qu3 Your categorical statement that my edits "worsten the article" is of course your opinion and not a statement of fact. I suggest you express your opinions as what they are and please do not imply that I have trouble understanding my native language which, of course is Spanish. No Mexican source divides the present population of Mexico between "Criollos" of European descent and "Mestizos". It is an ethnic division which simply does not exist and is an Anglocentric misconstrual of Mexico which aims to understand Latin America from the perspective of its own value-system. At the most, Mexicans can be divided on their self-perception of phenotype when asked in official censuses. Furthermore, the source simply does not support the statement that "European Mexicans are Mexican citizens who trace all or most of their ancestry to Europe. The concept of European Mexicans simply does not exist in Mexico except insofar as it refers to Mexicans who's parents were born in Europe or who were born in Europe themselves. I await your answer on the topic and will not revert out of courtesy before proceeding with the discussion in finding a solution. I still think you do not understand the issue so feel free to ask me further. --Php2000 (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is confusing, but (and this is not just my opinion) you are seriously not explaining yourself properly, in your last reply you simultaneously state that that the concept of White mexicans does not exist and is an angloconstruct, and later state that Mexicans can be divided in groups based in self-perceptions of phenotype by the government (and in other places you acknowledge that sources that refer to them as White Mexicans and which confirm that the concept of being white in Mexico effectively exists ), based on your most recent actions what I can gather is that you are seeking to rename the article and sections that use terms such as "European Mexicans" as "White Mexicans" which is something I personally don't mind and can be worked out with little problem in the through the proper channels and means. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pob3qu3You are right I have not explained myself properly. The entire topic is very difficult to disentangle. "White Mexican" is an inherently problematic concept in reality but since it exists in terms of sources I cannot argue against its inclusion on Wikipedia. However, we need to be clear that it largely is an expression of phenotype, not ethnicity. I had another read at the heading of the other article and its content is also quite senseless: stating that some White Mexicans are "culturally Mestizo" and that "Mestizo" is defined by language. I'm not going to say its nonsense but rather that whoever wrote this was very confused. In order to disentangle this I can explain the following: The concept of "Mestizaje" is pretty much the national ideology of Mexico - it is inherent to its identity as a nation. So from a certain angle, if you grow up in Mexico (regardless of where you are originally from, China, Nigeria or wherever) you almost automatically take on the national Mestizo identity of Mexico by virtue of having grown up there and sharing Mexico's national culture and identity. You would have to actively politically denounce this identity to not be "Mestizo". This is complicated to English-speaking readers not familiar to Mexico but it has to be clear that in this sense, the concept of Mestizo has to be understood as a national ideology and understanding of self, rather than an ethnic group. I think now I explained myself well! I know I'm not backing this idea with any sources but sometimes you need to explain things first before starting to fix the article. Ok quick google search, there are dozens of sources on this topic. http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0185-19182014000200008 Php2000 (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Mestizo identity is a concept that I admit, can be seen as confuse and bizarre to editors who not familiar with Mexico and a way to expose it more clearly could be found but in no way its original research, its something that really happened. Starting on 1930 and up to the first decade of the 21th century the Mexican government and most of the Mexican academia really considered the totality of Mexicans who did not speak an indigenous language to be Mestizos, for arguments that were never properly justified or consistent (such as the argument you wrote above, about a person becoming Mestizo because of cultural reasons or just living in Mexico). In recent times the ideology of the Mestizo identity has been denounced and rejected by scholars and investigators from both, Mexico and other countries as it is considered to be racist, and this is in part the reason for which Mexico's government has begun conducting ethnic surveys again. I also have to say that I agree on your take regarding the limitations and low reliability of genetic studies (something could be worked here) and I also agree on your posture in regards to how phenotype is the most precise way to conduct ethnoracial research. In fact, phenotype has been the basis on which said article (and to a extent, sections regarding european Mexicans in articles like this one) has been written for a years, so there are more coincidences in our postures than you may think. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Languages
I have deleted reference to Romani, Arabic and Platdeutsch because no source seems to validate how many Mexicans speak them natively. I would say very few, probably numbering in the hundreds or thousands. In the case of Vlach Romani I suspect literally no one speaks it. The only languages worth mentioning are indigenous languages, the most spoken of which is Nahuatl which is native to roughly 1.5% of the population. All others are below 1%. I suggest including either indigenous languages together as a group or including those spoken by at least 200,000 people. Mexico has 120 million people and most languages originally spoken by immigrant communities are extinct or on the verge of extinction. Over 99% of the population is fluent in Spanish and certainly over 95% speaks it as their first or only language. . Php2000 (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Racial Identity
Can we at least agree on what exactly the argument is? Anyone who has any idea of Mexico knows there is no defined "white" ethnicity or identity nor is there any consensus on who falls within or outside this category. Instead of this mindless edit war at least engage in the talk page and explain your positon so we can perhaps approximate respective positions based on available sources?Huasteca (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The position is clear and plenty of recent sources (much of which you are persistently removing) back it: there is a defined White identity within Mexican society  in fact you acknowledged  this last year  when you started a discussion with identical arguments. Similarly, recent sources refute your claim in regards to White Mexicans identifying as Mestizos. Because of this I have to ask you to stop defacing the article. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonne of those sources support there being a "white identity" or "White Ethnicity" in Mexico. They all simply cite the INEGI study about skin color which correlates socio-economic status with light, intermediate and dark tones. This correlation is not enough on which to base the existence of a self-contained ethnicity within Mexico. Why not follow the exact INEGI source and say Mexico is divided in ethnic-lights, ethnic-intermediates and ethnic-darks? Because it would be ridiculous, right? That is what I'm saying. If there are people in Mexico who identify ETHNICALLY as white they are a tiny "racist" minority. The vast majority of phenotypically white people will identify with the "mestizo" majority in Mexico and also in the rest of Latin America. This is because national identity and ideology is based on the concept of "Mestizaje". Surely you know this to be true as a Mexican, which is why I don't understand why you dislike/revert the "default identity" thing. All Mexicans are Mestizo unless they actively choose to identify as something else and the vast majority don't.Huasteca (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pob3qu3 I note you have been involved in an edit war in recent hours. That anonymous IP was not me. I hope it was not some kind of false flag edit war to make me appear as a "problematic" editor. Huasteca (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep claiming that the vast majority of Mexicans identify as Mestizos when I just brought two recent investigations (page 3, note 2) (page 9, note 1) that prove that this is not the case, similarly you keep ignoring that the Mexican government has used terms such as White on it's publications (page 14) and the other sources that definitely prove that there's awareness and notion of there being "White" ethnic group in Mexico, even when you (or an editor that arguments exactly, and makes edits exactly like you as the diffs I presented at an ongoing SPI as evidence) admitted and said last year that "since it (the concept of White Mexicans) exists in terms of sources I cannot argue against its inclusion on Wikipedia"  you say that you want a constructive resolution  but if that was the case I'm afraid you wouldn't have started this conflict to begin with, as you are totally aware and have acknowledged your posture to be the wrong one. The icing of the cake it's that you are now accusing me of starting a false flag edit war to make you look like a conflictive editor, just like you are rigt now accusing editors that disagree with you on ANI of being sockpuppets, despite the fact that the aforementioned, now blocked account that 99% acts like you was blocked precisely for incurring on IP socking. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pob3qu3 Again, you are misrepresenting all of these sources. None of them state there is a white ethnicity in Mexico. They all cite a government study which divides Mexicans in "light tones", "intermediate tones" and "dark tones". Such studies have been carried out in other places such as India. Unless you are trying to argue that these are the three ethnicities in Mexico I don't know what you are doing here. No Mexican source supports your position that there is a "white" ethnic group in Mexico. Anyways, I'm done.Huasteca (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The analogy to India does not apply (even though India does have caucasian populations), as the sources in the case of Mexico do identify this sector of the population as White, and plenty of allusions are made to specifically European phenotypes, thing that you have acknowledged before. Don't know how you can say that you want to reach a "constructive consensus" when you keep selectively ignoring these facts. I sincerely hope that you drop this senseless conflict some day. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm done editing wikipedia articles so won't push for changes. But, out of politeness, I will answer in a constructive way for you and future editors: Firstly I wanted to point out there is no such thing as Caucasian race as an ethnic group. It is an outdated racial classification from the 19th century. But even if it did exist, what would these "Caucasian" or European traits be? Is it people who are blond or have blue eyes? Doesn't really work considering European genetic input in Mexico is from a diverse Mediterranean-Iberian ethnicity which is predominantly black haired and dark eyed. So, within Mexico, who or what is this "white" ethnicity? Where are its borders? Is it maybe dependent on how much facial hair you have? Or maybe the absence of an Epicanthic fold or Mongolian spot? Is it shade of skin tone? In the summer or the winter? Is it exposed or unexposed parts of the body? At what shade of skin color does one cease to be "white" and belong to a separate ethnicity and identity within Mexico? Does this identity have any specific cultural markers? A different accent? Cuisine? Festivals? Sense of common origin? Any of the constituent elements of an Ethnic group? These are the questions I ask you and other editors to think about in resolving this thorny issue. That's it from me. I wish you a happy 2021.Huasteca (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Said traits would be those that when seen by other people, allow to identify other persons as white, the sources I've presented provide various visual examples, this applies too for people born on India, Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and so on and leads me to refute the rest of your argument, which doesn't really work in the Americas, as in here people of all continental ancestries possible share much culture, festivals, accents, cousines etc. with each other. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Mapa de lenguas de México + 100 000.png