Talk:White Mexicans/Archive 3

Genetics content
The genetics content was only in the lead, so I moved it into a new section in the body. the last sentence was WP:OR - neither source attributed the difference between genetic studies and polls/censuses to the mestizo-ization policy. Here is that sentence with its sources:

The differences between genetic ancestry and reported numbers could be attributed to the influence of the concept known as "mestizaje", which was promoted by the post-revolutionary government in an effort to create a united Mexican cultural identity with no racial distinctions.

All the genetics content is sourced from primary sources, so I tagged it for that too. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a source attributing the statistical differences to the process of mestizaje (in Spanish). Regarding the claims of primary sources there are studies that directly compare Mexicans with Europeans and have found the so called mestizos to be similar to Eurpeans and different of Amerindians and Africans:,. All this sources have been posted in the discussion before, but it has grown as much that they get lost easily. Probably is necessary to include this sources with that sentence (replacing either Chile or Costa Rica with Spain for example). I'll wait to listen your opinion in the sentence for the mestizaje. In the meantime I'm returning the genetic sentence to the lead because is too small to have it's own section. I want to hear your opinion wheter to include the studies that compare Mexicans directly with Europeans and found them similar or if we leave it as it is. Aergas (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * your reversion violates WP:LEAD. We don't put content in the lead that is not in the body.  Why are you violating WP:LEAD? (real question)  The new source about statistical differences.  I don't see where it says anything about genetic testing, so I don't see how it supports the deleted sentence.  Did I miss that? (real question)  With regard to primary/secondary sources, what would be best here would be one or more WP:SECONDARY sources - for this, secondary sources are review articles that look at the primary sources (like the ones cited) to draw the bigger picture.  That is what we are looking  for. Primary sources for things in biology (like these kinds of genetic screens) are notoriously unreliable - that's why we really want secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In addition, For those 2 links on genetics, you are assuming original research that this presents some kind of linear correlation for proving amdmixture, but it does not, because many non-linear impacts such as for instance, 'founder effects', have been known to influence genetic data of specific alleles. So, again that is not evidence. Alon12 (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * with regard to reviews, here is very recent one; here is a very old one; here are 14. Not sure all of those are on point for this article. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alon12, I told you this before: Can you prove any of the claims you just made with sources that are directly related to these studies? if you can't then what you are saying is nothing more than "what if's" and "perhaps'", the source about the mestizaje does not address genetics I'm afraid, but it does address statistical discrepancies, the problem is that Mexico does not have any modern census on race. I see what's the peoblem we have with the lead right now, but to put it on it's own section would look bad too, what if we merge it with an extant section instead? I was thinking on mixing it with the "Distribution" section and rename it "Distribution and estimations" we could add the other figures there too. What do you think? Aergas (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the one making claims about admixture using original research, when in fact the papers make zero reference of admixture, and you have not shown any evidence that exact proportions of specific estimated alleles are necessarily correlated with proportional admixture. Alon12 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It says that they are similar to Spaniards and different from Africans and Amerindians, if that wasn't the case it simply wouldn't say that. Don't make a +40 replies argument out of this clear fact. It's unalterable. Aergas (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Similar' can mean meany things, since you are assuming a linear relationship for a subject as complex as genetics, which has many non-linear tendencies such as 'founder effects'. So, it has nothing to do with implied proportions of admixture. To demonstrate that it does show that the alleles show any specific relation to admixture, it must be proven, otherwise it is original research. Alon12 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Prove your claims with sources that refer directly to those studies. Aergas (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the one who need to prove that those studies have anything to do with proportions of admixture, because they do not claim to be anything about it. Alon12 (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

while you guys keep editing in your own private hell, I moved the genetics content back out of the lead. I made it a subsection of the Census section, which I renamed to Population studies. I urge you guys to not get hung up on percentages published in primary sources - using genetics for population studies of ethnicities is a notoriously bad field, in which lots of studies end up with results that other groups cannot reproduce'. That is why reviews are especially important. Take the numbers lightly! Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * and btw I will be deleting the genetics content, probably on Sunday, if it still sourced only to primary sources at that time.Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The improvements you made to the citations and to the sources were very needed, but you removed a lot of sourced material, and worse, material that is in the mid of a dispute and not for very good reasons: You claim to have removed the genetic information of the United States because there is no legal cocept of 1/4, but that is irrelevant to the sentence in question, it says "equal to around 1/4" not that there is a 1/4 standard, and if is that much of a problem to mention 1/4 we can replace it with "60%-70%" on top of this the information regarding the United States is necessary because there is a big Mexican diaspora in that country. Please discuss before making mass removals of material thar is on dispute. I made you a proposal regarding the genetic information (wheter it should be merged, left on the lead or modified with new sources that I presented) and you ignored it. And primary sources is not a ground to remove information, the policy of Wikipedia on reliable sources allows their use, if it's necessary to modify the sentence to say something on the style "Mexican mestizos are genetically close to people living on European countries" instead of Chile or Costa Rica that's something that extant sources allow us to do, and is something directly stated on them. It's a matter of discussing before editing. Wikipedia policies state it: Do not revert, discuss  . By the way, it's good that you decided to stay. Aergas (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you talk about 1/4, yet there are also Spaniards who maintain up to 30-40% north african ancestry. So, that means it is required for a spaniard to be only 60-70% european too? Again, as we see in figure s10 . This is an article on mexican nationals in particular, in any case, not mexicans in foreign nations. Alon12 (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, this line in the lead is also, genetics content, ' Another group in Mexico, the "mestizos", also include people with varying amounts of European ancestry, with some having a European admixture higher than 90%.[12] ' Alon12 (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I find ironic that you are trying to suggest and compare the admixture of White Americans with Spaniards doing a massive amount of non-accepted synthesis yet at the same time you contest a study that directly compares Spaniards with Mexicans and have found them to be similar. Your argument is flawled to the root: White Americans weren't tested with the same markers than Spaniards so the Near East admixture isn't considered, you are comparing apples and oranges here. Additionaly the non-white admixture of White Americans is Sub-Saharan African and Amerindian, product of recent admixing, while the admixture from the Near East and North Africa can be traced back to the neolithic, and on top of this, North Africans and Arabs are considered white in the census of the United States per the White American article. Aergas (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet again, you ignore all research, and make your own apples and oranges comparisons. Here are direct sources, comparing all forms of global admixture, INCLUDING north african and middle eastern, and spaniards are shown to be less homogeneous than white americans . Furthermore, this shows that despite the racial caste system of Spain attempting to excluding near easterners and north africans in the claim to be of 'clean european blood'[limpieza de sangre], spaniards maintain more admixture, so a 'white american' living in spain, would show higher european genetic content relative to a spaniard by Spaniard standards. And, the study specifically associates the moorish invasion with north african ancestry in spain too. "n. For example, the Moorish Berber conquest in Iberia began in the 8th century common era and lasted for more than 500 y; this conquest has been suggested as a potential source of gene flow from North Africa toward the Iberian Peninsula" Alon12 (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

content about race in America
The content said "While in the United States the criteria has become less strict: there is self-identified white people that has an amount of non-European admixture that would be equivalent to around 1/4. This could be attributed to historical and cultural reasons, including slavery creating a racial caste and the European-American suppression of Native Americans, which often led people to identify or be classified by only one ethnicity, generally that of the culture they were raised in. While many Americans may be biologically multiracial, they often do not know it or do not identify so culturally. :


 * The first sentence is so grammatically butchered that it makes no sense. What are you even trying to say?  What "criteria" in particular are being discussed?  The reference says nothing about "criteria" for sure.
 * And more importantly, how does this have anything to do with "Mexicans of European descent "? (that is a real question) In my view you guys have been fighting about something that is completely off topic.   Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's related because there is a huge Mexican diaspora in the United States and a explanation to why 52% of Mexican Americans are white when supposedly only 10% of Mexicans are white must be given. Aergas (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no content in the article about 52% of Mexican americans being white, nor about 10% of Mexicans being white, today. If there were, it would be complicated to discuss and we would indeed need to have some clear, brief, and well-sourced discussion about how race and ethnicity have been surveyed in the US and in Mexico.  The content above is not clear and not well-sourced.  But it is pointless in the article as it stands as there is no discussion of ancestry of Mexican-Americans.  Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because you removed it, it must be restored. Aergas (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The Latest Genetic Research Demonstrates Amerindian ancestry is predominant over European ancestry in Mexico
Since it has been determined that citing ancestry estimates from a primary source is not a good thing, here is a news article from a research journal, which references a primary source, explicitly saying that the lines between 'mestizos' and indigeneous is genetically blurred and that they retain close biological ties. It does not get anymore clear than this. 

"The largest survey of Mexican genetics performed so far reveals tremendous diversity in the country."

The study also reveals that there are close biological connections between Mexico’s two traditional cultural groups: indigenous Native Americans and “mestizos” — people with mixed Native American and European ancestry.

“As academics, we have been separating them into two groups — indigenous and cosmopolitan,” says geneticist Andrés Moreno-Estrada at Stanford University in California, one of two lead authors of the paper describing the findings, which is published today in Science1. “Genetically, we see that, in fact, there is very little difference between these two.”

"The authors also report that the mixed-descent Mexicans in the study, although economically and socially distinct from native populations, are genetically quite similar to them. Mestizo people from particular regions of Mexico showed more genetic similarities to nearby indigenous groups than to distant ones.

“We see that there is very little difference between a cosmopolitan person from the city of Oaxaca and a Zapotec from the highlands of Oaxaca, and I hope this breaks down those barriers,” Moreno-Estrada says. “This separation in social terms that we have been accepting for years doesn’t have a biological basis.”"

The study, is the newest, most in-depth study, showing mexico's genetic roots. Authors of this new work include A. Hidalgo-Miranda, I. Silva-Zolezzi, G. Jimenez-Sanche, who had made previous studies such as, so this is a continuation of their now, less comprehensive, old work.

There is zero original wording in the topic of this section following the next colon, it is simply the latest genetic data word for word, relevant to the mention of genetics in this page, direct from a primary source, a peer-reviewed genetic study on latin america too, which confirms the same:

 "Mexico A total of 19 reports regarding molecular autosome estimates of parental continental ancestry in Mexican populations are presented in Table 1. Three of them concern the country in general, while 27 concern specific populations, with the large population of Mexico City heavily represented (seven estimates). Amerindian ancestry is most prevalent (51% to 56%) in the three general estimates, followed by European ancestry (40% to 45%); the African share represents only 2% to 5%. The Amerindian contribution is the highest in 22 (81%) of the 27 estimates.

Many cases of repeated sampling in the same population were recorded: for the general evaluations, the percentage differences are minimal (at most 6%), but for Nuevo León, Veracruz, Guerrero, and Yucatan (all sampled twice), the highest differences, generally involving the European fraction, are 17% to 28%. In Mexico City, the European contribution was estimated as 21% to 32% in six of the seven reports, with the anomalous value of 57% obtained in a single sample of 19 subjects. European ancestry is most prevalent in the north (Chihuahua, 50%; Sonora, 62%; Nuevo León, 55%), but in a recent sample from Nuevo León and elsewhere in the country, Amerindian ancestry is dominant. The general conclusion, therefore, is that the Amerindian genes were victorious in the battle of survival over those of the Spanish Conquistadores!"

Alon12 (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The first study was conducted with the intention of tracing the genetic map of the amerindian population of Mexico, when the full study is read, you can see that the study states to be focused on amerindians' genetic diversity. Thus is misleading to call it a "definitive study" because Mexicans with considerable European ancestry wee left out of the selection.
 * The second study compilates several genetic studies, here is a table included in said study, however when you go to the sources of each study nearly half of them present sample bias, for example this study (No. 1) was cited, and it states to have been done on Mexicans with asthma, per recent research, asthma itself affects people from lower socioeconomic status almost twice, and the relation between high Amerindian ancestry in Mexico and a low socioeconomic status is high and this has been documented before. Another study cited (No.3)  states that "the sample from Mexico City, which includes 967 cases and 343 controls from a Type II Diabetes study" and the correlation between high Native American ancestry and Diabetes is well documented   so we have another sample bias here, the study No.10 was done on Amerindians , study No.11 again was done on diabetics , same with study No.12 , study No.14 tested only 26 people , study No.16 textually asserts that "the study is not comprehensive survey of the selective landscape in the ancestral populations of the present day Mexicans" study No.17 is the same study than No.3, study No.18 is a study in a remote rural population , study No.19 is an amerindian tribe . Once all the studies are analzed you find that more than half aren't fit to represent "Mexico as a whole" as the study wants to imply, and is likely that the studies that can' be accesed or scrutined enough present sample bias aswell, it also must be noted that several studies on which the European admixture in Mexicans was dominant were excluded, and these studies don't have that kind socioeconomical/medical sample bias (which is perhaps why the European component is dominant). Aergas (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The paper published in Science is a WP:PRIMARY source and it should not be cited. The accompanying news piece is not what we look for in a secondary source - it is just a news piece on the primary source.  The other source described, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3983580, is great - this is a review article and is exactly what we look for as a WP:SECONDARY source for scientific information.   It overviews all the work that has been done, analyzes it, and summarizes it.  You should generate content from the "Actual Data, Middle America: Mexico" section and focus on the authors' discussion.   We cannot analyze the data presented there ourselves, in any way.  That is WP:OR.  I'll replaced the current content, with content from this source and remove the tag. Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We aren't going to add information that is largely proven incorrect when there is much better information aviable. Please don't modify the article until these issues are resolved. Don't revert or remove, discuss. Aergas (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally I would like to know why are you replying in the place of Alon12, editing the information that Alon12 brought and talking just like Alon12 does. Aergas (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about in your last comment? I don't understand. Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Aergas, please provide a rationale for this reversion. Every Wikipedia content policy calls us to rely on secondary sources - WP:NPOV and WP:OR in particular, as does the sourcing guideline, WP:RS.  Why revert an edit replacing old primary studies with a recent review?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You know what I'm talking about, you should have been more careful, at this point is obvious that you and Alon12 are the same person, you reply on place of him, he replies on your place, both use the same style, both bring reflists to talk pages, both use bold text to make emphazis, both support the same changes... It's too much evidence. And is not mandatory to use secondary (and proven incorrect) sources. Wikipedia accepts primary sources just as good, specially for direct claims such as the ones where they are being used. Aergas (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, you are accusing me of being a WP:SOCK and I suggest that you tread very carefully there. I am not a SOCK of Alon12 or anyone else.  I have directly responded to you.   If you continue to believe I am a SOCK, the proper forum to deal with that - now that you have asked and been answered -  is WP:SPI.   If you bring this up again here - ever - I will bring you to ANI for disruptive behavior.  Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You are correct that it is not mandatory to use secondary sources but every policy and guideline urges us to use them. Please present a valid reason to use old, primary sources when a recent secondary source is avaliable. Also, please provide a source of equal quality to the 2014 review that "proves" it is "incorrect". Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm being careful enough, don't worry for me. And primary sources are better on this case because they have no proven sample bias. Nor claim to be focused on "Amerindian genetic diversity" how can you want to add a source focused on Amerindian genetic diversity and that created a map of Amerindian genetics on an article for White Mexicans? Aergas (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to bring a source saying that the 2014 review is flawed. Otherwise that is your WP:OR.  Please provide a source.  If you do not have a source, please say so. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is a secondary source who claims that the sky is yellow, will you push it on an article becuase it's a secondary source, or will you rather use all the primary sources aviable that say that the sky is blue? Is common sense, not everything that comes in a secondary source is correct, Wikipedia editors must be able to separate good sources from bad ones, you aren't a robot who don't have any common sense, I'm sure of that because very often you remove good secondary sources from articles related to GMO topics because you don't like them. As much that you have received coverage in websites that aren't Wikipedia. One source textually claims to be focused on Amerindians ad the other includes studies that go as far as to claim that they aren't supposed to be used as any referent to ancestry, yet they are used. There is no reason to use these surces when better ones are aviable. Aergas (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so you don't have a source; you are doing WP:OR. I will bring this to WP:RSN and we will get more input there; I have to run now but will do that later today or tomorrow.  Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary but if you feel it is do it. Aergas (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. How do you think we should resolve our difference? I'll wait to go to RSN for your answer. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is not a complicate thing, it's just that you want to add studies focused on Amerindian genetic diversity to an article about White Mexicans, the study itself might be good, but don't belongs here or on an article about the Mexican population in general. It belongs to the article for Amerindian Mexicans. And there is no point on trying to attack the Europeaness of Spaniards stitching a lot of sources together that don't even use the same markers, specially when the "non-white" admixture of Spaniards and White Americans is different (north african for Spain, black and amerindian for the USA). And on top of this, any Spaniard that goes to the United States will be considered white, no matter if is the darkest person on Andalucia, and near easterners and north africans are considered white in the US. Aergas (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * hm. The content I added gave ancestry from europeans, as well as amerindians and africans (seems to me that all three are relevant).  Are you objecting to the content also referencing the percentages of amerindian and africans, or to the source itself?  Or maybe both?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason I object the use of the source here is because is focused in Amerindian genetic diversity, you edit articles about medicine, I'm sure that you understand semantics. That study is more than welcome in articles about Amerindian Mexicans, same with your previous complains about the cultural mestizaje of Amerindians. Aergas (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

. We don't agree about the source. It is called "Interethnic admixture and the evolution of Latin American populations" and as its abstract says, "A general introduction to the origins and history of Latin American populations is followed by a systematic review of the data from molecular autosomal assessments of the ethnic/continental (European, African, Amerindian) ancestries for 24 Latin American countries or territories.". I'll go ahead and open a thread as RSN and will put a notice here when that is done. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC) posted on RSN: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. I won't discuss further here, so we don't fork the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

State of the Article
Stop edit-warring. This article was fully page-protected last week due to edit-warring. Then a request was filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard for volunteer mediation. After acting as the moderator / mediator, after several rounds of discussion, we identified two issues concerning language that was proposed for inclusion in the lead section of the article. These two issues are now being considered by a Request for Comments. I then asked the participants whether there were any specific issues concerning the remainder of the article. The result was general comments, but not specific areas for further discussion. The edit-warring then resumed. The dispute resolution noticeboard thread has now been closed as a general close. Once again, the way to resolve content issues is on the article talk page, not by edit-warring. Any future edit-warring is likely to result in another page protection, or may be reported to WP:ANEW or WP:ANI, which may result in the edit-warriors being temporarily blocked. Stop edit-warring and start talking to rather than past each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My point is that, as it was resolved on the board, that sourced links must be posted first, and then debated after the fact. How come my sourced data was removed? It should be re-inserted into the article. That is hypocritical, and indeed I disagree with edit warring, which is why my previous edit should be restored.


 * Alon12 (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because you are premeditely misinterpreting sources. And in the last days you have been debating over things that aren't even written in the article. Aergas (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have explicitly shown you multiple times, that you have been directly applying WP:Synth to the article, in many instances. Even you admitted that you applied WP:Synth, by saying that despite the genetic study not being specific to mestizos, 'it must be assumed to be on mestizos, because everyone is classified as a mestizo'. Yet, you do not have any references to substantiate that. In any case, that is a separate issue, and you are dragging it here for some reason. Alon12 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I told you that they are mestizos because that's what the study calls them. That's all. Aergas (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * But the study explicitly DOES NOT call them that, you are calling them that through WP:Synth. Mestizo was defined as a region, including regions whereby modern censuses are conducted and 'white' exists as a category, and in which many identify as. So, a lack of a census, does not assume a singular ethnicity.
 * "The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection."
 * http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000037
 * Again, a separate issue from this thread, but you want to drag it here. Alon12 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "The position of each blue dot on the triangle plot indicates the proportion of European, Native American and African ancestry estimated for each individual in the population. The triangle plots for the other 11 Mestizo populations examined are shown in the Supporting Information" alright, what's confusing about this sentence that explicitly call them mestizos? I don't see any problem here. Aergas (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection."
 * http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000037
 * The article is explicitly NOT referring to mestizo as a cultural or ethnic term, but rather a geographical one, this is literally defined in the article. It encompasses all members of any ethnic or cultural background. Alon12 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One don't excludes the other, specially in the case of Mexico where a number of whites have been passed as mestizos. Aergas (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only 'whites', but also 'indigenous' assimilated into mestizos according to the same sources, so if you have evidence that the article refers to ethnic or cultural mestizos, then post it, but the evidence simply does not exist. Alon12 (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And how is that relevant to an article about White Mexicans? Aergas (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The very study says absolutely nothing about white, black, brown, or whatever else mexican, it is purely a geographical study, not based on any brown/white/black culture or ethnicity, for that matter. So, by calling it a separate group, that is specifically misleading and is a form of WP:Synth. Alon12 (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The study is about mestizos, I think it's clear enough, if you complain about some notion of "separate groups" why aren't you bothered with the sources from the CIA world factbook or Encyclopedia Britannica? These divide groups too. Aergas (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The study is about a geographic region, and the region of latin america was considered as mestizo, it says nothing about cultural or ethnic mestizos. So, it is not 'another group'. It is very clear in the source.
 * "The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection."
 * http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000037 Alon12 (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You must understand that we are working with concepts that are very vaguely defined, the Mexican census never used the word mestizo, and there hasn't been a classification of something close to ethnicy in more than 90 years. We can't take the study as a definitive truth, but we can't discard it either, that's why it's written that the definition of mestizo can vary from study to study, the term mestizo in Mexico is something inconsistent. Aergas (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You must understand that the article is not talking about the term mestizo as it is used in mexico, the article is not talking about the term as it is used in any specific country or in any specific cultural or ethnic sense. It specifically uses its own definition, defined as a geographical sense, nothing else. "The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection." http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000037 Alon12 (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Original Research
Any edits that are thought to be original research can be reported at the original research noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Where should WP:Synth be reported? In addition, my edits, were extremely well-sourced and included many links, how come they were removed, and on what basis? If it is understood that sourced edits are made to an article first, and that discussion regarding them are conducted after the fact on the talk page, why was my well-sourced data removed by an opposing party who had engaged in an edit war against me, by removing sourced data. On the other hand, I removed no such data. That is hypocritical. Alon12 (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edits had sources? perhaps, but you were misinterpreting them, starting with the article about White Americans and the diagram that clearly shows individuals with more than 1/4 non-European ancestry. This breaks the rest of your contribution because it's basis was that White Americans are more European than Spaniards because the least European White Americans are 1/10 non white, which is false. Aergas (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The article shows that the number of 'hispanic-americans' were misclassified, not vice versa. Do you realize there is a difference? This is elementary logic, for instance, a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square. Talk about it there, instead of bringing all these issues to every single sub-thread. Alon12 (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the article there is any claim of mis-classification, citing it textually: "The Hispanic-American group seems to be more heterogeneous than the remaining groups with fairly large number of self-identified Hispanics (The little black dots) being assigned to the same cluster as the self-identified European-Americans (the little red dots)" self-identified Hispanics are all the black dots, how would a self-identified Hispanic in that study mis-classify itself as non-Hispanic White when it already self-identified as Hispanic? Do you have a grasp of grammar, or do we have to open a DRN to discuss this sentence? Aergas (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yet again, more and more ad hominems, yet you continue to apply WP:Synth http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/12/28
 * "Four clusters are identified using 96 ancestry informative markers. Three of these clusters are well delineated, but 30% of the self-reported Hispanic-Americans are misclassified. " Alon12 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's talking about the position of the black dots in the chart, it's not saying that self-identified Hispanics were mis-clasified as Whites during the sample collection, do we seriously need a DRN case for this? Aergas (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is explicitly say that Hispanics were misclassified, and that it isn't a surprise, considering that hispanic is not a race. "In MESA, there is a very high agreement between self-reported ethnicity and individual ancestry estimates computed using genotyped AIMs for Americans who identify themselves as either of European, African or Chinese descent. SRE seems to be a less reliable indicator for Hispanic-Americans. We note that the term Hispanic-Americans, in general, refers more to social-cultural factors than to a genetically homogeneous group of people. " Again, keep to the subthread, do not bring this here Alon12 (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If a Hispanic mis-classified itself as white in the sample collection process then it wouldn't be refered to as "self-identified Hispanic" in the study, it's not rocket science. Aergas (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * IT says that Hispanics were '30%' mis-identified, and that is exactly what the graphic shows. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/12/28
 * "Four clusters are identified using 96 ancestry informative markers. Three of these clusters are well delineated, but 30% of the self-reported Hispanic-Americans are misclassified. " So, you cannot say that because hispanics are misclassified, that so are chinese and whites, it does not work like that. Alon12 (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You said it above, Hispanic is not a race, a Hispanic might mis-classify itself as White-Hispanic, Black-Hispanic etc. but still being a self-identified Hispanic (a black dot) in the chart, it isn't hard to understand. Aergas (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why it shows and explicitly states HISPANICS being misclassified at that rate in the graphic, not whites or chinese. Indeed, it is not difficult to understand. Alon12 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally you understand, a self-identified Hispanic might mis-classify itself as White, Black or Asian, but is still a self-identifies Hispanic (black dot), Hispanic itself can't be mis-classified because Hispanics can be of any race. Aergas (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That's why it says Hispanics are misclassified, not whites, so the point about 30% of whites being misclassified is not mentioned in the source, only for Hispanics it is said. Alon12 (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If isn't mentioned that 30% of Whites were misclassified then it didn't happen. Aergas (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So, if it shows 30% of 'hispanics' were misclassified, not 'whites', then you admit that you are wrong in your wording in the article. Alon12 (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not wrong, the source was used to show that there are self-identified White Americans with more than 1/4 of non European ancestry. Aergas (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But it shows that hispanics were, not whites, specifically. Alon12 (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's because Hispanics can be of any race but still are self-identified Hispanics (black dots). Aergas (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It shows 'hispanic' as a separate group, and some hispanics being misclassified, not whites at that '30%' rate you keep quoting. Alon12 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the graph we see some self-identified non-Hispanic White Americans (red dots) almost in the 60% mark. Aergas (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In figure s10, we can see some spaniards close to reaching the 40% north african admixture mark. Alon12 (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The article explicitly states that it was hispanics who were misclassified at the highest rates, not 'whites'. "In MESA, there is a very high agreement between self-reported ethnicity and individual ancestry estimates computed using genotyped AIMs for Americans who identify themselves as either of European, African or Chinese descent. SRE seems to be a less reliable indicator for Hispanic-Americans. We note that the term Hispanic-Americans, in general, refers more to social-cultural factors than to a genetically homogeneous group of people. "Alon12 (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Hispanics sometimes mislabeled themselves "White Hispanic" or "Black Hispanic" but still Hispanic, there was no mis-identification of White Americans, so if a red dot is on the 60-70% European mark it is indeed a self-identified White American. Aergas (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There were 4 groups, self-identified hispanics, self-identified whites, self-identified blacks and self-identified chinese. All this study says is that hispanics are not a homogeneous group, and hence are misclassified at higher rates than all other self-identified ethnicities. ". Three of these clusters are well delineated, but 30% of the self-reported Hispanic-Americans are misclassified." It does not say that '30% of whites' are misclassified, it says, 30% of hispanics, specifically and that Hispanics were misclassified at higher rates than all other ethnicities."In MESA, there is a very high agreement between self-reported ethnicity and individual ancestry estimates computed using genotyped AIMs for Americans who identify themselves as either of European, African or Chinese descent. SRE seems to be a less reliable indicator for Hispanic-Americans. We note that the term Hispanic-Americans, in general, refers more to social-cultural factors than to a genetically homogeneous group of people. " Alon12 (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, White Americans weren't mis-classified, if a red dot is on the 60%-70% is because that's how European a White American is, why do you keep repeating the same thing? Aergas (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you are wrong in your statement, because it shows 30%, of hispanics misclassified, and it shows ~90% european admixture for white americans. You have no answer for any of these claims. Alon12 (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not wrong, if it doesn't says tht White Americans (red dots) were mis-classified they weren't. The graph shows the final results, and all self-identified Hispanics, have they wrongly labeled themselves White, Black, Asian or have they labeled themselves correctly are still self-identified Hispanics (black dots). Aergas (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, so it says hispanics were misclassified at 30%, not whites being mis-classified. So, the wording in the article is wrong. Alon12 (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No because they are still self-identified Hispanics (black dots), we are talking about self-identified White Americans (red dots) here, two different things and inconsequential to each other. Aergas (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It says that Hispanics were mis-classified at '30%', not whites. It is inconsequential to the admixture of whites 'being 30%', if hispanics are misclassified at 30%. Alon12 (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep trying to relate one with the other? They even have different colors to prevent this from happening. Aergas (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And it shows hispanics were misclassified at 30%, not whites, in the actual data, even explicitly claimed many times. That is what the data shows. Alon12 (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment. References to persons 'wrongly labelling themselves' are grossly offensive. 'Race', like it or not, is a social construct, and it is not Wikipedia's job to go around asserting that people don't belong in the group they assign themselves to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alon12, again, Hispanic is not a race, a self-identified Hispanic in this study can identify as Black Hispanic, Asian Hispanic or White Hispanic, that's what the mis-labeled claim is about, on the study, a self-identified Hispanic could have labeled himself as Black, White etc. but the person was still considered Hispanic, mislabeled or not it was given the color asignated for Hispanics (the color black), if it wasn't this way they wouldn't have been called "self-identified Hispanics" and since Hispanic is not a race, there wouldn't be a way to find out if someone mislabeled itself or not, because as the study shows, Hispanics are located everywhere in the graph, from the core of the White American cluster, the the core of the African cluster. You are complaining about something that didn't happen. White Americans (red dots) and Hispanics (black dots) are different things, we are talking about the red dots here. Aergas (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * With regards to talk about identity, this is indeed something mentioned in the study, that 'hispanic-americans' as an entity were measured as a group, as were, chinese, white, black americans. So, it states that hispanic-americans as an ethnic group were heavily mis-classified and found to be the most heterogeneous, and for them mis-classification was found to be up to 30%, not for other ethnic groups. You need to stop conflating this issue. These groups were measured separately and compared in aggregate. . You can clearly see that they were measured as separate groups . Alon12 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They were separated indeed, that's exactly why I don't understand that you keep bringing Hispanics (black dots) when the point of discussion was White Americans (red dots). Aergas (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is your claim that mis-classification for 'whites' was 30%, yet the source only states that such a rate was found for hispanics. Alon12 (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never claimed that there was a mis-classification of White Americans on this study, there were self-identified White Americans that shown around 70% European admixture, but it wasn't a mis-cassification. Aergas (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are also individual Spaniards who score over 30% North African admixture. See figure s10. Again, like I said, statistical outliers are not a good form of making generalizations. Alon12 (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Estimates of North African ancestry range between 5% and 14%" Aergas (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is general admixture, that graph shows specific individual admixture, which can range up to 30-40%, which is to compare to outliers you were promoting with your 'red dots theory'. This is why I say it is better to compare general admixture, because when you do, spaniards are less homogenous. Alon12. And this is exactly why the other study shows 'white americans' to be ~90% european in general admixture. Alon12 (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question does not suggests that it is, it might result surprising for you, but in that kind of genetic graphs not every color means "non-white" genes. Aergas (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you like talking about graphics, it is made extremely clear. 'White Americans' show ~90% european ancestry., while Spaniards in figure s3, show 20-30% near eastern + north african ancestry, , and such, when directly compared, Spaniards are even more admixed than 'white americans' . Alon12 (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Spaniards (Spa) that present the highest Near East and North African admixtures are in the 80% mark, not 60%, anyone with good sight can tell this. Some other points: Sub-Saharan African admixture (light blue color) is non-existant in the Spaniards of this study while is notable in the White Americans of the study at hand (not to mention Amerindian), and the other point is that White Americans weren't tested with markers that allow to calculate Near East admixture, while you are making the summatory of Near East + North African admixtures to claim that Spaniards are less white. Aergas (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So now you are copy-pasting comments to other sub-threads too where you should not even post this exchange? I already addressed you. " That is a different group of Spaniards.[GAL] for Galician, and [AND] for Andalusian who are also ethnic spaniards were also selected from groups. So, it shows there that it shows level of admixture up to 30-40%. In addition BAS is for Basque, and CAN is for Canarians. The actual paper focuses on north african ancestry here, then near eastern ancestry, not so much on sub-saharan african ancestry, which is why it references other papers on that particular issue. With regards to sub-saharan african admixture, the paper cites  this which shows 2.4% sub-saharan admixture, which is greater than the amount present in 'white americans'. Furthermore, it is indeed relevant for Spaniards and 'white americans' to be compared directly, it is explicitly stated that Spaniards are less homogenous, and you can see in this graphic that in a comparison of all global ancestry, spaniards maintain more admixture  than 'white americans'. " Alon12 (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

State of This Article, Again
The two editors who were edit-warring and talking past each other have been blocked for two weeks. Any editors who have newly come to this article are invited to look at it and see if they can make any constructive suggestions or edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are my own thoughts for now (and I won't be trying to be neutral on previous issues, only to observe a neutral point of view, since I am no longer mediating. First, any phrase having to do with "racial purity" or anything similar should be avoided, with the possible exception of quotations for historical pre-Revolutionary context.

Second, I am skeptical of the need for any reference to persons of European descent in other countries in the Western Hemisphere. The United States, in particular, has a significantly different history and cultural context is different than Mexico. Mexico was populated largely by Spaniards who came to a country that had a very large indigenous population, and "white" is distinguished from mestizos of mixed white and indigenous origin and from predominantly indigenous persons. More recently, immigration to Mexico has been primarily of Europeans (who are considered "white"). The United States, on the other hand, had a much smaller indigenous population, and there was little intermarriage between the English and other European settlers and native Americans (who were either killed or limited to reservations). In the United States, the main "non-white" groups are African-Americans descended from African slaves who were imported by the European settlers, and non-European immigrants (Asian, Latin American, and African). The two situations are not comparable. The existence of Americans in Mexico and Mexicans in the United States is not important unless its importance can be established. Similarly, the history of Brazil is sufficiently different from that of Mexico that comparison is probably not useful. We should be skeptical of the need for any comparisons to other countries. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think is better to remove anything concerning "racial purity" because it's a controversial topic, it was the reason this problem started and we couldn't agree on what to do there after long discussions, I will expand some sections aswell. Aergas (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)