Talk:White Mexicans/Archive 5

White Mexican, population and percentage
No one of the three sources for ensure the "47% of white mexicans" contains about ethnic groups of mexico, the three sources talk about only the racism in Mexico: 21 de marzo Día Internacional de la Eliminación de la Discriminación Racial Encuesta Nacional sobre Discriminación en México DOCUMENTO INFORMATIVO SOBRE DISCRIMINACIóN RACIAL EN MéxICO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.61.164 (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

http://istmo.mx/index.php/2016/07/04/el-mestizaje-es-un-mito-la-identidad-cultural-si-importa/, The reference doesn't deal with the white population in Mexico, it talks about the indigenous pride in Mexico, and clearly it's a yellowish note, not apt to be placed in wikipedia that requires serious and confident sources.

http://www.dimensionantropologica.inah.gob.mx/?p=7401%E2%80%8E, to start, the page is a blog and the article was written by the user "pla brugat dolores", Although the article is a well-done analysis of Mexican racial censuses, the information for white race is relatively scarce, the article deals mainly with the decline of the indigenous population in favor of the mestizo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.61.164 (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

CONAPRED hasn't studies on ethnology or racial research, the pdf compiles documents on surveys of public opinion regarding discrimination (racial, gender, etc.) nothing more

I think you must re-read these documents, and actualy pay attention to their context, as first they talk about how racism in Mexico manifests on Mexicans preffering and favoring people with European appearance and that has light skin, light hair etc. over people with non-European ones and then proceed to state that 47% of Mexicans identify with light skin. In the document's context (which is as you said yourself 'racism') the later statement means that 47% of Mexicans self-identified as being of European appearance. You claim that "the documents do not explicitly meantion that 47% are white..." but that claim is far fetched and unfounded as it is not neccesary for the documents to mention races such as European, Mestizo, Indigenous or African at every page because, as established on it's titles the context of the whole thing is races and racism. Also the CONAPRED is very competent in regards to ethnology research, that's what it was created for. Finally your inquiries in regards to the sources that criticize the 1921 census are already addressed in the article (by stating that they are primarily indigenist, but do mention that other races were also targeted by the mestizaje process) and are realiable sources, specially the work published by the INAH itself. Additionally, I will have to ask you to stop unilateraly editing and removing largely well sourced information until the points that concern you have been adressed in this page. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * A survey of 5000 people doesn't represent anything to the 127 million of Mexicans. It's completely necessary that the source speaks about races and ethnography in Mexico (this article speaks precisely about races: the white race). In many sections of the article you wrote a lot of information and all have the same reference (the yellowish note: http://istmo.mx/index.php/2016/07/04/el-mestizaje-es-un-mito-la-identidad-cultural-si-importa/). You suppose it's illogical that the white race has declined in Mexico between 1801 and 1921 and you also say that the census of 1921 was a lie of the government to make believe that Mexico is predominant mestizo, but according to researches by Peyser & Chakiel, Angel Rosenblat and Stanley J, after the independence, in Latin America the mixed marriages were 10 times more frequent than pure ones, and the number of children was larger in mestizo women. The number of European immigrants in Mexico during 1910-1930 was 226,000 (less than 1%)

. It would be good for you to edit without personal interests, since most of reliable sources about races don't say that Mexico is more than 20% white, given the past experiences I can deduce that you are Mexican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.61.164 (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The sample size was not 5,000 people, it was 52,000 and on it participed almost the cities/towns in the country which makes it bigger and more reliable than any other ethnicy survey made. The yellowish note is not the only source I've provided that criticizes the mestizaje concept and calls out it's authenticity, I've submitted many more, from the Mexican Institute of Anthropology and History, the UNAM, aswell as independent researchers. The claim that Mestizo marriages were ten times more common after independence is an irresponsible generalization as Latin America is not a single country, it may be true in the case of Brazi as that country indeed encouraged misgenation by giving privileges to mixed race people. However in the case of Mexico it's absolutely ilogical and does not have any backup in historical records namely marriage register or birth certificates, many sources besides the ones I've brought (because they were in the article prior i began editing) strongly contradict that assertion as they all state that criollos/Spanish/whites remained significantly distanced from the Mestizo and Indigenous population. Finally by "most reliable sources say Mexico is 20% white..." you refer to only two: the world factbook and brittanica, both of which didn't made any field research and base their numbers in the largely criticized 1921 census, and lets not ignore that once they are compared with results obtained from modern research they completely fall appart:

How can Mexico be only 9-16% white when 18%-23% of Mexicans have blond hair and 28% have light eyes? How can Mexico be only 9%-16% white when 50% of Mexico's babies don't have the mongolian spot (which is only absent on European babies)?

If anything, the real question here is why the sources that assert that Mexico is only 9%-16% are still included in the article when several research (some of which has been made by Mexico's government itself) completely contradicts them. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but it's totally impossible that half of the Mexican babies are pure white, for that to be true, Mexico should have been white as the European countries since especially in France, United Kingdome, Spain, Belgium and Italy less than half of the current babies are Caucasian, the genetic studies in Europe determined even in the Nordic area a large percentage of inhabitants have at least 10% African genes. According to the study that you place, what's methodology that the research uses to get right with the approach at the national level about people with light hair?, At least one million blond immigrants must have arrived in Mexico to be credible. Answering your question about the reliable sources that estimate 10-20% of white Mexicans are also the university of labal, the university of cambrigde, the world almanac, larousse encyclopedia, etc.


 * In contrast, your source where was supposed that 47% of Mexicans are white, actually the article says that 10.9% of Mexicans claimed to be light-skinn (page 42). I also took the time to compare the population of mexican states with mostly white population and the states with mestizo majority and a large indigenous population: the most populated states of the south and south-central are michoacan 4.5, chiapas 5.2, guanajuato 5.8, puebla 6.1 millions, jalisco 7.8 millions and state of mexico 16.1 millions. The most populated states of the north mexico and north-central are zaragoza 2.9, baja californa 3.3 millions, tamaulipas 3.4 millions, chihuaha 3.5 millions, nuevo leon 5.1 millions and veracruz 8.1 millions. In conclusion, if the states with mostly mestizo and indigenous population are more populated than the white majority states, it's totally possible, confirmed and completely realistic say that Mexico is 9-16% white.

Your claim in regards to the CONAPRED statement is properly addressed in the article already, but I'll write the relevant points here anyway: besides "blanco" the full survey included additional slang words that refer to white people in Mexico (güero, aperlado, apiñonado etc.) which increase the percentage, the other crucial poin is that moreno does not imply exclusively brown skin or being of mixed race in Mexico, a person with light skin but dark hair is refered to as a moreno aswell, all this claims are pertinently sourced already, this is why the CONAPRED made the aclaration that in total, 47% of Mexicans have European traits (light skin) as there are Europeans who are "morenos". And it's totally possible that around half of Mexico's population is white/predominantly white if the population growth trends from 1500 to 1800 according to the revillagigedo census and it's revisions are considered (and we put the 1921 census data aside, as it has been criticized for being largely inconsistent) and then we use them to predict the next two centuries, the table below is a very conservative (in regards to the number of white Mexicans) estimate, in the lapse of 1900 - 2000 the growth trend of whites and mestizos are duplicated, as it was on that century when Mexico experienced a massive population boom, going from 16 million to 100 million inhabitants in a century:

As you can see, in this very conservative estimate white Mexicans surpassed the 40% mark with no problem, and this is not considering facts such as continuos European immigration or each states' own population growth rates, as Northern states (which have the highest white populations) had higher growth rates than southern ones in average, for example, from 1900 to 2015, Nuevo Leon increased it's population 14 times, whereas the population of the southern state of Oaxaca grew only 4 times. In conclusion, it's totally possible that half of the Mexican population is of complete European or significantly European (enough to not present the mongolian spot) ancestry. I took the time to make this chart and explanation only because other editors may have concerns similar to yours and this is something I wanted to explain with more detail, but there is no actual reason to, as the sources that state the mongolian spot rates or the percentage of Mexicans with light skin come from Mexico's government itself, which, (unlike all the other sources you mentioned on your last reply, who only repeat the results of the very criticized 1921 census) does modern field research and conducts nationwide surveys. That factor and the point that said information it's official recent data makes them have a priority over all other sources. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Precisely, I'm in charge of disaggregating that information in the discussion of White Latin Americans (according to the pdf of conapred), and the total of "white skin tones" turned out to be 18.4%, far from 47% that in itself would be illogical to say that the 64 % of Mexicans claiming to be brown and 47% white at the same time (is more than 100%), I don't find agreement with the table data and the total of sources compiled in this page:

- 1800: Just for the 1793 census, was argued that 18% of Mexican society was white.

- 1900: source? census?

- 2000: The Mexican government and INEGI only calculated the percentage for the indigenous population.

- 2010: It doesn't make sense that between 2000 and 2010 the mestizo population fell from 48 to 30%, the indigenous population doubled from 10 to 21% and the white population pass from 42 to 47%.


 * The populations of states that I placed (those mentioned here) are of 2015 and I find them here in wikipedia, so although Nuevo Leon has increased its population several times, there are still states with mestizo-indigenous majority more populated, also I realize that Oaxaca with 1 million is one of the least inhabited in the south, while the less populated Northen states have 600 thousand inhabitants or less. And with respect for the sources, posibly they had taken their references in the 1921 census, but those sources are exclusively writted by the best university and laboratory professors, so these are not anything badly made (I even forgot the mention of the Mexican Lizcano Fernandez that affirms an exact 15%).

Lizcano Fernandez asserts on his work that his estimates are based on cultural traits, not biological traits, he even stresses that "in countries with strong mestizo cultures like Mexico, historically many whites have been classified as mestizos for living in a mestizo culture" this claim is found almost on all the articles related to ethnicy in Mexico that there is on Wikipedia. As for the other institutions we can be sure they didn't perform nationwide censuses (and they seem to consider only the 1921 census as the 1793 one is never mentioned), so Mexican government sources must be prioritized here. In regards to your claim of CONAPRED and skin color names I'll repeat part of what I told you in the White Latin American's discussion page: "Apiñonado" is an ambiguous term, as it is "burnt" or "moreno" itself, "cinnamon" etc. do you really believe that there are no Europeans who are "morenos" (Europeans with dark hair or tanned skin)? it's because the ambiguety of these color names (especially moreno) that in the documents it's also pointed that, overall, 47% of Mexicans have light skin. Now for your concerns regarding the table i made above:

-For 1800, according to a compilation of sources already used in the article, the ethnic composition of New Spain was on this ranges: white 18%-22%, mestizo 21%-25% and Indigenous 51%-61%, thus the estimations for 1800 included on my table are within the accepted ranges.

-for your concerns on 1900 and 2000: I was very clear when I stated that the projections of these centuries are based on the demographic trends exhibited in the revillagigedo census, looks like you are not paying attention to the discussion.

-for your 2010 claim, as i said above, the projectiona are based solely in revillagigedo's census population trends, therefore they aren't the same than the results of recent research (there's a difference of 5% bewteen the white population aswell) and don't consider uneven population growth in regions of the country, wars, immigration to Mexico etc. however they are approximate enough (remember that the 2015 intercensal survey included as indigenous people who self-identified as part indigenous, which at a degree explains the difference between the Indigenous/Mestizo percentages) and satisfactorily explain, among other things, why nowadays around half of the Mexican babies don't have the mongolian spot (or in other words, are white).

Finally, even if there are southern states more populous than northern ones nowadays, that the average growth rate of northern ones was considerably higher than the southern ones definitely resulted in Mexico's white population increasing it's overall percentage more than mestizo and indigenous ones did. It's basic statistic. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * So according with you, all sources use the 1921 census as a reference, all fanatically support the supposedly "mestizo pride-ideology", no one makes a Scientific research, no one makes a laboratory synthesis or anthropological resources? The only reliable source is a survey of public opinion made to 52,096 people in 2010 and supposedly does genetic studies as well? A survey where I beinging mestizo can respond that "I'm white" or contrary (supposition), Are you calling irresponsible to all the professionals I mentioned previously (Peyser & Chakiel, Angel Rosenblat... etc), known as anthropologists and scientists par excellence, because their real researches doesn't match with your well-planned historical information with a misleading facade to make credible the "47% of whites Mexicans"?


 * I think that you are not telling me the whole truth, you tell me that in all Mexico half of babies are white and in this same article I can finded that the study was only done in Mexico City and the actual result was 48.2% (Is funny because I could find it right here), it turns out that you say that 45% of Mexican population is in the north and north-west of Mexico and you have the cynicism to put the link of Mexican population by state, when Clearly anyone realizes that the states of south and center-south of mexico are much more populated than the states of the north (The second most populated state in the north Nuevo Leon with 5.1 millions, doesn't exceed the south-states of chiapas 5.2, guanajato 5.8, puebla 6.2, jalisco 7.8 and state of mexico 16.1 millions). You are also lying me about lizcano fernandez, he clearly put the following clarification in the head of his research on the ethnic groups in the americas: This article is based on the characterization, quantification and geografical distribution of the six ethnic groups in those that the Ibero-American population is divided: Latin or Iberian, Indigenous, Black, Creole, Garífuna and Asian. From this, it is possible to distinguish four types of coun tries in Iberoamérica (Indo-European, afrocriollo, afromestizo and criollo) and the Ibero-American cultural area is con fronted with the other cultural areas of the American continent (English and French spo ken North America and English and French

spoken Caribbean). Key words: Latin America, Iberoamérica, anthropology, ethnoses, ethnic group, social conditions.


 * A fact of great importance that has been obviated in this article is that Mexico in the early nineteenth century (New Spain) included the western part of the United States and a little south of Canada, so it was obvious that there was more racial variety and more population of all races, automatically makes false your estimation of 1900 because in that time Mexico lost states (population) and the wars of previus decades decimated the population. In addition, the increase of birth rate in white race or the north-states of Mexico didn't really impact much in percentage, it was only a great growth of population, a same pattern that also experienced all the other countries due to the European immigration (even in countries such as Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador, Guyana, even Haiti). The "white tones of skin" that conapred used to "disaggregate the Supposed 47% white population in Mexico", is another question that extended in the discussion of White Latin American, because according to conapred, those who are brown or dark are white because some Europeans are brown and all brown people are tanned and makes it possible for everyone to be brown and white at the same time, right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.60.36 (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

All the sources you refer to effectively only use the 1921 census as reference and they don't even mention the data of the revillagigedo census or any census past the 1921 one, what makes you believe they have conducted proportional, nationwide racial surveys all by themselves? that's absurd because that's not their job, that's the job of the Mexican government, and they report what the Mexican government finds with their censuses. Lizcano, the investigator that has taken the ethnicy issue with the most depth (and still, his investigation didn't include any sort of census/survey) clearly states that his criteria for ethnic classification is cultural, not racial and thus many biological whites were counted as if they were Mestizos, in this case, the most complete source that you present (because you brought Lizcano into this) absolutely favor the idea of biological whites being way more than 15% of Mexico's population and they being wrongly counted as Mestizos, not the other way around. In regards to the mongolian spot, there's 2 different sources that favor this, not one as you claim, one is a study in mexico city (it's date is 2005), and the other is a declaration of the IMSS in regards to Mexican babies as a whole (it's date is 2012), therefore your argument has no real base. You claim that the highly populaous states of Jalisco and Guanajuato are not white and "southern" but according to the book "The United States and Mexico" (published in 1960, thus being more up to date than the 1921 census) white people are also the majority in states on center-west Mexico which include Jalisco, Guanajato, Zacatecas, Aguascalientes, Michoacan, Zacatecas etc. you shouldn't ignore this source (these states also had higher growth rates than southern states). The loss of some northern states in the Mexican-American war is irrelevant because at the time they accounted for 2% of the total Mexican population back then. Finally it doesn't make sense that you try to "invalidate" CONAPRED's statement of 47% of Mexicans having light skin, if they said it it's because that's how it is, you don't know better than them (at least you now acknowledge that they said it). Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Seriusly? One of methods that use lizcano for his investigation was the quantitative method which includes census, surveys and statistics, besides the analysis of the geographic, genetic, racial and a little bit of cultural distribution, I readed and placed his entry here and you still trying to lie me?, you obviously want devalidate lizcano and anyone who doesn't support your idea about a fictitious percentage of white-mexicans. Are you sure that all sources use the 1921 census as reference?

- 1921 data: mestizo 59%, white 9%, amerindian 29%

- CIA world factbook: mestizo 83%, white 10%, amerindian 7%

- Enciclopaedya Britannica: mestizo 64.1%, white 16.7%, amerindian 17.6%

- Encylopédie Larousse: mestizo possibly 76% (don't say), white 13% (aprox), amerindian 10%

- University of Labal: mestizo 60%, white 20%, amerindian 17% (in ethnic and linguistic documents of Jacques Leclerc)

- Cambridge/Stanford/Columbia: mestizo 50-60%, white 10-25%, amerindian 10-30% (books: Ethnic Groups of the Americas: An Encyclopedia, Mexico, Central and South America: Race and ethnicity)

etc,

The American books before 1970 based their research for that time on very old data (censuses of 1800, 1750, 1600, etc.), and it's probable that those states were of white majority centuries ago, And it sounds unreasonable that only a minority lived in old Mexican states, since San Francisco became among the first cities to exceed one million inhabitants between the mid and late nineteenth century, and for the territory of US after the negociation of states is known worldwide the massacred of Indians in United States throughout 19th century, I read in a book that California and Nevada thousands of thousands were shot and burned, and many mestizo-indigenous families emigrated to Mexico after the reduction of territory. Finally, I never recognized that conapred established the "47% of White Mexicans". Greetings.

Why do you keep ignoring that Lizcano textually said that "in countries with strong Mestizo cultures like Mexico, a good number of biologically white people is counted as mestizo for living in a mestizo culture" It's right in the page 196. And Lizcano didn't conduct any census himself, he based his data on previous censuses by the Mexican government, just like the other institutions you are citing, what's so hard to understand about this? For your other point, Howard F. Cline, the author of the book "The United States and Mexico" didn't base his estimations of whites in north/western Mexico on "old data", he personally visited these states, it's all in his Wikipedia article. And according to the 1808 estimate the total population of the Southwest at the time was between 60,000 and 100,000 people, this is around 1% of the total population of Mexico at the time, all your claims are factually wrong guesses as of now, here and on the discussion in the White Latin Americans article. Pob3qu3 (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Howard F. Cline was more oriented to historical and political research than anthropology, so his visit and conclusion that these states are of "white majority" is only a personal opinion not an analyzed study, in addition, Cline was more interested in studying the Amerindian race than Criollo (white) race, this makes your statement more doubtful (and for you to understand, I'm not completely discarding it), although it's also possible that you have taken advantage since the book can't be easily downloaded. I read the document of humboldt, navarro and noriega, and it's false that only 60,000 inhabitants lived in the old north of Mexico, according to the table on page 332 the state of new mexico had 42,000 inhabitants, texas had 22,000 and new california 21,000 (are 85,000 inhabitants, and also has to add the inhabitants of san luis potosi that were 240,000 inhabitants, you took the data of 60,000 inhabitants from page 333 which was actually the number of annual growth in new Spain or mexico in this moment; And finally, I find it curious that you mentioned that in page 196 of lizcano's document there is the disputed information, and the document itself has only 49 pages (rather I think it was intentional), Why do you insist to lie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.60.36 (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Enough of the personal attacks, IP 186.151.60.36! Take a look at the page numbers of the PDF: the information is clearly there on page 196. You've run your course of WP:BLUDGEON on this talk page. Please understand that WP:COMPETENCE is required to contribute to Wikipedia, and I think that you English language skills (at the least) are not up to par. It's time to drop the stick. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Iryna Harpy is right, this discussion has been going on circles for days now, with no mention that your arguments don't have any real foundament (for example you trying to invalidate Cline’s statements on the grounds that “you know better than him”) and are erratic (for example you bringing up San Luis Potosí when that state is still part of Mexico and does not even border the US). I think we all agree that you should find something else to do to pass your time. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The truth is that lizcano referred in his affirmation of white people considered "mestizo" to guatemala, peru, ecuador and bolivia. Not mexico. I'll put the information of page 196: The first type are the Indo-European countries; or, those in which predominant the indigenous and iberian elements. The main ethnic groups are indigenous, follow by mestizo and, in areas where it's easy to differentiate the Mestizo, the Creole. It shouldn't be forgotten that in these countries, many of the so-called biologically white are Mestizos in the cultural aspect. The Indo-European countries are Guatemala, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. It's also necessary for both that investigate better before drawing a conclusion, because after the first call of attention I never made a minimum edition in white Latin Americans and Mexicans of European descent, I respected the criterion of both to make a consensus here before reversing or leaving the figure of 47% and the 1921 census, and also the ip 2602:306:3A1B:8700:4151:2F5F:630E:858F, makes editions at times when I sleeping or working. And finally, with all due respect, I don't care if all wikipedia agrees that I must change my personal schedule. Greetings.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.61.228 (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are having a trouble comprehending what the paper says, it opens saying that "the first group is Indoeuropean countries" on which "many biologically white persons are classified as mestizos" Lizcano right after states that "nine countries make up this group" then it goes to divide said indoeruopean countries on "indomestizo, which includes, peru, bolivia etc..." and "mestizo, which includes Mexico, Paraguay etc." therefore Mexico is clearly included. Once again your claims don't have any real foundation. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thinking that you are telling the truth, why you only tried to increase the percentage of whites in Mexico and not the other eight countries mentioned?... Repeat me that my arguments hasn't any support as many times as you want, only confirms that you are locked in your fictitious reality supported by a single source which I asked once again, which page says what you claim? apparently none, or maybe I have trouble reading the document, right?....And additional fact: your wonderful book

is not available in google books, and we can not see the veracity of your previous arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.151.61.228 (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To modify the number of whites on each country is up to editors from each of these countries. And I just checked the link for the book the "United States and Mexico" used in the article, it works fine. Pob3qu3 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Final clarification: In fact I found the page that reveals 47% of Mexicans claiming as "white", I'm going to translate the texto here: The majority of Mexican women (54%) tend to say of themselves that have light skin tones; this compared with 40% of men who replied the same. It means that the women of our country -influenced by racist advertising in the media, and by the prejudices that Mexico still drags against the dark skin-find more harder than the men to recognize their real color of skin, because they consider that brown tone is not equivalent to the beauty (p.7). So, if enadis-conapred clearly implies that the high result of people who claimed to be white is by prejudice, racism, non-acceptance and people who aspire to be something that is not, it can not be said even jokingly that 47% of Mexicans are white, it seems to me that is you who have problems to understanding the documents (or was intentional?), clearly conapred says that many Mexicans were self-identify as white because Mexican society still live in a racist and classist system (that is morally backward), and even sounds logical because conapred is an institution that veils against racism, and the racial identification survey was just a sample of racial problems faced by Mexico (it's not a figure that determines racial composition in Mexico), and finally, I regret to say that if my arguments haven't support, you are a complet fraud and liar :). And if everyone here believed in your false arguments and unreal figures, well congratulations, there are many people who are worse than you. My regards. --186.151.61.36 (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is already addressed in the article but I'll explain it with more detail here. The CONAPRED theorizes that the Eurocentric model of beauty may be the reason not for how many Mexicans identified as "white" as a whole, but for the gap on skin color choices between men and women (with 40% of men identifying with light skin and 54% of women doing so), In fact the CONAPRED even asserts that men do not have this problem and had no problem chosing their real color (this sentence appears right after the text you translated in your last reply). This is important to remark, because it sets the minimal possible amount of white Mexicans at 41%, I write 41% instead of 40% (which is the percentage obtained for Mexican men alone) because human females having lighter skin, hair aswell as higher frequencies of light eyes than men is well documented thus it's impossible that there's a lower percentage of "white looking" Mexican women than Mexican men. all this considered it's safe to assume that the percentage of White Mexicans lies somewhere between 41% and 47% based on skin color alone which is, admitedly, not fail-proof, as Caucasian/European peoples can get very heavy tans (albeit "non-whites wanting to pass as white" as you put it out, may compensate for it at a degree). Nonetheless this set of surveys remains the most detailed research made to date that considers Mexico's white population. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't deceive me, the translated text is clearly understood when says that women find more harder accept their skin color than men, this means that man also has problems accepting his reality but less than woman. Accept it, you're a fiasco.--186.151.61.228 (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The sentence "Bears have higher chances of drowning than fish" does not mean that fishes drown. Additionally it is clearly stated that the Eurocentric model of beauty may (because said statement is considered a possibility, not a reality as it opens with the words "This could mean...") have influence only in women. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Mexicans of European descent → White Mexicans – It is generally common to refer to Latin Americans of European descent as White Latin Americans and in this case it would make sense to rename the page to White Mexicans. Other pages for this same group from other countries also use the term White. Name change is for consistency only. AquilaXIII (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412  T 23:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This seems wrong to focus on skin color, especially considering that many Spanish-descent Mexicans have some Moorish skin color. Dicklyon (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – I'm okay with this. JAMendoza (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a rationale; see WP:ILIKEIT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  20:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – While I agree that referring to them as White Mexicans is probably not the best term, it is still the most widely used way to refer to people of European descent. This page mainly refers to people who have origins from all of Europe and not just Spain or even Portugal. Since there is no Euro-Latin American or Euro-Mexican term, I thinks it's best to stick to the same format that is widely used. Alexaclova112330 (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No evidence has been provided it's the most widely used way to refer to Mexicans of European descent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  20:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Dicklyon, and per MOS:IDENTITY, because this isn't how Mexican typically conceptualize this. A very large segment of the Mexican population self-identify as Spanish, (i.e. European-Mexican, a.k.a. "white"), even when a foreigner would consider them mixed-race; they downplay the indigenous (Maya, etc.) element of their ethnic mix. This is why "[Mexico] has not conducted a census for European Mexicans for nearly a century." It's a major sociological issue there. A distinction between "Hispanic"/"Latino" and "primarily of European descent" is predominantly an American (in the sense of "US") idea, and applying it to Mexican nationals is original research.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  20:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SMcCandlish. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mexicans of European descent. 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/20110722230642/http://www.nacionmulticultural.unam.mx/Portal/Izquierdo/BANCO/Mxmulticultural/Poblacioninmigrante-lapoliticacolonizadora.html to http://www.nacionmulticultural.unam.mx/Portal/Izquierdo/BANCO/Mxmulticultural/Poblacioninmigrante-lapoliticacolonizadora.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) 03:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Everything and the kitchen sink
What a rambling article! Needs trimming, to be sure. Anyway, to start, I removed this nugget:

According to the 2010 US Census, 52.8% of Mexican Americans identified as being White.

On the basis that unless shown to the contrary, (1) emigrés may not be representative of the population they left behind, and, therefore, any citations like this are unencyclopaedic innuendo; and, (2) The U.S. Census question couldn't be more wishy-washy, as it allows indefinite generations of people born in the U.S. to claim Mexican descent; therefore, one could be a 6th-generation "Mexican American", have one's ancestors be 1/63rd all German, and claim "Mexican" descent because of the one 1/64th Mexican great-great-great-great grand mother, which is an absurd game people in the U.S. seem to enjoy, but utterly inapplicable to actual Mexicans, understood as the people who do live in Mexico. XavierItzm (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, I've expanded the prose of the text that talks about Mexican Americans to address your concern, however you must consider that is not up to us editors to decide if a census criteria is correct/accurate or not. You shouldn't worry about the representativeness of said portion of text as the "Distribution and Estimates" section (where it is located) contains several recent investigations and censuses from different institutions and dependencies, and each has it's criteria well detailed. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The "Distribution and Estimates" section needs to be about actual, real Mexicans, not about people who left (are gone from) Mexico, or worse yet, who are the descendants of people who left Mexico. This article is about actual Mexicans, not about emigrés.  XavierItzm (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that, virtually all articles related to Mexico include at least brief mentions about Mexican diaspora, specially Mexican-Americans. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument to include an utterly irrelevant sentence, which, as I explained above, has no bearing on European Mexicans because U.S. Census data including U.S. people who claim, for example, to be "Mexican-American" because they had a great-great-great-great-great-great grand mother from Mexico in 1841 is simply irrelevant to European Mexicans. Think about it.  The great-great-great-great-great-great grand mother could have been 100% Yaqui Mexican, and now some U.S. person claims to be "White Latino"+"Mexican American" because of the 8-generation removed Mexican immigrant.  This is a clear example of a 100% actual Mexican Indian being transmuted into an irrelevant U.S. Census white person.  Nothing to do with Mexican Europeans! XavierItzm (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, said argument is valid in numerous circumstances. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously not here. You are grasping at straws and avoiding the main rationale for including data which is utterly irrelevant to Mexicans who live in Mexico. XavierItzm (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That this article is exclusively about Mexicans who live in Mexico is a misconception of yours, the name of the article is "Mexicans of European descent" not something such as "Mexicans of european descent of Mexico" Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article is about "Mexican citizens." The canonical example applies.  U.S. census data is irrelevant and hopelessly tainted.  How can a U.S. Census which includes data about sixth-generation white American who are not a Mexican citizens but claim to be "Mexican-American" because of great-great-great-great-great-great grand mother was 100% Yaqui Mexican have anything to do with "Mexican citizens?" XavierItzm (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mexico does allow dual-citizenship, so a person of Mexican ancestry born in the United States of America can have Mexican citizenship, however now that you point it out I've corrected the lead sentence so it matches the article's title, now it is similar to the one the article Mexicans has. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * U.S. children of Mexicans are automatic Mexican citizens, but unless such children move back to Mexico for a minimum period of __years___ or unless they do birth tourism back to Mexico, their Mexican citizenship is not passed on to their children. Therefore, the U.S. grand son of a Mexican-born person is generally not Mexican if the son was born in the U.S.   U.S. census data is irrelevant to European Mexicans because the U.S. grandson, who for example could have only one Mexican grand parent and 100% all other U.S.-Norwegian relatives could claim to be "Mexican American" and "White Hispanic" in the census, while (1) not being even entitled to being Mexican in Mexico, and (2) having very, very little "Mexican" blood.  You continue to not address the irrelevancy of U.S. Census data.  Please consider WP:NOTHERE.  XavierItzm (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There's another misconception from your part: There's no such thing as Mexican blood, a kid born in Mexico to Norwegian parents would be as Mexican as any other Mexican. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course there is no Mexican blood. It was clearly meant as an example of how U.S. census data is irrelevant to European Mexicans. You keep avoiding the key issue.  WP:NOTHERE.  XavierItzm (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with it not being relevant, they're Mexican Americans, which are the biggest mexican diaspora in the world, we are not talking about Non-Hispanic Americans. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Seeing as it is that you have modified the article's definition of "Mexican" to include literally anybody, to wit, "people who identify with the Mexican cultural or national identity", I now agree that U.S. Census data is relevant in the new context you have created. Me, I've been to Taco Bell a couple of times.  There is one right on the Kalevankatu, in Helsinki.  I found out I like tacos.  Tacos are part of the Mexican cultural identity.  Henceforth, I identify myself as Mexican European. Thanks.  XavierItzm (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Without doubt we can be certain that the percentage of people that would fit the example you've given in your last reply is very low, well below 1% and do not affect the overall extant statistics in any significative way whatsoever. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

From 9% to 54% of white Mexicans (estimated)?
I think this estimate is very exaggerated, when we place an estimate or approximate, they should not be too far apart. For example, the number of Argentine whites is between 80 and 70 percent (not far from each other). But an estimate that ranges from 9% to 50% is a census that is very little worked and not very concrete, it should not be taken into account as information to disseminate. It should eliminate these figures and place 'undefined', since there is no census that is carried out to discard these percentages. Derekitou (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello! I think you have a good point when you talk about how estimates shouldn't be too far apart from eachother, however, if anything, the estimates that have to be removed are those who say that Mexico's White population is only 9%-16%, as modern research shows how incorrect they are. To list an example: There are various recent studies (some made by foreign institutions) that report that the frequency of blond hair in Mexicans is between 18%-23%, therefore to say that White Mexicans are only 9% or 16% of the country's population is completely absurd, as no European country or former European colony has more blond haired people than it has White/European people (to put this in the proper perspective, the countries that have the highest frequencies of blond hair are the scandinvaian ones, on which 40%-50% of the population have this trait). To add to this, the sources that use the 9%-16% figure base their claims in the 1921 census, which is currently considered by Mexican historians and academics to be inaccuratte and propagandistic. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The studies using blondism as an indication of whiteness
These are absurd.. blondism isn't as common in Europeans as imagined, especially not in Spaniards, the French, and Italians - which make up the bulk of European descendants in Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.165.13 (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes true blondism has rates of around 12% in Spain, 15% in Italy and 37% in France. The overwhelming majority of European ancestry in Mexicans is of course Spanish, although of course there is also ancestry from all over Europe as well as the Near East. Php2000 (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This article should be redirected to White Mexicans
Not all Mexicans of European descent are white and not all White Mexicans are of European descent. It is a matter of phenotype not ancestry.--Php2000 (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mexicans_of_European_descent

So we all cool with the consensus solution? --Php2000 (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus was keep, but I'm not sure there was consensus about the course of action. This would definitely be renamed, White Mexicans or edited and integrated into Race in Mexico. Either way I would say a massive rewrite is necessary, above all if we are to avoid OR. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that no one argued against the move! It seemed like everyone was in favor. What is the course of action? --Php2000 (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article being renamed "White Mexicans" although I would have liked the name "European Mexicans" to be considered. There's no point on discussing that potential title at this point however, given that every editor involved in this discussion lists "White Mexicans" among it's preferred choices that's the way to go. Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move page. (non-admin closure) —  Young Forever (talk)   23:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Mexicans of European descent → White Mexicans – After recent discussions, it has been agreed that the article definitely needs a more specific name that suits the subject better. All editors involved (including me) list the name "White Mexicans" among their preferred choices. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:CONCISE and to be WP:CONSISTENT with other similar articles such as White Americans, White Brazilians, White South Africans, etc., as well as the primary article located at White people. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per discussion during AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support European Mexicans is not really feasible since the vast majority of Mexicans have European (typically Spanish) ancestry and not all Mexicans who are White have European ancestry (e.g. Mexico's large Lebanese community which most certainly identifies as White). Others are actually immigrants from the United States and are not to be considered more "European" merely for the fact they have Anglo-Saxon rather than Hispanic heritage. And an anecdote which complicates matters further, a number of Spanish-born conquistadors and settlers of Mexico were, in fact, Black African in racial terms but could also be considered of "European descent".--Php2000 (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is there not mention of "White Mexicans in the United States"? Obviously George Zimmerman is the most controversial "White Mexican". He is not "light skinned" but the media insisted on labeling him a "White Mexican" rather than as an American of Mexican descent or "Mexican American." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.194.140.31 (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * George Zimmerman is not Mexican and he's half Peruvian from his mothers side. Judging from his looks, he very obviously has some non European background to an extent. I personally don't know why the media and many called him "white", when he clearly looks mixed to me, but it is what it is. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Taking out "Middle Eastern" from the lede sentence
- I think it would be best to omit "Middle Eastern" from the lede sentence. In a Western sense, "White" is usually synonymous with people of predominant to full European background/origin or those who look "European", and obviously the page was once called "Mexicans of European descent" or "European Mexicans". The whole article almost exclusively talks about European people and their immigration to Mexico. Like so: here, here, and here. And virtually every person pictured is presumably either of predominant to full European background or looks predominantly European. The first source provided in one of the lines, when taking about a demographics break down in 1921, says "white", and then mentions it being synonymous with European origin ("10% era blanca, o de origen europeo."). The Britannica source cited for population estimates says this: "Mexicans of European heritage ("whites") are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population", and the breakdown for their estimates separates Arabs/Middle Easterners them from "white" people: "64.3% mestizo; 15% Mexican white; 10.5% detribalized Amerindian; 7.5% other Amerindian; 1% Arab; 0.5% Mexican black; 1.2% other". Furthermore, the graph provided for present day figures also lists "white" as a separate group from "Middle Eastern".

If we're being technical, Mexicans with Lebanese and others with heritage from most Middle Eastern countries are (West) Asians and should be included in the Asian Mexicans page, but the Wikipedia page has a whole sentence talking abut why they're not listed as being "Asian" (instead given put in the Arab Mexicans page) and the page goes on to focus a lot more on Mexicans of East Asian background. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly, neither the Encyclopedia Britannica nor the CIA Factbook are considered valid sources for Mexican demographics. Both have been widely discredited by providing phoney figures on ethnic breakdowns. Secondly, yes it is common to use "European" as a synonym for white because Middle Easterners account for less than 1% of white ancestry in Latin America. The vast majority is from Spain, Portugal and Italy with smaller amounts from Northern and Eastern Europe and the Levant. But White and European does not mean the same thing. In fact, for one not all Spaniards who emigrated to Mexico were white. Many were dark skinned, and a number were black. In Mexico, being white means being white in a literal sense. Having lighter skin and West Eurasian (non-sub-saharan, non-amerindian) features. Trying to separate Lebanese from other whites is ridiculous. Would we separate Jews as well who are also typically listed separately? These are considered ethnicities, not races.Php2000 (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I would also say that I don't know what you mean by "in a western sense". Perhaps you mean in a US sense or in an Anglo sense? Trust me there is no Spanish speaking country where Lebanese people are not considered white. And I am not aware of any Spanish speaking country which is not western! The reason we changed the name of this article was to avoid this very American confusion. Php2000 (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * - "Trying to separate Lebanese from other whites is ridiculous. Would we separate Jews as well who are also typically listed separately? These are considered ethnicities, not races". Then tell me, what is a "race"? "Asian" is considered a "race" in countries like America and there is a Wikipedia page for Asian Latin Americans. The Asian populations in many countries of the Americas are counted as separate groups. But conveniently, many (but not all) of these countries exclude people from Lebanon and other neighboring countries in West Asia. The Asian Mexicans page even makes it a point to exclude people West Asians as being "Asian". It's absolutely ridiculous that Lebanese and other West Asians are not considered "Asian" and that the term is usually strictly enforced for people of East/South/Southeast Asian background (although in Canada, West Asians are counted as "Asian Canadian" and thus, are visible minorities). Furthermore, Chinese and Japanese and other East Asians don't look like South Asians, but they're still grouped together. You yourself said that the term "White Mexican" refers to "light skin Mexicans" as being "white". Then why don't we include Mexicans with Chinese and Japanese origins into the definition of "white"? Many Chinese and Japanese and other East Asians have light skin, comparable to that of "white people". Chinese-born Mexican businessman Zhenli Ye Gon and Japanese-Peruvian former president, Alberto Fujimori have light skin tones that are comparable to many "white" people, as shown here: and . Aside from that, the entire article is almost exclusively talking about European immigration to Mexico and the lede even says: "Due to its less directly racial undertones, the term "Light-skinned Mexican" has been favored by the government and media outlets over "White Mexican" as the go-to choice to refer to the segment of Mexico's population who possess European physical traits"


 * In the US census, Middle Eastern people are considered white, same goes for Latin America. https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html "Asian" is not a race, no more than "American" is a race - it refers to people from the continent of Asia. It can however also refer to people of East Asian features and origin - but this is a matter of linguistics. None of your arguments make any sense from a Latin American perspective. If the term "Middle Eastern" annoys you I can write "or other West Eurasian" ancestry. In Latin America, people of Lebanese ancestry are not considered more or less white than people of Spanish, Italian or Portuguese ancestry. This is just fact. And yes the article talks a lot about European immigration because it requires a lot of work - we need to mention Lebanese immigration as well. For a while it was called European Mexicans which was a nonsensical concept. Php2000 (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This article got a name change recently precisely so it could include people with phenotypical features that are commonly asociated with Europeans (which also is the standard Mexico's government currently uses on it's demographical research) but are not, in a geographical or political sense, Europeans. Such is the case of people who inhabit the Middle Eastern or Western Euroasian countries, specially the regions that are in direct proximity to Europe, which, due historical migrations and population exchanges have numbers of people who do look like native Europeans do and would be thought of as such by a passer-by. Due this, I consider it is incorrect to remove said words from the lead paragraph, even if they are a small number compared to White Mexicans whose ancestry comes from European countries. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)