Talk:White Mexicans/Archive 6

False information and agenda
Somebody with an agenda is spreading false information in this article, like claiming that light hair is more common in Mexico than in Spain or that most Spanish colonists arrived with women, based on a sample of 150 people or that people in Western Mexico do not have any Amerindian ancestry. It seems somebody is trying to white-wash Mexico

Moreover, this article is flooded with several pictures of pale celebrities, including celebrities who were not even born in Mexico (Ludwika Paleta, Belinda Peregrín, Angelique Boyer, Lisardo). Why that? What is the person who posted all those pictures trying to prove? This is not the place for a person to sell a horrible agenda. Xuxo (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The first thing that has to be settled here is that it's not true that there's more light hair in Mexico than there is in Spain, per aviable sources, blond hair in Mexico ranges from 18% to 23%, whereas blond hair in a nationwide leven in Spain ranges from 20% to 25%, this argument of yours, that is for which you are altering massively the article is simply not true. Other point to keep in mind is that blond hair has a higher than average prevalence in northern Spain, region from which the majority of White Mexicans' ancestors come from according to sources such as the book Mineros y comerciantes en el México borbónico the same book also elaborates on how common it was for Spanish immigrants to bring their wives and families directly from Spain to settle in colonial Mexico so it does refute your argument respecting the scarcity of White women aswell. Regarding the persistent removal of nationwide surveys produced by the Mexican government itself and the removal of sources such as the book The United States and Mexico you have zero justification to do this, Howard F. Cline is a highly respected anthropologist who visited mexico and other Latin American countries several times and his work is highly reliable, as is the Mexican government or the investigations regarding hair color published by scientific journals that collect phenotypical data such as hair and eye color, you can‘t remove them just because you personally consider "they're fake" or because their methodologies don't convince you, In regards to the prescence of images of celebrrities, I'm rather impartial on it, in fact I don't think I've ever added any (that's the doing of some editor that comes to add images in random places once a month or so), some can go but we need to illustrate the topic that this article is about, I'm open to discuss with you which ones to remove. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You are manipulating sources. The source does not claim most Spaniards came from the North. It clearly said most came from Andaluzia, which is in the South, and that northerns only predominated after the 18th century. Most Spaniards arrived before the 18th century.

You are manipulating the source about blond hair as well. Those sources do not claim that a certain percentagem of Mexicans have blond hair. It claims that those people from that sample have blond hair. Mexico has millions of inhabitants and a small sample is not representativo of the whole population. Moreover, having blond hair does not mean a person is White. Blondism can happen in Mixed race people or even in non European descended people from Melanesia, for example. What you are doing is original research. Not even in Ireland or Wales 20% of people have blond hair, and you really think México does? Those samples are obviously not representative of the whole population of México.

And yes, most Spanish colonists arrived alone without women. Not only in México but elsewhere in Latin América. The source you are trying to use analyzed a small sample of 150 Spanish colonists. This is far from being representative of the whole history of México. Do not manipule sources to promote fake info please.

Moreover i removed several unsourced information and original research from that article, and you removed me back. Stop trying to rewrite and white-wash the demography of México. Xuxo (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your argument is built in fallacies and on outright false claims: The book I cited in my last reply clearly states that the percentage of Spanish immigrants who were from Andalucia was 25%, if broken down by single provinces they were the province who sent the most immigrants, but 75% of Spanish immigrants weren't from there, with the northern provinces amounting to 40%, my claim is completely correct. Similarly, from where do you get that the book is about only 150 colonists? That isn't stated anywhere, the book is a thorough investigation on New Spain's society as a whole, across multiple centuries. Your claim in regards to the accuracy of the sources that collect data in regards to blond hair in Mexicans ignores concepts as crucial for anyone that edits demography-related topics on Wikipedia such as statistical samplings and representativeness, with no mention that your argument can be used to disprove your own point aswell (how do you know that those unnamed studies on the Irish or the Welsh you talk about represent those populations as a whole?), the studies used nationwide samples and is not up to your opinion to decided if they are accurate or not. Your argument in regards to how having blond hair is not equal to being white is pointless, the field investigation published by the American Sociological Association does use that criteria and this is mentioned in the article, but ultimately that is not the criteria used in this article to classify a person as White or to quantify how many White persons there are in Mexico. In conclusion nothing that you have been removing from this article is unsourced, please stop. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you know basic Math? 40% is not a majority. 60% (majority) were NOT from Northern Spain. And the 150 sample is the one you are using to claim most Spaniards arrived with women, which is not true. Like I said before, you manipulate sources to fulfill your white-washing agenda of Mexico. And your sources about blond hair is not representative, they come from very small samples. Moreover, it does not explain what they consider to be "blond". Like I said before, not even in Ireland 20% of people have blond hair, most have brown or light brown hair. Not even in Spain 20% have blond hair, not to mention Mexico, when the vast majority of Mexicans have high degree of Amerindian ancestry and most Amerindians have very dark hair. I'm not letting you spread fake news here.

Not even in Uruguay and Argentina, which are the whitest countries in Latin America you will find a high percentage of blonds. Spaniards are dominantly brown-haired, very few have blond hair. You may be confusing light brown hair with blond hair. Mexico is at the bottom of the list when it comes to blondism in whe world. I do not know why you are so obssessed with blond hair, but if you are, go to pages about Sweden or Norway, not a page about Mexico.

Moreover, this is a genetic study showing that the European ancestry in Mexico is mostly central-southern Spanish, not Northern Spanish. You cannot argue with genetic studies.

Only 6% of Mexicans claim to be White, according to the Latinobarómetro. 52% are mixed-race, 19% Amerindian, 2% mulattos and 3% "other race". I'm not letting you white-wash Mexico, give up. Xuxo (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why do you keep insisting in the narrative that White women were rare in colonial Mexico when the book I've cited in my last replies states clearly that it was a common practice for Spanish immigrants to bring women and relatives with them, moreover, this book (pages 62 & 89, printed number) census data not only proves that there were many women, but in fact they were more aboundant than men, this other book proves also that White people were the most common ethnicity in colonial cities, which would be impossible if White women were rare, what does it take for you to drop that argument? In regards to the Latinobarometro source I'm afraid it can't be taken as very reliable, this because in recent times much has been documented on investigations by highly reputable sources (page 7, End note 1), (page 3 or 491 printed, note 2), (page 195-196) in regards to the tendency that Mexican institutions have long had of undercounting White people, or re-classifying White Mexicans as Mestizos so Mestizos appear to be the majority group, even though they know very well that Mexicans don't identify that way, in fact, because of this, not long ago the universities of Princeton and Vanderbilt recommended to the Mexican government to adopt an ethnoracial classification system based primarily on skin color (pages 1 and 2) which is the system the Mexican government currently uses. I would also like if you elaborated on why you consider your sources to be the absolute truth when they are made on a few thousand people each and some look straight out amateurish such this one brought by an IP editor which was likely you  while you question and remove mine, despite amounting to more than 100,000 people surveyed. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * No one attempts to White wash Mexico, Xuxo. If anything the tendency is to brown-wash Mexico since the national ideology is exalting everything Aztec, denying Spanish heritage and everyone being officially considered "Mestizo". There is even a tendency to alter to the racial identity of historical figures (e.g. Morales was a Spaniard yet is portrayed as Mestizo and Guerrero is portayed as black when he had a hooked nose and light eyed). It is true that there were plenty of Spanish women immigrating to Mexico during the colonial period, about a third of the total of all immigrants were women. Pob3qu3 may be mistaken on some things and be wrongly blanking sources but, you also please tone down the indigenist crap as well. Its the main source of false information on wikipedia regarding Mexico - mostly coming from "Chicano studies" departments in tinpot colleges in the US.Php2000 (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, we have an agreement here. You have just claimed this source  is "highly reputable". At page one of this source, it is written: "Individuals of mixed European and Indian background, the Mestizos, represent 60% of the population. The rest of the population is 30% Indian, 9% white and 1% other (Central Intelligence Agency)". The source you brought yourself is clear to say that white people are a very small minority in Mexico and are outnumbered by mixed-race and indigenous peoples. We do not even need to have a further discussion here, since you already aknowledge that. Oshwah, I noticed you blocked the article from editing, but you have frozen the article with the fake information added by Php2000. But notice that Pob3qu3 has been trying to manipulate this article and has been engaged in several conflicts with different editors, in order to include his agenda here. He aknowledges that Whites are a very small minority in Mexico, even though his contributions to this article are aimed at creating a conspiracy theory that there is a global agenda to "hide" the whiteness of Mexico and that the number of whites is much larger that what "people think". This is just a conspiracy theory created by him, and he is using this article to spread his own paranoia. When he wrote: "in regards to the tendency that Mexican institutions have long had of undercounting White people, or re-classifying White Mexicans as Mestizos so Mestizos appear to be the majority group, even though they know very well that Mexicans don't identify that way", it is clear he is paranoid and is trying to use this article as means to spread his conspiracy theories to the world. We cannot accept Wikipedia being used to spread this garbage.
 * You seem to be missing the context in the CluteJournals source you just cited, as the end note No.1, which is found in the lower portion of the page 7 (or 25 if we go by printed number) states "Many Mexicans would not agree with this racial classification..." said end note in fact, is a direct accotation to the World factbooks's numbers you cite, and is an acknowledgement from serious academic investigators of the fact that many Mexicans in reality do not identify as Mestizos, just as other sources such as (page 3 or 491 printed, note 2) or (page 195-196) do aswell, you can't say that this is a conspiracy, the deliberate inflation of the Mestizo Mexican group at the expense of the White Mexican group (and the Indigenous Mexican group aswell) during the 20th century because of ideological reasons is something that was real and this is well documented, at the point that the racial figures of the 1921 census' are now considered to be completely innaccurate and the Mexican government has begun conducting ethnoracial surveys again, with focus on highlighting ethnic diversity within the country. I also don't think that I've engaged with that many, multiple editors across the years on this topic, in fact I'm certain that over 95% of the arguments I've had about this were with you using different throwaway accounts, it's just too suspicious that every certain amount of time a new account appears to try to perform the same changes to related articles over and over again as it's extremely clear here and here . The manner on which these "outraged" accounts tend to edit talk pages is also the same, it's just a matter of comparing the edit history of this talk page  and compare the edit history of White Latin Americans from March 31st and before . Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I have checked the sources this user is using, and they do not confirm what he has writen in the article. For example, he wrote "However, according to church and censal registers from the colonial times, the majority (73%) of Spanish men married with Spanish women". But when you check the source, it does not talk about Mexico as a whole, but about a historic sample of 150 people from a small town named Acatzingo (??), something that is far from being representative of the whole Mexico's history. He also wrote most Spaniards came from the North of Spain, but when you check the source, it claims only 40% were from the North. Not to mention all the information without a source that he added to the article. I have checked them all. He is also manipulating sources about "blond hair" and claiming this is the same as being "white", as if only people with blond hair can be White, or that everybody with blond hair is necessarily White. Of course not. Most Mexicans are mixed-race, in according to the source the user himself brought, and some of them can be born with ligher hair. It does not make them "white". This is obviously original resarch. Oshwah, I suggest you to read the sources and the information he added, and you will realyze that he is using sources to feed his conspiracy theory that there is a global agenda to "hide" the whiteness of Mexico. It is clear that his goal is to undermine the indigenous or Amerindian influence of Mexico and to white-wash Mexico. This is a very evil agenda and we cannot accept a person using Wikipedia as a means to spread such hateful feelings. Please, we need the intervention of an administrator here is order to remove all the original research and conspiracy theories this user is trying to spread here. Xuxo (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In regards to your claim that the source that states that 73% White men married White women was based solely on 150 people, I'm going to write the obvious again: You are merely focusing in one source when the article contains other three sources that also confirm that most White Mexican men married within their ethnoracial group, I've already presented the sources but I'm going to put them here one more time, (pages 62 & 89, printed number), , you really, and I mean seriously, have to stop claiming that the source from Acatzingo is the only documented case there is of White Mexicans marrying women of the same ethnoracial group than them and that therefore the claim is wrong, that's simply not true (at most, the specific "73%" could be removed from the lead section to leave it solely as "the majority"). In regards to the origin of most spanish immigration to Mexico, I'm gonna link the page of this book again  as you seem to have missed (even though you admitted it before) that it states that before the 18th century Spaniards from northern Spain amounted 40% of immigrants and those from Andalucia were 25% but after that point (this is very important) they became the overwhelming majority, meaning that effectively the majority of Spanish migration Mexico got was from north Spain. Other thing that I'm afraid I'm going to have to write again, is that it's not my idea to equate having blond hair with being White, the field investigation published by the American Sociological Association does use that criteria (you have to create a free account to access it) and this is mentioned in the article in an annecdotical manner, but ultimately that is not the criteria used in this article to classify a person as White or to quantify how many White persons there are in Mexico. Once again, all your concerns have been carefully addressed, would you put this time-draining conflict to rest now?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Xuxo From your talk style you are clearly a non-constructive editor seeking to impose an agenda so I will be reverting you until you change your attitude. Calling editors you disagree with "evil" is just uncalled for. Tone it down, express your concerns here and please try to use quality sources - ideally official Mexican sources or Spanish language sources from Mexican academia. Not some nonensense from the University of Northern Colorado. Php2000 (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me know when there is a consensus to modify the article and with the details as of what content needs changing, and I'll be happy to edit it accordingly and to the consensus reached. Unless there are serious issues with the article's content as it is now (such as copyright violations, violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, threats of harm, etc) then it's up to everyone here to work this out. You need to understand why I put the gold lock on the front gate. I don't play favorites and I don't choose sides; I look at the issue in terms of edit warring and disruptive editing and I make a decision from there. Unless it's blatant vandalism or anything of that nature, it's considered a content dispute. And it's up to everyone here to resolve this matter appropriately. I don't get to wave a wand and take action in accordance to what to what I think is good and what I think is bad when it's outside of policy. I'm here to keep the peace and maintain a collaborative editing environment.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oshwah from my part I'll do it. Thanks for your quick response in your talk page and action in this article. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Non-existent percentages
I think it is valid to discuss how objective and/or rational it is to put the publication's highest estimated figure of 47% - 49% of the population being considered white. The two articles that they put as a reference, divide the total responses between skin tones ranging from the lightest to the darkest, according to the methodology used here, and following the same logic, could it be said that around half of Mexicans are Afrodescendants or indigenous for having a dark skin color? One of the articles clarifies that only 10.9% of the population calls their skin "white", so I think it is very subjective to say that 47% - 49% of Mexicans can be called "white". The two articles I exposed, for those who want to read it, are these two: Encuesta Nacional sobre Discriminación 2010 and Módulo de Movilidad Social Intergeneracional 2016. --Kodosbs (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)--186.83.144.24 --Kodosbs (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)(talk) 00:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC). At this point

At this point, I have read the whole thread between Xuxo and Pob3qu3, and I find ways of interpreting the INEGI and CONAPRED articles quite subjective. I would really like first, before making modifications, that Pob3qu3 indicate to me where in the document (preferably and these articles should preferably be academic documents, and secondarily government documents issued, in ethnographic cases, by demographic institutes), the page and the sentence where it says  that he or she references, that indicate that 47% - 49% of the population self-identifies or the government classifies them strictly as white, and also, on the same for the basis does it support that to be "light skinned" is to be white. Thank you. --Kodosbs (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

As I have not found any answers yet from the user Pob3qu3, I will start a series of corrections. Considering that the user Pob3qu3 who has made the most edits in these topics, and also vehemently defends his way of interpreting the articles, I will start a thread explaining point by point the reason for the changes in order not to start a war of edits, in case he demonstrates to me textually that what he interprets is correct, I will gladly agree to restore his interpretation.


 * self-identification with their European or other Western Eurasian descent: I have read the entire text on the page EL MESTIZAJE Y LAS CULTURAS REGIONALES and I do not find any reference to being white having one of its origins in being of "Western Eurasian descent". In fact the text only mentions population identified as European, but not white. Even so, the reference will be left but eliminating the reference that a white Mexican is also considered to be of "Western Eurasian descent".--Kodosbs (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * light-skinned Mexicans: I am going to place, textually in Spanish, document by document that is used for references, the parts in the where is mentioned themes about skin color, where you can observe that they never make any equivalence to light-skinned people being white, (ironically, one of the options to denominate their color in effect is white, and this value is never mentioned):
 * Encuesta Nacional Sobre Discriminación en Mexico: The study is perfectly applicable as a national study, since it was conducted in 13,751 households, which yielded information on 52,955.95 persons. It is quite subjective to indicate which colors correspond to being "white". Since, textually in Spanish the answers are "Moreno, blanco, claro, NS/NR y sin informacion, apiñonado, Guero, Aperlado, Cafe, Chocolate, Oscuro, Amarillo, Trigueño, Negro, Prieto, Canela, Quemadito, Bronceado, Castaño".  Technically only 10.9% of the population indicated that they were white. Now, it is understandable that in Mexico blond people are referred to as "Guero". However, being blond is not always synonymous with being white, as there are several ethnic groups that have blond hair, but, assuming they are "white", they add up to 2.1% of the population. It is less likely to be asserted that  "light" - "Claro" in spanish skin color is the same to be white, becouse mestizos can have several gradients, and the word itself is subjective, but being very flexible, if we assume that they are "white", we have a total of 5.4% of the population. Adding up, we arrive at a total of 18.4%, a value that coincides with the 18.8% reported in another study referenced in the wikipedia article. . In the rest of the document there is absolutely no mention of grouping skin colors in a racial sense, in fact the only part that mentions a grouping in two sentences where they never reach the figure of 47% that the user Pob3qu3 places as "light skins", and textually they say in Spanish: "... es interesante notar que las mujeres tienden a identificarse con los tonos de piel más claros ..." and "...Ante la misma petición, los hombres también tienden a identificarse con tonos de piel claros, aunque no es tan evidente como en el caso de las mujeres...",".... it is interesting to note that women tend to identify with lighter skin tones..." and "...Faced with the same request, men also tend to identify with light skin tones, although it is not as evident as in the case of women...". It is evident that there is no validity to group 47% of people as "light skins", beyond the subjectivity in the interpretation of the text. For this reason, the reference and the accompanying text will be deleted. As the reference is valid in the context of giving some figures on self-recognition of skin color, it is possible to refer to it with an objective interpretation, which is given in section Distribution and estimates.--Kodosbs (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Kodosbs, I think by now you must have stumbled upon all the references that directly answer your question of "Is there sources that support that to be light skinned is to be white?" as there are about six in the article's opening paragraphs alone, additionally I've added another one right now, from the Princeton University which goes in detail on how phenotype is more accurate the percentages of different races and ethnicities in Latin America and even elaborates on which skin color categories White people are typicially found. In regards to your concerns about the ENADIS 2010, I think said source is over-complicated but ultimately useful (as you have pointed out aswell), mostly because it was conducted before there was an standarized color palette for all of Latin America and because there's a section on which multiple slang words are used to classify skin color (many of which are used to refer to White people in Mexico aswell), is because of this unnecessary complexity that the CONAPRED grouped together all light skined people and were ultimately stated to be 47% of the surveyed population, which is the percentage presented in the lead. Said percentage is not innacuratte, as it does not deviate of the 49% presented by the subsequent MMSI or the 54% presented by the first Perla Survey ever made, which I have not included in the article yet, as the sample size is smaller than the previous two but I may include it in the following days. Regarding the edits you've made to the prose on the studies that are centered in blond hair I have to make various observations: The study published by the American Sociological Association study explicitly states that for a Mexican to be classified in the "White Skin" category the presence of blond hair is necessary, so this study is efectively about blond hair, in regards to the study from the Metropolitan Autonomous university of México, it is very likely that is exclusively about blond hair, specially looking at the frequencies of such trait in other studies, although I admit it could have been worded better. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Pob3qu3, As I had indicated at the beginning of the discussion thread, before making changes I would appreciate it if you could tell me step by step, argument by argument, because you answer with many things at the same time and seem to lose the original questions. I appreciate that you found a Princeton reference, but please let's start one by one: 1. Write textually in which part of the article Encuesta Nacional Sobre Discriminación en Mexico does it say that 47% the people are white? Read again the information I put above explaining everything the article says. textually say where in that reference it says that. I promise to give you my observations to the Princeton article when I respond as well since I have not read it.When we finish that point, we continue with the others, do not mix so many answers in one, be puntual and so we will be more productive and subjective, greetings.--Kodosbs (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I already did so, but here I go again: The presentation of the ENADIS survey does state that 47% of Mexicans self-identified with light skin tones, the CONAPRED does not use the term "White" on its dossiers, but does use the term "European physical traits" instead. The use of the term "White" to refer to the aproximately half of the Mexican population that is identified as having light skin appears in other sources found in the lead paragraph, such as the Princeton study I just brought up and you removed, which takes me to my next point, which is that you must keep in mind that the one coming and trying to modify a long-standing and accepted version of this article its you, not me, you are the one who must gain consensus to perform your changes that are currently contested. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Alleged systemic bias in government survey programs and academia
I hesitated at first, but after a revert and re-reading the article, I'm adding a neutrality template. The text is transparently and single-mindedly committed to denounce an alleged systemic bias in government survey programs and academia to hide the extent of Mexico's whiteness. This interpretation is all over the article, yet if I'm not mistaken, it doesn't name a single author that upholds said position, and relies on interpreting and synthesizing published materials that merely indicate the percentage of Mexicans who self-identify as White is higher than The World Factbook and Encyclopedia Britannica report.

This seems to be the work of a single editor (and a blocked acount from the Talk Page) who has mantained this position for years, here and also the Spanish Wikipedia, despite constant run-ins about the use of sources. I do not have an inclination for an edit war, but previous controversies should take precedence in mantaining this article is, at the very least, unbalanced and afflicted to a degree by original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tepetzintle (talk • contribs) 03:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources explaining the systemic bias in government or academia?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Tepetzintle, there seems to be a confussion here, as you claim that the position of "denounce an alleged systemic bias in government survey programs and academia to hide the extent of Mexico's whiteness" is an invention of mine when in reality there's a good amount of sources both, by academics inside of Mexico and by academics from other countries that state that the Mexican government indeed, for a long time deliberately hid the country's real ethnic diversity in favour of an unifying ethnic discourse. This new view has become extremely prominent in the last years in specialized circles as well as on the mainstream media as many links in the opening paragraphs show, so, the way the article is written is not a neutrality issue from me, what actually happens is that there was a general change of attitude in regards to ethnic diversity in Mexican society as a whole in the last years. Pob3qu3 (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Alkes, et al
Quoting the Wiki article:

"An autosomal ancestry study performed on Mexico city reported that the European ancestry of Mexicans was 52% with the rest being Amerindian and a small African contribution, additionally maternal ancestry was analyzed, with 47% being of European origin. The only criteria for sample selection was that the volunteers self-identified as Mexicans."[60]

The study cited for this is Alkes, et al:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1867092/

This study does not analyze maternal DNA, and does not say that Mexicans from Mexico City are 47% European, maternally. What it does do however is analyze autosomal and X-chromosomal DNA, which can be used to broadly infer uniparental asymmetry, but not direct maternal ancestry. The biggest takeaway here, however, is that the authors nowhere state that their Mexican sample is 47% European on the maternal line.

This is the only relevant quote in the article, emphasis mine:

So the point that the authors are making is that their Mexican sample is 44% Amerindian autosomally, but 54% Native American on the X chromosomes, which is consistent with predominantly Native American matrilineages. Unfortunately the authors didn't test maternal (mtDNA) lineages to give us an idea of what the exact maternal contributions were in their samples. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources in support of Mestizaje
The lede of this article has been bombed with statements that question the veracity of the scholarly consensus that there was much mixing of peoples in post-contact Mexican society. In fact, more is said to cast doubt on this admixture, than is really said about the admixture itself.

In my view, this is lunacy. This article is lending enormous weight to a WP:FRINGE, minority viewpoint. Much has been said about the quality of the citations by myself and others, who all agree that this is heavily affected by original research, and synthesis of sources that don't support, and even appear to contradict the Wiki statements.

So, I am compiling sources that do not concur with the Wiki lede as it currently stands. These sources reflect the prevailing consensus, which is that there was an enormous amount of mixing in Mexico, that most immigrants to Mexico were male, and that European females have had minimal genetic impact on the population of Mexico.

From Mexico: Paradoxes Of Stability And Change, Daniel Levy, 2019:

From The Wandering Gene and the Indian Princess: Race, Religion, and DNA, Wheelwright, 2012:

From the parent study, Admixture in the Hispanics of the San Luis Valley,﻿ Colorado, and its implications for complex trait﻿ gene mapping, Bonilla, et al (2004):

Pharmacogenomics in Admixed Populations, Suarez-Kurtz, 2007, page 38:

Pharmacogenomics in Admixed Populations, Suarez-Kurtz, 2007, page 39

This overwhelming preponderance of evidence reflects consensus for a mostly male-based migration of Europeans (and also Africans, as the links will show) to Mexico, and a massive amount of admixture taking place between Native American women and the incoming migrants. These sources make clear that European females were heavily outnumbered by European males, and that they left minimal genetic impact on Mexico. This should be included in conjunction with any anti-Mestizaje claims, because the genetic evidence has largely confirmed this historical narrative. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * On a similar fashion to my reply in the section above, of these sources you bring here I'm gonna tell you that both narratives can be true at the same time. This in the case of genetic studies means that studies that report the maternal ancestry of Mexicans (mtdna in the case of the ones you've brought) to be 90% or so Native American and studies, like the one that can be found in the article that reports the maternal ancestry of Mexicans (X chromosome) to be 45% European (or this other on which its 37%) are both true and don't necessarily invalidate or overwrite eachother, the differences lie simply on the sample populations being different, with not mention that the number of samples in these kind of studies tends very small, another factor to consider is the intent with which those studies were made, mtdna studies in Mexico have been made with the purpose of tracking the geographical origin and migration paterns of Native American populations. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * X-chromosomal ancestry is not maternal ancestry. You've mistakenly said this here and at Talk:Mexicans, which reflects the incredible degree to which you are stretching sources to whitewash Mexican history.
 * The X chromosome is inherited from mothers (in the cases of boys and girls) and also from fathers (in the case of girls). It is not "matrilineal".
 * A boy can also inherit European X-chromosomal ancestry from a 50/50 Mestizo woman who had a Spanish father.
 * Maternal ancestry is determined through mtDNA, because mtDNA is direct descent. Sex bias can be measured through X-chromosomal ancestry compared to autosomal, and that is exactly what your studies do:
 * From A Genomewide Admixture Map for Latino Populations, Price, et al. (2007):
 * From Geographic Patterns of Genome Admixture in Latin American Mestizos, Wang, et al. (2008)
 * All of the genetics sources support the historical consensus that post-contact Mexico was largely formed the genetic blending of Spaniard males and non-whire females. The minimal impact of European females is relayed across every single study. - Hunan201p (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What you are not considering here is that the father does get said chromosome from his mother who (save for counted exceptions nowadays) is also Mexican, thus the X chromosome still is matrilineal and works just as well when it comes to estimate the historic European maternal contribution of the country as a whole. Furthermore it's not true that all the extant mtdna research evidence supports such overwhelming degree of Native American mtdna component, I've seen mtdna data from 23&me (a private company, I know) and their results show that 38%-46% of the Mexican samples have an mtdna from non Native American haplogroups. Another study that analyzed mtdna reported 59% of the samples had an mtdna from an Indigenous haplogroup (which is consistent with X chromosome results). There's also other very good way (due to the massive number of samples) to get an idea of the actual size of the European female group in Mexico which is to check the frequency within the country of blood types that Native Americans historically don't have (all of them are "O" albeit it has to be kept in mind that many europeans also are so) because the mother and the baby's blood type most of the time will be the same, otherwise blood incompatibility occurs which leads to severe complications for the baby and even death, per this indicator, we get another estimate in the range of 35%-39% and as a plus, in the page 8 of the pdf the authors of said investigation state that the reason for which "A" and "B" blood types are more common in samples from north and western Mexico is due “nonrandom mating.“ What we can infer from this modern data plus ancient marriage registers and censuses data is that there were less European women than men in New Spain, but not in an amount as ridiculously reduced as some sources make it out to be, the actual ratio seems to be around 0.75 women per man. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pobequ3 wrote:"What you are not considering here is that the father does get said chromosome from his mother"
 * I've considered that. What you're not considering is that part of that X-chromosome is inherited from the mother's father. X-chromosomal anncestry is neither uniparental nor maternal, and is never used as a direct measurement for maternal ancestry in population genetics.
 * Pob3qu3 wrote:who (save for counted exceptions nowadays) is also Mexican,
 * Says who? A boy can inherit European X-chromosomal ancestry from a 75% Native American woman. That "also Mexican" woman does not have to be a white woman.
 * Pob3qu3 wrote: Another study that analyzed mtdna reported 59% of the samples had an mtdna from an Indigenous haplogroup (which is consistent with X chromosome results).
 * Yeah, you're not honestly summarizing this study's results. This study doesn't analyze X-chromosomes and you can't compare one study's sample to another, in keeping with what I've been trying to tell you about original research. This study said that their sample had aberrantly low Amerindian mtDNA, and noted that Green (2000) found 90% Amerindian mtDNA for Mexicans, so they give a range of 59-90%. They also acknowledged, like all the other studies, the asymmetrical ancestral inheritance of Mexicans, through admixture involving primarily Spanish males and Native American females.
 * From Genetic Structure Analysis of Three Hispanic Populations from Costa Rica, Mexico, and the Southwestern United States Using Y-Chromosome STR Markers and mtDNA Sequences, Campos-Sanchez et al. (2006):
 * And again here's even another study supporting the same conclusions as all others, from Large scale mitochondrial sequencing in Mexican Americans suggests a reappraisal of Native American origins, Kumar, et al. (2011):
 * All the studies say that Mexicans are from an asymmetrical blending of populations; a process that involved very few European females. None of them rely on X-chromosomal ancestry as a direct estimate of maternal ancestry, which ought to tell you a lot about your own ideas. Your claims about blood typing are the epitome of original research and WP:SYNTH, whereas these studies boldly state that Mexico is largely Mestizo (and they do so in a secondary nature, by citing other researchers who came to the same concousion). The consensus among population gebeticists is clearly that Mexicans descend from gene exchange between European males and Native American females, and that European females had limited genetic impact on the Mexican population. - Hunan201p (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is it that when I bring up genetic studies (mtdna and X chromosome, which is always originally from a female ancestor, even if passed via a male progenitor) and phenotype studies (which acknowledge that among a mixed population, there's a seizable population group that tends to avoid mixing) to back up the statements supported primarily by historic censuses and marriage records you say that I'm incurring on SYNTH but when you bring up genetic studies (with issues such as nonrandom sample selection, reduced sample number and secluded sample location etc. hence the volatile results) to try to refute the statements supported primarily by historic censuses and marriage records you think you think you aren't incurring on SYNTH? Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And again here's even another study supporting the same conclusions as all others, from Large scale mitochondrial sequencing in Mexican Americans suggests a reappraisal of Native American origins, Kumar, et al. (2011):
 * All the studies say that Mexicans are from an asymmetrical blending of populations; a process that involved very few European females. None of them rely on X-chromosomal ancestry as a direct estimate of maternal ancestry, which ought to tell you a lot about your own ideas. Your claims about blood typing are the epitome of original research and WP:SYNTH, whereas these studies boldly state that Mexico is largely Mestizo (and they do so in a secondary nature, by citing other researchers who came to the same concousion). The consensus among population gebeticists is clearly that Mexicans descend from gene exchange between European males and Native American females, and that European females had limited genetic impact on the Mexican population. - Hunan201p (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is it that when I bring up genetic studies (mtdna and X chromosome, which is always originally from a female ancestor, even if passed via a male progenitor) and phenotype studies (which acknowledge that among a mixed population, there's a seizable population group that tends to avoid mixing) to back up the statements supported primarily by historic censuses and marriage records you say that I'm incurring on SYNTH but when you bring up genetic studies (with issues such as nonrandom sample selection, reduced sample number and secluded sample location etc. hence the volatile results) to try to refute the statements supported primarily by historic censuses and marriage records you think you think you aren't incurring on SYNTH? Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All the studies say that Mexicans are from an asymmetrical blending of populations; a process that involved very few European females. None of them rely on X-chromosomal ancestry as a direct estimate of maternal ancestry, which ought to tell you a lot about your own ideas. Your claims about blood typing are the epitome of original research and WP:SYNTH, whereas these studies boldly state that Mexico is largely Mestizo (and they do so in a secondary nature, by citing other researchers who came to the same concousion). The consensus among population gebeticists is clearly that Mexicans descend from gene exchange between European males and Native American females, and that European females had limited genetic impact on the Mexican population. - Hunan201p (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is it that when I bring up genetic studies (mtdna and X chromosome, which is always originally from a female ancestor, even if passed via a male progenitor) and phenotype studies (which acknowledge that among a mixed population, there's a seizable population group that tends to avoid mixing) to back up the statements supported primarily by historic censuses and marriage records you say that I'm incurring on SYNTH but when you bring up genetic studies (with issues such as nonrandom sample selection, reduced sample number and secluded sample location etc. hence the volatile results) to try to refute the statements supported primarily by historic censuses and marriage records you think you think you aren't incurring on SYNTH? Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring
Just because additional text is referenced, doesn't necessarily mean it has to be included. Other things need to be considered. The recent addition of text by User:Hunan201p makes the third lead paragraph swerve back-and-forth between mestizo...Spanish...mestizo in a way that borders on incoherence. The addition is overly referenced with four citations, as the rest of the lead also has too many references. Such complex, argumentative text probably doesn't even belong in the article body in the way that it's presented thusly. Remember that WP:OWN encourages cooperation and doesn't restrict the attempted ownership role to just the reverter. WP:STATUSQUO says, "During a dispute discussion, you should not revert away from the status quo ante bellum until a consensus is established." Dhtwiki (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ... Yeah, no. The reverter in this case is Pob3qu3, and the status quo already existed for my additions. Per WP:NPOV, all prominent viewpoints on an issue can and must be discussed according to their prominence. I've made the case here at the talk page, using over 5 extremely high quality sources, that there is strong genetic support for asymmetrical admixture in Mexican popuoation structure.
 * From WP:NPOV: "...when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."
 * See also: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
 * Four citations is not excessive, ever. See WP:OVERKILL for the actual definition of excessive citation. As for your contention about the complexity of the lede: the lede was largely written by Pob3qu3, a user you've been in close communication with for years, who often calls upon you to defend his edits, even though this kind of blatant talk page canvassing is against the rules.
 * I never thought the lede was too complex or argumentative, and it doesn't appear you did either until now, since you've edited this article before. Is that part of the "mindless support" you recently promised Pob3qu3 at your talk page?  - Hunan201p (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Leads don't have to have any references at all. What is in the lead should be established in the article. And if Pob3qu3 wrote most of the lead, and is accused of claiming ownership of the article, how would your version have become the status quo? In any case, making the DNA-based argument for genetic makeup bracketing the records-based argument in the lead seems like you've transcribed the debate you're having here into the article, albeit in a much shortened form.
 * Yes, Pob3qu3 has been to my talk page, but it is "perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." It probably wasn't the most neutral outreach, but you have gone into the talk page archives and pointed to another editor's reverted attempts, to imply that Pob3qu3 stands alone, without anyone actually weighing in on the present discussion. My "mindless support" comment was to indicate that I wouldn't necessarily be giving lockstep support. However, I don't think it's mindless to characterize what you're doing at the article now as edit warring. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC) (edited 00:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC))
 * Dhtwiki raises other issues with your edits that I have as well but that due the limited space on edit summaries I couldn't point out, such as how your edit makes the redaction look messy and go back-and-forth. I don't understand why you are all of suden rambling about how your sources are secondary and of high quality when that's never been the issue. The issue here is, as I said on my summaries yesterday, that you are not providing a balanced point of view, you are completely ignoring all the sources that I've presented across this discussion. So this is what will be done: To improve readability I'm going to move your recent addition to the paragraph below wich already has prose about genetics and there I will incorporate my sources in order to create a truly balanced statement. If you really care about neutrality as you say you shouldn't have any problem with this. And save your accusations of "breaking the rules" to yourself: As I pointed out on my talk page the very first one to call third editors for support was you, which is just one example of you citing policy only when it's convenient for you (another ont would be here ), not to mention that for days you were asking for page numbers on a source that I told you multiple times is not even divided by pages  (evidencing that you didn't even bother to check the sources you were trying to remove), you violating Wikipedia's consensus policies multiple times or how the edits of the editor you called for support  are extremely similar to yours, as are the edits of this throwaway account from months ago  or the edits of this blocked sockpuppet , which is something that you've never explained. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent additions by Pob3qu3
You recently added this to the lede:

"how pronounced this asymetry is varies considerably depending of the study, with the Native Amwrican contribution ranging 90% to 59%,[31] research on the X chromosome shows less variation, with the reported European contribution oscilating between 37%[32] and 45%.[33]"

Below is citation 33. Could you please tell me where this study says that its Mexican sample has 45% European X-chromosomal ancestry?

A Genomewide Admixture Map for Latino Populations

The value "45" only occurs once in the entire study. You can use ctrl+f to verify this.

All it says is that Mexicans have 45% Native American autosomal ancestry.

I'm not seeing anything in here that says Mexicans have 45% European ancestry on the X chromosome. Here's what it says:

The study only lists Native American autosomal and X-chromosomal ancestry. Please tell me how you got this "45% European X-chromosomal" figure. The ancestry estimates in table 2 and table 3 are for autosomal ancestry. The term "x chromosome" occurs exactly once in the entire study, and it's in the quote I posted above.

I am crossing my fingers that you will be able to give me some kind of an explanation for this. What am I missing here? Hunan201p (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was certain that it mentioned the European X chromosome ancestry s well, I'll change it to the Native American value alongside doing some improvements to the prose. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)