Talk:White Mexicans/Archive 7

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)