User talk:Uruguayan989

Indigenous peoples of Mexico page resolution
Pob3qu3, about the Pueblos Indígenas de México page. I am currently blocked there so I can’t speak there, here I can however, I would like to discuss the preservation of my edit and why the 20% figure shouldn’t be added onto the main box. I would also like to form a final consensus for it. The 20% figure includes self identified partially indigenous people but doesn’t provide specific ethnic group numbers, and the 10% figure is used much more often by the general public and even the mexican government themselves, in which I have provided sources. PedroDonasco (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * “Well, the reason why the figure should not be added to the main box where the others are listed is because it is a self-identification estimate and that's all, half includes partially indigenous people and the other half are fully indigenous peoples. As the page is about fully indigenous peoples, I think that the 10% estimate should remain in the same infobox whereas, the 20% should be included on the page to count self-identification based on cultural aspects, but not be added in the infobox, since the estimates of 10%, 7% and 1% count the various ethnic groups in the country, such as the Nahuas, the Mixtecs, the Totonacs, the Huastecs, the Zapotecs, the Tarahumaras, the Otomís and the Maya, where all are counted from the figure of 10%, also a reason why it is a figure generally more accepted within Mexico. The infobox should be to count all indigenous peoples based on the ethnic group, the figure of 20% should be kept on the page, but not in the infobox, as a figure of self-identification based on culture. And like the many sources I provided, the figure of 10% is more widely accepted.” Is what I had said in the Spanish page before deletion. PedroDonasco (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And here are the cites where indigenous Mexicans are defined.         PedroDonasco (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The first one is which they provide the statistic of how indigenous Mexicans are measured. And while yes, it is an official source from the government based on self identification, that doesn’t mean it should be added in the page. Editors disagree a lot on the content that should be added to parts of Wikipedia, and like with my edit in Demographics of Mexico, it was already represented within the article and I saw the fault in that. However, it shouldn’t be used to count complete indigenous peoples or the ethnic groups. It’s not widely used by the general public, the other language pages, or even the government, and is better off as just a self identification figure within the page. Like I said, it doesn’t count specific ethnic groups and includes even partially indigenous people with a large component of European ancestry who identify that way. It isn’t accurate to describe full indigenous peoples within Mexico and should instead be an estimate, however not included within the info box, as the info box should be reserved to complete indigenous peoples where the ethnic groups are counted and where it’s commonly used as the indigenous figure. PedroDonasco (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said on your talk page in the Spanish Wiki, I'm not arguing wheter your sources are valid or not, I think they are valid, but numbers from the INEGI are equally valid, I don't see what problem there is on including these results aswell as long as it is stated that the number includes people that declared to have partial indigenous ancestry, you should consider that to only count as Indigenous people who live on Indigenous comunities or speak an Indigenous language may result on an understimation. Albeit thinking about it more carefully, there may be something bigger going on around here, as since late 2022 I've noticed there's a push from one (or more?) editors to remove/replace INEGI's numbers from everywhere on Wikipedia, be it total population numbers, religious affiliation numbers or now, the number of Indigenous peoples, the reason for which this is being done escapes my understanding. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I just want to clarify that I am not apart of those group of editors and I think that the removal of government data completely from a page is unjust. However, I think that the 20% estimate should not be included on just the info box because it doesn’t have a count of the indigenous ethnicities like the other three numbers have and is just an estimate for Mexicans who lean more towards the indigenous side culturally. However, I think it should only be removed from the info box rather than on the entire page, as it is from the government and it gives people a deeper understanding of the matter. But, leaving it in the info box might give people the misconception that 20% of Mexicans are fully indigenous and that it’s a commonly used estimate which is not true. I do see your point however and I believe we can reach a consensus on the matter. I personally believe that the 20% estimate is removed from the info box to not give any misconceptions and because it’s a page counting the indigenous ethnic groups of Mexico and as the 20% doesn’t count them it should be left on the page but off the info box instead. But I do see the merit in specifying that 10% of Mexicans are fully indigenous and 20% include both fully and partially indigenous Mexicans. Let me know your thoughts. PedroDonasco (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your concern about thinking that people will believe that 20% of Mexicans are fully indigenous is unfounded as it is going to be specified that Mexicans who declared to be of partial indigenous heritage are included in said number, other of the problems with your argument here is that you are mistaking "speaker of an Indigenous language" with being "fully Indigenous" and that is not always the case, a person can be "fully" indigenous and not speak an indigenous language and a person can be of mixed ancestry and speak an indigenous language. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying the 12 million figure represents the full indigenous peoples (Hogares Indígenas) as stated within the sources themselves due to the government using the data to represent the indigenous peoples as I said before and linked to various government documents, on top of that they also count the ethnic groups in that estimate. The 7 million figure is the one that represents the speakers of indigenous languages, which I never said was the true indigenous population, that would be a clear undercount. I am suggesting we either keep the 20 million figure out of the infobox or specify that the 20 million represents both indigenous and partially indigenous and the 10% one represents full indigenous Mexicans. PedroDonasco (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "or specify that the 20 million represents both indigenous and partially indigenous and the 10% one represents full indigenous Mexicans" That has been my proposal from the start of this discussion hasn't it?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright so we agree to do it. I have sent the source for the population, I have organized it from the previous version. PedroDonasco (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * population      = 11,800,247 identified indigenous Mexicans (9.36%).
 * 23,232,391 people declaring some form of indigenous ancestry (Includes Mexicans who are partially indigenous and considered Mestizos) (18.4%)
 * 7,364,645 people who speak an indigenous language (Including bilinguals in Spanish.) (6.1%)
 * 865,972 people monolingual in an indigenous language (0.6%)


 * población      = 11,800,247 Mexicanos indígenas identificados (9.36%).
 * 23,232,391 personas que declaran algún tipo de ascendencia indígena (incluye mexicanos que son parcialmente indígenas y considerados mestizos) (18.4%)
 * 7,364,645 personas que hablan un idioma indígena (Incluyendo bilingües en Español.) (6.1%)
 * 865,972 personas monolingües en un idioma indígena (0.6%)

In that case, I recommend this layout for the infobox/ficha. I cleaned up the previous layout a little. PedroDonasco (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest to make the specifying text for the 18% figure slightly briefer (akin to the ones that are already in the infobox there) and to avoid that new "Total population" number in bold altogether, as I don't see it in the current version of the page and you've acknowledged that there's effectively an undercount if we go by a language-based criteria alone. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, what about now? PedroDonasco (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Its good to go, but as I said before avoid the "Total population" figure in bold that you are putting above. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, can you add it onto the english and Spanish pages? PedroDonasco (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, I would like to add to this topic, as the user PedroDonasco and I have been going back and forth regarding this topic for weeks now, and is misrepresenting data regarding self identification of the indigenous peoples of Mexico. The 23,232,391 who self identify as indigenous do not include those who identify as partially indigenous. There is no source he has been able to cite which states this regarging the 2020 census. We went over this in a previous discussion. I will provide a link for the full discussion. Here is a link to the previous discussion if you are interested in reviewing it as well as the sources. He has been edit warring with me on the premise of original research and opinion regarding this very topic. I have requested a third opinion for the discussion but we've yet to receive one, and apparently he is attempting to circumvent this by duping you into believing his misreprentation of facts. Let us continue this discussion further.
 * Talk:Indigenous_peoples_of_Mexico#About_the_20%_figure DataNStats (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It does in fact, it has been stated in many different sources throughout various Wikipedia pages, more specifically Demographics of Mexico, I have provided plenty of sources as well to prove my point yet you want to keep speaking to other users as if I was some sort of vandal, please read WP:Civility before engaging in personal attacks against other users. We have already reached a consensus in which the full indigenous population is clarified (I have sent 10 cites proving this) and where the 20 million statistic gets added but clarification is added, that is part of forming a consensus, not simply proving who is right over who is wrong. PedroDonasco (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As you and I have discussed prior, the 2015 census is the only census to include in the questionnaire a question asking if someone was partially indigenous. That question does not exist in the 2020 census questionnaire. Since you are claiming that "some" of the people who identified as indigenous based upon self identification in the 2020 census are not "fully indigenous", then I ask once again:
 * 1. On what basis are you making this claim? Is it by race, ethnicity, or culture?
 * 2. Where in the census does it state or make evident your claim to be true?
 * Here is a link to the 2020 census expanded questionnaire.https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/ccpv/2020/doc/Censo2020_cuest_ampliado.pdf
 * Here is a link to the 2015 census expanded questionnare: https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/intercensal/2015/doc/eic2015_cuestionario.pdf DataNStats (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have already seen that and I responded to those within your talk page and the indigenous peoples of Mexico talk page, I have also clarified and used many other sources that prove my point and I can provide more if needed. PedroDonasco (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is also proven the 20% figure includes partially indigenous figures, there are other pages that support this. PedroDonasco (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I recommend you read the 10 cites I added. PedroDonasco (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed them, and there is not a single one that you cited which makes what you claim factual. Without a doubt you cannot cite a sentence, a page number, or any particular phrase which makes what you are claiming true in any of those sources that I have not already debunked in our previous discussion.
 * All I would need to concede that what you claiming to be true is actually true is something as simple as a cited source. DataNStats (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here         if these cites that confirm the full indigenous population to be 12 million isn’t reliable then I don’t know what is as it is from the Mexican government. PedroDonasco (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * On what basis can you claim 12 million people are fully indigenous and those of whom who self identified as indigenous in the 2020 are not? Neither set of data makes that claim. DataNStats (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources showing 19.4% of the Mexican population self identifies as indigenous:
 * https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/saladeprensa/aproposito/2022/EAP_PueblosInd22.pdf
 * https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/saladeprensa/aproposito/2022/EAP_PueblosInd22.pdf DataNStats (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the 11,800,237 figure is used much more often by the mexican government to determine the indigenous population than the 7 or 21 million figures as I have shown, it is also used much in the non Spanish and English Wikipedia pages for the indigenous peoples. Many of the 21 million would be considered mestizos rather than indigenous due to the way the government counts indigenous peoples. Also, the 20% figure are those who consider themselves indigenous based on cultural aspects rather than ethnically which is why the 20% figure doesn't state the specific ethnicity of the indigenous peoples and why the government uses the 10% figure more often. Due to the nonspecific nature of the question, someone who is partially indigenous could choose to identify more with their indigenous side in which I clarified. The 10% figure is a specific, more often used number to count indigenous peoples as its based off of indigenous ethnic groups and ethnically rather than culturally. PedroDonasco (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is also why we couldnt reach a consensus, in a consensus you're supposed to address all editors concerns about a topic, not just proving whether you are right or not and undoing the other editors revisions. Also why it was easier to come up with a consensus with another user as both parties concerns were represented in the edit PedroDonasco (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you have any suggestions for how it should be reworded, you can reply here. I suggest clarifying that some of those who culturally self identify as indigneous are considered partially indigenous or mestizo but we can reword it to say "People who culturally identify as indigenous" PedroDonasco (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Editing without reaching a consensus to the Indigenous Peoples of Mexico Page.
Please stop edit warring with me until this matter is resolved, Admin have already been involved with this discussion once. You have edited the page without reaching a consensus with me, and did so immediately after the protection moderators put on the article for edit warring ended. I have resubmitted a claim for a 3rd opinion on the matter to be discussed on the talk page of the article. I have also submitted a dispute resolution claim for the matter on the dispute resolution page. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Indigenous Peoples of Mexico discussion Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements DataNStats (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It’s too late now, I have already reached a consensus with another user and we have agreed on the edit, it includes the estimate you provided with clarification, if you continue to revert, mods will be contacted. PedroDonasco (talk) 06:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia
Greetings Urugayan989, I write to you because in your recent changes to the article "Demographics of Mexico" you state that "according to the Spanish Wikipedia and other sources mestizos made up 1/3 of the population at the time" but I don't see such source being used on the Spanish Wiki, even worse, the source is not a source per see, just a page number, can you point me to where did you see it being used, because the source that I've seen being used is this one which is an investigation of very high quality. On a similar vein (you trying to put sources of poorer quality over sources of better quality, more specialized and more up to date) I see issues with other of your edits, such as you creating a new paragraph based on data of the world factbook, I thought after this discussion here such behavior from you have been left in the past. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I wasn’t aware of this, in that case those edits won’t be implemented PedroDonasco (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Pob3qu3 By the way, I would like your input on this page. A user by the name of analytical review wants to deviate from established agreement and use studies conducted on poorer more rural areas rather than the general country and outweigh an already established consensus and by his messages denies the European contribution to Mexican dna. And claims that Mexicans on average have “60-70% indigenous ancestry” and “30-40% European ancestry” which I have stated would be more in line of the various indigenous ethnic groups and it wouldn’t make sense as white Mexicans are 9-45% of the population compared to indigenous Mexicans which are 5-25% of the population, indicating a slightly larger European presence in Mexico. PedroDonasco (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As I already told you on the diff I linked on my previous reply, genetic studies have too many limitations (sample size, geographic locations, the requirement of self-identification as an specific ethnic group to take part in the study...) to consider plausible to establish "an average" for an entire country, there even are interviews with geneticists that state this, with no mentions that a chunk of genetic data is open to free interpretation by geneticists, in this case I'd advise you to elaborate on the methodologies used on each study. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mestizo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages African and European. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

White Mexicans
Hello there!

I can see you are trying to mediate the situation, however, I cannot find a single source where the Mexican government officially states anywhere near 40% of the population is White. In this source: even if you add up every word that can describe a light complexion, you would get approximately 20% of the population identifying as "White" (which personally I think is not a bad estimate but that is purely anecdotal). We should only be using publications officially from the Mexican government. Analyticalreview (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Alright, I believe a range of 10-30% is best for number of white Mexicans. The edit can be removed for now but the other one fixing official census info should not be reverted PedroDonasco (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest we do the same removal on Spanish pages, they typically contain the same information as the English ones. PedroDonasco (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that a range between 10-30% is okay enough but doesn't Wikipedia require us to find an official source that has it at 30%? That's why I initially put it as "At least 10%" since it implies it can be higher but we have no official source stating so. Analyticalreview (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I will make an attempt to look for a higher end source, in the mean time I will be replacing the content that says “47% of Mexicans are white”. PedroDonasco (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Demographics of Mexico. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Indigenous peoples of Mexico. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of &#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Php2000. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)