Talk:Mexico

Contentious

Two recent edits by Pob3qu3 (diff) were reverted by Tiggerjay (diff) as "Highly contentious". @Tiggerjay: Would you please briefly outline why you regard the edits as contentious. Please be specific but concise. If I need more, I'll ask. I ask this as an uninvolved administrator after seeing the ANI report. I know the answer will be somewhere but please start again. Johnuniq (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, over the course of the last several months Pob3qu3 has been attempting to insert a statistic of 32% of Mexico's population are "White Mexicans" (or some variation thereof). This statistic has been contested on their talk page[1] and then another editor brought it up over at NORN[2] several weeks ago. In the most recent reverted diff, Pob3qu3 has cited britannica.com: (1) you can see yourself that their citation does not establish the 32% figure, and (2) that source has been discussed at length at NORN, and several of us are claiming WP:SYNTH. This was considered "contentious" because they knowingly re-added information they clearly know is disputed. The qualifier of "high" is because this is disputed by multiple editors and spanning multiple months with an ongoing NORN discussion. For further details, you can read their talk page or the more lengthy NORN discussion, or feel free to ping me. TiggerJay (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

TiggerJay you say again that the "citation does not establish the 32% figure" yet there's a pie chart in the source that says that "other" amounts for 31% of the country's population and the entry states: "Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population" It seems rather clear to me that the 31% figure are ethnic groups who are White or significantly White. Johnuniq, another observation I have to make is that I'm not trying to insert a figure. Actually the figure has been used on the estable versions of multiple articles for months, its TigerJay and company the ones who are trying to remove it. Pob3qu3 (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

As has already been explained to Pob3qu3, the pie chart doesn't say that 32% are "White", nor "European" so this is original research. At one point I changed it to say 'one-third' (either here, or some neighboring articles) to avoid false precision. I misread the sources. It doesn't support this, even as an approximation. We shouldn't be adding our best-guesses, and original research about who is and is not "White" enough to be counted isn't appropriate in any article for a lot of reasons.

As for being in the article for 'many months' it was added] by Pob3qu3 in December. This was added after some of Pob3qu3's changes to that section had been reverted. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Grayfell the 30%-31% or similar figure from Encyclopedia Brittanica has been present in multiple articles since months ago, check this diff of the article Mexicans from July 29th[3] (in the White mexicans section, Demographics of Mexico from September 2[4](White Mexicans section) and the White Mexicans article from July 9[5](second paragraph of the introduction). Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I fail to see your point. The Britannica source doesn't support it. The history of how this OR got stuck in multiple articles is tedious. I'm not interested in assigning blame I'm interested in fixing these articles. Grayfell (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Grayfell If you are truly interested on fixing these articles why don't you start re-adding Brittanica to this one? after all you keep Brittanica on the European Emigration article (the disagrement in there is on the form of how we present the info regarding White Mexicans, not about Brittanicas inclusion, we can work that out on the next days). Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Stop pestering me about this with pings. When the dust has settled I hope I will be able to help clean up a lot of these articles. That's going to involve a lot more than just the Britannica source. Since you are apparently dead-set on restoring your preferred version, there's not much point in making these changes now, is there? Your comment seems like you're still trying to turn this into a 'gotcha' instead of addressing the issue. Grayfell (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Your comment seems like you're still trying to turn this into a 'gotcha' instead of addressing the issue Grayfell the issue to my understanding is the serious impasse on which we've been on and I'm trying my best to resolve it by finding a common ground, I think we all can agree that Encyclopedia Brittanica is a very reliable source and there's no reason to keep it removed from this article, you in fact rephrassed it and have it included in the Mexico section of the article of European Emigration so why don't you add it here too?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I specifically asked you to stop pinging me. Do not ping me again.

All sources are judged in context. The specific numbers you have added are not supported by that source, so they do not belong. Using other sources to synthesis a specific definition to be able to interpret the source to say "32%" is not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved editor who got here from Pob3qu3's reply to Liz on ANI. I'm going to make a single attempt to shed light on this issue.

• First, Pob3qu3, you're hung up on values that other people have put in the article in the past. The percentage of whites in Mexico does not depend on what WP editors put in the article in the past. For this discussion to go forward you need to just let that go. Clearly those editors no longer espouse those numbers.
• Second, let's talk math. And don't worry for a minute about WP definitions like OR, SYNTH, and CALC. Let's just look at what we can really learn about percentage of whites in Mexico based on Brittanica. Your quote of Brittanica is what brought me here. The data you provided Liz, if I understand right, is this:
  • Less than 10% indigenous
  • About 60% mestizo
  • "whites" are a significant component of the "other" ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population
  • The pie chart has about 31% "other"

So with that data let's establish an upper bound and lower bound on the white percentage. I think we can all agree that an upper bound would about 31%, i.e., all but one person in the whole "other" category may be white, and this rounds up to 31%.

The only constraint we have on the lower bound is that they are a "significant component" of "other". What is a "significant component"? We have no further information from Brittanica on the meaning of that phrase, so we have to evaluate it for ourselves. It could mean "the majority", i.e. 50+% of "other". That would be a total white percentage of at least 15.5%. It could mean "a plurality", which means that white is the biggest of all components of other, but still not a majority. For example, if there were five races in "other", then by the pigeonhole principle at least one of them has to be at least 1/5 of the 31%, or > 6.2%. But the article doesn't even say that white is the MOST significant component of "other" (though it probably is). For example, if Asian is the most significant and accounts for 30%, white could be under 1% and still be a "significant component" of "other".

So these three interpretations of "significant component" lead to three different lower bounds, and we don't know which is meant. But even if we magically knew that Brittanica meant "the majority", that still gives a lower bound of only 15.5%. The article doesn't say "vast majority" or "nearly all" of "other". So we can't concretely say that it's anything above 15.5%, even if we knew that it was "the majority", which we don't.

So because the Brittanica article wording allows for ranges anywhere from 31% down to less than 1%, picking a number within that range would be going beyond what the source says and is not ok. Davemc0 (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

When Brittanica says "Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population" It means that the other ethnic groups are White/significantly White. Similarly to your reply below [6] you are using hypoteticals such as if there were five races in "other" & if Asian is the most significant and accounts for 30%..." but those are simply not true, Asians and other races exist on way too reduced numbers in Mexico for those hypoteticals to work (also they are not "significantly White" so they cannot be in the "other" section to begin with). Pob3qu3 (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

My reading of WP:BRITANNICA is that EB is not a desirable reference. At any rate, if it is the only source available, the information cannot be considered WP:DUE. I can't see a way to link to a particular chart in the EB reference, but at the moment I am looking at one saying "Mexico ethnic composition" for 2012 and 2000. Under 2000, a pie chart seems to say that 15.0% are "Mexican white". I do not see mention of that figure above which demonstrates the degree of confusion surrounding the topic. It is definitely not satisfactory to use the "significant component of the other ethnic groups" extract above for anything other than "significant" which is too meaningless for Wikipedia. My comments are not advice regarding what proportion of Mexicans are "white". I am just outlining standard procedure. If I have missed something, please tell me. At the moment, I believe that it is clear that continued pursuit of the text described above would be disruptive and resolution is simple. @Pob3qu3: I will indefinitely block you from any article where you add statistics about Mexican ethnic composition unless there is prior consensus on the associated article talk page. Other people do not need to convince Pob3qu3—just indicate whether you agree or disagree with a proposed change, and briefly why. Do not talk about the past and who did what. Focus on sources and what they say. There is no need to repeat yourself. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Johnuniq there are more sources that give similar percentages, such as this one I presented before [7], it states in the page 3 that "64% of Mexico's population do not have the characteristics/physical features that are more related to Europe or North America" thus Whites are around 34%-35%, which is not very different of What Encyclopedia Brittanica states what do you think about this one?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I have had my say. If you have a proposal for text to be included in the article, please start a new section and show the proposed text together with the proposed source. Do not edit the article with anything concerning Mexican ethnic composition unless there is a positive prior consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Johnuniq You said that "if it is the only source available, the information cannot be considered WP:DUE" so I showed you that other source (whose results are somewhat similar to what Encyclopedia Brittanica says) to see if you changed your mind about it not being WP:DUE, are you not actually interested on mediating this anymore?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

General lack of understanding of the sources. Any further edit should be suggested and reviewed by others from now on. Moxy🍁 21:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Moxy what does the source[8] say according to yourself? thinking about it, I've showed you this source and asked you this question various times but you've never replied to it before. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I've explaining I do not read Spanish. Moxy🍁 00:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Moxy do you understand that this may be a problem as the content conflict of the last days, on which you've been a prominent part of is about Mexico-related articles, a subject on which a lot of sources, specially recent ones are on Spanish? Not to mention that on numerous occasions you've replied to my arguments just telling me that I "do not understand the sources" or similar. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

An article talk page should be used to focus on proposed text and sources. Someone wanting a change needs to justify their proposal. That would involve explaining what proposed text is wanted, and why a source verifies that proposal. Use another website to talk about other editors or what happened in the past. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree 100% that this is a problem that many of us don't read Spanish...... we have many edits to review and we are going to have to incorporate people with better understanding of the language because thus far there's a serious problem just with the English ones. Moxy🍁 02:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I do read Spanish, and also had Google Translate translate the paragraph from the PDF about African racism in Mexico:

64.6 percent of people in Mexico consider themselves to be brown; however, 54.8 percent say that people are insulted for their skin color and 15 percent have felt that their rights have not been respected for this very reason. (ENADIS 2010)

I also read math. So let's look at the math of this. It's true that 100% - 64.6% = 35.4%. That gives us a useful upper bound of no more than 35.4% are white. Fine. But what is the lower bound? As with Brittanica, the article does not say, and we cannot make a simple inference from this source to get a lower bound.

@Pob3qu3, this is the problem. You need to respect what these sources are NOT telling us, which is lower bounds. For example, this article would still be 100% correct in what it said if the reality was that there were one white European in Mexico and the rest of the 35.4% of the country were Asians who do not "consider themselves to be brown". (Apologies, but I'm going to use the word "brown" because that's what Google Translate handed me. In Spanish it was "moreno".)

Do you see the problem? Do you see how the conclusion that Mexico is 35.4% white requires an assumption by you that there are only two kinds of people in Mexico - those who "consider themselves to be brown" and whites? We are not allowed to make such assumptions when using sources. That's bad WP:SYNTH and bad WP:CALC. It's also bad black and white thinking. Excuse the pun, and no offense intended. Davemc0 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The document not only says that 64% consider themselves "morenos" (dark skinned) it also states on the page 3 that people on such group does not have "...characteristics/physical features that are more related to Europe or North America" so we know that the other group are people with North American/European physical characteristics or Whites, there are other light skinned groups in Mexico, like as you say Asians, but they are too reduced in number to consider that they are inflating the White/European physical characteristics group. Also not sure why you mention the figures about people being insulted by their skin color in this discussion, Grayfell did that too some days ago [9] and I think by doing that we are deviating of the point of the discussion. Pob3qu3 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Are many of these Mexican reports based on the pseudoscience of Physiognomy? Is this something still used in modern statistics by the country? Moxy🍁 19:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Here's the translation from page 3. And like the prior quote, I'm doing the whole paragraph so people can see for themselves that the rest is irrelevant, rather than wondering.

Also considering that, according to the results of this survey, our country is made up of 64 percent of people who consider themselves dark-skinned, the data in the graph above gives us elements to conclude that in our country a sector of the population is rejected and marginalized, which, in addition to being the majority, does not have the physical characteristics of population groups that, in any case, would be more related to European or North American characteristics.

So from the language on page 1 and 3, there are logically four groups:

• 64.6% who DO consider themselves to be brown and who DO NOT have the (white) characteristics
• X% who DO consider themselves to be brown and who DO have the (white) characteristics
• Y% who DO NOT consider themselves to be brown and who DO NOT have the (white) characteristics
• Z% who DO NOT consider themselves to be brown and who DO have the (white) characteristics

Your conclusion is that because the 64% majority does not have the European / North American characteristics (white), that implies that ALL of the 35.4% minority DOES have the (white) characteristics. In other words, that Z = 35.4%. But that's an invalid inference. It ignores groups X and Y. There's no way that not a single person in Mexico who does not personally consider themself to be brown has the characteristics of being white. And for good measure, I'll point out that the article itself is flawed in that it implies that X = 0% - that no people consider themselves to be brown while in fact having (white) characteristics. There's no way that not a single person is in that category either.

So your implications are too simplistic. Your black and white thinking is causing you to ignore two of the four logical groups implied by the source. This is the whole reason we don't do WP:SYNTH on WP; we're not good enough at it.

I'll post some proposed wording when I get a minute. Davemc0 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Here is my proposed text to entirely replace the existing second paragraph under Ethnicity and Race:

According to the 2020 census, Afro-Mexicans comprised 2% of Mexico's population. Asians and Middle Easterners represent around 1% of the population each.[1] Surveys often use skin color to estimate race, such as the number of White Mexicans in the country. In a 2022 census bureau study, Mexican adults self-report skin tone as 29.2% having light skin tones, 66.1% having medium, and 21.1% having dark.

Probably some of the other references in the paragraph should be included; I don't care which.

Also please note that similar crappy editing has been going on at White Mexicans, unsurprisingly. Davemc0 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC) Davemc0 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

"Here is my proposed text to entirely replace the existing second paragraph under Ethnicity and Race:"

According to the 2020 census, Afro-Mexicans comprised 2% of Mexico's population. Asians and Middle Easterners represent around 1% of the population each.[1] Surveys often use skin color to estimate race, such as the number of White Mexicans in the country. In a 2022 census bureau study, Mexican adults self-report skin tone as 29.2% having light skin tones, 66.1% having medium, and 21.1% having dark.

This is fine, you can add it to the article. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, because the way in which you are quoting Davemc0 is confusing -- you support his proposal, unmodified? TiggerJay (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Davemc0 - I need to review the source document, because what is concerning/confusing is that the self reporting percentages add up to over 100% at 116.4% -- so that would seem that people are report as more than one "skin tone"? While I can understand how "light skinned" is problematic and does not necessarily infer "white mexican" I am confused how someone can be both "light skin toned" as well as any other skin tone... THoughts? TiggerJay (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The source states that 47.9% of Mexicans identify with the medium skin tones, not 66.1%, was about to point that out and yeah, I support the adition of the quote (With the correct number for medium). Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

That still does not add up 100%... that is not the way statistics works. I would suggest it is careless to simply support something now twice which seems to still have some sort of error in it. TiggerJay (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry; I have no idea where that 66.1% came from. And I said I could do math. 😂 No, the issue isn't anything about double counting or whatever. It's just my bad. And Pob3qu3 was correcting me, but got it slightly off. It's 49.7, not 47.9, that's in the source. So the paragraph I would propose that someone add is corrected as follows:

According to the 2020 census, Afro-Mexicans comprised 2% of Mexico's population. Asians and Middle Easterners represent around 1% of the population each.[1] Surveys often use skin color to estimate race, such as the number of White Mexicans in the country. In a 2022 census bureau study, Mexican adults self-report skin tone as 29.2% having light skin tones, 49.7% having medium, and 21.1% having dark.

I'm heading out of town, so if this reaches consensus while I'm out I'd prefer if someone else make the change. Also I don't want to dig into the other sources in that paragraph that regard the practice of skin tone surveys and race. Davemc0 (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm still making my way through this 200 page document. I've got some concerns overall, but at least your math equals 100% now. I would definitely not call this a "census", as this survey shows that the sample size was 42k people, which is less than 4% of the total population.(page 8) There is just a lot to read through in a large document where Spanish is something I haven't used in two decades so I'm very rusty... overall I think we're talking about a study performed to talk about discrimination as it relates to self-identified skin color, which is quite a different think (AFAIK) than actual "White Mexicans" as effective an ethnicity. Especially when people are self assessing on a 11-tone scale, and the groups appear to be arbitrary -- where 21.1%29.2% is in the H to K tone (ie fair toned), but what does that really mean? The footnote seems to indicate the groups really have more to do with comparing to the 2017 survey versus anything otherwise meaningful. TiggerJay (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC) (Corrected incorrect figure of 21.1 to 29.2% 15:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC))

TiggerJay checked the source, skin tone distribution is found in the page 157 of the source, medium skin tone is 49.7% (also the percentage that is in the lightest tones is 29.2%, not 21.1%, that's the dark tone). Also no reason to be concerned, skin color is what has been used in recent governmental surveys to estimate the number of White Mexicans in the country. Pob3qu3 (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I might agree to 29.2% having light skin tones by self-identification which is supported by this citation. However, I would absolutely be against, any assertion that 29.2% are all White Mexican, who are people of total or predominantly European or West Asian ancestry -- and self identification of skin tones does not equate to "ancestry". Further, I questioned above, where does the grouping of "H to K tones" come from - the citation seems to indicate that it really is for comparison against a 2017, but nothing I've read so far supports the claim that there is a correlation between skin tone and ethnicity/ancestry. Furthermore I also object to the use of census as it mispresents the facts. TiggerJay (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Good assessments from both of you. I agree that this is not "the census". It's a much smaller survey that was done by the government census bureau. I thought my wording reflected that, but feel free to change it. I strongly agree (also with Grayfell below) that extrapolating from skin tone to race is at minimum unproductive. I tried to phrase the paragraph to not make that connection but to let people learn about skin tone distribution here, and learn the details about races of White Mexicans there if they're interested. I'm open to wording changes if needed. We don't need to be in the business of declaring race distributions; we can just report some reliable measurements and close this out. Davemc0 (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll add that the clustering of 11 skin tones into three groups was clearly a matter of opinion of whoever in the census bureau reported this study and the 2017 version. I find that only minorly problematic because a) it's not declaring race, either in the source or in WP, and b) it's so easy to click on the source and see the 11 tones and their individual distributions. Davemc0 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

nothing I've read so far supports the claim that there is a correlation between skin tone and ethnicity/ancestry TiggerJay please don't go on the same direction that Grayfell goes when he says[10] that "European or North American characteristics" is not (by itself) falsifiable, it's not interchangeable with "white", it's not interchangeable with "European ancestry..." that source[11], which is also from Mexico's government gives a percentage of 35% which is similar to the percentage the 2022 survey gives (I take note of what Davemc0 has previously said in regards that there may be non-European people that identified within the "European" group and White people that identified within the "moreno" group but that's a shortcomming that all ethnic censuses/surveys in the world could have). Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that's a shame, this proposal was starting to look like a step in the right direction. That source you've linked says that 64.6% consider themselves 'morenas' (brown) in a completely different context. That source in turn cites this source (conveniently available in English) which says that 10.9% consider themselves 'white' and includes many other categories for self-description like 'pearly', 'a little toasted', 'chocolate', etc. It doesn't mention Europe or European at all. The relevant sections of both sources are about discrimination based on skin tone. They are not about race or ethnicity. It is not appropriate to use these sources to make claims about race or ethnicity, because the sources are not making those claims.

These sources seem far too flimsy to even mention skin-tone here. Maybe instead at the demographics of Mexico article. Even if it's included here, we shouldn't be putting "skin tone" in the same paragraph as "ancestry" and especially not "race" without a lot of context. That context needs to come from sources, not editors.

So the shortcoming here is because the starting position is flawed. This isn't a new problem for social science. Grayfell (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

But in the source you quoted there are other self-description categories that are synonyms with White people such as "Guero" if anything yor comment proves further that skin color research in Mexico is related to race.

that's a shame, this proposal was starting to look like a step in the right direction. I still back the addition of Davemc0 proposed text (the corrected version). My previous comment was in order to assure TiggerJay that skin color is related to ethnoracial research on Mexico (you innadvertly just supported this point too). Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

"...synonyms with White people..." ??? These sources are not using these terms as synonyms for people of "total or predominantly European or West Asian ancestry", which is the definition used by White Mexicans. If a source doesn't connect the two, it's original research, and if a source does connect the two, we need to explain that connection according to that source. Your own understanding of this topic is not a substitute for a reliable source. Skin color is related to ethnoracial research, so please provide a reliable sources which explains that relationship. Grayfell (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

At first your reply confused me but I think I get what you mean. There are sources, like this one[12] that I've linked various times on this discussion that do connect skin color to "European physical characteristics" this is because ethnographic research by Mexico's governement is based on physical characteristics/appearance, other editors have asked me this before and I always make this fact clear. Pob3qu3 (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

That source doesn't explain the relationship between skin color and ethnoracial research. "...en todo caso, estarían más relacionados con características europeas o norteamericanas." is very, very far from 32% of Mexicans are White. Even in context, this one relatively obscure document published by the National Council to Prevent Discrimination is not saying that 32% of Mexicans are White.

On a related note, I would like to see a source which discusses how Mexico's government has changed its approach to this over time. Right now, these articles are mostly citing examples, but that's original research in this case. If you have a reliable source which explains the connection between skin-tone and race as it relates to the demographics of Mexico, please propose that source. I'm sure everyone here knows that skin-tone and whiteness are related. That's not what this is about. Grayfell (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

So I revised the text proposed by Davemc0 some days ago, here's my version:

According to the 2020 census, Afro-Mexicans comprised 2% of Mexico's population. Asians and Middle Easterners represent around 1% of the population each.[1] Surveys often use skin color to estimate race, such as the number of White Mexicans in the country. In a 2022 study by the Mexican Institute of Geography and Statistics, Mexican adults self-report skin tone as 29.2% having light, 49.7% having medium, and 21.1% having dark tones.

What you all think?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

We're getting closer, but there's still a problem. Which source supports "Surveys often use skin color to estimate race, such as the number of White Mexicans in the country."? I think this may be too simple. The source you are proposing doesn't mention this as it relates to 'White Mexicans', does it? That source cites PERLA. While looking into this I found this source, also from PERLA. Among other things, it discusses a "money whitening" effect where wealthier people in Mexico self-report having a lighter skin-tone:

While [Andrés Villarreal] argues that the MIT color variables are reliable over time and across raters, we discover that they are also subject to a money whitening effect, resulting in a color measure that is endogenous to the SES outcomes he sought to explain. etc.[13]

It's not a simple thing. As I said above, I'm sure everyone here knows that skin-tone and whiteness are related. Let's us a reliable source to explain that relationship before we use it to include specific numbers. Grayfell (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think its that necessary to bring a source that connects having light skin with whiteness given that as you've said yourself everyone knows that, but Besides the source I've linked various times before that links "European physical characteristics" with skin color there's this other source that is similar[14] but uses the term "White" instead of European physical characteristics, multiple times so that is covered too. Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The source which links European or North American characteristics is not sufficient for this.

You've missed my point when I said we all know they are related. Lots of things are related, but merely being related is too vague. We need to use reliable sources for this, otherwise we're using our own assumptions to add pseudoscience to the article.

That PDF appears to be of some slides from some presentation without any context. This is not a good source.

These sources you have proposed are usually not talking about ancestry at all, they are talking about discrimination. We should not misrepresent these sources.

Without better sources, just mentioning skin-tone in the article by itself would be trivializing and undue. Grayfell (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm ok with your paragraph. If others concur, go for it. Regarding backing for "Surveys often use skin color as reference" in the existing article, I assume the two references for that phrase back it up, but I haven't read them. Can someone confirm?

Here's an alternate proposed paragraph that I think resolves current hesitations by getting us further from connecting race and skin tone, rather than closer. I propose it because I don't think we need to solve the problem of race proportions in Mexico; we just need to tell people useful stuff about Mexico. The following is meant to immediately follow the paragraph about Mestizo race:

White Mexicans are another major ethnic group in the country; and according to the 2020 census, Afro-Mexicans comprised 2% of Mexico's population, and Asians and Middle Easterners represent around 1% of the population each.[1]

Studies in 2017 and 2022 by the Mexican Institute of Geography and Statistics were framed in terms of skin tone, rather than race. In the 2022 study, Mexican adults self-report skin tone as 29.2% having light, 49.7% having medium, and 21.1% having dark tones.

What say you? Davemc0 (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

That alternative is better. There are still a few issues. The cited source for skin-tone doesn't really say that it is 'rather than race', so this is subtle editorializing. My observation is that sources are very, very careful not to present the two as interchangeable. The main reason most of these sources are discussing skin tone is because of discrimination. If we're going to cite these sources, we should probably indicate this. Phrasing this to include a wikilink to Discrimination based on skin tone might help explain what's going on. I notice that this article doesn't have a wikilink to Racism in Mexico, either. Grayfell (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Grayfell, not sure why you've been saying in your recent responses that "The sources are not talking about ancestry at all, they are talking about discrimination" and similar when the title of one of the sources we are discussing literally is "Document about racial discrimination in Mexico"[15]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I said "usually not talking about ancestry at all". Cutting of that part misrepresents what I said. How many dozens of times have you posted that link to these talk pages? As I said, "the main reason most of these sources are discussing skin tone is because of discrimination." That source is no exception. As I've said many times, that source does not directly link skin-tone to "race", and would have to be summarized in context. At best it indirectly links skin tone to "características europeas o norteamericanas" which is not the same thing as "race" in simplistic terms. I've also previously linked to the originating source which provided that source with its statistics, and that source doesn't explain the connection, either.

If you have a source which explains this connection, let's discuss it, but repeatedly citing this one passing mention in one page of one obscure document from 2011 is no longer productive. As I've tried to explain, it's not that simple. Among other issues, how people self-report their skin-tone in Mexico is influenced by both physical and cultural factors. Grayfell (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

As I said, "the main reason most of these sources are discussing skin tone is because of discrimination... Racial discrimination to be precise, in fact the government agency that produces these documents, the CONAPRED is in charge of monitoring ethnic/racial discrimination[16], you saying that these documents are "usually" not related to race is confusing to say the least. Pob3qu3 (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

From my read of all of the documents provided so far, it seems that primarily because ethnicity demographics is not available, that they instead resort to self-identification of skin tone to use as at least some measurable criteria to assess racial discrimination in Mexico.

Additionally, I would proffer, that for areas of discrimination, a person's physical appearance is more likely be used to discriminate against someone -- making that methodology of research particularly useful for an agency that is to protect against discrimination, because discrimination rarely happens because of who you actually are ethnically, but rather your physical appearance. And furthermore that just because you look a certain way, doesn't mean that you are in fact that ethnicity, yet you will still likely be discriminated against none the less. My own family had to deal with this in America during World War II where our appearance and what people presumed our ethnicity did not align with the reality.

To the degree that the information is represented on WP, using "physical appearance" that is fine... However, it would be a huge leap to present "self attestation of appearance" as a representation of what they are "ethnically" -- and thus the correlation to White Mexican to any degree from these datapoints is not supported by the evidence presented thus far. TiggerJay (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

To the degree that the information is represented on WP, using "physical appearance" that is fine... As I said before (on this same discussion and previous ones), I've always tried to make clear that ethnographic research by Mexico's governement is based on physical characteristics/appearance, so we are on the same page on that part and one of the reasons I've always favored that posture is in part because (you may not realise it yet though) it also means that we can put aside confusing arguments such as "that a person is of White/European appearance does not mean that person is of White/European ancestry/ethnicity" because we are talking of appearance, no more or less. Pob3qu3 (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying that the White Mexican article is incorrect when it says that they are Mexicans of total or predominantly European or West Asian ancestry. I believe that is the lynchpin of this overall discussion. I think if the article did not describe "whites" as "ancestry" then this wouldn't be an issue. However, the article seems to deal heavily not with discrimination or visual appearance but actual race/ancestry/ethnicity. And for those reasons it would be inappropriate to correlate those two. TiggerJay (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it is "incorrect" per see, as in order to have an European physical appeareance you must have European ancestry but, I'm ok with changing the part of the article you quoted for something like "are Mexicans of European appeareance" because that way we can put aside the confusing questions that have been arising on this talk page lately. In fact, at times the article introduction has said things like that but other editors change it. I believe however, that is important to settle the discussion pertinent to this article first before moving onto other articles. Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

So if a reader comes to this article with the question "how many White people are in Mexico?" what answer are they going to find?

These questions are confusing for a very important reason. Trying to set aside these questions would be introducing subjective opinions as hard scientific facts. As Race (human categorization) explains, "Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society." The most recent proposal is using a relatively weak source to imply that 29.2% of Mexicans are "White". That's the answer that my hypothetical reader would come away with. The source isn't directly saying that, however, which is a problem.

So which social rules are being applied here to arrive at such a specific number? Is it ancestry or physical appearance or something else? Who is evaluating that appearance? If we're saying that a White Mexican is somebody who 'looks white' and is also a Mexican, we're not saying anything at all. Even self-reported skin-tone is influenced by social factors, and it isn't our place to imply that every light-skinned person should be categorized as "white".

For that matter, who is evaluating "ancestry"? This isn't a simple question either.

Let's look at a source which directly explains how skin-tone surveys are used as a proxy for race, and summarize that first. Only after that should we provide specific numbers. This will prevent subtle editorializing and OR and prevent readers from being mislead. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

While I agree that skin tone and race are not the same thing I don't agree that listing self-reported skin tones is a problem simply because there's a danger that some reader might associate a cluster of them with "white" as a race. It's not our job to police our readers' thinking or assumptions.

Grayfell, I think it's time for you to propose some text to put in the article. There have been four proposals so far, all of them satisfactory to at least half of us. I thought we were converging, but now I don't think so. I think an attempt by you make a satisfying proposal is what we need. Davemc0 (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that there's some important context being ignored on this discussion that may help clear things out and is that terms such as "light skin/complexion" (Tez clara) and "white skin/complexion" (Tez blanca) are used interchangeably, and also are very common ways to refer to White/European people in Mexico and on Spanish speaking countries in general[17] (in fact it may be the most common way to refer to White/European people). Pob3qu3 (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

A proposal is a reasonable request, and like I said, I'm looking for better sources. Regarding this edit, the International Handbook of the Demography of Race and Ethnicity seems as good a starting point as any, right? I don't think the 2022 source on skin tone has sufficient weight for this article by itself, and my proposal would be to just remove it. I may come back to this and make a proper proposal, but that will take time. I'm also curious to read Moxy's input, whenever he is available. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I think your new additions to the article may fit better in the history section, also much of what you added was already in the section, just less detailed, (speaking of details, I don't think its necessary to mention things such as eugenics on this article).

I don't think the 2022 source on skin tone has sufficient weight for this article by itself... Its a nationwide survey carried out by Mexico's main statistics institute that has had multiple iterations, its not just a 2022 thing. Pob3qu3 (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure we will also have to discuss changes to demographics of Mexico. For now, at this article, the section is titled 'Ethnicity and race'. These categories cannot be separated from this history. 'White', 'Mestizo', 'Indigenous' etc. don't mean the same thing in Mexico as they do in any other places. They don't even mean the same thing in different times and places within Mexico. This ambiguity is because of this history. When we explain ambiguous concepts, we should try and provide context. I've tried to expand the section to be similar length to other sections in the article.

The PDF is 198 pages, mostly of simple infographs. Two of those pages are about self-reported skin tone percentages, and those pages don't appear to be any more important than any other pages. All sources are judged in context. Grayfell (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

What logic/criteria are you even using to determine what is notable and what isn't? How is a source that literally comes from Mexico's government itself not notable enough to be in the article?.

The PDF is 198 pages, mostly of simple infographs. Two of those pages are about self-reported skin tone percentages... Its not just these two pages, there are more pages with questions related to skin color from the page 156[18] onwards. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the national census bureau's study is a very solid source for distribution of skin tone in Mexico. That source satisfies all three paragraphs of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Skin tone is obviously very central to that report on discrimination in Mexico. It's mentioned 65 times, on 37 different slides!

Please remember that none of us are going to get the exact wording we want. We all have to be willing to compromise and just get something that's better, by WP's standards, than what was there before. I feel like there have been plenty of proposed paragraphs that meet that low standard. Please help us get some text into the article so we can stop this discussion. The discussion is already more than 110 times longer than the longest proposed text! If you don't have a counterproposal, please just accept the compromise text so we can all go dedicate ourselves to more important edits. Davemc0 (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess I'm not explaining myself very well. There are a couple if different issues with treating this source as "very solid".

The report is on discrimination, but this proposal isn't mentioning discrimination. Listing these numbers without that context is misrepresenting what the source is saying. Those specific numbers come from two pages of the PDF. The rest of that section is about discrimination and attitude, not ethnic or racial demographics.

This and other sources a careful not to present skin-tone as a direct one-to-one proxy for 'race'. To be brief, this is because that would be scientific racism. If reliable sources are cautious of something like that, we should respect those sources. If they are not cautious about this kind of thing, they are not very reliable. This is a WP:FRINGE issue, among other things. So why is the proposal implying that this is "rather than race"? Which source says that? Where does it say that?

To put it another way, Discrimination based on skin tone and Racism are two different (overlapping) topics. This subsection isn't about discrimination OR skin tone, it's about the demographics of ethnicity and race.

As for being a government survey, a lot of government surveys exist, and existing doesn't, by itself, mean this belongs in this article in this context. If we treat this solely as a government survey, it's a WP:PRIMARY source. We should use secondary sources to summarize primary sources. That's been the norm on Wikipedia for longer than I've been an editor. Grayfell (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

This last reply of yours is contradictory for various reasons honestly, given that you added a lot of text related to discrimination to the article[19] two days ago (you also mentioned skin color in there). Additionally as I said in a previous reply the fact (or context) that on Spanish speaking countries terms related to skin color and race are used interchangeably shouldn't be ignored[20], in fact a source that I brought earlier mentions both: "Blanco" (White)" and "Tez Blanca"(White complexion) [21]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you were explaining yourself well, but I think you're just being too picky. And you're only criticizing other people's efforts, not yet contributing any work to get to a solution, apart from proposing a new source for someone to work through. Please show some consideration for other people's time and effort by helping us finish this, instead of just consuming more of other people's time. Remember that WP:PERFECTION is not required. We gotta save some work for future wikipedians to do. :).

Skin tone is very relevant demographic information about Mexico. We can add skin tone to the section title if you think it shouldn't be mentioned otherwise. We already understand that skin tone is not a direct proxy for race, and all versions of the proposed phrasing reflect that understanding. I even separated skin tone demographics into a separate paragraph. That's plenty good enough for now.

I think you've set up a catch-22 when you criticize this source for not being just about a skin tone study, while at the same time saying that one that IS just about a skin tone study should be discouraged for being a primary source. I think you need to reexamine your position. Ask yourself what source you would use if you wanted to report about skin tone distribution in Mexico. I expect the reality is that there's no better source on earth for that question than this source.

I stand by my judgment that this report is a very good source for skin tone distribution in Mexico.

I've reached my limit for this and am checking out. @Pob3qu3:, you seem very patient. But I recommend that when your patience wears thin you try to pull in fresh opinions, such as at WP:DRN. Davemc0 (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

That's too bad Davemc0, I hope you have time in the next days to wiegh on this discussion as you've been rather colaborative here. I've been considering to take this issue to other venues but I'd like to continue the discussion here because Grayfell has actually mentioned edit proposals that I've wanted to do for quite a time (even on his recent large addition of text there are parts that I think are good additions), the problem, as you've pointed out various times aswell (including your latest reply) is that he's reather difficult to work with. There are other editors such as TiggerJay that I hope can give input here aswell. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I made some adjustments taking in consideration recent output and here's a new proposal:

According to the 2020 census, Afro-Mexicans comprised 2% of Mexico's population. Asians and Middle Easterners represent around 1% of the population each.[1] Surveys often use skin color to estimate race, such as the number of White Mexicans in the country. In a 2022 national survey by the Mexican Institute of Geography and Statistics and Mexico's Ministry for the Prevention of Discrimination Mexican adults self-report skin tone as 29.2% having light, 49.7% having medium, and 21.1% having dark tones

As can be seen, now the ministry to prevent discrimination is mentioned, this taking into consideration Grayfell's claims related to context. Something that I haven't been sure wheter to mention or not (because I think its implicit) is that its better that the sources that are already in that section stay in the section (If one looks up the "Ethnicity and Race" section there are multiple sources already in the statement "Surveys often use skin color to estimate race, and this has been used to estimate the number of White Mexicans in the country.") There are other things that I think need to be discussed such as improving all the text that Grayfell added days ago but we can start with this. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Wondering if you have time to weigh in Remsense, as you are active on this talk page and you have have participated on discussions related to this topic before. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I do not feel I am able to fully evaluate the discussion that has transpired here to date, but since I was asked I will say the proposal directly above reads clearly. I am fine with whatever everyone agrees on, but it seems on the surface that you still want to say "around 30% of the population are White Mexicans", and since you don't have a source that says that directly you're attempting to imply that in the reader's head via a source that isn't directly discussing race. This is done transparently, but to me it's just unnecessary even if it's not strictly WP:SYNTH. Just say what RS say, and don't say what they don't say, IMO. If there's not a direct figure available, we shouldn't dig for an indirect one. Remsense ‥ 论 00:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Well Remsense to use skin color as a synonym for a race is a fairly common practice on Spanish speaking countries, thus there's no shortage of sources that connect having light skin/complexion with being White[22][23][24] in fact its a practice as common that there's a virtually infinite amount of examples of it, so if you feel it reads that way its because you are supposed to. There's also various mentions of skin color/phenotype in the text Grayfell added some days ago[25] even though he's said that there's no connection between having light skin and having European ancestry (We have to discuss some adjustments to that text on the next days too but is mostly good additions). Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

No assumptions should be made about "actual meanings", I care what our actual sources say and don't say. Remsense ‥ 论 23:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Remsense What's the problem with my proposed text then? What changes would you make to it? every statement is sourced. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

It's still exactly what I said in my initial reply. Just say what sources say, and don't go out of your way to make other points if they're not themselves expressly stated by sources. If the sources don't support a specific percentage, don't add one implicitly. That's tendentious. Remsense ‥ 论 23:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Not every statement is sourced. As I've said, I would like to see a source which specifically says that "Surveys often use skin color to estimate race". Some of these sources imply it and some take it for granted, but even those leave a lot of important context unspoken. That's why this is synth. Here's a proposal with the understanding that this could be adjusted and expanded as more sources are incorporated into the article:

According to the 2020 census, Afro-Mexicans comprised 2% of Mexico's population. Asians and Middle Easterners represent around 1% of the population each.[source]

[paragraph break]

In a 2022 a government study on discrimination based on skin tone found that 29.2% of Mexican adults self-report having light skin tone, 49.7% having medium, and 21.1% having dark tones.

This would summarize sources without as much editorializing and SYNTH. As I said, without more context, I don't think this second paragraph would be due weight for this article, but this way it could be more easily expanded based on additional sources.

Grayfell (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I would like to see a source which specifically says that "Surveys often use skin color to estimate race". Some of these sources imply it and some take it for granted, but even those leave a lot of important context unspoken What if we change the part that says "Surveys often use skin color to estimate race..." for "Surveys that research the different social inequalities and dynamics between different ethnic groups that inhabit the country such as White/European Mexicans, Indigenous Mexicans and Afro-Mexicans have been carried out in the country," this would take into account the context of the sources. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime I've been working on improving the other paragraphs Grayfell added two weeks ago. I believe that to work on other parts of the section may help us reach an agreement on the disputed paragraph mentioned on my previous reply, this is my proposal for a new first paragraph:

Mexico's population is highly diverse, but historically ethnic research has felt the impact of national policies related to indentity:[269][270][271] after the country gained independence from Spain on 1821 race begun being omitted from public documents, then mainly after the Mexican revolution and during the 1930s, Mexico's government promoted the view that all Mexicans were part of the Mestizo community, within which they were distinguished only by residence in or outside of an indigenous community, degree of fluency in an indigenous language, and degree of adherence to indigenous customs.[272][273] While Mestizos are a prominent ethnic group in contemporary Mexico, the subjective and ever-changing definition of this category means that estimates are imprecisse.[274][275]

Here I combine most of the current first and second paragraphs added by Grayfell and I make important corrections, specially related to timeframes. Additional input is appreciated. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

This would be my proposal for a second paragraph, this one combines elements of the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs into one:

Active efforts have been made in contemporary Mexico to decrease social and economic inequality among indigenous Mexicans.[275] In 1992, the Article 2 of the Mexican Constitution was amended to define Mexico as a pluricultural country and specifically to emphasize the role of indigenous Mexicans. This new legal framework preceded the Zapatista Army of National Liberation's push against the mestizaje ideology that led to the 1996 San Andrés Accords which granted autonomy, recognition, and rights to the indigenous population of Mexico.[275] According to Mexico's 2020 census, 19.4% of Mexico's population identifies as Indigenous and 6.1% speaks an Indigenous language.[1] Since the 1960s there has also been a cultural and academic re-evaluation of the role of Afro-Mexicans in the country, dispelling the misconception that they had assimilated into the mestizo identity. According to the 2020 census, Afro-Mexicans comprised 2.04% of Mexico's population. Social stratification and racism have remained in the modern Mexico, although phenotype is not as important as culture, European features and lighter skin tone are favored by middle- and upper-class groups.[275][1]

To work on this new paragraph has been more complicated, as the current version mentions various things (be it events, persons etc.) that I think are too specific, but I'm open to add or remove elements depending of the input of other editors, some may think for example, that my proposal still mentions too many specific events, others may think I omitted various... Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the "Surveys that research the different social inequalities..." proposal, this is much closer to acceptable. I would cut-out the line which says "dynamics between different ethnic groups". Per these cited sources, there is considerable skin color variation within ethnic groups, so this is a very subtle but significant bit of editorializing. Ethnicity is, much like race, difficult to define and far, far outside of the scope of this article.

Regarding the new first paragraph, again this is mostly an improvement. I would go further and remove the existing line which says "...ethnic research has felt the impact of national policies related to identity..." This is a subtle bit of original research, and is also a WP:TONE issue. What is this "impact"? Who is saying that this impact has been "felt" and what does that mean? If the facts speak for themselves, we should let them speak for themselves, otherwise we should summarize per a reliable source.

As for timeframes, please cite specific sources, with page numbers if appropriate. I attempted to summarize sources for the timeframe when making those past edits (although I easily could've made a mistake). If you have sources which disagree, we should evaluate and discuss this disagreement.

For the second paragraph, I appreciate the attempt, and understand that my additions may seem overly-detailed, but I do think it's important to include historical context. The section is not specifically about modern ethnicity and race, so including at least some historical context seems important here.

As a digression for why this is useful to readers, the emphasis on mestizo identity is at least in part a backlash to the dysfunctional Spanish caste system. If nothing else, background like this helps readers understand that this is a much more complicated issue than it might appear at first glance. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad that you returned, I hope that we can have a productive discussion and reach consensus this time around, for which which I 'll now try to answer your recently raised concerns. Firstly I don't think race and ethnicity are outside the scope of this article, the section we are working on is called ethnicity and race after all. Also theres already sources regarding the impact national governemnt policies have had on ethnic research, with my proposal I just made those sentences briefer. With timeframes I mean things like the fact that post-independence Mexican governments of the 1800s didn't promote a Mestizo identity/ideology yet, that started after the Mexican revolution, from 1921 and onwards. Besides the aforementioned points I'd appreciate if you went on more detail about how you would introduce additional information regarding historical context. Pob3qu3 (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I'm currently working on a version of my proposed paragraphs that takes into account your concerns, I'll write it here in the next days. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Allright here is my new proposal:

Mexico's population is highly diverse, but historically ethnic research has felt the impact of national policies related to indentity:[269][270][271] after the country gained independence from Spain on 1821 any traces of the colonial caste system were abandoned and race begun being omitted from public documents, then governements near the end of the 1800s such as the one led by Porfirio Díaz adopted policies of selective immigration as it was believed it would help to modernize the country. Later on, mainly after the Mexican revolution and during the 1930s, Mexico's government in an attemp to unify the country under a sinlge identity promoted the view of academics such as José Vasconcelos, who asserted that all Mexicans were Mestizos, being distinguished only by residence in or outside of an indigenous community, degree of fluency in an indigenous language, and degree of adherence to indigenous customs.[272][273] While Mestizos are a prominent ethnic group in contemporary Mexico, the subjective and ever-changing definition of this category means that estimates are imprecisse.[274][275]

This new paragraph considers your concerns about adding more historical context and I think it now highlights in brief space how complex the topic of ethnicity and race has been in the country's history, I didn't consider necessary to change anything of the other proposed paragraphs as all fit well here. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your commitment to this topic.

Again, I do not think it's going to be obvious to a disinterested reader what the line about "felt the impact" actually means. Of course research has been impacted by policy. The structure implies that this is a summary of the rest of the paragraph, but this appears to be WP:SYNTH. This should be rewritten to remove this ambiguity and to more closely follow cited sources without original research.

Similarly, "policies of selective immigration" reads as euphemistic. It shouldn't be left to the readers' imagination to figure out how this would "modernize" the country or what that is supposed to mean. This kind of editorializing isn't going to work.

Since we explain that race was omitted from government records starting in 1821, I think readers are going to be confused about what actually changed in the 1930s. This reads as rushed. As I said, I know what I added was long, but this seems like an over-correction.

As for the last sentence, the current wording says that "precise estimates are impossible". This is very, very different from saying that "estimates are imprecise". I have already spent too much time explaining why this matters, so I hope this point is already clear. Grayfell (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't really understand what the issue with the "estimates are imprecise" thing is but I have no issue with changing it for "precise estimates are impossible" like you say. I'll also work on a more detailed version and will write it here in the next days. Pob3qu3 (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's the new proposal:

Mexico's population is highly diverse, but historically ethnic research has felt the impact of nationalist discourses on indentity:[269][270][271] after the country gained independence from Spain on 1821 any traces of the colonial caste system were abandoned with race being omitted from public documents, then near the end of the 1800s the government led by Porfirio Díaz adopted policies of selective immigration for Europe as it was believed it would help to modernize the country. Later on, mainly after the Mexican revolution and during the 1930s in an attemp to unify the country under a sinlge national identity, Mexico's government promoted the views of academics such as José Vasconcelos, who asserted that all Mexicans were Mestizos, being distinguished only by residence in or outside of an indigenous community, degree of fluency in an indigenous language, and degree of adherence to indigenous customs.[272][273] While Mestizos are a prominent ethnic group in contemporary Mexico, the subjective and ever-changing definition of this category means that precise estimates are impossible.[274][275]

Now I made the statements you mentioned on your previous reply closer to the text you added to the article weeks ago. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

This is what the proposed modifications to the text added weeks ago look like until now:

Mexico's population is highly diverse, but historically ethnic research has felt the impact of nationalist discourses on indentity:[269][270][271] after the country gained independence from Spain on 1821 any traces of the colonial caste system were abandoned with race being omitted from public documents, then near the end of the 1800s the government led by Porfirio Díaz adopted policies of selective immigration for Europe as it was believed it would help to modernize the country. Later on, mainly after the Mexican revolution and during the 1930s in an attemp to unify the country under a sinlge national identity, Mexico's government promoted the views of academics such as José Vasconcelos, who asserted that all Mexicans were Mestizos, being distinguished only by residence in or outside of an indigenous community, degree of fluency in an indigenous language, and degree of adherence to indigenous customs.[272][273] While Mestizos are a prominent ethnic group in contemporary Mexico, the subjective and ever-changing definition of this category means that precise estimates are impossible.[274][275]

Active efforts have been made in contemporary Mexico to decrease social and economic inequality among indigenous Mexicans.[275] In 1992, the Article 2 of the Mexican Constitution was amended to define Mexico as a pluricultural country and specifically to emphasize the role of indigenous Mexicans. This new legal framework preceded the Zapatista Army of National Liberation's push against the mestizaje ideology that led to the 1996 San Andrés Accords which granted autonomy, recognition, and rights to the indigenous population of Mexico.[275] According to Mexico's 2020 census, 19.4% of Mexico's population identifies as Indigenous and 6.1% speaks an Indigenous language.[1] Since the 1960s there has also been a cultural and academic re-evaluation of the role of Afro-Mexicans in the country, dispelling the misconception that they had assimilated into the mestizo identity. According to the 2020 census, Afro-Mexicans comprised 2.04% of Mexico's population. Social stratification and racism have remained in the modern Mexico, although phenotype is not as important as culture, European features and lighter skin tone are favored by middle- and upper-class groups.[275][1]

Looking good I think. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Grayfell (unpinged for courtesy) I haven't forgotten about the third paragraph which is about skin color. I just haven't mentioned it recently because I wanted to see if you accepted those corrections first which are important for the article section aswell. Also because while working on those paragraphs I came up with other alternatives that you may like better, one that I've been thinking of for example is replacing the sentence that reads:

"While Mestizos are a prominent ethnic group in contemporary Mexico, the subjective and ever-changing definition of this category means that precise estimates are impossible."

for a sentence such as

"Due this long history of different identitary ideologies promoted on the country's population, there's a lack of a clear defining line between Mestizos and Whites, who are the major ethnic groups in the country."

What do you think?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Davemc0 you haven't been very active lately but I'm tagging you as you were the first on this discussion to propose the paragraph related to skin color we've been working with through most of this discussion[26] (with some minor errors in the percentages, as its been cleared out that the percentage of Mexicans who have medium skin tones per the cited source is 49.7% not 66.1% but still), I would like to know what do you think of (or if you preffer it) the alternative paragraph/sentence that I proposed recently (the one that says that Mestizos and Whites are the major ethnic groups on Mexican society). Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Abitrary break

As a follow on to Johnuniq, may I suggest that anyone suggesting any number for White Mexicans post exactly that number and ALL reliable sources they believe support that figure, so that they can all be evaluated at one go around. Ideally listing them in order from strongest to weakest support would be most helpful. The hisotrical situation of progressive revelation is needly delay of process. TiggerJay (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Not sure about this idea, I think it does not adress the issue from the right perspective, as rather than a matter of seeing which number is repeated the most this must be a matter of the quality of sources. Encyclopedia Brittanica for example is a far more reputable source than any other source you can find on the internet, only data from the Mexican government could be considered more reliable than it really (seems like Johnuniq does not like Brittanica though, which honestly confuses me). Pob3qu3 (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

"European or North American characteristics" is not (by itself) falsifiable, it's not interchangeable with "white", it's not interchangeable with "European ancestry", and it's not consistent across different sources. When sources use different definitions to arrive at precise numbers, it is generally a bad idea to try and directly compare those numbers.

We should not legitimize simplistic ideas on biological race . There are no universal definitions of "white people" or "Mestizo" or similar. Such definitions don't exist and cannot exist. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the most correct form to pose the issue of white mexicans is writting that 29% of mexican population trends to indentificate themselves with light skin tones (commonly applyed in latin america for meassure the white ethnic group) supported by 2017 (p.35) and 2022 (p.157) results, 28% in 2018 (p.34). In 2010 (p.41-42) around 54% of women and 40% of men surveyed identificated having light skins, but the conapred´s constant results are 28-29%. In whatever case the text could be written as "according to 2017, 2018, and 2022 conapred surveys 28-29% of mexican people identificated with light skin tones, more than 40% in 2010 conapred survey". About the Encyclopedia Britannica´s, maybe is better transcribe their information literally in the paragraph (adding "31% are others ethnic groups, including an important white population"). --Vers2333 (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)--Vers2333 (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Vers2333, so, the resulting third paragraph would look like this:

Skin color surveys have been used to estimate the number of White Mexicans in the country (a method that is commonly used in latin america), according to 2017 and 2022 conapred surveys 28-29% of Mexican people identified with light skin tones and more than 40% did so in a 2010 survey. According to Encyclopedia Brittanica 31% of Mexico's population are other ethnic groups of which White Mexicans are a significant component. Asians and Middle Easterners represent around 1% of the population each.

Let me know what do you think. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Pob3qu3, the paragraph look very well, I think that the parentheses information could be like this: (identification with light skin tones are common in latin america to measure the white ethnicity). Greetings. --Vers2333 (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Vers2333 so the race and ethnicity section would look like this

Mexico's population is highly diverse, but historically ethnic research has felt the impact of nationalist discourses on indentity:[269][270][271] after the country gained independence from Spain on 1821 any traces of the colonial caste system were abandoned with race being omitted from public documents, then near the end of the 1800s the government led by Porfirio Díaz adopted policies of selective immigration for Europe as it was believed it would help to modernize the country. Later on, mainly after the Mexican revolution and during the 1930s in an attemp to unify the country under a sinlge national identity, Mexico's government promoted the views of academics such as José Vasconcelos, who asserted that all Mexicans were Mestizos, being distinguished only by residence in or outside of an indigenous community, degree of fluency in an indigenous language, and degree of adherence to indigenous customs.[272][273] While Mestizos are a prominent ethnic group in contemporary Mexico, the subjective and ever-changing definition of this category means that precise estimates are impossible.[274][275]

Active efforts have been made in contemporary Mexico to decrease social and economic inequality among indigenous Mexicans.[275] In 1992, the Article 2 of the Mexican Constitution was amended to define Mexico as a pluricultural country and specifically to emphasize the role of indigenous Mexicans. This new legal framework preceded the Zapatista Army of National Liberation's push against the mestizaje ideology that led to the 1996 San Andrés Accords which granted autonomy, recognition, and rights to the indigenous population of Mexico.[275] According to Mexico's 2020 census, 19.4% of Mexico's population identifies as Indigenous and 6.1% speaks an Indigenous language.[1] Since the 1960s there has also been a cultural and academic re-evaluation of the role of Afro-Mexicans in the country, dispelling the misconception that they had assimilated into the mestizo identity. According to the 2020 census, Afro-Mexicans comprised 2.04% of Mexico's population. Social stratification and racism have remained in the modern Mexico, although phenotype is not as important as culture, European features and lighter skin tone are favored by middle- and upper-class groups.[275][1]

Skin color surveys have been used to estimate the number of White Mexicans in the country (a method that is commonly used in latin america to estimate the White ethnicity), according to 2017 and 2022 surveys by Mexico's Council to Prevent Discrimination 28-29% of Mexican people identified with light skin tones, more than 40% did so in a 2010 survey. Encyclopedia Brittanica estimates that 31% of Mexico's population are other ethnic groups of which White Mexicans are a significant component. Asians and Middle Easterners represent around 1% of the population each.

Are you ok with this?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion its very correct, very neutral and supported by reliable sources. --Vers2333 (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Vers2333 Ok I'll add it to the article in shortly, don't doubt about discussing any further modifications here (there are various I'd like to do, but I think is more important to finally settle this discussion that has lasted months already), I'll be checking this page. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this proposal included editorializing and poor or misrepresented sources. This is still a WP:SYNTH issues. It was also badly written, with multiple typos and poor capitalization. Grayfell (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Grayfell lets go step-by-step here so things do not get overcomplicate/overextended again, how would you phrase Encyclopedia Brittanica which was included after finally reaching a consensus with other editors and you are removing (alongside many other things) ignoring said consensus? Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

There have been multiple editors who have had issues with this phrasing, so I do not see this consensus.

To re-summarize this in the unlikely event that anyone else needs a refresher:

The only mention of "whites" in the body of the Britannica source is in parenthesis and quotation marks. Britannica is defining this term for the convenience of readers, not as a scientific term. Britannica is parenthetically defining this term as it relates to European ancestry, not skin color.

Further, it specifically says that Mestizo are also of European ancestry, meaning that much, much more than 'one-third' of the Mexican population is at least partly "White" as an ethnicity.

The paragraph is about skin color, not ethnicity. White as an ethnicity does not have a single definition, and none of its many definitions are fixed or falsifiable. To mix multiple definitions in this way is pseudoscientific.

The ages of those two charts are also an issue: 2000 is closer to 2012 than 2012 is to this year. If the chart from 2000 which says "15.0%" is too old, than the 2012 chart isn't much better. The notion that the White population of Mexico more than doubled in twelve years is extraordinary, and raises far more questions than it answers. I don't think either chart is useful for this article, for several reasons. Grayfell (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

There have been multiple editors who have had issues with this phrasing The only one who still does its you.

Britannica is parenthetically defining this term as it relates to European ancestry, not skin color. Skin color is mentioned aswell, around the middle of the entry, also I don't see why the article cannot talk about both: skin color and European ancestry, these two traits are related and on this discussion multiple sources that connect both have been presented.

Further, it specifically says that Mestizo are also of European ancestry, meaning that much, much more than 'one-third' of the Mexican population is at least partly "White" as an ethnicity. Brittanica's entry distinguishes "other ethnic groups on which European ancestry is a significant component" from mestizos, regarding your claim about there being an older chart, thats fairly irrelevant as the entry is undeniably written in accordance to the newer chart. Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pob3qu3: This has been going on for months and I feel a responsibility to bring it to a close. I will block you from all pages related to Mexico where there is a disagreement unless (like I suggested in February above) you make a clear proposal on article talk with a source and a brief explanation of how the source verifies the assertion. Then make the edit after consensus is shown. It is not satisfactory to edit by attrition. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Johnuniq your message is misdirected, the consensus was already achieved, check these diffs [27][28][29]. Grayfell is the editor that has been the one going against the current consensus and removing a lot of text with rather vague explanations or no explanation at all. In fact, even other editors throughout this discussion have asked Grayfell to please be more collaborative[30] which he didn't, he instead left the discussion until now, probably because he saw that a new consensus was achieved. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Those diffs ignores what other people have said both here and on other talk pages for months (if not years). That is not consensus. Your requests for me to be more collaborative are ironic, to put it mildly.

The section of the Britannica article which talks about skin color qualifies it in multiple ways specifically to talk about wealth inequality. It specifically includes non-European light-skinned people, as well. Further, the beginning of that paragraph again emphasizes that Mestizo are partly European. That section doesn't attempt to quantify what percentage of the population is "White" as an ethnic group. Using the source to imply this is WP:SYNTH. Grayfell (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to be lazy, but I'm hoping that someone can give a concrete and digestible example of a disputed edit. Is there one diff or one specific assertion that we could start with? As you know, WP:NOR is not a guideline that may or may not apply—in my naivety I hoped that a list of specific claims with their specific sources would make it clear whether the claims were verified by reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a lot to unpack here, and I haven't been doing a great job of being succinct.

With the understanding that this is just an example, here's something I removed yesterday:

Skin color surveys have been used to estimate the number of White Mexicans in the country (a method that is commonly used in latin america to estimate the White ethnicity),

This is explicitly about ethnicity. Saying "Skin color surveys have been used to estimate the number of people with light skin" would be pointless.

Both sources are about one study. Neither source says skin color has been used to estimate the number of ethnically White Mexicans in the country. The two sources do not 'estimate' any ethnic population size at all themselves, nor would they be qualified to. The opinion column discusses demographics of skin color, and mentions accusations of racism, but doesn't directly mention ethnicity at all. The second source isn't saying that skin color has been used to estimate the population of White Mexicans. It mentions white Mexicans ("mexicanos blancos") in contrast to people with a brown complexion ("las personas de tez morena"). This is again about skin color, not ethnicity or ancestry.

The parenthesis at the end is not supported by either source.

Grayfell (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Grayfell How can you say that the sources are "about skin color, not ethnicity or ancestry" and in the very same reply also say the source "mentions white Mexicans ("mexicanos blancos") in contrast to people with a brown complexion ("las personas de tez morena")"? This claims of yours remind me of our exchanges on this same discussion months ago like this one[31] where you were insisting repeatedly that "having European physical traits does not mean that a person has European ancestry" this WP:ICANTHEARYOU attitude, intentional or not, has been prevalent on this and all other discussions I've had with you on Wikipedia. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I have tried many, many times to explain this to you. Skin color is not the same thing as ethnicity. "White" can mean different things. It can mean light skin color, or it can mean 'predominately European or West Asian ancestry'. These are different definitions. Many people with light skin are not ethnically White, and many people with dark skin have predominately European or West Asian ancestry.

To put it another way, having "European physical traits" is ambiguous, and it is not the same thing as having European ancestry. Neither of those things make someone "White" as an ethnicity or race. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

You are overlooking that there are sources that do both[32][33], talk about skin color and also talk about White Mexicans as an ethnic group, even when it comes to the ones you quoted it can be said that they do it. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Above, Grayfell quoted some disputed text: "Skin color surveys ... to estimate the White ethnicity" with two references that refer to the same study of skin color. I have read Google translations of the two references. What wording in the sources verifies that skin color surveys are used to estimate White ethnicity? The assertion may seem obvious but, apparently, at least in principle skin color may not be a reliable indicator of ethnicity. The sources seem to be talking about a correlation between fairness of color and position in life, and there appears to be no discussion of the quoted text. One option would be to agree that the sources are not relevant. Another would be to quote something that supports the text. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Johnuniq the issue here is that its something that, as you say, its rather obvious for some (I could confidently say that for most even) but Grayfell makes an issue of it because the sentence is not explicit enough for his liking (what he has said about how a source saying that a person having an European physical appeareance does not mean that person has European ancestry is another example of this). I was re-reading this huge discussion and I found this diff on which I propposed an alternative text that is closer to what the sources explicitly say [34]. When I made this proposal the discussion was on a similar point to the one it is right now, so I think to proppose this text again is a preferable alternative to continue debating whether the sources are obvious enough or not. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

These sources do not say that they can determine where someone's ancestors came from just by their "appearance". To put it another way, these sources don't attempt to decide that someone looks enough like a "White person" to be a "White person". Claiming that it is "rather obvious" to most people is exactly the problem. These are not studies based on vibes and hunches. If this is supposed to be scientific, treat it as science. Grayfell (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the proposal:

"Surveys that research the different social inequalities and dynamics between different ethnic groups that inhabit the country such as White/European Mexicans, Indigenous Mexicans and Afro-Mexicans have been carried out in the country"

As I said at the time, it was better than what was there before, but this uses more words than necessary to say something very basic. Instead, let's look at a specific WP:SECONDARY source and summarize that. Grayfell (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

These sources do not say that they can determine where someone's ancestors came from just by their "appearance". To put it another way, these sources don't attempt to decide that someone looks enough like a "White person" to be a "White person" What do you think these sources mean when they use term "White Mexican", "White complexion" or "White" if not that a Mexican person is White? Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I feel like I just explained this. To quote from the lead of White people:

Contemporary anthropologists and other scientists, while recognizing the reality of biological variation between different human populations, regard the concept of a unified, distinguishable "White race" as a social construct with no scientific basis.

It is not possible to test if a person's skin is white enough for them to be a true "White person", just as it is not possible to test if someone's ancestor are European enough for them to be a real "White person". Making skin color a proxy for race is pseudoscience. When a source talks about complexion or skin color, it is original research to interpret that to mean race, even if it is 'obvious' to you personally. Grayfell (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Grayfell I think you may need to explain yourself better because your reply as is reads as very contradictory, you start saying that "White people are a social construct" but later you start talking about "True white persons" and to my understanding if White people are a social construct there cannot be true White persons, or persons that are "truer" than others. The article of White people also mentions that the definition of White person on each country can vary because its a social construct, so the article seems to have taken concerns like yours in consideration already. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

As I said: It is not possible to test if a person's skin is white enough for them to be a true "White person". It is not possible because there is no such thing as a "true White person". That was my entire point. Please read what I am saying more carefully. Please also read these sources more carefully.

Neither of the two sources attached to the sentence Skin color surveys have been used to estimate the number of White Mexicans in the country (a method that is commonly used in latin america to estimate the White ethnicity) supports that sentence. That is why I removed that sentence. Grayfell (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I re-read your last replies and I think you are mixing up things a little, the part of the text upon which we are debating "whether it is obvious or not" is the part pertinent to the sentence Skin color surveys have been used to estimate the number of White Mexicans in the country (a method that is commonly used in latin america to estimate the White ethnicity) and whether the present sources can be used to support it (I have to remind you, I've propposed a new alternative sentence various times already [35][36]). The other part of our current discussion, this is, the fact that the sources that use terms such as "White Mexican" "White" "White complexion" are talking about White people in Mexico is not up to debating whether they're obvious or not, its undeniably clear that they do. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I have already commented on your proposal, and reminding me of that proposal ignores my response. As I said above a few days ago, start with a reliable secondary source and summarize what that says.

It is not "undeniably clear". I was mistaken about the two cited sources referring to the same study. The two sources do not estimate of the number of 'White Mexicans' in the country or in Latin America. The studies themselves don't do this either.

The Forbes article refers to this summary from INEGI. That source doesn't directly discuss race (raza) or ethnicity (etnia). It uses those terms only in passing. The study doesn't directly discuss 'white people' at all.

The El Universal article is an opinion source. Such sources carry much less weight for statements of fact. That source cites this study, also from INEGI. That study specifically mentions both race and also skin color, but it treats them as separate. It clearly uses "autoadscripción étnica" to define White. The source doesn't attempt to estimate the number of White Mexicans in the country, either. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Grayfell we've been through this before, terms related to skin color (such as White Complexion/Skin) and race are used interchangeably on Spanish speaking countries [37][38], here is a document from Mexico's government that uses both terms [39]. And to give more substance to my reply (this is so I just don't repeat myself here) there's also the Encyclopedia Brittanica entry for ethnic groups in Mexico, which even mentions "Mexicans of European descent or Whites" explicitly. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we have been over this before, yet you still haven't addressed the source issues. We do not want an example, we want a source saying this. The sources you keep presenting do not say this and are not usable for this, and your interpretation of these sources is original research. Even with a source, this is a WP:FRINGE issue that needs context. The English language Wikipedia should not legitimize the pseudoscientific notion of a biological white race.

As I've said before, we need to look at what sources say, not what they imply. Do you understand the difference?

Focusing on just this one sentence, neither cited source supported the claim that surveys of skin color are used to estimate the number of white Mexicans in the country. This is, at best, based on a very sloppy reading of mediocre sources which were taken out of context. Grayfell (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Well the problem is that such thing is rather subjective, I mean, the sources, all of them, mention White Mexicans and how race/skin color affects dynamics between ethnic groups within Mexican society, this is a fact. I don't think that it is much of a problem/stretch to use a sentence such as surveys of skin color are used to estimate the number of white Mexicans in the country to summarize the content of those sources (remember that Wikipedia encourages rephrasing because of copyright issues). But even considering everything I just wrote, I've proposed an alternative sentence various times before (here it is again[40]), you've said do you like it better but that you think it still has issues, so why not propose what would you change of it?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

You don't see it as much of a problem, but being subjective makes it a problem. Conflating skin color for race is very common because it is so much easier than dealing with something so complicated. But being easy doesn't make this appropriate for an encyclopedia. This is too simplistic. Using 'phenotype' as a pseudonym for 'appearance' is just concealing the problem behind a scientific-sounding word, which makes this into pseudoscience.

I am aware of how copyright works on Wikipedia. Rephrasing is not an excuse for original research. Original research seems to be the major recurring issue here, so this is worth taking the time to understand more carefully.

I don't think a replacement is necessary at all, but (as I said) any replacement would have to start with sources. If you think something needs to be said about this, start by proposing a secondary source which discusses this. Writing a replacement before we have a source is the wrong approach. Specific surveys are primary sources, and sources about one specific survey should not be interpreted to be about other surveys. Grayfell (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think a replacement is necessary at all I assume you are talking about my proposed text[41] here right?

You don't see it as much of a problem, but being subjective makes it a problem. Conflating skin color for race is very common because it is so much easier than dealing with something so complicated... Here you are contradicting yourself I think, because on your argument above you are demanding total literallity from sources, and on this regard (this is, that race and skin color terms are used interchangeably on Spanish speaking countries) we have sources that textually say so yet you oppose them too because of your personal opinions about the foundations of race/ethnicity, so do you want literallity from sources or not?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I do not accept your interpretation that the cited sources "textually say so". These two sources (and the studies they cite) do not discuss this directly. There are many, many reliable sources out there which discuss the connection between skin color discrimination and racism in Mexico, but from what I have seen, all of them provide context for this. Presenting this as a simplistic factoid is not an appropriate summary of any of these sources.

As an example of this context, Is Mexico a Post-Racial Country? Inequality and Skin Tone across the Americas (available in both English and Spanish) is specifically a response to the INEGI's 2017 use of a color pallet, for the first time, to survey skin tone in Mexico. It explains why it was controversial in the media, and also why it was a useful survey despite some significant limitations. At no point does it say that this survey was used to estimate the number of White Mexicans in the country.

Regarding the removed sources, this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. We are not attempting to document usage, especially not from obscure or arbitrary sources. We are attempting to describe the underlying concepts. Skin color and race are conceptually different in both Spanish and English. Journalistic sources often use casual or colloquial language for brevity or flow (or laziness) but even these sources recognize this difference. On Wikipedia, we should follow WP:TONE. Further, we must be mindful of fringe issues regarding scientific racism. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

There are many, many reliable sources out there which discuss the connection between skin color discrimination and racism in Mexico, but from what I have seen, all of them provide context for this. You've said this before and that's exactly what the new paragraph is supposed to do remember[42]? I even quoted the part of your reply where you ask for more context in bold, but since I've linked that diff many times already I'm gonna try to make a new proposal here taking into consideration previous comments of yours like this one[43], so the result is this:

Surveys that research the different social inequalities between White/European Mexicans, Indigenous Mexicans and Afro-Mexicans have been carried out in the country...

Let me know what do you think. Also, regarding your argument about skin color not being related to race, I have to remind you that in this discussion official sources have that use the terms White/White complexion exist too[44], theres also this one[45] which uses the term Europan/North American physical characteristics that was linked various times in the previous months of this discussion and albeit not a government source, Encyclopedia Brittanica explicitly mentions "Mexicans of European descent/Whites" too, so the use of the term "White Mexican" its not something that can be dismissed as merely a matter of journalistic sources. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Please hold off on using boldface quotes for full sentences. I know what I said, you don't need to yell it back at me in every response. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#shouting.

Rephrasing the proposal to say the same thing in slightly different words is not productive. If sources explain why the existence of studies is itself important, propose those sources so we can explain this to readers. Please cite a specific page number.

About sources for skin color being a proxy for race

A PDF of a presentation doesn't seem like a particularly reliable source, nor does it appear to support this connection in the way you suggest. If you think it's an WP:RS for some change to this article, indicate where this was published, and include a page number also. As already discussed, that CONAPRED dossier doesn't appear to mention white/blanc* at all. The first page of that source says "...color de la piel o las características raciales" and then "...su color de piel u origen étnico". Not and, but or. The source recognizes that skin color is different from both racial characteristics and ethnic origin. The one page which mention European traits lumps it in with "norteamericanas" characteristic. What, exactly, does that mean? Since the source doesn't clarify, we cannot make assumptions, and I am absolutely not interested in humoring original research about this. Taking that as a 1:1 synonym of "white" is original research. The document may be an acceptable source in some context. This isn't one of those contexts. The Britannica source is a tertiary source which mentions "whites" once in both quotes and parentheses. The only other use is in a table which says that 15% of the population was "white" in 2000. It doesn't say that one-third of the population is "white" in 2025 (or in 2012, when a newer table was added). Tertiary sources are not ideal, especially for specific details, and this source was not used for the disputed paragraph about skin-color studies. If you want to discuss these sources further, wait until this specific issue is resolved and then start fresh by reviewing them more closely.

I never said that "skin color is not related to race". Lots of things are related to other things. This is an encyclopedia, our goal is to explain those relationships, not to make lazy assumptions.

You don't have to keep dragging this out, but if you insist, please at least start posting better quality sources and format them in a way that makes them readable. Please include the correct page number for PDFs. Provide names of sources so you don't have to keep copy/pasting links over and over again. Grayfell (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Please hold off on using boldface quotes for full sentences. I know what I said... Sorry but you keep spreading out the discussion onto several different topics (and you are also now you are spreading out onto other articles), for which to specify what part of your replies I'm answering to on every part of my replies is completely necessary for the sake of readablity.

I never said that "skin color is not related to race" you consistently keep trying to remove sources under the argument that "Having European appearance is not the same as being White" in fact as I detail here in your talk page[46] you just did it to remove another source, also I don't know why do you keep bringing up the old Brittanica chart when the current entry is evidently not written in accordance to it, but in accordance to the newer pie chart, cue that it mentions that White Mexicans compose a significant amount of the other ethnic groups... and the chart has other as 31%. Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

If you cannot figure out how to discuss this without WP:YELLING at me, this is WP:CIVIL issue. Your use of boldface has become excessive.

I'm trying to improve these articles by removing original research and adding new and better sources. Expecting me to halt all editing of this entire topic in order to repeatedly discuss multiple changes over and over again seems like an attempt to preserve your preferred version of the article. If you absolutely cannot stand letting one of my comments go unchallenged and need to reply, just use quotation marks or template:tq.

I've been trying to focus on the 'skin color surveys' sentence. Are you okay without that sentence for now? The Britannica article wasn't used for this and doesn't mention these surveys at all. It is a poor source for a few different reasons that have already been explained (such as, but not limited to, WP:TERTIARY). I'm mostly discussing it because you have been.

The current version of the Britannica article includes the 2000 data, and this is the only explicit demographic data for White Mexicans in that source. The other references are not explicit, nor are they attached to any data. If the specific 2000 data is not usable, than neither is your interpretation of various other parts of the same source. I am not saying that the 2000 data should be included, I am saying that you cannot pick-and-choose which data belongs and which doesn't based on your own personal preference.

Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Expecting me to halt all editing of this entire topic in order to repeatedly discuss multiple changes over and over again Isn't that what you expect every editor you disagree with (and me included) to do when we perform an edit you disagree with? Since last February your argument to undo practically all my edits here and in other articles has been that I "do not have consensus to perform my edits" so its only fair that you have to explain your edits before doing them don't you think? especially when you are removing text for which there was already a consensus, like the quote of Encyclopedia Brittanica (that other editors understand right away its written in accordance to the newer pie chart).

I'm trying to improve these articles... I think the biggest issue here is that you are not really improving them, take for example this very recent edit of yours[47] on the article of White Mexicans on which you removed a source that states[48] with detail that Mexicans from the Western region look like European people because according to yourself "it doesn't mention the term White", How are people described as looking very European not White? do you think you improve the articles doing edits like that one?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The Britannica source doesn't support the 'one-third' claim, nor would it necessarily be usable for this detail if it did. Wikipedia cannot misrepresent sources in this way. This has already been explained.

The summary of the 1963 source at that other article was also incorrect and yet another example of original research. This isn't the talk page to discuss that change. Grayfell (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad that you replied, its important that we sort the changes here and the ones you've recently made to other articles in an orderly manner, first, as sign of good faith I have to say that I notice that you didn't tag the quote from Howard F. Cline on the article of Mexicans (it still has to be untagged on the article of White Mexicans though). Now to the discussion on this article: I assume that when you talk about Brittanica being unuseable you say so because of WP:DUE, however the percentage that Brittanica gives for, say "ethnic groups of significant European/White ancestry" in Mexico does not deviate of the percentages other sources give ("from 28% to more than 40%") so its not really extraordinary or WP:DUE so to speak or is it?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

As I already said, the Britannica article is a poor source for a few different reasons that have already been explained (such as, but not limited to, WP:TERTIARY). Due weight is another one of those reasons.

That Britannica articles doesn't directly say one-third in 2025, or even in 2012, so it cannot be used for that detail. Regarding what the Britannica source does say, "significant" doesn't mean "most". Wikipedia doesn't publish original research, so we must use sources to introduce new info without adding our own interpretation or editorializing.

I don't know where "from 28% to more than 40%" comes from or why that is in quotation marks, but if that is more original research, it doesn't belong in the article either Grayfell (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Is kind of contradictory that you consider Brittanica a poor source but at the same time you are ok with using[49] the World Factbook on articles don't you think? The number they use is literally the one from the 1921 census, which is largely considered inaccurate by historians and academics who have reviewed the available ethnic data from early independent Mexico. In fact (besides Howard F. Cline's book), there's other sources already in use in the White Mexicans article specially, which show that oftentimes Whites were the most numerous ethnic group in the West and the North regions of the country. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

That edit has nothing to do with the World Fact Book, so I assume you cited the wrong edit. Regardless, this talk page is not the place to discuss edits made to a different article. (I do not see any reliable source for that info being from 1921, since the Factbook itself says it is from 2012 and original research about where the Factbook got this info is not useful, but again, this is not the correct place to discuss another article).

For all sources at all articles, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The Britannica source was not being properly or proportionately summarized. Grayfell (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

You know that what I mean is that you removed a huge amount of sources but left the World factbook, in this other diff[50] it can be seen that you rephrased it so you were aware of the source at the time. The edits related to the World factbook is relevant for various reasons for example because in the article of Mexicans you are ok with including a tertiary source (with rather outdated data) while in this one you want to exclude Brittanica because it is a tertiary source, you complain about Brittanica not being properly summarized but there's also the fact that the factbook states that 10% of the population are other and you understand right away that they are talking about Whites but when Brittanica says that 31% of Mexico's population are other you suddenly don't understand that they are talking about Whites, care to elaborate why does this happen to you?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I've adjusted the summary of the Factbook source at the other article. Most of the sources I removed from that article did not support the claims they were attached to. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research, so these had to go. Again, this is not the place to discuss changes to other articles, but this underlying issue also applies to this article.

As I said, all sources are judged in context, and this applies to Britannica. Factbook and Britannica are different sources which say different things in different contexts at different articles. If you have a point about this article, please make it. Grayfell (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Factbook and Britannica are different sources which say different things in different contexts at different articles... Actually Brittanica is even more specific than the Factbook, as it states that the other 31% of the population are ethnic groups on which European/White Ancestry is a significant component so I wonder why you have a harder time understanding it than you do with the World Factbook. Important to mention also that Brittanica was included on the article of Mexicans until you removed it on this diff [51] so its not true that Brittanica and the World Factbook were used on different articles. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Again, this is not the place to talk about edits to other articles. How a different source is summarized at a different article has very little to do with improvements to this article, which is the purpose of this talk page. If you would like to discuss specific edits to this page, go ahead, but I am not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing. Grayfell (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, on the case of Brittanica it would be practically a duplicate discussion on talk pages of both articles wouldn't it? I don't understand why would you have an opinion of it for one article and a different opinion about it for another (or, to phrase it on a different way, I don't understand why is that if I made these same questions on the article of Mexicans instead of here your response would be different), specially when the point of contention is the same for all articles on which said source is used: Why do you seem to not understand that the 31% of other ethnic groups with significant European/White descent are White people? You can take this as a question for you about this article only if that makes it easier for you to answer, I also notice that for this source and others that you oppose you have talked about them being useable in "context"[52][53] but you are yet to elaborate on what do you mean with this. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

"Why do you seem not to understand..." is a very loaded way to ask a question. I could just as easily ask you "Why do you seem not to understand my explanations?"

Propose a specific, actionable change to the article, otherwise this will continue to go around in circles forever. Grayfell (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I could just as easily ask you "Why do you seem not to understand my explanations?" Your explanations until now have been you saying that the sources I've presented (and various you've removed from this and other articles) are reliable but require context without proposing any modifications to my text proposals though, here is an example of a proposal I made recently[54] on which you reply again that it needs more context. Another argument/explanation of yours across this discussion (often alongside your "needs more context" argument) has been that Someone being described as European does not mean that the person is White you haven't elaborated on why have afirmed this repeatedly on different discussions either (recently you changed the prose related to the World Factbook source from "White" to "European"[55] so I hope this means that this issue has been left behind and sources that use the term European can be incorporated with no more opposition from you). Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Subregion of Mexico

Which subregion of north America Is Mexico a part of? Aryanasgharpoor (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Middle America. Remsense ‥ 论 14:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Mexico is a democracy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mexico is a Democracy. Why is it classified as a republic? I know this from personmal experiendce. I live in Mexico. Garboge6969 (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

It is both. Republic actually describes something about the way the government is structured, whereas democracy merely describes the "outcome" of who ultimately has power, if that makes sense. "Democracy" is not a government type. Remsense ‥ 论 21:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

If you take your sources from Wikipedia itself, this may help you: Democracy (from Ancient Greek: δημοκρατία, romanized: dēmokratía, dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule') is a form of government in which political power is vested in the people or the population of a state. Under a minimalist definition of democracy, rulers are elected through competitive elections while more expansive or maximalist definitions link democracy to guarantees of civil liberties and human rights in addition to competitive elections. Garboge6969 (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

But there's also the rest of the article, which I encourage you to read. Remsense ‥ 论 19:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Remsense is correct. It may be helpful to you to read the Republic article. Largoplazo (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—201.234.2.131 (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and they appear to be correct. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to give a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Errors in the flag/coat of arms

I know that the Mexican government themselves doesn't require states to have the exact copy of the flag (see below), however, I think the coat of arms and flag of mexico should match as closely as possible to prevent generation loss. There is a spec sheet for the Mexican flag/coat of arms, which is stored in the General National Archive of Mexico, one of two places that hold official copies of the flag, and I have cleaned up the original image to make raster version of the Mexican flag/coat of arms. We should not replicate the similar error with the flag of Vatican City this time.

I think there are two ways where we can fix the flag and coat of arms. One, is to vectorize the coat of arms to SVG, but if you take a look at the original coat of arms it has very fine details, gradients, and such which is impossible to replicate exactly. The current SVG coat of arms can certainly be improved. Two, is to make the raster version the version we show on Wikipedia. Both of the rasters are of very high resolution, but they suffer from JPEG compression which needs to be removed.

• 
  Original spec sheet
• 
  Cleaned flag
• 
  Cleaned coat of arms

• 
  Wikipedia's version of the flag
• 
  Wikipedia's version of the coat of arms

- Arwrarwrirwrarwro (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

To show the generation loss, below is the flag in the plaza of Mexico City (the capital of Mexico), Aguascalientes (a state of Mexico), and a random flag.

Mexico City

Aguascalientes

generic flag

Arwrarwrirwrarwro (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I think Commons or Talk:Flag of Mexico and Talk:Coat of arms of Mexico would be good places to discuss specific changes, but this page also makes sense.

For the flag, I feel like I might be missing something. One difference is the placement of the coat of arm, correct? On the spec sheet, it appears that the bottom of the coat of arm should align with the bottom fourth of of the image. On Wikipedia's SVG, the coat of arms appears to be dead center. Does this match your observations?

For the coat of arms SVG, the file has been recognized at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Coat of arms of Mexico and Commons:Template:Potd/2009-10#16. Any changes to that file should probably be discussed on that file's Commons talk page. I do agree that there are small but significant differences. People who want to recreate the flag are usually going to want to use an SVG if they can find one. I think it makes sense to try and get the SVG as close as possible and use that, so I think it's worth raising this on Commons: Commons:File talk:Coat of arms of Mexico.svg

Also, since the original spec sheet shows some damage, has it also faded? Bright reds and pinkish shades, such as the prickly pear, are often prone to change with light exposure. I don't know if this applies here, but it's worth consideration.

Are there other differences I'm not seeing? Grayfell (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that’s everything… I couldn’t find a more recent spec sheet, and this is the highest resolution coat of arms that I can find of Mexico. In my restored version I intentionally brighten it up and use vibrant colors because flags flown by Mexican states also uses bright colors. There is no formal standardization of the Mexican flag so I think accurate color down to the tint is not a big issue. The bigger issue is that like you pointed out the feathers are overly simplified in the SVG version and the proper way to draw the SVG is to use lots of gradients. Arwrarwrirwrarwro (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2025

The current coat of arms in the infobox doesn't match with the reference sheet for the Mexican coat of arms. It contains significant errors such as missing the eye of the snake, the claw is black instead of a gradient, the wings uses solid color instead of a gradient, the pedals has the wrong shape, etc.

The flag and coat of arms in the infobox should be temporarily changed to the raster version to ensure accuracy and bring attention of people that knows how to vectorize the coat of arms.

• 
  Cleaned flag
• 
  Cleaned coat of arms

Arwrarwrirwrarwro (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)