Talk:White Mexicans/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about White Mexicans. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
Two-Part RFC on Statements in Lede Section of Article
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.
This is a two-part RFC about whether two statements should be added to the lede section of the article on Mexicans of European descent. Please insert your Support or Oppose !votes in the Survey sections and leave your comments in the Threaded Discussion sections.
This is the result of a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The two proposed versions can be seen and compared at User:Robert McClenon/Versions of White Mexicans. This RFC is about the inclusion or non-inclusion of language found in one of the two versions and not the other version.
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Protocol Note
I have moved some threaded discussion from a Survey section to a Threaded Discussion. The alternative would have been to hat it so that it doesn't distract from the Survey. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Blurring of distinction
Should the following sentence be added at the end of the first paragraph? Because of this, the line between whites and mestizos has become rather blurred, and the Mexican government decided to abandon racial classifications.
Survey
- This is outright false. The line between Mestizos and Criollos (there has never been an official category of "white" in Mexico) was abolished with the constitution of 1824. It is not the case that lines were blurred, they were removed. Mexico has not made racial categorizations of their citizens since then. Since then categorizations have been cultural, distinguishing between citizens who form part of the indigenous cultural groups (through language and custom and tradition) and those who don't. And of those who claim ties to European culture and ancestry and those who don't (note, that this is a claim, as most other people also factually have those ties but just do not claim them).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- The grammar is vague and confusing and -without a source to support it- such claims should not be made. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Should not be added, per Maunus. It's just not a factual statement. Something like what Maunus is saying could be added, but only with reliable sources. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose as written. The line is no longer recognized by the government. Whether the lines are blurred as seen by some people should be attributed to whoever is blurring the lines, or left out. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Threaded Discussion
I note that the statement is currently in the lede, with a citation, and a tag saying 'not in citation given'. Can someone not reliant on Google translate confirm that the specific assertion suggested is actually based on the cited material - because if it isn't, there can be no question of including it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed it is either a misunderstood or unreasonably simplified summary of what the source actually says. The article argues that the category Mestizo had different meanings in the context of the colonial regime (a racial category) and in the 19th and 20th century (a cultural category). So it has nothing to do with blurring of lines (unless we believe the world is objectively or should be divided by racia lines) but simply a redefinition of the meaning of the category and consequently of the dividing lines. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is a similar claim in the body of the article that reads: "The concept of race in Mexico is subtle and the result of multiple cultural concepts which are in conflict. They not only include physical clues such as skin color but also cultural dispositions, morality and intellectual status. It is not static or well defined but rather is defined and redefined by situation. Descent is still one primary determiner of social status which is only loosely associated with biological traits. This makes racial distinctions different than those in other countries such as the United States:[27]" I wonder if this is what the sentence was meant to say. The introduction still works well without the sentence so i leave it up to the opinion of another editors. Aergas (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- That is a conflation in that context of this introductory statement. This particular link does not substantiate the claim of the reason for why mexico dropped the census, hence it maintains a 'citation not given' tag, because that is fundamentally applying opinion and WP:Synth, not present in the extant source. Alon12 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion of comparison between sources
Should the following paragraph be added after the last paragraph of the lede section? Despite that extra-official sources estimate the modern white population of Mexico to be only 9-16%, in genetic studies Mexico consistently shows a European admixture comparable to countries that report white populations of 52% - 77% (in the case of Chile and Costa Rica, who average 51%[17] & 60%[18] European admixture respectively, while studies in the general Mexican population have found overall European ancestry at 58.96%[19] ranging from 56%[20] to 50-60%,[21] and up to 78% [22]). The differences between genetic ancestry and reported numbers could be attributed to the influence of the concept known as "mestizaje", which was promoted by the post-revolutionary government in an effort to create a united Mexican cultural identity with no racial distinctions.[23]
Survey
- No. Being White is not about genes or ancestry. It is a social classification. Genes have nothing to do with determining who is white, genes show ancestry. There are hardly any Mexicans who have ancestry from only one continent - being indigenous, white or mestizo are therefore cultural classifications not genetic ones. The relevant literature is unanimous in this. The difference between genetic and reported ancestry is due to the fact of 500 years of mixture between American and European derived populations, and the fact that racial categories were abolished with the end of the colony. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not in the lead section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Should not be added, at all, for the same reasoning Maunus gives. This is basically mid-20th-century racialist nonsense. I say that as someone with a degree in anthropology, BTW. No one with any academic training in that field could possibly take this seriously, except in a really negative sense. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - No reason given to add anything about population genetics or about degrees of "whiteness", which will just add controversy. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Threaded Discussion
- Per Maunus, Wikipedia should not be making assertions to the effect that genes determine ethnicity, and the (confusingly worded) section seems to be engaging in original research to prove something not supported by any of the sources individually. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that being white is a social classification rather than genetic, the problem is that in this case there are no modern social cues, because the Mexican government abolished any ethnic census concerning white people, and no comprehensive study has been made about this, even this study cited in the first paragraph:
- Lizcano Fernández, Francisco (May–August 2005) http://convergencia.uaemex.mx/rev38/38pdf/LIZCANO.pdf (Mexico: Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Centro de Investigación en Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades)
- states in the page 196 that in some countries "a good number biological white people has passed as mestizos because of the influence of the mestizo culture" and that "the standard used on this study is cultural" I cite the same study on the paragraph that was copied in this section of the discussion, and the genetic studies of Mexico, Chile and Costa Rica are cited as a way to support said statement and show the heavy influence that the mestizo identity has had in Mexico, I wonder if is necessary to reword it to make it more detailed and clear, because other editors have been confused by it's current wording before. I linked sources in the DNR case, particulary on my eight response that might be helpful to do this, because while there isn't any modern comprehensive ethnic or racial census, there are modern genetic studies that might help to give an idea regarding the current situation of white people in Mexico. Aergas (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Unless the Chile and Costa Rica studies discuss Mexico, it is original research to cite them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- It was not only 'europeans' who assimilated into the mestizo identity, it was also natives [1]. So, by the same token, this should also be present in the article on 'indigenous mexicans'. Irrespective of that, this article specifically refers to the ethnic 'white mexicans', same way the article on indigenous mexicans refers to those who are ethnic natives, not those who are self-proclaimed mestizos. Likewise, the various genetic data suggests that overall, mexicans are mestizos on average at 58%.
- And likewise, this piece in the introductory heading should also be removed, because it does not substantiate the claim in the link
- "Another group in Mexico, the "mestizos", also include people with varying amounts of European ancestry, with some having a European admixture higher than 90%."
- [2]
- It is explicitly mentioned in the study, that it is not a survey on a self-identifed cohesive group called mestizos, as it is suggested, so that is inaccurate and another implementation of WP:Synth
- "The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection."
- So, you cannot call this another cohesive group, when it is explicitly mentioned that the term mestizo was used in a geographic context, not an ethnic one, so it does not describe another group, it describes a random survey of various of nationals of mexico presumably including, but not limited to self-proclaimed mestizos, in addition to other ethnicities as well. Alon12 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Alon12, I was clear enough to you in the DRN already, no genetic study in Mexico collects it's samples based on ethnic identification, and if one did, it would be of little help, unless a census regarding the results of self-reported ancestries was to be released alongside the study and had a big enough sample of population.
- I was reading the article for synth [3] and found this:
- So, you cannot call this another cohesive group, when it is explicitly mentioned that the term mestizo was used in a geographic context, not an ethnic one, so it does not describe another group, it describes a random survey of various of nationals of mexico presumably including, but not limited to self-proclaimed mestizos, in addition to other ethnicities as well. Alon12 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- The following is a more complex example of original synthesis, based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones. The first paragraph is fine, because each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to this dispute:
Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.
- Now comes the original synthesis:
If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.
The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.
- In accordance with Wikipedia, synthesis is allowed when each statement is carefully sourced, and wikipedia also says that SYNTH is not just any synthesis and each statement of the sentence in question is sourced, it is an issue that requires a more concise rewording, and maybe to add more sources, for example, this source directly states that mestizos are different from amerindians and similar to Spaniards genetically speaking [4], same thing here [5]. How would be good to reword that section to include this? Aergas (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- The wording is actually inaccurate, because the grouping specifically does not describe a secondary group called mestizos in the source, it references mestizos as a region, so, if that is to be assumed, then so-called white mexicans would also be taken in in the study, along with amerindians, hence, it cannot be mentioned in the context of a separate group, as it is mentioned in a singular statement encompassing no specific ethnicity present in mexico. Furthermore, if that is true, then as studies have reported mexicans in aggregate to be 58% european genetically, then the europeans and amerindians who both culturally assimilated into the 'mestizo' identity, effectively cancelled each other out, as shown in the same general genetic data. Furthermore, those other 2 linked studies, are not relevant to specifics on admixture, because you are assuming some kind of linear correlation for non-linear genetic data, (which is actually another form of WP:Synth and WP:NOR) regarding specific allele frequencies that can be widely impacted by such things as 'founder effects', for instance, it is claimed that the mexican population studied there shows similarities with US Hispanics, but for, and against with respect to other groups. Those sources, do not provide any support for your statements on admixture, and even less on the specifics regarding 'white mexicans', which is fundamentally, the most relevant point to this article.
- So, by definition, not only does this point of 90%, not describe a separate group, unlike what is implied in the article, as that is directly a violation of WP:Synth, in addition, on the point of this sub-thread, it has not been substantiated the relevance of this, as seeing as how indigenous mexicans also assimilated into the common cultural identity, so such data can be placed there as well. In fact, as both of these articles, are written in the context of these specific ethnic groups, 'white mexicans', and 'indigenous mexicans'
- in particular, by referencing their population estimates separately of allegedly assimilated mestizos, the topic of such 'white' and 'indigenous' mexicans who assimilated would not be relevant to those listed under this particular ethnicity of 'white mexican' or 'indigenous mexican'. Alon12 (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Repeating the same thing just adding as many technisisms as you can is not going to change that in modern Mexico, everybody is written off as mestizo, this includes genetic studies, you won't find a genetic study done only on White Mexicans for this reason. Your argument don't applies because that's how every extant genetic study is. For your comments about the studies I linked I have to ask you for actual sources to sustain your claims, instead of your own assumptions and "perhaps" and sources that directly relate to the studies I linked, not indirect studies, because you did that a lot in the DNR and is the reason we didn't got anywhere there. So instead of replying with walls of unsourced text and an excess of technisisms with the intention of overwhelm other editors just prove your claims with direct sources, I was asked to do that and I just did, if you can't do it please stop clogging discussions repeating the same things over and over. Aergas (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
It is the burden on the contributor to provide evidence for the statements. How do you know what every single person identifies as on studies, if you even say yourself such a study has never been conducted? Even in the study, it is specifically stated, that no ethnic classification was ever even asked, that is not the same as saying they all identified as mestizos. Furthermore, despite this, the wording of the article does not reflect the actual source, as it assumes that 'white mexicans' are taken into a separate group from the 'mestizos' in that study, when that study specifically only mentions mestizo in the context of a region, not an ethnicity. So, the fact that you now admit this, is proof in and of itself that the wording is incorrect, since it makes the opposite implication. Irrespective of these ad hominems you make, you do not address the actual inconsistencies in the article. You are the one, if anything, providing sources that do not reflect what is actually mentioned in said sources, and instead, apply your own WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH, in the context of those sources. As has been said, the burden of proof is on the contributor to provide proof, when something cannot be substantiated from the source. Alon12 (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Why are you asking me how do I know what the tested people identifies with when I already told you that they are never asked what they identify as? Are you paying attention to the discussion? And you are right, in modern Mexico a lot of whites are written as mestizos without being asked, to make that clear has been one of my priorities since I started comming here, sadly lately I've been having problems with an editor that wants exactly that information removed and even opened a DNR case about it. Do you know by chance who I'm talking about here? Aergas (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- No it is emphatically not the case that "a lot of whites are written as mestizos". That statement is false a priori because it assumes that "white" is an objective category and that some people who "should" be considered "white" are "misclassified" as Mestizos. That is exactly not the way it works. What is the case is that currently "mestizo" is the neutral category in which people are assumed to fall unless the explicitly identify as something else. Mestizo is simply the default Mexican citizen. Everyone is assumed to be of mixed ancestry. And in all factuality this is not far from being the case. The vast majority of Mexicans (also indigenas and güeros) are of mixed continental ancestry to various degrees. So no there are no white people being misclassified as mestizos. But there are a lot of people who could be considered white if they were to be classified by Americans based on their phenotype, who either identify as mestizos because they identify with Mexican national cultural identity which is mixed, or who are simply by default assumed to be mestizos in this sense. But this is not a case of misclassification, but a result of the fact that this is what the word mestizo means - it refers to a cultural identity and not to ancestry. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I say "biologically white people was passed as mestizos" because that is what one of the sources textually says, that aside I think overall we agree here. Aergas (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- The exact line in the heading suggests that they are 2 different groups, 'another group', and furthermore it makes the assumption, not present in the source, that ethnic classification was taken, yet there was no ethnic classification taken at all. Hence, it does not make sense to present the statement like that, as that is factually inaccurate. Just because no survey has been conducted on 'white mexicans', does not mean that no mexican nationals identify as such. So, by injecting that opinion, it is a form of WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. With regards to 'whites' being identified as such, there was no survey taken on an ethnicity at all, so the burden of proof is for you to present that. That is just a general survey on the region of mexico, it is called 'mestizo', as a geographical term which also encompasses other Latin American regions, as people are aware of the admixture that took place under Spanish Colonial rule. It was not just supposed 'whites' who were classified as mestizo, but also 'indigenous' [6], as well. By the same token then, all of this information should also be posted on 'indigenous mexicans'. Which, makes this redundant, for both articles. Alon12 (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- No it is emphatically not the case that "a lot of whites are written as mestizos". That statement is false a priori because it assumes that "white" is an objective category and that some people who "should" be considered "white" are "misclassified" as Mestizos. That is exactly not the way it works. What is the case is that currently "mestizo" is the neutral category in which people are assumed to fall unless the explicitly identify as something else. Mestizo is simply the default Mexican citizen. Everyone is assumed to be of mixed ancestry. And in all factuality this is not far from being the case. The vast majority of Mexicans (also indigenas and güeros) are of mixed continental ancestry to various degrees. So no there are no white people being misclassified as mestizos. But there are a lot of people who could be considered white if they were to be classified by Americans based on their phenotype, who either identify as mestizos because they identify with Mexican national cultural identity which is mixed, or who are simply by default assumed to be mestizos in this sense. But this is not a case of misclassification, but a result of the fact that this is what the word mestizo means - it refers to a cultural identity and not to ancestry. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- And the problem don't ends there, there are cited soures, like the CIA world factbook and Encyclopedia Britannica who also treath White Mexicans as a group appart, when in reality they are all considered mestizos even if they have no indigenous ancestry. It's a misunderstanding of international proportions, at least Lizcano's study asserts that for countries like Mexico the percentage of whites and mestizos might be different if a biological categorization was to be used instead of a cultural one. But I have a solution for that line: [7]. The difference between the situation of Indigenous Mexicans and White Mexicans is that indigenous Mexicans have their own category in Mexico's census while White Mexicans don't, And I've seen sentences regarding the cultural mestizaje of Amerindian Mexicans included long before the cultural mestizaje of White Mexicans was addressed on Wikipedia. Aergas (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- 'when in reality they are all considered mestizos even if they have no indigenous ancestry', can you provide proof of this statement outside of opinion? Even this source, clearly states that some, but not all, natives as well as europeans consider themselves mestizos, hence not all europeans or natives see themselves as such, [[8]]. There is no modern ETHNIC census in mexico. That does not mean that european and indigenous mexicans do not exist. Alon12 (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- The source to that statement is the investigation I cited at the end of the sentence, and that I linked here before:
- Lizcano Fernández, Francisco (May–August 2005) http://convergencia.uaemex.mx/rev38/38pdf/LIZCANO.pdf (Mexico: Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Centro de Investigación en Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades) Is the page 196.
- And what you say about how not all Europeans or Amerindians consider themselves mestizos is a dead end regarding White Mexicans, because there is no modern competent racial census in Mexico, the only census close to be ethnic is the one that divides Amerindians from non-Amerindians, because the Mexican government never uses the term mestizo either, and they didn't even used it directly in the 1921 census, Mexico have done of it's racial/ethnic affairs a huge riddle. We have sources that assert that Whites were classified as mestizos and that's what we can use. This discussion grown a lot and now the sources that I've presented get lost easily, and new participants are saying that there aren't sources for the claims on this discussion when there are. Aergas (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, the source present claims that SOME europeans as well as amerindians considered themselves mestizos [9], obviously all did not, hence did not identify themselves as such on the census. Furthermore, even this link [10], which is a pan-latin american article, not specific to mexico, claims again that SOME of those who are 'biologically white', are considered mestizos in cultural aspects. It does not give a specific breakdown by region and nor does it make any such blanket assertions, like you made, 'when in reality they are all considered mestizos even if they have no indigenous ancestry',. The sources present also claim that amerindians were classified as mestizos, so again, it is equally relevant to post any such material regarding mestizos on 'white mexicans' as it is in 'indigeneous mexicans'. The fact that the Mexican census does not perform a census does not mean ethnic identities such as european mexicans and indigeneous mexicans do not exist. Furthermore, the surveys conducted in modern mexico, are not ethnic or racial censuses, specifically, they're linguistic censuses, which refers to speakers of various languages, including but not limited to amerindian languages, and culture and ethnicity are not the same thing. The fact that the source you attempted to provide is a pan-latin-american article, and the fact that despite the subject of 'biological whites', many in various other latin american countries, do continue to identify as 'white' on their respective national censuses, shows that the argument is not binary and mutually exclusive, unlike the implications you attempt to make. Again, that is original research. Alon12 (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- What part of "the cultural mestizaje of indigenous Mexicans is addressed already on wikipedia articles" didn't you understand? Why are you giving so much importance to a statement I made in this discussion (that was done in the context of the genetic study you complain about, the one that textually claimed to write everybody in a determined region as mestizos) when the opening paragraph clearly says that "a good number (not all!!) white people in Mexico were passed as mestizos? You are complaining about a study that "wrote off everybody as mestizos" and you want to point that there were whites included, and simultaneously you complain about source that claims that "a number of whites was passed as mestizos" which is exactly what you want to be said of that study. See the problem here? Aergas (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- The study did not write everyone off as mestizos by any means. That is another form of WP:Synth, which you are projecting. The study did not make any references to ethnicity at all. It simply called it a 'mestizo region' for all of latin america, because these regions were known to consist mainly of mestizos. Furthermore, it also counted multiple latin american regions, in which there are still censues, in which there still exists a self-identified white populations. Again, just because no ethnic census is conducted, doesn't mean that european and indigenous mexicans do not exist. It is equally relevant to mention all the data on 'mestizos' on 'white mexicans' as it is on the page on 'indigenous mexicans', so it is actually redundant. The source doesn't say that all whites passed as mestizos, that is again, another form of WP:Synth. The fact that it is a pan-latin american article, and that censuses exist in other latin american to continually show self-identified white populations shows that it is not a mutually exclusive issue. You keep applying statements which are not corroborated by the sources you claim to present. So, again, you have not proven your idea that 'when in reality they are all considered mestizos even if they have no indigenous ancestry'. Alon12 (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- What part of "the cultural mestizaje of indigenous Mexicans is addressed already on wikipedia articles" didn't you understand? Why are you giving so much importance to a statement I made in this discussion (that was done in the context of the genetic study you complain about, the one that textually claimed to write everybody in a determined region as mestizos) when the opening paragraph clearly says that "a good number (not all!!) white people in Mexico were passed as mestizos? You are complaining about a study that "wrote off everybody as mestizos" and you want to point that there were whites included, and simultaneously you complain about source that claims that "a number of whites was passed as mestizos" which is exactly what you want to be said of that study. See the problem here? Aergas (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, the source present claims that SOME europeans as well as amerindians considered themselves mestizos [9], obviously all did not, hence did not identify themselves as such on the census. Furthermore, even this link [10], which is a pan-latin american article, not specific to mexico, claims again that SOME of those who are 'biologically white', are considered mestizos in cultural aspects. It does not give a specific breakdown by region and nor does it make any such blanket assertions, like you made, 'when in reality they are all considered mestizos even if they have no indigenous ancestry',. The sources present also claim that amerindians were classified as mestizos, so again, it is equally relevant to post any such material regarding mestizos on 'white mexicans' as it is in 'indigeneous mexicans'. The fact that the Mexican census does not perform a census does not mean ethnic identities such as european mexicans and indigeneous mexicans do not exist. Furthermore, the surveys conducted in modern mexico, are not ethnic or racial censuses, specifically, they're linguistic censuses, which refers to speakers of various languages, including but not limited to amerindian languages, and culture and ethnicity are not the same thing. The fact that the source you attempted to provide is a pan-latin-american article, and the fact that despite the subject of 'biological whites', many in various other latin american countries, do continue to identify as 'white' on their respective national censuses, shows that the argument is not binary and mutually exclusive, unlike the implications you attempt to make. Again, that is original research. Alon12 (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- And what you say about how not all Europeans or Amerindians consider themselves mestizos is a dead end regarding White Mexicans, because there is no modern competent racial census in Mexico, the only census close to be ethnic is the one that divides Amerindians from non-Amerindians, because the Mexican government never uses the term mestizo either, and they didn't even used it directly in the 1921 census, Mexico have done of it's racial/ethnic affairs a huge riddle. We have sources that assert that Whites were classified as mestizos and that's what we can use. This discussion grown a lot and now the sources that I've presented get lost easily, and new participants are saying that there aren't sources for the claims on this discussion when there are. Aergas (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Lizcano Fernández, Francisco (May–August 2005) http://convergencia.uaemex.mx/rev38/38pdf/LIZCANO.pdf (Mexico: Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Centro de Investigación en Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades) Is the page 196.
- The source to that statement is the investigation I cited at the end of the sentence, and that I linked here before:
- 'when in reality they are all considered mestizos even if they have no indigenous ancestry', can you provide proof of this statement outside of opinion? Even this source, clearly states that some, but not all, natives as well as europeans consider themselves mestizos, hence not all europeans or natives see themselves as such, [[8]]. There is no modern ETHNIC census in mexico. That does not mean that european and indigenous mexicans do not exist. Alon12 (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- And the problem don't ends there, there are cited soures, like the CIA world factbook and Encyclopedia Britannica who also treath White Mexicans as a group appart, when in reality they are all considered mestizos even if they have no indigenous ancestry. It's a misunderstanding of international proportions, at least Lizcano's study asserts that for countries like Mexico the percentage of whites and mestizos might be different if a biological categorization was to be used instead of a cultural one. But I have a solution for that line: [7]. The difference between the situation of Indigenous Mexicans and White Mexicans is that indigenous Mexicans have their own category in Mexico's census while White Mexicans don't, And I've seen sentences regarding the cultural mestizaje of Amerindian Mexicans included long before the cultural mestizaje of White Mexicans was addressed on Wikipedia. Aergas (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Look my friend, if the study says that the people subject to the genetic testing were mestizos, they were, specially in the case of Mexico, that don't has any racial census. Why do you keep arguing about "all whites passing as mestizos" when the lead sentence clearly says that a number did, but not all? Why did you add a "not in citation given" when just yesterday you were talking about how the Mexican census uses language and culture as standards to define ethnicy as opposed to race, and the investigation cite uses cultural standards itself? Aergas (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- But that is the thing, it explicitly does not say that. You are applying WP:Synth.
- [11]
- "The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection." It simply used the term 'mestizo region' in a geographic sense, it made no mention of mestizo being used in either an ethnic or cultural context, which is what the wording implies. Yet again, you are conflating the issue, simply because a census is not taken, does not mean 'white' mexicans or indigenous mexicans do not exist. And as attested, when the census was conducted, not all 'whites' or 'natives' identified as mestizos [12]. Furthermore, the other source, again does not provide support for your claim, again it says SOME, not all assimilated, which is reflected in the pan-latin american context of the article, as the statement is also applied to other latin american countries, which do have censuses in which ethnic 'whites' are classified. So, again, just because a census is not taken, does not mean only a single ethnicity in a country exists. That is original research. Alon12 (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Mexico does not have a category for mestizo nowadays either, yet the study call them such, and Wikipedia has articles that call them that. Why you don't have a problem with that? The source calls the tested people mestizos, that's all it's needed. This is a circular argument now. I don't see what you don't understand. Aergas (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- You had indeed been referencing a circular argument, because you don't appear to have the data to corroborate this. The study explicitly is a pan-latin american study, which explicitly does not measure ethnic classification, and extended this study to incorporate and classify 'mestizo regions', even in modern latin american nations, whereby 'whites' still are a present category on their respective cenuses. So again, the lack of a census does not imply that said 'european mexicans' and 'indigeneous mexicans' do not exist. Alon12 (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- [13]
- "The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection."
- Mexico does not have a category for mestizo nowadays either, yet the study call them such, and Wikipedia has articles that call them that. Why you don't have a problem with that? The source calls the tested people mestizos, that's all it's needed. This is a circular argument now. I don't see what you don't understand. Aergas (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- "The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection." It simply used the term 'mestizo region' in a geographic sense, it made no mention of mestizo being used in either an ethnic or cultural context, which is what the wording implies. Yet again, you are conflating the issue, simply because a census is not taken, does not mean 'white' mexicans or indigenous mexicans do not exist. And as attested, when the census was conducted, not all 'whites' or 'natives' identified as mestizos [12]. Furthermore, the other source, again does not provide support for your claim, again it says SOME, not all assimilated, which is reflected in the pan-latin american context of the article, as the statement is also applied to other latin american countries, which do have censuses in which ethnic 'whites' are classified. So, again, just because a census is not taken, does not mean only a single ethnicity in a country exists. That is original research. Alon12 (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- [11]
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.
Large Edits without Discussion
Please don't make large edits without discussion to this contentious article. User:Aergas: Please explain your edits, which I am rolling back. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm just expanding the information that already exists, I invited other editors to participe and discuss, but they have shown no interest so I'll go on on editing things that aren't involucrated on this discussion. Aergas (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- on the genetics, please read the discussion at RSN and let me know your thoughts here. Jytdog (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- I read it, but I'm afraid it doesn't address the actual issues here, the reason that part of the text is on dispute is not because is an unrealiable source, but because the source might not be the most appropiate for this article, and this issue is something appart of the main issue right now: Expanding the content of this article with other appropiate sources, thing to which there is no real reason to oppose. Aergas (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss population genetics, that is the most recent, on-point secondary source. There is no justification for using a slew of old primary sources (some of them just conference abstracts) for that content when we have a recent secondary source. I would be fine with not discussing population genetics at all. Jytdog (talk)
- If Robert McClenon agrees, I think an RFC on whether biology or genetics should be included at all in the article might be relevant at this juncture. Does it matter if some 'biological indigenous' or 'biological whites' identify as another group? Firstly, as race is more of a social construct rather than a purely biological one, more so in historical multiracial regions such as latin america, and secondly as the genetic data clearly demonstrates the predominant amerindian heritage, and thirdly, as no independent genetic analysis has taken place on this particular ethnic group of 'white mexicans', it does not make sense for them to be referenced with other data. Alon12 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't clear why I am being asked to agree at all. I am only incidentally involved any more, since I didn't want to hear two contentious editors talking past each other as to what should be done to this article. I would prefer not to discuss population genetics at all, which, even with good secondary sources, will be controversial. Race is controversial enough even when seen as a societal construct, and is even more controversial when one tries to base it on biology. I would prefer not to add anything that might be controversial without an RFC. I will !vote against any additions in an RFC unless the change is clearly defined and well sourced. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting an RFC as a possible solution to remove all current mentions of biological and genetics content in the article in light of those points Robert McClenon makes. Similarly Jytdog, has also suggested that as an option. Alon12 (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Alon I would not oppose removing the content but I would not !vote in favor of it. I am just offering that as option of Aergas if he cannot see his way to appropriately sourcing the content. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting an RFC as a possible solution to remove all current mentions of biological and genetics content in the article in light of those points Robert McClenon makes. Similarly Jytdog, has also suggested that as an option. Alon12 (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- In general, the burden of proof on anyone who wants to add anything, even supposedly only to expand something, should be on the editor wanting to add something. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Jytdog, if you go to any article related to human genetics, you will find muultiple citations, from multiple sources of primary and secondary type, not only the "most recent" secondary source, which is not so complete because it misses several studies, including the ones I want to add, there is no wikipedia policy that opposes to the expansion of sourced material, or that says that only one secondary source must be used, and is something that isn't practiced anywhere on Wikipedia, and the source is likely not appropiate for an article about European Mexicans because almost every study done on Mexicans with dominant European ancestry was lost and no justification or explanation is given within the study as to why. And now you are talking about removing genetic studies, why now? this entire problem started because disputes on the inclusion of information about genetics and racial purity, you indeed added content related to genetics. What's going on here? Aergas (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't clear why I am being asked to agree at all. I am only incidentally involved any more, since I didn't want to hear two contentious editors talking past each other as to what should be done to this article. I would prefer not to discuss population genetics at all, which, even with good secondary sources, will be controversial. Race is controversial enough even when seen as a societal construct, and is even more controversial when one tries to base it on biology. I would prefer not to add anything that might be controversial without an RFC. I will !vote against any additions in an RFC unless the change is clearly defined and well sourced. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- If Robert McClenon agrees, I think an RFC on whether biology or genetics should be included at all in the article might be relevant at this juncture. Does it matter if some 'biological indigenous' or 'biological whites' identify as another group? Firstly, as race is more of a social construct rather than a purely biological one, more so in historical multiracial regions such as latin america, and secondly as the genetic data clearly demonstrates the predominant amerindian heritage, and thirdly, as no independent genetic analysis has taken place on this particular ethnic group of 'white mexicans', it does not make sense for them to be referenced with other data. Alon12 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss population genetics, that is the most recent, on-point secondary source. There is no justification for using a slew of old primary sources (some of them just conference abstracts) for that content when we have a recent secondary source. I would be fine with not discussing population genetics at all. Jytdog (talk)
- I read it, but I'm afraid it doesn't address the actual issues here, the reason that part of the text is on dispute is not because is an unrealiable source, but because the source might not be the most appropiate for this article, and this issue is something appart of the main issue right now: Expanding the content of this article with other appropiate sources, thing to which there is no real reason to oppose. Aergas (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- on the genetics, please read the discussion at RSN and let me know your thoughts here. Jytdog (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
bad sourcing in other articles is not a reason to use them here. in general i don't leave bad sources standing in any article I work on. i fixed the bad sourcing on genetics that was in this article; the secondary source provides the ancestral genetics of all mexicans, including ones of european descent. like i said if you don't want to discuss genetics in the article, i am fine with that. i fixed what was there. oh and please point me to those articles so i can fix them. would you do that please? Jytdog (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Mexicans, Chileans, and Costa Ricans all score on the same levels on genetic studies, yet, Costa Rica and Chile are said to have way higher white percentages than Mexico. I think this would be helpful to mention on this article. There are even sources for this, which Jytdog deleted. I understand I should have come to the Talk section of this article before I edited. But, I think this would be helpful to mention. Maybe in other wording from the way I edited it. I also understand that there are sources for the number of whites in Mexico,, such as the CIA Factbook, or Encyclopaedia Britannica, which are the most commonly sourced. But, the CIA Factbook source is from nearly 100 years ago. The Encyclopaedia Britannica estimate is closer to the real number in my opinion(I've been to Mexico and don't think the number could be 9%). Maybe whites and Mestizos could be grouped together like on topics like this relating to Chile and Costa Rica. I also mention this because mestizos don't have one look, and could look white, but does that mean they're white? I don't know. I just thought I'd write this here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFV210 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- You mentioned in the article something related to studies that had both parents considered, but that's not a real explanation, because several non-uniparental studies were left out, and within the studies considered in that review, the few that had a dominant European ancestry were down played greatly [14] for example, source number six is only mentioned one time for Nuevo leon, but if we look the actual study, it included two tests, not only one [15], and other studies that included multiple tests are mantioned various times. You ask where have primary sources been used? that's easy to do, start here, the article is built mainly with primary sources and as shown in this diff [16] Alon12 added a primary source recently, despite that he was talking on this same discussion about how primary sources shouldn't be used. Aergas (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Mexicans, Chileans, and Costa Ricans all score on the same levels on genetic studies, yet, Costa Rica and Chile are said to have way higher white percentages than Mexico. I think this would be helpful to mention on this article. There are even sources for this, which Jytdog deleted. I understand I should have come to the Talk section of this article before I edited. But, I think this would be helpful to mention. Maybe in other wording from the way I edited it. I also understand that there are sources for the number of whites in Mexico,, such as the CIA Factbook, or Encyclopaedia Britannica, which are the most commonly sourced. But, the CIA Factbook source is from nearly 100 years ago. The Encyclopaedia Britannica estimate is closer to the real number in my opinion(I've been to Mexico and don't think the number could be 9%). Maybe whites and Mestizos could be grouped together like on topics like this relating to Chile and Costa Rica. I also mention this because mestizos don't have one look, and could look white, but does that mean they're white? I don't know. I just thought I'd write this here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFV210 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
it is out of bounds to criticize a secondary, peer reviewed secondary source published in a good journal in the biomedical literature. we are editors, not authors or critics; doing that kind of analysis is WP:OR and you can only do that via another source that is as good. and as for this article, you may have noticed that i have been slowly working over the sources and I will continue to improve them. there will be no primary sources left when i am done. Jytdog (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- You seem to be more concerned than habitual about secondary sources in this article in particular, because that don't seems to be the case elsewhere on Wikipedia. For example, why haven't you edited the article I pointed you to two days ago? Aergas (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am done here. good luck. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Is just that you have tried to push secondary sources everywhere on this article, but I gave a look to your edit history and many articles you edit frequently include primary sources, same goes for Alon12, who was insisting on the use of secondary sources in this article while he almost simultaneously added a primary source to other article that is related to genetics, what's going on here? I have the impression that there is some bias in this discussion, just like there is a clear bias in the study/review that you are trying to push, not to mention the unjustified opposition to expand the information included in the article, and even worse: one of the sources that I want to include to expand the information of the arcticle is an actual, lawful secondary source but still there have been opposition here. Aergas (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Given that more than two months have passed since I posted my last response explaining why the changes I want to perform are valid and pointed out that they are backed by secondary and primary sources alike I will perform said changes. I urge interested editors to discuss any changes related to the article in this page before editing the article. That way we hopefully will avoid edit wars in the future. Aergas (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- You cannot apply alleged issues in other articles to represent issues for this one, as has been pointed out. Simply waiting for an edit war to die down in the interim and then come back out of the blue to go back to re-engage in the same edit war does not help your cause. Alon12 (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's completely possible to do so because both articles involve you, how can it be possible that in this article you are arguing how secondary sources must be the only ones used and that in no way primary sources are appropiate and then at the same time you go and add a primary source to another article that is related to genetics aswell? That suggest a strong bias on your part towards this issue, because in reality you don't practice what you are demanding to be done here. My intention was never to let the edit war die, I was the last editor to reply, and I was expecting an answer from you, and in more than two months you never appeared, you appear until I edit the article, why did you wait so long knowing that I was expecting your answer as soon as possible? It's not like you are busy somewhere else in Wikipedia because you are a single porpouse account and you edit nothing but this article. You got many things to explain in this issue. Aergas (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- You were given an adequate response at the time of the debate, and you were cited by numerous parties for violating WP:CIR. Now, you are simply trying to obsessively revert the article to return to your edit warring once again, and ignoring dialogue posted by multiple parties. Alon12 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Can you tell me which was that "adequate response" you are talking about? Because I don't see any, the last thing that happened on this discussion was we discussing the double standards you have shown on your edits here on Wikipedia, and how does that answer the questions I made to you about these double standards? And what abot WP:CIR? You have been the only one pushing that for months with no results at all, in fact, the double standards you have shown on this discussion make good ground for a WP:CIR case opened on you. Finally you have no ground to accuse me of edit warring, I made my responses and waited enough for other editors to participe in the discussion but nothing happened, so I made the edits, you on the other hand come here and start reverting without discussing things properly, much less reaching a consensus, by definition you are the one incurring on edit warring here and I'm the one reverting the edit warrior, you can't say I didn't waited enough for you to answer in this talk page, and you didn't because you don't care about discussing things properly. Aergas (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- This whole section on the talk page was created in reference to your large edits, which is indicative of your pattern of edit warring. There is not much more which needs to be said. You cannot unilaterally make such edits to the page. There have been other instances during this long contentious exchange, other than here, regarding your credibility, but even you can even see here, you do not respond well to basic dialogue without wrapping it around circular motions. Alon12 (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- My edits weren't unilateral, I waited more than two months for input of another editors on this case and nobody showed up, how long do I have to wait then? 6 months? I also consider the adjetive "unilateral" to be incorrect, because if you look back to your edits when this whole issue started and the article on it's current version, you will see that all the edits you originally wanted were included in the article, and these edits remain on it's place in the current version of said article. I personally can't recall my credibility being up to question, but I recall yours being questioned when an administrator pointed out that you are an obvious single porpouse acount. Aergas (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you are talking about EdJohnston, he stated that he wanted both of our accounts banned, so bringing him up, does not help your case. No one responded to you because you were applying a logical non-sequitur, which has been pointed out as not applying to this context. It was just a redundancy, this sub-section was created precisely when you attempted to edit war and make reversions to your edits beforehand, and you were warned not do so. Otherwise, why did not attempt to revert this article 2 months ago when this situation was on-going, because 2 months ago when you tried to revert this, your edits to this page were specifically reverted, so instead you attempt to 'get the last word in', in some form of juvenile fashion, and then try to re-ignite your edit war when you think no one else will be watching the article after a certain amount of time passes, which is even more juvenile. Alon12 (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- But Edjohnston accused you of being a single purpose account, thing that he didn't accused me of, I wasn't applying any kind of logical non-sequitur, I just want to know why do you had a problem with primary sources and even talked about removing them all while at the same time you added a primary source in another article, and have no problems with primary sources used everywhere else on wikipedia. My intention was never that of want to have the last word, it was that of have a discussion with other editors involved, specially you, I also want to know why you never replied when you knew that all this time I was waiting for your response and you monitored this article all along. Aergas (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- EdJohnston stated that both of us should be banned, and so have other editors. You have shown a complete disregard in attempting to help develop a community consensus on this issue. The section on genetics for instance, was even sent to another board for deliberation, and you completely ignored the findings there, which was to maintain the page the way it was before you reverted it to the April 13 'large edits', which this section warned against, and attempted to revert the page here 2 months after the fact, when this subsection was specifically created to warn against you making such large edits. Alon12 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- But Edjohnston accused you of being a single purpose account, thing that he didn't accused me of, I wasn't applying any kind of logical non-sequitur, I just want to know why do you had a problem with primary sources and even talked about removing them all while at the same time you added a primary source in another article, and have no problems with primary sources used everywhere else on wikipedia. My intention was never that of want to have the last word, it was that of have a discussion with other editors involved, specially you, I also want to know why you never replied when you knew that all this time I was waiting for your response and you monitored this article all along. Aergas (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you are talking about EdJohnston, he stated that he wanted both of our accounts banned, so bringing him up, does not help your case. No one responded to you because you were applying a logical non-sequitur, which has been pointed out as not applying to this context. It was just a redundancy, this sub-section was created precisely when you attempted to edit war and make reversions to your edits beforehand, and you were warned not do so. Otherwise, why did not attempt to revert this article 2 months ago when this situation was on-going, because 2 months ago when you tried to revert this, your edits to this page were specifically reverted, so instead you attempt to 'get the last word in', in some form of juvenile fashion, and then try to re-ignite your edit war when you think no one else will be watching the article after a certain amount of time passes, which is even more juvenile. Alon12 (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- My edits weren't unilateral, I waited more than two months for input of another editors on this case and nobody showed up, how long do I have to wait then? 6 months? I also consider the adjetive "unilateral" to be incorrect, because if you look back to your edits when this whole issue started and the article on it's current version, you will see that all the edits you originally wanted were included in the article, and these edits remain on it's place in the current version of said article. I personally can't recall my credibility being up to question, but I recall yours being questioned when an administrator pointed out that you are an obvious single porpouse acount. Aergas (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- This whole section on the talk page was created in reference to your large edits, which is indicative of your pattern of edit warring. There is not much more which needs to be said. You cannot unilaterally make such edits to the page. There have been other instances during this long contentious exchange, other than here, regarding your credibility, but even you can even see here, you do not respond well to basic dialogue without wrapping it around circular motions. Alon12 (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Can you tell me which was that "adequate response" you are talking about? Because I don't see any, the last thing that happened on this discussion was we discussing the double standards you have shown on your edits here on Wikipedia, and how does that answer the questions I made to you about these double standards? And what abot WP:CIR? You have been the only one pushing that for months with no results at all, in fact, the double standards you have shown on this discussion make good ground for a WP:CIR case opened on you. Finally you have no ground to accuse me of edit warring, I made my responses and waited enough for other editors to participe in the discussion but nothing happened, so I made the edits, you on the other hand come here and start reverting without discussing things properly, much less reaching a consensus, by definition you are the one incurring on edit warring here and I'm the one reverting the edit warrior, you can't say I didn't waited enough for you to answer in this talk page, and you didn't because you don't care about discussing things properly. Aergas (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- You were given an adequate response at the time of the debate, and you were cited by numerous parties for violating WP:CIR. Now, you are simply trying to obsessively revert the article to return to your edit warring once again, and ignoring dialogue posted by multiple parties. Alon12 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's completely possible to do so because both articles involve you, how can it be possible that in this article you are arguing how secondary sources must be the only ones used and that in no way primary sources are appropiate and then at the same time you go and add a primary source to another article that is related to genetics aswell? That suggest a strong bias on your part towards this issue, because in reality you don't practice what you are demanding to be done here. My intention was never to let the edit war die, I was the last editor to reply, and I was expecting an answer from you, and in more than two months you never appeared, you appear until I edit the article, why did you wait so long knowing that I was expecting your answer as soon as possible? It's not like you are busy somewhere else in Wikipedia because you are a single porpouse account and you edit nothing but this article. You got many things to explain in this issue. Aergas (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- You cannot apply alleged issues in other articles to represent issues for this one, as has been pointed out. Simply waiting for an edit war to die down in the interim and then come back out of the blue to go back to re-engage in the same edit war does not help your cause. Alon12 (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Given that more than two months have passed since I posted my last response explaining why the changes I want to perform are valid and pointed out that they are backed by secondary and primary sources alike I will perform said changes. I urge interested editors to discuss any changes related to the article in this page before editing the article. That way we hopefully will avoid edit wars in the future. Aergas (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Is just that you have tried to push secondary sources everywhere on this article, but I gave a look to your edit history and many articles you edit frequently include primary sources, same goes for Alon12, who was insisting on the use of secondary sources in this article while he almost simultaneously added a primary source to other article that is related to genetics, what's going on here? I have the impression that there is some bias in this discussion, just like there is a clear bias in the study/review that you are trying to push, not to mention the unjustified opposition to expand the information included in the article, and even worse: one of the sources that I want to include to expand the information of the arcticle is an actual, lawful secondary source but still there have been opposition here. Aergas (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am done here. good luck. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
But i'm not ignoring anything, we were discussing that source back then but you stopped replying, and right now you are the one who is edit warring and still don't wants to discuss anything about that source or explain your uncivil behavoirs, such as the double standards you have shown, you refusing to discuss and appearing until someone edits the article and now even opening cases in the noticeboards with summaries that distort the truth and that are filled with plain lies. Aergas (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Creating walls of text for every comment reply and then when the other user stops playing your game, deciding to unilaterally make an edit, is not how the wikipedia community operates. You were given ample opportunity to discuss the content regarding genetics on the topic, as well as the primary sources board, where it was discussed in unanimous agreement on that board, that the obsolete sources for genetics which you keep reverting to, were invalid, relative to the new modern genetic content that was placed in the article in February. Alon12 (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- My replies rarely qualify as walls of text, nothing that you say about the sources happened, the source wasn't sent to a board called "primary sources notice board" it was sent to the "reliable sources notice board" and on top of that you are removing the secondary sources I brought aswell, why do you lie so much? Aergas (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- So you are familiar with it? Yet you chose not to discuss in it, despite having the opportunity to do so. Boards such as that are created precisely as forms of dispute resolution to develop community consensus, the discussion on that board was unanimous in updating the content. Like I said, I did not even participate in these edits, other users did, and the consensus developed at that time was to keep the page with the updated genetics content. That is how wikipedia operates, not by spamming walls of text for every comment reply on a talk page and trying to 'get the last word in', and then say 'I win', which is basically what you're trying to do here. Alon12 (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- But that board is to determine if a source is reliable, not if it is situable for a particualr article, and why do you reject the secondary sources that I've brought? Why did you ignore the discussion for more than two months? Why do you added a primary source on another article when here you removed all the primary sources? The bias is too obvious with you. Aergas (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- The old sources were specifically deemed to be less reliable relative to the modern data, that makes it less relevant to the article in accordance with wikipedia standards. Anything else on any other article is not relevant to the discussion on this article, as multiple different users have told you on different sub-sections of this talk page, because no one is interested in you walls of texts and personal attacks instead of content discussion. In any case, I did not even participate there, so it has nothing to do with me, you're arguing against the community decision on the issue. Alon12 (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- How is that sources that weren't even brought to that noticeboard such as the secondary sources I brought long after that discussion was closed were deemed as less reliable? The community you talk so much about didn't even saw them, again: Why do you lie so much? And what you did in the other article is very well relevant because you have a completely opposite position on that article to the position you show here. And why did you ignore the discussion for two months if you knew I was waiting for your answer? Aergas (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you still want to debate your paternal haplogroup studies (LOL, considering our history of interaction, you still seem to even barely know what that means) and all the other studies which still predate the new ones, then bring it up in the reliable sources board for again as a means of dispute resolution, and the dispute can be settled. After that point, it does not matter who gets in the last word on the talk page out of desperation, Aergas. Alon12 (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- You've opened so many cases before and when these don't go the way you want (basically all of them) you return to edit warring and to open new cases, why can't you just answer the questions I'm making to you? Why do you want the secondary sources I've brought removed? Why you didn't reply to the discussion in more than two months? Why do you show a completely opposite posture regarding primary sources in other article? Why did you open a case in the edit warring noticeboard with a summary that was plain lies? Aergas (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I, nor anyone else is interested in entertaining your insane walls of text, aergas (I'm saying this because you literally do not know how to even read a genetic study and needed my help in explaining them to you, which you admitted in our past interactions, but that's besides the point), but you can't damage the integrity of this page and expect no response. The fact is that even the administrators admit that we can't make a mutual consensus on any issue. If I had continued to reply to every new wall of text you posted, this talk page would probably be 50x larger, if not 100x larger than it is now, with no dispute resolution in sight. This is why third-party noticeboards are used to assist in developing consensus for the article. The only reason why you would fear bringing this to a noticeboard, where only data is considered, and not personal attacks is because you are afraid that the data does not weigh in your favor. There is not much more to say. I'm being very fair here. Alon12 (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Why can't you just explain why do you have so blatant double standards? Is it that hard to do? Aergas (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm done with your personal ad hominems and paranoia. I will only discuss content issues on this page relating to the content of this page in question, and I gave a solid avenue for resolution. Anything else is not worth my time. Alon12 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Why can't you just explain why do you have so blatant double standards? Is it that hard to do? Aergas (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- I, nor anyone else is interested in entertaining your insane walls of text, aergas (I'm saying this because you literally do not know how to even read a genetic study and needed my help in explaining them to you, which you admitted in our past interactions, but that's besides the point), but you can't damage the integrity of this page and expect no response. The fact is that even the administrators admit that we can't make a mutual consensus on any issue. If I had continued to reply to every new wall of text you posted, this talk page would probably be 50x larger, if not 100x larger than it is now, with no dispute resolution in sight. This is why third-party noticeboards are used to assist in developing consensus for the article. The only reason why you would fear bringing this to a noticeboard, where only data is considered, and not personal attacks is because you are afraid that the data does not weigh in your favor. There is not much more to say. I'm being very fair here. Alon12 (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- You've opened so many cases before and when these don't go the way you want (basically all of them) you return to edit warring and to open new cases, why can't you just answer the questions I'm making to you? Why do you want the secondary sources I've brought removed? Why you didn't reply to the discussion in more than two months? Why do you show a completely opposite posture regarding primary sources in other article? Why did you open a case in the edit warring noticeboard with a summary that was plain lies? Aergas (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you still want to debate your paternal haplogroup studies (LOL, considering our history of interaction, you still seem to even barely know what that means) and all the other studies which still predate the new ones, then bring it up in the reliable sources board for again as a means of dispute resolution, and the dispute can be settled. After that point, it does not matter who gets in the last word on the talk page out of desperation, Aergas. Alon12 (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- How is that sources that weren't even brought to that noticeboard such as the secondary sources I brought long after that discussion was closed were deemed as less reliable? The community you talk so much about didn't even saw them, again: Why do you lie so much? And what you did in the other article is very well relevant because you have a completely opposite position on that article to the position you show here. And why did you ignore the discussion for two months if you knew I was waiting for your answer? Aergas (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- The old sources were specifically deemed to be less reliable relative to the modern data, that makes it less relevant to the article in accordance with wikipedia standards. Anything else on any other article is not relevant to the discussion on this article, as multiple different users have told you on different sub-sections of this talk page, because no one is interested in you walls of texts and personal attacks instead of content discussion. In any case, I did not even participate there, so it has nothing to do with me, you're arguing against the community decision on the issue. Alon12 (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- But that board is to determine if a source is reliable, not if it is situable for a particualr article, and why do you reject the secondary sources that I've brought? Why did you ignore the discussion for more than two months? Why do you added a primary source on another article when here you removed all the primary sources? The bias is too obvious with you. Aergas (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- So you are familiar with it? Yet you chose not to discuss in it, despite having the opportunity to do so. Boards such as that are created precisely as forms of dispute resolution to develop community consensus, the discussion on that board was unanimous in updating the content. Like I said, I did not even participate in these edits, other users did, and the consensus developed at that time was to keep the page with the updated genetics content. That is how wikipedia operates, not by spamming walls of text for every comment reply on a talk page and trying to 'get the last word in', and then say 'I win', which is basically what you're trying to do here. Alon12 (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- My replies rarely qualify as walls of text, nothing that you say about the sources happened, the source wasn't sent to a board called "primary sources notice board" it was sent to the "reliable sources notice board" and on top of that you are removing the secondary sources I brought aswell, why do you lie so much? Aergas (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Look with attention Alon12, currently in this talkpage you want all the primary sources related to genetics removed, this is a fact that anyone can confirm, and then, at the same time, in another article related to genetics you added a primary source without any problem [17], how is this not a double standard? How am I being paraniod about this issue? Why can't you answer any question I make? You say that you don't want to lose time but then you tell me that I have to present peer-reviewed secondary sources to the reliable sources noticeboard, when they are peer-reviewed secondary sources from reputable sites, that board is supposed to address doubios sources, not sources that are obviously reliable, here you just want to waste the time of other editors, like you do on every case you have opened (how many have you opened? 15?) and then when the resolution don't favors your views you just ignore it and open a new one, people here don't have time for that, and you know that you have zero justification to reject the secondary sources I've brought, if you say that you don't have time for this stop dragging this article down and don't edit here anymore. Aergas (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- You are the one dragging this around, and your issues were explained a million times. In the context of the content presented here, there is nothing more to say. If you cannot comprehend the nature of the statement, then you are the one who shouldn't post here. It is hilarious when you talk about opening cases, because you've also done so, and are now in the process of doing so again [18], so your hypocrisy is plain for all to see. The real issue here is how you avoid content resolution, and instead try to play ad hominem games and 'get the last word in', as a means of winning. By the way, thank you for further enlightening this board with your ignorance and WP:CIR, as you are even further demonstrating that you do not even know what a secondary source is. Alon12 (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop making evasives, and now you acuse me of wasting the time of other editors when all this is because of you, I've opened no more than three cases on my time on wikipedia, you have opened around 15 in 5 months, this is a false equivalency, and now you say that I don't know what a secondary source is when the source I've brought reports a "scientific finding" that's the definition of a secondary source. Aergas (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- You make many bold, inaccurate and misleading claims as usual, yet, ultimately, you're the one who replies with giant walls of texts filled with emotional rhetoric. You're the only one wasting anyone's time here, with your refusal to discuss content rationally. That's not what a secondary source is, keep on demonstrating your WP:CIR. Alon12 (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop making evasives, and now you acuse me of wasting the time of other editors when all this is because of you, I've opened no more than three cases on my time on wikipedia, you have opened around 15 in 5 months, this is a false equivalency, and now you say that I don't know what a secondary source is when the source I've brought reports a "scientific finding" that's the definition of a secondary source. Aergas (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
New edits
Hello. One-tenth/one-fifth means 10%-20%, not 17%. I add new source. Nacionmulticultural is not working, I add web archive. Emilio Azcarraga is of basque descent and I add Paulina Rubio, a popular singer of spanish descent. --Bleckter (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, thats true, one mistake, I note that in this version you put that 45% of mexicans are "white" with this reference but the reference say: Mexico A total of 19 reports regarding molecular autosome estimates of parental continental ancestry in Mexican populations are presented in Table 1. Three of them concern the country in general, while 27 concern specific populations, with the large population of Mexico City heavily represented (seven estimates). Amerindian ancestry is most prevalent (51% to 56%) in the three general estimates, followed by European ancestry (40% to 45%); the African share represents only 2% to 5%. The Amerindian contribution is the highest in 22 (81%) of the 27 estimates. Greetings. --190.149.2.47 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Other thing, this information of genetic data was put in this part of the article. Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.149.2.47 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mexicans of European descent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022220348/http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/105/10503808.pdf to http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/105/10503808.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)