Talk:White Mexicans/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Verification of sources

Quoting passages from the article in bold:

"However, according to church and censal registers from the colonial times, the majority of Spanish men married with Spanish women.[22][17]"

"Nonetheless, in recent time the census' results have been subjected to scrutiny by historians, academics and social activists alike, who assert that such drastic alterations on demographic trends with respect to the 1793 census are not possible and cite, among other statistics the relatively low frequency of marriages between people of different continental ancestries in colonial and early independent Mexico.[79][17]"

"The results of the 1921 census, however, have been contested by various historians and deemed inaccurate[17]"

Source 17 in these passages is Mexico Racista by Federico Navarette (2016), page 86. Below I give the original Spanish text and a translation to English:

En todo caso, la discusion debe centarse en cuales son los principales desniveles que impiden, o dificultan patear el balon a la mayoria de nuestros compatriotas. Ahi cabria reflexionar sobre la relativa importancia del racismo dentro de las otras formas de injustia economicas, social y politca. No pretendo que la discrimination por el color de la piel sea la colina mas empinada, pero si creo que los estudios que discutimos mas arriba demuestran que hace que las questas sean mas dificiles de remontar para quienes tienen la piel mas oscura y agrava asi las desigualdad.

En el contexto mexicano resulta aun mas insostenible la acusasion de que hablar de racismo puede servir de pretexto para disimular la responsibilidad, o las fallas, de los supuestos discriminados. El racismo cromatico mexicano y la leyenda del mestizaje, como veremos en el capitulo 8, ye hace bastante para achacar a los pobres su propria marginacion, asimilada a su cultura atrasada y a una lista casi infinita de defectos y falta: de nutricion, de educacion, de ambicon, de empeno, de conocimientos, etcetera.

De hecho ma perece que el peligro mayor en nuestro pais reside en la manera en que el racismo velado naturaliza las desigualdades sociales, y no en un supuesto uso de la acusasion del racismo para eximir a amplios sectores de nuestro poblacion de responsibilidad por su propio destino. Mas atendible, me parace el argumento de que hablar del racismo que existe en mexico solo serviria para crear mayor.

In English:

[...] goal has been put up for sale by venal politicians, the referee is the first to violate the rules of the game and also an undetermined amount of clandestine graves is hidden under the grass

In any case, the discussion should focus on what are the main unevennesses that prevent, or make it difficult for most of our compatriots to kick the ball. There it would be worth reflecting on the relative importance of racism within the other forms of economic, social and political injustice. I'm not claiming that discrimination based on skin color is the steepest hill, but I do think that the studies we discussed above show that it makes the quests harder to climb for those with darker skin and thus aggravates inequality.

In the Mexican context, the accusation that talking about racism can serve as a pretext to hide the responsibility, or the faults, of the allegedly discriminated against is even more untenable. Mexican chromatic racism and the legend of mestizaje, as we shall see in Chapter 8, do enough to blame the poor for their own marginalization, assimilated to their backward culture and an almost infinite list of defects and lacks: nutrition, education, of ambition, determination, knowledge, etcetera.

In fact, it seems that the greatest danger in our country lies in the way in which veiled racism naturalizes social inequalities, and not in an alleged use of the accusation of racism to exempt large sectors of our population from responsibility for their own destiny. More reasonably, I find the argument that talking about the racism that exists in Mexico would only serve to create more.

So this source actually says nothing about colonial marriages. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Other sources

Source 79 fails to verify for the above quotes.

Source 22 is raw marriage data from a small New Spain town in the year 1792. Raw census data from one year in one location isn't a reliable source with which to imply that there wasn't widespread intermixing in colonial Mexico, especially with the source itself doesn't say that. That's original research.

Secondary sources generally acknowledge that many people registered by the Mexican census as "Spanish" or "white" were in fact mixed, and that 'whiteness' or 'Spanishness' were not rigidly exclusive identities in Latin America (a mestizo could buy his or her way in to whiteness, for example, via gracias al sacar).

Most of the secondary sources seem to acknowledge that the European female immigrant population in Mexico was small, but that it ebbed and flowed over time. Others say that many of these "Spanish" women were actually mixed-Amerindian women.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004221004557

The scarcity of female migrants (6%) (Ongaro et al., 2019) further stimulated gene flow between Spanish men and Native Mexican women [...]

https://books.google.com/books?id=DKTsgpeSXwAC&pg=PA11

In the main, the Spanish-Mexican women were a resident population and not an immigrant or a migrant one; perhaps 5 to 8 percent of the total population had recently migrated from other parts of Mexico, but most retained a legacy several generations, and in some cases many generations, old, and lived in the same region their ancestors had lived. They did not emigrate to the United States, the United States came to them. Racially, they were also distinctive. Although the majority spoke Spanish and were Catholic, many could have claimed mixed Spanish-Indian heritage

https://books.google.com/books?id=_62IjQ-XQScC&pg=PA697

Elite women in borderlands society (who were likely defined as “Spanish” even if their genealogy was racially mixed) lived in sequestered conditions in order to protect family honor from the stain of sexual misconduct.

From Ongaro, et al. (2019):

Historical records attest a general imbalance in the number of incoming males and females especially during the early phase of European colonization. For instance, the first Iberian immigrants were mostly (>80%) males [ 8 ], and the proportion of females, initially 5%–6%, began to increase only in the following decades [ 7 ].

My point is that we shouldn't make our own conclusions based off of census data for a rural town in Mexico from the year 1792, per WP:OR. The sources need to explicity imply that Spanish men generally married (and reproduced with) European women through the course of Mexican history. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I looked up the source "Mexico Racista" today and there's indeed a problem with it, the pages on which the critics to the 1921 census are made are no longer visible, so in that case you are right, other source is needed. The good thing here is that is possible to do this with other sources found elsewhere in the article. In regards to marriage and women stats I recommend to look up this other sources [1]12, 2017|date=1998|publisher=Siglo XXI|isbn=9789682301063|page=223[2], the first one is a book that discuss an ethnic census taken in a big New Spain city, finding that there are more White Women than men, the second is an investigation of New Spain's census results but highlights something that is often overlooked, this is that while at the time the White population was dwarfed by the Indigenous one, the cities were predominantly white, with similar proportions of White women and men, the third one is also and investigation on Europeans that migrated to Mexico, and states that it was common for them to bring up their entire families as well as to favor other Whites for marriges (this is the one that I'll use to replace Mexico Racista) I hope this seetles the discussion, which I ignored until now because I had no idea that the pages I used as references were no longer aviable to the public. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

More sources

Hello, Pob3qu3, and thanks for your response. However, unfortunately, these citations just aren't verifying.

Below is my full translation from citation [17], which is Mineros y comerciantes en el México borbónico (1763-1810) by David A. Brading, 2015, page 150:

Extended content

What was the origin of these immigrants? Would they really be hidalgos? Did they come from mercantile families already established in the peninsula? The evidence that most of them came from the mountainous coasts of northern Spain. However, this only happened after the eighteenth century, because even in 1689 the residents of northern Mexico City only reached 40% of the Spanish community; the largest group by province were still Andalusians, who comprised 25% of the total. But by 1724 Geronimo de Ustariz, the mercantilist thinker, declared that the north, as was normal for the most densely populated region of Spain, provided most of the emigrants: "Cantabria, Navarra, Asturias, mountains of Burgos and Galicia They are the provinces from which more Spaniards go to those regions"34 Two especially prominent groups emerged in Mexico: the Basques and the Montanese de Satander. Years later, Humboldt pointed out the contrast that exists between Mexico and Venezuela, since while in the former the hegemony corresponded to the northerners, in the latter they dominated Andalusia and the Canary Islands.35 Most of the immigrants who arrived in Mexico were peasants from the north. They came from a region where the typical business form was the small family farm. In the Basque provinces, most peasants owned their land: in Santander and Asturias, sharecroppers or tenants enjoyed greater security than in other regions of the peninsula and benefited from the extensive land that remained communal.36 Cabanas existed. in all the mountain valleys and not grouped in villages. There were very few large estates, and in general the inhabitants of the region had a certain sense of social equality. Basques began to emigrate to Mexico as early as the 16th century. They settled in Zacatecas and conquered the north, as evidenced by the fact that Durango, in colonial times, bore the name of Nueva Vizcaya.37 From the first days of the Conquest, the Basque merchants were already in New Spain.38 Furthermore The New World was an important market for the iron and steel that Vizcaya produced. The Basques, famous for their industriousness and independent spirit, have been attributed the root of the Chilean national character on the one hand...

Nothing here supports the notion that most immigrants to Mexico were not primarily male. There is no mention of the gender of the inhabitants of Mexico City or any other city. It does not say that there were more white women than white men anywhere.

The text does mention that many of the immigrants to Mexico were peasants (in Europe)... but only after the 18th century. At face value, this could ostensibly support the statement in the article that many Spanish immigrants to Mexico were not exclusively elite, although the relevance of this is unclear, given that this source doesn't support any of the other related claims.

This citation just doesn't support the bulk of your additions to the main article, namely about gender and racial intermixing or the lack thereof.

The following is a link to Household and Family in Guadalajara, Mexico, 1811 1842, by M.L. Hardin, where the PDF file can be downloaded. This is reference [24] in the Wiki.

Page 62 of this document is simply a racial demography of the city of Guadalajara. It does not say anything about marriage patterns and is not sorted by gender (it says nothing about gender). I see nothing here that supports the wiki entry that European immigration to Mexico was not mostly male, and that European immigrants were not a small elite in Mexico. I also see nothing that says there were more white women than men.

Finally, citation [23] is Ensayos sobre historia de la población México y el Caribe, by Cook and Borah.

Page 223 of this book gives the racial demography of various Mexican cities from the years 1789-1793. It is, again, not sorted by gender. It says nothing about gender, and it says nothing about marriage patterns. Nothing substantiates the claim that there were more white women than white men anywhere in Mexico. And this citation does not question the idea that European immigrants to Mexico were mostly male, and does not question the "eliteness" of whites in Mexico.

So all of these sources have failed verification. This is mildly irritating, because I had to type this translation word-for-word.

In the future, please post quotations from your sources here at the talk page before using them in the article. The onus is really on you now, to prove the sources say what you profess to believe, because there were also additional citations that previously failed to verify. It's really time-consuming when other editors have to verify everything, and repeatedly find that the sources aren't verifying.

But please also be aware that even if these sources had listed gender or marriage demography, they still would constitute original research. None of the sources I have posted here aim to prove a point. They're just census data from various cities in Mexico from random years.

But you have compiled this data as if it questions a prevailing narrative. That is the definition of original research. What you really need to support your edits is a historian or a geneticist who explicitly says that most European migrants to Mexico weren't men, and that they reproduced with white women instead of non-white women, etc. - Hunan201p (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

"What you really need to support your edits is a historian or a geneticist who explicitly says that most European migrants to Mexico weren't men, and that they reproduced with white women instead of non-white women, etc." And here it is in the page 156 of the very same book, it was around one minute of lecture away of what you qouted [3], no need for me to bring a quote, the entire page is about it and in the next page is stated that the marked prefference for European partners extended to all social classes.

"Page 62 of this document is simply a racial demography of the city of Guadalajara. It does not say anything about marriage patterns and is not sorted by gender (it says nothing about gender)" The data you are asking for is in the page 89, on it is stated that 56% of White households have a female head of family[4], this compared to the overall White population of the city, which was 48%, in fact another source, the one that you dismissed for being from an "small New Spain town" the authors state that is consistent with the ethnoracial dynamics that have been observed across the whole kingdom[5]. What I am seeing here is that you are not bothering to read the sources that you are contesting, this is made even worse by the fact that you are repeatedly and eagerly removing them from the article, so I'll have to ask you to stop doing that. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

New page numbers

Hello Pob3qu3, thanks for your response. You accuse me of not reading your sources, but the problem is, none of the pages you are giving now were in the citation in the main article. For example, you tell me I should have read page 89, but the citation said page 62. You don't expect someone to read an entire document to verify what you're saying, do you? On Wikipedia, you have to cite your sources accurately, meaning exact page numbers.

Furthermore, like many users here on the English Wikipedia, I cannot read Spanish. I have to manually translate each word of your source before I can read it. Now I have translated and checked out the new pages you have given for these sources. I am again disappointed to find that they do not support your edits to the main article.

Mineros y comerciantes en el México borbónico (1763-1810), David A. Brading, 2015, page 156:

Original Spanish text:

Extended content

cajero la permitian no solo aprender los elementos deo oficio sino tambien establecer un gran numero de contactos utiles para el comercio. Una vez que terminaba su entrenamiento su patron, que muy a menudo era su tio o su paisano, lo convertia en socio o, si establecia su propio negocio, la proporcionaba capital y mercancias a credito. La naturaleza misma del comercio colonial - su organizacion en empresas de un solo hombre y su dependencia en el credito para las transacciones -- daba a todas sus operaciones una calidad altamente personal de confianza individual. Y el mercader peninsular confiaba, por orden, en sus parientes, en sus compatriotas, en los demas comerciantes peninsularles y, en ultimo lugar, en los criollos. Ya en el siglo xviii habian cristalizado, las acitudes de antipatia y desconfianza mutuas entre criolloy gachupin, que tendian a excluir del comercio al espnaol americano. En segundo lugar, los inmigrantes tenian derechos de preferencia en el mercado del matrimonio. Muchos peninsularles exitosos hacian venir a sus sobrinos con la esperanza de que se casaran con sus primas y heredaran y continuaran asi el negocio del tio. Del mismo modo, las viudas con frecuencia se casabon con el cajero de su difunto marido. Las hijas criollas, empujadas por el consejo y el ejemplo de sus madres, y por el afecto natural que sentian por el padre, tendian a escoger por esposos a hombres de su misma casta. Ademas, los estereotipos tradicionales de caracter criollo del gachupin favorecian a este ultimo en gran medida. En 1697 Gamelli Carreri observo a proposito de las mujeres mexicanas: "Son en gran manera afectas a los europos, que llaman gachupines, y con estros, aunque sean muy pobres, se casan mejor que con sus paisanos llamados criollos, aunque sean ricos, los quales, a causa de esto, se unen con las mulatas, de quienes han mamado juntamente con la leche las malas costumbres".62 Sea como haya sido, el caso es que parace que un numero abrumador de herederas criollas daban su mano a espanoles peninsulares. Si nos detemenos a meditar que un historiador de la aristocracia inglesa declaro que durante el siglo XVI las grandes fortunas se acumularon mediante dos grandes sistemas -- los empleos en el gobierno y el matrimonio entonces resulta claro que la inclinacion de las criollas a casara con peninsulares explica psrcialmente la frecuencia del exito economico de immigrante.63 Asi podia sefuir incrementando el capital acumulado por su suegro.

English translation:

Extended content

cashier allowed her not only to learn the elements of the trade but also to establish a large number of useful contacts for business. Once he finished his training, his employer, who was very often his uncle or his countryman, made him a partner or, if he set up his own business, provided him with capital and merchandise on credit. The very nature of colonial commerce - its organization into one-man enterprises and its reliance on credit for transactions - gave all its operations a highly personal quality of individual trust. And the peninsular merchant trusted, by order, in his relatives, in his compatriots, in the other peninsular merchants and, in the last place, in the Creoles. Already in the eighteenth century, the attitudes of mutual antipathy and distrust between Criollo and Gachupin had crystallized, which tended to exclude American Spanish from the trade. Second, immigrants had preferential rights in the marriage market. Many successful peninsulars would bring their nephews with them in the hope that they would marry their cousins ​​and thus inherit and continue their uncle's business. Similarly, widows frequently married their late husband's cashier. Creole daughters, driven by the advice and example of their mothers, and by the natural affection they felt for their father, tended to choose men of their own caste as husbands. In addition, the traditional stereotypes of the gachupin's criollo character favored the latter to a great extent. In 1697 Gamelli Carreri observed about Mexican women: "They are greatly affected by Europeans, whom they call gachupines, and with estrus, even if they are very poor, they marry better than with their countrymen called criollos, even if they are rich, the which, because of this, unite with the mulatto women, from whom they have suckled the bad habits together with their milk."62 Be that as it may, the fact is that it seems that an overwhelming number of Creole heiresses gave their hand to peninsular Spaniards . If we pause to ponder that a historian of the English aristocracy declared that during the 16th century great fortunes were amassed through two great systems -- government employment and marriage -- then it is clear that the Creoles' inclination to marry peninsulars partially explains the frequency of the immigrant's economic success.63 Thus, he could continue to increase the capital accumulated by his father-in-law.

Again, this page says nothing to support your entries to the main article. It does not say that there were more Spanish women than Spanish men in Mexico. It does not say that immigration to Spain was not overwhepmingly male, and it does not say that Spanish people were not an 'elite' in Mexico.

It also does not say that most Spanish men married Spanish women. On the contrary, it says that most local Spanish (creole) women married Spanish immigrant (gachupin) husbands. It also says that most local Spanish (creole) men married "mulatto", or non-white women. In other words, it's actually contradicting what you are saying. This, my friend, is why you need to post quotes detailing what your sources say before you add them to the article.

Pob3qu3, you wrote, in recerence to M.L. Hardin "The data you are asking for is in the page 89, on it is stated that 56% of White households have a female head of family"

...but that's not true at all. Page 89 of this document gives a table of houses with a female head in Guadalajara, Mexico. Below, I reproduce this table:

Table 2.7 Calidad of Female Heads and Persisting Female Heads

	Espanol	Indo	Mesitzo	Mulato	Otra Casta
1821-22 Female Heads	N = 546 (57.4%)	N = 301 (31.6%)	N = 74 (7.8%)	N = 22 (2.3%)	N = 9 (0.3%)
Persisting female heads	N = 79 (63.7%)	N = 38 (30.6%)	N = 3 (2.4%)	N = 3 (2.4%)	N = 1 (0.8%)

This does not say that 56% of white households have a "female head of family". It merely says that 57% of female headed households were white. Most households in Guadalajara didn't have a female head, including Spanish households.

It should have been obvious to you that this data has nothing to do with the number of women in white households, given the numerical value is 546 (as you'll see on page 62, Guadalajara's population was over 30,000). All this data says is that 546 Spanish women were the head of a household in Guadalajara in 1821.

It's pretty clear that you aren't reading these sources properly. You also haven't read the guidelines WP:OR. Please, don't let me have to say it again: you must find sources that explicitly say what you are saying. And when you cite them, give an inline quotation and accurate page numbers. You cannot sift from page to page doing your own original research on the data, either, even if you were properly understanding what the data says. I don't have to tell you what the outcome will be if you continue to lazily re-add the sources to the article without posting verification with quotes at the talk page. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Look, I've never liked long, hard to navigate responses, so instead of arguing semantics or grammatics with you about the cite of a book (and how you are trying to dismss it because an allusion to Mulato women, which were extremely rare to begin with, thus impossible for all White men have married Mulato women as you are trying to imply while you also disregard the statement from page 157, which states that the trend to favor Europeaness was present on all social classes) or trying to make you understand the correlation there's in regards to the number of women of an ethnic group and the number of Female Heads of family per ethnic group (you clearly don't want to) what I'm going to do is to ask you: How can you say that I'm the one not reading sources or that I'm incurring on OR, saying that I fail to present marriage data, number of White women or backup to the claim that not all White mexicans were rich when you ,in your last reply you completely ignored this source [6] on which the marriage data can be found, the authors state marriage trends mirrors the social dynamics observed elsewhere in New Spain (something that the book "Mineros y comenricantes..." also is about) and also states that most Whites in México were not rich? Furthermore if one looks up the marriage statistics it is found that White men were more likely than White women to marry outside of their race but still many did not, so this investigation and the book "Mineros y comerciantes..." confirm each other and refute your far-reaching claim that most White men married other races, with no mention that its somewhat ironical that while you twist a sentence from the book (that likely was about manners and customs) to fit with your disparaging conjectures you simultaneously accuse me of incurring in OR. Also important to consider is that while the pages from the book México Racista are no longer aviable in the preview there are interviews with the author of the book on which its talked about the actual scarcity of marrieges between people of different races/castes [[7]. Other thing I notice is that some things you are today claiming to be "are OR and that you can't verify anywhere" are things that you acknowledged two days ago [8] when you said "The text does mention that many of the immigrants to Mexico were peasants (in Europe)... but only after the 18th century. At face value, this could ostensibly support the statement in the article that many Spanish immigrants to Mexico were not exclusively elite" and don't try to intimidate me using policy, I know policy, I know for example that you are currently, repeatedly violating WP:CONS as you must gain consensus before trying to alter an stable version of an article, specially when it involves removal of several high quality sources. You are also clearly refusing to get the point (WP:LISTEN), because you are now denying things you acknowledge two days ago, and are also deliberately ignoring the sources that clearly, unambigously (and with no possibility of another interpretation, like you do with the books) refute your claims. Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

"... of a book (and how you are trying to dismss it because an allusion to Mulato women, which were extremely rare to begin with, thus impossible..."

It is just what your source says! If you don't like it, find another source. Preferably one that explicitly says most white men married Spanish women, as you are repeatedly trying to add to the article (using sources that say otherwise.) You cannot argue with your own citation while continuing to use it to support your ideas. You have a really hard time restraining yourself from original research.

"...you also disregard the statement from page 157, which states that the trend to favor Europeaness was present on all social classes...")

So what? That doesn't support any of the content you are reverting in the main article. People favor all kinds of things they can't get in life. Call me when you've got a source that says most Spanish men married European women.

"...or trying to make you understand the correlation there's in regards to the number of women of an ethnic group and the number of Female Heads of family per ethnic group.."

There's no correlation at all there, stop doing (faulty) original research. The only thing this correlates with is the number of unmarried women in an ethnic group.

"...in your last reply you completely ignored this source on which the marriage data can be found..."

Actually, I already examined your citation here. It failed to verify. There is nothing jn there that says most Spanish Mexican men married Spanish women.

"...there are interviews with the author of the book on which its talked about the actual scarcity of marrieges between people of different races/castes..."

You haven't posted a single such interview. Your link is a exclamatory blog post in which no one is interviewed. One author you have cited, Federico Navarette, is name dropped, but nowhere does this blog cite anything he has said to verify this. Neither have you.

"...I know policy, I know for example that you are currently, repeatedly violating WP:CONS as you must gain consensus before trying to alter an stable version of an article, specially when it involves removal of several high quality sources..."

Ha! You never had consensus for any of this content in the first place, and your refusal to provide a single quotation for anything you are citing does nothing to build consensus. Furthermore, mulltiple users have repeatedly called you out for the suspiciousness of your edits across multiple talk page discussions, all identifying your tendency to whitewash Mexico and to WP:OWN this article, with the only person coming to your defense being a confirmed sockpuppet. Until you can provide a quotation to support your position that there was little admixture in Mexico's history, you have no consensus. - Hunan201p (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, another editor, @Xuxo:, has also pointed out the dubiousness of the very sources that Pob3qu3 is still trying to use to push his fringe narrative that there was little population admixture in the history of Mexico.

From talk page discussion, archive 6, Xuxo wrote:

"I have checked the sources this user is using, and they do not confirm what he has writen in the article. For example, he wrote "However, according to church and censal registers from the colonial times, the majority (73%) of Spanish men married with Spanish women". But when you check the source, it does not talk about Mexico as a whole, but about a historic sample of 150 people from a small town named Acatzingo (??), something that is far from being representative of the whole Mexico's history."

So people had already voiced the same concerns as me, but Pob3qu3 has continued to try and strong-arm his edits in to the lede, all while refusing to provide a single quotation from any source here at the talk page. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"You never had consensus to begin with" How can you say that when the stable version of the article I've restored is a version by another editor who reverted some random edits? I could link here many instances on which editors other than me have upheld the current version. "your refusal to provide a single quotation for anything you are citing..." I'm going to link this investigation here again [9] because you keep repeating i have no exact citations when this provides all the data you are asking for, you vague obsessions (and Xuxo's) about it being a small town or sample are void when you actually read it on full and find statements from the authors such as marriage registers from this town being consistent with what has observed elsewhere in New Spain, thing that as i explained in my previous reply, the book "Mineros y comerciantes..." also confirms [10] I fail to understand how this alongside the other sources that show how prevalent Whites were in early Mexico/New Spain can not be enough for you or anyone. In regards to your comments respecting the sockpuppet that "supports me" (Php2000) I have to let you know that the reason it is blocked is because I reported it to a SPI, all that sockpuppet did was to make a coment of support in a talk page on a discussion that was already done for, and likely did so to drive away suspiscion of it being a sockpuppet. Do you know who that sockpuppet supported in an actual conflict it was actively involved? Xuxo, Php2000 the now blocked sockpuppet supported Xuxo, here's Xuxo edits[11][12][13] and here is Php2000 edits[14][15]. Both batches of edits are in turn very similar to yours[16][17][18], with no mention that you argue on a very similar manner to Xuxo (something you already acknowledge) down to the point of saying that i have no real concensus. But it doesn't end here, before you, another editor, who goes by the name Tepetzintle stated that a sockpuppet was supporting me [19], the edits and summaries of this account I see[20] are also similar to yours/Xuxo's/Php2000's, care to explain what's going on here? Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Pob3qu3: here's what appears to be going on here: multiple users are removing the content that one editor (Pob3qu3) is trying to force on to article. These editors are giving very similar reasons for removing that content from the article.

What this means is: you don't have consensus for these edits, as most people disagree with you. Thanks for making my case for me.

You seem to be suggesting that I am related to those other editors you mention. I'm not. I have no knowledge of who they are, and have never spoken to them before. If you're implying that I am any of those accounts, the appropriate place to do that is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.

You wrote: "...you keep repeating i have no exact citations when this provides all the data you are asking for, you vague obsessions (and Xuxo's) about it being a small town or sample are void when you actually read it on full and find statements from the authors such as marriage registers from this town being consistent with what has observed elsewhere in New Spain... the book "Mineros y comerciantes..." also confirms [5]"

I see no such statement in the source, and it isn't on the cited page. Tell me exactly what page this is on, give me a quote. So far, when I have translated your sources, they often completely failed to support your edits. So please give me the exact quote where it says this. You have never provided a quote or page number for your claims, neither here nor at the talk page discussion with Xuxo.

The onus is on you to provide accurate citations for your edits. Don't tell us to "just read the sources" when they're in Spanish and the page numbers given don't verify. - Hunan201p (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"Tell me exactly what page this is on" We already talked about this, it's the page 156 where it's stated that Spanish migrants often brought their entire families to New Spain (hence not true that European immigrants were only men) and how the social trend among Europeans was to favor other Europeans for marriage (thing that the investigation on Acatzingo also confirms[21]), don't backtrack. In regards to your claim that "multiple users disagree with me" (which Xuxo also made[22]) I have a hard time believing so, because on their edits all these editors use the same dishonest practice of removing entire paragraphs with multiple sources using their incomformity with only one source as excuse, never adressing why they are removing all the other sources that were in the paragraph to begin with, which is a classic modus operandi of dedicated disruptive editors. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You keep adding the same bullshit to these articles. Your sources DON'T claim what you are saying and your methods are unsound because the census records aren't even as old as you seem to think. Many "mestizos" were considered "white" in local censuses and church records by that point in time. I remember a long thread where I and others had to explain this to you a few years ago. Your edits should frankly be removed because they are unsourced. _ The Mummy. 81.174.147.111 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Mexico Racista verified

Pob3qu3: I have good news. After spending the evening using google books to extract passages from Mexico Racista, I finally found the passages you've been talking about, but wouldn't give a page number for.

Extended content

donde los muy numerosos inmigrantes europeos fueron saludados como los emisarios de la civilización que venían a salvar a la  patria de su destino de barbarie. Sin embargo, en nuestro país fue un rotundo fracaso. En la  práctica, las masas de inmigrantes blancos, industriosos, viriles y  progresistas con que soñaban nuestros indolentes criollos, nimca desembarcaron enVeracruz, pues prefirieron dirigirse a Nueva  York y a Buenos Aires. Para colmo, los pocos alemanes, italianos  y otros europeos que sí llegaron a nuestras costas tampoco se mezclaron en grandes números con la población mexicana, y menos  aún con los indígenas, a quienes se suponía que debían hacer desaparecer con los poderes superiores de su raza. De hecho, fundaron enclaves regionales donde se casaron de manera preferente  entre ellos mismos, como habían hecho tradicionalmente los  criollos y los indígenas. El historiador Moisés González Navarro estudió los censos  de población de fines del siglo xix y principios del siglo xx, que  nos permiten conocer con más exactitud el comportamiento  de la población que en los periodos anteriores. Contrariamente a lo que nos quiere hacer creer la leyenda del mestizaje, encontró  que los matrimonios y las uniones informales entre hombres blancos y mujeres indígenas, o cualquier otra combinación, casi no  existieron.’ Sin embargo, éste es precisamente el periodo en que  más avanzó nuestra supuesta mezcla racial y en el que por primera vez las personas llamadas mestizas se convirtieron en la mayoría de la población. Por todo esto, podemos afirmar que en México la mezcla  entre diferentes razas, o exactamente entre personas de origen Moisés González Navarro, “El mestizaje mexicano en el periodo nacional”, Remsta Mexicana de Sociología, vol. 30, núm. 1,1968, pp. 35-52. americano y europeo, no ha sido tan amplia y tan significati- va como pretende la leyenda del mestizaje. Si bien han ocurrido muchas uniones entre personas de diferente origen, éstas no han sido la regla, ni siquiera la práctica más común o preferida. Sin embargo, la mayoría de los mexicanos nos asumimos mes- tizos y reconocemos en nuestro aspecto físico una combinación de rasgos de origen “europeo” e “indígena”, favoreciendo claramente a los primeros sobre los segundos. Pero ésta es una manera subjetiva de juzgar nuestra identidad, producto de la propia leyenda del mestizaje que nos han enseñado, no necesariamente una realidad biológica. Nuestro sentimiento de ser mestizos también es resultado de un hecho histórico afortunado: desde hace ya dos siglos el Estado mexicano no clasifica a las personas por su supuesta raza, de manera que es casi imposible conocer nuestro origen “racial” con precisión. Sin embargo, cuando consultamos la genealogía, lo que buscamos con mayor énfasis suelen ser nuestras raíces españolas o europeas, y no es extraño que ocultemos o neguemos una posible extracción indígena.

So, Mexico Racista can indeed be used as a source for these entries. It's a revisionist historical approach that doesn't reflect the majority view, but I see no problems with including it now that I can actually verify that it approximates your edits. Please, in the future, seek to provide accurate quotes with page numbers for your citations so we don't have go through these awful and drawn out talk page debacles. Remember that most people here can't read Spanish so it's extremely difficult to comb through sources looking for whatever it is you're thinking about, without even so much as a page number as a target.

I will spend more time this evening formatting the above reference quote and translating it to English that your citations can be updated with inline quotes and new page numbers. All of my concerns about your other citations still stand, especially the interpretation of census data not mentioned by Navarette, which has elements of WP:CALC, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR problems. But none of that matters now because we've already got Mexico Racista in the bag. - Hunan201p (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll monitor this page for the time being, lets see how it goes. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Mineros y Commerciante, David A. Brading, 2015

Okay @Pob3qu3:, now that we have gotten Mexico Racista out of the way, I want to focus on David Brading's Minero y commerciante (2015).

You wrote: We already talked about this, it's the page 156 where it's stated that Spanish migrants often brought their entire families to New Spain (hence not true that European immigrants were only men and how the social trend among Europeans was to favor other Europeans for marriage(thing that the investigation on Acatzingo also confirms[24])

This does not appear to be the case.

Here is page 156, which I provide below in English. Please, tell me where it says Spanish men brought their entire families to Mexico:

Mineros y comerciantes en el México borbónico (1763-1810) by David A. Brading, 2015, page 156:

Extended content

Once he finished his training, his employer, who was very often his uncle or his countryman, made him a partner or, if he set up his own business, provided him with capital and merchandise on credit. The very nature of colonial commerce - its organization into one-man enterprises and its reliance on credit for transactions - gave all its operations a highly personal quality of individual trust. And the peninsular merchant trusted, by order, in his relatives, in his compatriots, in the other peninsular merchants and, in the last place, in the Creoles. Already in the eighteenth century, the attitudes of mutual antipathy and distrust between Criollo and Gachupin had crystallized, which tended to exclude American Spanish from the trade. Second, immigrants had preferential rights in the marriage market. Many successful peninsulars would bring their nephews with them in the hope that they would marry their cousins ​​and thus inherit and continue their uncle's business. Similarly, widows frequently married their late husband's cashier. Creole daughters, driven by the advice and example of their mothers, and by the natural affection they felt for their father, tended to choose men of their own caste as husbands. In addition, the traditional stereotypes of the gachupin's criollo character favored the latter to a great extent. In 1697 Gamelli Carreri observed about Mexican women: "They are greatly affected by Europeans, whom they call gachupines, and with estrus, even if they are very poor, they marry better than with their countrymen called criollos, even if they are rich, the which, because of this, unite with the mulatto women, from whom they have suckled the bad habits together with their milk."62 Be that as it may, the fact is that it seems that an overwhelming number of Creole heiresses gave their hand to peninsular Spaniards. If we pause to ponder that a historian of the English aristocracy declared that during the 16th century great fortunes were amassed through two great systems -- government employment and marriage -- then it is clear that the Creoles' inclination to marry peninsulars partially explains the frequency of the immigrant's economic success.63 Thus, he could continue to increase the capital accumulated by his father-in-law.

I have added emphasis to everything that the author speaks of with regards to family and preference.

• It does not say that these men brought their "entire families" with them. Anywhere. All it speaks of is Spanish men bringing male relatives. It is mentioned that they brought nephews -- that's all. For you to extrapolate that this says they brought "entire families not just men" is simply false. It doesn't say that anywhere.

• It does talk about racial preferences. But it only emphasises the criollo Spanish FEMALE'S preference to marry Spanish gachupin MEN. The author then goes on to describe how, due to this preference for Spanish immigrants, the criollo Spanish men seldom married criollo women, and instead married local mixed race women (probably Mestizos).

Hence, the fact there existed a racial preference for Spaniards in Mexico does nothing to support your contention that "most Spanish men married Spanish women", because this preference actually forced criollo Spaniards to marry women of color. The racial preference for Spanish gachupin men actually promoted caste mixing, according to page 156 of your source.

Again, where in these two sources does it explicitly say that most Spanish men married Spanish women in Mexico? I have yet to see a quote from the analysis of Acatzingo that says that. - Hunan201p (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

When the book talks about "relatives" and "compatriots," these terms include females aswell, if this is not enough, the book also speaks of daughters, widows, mothers and female cousins, all of those are European women. To be frank, through this discussion I've noticed a blatant double standard on your replies and postures: How is it possible that you fail to realize how many mentions to European women there are on these pages, but out of a single mention of "mulato women" you readily assume that all White men married Mulato women? It is also important to remark that the book says "Mulato" women, not "Mestizo" women, to transform said term to "Mestizo" or even "women of color" is another assumption you have no problem on quickly doing. Drop these double standards and you'll see how there's nothing to contest in any source, same thing with the investigation on Acatzingo, that one even gives the percentages of White men that married White women (it's 73% if im not mistaken). Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Pob3qu3: it does mention criollo daughters, and criollo heiresses. And it also mentions that almost all of these females married Spanish immigrant men.

Where your reasoning gets twisted is when you assume that this also means that most Spanish males also married Spanish females. In fact, the book implies that most of the Spanish criollo men married colored women, with a direct quote from Gamelli Carreri ca. 1697, in which he wrote that they united "with mulatto women".

You wrote that I transformed the word "mulatto" from Gamelli Carreri to "Mestizo". Well, I was actually only offering that to you as a suggestion. Brading writes that this marriage preference extended to "all levels of Hispanic society in the New World"[23].

If indeed this marriage preference led criollo women to "overwhelmingly" marry Spanish immigrant men, as David Brading implies, then it's no leap of faith to assume that criollo men also married Mestizas.

But forget it. Just forget that I suggested this. Nothing on page 156 says that most Spanish men married Spanish women. It says most Spanish women married Spanish immigrant men. It describes all Spanish immigrants as male, and women only as criollos. This implies mostly male immigration to Spain, and that Spanish men mostly married Spanish women.

In fact, on page 5 of this book, David Brading describes in clear detail the "Mestizo future" in which Mexico's future lay:[24]

"The Indians who opted permanently to join the Spanish economy -- in the town, hacienda, or mining camp -- slowly became hispanized in dress, custom and language. Their daughters slept with, or married, the mestizo or mulatto hired hands, the negro slaves, and the Spanish overseers. Their descendants formed part of that Mestizo class in which lay Mexico's future. But the present, numerically speaking, still belonged to the Indian who remained in his village and who, often despite excesive labor demnds, cultivated his own property."

David Brading's book is clearly not an anti-Mestizaje source. Again, where in any of these sources does it say that most Spanish men married Spanish women? You already have a good source that argues this (Mexico Racista, Federico Navarette) so why are you still clinging to these sources? Please show me where Brading or the Acatzingo data says most Spanish men married Spanish women, and that this was normal in New Spain. Please give me the page number. I've been asking for a page number for days and haven't received one. - Hunan201p (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

These daughters you mention had European mothers and female relatives who travelled from Europe, to conclude this is not even a "leap of faith" its something obvious. Similarly, its indeed true, as the book says, that White men would marry outside of their races more often than White women did, but as I said days ago, we know thanks to marriage registers (that the book Mexico Racista backs up) that the majority did not. In regards to the quote you bring about a "mestizo future" similarly to the "Mulato women" quote, it is quite metaphorical, this is, it shouldn't be taken literally (also besides mentioning men of various races, "Spanish overseers" are mentioned right there aswell). You say so why are you still clinging to these sources? I do because all the sources are important and serve a purpose through the article, something that may have escaped from you in the midst of this discussion is that the main statement this book is supporting is not even that of marriage albeit it does work for that, I brought it mainly to backup the statement within the article that states it's false that only men migrated to New Spain. Finally, Its going to be hard to give you a page on the Acatzingo investigation, because it's not divided on pages, its a single web page which is rather long (top-down wise) [25] which is good news for you because you can run an automatic translator on it. See how you haven’t bothered to look up the sources you were trying to remove? Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Pob3qu3: You wrote: These daughters you mention had European mothers and female relatives who travelled from Europe, to conclude this is not even a "leap of faith" its something obvious.

No it isn't. That's an enormous leap of faith and blatantly not allowed on Wikipedia. You cannot extrapolate the assumption that immigration to Mexico was not heavily male, against the academic consensus, based on the source content we're discussing. That is original research.

You wrote: but as I said days ago, we know thanks to marriage registers (that the book Mexico Racista backs up) that the majority did not

No, we do not know that. We know that one researcher has promoted this view, and I'm perfectly fine with including his position. However, his is not the academic consensus. And some of your census register analyses do say that there was widespread intermarriage between Spaniards and the Indigenous, as does this very quote which you cannot describe as "metaphorical" in any way:

"The Indians who opted permanently to join the Spanish economy -- in the town, hacienda, or mining camp -- slowly became hispanized in dress, custom and language. Their daughters slept with, or married, the mestizo or mulatto hired hands, the negro slaves, and the Spanish overseers. Their descendants formed part of that Mestizo class in which lay Mexico's future."

It is very clear this source does not support your anti-Mestizaje edits. It acknowledges, like most mainstream sources, that there was rampant mixing of castes in Mexico.

I have read and analyzed your Acatzingo source. It does nothing to support your claims about Spanish eliteness or mesfizaje, and directly contradicts you. See here.

I am still waiting for a quotation or page number from any of these sources. It's been several days of you vehemently defending these sources but refusing to give a quote or even a page number that supports your edits. This is extremely tendentious behavior. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep asking for a page number on a source that is not divided on pages? and I honestly mean it, why? Anyway looking at the section you created here [26] seems like you finally opened the source and verified that what I was telling has always been there. Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Census registers question narrative of elite Spaniards and male migration bias? Says who?

@Pob3qu3:

This is taken from the lede:

"Said registers also put in question other narratives held by contemporary academics, such as European immigrants who arrived to Mexico being almost exclusively men or that "pure Spanish" people were all part of a small powerful elite, as Spaniards were often the most numerous ethnic group in the colonial cities[24][25] and there were menial workers and people in poverty who were of complete Spanish origin.[23]"

OK, I'm going to call it as I see it. This looks like purely original resarch and WP:SYNTH to me.

• I'm seeing nothing, absolutely nothing, in Cook and Borah (1998)24 that questions any narrative. It's just raw census data without any commentary about these subjects. The pages immediately before and after page 223 do not appear to say anything about the eliteness or the sex bias in the migrants, either.

• I am also not seeing anything in M.L. Hardin's analysis of Guadalajara's census data which questions the narrative of male sex bias in immigration, or the eliteness of Spaniards.25 This documdent is in English, so I can say with near 100% certainty that this content isn't in here, having read it for days.

• Now, as for Ser mestizo en la nueva España el fines del siglo XVIII. This one is a real doozy. It does not appear to say anything about the sex bias in immigration. And, not only that, it actually says that white Spaniards were a racial elite, and that there was rampant admixture in Mexico, even going so far as to say that it was "impossible" to keep Spaniards from mixing with Native Americans. However he does note that the social status of Mestizos and Castizos did improve throughout Mexican history.

What was it like to be 'mestizo' in New Spain at the end of the 18th century? The term contains a clear connotation of contempt for what in the official conception of a Spanish-colonial caste model (as a non-mixed group) refers, etymologically, to the notion of 'mixed', equivalent to 'not clean'. And this is precisely what shows that in practice it was impossible to keep separate, both from marriage and from contact (although much more serious limitations persisted in terms of the division of labor and in the hierarchical order), the Spanish group of the indigenous groups. . However, by the end of the 18th century the position of castizos and mestizos had improved

What this source does support is the statement that there were menial laborers who were Spaniards. But directly contradicts the the preceding references which are (misleadingly) cited for fhe statements casting doubt on the eliteness of the Spaniards in Mexico. It's clear that the editor responsible for this entry is making WP:SYNTH edits using sources that don't support, and even contradict their Wiki contributions. Furthermore, the overwhelming consensus is that immigration to Mexico was heavily male and that Spaniards formed an elite within the country. To lend this much weight to a WP:FRINGE perspective that doesn't find support from its own citations. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Besides you complaining about sources being insufficient without reading them first, Im noticng that you are searching the wrong information in the wrong sources "I'm seeing nothing, absolutely nothing, in Cook and Borah (1998)24 that questions any narrative. It's just raw census data without any commentary about these subjects." "Cook and Borah" is there not to support the claim about the social class of Whites in New Spain, but to back up the claim that Europeans/Spanish were often the most numerous ethnic group in colonial cities (this is the main purpose of M.L. Hardin's book aswell), the source that supports the claim (directly) that not all White people were part of an economic elite in New Spain is the investigation of Acatzingo, whose content you finally acknowledge on your reply above, so this controversy regarding wheter all Whites were part of an elite or not has to be put to rest now before we move on to the next topic (the book "Mineros y Comerciantes..." also talks about how Spaniards, specially those who newly arrived, had menial works and even were poor, but for some reason you refuse to acknowledge this, just like you refuse to acknowledge that there have to be White women in those cities were Whites were the majority in order for said group to be able to reach such high numbers).

Another issue I see you've had throughout this discussion is that you are very quick to say that there's contradictions and that one statement must totally overide another, outright saying that the sources contradict themselves (as you did with the Acatzingo investigation in your last reply) but that is not true at all, different narratives do coexists and complement eachother, for example about the Acatzingo study (that you finally read) you are saying the study says that was impossible to keep Spaniards from mixing which is indeed true, in fact the investigation shows that 26% of Spanish men did mix, but those are still not the majority, the other 73% of Spanish men, this is most of them, did marriy White women (this again, proves that there have to be a sizeable amount of White women so 73% of spanish men could marry with them), thus both narratives (that Spanish mixed and that the majority of Spanish did not mix) are equally true and its wrong to try to exclude one for the other. In regards to your claim of Navarrete being just one fringe author this is not true at all, firstly he quotes another author who reviewed all extant or at least most marriage registers aviable from the era (multiply Acatzing registers ad infinitum) which is something that no academic (or geneticist, as I see you are now bringing up statements made by geneticsts in some cases from as far back as 1997) did until very recently. For the most part academics before Navarrete were stuck with the unchallenged narrative of the mestizaje, which why statements such as "Spanish men married native American women" were so common. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

You wrote: "Mineros y Comerciantes..." also talks about how Spaniards, specially those who newly arrived, had menial works and even were poor, but for some reason you refuse to acknowledge this,

That's not what I'm asking about, and I'm not refusing to acknowledge this. The issue of whether Spaniards were poor or not isn't what I'm concerned about. All I'm asking is: where does this source question that most immigrants to Spain were male? It doesn't seem to say anywhere that the results for Acatzingo are typical of Mexico as a whole. David Brading and other scholars seem to think that Spanish females were extremely rare in Mexico in the 1790s:[27]

Charles Nunn has estimated that at most some 15 percent of the peninsular immigrants in the early eighteenth century were women, while David Brading has calculated that 4 percent of the peninsulares (excluding male clergy) residing in New Spain in the 1790s were female.

You wrote: "but for some reason you refuse to acknowledge this, just like you refuse to acknowledge that there have to be White women in those cities were Whites were the majority in order for said group to be able to reach such high numbers)."

That's not true, that's your assumption. It may be true, or the city may have experienced a large influx of Spanish maoe migrants. Where does it explicitly say that, and if it does, where does it say this town is typical of Mexico as a whole?

You wrote: Navarrete being just one fringe author this is not true at all, firstly he quotes another author who reviewed all extant or at least most marriage registers aviable from the era ... as I see you are now bringing up statements made by geneticsts in some cases from as far back as 1997) ... For the most part academics before Navarrete were stuck with the unchallenged narrative of the mestizaje, which why statements such as "Spanish men married native American women" were so common.

They're still extremely common. The sources I posted span from 1997-2021. So the genetic evidence has been reaffirming itself for quarter of a century, and historians continue to generally characterize Mexico's population structure this way. You'll be hard pressed to find mainstream scholars denying that Mexico is largely mixed, and that the mixing was largely asymmetrical. How many times has Manuel Gonzalez been cited? Just because Federico Navarrete cited him doesn't make the theory less fringe. This is not a commonly held opinion among scholars, and even Navarrete frames himself as rogue historian, competing against the prevailing consensus about Mestizaje. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not what I'm asking about, and I'm not refusing to acknowledge this. The issue of whether Spaniards were poor or not isn't what I'm concerned about Well, for the last days undeniably were asking for confirmation about not all Spaniards being elite, so I suppose by now this issue is completely seetled isn't it?

All I'm asking is: where does this source question that most immigrants to Spain were male(you probably meant "female" here? This seems to be the core of the argument, as its proven to be particularly difficult to find a source that exactly tells us how many European women migrated to Mexico. But what we know for sure is that academics who have looked up marriage statistics always find that most White men married White women, and these women should have come from somewhere (The Cook and Bora book also state this in the page 252 [28], when it says that all the ethnic groups married more often with people of their own race than with people of another race), but I think that to cling on this part of the discussion is npointless and a non-issue: The lead sentence in the article reads Said registers also put in question other narratives held by contemporary academics, such as European immigrants who arrived to Mexico being almost exclusively men... here we see, the current sentence does not attemp to make a judgement on how many women migrated to New Spain, it just says they did, and we might not agree in the number but we agree that indeed there were women who did, so either way said sentence doesn't need to change. Finally, that claims such as “Mexicans are the product of Spanish men marrying Native women” were common (and still appear from time to time) does not mean they’re right, as we’ve seen through this discussion, no author who has reviewed the extant census data from New Spain’s or early independent Mexico thinks this. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Wrong colours and wrong data

Dear @PedroLumiia: The colors that you represent in the graph Mexican Population by Skin Tone 2017, INEGI do not correspond to the colors used in the survey that you put as references Módulo de Movilidad Social Intergeneracional 2016. In the same survey there are 11 color shades and you only use 5 shades. The graph is removed until you do not use the colors and the totality of colors used. --Kodosbs (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)