Talk:White Mexicans

"Belarusians in Mexico" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Belarusians in Mexico has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 5 § Ethnic group redirects until a consensus is reached. Place Clichy (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

"Belarusians in Mexico" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Belarusians in Mexico has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12 § Ethnic group redirects: Mexico until a consensus is reached. Place Clichy (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Reverting updated data with sources

How come my edits with links/sources and updated information have been reverted at the article White Mexicans?? There is nothing wrong with the information and it is used elsewhere in the article. Also, you are using the old data tab (year 2000) at Encyclopedia Britannica, rather than the updated tab from 2012. I also don’t know why I’m being called a sock poppet, this is open to anyone trying to make the articles better, isn’t it??? ~2026-34476-64 (talk 17:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. @Xuxo's reverts may have been too broad. It looks like the reverts may have unintentionally restored some unsourced material when trying to address the more problematic edits. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. It’s obvious they are standing in the way of Mexico having its rightful numbers because of personal issues. Can you tell me which of the edits are problematic? I’d like to be able to put back what has been taken out, which are not problematic. Thank you for your time. ~2026-34476-64 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

IP user looks like a sockpoppet of user Pob3qu3. Why? Tring to inflate the number of Whites in Mexico. Pob3qu3 is currently blocked from posting on this page. Grayfell, come over. Xuxo (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Sock concerns look plausible to me, but I dunno yet. Regardless, conflating skin color with ethnic identity isn't going to work. As one obvious example, it's perfectly possible to be "light-skinned" while not being "white" as an ethnicity. To avoid legitimizing scientific racism, the article needs to stick closely to what reliable sources actually say, not just what they imply based on simplistic assumptions. Grayfell (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't think that revert was too broad. It looks good to me. The article remains a mess, so more work is needed. Grayfell (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

How would I be able to “inflate” anything if I’m just going by what the sources say??? Why would I even need to inflate the White population in Mexico??? It’s obvious if you have ever been to Mexico that half of its roots are European. I don’t see a reason to inflate any groups numbers, the sources themselves say what they say. If anything, Grayfell and others are trying to minimize Mexico’s White population. They already took out the numbers on Mexico in the main White Latin Americans article. For some reason the large White population in Mexico is somehow threatening to them, it’s odd. I notice those who shout the loudest on this are South Americans trying to make themselves look whiter. Xuxo seems to “specialize” in South American racial politics and edits about White Brazilians. Now I understand more also. Also, Grayfell is connected to New Mexico, and they have a large anti-Mexican sentiment there even though all of their founding families were from the kingdoms which make up Mexico today. ~2026-34476-64 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

As I said, conflating skin color with ethnic identity isn't going to work. If you want to discuss what the sources say, I guess we can discuss those sources again, but none of them are so foolish as to try and use skin color as a simple proxy for European ancestry, and none of them treat European ancestry as a pass/fail test of ethnicity. If you want to talk about how many White people are in Mexico, you need sources which discuss exactly that.

Spinning theories about the motives of individual editors is a pretty quick way to make sure everybody stops paying attention to you, It's also a good way to get blocked outright. Grayfell (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

There are two of you literally trying to peg a random stranger as a “sock puppet” and you don’t want ME to spin theories about users??? Please take your own advice. Also, in the beginning of the article, you all literally state that the Mexican government only publishes information on skin color, so how is putting in anything about that published data not “going to work”?? Don’t mention it if you don’t want someone to put information about it in. No one is claiming anything but the skin data which is already being mentioned. And anyway, Encyclopedia Britannica says that MOST or “a significant component” of the 31% (shown in the 2012 Tab of the pie chart) is of only EUROPEAN EXTRACTION aka White, so that is also pretty cut and dry. However you all deleted it. ~2026-34476-64 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

As has already been discussed many, many, many times, the Britannica source doesn't say that, and it's not "cut and dry". "Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population." "Significant" could mean many things here. This statement is compatible with the 15% statistic from 2000, which is still in that article as of 2026. We need to stick to what sources say directly, not what they imply. It doesn't matter how obvious it might seem, we still need sources to spell it out for us. That's what WP:NOR is about. Grayfell (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It DOES indeed say what I said it says. That pie chart only has THREE parts, all of which are explicitly talked about in the paragraph on race/ethnicity for Mexicans in the Encyclopedia Britannica. First is the “Indigenous Amerindian Indians (Amerindians)”, then the Mestizos are mentioned, and finally the “Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the **other** ethnic groups (31%) who constitute the remainder of the population”… And there are only THREE corresponding pie pieces!! Your links clearly shows it. And there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with including this information with the other information. This is not difficult. And this is as close to an actual amount as that source gives, WHICH also matches the Mexican government’s own skin color findings. ~2026-34476-64

All of that about matching the skin color findings is WP:SYNTH. Skin color is not a valid proxy for race or ethnicity. Being a "significant component" is far too vague. Article's shouldn't use vague sources to hint at conclusions. That is inappropriate for multiple reasons. Grayfell (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell that the article should stay focused on the topic and needs cleanup. I can add some tags in areas which need some improvement. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that clean up is necessary, but I see no issues including the information I included and I am going to put them all back, except for the skin tone data which needs to be re worded. I appreciate your willingness to work on this and not just mass delete perfectly good **updated** information and their sources like others are doing. ~2026-34476-64 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking of trimming the European migration history section because it mostly discusses European immigration to Mexico rather than the history of White Mexicans as a racial category or identity. Anyone have any thoughts? ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, definitely makes sense to have a small section on European immigration to Mexico in the introduction or body of the article, but it can definitely be weeded out. It can begin with information on the immigration and maybe original censuses of the Spanish Crown in the different regions since the 16th century. ~2026-34476-64 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Hm, I’m not sure the immigration material is needed here either. The history section should focus on the classification and identity of White Mexicans, rather than general European immigration to Mexico. For example, White Americans discusses early usage of the classification, not immigration. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The article's history is confusing, but it might explain things a bit. I think in 2011, it was renamed to Mexicans of European descent, and with Talk:White Mexicans/Archive 5#Requested move 25 October 2017 it was renamed back to White Mexicans.

This was just WP:SYNTH based on "obvious" assumptions about race and ethnicity. For various reasons, sources are reluctant to even attempt to define the term "white Mexican" so figuring out how much context on European migration to include becomes subjective.

But yes, I support trimming the article. Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2026 (UTC)