Talk:White Mexicans/Archive 9
Latest comment: 6 months ago by Pob3qu3 in topic Infobox image
 | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Data about 47% - 49% percentage of "light-skinned Mexicans"
Dear @Pob3qu3: I would be grateful if you could tell me exactly where in the documents you share as a reference that 47% -49% of Mexicans are light-skinned.--Kodosbs (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
47% reference
I read the entire a Encuesta Nacional sobre Discriminación en México 2010 document and nowhere does it mention that 47% of Mexicans are light-skinned.
Please explain me clearly where you get the 47% as a reference, indicating page and textually where they say it. If in one week there is no conclusive answer, the text will be modified as it is.--Kodosbs (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's here in the page 7 [1]
- Dear @Pob3qu3:, I appreciate that all your comments are signed according to Wikipedia conventions. Second on page 7 nowhere does it say 47%. Do we agree on that to continue the conversation?--Kodosbs (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure what do you mean, in the page 7, middle paragraph on the right it is stated that 54% of women and 40% of men self-identified with the lightest skin tones, that leads to a 47% for all. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dear @Pob3qu3, Although you yourself are indirectly saying so, I appreciate you confirming that nowhere on the page you shared with me does it say 47%. There are two flaws in your concept, first it is not true that the publication says 47% and second you yourself assume a simple rule of 50-50% to assign yourself the % between men and women. Do we agree on that to continue the conversation? Kodosbs (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am getting somewhat confused with the way you are conducting yourself in this discussion, is there a particular reason for which you are not able to do simple mathematical tasks such as getting the average between the numbers 40 and 54? Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dear @Pob3qu3:,
- I carefully reviewed the document, specifically page 7. Textually said: ... La mayoría de las mujeres mexicanas(54%) tienden a decir de sí mismas que tienen tonos de piel más bien claros; esto comparado con un 40% de hombres que respondió lo mismo. Puede ser que esto quiera decir que a las mujeres de nuestro país –influenciadas por una publicidad francamente racista en los medios de comunicación y por los prejuicios que México aún arrastra contra la tez morena ... the Translation to English ... The majority of Mexican women (54%) tend to say of themselves that they have rather light skin tones; this compares with 40% of men compared to 40% of men who responded responded the same. It may be that this may mean that women in our country -influenced by influenced by frankly racist media publicity and the media and by the prejudices that Mexico still harbors against dark complexions, women in our country -influenced by frankly racist advertising in the media and by the prejudices that Mexico still harbors against dark complexions ... I have noted your utilization of a straightforward 50-50 rule for population allocation. However, my concern lies in the assertion that 47% of the population is categorized as light-skinned. It is imperative to clarify that the reference explicitly delineates these figures as proportions of individuals selecting the lightest skin tones, which differs from categorizing them as inherently light-skinned. Furthermore, designating this reference as the upper limit for white Mexicans appears incongruous.
- I am getting somewhat confused with the way you are conducting yourself in this discussion, is there a particular reason for which you are not able to do simple mathematical tasks such as getting the average between the numbers 40 and 54? Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dear @Pob3qu3, Although you yourself are indirectly saying so, I appreciate you confirming that nowhere on the page you shared with me does it say 47%. There are two flaws in your concept, first it is not true that the publication says 47% and second you yourself assume a simple rule of 50-50% to assign yourself the % between men and women. Do we agree on that to continue the conversation? Kodosbs (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure what do you mean, in the page 7, middle paragraph on the right it is stated that 54% of women and 40% of men self-identified with the lightest skin tones, that leads to a 47% for all. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is essential to emphasize that the document refrains from explicitly stating that 47% of Mexicans possess light skin; rather, it signifies their choice of the (3 http://www.conapred.org.mx/userfiles/files/Enadis-2010-RG-Accss-002.pdf see pages 40 and 41) lightest skin tones. The calculation you mentioned represents a mathematical mean derived from these percentages, yet it may not faithfully encapsulate the dataset. Furthermore, asserting a strict 50-50 gender distribution in any given country may require further verification.
- Moreover, the document does not posit that individuals identifying with lighter skin tones are necessarily synonymous with 'white' Mexicans. Precise terminology is paramount, and it is unwise to infer ethnicity based solely on skin tone. Light-skinnedness should not be conflated with European ethnicity or 'whiteness.'
- In order to preserve precision and objectivity within the article, instead, I propose to indicate exactly the proportion of women and men who identify themselves with the 3 lightest colors of a scale of 9 colors, but not to indicate that 47% are light-skinned, which is not correct, and therefore modify the 47% ceiling of white Mexicans that appears in the article. If there exist alternative pertinent statistics or information within the document that merits inclusion, I welcome your input for further discussion I also appreciate any comments from @Clear Looking Glass: , @Vipz:, , @Gcjnst:, , @Xuxo:, , @Yesthatbruce:.
- Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to resolving this matter amicably.
- Best regards Kodosbs (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding your complaint about using a 50-50 mean, there are slightly more women than men in Mexico, so we can adjust to that but it would increase the percentage to 48%, do you actually want that? I also notice that when this discussion started, you were complaining about the percentages of light skin and where did they come from and now that your doubts have been settled you are asking "Why light skin is synonymous with white" (which I address more carefully on my reply below) when that wasn't your original inquiry, why is that? Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Dear Pob3qu3,
- I appreciate your engagement with the points raised in my previous messages. To synthesize our discussion and provide a comprehensive response, I propose the following:
- Firstly, it would be advantageous to specify the proportions of women and men who have chosen the three lightest shades from a nine-color skin tone scale. Additionally, incorporating a reference to the global percentage of the Mexican population can offer readers a broader context to better understand the significance of these proportions. I will tomorrow send a proposal. your mention of adjusting the percentage to 48% does not reflect my primary concern. I prioritize the accuracy of the data derived from the source material. If the source indeed supports a 48% figure, it should be represented faithfully. My goal is to maintain fidelity to the source and avoid any misinterpretation. Then stay tuned to my new sentence proposal.
- Regarding the shift in focus from the original inquiry, I want to clarify that my intent is not to divert from the initial topic. Rather, it is to ensure a meticulous and accurate discussion. The question of why light skin is sometimes equated with being "white" is certainly relevant, but it merits a separate and more in-depth exploration, and that´s I will open a new dialogue about it.
- Kodosbs (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- You are simply refusing to get the point: You acknowledge that the document mentions the figures 40% and 54% yet base your entire argument on refusing to get the average of these two numbers, because of this now you've shifted your focus on "Why having light skin is being equated with being White" pretending that I haven't addressed that point multiple times in the subsection you opened below, in fact, yesterday I put several sources together in a single reply (and gave you a page number [2]). Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Dear @Pob3qu3, according to what I told you before, I propose you to update the reference as follows.
- "Data from the 2010 INEGI publication reveals that 47.2%[1][2] of respondents (the operation is =(0.514*54)+(40*0.486) and rounded decimals, the values are on page 8 of the 2020 census document Principales resultados del Censo de Población y Vivienda 2020. México (inegi.org.mx).) selected the three lightest shades out of nine options. This preference was delineated as 54% among women and 40% among men. The notable gender-based discrepancy of over 14 percentage points invites scrutiny, potentially attributable to the influence of racially biased media advertising and deep-seated societal prejudices against darker complexions[3]."
- Let me know if you agree.
- Note: I've noticed that our conversation may have taken a somewhat personal turn, and I believe it's essential to maintain a respectful and constructive discourse. I appreciate it when our focus remains on the arguments and references rather than questioning each other's behavior.
- One critical aspect we need to address is the sharing of specific references. It would greatly enhance the clarity and depth of our discussion.
- While I understand your point about calculating the average of the figures 40% and 54%, my primary objective has consistently been to gain a precise understanding of the data and its implications. This is why I now agree to share a global percentage, as you suggested. In a similar vein, I believe it's crucial that you acknowledge the distinction between people choosing to be light-skinned and choosing the three lightest tones. My current primary concern is that we establish agreement on this distinction.
- Given your concern about the direction of our conversation, I propose that we organize our discussion around three key topics:
- Proposing the Removal of the 47% Reference as the Maximum Representation of White Mexicans: I apologize if I gave the impression of initiating a discussion about the equivalence of being white and being light-skinned. To move forward, it's essential to first clarify the topic of the 47% reference. Selecting the three lightest skin tones on a scale of nine tones is distinct from claiming that people identify as light-skinned.
- Once this clarification is made, it's important to follow a precise approach, similar to the practice in the United States. There, the population identifying as white plus another ethnicity isn't simply added to the total of whites. To enhance clarity, a supplementary reference could explain the proportion of individuals identifying as light-skinned. This approach allows readers, whether from Latin America, Europe, Australia, or elsewhere, to accurately interpret the data without implying automatic inclusion in the white population.
- 47% Reference: The primary objective in this section is to clarify that selecting the three lightest skin tones is not equivalent to being light-skinned.
- 49% Reference: Our goal here is to ascertain the origin and relevance of the 49% reference.
- I will need at least five days to address your response to the topic "Proposing the Removal of the 47% Reference as the Maximum Representation of White Mexicans" and the "49% Reference" Also I will review the "in fact, yesterday I put several sources together in a single reply (and gave you a page number [2]" commentary. I also appreciate any comments from @Clepsydrae: , @Linda Keita:, , @EvergreenFir:, , @Xuxo:, @Icemoon2k:, @Work permit:, @Sangdeboeuf: Thanks Kodosbs (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- The first part of your response is a non-issue, multiple times across the article is mentioned that the 47% figure is based on phenotype, in the section of "Distribution and estimates, the percentage of men and women who choose light skin tones is also mentioned. You also say that an approach similar to the United States has to be followed as on it "the population identifying as white plus another ethnicity isn't simply added to the total of whites" but I looked up the article White Americans and it does. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Dear @Pob3qu3, there should be no further discussion here. The figure of 47% of the white population is not correct because the source says that this proportion chose the 3 lighter colors out of 9, in the same way the article could have said that 60% chose the 4 lighter colors, or that 85% chose the 6 lighter colors. That would make 85% of the Mexicans white then?. Unfortunately, and in spite of the fact that I was as understanding and open to dialogue with you as possible, the answers I received are with texts that are not concrete and give rise to discussion, besides overwhelming me with a lot of texts and without exact pages. Unfortunately and although I do not want to get personal, I perceive a manipulation of figures to increase the number of white people. I understand that in Mexico, the European component is primordial in the mestizaje, and that would make that, without having proof, one could speak of 80% of Mexicans of European descent, but that does not make all white. Following your logic, then all the figures for Latin America are wrong and should be modified. I think the best thing to do here is to discuss the modifications to the article. Finally, In this article, and as it happens in all other countries, the figures should say exactly the number of people who declare themselves as white, and those should be the figures that appear as references, not with manipulations of figures that may give rise to doubts, and unfortunately the article seems to be plagued with inaccuracies and accommodation of words to add the largest number of people who declare themselves as white. Kodosbs (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC) @Xuxo: @Hunan201p:
- An explanation for the doubts in the first part of your argument has been given before (two times to be exact), but here it is again: the reason for which "the three lightest shades" are chosen instead of "four" or "five" is found in other documents such as [3](in the last quarter of the document you can see how skin color are sorted on different groups) or [4] on which, in the page seven you can see that skin tones organically group together, this is the closest one can get to a blind analyzis and as an special bonus for you in the page 2 this document uses the term White so you cannot use your erratic argument that "when skin color is surveyed in Mexico it is not being talked about race" aswell. Sources such as [5][6][7] also retake the results of these surveys, so as you can see the treshold the government uses is not random, there is a reason why it is being done this way and common sense has much to do with it (and as another bonus, the use of said criteria is recommended by institutions such as the University of Princeton [8]). You also say in your recent summaries, and throughout this discusion that instead of the 47% figure, it has to be stated that 40% of men and 54% of women choose the lightest shades, I think you are making this to be a much bigger deal than it is, considering that the 49% figure exists and is more solidly supported (I notice you removed it accidentally in your last edits so I'm restoring it and turning it in the main one for the time being). Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Dear @Pob3qu3, there should be no further discussion here. The figure of 47% of the white population is not correct because the source says that this proportion chose the 3 lighter colors out of 9, in the same way the article could have said that 60% chose the 4 lighter colors, or that 85% chose the 6 lighter colors. That would make 85% of the Mexicans white then?. Unfortunately, and in spite of the fact that I was as understanding and open to dialogue with you as possible, the answers I received are with texts that are not concrete and give rise to discussion, besides overwhelming me with a lot of texts and without exact pages. Unfortunately and although I do not want to get personal, I perceive a manipulation of figures to increase the number of white people. I understand that in Mexico, the European component is primordial in the mestizaje, and that would make that, without having proof, one could speak of 80% of Mexicans of European descent, but that does not make all white. Following your logic, then all the figures for Latin America are wrong and should be modified. I think the best thing to do here is to discuss the modifications to the article. Finally, In this article, and as it happens in all other countries, the figures should say exactly the number of people who declare themselves as white, and those should be the figures that appear as references, not with manipulations of figures that may give rise to doubts, and unfortunately the article seems to be plagued with inaccuracies and accommodation of words to add the largest number of people who declare themselves as white. Kodosbs (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC) @Xuxo: @Hunan201p:
- The first part of your response is a non-issue, multiple times across the article is mentioned that the 47% figure is based on phenotype, in the section of "Distribution and estimates, the percentage of men and women who choose light skin tones is also mentioned. You also say that an approach similar to the United States has to be followed as on it "the population identifying as white plus another ethnicity isn't simply added to the total of whites" but I looked up the article White Americans and it does. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- You are simply refusing to get the point: You acknowledge that the document mentions the figures 40% and 54% yet base your entire argument on refusing to get the average of these two numbers, because of this now you've shifted your focus on "Why having light skin is being equated with being White" pretending that I haven't addressed that point multiple times in the subsection you opened below, in fact, yesterday I put several sources together in a single reply (and gave you a page number [2]). Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding your complaint about using a 50-50 mean, there are slightly more women than men in Mexico, so we can adjust to that but it would increase the percentage to 48%, do you actually want that? I also notice that when this discussion started, you were complaining about the percentages of light skin and where did they come from and now that your doubts have been settled you are asking "Why light skin is synonymous with white" (which I address more carefully on my reply below) when that wasn't your original inquiry, why is that? Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
49% reference
I read the entire Módulo de Movilidad Social Intergeneracional 2016 document and nowhere does it mention that 49% of Mexicans are light-skinned.--Kodosbs (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Please explain me clearly where you get the 49% as a reference, indicating page and textually where they say it. If in one week there is no conclusive answer, the text will be modified as it is.--Kodosbs (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's here in the page 7 [9], in regards to your second inquiry, that source shows how many Mexicans identified with every skin tone but that's about it, other sources, such as [10] are the ones on which it's shown how the government splits Mexicans on different groups depending of their skin color, have a nice day. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Light-skin is not the same as being "white". These sources are being manipulated. Xuxo (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dear @Pob3qu3:, I appreciate that all your comments are signed according to Wikipedia conventions. Second, the two links you shared with me do not correspond to the link that accompanies the 49% reference ([16]). Do we agree on that to continue the conversation? Kodosbs (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well for starters that's not the source for the 49% percentage but sources like this ones [17][18] one is the percentage of mexicans that identified witheach skin color, the other tells you how many White Mexicans there are in the country. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dear @Pob3qu3, I appreciate that in order to have a more assertive conversation, let's gradually clarify basic concepts and doubts that I have, before sending me links that I did not ask for. The positive thing about your answer is that you yourself agree that the Módulo de Movilidad Social Intergeneracional 2016 is not the source of the 49%. In that sense the link that currently appears on the page is erroneous. Do we agree on that to continue the conversation? Kodosbs (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a particular reason for which you are unable to add up the number of people that identified with tones "H" to "K" and then obtain the percentage out of the total? is not really a difficult thing to do, In fact you don't even need to convert to percentages, as the resulting number from adding up the tones from "H" to "K" is almost half of the total. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dear @Pob3qu3, I don't understand why I have to add from the "h" to the "k" tone, explain me why I have to do that? . Besides, I´m asking if you agreed or not that the reference mentioned do not said anything about the 49% people being light skin Kodosbs (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- You have to add these tones because that's the standard the Mexican government uses[19][20][21][22][23] this is because when you illustrate the results on graphs such as the one in the page 7 of this document, the colors H to K consistently group together [24] which indicates the prescence of a well delineated ethnic group, any other assortment of skin tones would produce inconsistences and lead to problems such as the invisibilization of social disadvanteges groups such as Mestizos or Indigenous peoples face. Other institutions such as the Princeton University use said standard aswell[25] (I mention to them because I heard you were saying that I have no academic back up). Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Dear @Pob3qu3 . I wanted to express my appreciation for taking the time to send me the various documents for review. Having access to references is crucial for a thorough review, and I value your effort in providing them.
- However, I'd like to suggest a small adjustment for future reference requests. I understand that gathering and sharing information can be time-consuming, and given that our time is limited, it would be incredibly helpful if, when you send documents, you could also include the exact page numbers and specific phrases where the relevant information can be found.
- By providing this additional detail, it will make the review process more efficient and effective. It ensures that I can locate the pertinent information quickly, which in turn allows me to provide you with more prompt and precise feedback. This way, we can respect each other's time and work together more effectively.
- I will certainly will review the references you've sent this time. I'd like to stress the importance of time and respect in our collaboration. Moving forward, I kindly request that references be provided with specific page and text information. This will help streamline our work, and I believe it will be the last time I need to make such a request. Please stay tuned for my review of your references.
- You have to add these tones because that's the standard the Mexican government uses[19][20][21][22][23] this is because when you illustrate the results on graphs such as the one in the page 7 of this document, the colors H to K consistently group together [24] which indicates the prescence of a well delineated ethnic group, any other assortment of skin tones would produce inconsistences and lead to problems such as the invisibilization of social disadvanteges groups such as Mestizos or Indigenous peoples face. Other institutions such as the Princeton University use said standard aswell[25] (I mention to them because I heard you were saying that I have no academic back up). Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Dear @Pob3qu3, I don't understand why I have to add from the "h" to the "k" tone, explain me why I have to do that? . Besides, I´m asking if you agreed or not that the reference mentioned do not said anything about the 49% people being light skin Kodosbs (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a particular reason for which you are unable to add up the number of people that identified with tones "H" to "K" and then obtain the percentage out of the total? is not really a difficult thing to do, In fact you don't even need to convert to percentages, as the resulting number from adding up the tones from "H" to "K" is almost half of the total. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dear @Pob3qu3, I appreciate that in order to have a more assertive conversation, let's gradually clarify basic concepts and doubts that I have, before sending me links that I did not ask for. The positive thing about your answer is that you yourself agree that the Módulo de Movilidad Social Intergeneracional 2016 is not the source of the 49%. In that sense the link that currently appears on the page is erroneous. Do we agree on that to continue the conversation? Kodosbs (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well for starters that's not the source for the 49% percentage but sources like this ones [17][18] one is the percentage of mexicans that identified witheach skin color, the other tells you how many White Mexicans there are in the country. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I appreciate your clarification regarding the mention of academic backup. To be clear, my intention was not to suggest that you lack academic support. Rather, I have been seeking more precise information and a nuanced understanding of the topic under discussion. I believe that a robust academic discourse benefits from a rigorous examination of data and concepts, and sometimes, I have expressed reservations about what seemed like overly simplified assumptions. My aim in our discussion is to ensure the accuracy and depth of our analysis, and I value your input and expertise in achieving that goal. Thank you for your ongoing engagement in this academic exchange.--Kodosbs (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- This is a bizarre request to make, despite being small documents I've directed you to the exact pages when I've linked them on this discussion (in fact in my previous reply I did it aswell), you are being intentionally evasive. Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I appreciate your clarification regarding the mention of academic backup. To be clear, my intention was not to suggest that you lack academic support. Rather, I have been seeking more precise information and a nuanced understanding of the topic under discussion. I believe that a robust academic discourse benefits from a rigorous examination of data and concepts, and sometimes, I have expressed reservations about what seemed like overly simplified assumptions. My aim in our discussion is to ensure the accuracy and depth of our analysis, and I value your input and expertise in achieving that goal. Thank you for your ongoing engagement in this academic exchange.--Kodosbs (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
conapredEncuestawas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/productos/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/nueva_estruc/702825198213.pdf
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
conapredEncuesta2was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Infobox image
The infobox (as of today, 19 March 2024) features this image of three blonde, blue-eyed girls at a fair. What evidence do we have that these are actually White Mexicans (and not just a random group of tourists who happened to be at this fair)? It strikes me that White Mexicans would most likely originate from southern Europe (specifically, Spain, and, to a lesser degree, Portugal), and would be unlikely to be blonde and blue-eyed. It seems unlikely (or at least uncertain) to me that this is a properly representative image for the infobox. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. They look like tourists. Xuxo (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not only do we have no means to know whether they are Mexican citizens, we also don't know whether they self-identify as white. The image description is arguably a WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- We have the statement of the photographer, who seems to have the cooperation of the photo's subjects, that they're Mexican:
- Mexico's European descended population numbers over 16 million and along with Mestizos (those of mixed European/Amerindian ancestry, around 70% of Mexico's pop.) is one Mexico's largest racial groups. These Mexican girls are at a fair in Jalisco, Mexico near Zapopan.
- I can't easily determine their eye color, but at least two of them could definitly have brown eyes. Plus, the features of the two on the left look like they could be of Spanish descent.
- Their clothes might be something you could buy in a tourist shop, but the meticulous face paint less so, and, depending on the context, might be considered offensively presumptuous if mere pretense.
- As far as self-identity, we seem to have the attestation of all in this thread that their genetic make-up must be white. And I don't know that BLP strictures apply to something so incidental to the article's subject. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLP policy applies to anything written about a living person on Wikipedia, whether in articles on talk pages. And no, you absolutely DO NOT have any form of 'attestation' regarding 'genetic make-up'. That is an utterly absurd claim to make, and it would be a blatant violation of WP:OR were we to base article content on our own personal opinions even if we hade expressed them. Which we haven't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Images of particular persons on infoboxes regarding ethnic groups tend to be avoided, that being said, I don't see why the persons in the image couldn't be Mexicans. All this considered I'd suggest to remove said image from the infobox and place it somewhere else in the article. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- "I don't see why the persons in the image couldn't be Mexicans". The same way we don't see why the persons in the image could be Mexicans. How do you assume a person is Mexican only because they are wearing a T-shirt writen "Mexico" in a football game? How can a T-shirt prove someone's nationality? The fact that you moved the imagem to the middle of the article does not erase the fact that you failed to prove their nationality. Yes, they could be Mexican, but they could also be Swedish tourists. You need to bring a source proving their nationalities before claiming those girls are "Mexican", Pob3qu3. Xuxo (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- We still have the statement of the photographer that they're Mexican, not just what's written on their jerseys. How much more than that do we have for most photographs on Wikipedia that represent someone or some place? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Dhtwiki is right, to ask for a source because you do not believe what the photographer of an image says would impact a huge amount of images used on Wikipedia and diminish the project's quality as a whole. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- "I don't see why the persons in the image couldn't be Mexicans". The same way we don't see why the persons in the image could be Mexicans. How do you assume a person is Mexican only because they are wearing a T-shirt writen "Mexico" in a football game? How can a T-shirt prove someone's nationality? The fact that you moved the imagem to the middle of the article does not erase the fact that you failed to prove their nationality. Yes, they could be Mexican, but they could also be Swedish tourists. You need to bring a source proving their nationalities before claiming those girls are "Mexican", Pob3qu3. Xuxo (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Images of particular persons on infoboxes regarding ethnic groups tend to be avoided, that being said, I don't see why the persons in the image couldn't be Mexicans. All this considered I'd suggest to remove said image from the infobox and place it somewhere else in the article. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLP policy applies to anything written about a living person on Wikipedia, whether in articles on talk pages. And no, you absolutely DO NOT have any form of 'attestation' regarding 'genetic make-up'. That is an utterly absurd claim to make, and it would be a blatant violation of WP:OR were we to base article content on our own personal opinions even if we hade expressed them. Which we haven't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- We have the statement of the photographer, who seems to have the cooperation of the photo's subjects, that they're Mexican:
- No, it does not. A picture of the Sugarloaf Mountain one can easily certify it is the Sugar Loaf, but one cannot certify the nationality of people though a random picture. Xuxo (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- You are just WP:LAWYERING at this point you know. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Pob3qu3, @AndyTheGrump, @Xuxo, @WikiDan61: They are very likely to be Mexican, coming from a place like Jalisco as stated by the photographer, and they are very likely descended from Southern-European colonizers who arrived to Mexico way before there was any white people in, e.g. the United States. The idea that Spain or Portugal could not have exported blond, light-eyed people to Latin America is beyond absurd, you need to review your Medieval Germanic migrations 101 history. If you need more evidence, go watch this video wholly devoted to blonde Mexicans in Jalisco. As to whether it is appropriate to display them in the infobox, I would say show us the actual Wikipedia policy on these matters, and apply them consistently (because pretty much every other article on, for instance, Mexican indigenous groups does display an image of that ethnic group in the infobox). isacdaavid 13:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell most articles on White/European people don't do it. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Some counterexamples: Nahuas, Purépecha, Maya peoples, Zapotec peoples. isacdaavid 15:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell most articles on White/European people don't do it. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Pob3qu3, @AndyTheGrump, @Xuxo, @WikiDan61: They are very likely to be Mexican, coming from a place like Jalisco as stated by the photographer, and they are very likely descended from Southern-European colonizers who arrived to Mexico way before there was any white people in, e.g. the United States. The idea that Spain or Portugal could not have exported blond, light-eyed people to Latin America is beyond absurd, you need to review your Medieval Germanic migrations 101 history. If you need more evidence, go watch this video wholly devoted to blonde Mexicans in Jalisco. As to whether it is appropriate to display them in the infobox, I would say show us the actual Wikipedia policy on these matters, and apply them consistently (because pretty much every other article on, for instance, Mexican indigenous groups does display an image of that ethnic group in the infobox). isacdaavid 13:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- You are just WP:LAWYERING at this point you know. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, it does not. A picture of the Sugarloaf Mountain one can easily certify it is the Sugar Loaf, but one cannot certify the nationality of people though a random picture. Xuxo (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- You might be interested in the first 20 seconds of this video. In some sense you are right. The Visigoths and Ostrogoths who inhabited Italy and Iberia in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages probably originated in the Gotland island, Sweden; or in Götaland, mainland Sweden. The ancestors of these Mexican girls might have very well lived in Sweden 2000 years ago. isacdaavid 15:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- It has always seemed to me that the reason for which articles related to White people avoid using images on their infoboxes is because in average such articles have the most conflicts between editors out of all ethnic groups. Additionally, the image currently complements a paragraph on which research about frequencies of blond hair is addressed so it serves a more direct illustrative purpose in there if I say so myself. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)