Talk:White Mexicans

Proposing the Removal of the 47% Reference as the Maximum Representation of White Mexicans

Dear @Pob3qu3 . I appreciate your active participation in our ongoing discussion. I would like to direct our conversation towards a particular aspect that has been of concern - the utilization of the 47% reference as the maximum representation of white Mexicans.

It is imperative to underscore that attributing the 47% figure as the upper limit for white Mexicans might not accurately reflect the underlying data. This percentage originates from individuals selecting the three lightest shades on a nine-tone skin scale, but it does not inherently denote self-identification as white Mexicans. Thus, equating this 47% with the proportion of white Mexicans may require further clarification. I carefully reviewed the document a Encuesta Nacional sobre Discriminación en México 2010 and 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 ...

In this context, I would like to inquire whether you agree with the proposition to remove this reference as the maximum representation of the white population in Mexico or if you have an alternative perspective on how this data should be presented. Your insights into this matter are highly valued as we strive for precision and accuracy in our academic discourse. Thank you for your continued dedication to this academic exchange.

Thank you for your continued engagement in this academic exchange. I welcome your input for further discussion I also appreciate any comments from @Rsk6400:, @WindTempos:, @Dimadick:, @Johnsoniensis:, @Hunan201p:, @Rjensen:, @Suntooooth:, @Dhtwiki:,@Clear Looking Glass:, @Vipz:,, @Gcjnst:, @Xuxo:, @Yesthatbruce:.Kodosbs (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Your whole premise is flawed from the start, the article states various times that the percentage of White Mexicans in the article is based on phenotypical traits (in this case skin color, there's also two sources that use blond hair as the reference point), it is also shown, with sources how and why Mexico's government uses for this end, distribution of skin colors is found here (page 7) [1] here is shown how skin colors form groups with each other (page 7)[2], here can be seen the government providing different kinds of results per skin tone group (this one is huge, but the skin color results start appearing at the last quarter of the document)[3], this ids a document by the princeton University which recomends the phenotype-based standard Mexico's government uses (the first half of this small document is specially insightful)[4] this sources are examples of articles that pick up the results of the aforementioned documents [5][6][7], I've presented all of this sources to you already on this discussion, multiple times, yet you pretend to not see them, looking at your behavior it seems you are betting on tagging editors who may not be familiar with all this material in hopes of impressing them with your "apparently rightful and concerned" posture (and I say "apparently rightful and concerned" because you just came out of a block for using proxies [8]). Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Your ping might not be working, as I wasn't notified of this discussion in that manner. Your argument seems motivated by the need to denigrate those who would identify as white, as many here seem also to do, as if ethnic pride is either not allowed or allowed only to certain ethnicities. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Kodosbs, I agree. The information must be removed. Xuxo (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that you are agreeing with "another editor" who is blocked due proxy usage[9][10] I think you have to understand for once that personally not agreeing with text within an article is not a valid ground to remove such text, specially not when its so strongly sourced. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't this removed yet? It's one of the most blatantly misrepresenting things on Wikipedia arguably. Analyticalreview (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not removed because that it is "one of the most blatantly misrepresenting things on Wikipedia..." is a personal opinion and goes against the sources in use in the article, putting it simply there's recent field research made by Mexico's government, the lowest estimates are from ENADIS surveys from 2017[11] and 2022[12], with 29% and 31% (it also has to be considered that these surveys make clear that they were conducted with a special focus on people on socially disadvantaged situations such as indigenous peoples or afro-mexicans) and then there's surveys such as the ENADIS 2010/12 with 47%[13] and the MMSI by the INEGI with 49%[14] and that's it. Besides this there's other sources such as [15] who make clear that it is being talked about White people and different press articles that do so aswell[16][17][18]. I don't quite understand why you so insistently complain about these percentages being innacurate, if anything, the real outlier nowadays would be the 9% figure from the World Factbook, which is also not an official source. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Literally, all the editors disagree with you. Even @PedroDonasco who you definitely know is not a "personal enemy" of yours. We will come to a resolution later and deal with this. Analyticalreview (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The main problem is you are pretending saying you have "lighter skin" is the same thing as saying you are "White." Those are not equivalent statements. Imagine putting everyone that identifies as "dark skin" being thrown into the Black category? See the problem here? Analyticalreview (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you miss this ones that I just linked [19][20][21][22] where "White" is mentioned multiple times? its always the same with you, its as if any information that contradicted your personal opinions was totally, literally imperceptible to you, this is also true when you mention that "literally everybody disagrees with me" as a look to this articles' history will reveal that editors that try to remove this data are reverted by editors other than just me. Regarding Uruguayan989 I already got a positive consensus with him about using a weighted average, which could be done here aswell to eliminate outliers such as the World Factbook, so he doesn't exactly disagree with me. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

So let's go one bye one:

1) Can't access citation 44 for some reason.

2) Citation 45 is just a news opinion (it says it on the top "OPINION"). The word White is mentioned several times but what does this have to do with anything? All it is talking about is how the "more White" your skin is the more privileged you are in society generally. In this context, a person who is in the middle of the skin tone range is "more white" than a person who is on the darkest end, that still does not make the medium skin tone White.

3) Citation 46 is more clear in its categorization clearly putting H in the "White" category. However, this is a FORBES article, not an official publication by the government.

4) Citation 47, another opinion piece that does not say much but I want you to click on the part that says "El INEGI reveló nuestra pigmentocracia" It links to another article that says H is in the Dark category!

"Si consideramos que de las escalas A hasta la H una persona puede ser considerada como morena, tenemos que casi el 88% de los mexicanos son morenos." So one of your sources links to another one that blatantly contradicts what you are saying.

The biggest problem with your logic is the official survey the government released only has 1 in 10 Mexican self-identifying as the word "Blanco." Over 60% Identified with the word "Moreno." Self-Identification should easily be the metric that matters the most here. Analyticalreview (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The article mentions 88% being considered Moreno, that means 12% is "other" (mainly White).

This figure comes really close to the 1 in 10 Mexicans that self-identify as "blanco." Analyticalreview (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

For the point 1 I don't know why it doesn't work for you, even Wikipedia recognizes it as a PDF file, try to set your browser to open non-https pages. In point 2 It seems that you acknowledge that this one mentions "White" a lot so that's progress, you may have seen also that the source states that nearly half of the population is White. For point 3 you dismiss it as a Forbess opinion piece, but it is important to remark that it uses the same standard that Mexican government's publications use, this is relevant aswell on point 4, this one is more about backing up that the surveys speak indeed about White people (as you've tried to imply before that they don't) albeit indeed the writer does not use the standard Mexico's government uses while Frobess writer does, although it is important to remark that "moreno" and "blanco" are not mutually exclusive, there's a source in the article that talks about that. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to try to get the first source to work but source 2 actually does not say half the population is White.

"En cambio, una de cada cuatro personas de la mitad más blanca cuenta con al menos estudios universitarios."

This translates to "Whiter half." Meaning, it is more white than the darker half.

For example, president Obama is half African and half White. If you look at family photos he is clearly more White than his entire Kenyan family. However, this only makes him more White in proximity, it does not actually make him White. Analyticalreview (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Now you are just trying hard to misinterpret the source, whose title for starters is "Being White" not "Being Whiter." Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay the links are now working (for the most part)

Citation 36) The word "blanco" is not used once (although as you mentioned H is in the "more clear" skin tones category).

Citation 37) The word "blanca" is stated twice just asking survey takers if they agree with white skin being superior essentially.

Citation 38) Doesn't work for some reason

Citation 39) The word "blanco" is not stated at all.

Citation 40) The word "blanco" or "blanca" is stated four times. One sentence is saying how Mexicans tend to identify their skin tone as more White than what it really is (which kind of hurts your argument funnily enough). It also mentions how the electorate is more likely to vote for white candidates over brown candidates. The rest was hypothetical discrimination scenarios. That's it.

Now you are just trying hard to misinterpret the source, whose title for starters is "Being White" not "Being Whiter."

I'm not misinterpreting it at all, also I'm kind of laughing at your comment because I have no idea what point you were trying to make by the title.

Can you please send me a link of the Mexican government stating close to 50% of the population identifies as (or is) "blanco?" If not we can hurry up and fix this situation already! Analyticalreview (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

"Citation 40) The word "blanco" or "blanca" is stated four times. One sentence is saying how Mexicans tend to identify their skin tone as more White than what it really is (which kind of hurts your argument funnily enough..." It doesn't really hurt my argument, specially considering the table in the page 7 where colors align by themselves, in fact I would like it if you copied and translated the content on this talk page for all to see, you say you want to fix this situation already, that seems like a good way to do it, also, just in case it is not clear the citation 39 is directly related to the citation 40. The article titled "Being White" to which you are just givig evasives to now is directly related to these two aswell. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really hurt my argument, specially considering the table in the page 7 where colors align by themselves

What's the point of this statement?

in fact I would like it if you copied and translated the content on this talk page for all to see

Can the others not see our conversation? I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I'd gladly love to hear their input.

The article titled "Being White" to which you are just givig evasives to now is directly related to these two aswell

You did a typo there. Not sure what you mean by that. Either way, an opinion piece is not relevant at all. It should only matter what the government states the "White" population is. Send a link where the government states half of Mexicans are identified as White. Analyticalreview (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly why I asked you to copy and translate the citation 40 (please do it), because the Mexican government uses skin color research as ethnic research given that they have observed it yields more accurate results than plain self-identification, it is also recomended by the Princeton University, who created the color palette that Mexico's government uses. In this document in the first pages it is stated that White people tend to identify with the tones H to K[23]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly why I asked you to copy and translate the citation 40 (please do it), because the Mexican government uses skin color research as ethnic research given that they have observed it yields more accurate results than plain self-identification,

Okay then, show me the source where the Mexican government explicitly states the White population then!

By the way, the Princeton University also shows there is an overlap of identification:

"self-identified whites are in the 1-4 skin color categories, mestizos are 3-5"

So there are many "Mestizos" that identify with skin color number 3 aka "H." It does not make any mention of it being an exclusively White category. The actual categories that seem to be going exclusively for Whites are 1-2, which if you are paying attention, a very small percentage of Mexicans identify with.

As stated earlier, find the source where the Mexican government states half the population is considered "White." If not that false information will be removed very soon. Analyticalreview (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

"Okay then, show me the source where the Mexican government explicitly states the White population then..." Its the citation 39, where they show how many Mexicans identify with each skin tone, here's another one[24] this one is related to the citations 39, 40 and the article "Being White", scroll down and you'll find a graph where White is mentioned.

"So there are many "Mestizos" that identify with skin color number 3 aka "H." It does not make any mention of it being an exclusively White category..." In any case it'd be Mestizo who are predominantly White, furthermore, as can be seen on the way Mexico's government splits the categories on sources such as ENADIS 2017, they treat them as a single group. There's also a huge contradiction on you "asking for a source exclusively from Mexico's government while wanting to use only the source from the World Factbook in the infobox, you realize this right?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not using the World Factbook. I'm using the amount of Mexicans that identify as "White." By the way, thank you for providing me all these sources because they completely dismantle your argument. Analyticalreview (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

See? this is why we have to discuss in the talk page first, the source you are talking about (ENADIS 2010 I believe) used other words that are also used to refer to White people in Mexico such as güero, claro, aperlado, cinnamon etc. not just White, furthermore I don't see how the source I just provided, which uses clearly the word White, or all other sources I've provided disprove my argument, would you like to elaborate on it?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to defend your decision. The statement on Wikipedia literally describes those as "words that may or may not refer to a white person depending on the case." However, let's pretend and have it your way. Let's assume all those words 100% mean White (which we have no evidence to support this). The source states:

¿Cómo le llamaría usted a su tono de piel?

Blanco: 10.9%

Claro 5.4%

Güero 2.1%

Aperlado: 1.7%

If you add up all these words and assume every single one means you identify as White, that still only means 19% of the population in total is identifying as "White." So you're still wrong. Analyticalreview (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You missed quemadito, bronceado, apiñonado, amarillo and canela, which would near 30%, I also notice that you added this ENADIS 2017 to the main text[25] without specyfying that it was performed focussing on disadvanteged groups (hence the lower percentages) so I think we can agree that the lowest realistic estimate would be 30% instead of just 9% right?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

quemadito: .4%

bronceado: (which literally means bronze or tan): .3%

apiñonado (which basically means tan): 4.3%

amarillo: .6%

canela: .5%

So adding everything together we have: 26%.

That is being very generous and assuming everyone who is "bronceado" (and others) is also identifying as White (which is almost certainly not the case). The lowest estimate is 10% (since Mexicans self-identified with that word) and the highest is 26% if we are being extremely generous and using every single definition that could potentially mean light skin. Analyticalreview (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

"That is being very generous and assuming everyone who assuming everyone who is "bronceado" (and others) is also identifying as White (which is almost certainly not the case)..." I don't see why it wouldn't be the case, you forget that we have actual sources who point out that many Mexicans don not identify as Mestizo [26][27], with no mention that Mestizo does not appear in the survey at all. You are also forgetting the Brittanica source, which points (albeit on an unconventional manner) that about two fifths of Mexico's population do not have mixed or indigenous ancestry, so that's about 40% and the population, and finally the MMSI and ENADIS sources with 47% (same survey you seem to trust per your last two replies) and 49% (and its related sources which you say you can refute but you haven't yet). Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Wait, you legitimately believe 40% of Mexicans are purely European? Do you think it is still 1600? Even back then only 20% of the population was purely European. There has been centuries of interracial mixing since then. Not a single genetic study supports that claim. Even the most extreme cases (I.E Mennonites) are becoming Mestizos in recent decades. It is utter nonsense to believe Mexico is almost as European as the USA. Analyticalreview (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

There you are again trying to shift the discussion to personal opinions/beliefs when confronted with sources yuo can't refute. Please lets stay focused on sources. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Find a genetic study or government published source that states the population of Mexicans that have pure European ancestry. In terms of genetic studies, look at the Monterrey study in the 1990s, that was the closest one we have to ever suggest a "pure Spanish" population and even that was still around 10% Indigenous DNA (nowadays they are a lot more Indigenous via recently published studies). I will now be out enjoying the rest of my day. Have fun looking for sources! Analyticalreview (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

So the official documents where White is mentioned that I've posted on this discussion[28][29] here are not enough for you and now you shift focus to genetic studies when I just sent you links twice where Mexican geneticists themselves state why genetic studies cannot be used for such purposes[30]? Just say that you concede defeat. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Citation 53 literally contradicts you.

"De las personas que se autoclasificaron en las tonalidades de piel más claras (de la “I” a la “K”),"

So here the skin tone most Mexicans identify with (H) is not put in the "lightest skin tones category." Every source you ever put only hurts your arguments. You are incorrect, find sources that support your obviously wrong beliefs. Until then,

Have a good day! Analyticalreview (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, in the page 15 of the document[31], in the first paragraph (right above the one you quoted), it is specified that the light skin category goes (from "F" to "K"), I mean come on I don't think you didn't see that. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Analyticalreview as I said on my previous edit summary here[32] you are currently misunderstanding the source[33], as the questionaire did not only use the term White but many other words that are synonyms to White in Mexico (such as Claro, Güero, Aperlado, Quemadito, Bronceado, Apiñonado etc.) you acknowledged this yesterday[34][35], so I do not understand why you are currently planted on reverting to a number that you know its wrong. Furthermore the question, found in the page 42/43 is titled "What would you call your skin color" meaning that the research was based on skin color, just like the other sources I've brought by the Mexican government that you keep removing. Put it simply: why do you accept one survey about skin color but reject the other survey about skin color? they're about the same thing. Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Analyticalreview , After carefully reviewing the entire conversation, it's evident that @Pob3qu3 arguments lack substance. Allow me to summarize the key points and address them one by one.

1. Firstly, it's imperative that @Pob3qu3 familiarizes themselves with scientific literature. I recommend reading the article [36] where you can learn that citing notes from web pages from newspapers like those you cite from Forbes and other news agencies are not scientific literature, these documents are written by people who do journalism and did not study to explain data but to inform. Please stop citing data from newspapers, and go to official sources (INEGI, CENSUS, etc.) or scientific articles.
2. Regarding @Pob3qu3 shares references from the INEGI, as it has been told a thousand times, a person choosing a skin tone IS NOT THE SAME as self-defining a race or ethnicity. When someone questions him about this, his answers are the same: He gives many references to documents where the INEGI mentions the word "white", but he does not share any document where the INEGI mentions that choosing a color tone is the same as being white. After reviewing the multitude of documents sent, there is only one reference, when opening this link [37], like @Analyticalreview the page has problems opening, however in the link they mention Presentacion_MMSI2016 , when searching for this presentation on the internet it does appear, and is found in this link [38] which is from INEGI itself. In the document they do mention the word white, on page 30 (because it is important to clearly state the page, not like @Pob3qu3 who almost always sends documents without indicating the clear pages, or worse, places things like "... in the last quarter of the document...") but literally they say in Spanish "Distribución porcentual de la población de 25 a 64 años por autoadscripción étnica, según percepción de cambio en su situación socioeconómica actual respecto a la de su familia de origen", it is In other words, it does not say anything about choosing the 3 lightest colors being the same as calling yourself white. Here it is important to note that if the INEGI itself indicates the self-perception word "white" it is because it has asked, but the number of people who call themselves white is not published by INEGI. Another reference that @Pob3qu3 love to use is this link [39] where on page 32 they indicate that "Un 29.4% señaló tener un tono de piel más claro (H-K)", again the same document says "they indicated having lighter skin, not that they identify as whites are identified.

The truth is, with all these arguments, not why continue a discussion with @Pob3qu3what is necessary is to start editing Wikipedia and remove the number of 47% where they never say that they call themselves white. Personally, I will write to INEGI about it, since it is quite sad that someone subjectively implies that a country as beautiful and multiethnic as Mexico is whiter than the state of California in the US. As soon as INEGI responds to me, I will share that document here in the discussion.

@Analyticalreview @Hunan201p I think it is possible to start making modifications to the article and as soon as @Pob3qu3 starts modifying, report an editing war. Kodosbs (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That you come to write here after months just to repeat the same things that Analyticalreview is saying is kind of pointless in my opinion, you could have saved us some time by addressing the issue Analyticalreview has been having with the sources since weeks ago: the actual issue here is that you, or Analyticalreview or whatever for some reason ignore that all Mexico's recent ethnographic research is based on skin color, in your last reply you even linked this document [40] that talks about how socioeconomic differences are correlated to skin color and ethnic differences, this document even mentions White and Whiteness but you still don't seem to get it (also in the graph in the page 7 it can be seen how skin tones organically form three different groups), you keep peddling that skin color reseach is not related to race/ethnicity in Mexico, why do you keep doing that?. Lets hope that you can answer this question before your proxy gets blocked again [41][42]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Phrasing such as "...quite sad that someone subjectively implies that a country as beautiful and multiethnic as Mexico is whiter than the state of California..." tells me of POV pushing. Saying that you will make changes to the article when the matter is still contested, and then report the other side for edit warring if they revert, seems questionable. Talking of phenotype, i.e. skin color, seems a definite and legitimate way of determining "whiteness", especially when admitting of some adherence to cultural whiteness is discouraged by political sentiment. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_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)

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)

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)

direct translation for sources

Hello! I'm Camila Vallejo and I am a bilingual English-Spanish translator!

I have seen the page history of this page and I have come here to offer a direct translation for one of the sources: the ENADIS 2010 Mexican survey for page 3 as I have seen some past difficulties with understanding the context for that page.

Please contact me at my talk page if you want the translation! Camila Vallejo (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)