Talk:Mexico

Battle of El Álamo Image Caption

The caption for the "Battle of El Álamo" image should be updated to read "Battle of the Alamo," the name by which this battle is generally referred to in English. I believe this was overlooked when the previous discussion on this topic was archived. Jbt89 (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems exceedingly unnecessary. While WP:COMMONNAME would generally apply here, it makes sense that in different historiographical contexts different names for events may be preferred. Remsense ‥ 论 23:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no mainstream context in which the name "Battle of El Álamo" is commonly used in English. WP:COMMONNAME applies here as everywhere else on this site and that's the end of it. Jbt89 (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2025

Add page numen for citation 115. 45.49.246.117 (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. What is the page number to be added? LizardJr8 (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems clear to me. It's "Change the citation template for the reference that's currently numbered 115 so it reads as it does now except that a page parameter has been added." The only obstacle is a lack of knowledge as to what page that is. Largoplazo (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2025

Change "The country borders the United States to the north, as well as Guatemala and Belize to the southeast" to "The country has borders with the United States to the north, as well as Guatemala and Belize to the southeast". Sporadic one (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The original sentence is correct. (3OpenEyes' communication receptacle) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 15:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources of available on race

Let's compile all the sources we have and see what we can muster up.

Moxy🍁 03:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Here's a good one [1], it states in the page 3 that "Mexicans that do not have physical features like those of people from European and North American countries make up 64.8% of the population, thus Whites are around 34%-35%, which is not very different of What Encyclopedia Brittanica states (you acknoledged yourself 30%[2]-31%[3] two days ago) I propose to leave the article as 32%, it said that for some time already. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you please double check that document and page number you just provided, as it does not seem to support what you are alleging here. TiggerJay (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The page 3 claims that 64% of the population are "morenos" after that it claims that such group "besides being the majority... it does not have the characteristics/physical features that are more related to Europe or North America" actually a more literal translation suggest it more directly than the one I was previously using. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Moxy just so you know that fourth reference is to Mexico, Missouri, not the country. TiggerJay (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't not make sense to carry on this conversation in two different venues, let's just continue on the NORN page please. TiggerJay (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

pls remove an sources tht are junk or not relevant. Was sent a nice source Telles, Edward; Torche, Florencia (2019-06-01). "Varieties of Indigeneity in the Americas". Social Forces. 97 (4). s, University of California, Stanford University: 1543–1570. doi:10.1093/sf/soy091. ISSN 0037-7732. Retrieved 2025-02-05. Moxy🍁 06:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Irrelevant source was removed in a prior edit but I neglected to mention in the discussion itself. TiggerJay (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Contentious

Two recent edits by Pob3qu3 (diff) were reverted by Tiggerjay (diff) as "Highly contentious". @Tiggerjay: Would you please briefly outline why you regard the edits as contentious. Please be specific but concise. If I need more, I'll ask. I ask this as an uninvolved administrator after seeing the ANI report. I know the answer will be somewhere but please start again. Johnuniq (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, over the course of the last several months Pob3qu3 has been attempting to insert a statistic of 32% of Mexico's population are "White Mexicans" (or some variation thereof). This statistic has been contested on their talk page[4] and then another editor brought it up over at NORN[5] several weeks ago. In the most recent reverted diff, Pob3qu3 has cited britannica.com: (1) you can see yourself that their citation does not establish the 32% figure, and (2) that source has been discussed at length at NORN, and several of us are claiming WP:SYNTH. This was considered "contentious" because they knowingly re-added information they clearly know is disputed. The qualifier of "high" is because this is disputed by multiple editors and spanning multiple months with an ongoing NORN discussion. For further details, you can read their talk page or the more lengthy NORN discussion, or feel free to ping me. TiggerJay (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

TiggerJay you say again that the "citation does not establish the 32% figure" yet there's a pie chart in the source that says that "other" amounts for 31% of the country's population and the entry states: "Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population" It seems rather clear to me that the 31% figure are ethnic groups who are White or significantly White. Johnuniq, another observation I have to make is that I'm not trying to insert a figure. Actually the figure has been used on the estable versions of multiple articles for months, its TigerJay and company the ones who are trying to remove it. Pob3qu3 (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

As has already been explained to Pob3qu3, the pie chart doesn't say that 32% are "White", nor "European" so this is original research. At one point I changed it to say 'one-third' (either here, or some neighboring articles) to avoid false precision. I misread the sources. It doesn't support this, even as an approximation. We shouldn't be adding our best-guesses, and original research about who is and is not "White" enough to be counted isn't appropriate in any article for a lot of reasons.

As for being in the article for 'many months' it was added] by Pob3qu3 in December. This was added after some of Pob3qu3's changes to that section had been reverted. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Grayfell the 30%-31% or similar figure from Encyclopedia Brittanica has been present in multiple articles since months ago, check this diff of the article Mexicans from July 29th[6] (in the White mexicans section, Demographics of Mexico from September 2[7](White Mexicans section) and the White Mexicans article from July 9[8](second paragraph of the introduction). Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I fail to see your point. The Britannica source doesn't support it. The history of how this OR got stuck in multiple articles is tedious. I'm not interested in assigning blame I'm interested in fixing these articles. Grayfell (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Grayfell If you are truly interested on fixing these articles why don't you start re-adding Brittanica to this one? after all you keep Brittanica on the European Emigration article (the disagrement in there is on the form of how we present the info regarding White Mexicans, not about Brittanicas inclusion, we can work that out on the next days). Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Stop pestering me about this with pings. When the dust has settled I hope I will be able to help clean up a lot of these articles. That's going to involve a lot more than just the Britannica source. Since you are apparently dead-set on restoring your preferred version, there's not much point in making these changes now, is there? Your comment seems like you're still trying to turn this into a 'gotcha' instead of addressing the issue. Grayfell (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Your comment seems like you're still trying to turn this into a 'gotcha' instead of addressing the issue Grayfell the issue to my understanding is the serious impasse on which we've been on and I'm trying my best to resolve it by finding a common ground, I think we all can agree that Encyclopedia Brittanica is a very reliable source and there's no reason to keep it removed from this article, you in fact rephrassed it and have it included in the Mexico section of the article of European Emigration so why don't you add it here too?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I specifically asked you to stop pinging me. Do not ping me again.

All sources are judged in context. The specific numbers you have added are not supported by that source, so they do not belong. Using other sources to synthesis a specific definition to be able to interpret the source to say "32%" is not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

My reading of WP:BRITANNICA is that EB is not a desirable reference. At any rate, if it is the only source available, the information cannot be considered WP:DUE. I can't see a way to link to a particular chart in the EB reference, but at the moment I am looking at one saying "Mexico ethnic composition" for 2012 and 2000. Under 2000, a pie chart seems to say that 15.0% are "Mexican white". I do not see mention of that figure above which demonstrates the degree of confusion surrounding the topic. It is definitely not satisfactory to use the "significant component of the other ethnic groups" extract above for anything other than "significant" which is too meaningless for Wikipedia. My comments are not advice regarding what proportion of Mexicans are "white". I am just outlining standard procedure. If I have missed something, please tell me. At the moment, I believe that it is clear that continued pursuit of the text described above would be disruptive and resolution is simple. @Pob3qu3: I will indefinitely block you from any article where you add statistics about Mexican ethnic composition unless there is prior consensus on the associated article talk page. Other people do not need to convince Pob3qu3—just indicate whether you agree or disagree with a proposed change, and briefly why. Do not talk about the past and who did what. Focus on sources and what they say. There is no need to repeat yourself. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Johnuniq there are more sources that give similar percentages, such as this one I presented before [9], it states in the page 3 that "64% of Mexico's population do not have the characteristics/physical features that are more related to Europe or North America" thus Whites are around 34%-35%, which is not very different of What Encyclopedia Brittanica states what do you think about this one?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I have had my say. If you have a proposal for text to be included in the article, please start a new section and show the proposed text together with the proposed source. Do not edit the article with anything concerning Mexican ethnic composition unless there is a positive prior consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Johnuniq You said that "if it is the only source available, the information cannot be considered WP:DUE" so I showed you that other source (whose results are somewhat similar to what Encyclopedia Brittanica says) to see if you changed your mind about it not being WP:DUE, are you not actually interested on mediating this anymore?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)