Opothleyahola

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Misc comments

The line: (In fact, the great majority of the Mexican immigration to the United States is of Amerindian origin)

needs a citation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.12.81 (talk • contribs)

its common knowladge that most Mexicans in america hail from the predominantly Mestizo/Amerindian Lower class in mexico rather than the caucasian upperclass, most of the imigration is from regions like puebla mexico where the average population leans more towards their Amerindian ancestry rather than their european ancestry.--GorenSleiczik 07:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Common knowledge is not sufficient as it is not verifiable. It mus be sourced to a reliable printed source.--Rockero 15:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it can be verified directly: Mexico does not classify its population according to race, and the US classifies all Mexicans as "Hispanics" regardless of race. In this case we do have to appeal to common knowledge though I would rather say self-evidence. I guess the fact that consular services are provided in Amerindian languages (and the fact that bureaucratic services in Mexico are rarely provided in an Amerindian language despite the fact that they are obliged to do so by law) should hint that it is thought or it could be said that the percentage of Amerindians amongst the Mexican immigrants is higher than that of the Mexican population as a whole. Nonetheless, I guess this fact could be proved indirectly. For example, it can be established that the great majority of Mexican immigrants do come from rural communities: the World Bank does report that rural poverty decreased substantially from 2000-2004, from 40+% to 20+%, mainly because of "remittances", while urban poverty (which, arguably, is not a great receptor or remittances) has remained the same [1]. After that, it can be shown, from INEGI that on most rural communities the percentage of population that speaks an Amerindian language is higher than that of urban communities (or the national average for that matter). But I guess all of this could be considered original work (that is, wikipedia is supposed to "report" not to "propose"). --Alonso 00:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is all original research. I agree that most immigrants are mestizos with a significant minority of indios, but there is no data source that I could find to verify the idea that criollos tend not to emigrate from México due to their generally already high socioeconomic status.
Also, I think this article needs to be cleaned up a bit by someone with good English abilities as right now it seems to have been written by somebody with about an en-3 level of English. --Node 00:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not say anything about the proposal of "original research" above. So there is no need to worry. Just a comment, "indio" is, to put it mildly, politically incorrect in Mexico; "indígena" is by far, preferred. Also, feel free to correct grammar or spelling if necessary. --the Dúnadan 01:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know these things. I corrected some of the grammatical errors. However, this article is still very poor in quality for three reasons: 1) It still has grammatical issues and cannot seem to decide what we should call the indigenous population of Mexico when consistency is very important to article quality; 2) It uses far too many parenthetical remarks; 3) There are no references, although some of the statements may be dubious. --Node 23:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parenthetical remarks are simply style. They are not wrong in themselves, and do not reduce the quality of the article. If you dislike the style, simply rephrase and insert them in the appropriate paragraphs. I see that you made an extensive (if not exaggerated) use of the {{fact}} template. I will try, myself, to provide as many references as possible. --the Dúnadan 02:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every guide to the English language advises against such extensive usage of parentheticals. They should be used sparingly. Take a look at any article that has ever been nominated for featured article here and you will find that none of them makes such an extensive usage of parenthesis. I added so many fact templates because there are literally 0 references and because some of the statements are either slightly dubious or are true but need references because some people may not believe them without them. --Node 03:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was trying to find references to some claims (if they were available or true) but I just decided to rewrite the whole thing. Let me know what you think.--the Dúnadan 22:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's very good. My only objections are about the brevity of the section on the ELZN -- I think this is a very significant topic in indigenous politics -- and the dismissal of anything north of the historical region of Mesoamerica as just nomadic tribes. I don't know a lot about the archaeology of northern Mexico but I do know that the cultural region of the Mogollon people extended well into what is now Chihuahua, and they were responsible for several impressive monuments including the ruins at Chaco Canyon (although Chaco Canyon is not currently in Mexico, the culture that was responsible for it extended well into modern Mexican territory). The idea of a Mesoamerican heritage for Mexico as a nation seems a bit convoluted to me and ignores all of the happenings of the northern regions which I should think are just as significant. --Node 23:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we need more information on the EZLN, in spite of the fact that it will probably be a controversial topic for many editors. About the regions north of Mesoamerica, I agree with you in that several civilizations developed. But from what I've read, most civilizations had been destroyed by the many nomadic tribes of that area, most notably the Chichimeca, who not even the Aztecs could subdue. However, nomadic, semi-nomadic or sedentary, all indigenous groups are -or should be- as significant to Mexican culture, history and demographics as the Aztecs or Mayas. In fact, the idea of an Aztec heritage that Mexico tried to appropriate as an independent nation seems not only to me, but to some authors (at least Dr. Hanmett, whose work is cited in the article), a bit convoluted in that it not only ignores the other ethnic groups of the north, but also ignores the historical fact that the Aztec Empire was a very loose tributary system in which many different ethnic groups were subjugated, and not a nation-state in the modern sense of the word. That being said, I fully agree with you. Perhaps we should add more information about "the North".--the Dúnadan 23:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, Chichimeca is actually a general term used to refer to the "savages" of the North collectively, and includes groups like the Tepehuans, Yaquis, Mayos, Tarahumaras, Seris, Papagos, etc. Evidence actually indicates that most of these civilizations are actually the predecessors of modern inhabitants of the area, and that they fell not due to invasion (although some people believe this to be the case) but due to drought or famine, which ruined their civilizations and turned them from mostly village-dwelling peoples to mostly nomadic peoples. --Node 00:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, a collective term. Still, like you said.. ruined their civilizations and turned them from mostly village-dwelling peoples to mostly nomadic peoples. Anyway, we should add more info about "the North". --the Dúnadan 00:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again though, it was not (or at least it is not commonly believed to have been) people who ruined their civilizations but rather the forces of nature. The people who were responsible for those civilisations and the "Chichimeca" are largely the same people, according to modern scholarship. --Node 08:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point. Regardless of the fact that some authors do say that it was the "fierce" (their adjective) nomadic tribes which caused many a civilization to crumble in the North, I wasn't really arguing against the alternative theory, based on evidence, that the civilizations fell due to natural calamities. My point was that by the time the Spanish arrived -and regardless of how the civilizations fell- the region was mostly nomadic, which was the point you argued against in the first place. But again, it doesn't matter. Nomadic or not, all ethnic groups are important and have played a significant role in the formation of the Mexican nation, and as such, we should add more info on the ethnic groups of the North. --the Dúnadan 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, by the time of the Spanish exploration (and later invasion) of the area, the civilisations simply were in crumbles. Quite a coincidence for certain cases -- the Hohokam civilisation is believed to have fallen just a couple of years before Columbus' initial arrival to the Carribean. But yes, you are right that the genesis of the modern Mexican nation is owed to all indigenous groups. The fact that a Seri man (or is it a Yaqui? I don't know) appears for example on Sonoran licence plates and the state seal, or that Chihuahua still has a relatively large Tarahumara population are all relevant and the article should explore the history of such issues. --Node 22:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Palencia as indigenous people

I haven't seen or heard any reference of this. Is there any source for this claim? Is not mentioned on his wikipedia Page. Hugo cantu (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed him. There is no reason to believe he claims indigenous status. It appears that someone writing on mexican atheletes has misunderstood the meaning of indigenous and put all atheletes born in Mexico in the "indigenous Mexican" category. I have rectified this now. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of indigenous people in Mexico

In the first paragraph it says that indigenous Mexicans constitute between 11 and 13% of the population, but in the second paragraph it says that 15% speak an indigenous language, which it says is fewer than the number of total indigenous Mexicans. Could someone more knowledgeable explain or correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.35.199 (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking that up. The 15% value was incorrect, it was one of a number of unjustified adhoc changes to the stats that was carried out here a little while ago, by someone apparently wishing to inflate the figures for whatever reason. The actual value from INEGI out of the 2005 census is abt 6.7& of the total Mexican population over the age of 5 years, who speak an indigenous language. Figure is now corrected.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10% is small,i live in mexico and i have the notion that indigenous can be a bigger group than 10%,i also read they are like the 30% of mexico which is a more correct number to me,to me be indigenous is more racial,is about features and i see a lot of people in mexico with strong indigenous features,but they are reduced to 10% because only 10% of them speak an indigenous language or have indigenous traditions? then a japanese or korean who don't speak their native languages isn't an ethnic japanese-korean?i don't believe it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.156.73.180 (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your comment. To clarify, Indigenous is not about features/race, indigenous is about political status (in Mexico defined by the government as "awareness that one is indigenous") and is defined by Indigenous communities generally through kinship/community ties and cultural knowledge/connection. Basing Indigenous identity on race takes away the sovereignty/right to self determination of indigenous communities and replaces it with foreign, pseudoscience concepts like race science. Amerindian/Indian is the racial label ascribed to Indigenous Peoples of Mexico (and the greater Americas) by Europeans, but it is a colonially-imposed racial label (concept of race itself is imposed) and is not synonymous with Indigenous. While different organisations/institutions and governments may have different definitions, the cultural/political/community-based definition is more aligned with Indigenous perspectives. Perhaps a page should be made about Amerindian/Indian race/racialization. Nativebun (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources of Information

The most reliable source of information on the indigenous peoples of Mexico comes from Mexico's own National Commission for the Development of the Indigenous Peoples (Mexican acronym: CDI) and Mexican National Institute of Statistics and Geography (Mexican acronym: INEGI), as well as publications made by universities or peer reviewed articles or journals and encyclopedias (that aren't wikipedia).

  • Website for the CDI: [2]
  • The following CDI links have more specific demographics and also defines the criteria for people to be counted as indigenous: [3] This other link will take you to where you can look at more articles which are similar to the previous one: [4]
  • An academic publication by the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México which reveals racial demographics of various countries, Mexico included: [5]
I agree that most of these are reliable. The exception is the paper by Lizcano which completely confuses the terms race and ethnicity - describing "negro" and "indigena" as an "etnia" (ethnic group) which they are of course not. I would advocate the use of all of the mentioned sources except that one for use in the article. And I would strongly reccomend against relying solely on these official mexican sources - but instead supply with well chosen English language scholarly articles from respected journals. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I would add INALI to the list of reliable sources - in my opinion they are more so than the CDI.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem we are having here as well as in all the Mexico-related articles when it comes to race or ethnicity is that there is a lack of reliable sources. This is why I added this section so people can bring here whatever they can find and then analyze it to see if we can use the information. That is why I mention that, in Mexico at least, the term Indígena is a political term rather than a racial one. Mexicans that are racially indigenous but who do not fit the criteria for being Indígenas by not speaking an indigenous language or belonging to an established indigenous community are not counted as indigenous thus reporting a much lower number of racially indigenous Mexicans than there actually are. I also have to warn that the genetic studies are only abstract and only apply to the specific regions where they were conducted. For example: a 20% African admixture taken from a sample in small town of Veracruz does not infer that the overall genetic composition of the entire nation is 20% African admixture; I mention this because I have seen people misuse the data to either boost or reduce demographical numbers. The first thing we must sort out here is this Rave vs. Ethnicity issue. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Institute of Indigenous Languages (INALI) Homepage: [7] Ocelotl10293 (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of indigeneity itself—anywhere, not just in Mexico or Latin America—is inseparable from the socio-cultural-political contexts that the definitions are primarily founded in. The political dimension is apparent not only in the historical development of the term indigenous peoples, but also in its practical, cultural and legal appearances and uses. It is not a bad thing that this is so, nor does it render the definitions and uses somehow less valid. It's just how it is.

It's neither necessarily nor sufficiently based in genetics (there is of course no 'indigenous' gene), genealogy, or even primacy in settlement of some given region. It has a basis in collective rights not individual rights, and so it's quite possible that given two individuals with "the same" admixture of 'native' heritage, one might be considered a member of an indigenous people/group and the other, not so considered (self-identified by themselves, and/or recognised by others).

Thus the notion of 'racially indigenous' people/s is a bit of a furphy, one needs to be careful not to engage in WP:OR by claiming there are many more "really" indigenous people out there, based solely on genetics or bloodlines. All we can do is report on how and what qualified reliable sources identify as indigenous peoples in some particular regional context, and use those stats without coming up with our own versions. In the (probably universal) case where qualified sources arrive at different estimates, we'd just note the range and base any commentary within the article on their respective accuracies on any WP:RS 3rd-party sources that have examined the estimates, if there are any of these.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree, glad someone said this a decade ago but unfortunately many people are still confused in 2023 about what it is to be socially/culturally/politically Indigenous versus racially Amerindian. Nativebun (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reversions

I've reversed a series of recent edits that, while undoubtedly made in good faith, IMO introduced more problematic items than improvements. Some of the issues identified include:

  • introducing a spuriously precise 'estimate' of ±22,466,593 that is not mentioned in any of the 3 sources given against it. Presumably this was arrived at by averaging some values incl. the aberrent 30% figure, that's not a statistically valid way of doing it. (nb this was since changed back by an anon to something more in-line with most of the published stats, but in doing so the previous cites to relevant sources were replaced).
  • More emphasis / parity seems to be placed on sources such as CIA Factbook which as argued before is not a reliable or authorative source for this kind of info, and its ests regarded as exaggerated; see for eg Lizcano 2005: p.221, note j ["La importancia concedida a los indígenas por estas fuentes resulta exagerada"]
  • inconsistency with sources when mentioning %ages of overall population
  • Some invalid and non-RS sources were (re-)introduced, such as crystalinks.com (a non-copyright compliant mirror of wikipedia and other sources' texts, run by a self-proclaimed psychic that has no value as a source)
  • Dividing the precolumbian history section into Mesoamerican chronological periods is not really applicable for the country as a whole; this periodisation doesn't make much sense if used for much of northern mexico, baja, etc. The history section does not need to be that detailed here in any case, just a brief overview required since the main focus shld be on the contemporary (when the term indigenous peoples is most usefully applied).
  • The definitions/claims introduced re "racially indigenous Mexicans" seem problematic, as argued above in preceding section.

The original text was not perfect either, of course, and needs further work; but I think it stood closer to what the more reliable sources have to say, than the sum of those recent amendments. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the info under the Demographics sections to try to explain the disparity of numbers when it comes to different sources because there is an obvious and major conflict between Political Correctness and those who are indigenous by race. For example, in the top right infobox there are Emiliano Zapata and Benito Juarez. Under the current criteria these two individuals are not classified as Indigenous even though they obviously are. The reason for this is that the Mexican government has a political classification for who constitutes as indigenous and who doesn't. Even though Zapata spoke Nahuatl he did not live in an indigenous culture as it is politically defined in the 1917 constitution. This article needs to include both the politically-ethnic and the racially-ethnic groups of indigenous Mexicans and well as their respective demographics. There are many more indigenous Mexicans living outside the indigenous communities and cultures than there are within them, these people need to be taken into account. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliano Zapata

Why is Zapata put here on the pictures of the infobox? Zapata was a mestizo, sure he was pretty dark, but he still was a mestizo.

Zapata was from Anenecuilco, Morelos. Around the turn of the century Anenecuilco was not a Mestizo town, it was an indigenous Nahua community (censuses from the time confirm this). Further more Zapata spoke Nahuatl which is documented by eyewitnesses. I know Womack says he wasn't indigenous but he is quite simply wrong on this point.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zapata's Wikipedia article says that he is mestizo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.0.12 (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the answer to this is, I do not know if he was ethnically Indigenous or ethnically Mestizo. However, Zapatas article says "The Zapata family were descended from the Zapata of Mapaztlán and were likely mestizos, Mexicans of both Spanish and Nahua heritage" which indicates whoever wrote it views heritage or biological mixing as a process of dilution of Indigeneity, which is simply untrue. Zapata being mixed-race does not make him a cultural mestizo, it does not make him less Indigenous. If such a thing were true then there would be zero indigenous people in USA and Canada because they're even more biologically mixed than Indigenous people in mexico and even more mixed than ethnic mestizos. Indigenous is not a race. Amerindian is a race. There seems to be confusion between ethnic mestizaje and racial mestizaje. Ethnic mestizaje can include anyone of any race (white, black, asian, amerindian, mixed) who is culturally part of the colonial ideology/mational identity of mestizaje, which is very much not Indigenous. Then there is racial mestizaje, which means someone is mixed race/ancestry but does not determine someones cultural/political/.ethnic belonging as either ethnically mestizo or ethnically Indigenous (they could be either or neither). Indigenous is about political/cultural/community belonging, Amerindian race is about European-imposed race science. If someone speaks an Indigenous language and comes from an Indigenous community and generally opposes European worldviews, they are generally considered culturally/politically Indigenous and therefore NOT mestizo in mexico, regardless of their race. Zapata was racially Amerindian, but his ethnicity and political status and community belonging points towards him being an Indigenous person, not a Mestizo. The person who wrote his article seems to be conflating racial mestizaje with ethnic/political mestizaje, and also seems to not know that ethnic mestizaje is less about being "mixed heritage" and more about cultural assimilation to Latin European ideology & culture. "were likely mestizos, Mexicans of both Spanish and Nahua heritage" implies they think being racially mixed means that Zapata must be culturally/ideologically less indigenous/more mestizo. Nativebun (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
to reiterate, I don't know what the answer is. i don't know if he was ethnically/culturally/politically Indigenous or Mestizo. I am simply pointing out that the reasoning in the article about him is flawed and conflates two superficially similar but drastically politically different terms. Nativebun (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Anenecuilco was predominantly indigenous during Zapata's time, but there were also mestizos present, and some sources even indicate Afro-descendents as residents.69.235.151.118 (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)James Lopez[reply]

The Article's introduction needs fixing

The introduction to the article as it stands is very imprecise and indirect. It doesn't get to the point right away but instead deviates into Mexican politics which seems to overshadow the theme of the entire article. The information contained in the introduction is valuable and relevant nonetheless, but it should be placed latter in the article and the language should be clarified. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Carlos Ruiz

I would need to see a source that Jose Carlos Ruiz claims indigenous status. As far as I know, he is mestizo.69.235.151.118 (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)James Lopez[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Plains Indians which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 07:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be okay to move this article to Indigenous peoples of Mexico as opposed to "in" Mexico, since theoretically that could include indigenous peoples from Guatemala, Honduras, the United States, etc. who have immigrated to Mexico? -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
No response in a month, so I went ahead and moved the article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Statistics

When giving a figure it is of course necessary to give the criteria by which the figure is derived. The CDI base their numbers INEGI who count only two things: speakers of indigenous languages and persons who live in households where the father, mother or one of the grandparents speak an indigenous language (and indigenous household). The figure of 10,1 million is arrived at by adding the 1,113,763 persons who live in Indigenous households and are younger than 5 years to the 5,856,975 persons who are older than 5 and speak an indigenous language and live in an indigenous household and the 2,719,520 who are older than 5 years and do not speak an indigenous language but do live in an indigenous household and finally add the 413,313 who speak an indigenous language but do not live in an indigenous household. This is on page 7 of this pdf. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to upsidedownworld.org "Indigenous people in Mexico are variously estimated to make up between 12 and 30 percent of the country’s 112 million people (the smaller, official, estimate is based on the number of people who speak an indigenous language)." Should add this info on top of page.--76.213.228.244 (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not a reliable source for statistics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)aa[reply]

The statistics section is a little redundant, with the same list reiterated twice, once in bullet point form, and once in body text form. It should be consolidated. The bullet point list is easiest to read, and the extra info could be added onto the list.

Mexican constitution changes

In the last paragraph of Independence from Spain, it says Mexico made changes to their constitution to allow for the self determination of indigenous. I looked in Article 2 as the sentence states and it does not say anything about this. There is no source and I cannot find the truth in this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.197.60 (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't make changes to the constitution, there was no previous constitution, but the constitution after independence didn't distinguish between citizens based on indigenous status as had been the practice under colonial rule. This is mentioned for example in Suárez 1983, and in most books that describe the post-colonial transition for indigenous peoples.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The perception of indigenous identity in Mexico

This section seems a bit too essay-like to me. I feel that it needs to be re-worded to make it more encyclopedic but not really sure how to go about it. Pro66 (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've removed it. Too much editorializing and personal essay and too few sources. It does leave a gap in the article that we should adress by pulling together the best sources on indigeneity and identity in Mexico. That will be a bit of a job.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States

According to the 2010 United States Census there are 175 thousand "Mexican American Indians" in the United States. There doesn't appear to be a lot written about this diaspora as a distinct group within the greater Mexican American population. I was wondering if anyone would know where to find better references regarding this population to help improve that Native Americans in the United States article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This book to which I have access looks like a good place to start:[8].·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican American War

During the the Mexican era of the presant day west of the United states the Native Americans at the time would of been Mexican Indians but after America won the war with the expansion to nearly half of Mexico's boundries to eleven terrotories, did the Mexican Indians in the conqured provences become American Indians? --120.151.240.14 (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they did.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Indigenous Rights in Mexico

Hello, I am editing this article for a university class. My main focus will be on the rights of indigenous peoples of Mexico. I plan to start a new section on rights and improve the article. I plan to improve the history section of the article because understanding the history is important to understand why topics relating to rights happened. In the History section of the article I plan to add a section on 19th Century, 20th Century, and 21st Century history. However, my first priority will be to make the section on rights of indigenous people robust. The section on the rights of indigenous people would include: land rights, linguistic rights, right to representation, and reproductive rights. I also see there was talk about the perception of indigenous identity in Mexico which would also be interesting to include works by Diego Rivera.

Any input would be appreciated! Thanks! Nnlpz (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for Nnlpz

I think you've made great contributions to the article. I would try to increase the variety of your sources to ensure you are not pulling information from a limited number of perspectives. I think the "Land rights" section (note the the "r" should not be capitalized) would benefit from further explanations and specific details of information like you added to the "Linguistic rights" section. You do a great job of having a neutral point of view and providing readers a comprehensive overview of these topics. I think a great addition to this portion of the article would be to add more information on history's impact on these rights in present day as well as providing more information on how these rights look to modern day indigenous people.

MBouchein (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)MBouchein[reply]

Nnlpz, your information concerning "Linguistic rights" is very informative and a great addition to the article. I think that you can pull a lot more from a historical point of view with your "Land rights" section, specifically addressing the Mexican Revolution. You could address the indigenous leader Emiliano Zapata, his Plan de Ayala, 1917 Mexican Constitution, and agrarian reform from the 30s-50s. To complete the article a reflective section could be used, explaining the relationship of indigenous people in the present.

Benito103910 (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[cross posted from Nnlpz talkpage which they may not have seen] It is great that you are working on the article, and the material you wrote is a good beginning. Nonetheless, I just wanted to let you know that I think the text you wrote can be improved a lot, and that there are some factual problems where I think you are missing some important information in the sources you are using. You focus too much on the basic process of colonization, and you describe it very simplistically. It was not the case that Spaniards just took indigenous land and people and they lost all rights. There was a complex system of rights attached to the racial hierarchy of the casta system, and Indians kept their land rights in most cases but had to pay tribute to encomenderos. There was also a lot of politicas of indigenous rights in the time and different people such as las Casas were campaigning for Indigenous rights of a kind. There was a lot of changing legislation about indigenous rights over the colonial period. Also in fact indigenous rights were worse in the 19th century because indians were no longer recognized as a group with specific rights and protections. So youre account of the history of indigenous rights oversimplifies the matter greatly. You should go back to the main books such as Hidalgo 2006 (which by the way you need to cite correctly), and also Brice Heath's "Telling Tongues", and read up on the different changes in policy. To give a more nuanced and accurate account. I am telling you this because I know you are working within an educational project and I want to give you a chance to improve. If you need more advice feel free to contact me on my talk page.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indigenous peoples of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indigenous peoples of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indigenous peoples of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indigenous peoples of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indigenous peoples of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indigenous peoples of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small Wiki Link Error

In 5.6, Populations of less than 20,000, The bottom of the table highlights the name Soltec and links to he Honda Motor Company page for some reason. Could somebody with an account fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.153.207.29 (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Know It Sounds Stupid, But…

Didn't Mexico or just the indigenous peoples have their own, original language before the people from Spain travelled over there and make their own new version of the Spanish language?

72.68.2.236 (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2014 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the 20% figure

DataNStats, According to Principales Resultados de la Encuesta Intercensal[1], Indigenous Mexicans and partially indigenous Mexicans were classified as indigenous together as also shown within the Demographics of Mexico Wikipedia page, making the percentage 20%. This page is about full blooded indigenous peoples which represent around 10%-14% of the population, I get where you are coming from when you want to show the 20% figure, however it is already represented within this page and the demographics of Mexico page, it shouldn’t be placed as the first estimate however as that brings the notion that 20% of Mexicans are full blooded indigenous. Which would be more accurate for the 1920 census than the 2020 census. The government itself stopped using racial terms recently within the census and instead counts you as indigenous based on language spoken as well as culture, so like in many countries in Latin America, those who don’t carry indigenous traditions or speak an indigenous language are usually counted as mestizos rather than indigenous within their census. Not only that, using the 20% figure brings the misinformation that a Mexico has indigenous populations around the size of Peru and twice the size of Ecuador and Panama despite the three countries having a larger Native American influence and more of the population speaking an indigenous language. PedroDonasco (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying conflicts with the facts from the data sources both you and I have cited. These are two major reasons why:
1. The material you have just cited does not make any differentiation between partial or fully indigenous people. With regard to the indigenous population of Mexico it states on page 57 that there are 7,173,534 people that speak an indigenous language. On page 72 it states there are 25,694,928 people that self-identify as indigenous. No where in the cited material does it make mention of race or state that either population is more indigenous than the other. That is a conclusion that you are drawing not based on any facts. That means it is your opinion.
2. The cited material that you have posted is from 2015, so it is outdated and superseded by the most recent census which was taken in 2020. I have posted the link for the 2020 census in my edit, and you have cited it as well. Just like the 2015 intercensus, the 2020 census makes no differentiation between partial or fully indigenous people. There is no mention of race in this census. As of 2020, regarding the indigenous population of Mexico, there are 23,232,391 people who were identified as indigenous based on self-identification, 11,800,247 people who live in households where an indigenous language is spoken, and 7,364,645 people who speak an indigenous language. This is not my interpretation of the data, this is what the cited material says this data represents.[9]https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/productos/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/nueva_estruc/702825198060.pdf
You can refer to the Mexican constitution, article II, for who is indigenous. You will find that speaking an indigenous language is not the sole criteria. In fact, the first paragraph of article II states that consciousness of indigenous identity is the basis for which one will be considered indigenous: "The Mexican Nation is unique and indivisible. The nation is multicultural, based originally on its
indigenous tribes.
Descendants of those inhabiting the country before colonization and that preserve their own social,
economic, cultural and political institutions, or some of them.
Consciousness of indigenous identity will be the fundamental criteria to determine to whom apply the
provisions on indigenous people." [10]https://www.oas.org/ext/Portals/33/Files/Member-States/Mex_intro_txtfun_eng.pdf
If there are any sources you can cite which state what you are saying then please feel free to post them here so that they can be reviewed. I do not believe that is going to be possible however, because as you have stated, the last time the Mexican government took a census which collected information on race was in 1921. At that time the racially pure indigenous population was 29.16%, and the partially-indigenous (Mestizo) population was 59.33%. Would you prefer we represent this information as being the most up-to date regarding the indigenous population of Mexico? DataNStats (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there hasn’t been added already then I prefer that the 1921 census is added for the most up to date data regarding the full indigenous population of Mexico, however for the official numbers in the box, I believe only the numbers regarding indigenous language speakers and related criteria should be included as the Mexican government no longer uses racial identification within the census such as white, mestizo, or indigenous and instead focuses on language spoken as the criteria. The most recent census also lumps together people who identified as full indigenous and partially indigenous together as people 3 or older who identified as indigenous, it states within the demographics of Mexico Wikipedia page itself “Indigenous people make up 21.5% of Mexico's population. In this occasion, people who self-identified as "Indigenous" and people who self-identified as "partially Indigenous" were classified in the "Indigenous" category altogether.” Again, this estimate should be included in the page, but not added as one of the main ones due to the Mexican government using indigenous language criteria for those of fully indigenous descent. PedroDonasco (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "related criteria" for who is indigenous is self-identification, per the census and constitution. I posted a link to the constitution, and it is not stated in the constitution that speaking an indigenous language is the sole criteria for one to be indigenous. I posted a link to the 2020 census, and it is not stated in the census that the self-identified indigenous population consists of "partially" or "fully indigenous peoples". The 2015 intercensus that you cited doesn't make that distinction either. It shows the data on who is self-identified indigenous and who speaks and indigenous language. It isn't stated that one group is more indigenous than the other. If you can, cite a government source which differentiates "self-identified indigenous" from "partially indigenous" in the census. That would provide hard data and validate what you are saying. It is that easy. If another user has posted incorrect information on another Wikipedia page, that in and of itself is not validation of that statement being true. I can go to the same wikipedia page and say "100% of the Mexican population is of pure unmixed European origin". The fact that the statement exists isn't evidence of it being true. That is why we cite source material, so that something can be validated. As you are aware, Wikipedia is a peer reviewed website, and if something is not fact checked then it can remain on a page until it is. Your interpretation of what a set of data represents beyond what it is said to represent in the source material is an opinion. You are disagreeing with hard data without any evidence to the contrary. DataNStats (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the 2020 Mexican census, which is provided here > https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/ccpv/2020/doc/Censo2020_cuest_basico.pdf < It provides no question for whether you consider yourself indigenous and instead asks if you speak an indigenous language or not, this is where the estimates of 6% and 10% come from. Here is the inter census from 2015 which groups together people who identify as indigenous or partially indigenous, classifying them together as just indigenous, which is where the 20% estimate comes from > https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/intercensal/2015/doc/eic2015_cuestionario.pdf < In the same inter census the Mexican government numbers the population of full indigenous peoples at around 12 million or 10% of the Mexican population > https://www.gob.mx/inpi/articulos/indicadores-sobre-las-mujeres-indigenas-resultados-de-la-encuesta-intercensal-2015 < And the reason these numbers and percentages are nearly the same as the ones in the 2020 census is because they used the same criteria for the 2020 census. PedroDonasco (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the first link, that is the basic questionnaire that does not capture all of the information recorded in the 2020 census. Here is a link to the expanded questionnaire which asks if whether or not someone describes themselves as indigenous. It asks this question in a yes or no format on Section: III. Características de las personas, question number 16. There is no question asking if someone is of partial indigenous ancestry, only if whether or not they consider themselves indigenous. Those who answered yes equated to 19.41% of the national population. [11]https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/ccpv/2020/doc/Censo2020_cuest_ampliado.pdf [12]https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/saladeprensa/aproposito/2022/EAP_PueblosInd22.pdf
With regard to the 2nd link, I do see that the partial indigenous descent question is asked, and this does validate that the question was asked and data recorded. I was able to locate results for the expanded questionnaire that did in fact differentiate between all 4 different population groups in this questionnaire. Those who considered themselves indigenous represented 21.5% of the national population. Those who considered themselves partially indigenous represented 1.59% of the national population. Those who considered themselves not indigenous represented 74.64% of the national population. Those who responded they don't know represented 1.28% of the national population. Those who did not specify anything represented 0.97% of the national population. That would mean if the indigenous and partially indigenous populations were grouped together they would account for 23.09% of the national population in 2015.[13]https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/intercensal/2015/tabulados/05_etnicidad.xls [14]https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.inegi.org.mx%2Fcontenidos%2Fprogramas%2Fintercensal%2F2015%2Ftabulados%2F05_etnicidad.xls&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK
With regard to the 3rd link. That article states that the -CDI- considers the population in "indigenous households" as "indigenous" per their criteria. The CDI was replaced by the INPI in 2018, and the INPI published results from the 2020 census that states exactly what I posted. "Indigenous population by self-ascription: 23,229,089, 19.4%"[15]https://www.inpi.gob.mx/indicadores2020/ DataNStats (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, however due to the many conflicting estimates between the number of indigenous peoples of Mexico and the fact that the language estimates are used much more often to determine indigenous peoples not only from the Mexican government but by the general public I say that the estimate for self identified indigenous peoples should be used within the page but not as the main estimate alongside those that consider language spoken within the box. That means that the information will still be there but the most common estimates for identifying indigenous people are used as the main numbers within the page. PedroDonasco (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your entire reason for your not wanting the data put along side other data from the same census was based upon the idea that it was inaccurate because it "included self identified partially indigenous people". That has been proven to be untrue. A statement from the INPI:
"Este Instituto recomienda utilizar el criterio de autoadscripción como principal elemento de información de la población indígena, en la definición de las acciones y estrategias orientadas a garantizar el ejercicio de sus derechos, así como su desarrollo integral y bienestar común con respeto a sus culturas y el aprovechamiento sostenible de sus tierra, territorios y recursos naturales."[16]https://www.inpi.gob.mx/indicadores2020/
You nor I decide who is indigenous. You nor I can choose one number over another as a "true" representation of who is indigenous. The data speaks for itself. That is why the number is there along with the other information, because it is a fact from the same source. The constitution recognizes it, and government agencies recognizes it. The self identified indigenous population number will stay in the article until it is proven to be invalid or false. DataNStats (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do not just revert the edit, a consensus needs to be agreed upon by all parties before an edit is made. And so far I disagree. The Mexican Census puts an emphasis on indigenous language spoken for the identification of indigenous peoples as well as indigenous ethnicities. Not only that, but the ethnic groups like Nahuas, Mayas, Zapotecs, Tarahumaras, Huastecs are all counted based on indigenous households rather than self identification. The page is a page about full indigenous peoples and the ethnicities that pertain to the indigenous category, that are counted via the counting of indigenous households. An ethnic group like the Nahuas numbers 2 million in Mexico, however they are the largest indigenous ethnic group within the country and if you were to count all indigenous peoples together, it would not reach 20 million, it would reach 12 million people instead. Most other Wikipedia pages use the same definition for indigenous peoples of Mexico as well, the ethnic groups of Mexico, the demographics of Mexico, even the other language pages cite the 12 million estimate much more often. Yes, what you shown is hard facts, but like I said, it shouldn’t be shown as the first cite within the box as it is already represented within the Wikipedia page itself but the ethnic groups of Mexico page where it has 1 mention. Most countries in Latin America including Mexico dropped racial terms from their census and instead indigenous peoples are counted by language spoken. And like I said, those who don’t speak any indigenous language are usually counted as mestizo regardless. In other Wikipedia pages your edits have also been reverted by other users, which means people do not agree with your edit and you shouldn’t continue to edit war with others. PedroDonasco (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with facts then there will never be a consensus agreement between you and I. My interest in any wikipedia page pertains only to factual information, not unsubstantiated, opinionated gobbledygook. Deleting information without any evidence to the contrary is vandalism. At this point I am warning you that further deletion of data with multiple cited sources is vandalism. This conversation and it's cited sources can be reviewed by anyone. Provide hard data cited sources which invalidate the 2020 census and its findings or cease vandalism of the webpage we are discussing. There is no substance to the opinions you have misrepresented as facts thus far. You cited incomplete sources which I have expanded upon in this discussion. These sources have disproved that which you claim to be true. You have made false statements which I have corrected with cited sources. You make generalized statements with no data to substantiate these claims. Your entire argument is based upon an opinion of yours which conflicts with facts. Your vandalism of the Spanish and English wikipedia pages regarding the indigenous peoples of Mexico will be reported upon further destruction of these pages. DataNStats (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided proof already that it shouldn’t be provided as the main estimate. Not only do other language Wikipedia pages cite the 12% as the one for indigenous peoples of Mexico. The 20% does not take into consideration the ethnic groups within the country as it’s just a broad indigenous self identification without having the person provide a specific ethnicity. This is why you see ethnic groups like Nahuas numbered at 2 million, they are counted by indigenous language metrics and indigenous language metrics only. PedroDonasco (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The case for vandalism grows stronger with every response you make that is unsubstantiated. I must state for the sake of clarity once again; there is no value in discussing opinions. At this point the conversation is compiling upon the fact that your statements are opinion based. The number you are now representing as the "true" representation of the indigenous population of Mexico is cited as a source from 2000 that isn't even accessible. Please explain as to why information relating to a 20 year old inaccessible document is more relevant than the most recent census of which data can be easily accessed. Why is data (substantiated or unsubstantiated) from the year 2000 more relevant than from the year 2020? DataNStats (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not referring to 2 million as the number of indigenous peoples of Mexico, I am saying it is the number stated within the Wikipedia page of Nahuas, and I am providing an example only. In the 2020 Mexican census, it asks whether a person self-identifies as indigenous based on culture solely. The questions about people within an indigenous household or indigenous language states that you provide a language and ethnic group. Indigenous ethnic groups of Mexico are counted not by self identification but by indigenous households. The 19.6% estimate only takes into consideration self identification which is why the general public or the Mexican government don’t use that figure as the one for identifying fully indigenous peoples, anyone can just mark that they declare themself as indigenous without coming from an indigenous background and they will be counted. And like I said, that number is already represented within this page as those who self identify as indigenous. The main box however should only include numbers that focus on ethnicity and language spoken estimates rather than simply self identification. I am not doing any vandalism as I actually provide reason for my edits rather than just needlessly reverting one. > https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/766887/Infografia_adolescente_y_adolescente_indigena_2022_FIN_1.pdf < This is a document from the mexican government in which full indigenous adolescents are defined by either indigenous household or indigenous language spoken, not by simply self identification. > https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/696544/15_MEX.pdf < > https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/696534/05_COAH.pdf < > https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/696546/17_MOR.pdf < > https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/696551/22_QRO.pdf < Other government documents that define full indigenous peoples as those who have an indigenous ethnicity or speak an indigenous language, making the population 11,800,247. > https://www.ecosur.mx/uno-de-cada-tres-indigenas-tiene-como-idioma-materno-al-espanol/ < > https://www.scjn.gob.mx/derechos-humanos/sites/default/files/pagina-basica/archivos-genericos/caso-hipotetico-camino-corte-2022.pdf < Here are some others that highlight the indigenous population. PedroDonasco (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And like I said previously, the self identification estimate should go on the page, yes, it is from the mexican government. But it shouldn’t be in the box for indigenous peoples as it is simply a self identification figure and just that, it doesn’t take into consideration the ethnic groups within the country or the various languages like the other figures do, which is why the other figures are commonly used to describe those of indigenous ethnicities, and as well within the other language wikis for indigenous peoples of Mexico, it uses the 12 million figure. PedroDonasco (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am reporting this case of vandalism/edit warring to the noticeboard. You still have yet to provide any data which invalidates what the 2020 census reports regarding the indigenous population of Mexico and continue to represent your opinion as a fact. DataNStats (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided plenty of data in my last replies, many users including myself had to keep reverting your edits in not only this page but the Spanish version as well where 2 other users have reverted your edits, maybe you should take to consider the evidence I have provided and the fact that you’re the only one edit warring with us when I am trying to reach a consensus between us? I am not representing any “opinion” as fact, I am simply showing the data from the government as well as what is on other Wikipedia pages. And please refrain from reverting the edits I make until a consensus is reached or until mods review this talk page. PedroDonasco (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you have provided has invalidated the 2020 census findings. This conversation is going nowhere. The Admins will resolve your deletion of validated data. DataNStats (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided plenty of reasons why, and also the population estimate you try to push onto the main box is already included on the page. PedroDonasco (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A 3rd opinion has been requested for this topic. The conversation is going nowhere. DataNStats (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A third opinion would be appreciated PedroDonasco (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
I note that your third opinion request was posted three weeks and has still not been answered. It seems that the statistics relating to self recognised indigenous peoples are already provided in the article and are not in themselves in dispute. The dispute arises on which statistic should be provided in the infobox. In my own personal opinion, this value should be the official number from the government source. There may, however, be value in providing a note next to this official value to acknowledge the numbers of self-recoginised peoples is different to this official value. For input from users with more direct experience in these matters, I recommend asking at the wikiprojects listed at the top of this page (particularly WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, WP:WikiProject Mexico, or WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas Polyamorph (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but yes, we have already made a consensus on what to include. We no longer need a third opinion. PedroDonasco (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last comment on this page was on the 6 January asking for a third opinion. There has been no discussion since then so there is no evidence of any new consensus. If it is true that no third opinion is required then you should have removed the request at WP:3OR. Regardless, I stand by the opinion that I provided. Polyamorph (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for late response, I have made a consensus with said user here. PedroDonasco (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20170422033628/http://www.beta.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/proyectos/enchogares/especiales/intercensal/2015/doc/eic2015_resultados.pdf
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indigenous_peoples_of_Mexico