User talk:Analyticalreview

Your recently added table

Greetings Analyticalreview, it comes to my attention that you made significant changes to demographic information on the article of White Mexicans recently and I'd like that you discussed those changes first for reasons such as the fact that you added a table claiming that it is from the Latinobarometro survey 2023[1] but I read the actual survey[2] and there's no such table anywhere, can you explain whats going on?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I added the screenshot of the table in the citation! Go ahead and click on https://www.latinobarometro.org/lat.jsp. Then click on Análisis Online at the top. Click on 2023 and Mexico and search up "Raza/Etnia a la que pertenece." This is a great source and the only survey I can find of Mexicans explicitly mentioning the race they identify with. These results are very in line with what I had assumed it would be from earlier research. Changes will be made to reflect the newer and much more accurate metrics. Analyticalreview (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, let me simplify the steps.

1) Click on https://www.latinobarometro.org/lat.jsp

2) Click on Análisis Online at the top

3) On "Paso 1" click on 2023

4) On "Paso 2" click on Mexico

5) Now click "Analizar" on the top right of "Paso 2."

6) On the right where you see "Buscar" type in "Raza/Etnia a la que pertenece." Proceed to click on the link that is provided.

They have been doing surveys on Mexican racial identification since 2007. There is some clear consistency with there never being more than around 11% of Mexicans self-identifying as their race being White. Analyticalreview (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

They have been doing surveys on Mexican racial identification since 2007 so why they do not include them in their published documents? there are also concerns in regards to their methodology, of which other than the fact that it was conducted in only 1200 people (does it have to take precendence over gevernmental surveys carried out in between 30,000 to 70,000 people like the ENADIS ones?) I can't find anything, was it conducted only in one city? If so, which?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Latinobarómetro literally published it for their 2023 Mexican survey. The Mexican government does not publish racial data and the only survey it allowed Mexicans to self-identify back in 2010, we had 10% identifying their skin as "blanco" which is basically identical to this survey. Also, a sample pool of 1000 is pretty normal for a countrywide survey. The findings here are very consistent with what we know. Analyticalreview (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Latinobarómetro literally published it for their 2023 Mexican survey I am aware that sometimes Latinobarometro publishes surveys for particular countries but I haven't seen such thing for Mexico, do you have it? perhaps we can then get more information about the methodology used.

a sample pool of 1000 is pretty normal for a countrywide survey not really, most surveys that size are conducted in two or three cities at most.

the only survey it allowed Mexicans to self-identify back in 2010, we had 10% identifying their skin as "blanco" which is basically identical to this survey. We already discussed that exhaustively in the talk page of White Mexicans, the survey used other words that are used coloquially to refer to White people such as güero, claro etc, and you acknowledged that those terms summed up together give a result of 26%[3] (and this is not considering that the word moreno can refer also to people who are racially White[4]) which is nearly 3 times higher than the result of this Latinobarometro survey, so if anything the Mexican survey you talk about refutes the Latinobarometro one. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

"I am aware that sometimes Latinobarometro publishes surveys for particular countries but I haven't seen such thing for Mexico, do you have it? perhaps we can then get more information about the methodology used"

Follow the instructions I stated earlier barring part 6.

"not really, most surveys that size are conducted in two or three cities at most."

Incorrect. In many countries (including the USA which has a much larger population than Mexico), surveys with 1000 people is enough to be sufficient.

"We already discussed that exhaustively in the talk page of White Mexicans, the survey used other words that are used coloquially to refer to White people such as güero, claro etc, and you acknowledged that those terms summed up together give a result of 26%[3] (and this is not considering that the word moreno can refer also to people who are racially White"

Well, you completely hurt your own logic here. Using your same reasoning "blanco" can refer to people that are racially Mestizo (such as myself).

I'll do more digging and try to find more racial identification surveys later, but as of right now this is the only one! It's a great source of information. Analyticalreview (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Follow the instructions I stated earlier barring part 6 you are not understanding, I am asking you for a published document that includes more in-depth information on sample design and methodologies used, please look for that.

In many countries (including the USA which has a much larger population than Mexico), surveys with 1000 people is enough I just can't agree with that, specially when sources with much bigger sample sizes are available.

Well, you completely hurt your own logic here. Using your same reasoning "blanco" can refer to people that are racially Mestizo (such as myself) you already used that argument in the talk page and I replied to it there, various times [5][6]. Also with that kind of response you are backing up the observations of the Princeton University on how the phenotype-based methodology Mexico's government uses reports more accurate results. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I just can't agree with that, specially when sources with much bigger sample sizes are available.

I can tell by your misinterpretation of various studies you probably have very little background in basic statistics. A 1000 sample pool is absolutely enough to model a country. Also, there is not a single other source you have posted that showcases the racial identity of Mexicans.

the phenotype-based methodology Mexico's government uses reports more accurate results

No serious sociologist would pretend skin color is the only determinant of race. The Mexican government purposely does not publish racial data besides Afro-Mexicans (which was a recent addition). Why are you using a self-identification survey for the Mexican-American figure but not using one for the Mexican figure? That is pure contradictory. Find a survey that shows the racial identification of Mexicans. Until then, I will do actual research. Analyticalreview (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Going back to the sample pool argument. Here is a list of the polls leading up to the 2024 Mexico presidential election tomorrow.

"Sources: Oraculus—Aggregated polling. Buendía & Márquez—October 4, 2023 poll of 1,200 people was conducted September 22–28, 2023 and has a margin of error of ±3.23%.  November 27, 2023 poll of 1,000 people conducted November 17–22, 2023 and has a margin of error of ±3.53%. February 23, 2024 poll of 1,000 people conducted February 15–21, 2024 and has a margin or error of ±3.53%. May 28, 2024 poll of 2,000 people conducted in two phases on May 16–22 and 22—26, 2024 and has a margin of error of ±2.9%. El Financiero—October 31, 2023 poll of 1,620 people involved in-person polling of 720 people from October 19-25 and telephone polling of 900 people from October 19-22, 27-28. December 5, 2023 poll of 1,000 people conducted November 9–11, 24–25, 2023 and has a margin of error of ±3.1%. January 4, 2024 telephone poll of 1,200 people conducted December 8–9, 15–16, and 20–21 with 1,200 people and has a margin of error of ±2.8%. January 29, 2024 telephone poll of 1,000 people conducted Jan 12–13, 26–27 and has a margin of error of ±3.1%. March 1, 2024 telephone poll of 1,000 people conducted February 9–10 and 23–25 and has a margin of error of ±3.1%. April 1, 2024 poll of 1,200 people conducted March 9—10, 15–16, and 21–23 and has a margin of error of ±2.8%. April 26, 2024 poll of 1,360 people conducted Abril 17–24, 2024 and has a margin of error of 2.7%. May 29, 2024 poll of 2,308 people (1,008 in person and 1,300 via phone) people conducted May 1–11, 16—20, 21–26, 2024 with a margin of error of ±2.0%. Mitofsky—March 25 poll of 1,600 people conducted March 14–17, 2024. April 23, 2024 poll of 1,600 people was conducted April 10–13, 2024.  May 14 poll of 1,600 people conducted May 3–6, 2024. May 28 poll of 1,200 people conducted May 21–24, 2024. Reforma–August 26, 2023 poll was conducted August 18–23 with 1,000 adults and a margin of error of ±4.0%. December 4, 2023 poll was conducted November 22–24 with 1,000 people and a margin of error of ±3.8%. March 19, 2024 poll was conducted March 6–12 with 1,000 respondents and has a margin of error of ±4.3%. May 29, 2024 poll conducted May 21–26, 2024 with 1,000 people and has a margin of error of ±3.9%."

As you can see most had a sample pool of around 1,000 people. This is very standard practice. Analyticalreview (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

No serious sociologist would pretend skin color is the only determinant of race I think the the Princeton University is serious enough and they consider it the most accurate, dircetly quoting their document[7] in the page 2 "an outward measure of race, we believe that skin color is relatively objective and better reflects classification by others."
Going back to the sample pool argument... You may not realised it when you wrote all that, but that you have to link so many examples does essentially refute your own argument. And the small sample size is not the only concern there is about that Latinobarometro survey, the numbers themselves are sketchy: The 23% Indigenous that appears on your image is the same as the result of Indigenous peoples reported by the 2015 intercensal survey made by the INEGI, then there's the 9% White and 52% Mestizo figures that are almost the same than the figures of White and Mestizo that appear in the World Factbook (not to mention that we have sources like the Springer document[8] that state in the notes found in the page 3 that the mestizo group increasing to such large size is simply statisctically impossible)... this is why I need to see what methodology they used, on what cities they asked etc. because it doesn't seem like they have actually done so (and the fact that such numbers do not appear on the report that was published further suggests this). Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"I think the the Princeton University is serious enough and they consider it the most accurate, dircetly quoting their document[7] in the page 2 "an outward measure of race, we believe that skin color is relatively objective and better reflects classification by others."

I'm going to act in good faith and assume this is a translation error on your part. It is not stating skin color is an objective measure when classifying race. Instead it is stating that it is easier to match socioeconomic outcomes with skin color rather than race due to how fluid racial identification is in Latin America. So this actually hurts your argument.

"And the small sample size is not the only concern there is about that Latinobarometro survey"

As mentioned earlier, the sample size is not a problem at all. 1000 participants is standard for surveys/studies in Mexico.

"The 23% Indigenous that appears on your image is the same as the result of Indigenous peoples reported by the 2015 intercensal survey made by the INEGI"

Wow, it's almost like the survey did a good job and found a similar figure that other reputable sources also came across.

"then there's the 9% White and 52% Mestizo figures that are almost the same than the figures of White and Mestizo that appear in the World Factbook"

Yes, because those are the accurate figures so other sources have similar findings.

"that state in the notes found in the page 3 that the mestizo group increasing to such large size is simply statisctically impossible"

Again, you are misinterpreting the findings of these papers. It suggests that the rapid increase in the mestizo population in Mexico, as recorded in census data from the 19th century, cannot be solely attributed to biological factors such as reproduction rates. The paper implies that social and cultural processes, such as the reclassification of individuals previously identified as indigenous into the mestizo category, played a significant role in this growth. Which is information we already know!

It's impressive how you misinterpret almost every single study you send me. Find more surveys or sources and do actual research, please stop wasting my time while I actually seek accurate information. Analyticalreview (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

it is stating that it is easier to match socioeconomic outcomes with skin color rather than race due to how fluid racial identification is in Latin America... In other words you are saying that is more accurate, right?.

because those are the accurate figures so other sources have similar findings What are you talking about? The 9%-10% White 52%-57% Mestizo has its origins on the 1921 census and is almost considered universally innaccurate nowadays, the Springer document I presented on my previous reply does so aswell on the notes in page 3[9]. It just happens that you are the one that is misunderstanding it, when it says "Such an increase could only be explained through a catastrophe of enormous dimensions—just affecting indigenous communities—, combined with a disproportionate and gigantic reproduction of Mestizos..." It is highlighting how statistically impossible the suppossed growth numbers are, furthermore the note right above that one states "many Mexicans would not clearly recognize themselves as Mestizos or Mestizas, even when directly questioned about their ethnic or racial identities..." meaning that is not true that Mexicans at a point massively decided to identify themselves as Mestizos.

stop wasting my time while I actually seek accurate information. How about you search for the methodology of the numbers from the Latinobarometro survey instead? I spent much of the weekend looking for it and I couldn't find anything on it maybe you'll have better luck. And by the way, I'm now unsure of what I said earlier about Latinobarometro sometimes publishing special surveys for a single country, (I have a vague memory of one but it may have been about Indigenous peoples of the continent) I thought there was one for Colombia but I double checked the edit that gave me that impression months ago[10] (by an editor called Zaquezipe) and in reality he is linking to the same site you do[11]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"In other words you are saying that is more accurate, right?"

Nope, you are 100% misunderstanding this statement. It is stating skin color is more accurate when trying to measure socioeconomic conditions, not racial identification due to how fluid it could be.

"What are you talking about? The 9%-10% White 52%-57% Mestizo has its origins on the 1921 census and is almost considered universally innaccurate nowadays"

Latinobarometro has done several surveys since 2007 with slightly different results (some have the White population a bit lower and some a bit higher). These have nothing to do with the 1921 census.

"It just happens that you are the one that is misunderstanding it"

The person misunderstanding the Springer document is you. It is clearly stating the bulk of the increase of the "Mestizo" population is coming from Indigenous peoples that assimilated to Mestizo culture. You left out the next sentence in your quote you used.

Here is the full quote:

"Such an increase could only be explained through a catastrophe of enormous dimensions—just affecting indigenous communities—, combined with a disproportionate and gigantic reproduction of Mestizos (Navarrete 2005). In fact the study argues that the enormous and expedient growth of the Mestizo group is better explained by the inclusion in the Mestizo category of people formerly included under the indigenous brand."

So actually it is stating the growth of the Mestizo population was due to INDIGENOUS PEOPLE BECOMING ASSIMILATED. It is clearly written and there is no more room for discussion on this part.

This discussion is over. If you find any more sources that estimate racial identification I would love to see it in the future. Analyticalreview (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)