Talk:Mexico/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Mexico's GDP

In the head paragraph, it's mentioned that Mexico's economy is the 12 in the world, which is not true, it the 14, also then it's said that it's on par with Spain and Canada, which is false, because they have larger economies, they are the 8 and 9 largest economies in the world. And even more, later in the paragraph it is mentioned that it is nearly of the size of France and UK economies, when this nations are the 5 and 6 largest economies in the world, being there GDP more than three times the size of Mexico's.

Mexico and its latitudinal location

The geography section used to say that Mexico is located "in the mid-latitudes" of the Americas. Where I challenged this (by adding the "citation needed" tag, as stated in Wikipedia policies) because I have sources that indicate that Mexico is in fact in the northern latitudes. Gently, user Corticopia provided a source, but it seems that the article is speaking about the North American continent, rather than the "Americas". Can somebody else please read the article and tell me what they think? Here is the link. I also believe that sometimes the article is referring to the mid-latitudes of Mexico itself. Please read and comment.

So I changed the description to say that Mexico is "located in the mid-latitudes of North America". Of course I did this only until another source is provided and the "mid-latitudes" point is proved right. Thank you for reading. I also added the sources that indicate that Mexico is in the northern latitudes. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 13:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Continually pushing a point of view does not make it so. The lead for this section and the parallel article Geography of Mexico already indicate the country's location: first in the mid-section of the Americas, then in southern North America, and also in Middle America (see 1st clause). The sources which even you have added indicate this: that is not to deny that it is in the northern latitudes of the Americas, but it is also in the mid-latitudes of the Americas, and actually in the southern latitudes of North America. This is already stated. You have added multiple 'sources' which add little value to the topic matter. And, frankly, you single-handedly opted to change the introduction of the relevant section to further suit your perspective (read: POV pushing) without first initiating discussion and garnering a consensus. This is disruptive: how many times do YOU need to indicate and repeat the same crap? An RfC was initiated about your boosterism in this and other articles. Until you garner a consensus for your edits, there is little else to discuss. Corticopia 13:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW: the current lead is just passable, but unsurprisingly low-brow given the source. Anyhow, it may be simpler and cleaner to merely indicate it is in the Americas in the first sentence. Corticopia 13:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are free to open the RfC if you think it is justified, go ahead. Your continous use of profanity, personal attacks, uncivil manners and edit-warring in multiple articles also deserves a RfC, from me and many other editors. That's what I think. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 14:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

First I need to demand you to remain WP:Civil, and to avoid the use of profanity and personal attacks as you did here [1].

This is not about Middle America, North America. This is about the description of the latitudes Mexican territory is located in the Americas. The old paragraph only included the version that Mexico is located in the mid-latitudes, which is not completely right, because Mexico is also in the northern latitudes of the Americas, as proved by the sources.

Your argument is that we should not indicate Mexico is in the northern latitudes, because it is already implied when it is listed as a North American country. Well the same apply to saying it is in the mid-latitudes, because of the mention of "Middle America" (remember how you used to remark "MIDdle America"?).

Finally, the info is sourced, is verifiable and it must be included. Both versions of course. Other way it is selective presentation of information, a form of original research. This is not a situation to reach a consensus, because I'm not altering the whole paragraph, I'm just adding the verifiable/sourced information that Mexico is ALSO in the northern latitudes. Please see my last edit [2]. It just says that Mexico is located in the "northern/mid-latitudes of the Americas". AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 14:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, characterising the location of Mexico as being in the upper/northern/middle/lower latitudes of America/North America/Middle America/the Americas is imprecise and not really worthy of space in the article. It is also surprisingly contentious. How about "Mexico is located between latitudes 16 and 32 degrees North", or something along that line. Wanderer57 00:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree somewhat, but the use of precise latitudinal/longitudinal information may not be readily understood by some, and would probably require a dialectic description of the country's location as well anyway (e.g., in the Americas, at x and y). Frankly, it wouldn't be so contentious if one of the simpler renditions proposed was passable to some other commentators, but alas ...Corticopia 21:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Following the Wikipolicies about controversial changes being discussed, and the argument of "talk before introducing", I reverted the addition of the template "Middle America". What are my reasons? The following:

1. The term/region is used by a minority of publications, it is not extended, so this template violates the Wikipolicy of Undue Weight.
2. I suspect the creation of this template by user Corticopia is just a POV fork, as he seems to always be involved in advancing the point that North America (continent) is clearly divided into Northern and Middle America, which is not true.
3. Finally the introduction of controversial information must be done via consensus, other way it could degenerate in edit warring.

Also:

1. Is it OK to create a template for the region of North America, that geopolitically comprises Mexico, Canada, the USA and sometimes Bermuda, St. Pierre and Greenland?

Thank you for your time reading this and please reply. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 14:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the term/region 'Middle America' is well defined and referenced. It has been added to all states/dependencies that are generally included in the region.

Second, the template is a bold addition and certainly neither a fork nor an attempt to make a point, just as much as the templates for North America are or (elsewhere) templates for regions like the West Indies, Central America, South America, Eastern Europe, and many others.

You alone yet opposes its addition, which is the true WP:POINT, and at least another editor elsewhere was pleasantly informed by its addition at Puerto Rico. Maybe you should await a consensus before removing it again.

And, it is so not OK to create an 'original' geopolitical template. A template already exists for North America, and we all know what happened upon your last attempt to create a parallel article fork ('North America (Americas)') -- it was deleted. Corticopia 15:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So I guess it is going to be ok to "boldly" restore the previous alphabetical order in the article Metropolis where you did fork a point by dividing North America into "Northern and Middle" (even if that's not a common division)? This is clearly not the first time you do such a thing, so that's why my suspicion of POV forking is well funded. However, the introduction of controversial information (even if that wasn't controversial in other articles) must be discussed. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 15:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is rather irrelevant. Corticopia 15:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No it is not irrelevant. Your actions have demonstrated a trend, such trend was the introduction of Mexico in Central America, when you couldn't support that anymore you switched to favouring the model of "Middle America". All this in what seems to me like a desire to "isolate" Mexico from the US and Canada.

And what is more important about my comment above, is that you ask for consensus when you don't like the "bold" edits of others, but you fail to follow your own arguments, like in this case. That's all. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 15:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And your actions have demonstrated a trend (with RfC): boosterism and POV-pushing. You are not a consensus, and you continue to harp about irrelevancies. That's all. Corticopia 15:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And this demonstrates hypocritical behaviour. You implemented the division of Northern and Middle America in that article without consensus, and when I try to reach a consensus about what model use to divide North America by opening a talk (and restoring the original alphabetic order meanwhile) you oppose. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 15:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Continuous irrelevancy aside (you initiated a section to talk about this template), you didn't achieve a consensus in that article and I ended the discussion almost a month ago -- that's the point. Reverts were fully explained. Corticopia 15:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't mind if a template for Middle America is introduced, conceptually speaking (the term is widely used); and I certainly do not wish to reopen a similar debate in which a consensus, by all of us, was approved months ago. However, my only question is why add a template for a region which is a subset of another? That is, why add a template for Middle America if each and every one of its members are already included in the template for North America? Is it relevant to be redundant, or will it simply suffice to say -as the article already does- that Mexico is located in Middle America (in the Geography section)? --the Dúnadan 01:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Great. As for overlap: I don't think it's an issue. Your concern, if equitably applied, would also apply to any number of other regions/territories that are subsumed by larger ones, e.g., Central America, Eastern Asia, etc., the constituents for which also include similar templates -- see [Category:Navigational_templates_by_region] Corticopia 18:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I will like to see a picture of the Basilica de Guadalupe under religion as this is an very important symbol of religion in mexico. Can some one help put a image up?76.235.132.48 00:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they put the image of Guadalajara's Cathedral because there were already too many pictures of Mexico City, but you may argue with these guys to see what they think, I don't really mind. Supaman89 23:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Its the Cathedral of Puebla not Guadalajara, which happens to be the largest in area in the continent. I agree there are too many pics of Mexico City. It's better to provide pictures of the whole country. --the Dúnadan 01:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In a similar vein, I think the Religion/Catholic section should have a reference and a link to the article about "Our Lady of Guadalupe". (Don't know how to create this.) Wanderer57 23:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sports

In the sport section, regarding about the soccer in Mexico the references to the mesoamerican ball game are totally inacurate, mainly because it states that the aztecs used heads to play its ritual game which is completly false since they used a rubber made ball, I also disagree totally with later part of the paragraph that states soccer was inspired by the mesoamerican ball game which is also incorrect becuase by the time modern soccer was created (1863) mesoamerican ball was no longer played and also because the games is not really similar to soccer it has more similarities with basketball or even volleyball. Pure 360x 18:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, why don't you fix it yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaman89 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Azpec?

I'm wondering whether the word "Azpec", which has just been introduced into this article, is correct. In a Google search, Azpec is the name of an optics company in Singapore. In a Wikipedia seach, Azpec does not show up anywhere else.

Wanderer57 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarity

(FROM the introduction to the article) As the only Latin American member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) since 1994, Mexico is firmly established as an upper middle-income country. Elections held in July 2000 marked the first time that an opposition party won the presidency to the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional: PRI), that held it since 1929, culminating a process of political alternation that had begun at the local level since the 1980s.

The first sentence is a bit confusing. How about changing it to: "As a member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) since 1994 (the only Latin American member), Mexico is firmly established as an upper-middle-income country."

The second sentence is very confusing. I wonder if it is supposed to say: "Elections held in July 2000 marked the first time that an opposition party won the presidency FROM the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional: PRI), which had held it since 1929. This was the culmination of a process of political ALTERATION that began at the local level DURING the 1980s."

-- Someone should check this carefully. I'm just guessing what it was meant to mean.

Yes I think both sentences should be revised. The first implies causation, which might no be the case: Mexico's admittance to the OECD took place in 1994, the second part of the sentence ("upper middle-income country") is a verbatim assertion from the World Bank of 2005. Maybe a simple "Mexico is a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development since 1994, and is the only Latin American member. According to the World Bank, it is firmly established as an upper-middle-income country".

The second sentence is also confusing, but the suggestion by the anonymous is misleading. The term "political alternation" is correct, not "alteration". The process did not take place during the 1980s but started in the 1980s and culminated in 2000. I propose: "In 2000, the first opposition candidate since 1929 won the presidential elections, an event that marked a culmination to a process of political alternation that began at the local level in the 1980s."

--the Dúnadan 03:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Dunadan. Your suggestions sound good to me, for what that is worth. (My comments were signed, but maybe they appeared anonymous because I put a line between the two parts.) Wanderer57 06:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

---

(FROM the start of the Geography section of this article) Mexico is situated in the northern[13][14]/mid-latitudes of the Americas.[15] Its territory comprises much of southern North America,[16][17] or also within Middle America.[18][19]

I can't even guess what the "or also" bit is intended to mean.

Please will someone check this?

Wanderer57 00:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That was the consensual version -even if hard to read- after a poll ended a fierce edit war between two users who happen to be temporarily blocked right now. The "or also" was meant to imply that depending on the geographical/geopolitical subdvision of the Americas, Mexico is reckoned to be located in southern North America or in a region called Middle-America. Being a consensual version, I wouldn't change it unless you find it confusing, and you can propose a better rendering of the same information. --the Dúnadan 03:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. To me, "Its territory comprises much of southern North America, or also within Middle America." is not grammatical. Grammar aside, is "southern North America" a well defined area? If it is, there should be a link to a definition. If it is not well defined, what is the point?

As for the second part of the sentence, I gather now that it is meant to convey that Mexico comprises much of Middle America. There IS a link to a Wikipedia article about Middle America, where I learned that Middle America includes Mexico, Panama, and everything in between, and MAYBE Columbia and Venezuela as well. There is a certain imprecision in this. Wanderer57 06:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wanderer57 again. When I raised the points about the opening sentences of the Geography section, I had no idea that there had been a previous huge debate about those very sentences. If I had known, I hope I would have had enough sense to leave it alone. However, having put my foot in it, I stand by the statement that the second sentence is ungrammatical and unclear. Wanderer57 07:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was taking a break; the other party has been blocked for a lengthy period.

I agree that the mention in the 'Geography' section you speak of is somewhat contorted: it is not as it was originally agreed. It is intended to dually communicate that Mexico occupies a central place in the Americas (essentially Middle America), in the southern part of the North American continent. Each of the assertions are specifically referenced to address those points (e.g., in 'southern North America', noted in liked reference, and as opposed to Canada in northern North America, for example). Anyhow, I will attempt to make (or propose) minor edits to simplify it.

As for imprecision, one can argue that there is a certain imprecision in the use of other similar regional terms like Western Europe or ... North America (which in English is often used to refer to just the United States and Canada), but we needn't go down that road. The links are more than adequate in clarifying matters. Corticopia 18:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In dealing with a controversial point, the business of putting in and taking out content without trying to explain the changes strikes me as unproductive and perhaps childish.

Somebody has once more put back the sentence "Its territory comprises much of southern North America, or also within Middle America." I would really like to know why that person prefers "or also within" rather than "and" or "or".

As I noted above, I think the phrase "or also within" is ungrammatical and confusing. I have not seen any discussion of why this wording makes sense.

Also, I wonder who is the target audience for this part of the Mexico article? On one hand, someone who is trying to locate Mexico probably does not know what Middle America means. On the other hand, a person who knows the meaning of the term Middle America likely already knows where Mexico is. Wanderer57 23:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have restored the simpler lead for that section, since the offending editor refuses to rationally discuss edits.

I would imagine the target audience is for those both in the know and not about the country's location. It was previously discussed to note placing it on a grander scale first (Americas), then to get more specific (southern North America; Middle America). Originally, it was noted that the country was in the mid-latitudes of the Americas, but the blocked editor alluded to above couldn't accept that, so decided to contort that sentence and over-reference it. Anyhow, links more than adequately expand on regional topics or notions that may be unclear, but there's always room for improvement. Corticopia 01:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is getting too controversial, Corticopia let me remind you that you've been block I don't know how many times already for the same reason, it is been more than a simply "editor's contribution" for you, you've been constantly trying to minimise the fact that Mexico is in North America (MEX,USA,CAN) and promote the inclusion of it in Middle America, which is right, Mexico is in both so called regions, but anyone how's been following your record will notice that you've been more than "pushy" about it, you even created the Middle America template (pretty convenient) to support you "unpretentious will to contribute".

Having said that, I propose that we simply re-write the sentence as:

• “Mexico is situated in North America (Continent) at the following latitudes 23°00′N 102°00′W…”

It wouldn’t be controversial whatsoever; it would perfectly describe Mexico’s position, with no POV’s involved and will lead user to get their own conclusions. Supaman89 03:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You have also been blocked for edit warring at this article, and anyone who knows of your record knows of your boosterism and fairweather editing. As well, at least I am not doing the bidding of blocked editors, per comments in the Spanish Wikipedia. Other notions needn't be addressed, or already are.

Anyhow, as for your proposal, a variant of that is already in place: in the introduction. And any opinion is a point-of-view: to be polemic, and as referenced, a number of interpretations in English include only the United States and Canada in North America. And my simplification was already suggested by the blocked editor noted above, and is alluded to by others recently. Of course, I am not arguing that here just yet, but if you choose to go down a certain road, you may not get what you expect. Corticopia 11:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I’ve been blocked twice precisely for engaging in editwars with you, but that can’t be compared with all the times you were blocked (at least four) for the same reason, and you still tell me that it is all due your “unpretentious will to help”?

You also mentioned that a number of interpretations in English include only the United States and Canada in North America, ok so why don’t we compare the number of interpretations that put Mexico in North America to the ones that place it in “Middle America” (which by the way is almost unknown by most people)

BTW, who’s QneB? He came all of a sudden specifically to edit this article, with no record, he didn’t even put a reason for his first edit (which was exactly like yours), that’s pretty convenient don’t you think? You’ve been accused of Sockpuppetry in the past, how do I know this isn’t the same case? Supaman89 16:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please take responsibility for your own actions: blaming others for your blocking only reinforces other editors' opinions of you. Haven't a clue who QneB is but, knowing you, you probably created the QneB account to frame. Feel free to ask for a check, if that will allay your concerns. Corticopia 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't comment regarding other comments, but unless consensual, any attempt to remove perfectly legitimate templates -- compare with the United Kingdom, for instance -- will be rectified. Corticopia 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have reactivated something so contentious. Here is a proposed rewording. I think this conveys basically the same information that was in the article when I first saw it, but without the awkward phrasing that caught my attention.

"Situated in the Americas, Mexico comprises much of southern North America, and is the largest country in Middle America."

Here is another wording that came to mind when reading the earlier discussion. I include this only for entertainment purposes. "Mexico is located somewhere between the United States of America and the Panana Canal. There is controversy about its exact location." Wanderer57 16:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made a slight edition to your variant, but it otherwise works for me. Corticopia 17:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I accidentally discovered Wikipedia few days ago and I wanted to add new information to this article but that information is already in the article. I have read this talk and I want to know why only 2 editors decide about something and it is changed. I want to say sorry to Superman89 because I erased his edits but I think there was nothing wrong with the templates of countries. But this time I support his proposal, to avoid "controversies" the latitudinal and longitudinal points should be mentioned instead of "north - mid latitudes" so I'm gonna add that —Preceding unsigned comment added by QneB (talk • contribs) 18:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah and another thing why it is mentioned mex is in southern north america and not in northern middle america? it is the same, the exact location of both regions should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QneB (talk • contribs) 18:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, which I have edited somewhat. First, Mexico is centered at the above co-ordinates (as latitude is perpendicular to longitude), it is not between them. It spans a great many degrees of each, which currently escape me.

As well, the North American continent is quite large, while the region of Middle America (essentially a subregion of the first, and America overall), less so. Indicating that it is in the south of the continent is prudent (compare with Canada in the north ('northern North America')), but the value added in indicating that it is also in the north of Middle America is (IMO) limited. Besides, it is also in the west of that region, so it then gets cumbersome. Corticopia 18:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the region of Middle America is that small, it is smaller than North America but it is not small at all. So if we are going to be specific and say that Mexico is in southern North America, then we should also be specific and say Mexico is in northern Middle America. However, I'm surprised that a paragraph that was added by consensus, was changed on the basis of only two editors agreegin, namely Corticopia and the new user Wanderer. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wanderer also commented on the decisions made by two editors alone. If other editors choose not to comment, we have little swap over that. Anyhow, as above and considering the assertion that 'northern Middle America' is not referenced, I have removed this qualifier. Besides, it is also in western MA ... which is probably more useful/accurate since MA has greater breadth than 'height'. Corticopia 02:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder (as I wander) how long it is usual to allow for feedback. Eg, if I suggest in a discussion changing A to B and I make that change in the article 30 minutes later, that is clearly insufficient time for other people interested in the article to even see the suggestion. If I make a suggestion and wait 30 days for feedback, that is probably too long. Somewhere between 30 minutes and 30 days is reasonable. Any consensus on this? Wanderer57 02:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Blame it on internet time. :) Consensus can change. Corticopia 03:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia, first of all that was not a consensus, there was no pre-advised voting or anything; now going back to the subject the so-called region of Middle America which has been mostly boosted by you, is almost unknown by most people, there are no official organizations or anything tiding up such region, as for the North American Region which has plenty of treaties reinforcing the US, Canada and Mexico’s relationships as a solid block, therefore if we were to include Mexico in a certain region, that would be North America. Supaman89 02:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Senseless. Actually, we did have a 'vote' sometime ago regarding these notions: simply 'North America' upfront, 'Americas' and more specificity down below (sNA, MA). Wanderer57 merely thought the latter was unclear or grammatically challenged, and that is somewhat agreeable. Anyhow, I don't really care about the precise wording, but the various notions must be equitably presented. Corticopia 03:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question about North America being remarkably more acceptable and representative than Middle America.

BWT, the first North America (upfront) refers to the continent, the second one would refer to the region, also NA & SA are two separate continent why would you have to make the reference regarding Mexico’s position counting both of them? (Americas) that’s like saying “Ukraine is in the Middle Eurasia”Supaman89 03:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wanderer57 again. I first looked at the Mexico article because of a recent visitor to our home from Mexico. It was not with the idea of editing the article. I commented on the beginning of the Geography section (on Sept. 15) because I thought it was unclear. I have no other stake in this discussion.

The term Middle America came up 1.8 million times in a Google search I just did (not counting Wikipedia uses.) According to my Merriam-Webster dictionary the term has been used since 1898. The Oxford dictionary also recognizes it. I don't think it is fair or helpful to suggest that it was an idea dreamt up by one of the editors.

One example of a Middle America reference that came up in Google is at http://www.placesonline.org/sitelists/nam/middleamerica/middleamerica.asp

I also think this discussion would be more agreeable and more productive if editors did not jump down each other's throats so much. Wanderer57 03:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As you said you're "new". Sadly, you don't know the whole story with Corticopia. You can take a look at my user page. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 06:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that studying the past history of issues between editors is useful to me. I'm trying to keep my mind on the question of where Mexico is. Wanderer57 07:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And, sadly, knowing AlexCovarrbiass' history of boosterism and 'possible' sockpuppetry recently revealed does not tell the whole story either. But I digress ... Corticopia 11:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to remind you that we are not discussing the existence of the term Middle America. It does exist, and of course it has to be included in the article. The problem here is that Corticopia wants to give Middle America the same weight that North America, a real widely-use term, in the same line. That is an undue weight problem. One must not present or give minoritary or rare point of view or information the same importance than those widely accepted. The fact is that Middle America is not as used as NA. As Supaman said, there's no economical, political, militar or else institution, dialogue or organization linking the countries of this area. The sentence must be clear, and indicate that Mexico is included in that region, but that it is not commonly used. So I propose the following:

Situated in the Americas at about 23° N and 102° W, Mexico comprises much of southern North America. Mexican territory is also described as within the region of Middle America.

Those lines make perfectly clear that Middle America is a region, that Mexico is part of it, but that is not equally used as North America.

AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 06:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. (I pointed out that the term Middle America has been used since 1898 because it was referred to above as a "so-called region". I'm glad we agree it is a region.)

Saying Mexico in one sentence and Mexican territory in the next sentence makes me wonder if they mean two different things. I don't think they do, but using these two different terms here is potentially confusing. How about:

Situated in the Americas at about 23° N and 102° W, Mexico comprises much of southern North America. Mexico is also described as within the region of Middle America. Wanderer57 06:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I want to give Mexico's middle location in the Americas appropriate mention, not undue. And it is not undue since long ago we agreed that North America alone would be in the introduction of the article where, arguably, 'Americas' alone may suffice. Saying it is a region, though correct, is unnecessarily wordy: should we also note 'North America' or the 'Americas' as a region or continent? No: the link does that.

So, alternatively:

• Situated in the Americas at about 23° N and 102° W, Mexico comprises much of southern North America, or much of Middle America.

Corticopia 11:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hiya all, I like Alex's sentence, but the word or used by Corticopia's sentence can exclude Mexico from NA. *Situated in the Americas at about 23° N and 102° W, Mexico comprises much of southern North American. Also the Mexican territory is described as within the region of Middle America.. JC 08:35, 20 September 2007 (PST)

Again, as it is been demonstrated and proved in various posts above, they can't be given the same weight, but since you (Corticopia) didn't even bother answering with proper facts, I'll repeat them here: "there are no official organizations or anything tiding up such region, as for the North American Region which has plenty of treaties reinforcing the US, Canada and Mexico’s relationships as a solid block" Supaman89 15:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

AC's version may be too wordy for not what. As has been demonstrated above, the notions are not given the same weight since NA is also noted in the introduction, as previously discussed. And I've addressed germane points, not irrelevant ones since expanded upon. Corticopia 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

---

As AlexCovarrubias noted above, we are "not discussing the existence of the term Middle America. It does exist, and it has to be included in the article." I don't understand the point about treaties. There are treaties between Canada and Italy for example, but that does not create an Italo-Canadian geographic region.

I don't think AC's version is too wordy. Two short sentences.

Here is a revised suggestion, trying to take into account the comments and suggestions above.

Situated in the Americas at about 23° N and 102° W, Mexico comprises much of southern North America. Also Mexico is the largest country within the region of Middle America.

The reason I mention "largest country" is that it makes the sentence more informative to the reader. Wanderer57 17:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The last Wanderer's sentences are the most accurate to be in the Geography section. JC 10:50, 20 September 2007 (PST)

I think we're finally reaching a solution here. Let's see, JC and I and of course Wanderer agrees with Wanderer's last version. If Supaman also agrees, let's add it and let's happily end this discussion at last. So please Supaman, let us know if you would support Wanderer's last version. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a similar version was proposed by Wanderer earlier and I placed it, before YOU changed it again. Savants we are not. Corticopia 19:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The mention of the treaties wasn’t meant in that way, they do not create the region, they reinforce it, that’s just another reason why NA is more representative, hence has more weight than MA.

Here’s another proposal:

• Situated in the Americas at about 23° N and 102° W, Mexico comprises much of southern North America or also by some geographers in a region called Middle America.

Supaman89 18:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The current version in the article works. I don't mind Wanderer57's version. As for Supaman89: let's remember, some sources include only Canada and the U.S. in North America -- which somewhat explains why some may include it in Middle America, because it is on a (large) isthmus -- so the above proposal is certainly biased and, thus, out. Corticopia 18:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Proposals (Geography)

I just want to add that Corticopia has been editing the article WITHOUT waiting to see if the other editors involved in this discussion agreed, and describing his edits as "per talk", which is false. So, moving on people, this are the proposals and the support they have received directly from the editors. Please add your name if you agree with any of the following:

• Wanderer57

Situated in the Americas at about 23° N and 102° W, Mexico comprises much of southern North America. Also Mexico is the largest country within the region of Middle America.

Agreed by: Wanderer57 and Jcmenal

• Supaman89

Situated in the Americas at about 23° N and 102° W, Mexico comprises much of southern North America or also by some geographers in a region called Middle America.

Agreed by: Supaman89

• AlexCovarrubias (revised by Wanderer57, Mexican territory -> Mexico)

Situated in the Americas at about 23° N and 102° W, Mexico comprises much of southern North America. Mexico is also described as within the region of Middle America.

Agreed by: AlexCovarrubias, Wanderer57, Jcmenal and Supaman.

• Corticopia (I'm guessing his last addition to the article)

Situated in the Americas at about 23° N and 102° W, Mexico comprises much of the southern portion of North America, or much of the region of Middle America.

Agreed by: Corticopia

Again, please add your name if you support any of them. I'm happy to see that we're finally very close to end this. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 19:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am obviously supporting my own proposal and also AlexCovarruvias’ Supaman89 19:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Alex. I have wandered back to say I think the versions with everything in one sentence, with the two parts joined by the word "or", are more confusing and not good grammar.Wanderer57 20:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I changed the word "and" instead the word "or".JC 16:10, 20 September 2007 (PST)

After months of debating and after a consensual solution had been agreed, I can't understand why the same users who agreed to it now bring the issue up again. I don't support any of the options above: "much of... and much of... " doesn't sound encyclopedic, and neither does "....also described...". To me, the best option is what was originally agreed months ago: [3]. I don't mind if coordinates are added to that phrase, but I certainly do not wish to reopen a debate about southern-North America vs. Middle America. --the Dúnadan 23:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dúnadan, please note that THIS debate was opened by Wanderer57. Both you and Corticopia replied to his comments and then Corticopia, on the sole basis of his and Wanderer's opinion decided to change the paragraph that was elected by consensus months ago. If Supaman, JC and I followed the debate was because Corticopia refused to mantain the previous version, arguing that it was changed "per talk". Check the history of the page. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 03:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: I was merely trying to address the concerns of Wanderer. Anyhow, should we truly want to re-open this can of worms -- as consensus there is not -- we should publicly post an RfC to get a wider perspective ... also given that a number of the 'affirmative' users involved are ardent nationalistscontinentalists and, thus, hardly impartial or without an agenda. Corticopia 02:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well this discussion has pretty much ended, all the users that were participating have voted (except Corticopia), which I'm assuming will vote for his own proposal, still AlexCovarrubias' proposal has the most votes, I'll just wait for him to edit it himself. Supaman89 01:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that now you want to play with the rules. You are not getting what you want (since nobody is supporting your version) and now you're talking about how our debate is not "valid" and that we should get a "wider perspective". That's hypocritical. As for the ad hominem arguments, I'll just ignore them. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 03:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not assume what someone else will vote for. Sometimes people change their minds during a discussion. Also since AlexCovarrubias has his name beside three options, he might want to narrow it down. There is another participant in this discussion, Dúnadan, who might also cast a vote. As most of the people in the discussion know, Dúnadan has been in this discussion for several months. Wanderer57 02:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

+-+-+

Wanderer again. Please, Corticopia and Dúnadan, do not make this sound so negative. I did reopen a can of worms by complaining that the beginning of the Geography section was unclear. (As I recall, I got support on that point from both of you.) We have wrestled with the wording for the last few days. The GOOD NEWS is we are to the point of having four not too different suggestions to vote on. All four include BOTH southern North America and Middle America, so that is a sort of consensus. If you can both express your preference, that would be appreciated.

Dúnadan, I see your comment that these wordings do not "sound encyclopedic". I think at this stage in the process, we will be doing well if we can get a wording that is reasonably clear and reasonably true. Sounding encyclopedic is asking too much. My impression is that a significant part of Wikipedia doesn't sound encyclopedic yet. We are trying but we are not there yet. (Personal opinion) So since you do not like any of the options, would you please indicate which of the four options you dislike the least. Thanks. Wanderer57 03:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As Wanderer said, we are approaching to a solution and that is very good. I also want to narrow my vote then, and I will only support my version. I don't want this to become a never ending topic. Thanks to everyone. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 03:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind working towards a (grammatically correct and accurate) solution -- and we rather did beforehand, perhaps imperfectly, until recently -- but NOT one that is brokered by the boosterist, edit-warring editors who are largely responsible for this morass. A number of the proposed options are unnecessarily wordy, and sounding encyclopedic is not asking too much: after all, that is what Wikipedia is (supposed to be). To get to that point, perhaps the proposed variants are in need of the attention of other uninvolved editors ... i.e., present company excluded. I may support other renditions, but reserve judgement for now per Dunadan. Thus, we may need to post an RfC to get that: really, I think this option is something to be welcomed and may be feared by boosterist editors who may get something they do not expect. As for AC's 'comments', well, no comment. Corticopia 17:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion keeps being turned unpleasant. To me, it seems unfortunate that a bunch of clearly intelligent people can't take a more cooperative approach. I'm going to bow out and leave this in the hands of the people who have been discussing these 2 or 3 sentences since January. I'm sorry I reactivated the discussion this month.

For what it is worth, I think the wording below is reasonably clear and covers the points that people think need to be covered. I don't see the "much of" as a problem but if it is "a large part of" could be used instead.

Situated in the Americas at about 23° N and 102° W, Mexico comprises much of southern North America. Also Mexico is the largest country within the region of Middle America.

Good luck. Wanderer57 18:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wanderer, we appreciate your debate, you helped us a lot to end this debate. Good luck to you too. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I equally dislike all options proposed. The consensual version was by far more encyclopedic and -if I recall correctly- accurate and neutral considering the many publications that I researched and posted, and we all agreed to it. Wanderer has the right to question the current version, however, the current version was not the consensual version. I kindly invite Wanderer to follow the link I provided to review the discussion/poll/list of publication and conclusion. I believe that by reviewing that he will get a wider perspective, and if he still chooses to contest the consensual version, we might be able to agree to a new proposal that is encyclopedic, accurate and neutral. I don't recommend downgrading from a good to a not-so-good version. We should always strive to improve and not the other way around.

As for the RforA, in my past experience, I don't have any faith whatsoever in the system/procedure. In a different discussion of which arbitration was requested, the result -three months later!- was a simple: "we encourage all parties to participate and to arrive to a consensual version". RforA does not rule on content, but on [mis]behavior. In my opinion, it doesn't even rule on behavior, given that their only prescribed action was a simple "encouragement" (and that particular RforA included a blatant misuse of administrative powers and a user that had been blocked 7 times for insults). Having said that, however, if Corticopia still wants to use that venue, I will contribute to whatever solution -if any- is proposed.

--the Dúnadan 17:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dunadan. As well, Wanderer57 -- who has since departed the discussion (which to me smacks of someone who starts problems but departs to let others figure out the mess) -- indicated support first for a version not in the article now. Given the waffling, by all rights, there should be no challenge, then, to placing the version before all of this began. (Dunadan, please fix, if needed/possible; there have been so many versions over so small a point, it's hard to keep track).

Also note: I will also place a 'request for comment' (in the Geography Wikiproject, for instance), not a 'request for arbitration'; however, given the pernicious recurrence of issues and point-of-view pushing in this article by a certain clutch of editors, the latter wouldn't be a bad idea at some point. Corticopia 17:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

All users that were involved in this discussion have already voted, obviously everyone has different opinions and we're not going to get everyone to vote for the same proposal, therefore the one with the most approvals (AlexCovarruvias') is the one that stays, I would've liked my own proposal instead, but not because of that I'm going to invalidate this voting, that’s a very hypocrite attitude. Supaman89 17:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not 'voted' (my name having been placed with one that I may or may not support), and there may be other editors who may wish to. Corticopia 11:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I wandered back. I did say I was leaving and I even took Mexico off my watchlist, but I could not resist looking in to see how you guys are getting along.

In response to Dúnadan's message above, I looked for the consensual version. I found a version on February 23, 2007 where Dúnadan was "restoring full consensual version". (He also said: "I wish editors would stick to their own word, when they had agreed to something" so I'm not 100% certain about the consensus.)

The opening of Geography in that version is: "Mexico is situated in the mid-latitudes of the Americas (Middle America),[5] comprising much of southern North America." I don't see any problem with that wording.

This is the version I prefer, but AC saw it fit to add 'northern' latitude (in furtherance, unsurprisingly, of his boosterism) as well. Corticopia 11:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Turning to Corticopia's message above, I think some slight words of apology might be in order.

1) I did not start the problem -- this argument has been going since January of this year. I just pointed out that the wording in place ten or so days ago was not clear. Looking back, I see that Corticopia and Alex were in an argument about the wording as recently as August 25, 2007. (In case the word "argument" seems harsh to anyone, here are two quotes from that discussion: "you single-handedly opted to change the introduction of the relevant section to further suit your perspective (read: POV pushing) without first initiating discussion and garnering a consensus. This is disruptive: how many times do YOU need to indicate and repeat the same crap?" and "Your continous use of profanity, personal attacks, uncivil manners and edit-warring in multiple articles also deserves a RfC, from me and many other editors.")

2) Here is the wording I criticized on Sept 13. "Mexico is situated in the northern/mid-latitudes of the Americas. Its territory comprises much of southern North America, or also within Middle America." Dúnadan wrote on Sept 15 that that was the consensual version. This perhaps confused the matter.

3) I decided to leave the discussion after reading Corticopia's message dated Sept 21 which included a) that some of the proposed solutions were too wordy. (They were all nearly the same length, and one of them was his.) b) a suggestion that a general RFC be issued about this problem -- what kind of chaos is that likely to cause. c) various slams at the other editors involved.

In response to this point, perhaps that's the point: I may advocate for any number of versions (usually the less wordy ones with notions in one sentence), but note that this section was created by another editor, and then (by assumption) my name affixed to one of the options by someone else. I will not support any option brokered or rammed down my or our collective throats by any of the boosterist editors (i.e., AC, S89, perhaps JC) involved here. Get someone neutral to 'arbitrate' a solution instead. Until then ... Corticopia 11:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm too old for this bovine excrement. Cheers, Wanderer57 18:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to kindly ask Dunadán to reconsider his position. Dúnadan, I don't want this to sound like a ad hominen attack against Corticopia, but his behaviour is less than desireable. For instance, he fully supported Wanderer57's opinion, and on the basis of ONLY their two opinions, CHANGED the consensual version. It didn't seem to bother him at all. Then, after days of debate, he realizes the upcoming solution is not going to be anything like he wanted, and he decides to call "invalid" the debate, and even critized Wanderer. He's obvioulsy trying to play with the "rules" to get what he wants. C'mon Dun, don't tell me you don't see this. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Map

I was wandering if we should change the current map for one like the follwing: What do you guys think?Supaman89 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something. I don't see how the new one is better. Wanderer57 03:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the current map is better, because it is colored thus more visually appealing. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, np, we'll stick to the current one then.Supaman89 23:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer the current one for the global location.

Let me bring this issue again: Please take a look to the states map in the Spanish version of the article. As much as I appreciate the work behind the current states map in the English version, I believe that insisting in keeping it, and presenting State names incomplete, made-up abbreviations without any warning that they are not official or even known in Mexico, for the sake of "graphic appeal" is plain mediocrity. Sorry if anyone feels personally insulted, not my intention. I'm looking for correctness first, and my proposals on this topic reverted with no solid reason.

Before I put any time into editing the article to later find it scrapped, I'd like to have your OK in using this map & table: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico#Divisi.C3.B3n_pol.C3.ADtico-administrativa

Thanks

Rodulfo 19:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've a question

This might be a stupid question but, is it just me or some pictures actually don't show up? when I click on them they do appear but in the article they do not, I might just be my anti-virus though, anyway that's why I'm asking, does anyone else have the same problem?. Supaman89 17:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

dead link

However, Mexico has come under scrutiny for the alleged inhumane manner they treat incoming illegal immigrants from El Salvador, eliciting accusations of hypocrisy and human rights abuses [44].

Can this be removed due to being a dead link...?

MiztuhX 09:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Miztuhx 26 Sep 07 MiztuhX 09:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Wow, I don't even know where that is, but if there is no reliable link, sure go ahead and remove it. Supaman89 17:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mejico?

Why did the name Mejico become Mexico in the United States? And when did this happen? SpankTank 00:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually in Spanish it's spelled Mexico as well, that's why English borrowed the same spelling; but in the past some countries like Spain used to spell it Mejico, but in recent years the RAE (which is the academy that regulates the Spanish language), agreed that only what official spelling would be Mexico, and it is no longer acceptable to spell it with a J.

Still nowadays some Mexico-haters from Latin America sometimes spell it Mejico just to make us mad, but it shouldn't be used in any official documents. Supaman89 01:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Supaman, its not Mexico-haters, you shouldn't take anything that you don't know as a conspiracy theory. Please refer to Toponymy of Mexico to review the phonetic evolution of the fricative sound and how that lead to alternative spellings. By the way, the spelling México is the normative recommended spelling, but RAE states that both variants are acceptable. --the Dúnadan 02:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

mexico has a large enough economy to match the UK or France?...

this is obviosly a huge mistake made by someone who edited the page, probably an intentional one. You just have to look at a list of countries by their GDP and see that both the UK and France have a GDP nearly three times bigger than Mexico's. I don't think that that person was talking about GDP per capita either:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaghion (talk • contribs) 07:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You're completely right. I don't have any idea who introduced that, but it is wrong and I've edited it accordingly with your comments. Thanks! AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 08:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

GA comments

I was asked to review this article by AlexCovarrubias, and have listed multiple items that should be addressed for the article to reach Good Article status. I have looked over the entire article, focusing on the requirements of the GA criteria. Although the following list is long, by addressing the issues, the article will be signficantly improved. If any of the points seem harsh, forgive me, I'm only showing what I think will improve the article based on prior experience. The largest issue with the article is insufficient sourcing, and I have listed almost 30 statements that should have inline citations added after them. Once you have addressed these issues and looked over the rest of the criteria (which focuses on stability, image, and NPOV issues), consider nominating the article at Good article nominations. If you have any questions over something I wrote here or disagree on some points (if Mexican English follows different grammar rules then what I may have pointed out, feel free to correct me), then let me know on my talk page and I'll be happy to get back to you as soon as I can. A good way to show your progress in improving the article would be to use the strikethrough feature or put checkmarks next to the fixed items. In conclusion, I hope you do address these issues to help significantly improve the article and help it reach higher quality in educating the many readers who reference this article. Good job so far and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 06:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

General fixes:

1. Y "The United Mexican States comprise a constitutional republican federation of thirty-one states and a federal district, the capital Mexico City, one of the most populous cities on Earth." Add "which is" before "one".
2. Y "Covering almost 2 million square kilometers,[4] Mexico is the fifth-largest country in the Americas by total area and 14th largest in the world." Add "the" before "14th".
3. Y "The Jesuit and historian Francisco Javier Clavijero argues in his writings that it derives from the Nahuatl word Mexitl or Mexitli, a secret name for the god of war and patron of the Mexica,[8] Huitzilopochtli, in which case "Mexico" means "Place where Mexitl lives" or in other precise words: "Place where Mexitli temple is built" in reference to the Templo Mayor ("Great Temple"), this version is also held by Fray Juan de Torquemada; but Torquemada adds that Mexitli comes from the words metl ("agave"), xictli ("navel") and the early settlers took for themselves this name and they were called Mexicatl, this word finally derived in "Mexico", then, according to this version, it would mean: "People of Mexitli" or more literally: "Place in the navel of agave"; this last version is also supported by Fray Motolinia." This is all one sentence, which is quite overwhelming to read through. I'd recommend splitting it into two or three sentences or maybe consider not going into so much detail. Additionally in the next sentence it is stated that there are several other historians who speak about the name, but there is no sources to verify this. There are also a few other statements in this section that are quite long, so again, consider splitting them some.
4. Y "Díaz resigned in 1911 and Madero was elected president but overthrown and murdered in a coup d'état in 1913 led by a conservative..." Add a wikilink for "coup d'état".
5. Y "In an attempt to stabilize the current account balance, and given the reluctance of international lenders to return to Mexico given the previous default, president de la Madrid resorted to currency devaluations which in turn sparked inflation." What is the President de la Madrid? If possible add a wikilink for people who may not know what it is.
6. Y "With a rapid rescue packaged authorized by United States president Clinton..." I think it would be best to use his first name as well. The same goes for the image of former president Vicente Fox and George W. Bush and the other image in the foreign relations section.
7. Image:OfficialCalderon.jpg is up for deletion, see if you can either rescue it or find another similar image for use. (Image deleted)
8. Image:Fx05mextroops.jpg needs a fair use rationale specifically for its' use in this article. (image deleted)
9. Y "In the 2006–2009 Congress eight parties are therein represented; five of them, however, have not received neither in this nor in previous congresses more than 4% of the national votes[21]" Is missing a period after votes.
10. Y "His cabinet was sworn in at midnight on December 1, 2006 and Calderón was handed the presidential band by outgoing Vicente Fox at Los Pinos." Add wikilinks for full dates, so 2006 should have one added.
11. Y "Mexico has the second largest defence budget ($6.07 billion USD) [24] and armed forces[25] in Latin America." Remove the space between the ) and [24].
12. Y "Poverty in Mexico is further reduced by remittances from Mexican citizens working in the United States of America, which reaches US$20 billion dollars per year and is the second largest source of foreign income after oil exports [44]." The period goes before the inline citation with no space in between. Same for "However, Mexico has come under scrutiny for the alleged inhumane manner they treat incoming illegal immigrants from El Salvador, eliciting accusations of hypocrisy and human rights abuses [50]." and "Mexico also received a number of Lebanese, Turkish, [55] Chinese, Japanese[53], Koreans[56] and Filipinos.[57]"
13. Y "Almost three million people in the 2000 National Census reported having no religion." Single sentences shouldn’t stand alone, so either incorporate this into another paragraph or expand it with a few more sentences.
14. Y "Mexican culture is the result of a historical process of violent and peaceful exchange of ideas, the assimilation of exogenous cultural elements and the reinterpretations of the endogenous cultural elements." This is quite a statement! Consider if you think it is necessary or if it should be reworded a bit. It also sounds like it is a definition out of a textbook or quote, so it should have an inline citation as well.
15. Image:Pan's Labyrinth.jpg needs a fair use rationale specifically stating why it should be used on this article.
16. Y Maria Candelaria (1944) by Emilio Fernández, was the one first films to be awarded Palme d'Or. Reword to “one of the first films” or “first film”, whichever it is. Also “awarded a Palme”.
17. Y "One of the greatest heroes of Mexican cinema remains El Santo, who to this day remains an icon of truth and justice." Single sentence, incorporate or expand. (Deleted for irrelevancy)
18. Y "The vast array of popular music genre in Mexico shows the great diversity of its culture." Great may be seen as POV, consider rewording.
19. Y "Finally, Nobel Prize winner Octavio Paz, Carlos Fuentes, Juan Rulfo, Elena Poniatowska, and José Emilio Pacheco, are some of the greatest exponents of the Mexican literature." Choose another word instead of finally, and be careful in using "greatest".
20. Y Expand on the cuisine section some more if you can. Consider adding one of the images from the "Mexican Cuisine" article.
21. Image:Mexico FIFA 1970 1986.png needs a fair use rationale for the image's use on the article.
22. Y "Mexico has had a lot of famous football players, nowadays among the most famous are: Oswaldo Sanchez, Hugo Sanchez (who is on the FIFA 100 list by Omar Bravo, Nery Castillo etc.)" Remove "etc.", it's not really necessary.
23. Y "Though the Aztecs apparently regarded this was a very high and noble honor, some argue that it was the losing team to get decapitated." The last part of this sentence should be reworded, it doesn't flow too well.
24. Y (Rewording, source pending) "This form of entertainment spread to Europe to the Spaniards, Portuguese, Dutch , and English, except that Europeans developed other balls (the use of heads was considered to barbaric, and filthy)." Remove the space between Dutch and comma. Also, reword to "too barbaric" or "to be barbaric". The sentence could probably use a source as well.
25. Y "Bullfighting is also a popular sport in the country. Almost all large cities have bullrings." Merge these sentences together into one.
26. Y "Professional wrestling (or Lucha libre in Spanish) is a major crowd draw with national promotions such as AAA, LLL, CMLL and others." Single sentence, expand or incorporate.
27. Y "Other notable Mexican athletes includes golfer Lorena Ochoa currently ranked as the number 1 in the LPGA world rankings, Ana Guevara former world champion of the 400 metres and olympic subchampion in Athens 2004, Fernando Platas (diving) and others." Reword to "Other notable Mexican athletes include golfer Lorena Ochoa, who is currently ranked first in the LPGA world rankings, Ana Guevara, former world champion of the 400 metres and Olympic subchampion in Athens 2004, and Fernando Platas, a numerous Olympic medal winning diver."
28. Y Image:LMT GTM.jpg needs a fair use rationale that states its rationale for use on this article. (The license states that it can be used to educational propuses)
29. Y Some of the inline citations in the reference section should be better formatted, by including the author, title of the work, newspaper name, date of access, etc. Consider using the citation templates at WP:CITE or look at other passed GA/FAs for examples.

Add inline citations for:

1. Y "On September 16, 1810, independence from Spain was declared by Priest Miguel Hidalgo in the small town of Dolores, Guanajuato state." Add an inline citation for this.
2. Y "The first four decades of independent Mexico were marked by a constant strife between federalists (those who supported the federal form of government stipulated in the 1824 constitution) and centralists (who proposed a hierarchical form of government in which all local authorities were appointed and subject to a central authority)." (Changed federalists/centralists for liberales/conservadores)
3. Y "The period of his rule is known as the Porfiriato, which was characterized by remarkable economic achievements, investments in art and sciences, but also of huge economic inequality and political repression."
4. Y "During the next four decades, Mexico experienced substantial economic growth that historians call "El Milagro Mexicano", the Mexican Miracle."
5. Y "Moreover, the PRI rule became increasingly authoritarian and at times oppressive, an example being the Tlatelolco Massacre of 1968, which by according to government officials claimed the life of around 30 protesters, even though many reputable international accounts reported that around 250 protesters were killed by security forces in a clash at the neighborhood." Also, consider splitting this into two sentences.
6. Y "However, many sources claimed that in 1988 the party resorted to electoral fraud in order to prevent leftist opposition candidate Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas from winning the national presidential elections who lost to Carlos Salinas, which led to massive protests in the capital."
7. "This and a series of political assassinations and corruption scandals scared portfolio investors and reduced foreign capital investment."
8. Y "With a rapid rescue packaged authorized by United States president Clinton and major macroeconomic reforms started by president Zedillo, the economy rapidly recovered and growth peaked at almost 7% in 1999." Need an inline citation for the "7% in 1999" part.
9. Y "López Obrador, however, contested the election and pledged to create an "alternative government"."
10. Y In the government and politics section, add sources for all of the voting requirements in the paragraph beginning with "All elected executive officials...".
11. Y "Castañeda immediately broke with the Estrada Doctrine, promoting what was called by critics the Castañeda Doctrine."
12. Y "Today the military consists of 230,000 combat-ready deployable ground troops." (Added source and corrected figures).
13. Y "Oil is Mexico's largest source of foreign income."
14. Y "Almost 90% of Mexican exports go to the United States and Canada, and close to 55% of its imports come from these two countries."
15. Y "Tourism in Mexico is a large industry, the third in importance."
16. Y "Spanish, however, is used as a de facto official language and is spoken by 97% of the population." (Added references and edited words)
17. Y "Mexico has the largest Spanish-speaking population having almost two times more speakers than the second Spanish-speaking country accumulating almost a third of all Spanish speakers around the world."
18. Y "In light of the various ethnicities that formed the Mexican people, José Vasconcelos in his publication La Raza Cósmica (1925) defined Mexico to be the melting pot of all races (thus extending the definition of the mestizo) not only biologically but culturally as well."
19. "Mexican films from the Golden Era in the 1940s and 1950s are the greatest examples of Latin American cinema, with a huge industry comparable to the Hollywood of those years." Greatest shouldn’t probably be used, since it may be seen as POV. I’d consider adding an inline citation and if you state who said this, you could probably keep it if it’s a quote.
20. "Many Mexican singers are famous in all of Latin America and Spain." Need source, currently has a citation tag after it. Same for "Mexico is often referred to as the "capital of Spanish-speaking entertainment", due to the fact that any Latin or Spanish singer wanting to become an international success in the region, they must seek to enter first to the Mexican music industry." (This section was deleted from the article by someone else).
21. Y "Diego Rivera is the most well-known figure of Mexican muralism, who painted the Man at the Crossroads in Rockefeller Center." (I also rewrote this)
22. Y "Televisa is also the largest producer of Spanish-language content in the world and also the world's largest Spanish-language media network."
23. "It is also believed that football was heard of in Europe from the Mexicans"
24. "Mexico is also the Latin American country with the most football stadiums,"
25. Y "The national sport of Mexico is Charreria."
26. "There is also a strong following of the NFL in Mexico with the Steelers, Cowboys, Dolphins and Raiders being the most popular teams."
27. Y "In 2004, the literacy rate was at 92.2%, and the youth literacy rate (ages 15–24) was 96%." (I also added the current world rank according to UNESCO)

--Nehrams2020 06:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reviewing the article, we'll try to focus on those points, I hope we have them fixed as soon as possible. Supaman89 20:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Both images have been removed from the article and from Wikipedia itself. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So far, I have corrected almost all of the problems listed as general fixes. I also included an inline citation for Televisa. AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 00:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been a long day. I finished with the general fixes except for the pictures and the toponomy of Mexico section (I asked the creator of this article to summarize it). I also started with the in-line citations. Good night! AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 05:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! I added more inline citations. Just 13 more to go. Anybody wants to help me? :( AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 00:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have left 3 more inline citations to go. AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 21:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Palme d'Or in 1955

"Maria Candelaria (1944) by Emilio Fernández, was one of the first films awarded a Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 1946"

According to the Palme d'Or article in Wikipedia, this was first awarded in 1955. Before that was the Grand Prix du Festival International du Film.

Wanderer57 22:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

'firmly established as an upper middle-income country'

I think the same words should not be used in the Introduction and in the Economy section. It would be better if one was changed.

I think saying that "It is an upper middle-income country...." or "Mexico is an upper middle-income country...." is quite definite. Adding "firmly established" does not make it any more definite, just more wordy. Wanderer57 23:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a quote from the World Bank. AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 23:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I recognize that, but I think using the exact words once is enough. Wanderer57 02:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Tourism Section

This is one paragraph, with two long, run-on sentences. It would be better if they were divided.

Here is the current version:

According to the World Tourism Organization Mexico has one of the largest tourism industries in the world, in 2005 it was the Seventh main destination worldwide, being by far the only country in Latin America to be in the top 25. Mexico's middle/lower class usually promotes national tourism, compared to the middle/higher class that travels worldwide especially Europe and the United States but also Asia and South America, in fact Mexico is the twenty-third tourism spender in the world, again being the highest in Latin America.

I suggest:

According to the World Tourism Organization, Mexico has one of the largest tourism industries in the world. In 2005 it was the seventh most popular destination worldwide, and the only country in Latin America in the top 25. Mexico's middle/lower class usually promotes national tourism, compared to the middle/higher class who travel worldwide, especially to Europe and the United States but also Asia and South America. Mexico is the twenty-third highest tourism spender in the world, and the highest in Latin America.

As well as dividing this into four sentences, I made a few other minor changes which I think are improvements.

I'm wondering about this bit: "Mexico's middle/lower class usually promotes national tourism".

I think this is intended to mean that Mexico's middle/lower class usually take their holidays in Mexico. But the word "promotes" makes it say that Mexico's middle/lower class is advertising national tourism. Wanderer57 23:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my bad, I redacted that paragraph this morning and I was kind of busy, but of course "to promote" has a different meaning, if you could help me think of a better word I would appreciate it.

BTW, I think the inclusion of the term "by far" is quite important because it remarks the fact that Mexico is the only country in Latin America to receive such a high number of tourists, over 20 million I believe; the closest one is Brazil which receives like 2 million, though I don’t really know its position because the list only had the top 25. Supaman89 01:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't think of a word to substitute directly for "promotes" in that sentence.

The problem with "by far" is this. "By far" makes sense for comparing things. For example, "by far the biggest", by far the smallest", "by far the prettiest", "by far the best Italian singer in the world".

So I could say: "The grey mare is by far the fastest horse on the ranch".

"By far" doesn't work well for situations where something is either "A" or "B".

So it is awkward to say: "The grey mare is by far the only fast horse on the ranch."

I have the same problem with saying "by far the only country in Latin America to be in the top 25."

---

To get around these problems, see what you think of this wording:

According to the World Tourism Organization, Mexico has one of the largest tourism industries in the world. In 2005 it was the seventh most popular tourist destination worldwide, and in the Americas it is second only to the USA.

Mexico's middle/lower class tourists typically stay within Mexico, in contrast to the middle/higher class who travel worldwide, especially to Europe and the United States, and in lesser numbers to Asia and South America. Mexico is the twenty-third highest tourism spender in the world, and the highest in Latin America.

---

Here is a reference for "in the Americas it is second only to the United States of America." http://www.world-tourism.org/facts/eng/pdf/barometer/WTOBarom06_2_en.pdf

Any good?? Wanderer57 03:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I know the inclusion of the term ‘’by far’’ may sound a bit “competitive” but in a way the new sentence “in the Americas it is second only to the United States” is also making a comparison. The paragraph never implied that it was higher than the USA, hence I don’t think there’s need to mention it, besides Mexico’s indicators are usually compared with Latin America, so what do you think about this new wording:

There is no problem about making comparisons.
My problem with "so far" was it did not fit well in that sentence.
My reason for comparing to the USA was not because someone said 
it was larger than the USA.  I thought that saying "second only 
to the USA" was quite impressive. Wanderer57

According to the World Tourism Organization, Mexico has one of the largest tourism industries in the world. In 2005 it was the seventh most popular tourist destination worldwide receiving over 20 million tourists a year; it is the only country in Latin America to be within the top 25.

Mexico's middle/lower class typically have their vacations within Mexico, in contrast to the middle/higher class who travel worldwide, especially to Europe and the United States, and in lesser numbers to Asia and South America. Mexico is the twenty-third highest tourism spender in the world, and the highest in Latin America.

BTW, thanks for the link but it already had a reference in the main article (Tourism in Mexico), which has both links to the official lists of receivers and spenders, that’s why I didn’t double-sourced it here as well. Supaman89 19:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Those sentences seem fine to me.  
In 2nd sentence, it should be "year; it is", not "year, it is".
- - 
I wonder if the terms middle/lower class and middle/higher 
class should have links to the articles Lower Middle Class 
and Upper Middle Class.
- - 
Thanks, Wanderer57 23:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then we'll stick to that one, I'll add up those links you mention as well, if you see anymore grammatical mistakes just let us know. Supaman89 01:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation sentence

The opening of the article:

For other uses, see Mexico (disambiguation). "Mexican" and "Mexicans" redirect here. For other uses, see Mexican (disambiguation).

Either the first or last sentence should be dropped. Does it matter which one? Wanderer57 02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I just checked both disambiguation links and they send you to different pages, so we either merge them together or include both, because what if someone is looking for "The Mexican" (the movie) and they're redirected here, I do think we've got to re-phrace the sentance though, it could be something like this:

"This article is about the country in North America, Mexican(s) redirect here; for other uses see Mexico (disambiguation) or Mexican (disambiguation)." Supaman89 03:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's much better. I would just change it slightly.

"This article is about the country in North America. Mexican(s) redirects here. For other uses, see Mexico (disambiguation) or Mexican (disambiguation)." Wanderer57 04:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good, then I'll change it.Supaman89 16:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested wording changes

Suggested wording changes to these sentences from the introduction.

Since partaking in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, its economy has diversified and grown to become world's 12th largest, and has the economical power to match nations such as the Canada and Spain. Elections held in July 2000 marked the first time that an opposition party won the presidency to the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional: PRI) that held it since 1929, culminating a process of political alternation that had begun at the local level since the 1980s.

Here it is with suggested changes bolded.

Since joining the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, its economy has diversified and grown to become the world's 12th largest. Mexico has the economic power to match nations such as Canada and Spain. Elections held in July 2000 marked the first time that an opposition party won the presidency to the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional: PRI) which had held it since 1929, culminating a process of political alternation that had begun at the local level since the 1980s.

Notes:

"partaking in" is perhaps not strictly wrong but it is a very unusual use of the word.

The first sentence was too long.

"economic" is the word needed, "economical" has a narrower meaning (efficient, not wasteful of resources).

Canada, not "the Canada".

The last sentence is not clear. I do not know the history but I think perhaps it should say: "marked the first time that an opposition party won the presidency from the Institutional Revolutionary Party "

Also, "had begun at the local level since the 1980s." suggests the process began after the 1980s. Maybe it is supposed to say: "began at the local level during the 1980s." ??

I hope this is useful. Wanderer57 19:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes the paragraph had some mistakes, thanks for the corrections, I just don't like one thing tough, it states: "Since joining the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, its economy has diversified and grown to become the world's 12th largest". I'm pretty sure Mexico's economy was quite important way before that, NAFTA basically reinforced the integration between the three countries, so I think that part has to be re-worded so it won’t look like the economy was “on the ground” before that one treaty, in fact only until recent years it was passed by Brazil, what do you think? Supaman89 23:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. If you can find the rank in 1994, you could say "Since joining the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, Mexico's economy has diversified and grown from XXth largest in the world to 12th largest." This would indicate it was not all due to NAFTA, but that NAFTA had a positive effect. Wanderer57 02:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sry man, it's me I haven't had much time lately, we'll continue with this talk later okay?, cool. Supaman89 16:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm pretty busy also. We'll talk if/when we get out from under. Cheers. Wanderer57 19:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice someone put "partaking" back in the Introduction. It is not a good word in that context. If you don't believe me, ask someone you trust. Wanderer57 19:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me? Did someone change the introduction? let me check. Supaman89 21:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, pardon me? The prior version didn't make sense (Since the signature of NAFTA...), and if editors took the time to read my edit comment when I changed it, I proposed a number of variants. "... Since the signing, since participating, since the inception of NAFTA, since becoming a member of NAFTA, since NAFTA entered into force ..." Word. Corticopia 22:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why Wanderer and I were discussing the new wording, but we are not in a hurry or anything, so please do not change it without consulting us first, thank you. Supaman89 00:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for discussion, which I am involved in (directly or not), but let's get one thing straight: I do not need to consult you on anything. If that were true, you would have had to have consulted me beforehand (as the editor who boldly added the text in its current state), which is bullocks. But, thank you for asking. Corticopia 13:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Culture

A subsection dealing with Culture that doesn't include the literature produced by members of that culure is lacking. I see the performing/visual arts are represented. Is there any objection to adding literature to this. I admit a certain bias towards Carlos Fuentes and Juan Rulfo, and really wouldn't be able to give much shrift to feminist writers, but im sure someone else could fill in the blanks.Die4Dixie 06:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The current culture section briefly lists some of the most important authors. I'd personally like to expand it a lot more! (especially the Fine Arts subsection), but article lenght is a problem we have to deal with since we are considering applying to get GA-listed (Good Article). If you proposition is to add some other names, go ahead. AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 11:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Most internationally recognized dishes should include chocolate. Chacolate has mostly been consumed as a beverage or in a sauce for thousands of years. Putting chocolate with other crops seems rather odd, one can’t plant chocolate, though it can be created —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.41.139 (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Relations section - wording

The last sentence is: "In lieu with this new openness in Mexico's foreign policy, some political parties have proposed an amendment of the Constitution in order to allow the Mexican Army, Air Force or Navy to collaborate with the United Nations in peace-keeping missions, or to provide military help to countries that officially ask for it."

I think this should be "In line with", not "In lieu with". Wanderer57 00:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you see any grammatical mistakes like those just fix them, unless there is a whole sentence that has to be reworded or something like that, then we'll check it here, thank you again. Supaman89 17:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Process or Pattern

The Introduction section ends with: "which had held it since 1929, culminating a process of political alternation that actively had begun at the local level during the 1980s."

I have read this several times and have a vague feeling that there was something wrong in it. I think political alternation is not a "process". I suggest the word "pattern" instead. Wanderer57 22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (I am not making a change to the article as I don't know anything about Mexican politics. My comment is based only on my understanding of the meaning of the words.)

I think you brought this issue not long ago. I don't think "pattern" of political alternation is appropriate; in fact, a "culmination" of a pattern of alternation would imply an end of the alternation, and hence the dominance of a single party which is the exact opposite of what is being said. On the other hand -and depending on your definition or understanding of "political alternation"- it can be either a process or a simple event/occurrence, but the latter is the most extended use of the meaning, in which case, the sentence does need to be reviewed. May I suggest "culminating a process towards political alternation at the federal level that had occurred at the local level during the 1980s". [changes in italics]]. I would even suggest the "process of democratization", but that is open to diverse interpretations. --the Dúnadan 00:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is tricky. "culmination of a pattern of alternation" implies the end of it. "culmination of a process of alternation " also means an end of it. I'm going to think it over some more.

(I did ask about the sentence before. Then I was wondering about the word "alternation".) Cheers, Wanderer57 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my proposal and all my comment? I am proposing "culminating a process of democratization, and now that I think of it, I also suggest "process of electoral reform"..." (this time, italics and bold mine). I will repeat my argument again: Taking into account that alternation can be understood as an occurrence in time, political alternation is now (in my proposal) defined as the culmination point (a change of the party in power) of a process, distinct from the end result itself. Should you wish to label that distinct process, I suggested process of democratization, and now that I think of it, I also suggest "process of electoral reform", since it was a slow and gradual process of electoral reform that led to political alternation at the local level and finally (i.e. culmination) at the federal level. --the Dúnadan 18:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long on this. I'm still thinking this over because the wording is very tricky. I'm handicapped by not knowing the history.

If saying "process of democratization" or "process of electoral reform" is reasonably accurate, that is much better than saying "process of alternation" because it is more specific.

This is what I do not know: during the time period mentioned, did Mexico move from a "one party system" to a multi-party system? OR was it a matter of going from a multi-party system with one HUGE party and a bunch of small ones, to a multi-party system where more than one party had a chance to win an election??? Wanderer57 06:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

See what you think of this suggestion: "..."which had held it since 1929. The change of government became possible through a gradual process of electoral reform that began at the local level in the 1980's and later reached the federal level."

0

Electoral reform as described in Wikipedia is quite broad in scope. Does the term fit reasonably with what went on in Mexico? Wanderer57 22:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... no, I wouldn't say it was a "change in government"; the word would indeed fit if Mexico were a parliamentary republic. Under a parliamentary system a change in "government" implies political alternation, since each newly elected executive heads a new "government" (which is the equivalent of the presidential administration). The phrase, "change in government", in the Mexican context, being a presidential republic, however suggests a change in its form, which was not the case.

I really don't see any problem at all with the term "political alternation", which I believe is the phrase that is causing noise. In fact, it perfectly describes what the sentence is trying to say; political alternation is defined as: "is the change of parties in power after an election". [4].

Regarding electoral reform, I think the term does describe quite accurately the process in Mexico, in fact, almost every thing described in the first paragraph of that article actually happened in Mexico over the course of a decade.

--the Dúnadan 01:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "change of government" certainly comes from my experience of a parliamentary system. You are also correct that the term "political alternation" is what seems strange to me. I'm not sure I can contribute any more to this, except perhaps to read your wording and tell you if it seems excessively confusing. Cheers, Wanderer57 01:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

fully developed country ?

In term of per capita income and other statistics, Mexico is far from a deveoped country, not to mention a fully developed country. It is listed in Developing country as a newnly industrialized country. Google search result can show numerous sources refering Mexico as a developing country. Coasilve 03:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And putting quotes around developing economy cuts the sources down to half that number. We also need to see how many of the links are non-wikipedia related. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Mexico's per capita income is world average. It is not a developed country. I find it ridiculous there are still someone arguing with me. Coasilve 03:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this issue to the Talk page. My reason for undoing your change was not to argue, but to ask for significant references to support the change. "Numerous sources in Google" is too vague. (Also I just found 17,000 sources in Google that use the word "elivator"; that doesn't mean it is the correct spelling of "elevator"). Wanderer57 04:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well in that sense, two references currently used in the article don't justify Mexico as a developed country too. What's important is that Mexico only has a world average percapita income. That makes it not a developed country. Coasilve 04:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but I don't see where in the article it states that Mexico is a fully developed country? it says that it is a NIC country which is right, but I don't think anywhere in the article it would say that Mexico was fully developed. Supaman89 18:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It is at the begining of the third paragraph. "As a regional power and a full-fledged developed country [6][7] and the only Latin American member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) since 1994." Coasilve 18:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok I agree, that part has to be removed, I mean I'm the first one to say that Mexico is better than a lot of countries (even some Europeans), but it'd be a lie to say that it is fully developed, even if it was sourced, we could also find more sources stating otherwise; we have not yet reached "first world" life standards, so yes I vote for removing that part (only the bolded text, not the whole paragraph). Supaman89 19:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I made a few mistakes with so, but I want to say something. though Mexico is third worldish in the south, in the north it is as large and complete as the USA.

Its not fully developed, however, its northern part have cities that are even larger than American cities, it cannot stand to their economy, but it can to its full growth. I think its better to use "partly developed country. You haven't searched as well for Spanish result searching developed. In this link, you will find an opposing idea to the developing country thing: http://club.telepolis.com/geografo/regional/america/ibmexico.htm . Not even countries such as the US, which have the largest economy have getting rid of poverty. If speaking in poverty terms, Mexico does not count, but in that case, Costa Rica would be first world since the UK has only 1% less poverty than CR.

We need to reach an agreement in which we state if we are taking Economy, development or life quality. Newstormer 21:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Poverty comparative: Economy of the United Kingdom Industry comparative: Economy of Italy Gross domestic product comparative: Economy of Greece

with all these, plus the cities, the number of companies and billionaires, the fast growth, the large manufacturing and the huge urban area, it looks like Mexico overpowers even France.

Though it is a NIC, its full growth is stronger than other European countries, and since all the European countries are developed countries. Mexico is at least partly developed, but its totally sure that Mexico is first world and no third world. Newstormer 21:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

CIA, IMF and World Bank all classifiy Mexico as a developing country. These information can be found in the developed country article. Coasilve 22:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

However, all European countries are developed and they are a few which aren't as developed as Mexico, I doubt that data from the CIA and the IMF is recent, Mexico is in the less a half developed country. It may be a fourth world country, not industrialized but with high standards of living. If Italy is developed, why Mexico isn't... I suggest you to instead make comparatives to European countries, since they are all developed, if Mexico is stronger than them, it means Mexico is developed. NIC doesn't reveal the development, but the industrialization levels. Newstormer 17:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

To Newstormer

Ok, I understand that you're trying to put that Mexico is a full-fledged developed country, and I mean, that's fine sometimes I feel so as well, in fact I'm probably one of the most patriotic persons there is, but we gotta be honest, even though northern Mexico is definitely developed, the southern part of the country, is still developing, and I mean I don't want people thinking we are telling lies or something like that, because then they'll think that the rest of the article is "biased" as well. I understand that Hollywood has given us a lot of bad reputation, and we all want to clean all those stereotypes but as long as there is people living in “third worldish” conditions in the southern states we cannot say that we are fully developed, cuz that could lead to more negative consequences that positive ones. Supaman89 03:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with stereotypes. There are also Americans living under proverty line. The matter of fact is Mexico's statistics doesn't make it a developed country. Coasilve 15:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, and I never said otherwise, that's why wrote him that message. Supaman89 16:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is also biased to claim that the "north" is developed and the south is "third worldish" (sic), a comment that I rather attribute to lack of information and not a "stereotype" many norteños have of the south. The state with the largest GDP per capita in the country (excluding the Federal District which is higher than all at +17,000 USD) is Campeche at 13,153 USD a southern "third wordlish" (sic) state. Quintana Roo, another "southern" state has a GDP per capita of 12,030 USD higher than Baja California, Baja California Sur, Durango, Sonora, Sinaloa, San Luis Potosí and Tamaulipas, all "northern "states. Even Nuevo León's GDP per capita, at 13.033, is lower than that of all Western European Countries and even Argentina. Population in poverty in Monterrey is over 30%[5], and any regiomontano just needs to drive to other areas in the north and far west of the metro area to get a reality-check with poverty. Portraying the north as "fully developed" and the south as "underdeveloped" is also an unjustified and biased stereotype. The north (with exceptions) is simply more developed than the south (with exceptions). --the Dúnadan 23:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Area

I recently updated the area of the country but it was reversed to its previous value quoting "more sources". I believe that the important thing is not the amount of sources but their accuracy. If the National Geography and Statistics Institute and the Presidential Office website state that the area is X sq. Km, shouldn't we taking this values instead? I mean they are Official sources anyway, aren't they? EOZyo (мѕğ) 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, as I explained to you in the message that you left me, basically when I reverted your edit I put another source to back it up, I understand that both references are just as valid, but if you do a quick Google search most sources state it as 1,972,550 km² so in cases like this I when we have more than one reference regarding the same matter I think we should stay with the majority of sources. Supaman89 03:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

velar fricative

i disagree with one of the assertations in the paragraph about the evolution of the word "mexico". i read the link that the source cited, the real academia, and it never says that the sound was voiced.

also i am well versed in romance linguistics and i have never read anything that posits a voicing of spanish sibilants in their evolution. i've been out of the game for a while so the only source that comes to mind is Ralph Penny (1991) "A History of the Spanish Language"

this is a tiny detail that may not interest anyone but i read the article and this discrepancy stuck out to me.

zach

66.235.34.185 19:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

See here. --the Dúnadan 22:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

New External Link

I think that this link should be added to the external links section. It will provide this article will personal opinions and stories specifically relating to the subject. This will add a more personnel outlet if the viewer feels inclined to follow the link.

Here is the link:

• Mexico Travel Guide from GlobeGnome.com Shaun Wright 01:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - As with the links at United States and Mexico, I cannot support the inclusion of this link as per WP:EL - Links normally to be avoided (no. 13): "open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". But thanks for seeking consensus. --SRHamilton 07:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

National Bird?

Can anybody tell me what Mexico's national bird is? I'd like to add a photo of the appropriate species to the lead paragraph of List of birds of Mexico. Also, is there any reference available that talks about the eagle on the Mexican coat of arms? It would be nice to know if that was modeled after a real species (and thus something I can add to an appropriate picture caption), or if it's just a generic eagle! Thanks for any help you can offer. MeegsC | Talk 18:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have a national bird (I might be wrong), though if it helps you the coat of arms shows a Golden Eagle (Aguila Real), you may wanna add that to the article. Supaman89 20:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Valley of Mexico

From the topographic map, it looks as if Distrito Federale is close to the highest elevation in all of Mexico. Is this true?

If it is, why do people say DF is in "the Valley of Mexico"?

Thanks,

(Wanderer57 04:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

No, it is not the highest elevation of Mexico, but it is surrounded by some of the highest elevations of Mexico (hence, it is a valley). --the Dúnadan 04:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewording

I did a few edits in Toponymy & Pre-Columbian civilizations. I think they are straightforward. I'll be glad to explain if asked. I got rid of a few excess words.

I notice in the section "Pre-Columbian civilizations", only the first sentence is about Pre-Columbian civilizations.

Wanderer57 14:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Early History

The new part added by Dropmeoff is great because it gets rid of the impression that the history of southern North America began when the Spanish arrived. Wanderer57 02:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's repetitive, it constantly mentions "Mexico was..." when in fact Mexico didn't even existed back then, it also repeats some facts that already have a section on its own like the Native Civilizations, Spanish Conquest of the Aztec Empire, the French intervention, the Mexican-American war, etc. and at the end seems to have some personal opinions like "demands of the modern Western cultural model imposed in 1519" that to me sounds like "you can't have televisions cuz you're trying to copy something that's not yours". Supaman89 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The complaint that "Mexico didn't exist..." can also be said of Italy (not unified until the 1800's), nevertheless there is an article on Italy and it's ancient history. The same can also be said about Germany (which also "did not exist as a country" until the 1800's), nevertheless, there is an article about Germany and it's ancient history. What's good for both Italy and Germany should also be good for Mexico, don't you agree? Just curious, have you also been on the Germany and Italy Talk pages to voice the same concern?Dropmeoff 16:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Also to address the concern about "the demands of the Western cultural model imposed in 1519...", that is meant to address the point that there are really two cultural systems at odds with each other in Mexico (one European, one Indigenous). Perhaps the word "challenges" would be better than "demands", if that's the impression it gives you? BTW, I am a Mexican-descent person, 4th-generation U.S. citizen. Dropmeoff 16:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Aside from your specific objections to what was posted, do you think a paragraph or two on this topic is appropriate here? Wanderer57 18:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary and repetitive, but that's just my opinion. Supaman89 20:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I value your opinion.

Any other thoughts on this? Wanderer57 20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think some of his edits can be saved. The section on Pre-Columbian civilization has been trimmed down by some editors and is extremely poor. More information is needed prior to the Conquest of Mexico. Great civilizations, on par with any European civilization of Antiquity, flourished in Pre-Columbian Mexico. Their history is taught at schools and universities in and outside Mexico. --the Dúnadan 23:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a paragraph is needed to sumamrize the history of "Mexico". To those who complain that "Mexico did not exist as a nation..." I would remind you that neither did Germany nor Italy until the 1800's. The history of Mexico deserves to have a summary (which I added, but was deleted.) BTW, I am the one who has written the vast majority of the Pre-Columbian section on the History of Mexico page. I have noticed some minor vandalism/deletions on that page as well, that I believe are politically motivated. Dropmeoff 16:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is common to talk about the ancient history of a country when referring to a time long before the country existed. (It's not relevant whether Supraman has edited Germany or Italy. I have corrected spelling and grammar in the Mexico article but never in the one on Italy. That doesn't mean my edits here are wrong. ;o)

Since I'm here, I'll mention that "the demands of the Western cultural model imposed in 1519..." bothered me when I first read it. I think I understand what it means, but it seemed a big jump from the more commonplace language before it.

Well we have to be honest here: it is not "the Mexico model" that makes demands upon the world. It is the Western model(s). Perhaps saying "challenges" instead of "demands" sounds more encyclopedic. Dropmeoff 20:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(personal note - I've never been to Mexico, but I will be there next week. On a west coast cruise, so I won't get very far inland.) Wanderer57 16:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Me bad. I just realized I'm typing Supraman instead of Supaman. Hope I didn't cause any confusion. (Supraman is also a user name.) Wanderer57 19:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Obsession with Post-Conquest History

I've noticed that there seems to be a preoccupation with only the last 500 years (and especially the last 150 years) of Mexico's history on this page. The post-Conquest section is enormous, while the Pre-Columbian section seems to be deliberately whittled down to being almost insignificant. I have added Pre-Columbian material but it always seems to be deleted. Would you write a history of Israel section like that? Would you say that Israel's history should focus only on the Post-Hitler era? The vast bulk of Mexico's history occurred before Europeans arrived. That is not opinion. That is a fact that seems to be deliberately omitted here. If you're going to have 3 paragraphs on the Mexican Revolution here, then you should have at least that much for the thousands of years of history before the Conquest. The many Pre-European civilizations deserve more than a couple of lines.Dropmeoff 16:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dropmeoff: I agree with most of what you say. (The part I disagree with is bringing Hitler into the discussion. See Godwin's Law.)

And I disagree with Godwin's Law (in this case.) If need be, substitute "Post-Roman era" or "Post-Third Reich era" for Hitler. The point is that the Israel page goes to a lot of trouble to make clear that Israel's history did not start when the Romans or Germans (or the United Nations) entered the scene. Likewise, the history of Mexico did not begin at the moment a Spaniard sets foot on the land. That's Eurocentric history that seems to be all too common a way of thinking.Dropmeoff 17:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to repost your suggested opening of the History section below, and let people look at it again. Wanderer57 17:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dropmeoff. I TOTALLY agree with your point of inadequate Pre-Columbian information. I noticed the same thing and mentioned it above, on November 3. Wanderer57 17:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in that we need more Pre-Columbian information. I disagree with you in that no summary is necessary within the History section. In fact, many sections on History of other countries seem to do well without a summary. And, most importantly, I disagreed with the version presented before because it concluded with a POV statement (and quite subjective in my opinion) about Mexican Amerindian heritage within Western culture. Like I said, expanding the section on Pre-Columbian history is a must, but we can do very well without adding qualitative and subjective arguments into the mix. --the Dúnadan 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am pasting in, for reference, the paragraphs by Dropmeoff that started this discussion. - - -

Human presence in Mexico has been shown to date back 40,000 years based upon ancient human footprints discovered in the Valley of Mexico [1] (previous evidence substantiated indigenous inhabitants at 12,500 years ago). For thousands of years, Mexico was a land of hunter-gatherers. Around 9,000 years ago, ancient Mexicans domesticated corn and initiated an agricultural revolution, leading to the formation of many complex civilizations. These civilizations revolved around cities with writing, monumental architecture, astronomical studies, mathematics, and militaries. After 4,000 years, these civilizations were destroyed with the arrival of the Spaniards in 1519. For three centuries, Mexico was colonized by Spain, during which time the majority of its indigenous population died off. Formal independence from Spain was recognized in 1821. France then invaded Mexico in 1864 and ruled briefly until 1867, when the Mexican army captured and executed the monarch Maximilian of Habsburg. A war with the United States ended with Mexico losing almost half of its territory in 1848 and the Mexican Revolution would later result in the death of 10% of the nation's population. Since then, Mexico as a nation-state has struggled with reconciling its deeply-entrenched indigenous heritage with the demands of the modern Western cultural model imposed in 1519. The nation's name is derived from the Mexica civilization (known in popular culture as the Aztecs).

- - - end of pasted in part.

Was the main objection to the pre-Columbian part having it in a summary at the beginning of the History?? I'm going to put the first part of the above into the article for editors to see how it fits. I'll then revert it. Wanderer57 00:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't think a summary of the History section is necessary. We must expand the Pre-Columbian section. From the above paragraph only the first 4 sentences can be incorporated into that section (up to Spaniards in 1519). The rest I think is unencyclopedic and unnecessary:

• "The majority of the indigenous population died off", besides being poor in style it is inaccurate by all accounts. The majority of the indigenous population integrated into the general population; even up until the beginning of the 20th century they constituted a significant proportion of the entire population. Their subsequent and apparent ecline is explained more by the so-called process of castellanización, whereby they were integrated into a Western Spanish-speaking society, and not so much by their "almost" extinction, as the sentence seems to imply.
• "France invaded Mexico... and ruled briefly", is historically inaccurate. France never ruled Mexico, but helped the conservative Mexican sector institute an independent monarchy with the support of the French army. Even even some historians called it a "puppet crown", it was at least nominally independent.
• "A war with the United States..." is placed anachronistically. This event occurred before the French intervention, not after. Moreover, there is no link between the war with the US (in the late 1840s) with the Mexican Revolution (in the 1910s), whose causes and effects are so vastly different that its inclusion in a sentence with war to the US seems inappropriate.
• "Mexican revolution would result in the death of 10% of the nation's population". This requires a reference. Population declined by almost 1 million (roughly 10% from 1910 to 1921), but this decline was not only due to deaths related to the war, but to massive emigration (as many historians would agree) mainly to the US.
• "Since then..." This last sentence is by far the least encyclopedic of all. It is, by all accounts, an [[WP:POV|opinion]. And in my opinion-though equally irrelevant for encyclopedic purposes- Mexico struggled to gain an identity since its independence, as it strove to emulate Europe, and created an identity after the revolution: that of a Mestizo nation. The Revolution called for a return to the roots and exalted both the indigenous and the Mestizo (just read La Raza Cósmica by José Vasconcelos, to get a picture of Mexican pre and post-revolutionary nationalism). If an opinion must be added, I would rather cite a historian, or José Vasconcelos or even Octavio Paz, but we risk of giving undue weight to their POV if there are other historians or poets who would disagree.

I prefer to expand the Pre-Columbian section (which must be expanded, Dropmeoff is right, that period of history is unjustifiably neglected). But, again, I don't think a summary is necessary.

--the Dúnadan 03:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I made the test edit to the Pre-Columbian section as mentioned above.

This URL will take you to the revised version if you want to read it. Wanderer57 03:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico&oldid=169990085

I have no major objections to the edits, semantics of "French rule" and corrections of anachronisms. But please, do not insult me or the Mexican people by trivializing the "depopulation" of indigenous people by semantically reclassifying it as "integration." It smacks eerily of Holocaust denial. As a human being, I find that to be an egregious affront tantamount to saying that the Jewish Holocaust was itself an "integration" into Germanic society. There was indeed a massive reduction in the indigenous population, verifiable by Spanish census taking. These numbers are presented in the classic text The Course of Mexican History by Michael C. Meyer. This is where your statement strays into very orthodox Eurocentrism. By saying that "the indigenous population died off", I was being very generous. In fact, most of the population died as a result of smallpox, violence, malnutrition, and other exhaustive conditions imposed by slavery at the hands of Spaniards. Reference? American Holocaust by David E. Stannard (Oxford University Press). Dropmeoff 23:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Mestizo

See recent edits to the Ethnogrophy section, under Mestizo it currently reads: "it is merely a self description instead of a physical one, a mestizo might be european or native looking as long as he/she has some background from a different race."

In my opinion the definition of Mestizo in this section: (those of European and Amerindian ancestry) is sufficient; by definition someone who has mixed ancestry could look more like one than the other. If someone needs a further definition of Mestizo they can click on the link. The paragraph as it stands now is redundant and doesn't make a lot of sense in English. In the interest of avoiding an edit war I am posting this to the talk page to sollicit other opinions. Following is my proposal for how the paragraph should read:

Mestizos (those of mixed European and Amerindian ancestry) form the largest group, comprising up to 60%–75% of the total population. Vrac 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a bit too short, it is the current one but without some information, the other two points have a whole paragraph so the description is explained more properly, I think that erasing that information would mislead people into thinking that mestizo is a type of race or something like that (which a lot of people do). Supaman89 02:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an explanation is needed, but if it does, then the sentence needs to be thoroughly revised. First it is grammatically incorrect: First, "self description" (sic) needs to be changed to "self-ascription", European and Mestizo must be capitalized. Secondly, it is poor in style like "[N]ative looking" (sic) sounds even politically incorrect. Thirdly, it is inaccurate: since Mexico does not classify population by race (and Mestizo, is a racial description first, and then a cultural ascription), it makes no sense to talk of percentages calculated by external sources (CIA) to be based on self ascription. In other words, the CIA did not conduct a survey or census in Mexico and asked Mexicans to self-ascribe to a particular ethnic group. If that had been the case, I would assume more than just 9% would have claimed to be "Whites", as it is the trend in most countries in Latin America. Finally, unless a reference can be given that proves that the figures come from a self-ascription survey, then the sentence must be eliminated. --the Dúnadan 03:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I had to revert your changes, but I didn't even have time to answer, ok so going back to this discussion, I agree with you that Mexico doesn't have a racial classification, in fact I don't really know when was the last time we had a racial census (a long time ago for sure), but I disagree with your statement of "Mestizo, is a racial description first, and then a cultural ascription", common you know it's not, in Mexico we ALL consider ourselves Mestizos no matter how white or brown we are, in Mexico if you ask someone (which they don't) who looks completely European What's your ethnic group? He and most people would say Mestizo, it is not like South America where people who look a bit more European than Amerindian automatically call themselves Whites, so why not to mark that out? why try to hide it, or let people to investigate what a Mestizo in Mexico really means when it can be explained in two simple sentences? Most people when they hear Mestizo they think of someone brown, that would mean that 60% of Mexican are brown PLUS 30% of Amerindians that would be 90%, which obviously isn’t, so why would we erase information in order to imply so? Supaman89 18:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The word mestizo is a racial description, see: http://www.bartleby.com/61/26/M0242600.html. It is not a matter of opinion, it is simply what the word means in English. Secondly your edits assert that mestizo is self-ascribed, which it is not, since the figures come from the CIA. In order to assert that mestizo is self-ascribed, you would have to be able to cite a survey of Mexicans in which they describe themselves as such. Perhaps such a survey exists but I am not aware of one; "ask any Mexican" unfortunately is not a citeable source. Thirdly, since mestizo means a mixture of races (and the paragraph further defines mestizo as people of mixed European and Amerindian ancestry), by definition someone who is mestizo could have any possible ratio of characteristics from any of the races involved. Saying that their physical appearance could more closely ressemble one race rather than the other is redundant. Vrac 23:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

By that description, Shaquille O'Neil is a Mestizo (and no longer Black or African-American), and at least half of the world's Jewish population needs to be reclassified as Mestizos as well. Just curious, when will you be editing the Jew article to impose the Mestizo racial classification on them?Dropmeoff 18:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a disturbing trend among people to refer to the term Mestizo as if it were a universal biological classification. It is not a universal biological classification. It is a Spanish-European colonial racist (in the classical sense) term meant to segregate people based upon European racial ancestry (or alleged possession thereof). It revolves specifically around one's possession of European "blood." As such, it is a Eurocentric term, tantamount to South African racist Apartheid labels (Black, Coloured, etc.) devised by Europeans, for Europeans, and assigned by the European ruling class down onto "the natives." May I remind the contributors here that the term Mestizo is never used to refer to people in Europe and especially not in Spain. It is not even used to describe Native Americans of the Southwest U.S. who were conquered by Spaniards. The term Mestizo is part of a racial caste system enacted up by Spanish colonials. It is a term that is never employed to refer to Spaniards of partial Moorish ancestry. And may I also add the fact that La Raza Cosmica was published in Spain, the admitted inspiration being European philosophers, and that Jose Vasconcelos states (paraphrase) that "for the Indian, there is no other path except that of European culture." I'll provide you a reference later of this very racist publication, which openly denigrates indigenous civilization. To cite Vasconcelos as the arbiter of some transcendent biological truth is like quoting P.W. Botha for his taxonomy of Black Africans. I don't think we should allow people to bandy this term around simply because they are emotionally attached to it. It is illogical and inconsistently applied even within the Spanish colonial framework from where it originates. The "N word" is also an English word, with a specific historical meaning. Shall we continue to describe African-Americans this way as well on Wikipedia? Dropmeoff 23:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Another interpretation of Mestizo as a legacy of Spanish racism comes from the European-descent Mexican anthropologist Guillermo Bonfil-Batalla. He says "a Mestizo is really just a de-Indianized Indian." Source: Mexico Profundo. The fact that White Americans who claim partial Native American ancestry are never referred to as Mestizos shows the one-sided, racist nature of this term.Dropmeoff 00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not mestizo is a racially charged or politically inappropriate term strikes me as a separate issue from what is being discussed here (we were discussing whether or not the term mestizo is "self-ascribed", or needs a further clarification by stating a mestizo person could look more European, or more Amerindian, etc...). Do you have a proposal for removing it or replacing it with something else? Perhaps a different thread for that issue would be appropriate. Vrac 00:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Vrac, I have to disagree with you, Mestizo is not a racial description, if it was so then you could have a universal image of it, like you do with Whites, Blacks, Arabs, etc. but you can't, the following people are Mestizos [6], [7], [8], as you can see it is not a physical description but more of a self-ascription, in South America if you look a bit more European then you’re white, but in Mexico it is different we all consider ourselves to be Mestizos because that’s what they teach us since we are kids, we don’t even think about who’s whiter or darker, there hasn’t being a racial census in years, that why it needs to be explained what a Mestizo in Mexico really means, as I explained before most people think that Mestizo is someone brown, therefore is you add 60% plus the other 30% of Amerindians that would mean that 90% are brown which obviously isn’t, so why would we try to erase information in order to imply so? Supaman89 00:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In full agreement there that mestizo is not a legitimate racial classification ( I am speaking as a Mexican). Mestizo is never used by Europeans to describe themselves even though it is their own creation. It is never used anywhere except on subjects of former Spanish colonialism. The US Census does not acknowledge the term. Filipinos have been called Mestizos merely because of Spanish colonialism, yet we are to believe a Filipino and a Mexicans are "the same race" merely because the Spanish imposed the same term upon them? Interesting to note that the U.S. does not impose the term Mestizo or Mixed onto Native Americans. It is a "Spanish Apartheid" term.--Dropmeoff 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)--Dropmeoff 18:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

When I say racial description, I mean that mestizo is a term that describes what race I belong to. It answers the question: What race are you? Answer: I am mestizo. Ergo mestizo is a description of my race. This meaning of mestizo is in the dictionary, I don't see how anyone can dispute that it is a description of race. If by racial description you mean physical description, i.e. what someone looks like, no generic racial terms can capture the variety of appearances. Are you saying that all black people look the same? Black people from Senegal are not physically identical to black people in Senegal, I could post pictures of African-Americans of mixed race that demonstrate just as much variety as the pictures of Mexicans. Having a "universal image" of what black people look like strikes me as being prejudicial. When saying that the US is X percent African-American, I haven't seen it qualified as: "and some of them look more like Europeans than Africans". As for self-ascription, unless you can cite some data isn't it just your opinion? See NPOV. Can you find some documentation about what kids are tought in Mexican schools about mestizo? I haven't looked at the wiki article on Mestizo, but it seems to me that it is the place where this kind of information/clarification/discussion belongs. Vrac 01:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can see how black people from Namibia might look a bit different than black people from Sierra Leone, but in general they share a lot of similarities, but Mestizo is not a original race, it is a mix of two or more, that’s why the differences are way bigger than those of two Blacks or two Asians, etc. if you had a bunch of pictures you could easily identify who’s white, who’s black, etc. but not who’s Mestizo and who’s not.

For example someone has 10% of Amerindian blood, and 90% white blood, if he when to Europe no one would even notice he is not European, still he is Mestizo (at least in Mexico he would, probably in South America he’d consider himself white) anyways that’s what I’m trying to say, you may call it a race if you want but it is not a physical description, I know that but most people don’t, they think of it as an specific appearance, so if we know it’s not, why would we want to lead them into thinking so? When it can be easily be clarified with two simple sentences?

BTW, just ask any other Mexican besides me, and you’ll see how we all consider ourselves Mestizos despites of how we look. Supaman89 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Mexican and I say I am not a Mestizo. Just as an African-American would reject being called a Mulatto, a Quadroon, a Zambo, or an Octaroon. Mestizo just means "mixed" in Spanish. That is not a race or an identity (it just means adopting the culture of Spaniards). Most so-called mestizos are really just "Indians" with a minority of European blood, who could never pass for White. In Mexico there has been a racist-colonial practice of labeling full-blood Indigenous people as Mestizo merely because they speak Spanish. Mestizo is not recognized by the U.S. Census, only by former colonies of Spain. It is a Spanish colonial device to racistly segregate people underneath European-descent people. Calling yourself Mestizo is like a Black person calling himself a Quadroon. It's a remnant of "Spanish Apartheid." --Dropmeoff 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Dropmeoff 17:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a previous poster who said this thread has been hijacked by the charged meaning of the mestizo term (a term I openly despise as "Spanish Apartheid"). But as a historical term, it needs to be included in the article, with the caveat that it is a Spanish colonial term enacted by Spaniards. The article also should mention that social privileges were/are meted out in Mexico based upon this classification, the same way racial definitions were later used in Apartheid South Africa.Dropmeoff 18:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but you are not Mexican, you're an American of Mexican ancestry, how can you assure so firmly that Mestizo is used as a racist term nowadays? you are not from Mexico, here we all consider ourselves Mestizos, it could never be used in a racist way, you also said that a Mestizo could never pass by a European, I just put pictures of Mestizos showing how it is not a physical description, and how it can be clarified with two simple sentences.

BTW we are not talking about the U.S. Census, we are talking about Mexico and how the term is applied here, and as I explained before in Mexico it is anything but a racist term but more of a general self-ascriptionSupaman89 18:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If I walked along the Mexican Border and the Minutemen saw me, do you think they would say, "Hey, there's an American!" No, they would say "There's another Mexican." I'm a Mexican in race and ethnicity. And the US Census example was used to prove that Mestizo is not universal, it is Spanish colonial.Dropmeoff 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I’m sorry to tell you this, but Mexican is not a race nor a ethnicity, it’s a nationality just like American or Brazilian, but basically my comment about you being a Mexican-American was to tell you that only a Mexican like me would know what connotation the term Mestizo has in Mexico, Mestizo is not a racist term in Mexico, anyone from the whitest to the darkest Mexican would say he’s Mestizo simply because it creates national unity and identity, so again it is not a physical description. Supaman89 20:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So, according to you, Mexicans are the only people on the planet who do not have a race or ethnicity? Are you that in love with the Spaniards' term of mestizo that you are willing to racially/ethnically cleanse Mexicans?

Tell me, do you say this on Talk:Jews as well? Dropmeoff 22:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I know about the square root of zero about the "meaning" of the word mestizo, so I have nothing to say about it.

About this sentence "Mestizos (those of European and Amerindian ancestry) form the largest group, comprising up to 60%–75%‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  of the total population, since the Mexican government does not have a racial census, it is mostly a self-ascription rather than a physical one‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› , a Mestizo might be European or Native looking‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  as long as he/she has some background from a different race." I think a sentence with three "citation needed" notices looks unprofessional if not silly. Would one at the end suffice?

Isn't there a reputable Mexican encyclopedia to refer to for the history and meaning of mestizo? Wanderer57 18:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it looks silly, one at the end will do it, still I could probably find some sources to back it up, so people will see that Mestizo in Mexico is anything but a racist term. Supaman89

How can than be when the term Mestizo is very specifically about race? It is a term meant to dissect and classify (non-white) people by race. And it very racistly reclassifies full-blood Indigenous people who merely speak Spanish. Mestizo is very much a racist term, just like the other European colonial terms of Mulatto, Quadroon, Octaroon, and Zambo. Dropmeoff 19:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the term Mestizo is not a scientific term. By its nature it is racial and subjective (favoring Europeans). Europeans are never scrutinized nor dissected with that term. Because it is a Spanish colonial term, it favors White Supremacist notions of the 16th Century. So any "reputable Mexican encyclopedia" will most likely be one that carries the Spanish-colonial bias. Otherwise, I would recommend the book Mexico Profundo by Mexican anthropologist Guillermo Bonfil-Batalla.Dropmeoff 18:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the amount of discussion, it seems that the word has multiple meanings and certainly multiple connotations. Wanderer57 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a word can be "about race" without being "a racist term". Please let's be sure we are not arguing because of a different understanding of the terminology. Wanderer57 19:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Would this also include such obviously non racist terms as the "N-word", Octoroon, Quadroon, and half-breed? What is it about Spanish colonial-race terms that magically makes them exempt from being racist? Dropmeoff 19:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

To everybody in this discussion: I am sorry if I wasn't clear. I didn't express any opinion about whether mestizo is a racist term. I made my comment because, while reading the discussion, I wondered if some of the disagreements were due to different uses of terminology.

To Dropmeoff: I would never say the N-word is not a racist term. It is of course. However, for example, the words "oriental" and "caucasian" are "about race", but are not racist (in my experience). There may be places in the world and ways of using these words in which they are racist. The context is so important. (Probably any "non-racist word about race" can be used in a racist way by simply putting the word "F__king" in front of it.)

There is a word fairly commonly used in Canada to mean people with some ancestors who were native North Americans and some ancestors who came from Europe. The word is Metis. To quote an Oxford dictionary:

Metis -> noun (in Canada) a person of mixed race, especially the offspring of a white person and an American Indian. The Merriam Webster dictionary definition is "one of mixed blood, especially the offspring of an American Indian and a person of European ancestry.

Both dictionaries link Metis to Mestizo. One says "more at Mestizo", the other says "see also Mestizo". Both "metis" and "mestizo" come from a Latin word that means "mixed.

The Oxford defines mestizo as "a person of mixed blood; specifically a person of mixed European and American Indian ancestry." The Merriam Webster is more specific and defines mestizo as "(in Latin America) a man of mixed race, especially the offspring of a Spaniard and an American Indian." (mestiza if the person is female.)

I can hear people saying SO, WHAT'S YOUR POINT?. It is this:

In Canada, through much of Canadian history, the word "Metis" has been used as a derogatory term. ALSO in Canada, people of Metis background are extremely proud of their heritage, culture, and accomplishments. And rightly so.

In some cases, Metis is used in a negative and racist way. In other cases, it is used with great pride.

My belief, based on reading the earlier discussion, is that the word "mestizo" is also used in both ways. Wanderer57 23:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, depending on the context some people may use it as a racist term, but in Mexico it doesn't have that connotation, if we considered it to be a racist term we wouldn't call ourselves like that. Supaman89 00:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I hear Black people calling each other the N-word. Does that mean it is not a racist term simply because they use it on themselves? I hear plenty of rappers calling women bitches. Does that mean that term is valid also just because it is used? Mestizo is Spanish racism based upon "Spanish Apartheid" that many have accepted against themselves. Quoting Europeans and quoting European dictionaries proves that point even more so. Dropmeoff 00:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I adhere to Supaman's point of view. The term "Mestizo" is rarely used in a derogatory way, or as a racist term. It is the common term used in Mexican textbooks to refer to people of european and amerindian ancestry, and the term used to denominate the majority of the people living in Mexico, also in the same textbooks. This term is nevertheless mostly associated with individuals that lived in the Colonial and Independence times. It is rarely used to describe a current figure. You wouldn't see a textbook referring to current President Calderon as Mestizo.Hugo cantu (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Police/legal system

someone should at least mention the horrible police/legal system in mexico. The police steal your money if you are american, the police will hold you until you pay them cash (out of your own pocket). the police hate americans. can someone please include this in the artice. this is a problem that needs to be mentioning. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.211.4 (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this true?? Need to know ASAP! Wanderer57 23:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm canadian, not american. Is that going to make things better or worse if I get drunk and disorderly? ;o) Wanderer57 23:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Canadians are still considered to be American-lite. Hope you remembered the number to the Canadian Consulate. Dropmeoff 22:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow we most be the worst country on earth. (~.~) Supaman89 01:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not the worst, but one of the worst-treated countries in human history. You could reduce the entire population of Beverly Hills and Bel-Air down to half-starved, desperate migrants if you had 500 years, a lot of smallpox, and a willingness to annihilate their leadership (while quoting The Bible and Aristotle). Dropmeoff 22:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We will include it when you edit the article on the USA and mention the hatred for Mexicans by the police... 189.153.81.205 04:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WHOA...! Hold on! Mexican police in general do NOT hate Americans! It is unfair to discriminate all Mexican police and even to some extent, Mexican civilians only because of a few retards who do and make everybody else look bad. We like Americans. And pretty much everybody else.

But yes—Mexican police IS pretty corrupt, and not only with Americans or Canadians but with other Mexicans as well. We all think this should stop, but it's not our fault, it's aur crappy government's fault. I think Mexican police corruption is worth mentioning in this article, though not in the almost-rascist manner you are implying it (or else perhaps it would be a good idea to add mention of many Americans' rascist and discriminative acts toward many Hispanics and Latinos in the US in Wikipedia's United States of America article… ahem—it was just a suggestion… :-/ ) -Crazypersonbb (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

National Holidays?

Shouldn't there be a section on the national holidays of Mexico? Maybe just a list or links to pages about the holidays (Cinco de Mayo, Dia Del Nino, Navidad, etc.). nd2010 16:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Music

Can someone link the wikipedia article Mexican pop under Pop for this article to have a more throughow representation of popular music in Mexico. In additin feel free to edit this article for a more respectable and informative outlook on the genre in Mexico.75.62.146.6 (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Economy - source no longer available

The 2004 HDI report on Mexico (ref 58) is not available at the link provided. It also comes up on a google search under the same, missing link so mustve been taken down. Anyone know where it might be? (I also wanted to cite the HDI comparison between northern states and the EU & Southern states and Africa to demonstrate income disparity ina paper!) 172.200.6.43 (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC) HDI for mexico is .829 now. Ranked 52 for 2007. The HDI on the page is too old ( 2004 ) 67.107.23.194 (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10